What Jesus' own words say about faith and works

The four witnesses include two sayings of Jesus, Luke 7:50 and John 6:29. But a reader who has followed Paul and Peter this far will want to hear more from Jesus himself. Three more passages are the ones each side cites.

Luke 18:9–14: the Pharisee and the tax collector

The Pharisee lists his fasting and his tithes. The tax collector stands far off, beats his breast, and prays, "God, be merciful to me, a sinner!" Then Jesus gives the verdict:

"I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other" (Luke 18:14).

It is Jesus' own teaching on justification and works, and it uses Paul's word, "justified" (δεδικαιωμένος).

Two things here are accepted on both sides. First, the word gives a verdict. No reader cited here takes "justified" at 18:14 as the inner renewal itself, and Calvin reads it as "to stand before God as if we were righteous". That is a verdict; it is not said to be only a verdict. Trent holds both that the justified are counted just and that they are made just (ch. 7), and that is where the parable and Trent part. Second, the tax collector brings no works that earn anything. Trent itself says that nothing that comes before justification, "whether faith or works", merits it (Session VI, ch. 8). So Trent's case is consistent with every word of the parable (trent_grants_the_parable), though the Council never refers to it.

What divides them is the step from the plea to "faith suffices". Trent never cites Luke 18. But it requires the dispositions it lists, namely fear, hope, beginning to love God, and penitence (ch. 6), and it condemns whoever says that nothing else is required to cooperate (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 is rated disputed, and Luke 18 meets Trent where Luke 7:50 does: at Trent's definition of justification (whyLukeEighteenStandsAgainstTrent).

The verdict sense at 18:14 is what the argument from Paul's word claims of "justify" in Paul, found in Jesus' own parable. It is not added to that argument. What a word means in Luke is evidence for what it means in Paul, not a premise of it, and that argument stands on its own sources.

Matthew 7:21–23: "Lord, Lord"

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

And to those who prophesied in his name: "I never knew you." The passage does not mention faith, and gives doing the Father's will as the test. Rome reads it as condemning profession without obedience, with obedience a condition of entry in its own right. Calvin reads the doing as including faith, and "I never knew you" as meaning they were never united to Christ. Both are written down here as readings, each cited and each rated disputed. Neither is given as what the passage plainly says (matthew7_leaves_the_ground_open).

Matthew 19:16–22: the rich young man

"If you would enter life, keep the commandments" (Matthew 19:17).

Trent quotes these words (Session VI, ch. 7). Rome reads them as the way to life, possible by grace (Veritatis Splendor 12). Calvin reads them as Christ answering on the law's own terms, so that the young man may see he has not kept it and turn to faith. Here too each reading is cited, and each is rated disputed.

What the debate decides

Heard together, with Luke 7:50, Luke 18, Trent, and each reading of Matthew 7 and 19, nothing is forced (jesus_words_force_nothing). That is, nothing has to be accepted however the ties are settled. Every position is in a tie the debate cannot settle: each saying in Luke with Trent, and each reading of Matthew with its rival.

Heard without Trent, Luke 7:50 and Luke 18 are forced (without_trent_luke_is_forced). What is forced is that faith sufficed, not that faith alone saves. Matthew is still not forced. The rival readings of Matthew 7 and 19 conflict with each other and not with Luke.

Trent here is the same position as in the main debate, concluding that salvation is not apart from works. It meets Luke through its definition of justification, not through that conclusion. Rome's readings of Matthew reach the same conclusion without the definition, and so do not conflict with Luke (luke_stands_with_rome_on_matthew).

So Jesus' words do not settle the Reformation debate alone. Without Trent, Luke's two sayings stand. Matthew's are argued both ways, and the ratings cannot choose.

What it depends on: two accounts of justification

Every tie between Luke and Trent here sets Luke's step, from the saying to "faith sufficed", rated disputed, against Trent's definition of justification together with the step from it to canon 9. Nothing else in Trent's case meets Luke (whyLukeEighteenStandsAgainstTrent, whyTheDominicalCaseStandsAgainstTrent). Trent accepts every word of the parable (trent_grants_the_parable). So the words do not divide them. What justification is does.

For the Reformers justification is a verdict: God declares the ungodly righteous, as a judge acquits. For Trent it is "not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man" (Session VI, ch. 7): the justified are not only counted just but made just.

What can be shown against that definition from the meaning of words in their setting is checked in whatTrentsDefinitionClaims, and it depends on how the definition is taken.

  • As a claim about the word, that Paul's verb "justify" (δικαιόω) means renewal, it fails three times, each at a step rated wellSupported. It fails against the argument from usage: the verb is a courtroom word; Paul has other words for renewal and sets them beside it (Titus 3:5–7; 1 Corinthians 6:11); and a word contributes the least meaning its context requires. It fails at the Latin explanation it rests on, since "justify" (iustificare) as "make righteous" does not settle what the Greek word means. And it fails against Romans 4 read for the word. In the main debate, Trent taken this way cannot be defended (trent_on_pauls_word_indefensible). Luke 18 agrees with this without adding a fourth failure: no reader cited here takes "justified" at 18:14 as the renewal itself.
  • As a claim about what God does, that when he justifies he also renews, nothing about the word reaches it. Taken this way, Trent can be held with every premise of the argument from usage (lexical_case_does_not_reach_what_god_does). It meets Paul (Galatians, Romans 4) and Luke only at steps rated disputed. A reader who grants those steps rejects it, and one who denies them, as Augustine and the Joint Declaration do, need not.

Which of the two Trent means is itself rated disputed, and the check does not decide it. In this debate Trent is heard as it states its definition, tied to neither, so the check changes no verdict above.

It does not show that logic refutes Rome. Trent's case can be held without contradiction taken either way. What the check shows is narrower, and it is as far as an argument from the meaning of words can go. The evidence about the word, rated wellSupported, tells against taking the definition as what the word means. Whether God's justifying act also includes renewal is something the word's meaning leaves open, and there the matter stands as the main debate leaves it: a tie at the disputed step that whereTrentPartsFromPaul names (gospel_not_forced).

This debate is kept apart from the main one. Adding its positions there would change what that section says about its own seventeen, and that change should be made and reported by itself.

How strong each position is

A position's weakest link is the lowest-rated premise or step it rests on. An attack fails only when the position attacked is rated above its attacker at that link. The words of Luke 18 and its verdict are rated above disputed, but its step is not, and each reading of Matthew rests on a reading rated disputed. So here every weakest link is disputed, and every attack stands.

What the debate decides

A few words recur. Forced: accepted however every tie is settled. Can be defended: included in some consistent set of positions that answers every attack on its members. Not forced: some such set leaves it out, which is not the same as false.

How this is checked

The positions, steps and results behind this chapter, each with the formula or the Lean that checks it

Luke 18:9–14

luke18ToSufficiency

From the parable to "faith suffices". The tax collector brings no works, only a plea for mercy, and goes home justified, which is God's verdict. So what justified him was not his works but his trust in God's mercy: faith sufficed. Rated disputed: Trent accepts the text and the absence of works, and denies that the plea was enough alone (Session VI, ch. 6 and canon 9).

  • \((\href{claims.html#claim-59}{P_{59}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-60}{P_{60}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-61}{P_{61}}) \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-26}{P_{26}}\) — would give: Faith is sufficient: whoever believes is saved

luke18Line — Luke 18:9–14 (the tax collector justified)

Luke 18, as a line of argument: from the parable, the verdict, and the plea without works, to "faith suffices".

  • (1) \(\href{claims.html#claim-59}{P_{59}}\) — Luke 18:9–14 — the tax collector pleads for mercy and goes home justified, rather than the Pharisee who listed his works
  • (2) \(\href{claims.html#claim-60}{P_{60}}\) — ‘Justified’ at Luke 18:14 is God's verdict: accepted as righteous before God
  • (3) \(\href{claims.html#claim-61}{P_{61}}\) — The tax collector brings no works that merit, only a humble and contrite plea for mercy
  • (4) \((\href{claims.html#claim-59}{P_{59}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-60}{P_{60}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-61}{P_{61}}) \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-26}{P_{26}}\)
  • \(\vdash\) \(\href{claims.html#claim-26}{P_{26}}\) — at issue: Faith is sufficient: whoever believes is saved

luke18Case — Luke 18:14: "this man went down to his house justified"

Luke 18's case: what the parable says, and no more. It claims that the tax collector's faith sufficed, not that faith alone saves. Luke 7:50 makes the same claim from a second saying.

  • (1) \(\href{claims.html#claim-59}{P_{59}}\) — Luke 18:9–14 — the tax collector pleads for mercy and goes home justified, rather than the Pharisee who listed his works
  • (2) \(\href{claims.html#claim-60}{P_{60}}\) — ‘Justified’ at Luke 18:14 is God's verdict: accepted as righteous before God
  • (3) \(\href{claims.html#claim-61}{P_{61}}\) — The tax collector brings no works that merit, only a humble and contrite plea for mercy
  • (4) \((\href{claims.html#claim-59}{P_{59}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-60}{P_{60}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-61}{P_{61}}) \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-26}{P_{26}}\)
  • \(\vdash\) \(\href{claims.html#claim-26}{P_{26}}\) — at issue: Faith is sufficient: whoever believes is saved

No premise here rests on scripture alone.

Matthew 7:21–23

matthew7ToWorks

The Catholic step from Matthew 7:21. If doing the Father's will is a condition of entering the kingdom in its own right, then salvation is not apart from works. Rated disputed: Calvin accepts the text and denies that the doing is more than the fruit of faith.

  • \((\href{claims.html#claim-62}{P_{62}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-63}{P_{63}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-28}{P_{28}}\) — would deny: Salvation is not by works: no work is its ground

matthew7ToFruit

The Reformed step from Matthew 7:21. If doing the Father's will includes believing, and those rejected were never known, then the doing is the fruit of faith and not a condition of entry in its own right. Rated disputed: the Catechism accepts the text and reads it the other way.

  • \((\href{claims.html#claim-62}{P_{62}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-64}{P_{64}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-63}{P_{63}}\) — would deny: In Matthew 7:21–23, doing the Father's will is a condition of entering the kingdom in its own right, not only the fruit of faith

matthew7ObedienceLine — Matthew 7:21–23, read as obedience a condition of entry

Matthew 7:21–23, as Rome reads it: doing the Father's will is a condition of entry in its own right, so salvation is not apart from works.

  • (1) \(\href{claims.html#claim-62}{P_{62}}\) — Matthew 7:21–23 — the criterion at the judgment is doing the Father's will, not profession or mighty works
  • (2) \(\href{claims.html#claim-63}{P_{63}}\) — In Matthew 7:21–23, doing the Father's will is a condition of entering the kingdom in its own right, not only the fruit of faith
  • (3) \((\href{claims.html#claim-62}{P_{62}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-63}{P_{63}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-28}{P_{28}}\)
  • \(\vdash\) \(\lnot \href{claims.html#claim-28}{P_{28}}\) — at issue, the denial of: Salvation is not by works: no work is its ground

matthew7FaithLine — Matthew 7:21–23, read as the doing including faith

Matthew 7:21–23, as Calvin reads it: the doing includes believing, so obedience is not a condition of entry in its own right.

  • (1) \(\href{claims.html#claim-62}{P_{62}}\) — Matthew 7:21–23 — the criterion at the judgment is doing the Father's will, not profession or mighty works
  • (2) \(\href{claims.html#claim-64}{P_{64}}\) — In Matthew 7:21–23, doing the Father's will includes believing in Christ, and "I never knew you" means no union with him by faith
  • (3) \((\href{claims.html#claim-62}{P_{62}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-64}{P_{64}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-63}{P_{63}}\)
  • \(\vdash\) \(\lnot \href{claims.html#claim-63}{P_{63}}\) — at issue, the denial of: In Matthew 7:21–23, doing the Father's will is a condition of entering the kingdom in its own right, not only the fruit of faith

matthew7ObedienceCase — Matthew 7:21–23, read as obedience a condition of entry

Rome's reading of Matthew 7:21–23, as a position in the debate.

  • (1) \(\href{claims.html#claim-62}{P_{62}}\) — Matthew 7:21–23 — the criterion at the judgment is doing the Father's will, not profession or mighty works
  • (2) \(\href{claims.html#claim-63}{P_{63}}\) — In Matthew 7:21–23, doing the Father's will is a condition of entering the kingdom in its own right, not only the fruit of faith
  • (3) \((\href{claims.html#claim-62}{P_{62}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-63}{P_{63}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-28}{P_{28}}\)
  • \(\vdash\) \(\lnot \href{claims.html#claim-28}{P_{28}}\) — at issue, the denial of: Salvation is not by works: no work is its ground

No premise here rests on scripture alone.

matthew7FaithCase — Matthew 7:21–23, read as the doing including faith

Calvin's reading of Matthew 7:21–23, as a position in the debate.

  • (1) \(\href{claims.html#claim-62}{P_{62}}\) — Matthew 7:21–23 — the criterion at the judgment is doing the Father's will, not profession or mighty works
  • (2) \(\href{claims.html#claim-64}{P_{64}}\) — In Matthew 7:21–23, doing the Father's will includes believing in Christ, and "I never knew you" means no union with him by faith
  • (3) \((\href{claims.html#claim-62}{P_{62}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-64}{P_{64}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-63}{P_{63}}\)
  • \(\vdash\) \(\lnot \href{claims.html#claim-63}{P_{63}}\) — at issue, the denial of: In Matthew 7:21–23, doing the Father's will is a condition of entering the kingdom in its own right, not only the fruit of faith

No premise here rests on scripture alone.

Matthew 19:16–22

matthew19ToWorks

The Catholic step from Matthew 19:17. If keeping the commandments is the way to life, then salvation is not apart from works. Rated disputed: Calvin accepts the text and denies that it is the way for any sinner.

  • \((\href{claims.html#claim-65}{P_{65}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-66}{P_{66}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-28}{P_{28}}\) — would deny: Salvation is not by works: no work is its ground

matthew19ToLegalReply

The Reformed step from Matthew 19:17. If Christ answers on the law's own terms, to show the young man what he has not kept, then the commandments are not offered as the way to life. Rated disputed: Veritatis Splendor accepts the text and reads it as the way.

  • \((\href{claims.html#claim-65}{P_{65}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-67}{P_{67}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-66}{P_{66}}\) — would deny: In Matthew 19:17, keeping the commandments is the way to life, made possible by grace

matthew19WayLine — Matthew 19:17, read as the commandments the way to life

Matthew 19:17, as Rome reads it: the commandments are the way to life, so salvation is not apart from works.

  • (1) \(\href{claims.html#claim-65}{P_{65}}\) — Matthew 19:17 — "If you would enter life, keep the commandments"
  • (2) \(\href{claims.html#claim-66}{P_{66}}\) — In Matthew 19:17, keeping the commandments is the way to life, made possible by grace
  • (3) \((\href{claims.html#claim-65}{P_{65}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-66}{P_{66}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-28}{P_{28}}\)
  • \(\vdash\) \(\lnot \href{claims.html#claim-28}{P_{28}}\) — at issue, the denial of: Salvation is not by works: no work is its ground

matthew19LegalLine — Matthew 19:17, read as the law exposing what he has not kept

Matthew 19:17, as Calvin reads it: a reply on the law's own terms, showing the young man what he has not kept.

  • (1) \(\href{claims.html#claim-65}{P_{65}}\) — Matthew 19:17 — "If you would enter life, keep the commandments"
  • (2) \(\href{claims.html#claim-67}{P_{67}}\) — In Matthew 19:17, Christ answers on the law's own terms, so that the young man may see he has not kept it and turn to faith
  • (3) \((\href{claims.html#claim-65}{P_{65}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-67}{P_{67}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-66}{P_{66}}\)
  • \(\vdash\) \(\lnot \href{claims.html#claim-66}{P_{66}}\) — at issue, the denial of: In Matthew 19:17, keeping the commandments is the way to life, made possible by grace

matthew19WayCase — Matthew 19:17, read as the commandments the way to life

Rome's reading of Matthew 19:17, as a position in the debate.

  • (1) \(\href{claims.html#claim-65}{P_{65}}\) — Matthew 19:17 — "If you would enter life, keep the commandments"
  • (2) \(\href{claims.html#claim-66}{P_{66}}\) — In Matthew 19:17, keeping the commandments is the way to life, made possible by grace
  • (3) \((\href{claims.html#claim-65}{P_{65}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-66}{P_{66}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-28}{P_{28}}\)
  • \(\vdash\) \(\lnot \href{claims.html#claim-28}{P_{28}}\) — at issue, the denial of: Salvation is not by works: no work is its ground

No premise here rests on scripture alone.

matthew19LegalCase — Matthew 19:17, read as the law exposing what he has not kept

Calvin's reading of Matthew 19:17, as a position in the debate.

  • (1) \(\href{claims.html#claim-65}{P_{65}}\) — Matthew 19:17 — "If you would enter life, keep the commandments"
  • (2) \(\href{claims.html#claim-67}{P_{67}}\) — In Matthew 19:17, Christ answers on the law's own terms, so that the young man may see he has not kept it and turn to faith
  • (3) \((\href{claims.html#claim-65}{P_{65}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-67}{P_{67}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-66}{P_{66}}\)
  • \(\vdash\) \(\lnot \href{claims.html#claim-66}{P_{66}}\) — at issue, the denial of: In Matthew 19:17, keeping the commandments is the way to life, made possible by grace

No premise here rests on scripture alone.

The two readings, written out

romeOnJesusWordsReading

Rome's reading of Jesus' words. In Matthew 7 obedience is a condition of entry in its own right. In Matthew 19 the commandments are the way to life. So salvation is not apart from works, and faith, without the dispositions and the charity Trent requires, does not suffice.

def romeOnJesusWordsReading : Valuation Claim :=
  fun a =>
    match a with
    | Claim.paulsJustifyDenotesRenewal => False
    | Claim.rev22_11BeJustifiedStill => False
    | Claim.sir18_22BeJustifiedToDeath => False
    | Claim.jamesUsesDikaioAsPaul => False
    | Claim.salvationNotByWorks => False
    | Claim.justificationIsForensicOnly => False
    | Claim.justificationDistinctFromSanctification => False
    | Claim.faithIsSufficient => False
    | Claim.justificationByFaithAlone => False
    | Claim.matthew7DoingIncludesBelieving => False
    | Claim.matthew19LawExposesInability => False
    | x => True

calvinOnJesusWordsReading

Calvin's reading of Jesus' words. In Matthew 7 the doing includes believing and is not a condition of entry in its own right. In Matthew 19 Christ replies on the law's own terms and does not give the way to life. In Luke the plea and the faith sufficed.

def calvinOnJesusWordsReading : Valuation Claim :=
  fun a =>
    match a with
    | Claim.matthew7ObedienceIsAGround => False
    | Claim.matthew19CommandmentsAreTheWayToLife => False
    | x => True

What each position holds

luke18Case_establishes

Luke 18 reaches "faith suffices", given its step.

theorem luke18Case_establishes : Establishes luke18Case
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

luke18Case_is_satisfiable

Luke 18's case can be held without contradiction.

theorem luke18Case_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable luke18Case.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

trent_grants_the_parable

Trent's case is consistent with every word of the parable. Trent never cites Luke 18. But nothing in its decree denies that the tax collector pleaded for mercy, brought no works that earn anything, and went home justified by God's verdict. Its case can be held with all of that, on Rome's reading, where faith without the dispositions does not suffice.

What Trent's case denies, when applied to the parable, is the step from it, not the text.

theorem trent_grants_the_parable : Grants tridentineCase (⋀[p
    Claim.luke18_9_14TaxCollectorJustified, p Claim.luke18JustifiedIsVerdict,
    p Claim.taxCollectorBringsNoWorks])
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

matthew7ObedienceCase_establishes

Rome's reading of Matthew 7 reaches its conclusion.

theorem matthew7ObedienceCase_establishes : Establishes matthew7ObedienceCase
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

matthew7ObedienceCase_is_satisfiable

Rome's reading of Matthew 7 can be held without contradiction.

theorem matthew7ObedienceCase_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable
    matthew7ObedienceCase.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

matthew7FaithCase_establishes

Calvin's reading of Matthew 7 reaches its conclusion.

theorem matthew7FaithCase_establishes : Establishes matthew7FaithCase
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

matthew7FaithCase_is_satisfiable

Calvin's reading of Matthew 7 can be held without contradiction.

theorem matthew7FaithCase_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable
    matthew7FaithCase.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

matthew19WayCase_establishes

Rome's reading of Matthew 19 reaches its conclusion.

theorem matthew19WayCase_establishes : Establishes matthew19WayCase
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

matthew19WayCase_is_satisfiable

Rome's reading of Matthew 19 can be held without contradiction.

theorem matthew19WayCase_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable
    matthew19WayCase.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

matthew19LegalCase_establishes

Calvin's reading of Matthew 19 reaches its conclusion.

theorem matthew19LegalCase_establishes : Establishes matthew19LegalCase
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

matthew19LegalCase_is_satisfiable

Calvin's reading of Matthew 19 can be held without contradiction.

theorem matthew19LegalCase_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable
    matthew19LegalCase.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

What the texts leave open

matthew7_leaves_the_ground_open

Matthew 7:21–23 leaves open whether obedience is a condition of entry in its own right. Its words say that the test is doing the Father's will. They do not say that the doing is such a condition, and they do not say that it is only the fruit of faith. Both readings keep the words, and differ only in what they add to them.

theorem matthew7_leaves_the_ground_open : Independent [p
    Claim.matthew7_21_23DoingTheWill] (p Claim.matthew7ObedienceIsAGround)
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

matthew19_leaves_the_way_open

Matthew 19:17 leaves open whether the commandments are the way to life. "If you would enter life, keep the commandments" is kept alike by the reading on which it is the way, and by the reading on which it is a reply on the law's own terms.

theorem matthew19_leaves_the_way_open : Independent [p
    Claim.matthew19_17KeepTheCommandments] (p
    Claim.matthew19CommandmentsAreTheWayToLife)
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

Why Luke 18 stands against Trent

whyLukeEighteenStandsAgainstTrent

Why Luke 18 stands against Trent. Everything turns on Luke 18's own step: from the parable, the verdict, and the plea without works, to "faith suffices".

Trent cannot hold that step. Two things in its case contradict it, and both are needed: its definition of justification as the renewal of the inward person (Session VI, ch. 7), and the step from that definition to denying that faith suffices (canon 9). Nothing else in Trent's case does. So Luke 18 meets Trent exactly where Luke 7:50 does (whyTheDominicalCaseStandsAgainstTrent): not over what the parable says, which Trent's case is consistent with, but over what justification is.

The dispositions of chapter 6 are why the step is rated disputed. They are not a premise of Trent's case here. What can be shown against Trent's definition from the meaning of the word, and what cannot, is checked in whatTrentsDefinitionClaims.

Why Luke 18:14: "this man went down to his house justified" stands against Trent, against 'not by works'.

  • The crux: \((\href{claims.html#claim-59}{P_{59}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-60}{P_{60}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-61}{P_{61}}) \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-26}{P_{26}}\), a premise of Luke 18:14: "this man went down to his house justified".
  • What it does: its conclusion does not follow without it.
  • Granted: \(\href{claims.html#claim-59}{P_{59}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-60}{P_{60}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-61}{P_{61}}\), which the break also needs.
  • Where the rival breaks: \(\href{claims.html#claim-33}{P_{33}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-33}{P_{33}} \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-26}{P_{26}}\) cannot be held together with \((\href{claims.html#claim-59}{P_{59}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-60}{P_{60}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-61}{P_{61}}) \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-26}{P_{26}}\) and \(\href{claims.html#claim-59}{P_{59}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-60}{P_{60}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-61}{P_{61}}\); each is needed for the break, and without the crux they stand.
  • What this rests on:
    • \(\href{claims.html#claim-59}{P_{59}}\) Luke 18:9–14 — the tax collector pleads for mercy and goes home justified, rather than the Pharisee who listed his works — consensus: Luke 18:9-14; Calvin 1845, pp. 201–207
    • \(\href{claims.html#claim-60}{P_{60}}\) ‘Justified’ at Luke 18:14 is God's verdict: accepted as righteous before God — well supported: Calvin 1845, pp. 206–207; Luke 18:14
    • \(\href{claims.html#claim-61}{P_{61}}\) The tax collector brings no works that merit, only a humble and contrite plea for mercy — consensus: Luke 18:9-14; Calvin 1845, pp. 206–207; Council of Trent 1848, p. 36
    • the step itself — disputed: Council of Trent 1848, p. 45; Council of Trent 1848, pp. 33–34

luke18Case_strength

Luke 18's case rests on a step Trent contests, so its weakest link is disputed.

theorem luke18Case_strength : luke18Case.strength = 0
-- axioms: propext

matthew7ObedienceCase_strength

Rome's reading of Matthew 7 rests on that reading, so its weakest link is disputed.

theorem matthew7ObedienceCase_strength : matthew7ObedienceCase.strength = 0
-- axioms: propext

matthew7FaithCase_strength

Calvin's reading of Matthew 7 rests on his, so its weakest link is disputed.

theorem matthew7FaithCase_strength : matthew7FaithCase.strength = 0
-- axioms: propext

matthew19WayCase_strength

Rome's reading of Matthew 19 rests on that reading, so its weakest link is disputed.

theorem matthew19WayCase_strength : matthew19WayCase.strength = 0
-- axioms: propext

matthew19LegalCase_strength

Calvin's reading of Matthew 19 rests on his, so its weakest link is disputed.

theorem matthew19LegalCase_strength : matthew19LegalCase.strength = 0
-- axioms: propext

The debate over Jesus' words

wordsPartyNode

The premises each position argues from.

def wordsPartyNode : WordsParty → ArgumentPackage Claim :=
  fun x =>
    match x with
    | WordsParty.luke7 => dominicalCase
    | WordsParty.luke18 => luke18Case
    | WordsParty.trent => tridentineCase
    | WordsParty.matthew7Obedience => matthew7ObedienceCase
    | WordsParty.matthew7Faith => matthew7FaithCase
    | WordsParty.matthew19Way => matthew19WayCase
    | WordsParty.matthew19Legal => matthew19LegalCase

jesusWordsDispute

The debate over Jesus' words. For every position heard: its premises can be held without contradiction, its conclusion follows from them, and every step it uses is rated. Each position's weakest link is disputed.

def jesusWordsDispute : Dispute Claim WordsParty :=
  { node := wordsPartyNode,
    consistent := jesusWordsDispute._proof_1,
    sound := jesusWordsDispute._proof_2,
    rated := jesusWordsDispute._proof_10 }

jesusWordsDispute_defeats

Who defeats whom, for all 49 pairs: four ties, and nothing else. Luke 7:50 and Trent defeat each other, and so do Luke 18 and Trent, over Trent's definition of justification. Each reading of Matthew defeats its rival and is defeated in return. Every answer is worked out from the positions' premises and checked by machine.

theorem jesusWordsDispute_defeats : ∀ (i j : WordsParty),
    jesusWordsDispute.defeats i j ↔ (i, j) ∈ [(WordsParty.luke7,
    WordsParty.trent), (WordsParty.trent, WordsParty.luke7),
    (WordsParty.luke18, WordsParty.trent), (WordsParty.trent,
    WordsParty.luke18), (WordsParty.matthew7Obedience,
    WordsParty.matthew7Faith), (WordsParty.matthew7Faith,
    WordsParty.matthew7Obedience), (WordsParty.matthew19Way,
    WordsParty.matthew19Legal), (WordsParty.matthew19Legal,
    WordsParty.matthew19Way)]
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

jesusWordsDispute_supports

No position supports another, and no position's case is contained in another's, in any of the 49 pairs. Every answer is worked out and checked by machine.

theorem jesusWordsDispute_supports : ∀ (i j : WordsParty),
    ¬jesusWordsDispute.supports i j
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

jesusWordsDispute_partOf

Each position's case contains itself and no other. Every answer is worked out and checked by machine.

theorem jesusWordsDispute_partOf : ∀ (i j : WordsParty),
    jesusWordsDispute.partOf i j ↔ i = j ∨ (i, j) ∈ []
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

jesusWordsMap

The debate over Jesus' words drawn as a map: who defeats whom.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Solid red: defeats. Dashed green: supports. Dotted blue: one party's case is part of another's.

#Party
1Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you"
2Luke 18:14: "this man went down to his house justified"
3Trent, against 'not by works'
4Matthew 7:21–23, read as obedience a condition of entry
5Matthew 7:21–23, read as the doing including faith
6Matthew 19:17, read as the commandments the way to life
7Matthew 19:17, read as the law exposing what he has not kept
FromToEdge
1 Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you"3 Trent, against 'not by works'defeats
2 Luke 18:14: "this man went down to his house justified"3 Trent, against 'not by works'defeats
3 Trent, against 'not by works'1 Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you"defeats
3 Trent, against 'not by works'2 Luke 18:14: "this man went down to his house justified"defeats
4 Matthew 7:21–23, read as obedience a condition of entry5 Matthew 7:21–23, read as the doing including faithdefeats
5 Matthew 7:21–23, read as the doing including faith4 Matthew 7:21–23, read as obedience a condition of entrydefeats
6 Matthew 19:17, read as the commandments the way to life7 Matthew 19:17, read as the law exposing what he has not keptdefeats
7 Matthew 19:17, read as the law exposing what he has not kept6 Matthew 19:17, read as the commandments the way to lifedefeats

The defeats are the cells of jesusWordsDispute_defeats, the supports the cells of jesusWordsDispute_supports and the parts the cells of jesusWordsDispute_partOf, each computed from the parties' premises and checked by the kernel. The attacks derived through support and through parts are reported, not counted: every verdict is computed from the defeats alone. Every derived attack is already a defeat.

lukeWithRomeOnMatthewReading

Rome's readings of Matthew can be held together with Luke's sayings. One consistent reading holds Luke 7:50 and Luke 18, that faith sufficed, and Rome's readings of Matthew 7 and 19, that salvation is not apart from works. As written out here, "faith suffices" and "not apart from works" are different claims, and Luke's sayings make only the first. So whoever holds both is not contradicted by these texts. This reading takes neither of Trent's further claims: baptism as the instrument of justification, and justification as including sanctification.

def lukeWithRomeOnMatthewReading : Valuation Claim :=
  fun a =>
    match a with
    | Claim.paulsJustifyDenotesRenewal => False
    | Claim.rev22_11BeJustifiedStill => False
    | Claim.sir18_22BeJustifiedToDeath => False
    | Claim.jamesUsesDikaioAsPaul => False
    | Claim.salvationNotByWorks => False
    | Claim.matthew7DoingIncludesBelieving => False
    | Claim.matthew19LawExposesInability => False
    | Claim.baptismIsInstrumentalCause => False
    | Claim.justificationIncludesSanctification => False
    | x => True

luke_stands_with_rome_on_matthew

Luke's two sayings can be held together with Rome's readings of Matthew.

theorem luke_stands_with_rome_on_matthew : jesusWordsDispute.StandTogether
    [WordsParty.luke7, WordsParty.luke18, WordsParty.matthew7Obedience,
    WordsParty.matthew19Way]
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

jesusWordsSettleNothing

Why nothing is forced: every position has an attacker. Luke 7:50 and Luke 18 each have Trent, Trent has Luke 7:50, and each reading of Matthew has its rival.

Nothing prevails outright: every party is defeated by another.

  • Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you".
  • Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Luke 18:14: "this man went down to his house justified".
  • Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" defeats Trent, against 'not by works'.
  • Matthew 7:21–23, read as the doing including faith defeats Matthew 7:21–23, read as obedience a condition of entry.
  • Matthew 7:21–23, read as obedience a condition of entry defeats Matthew 7:21–23, read as the doing including faith.
  • Matthew 19:17, read as the law exposing what he has not kept defeats Matthew 19:17, read as the commandments the way to life.
  • Matthew 19:17, read as the commandments the way to life defeats Matthew 19:17, read as the law exposing what he has not kept.

What this rests on. The reasons state 7 defeats and 0 absences of defeat, each a cell of the defeat table, jesusWordsDispute_defeats, computed from the two parties' premises and checked by the kernel. Whether an attack survives turns on the attacker's weakest link and on the rating of what it attacks, so a changed rating can change the verdict. The weakest links:

  • Trent, against 'not by works', weakest at disputed:
    • Justification is not remission of sins only, but renewal of the inward man — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 11
  • Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", weakest at disputed:
    • Luke 7:47 — her love is the evidence of her forgiveness, not its ground — Marshall 1978, ad loc. Luke 7:47; Padilla 2021, pp. 54–54; Kolb and Wengert 2000, §Apology IV, on love and the fulfilling of the law: Luke 7:47–50; Luke 7:41-43; Luke 7:47; Luke 7:47-50
    • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
  • Luke 18:14: "this man went down to his house justified", weakest at disputed:
  • Matthew 7:21–23, read as the doing including faith, weakest at disputed:
    • In Matthew 7:21–23, doing the Father's will includes believing in Christ, and "I never knew you" means no union with him by faith — Calvin 1845, pp. 367–368
    • an inference step — Catholic Church 2000, §2826
  • Matthew 7:21–23, read as obedience a condition of entry, weakest at disputed:
  • Matthew 19:17, read as the law exposing what he has not kept, weakest at disputed:
    • In Matthew 19:17, Christ answers on the law's own terms, so that the young man may see he has not kept it and turn to faith — Calvin 1845, pp. 393–394
    • an inference step — II 1993, §12
  • Matthew 19:17, read as the commandments the way to life, weakest at disputed:

Why Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" defeats Trent, against 'not by works', at the level of the claims: whyTheDominicalCaseStandsAgainstTrent.

jesus_words_force_nothing

Heard together, Jesus' words force nothing. Every position is in a tie the debate cannot settle: each saying in Luke with Trent, over what justification is, and each reading of Matthew with its rival. Every weakest link is disputed, so no rating breaks a tie.

It does not show that Jesus' words say nothing. Each position can be defended, and Trent accepts every word of Luke 18 (trent_grants_the_parable). What the debate cannot do is choose between readings rated alike.

theorem jesus_words_force_nothing : Framework.grounded
    jesusWordsDispute.defeats = ∅
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

luke18StandsWithLuke7

Why Luke 18 can be defended: it can be held with Luke 7:50 and with Rome's readings of Matthew, and Trent, its one attacker, is defeated from within that set, by Luke 7:50 and by Luke 18 itself.

Luke 18:14: "this man went down to his house justified" is accepted on some resolution.

  • A position holding Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", Luke 18:14: "this man went down to his house justified", Matthew 7:21–23, read as obedience a condition of entry, Matthew 19:17, read as the commandments the way to life can be held.
  • None of Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", Luke 18:14: "this man went down to his house justified", Matthew 7:21–23, read as obedience a condition of entry, Matthew 19:17, read as the commandments the way to life defeats another, and each attack on them is answered from among them:
    • Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", and Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" defeats Trent, against 'not by works'.
    • Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Luke 18:14: "this man went down to his house justified", and Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" defeats Trent, against 'not by works'.
    • Matthew 7:21–23, read as the doing including faith defeats Matthew 7:21–23, read as obedience a condition of entry, and Matthew 7:21–23, read as obedience a condition of entry defeats Matthew 7:21–23, read as the doing including faith.
    • Matthew 19:17, read as the law exposing what he has not kept defeats Matthew 19:17, read as the commandments the way to life, and Matthew 19:17, read as the commandments the way to life defeats Matthew 19:17, read as the law exposing what he has not kept.

What this rests on. The reasons state 7 defeats and 24 absences of defeat, each a cell of the defeat table, jesusWordsDispute_defeats, computed from the two parties' premises and checked by the kernel. Whether an attack survives turns on the attacker's weakest link and on the rating of what it attacks, so a changed rating can change the verdict. The weakest links:

  • Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", weakest at disputed:
    • Luke 7:47 — her love is the evidence of her forgiveness, not its ground — Marshall 1978, ad loc. Luke 7:47; Padilla 2021, pp. 54–54; Kolb and Wengert 2000, §Apology IV, on love and the fulfilling of the law: Luke 7:47–50; Luke 7:41-43; Luke 7:47; Luke 7:47-50
    • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
  • Luke 18:14: "this man went down to his house justified", weakest at disputed:
  • Matthew 7:21–23, read as obedience a condition of entry, weakest at disputed:
  • Matthew 19:17, read as the commandments the way to life, weakest at disputed:
  • Trent, against 'not by works', weakest at disputed:
    • Justification is not remission of sins only, but renewal of the inward man — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 11
  • Matthew 7:21–23, read as the doing including faith, weakest at disputed:
    • In Matthew 7:21–23, doing the Father's will includes believing in Christ, and "I never knew you" means no union with him by faith — Calvin 1845, pp. 367–368
    • an inference step — Catholic Church 2000, §2826
  • Matthew 19:17, read as the law exposing what he has not kept, weakest at disputed:
    • In Matthew 19:17, Christ answers on the law's own terms, so that the young man may see he has not kept it and turn to faith — Calvin 1845, pp. 393–394
    • an inference step — II 1993, §12

Why Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" defeats Trent, against 'not by works', at the level of the claims: whyTheDominicalCaseStandsAgainstTrent.

luke18_defensible

Luke 18 can be defended. A consistent set of positions that answers every attack holds it, with Luke 7:50. Its only attacker is Trent, over Trent's definition of justification, and it defeats Trent in return. It does not conflict with either reading of Matthew. The set that holds it here holds Rome's readings of Matthew 7 and 19 as well (luke_stands_with_rome_on_matthew), and the set that holds Calvin's readings holds it too (matthew7RomeAnsweredByCalvin).

theorem luke18_defensible : Framework.CredulouslyAccepted
    jesusWordsDispute.defeats WordsParty.luke18
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

luke18AnsweredByTrent

Why Luke 18 is not forced: a set of positions that can be defended includes Trent, and Trent defeats it.

Luke 18:14: "this man went down to his house justified" is not accepted on every resolution.

  • A position holding Trent, against 'not by works', Matthew 7:21–23, read as obedience a condition of entry, Matthew 19:17, read as the commandments the way to life can be held, and it holds Trent, against 'not by works'; Trent, against 'not by works' conflicts with Luke 18:14: "this man went down to his house justified": Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Luke 18:14: "this man went down to his house justified", and Luke 18:14: "this man went down to his house justified" defeats Trent, against 'not by works'.
  • None of Trent, against 'not by works', Matthew 7:21–23, read as obedience a condition of entry, Matthew 19:17, read as the commandments the way to life defeats another, and each attack on them is answered from among them:
    • Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" defeats Trent, against 'not by works', and Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you".
    • Luke 18:14: "this man went down to his house justified" defeats Trent, against 'not by works', and Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Luke 18:14: "this man went down to his house justified".
    • Matthew 7:21–23, read as the doing including faith defeats Matthew 7:21–23, read as obedience a condition of entry, and Matthew 7:21–23, read as obedience a condition of entry defeats Matthew 7:21–23, read as the doing including faith.
    • Matthew 19:17, read as the law exposing what he has not kept defeats Matthew 19:17, read as the commandments the way to life, and Matthew 19:17, read as the commandments the way to life defeats Matthew 19:17, read as the law exposing what he has not kept.

What this rests on. The reasons state 8 defeats and 17 absences of defeat, each a cell of the defeat table, jesusWordsDispute_defeats, computed from the two parties' premises and checked by the kernel. Whether an attack survives turns on the attacker's weakest link and on the rating of what it attacks, so a changed rating can change the verdict. The weakest links:

  • Trent, against 'not by works', weakest at disputed:
    • Justification is not remission of sins only, but renewal of the inward man — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 11
  • Luke 18:14: "this man went down to his house justified", weakest at disputed:
  • Matthew 7:21–23, read as obedience a condition of entry, weakest at disputed:
  • Matthew 19:17, read as the commandments the way to life, weakest at disputed:
  • Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", weakest at disputed:
    • Luke 7:47 — her love is the evidence of her forgiveness, not its ground — Marshall 1978, ad loc. Luke 7:47; Padilla 2021, pp. 54–54; Kolb and Wengert 2000, §Apology IV, on love and the fulfilling of the law: Luke 7:47–50; Luke 7:41-43; Luke 7:47; Luke 7:47-50
    • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
  • Matthew 7:21–23, read as the doing including faith, weakest at disputed:
    • In Matthew 7:21–23, doing the Father's will includes believing in Christ, and "I never knew you" means no union with him by faith — Calvin 1845, pp. 367–368
    • an inference step — Catholic Church 2000, §2826
  • Matthew 19:17, read as the law exposing what he has not kept, weakest at disputed:
    • In Matthew 19:17, Christ answers on the law's own terms, so that the young man may see he has not kept it and turn to faith — Calvin 1845, pp. 393–394
    • an inference step — II 1993, §12

Why Luke 18:14: "this man went down to his house justified" defeats Trent, against 'not by works', at the level of the claims: whyLukeEighteenStandsAgainstTrent.

Why Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" defeats Trent, against 'not by works', at the level of the claims: whyTheDominicalCaseStandsAgainstTrent.

luke18_not_forced

Nor is Luke 18 forced. A consistent set of positions that answers every attack holds Trent, and cannot hold Luke 18 with it. What would decide it is the step from the plea to "faith suffices". That step is rated disputed, because Trent requires the dispositions of chapter 6 and condemns "nothing else is required" (canon 9). Behind the step is Trent's definition of justification (whyLukeEighteenStandsAgainstTrent).

theorem luke18_not_forced : ¬Framework.SkepticallyAccepted
    jesusWordsDispute.defeats WordsParty.luke18
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

matthew7RomeAnsweredByCalvin

Why Rome's reading of Matthew 7 is not forced: a set of positions that can be defended includes Calvin's reading, which defeats Rome's.

Matthew 7:21–23, read as obedience a condition of entry is not accepted on every resolution.

  • A position holding Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", Luke 18:14: "this man went down to his house justified", Matthew 7:21–23, read as the doing including faith, Matthew 19:17, read as the law exposing what he has not kept can be held, and it holds Matthew 7:21–23, read as the doing including faith; Matthew 7:21–23, read as the doing including faith conflicts with Matthew 7:21–23, read as obedience a condition of entry: Matthew 7:21–23, read as the doing including faith defeats Matthew 7:21–23, read as obedience a condition of entry, and Matthew 7:21–23, read as obedience a condition of entry defeats Matthew 7:21–23, read as the doing including faith.
  • None of Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", Luke 18:14: "this man went down to his house justified", Matthew 7:21–23, read as the doing including faith, Matthew 19:17, read as the law exposing what he has not kept defeats another, and each attack on them is answered from among them:
    • Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", and Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" defeats Trent, against 'not by works'.
    • Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Luke 18:14: "this man went down to his house justified", and Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" defeats Trent, against 'not by works'.
    • Matthew 7:21–23, read as obedience a condition of entry defeats Matthew 7:21–23, read as the doing including faith, and Matthew 7:21–23, read as the doing including faith defeats Matthew 7:21–23, read as obedience a condition of entry.
    • Matthew 19:17, read as the commandments the way to life defeats Matthew 19:17, read as the law exposing what he has not kept, and Matthew 19:17, read as the law exposing what he has not kept defeats Matthew 19:17, read as the commandments the way to life.

What this rests on. The reasons state 7 defeats and 24 absences of defeat, each a cell of the defeat table, jesusWordsDispute_defeats, computed from the two parties' premises and checked by the kernel. Whether an attack survives turns on the attacker's weakest link and on the rating of what it attacks, so a changed rating can change the verdict. The weakest links:

  • Matthew 7:21–23, read as the doing including faith, weakest at disputed:
    • In Matthew 7:21–23, doing the Father's will includes believing in Christ, and "I never knew you" means no union with him by faith — Calvin 1845, pp. 367–368
    • an inference step — Catholic Church 2000, §2826
  • Matthew 7:21–23, read as obedience a condition of entry, weakest at disputed:
  • Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", weakest at disputed:
    • Luke 7:47 — her love is the evidence of her forgiveness, not its ground — Marshall 1978, ad loc. Luke 7:47; Padilla 2021, pp. 54–54; Kolb and Wengert 2000, §Apology IV, on love and the fulfilling of the law: Luke 7:47–50; Luke 7:41-43; Luke 7:47; Luke 7:47-50
    • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
  • Luke 18:14: "this man went down to his house justified", weakest at disputed:
  • Matthew 19:17, read as the law exposing what he has not kept, weakest at disputed:
    • In Matthew 19:17, Christ answers on the law's own terms, so that the young man may see he has not kept it and turn to faith — Calvin 1845, pp. 393–394
    • an inference step — II 1993, §12
  • Trent, against 'not by works', weakest at disputed:
    • Justification is not remission of sins only, but renewal of the inward man — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 11
  • Matthew 19:17, read as the commandments the way to life, weakest at disputed:

Why Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" defeats Trent, against 'not by works', at the level of the claims: whyTheDominicalCaseStandsAgainstTrent.

matthew7_rome_reading_not_forced

Rome's reading of Matthew 7 is not forced. A consistent set of positions that answers every attack holds Calvin's reading, on which the doing includes believing and is not a condition of entry in its own right, and cannot hold Rome's with it.

theorem matthew7_rome_reading_not_forced : ¬Framework.SkepticallyAccepted
    jesusWordsDispute.defeats WordsParty.matthew7Obedience
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

matthew7CalvinAnsweredByRome

Why Calvin's reading of Matthew 7 is not forced: a set of positions that can be defended includes Rome's reading, which defeats Calvin's.

Matthew 7:21–23, read as the doing including faith is not accepted on every resolution.

  • A position holding Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", Luke 18:14: "this man went down to his house justified", Matthew 7:21–23, read as obedience a condition of entry, Matthew 19:17, read as the commandments the way to life can be held, and it holds Matthew 7:21–23, read as obedience a condition of entry; Matthew 7:21–23, read as obedience a condition of entry conflicts with Matthew 7:21–23, read as the doing including faith: Matthew 7:21–23, read as obedience a condition of entry defeats Matthew 7:21–23, read as the doing including faith, and Matthew 7:21–23, read as the doing including faith defeats Matthew 7:21–23, read as obedience a condition of entry.
  • None of Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", Luke 18:14: "this man went down to his house justified", Matthew 7:21–23, read as obedience a condition of entry, Matthew 19:17, read as the commandments the way to life defeats another, and each attack on them is answered from among them:
    • Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", and Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" defeats Trent, against 'not by works'.
    • Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Luke 18:14: "this man went down to his house justified", and Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" defeats Trent, against 'not by works'.
    • Matthew 7:21–23, read as the doing including faith defeats Matthew 7:21–23, read as obedience a condition of entry, and Matthew 7:21–23, read as obedience a condition of entry defeats Matthew 7:21–23, read as the doing including faith.
    • Matthew 19:17, read as the law exposing what he has not kept defeats Matthew 19:17, read as the commandments the way to life, and Matthew 19:17, read as the commandments the way to life defeats Matthew 19:17, read as the law exposing what he has not kept.

What this rests on. The reasons state 7 defeats and 24 absences of defeat, each a cell of the defeat table, jesusWordsDispute_defeats, computed from the two parties' premises and checked by the kernel. Whether an attack survives turns on the attacker's weakest link and on the rating of what it attacks, so a changed rating can change the verdict. The weakest links:

  • Matthew 7:21–23, read as obedience a condition of entry, weakest at disputed:
  • Matthew 7:21–23, read as the doing including faith, weakest at disputed:
    • In Matthew 7:21–23, doing the Father's will includes believing in Christ, and "I never knew you" means no union with him by faith — Calvin 1845, pp. 367–368
    • an inference step — Catholic Church 2000, §2826
  • Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", weakest at disputed:
    • Luke 7:47 — her love is the evidence of her forgiveness, not its ground — Marshall 1978, ad loc. Luke 7:47; Padilla 2021, pp. 54–54; Kolb and Wengert 2000, §Apology IV, on love and the fulfilling of the law: Luke 7:47–50; Luke 7:41-43; Luke 7:47; Luke 7:47-50
    • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
  • Luke 18:14: "this man went down to his house justified", weakest at disputed:
  • Matthew 19:17, read as the commandments the way to life, weakest at disputed:
  • Trent, against 'not by works', weakest at disputed:
    • Justification is not remission of sins only, but renewal of the inward man — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 11
  • Matthew 19:17, read as the law exposing what he has not kept, weakest at disputed:
    • In Matthew 19:17, Christ answers on the law's own terms, so that the young man may see he has not kept it and turn to faith — Calvin 1845, pp. 393–394
    • an inference step — II 1993, §12

Why Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" defeats Trent, against 'not by works', at the level of the claims: whyTheDominicalCaseStandsAgainstTrent.

matthew7_calvin_reading_not_forced

Nor is Calvin's. A consistent set of positions that answers every attack holds Rome's reading, on which obedience is a condition of entry, and cannot hold Calvin's with it. Between the two readings of Matthew 7 the debate chooses neither, as the passage itself does not (matthew7_leaves_the_ground_open).

theorem matthew7_calvin_reading_not_forced : ¬Framework.SkepticallyAccepted
    jesusWordsDispute.defeats WordsParty.matthew7Faith
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

matthew19RomeAnsweredByCalvin

Why Rome's reading of Matthew 19 is not forced: a set of positions that can be defended includes Calvin's reading, which defeats Rome's.

Matthew 19:17, read as the commandments the way to life is not accepted on every resolution.

  • A position holding Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", Luke 18:14: "this man went down to his house justified", Matthew 7:21–23, read as the doing including faith, Matthew 19:17, read as the law exposing what he has not kept can be held, and it holds Matthew 19:17, read as the law exposing what he has not kept; Matthew 19:17, read as the law exposing what he has not kept conflicts with Matthew 19:17, read as the commandments the way to life: Matthew 19:17, read as the law exposing what he has not kept defeats Matthew 19:17, read as the commandments the way to life, and Matthew 19:17, read as the commandments the way to life defeats Matthew 19:17, read as the law exposing what he has not kept.
  • None of Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", Luke 18:14: "this man went down to his house justified", Matthew 7:21–23, read as the doing including faith, Matthew 19:17, read as the law exposing what he has not kept defeats another, and each attack on them is answered from among them:
    • Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", and Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" defeats Trent, against 'not by works'.
    • Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Luke 18:14: "this man went down to his house justified", and Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" defeats Trent, against 'not by works'.
    • Matthew 7:21–23, read as obedience a condition of entry defeats Matthew 7:21–23, read as the doing including faith, and Matthew 7:21–23, read as the doing including faith defeats Matthew 7:21–23, read as obedience a condition of entry.
    • Matthew 19:17, read as the commandments the way to life defeats Matthew 19:17, read as the law exposing what he has not kept, and Matthew 19:17, read as the law exposing what he has not kept defeats Matthew 19:17, read as the commandments the way to life.

What this rests on. The reasons state 7 defeats and 24 absences of defeat, each a cell of the defeat table, jesusWordsDispute_defeats, computed from the two parties' premises and checked by the kernel. Whether an attack survives turns on the attacker's weakest link and on the rating of what it attacks, so a changed rating can change the verdict. The weakest links:

  • Matthew 19:17, read as the law exposing what he has not kept, weakest at disputed:
    • In Matthew 19:17, Christ answers on the law's own terms, so that the young man may see he has not kept it and turn to faith — Calvin 1845, pp. 393–394
    • an inference step — II 1993, §12
  • Matthew 19:17, read as the commandments the way to life, weakest at disputed:
  • Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", weakest at disputed:
    • Luke 7:47 — her love is the evidence of her forgiveness, not its ground — Marshall 1978, ad loc. Luke 7:47; Padilla 2021, pp. 54–54; Kolb and Wengert 2000, §Apology IV, on love and the fulfilling of the law: Luke 7:47–50; Luke 7:41-43; Luke 7:47; Luke 7:47-50
    • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
  • Luke 18:14: "this man went down to his house justified", weakest at disputed:
  • Matthew 7:21–23, read as the doing including faith, weakest at disputed:
    • In Matthew 7:21–23, doing the Father's will includes believing in Christ, and "I never knew you" means no union with him by faith — Calvin 1845, pp. 367–368
    • an inference step — Catholic Church 2000, §2826
  • Trent, against 'not by works', weakest at disputed:
    • Justification is not remission of sins only, but renewal of the inward man — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 11
  • Matthew 7:21–23, read as obedience a condition of entry, weakest at disputed:

Why Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" defeats Trent, against 'not by works', at the level of the claims: whyTheDominicalCaseStandsAgainstTrent.

matthew19_rome_reading_not_forced

Rome's reading of Matthew 19 is not forced. A consistent set of positions that answers every attack holds Calvin's reading, a reply on the law's own terms that shows the young man what he has not kept, and cannot hold Rome's with it.

theorem matthew19_rome_reading_not_forced : ¬Framework.SkepticallyAccepted
    jesusWordsDispute.defeats WordsParty.matthew19Way
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

matthew19CalvinAnsweredByRome

Why Calvin's reading of Matthew 19 is not forced: a set of positions that can be defended includes Rome's reading, which defeats Calvin's.

Matthew 19:17, read as the law exposing what he has not kept is not accepted on every resolution.

  • A position holding Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", Luke 18:14: "this man went down to his house justified", Matthew 7:21–23, read as obedience a condition of entry, Matthew 19:17, read as the commandments the way to life can be held, and it holds Matthew 19:17, read as the commandments the way to life; Matthew 19:17, read as the commandments the way to life conflicts with Matthew 19:17, read as the law exposing what he has not kept: Matthew 19:17, read as the commandments the way to life defeats Matthew 19:17, read as the law exposing what he has not kept, and Matthew 19:17, read as the law exposing what he has not kept defeats Matthew 19:17, read as the commandments the way to life.
  • None of Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", Luke 18:14: "this man went down to his house justified", Matthew 7:21–23, read as obedience a condition of entry, Matthew 19:17, read as the commandments the way to life defeats another, and each attack on them is answered from among them:
    • Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", and Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" defeats Trent, against 'not by works'.
    • Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Luke 18:14: "this man went down to his house justified", and Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" defeats Trent, against 'not by works'.
    • Matthew 7:21–23, read as the doing including faith defeats Matthew 7:21–23, read as obedience a condition of entry, and Matthew 7:21–23, read as obedience a condition of entry defeats Matthew 7:21–23, read as the doing including faith.
    • Matthew 19:17, read as the law exposing what he has not kept defeats Matthew 19:17, read as the commandments the way to life, and Matthew 19:17, read as the commandments the way to life defeats Matthew 19:17, read as the law exposing what he has not kept.

What this rests on. The reasons state 7 defeats and 24 absences of defeat, each a cell of the defeat table, jesusWordsDispute_defeats, computed from the two parties' premises and checked by the kernel. Whether an attack survives turns on the attacker's weakest link and on the rating of what it attacks, so a changed rating can change the verdict. The weakest links:

  • Matthew 19:17, read as the commandments the way to life, weakest at disputed:
  • Matthew 19:17, read as the law exposing what he has not kept, weakest at disputed:
    • In Matthew 19:17, Christ answers on the law's own terms, so that the young man may see he has not kept it and turn to faith — Calvin 1845, pp. 393–394
    • an inference step — II 1993, §12
  • Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", weakest at disputed:
    • Luke 7:47 — her love is the evidence of her forgiveness, not its ground — Marshall 1978, ad loc. Luke 7:47; Padilla 2021, pp. 54–54; Kolb and Wengert 2000, §Apology IV, on love and the fulfilling of the law: Luke 7:47–50; Luke 7:41-43; Luke 7:47; Luke 7:47-50
    • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
  • Luke 18:14: "this man went down to his house justified", weakest at disputed:
  • Matthew 7:21–23, read as obedience a condition of entry, weakest at disputed:
  • Trent, against 'not by works', weakest at disputed:
    • Justification is not remission of sins only, but renewal of the inward man — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 11
  • Matthew 7:21–23, read as the doing including faith, weakest at disputed:
    • In Matthew 7:21–23, doing the Father's will includes believing in Christ, and "I never knew you" means no union with him by faith — Calvin 1845, pp. 367–368
    • an inference step — Catholic Church 2000, §2826

Why Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" defeats Trent, against 'not by works', at the level of the claims: whyTheDominicalCaseStandsAgainstTrent.

matthew19_calvin_reading_not_forced

Nor is Calvin's. A consistent set of positions that answers every attack holds Rome's reading, on which the commandments are the way to life, and cannot hold Calvin's with it. Between the two readings of Matthew 19 the debate chooses neither (matthew19_leaves_the_way_open).

theorem matthew19_calvin_reading_not_forced : ¬Framework.SkepticallyAccepted
    jesusWordsDispute.defeats WordsParty.matthew19Legal
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

Heard without Trent

jesusWordsWithoutTrent

Every position but Trent: Luke's two sayings, and both readings of each passage in Matthew.

def jesusWordsWithoutTrent : Dispute Claim { i // i ∉ [WordsParty.trent] } :=
  jesusWordsDispute.restrict fun x => x ∉ [WordsParty.trent]

withoutTrentLukeSettles

How the hearing is settled. With Trent not heard, nothing attacks Luke 7:50 or Luke 18, so both are accepted first. Nothing joins them, because each reading of Matthew still has its rival.

What the dispute forces is exactly Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", Luke 18:14: "this man went down to his house justified".

  • Stage 1: Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", Luke 18:14: "this man went down to his house justified".
    • Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" is defeated by nothing.
    • Luke 18:14: "this man went down to his house justified" is defeated by nothing.
  • Nothing else is forced:
    • Matthew 7:21–23, read as the doing including faith defeats Matthew 7:21–23, read as obedience a condition of entry, and nothing forced defeats Matthew 7:21–23, read as the doing including faith.
    • Matthew 7:21–23, read as obedience a condition of entry defeats Matthew 7:21–23, read as the doing including faith, and nothing forced defeats Matthew 7:21–23, read as obedience a condition of entry.
    • Matthew 19:17, read as the law exposing what he has not kept defeats Matthew 19:17, read as the commandments the way to life, and nothing forced defeats Matthew 19:17, read as the law exposing what he has not kept.
    • Matthew 19:17, read as the commandments the way to life defeats Matthew 19:17, read as the law exposing what he has not kept, and nothing forced defeats Matthew 19:17, read as the commandments the way to life.

What this rests on. The reasons state 4 defeats and 20 absences of defeat, each a cell of the defeat table, jesusWordsDispute_defeats, computed from the two parties' premises and checked by the kernel. Whether an attack survives turns on the attacker's weakest link and on the rating of what it attacks, so a changed rating can change the verdict. The weakest links:

  • Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", weakest at disputed:
    • Luke 7:47 — her love is the evidence of her forgiveness, not its ground — Marshall 1978, ad loc. Luke 7:47; Padilla 2021, pp. 54–54; Kolb and Wengert 2000, §Apology IV, on love and the fulfilling of the law: Luke 7:47–50; Luke 7:41-43; Luke 7:47; Luke 7:47-50
    • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
  • Luke 18:14: "this man went down to his house justified", weakest at disputed:
  • Matthew 7:21–23, read as obedience a condition of entry, weakest at disputed:
  • Matthew 7:21–23, read as the doing including faith, weakest at disputed:
    • In Matthew 7:21–23, doing the Father's will includes believing in Christ, and "I never knew you" means no union with him by faith — Calvin 1845, pp. 367–368
    • an inference step — Catholic Church 2000, §2826
  • Matthew 19:17, read as the commandments the way to life, weakest at disputed:
  • Matthew 19:17, read as the law exposing what he has not kept, weakest at disputed:
    • In Matthew 19:17, Christ answers on the law's own terms, so that the young man may see he has not kept it and turn to faith — Calvin 1845, pp. 393–394
    • an inference step — II 1993, §12

without_trent_luke_is_forced

Without Trent, Luke's two sayings are forced, and Matthew is not. With Trent not heard, nothing attacks "your faith has saved you" or the tax collector justified. That faith suffices is forced twice, from Jesus' own words. The readings of Matthew 7 and 19 still tie, each with its rival, because they conflict with each other and not with Luke.

It does not show that faith alone is forced. Luke's sayings claim that faith sufficed, not that nothing else is a condition. Rome's readings of Matthew, which say that salvation is not apart from works, can be held with them (luke_stands_with_rome_on_matthew).

theorem without_trent_luke_is_forced : Framework.grounded
    jesusWordsWithoutTrent.defeats = Solver.toSet (Witness.listSub (fun x => x
    ∉ [WordsParty.trent]) [WordsParty.luke7, WordsParty.luke18])
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound