The Heaven or Hell Algorithm

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
[b]I gave him the benefit of the doubt and took him to mean that the sufficient condition he listed is sufficient cause to be granted Grace, thereby satisfying the necessary condition for salvation.

That was implicit in my position anyhow:

Salvation => Grace
(Repentence,Desire) => Salvation

H ...[text shortened]... ence and desire were mutually exclusive with dying in a state of mortal sin.[/b]

Pretty much.[/b]

If (R&D) are truly sufficient for salvation, then even in the absence of Grace one who manifested (R&D) would be saved. This is just what it means for a condition to be sufficient. On your view, (R&D) themselves cannot suffice for salvation, as you take grace to be a necessary condition. So, you must take Grace, Repentance and Desire to be individually necessary and jointly sufficient for salvation. As a rule, the set of sufficient conditions for an event will necessarily include as elements each necessary condition for that event.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Could you please make your response conform to the question. I can't tell if you intend these to be necessary or sufficient.

Heaven acceptting the salvation offered by JESUS CHRIST.
Hell is accepting the fate of those who rebell against GOD.

Originally posted by royalchicken
What if you only do one? In that case, you haven't 'failed to do both of those'. Unless you believe in Purgatory, I think you mean 'fail to do at least one of those'.

The life on this earth is the closest to as you get to Purgatory. The only wat to heaven is through the saving power of JESUS CHRIST.

Originally posted by lucifershammer

I also interpreted it to mean that the stated repentence and desire were mutually exclusive with dying in a state of mortal sin.

Pretty much.

It had better be 'perfectly', not merely 'pretty much', lest a soul meet sufficient conditions for both heaven and hell.

Thank you both DoctorScribbles and lucifershammer.

Originally posted by thesonofsaul
Rules? I thought you didn't have to follow rules to be saved? And don't give me that "you follow the rules if you are saved not in order to be saved" crud. For one thing, you just said that you have to follow them. For another, if it were true then there would be no reason to mention these rules at all.

... --- ...

There are no laws, only the teachings of JESUS CHRIST. When we follow those teachings there is no need for laws or rules.

Originally posted by blindfaith101
When we follow those teachings there is no need for laws or rules.

You don't mean that in an absolute sense, do you?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
That was implicit in my position anyhow:

Salvation => Grace
(Repentence,Desire) => Salvation

Hence

(R,D) => Grace

This is a fallacious support of your necessary and sufficient conditions, for implicit in my original question is the fact that I am concerned with pre-conditions, as distinguished from post-conditions. It should be obvious that I am not interested in discussing "scorched skin and profusive sweating" as a necessary condition of going to hell, even though it is true that Damnation => (SS, PS).

You gave (R,D) as a sufficient pre-condition.
You gave Grace as a necessary pre-condition.

Your analysis above has Grace as a post-condition necessarily following from Salvation.
Your analysis above is not treating Grace as a pre-condition, and you are thus overloading the => notation in an abusive manner.

You have failed to address bbarr's critique that (R,D) being sufficient denies your claim that Grace is necessary, unless you invoke the benefit of the doubt that I gave you, and say that
(R,D) => Grace independently of Salvation.

Originally posted by eagles54
You don't mean that in an absolute sense, do you?

When you live in the life that GOD has prepared for you, you only want to serve and please him.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
This is a fallacious support of your necessary and sufficient conditions, for implicit in my original question is the fact that I am concerned with pre-conditions, as distinguished from post-conditions. It should be obvious that I am not interested in discussing "scorched skin and profusive sweating" as a necessary condition of going to hell, even ...[text shortened]... e benefit of the doubt that I gave you, and say that
(R,D) => Grace independently of Salvation.

Ah! Ok. Your lemma is necessary, then.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Ah! Ok. Your lemma is necessary, then.

Very well. But now you are faced with the problem that the truth of the lemma implies that Grace can be earned. That is, R&D, within man's realm of free will to manifest, is a sufficient condition for Grace. That is, God does not have the power to withold Grace from somebody who repents and desires His company.

Originally posted by eagles54
Would a kind person please define 'grace' for me?

Thank you.

Grace is a translation of the Greek charis, from which we get the English word “charisma.” Charis can mean any of the following:

Joy, pleasure, grace, loveliness, favor, kindness, gift, boon. Goodwill, gratitude. The Greek charisma generally means a free gift, and this is how the term “grace” is generally employed theologically (although in the Eastern Orthodox churches, the term also is used to describe the “energies” (energeia) of God operating in the natural world).

Repentance comes from the Greek metanoia which means literally to change or turn ones mind. One meaning can be to turn one’s mind toward the giver of the gift (grace) in acceptance of that gift. If metanoia is a necessary condition for salvation, it basically means that one can accept or reject the gift.

Faith comes from the Greek pistis, which means trust or confidence or trustworthiness. Another English word used for this is “belief,” but belief has come to also mean what you think or suppose, or what you take to be true—and, to my mind, this becomes a source of great confusion, resulting in a kind of “think right and be saved” condition. One of the long-running debates in Christianity, in terms of the grace/faith schema, is whether faith is a necessary condition for salvation, or whether it is simply a decision to trust God (the “assurance of faith&rdquo😉.

EDIT: When I used the phrase "comes from" with regard to repentance and faith, I sould have said "are English translations of." Faith for example, comes through the Latin fide.

Thank you very much vistesd, for your time and effort. I will mull this over.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Very well. But now you are faced with the problem that the truth of the lemma implies that Grace can be earned. That is, R&D, within man's realm of free will to manifest, is a sufficient condition for Grace. That is, God does not have the power to withold Grace from somebody who repents and desires His company.

The term "earned" has two senses:

1. Achieved as a result of some action
2. Merited (e.g. I earned $100 today moving crates because that is the fair value of the work I did)

Let's suppose a generous BMW store owner decides to sell BMW's to any teenager who walks in through the door and fills out an application at whatever amount the teenager is willing to offer (let's assume Princes William and Harry are not in the equation!) Your average teenager might be able to offer a few hundred quid; but it hardly makes any difference whether he can offer £300 or £350 - he can never offer enough to "merit" (the second sense of "earn"😉 the car. Hence, the car remains a gift.

Has the teenager "earned" (the first sense) the car by simply walking in and filling out the application? You could say so - but the dealer was under no obligation to make his generous offer in the first place, and under no obligation to stick by it. But, since he is an honest man, he will honour his word under all conditions.

God has the power to withold Grace, but has freely chosed to give it to those show true contrition and charity (love) under all circumstances.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The term "earned" has two senses:

1. Achieved as a result of some action
2. Merited (e.g. I earned $100 today moving crates because that is the fair value of the work I did)

Let's suppose a generous BMW store owner decides to sell BMW's to any teenager who walks in through the door and fills out an application at whatever amount the teenage ...[text shortened]... eely chosed to give it to those show true contrition and charity (love) under all circumstances.

Then (R&D) => Grace is false in general, since (R&D) alone is insufficient to yield Grace.

It is only true in a universe of discussion in which "God always gives Grace to those who exhibit (R&D)" is an axiom.