Where Trent parts from Paul
When teachers in Galatia added circumcision to the gospel, Paul answered with a whole letter. A different gospel is no gospel, he wrote, and whoever preaches it is accursed (1:6–9). Then, at the heart of the letter:
"If righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose" (Galatians 2:21).
Whoever would be justified by the law is "severed from Christ" (5:2–4). The gospel itself is the one Paul received and handed on, that "Christ died for our sins" (1 Corinthians 15:3).
Fifteen centuries later the Council of Trent defined justification this way:
"not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man" (Session VI, ch. 7).
Where exactly do Trent and Paul part? First, what Trent can accept; then the one step it denies; then what the checking found.
What Trent can accept
Trent can accept every text above. It can also accept that Paul's verb "justify"
(δικαιόω) is a courtroom word, a verdict: scholars across the traditions read it
so, the standard lexicon of New Testament Greek (BDAG), Morris, Moo, Irons,
Wright, and the Catholic scholar Fitzmyer among them (dikaioIsForensic, rated
wellSupported). The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification
(1999), signed by the Catholic Church, confesses that God "no longer imputes to
them their sin" (§22). It does not speak to the sense of the verb.
What Trent denies
Trent denies one step, which the Westminster Confession states (XI.1): that a verdict given on the ground of Christ's finished work leaves no room for the renewal worked in us to be part of justification. A modern Catholic text says the same as Trent. The same paragraph of the Joint Declaration holds that forgiveness and the love the Spirit brings about are "not to be separated", and its Annex defines justification as "forgiveness of sins and being made righteous" (Annex 2 A). Gorman reads the verdict as a word that does what it says and changes the person.
Where they part
The checking finds that the whole disagreement is that one step, and that what
the step contradicts in Trent is its definition, and nothing else
(whereTrentPartsFromPaul).
This does not show that the step is true. It shows that the step is the whole of the disagreement. Grant it, and Trent's definition cannot stand. Deny it, and Paul's gospel, as written out here, does not reach Trent's definition at all.
How this is checked
The positions, steps and results behind this chapter, each with the formula or the Lean that checks it
The gospel line holds together
Paul's gospel as this line reads it: every text true, Christ's work the whole ground, the verdict a courtroom one, and justification not the renewal of the inward person.
def galatianGospelReading : Valuation Claim :=
fun a =>
match a with
| Claim.justificationIncludesSanctification => False
| x => True
Paul's gospel, read this way, denies Trent's definition. From Galatians 1:6–9, 2:21, 5:2–4 and 1 Corinthians 15:3, read as one claim, with "justify" (δικαιόω) as a courtroom word: justification is not the renewal of the inward person.
It does not show that the reading is beyond dispute. Two of its steps
are rated disputed, and Trent accepts every text.
theorem galatianGospel_establishes : Establishes galatianGospel
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound
The gospel line's premises can all be true together.
theorem galatianGospel_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable galatianGospel.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound
What Trent can accept
Trent's position with two things added: what the Joint Declaration confesses, that God no longer counts sin against the justified (§22); and that Paul's verb is a courtroom word, as the scholars cited on it read it. Every text of the gospel line holds. Justification still includes renewal, faith without charity does not suffice, and justification is not by faith alone.
Having granted that the verb is a courtroom word, this reading does not also
hold that Paul's verb means renewal: the two exclude each other
(TestimonyArguments.Meanings.SolaFide.joins). Of the other pairs of claims
that exclude each other, it holds the Greek text of Revelation 22:11 and Sirach
18:22, and that James uses "justify" as Paul does.
def jointDeclarationReading : Valuation Claim :=
fun a =>
match a with
| Claim.paulsJustifyDenotesRenewal => False
| Claim.rev22_11BeJustifiedStill => False
| Claim.sir18_22BeJustifiedToDeath => False
| Claim.james2_24Compatible => False
| Claim.salvationNotByWorks => False
| Claim.justificationIsForensicOnly => False
| Claim.justificationDistinctFromSanctification => False
| Claim.faithIsSufficient => False
| Claim.justificationByFaithAlone => False
| x => True
Trent can accept every text of the gospel line. Nothing Trent holds denies that Christ died for our sins, that righteousness through the law would make his death needless, or that another gospel is accursed.
theorem trent_grants_the_gospel_texts : Grants tridentineCase (⋀[p
Claim.galatians1_6_9, p Claim.firstCorinthians15_3, p Claim.galatians2_21,
p Claim.galatians5_2_4, p Claim.romans8_33_34])
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound
trent_grants_the_forensic_sense
Trent's case can be held together with the verdict sense of Paul's verb. Nothing in Trent's case denies that "justify" is a courtroom word. The meaning of the word is not where they part.
It does not show that Trent or the Joint Declaration teaches the verdict sense. The Declaration confesses that God no longer counts sin (§22), and does not speak to the sense of the verb. This result says only that the two can be held together.
theorem trent_grants_the_forensic_sense : Grants tridentineCase (p
Claim.dikaioIsForensic)
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound
Where Trent parts from Paul
Where Trent parts from Paul. At one step: if justification is God's verdict
on the ground of Christ's finished work, then the renewal of the inward person
is no part of it (verdictExcludesRenewal; Westminster XI.1).
What that step contradicts in Trent is its definition, justification "not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man" (Session VI, ch. 7), and nothing else: not Trent's account of merit, and not its reading of works.
The contradiction needs the gospel line's starting points as well: the four
texts, the reading of them, Romans 8:33–34 and the courtroom sense of the verb.
Trent can accept every one of those (trent_grants_the_gospel_texts,
trent_grants_the_forensic_sense). It is the step that Trent denies, with the
Joint Declaration: forgiveness and renewal are "not to be separated".
Why Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal stands against Trent, against 'not by works'.
- The crux: \((\href{claims.html#claim-58}{P_{58}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-49}{P_{49}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-48}{P_{48}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-33}{P_{33}}\), a premise of Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal.
- What it does: its conclusion does not follow without it.
- Granted: \(\href{claims.html#claim-44}{P_{44}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-45}{P_{45}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-46}{P_{46}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-47}{P_{47}}\), \((\href{claims.html#claim-44}{P_{44}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-45}{P_{45}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-46}{P_{46}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-47}{P_{47}}) \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-58}{P_{58}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-48}{P_{48}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-49}{P_{49}}\), which the break also needs.
- Where the rival breaks: \(\href{claims.html#claim-33}{P_{33}}\) cannot be held together with \((\href{claims.html#claim-58}{P_{58}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-49}{P_{49}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-48}{P_{48}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-33}{P_{33}}\) and \(\href{claims.html#claim-44}{P_{44}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-45}{P_{45}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-46}{P_{46}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-47}{P_{47}}\), \((\href{claims.html#claim-44}{P_{44}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-45}{P_{45}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-46}{P_{46}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-47}{P_{47}}) \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-58}{P_{58}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-48}{P_{48}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-49}{P_{49}}\); each is needed for the break, and without the crux they stand.
- What this rests on:
- \(\href{claims.html#claim-44}{P_{44}}\) Galatians 1:6–9: whoever preaches a gospel contrary to the one received is accursed — consensus: Gal 1:6-9; Moo 2013, ad loc. Gal 1:6
- \(\href{claims.html#claim-45}{P_{45}}\) 1 Corinthians 15:3: the gospel of first importance — Christ died for our sins — consensus: 1 Cor 15:3
- \(\href{claims.html#claim-46}{P_{46}}\) Galatians 2:21: if righteousness were through the law, Christ died for no purpose — consensus: Gal 2:21; Moo 2013, ad loc. Gal 2:21
- \(\href{claims.html#claim-47}{P_{47}}\) Galatians 5:2–4: you who would be justified by the law are severed from Christ — consensus: Gal 5:2-4; Moo 2013, ad loc. Gal 5:2
- \(\href{claims.html#claim-58}{P_{58}}\) Christ's death for our sins is the whole ground of justification; to add to it is another gospel — disputed: Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Gal 2:21; Moo 2013, ad loc. Gal 2:21; Roberts et al. 1885, §Epistle to Diognetus 9
- \(\href{claims.html#claim-48}{P_{48}}\) Romans 8:33–34: it is God who justifies — who is to condemn? — consensus: Rom 8:33-34
- \(\href{claims.html#claim-49}{P_{49}}\) In Paul, ‘justify’ (δικαιόω) is a verdict: to declare righteous — well supported: Bauer 2000, §s.v. δικαιόω; Morris 1965; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Irons 2015; Wright 2009; Fitzmyer 1993, ad loc. Rom 3:24
- the step itself — disputed: Moo 2013, ad loc. Gal 1:6; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; disputed: Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.2; Morris 1965