The objections, assessed

canon24Assessment

Canon 24, against "fruit, not ground". It is argued, and it accepts Westminster's proof texts. But it states that good works are a cause of the increase of justification on the council's word alone. So it is an argument under the tradition standard and not under the evidence standard.

Dissent: Trent, canon 24, against Works as fruit (Westminster XVI.2, XVI.5, and its proofs). ✔ A critique: it can be held with the step's grounds, and it argues its denial by a step of its own.

rewardAssessment

Chapter 16, against "fruit, not ground". It is argued, and it accepts Westminster's proof texts. Its starting points are the texts that promise a reward, which are Scripture and which Westminster accepts, and the claim that the reward is given to the works as merits. The texts do not say that; Trent states it on its own word ("we must believe"). So it is an argument under the tradition standard and not under the evidence standard.

Dissent: Trent, Session VI, ch. 16, against Works as fruit (Westminster XVI.2, XVI.5, and its proofs). ✔ A critique: it can be held with the step's grounds, and it argues its denial by a step of its own.

trentWordAssessment

Trent's reading of James's word, against the step about the word. It takes as a premise that James's "justified" means the increase of justice, and that premise alone contradicts the step's conclusion. A disagreement, not an argument, under any standard.

Dissent: Trent, Session VI, ch. 10, against James's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning). ✘ A disagreement, not a critique: what it asserts outright already contradicts the step's conclusion, so no step of its own argues it.

renewalAssessment

The reading through Paul, against the step about the word. It is argued, from Paul's word as renewal and James's word as Paul's, and it accepts the step's starting points. It is an argument under the tradition standard. Under the evidence standard it is not, because one of its starting points, that James's word is Paul's, rests on Trent's word alone.

Dissent: The renewal reading, against James's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning). ✔ A critique: it can be held with the step's grounds, and it argues its denial by a step of its own.

trent_on_the_word_is_asserted

Trent's reading of James's word is a disagreement, not an argument. What it states outright includes the increase of justice, which alone contradicts the step's conclusion. It needs no step of its own to reach its denial.

theorem trent_on_the_word_is_asserted : trentWordAssessment.findings.kind =
    Findings.Kind.asserted ∧ ∀ (s : Standard), ¬Dissent.Credible s
    trentWordAssessment.dissent
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

The steps, rated

fruitStep

"Works are fruit, not ground", with the objections to it: canon 24's and chapter 16's. Chapter 16's is the strongest known: it argues from texts both sides accept.

The rating, computed. Works as fruit (Westminster XVI.2, XVI.5, and its proofs) is cited at well supported (Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.2, XVI.5; Lutheran World Federation and Catholic Church 2000, §§§25, 37; see §38). Dissents encoded: Trent, canon 24, Trent, Session VI, ch. 16. The strongest known: Trent, Session VI, ch. 16.

fruit_step_ratings

The rating of "fruit, not ground" depends on whether a council's word counts. Under the evidence standard its support stands at wellSupported. Both of Trent's objections are argued, and each rests at one claim on the council's word alone: canon 24's, that works cause the increase of justification; and chapter 16's, that the reward the texts promise is given to the works as merits. Under the tradition standard, which allows the council's word, both count as arguments, and the step is disputed.

It does not show that the reward texts teach the Reformed reading. It shows that Trent's objection, as written down here, needs one claim cited to the council alone.

theorem fruit_step_ratings : fruitStep.ratings = [(Standard.evidence,
    Computed.stands Confidence.wellSupported), (Standard.tradition,
    Computed.disputedBy ["Trent, canon 24", "Trent, Session VI, ch. 16"]),
    (Standard.scriptural, Computed.stands Confidence.wellSupported)]
-- axioms: propext

lexicalStep

The step about James's word, with the objections to it: Trent's reading of the word, and the reading through Paul, which is the strongest known objection because it argues for the increase from Paul's word.

The rating, computed. James's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning) is cited at well supported (Moo 2000, ad loc. Jas 2:21; Silva 1994; Barr 2004). Dissents encoded: Trent, Session VI, ch. 10, The renewal reading. The strongest known: The renewal reading.

lexical_step_ratings

The rating of the step about James's word depends on whether a council's word counts. Under the evidence standard its support stands at wellSupported. Every objection written down fails a check, the strongest known among them, because the reading through Paul rests its claim that James's word is Paul's on Trent alone. Under the tradition standard, which allows Trent's word, that reading counts as an argument and the step is disputed.

theorem lexical_step_ratings : lexicalStep.ratings = [(Standard.evidence,
    Computed.stands Confidence.wellSupported), (Standard.tradition,
    Computed.disputedBy ["The renewal reading"]), (Standard.scriptural,
    Computed.stands Confidence.wellSupported)]
-- axioms: propext

lexical_step_before_the_steelman

Before the strongest objection was written down, no rating above disputed was permitted. With only Trent's reading of the word on record, no objection counts as an argument. But the strongest known one is missing, so the rating is withheld under every standard. Writing down the reading through Paul is what changes it: to wellSupported under the evidence standard, and to disputed under the tradition standard.

theorem lexical_step_before_the_steelman : (have __src := lexicalStep;
 { step
    := __src.step, support := __src.support, register := [trentWordAssessment]
    }).ratings =
 [(Standard.evidence, Computed.withheld),
    (Standard.tradition, Computed.withheld), (Standard.scriptural,
    Computed.withheld)]
-- axioms: propext

Rome's steps, by the same checks

westminsterAssessment

Westminster, against Trent's premise that the reward is given to merits (XVI.5, XVI.6). It argues from texts Westminster gives as proofs: Hebrews 6:10, one of Trent's own four; Luke 17:10; Romans 4:4–5; 1 Peter 2:5. It argues by a step of its own, its reading of them. Every claim it states outright is a text. So it is an argument under all three standards.

Dissent: Westminster XVI.5, XVI.6, against Trent: the reward is rendered to merits (ch. 16, canon 32). ✔ A critique: it can be held with the step's grounds, and it argues its denial by a step of its own.

harmonyOnCanon24Assessment

The Reformed reconciliation, against canon 24's step. It accepts James 2:24, the works by which Abraham and Rahab were justified, and canon 24's own claim that works cause the increase. It argues from Westminster's proof texts that works are the fruit of faith and not its ground. What it states outright rests on Scripture and on readings argued from it. So it is an argument under every standard.

Dissent: The Reformed harmony (Westminster XVI.2, XVI.5), against James 2:24, read by canon 24. ✔ A critique: it can be held with the step's grounds, and it argues its denial by a step of its own.

harmonyOnRewardAssessment

The Reformed reconciliation, against chapter 16's step. It accepts the reward texts, and accepts for the sake of argument even that the reward is given to merits. It argues that works are the fruit of faith and not its ground. An argument under all three standards. Westminster's own answer goes further and denies the second starting point (westminsterAssessment).

Dissent: The Reformed harmony (Westminster XVI.2, XVI.5), against The reward of works (Trent, Session VI, ch. 16). ✔ A critique: it can be held with the step's grounds, and it argues its denial by a step of its own.

meritPremise

Trent's premise that the reward is given to merits, with the objection to it: Westminster's, the strongest known.

The rating, computed. Trent: the reward is rendered to merits (ch. 16, canon 32) is cited at disputed (Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 16; canon 32; Dulles 1999). Dissents encoded: Westminster XVI.5, XVI.6. The strongest known: Westminster XVI.5, XVI.6.

canon24Step

Canon 24's step, with the objection to it: the Reformed reconciliation's.

The rating, computed. James 2:24, read by canon 24 is cited at disputed (Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 24). Dissents encoded: The Reformed harmony (Westminster XVI.2, XVI.5). The strongest known: The Reformed harmony (Westminster XVI.2, XVI.5).

rewardStep

Chapter 16's step, with the objection to it: the Reformed reconciliation's.

The rating, computed. The reward of works (Trent, Session VI, ch. 16) is cited at disputed (Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 16, canon 32; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.5, XVI.6). Dissents encoded: The Reformed harmony (Westminster XVI.2, XVI.5). The strongest known: The Reformed harmony (Westminster XVI.2, XVI.5).

rome_steps_ratings

The same checks, applied the other way: Rome's steps are disputed under every standard. Westminster's answer to Trent's premise about merit, and the Reformed reconciliation's answers to canon 24's step and chapter 16's, each argue from texts and rest on no one's word alone. So each counts as an argument under the evidence standard as under the tradition standard, and each of Trent's claims is disputed under both.

Set beside fruit_step_ratings, this is the difference the checks find. The Reformed objections to Trent's claims are arguments under each of the three standards. Trent's objections to the Reformed step are arguments only under the standard that allows the council's word.

It does not show that either side's step is right.

theorem rome_steps_ratings : meritPremise.ratings = [(Standard.evidence,
    Computed.disputedBy ["Westminster XVI.5, XVI.6"]), (Standard.tradition,
    Computed.disputedBy ["Westminster XVI.5, XVI.6"]), (Standard.scriptural,
    Computed.disputedBy ["Westminster XVI.5, XVI.6"])] ∧ canon24Step.ratings =
    [(Standard.evidence, Computed.disputedBy ["The Reformed harmony
    (Westminster XVI.2, XVI.5)"]), (Standard.tradition, Computed.disputedBy
    ["The Reformed harmony (Westminster XVI.2, XVI.5)"]),
    (Standard.scriptural, Computed.disputedBy ["The Reformed harmony
    (Westminster XVI.2, XVI.5)"])] ∧ rewardStep.ratings = [(Standard.evidence,
    Computed.disputedBy ["The Reformed harmony (Westminster XVI.2, XVI.5)"]),
    (Standard.tradition, Computed.disputedBy ["The Reformed harmony
    (Westminster XVI.2, XVI.5)"]), (Standard.scriptural, Computed.disputedBy
    ["The Reformed harmony (Westminster XVI.2, XVI.5)"])]
-- axioms: propext

westminster_answers_from_the_texts

Westminster's answer rests on no one's word alone; Trent's claim does. Every claim that Westminster's reading of the reward states outright is a text it gives as a proof. The one claim chapter 16 adds to its texts, that the reward is given to merits, is the council's own.

theorem westminster_answers_from_the_texts :
    westminsterOnReward.restingOnAuthority = [] ∧
    trentOnReward.restingOnAuthority = [Claim.rewardRenderedToMerits]
-- axioms: propext

Trent's definition, and whether faith suffices

trentSufficiencySource

Trent's step from its definition to the denial that faith suffices. If justification is the renewal of the inward person by charity poured in, then faith, "unless hope and charity be added thereto, neither unites man perfectly with Christ" (Session VI, ch. 7), and whoever says that "nothing else is required to co-operate" is anathema (canon 9). Rated disputed: the Reformed read Luke 18 and Luke 7:50 as a plea that sufficed (luke18Line).

def trentSufficiencySource : Source :=
  {
    primary :=
      Reference.work tannerDecrees
        (Bib.Locus.sectionRef
          "Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7; canon 9"),
    tradition := Tradition.romanCatholic, confidence := Confidence.disputed }

trentSufficiencyLine — Faith does not suffice (Trent, ch. 7, canon 9)

Faith does not suffice, from Trent's definition (ch. 7, canon 9): the definition, and the step from it. This states Trent's denial as these pages state it throughout, as a consequence of what Trent says justification is (trentDefinitionSteps).

trentOnSufficiency — Faith does not suffice (Trent, ch. 7, canon 9)

Trent on whether faith suffices, as a position of its own.

No premise here rests on scripture alone.

trentWordLine — Paul's word, as the Latin West read it (Augustine; Trent, ch. 8)

Paul's word, as the Latin West read it. Augustine explained "being justified" as "being made righteous", and Trent reads the Apostle so (ch. 8). So Paul's "justify" (δικαιόω) means the renewal of the inward person. This is Trent's definition taken as a claim about the word (trentOnPaulsWord), set out as a line of argument.

trentOnTheWordOfPaul — Paul's word, as the Latin West read it (Augustine; Trent, ch. 8)

Trent's reading of Paul's word, as a position of its own.

No premise here rests on scripture alone.

gospelOnDefinitionAssessment

Paul's gospel, against Trent's definition taken as a claim about what God does. It argues from Galatians 1:6–9, 2:21 and 5:2–4, 1 Corinthians 15:3, Romans 8:33–34 and the courtroom sense of the verb. Every claim it states outright is a text, or a reading argued from the lexicon. An argument under all three standards.

Dissent: Paul's gospel (Galatians 1; Westminster XI.1), against Trent: justification is the renewal of the inward man (ch. 7). ✔ A critique: it can be held with the step's grounds, and it argues its denial by a step of its own.

romansFourOnDefinitionAssessment

Romans 4, against Trent's definition. The righteousness God counts to the ungodly is sin not counted (4:5–8), and the verb is a courtroom word. An argument under every standard.

Dissent: Romans 4:3–8, against Trent: justification is the renewal of the inward man (ch. 7). ✔ A critique: it can be held with the step's grounds, and it argues its denial by a step of its own.

romansFourOnWordAssessment

Romans 4, on Paul's word, against Trent's definition taken as a claim about the word. Paul explains the righteousness God counts to the ungodly as sin not counted (4:5–8), and by the rule of least meaning his verb means no more than that verdict. It argues from Paul's own text, without assuming the courtroom sense. So it is an argument under all three standards, and the strongest known against taking the definition this way.

Dissent: Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word, against Trent: Paul's δικαιόω denotes renewal (ch. 8, with Augustine). ✔ A critique: it can be held with the step's grounds, and it argues its denial by a step of its own.

lexicalOnWordAssessment

The argument from Paul's word, against Trent's definition taken as a claim about the word. It holds as a premise that Paul's "justify" is a verdict, cited to the lexicon, and argues from that, from Paul's other words for renewal and from the rule of least meaning that the word does not also mean renewal. So it reaches its denial by a step, and is an argument under all three standards. Trent's reading stands against it in the same way (trentWordOnLexicalAssessment): each grants the verdict sense, and each argues its own answer to whether that is all the word means.

Dissent: Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning), against Trent: Paul's δικαιόω denotes renewal (ch. 8, with Augustine). ✔ A critique: it can be held with the step's grounds, and it argues its denial by a step of its own.

luke18OnSufficiencyAssessment

Luke 18, against Trent's step to "faith does not suffice". The tax collector's plea, without works, and God's verdict. It can be held together with Trent's definition, the step's starting point, and argues that the plea sufficed. An argument under all three standards.

Dissent: Luke 18:9–14 (the tax collector justified), against Faith does not suffice (Trent, ch. 7, canon 9). ✔ A critique: it can be held with the step's grounds, and it argues its denial by a step of its own.

definitionPremise

Trent's definition, with the objections to it: Paul's gospel and Romans 4.

The rating, computed. Trent: justification is the renewal of the inward man (ch. 7) is cited at disputed (Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 11). Dissents encoded: Paul's gospel (Galatians 1; Westminster XI.1), Romans 4:3–8. The strongest known: Paul's gospel (Galatians 1; Westminster XI.1).

wordPremise

Trent's reading of Paul's word, with the objections to it: Romans 4 on the word, the strongest known, and the argument from Paul's word.

The rating, computed. Trent: Paul's δικαιόω denotes renewal (ch. 8, with Augustine) is cited at disputed (Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, chs. 7–8; VanLandingham 2006). Dissents encoded: Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word, Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning). The strongest known: Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word.

sufficiencyStep

Trent's step to "faith does not suffice", with the objection to it: Luke 18.

The rating, computed. Faith does not suffice (Trent, ch. 7, canon 9) is cited at disputed (Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7; canon 9). Dissents encoded: Luke 18:9–14 (the tax collector justified). The strongest known: Luke 18:9–14 (the tax collector justified).

trent_definition_ratings

Trent's definition, and what follows from it, are disputed under every standard. Taken as a claim about what God does, the definition is met by Paul's gospel and Romans 4. Taken as a claim about Paul's word, it is met by Romans 4's explanation of the verb. Its step to "faith does not suffice" is met by Luke 18. Each of those argues from texts and from evidence anyone can check, so each is an argument under each of the three standards.

It does not show that the definition is false. disputed means there is an argued objection, not that the objection wins.

theorem trent_definition_ratings : definitionPremise.ratings =
    [(Standard.evidence, Computed.disputedBy ["Paul's gospel (Galatians 1;
    Westminster XI.1)", "Romans 4:3–8"]), (Standard.tradition,
    Computed.disputedBy ["Paul's gospel (Galatians 1; Westminster XI.1)",
    "Romans 4:3–8"]), (Standard.scriptural, Computed.disputedBy ["Paul's
    gospel (Galatians 1; Westminster XI.1)", "Romans 4:3–8"])] ∧
    wordPremise.ratings = [(Standard.evidence, Computed.disputedBy ["Romans
    4:3–8, on Paul's word", "Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning)"]),
    (Standard.tradition, Computed.disputedBy ["Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word",
    "Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning)"]), (Standard.scriptural,
    Computed.disputedBy ["Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word", "Paul's word (by the
    rule of least meaning)"])] ∧ sufficiencyStep.ratings =
    [(Standard.evidence, Computed.disputedBy ["Luke 18:9–14 (the tax collector
    justified)"]), (Standard.tradition, Computed.disputedBy ["Luke 18:9–14
    (the tax collector justified)"]), (Standard.scriptural,
    Computed.disputedBy ["Luke 18:9–14 (the tax collector justified)"])]
-- axioms: propext

trentWordOnLexicalAssessment

Trent's reading of Paul's word, against the step about the word. It argues its conclusion from Augustine's explanation: Paul's "justify" means making righteous. It can be held with every starting point of the step, the courtroom sense among them, because Trent keeps the verdict: the justified "are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just" (Session VI, ch. 7). So it grants the step's grounds and argues against what the step draws from them, and under every standard it is an argument against the step: against the step from the verdict to "nothing more", which is where Trent's own words put it.

Dissent: Trent, with Augustine (ch. 8), against Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning). ✔ A critique: it can be held with the step's grounds, and it argues its denial by a step of its own.

trentGraceOnGospelAssessment

Trent's definition taken as a claim about what God does, against the step in Paul's gospel. It holds the definition as a premise, and that premise alone contradicts the step's conclusion. A disagreement, not an argument, under each of the three standards.

Dissent: Trent, read as what God does (ch. 7; Joint Declaration §22), against Paul's gospel: a verdict on a finished work is no renewal. ✘ A disagreement, not a critique: what it asserts outright already contradicts the step's conclusion, so no step of its own argues it.

trentSufficiencyOnLuke18Assessment

Trent's denial that faith suffices, against Luke 18's step. It is argued, from its definition, and it accepts the parable. Its one starting point is the definition, which rests on the council's word. So it is an argument under the tradition standard only.

Dissent: Trent, ch. 7 and canon 9, against Luke 18:9–14 (the tax collector justified). ✔ A critique: it can be held with the step's grounds, and it argues its denial by a step of its own.

lexicalWordStep

The step about Paul's word, with the objection to it: Trent's reading of the word, the strongest known.

The rating, computed. Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning) is cited at well supported (Silva 1994; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Barr 2004). Dissents encoded: Trent, with Augustine (ch. 8). The strongest known: Trent, with Augustine (ch. 8).

trent_dissents_from_the_definition_steps

The same checks, from Trent's side. Trent objects three times to the Reformed steps over its definition.

• Its reading of Paul's word is an argument against the step about the word, under every standard. Trent keeps the courtroom sense, since the justified "are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just" (Session VI, ch. 7), and argues from Augustine that the word means making righteous too. So it grants the step's starting points and denies what the step draws from them.
• Its definition, taken as a claim about what God does, is stated and not argued against Paul's gospel.
• Its denial that faith suffices is an argument against Luke 18's step under the tradition standard only, because its one starting point is the definition.

So the step about Paul's word is disputed under all three standards, by Trent's reading of the word.

What it does not claim: that Trent's reading is right. disputed means there is an argued objection, not that the objection wins. Nor does it move the dispute's verdicts on Paul's word. The dispute weighs this step at its cited rating, which this check does not change.

theorem trent_dissents_from_the_definition_steps :
    trentWordOnLexicalAssessment.findings.kind = Findings.Kind.argued ∧
    trentGraceOnGospelAssessment.findings.kind = Findings.Kind.asserted ∧
    trentSufficiencyOnLuke18Assessment.profile = [(Standard.evidence, false),
    (Standard.tradition, true), (Standard.scriptural, false)] ∧
    lexicalWordStep.ratings = [(Standard.evidence, Computed.disputedBy
    ["Trent, with Augustine (ch. 8)"]), (Standard.tradition,
    Computed.disputedBy ["Trent, with Augustine (ch. 8)"]),
    (Standard.scriptural, Computed.disputedBy ["Trent, with Augustine (ch.
    8)"])]
-- axioms: propext

The debate heard under each standard

jamesRegister

The record for the debate over James. Each position that objects to a step of the Reformed reading is entered as an objection and assessed, together with the two steps they are rated against. The other positions hold those steps, or are readings of texts that the texts themselves answer.

def jamesRegister : Register jamesDispute :=
  {
    assessmentOf := fun x =>
      match x with
      | JamesParty.trentOnTheWord => some trentWordAssessment
      | JamesParty.trentOnWorks => some canon24Assessment
      | JamesParty.trentOnReward => some rewardAssessment
      | JamesParty.renewalOnTheWord => some renewalAssessment
      | JamesParty.westminsterOnReward =>
        some westminsterAssessment
      | x => none,
    ownPosition := jamesRegister._proof_1,
    steps :=
      [fruitStep, lexicalStep, canon24Step,
        rewardStep] }

jamesRegister_defeats

Who defeats whom under each standard. Under the evidence standard, as in the full debate. Under the tradition standard there is one difference: Trent's reading of the word and the reading through Paul each defeat the argument from James's word, now that it is weighed as disputed. Every answer is worked out from the positions' premises with the ratings for that standard, and checked by machine.

theorem jamesRegister_defeats : ∀ (s : Standard) (i j : JamesParty),
    (jamesRegister.rerated s).defeats i j ↔ (i, j) ∈
    jamesRegister.defeatsTable s
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

jamesUnderEvidence

The debate heard under the evidence standard.

def jamesUnderEvidence : Dispute Claim { i // jamesRegister.admits
    Standard.evidence i } :=
  jamesRegister.hearing Standard.evidence

jamesUnderTradition

The debate heard under the tradition standard.

def jamesUnderTradition : Dispute Claim { i // jamesRegister.admits
    Standard.tradition i } :=
  jamesRegister.hearing Standard.tradition

jamesUnderEvidence_defeats

Who defeats whom under the evidence standard: as in the full debate, among the positions heard.

theorem jamesUnderEvidence_defeats : ∀ (i j : { i // jamesRegister.admits
    Standard.evidence i }), jamesUnderEvidence.defeats i j ↔ (↑i, ↑j) ∈
    jamesRegister.defeatsTable Standard.evidence
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

jamesUnderTradition_defeats

Who defeats whom under the tradition standard: the argument from James's word, weighed as disputed, and the reading through Paul defeat each other.

theorem jamesUnderTradition_defeats : ∀ (i j : { i // jamesRegister.admits
    Standard.tradition i }), jamesUnderTradition.defeats i j ↔ (↑i, ↑j) ∈
    jamesRegister.defeatsTable Standard.tradition
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

underEvidenceSettled

How the debate is settled under the evidence standard. The argument from James's word, the argument about James's faith, the Reformed reconciliation and the Greek of both verses are accepted first, and nothing heard answers them. Trent's Latin readings fall to the Greek. Every objection of Trent's to a rated step, namely canon 24, chapter 16, the reading through Paul, and Trent's reading of the word, either rests at some claim on the council's word or merely states its denial, and so is not heard.

What the dispute forces is exactly James's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), James's faith (the faith James calls dead), Harmonisation of James 2:24, Revelation 22:11, in the Greek, Sirach 18:22, in the Greek, The reward of works, of grace (Westminster XVI.5, XVI.6).

• Stage 1: James's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), James's faith (the faith James calls dead), Harmonisation of James 2:24, Revelation 22:11, in the Greek, Sirach 18:22, in the Greek, The reward of works, of grace (Westminster XVI.5, XVI.6).
  • James's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning) is defeated by nothing.
  • James's faith (the faith James calls dead) is defeated by nothing.
  • Harmonisation of James 2:24 is defeated by nothing.
  • Revelation 22:11, in the Greek is defeated by nothing.
  • Sirach 18:22, in the Greek is defeated by nothing.
  • The reward of works, of grace (Westminster XVI.5, XVI.6) is defeated by nothing.
• Nothing else is forced:
  • Revelation 22:11, in the Greek defeats Revelation 22:11, as Trent quotes it, and nothing forced defeats Revelation 22:11, in the Greek.
  • Sirach 18:22, in the Greek defeats Sirach 18:22, as Trent quotes it, and nothing forced defeats Sirach 18:22, in the Greek.

What this rests on. The reasons state 2 defeats and 48 absences of defeat, each a cell of the defeat table, jamesUnderEvidence_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:

• James's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), weakest at well supported:
  • Outside Paul, ‘justify’ (δικαιόω) declares or vindicates; it does not mean making righteous — Bauer 2000, §s.v. δικαιόω; Deut 25:1; Matt 11:19; Luke 7:35; The Holy Bible, English Standard Version 2001, ad loc. Matt 11:19
  • A word contributes the least meaning its context requires; one occurrence does not carry the whole concept — Silva 1994; Joos 1972; Barr 2004
  • an inference step — Moo 2000, ad loc. Jas 2:21; Silva 1994; Barr 2004
• James's faith (the faith James calls dead), weakest at well supported:
  • The faith alone that James 2:24 denies justifies is the dead faith of 2:14–26 — Jas 2:14-26; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 7; Moo 2000, ad loc. Jas 2:24
  • an inference step — Moo 2000, ad loc. Jas 2:24; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2
• Harmonisation of James 2:24, weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Moo 2000, ad loc. Jas 2:24; Calvin 1960, §III.xvii.11
• Revelation 22:11, as Trent quotes it, weakest at disputed:
  • Revelation 22:11 says: he that is just, let him be justified still — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 10
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 10
• Sirach 18:22, as Trent quotes it, weakest at disputed:
  • Sirach 18:22 says: be not afraid to be justified even to death — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 10
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 10
• Revelation 22:11, in the Greek, weakest at well supported:
  • an inference step — Pius XII 1943, §§16; Holmes 2010; United States Conference of Catholic Bishops 2011
• Sirach 18:22, in the Greek, weakest at well supported:
  • The Greek of Sirach 18:22 is about paying a vow: do not wait until death to be justified — Swete, ad loc. Sir 18:22; United States Conference of Catholic Bishops 2011, §Sirach 18:22
  • an inference step — Pius XII 1943, §§16; Holmes 2010; United States Conference of Catholic Bishops 2011
• The reward of works, of grace (Westminster XVI.5, XVI.6), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.5, XVI.6

underTraditionSettled

How the debate is settled under the tradition standard. The argument about James's faith and the Greek of both verses are accepted first. The argument from James's word and the reading through Paul defeat each other. So do the Reformed reconciliation and each of Trent's readings of what works do. Only Trent's reading of the word is not heard.

What the dispute forces is exactly James's faith (the faith James calls dead), Revelation 22:11, in the Greek, Sirach 18:22, in the Greek.

• Stage 1: James's faith (the faith James calls dead), Revelation 22:11, in the Greek, Sirach 18:22, in the Greek.
  • James's faith (the faith James calls dead) is defeated by nothing.
  • Revelation 22:11, in the Greek is defeated by nothing.
  • Sirach 18:22, in the Greek is defeated by nothing.
• Nothing else is forced:
  • James's word, read through Paul's (the renewal reading) defeats James's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), and nothing forced defeats James's word, read through Paul's (the renewal reading).
  • James 2:24, read by canon 24 defeats Harmonisation of James 2:24, and nothing forced defeats James 2:24, read by canon 24.
  • Harmonisation of James 2:24 defeats James 2:24, read by canon 24, and nothing forced defeats Harmonisation of James 2:24.
  • Revelation 22:11, in the Greek defeats Revelation 22:11, as Trent quotes it, and nothing forced defeats Revelation 22:11, in the Greek.
  • Sirach 18:22, in the Greek defeats Sirach 18:22, as Trent quotes it, and nothing forced defeats Sirach 18:22, in the Greek.
  • Harmonisation of James 2:24 defeats The reward of works (Trent, Session VI, ch. 16), and nothing forced defeats Harmonisation of James 2:24.
  • James's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning) defeats James's word, read through Paul's (the renewal reading), and nothing forced defeats James's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning).
  • The reward of works (Trent, Session VI, ch. 16) defeats The reward of works, of grace (Westminster XVI.5, XVI.6), and nothing forced defeats The reward of works (Trent, Session VI, ch. 16).

What this rests on. The reasons state 8 defeats and 48 absences of defeat, each a cell of the defeat table, jamesUnderTradition_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:

• James's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Moo 2000, ad loc. Jas 2:21; Silva 1994; Barr 2004
• James's faith (the faith James calls dead), weakest at well supported:
  • The faith alone that James 2:24 denies justifies is the dead faith of 2:14–26 — Jas 2:14-26; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 7; Moo 2000, ad loc. Jas 2:24
  • an inference step — Moo 2000, ad loc. Jas 2:24; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2
• Harmonisation of James 2:24, weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.2, XVI.5; Lutheran World Federation and Catholic Church 2000, §§§25, 37; see §38
  • an inference step — Moo 2000, ad loc. Jas 2:24; Calvin 1960, §III.xvii.11
• James 2:24, read by canon 24, weakest at disputed:
  • Good works are a cause of the increase of justification, not merely its fruits — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 24
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 24
• Revelation 22:11, as Trent quotes it, weakest at disputed:
  • Revelation 22:11 says: he that is just, let him be justified still — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 10
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 10
• Sirach 18:22, as Trent quotes it, weakest at disputed:
  • Sirach 18:22 says: be not afraid to be justified even to death — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 10
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 10
• Revelation 22:11, in the Greek, weakest at well supported:
  • an inference step — Pius XII 1943, §§16; Holmes 2010; United States Conference of Catholic Bishops 2011
• Sirach 18:22, in the Greek, weakest at well supported:
  • The Greek of Sirach 18:22 is about paying a vow: do not wait until death to be justified — Swete, ad loc. Sir 18:22; United States Conference of Catholic Bishops 2011, §Sirach 18:22
  • an inference step — Pius XII 1943, §§16; Holmes 2010; United States Conference of Catholic Bishops 2011
• The reward of works (Trent, Session VI, ch. 16), weakest at disputed:
  • The reward God renders to the works of the justified is rendered to them as merits — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 16; canon 32; Dulles 1999
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 16, canon 32; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.5, XVI.6
• James's word, read through Paul's (the renewal reading), weakest at disputed:
  • Paul's word ‘justify’ means the renewal of the inward man, not only a verdict — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, chs. 7–8; VanLandingham 2006
  • James's ‘justify’ (δικαιόω) has the sense Paul's has: the justification of Romans and Galatians — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 10
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 10; VanLandingham 2006
• The reward of works, of grace (Westminster XVI.5, XVI.6), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.5, XVI.6

renewal_holds_increase

The reading through Paul holds that James's "justified" means the increase of justice.

theorem renewal_holds_increase : Entails (jamesDispute.node
    JamesParty.renewalOnTheWord).premises (p
    Claim.jamesJustifyDenotesIncrease)
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

lexical_denies_increase

The argument from James's word denies it.

theorem lexical_denies_increase : Entails (jamesDispute.node
    JamesParty.lexical).premises (∼p Claim.jamesJustifyDenotesIncrease)
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

renewalHeard

Why the reading through Paul can be defended under the tradition standard: it answers the argument from James's word, now that the two are rated alike.

James's word, read through Paul's (the renewal reading) is accepted on some resolution.

• A position holding James's faith (the faith James calls dead), James's word, read through Paul's (the renewal reading), Revelation 22:11, in the Greek, Sirach 18:22, in the Greek can be held.
• None of James's faith (the faith James calls dead), James's word, read through Paul's (the renewal reading), Revelation 22:11, in the Greek, Sirach 18:22, in the Greek defeats another, and each attack on them is answered from among them:
  • James's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning) defeats James's word, read through Paul's (the renewal reading), and James's word, read through Paul's (the renewal reading) defeats James's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning).
  • Harmonisation of James 2:24 defeats James's word, read through Paul's (the renewal reading), and James's word, read through Paul's (the renewal reading) defeats Harmonisation of James 2:24.

What this rests on. The reasons state 4 defeats and 42 absences of defeat, each a cell of the defeat table, jamesUnderTradition_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:

• James's faith (the faith James calls dead), weakest at well supported:
  • The faith alone that James 2:24 denies justifies is the dead faith of 2:14–26 — Jas 2:14-26; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 7; Moo 2000, ad loc. Jas 2:24
  • an inference step — Moo 2000, ad loc. Jas 2:24; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2
• James's word, read through Paul's (the renewal reading), weakest at disputed:
  • Paul's word ‘justify’ means the renewal of the inward man, not only a verdict — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, chs. 7–8; VanLandingham 2006
  • James's ‘justify’ (δικαιόω) has the sense Paul's has: the justification of Romans and Galatians — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 10
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 10; VanLandingham 2006
• Revelation 22:11, in the Greek, weakest at well supported:
  • an inference step — Pius XII 1943, §§16; Holmes 2010; United States Conference of Catholic Bishops 2011
• Sirach 18:22, in the Greek, weakest at well supported:
  • The Greek of Sirach 18:22 is about paying a vow: do not wait until death to be justified — Swete, ad loc. Sir 18:22; United States Conference of Catholic Bishops 2011, §Sirach 18:22
  • an inference step — Pius XII 1943, §§16; Holmes 2010; United States Conference of Catholic Bishops 2011
• James's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Moo 2000, ad loc. Jas 2:21; Silva 1994; Barr 2004
• Harmonisation of James 2:24, weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.2, XVI.5; Lutheran World Federation and Catholic Church 2000, §§§25, 37; see §38
  • an inference step — Moo 2000, ad loc. Jas 2:24; Calvin 1960, §III.xvii.11
• James 2:24, read by canon 24, weakest at disputed:
  • Good works are a cause of the increase of justification, not merely its fruits — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 24
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 24
• Revelation 22:11, as Trent quotes it, weakest at disputed:
  • Revelation 22:11 says: he that is just, let him be justified still — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 10
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 10
• Sirach 18:22, as Trent quotes it, weakest at disputed:
  • Sirach 18:22 says: be not afraid to be justified even to death — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 10
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 10
• The reward of works (Trent, Session VI, ch. 16), weakest at disputed:
  • The reward God renders to the works of the justified is rendered to them as merits — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 16; canon 32; Dulles 1999
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 16, canon 32; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.5, XVI.6
• The reward of works, of grace (Westminster XVI.5, XVI.6), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.5, XVI.6

lexicalHeard

Why the argument from James's word can be defended there: it answers the reading through Paul.

James's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning) is accepted on some resolution.

• A position holding James's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), James's faith (the faith James calls dead), Revelation 22:11, in the Greek, Sirach 18:22, in the Greek can be held.
• None of James's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), James's faith (the faith James calls dead), Revelation 22:11, in the Greek, Sirach 18:22, in the Greek defeats another, and each attack on them is answered from among them:
  • James's word, read through Paul's (the renewal reading) defeats James's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), and James's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning) defeats James's word, read through Paul's (the renewal reading).

What this rests on. The reasons state 2 defeats and 43 absences of defeat, each a cell of the defeat table, jamesUnderTradition_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:

• James's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Moo 2000, ad loc. Jas 2:21; Silva 1994; Barr 2004
• James's faith (the faith James calls dead), weakest at well supported:
  • The faith alone that James 2:24 denies justifies is the dead faith of 2:14–26 — Jas 2:14-26; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 7; Moo 2000, ad loc. Jas 2:24
  • an inference step — Moo 2000, ad loc. Jas 2:24; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2
• Revelation 22:11, in the Greek, weakest at well supported:
  • an inference step — Pius XII 1943, §§16; Holmes 2010; United States Conference of Catholic Bishops 2011
• Sirach 18:22, in the Greek, weakest at well supported:
  • The Greek of Sirach 18:22 is about paying a vow: do not wait until death to be justified — Swete, ad loc. Sir 18:22; United States Conference of Catholic Bishops 2011, §Sirach 18:22
  • an inference step — Pius XII 1943, §§16; Holmes 2010; United States Conference of Catholic Bishops 2011
• Harmonisation of James 2:24, weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.2, XVI.5; Lutheran World Federation and Catholic Church 2000, §§§25, 37; see §38
  • an inference step — Moo 2000, ad loc. Jas 2:24; Calvin 1960, §III.xvii.11
• James 2:24, read by canon 24, weakest at disputed:
  • Good works are a cause of the increase of justification, not merely its fruits — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 24
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 24
• Revelation 22:11, as Trent quotes it, weakest at disputed:
  • Revelation 22:11 says: he that is just, let him be justified still — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 10
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 10
• Sirach 18:22, as Trent quotes it, weakest at disputed:
  • Sirach 18:22 says: be not afraid to be justified even to death — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 10
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 10
• The reward of works (Trent, Session VI, ch. 16), weakest at disputed:
  • The reward God renders to the works of the justified is rendered to them as merits — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 16; canon 32; Dulles 1999
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 16, canon 32; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.5, XVI.6
• James's word, read through Paul's (the renewal reading), weakest at disputed:
  • Paul's word ‘justify’ means the renewal of the inward man, not only a verdict — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, chs. 7–8; VanLandingham 2006
  • James's ‘justify’ (δικαιόω) has the sense Paul's has: the justification of Romans and Galatians — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 10
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 10; VanLandingham 2006
• The reward of works, of grace (Westminster XVI.5, XVI.6), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.5, XVI.6

james_word_turns_on_the_standard

What James's "justified" means depends on the standard, and the verdict and the rating agree.

Under the evidence standard the argument from James's word is forced, with the argument about James's faith and the Greek of both verses. The reading through Paul is not heard, because it rests on Trent's word that James's "justified" (δικαιόω) is Paul's.

Under the tradition standard the reading through Paul is heard, the step about the word is weighed at the rating worked out for it there, disputed, and whether James's word means the increase of justice is contested. Each side can be defended, and neither is forced.

theorem james_word_turns_on_the_standard : Framework.grounded
    jamesUnderEvidence.defeats = Solver.toSet (Witness.listSub
    (jamesRegister.admits Standard.evidence) [JamesParty.lexical,
    JamesParty.faith, JamesParty.harmony, JamesParty.revelationText,
    JamesParty.sirachText, JamesParty.westminsterOnReward]) ∧ Nonempty
    (Contested jamesUnderTradition (p Claim.jamesJustifyDenotesIncrease))
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

under_tradition_forces

Under the tradition standard, what is forced is the argument about James's faith and the Greek of the two verses, and no more.

theorem under_tradition_forces : Framework.grounded
    jamesUnderTradition.defeats = Solver.toSet (Witness.listSub
    (jamesRegister.admits Standard.tradition) [JamesParty.faith,
    JamesParty.revelationText, JamesParty.sirachText])
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

trentOnReward_denies_fruit

Trent's reading of the reward texts denies that works are fruit and not ground.

theorem trentOnReward_denies_fruit : Entails (jamesDispute.node
    JamesParty.trentOnReward).premises (∼p Claim.worksAreFruitNotGround)
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

harmonyHeard

Why the Reformed reconciliation can be defended under the tradition standard: it answers canon 24 and chapter 16.

Harmonisation of James 2:24 is accepted on some resolution.

• A position holding James's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), James's faith (the faith James calls dead), Harmonisation of James 2:24, Revelation 22:11, in the Greek, Sirach 18:22, in the Greek can be held.
• None of James's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), James's faith (the faith James calls dead), Harmonisation of James 2:24, Revelation 22:11, in the Greek, Sirach 18:22, in the Greek defeats another, and each attack on them is answered from among them:
  • James's word, read through Paul's (the renewal reading) defeats James's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), and James's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning) defeats James's word, read through Paul's (the renewal reading).
  • James 2:24, read by canon 24 defeats Harmonisation of James 2:24, and Harmonisation of James 2:24 defeats James 2:24, read by canon 24.
  • The reward of works (Trent, Session VI, ch. 16) defeats Harmonisation of James 2:24, and Harmonisation of James 2:24 defeats The reward of works (Trent, Session VI, ch. 16).
  • James's word, read through Paul's (the renewal reading) defeats Harmonisation of James 2:24, and James's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning) defeats James's word, read through Paul's (the renewal reading).

What this rests on. The reasons state 7 defeats and 51 absences of defeat, each a cell of the defeat table, jamesUnderTradition_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:

• James's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Moo 2000, ad loc. Jas 2:21; Silva 1994; Barr 2004
• James's faith (the faith James calls dead), weakest at well supported:
  • The faith alone that James 2:24 denies justifies is the dead faith of 2:14–26 — Jas 2:14-26; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 7; Moo 2000, ad loc. Jas 2:24
  • an inference step — Moo 2000, ad loc. Jas 2:24; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2
• Harmonisation of James 2:24, weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.2, XVI.5; Lutheran World Federation and Catholic Church 2000, §§§25, 37; see §38
  • an inference step — Moo 2000, ad loc. Jas 2:24; Calvin 1960, §III.xvii.11
• Revelation 22:11, in the Greek, weakest at well supported:
  • an inference step — Pius XII 1943, §§16; Holmes 2010; United States Conference of Catholic Bishops 2011
• Sirach 18:22, in the Greek, weakest at well supported:
  • The Greek of Sirach 18:22 is about paying a vow: do not wait until death to be justified — Swete, ad loc. Sir 18:22; United States Conference of Catholic Bishops 2011, §Sirach 18:22
  • an inference step — Pius XII 1943, §§16; Holmes 2010; United States Conference of Catholic Bishops 2011
• James 2:24, read by canon 24, weakest at disputed:
  • Good works are a cause of the increase of justification, not merely its fruits — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 24
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 24
• Revelation 22:11, as Trent quotes it, weakest at disputed:
  • Revelation 22:11 says: he that is just, let him be justified still — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 10
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 10
• Sirach 18:22, as Trent quotes it, weakest at disputed:
  • Sirach 18:22 says: be not afraid to be justified even to death — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 10
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 10
• The reward of works (Trent, Session VI, ch. 16), weakest at disputed:
  • The reward God renders to the works of the justified is rendered to them as merits — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 16; canon 32; Dulles 1999
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 16, canon 32; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.5, XVI.6
• James's word, read through Paul's (the renewal reading), weakest at disputed:
  • Paul's word ‘justify’ means the renewal of the inward man, not only a verdict — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, chs. 7–8; VanLandingham 2006
  • James's ‘justify’ (δικαιόω) has the sense Paul's has: the justification of Romans and Galatians — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 10
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 10; VanLandingham 2006
• The reward of works, of grace (Westminster XVI.5, XVI.6), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.5, XVI.6

rewardHeard

Why chapter 16's reading of the reward texts can be defended there: it answers the Reformed reconciliation.

The reward of works (Trent, Session VI, ch. 16) is accepted on some resolution.

• A position holding James's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), James's faith (the faith James calls dead), James 2:24, read by canon 24, The reward of works (Trent, Session VI, ch. 16), Revelation 22:11, in the Greek, Sirach 18:22, in the Greek can be held.
• None of James's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), James's faith (the faith James calls dead), James 2:24, read by canon 24, The reward of works (Trent, Session VI, ch. 16), Revelation 22:11, in the Greek, Sirach 18:22, in the Greek defeats another, and each attack on them is answered from among them:
  • James's word, read through Paul's (the renewal reading) defeats James's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), and James's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning) defeats James's word, read through Paul's (the renewal reading).
  • Harmonisation of James 2:24 defeats James 2:24, read by canon 24, and James 2:24, read by canon 24 defeats Harmonisation of James 2:24.
  • Harmonisation of James 2:24 defeats The reward of works (Trent, Session VI, ch. 16), and James 2:24, read by canon 24 defeats Harmonisation of James 2:24.
  • The reward of works, of grace (Westminster XVI.5, XVI.6) defeats The reward of works (Trent, Session VI, ch. 16), and The reward of works (Trent, Session VI, ch. 16) defeats The reward of works, of grace (Westminster XVI.5, XVI.6).

What this rests on. The reasons state 7 defeats and 62 absences of defeat, each a cell of the defeat table, jamesUnderTradition_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:

• James's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Moo 2000, ad loc. Jas 2:21; Silva 1994; Barr 2004
• James's faith (the faith James calls dead), weakest at well supported:
  • The faith alone that James 2:24 denies justifies is the dead faith of 2:14–26 — Jas 2:14-26; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 7; Moo 2000, ad loc. Jas 2:24
  • an inference step — Moo 2000, ad loc. Jas 2:24; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2
• James 2:24, read by canon 24, weakest at disputed:
  • Good works are a cause of the increase of justification, not merely its fruits — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 24
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 24
• The reward of works (Trent, Session VI, ch. 16), weakest at disputed:
  • The reward God renders to the works of the justified is rendered to them as merits — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 16; canon 32; Dulles 1999
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 16, canon 32; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.5, XVI.6
• Revelation 22:11, in the Greek, weakest at well supported:
  • an inference step — Pius XII 1943, §§16; Holmes 2010; United States Conference of Catholic Bishops 2011
• Sirach 18:22, in the Greek, weakest at well supported:
  • The Greek of Sirach 18:22 is about paying a vow: do not wait until death to be justified — Swete, ad loc. Sir 18:22; United States Conference of Catholic Bishops 2011, §Sirach 18:22
  • an inference step — Pius XII 1943, §§16; Holmes 2010; United States Conference of Catholic Bishops 2011
• Harmonisation of James 2:24, weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.2, XVI.5; Lutheran World Federation and Catholic Church 2000, §§§25, 37; see §38
  • an inference step — Moo 2000, ad loc. Jas 2:24; Calvin 1960, §III.xvii.11
• Revelation 22:11, as Trent quotes it, weakest at disputed:
  • Revelation 22:11 says: he that is just, let him be justified still — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 10
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 10
• Sirach 18:22, as Trent quotes it, weakest at disputed:
  • Sirach 18:22 says: be not afraid to be justified even to death — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 10
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 10
• James's word, read through Paul's (the renewal reading), weakest at disputed:
  • Paul's word ‘justify’ means the renewal of the inward man, not only a verdict — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, chs. 7–8; VanLandingham 2006
  • James's ‘justify’ (δικαιόω) has the sense Paul's has: the justification of Romans and Galatians — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 10
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), ch. 10; VanLandingham 2006
• The reward of works, of grace (Westminster XVI.5, XVI.6), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.5, XVI.6

fruit_turns_on_the_standard

Whether works are fruit and not ground depends on whether a council's word counts, and the verdict and the rating agree.

Under the evidence standard the Reformed reconciliation is forced. It derives "fruit, not ground" from Westminster's proof texts. Neither of Trent's objections is heard: each rests at one claim on the council's word.

Under the tradition standard both are heard, the step is weighed at disputed, and the question is contested. The reconciliation and chapter 16's reading of the reward texts can each be defended, and neither is forced.

theorem fruit_turns_on_the_standard : Framework.grounded
    jamesUnderEvidence.defeats = Solver.toSet (Witness.listSub
    (jamesRegister.admits Standard.evidence) [JamesParty.lexical,
    JamesParty.faith, JamesParty.harmony, JamesParty.revelationText,
    JamesParty.sirachText, JamesParty.westminsterOnReward]) ∧ Nonempty
    (Contested jamesUnderTradition (p Claim.worksAreFruitNotGround))
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound