What Trent means by justification
The last chapter found that Trent and Paul part at one step
(whereTrentPartsFromPaul). What lies on Trent's side of that step is its
definition:
justification is "not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man" (Session VI, ch. 7).
The Westminster Confession denies it (XI.1). But the definition can be taken in two ways, as a claim about a word or as a claim about what God does, and each way meets a different objection.
Taken as a claim about Paul's word
On this reading the definition says that "justify" (δικαιόω), in Paul, means
the renewal of the inward person. Trent invites it. Chapter 8 of the decree sets
out how "the Apostle's" words, justified "by faith and freely", are to be
understood, and chapter 7 of the decree says that the justified "are not only
reputed, but are truly called, and are, just". So read, the definition is a
claim about a word, and it meets an answer about the word. 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 (Joos;
Silva). To read renewal into the verdict from the doctrine is what Barr called
"illegitimate totality transfer". Romans 4 gives the same answer from one
passage: Paul explains the righteousness God counts to the ungodly as sin not
counted, and by the same rule the verb he explains in that way does not also
mean renewal.
Every step of that answer is rated above disputed.
Why Trent would take it so
The council read Paul in the Latin it had declared "authentic" (Session IV), and in Latin "justify"
(iustificare) had meant "to make righteous" since Augustine: "what else does
the phrase 'being justified' signify than being made righteous" (On the Spirit
and the Letter 26.45). McGrath traces that inheritance through the medieval
West. So this way of taking the definition has a starting point of its own, that
Augustine explained the word so, which is rated consensus because he did. It
then needs a step from the Latin explanation to the Greek word, and that step is
where it fails. An explanation in one language does not settle what a word means
in another, and the argument from usage says what the Greek word means in Paul
(whereTheLatinReadingFalls).
Taken as a claim about what God does
On this reading the definition says that when God justifies he also renews:
pardon and renewal given together, "not to be separated", as the Joint
Declaration (§22) confesses. No argument about the word reaches it. It can be
held with everything the argument from usage says about "justify", and Calvin
himself grants that justification and sanctification cannot be separated. What
still divides Trent from Paul is the step found in the last chapter: that a
verdict on Christ's finished work excludes renewal from justification
(whereTrentPartsFromPaul). That step is disputed.
Romans 4 leads to the same place by another way, and does not raise the rating.
God "justifies the ungodly" (4:5), and the blessing of righteousness counted
apart from works is sin not counted (4:6–8). Read with the courtroom sense of
the verb, what is counted to the ungodly is not a righteousness worked in them.
Trent can accept every word (trent_grants_romans_four), and Augustine reads
the same verse the other way: God justifies the ungodly "that he may become a
godly one" (On the Spirit and the Letter 26.45). So the step is disputed, as
the step from Galatians is, and Romans 4 adds a second argument at the same
rating. So read, Trent is met by Paul
from Galatians and from Romans 4, and each has to be answered
(whereRomansFourMeetsWhatGodDoes). The two arguments are not wholly separate:
both start from the courtroom sense of the verb, so a reader who denies that
sense denies both.
The two are put together and checked in one result
(whatTrentsDefinitionClaims). Each way of taking the definition is fair, since
Trent read either way can still be held without contradiction, and each is
answered. The first cannot be held with what Paul's word means: it fails three times, each
at a step rated wellSupported. The second is untouched by anything about the
word, and conflicts with Paul's gospel and with Romans 4, each time at a step
rated disputed. So a reader who grants that step rejects the definition taken
that way, and a reader who denies it need not. Which way Trent means it is not
something this chapter decides.
One premise, that Paul has his own words for renewal
(paulNamesRenewalOtherwise), is cited to Scripture alone: it says what the
texts say and no more.
How this is checked
The positions, steps and results behind this chapter, each with the formula or the Lean that checks it
The argument from Paul's word holds together
The reading on which the argument from Paul's word holds: every word as that argument takes it, and "justify" meaning the verdict and not renewal.
def lexicalReading : Valuation Claim :=
fun a =>
match a with
| Claim.paulsJustifyDenotesRenewal => False
| x => True
Paul's "justify" (δικαιόω) does not mean the renewal of the inward person. This follows from three things: the verb is a courtroom word; Paul has other words for renewal; and a word contributes the least meaning its context requires.
It does not claim anything about what God does when he justifies. It is a result about a word.
theorem lexicalCase_establishes : Establishes lexicalCase
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound
The premises of the argument from Paul's word can all be true together.
theorem lexicalCase_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable lexicalCase.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound
Two ways of taking Trent's definition
Taking Trent's definition as a claim about Paul's word, and taking Paul's word
as the Latin West did. Trent's chapter 8 sets out how "the Apostle's" words are
to be understood, and chapter 7 says the justified are "not only reputed, but
are truly called, and are, just". The council read Paul in the Latin it had
declared "authentic" (Session IV), where "justify" (iustificare) had meant "to
make righteous" since Augustine. McGrath traces that inheritance. Rated
disputed: whether the council defines the word or the reality is itself
argued, and the step from the Latin explanation to the Greek word is what the
argument from Paul's word denies.
def trentReadsPaulsWord : Source :=
{
primary :=
Reference.work tannerDecrees
(Bib.Locus.sectionRef
"Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 8"),
supporting :=
[Reference.work tannerDecrees
(Bib.Locus.sectionRef
"Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7"),
Reference.work npnfAugustineAntiPelagian
(Bib.Locus.sectionRef "On the Spirit and the Letter, ch. 45 (26.45)"),
Reference.work mcgrathIustitiaDei],
tradition := Tradition.romanCatholic, confidence := Confidence.disputed }
Taking Trent's definition as a claim about what God does in justifying. In the
Joint Declaration, forgiveness and the renewal the Spirit brings about are two
sides of God's gracious action, "not to be separated" (§22). Rated disputed,
for the same reason as the other way of taking it.
def trentReadsGrace : Source :=
{
primary :=
Reference.work jointDeclarationJustification (Bib.Locus.sectionRef "§22"),
supporting :=
[Reference.work tannerDecrees
(Bib.Locus.sectionRef
"Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7")],
tradition := Tradition.romanCatholic, confidence := Confidence.disputed }
Trent's definition, taken as a claim about what Paul's word means, and resting, as the Latin West did, on Augustine's explanation: "being justified" is "being made righteous".
def trentOnPaulsWord : Reading Claim :=
{ name := "as what Paul's word means",
commits := p Claim.paulsJustifyDenotesRenewal,
grounds :=
[p Claim.augustineReadsJustifyAsMakeRighteous,
p Claim.augustineReadsJustifyAsMakeRighteous 🡒
p Claim.paulsJustifyDenotesRenewal],
source := trentReadsPaulsWord }
Trent's definition, taken as a claim about what God does in justifying.
def trentOnWhatGodDoes : Reading Claim :=
{ name := "as what God does in justifying",
commits := p Claim.justifyingGraceRenews,
source := trentReadsGrace }
tridentineOnPaulsWord — Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means
Trent, with its definition taken as a claim about Paul's word.
- (1) \(\href{claims.html#claim-1}{P_{1}}\) — Ephesians 2:8–9 teaches salvation by grace through faith, not of works
- (2) \(\href{claims.html#claim-2}{P_{2}}\) — Romans 3:28 teaches justification by faith apart from works of the law
- (3) \(\href{claims.html#claim-3}{P_{3}}\) — Galatians 2:16 teaches that no one is justified by works of the law
- (4) \(\href{claims.html#claim-5}{P_{5}}\) — Titus 3:5 teaches that God saved us not by works done in righteousness
- (5) \(\href{claims.html#claim-24}{P_{24}}\) — Scripture does not contradict itself
- (6) \(\href{claims.html#claim-33}{P_{33}}\) — Justification is not remission of sins only, but renewal of the inward man
- (7) \(\href{claims.html#claim-35}{P_{35}}\) — The inward renewal of the justified grows as they do good works in grace
- (8) \((\href{claims.html#claim-33}{P_{33}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-35}{P_{35}}) \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-32}{P_{32}}\) — would give: Works performed in grace merit an increase of justification
- (9) \(\href{claims.html#claim-33}{P_{33}} \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-30}{P_{30}}\) — would deny: Justification is a verdict only: pardon and righteousness counted, not poured in
- (10) \(\href{claims.html#claim-33}{P_{33}} \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-34}{P_{34}}\) — would deny: Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct
- (11) \(\href{claims.html#claim-33}{P_{33}} \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-26}{P_{26}}\) — would deny: Faith is sufficient: whoever believes is saved
- (12) \(\href{claims.html#claim-32}{P_{32}} \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-28}{P_{28}}\)
- (13) \(\href{claims.html#claim-54}{P_{54}}\) — Augustine explains "being justified" as "being made righteous", and the Latin West read iustificare so
- (14) \(\href{claims.html#claim-54}{P_{54}} \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-52}{P_{52}}\) — would give: Paul's word ‘justify’ means the renewal of the inward man, not only a verdict
- (15) \(\href{claims.html#claim-33}{P_{33}} \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-52}{P_{52}}\) — would give: Paul's word ‘justify’ means the renewal of the inward man, not only a verdict
- \(\vdash\) \(\lnot \href{claims.html#claim-28}{P_{28}}\) — at issue, the denial of: Salvation is not by works: no work is its ground
No premise here rests on scripture alone.
tridentineOnWhatGodDoes — Trent, against 'not by works', read as what God does in justifying
Trent, with its definition taken as a claim about what God does.
- (1) \(\href{claims.html#claim-1}{P_{1}}\) — Ephesians 2:8–9 teaches salvation by grace through faith, not of works
- (2) \(\href{claims.html#claim-2}{P_{2}}\) — Romans 3:28 teaches justification by faith apart from works of the law
- (3) \(\href{claims.html#claim-3}{P_{3}}\) — Galatians 2:16 teaches that no one is justified by works of the law
- (4) \(\href{claims.html#claim-5}{P_{5}}\) — Titus 3:5 teaches that God saved us not by works done in righteousness
- (5) \(\href{claims.html#claim-24}{P_{24}}\) — Scripture does not contradict itself
- (6) \(\href{claims.html#claim-33}{P_{33}}\) — Justification is not remission of sins only, but renewal of the inward man
- (7) \(\href{claims.html#claim-35}{P_{35}}\) — The inward renewal of the justified grows as they do good works in grace
- (8) \((\href{claims.html#claim-33}{P_{33}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-35}{P_{35}}) \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-32}{P_{32}}\) — would give: Works performed in grace merit an increase of justification
- (9) \(\href{claims.html#claim-33}{P_{33}} \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-30}{P_{30}}\) — would deny: Justification is a verdict only: pardon and righteousness counted, not poured in
- (10) \(\href{claims.html#claim-33}{P_{33}} \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-34}{P_{34}}\) — would deny: Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct
- (11) \(\href{claims.html#claim-33}{P_{33}} \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-26}{P_{26}}\) — would deny: Faith is sufficient: whoever believes is saved
- (12) \(\href{claims.html#claim-32}{P_{32}} \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-28}{P_{28}}\)
- (13) \(\href{claims.html#claim-33}{P_{33}} \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-53}{P_{53}}\) — would give: When God justifies, he also renews: pardon and renewal are given together, not to be separated
- \(\vdash\) \(\lnot \href{claims.html#claim-28}{P_{28}}\) — at issue, the denial of: Salvation is not by works: no work is its ground
No premise here rests on scripture alone.
tridentineOnPaulsWord_establishes
Trent, taken as a claim about Paul's word, still concludes what Trent concludes: taking the definition one way only adds premises.
theorem tridentineOnPaulsWord_establishes : Establishes tridentineOnPaulsWord
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound
Trent's position, taking Paul's word as it does: "justify" means making just, and not a verdict only; justification includes renewal; faith without charity does not suffice; and justification is not by faith alone.
def trentOnPaulsWordReading : Valuation Claim :=
fun a =>
match a with
| Claim.salvationNotByWorks => False
| Claim.justificationIsForensicOnly => False
| Claim.justificationDistinctFromSanctification => False
| Claim.faithIsSufficient => False
| Claim.justificationByFaithAlone => False
| Claim.dikaioIsForensic => False
| x => True
tridentineOnPaulsWord_is_satisfiable
Trent, taken as a claim about Paul's word, can be held without contradiction. So this branch of the question is a fair one: the position does not refute itself.
theorem tridentineOnPaulsWord_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable
tridentineOnPaulsWord.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound
Trent taken as a claim about what God does, with everything the argument from Paul's word says accepted: the verb a courtroom word, Paul's own words for renewal, the rule of least meaning, and "justify" not meaning renewal. God, in justifying, also renews.
def trentGrantsTheWordReading : Valuation Claim :=
fun a =>
match a with
| Claim.salvationNotByWorks => False
| Claim.justificationIsForensicOnly => False
| Claim.justificationDistinctFromSanctification => False
| Claim.faithIsSufficient => False
| Claim.justificationByFaithAlone => False
| Claim.paulsJustifyDenotesRenewal => False
| x => True
tridentineOnWhatGodDoes_is_satisfiable
Trent, taken as a claim about what God does, can be held without contradiction.
theorem tridentineOnWhatGodDoes_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable
tridentineOnWhatGodDoes.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound
lexical_case_does_not_reach_what_god_does
The argument from Paul's word does not reach Trent's definition taken as a claim about what God does. Taken that way, Trent's position can be held together with every premise of the argument. The rule of least meaning governs what Paul's word says, and this way of taking the definition says nothing about the word.
theorem lexical_case_does_not_reach_what_god_does : Satisfiable
(lexicalCase.premises ++ tridentineOnWhatGodDoes.premises)
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound
Where each fails
Why Paul's word stands against Trent taken as a claim about it. Everything
turns on one step: with the courtroom sense, Paul's own words for renewal and
the rule of least meaning, "justify" does not mean renewal. What that
contradicts is Trent's definition together with this way of taking it, and
nothing else in Trent. Every link is rated above disputed.
Why Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning) stands against Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means.
- The crux: \((\href{claims.html#claim-49}{P_{49}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-50}{P_{50}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-51}{P_{51}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-52}{P_{52}}\), a premise of Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning).
- What it does: its conclusion does not follow without it.
- Granted: \(\href{claims.html#claim-49}{P_{49}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-50}{P_{50}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-51}{P_{51}}\), which the break also needs.
- Where the rival breaks: \(\href{claims.html#claim-33}{P_{33}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-33}{P_{33}} \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-52}{P_{52}}\) cannot be held together with \((\href{claims.html#claim-49}{P_{49}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-50}{P_{50}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-51}{P_{51}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-52}{P_{52}}\) and \(\href{claims.html#claim-49}{P_{49}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-50}{P_{50}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-51}{P_{51}}\); each is needed for the break, and without the crux they stand.
- What this rests on:
- \(\href{claims.html#claim-49}{P_{49}}\) 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
- \(\href{claims.html#claim-50}{P_{50}}\) Paul names renewal with other words (ἀνακαίνωσις, ἁγιασμός) and sets them beside ‘justify’ — consensus: Titus 3:5-7; Rom 12:2; Rom 6:19-22; 1 Cor 6:11
- \(\href{claims.html#claim-51}{P_{51}}\) A word contributes the least meaning its context requires; one occurrence does not carry the whole concept — well supported: Silva 1994; Joos 1972; Barr 2004
- the step itself — well supported: Silva 1994; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Barr 2004
Why Paul's word stands against the Latin reading of it. The same step, and a
second contradiction in the same branch. Trent rests its reading of Paul's word
on Augustine's explanation, and what fails is the step from that explanation to
what the Greek word means. That Augustine explained it so is not in question; it
is rated consensus. But a Latin explanation does not settle what the Greek
word means in Paul, and the courtroom sense, Paul's own words for renewal and
the rule of least meaning say it does not mean renewal.
Why Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning) stands against Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means.
- The crux: \((\href{claims.html#claim-49}{P_{49}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-50}{P_{50}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-51}{P_{51}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-52}{P_{52}}\), a premise of Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning).
- What it does: its conclusion does not follow without it.
- Granted: \(\href{claims.html#claim-49}{P_{49}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-50}{P_{50}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-51}{P_{51}}\), which the break also needs.
- Where the rival breaks: \(\href{claims.html#claim-54}{P_{54}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-54}{P_{54}} \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-52}{P_{52}}\) cannot be held together with \((\href{claims.html#claim-49}{P_{49}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-50}{P_{50}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-51}{P_{51}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-52}{P_{52}}\) and \(\href{claims.html#claim-49}{P_{49}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-50}{P_{50}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-51}{P_{51}}\); each is needed for the break, and without the crux they stand.
- What this rests on:
- \(\href{claims.html#claim-49}{P_{49}}\) 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
- \(\href{claims.html#claim-50}{P_{50}}\) Paul names renewal with other words (ἀνακαίνωσις, ἁγιασμός) and sets them beside ‘justify’ — consensus: Titus 3:5-7; Rom 12:2; Rom 6:19-22; 1 Cor 6:11
- \(\href{claims.html#claim-51}{P_{51}}\) A word contributes the least meaning its context requires; one occurrence does not carry the whole concept — well supported: Silva 1994; Joos 1972; Barr 2004
- the step itself — well supported: Silva 1994; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Barr 2004
Why Paul's gospel stands against Trent taken as a claim about what God does.
The same step as whereTrentPartsFromPaul, and the same contradiction: from a
verdict on Christ's finished work to "renewal is no part of justification",
against Trent's definition. Taken this way, that step is all that divides them,
and it is rated disputed.
Why Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal stands against Trent, against 'not by works', read as what God does in justifying.
- 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
Romans 4
Romans 4, read this way, denies Trent's definition. Paul explains the righteousness God counts to the ungodly as sin not counted. With the courtroom sense of the verb, renewal is no part of justification.
It does not show that the reading is beyond dispute. Augustine accepts
the same verses and reads them the other way, so the step is rated disputed.
theorem romansFourCase_establishes : Establishes romansFourCase
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound
The premises of the argument from Romans 4 can all be true together, on the reading given for Paul's gospel.
theorem romansFourCase_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable romansFourCase.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound
romansFourOnTheWord_establishes
Romans 4, read by the rule of least meaning, shows what Paul's word means. The verb Paul explains as sin not counted does not also mean the renewal of the inward person.
theorem romansFourOnTheWord_establishes : Establishes romansFourOnTheWord
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound
romansFourOnTheWord_is_satisfiable
The premises of that argument can all be true together, on the reading given for the argument from Paul's word.
theorem romansFourOnTheWord_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable
romansFourOnTheWord.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound
Trent can accept every word of Romans 4:5–8, as Augustine does: God justifies the ungodly, and the blessing is sin not counted. The texts are accepted on both sides. The reading of them is not.
theorem trent_grants_romans_four : Grants tridentineCase (⋀[p
Claim.romans4_4_5, p Claim.romans4_6_8])
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound
romans_four_on_the_word_does_not_reach_what_god_does
Romans 4, read for Paul's word, does not reach Trent's definition taken as a claim about what God does. Taken that way, Trent's position can be held with every premise of the argument. The argument says what the counting is, and this way of taking the definition says nothing about the word.
theorem romans_four_on_the_word_does_not_reach_what_god_does : Satisfiable
(romansFourOnTheWord.premises ++ tridentineOnWhatGodDoes.premises)
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound
whereRomansFourMeetsTheWordReading
Why Romans 4 stands against Trent taken as a claim about Paul's word.
Everything turns on the step from Paul's explanation, that the righteousness
counted to the ungodly is sin not counted, by the rule of least meaning, to "the
verb does not also mean renewal". What it contradicts is Trent's definition
taken this way. Every link is rated wellSupported or better. It arrives from
one passage where the argument from usage arrives from the word.
Why Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning) stands against Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means.
- The crux: \((\href{claims.html#claim-57}{P_{57}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-51}{P_{51}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-52}{P_{52}}\), a premise of Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning).
- What it does: its conclusion does not follow without it.
- Granted: \(\href{claims.html#claim-4}{P_{4}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-55}{P_{55}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-56}{P_{56}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-51}{P_{51}}\), \((\href{claims.html#claim-4}{P_{4}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-55}{P_{55}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-56}{P_{56}}) \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-57}{P_{57}}\), which the break also needs.
- Where the rival breaks: \(\href{claims.html#claim-33}{P_{33}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-33}{P_{33}} \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-52}{P_{52}}\) cannot be held together with \((\href{claims.html#claim-57}{P_{57}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-51}{P_{51}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-52}{P_{52}}\) and \(\href{claims.html#claim-4}{P_{4}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-55}{P_{55}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-56}{P_{56}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-51}{P_{51}}\), \((\href{claims.html#claim-4}{P_{4}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-55}{P_{55}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-56}{P_{56}}) \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-57}{P_{57}}\); each is needed for the break, and without the crux they stand.
- What this rests on:
- \(\href{claims.html#claim-4}{P_{4}}\) Romans 4:4–5 contrasts wages owed with a gift reckoned to the one who believes — well supported: Rom 4:4-5; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.18
- \(\href{claims.html#claim-55}{P_{55}}\) Romans 4:6–8: righteousness counted apart from works — sins forgiven, sin not counted — consensus: Rom 4:6-8; Moo 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:6
- \(\href{claims.html#claim-56}{P_{56}}\) ‘Count’ (λογίζομαι) in Romans 4:3–11 is the language of an account: credited to one — well supported: Bauer 2000, §s.v. λογίζομαι; Moo 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:3
- \(\href{claims.html#claim-51}{P_{51}}\) A word contributes the least meaning its context requires; one occurrence does not carry the whole concept — well supported: Silva 1994; Joos 1972; Barr 2004
- \(\href{claims.html#claim-57}{P_{57}}\) In Romans 4:6–8 Paul explains righteousness counted apart from works as sin not counted — well supported: Moo 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:6; Rom 4:6-8
- the step itself — well supported: Moo 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:6; Bauer 2000, §s.v. λογίζομαι; well supported: Silva 1994; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Barr 2004
whereRomansFourMeetsWhatGodDoes
Why Romans 4 stands against Trent taken as a claim about what God does. Everything turns on the step from Paul's explanation, with the courtroom sense of the verb, to "renewal is no part of justification". It contradicts Trent's definition and nothing else.
The step is rated disputed, as the step from Galatians is. Augustine accepts
the same verses and reads them the other way: God justifies the ungodly "that he
may become a godly one". So taken this way, Trent is met by Paul twice, from
Galatians and from Romans 4, each time at a disputed step. The two arguments
share one starting point, the courtroom sense of the verb.
Why Romans 4:3–8, against justification as renewal stands against Trent, against 'not by works', read as what God does in justifying.
- The crux: \((\href{claims.html#claim-57}{P_{57}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-49}{P_{49}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-33}{P_{33}}\), a premise of Romans 4:3–8, against justification as renewal.
- What it does: its conclusion does not follow without it.
- Granted: \(\href{claims.html#claim-4}{P_{4}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-55}{P_{55}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-56}{P_{56}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-49}{P_{49}}\), \((\href{claims.html#claim-4}{P_{4}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-55}{P_{55}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-56}{P_{56}}) \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-57}{P_{57}}\), which the break also needs.
- Where the rival breaks: \(\href{claims.html#claim-33}{P_{33}}\) cannot be held together with \((\href{claims.html#claim-57}{P_{57}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-49}{P_{49}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-33}{P_{33}}\) and \(\href{claims.html#claim-4}{P_{4}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-55}{P_{55}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-56}{P_{56}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-49}{P_{49}}\), \((\href{claims.html#claim-4}{P_{4}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-55}{P_{55}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-56}{P_{56}}) \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-57}{P_{57}}\); each is needed for the break, and without the crux they stand.
- What this rests on:
- \(\href{claims.html#claim-4}{P_{4}}\) Romans 4:4–5 contrasts wages owed with a gift reckoned to the one who believes — well supported: Rom 4:4-5; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.18
- \(\href{claims.html#claim-55}{P_{55}}\) Romans 4:6–8: righteousness counted apart from works — sins forgiven, sin not counted — consensus: Rom 4:6-8; Moo 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:6
- \(\href{claims.html#claim-56}{P_{56}}\) ‘Count’ (λογίζομαι) in Romans 4:3–11 is the language of an account: credited to one — well supported: Bauer 2000, §s.v. λογίζομαι; Moo 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:3
- \(\href{claims.html#claim-49}{P_{49}}\) 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
- \(\href{claims.html#claim-57}{P_{57}}\) In Romans 4:6–8 Paul explains righteousness counted apart from works as sin not counted — well supported: Moo 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:6; Rom 4:6-8
- the step itself — well supported: Moo 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:6; Bauer 2000, §s.v. λογίζομαι; disputed: Moo 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:5; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1
The two put together
What Trent's definition claims, taken both ways. The definition is that justification is the sanctification and renewal of the inward person.
Taken as a claim about what Paul's word means, namely that "justify" (δικαιόω)
means that renewal, it cannot be held with the evidence for what the word means.
It fails three times, each at a step rated wellSupported: against the argument
from usage, as Trent states the definition; against the same argument, at the
Latin explanation this reading rests on ("being justified" as "being made
righteous"); and against Romans 4 read for the word.
Taken as a claim about what God does in justifying, namely that he also
renews, nothing about the word reaches it: neither the argument from usage nor
Romans 4 read for the word. It conflicts with Paul twice, each time at a step
rated disputed: with his gospel in Galatians, at the step
whereTrentPartsFromPaul names, and with Romans 4, at the reading of "justifies
the ungodly". A reader who grants those steps rejects the definition taken this
way. A reader who denies them need not. Augustine does, and so does the Joint
Declaration's Annex, which defines justification as "forgiveness of sins and
being made righteous" (Annex 2 A).
Each way of taking it is fair: Trent's position, taken either way, can still be held without contradiction.
Every reading of \(\href{claims.html#claim-33}{P_{33}}\), answered. Trent, against 'not by works' holds \(\href{claims.html#claim-33}{P_{33}}\). It is read 2 ways here, and each reading is checked; none can be left out.
1. Read as what Paul's word means. The claim commits Trent, against 'not by works' to \(\href{claims.html#claim-52}{P_{52}}\) — so read by Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 8; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7; Schaff 1887, §On the Spirit and the Letter, ch. 45 (26.45); McGrath 2005 (disputed). It rests the reading on \(\href{claims.html#claim-54}{P_{54}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-54}{P_{54}} \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-52}{P_{52}}\).
Against Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), it cannot be held. Where it breaks:
Why Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning) stands against Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means.
- The crux: \((\href{claims.html#claim-49}{P_{49}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-50}{P_{50}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-51}{P_{51}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-52}{P_{52}}\), a premise of Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning).
- What it does: its conclusion does not follow without it.
- Granted: \(\href{claims.html#claim-49}{P_{49}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-50}{P_{50}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-51}{P_{51}}\), which the break also needs.
- Where the rival breaks: \(\href{claims.html#claim-33}{P_{33}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-33}{P_{33}} \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-52}{P_{52}}\) cannot be held together with \((\href{claims.html#claim-49}{P_{49}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-50}{P_{50}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-51}{P_{51}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-52}{P_{52}}\) and \(\href{claims.html#claim-49}{P_{49}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-50}{P_{50}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-51}{P_{51}}\); each is needed for the break, and without the crux they stand.
- What this rests on:
- \(\href{claims.html#claim-49}{P_{49}}\) 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
- \(\href{claims.html#claim-50}{P_{50}}\) Paul names renewal with other words (ἀνακαίνωσις, ἁγιασμός) and sets them beside ‘justify’ — consensus: Titus 3:5-7; Rom 12:2; Rom 6:19-22; 1 Cor 6:11
- \(\href{claims.html#claim-51}{P_{51}}\) A word contributes the least meaning its context requires; one occurrence does not carry the whole concept — well supported: Silva 1994; Joos 1972; Barr 2004
- the step itself — well supported: Silva 1994; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Barr 2004
Against Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), it cannot be held. Where it breaks:
Why Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning) stands against Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means.
- The crux: \((\href{claims.html#claim-49}{P_{49}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-50}{P_{50}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-51}{P_{51}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-52}{P_{52}}\), a premise of Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning).
- What it does: its conclusion does not follow without it.
- Granted: \(\href{claims.html#claim-49}{P_{49}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-50}{P_{50}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-51}{P_{51}}\), which the break also needs.
- Where the rival breaks: \(\href{claims.html#claim-54}{P_{54}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-54}{P_{54}} \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-52}{P_{52}}\) cannot be held together with \((\href{claims.html#claim-49}{P_{49}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-50}{P_{50}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-51}{P_{51}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-52}{P_{52}}\) and \(\href{claims.html#claim-49}{P_{49}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-50}{P_{50}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-51}{P_{51}}\); each is needed for the break, and without the crux they stand.
- What this rests on:
- \(\href{claims.html#claim-49}{P_{49}}\) 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
- \(\href{claims.html#claim-50}{P_{50}}\) Paul names renewal with other words (ἀνακαίνωσις, ἁγιασμός) and sets them beside ‘justify’ — consensus: Titus 3:5-7; Rom 12:2; Rom 6:19-22; 1 Cor 6:11
- \(\href{claims.html#claim-51}{P_{51}}\) A word contributes the least meaning its context requires; one occurrence does not carry the whole concept — well supported: Silva 1994; Joos 1972; Barr 2004
- the step itself — well supported: Silva 1994; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Barr 2004
Against Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning), it cannot be held. Where it breaks:
Why Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning) stands against Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means.
- The crux: \((\href{claims.html#claim-57}{P_{57}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-51}{P_{51}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-52}{P_{52}}\), a premise of Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning).
- What it does: its conclusion does not follow without it.
- Granted: \(\href{claims.html#claim-4}{P_{4}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-55}{P_{55}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-56}{P_{56}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-51}{P_{51}}\), \((\href{claims.html#claim-4}{P_{4}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-55}{P_{55}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-56}{P_{56}}) \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-57}{P_{57}}\), which the break also needs.
- Where the rival breaks: \(\href{claims.html#claim-33}{P_{33}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-33}{P_{33}} \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-52}{P_{52}}\) cannot be held together with \((\href{claims.html#claim-57}{P_{57}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-51}{P_{51}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-52}{P_{52}}\) and \(\href{claims.html#claim-4}{P_{4}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-55}{P_{55}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-56}{P_{56}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-51}{P_{51}}\), \((\href{claims.html#claim-4}{P_{4}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-55}{P_{55}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-56}{P_{56}}) \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-57}{P_{57}}\); each is needed for the break, and without the crux they stand.
- What this rests on:
- \(\href{claims.html#claim-4}{P_{4}}\) Romans 4:4–5 contrasts wages owed with a gift reckoned to the one who believes — well supported: Rom 4:4-5; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.18
- \(\href{claims.html#claim-55}{P_{55}}\) Romans 4:6–8: righteousness counted apart from works — sins forgiven, sin not counted — consensus: Rom 4:6-8; Moo 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:6
- \(\href{claims.html#claim-56}{P_{56}}\) ‘Count’ (λογίζομαι) in Romans 4:3–11 is the language of an account: credited to one — well supported: Bauer 2000, §s.v. λογίζομαι; Moo 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:3
- \(\href{claims.html#claim-51}{P_{51}}\) A word contributes the least meaning its context requires; one occurrence does not carry the whole concept — well supported: Silva 1994; Joos 1972; Barr 2004
- \(\href{claims.html#claim-57}{P_{57}}\) In Romans 4:6–8 Paul explains righteousness counted apart from works as sin not counted — well supported: Moo 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:6; Rom 4:6-8
- the step itself — well supported: Moo 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:6; Bauer 2000, §s.v. λογίζομαι; well supported: Silva 1994; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Barr 2004
2. Read as what God does in justifying. The claim commits Trent, against 'not by works' to \(\href{claims.html#claim-53}{P_{53}}\) — so read by Lutheran World Federation and Catholic Church 2000, §§22; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7 (disputed).
Against Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), it is not reached: Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning) holds, and can be held together with it.
Against Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning), it is not reached: Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning) holds, and can be held together with it.
Against Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal, it cannot be held. Where it breaks:
Why Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal stands against Trent, against 'not by works', read as what God does in justifying.
- 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
Against Romans 4:3–8, against justification as renewal, it cannot be held. Where it breaks:
Why Romans 4:3–8, against justification as renewal stands against Trent, against 'not by works', read as what God does in justifying.
- The crux: \((\href{claims.html#claim-57}{P_{57}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-49}{P_{49}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-33}{P_{33}}\), a premise of Romans 4:3–8, against justification as renewal.
- What it does: its conclusion does not follow without it.
- Granted: \(\href{claims.html#claim-4}{P_{4}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-55}{P_{55}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-56}{P_{56}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-49}{P_{49}}\), \((\href{claims.html#claim-4}{P_{4}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-55}{P_{55}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-56}{P_{56}}) \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-57}{P_{57}}\), which the break also needs.
- Where the rival breaks: \(\href{claims.html#claim-33}{P_{33}}\) cannot be held together with \((\href{claims.html#claim-57}{P_{57}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-49}{P_{49}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-33}{P_{33}}\) and \(\href{claims.html#claim-4}{P_{4}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-55}{P_{55}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-56}{P_{56}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-49}{P_{49}}\), \((\href{claims.html#claim-4}{P_{4}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-55}{P_{55}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-56}{P_{56}}) \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-57}{P_{57}}\); each is needed for the break, and without the crux they stand.
- What this rests on:
- \(\href{claims.html#claim-4}{P_{4}}\) Romans 4:4–5 contrasts wages owed with a gift reckoned to the one who believes — well supported: Rom 4:4-5; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.18
- \(\href{claims.html#claim-55}{P_{55}}\) Romans 4:6–8: righteousness counted apart from works — sins forgiven, sin not counted — consensus: Rom 4:6-8; Moo 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:6
- \(\href{claims.html#claim-56}{P_{56}}\) ‘Count’ (λογίζομαι) in Romans 4:3–11 is the language of an account: credited to one — well supported: Bauer 2000, §s.v. λογίζομαι; Moo 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:3
- \(\href{claims.html#claim-49}{P_{49}}\) 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
- \(\href{claims.html#claim-57}{P_{57}}\) In Romans 4:6–8 Paul explains righteousness counted apart from works as sin not counted — well supported: Moo 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:6; Rom 4:6-8
- the step itself — well supported: Moo 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:6; Bauer 2000, §s.v. λογίζομαι; disputed: Moo 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:5; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1