trentAgainstFaithAlone

Trent contests the step in every Reformed strand. Trent accepts what each strand reads: Romans 3:28 and Galatians 2:16, that Jesus' words save, that salvation is through grace. It condemns the conclusion each draws, justification by faith alone (Session VI, canon 9).

def trentAgainstFaithAlone : Source :=
  {
    primary :=
      Reference.work tannerDecrees
        (Bib.Locus.sectionRef "Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9"),
    tradition := Tradition.romanCatholic, confidence := Confidence.disputed }

trentOnMerit

Trent's own step, from merit to the denial of "not by works". Rated consensus: both sides accept the step. It is the reason the Reformed deny merit. The disagreement is over the premise, not the step.

def trentOnMerit : Source :=
  {
    primary :=
      Reference.work tannerDecrees
        (Bib.Locus.sectionRef
          "Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 16"),
    tradition := Tradition.romanCatholic, confidence := Confidence.consensus }

trentAgainstThePleaAlone

Trent, applied to Luke 18, contests the step from it. Trent never cites Luke 18, and accepts that nothing before justification, "whether faith or works", merits it (ch. 8). But it requires the dispositions it lists, fear, hope, beginning to love God, and penitence (ch. 6), and it condemns whoever says "nothing else is required to co-operate" (canon 9). Read by those chapters, the tax collector's humility and contrition are dispositions his justification required, and not a plea that was enough alone. So the step from the plea to "faith suffices" is disputed.

def trentAgainstThePleaAlone : Source :=
  { primary := Reference.work waterworthTrent (Bib.Locus.page 45),
    supporting := [Reference.work waterworthTrent (Bib.Locus.pages 33 34)],
    tradition := Tradition.romanCatholic, confidence := Confidence.disputed }

calvinAgainstObedienceAsGround

Calvin contests the Catholic step from Matthew 7:21. He accepts the text, and that entry requires doing the Father's will. He denies that the doing is more than the fruit of faith: "These words, therefore, do not exclude faith, but presuppose it as the principle from which other good works flow."

def calvinAgainstObedienceAsGround : Source :=
  { primary := Reference.work calvinHarmony1 (Bib.Locus.pages 367 368),
    tradition := Tradition.reformedProtestant,
    confidence := Confidence.disputed }

catechismAgainstDoingAsBelieving

The Catechism contests the Reformed step from Matthew 7:21. It accepts the text and reads it the other way: "one enters the kingdom of heaven not by speaking words, but by doing 'the will of my Father in heaven'" (§2826).

def catechismAgainstDoingAsBelieving : Source :=
  {
    primary :=
      Reference.work catechismCatholicChurch (Bib.Locus.sectionRef "2826"),
    tradition := Tradition.romanCatholic, confidence := Confidence.disputed }

calvinAgainstTheCommandmentsAsTheWay

Calvin contests the Catholic step from Matthew 19:17. He accepts the text: "we have no right, therefore, to deny that the keeping of the law is righteousness". He denies that it is the way to life for any sinner: "this passage was erroneously interpreted by some of the ancients, whom the Papists have followed, as if Christ taught that, by keeping the law, we may merit eternal life." Calvin is answering a claim to merit. The reading written down here claims less, the way made possible by grace, and he denies that too, since for him no sinner keeps the law.

def calvinAgainstTheCommandmentsAsTheWay : Source :=
  { primary := Reference.work calvinHarmony2 (Bib.Locus.page 394),
    tradition := Tradition.reformedProtestant,
    confidence := Confidence.disputed }

veritatisSplendorAgainstTheLegalReply

John Paul II contests the Reformed step from Matthew 19:17. He accepts the text and reads it as the real path: Jesus "proposes them to us as the way and condition of salvation" (Veritatis Splendor 12).

def veritatisSplendorAgainstTheLegalReply : Source :=
  { primary := Reference.work veritatisSplendor (Bib.Locus.sectionRef "12"),
    tradition := Tradition.romanCatholic, confidence := Confidence.disputed }

calvinAgainstBaptismInJohnThreeFive

Calvin contests Trent's step from John 3:5. He accepts the verse and denies that it requires water baptism: "I cannot bring myself to believe that Christ speaks of baptism" (on John 3:5, 110).

def calvinAgainstBaptismInJohnThreeFive : Source :=
  { primary := Reference.work calvinJohn (Bib.Locus.page 110),
    tradition := Tradition.reformedProtestant,
    confidence := Confidence.disputed }

readingsWithoutTheWater

The steps from each non-baptismal reading of John 3:5 are well supported. If the water is natural birth, or Ezekiel's cleansing and not baptism, or the Spirit's own cleansing, the verse does not require water baptism. No reader was found who holds one of these readings and still requires baptism from the verse. Those who require it deny the reading (Trent, Session VII, On Baptism, canon 2).

def readingsWithoutTheWater : Source :=
  { primary := Reference.work oliverWaterJohn,
    supporting :=
      [Reference.work Bib.calvinInstitutes (Bib.Locus.sectionRef "IV.xvi.25")],
    tradition := Tradition.christianHistoricalGrammatical,
    confidence := Confidence.wellSupported }

augustineOnTheThief

The step from the thief is well supported. Grant that he was promised paradise unbaptised, and that his case bears on salvation under the Gospel, and the washing itself is not necessary for salvation: "as in the thief, to whom the material administration of the sacrament was necessarily wanting, the salvation was complete" (Augustine, On Baptism IV.23.31). Aquinas quotes the passage with approval (III q.66 a.11). Feeney denies the conclusion. How he answers the thief could not be verified.

def augustineOnTheThief : Source :=
  {
    primary :=
      Reference.work npnfAugustineManichaeans
        (Bib.Locus.sectionRef "On Baptism IV.23.31"),
    supporting :=
      [Reference.work aquinasSumma (Bib.Locus.sectionRef "III q.66 a.11")],
    tradition := Tradition.christianHistoricalGrammatical,
    confidence := Confidence.wellSupported }

catechismOnDesire

The step from the desire to the salvation it assures is well supported. If the desire for baptism brings about its fruits, the washing itself is not necessary for salvation: the Catechism says it "assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament" (1259). Feeney accepts that the desire justifies and denies that it saves. So what he denies is the starting point, this saving fruit as the Catechism states it, and not the step.

def catechismOnDesire : Source :=
  {
    primary :=
      Reference.work catechismCatholicChurch (Bib.Locus.sectionRef "1259"),
    tradition := Tradition.romanCatholic,
    confidence := Confidence.wellSupported }

westminsterOnTheDesire

The Reformed step from the desire, as Westminster holds it. Grace and salvation "are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it" (XXVIII.5), and faith is "the alone instrument of justification" (XI.2).

def westminsterOnTheDesire : Source :=
  {
    primary :=
      Reference.work westminsterConfession (Bib.Locus.sectionRef "XXVIII.5"),
    supporting :=
      [Reference.work westminsterConfession (Bib.Locus.sectionRef "XI.2")],
    tradition := Tradition.reformedProtestant,
    confidence := Confidence.disputed }

aquinasOnTheDesire

Aquinas contests the Reformed step from the desire. He accepts that Cornelius and others "receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism". He denies that the sacrament is therefore not the instrument: the desire is for the sacrament, and "when baptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues" (III q.69 a.4 ad 2).

def aquinasOnTheDesire : Source :=
  {
    primary :=
      Reference.work aquinasSumma (Bib.Locus.sectionRef "III q.69 a.4 ad 2"),
    tradition := Tradition.romanCatholic, confidence := Confidence.disputed }

calvinOnActsTen

Where the Spirit comes before the water, and after it. Both sides accept that God is not bound to the water; the Catechism says God "himself is not bound by his sacraments" (1257). Calvin's own sentence on Acts 10:47 goes further, "the Spirit is not included in baptism", and that further claim is not what is accepted here.

def calvinOnActsTen : Source :=
  { primary := Reference.work calvinActs1 (Bib.Locus.page 454),
    supporting :=
      [Reference.work catechismCatholicChurch (Bib.Locus.sectionRef "1257")],
    tradition := Tradition.christianHistoricalGrammatical,
    confidence := Confidence.consensus }

melanchthonOnLuke7

Where Melanchthon reads Luke 7:47 in the light of 7:50, in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession (1531): the part of Article IV on love and the fulfilling of the law. The Concordia Triglotta numbers it Article III, 31–34. The reference is given by article and topic because paragraph numbers differ between editions.

def melanchthonOnLuke7 : Bib.Locus :=
  Bib.Locus.sectionRef
    "Apology IV, on love and the fulfilling of the law: Luke 7:47–50"

campbellOnDeliverance

The step in the apocalyptic reading: from Christ's own faithfulness and God's act of rescue to the denial that faith is the condition. Rated plausible: no source cited here accepts both starting points and still holds that faith is the condition of justification.

def campbellOnDeliverance : Source :=
  { primary := Reference.work campbellDeliveranceOfGod,
    supporting := [Reference.work martynGalatians],
    tradition := Tradition.criticalScholarship,
    confidence := Confidence.plausible }

reformedWorksOfLawSource

The Reformed reading of "works of the law" (ἔργα νόμου), cited to the tradition that holds it and to those who defend it today against the New Perspective. It is disputed because the New Perspective denies it; see newPerspectiveCite.

def reformedWorksOfLawSource : Source

baseCite

The sources shared by every position: for the verses, and for the premises about how to read them, whose wording none of the positions disputes.

def baseCite : Claim → AtomMeta

reformedCite

The Reformed sources for the disputed readings.

def reformedCite : Claim → AtomMeta :=
  fun x =>
    match x with
    | Claim.worksOfLawMeansWorksGenerally =>
      {
        label :=
          "Paul's ‘works of the law’ means human works in general, not boundary markers",
        kind := PremiseKind.linguistic,
        source := reformedWorksOfLawSource }
    | c => baseCite c

newPerspectiveCite

The New Perspective's source for its reading: "works of the law" (ἔργα νόμου) means the practices that marked Israel off, so Paul is not speaking of human effort in general.

def newPerspectiveCite : Claim → AtomMeta :=
  fun x =>
    match x with
    | Claim.worksOfLawMeansWorksGenerally =>
      {
        label :=
          "Paul's ‘works of the law’ means the Jewish boundary markers, not works in general",
        kind := PremiseKind.linguistic,
        source :=
          { primary := Reference.work dunnNewPerspective,
            supporting :=
              [Reference.work sandersPaulPalestinianJudaism,
                Reference.work wrightWhatPaulSaid,
                Reference.work wrightJustification],
            tradition := Tradition.criticalScholarship,
            confidence := Confidence.disputed } }
    | c => baseCite c

subjectiveGenitiveCite

Hays's reading: "faith of Christ" (πίστις Χριστοῦ) is Christ's own faithfulness. Everything else as in baseCite.

def subjectiveGenitiveCite : Claim → AtomMeta

lawObservantLukeCite

Jervell's reading of Luke and Acts: what Acts 15 does not lay on gentiles is Israel's law as a mark of belonging, and the law is not refused as a means of salvation. Everything else as in baseCite.

def lawObservantLukeCite : Claim → AtomMeta

criticalAuthorshipCite

The critical view of authorship: Ephesians and Titus are not by Paul, and 1 and 2 Peter are not by Peter. Each claim is cited to a scholar who holds that view of that letter, with Ehrman for the case across all four. Marshall's middle view of the Pastoral letters, that they were written by Paul's circle after his death without intent to deceive, is cited with the critical side, because it too denies that Paul wrote Titus.

def criticalAuthorshipCite : Claim → AtomMeta

criticsCite

The critics of the New Perspective: Judaism in Paul's day was not uniformly "in by grace, staying in by obedience", because final vindication according to works was widely held. Gathercole is the main source, with the volume edited by Carson, O'Brien and Seifrid in support.

def criticsCite : Claim → AtomMeta :=
  fun x =>
    match x with
    | Claim.secondTempleCovenantalNomism =>
      {
        label :=
          "Second Temple Judaism also held final vindication according to works",
        kind := PremiseKind.historical,
        source :=
          { primary := Reference.work gathercoleWhereIsBoasting,
            supporting := [Reference.work carsonVariegatedNomism1],
            tradition := Tradition.reformedProtestant,
            confidence := Confidence.disputed } }
    | c => reformedCite c

tridentineCite

Trent's account of what justification is: "not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man". Everything else as in baseCite.

def tridentineCite : Claim → AtomMeta :=
  fun x =>
    match x with
    | Claim.justificationIsForensicOnly =>
      {
        label :=
          "Justification is not a verdict only: it renews the inward man",
        kind := PremiseKind.theological,
        source :=
          {
            primary :=
              Reference.work tannerDecrees
                (Bib.Locus.sectionRef
                  "Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7"),
            tradition := Tradition.romanCatholic,
            confidence := Confidence.wellSupported } }
    | c => baseCite c

finnishCite

The Finnish reading of Luther: justification is not a verdict only, because Christ himself is present in faith and is the believer's righteousness. Everything else as in reformedCite.

def finnishCite : Claim → AtomMeta :=
  fun x =>
    match x with
    | Claim.justificationIsForensicOnly =>
      {
        label :=
          "Justification is not a verdict only: Christ is present in faith",
        kind := PremiseKind.theological,
        source :=
          { primary := Reference.work mannermaaChristPresentInFaith,
            tradition := Tradition.criticalScholarship,
            confidence := Confidence.disputed } }
    | c => reformedCite c

apocalypticCite

The apocalyptic reading: "faith of Christ" is Christ's own faithfulness. The source recorded is Campbell's reason for reading it so.

def apocalypticCite : Claim → AtomMeta