Lines of reason

paulineToFaithAlone

Paul's strand. From Romans and Galatians to justification by faith alone, with Galatians 2:16 at the centre: "a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ."

Each premise does its own work. Galatians 2:16 excludes works of the law. Read as "faith in Christ", it also names the believer's faith as the means. The letter's occasion says what is being refused: circumcision added to faith as a requirement. That is where alone comes from. The Galatians already believed, and Paul says that adding a work to their faith severs them from Christ (5:4). Only the reading of "works of the law" as works in general lets circumcision stand for every work, and not for one mark of being a Jew.

dominicalToSufficiency

Luke's strand. From Jesus' words at Luke 7:50, "your faith has saved you", to the claim that faith suffices. It needs two readings. The word "saved" (σῴζω) means saved there, not healed. And "for she loved much" (7:47) gives the evidence of her forgiveness, not its cause, so that what Jesus names as saving her is her faith.

The strand says that her faith saved her, and no more. It does not say that nothing else could have. It owes nothing to Paul or to the dispute over "works of the law".

apostolicToSufficiency

Peter's strand. From Peter's speech at the Jerusalem council to the claim that faith suffices.

The council answers the demand Galatians answers: circumcision and the law of Moses as a condition of salvation (Acts 15:1, 15:5). Peter replies that God cleansed the gentiles' hearts by faith, that Jew and gentile alike are saved through grace, and that the yoke should not be laid on them. If the yoke is the whole law as a condition of salvation, then the gentiles are saved without it, by faith. That is the reading the strand needs.

johannineToFaithAlone

The Johannine strand. From John's Gospel to justification by faith alone. The crowd asks what they must do "to be doing the works of God", and Jesus answers: "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent" (6:28–29). The Gospel says throughout that eternal life comes through believing (3:16–18, 3:36, 5:24, 20:31).

The step needs one more premise, and it is the disputed one: that this believing is trust, which brings nothing of its own to God. Independent of Paul, of Luke 7:50 and of Acts 15.

jamesHarmonisation

The answer to James. James 2:24 says "a person is justified by works and not by faith alone". If James is attacking a barren faith, and if works are the fruit of saving faith and not its ground, then the verse does not contradict Paul. The agreement is derived from those two premises, not assumed.

solaFide

The conclusion, in three parts: salvation is by grace, not by works, and through faith. They are stated as three claims and not one, so that a position can be shown to hold some and deny another. Trent and the apocalyptic reading each do that, over different parts.

graceNotWorks

The first two parts: by grace, and not by works. This is what the apocalyptic reading keeps.

toGrace

By grace, from the verses that say so: "by grace you have been saved… it is the gift of God" (Ephesians 2:8), a gift and not wages (Romans 4:4–5), "according to his own mercy" (Titus 3:5). This part needs neither a strand nor the answer to James.

toNotByWorks

Not by works, from the same verses, which say "not a result of works" in as many words. It needs two more things: an answer to James 2:24, and that Scripture does not contradict itself. It needs no strand.

faithAloneSuffices

If justification is by faith alone, then faith suffices: if nothing but faith is the condition, faith is enough. This is how Paul's strand and John's, which argue the stronger claim, reach the part of the conclusion that Luke's and Peter's reach directly.

toThroughFaith

Through faith, from the claim that faith suffices together with Ephesians 2:8, "through faith" (διὰ πίστεως), which names faith as the means. This is the only part of the conclusion the four strands are needed for, and it needs only what each of them says.

paulineLine — Pauline strand (ἔργα νόμου, πίστις Χριστοῦ)

Paul's line of argument. What is distinctive to it is the reading of Galatians as a letter against requiring circumcision, and two disputed readings: of "works of the law" (ἔργα νόμου) and of "faith in Christ" (πίστις Χριστοῦ). The verses it reads are shared with every other position, which is why denying one of the readings does not cost the argument its texts.

The question of "faith in Christ" is a premise inside this strand, not a strand of its own. Every verse with the phrase sets it against the law, so any route through it still has to say what "works of the law" means.

dominicalLine — Dominical strand (σῴζω at Luke 7:50)

Luke's line of argument, resting on Jesus' words and not Paul's. What is distinctive to it is the reading of "saved" at Luke 7:50, and the reading of 7:47 on which the woman's love is not the cause of her forgiveness.

apostolicLine — Apostolic strand (Acts 15:7–11)

Peter's line of argument, as Luke reports him. What is distinctive to it is the reading of the yoke.

It shares no premise with Paul's line. That does not make the two independent in practice. A reader who takes "works of the law" as the marks of Israel will read Peter's yoke the same way, as Jervell does, so the two readings tend to be won or lost together. The encoding shows only that they are two premises about two texts, and an opponent has to answer both.

calvinOnJohnSix

Calvin's step from John to justification. John never uses Paul's verb "justify" (δικαιόω), so passing from "eternal life through believing" to "justified by faith alone" is an inference and not the reading of a word. Rated plausible: no cited source grants the strand's grounds and denies the step, but the step rests on Calvin's comment on 6:29 and not on a full argument from John's vocabulary to Paul's.

def calvinOnJohnSix : Source :=
  { primary := Reference.work calvinJohn (Bib.Locus.adLoc Scripture.john6_29),
    tradition := Tradition.reformedProtestant,
    confidence := Confidence.plausible }

johannineLine — Johannine strand (John 6:29)

The Johannine line, resting on Jesus' words in John's Gospel. Its texts are its own grounds: no other strand reads them. Its distinctive ground is the reading of believing as trust, which Aquinas denies.

jamesLine — Harmonisation of James 2:24

The line that answers James. It is not a route to the conclusion. It answers the one verse that appears to stand against it.

deliveranceNotFaithAlone

The apocalyptic reading (Martyn, Campbell). If "faith of Christ" is Christ's own faithfulness, and "the righteousness of God" (δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ) is God's act of rescue, then faith is not the condition on which a person is justified. So justification by faith alone, in the sense the Reformed and the New Perspective share, is denied. Grace and "not by works" are not denied: the reading rejects the condition, not the gift.

deliveranceIsGrace

What the apocalyptic reading keeps. If "the righteousness of God" is God's act of rescue, it is a gift that depends on nothing a person does: by grace, and not by works. This is Campbell's inference, and his reason for calling the reading more gracious than the one it replaces.

apocalypticLine — Apocalyptic reading (δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ as deliverance)

The apocalyptic line: another route from Paul, arriving at the denial of what Paul's strand delivers.

sandersLine — Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn)

The New Perspective's reason for its reading of "works of the law". Sanders argued that Judaism in Paul's day taught entry into the covenant by grace and staying in by obedience ("covenantal nomism"). If so, Paul's opponents were not trying to earn salvation, and what Paul refuses is not works as such but the practices that kept gentiles out. The starting point is Sanders'. The inference is Dunn's, and is cited as his.

criticsLine — Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.)

The critics' reply. If Jewish texts of the period also speak of final vindication according to works, then the demand Galatians refuses, circumcision added to faith as a requirement, is a demand for obedience. In refusing it Paul refuses works as such. So the Reformed reading of "works of the law" is derived here and not assumed: from the occasion of Galatians, and from a claim about first-century Judaism that is argued on the evidence. Cited to Gathercole, and to the volume edited by Carson, O'Brien and Seifrid.

jervellLine — Law-observant Luke (Jervell)

Jervell's reading of the yoke. Luke shows the Jewish believers keeping the law (Acts 21:20–24), and the council's decree lays part of it on gentiles (Acts 15:20–21). So, Jervell argues, what Peter refuses at 15:10 is the whole of Israel's law laid on gentiles, and not the law as a condition of salvation. The step is contested: Bruce accepts both passages and reads the yoke as the law taken as a condition of salvation.

trentOnIncrease

Trent's step from its definition to merit. If justification is the renewal of the inward person, and that renewal grows through good works, then good works increase justification (Session VI, ch. 10 and canon 24). Rated consensus, as trentOnMerit is. The Reformed deny the definition, not the inference, and canon 24 condemns the Reformed alternative by name: that works are "merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained".

def trentOnIncrease : Source :=
  {
    primary :=
      Reference.work tannerDecrees
        (Bib.Locus.sectionRef "Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 24"),
    supporting :=
      [Reference.work tannerDecrees
          (Bib.Locus.sectionRef
            "Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 10")],
    tradition := Tradition.romanCatholic, confidence := Confidence.consensus }

tridentineLine — Trent (justification as renewal)

Trent's line of argument. Justification is the renewal of the inward person and not remission of sins only. That renewal grows through good works. So good works increase justification (Session VI, ch. 10, canon 24). The Reformed accept that the renewal grows and deny the definition, so the step carries the objection only as far as the definition does.

trentDefinitionSteps

What Trent's definition rules out. Justification as a verdict only (canon 11). Justification as distinct from the sanctification that follows it. And faith as sufficient: if justification is the renewal of the inward person by charity poured in, then faith "unless hope and charity be added thereto" does not unite a person perfectly with Christ (ch. 7), and whoever says that "nothing else is required to cooperate" is anathema (canon 9). So Trent's denial that faith suffices is not a separate thesis. It follows from what Trent says justification is.

prooftexts

The verses the strands read. Every Reformed position shares them, and so does the New Perspective.

sharedGrounds

Everything the strands share: those verses, the two premises that answer James, and that Scripture does not contradict itself.

sharedGroundsWithoutJames

The same, with James left unanswered.

conclusionSteps

The steps to the three parts of the conclusion, one for each, and the step from "faith alone" to "faith suffices".

closingSteps

The steps that finish the argument: the answer to James, then the steps to the three parts of the conclusion.

Paul's gospel, against justification as renewal

galatianGospelReadingSource

The reading of the gospel in Galatians: Christ's death is the whole ground of justification, and to add a ground is to preach another gospel. Cited to Moo on Galatians and to the Westminster Confession. Rated disputed: Trent accepts every text, and that Christ's passion merited justification (ch. 7), and denies that nothing is added (canons 24, 32).

def galatianGospelReadingSource : Source :=
  {
    primary :=
      Reference.work mooGalatians
        (Bib.Locus.adLoc { book := Book.galatians, chapter := 1, verse := 6 }),
    supporting :=
      [Reference.work westminsterConfession (Bib.Locus.sectionRef "XI.1")],
    tradition := Tradition.reformedProtestant,
    confidence := Confidence.disputed }

verdictNotRenewalSource

The step from "a verdict on Christ's finished work" to "renewal is no part of justification". Westminster XI.1: God justifies "not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them". Rated disputed, and the source that makes it so is Rome's own. The Joint Declaration accepts the starting point, that God "no longer imputes to them their sin" (§22). Its Annex denies the step, defining justification as "forgiveness of sins and being made righteous" (Annex 2 A). Among New Testament scholars, Gorman takes the same side: the verdict is a word that does what it says, and changes the person.

def verdictNotRenewalSource : Source :=
  {
    primary :=
      Reference.work westminsterConfession (Bib.Locus.sectionRef "XI.1"),
    supporting :=
      [Reference.work Bib.calvinInstitutes (Bib.Locus.sectionRef "III.xi.2"),
        Reference.work morrisApostolicPreaching],
    tradition := Tradition.reformedProtestant,
    confidence := Confidence.disputed }

galatianGospelLine — Paul's gospel (Galatians 1:6–9; 2:21; 5:2–4; 1 Corinthians 15:3)

Paul's gospel, as Galatians states it and 1 Corinthians sums it up.

Galatians is a letter about another gospel. The teachers Paul opposes did not deny Christ. They added circumcision to him, and Paul calls that addition a different gospel and its preachers accursed (1:6–9). Against it he sets what he received: "Christ died for our sins" (1 Corinthians 15:3); "if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose" (Galatians 2:21); whoever would be justified by the law is "severed from Christ" (5:2–4).

This line reads those texts as one claim: Christ's work is the whole ground of justification. With the courtroom sense of Paul's verb "justify", it carries that claim to the denial of Trent's definition. If justification is God's verdict on the ground of a finished work, then the renewal worked in us is no part of it.

verdictExcludesRenewal

The step where Trent parts from Paul. If justification is God's verdict, since Paul's verb "justify" (δικαιόω) is a courtroom word whose opposite is "condemn" (Romans 8:33–34), and if its ground is Christ's finished work alone, then the renewal of the inward person is no part of it.

What Paul's word means

leastMeaningSource

The step from three things to "Paul's 'justify' does not mean renewal": the verb is a courtroom word; Paul has other words for renewal; and a word contributes the least meaning its context requires. The method is Silva's, applied as Moo applies it to Romans.

Cited at wellSupported. Trent keeps the first starting point, the verdict, for the justified "are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just" (Session VI, ch. 7), and denies that the word means no more; Augustine himself gives the forensic sense beside "made righteous", "deemed, or reckoned as just" (On the Spirit and the Letter 26.45). So a cited reader grants the starting points and denies the conclusion, and the checks count Trent's reading a credible critique of this step under every standard (trent_dissents_from_the_definition_steps). By the library's rule that makes the step disputed, and the disputes weigh it at wellSupported: this is the one place they rest on a rating the rule does not license. Whether the step can rise above disputed turns on Romans 6:7 and 1 Corinthians 6:11, which readers take both ways.

Those who deny the first starting point itself, VanLandingham among them, are weighed in that premise's rating. Those who hold that God's verdict renews, Gorman and the Joint Declaration, make a claim about what God does, not about the word.

def leastMeaningSource : Source :=
  { primary := Reference.work silvaBiblicalWords,
    supporting :=
      [Reference.work mooRomans (Bib.Locus.sectionRef "p. 80"),
        Reference.work barrSemantics],
    tradition := Tradition.christianHistoricalGrammatical,
    confidence := Confidence.wellSupported }

lexicalLine — Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning)

Paul's word, read by the rule that a word means no more than its context requires.

Trent's definition can be read as a claim about Paul's word: that "justify" (δικαιόω), in Paul, means the renewal of the inward person. This line answers that reading from the word alone.

The verb is a courtroom word: its opposite is "condemn". Paul has other words for renewal, and sets them beside it. And a word contributes the least meaning its context requires. Nothing in the setting of a verdict requires a second, inward sense, and to supply one from the doctrine is the mistake Barr called "illegitimate totality transfer": reading into one use of a word everything it can mean elsewhere. So Paul's "justify" does not mean renewal.

The line says nothing about what God does when he justifies. That is the other way of reading Trent's definition, and this line does not reach it (the chapter What Trent means by justification).

Romans 4: the ungodly, justified

romansFourExegesisSource

The reading of Romans 4:3–8. Paul uses the language of an account ("counted", λογίζομαι), sets it against wages, and explains what is counted by quoting a psalm. Cited to Moo on Romans. Rated wellSupported: Augustine and Trent accept the texts and dispute what follows from them, not what Paul says the counting is.

def romansFourExegesisSource : Source :=
  {
    primary :=
      Reference.work mooRomans
        (Bib.Locus.adLoc { book := Book.romans, chapter := 4, verse := 6 }),
    supporting := [Reference.work bdag (Bib.Locus.sectionRef "s.v. λογίζομαι")],
    tradition := Tradition.christianHistoricalGrammatical,
    confidence := Confidence.wellSupported }

romansFourReadingSource

The step from Paul's explanation, with the courtroom sense of the verb, to "renewal is no part of justification". Cited to Moo on Romans 4:5 and Westminster XI.1. Rated disputed: Augustine accepts the texts and reads "justifies the ungodly" as making the ungodly godly, and Trent's chapter 7 makes the justice "whereby He maketh us just" the formal cause of justification.

def romansFourReadingSource : Source :=
  {
    primary :=
      Reference.work mooRomans
        (Bib.Locus.adLoc { book := Book.romans, chapter := 4, verse := 5 }),
    supporting :=
      [Reference.work westminsterConfession (Bib.Locus.sectionRef "XI.1")],
    tradition := Tradition.reformedProtestant,
    confidence := Confidence.disputed }

romansFourExegesisLine — Romans 4:3–8 (the ungodly, justified)

Romans 4:3–8, read. God "justifies the ungodly", and the righteousness he counts to them is, in Paul's own explanation, sin not counted.

An argument from one passage, in two steps.

The first step is about what Paul says. God "justifies the ungodly" (4:5). What he counts to them is described in the psalm Paul quotes: "blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven… blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin" (4:6–8). "Count" (λογίζομαι) is the language of an account, set against wages owed (4:4). So, in Paul's own argument, the righteousness counted to the ungodly is sin not counted. No source cited here accepts the texts and the sense of the verb and denies that.

The second step puts the first to work, and it goes two ways.

• Against a claim about Paul's word. With the rule of least meaning, the verb Paul explains in that way does not also mean the renewal of the inward person. Rated wellSupported, as the argument from the word is.
• Against a claim about what God does. That what is counted is sin not counted, and that the verdict is a courtroom one, excludes renewal from justification. Augustine accepts every word of Romans 4 and reads the verse the other way: God "justifies the ungodly man, that he may become a godly one" (On the Spirit and the Letter 26.45). Trent makes the justice "whereby He maketh us just" the formal cause of justification (ch. 7). So that step is disputed, as the step from Galatians is.

glossByLeastMeaning

From Paul's explanation, by the rule of least meaning: the verb he explains in that way does not also mean renewal.

countedExcludesRenewal

From Paul's explanation, with the courtroom sense of the verb: renewal is no part of justification. This is the step Augustine denies.

Packages

reformed — Reformed (sola fide)

The classical Protestant position: all four strands, and every disputed reading they rest on. In Paul, that "works of the law" (ἔργα νόμου) means works in general, and that "faith of Christ" (πίστις Χριστοῦ) means faith in Christ. In Luke, that "saved" (σῴζω) at 7:50 means saved and not healed. In Acts, that the yoke is the law as a condition of salvation. In John, that believing is trust.

Grounded in scripture alone: John 3:16–18, 3:36, 5:24, 20:31 — eternal life through believing in the Son.

dominicalWithoutSozo — Dominical strand (σῴζω at Luke 7:50)

Luke's line without the reading of "saved". The reading of 7:47 stays: it is not what is being tested.

paulineWithoutWorksOfLaw — Pauline strand (ἔργα νόμου, πίστις Χριστοῦ)

Paul's line without the reading of "works of the law".

paulineWithoutPistisChristou — Pauline strand (ἔργα νόμου, πίστις Χριστοῦ)

Paul's line without the reading of "faith in Christ".

johannineWithoutTrust — Johannine strand (John 6:29)

The Johannine line without the reading of believing as trust. Its texts stay: they are not what is being tested.

newPerspective — New Perspective on Paul

The New Perspective on Paul. It denies the traditional reading of "works of the law" (ἔργα νόμου) and accepts justification by faith, which is what Dunn and Wright hold. It keeps "faith in Christ" as Dunn does, so the one reading of Paul's that it denies is the first.

The denial is not assumed. sandersLine derives it from Sanders' account of Judaism by Dunn's inference, which is where its critics engage it.

It takes no position on the yoke of Acts 15:10, or on what believing is in John 6:29. Each of those lines keeps its step and loses its disputed reading, so the position neither grants nor denies the reading on the New Perspective's behalf.

Grounded in scripture alone: John 3:16–18, 3:36, 5:24, 20:31 — eternal life through believing in the Son.

finnish — Finnish reading of Luther (Mannermaa)

The Finnish reading of Luther (Mannermaa): the Reformed case, with the verdict-only account of justification denied. Christ himself is present in faith and is the believer's righteousness, so justification is not a declaration and nothing more.

On what justification is, this stands with Trent against the Reformed account. On sola fide it stands with the Reformed. The encoding shows both, and shows that the two questions are separate.

Grounded in scripture alone: John 3:16–18, 3:36, 5:24, 20:31 — eternal life through believing in the Son.

subjectiveGenitive — Subjective genitive (πίστις Χριστοῦ as Christ's faithfulness)

Hays's reading: "faith of Christ" (πίστις Χριστοῦ) in Galatians 2:16 is Christ's own faithfulness, so the verse does not name the believer's faith as the means of justification. Everything else in the Reformed case is granted.

Grounded in scripture alone: John 3:16–18, 3:36, 5:24, 20:31 — eternal life through believing in the Son.

lawObservantLuke — Law-observant Luke (the yoke as Israel's law for gentiles)

Jervell's reading of Luke: the yoke Peter refuses at Acts 15:10 is Israel's law laid on gentiles as a mark of belonging, and not the law as a condition of salvation. Everything else in the Reformed case is granted. This is the rival Peter's strand was written against.

Grounded in scripture alone: John 3:16–18, 3:36, 5:24, 20:31 — eternal life through believing in the Son.

criticalAuthorship — Reformed, with the critical view of authorship

The Reformed case with every critical conclusion about authorship granted: Ephesians and Titus not by Paul, 1 and 2 Peter not by Peter.

Nothing else changes. The case reads these letters as Scripture, held together by the premise that Scripture does not contradict itself, and not as the testimony of a named apostle. So conceding their authorship costs the argument nothing. It would cost an argument that cited Ephesians 2:9 as evidence of what Paul meant by "works", which is why the reading of "works of the law" leans on Romans.

Grounded in scripture alone: John 3:16–18, 3:36, 5:24, 20:31 — eternal life through believing in the Son.

apocalyptic — Apocalyptic reading of Paul (Martyn, Campbell)

The apocalyptic reading of Paul (Martyn, Campbell). It rejects the traditional framing of justification and the New Perspective's as well. For it the question is neither how an individual is accepted nor how Jew and gentile are related. It is God's rescue of the world in Christ.

It shares Galatians with the Reformed reading: the text of 2:16 and the occasion of the letter. It closes with the same step to salvation. It does not share Luke's strand, Peter's or John's, which neither Martyn nor Campbell argues from. To grant it Luke 7:50, Acts 15 or John 6:29 would be to encode a position nobody holds.

No premise here rests on scripture alone.

apocalypticOnGraceAndWorks — Apocalyptic reading, on grace and works only

The apocalyptic reading, asked only about the first two parts of the conclusion: by grace, and not by works.

No premise here rests on scripture alone.

tridentinePremises

Trent's premises, given the line that carries its definition to merit. Four verses it shares with the Reformed. That Scripture does not contradict itself. What its definition rules out. And the step from merit to the denial of "not by works" (ch. 16).

It is not built from the Reformed lines. It shares four verses with them and nothing else, so building it from them would misdescribe it.

def tridentinePremises : Line Claim → List (Formula Claim) :=
  fun line =>
    [p Claim.ephesians2_8_9, p Claim.romans3_28,
            p Claim.galatians2_16,
            p Claim.titus3_5,
            p Claim.scriptureSelfConsistent] ++
          line.premises ++
        trentDefinitionSteps ++
      [p Claim.worksMeritIncreaseOfJustification 🡒
          notP Claim.salvationNotByWorks]

tridentine — Tridentine (Council of Trent, Session VI)

The position of the Council of Trent (Session VI, 1547). Justification is the renewal of the inward person. That renewal grows through good works. So works done in grace merit an increase of justification, which denies the second part of the conclusion, "not by works". The same definition denies that justification is only a verdict.

No premise here rests on scripture alone.

Variants

Each removes named premises from the Reformed case and keeps the rest. Paul's strand rests on two disputed readings, so it has two reduced forms.

reformedWithoutWorksOfLaw — Reformed, minus the ἔργα νόμου premise

The Reformed case without the reading of "works of the law".

Grounded in scripture alone: John 3:16–18, 3:36, 5:24, 20:31 — eternal life through believing in the Son.

reformedWithoutSozo — Reformed, minus the dominical lexical premise

The Reformed case without the reading of "saved" at Luke 7:50.

Grounded in scripture alone: John 3:16–18, 3:36, 5:24, 20:31 — eternal life through believing in the Son.

reformedRestingOnActs — Reformed, with only the Acts strand left whole

The Reformed package resting on Acts alone. The disputed reading is removed from each of the other three strands: ἔργα νόμου from Paul, σῴζω from Luke, believing as trust from John. Peter's speech is untouched.

Grounded in scripture alone: John 3:16–18, 3:36, 5:24, 20:31 — eternal life through believing in the Son.

reformedRestingOnJohn — Reformed, with only the Johannine strand left whole

The Reformed package resting on John alone. The disputed reading is removed from each of the other three strands: ἔργα νόμου from Paul, σῴζω from Luke, the yoke from Acts. John's strand is untouched.

Grounded in scripture alone: John 3:16–18, 3:36, 5:24, 20:31 — eternal life through believing in the Son.

reformedWithoutEveryStrandsPremise — Reformed, minus the ἔργα νόμου, σῴζω, yoke and trust premises

The Reformed package with a disputed reading removed from every strand: ἔργα νόμου from Paul, σῴζω from Luke, the yoke from Acts, believing as trust from John. The objective genitive stays.

Grounded in scripture alone: John 3:16–18, 3:36, 5:24, 20:31 — eternal life through believing in the Son.

reformedWithoutPistisChristouSozoOrYoke — Reformed, minus the πίστις Χριστοῦ, σῴζω, yoke and trust premises

The same with the objective genitive removed in place of ἔργα νόμου: the Pauline strand loses its other disputed reading, and the other three strands theirs. The name lists Luke's and Peter's; John's reading of believing as trust is removed too.

Grounded in scripture alone: John 3:16–18, 3:36, 5:24, 20:31 — eternal life through believing in the Son.

graceAndWorksWithoutAnyLexicalPremise — Grace and works, minus every lexical premise

The Reformed case with every disputed reading removed: both of Paul's, Luke's "saved", the yoke of Acts 15 and believing as trust in John. It is asked only about grace and works. The reading of Galatians as a letter against requiring circumcision stays, and so does the answer to James.

Grounded in scripture alone: John 3:16–18, 3:36, 5:24, 20:31 — eternal life through believing in the Son.

paulineStrandOnTheCritics — Pauline strand alone, on variegated nomism

Paul's strand alone, on the critics' account of Judaism (Gathercole; Carson, O'Brien and Seifrid). The reading of "works of the law" is derived from their denial of Sanders' account, not assumed, and the other three strands are left out. The question: on that history, does Paul alone reach sola fide?

No premise here rests on scripture alone.

paulineStrandOnSanders — Pauline strand alone, on covenantal nomism

The same on Sanders' account of Judaism.

No premise here rests on scripture alone.

reformedWithoutJamesHarmonisation — Reformed, minus the James harmonisation

The Reformed case without the premises that answer James.

Grounded in scripture alone: John 3:16–18, 3:36, 5:24, 20:31 — eternal life through believing in the Son.

graceWithoutJamesHarmonisation — Grace alone, minus the James harmonisation

The same, asked only about the first part of the conclusion: is salvation by grace, with James 2:24 left unanswered?

Grounded in scripture alone: John 3:16–18, 3:36, 5:24, 20:31 — eternal life through believing in the Son.

tridentineCase — Trent, against 'not by works'

Trent, as the argument it makes when set against the others. Justification is the renewal of the inward person; that renewal grows through good works; so works done in grace merit an increase of justification, and salvation is not apart from works. The premises are those of tridentine. The conclusion is what Trent holds against sola fide.

No premise here rests on scripture alone.

Paul's gospel, against Trent's definition

galatianGospel — Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal

Paul's gospel, against justification as renewal. Galatians and 1 Corinthians read as one claim, that Christ's work is the whole ground. With the courtroom sense of "justify" and Romans 8:33–34, it concludes that justification is not the renewal of the inward person. That is the direct denial of Trent's definition (Session VI, ch. 7).

Grounded in scripture alone: 1 Corinthians 15:3: the gospel of first importance — Christ died for our sins, Romans 8:33–34: it is God who justifies — who is to condemn?.

romansFourOnTheWord — Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning)

Romans 4, on what Paul's word means. Paul explains the righteousness God counts to the ungodly as sin not counted. By the rule of least meaning, the verb he explains in that way does not also mean the renewal of the inward person. This reaches from one passage what the argument from the word reaches from usage.

No premise here rests on scripture alone.

romansFourCase — Romans 4:3–8, against justification as renewal

Romans 4, against justification as renewal. Paul explains the righteousness God counts to the ungodly as sin not counted. With the courtroom sense of the verb, justification is not the renewal of the inward person.

No premise here rests on scripture alone.

Paul's word, against justification as renewal

lexicalCase — Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning)

Paul's word. "Justify" (δικαιόω) is a courtroom word. Paul names renewal with words of its own. And a word contributes the least meaning its context requires. So Paul's "justify" does not mean the renewal of the inward person.

Grounded in scripture alone: Paul names renewal with other words (ἀνακαίνωσις, ἁγιασμός) and sets them beside ‘justify’.

Results

reformed_establishes

Grant the Reformed premises, and sola fide follows. The premises are the texts all four strands read, the disputed reading each strand depends on, and the answer to James 2:24.

The argument is valid. It does not show that the premises are true. Each disputed reading is denied by a scholar cited on this page.

theorem reformed_establishes : Establishes reformed
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

newPerspective_establishes

The New Perspective reaches the same conclusion. Dunn and Wright reject the traditional reading of "works of the law" (ἔργα νόμου). They do not reject justification by faith. Leave Paul's phrase to them, and sola fide still follows, from Jesus' words at Luke 7:50.

Winning the argument over "works of the law" does not defeat sola fide. It does not show that Dunn or Wright would put it this way, or that their reading of Paul is right. Their critics dispute the reading, not this result.

theorem newPerspective_establishes : Establishes newPerspective
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

tridentineReading

The Council of Trent's reading, written out. Works done in grace merit an increase of justification, so salvation is not apart from works. Justification renews the inward person, so it is not only a verdict and is not distinct from sanctification. And it is not had by faith alone: faith without charity does not suffice. Every text holds.

def tridentineReading : Valuation Claim :=
  fun a =>
    match a with
    | Claim.salvationNotByWorks => False
    | Claim.justificationIsForensicOnly => False
    | Claim.justificationDistinctFromSanctification => False
    | Claim.faithIsSufficient => False
    | Claim.justificationByFaithAlone => False
    | x => True

tridentine_not_establishes

Trent's premises do not lead to sola fide. They lead to the denial of its second part: on Trent's account salvation is not apart from works.

A reader who holds what Trent holds is not committed to sola fide, and the reading above shows a consistent way to hold it. It does not show that Trent is wrong, or right.

theorem tridentine_not_establishes : ¬Establishes tridentine
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

worksOfLaw_not_load_bearing

The argument does not depend on the reading of "works of the law". Remove the premise that Paul's phrase (ἔργα νόμου) means works in general, keep everything else, and sola fide still follows by the other strands.

theorem worksOfLaw_not_load_bearing : Establishes reformedWithoutWorksOfLaw
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

sozo_not_load_bearing

Nor on the reading of "saved" at Luke 7:50. Remove the premise that the word there (σῴζω) means saved and not healed, keep everything else, and sola fide still follows by the other strands.

theorem sozo_not_load_bearing : Establishes reformedWithoutSozo
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

apostolic_strand_survives_paul_and_luke

Acts supplies "through faith" with the other strands' disputed readings left out. Leave out the reading of "works of the law" in Paul, of "saved" in Luke 7:50, and of believing in John 6:29; that is, assume none of them either way. Keep what every strand shares: the verses on grace and works, and the answer to James. Sola fide still follows, with Peter's speech at Jerusalem (Acts 15:7–11) as the only route to faith.

Peter's strand does not lean on any of the other three disputes. It does not show that Peter's strand is beyond dispute, or that Acts 15 is the only text used. The strand rests on its own disputed reading, of the yoke at 15:10. The result's name is older than the strand from John; John's reading is left out as well.

theorem apostolic_strand_survives_paul_and_luke : Establishes
    reformedRestingOnActs
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

johannine_strand_survives_the_other_three

John supplies "through faith" with the other strands' disputed readings left out. Leave out the reading of "works of the law" in Paul, of "saved" in Luke 7:50, and of the yoke in Acts 15:10; that is, assume none of them either way. Keep what every strand shares: the verses on grace and works, and the answer to James. Sola fide still follows, with Jesus' answer in John 6:29 as the only route to faith: "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent."

A reader who wins the disputes over Paul, Luke and Acts has not yet answered John. It does not show that John's strand is beyond dispute, or that John 6:29 is the only text used. Grace and "not by works" still come from the shared verses and the answer to James. The strand rests on reading that believing as trust, which Aquinas denies (johannine_strand_rests_on_believing_as_trust), and on a step from "eternal life through believing" to "justified by faith alone" that is rated plausible.

theorem johannine_strand_survives_the_other_three : Establishes
    reformedRestingOnJohn
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

pistisChristou_not_load_bearing

Nor on "faith in Christ". Grant Hays that the phrase in Galatians 2:16 (πίστις Χριστοῦ) means Christ's own faithfulness and not our faith in him. Keep everything else. Sola fide still follows.

A reader who wins this point for Hays has cost the Reformed case its route through Paul, and not its conclusion. It does not show that the point is unimportant to Paul's strand. Within that strand everything depends on it; see pistisChristou_jointly_load_bearing.

theorem pistisChristou_not_load_bearing : Establishes subjectiveGenitive
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

acts15Yoke_not_load_bearing

Nor on the yoke. Grant Jervell that the yoke Peter refuses at Acts 15:10 is Israel's law laid on gentiles, and not the law as a condition of salvation. Keep everything else. Sola fide still follows, by Paul, by Luke 7:50 and by John.

theorem acts15Yoke_not_load_bearing : Establishes lawObservantLuke
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

neitherLexicalReading

A reading on which no strand's disputed premise holds. Paul's "works of the law" are the boundary markers. Jesus' "your faith has saved you" at Luke 7:50 is about healing. Peter's yoke is Israel's law laid on gentiles. And the believing of John 6:29 is not bare trust. Every text stands; faith is not said to be enough.

def neitherLexicalReading : Valuation Claim :=
  fun a =>
    match a with
    | Claim.worksOfLawMeansWorksGenerally => False
    | Claim.sozoIsSoteriological => False
    | Claim.acts15YokeIsLawAsCondition => False
    | Claim.johannineBelievingIsTrust => False
    | Claim.justificationByFaithAlone => False
    | Claim.faithIsSufficient => False
    | Claim.salvationThroughFaith => False
    | x => True

lexical_premises_jointly_load_bearing

Sola fide fails to follow only when every strand loses its disputed reading. Remove one disputed reading from each strand — "works of the law" as works in general from Paul, "saved" as salvation from Luke 7:50, the yoke as the law as a condition of salvation from Acts 15, believing as trust from John 6:29 — and keep everything else. Sola fide no longer follows. Remove fewer, and a strand that still has its reading reaches the conclusion.

So the argument, as encoded here, does not hang on the meaning of Paul's "works of the law". It hangs on that, or on Luke's "saved", or on Peter's yoke, or on John's "believe". Someone who denies sola fide has to answer all four. The same holds with "faith of Christ" (πίστις Χριστοῦ) in place of "works of the law"; see pistisChristou_jointly_load_bearing.

It does not show that the four are independent in practice. A reader who takes "works of the law" as boundary markers will usually read Peter's yoke the same way. The result shows that four separate premises would each have to be denied. It does not show that four separate groups of scholars deny them.

theorem lexical_premises_jointly_load_bearing : ¬Establishes
    reformedWithoutEveryStrandsPremise
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

neitherPistisNorSozoReading

A reading on which Galatians 2:16 names Christ's own faithfulness and not faith in Christ, Jesus' "your faith has saved you" is about healing, Peter's yoke is Israel's law laid on gentiles, and the believing of John 6:29 is not bare trust.

def neitherPistisNorSozoReading : Valuation Claim :=
  fun a =>
    match a with
    | Claim.pistisChristouObjective => False
    | Claim.sozoIsSoteriological => False
    | Claim.acts15YokeIsLawAsCondition => False
    | Claim.johannineBelievingIsTrust => False
    | Claim.justificationByFaithAlone => False
    | Claim.faithIsSufficient => False
    | Claim.salvationThroughFaith => False
    | x => True

pistisChristou_jointly_load_bearing

Within Paul's strand, "faith in Christ" is needed. Deny that Galatians 2:16 speaks of our faith in Christ, and leave out the disputed reading of each of the other three strands. Keep the reading of "works of the law" as works in general, and keep Galatians as a letter against requiring circumcision. Sola fide no longer follows.

Excluding works is not yet faith alone. The verse must also name the believer's faith as the means, and on Hays's reading it does not. So Paul's strand rests on two disputed readings of one verse, and losing either costs it the conclusion.

theorem pistisChristou_jointly_load_bearing : ¬Establishes
    reformedWithoutPistisChristouSozoOrYoke
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

authorship_not_load_bearing

The argument does not depend on who wrote the disputed letters. Grant every critical conclusion: that Ephesians and Titus are not by Paul, and 1 and 2 Peter not by Peter. Sola fide still follows.

The argument reads these letters as Scripture, not as the testimony of a named apostle, so their authorship is not one of its premises. The proof shows this directly: it adds the four denials to the Reformed premises and uses none of them.

What this costs is stated at criticalAuthorship. The letters cannot then be used as evidence of what Paul meant by "works", which is why that premise rests on Romans.

theorem authorship_not_load_bearing : Establishes criticalAuthorship
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

apocalypticReading

The apocalyptic reading of Paul (Martyn, Campbell), written out. "Faith of Christ" is Christ's own faithfulness. "The righteousness of God" is God's act of rescue. Faith is not the condition on which a person is justified. Everything else it grants.

def apocalypticReading : Valuation Claim :=
  fun a =>
    match a with
    | Claim.pistisChristouObjective => False
    | Claim.justificationByFaithAlone => False
    | Claim.faithIsSufficient => False
    | Claim.salvationThroughFaith => False
    | x => True

apocalyptic_not_establishes

The apocalyptic reading does not lead to sola fide. It does not reach the third part of the conclusion, "through faith". Nothing it holds says that faith is enough, and it denies the faith alone from which Paul's strand would derive that.

What it does reach is stated as a result of its own, apocalyptic_establishes_grace_not_works.

theorem apocalyptic_not_establishes : ¬Establishes apocalyptic
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

apocalyptic_establishes_grace_not_works

The apocalyptic reading keeps grace, and "not by works". If "the righteousness of God" is God's act of rescue, then salvation is a gift that depends on nothing a person does. So the reading reaches the first two parts of the conclusion by its own route.

This places its disagreement with the Reformed reading exactly. They differ over through faith. They do not differ over grace or over works.

theorem apocalyptic_establishes_grace_not_works : Establishes
    apocalypticOnGraceAndWorks
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

grace_and_works_rest_on_no_lexical_premise

Grace, and "not by works", depend on none of the disputed readings. Remove all of them: both of Paul's, Luke's "saved", the yoke in Acts and believing as trust in John. The first two parts of the conclusion still follow, from the verses that say "not of works" in as many words and from the answer to James.

So the disputed readings decide one thing: whether the texts that exclude works also name faith as the means. They do not decide whether works are excluded.

theorem grace_and_works_rest_on_no_lexical_premise : Establishes
    graceAndWorksWithoutAnyLexicalPremise
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

forensic_justification_not_load_bearing

The argument does not depend on justification being only a verdict. Grant the Finnish reading of Luther (Mannermaa): justification is not a declaration and nothing more, because Christ himself is present in faith. Sola fide still follows. The proof adds that one denial to the Reformed premises and uses nothing else.

On what justification is, Mannermaa stands with Trent against the Reformed account. On sola fide he stands with the Reformed against Trent. So denying the verdict-only account does not by itself deny sola fide. What Trent's objection needs is narrower: that justification includes the sanctification that grows through works (trent_objection_rests_on_its_definition).

theorem forensic_justification_not_load_bearing : Establishes finnish
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

critics_carry_the_pauline_strand

On the critics' account of Judaism, Paul alone reaches sola fide. Gathercole and others deny that Judaism in Paul's day was simply "in by grace, staying in by obedience". Grant them that, keep Galatians as a letter against requiring circumcision, and leave Luke, Acts and John out. Sola fide follows from Paul, and the reading of "works of the law" as works in general is derived and not assumed.

theorem critics_carry_the_pauline_strand : Establishes
    paulineStrandOnTheCritics
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

sandersReading

Sanders' account, with only Paul to go on. Judaism taught entry by grace and staying in by obedience, so "works of the law" are not works in general, and Paul's strand does not reach faith alone.

def sandersReading : Valuation Claim :=
  fun a =>
    match a with
    | Claim.worksOfLawMeansWorksGenerally => False
    | Claim.sozoIsSoteriological => False
    | Claim.acts15YokeIsLawAsCondition => False
    | Claim.justificationByFaithAlone => False
    | Claim.faithIsSufficient => False
    | Claim.salvationThroughFaith => False
    | x => True

sanders_costs_the_pauline_strand

On Sanders' account, Paul alone does not. Grant Sanders his account of Judaism and Dunn his inference from it, and "works of the law" does not mean works in general. Leave Luke, Acts and John out, and sola fide does not follow from Paul.

Taken with critics_carry_the_pauline_strand, this shows where the dispute over "works of the law" lies: in a question about first-century Judaism, which has to be answered before the question about Paul's Greek.

theorem sanders_costs_the_pauline_strand : ¬Establishes paulineStrandOnSanders
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

jamesUnharmonisedReading

A reading on which James 2:24, "justified by works and not by faith alone", stands against Paul with no answer given.

def jamesUnharmonisedReading : Valuation Claim :=
  fun a =>
    match a with
    | Claim.james2_24Compatible => False
    | Claim.salvationNotByWorks => False
    | x => True

james_harmonisation_is_load_bearing

The argument depends on answering James. Remove the two premises that reconcile James 2:24 with Paul, keep everything else, and sola fide no longer follows.

So a case for sola fide that does not deal with James 2:24 is incomplete: its conclusion does not follow from what it has said.

theorem james_harmonisation_is_load_bearing : ¬Establishes
    reformedWithoutJamesHarmonisation
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

grace_needs_no_answer_to_james

Grace does not depend on answering James. Remove the answer to James, and "salvation is by grace" still follows, from Ephesians 2:8, Romans 4:4–5 and Titus 3:5.

James 2:24 bears on not by works, the part of the conclusion it appears to contradict, and on nothing else.

theorem grace_needs_no_answer_to_james : Establishes
    graceWithoutJamesHarmonisation
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

Can the premises be true together?

Anything follows from premises that contradict each other. So a position that "establishes" its conclusion only because its premises could never all be true would show nothing, and every other check would still pass. For each position with a result saying its conclusion follows, a reading is named below on which all its premises hold.

A position with a result saying its conclusion does not follow needs no such check. The reading that shows the conclusion failing already makes every premise true.

These are checks on the encoding, not claims about justification, so they are not listed among the main results.

everythingHoldsReading

The reading on which every claim in this argument holds at once. It shows that the positions built only from affirmations do not contradict themselves.

def everythingHoldsReading : Valuation Claim :=
  fun x => True

reformed_is_satisfiable

The Reformed premises can all be true together. Without this, "sola fide follows from them" would be empty: anything follows from premises that contradict each other.

theorem reformed_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable reformed.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

newPerspectiveOwnReading

The New Perspective's own reading. Paul's "works of the law" are the boundary markers and not works in general, and justification is by faith all the same. It also holds that faith is the only means and that justification is a verdict, so it denies Trent's account of baptism as the instrument and of justification as including sanctification.

def newPerspectiveOwnReading : Valuation Claim :=
  fun a =>
    match a with
    | Claim.paulsJustifyDenotesRenewal => False
    | Claim.rev22_11BeJustifiedStill => False
    | Claim.sir18_22BeJustifiedToDeath => False
    | Claim.jamesUsesDikaioAsPaul => False
    | Claim.worksOfLawMeansWorksGenerally => False
    | Claim.baptismIsInstrumentalCause => False
    | Claim.justificationIncludesSanctification => False
    | x => True

newPerspective_is_satisfiable

The New Perspective's premises can all be true together.

theorem newPerspective_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable newPerspective.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

subjectiveGenitiveReading

Hays's reading: "faith of Christ" is Christ's own faithfulness, and everything else in the Reformed case holds.

def subjectiveGenitiveReading : Valuation Claim :=
  fun a =>
    match a with
    | Claim.pistisChristouObjective => False
    | x => True

subjectiveGenitive_is_satisfiable

That position can be held without contradiction, so pistisChristou_not_load_bearing is not empty.

theorem subjectiveGenitive_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable
    subjectiveGenitive.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

lawObservantLukeReading

Jervell's reading: the yoke is Israel's law for gentiles, and everything else in the Reformed case holds.

def lawObservantLukeReading : Valuation Claim :=
  fun a =>
    match a with
    | Claim.acts15YokeIsLawAsCondition => False
    | x => True

lawObservantLuke_is_satisfiable

That position can be held without contradiction, so acts15Yoke_not_load_bearing is not empty.

theorem lawObservantLuke_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable
    lawObservantLuke.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

criticalAuthorshipReading

The critical view of authorship: none of the four disputed letters is by the apostle whose name it bears, and everything else holds.

def criticalAuthorshipReading : Valuation Claim :=
  fun a =>
    match a with
    | Claim.ephesiansIsPauline => False
    | Claim.titusIsPauline => False
    | Claim.firstPeterIsPetrine => False
    | Claim.secondPeterIsPetrine => False
    | x => True

criticalAuthorship_is_satisfiable

That position can be held without contradiction, so authorship_not_load_bearing is not empty.

theorem criticalAuthorship_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable
    criticalAuthorship.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

reformedWithoutWorksOfLaw_is_satisfiable

The Reformed premises without the reading of "works of the law" can all be true together, so worksOfLaw_not_load_bearing is not empty.

theorem reformedWithoutWorksOfLaw_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable
    reformedWithoutWorksOfLaw.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

reformedWithoutSozo_is_satisfiable

And the same without the reading of "saved" at Luke 7:50.

theorem reformedWithoutSozo_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable
    reformedWithoutSozo.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

reformedRestingOnActs_is_satisfiable

The package resting on Acts can be held without contradiction, so apostolic_strand_survives_paul_and_luke is not true merely because its premises could never all hold.

theorem reformedRestingOnActs_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable
    reformedRestingOnActs.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

reformedRestingOnJohn_is_satisfiable

And so can the package resting on John, so johannine_strand_survives_the_other_three is not empty either.

theorem reformedRestingOnJohn_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable
    reformedRestingOnJohn.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

apocalypticOnGraceAndWorks_is_satisfiable

The apocalyptic reading, asked about grace and works, can be held without contradiction.

theorem apocalypticOnGraceAndWorks_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable
    apocalypticOnGraceAndWorks.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

graceAndWorksWithoutAnyLexicalPremise_is_satisfiable

With every disputed reading removed, the premises can still all be true together.

theorem graceAndWorksWithoutAnyLexicalPremise_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable
    graceAndWorksWithoutAnyLexicalPremise.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

finnishReading

Mannermaa's reading: justification is not only a verdict, and everything else holds.

def finnishReading : Valuation Claim :=
  fun a =>
    match a with
    | Claim.justificationIsForensicOnly => False
    | x => True

finnish_is_satisfiable

That position can be held without contradiction, so forensic_justification_not_load_bearing is not empty.

theorem finnish_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable finnish.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

criticsReading

The critics' reading (Gathercole): Judaism in Paul's day was not simply "in by grace, staying in by obedience", and everything else holds. Faith is the only means and justification is a verdict, so this reading denies Trent's account of baptism as the instrument and of justification as including sanctification.

def criticsReading : Valuation Claim :=
  fun a =>
    match a with
    | Claim.paulsJustifyDenotesRenewal => False
    | Claim.rev22_11BeJustifiedStill => False
    | Claim.sir18_22BeJustifiedToDeath => False
    | Claim.jamesUsesDikaioAsPaul => False
    | Claim.secondTempleCovenantalNomism => False
    | Claim.baptismIsInstrumentalCause => False
    | Claim.justificationIncludesSanctification => False
    | x => True

paulineStrandOnTheCritics_is_satisfiable

That position can be held without contradiction, so critics_carry_the_pauline_strand is not empty.

theorem paulineStrandOnTheCritics_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable
    paulineStrandOnTheCritics.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

graceWithoutJamesHarmonisation_is_satisfiable

With the answer to James removed, the premises asked about grace can still all be true together, so grace_needs_no_answer_to_james is not empty.

theorem graceWithoutJamesHarmonisation_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable
    graceWithoutJamesHarmonisation.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound