The lines

aquinasOnFormedFaith

Aquinas's step: faith made alive by love is not bare trust. Rated consensus: Calvin accepts it, since the trust he means is exactly a faith that brings nothing. The two divide over the premise, not the step.

def aquinasOnFormedFaith : Source :=
  {
    primary :=
      Reference.work aquinasJohn
        (Bib.Locus.sectionRef "cap. 6, lect. 3, n. 901"),
    tradition := Tradition.romanCatholic, confidence := Confidence.consensus }

thomistLine — Faith formed by charity (Aquinas on John 6:29)

Aquinas's line of argument. The believing of 6:29 is faith made alive by love, and so not the bare trust that John's strand needs. The denial is derived from Aquinas's own reading of the verse, not assumed.

The packages

johannineCase — Sola fide from John (6:28–29)

Sola fide from John alone: John's line, with the premises and closing steps every Reformed strand shares.

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

thomistOnJohn — Aquinas on John 6:29 (faith formed by charity)

Aquinas on John: every text John's strand reads, and every shared premise, with the believing read as faith formed by charity. This is the rival John'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.

Results

johannine_strand_establishes

John's strand, argued alone, delivers sola fide. Grant that the believing of 6:29 is trust, and the work God requires is believing, which earns nothing. Sola fide then follows without the readings Paul's, Luke's and Peter's strands depend on.

It does not show that John 6:29 is the only text used. Grace and "not by works" come from the verses every strand shares and from the answer to James.

theorem johannine_strand_establishes : Establishes johannineCase
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

thomistReading

Aquinas's reading, written out. Every text holds. The believing of 6:29 is faith made alive by love, so it is not bare trust; justification is not by faith alone; and faith without charity does not suffice. Grace and "not by works" still hold: Aquinas excludes outward works, and grants that faith is God's gift.

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

johannine_strand_rests_on_believing_as_trust

John's strand depends on reading believing as trust. Grant Aquinas every text the strand reads, and read their believing as he does, faith made alive by love, and sola fide no longer follows.

So John's Gospel, like Paul's Galatians and Luke 7:50, reaches the conclusion only through a reading: here, of what it is to believe in him.

theorem johannine_strand_rests_on_believing_as_trust : ¬Establishes
    thomistOnJohn
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

reformedGrantingAquinasOnJohn — Reformed, granting Aquinas on John 6:29

The Reformed case with Aquinas granted his reading of John 6:29: the believing is faith formed by charity, and so not bare trust. The other three strands are kept whole.

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

believing_as_trust_not_load_bearing

The reading of believing as trust is not one the whole case depends on. Grant Aquinas that the believing of John 6:29 is faith formed by charity, keep Paul, Luke and Acts as the Reformed read them, and sola fide still follows.

Losing the argument over John 6:29 costs the Reformed case one strand and not its conclusion. It does not show that Aquinas would accept the rest. He would not, and the package is not his position; it is the Reformed case with one concession made.

theorem believing_as_trust_not_load_bearing : Establishes
    reformedGrantingAquinasOnJohn
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

concedingJohnReading

The Reformed reading with one concession: the believing of John 6:29 is not bare trust, and everything else holds.

def concedingJohnReading : Valuation Claim :=
  fun a =>
    match a with
    | Claim.johannineBelievingIsTrust => False
    | x => True

reformedGrantingAquinasOnJohn_is_satisfiable

That package can be held without contradiction, so believing_as_trust_not_load_bearing is not true merely because its premises could never all hold.

theorem reformedGrantingAquinasOnJohn_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable
    reformedGrantingAquinasOnJohn.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

johannineCase_is_satisfiable

John's case can be held without contradiction, so johannine_strand_establishes is not true merely because its premises could never all hold.

theorem johannineCase_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable johannineCase.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

Luther's answer

lutherOnGalatiansThree

Luther's step, on Galatians 3:11–12: the law commands love, and the law is not of faith, so faith formed by charity would justify by the law. Rated disputed: Aquinas accepts both starting points, the text and that the law commands love, and denies the conclusion, holding that the faith which justifies is formed by charity.

def lutherOnGalatiansThree : Source :=
  {
    primary :=
      Reference.work lutherGalatians
        (Bib.Locus.adLoc { book := Book.galatians, chapter := 3, verse := 12 }),
    supporting :=
      [Reference.work lutherGalatians
          (Bib.Locus.adLoc
            { book := Book.galatians, chapter := 3, verse := 11 })],
    tradition := Tradition.reformedProtestant,
    confidence := Confidence.disputed }

lutherLine — Luther on Galatians 3:11–12 (against faith formed by charity)

Luther's line of argument. From Galatians 3:11–12 and the law's command of love to the denial of Aquinas's reading: the believing that justifies is not faith formed by charity, since love is what the law commands and the law is not of faith.

lutherOnGalatians — Luther on Galatians 3:11–12 (against faith formed by charity)

Luther's answer to Aquinas as a position: what Aquinas grants, with Luther's step, against reading the believing of 6:29 as faith formed by charity.

No premise here rests on scripture alone.

galatiansTextsAlone — Galatians 3:11–12 and the law's command of love, without Luther's step

The same starting points without Luther's step: Galatians 3:11–12, and that the law commands love.

No premise here rests on scripture alone.

luther_answers_aquinas_from_galatians

Luther answers Aquinas from Galatians 3. Grant what Aquinas grants, Galatians 3:11–12 and that the law commands love, and grant Luther's step. Then the believing of John 6:29 is not faith formed by charity: a faith that justified because love formed it would justify by the law, and the law is not of faith.

It does not show that Calvin's reading is thereby established. It removes Aquinas's reading, and only if the step is granted.

theorem luther_answers_aquinas_from_galatians : Establishes lutherOnGalatians
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

luther_answer_rests_on_his_step

Luther's answer depends on his step. The texts alone do not exclude Aquinas's reading. On Aquinas's reading Galatians 3:11–12 holds, the law commands love, and the believing of 6:29 is faith formed by charity. What decides it is whether faith formed by charity counts as justification "by the law". That is Luther's step, and Aquinas denies it.

theorem luther_answer_rests_on_his_step : ¬Establishes galatiansTextsAlone
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

lutherReading

The Reformed reading, on which the believing of John 6:29 is not faith formed by charity, and everything else holds.

def lutherReading : Valuation Claim :=
  fun a =>
    match a with
    | Claim.johannineBelievingIsFormedByCharity => False
    | x => True

lutherOnGalatians_is_satisfiable

Luther's position can be held without contradiction, so luther_answers_aquinas_from_galatians is not true merely because its premises could never all hold.

theorem lutherOnGalatians_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable
    lutherOnGalatians.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

whyLutherAnswersAquinas

Why Luther's answer stands against Aquinas. Everything turns on Luther's step: from Galatians 3:11–12 and the law's command of love, the believing that justifies is not faith formed by charity. With the two texts accepted, Aquinas's reading of John 6:29 cannot keep its one distinctive premise, that the believing is formed by charity.

Unlike the Reformed distinction against Trent, this step is part of Luther's own case: without it, the texts do not deliver his conclusion. So the answer is exactly as strong as the step, which is rated disputed. The step is Luther's, and the texts are accepted by both sides.

Why Luther on Galatians 3:11–12 (against faith formed by charity) stands against Aquinas on John 6:29 (faith formed by charity).

• The crux: \((\href{claims.html#claim-42}{P_{42}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-43}{P_{43}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-41}{P_{41}}\), a premise of Luther on Galatians 3:11–12 (against faith formed by charity).
• What it does: its conclusion does not follow without it.
• Granted: \(\href{claims.html#claim-42}{P_{42}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-43}{P_{43}}\), which the break also needs.
• Where the rival breaks: \(\href{claims.html#claim-41}{P_{41}}\) cannot be held together with \((\href{claims.html#claim-42}{P_{42}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-43}{P_{43}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-41}{P_{41}}\) and \(\href{claims.html#claim-42}{P_{42}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-43}{P_{43}}\); each is needed for the break, and without the crux they stand.
• What this rests on:
  • \(\href{claims.html#claim-42}{P_{42}}\) Galatians 3:11–12 — none is justified by the law; the law is not of faith — consensus: Gal 3:11-12; Luther 1998, ad loc. Gal 3:11
  • \(\href{claims.html#claim-43}{P_{43}}\) Love of God and neighbour is what the law commands — consensus: Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37-40; Luther 1998, ad loc. Gal 3:12
  • the step itself — disputed: Luther 1998, ad loc. Gal 3:12; Luther 1998, ad loc. Gal 3:11

chrysostomOnJohnThreeThirtySix

Chrysostom's step, in Homily 31 on John: from John 3:36 and Matthew 7:21 to "faith alone is not sufficient to salvation". Stanley, a modern reader, holds works "a condition to final salvation" in the Synoptic Gospels, Matthew 7:21 among the texts. Rated disputed: Calvin accepts both texts and denies the conclusion, and so do the modern Reformed readers cited for the answer.

def chrysostomOnJohnThreeThirtySix : Source :=
  {
    primary :=
      Reference.work chrysostomHomiliesJohn
        (Bib.Locus.sectionRef "Homily 31, §1"),
    supporting := [Reference.work stanleyDidJesusTeach],
    tradition := Tradition.easternOrthodox, confidence := Confidence.disputed }

chrysostomLine — Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life)

Chrysostom's line. From "whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life" (John 3:36) and "not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord'" (Matthew 7:21) to the conclusion that believing does not suffice without a right life.

chrysostomOnJohn — Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life)

Chrysostom's argument as a position: the two texts, with his step.

No premise here rests on scripture alone.

chrysostom_reads_john3_36_against_faith_alone

Granted his step, Chrysostom's conclusion follows. From John 3:36 and Matthew 7:21, read as he reads them, believing does not suffice for salvation without a right life.

His argument is valid, and its premises are two texts nobody here disputes. It does not show that the step is sound. Calvin accepts both texts and denies it, so the step is rated disputed.

theorem chrysostom_reads_john3_36_against_faith_alone : Establishes
    chrysostomOnJohn
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

chrysostomOnJohn_is_satisfiable

Chrysostom's position can be held without contradiction, on Aquinas's reading, where every text holds and faith without charity does not suffice. So chrysostom_reads_john3_36_against_faith_alone is not true merely because its premises could never all hold.

theorem chrysostomOnJohn_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable
    chrysostomOnJohn.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

john3_36_leaves_faiths_sufficiency_open

The wording of John 3:36 and Matthew 7:21 leaves open whether faith suffices. One consistent reading holds both texts and that faith suffices: the Reformed one, on which not obeying the Son is refusing to believe him. Another holds both texts and that faith does not suffice: Chrysostom's and Aquinas's.

Neither side can settle the question by pointing at the words. It does not show that the two readings are equally good. That is a matter for the sources, and the page reports what they say.

theorem john3_36_leaves_faiths_sufficiency_open : Independent [p
    Claim.john3_36WhoeverDoesNotObey, p Claim.matthew7_21_23DoingTheWill] (p
    Claim.faithIsSufficient)
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

johnWithChrysostom

John's strand and Chrysostom's argument, held together: every premise of each.

chrysostom_cannot_be_held_with_johns_case

Chrysostom's conclusion and John's strand cannot both be held. John's strand concludes that justification is by faith alone, and so that faith suffices. Chrysostom concludes that it does not. No consistent reading holds every premise of both.

A reader has to choose between Calvin's reading of John and Chrysostom's conclusion as written out here. It does not claim which to choose. Each rests on a step rated disputed.

Nor does it claim that the faith Chrysostom speaks of, right belief without a right life, is the faith the Reformers say justifies. His conclusion is written out here as "faith does not suffice". A reader who takes him to deny only what James calls dead faith (see the section on James) need not choose.

theorem chrysostom_cannot_be_held_with_johns_case : ¬Satisfiable
    johnWithChrysostom
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

obedienceAsFruitSource

The step of the Reformed answer: from John 3:36 and Matthew 7:21, with the obedience they require read as sanctification, to "faith suffices". Schreiner: "the necessity of good works doesn't contradict sola fide" (p. 55). Calvin on 3:36: "He shows that enjoyment consists in faith." Rated disputed: Chrysostom accepts both texts and denies that believing suffices, and Stanley holds works a condition of final salvation.

def obedienceAsFruitSource : Source :=
  {
    primary :=
      Reference.work schreinerJustificationByWorks (Bib.Locus.pages 55 55),
    supporting :=
      [Reference.work calvinJohn (Bib.Locus.adLoc Scripture.john3_36),
        Reference.work westminsterConfession (Bib.Locus.sectionRef "XVI.2"),
        Reference.work westminsterConfession (Bib.Locus.sectionRef "XIII.1")],
    tradition := Tradition.reformedProtestant,
    confidence := Confidence.disputed }

sanctificationLine — Obedience as sanctification (the Reformed answer on John 3:36)

The Reformed answer to Chrysostom, as a line. John 3:36 and Matthew 7:21 are accepted as they stand. The obedience they require is read as sanctification, the fruit of faith. So they add no condition to faith, and the first half of John 3:36 holds as it is written: whoever believes has eternal life.