The positions

Each position heard is an argument in its own right: premises that can be held together, a conclusion that follows from them, and steps that someone has rated. The Reformed case is heard as four positions, one for each strand. A debate weighs each argument whole. One position holding all four strands would be defeated by a contradiction of any one of them, and the fact that each strand reaches the conclusion without the others would count for nothing.

reformedOntology

What the Reformed hold about what justification is: justification and sanctification are distinct, and sanctification follows. No strand needs this to reach sola fide. But it is the premise Trent's definition contradicts, so it belongs to Paul's, Peter's and John's cases, and Trent's attack on each falls on it as well as on "not by works". It is not added to the Reformed case itself, because the other positions built from that case, the Finnish reading among them, would then hold it on their authors' behalf.

paulineCase — Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16)

Paul's case: sola fide from Galatians 2:16, argued alone.

Its reading of "works of the law" is derived, not assumed. It rests on the critics' line, which denies Sanders' account of Judaism and reads Galatians as written against requiring circumcision. That is where the scholarly debate lies (critics_carry_the_pauline_strand, sanders_costs_the_pauline_strand). So Sanders meets Paul's case here over the history of Judaism in Paul's day, not over Paul's Greek. The critics' inference is rated with the rest, as Gathercole's.

No premise here rests on scripture alone.

dominicalCase — Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you"

Luke's case: what Jesus says at Luke 7:50, and no more. "Your faith has saved you", with "saved" (σῴζω) read as saved from sin and the woman's love (7:47) read as the evidence of her forgiveness: her faith sufficed.

It carries nothing Luke does not say. It does not carry Paul's texts, the answer to James, or the Reformed account of what justification is. And it does not claim what Paul argues, that faith alone saves. So it is attacked only by what denies Luke's own claim.

No premise here rests on scripture alone.

apostolicCase — Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11)

Peter's case: sola fide from Peter's speech at Jerusalem (Acts 15:7–11), argued alone.

No premise here rests on scripture alone.

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

John's case: sola fide from Jesus' answer in John 6:28–29, argued alone. It holds the Reformed distinction between justification and sanctification, as Paul's and Peter's cases do, so Trent meets it on the same ground. Two inferences are rated: Calvin's step from John's "eternal life through believing" to justification, and the step to faith alone that Trent's canon 9 denies.

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

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

Aquinas on John 6:29, as the argument he makes: the believing Jesus names is faith made alive by love, so it is not bare trust.

No premise here rests on scripture alone.

sanctificationCase — Obedience as sanctification (John 3:36, Matthew 7:21)

The Reformed answer to Chrysostom, as a position: the obedience John 3:36 and Matthew 7:21 require is sanctification, the fruit of faith, so the texts add no condition to faith, and faith suffices. It holds the Reformed distinction between justification and sanctification, as the other Reformed positions do, so Trent meets it on the same ground.

No premise here rests on scripture alone.

apocalypticCase — Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition

The apocalyptic reading, as the argument it makes: faith is not the condition of justification. It keeps grace and "not by works", by a step of its own.

No premise here rests on scripture alone.

sandersCase — Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn)

Sanders and Dunn: Judaism in Paul's day taught entry by grace and staying in by obedience, so "works of the law" are the boundary markers.

No premise here rests on scripture alone.

criticsCase — Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.)

Gathercole, and the volume edited by Carson, O'Brien and Seifrid: Judaism in Paul's day was not simply that, so "works of the law" are works in general.

No premise here rests on scripture alone.

jervellCase — Law-observant Luke (Jervell)

Jervell: Luke shows the church keeping the law, so the yoke is not the law as a condition of salvation.

No premise here rests on scripture alone.

Each position holds together and reaches its conclusion

paulineCase_establishes

Paul's case reaches sola fide.

theorem paulineCase_establishes : Establishes paulineCase
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

paulineCase_is_satisfiable

Paul's case can be held without contradiction.

theorem paulineCase_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable paulineCase.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

dominicalCase_establishes

Luke's case reaches its conclusion: faith suffices.

theorem dominicalCase_establishes : Establishes dominicalCase
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

dominicalCase_is_satisfiable

Luke's case can be held without contradiction.

theorem dominicalCase_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable dominicalCase.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

apostolicCase_establishes

Peter's case reaches sola fide.

theorem apostolicCase_establishes : Establishes apostolicCase
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

apostolicCase_is_satisfiable

Peter's case can be held without contradiction.

theorem apostolicCase_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable apostolicCase.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

tridentineCase_establishes

Trent's case reaches its conclusion: salvation is not apart from works.

theorem tridentineCase_establishes : Establishes tridentineCase
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

tridentineCase_is_satisfiable

Trent's case can be held without contradiction.

theorem tridentineCase_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable tridentineCase.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

Where Trent's objection comes from

Trent's objection to "not by works" is not a separate thesis about works. It follows from what Trent says justification is: "not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man" (ch. 7). Grant that. Grant also that the renewal grows as the justified do good works (ch. 10). Then good works increase justification (canon 24), which denies "not by works" (ch. 16). The Reformed grant the growth, which Westminster XIII.1 calls sanctification, and deny the definition.

tridentineCaseOnTheReformedDistinction — Trent, on the Reformed distinction

Trent's case with one change: its definition of justification is exchanged for the Reformed distinction. Everything else Trent holds is kept, including that the renewal grows through good works.

No premise here rests on scripture alone.

reformedDistinctionReading

Trent's position with the Reformed distinction in place of its definition. The renewal grows, but it is sanctification, so it increases nothing called justification, and salvation is not by works.

def reformedDistinctionReading : Valuation Claim :=
  fun a =>
    match a with
    | Claim.justificationIncludesSanctification => False
    | Claim.worksMeritIncreaseOfJustification => False
    | x => True

trent_objection_rests_on_its_definition

Trent's objection depends on its definition of justification. Keep all of Trent's case except the definition, put the Reformed distinction in its place, and "salvation is not apart from works" no longer follows. Both sides still hold that the renewal of the justified grows through good works.

So the disagreement over works comes down to what justification is: whether the renewal that grows is part of justification, or is the sanctification that follows it.

theorem trent_objection_rests_on_its_definition : ¬Establishes
    tridentineCaseOnTheReformedDistinction
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

apocalypticCase_establishes

The apocalyptic case reaches its conclusion.

theorem apocalypticCase_establishes : Establishes apocalypticCase
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

apocalypticCase_is_satisfiable

The apocalyptic case can be held without contradiction.

theorem apocalypticCase_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable apocalypticCase.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

sandersCase_establishes

Sanders' case reaches its conclusion.

theorem sandersCase_establishes : Establishes sandersCase
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

sandersCase_is_satisfiable

Sanders' case can be held without contradiction.

theorem sandersCase_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable sandersCase.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

criticsCase_establishes

The critics' case reaches its conclusion.

theorem criticsCase_establishes : Establishes criticsCase
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

criticsCase_is_satisfiable

The critics' case can be held without contradiction.

theorem criticsCase_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable criticsCase.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

jervellCase_establishes

Jervell's case reaches its conclusion.

theorem jervellCase_establishes : Establishes jervellCase
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

jervellCase_is_satisfiable

Jervell's case can be held without contradiction.

theorem jervellCase_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable jervellCase.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

johannineParty_establishes

John's case reaches sola fide.

theorem johannineParty_establishes : Establishes johannineParty
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

aquinasCase_establishes

Aquinas's case reaches its conclusion: the believing is not bare trust.

theorem aquinasCase_establishes : Establishes aquinasCase
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

johannineParty_is_satisfiable

John's case can be held without contradiction: on the Reformed reading, every claim in it holds.

theorem johannineParty_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable johannineParty.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

aquinasCase_is_satisfiable

Aquinas's case can be held without contradiction: on his own reading, the believing of John 6:29 is faith formed by charity and not bare trust.

theorem aquinasCase_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable aquinasCase.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

chrysostomCase_establishes

Chrysostom's case reaches its conclusion, as the John section shows.

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

sanctificationCase_establishes

The Reformed answer to Chrysostom reaches its conclusion: faith suffices.

theorem sanctificationCase_establishes : Establishes sanctificationCase
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

sanctificationCase_is_satisfiable

The Reformed answer to Chrysostom can be held without contradiction: on the Reformed reading, every claim in it holds.

theorem sanctificationCase_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable
    sanctificationCase.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

chrysostomReading

Chrysostom's position, with every verse of Paul's that the Reformed strands read. Every text holds. Believing does not suffice without a right life, so faith is not sufficient and justification is not by faith alone. With Rome, it takes justification to include sanctification, and the readings of Matthew 7 and 19 that make obedience a condition. On the readings the meanings exclude, it takes the Greek of Revelation 22:11 and Sirach 18:22, and that James does not use "justify" as Paul does.

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

chrysostom_grants_the_pauline_texts

Chrysostom contradicts no text of Paul's. His position can be held together with every verse the Reformed strands read from Paul: Romans 3:28, Galatians 2:16, Romans 4:4–5, Ephesians 2:8–9 and Titus 3:5.

Where Chrysostom stands against the Reformed case, he stands against a reading of those verses, the step from them to faith alone, and not against anything they say. It does not show that his reading of John 3:36 is right.

theorem chrysostom_grants_the_pauline_texts : Grants chrysostomOnJohn (⋀[p
    Claim.romans3_28, p Claim.galatians2_16, p Claim.romans4_4_5, p
    Claim.ephesians2_8_9, p Claim.titus3_5])
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

How strong each position is

Every position but two rests on something rated disputed, or denies a claim, which ranks at the bottom. Between two such positions no rating blocks an attack.

The exceptions are the two arguments about Paul's word, from usage and from Romans 4. Every link of each is rated wellSupported or better. So an attack on either from a position at the bottom does not defeat it, and its attack on such a position does.

paulineCase_strength

Paul's case rests on its two disputed readings, and on the Reformed distinction. All are rated disputed.

theorem paulineCase_strength : paulineCase.strength = 0
-- axioms: propext

dominicalCase_strength

Luke's case uses a step that Trent's canon 9 denies, so its weakest link is disputed. Of its own two premises, the sense of "saved" (σῴζω) is rated wellSupported. The reading of 7:47 is disputed, because Marshall names the commentators who read her love as the cause of her forgiveness.

theorem dominicalCase_strength : dominicalCase.strength = 0
-- axioms: propext

apostolicCase_strength

Peter's case rests on the reading of the yoke, rated disputed.

theorem apostolicCase_strength : apostolicCase.strength = 0
-- axioms: propext

tridentineCase_strength

Trent rests on its definition of justification, rated disputed.

theorem tridentineCase_strength : tridentineCase.strength = 0
-- axioms: propext

apocalypticCase_strength

The apocalyptic case denies that Galatians 2:16 speaks of faith in Christ, and a denial ranks at the bottom.

theorem apocalypticCase_strength : apocalypticCase.strength = 0
-- axioms: propext

sandersCase_strength

Sanders' case rests on his account of Judaism, rated disputed.

theorem sandersCase_strength : sandersCase.strength = 0
-- axioms: propext

criticsCase_strength

The critics' case denies that account.

theorem criticsCase_strength : criticsCase.strength = 0
-- axioms: propext

jervellCase_strength

Jervell's step is contested, by Bruce.

theorem jervellCase_strength : jervellCase.strength = 0
-- axioms: propext

galatianGospel_strength

Paul's gospel rests on its reading of Galatians, and on the step from a verdict to "renewal is no part of justification". Both are rated disputed.

theorem galatianGospel_strength : galatianGospel.strength = 0
-- axioms: propext

johannineParty_strength

John's case rests on the Reformed distinction and on a step that Trent's canon 9 denies, both disputed. Its own reading, believing as trust, is disputed too: Aquinas denies it.

theorem johannineParty_strength : johannineParty.strength = 0
-- axioms: propext

aquinasCase_strength

Aquinas's case rests on his reading of John 6:29, rated disputed: Calvin denies it.

theorem aquinasCase_strength : aquinasCase.strength = 0
-- axioms: propext

lutherOnGalatians_strength

Luther's answer rests on his step, which Aquinas denies.

theorem lutherOnGalatians_strength : lutherOnGalatians.strength = 0
-- axioms: propext

chrysostomCase_strength

Chrysostom's case rests on his step, rated disputed: Calvin accepts both texts and denies it.

theorem chrysostomCase_strength : chrysostomOnJohn.strength = 0
-- axioms: propext

sanctificationCase_strength

The Reformed answer rests on its reading of the obedience, rated disputed: Chrysostom denies it.

theorem sanctificationCase_strength : sanctificationCase.strength = 0
-- axioms: propext

lexicalCase_strength

The argument from Paul's word rests on nothing disputed. That the verb is a courtroom word, and the rule of least meaning, are wellSupported. That Paul has other words for renewal is consensus. The step from them is wellSupported. So its weakest link ranks above the bottom.

theorem lexicalCase_strength : lexicalCase.strength = 2
-- axioms: propext

tridentineOnPaulsWord_strength

Trent, taken as a claim about Paul's word, rests on everything Trent rests on.

theorem tridentineOnPaulsWord_strength : tridentineOnPaulsWord.strength = 0
-- axioms: propext

romansFourOnTheWord_strength

Nor does Romans 4, read for Paul's word. Its texts are rated wellSupported or better. So are the sense of "count" (λογίζομαι), Paul's explanation, the rule of least meaning, and both steps.

theorem romansFourOnTheWord_strength : romansFourOnTheWord.strength = 2
-- axioms: propext

The defeats

Each is worked out from the two positions' premises and checked by machine: first whether one contradicts the other, then which is the weaker.

trent_defeats_pauline

Trent defeats Paul's case. Trent's case leads to the denial of "not by works", which contradicts the conclusion of Paul's.

theorem trent_defeats_pauline : Defeats tridentineCase paulineCase
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

trent_defeats_dominical

Trent defeats Luke's case. Trent's definition, with canon 9, denies that faith suffices, which is what Luke's case concludes.

theorem trent_defeats_dominical : Defeats tridentineCase dominicalCase
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

trent_defeats_apostolic

Trent defeats Peter's case, as it defeats Paul's.

theorem trent_defeats_apostolic : Defeats tridentineCase apostolicCase
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

pauline_defeats_trent

Paul's case defeats Trent in return. It leads to "not by works", which Trent denies.

theorem pauline_defeats_trent : Defeats paulineCase tridentineCase
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

dominical_defeats_trent

Luke's case defeats Trent in return.

theorem dominical_defeats_trent : Defeats dominicalCase tridentineCase
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

apostolic_defeats_trent

Peter's case defeats Trent in return.

theorem apostolic_defeats_trent : Defeats apostolicCase tridentineCase
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

apocalyptic_defeats_trent

The apocalyptic reading defeats Trent. It holds "not by works" by a step of its own, since God's rescue depends on nothing a person does, and Trent denies it.

theorem apocalyptic_defeats_trent : Defeats apocalypticCase tridentineCase
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

apocalyptic_defeats_pauline

The apocalyptic reading defeats Paul's case. It denies that Galatians 2:16 speaks of faith in Christ, a premise of Paul's strand rated disputed.

theorem apocalyptic_defeats_pauline : Defeats apocalypticCase paulineCase
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

pauline_defeats_apocalyptic

Paul's case defeats the apocalyptic reading in return. It leads to justification by faith alone.

theorem pauline_defeats_apocalyptic : Defeats paulineCase apocalypticCase
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

dominical_does_not_defeat_apocalyptic

Luke's case does not defeat the apocalyptic reading. Luke 7:50 says that faith saved her, not that faith alone does. The apocalyptic reading grants that faith saves, and denies only that faith is the condition. So nothing in Luke's case contradicts it (luke_grants_the_apocalyptic_conclusion).

theorem dominical_does_not_defeat_apocalyptic : ¬Defeats dominicalCase
    apocalypticCase
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

apostolic_does_not_defeat_apocalyptic

Nor does Peter's case, for the same reason: Peter says that faith suffices, not that faith alone does (peter_grants_the_apocalyptic_conclusion).

theorem apostolic_does_not_defeat_apocalyptic : ¬Defeats apostolicCase
    apocalypticCase
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

sanders_defeats_pauline

Sanders defeats Paul's case. His account of Judaism, with Dunn's inference, denies the reading of "works of the law" as works in general.

theorem sanders_defeats_pauline : Defeats sandersCase paulineCase
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

pauline_defeats_sanders

Paul's case defeats Sanders in return. It holds the premise Sanders' conclusion denies.

theorem pauline_defeats_sanders : Defeats paulineCase sandersCase
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

sanders_defeats_critics

Sanders defeats the critics. Their conclusions contradict.

theorem sanders_defeats_critics : Defeats sandersCase criticsCase
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

critics_defeat_sanders

The critics defeat Sanders. They deny the account of Judaism he starts from.

theorem critics_defeat_sanders : Defeats criticsCase sandersCase
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

jervell_defeats_apostolic

Jervell defeats Peter's case. He denies its reading of the yoke.

theorem jervell_defeats_apostolic : Defeats jervellCase apostolicCase
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

apostolic_defeats_jervell

Peter's case defeats Jervell in return. It holds the premise his conclusion denies.

theorem apostolic_defeats_jervell : Defeats apostolicCase jervellCase
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

What does not defeat

Most pairs of positions do not conflict: some consistent reading holds both. Seven such readings are named below, each one a way of holding a whole group of positions at once. Two pairs conflict in one direction only: each argument about Paul's word defeats Trent taken as a claim about it, and is not defeated in return. All of this, like every answer in the table, is worked out from the premises.

criticsJervellReading

The critics' reading together with Jervell's: Sanders' account of Judaism is denied, and the yoke is Israel's law for gentiles. Paul's case and Luke's hold on it. Faith is the only means and justification is a verdict, so it denies Trent's account of baptism as the instrument and of justification as including sanctification.

def criticsJervellReading : Valuation Claim :=
  fun a =>
    match a with
    | Claim.paulsJustifyDenotesRenewal => False
    | Claim.rev22_11BeJustifiedStill => False
    | Claim.sir18_22BeJustifiedToDeath => False
    | Claim.jamesUsesDikaioAsPaul => False
    | Claim.secondTempleCovenantalNomism => False
    | Claim.acts15YokeIsLawAsCondition => False
    | Claim.baptismIsInstrumentalCause => False
    | Claim.justificationIncludesSanctification => False
    | x => True

trentSandersJervellReading

Trent's position together with Sanders' and Jervell's. With Trent, it denies that faith is the only means of justification.

def trentSandersJervellReading : Valuation Claim :=
  fun a =>
    match a with
    | Claim.paulsJustifyDenotesRenewal => False
    | Claim.rev22_11BeJustifiedStill => False
    | Claim.sir18_22BeJustifiedToDeath => False
    | Claim.jamesUsesDikaioAsPaul => False
    | Claim.salvationNotByWorks => False
    | Claim.justificationIsForensicOnly => False
    | Claim.worksOfLawMeansWorksGenerally => False
    | Claim.acts15YokeIsLawAsCondition => False
    | Claim.justificationDistinctFromSanctification => False
    | Claim.faithIsSufficient => False
    | Claim.justificationByFaithAlone => False
    | x => True

trentCriticsJervellReading

Trent's position together with the critics' and Jervell's. With Trent, it denies that faith is the only means of justification.

def trentCriticsJervellReading : Valuation Claim :=
  fun a =>
    match a with
    | Claim.paulsJustifyDenotesRenewal => False
    | Claim.rev22_11BeJustifiedStill => False
    | Claim.sir18_22BeJustifiedToDeath => False
    | Claim.jamesUsesDikaioAsPaul => False
    | Claim.salvationNotByWorks => False
    | Claim.justificationIsForensicOnly => False
    | Claim.secondTempleCovenantalNomism => False
    | Claim.acts15YokeIsLawAsCondition => False
    | Claim.justificationDistinctFromSanctification => False
    | Claim.faithIsSufficient => False
    | Claim.justificationByFaithAlone => False
    | x => True

apocalypticSandersJervellReading

The apocalyptic reading together with Sanders' and Jervell's. Justification is a verdict only here, as on every reading but Trent's, so it does not include sanctification.

def apocalypticSandersJervellReading : Valuation Claim :=
  fun a =>
    match a with
    | Claim.paulsJustifyDenotesRenewal => False
    | Claim.rev22_11BeJustifiedStill => False
    | Claim.sir18_22BeJustifiedToDeath => False
    | Claim.jamesUsesDikaioAsPaul => False
    | Claim.pistisChristouObjective => False
    | Claim.justificationByFaithAlone => False
    | Claim.worksOfLawMeansWorksGenerally => False
    | Claim.acts15YokeIsLawAsCondition => False
    | Claim.justificationIncludesSanctification => False
    | x => True

apocalypticCriticsJervellReading

The apocalyptic reading together with the critics' and Jervell's. Justification is a verdict only here, as on every reading but Trent's, so it does not include sanctification.

def apocalypticCriticsJervellReading : Valuation Claim :=
  fun a =>
    match a with
    | Claim.paulsJustifyDenotesRenewal => False
    | Claim.rev22_11BeJustifiedStill => False
    | Claim.sir18_22BeJustifiedToDeath => False
    | Claim.jamesUsesDikaioAsPaul => False
    | Claim.pistisChristouObjective => False
    | Claim.justificationByFaithAlone => False
    | Claim.secondTempleCovenantalNomism => False
    | Claim.acts15YokeIsLawAsCondition => False
    | Claim.justificationIncludesSanctification => False
    | x => True

apocalyptic_does_not_defeat_dominical

The apocalyptic reading does not defeat Luke's case. It contradicts nothing Luke's case rests on: not Luke 7:50, not the sense of "saved", not the reading of 7:47. And it does not deny the conclusion. It can grant that salvation is received through faith while denying that faith is its condition. The reasons, premise by premise, are in apocalyptic_grants_sola_fide_as_stated and apocalyptic_grants_the_dominical_step.

theorem apocalyptic_does_not_defeat_dominical : ¬Defeats apocalypticCase
    dominicalCase
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

apocalyptic_does_not_defeat_apostolic

Nor Peter's case, for the same reasons (apocalyptic_grants_the_apostolic_step).

theorem apocalyptic_does_not_defeat_apostolic : ¬Defeats apocalypticCase
    apostolicCase
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

trent_defeats_apocalyptic

Trent defeats the apocalyptic reading. The two agree on its conclusion: justification is not by faith alone. But the apocalyptic reading derives "not by works" on the way, since God's rescue is a gift that depends on nothing a person does. Trent denies that: works done in grace merit an increase of justification. So Trent contradicts something the apocalyptic reading derives.

theorem trent_defeats_apocalyptic : Defeats tridentineCase apocalypticCase
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

gospel_defeats_trent

Paul's gospel defeats Trent. It leads to the denial of Trent's definition: justification is not the renewal of the inward person. whereTrentPartsFromPaul says at which step.

theorem gospel_defeats_trent : Defeats galatianGospel tridentineCase
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

trent_defeats_gospel

Trent defeats Paul's gospel in return, by the same contradiction from the other side. Its definition denies the gospel line's conclusion, and both rest on something rated disputed.

theorem trent_defeats_gospel : Defeats tridentineCase galatianGospel
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

lexical_defeats_trent_on_pauls_word

Paul's word defeats Trent taken as a claim about it. Taken that way, Trent derives that "justify" (δικαιόω) means renewal. The argument from the word concludes that it does not. The attack succeeds because Trent's weakest link is not above the argument's.

theorem lexical_defeats_trent_on_pauls_word : Defeats lexicalCase
    tridentineOnPaulsWord
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

trent_on_pauls_word_does_not_defeat_lexical

And the reply fails. Trent, taken as a claim about Paul's word, attacks the argument from the word in turn. But Trent's weakest link is its definition, rated disputed, and the argument's is wellSupported. A weaker argument's contradiction does not defeat a stronger one.

theorem trent_on_pauls_word_does_not_defeat_lexical : ¬Defeats
    tridentineOnPaulsWord lexicalCase
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

Why these do not conflict

The absences above are worked out by machine, and a machine's working gives no reason. The readings below do. Each is a way of holding one position that leaves a premise or conclusion of another standing, and each result checks that the reading holds everything the first position holds.

apocalypticWithFaithReading

The apocalyptic reading with salvation still received through faith: faith is not the condition, but it is the means. Grace and "not by works" hold. Justification is a verdict only here, as on every reading but Trent's, so it does not include sanctification.

def apocalypticWithFaithReading : Valuation Claim :=
  fun a =>
    match a with
    | Claim.paulsJustifyDenotesRenewal => False
    | Claim.rev22_11BeJustifiedStill => False
    | Claim.sir18_22BeJustifiedToDeath => False
    | Claim.jamesUsesDikaioAsPaul => False
    | Claim.pistisChristouObjective => False
    | Claim.justificationByFaithAlone => False
    | Claim.justificationIncludesSanctification => False
    | x => True

apocalyptic_grants_sola_fide_as_stated

The apocalyptic reading can grant what the Reformed strands conclude. Grace, "not by works", and salvation received through faith can all hold on it. What it denies is that faith is the condition. So it contradicts neither Luke's case nor Peter's.

theorem apocalyptic_grants_sola_fide_as_stated : Grants apocalypticCase
    dominicalCase.conclusion
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

apocalyptic_grants_the_dominical_step

The apocalyptic reader can grant Luke's step. The step delivers that faith suffices, "your faith has saved you", and the apocalyptic reading can hold that: faith is the means, though not the condition.

theorem apocalyptic_grants_the_dominical_step : Grants apocalypticCase
    dominicalToSufficiency
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

apocalyptic_grants_the_apostolic_step

And Peter's step, for the same reason: Peter says that faith suffices, and the apocalyptic reading does not deny it.

theorem apocalyptic_grants_the_apostolic_step : Grants apocalypticCase
    apostolicToSufficiency
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

lukeWithoutAloneReading

Luke's case without alone: every premise of the case, faith sufficient, and justification not by faith alone, because nothing Luke says excludes another condition. Justification is a verdict only here, as on every reading but Trent's, so it does not include sanctification.

def lukeWithoutAloneReading : Valuation Claim :=
  fun a =>
    match a with
    | Claim.paulsJustifyDenotesRenewal => False
    | Claim.rev22_11BeJustifiedStill => False
    | Claim.sir18_22BeJustifiedToDeath => False
    | Claim.jamesUsesDikaioAsPaul => False
    | Claim.justificationByFaithAlone => False
    | Claim.justificationIncludesSanctification => False
    | x => True

luke_grants_the_apocalyptic_conclusion

Luke's case can grant the apocalyptic conclusion. Everything Luke's case holds is consistent with justification not being by faith alone, so it does not contradict the apocalyptic reading. Among the cases from Paul, Luke and Acts, only Paul's, which argues for alone, does.

theorem luke_grants_the_apocalyptic_conclusion : Grants dominicalCase
    apocalypticCase.conclusion
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

peter_grants_the_apocalyptic_conclusion

And so can Peter's case.

theorem peter_grants_the_apocalyptic_conclusion : Grants apostolicCase
    apocalypticCase.conclusion
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

trentWithoutDeliveranceReading

Trent's position, with both of these denied: that Galatians 2:16 speaks of faith in Christ, and that "the righteousness of God" is God's act of rescue. With Trent, it denies that faith is the only means of justification.

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

trent_grants_the_subjective_genitive

Trent can grant Hays's reading of "faith of Christ". Nothing Trent holds settles how the phrase (πίστις Χριστοῦ) is read, so the apocalyptic reading's denial that it means faith in Christ is not something Trent answers.

theorem trent_grants_the_subjective_genitive : Grants tridentineCase (notP
    Claim.pistisChristouObjective)
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

trentWithoutFaithAloneReading

Trent's position, on which justification is not by faith alone. That is the apocalyptic reading's conclusion, which Trent shares.

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

trent_grants_the_apocalyptic_conclusion

Trent grants the apocalyptic reading's conclusion: justification is not by faith alone. The two hold it for different reasons, so Trent does not contradict that conclusion.

theorem trent_grants_the_apocalyptic_conclusion : Grants tridentineCase
    apocalypticCase.conclusion
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

The dispute

partyNode

The premises each position argues from.

def partyNode : Party → ArgumentPackage Claim

solaFideDispute

The debate over sola fide. For every position heard: its premises can be held without contradiction, its conclusion follows from them, and every step it uses is rated.

def solaFideDispute : Dispute Claim Party :=
  { node := partyNode, consistent := solaFideDispute._proof_1,
    sound := solaFideDispute._proof_2,
    rated := solaFideDispute._proof_20 }

solaFideDispute_defeats

Who defeats whom, for all 289 pairs of positions.

Trent and each Reformed strand defeat each other. The apocalyptic reading and Paul's case defeat each other; it does not conflict with Luke's case or Peter's; it and Trent defeat each other. Sanders defeats Paul's case and the critics', and both defeat him in return. Jervell and Peter's case defeat each other. Paul's gospel and Trent defeat each other, over Trent's definition. John's case meets Trent, the apocalyptic reading and Aquinas, each in both directions, and Aquinas and Luther defeat each other. Trent taken as a claim about Paul's word meets every position Trent meets, in both directions, and two more: the two arguments about Paul's word defeat it, and it defeats neither in return. Nothing else.

Every one of the 225 answers, the defeats and the absences alike, is worked out from the positions' premises and checked by machine. The table above is what that working is checked against. None of it is assumed.

theorem solaFideDispute_defeats : ∀ (i j : Party),
 solaFideDispute.defeats i
    j ↔
 (i, j) ∈
 have y :=
 have y :=
 have y := [(Party.johannine,
    Party.chrysostom), (Party.chrysostom, Party.sanctification),
    (Party.sanctification, Party.chrysostom), (Party.trent,
    Party.sanctification), (Party.sanctification, Party.trent),
    (Party.trentOnPaulsWord, Party.sanctification), (Party.sanctification,
    Party.trentOnPaulsWord)];
 (Party.chrysostom, Party.pauline) ::
    (Party.pauline, Party.chrysostom) :: (Party.chrysostom, Party.dominical)
    :: (Party.dominical, Party.chrysostom) :: (Party.chrysostom,
    Party.apostolic) :: (Party.apostolic, Party.chrysostom) ::
    (Party.chrysostom, Party.johannine) :: y;
 have y := (Party.johannine,
    Party.trentOnPaulsWord) :: (Party.apocalyptic, Party.johannine) ::
    (Party.johannine, Party.apocalyptic) :: (Party.aquinas, Party.johannine)
    :: (Party.johannine, Party.aquinas) :: (Party.luther, Party.aquinas) ::
    (Party.aquinas, Party.luther) :: y;
 (Party.trentOnPaulsWord,
    Party.dominical) :: (Party.trentOnPaulsWord, Party.apostolic) ::
    (Party.trentOnPaulsWord, Party.apocalyptic) :: (Party.trent,
    Party.johannine) :: (Party.johannine, Party.trent) ::
    (Party.trentOnPaulsWord, Party.johannine) :: y;
 have y :=
 have y :=
    (Party.lexical, Party.trentOnPaulsWord) :: (Party.romansOnTheWord,
    Party.trentOnPaulsWord) :: (Party.pauline, Party.trentOnPaulsWord) ::
    (Party.dominical, Party.trentOnPaulsWord) :: (Party.apostolic,
    Party.trentOnPaulsWord) :: (Party.apocalyptic, Party.trentOnPaulsWord) ::
    (Party.trentOnPaulsWord, Party.pauline) :: y;
 (Party.critics,
    Party.sanders) :: (Party.jervell, Party.apostolic) :: (Party.apostolic,
    Party.jervell) :: (Party.gospel, Party.trent) :: (Party.trent,
    Party.gospel) :: (Party.gospel, Party.trentOnPaulsWord) ::
    (Party.trentOnPaulsWord, Party.gospel) :: y;
 have y :=
    (Party.apocalyptic, Party.trent) :: (Party.trent, Party.apocalyptic) ::
    (Party.apocalyptic, Party.pauline) :: (Party.pauline, Party.apocalyptic)
    :: (Party.sanders, Party.pauline) :: (Party.pauline, Party.sanders) ::
    (Party.sanders, Party.critics) :: y;
 (Party.trent, Party.pauline) ::
    (Party.trent, Party.dominical) :: (Party.trent, Party.apostolic) ::
    (Party.pauline, Party.trent) :: (Party.dominical, Party.trent) ::
    (Party.apostolic, Party.trent) :: y
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

solaFideDispute_supports

No position supports another in this debate, in any of the 289 pairs. One position supports another when its conclusion gives the other a claim it rests on. The critics' conclusion used to be one of Paul's premises. Now Paul's case contains the critics' whole line (paulineCase), which is the closer relation recorded below. The Reformed strands share a conclusion; that is agreement, not support (see Testimony.Logic.Support). Every answer is worked out and checked by machine.

theorem solaFideDispute_supports : ∀ (i j : Party), ¬solaFideDispute.supports
    i j
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

solaFideDispute_partOf

Whose case is contained in whose, for all 289 pairs. The critics' case is contained in Paul's, since Paul's case derives its reading of "works of the law" from the critics' line. Trent's case is contained in Trent taken as a claim about Paul's word, which only adds to it. Every case contains itself. Nothing else. Every answer is worked out and checked by machine.

theorem solaFideDispute_partOf : ∀ (i j : Party), solaFideDispute.partOf i j ↔
    i = j ∨ (i, j) ∈ [(Party.critics, Party.pauline), (Party.trent,
    Party.trentOnPaulsWord)]
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

solaFideMap

The debate drawn as a map: who defeats whom, and whose case is contained in whose.

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

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

reformed_strands_stand_with_the_critics

Paul's, Luke's and Peter's cases can be held together with the critics', on the reading where Sanders' account of Judaism is denied and everything else holds.

theorem reformed_strands_stand_with_the_critics :
    solaFideDispute.StandTogether [Party.pauline, Party.dominical,
    Party.apostolic, Party.critics]
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

paul_and_luke_stand_with_jervell

Paul's case and Luke's can be held together with the critics' and with Jervell's.

theorem paul_and_luke_stand_with_jervell : solaFideDispute.StandTogether
    [Party.pauline, Party.dominical, Party.jervell, Party.critics]
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

luke_and_acts_stand_with_sanders

Luke's case and Peter's can be held together with Sanders': neither rests on the reading of "works of the law".

theorem luke_and_acts_stand_with_sanders : solaFideDispute.StandTogether
    [Party.dominical, Party.apostolic, Party.sanders]
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

trent_stands_with_sanders_and_jervell

Trent can be held together with Sanders and Jervell.

theorem trent_stands_with_sanders_and_jervell : solaFideDispute.StandTogether
    [Party.trent, Party.sanders, Party.jervell]
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

trent_stands_with_the_critics_and_jervell

Trent can be held together with the critics and Jervell.

theorem trent_stands_with_the_critics_and_jervell :
    solaFideDispute.StandTogether [Party.trent, Party.critics, Party.jervell]
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

apocalyptic_stands_with_sanders_and_jervell

The apocalyptic reading can be held together with Sanders and Jervell.

theorem apocalyptic_stands_with_sanders_and_jervell :
    solaFideDispute.StandTogether [Party.apocalyptic, Party.sanders,
    Party.jervell]
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

apocalyptic_stands_with_the_critics_and_jervell

The apocalyptic reading can be held together with the critics and Jervell.

theorem apocalyptic_stands_with_the_critics_and_jervell :
    solaFideDispute.StandTogether [Party.apocalyptic, Party.critics,
    Party.jervell]
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

What the dispute decides

onlyPaulsWordUnanswered

How far the debate can be settled, and why no further. Nothing defeats either argument about Paul's word, so both are accepted first. Nothing joins them, because every other position has an attacker that those two do not rule out. Each Reformed strand has Trent. Trent has Paul's case. The apocalyptic reading has Paul's case. Sanders has the critics, and the critics have Sanders. Jervell has Peter's case. Paul's gospel has Trent. Aquinas has Luther, and Luther has Aquinas. And Trent taken as a claim about Paul's word has the argument from the word itself. Some of these are ties, not losses: Paul's gospel answers Trent as Trent answers it.

What the dispute forces is exactly Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning).

• Stage 1: Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning).
  • Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning) is defeated by nothing.
  • Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning) is defeated by nothing.
• Nothing else is forced:
  • Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), and nothing forced defeats Trent, against 'not by works'.
  • Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", and nothing forced defeats Trent, against 'not by works'.
  • Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), and nothing forced defeats Trent, against 'not by works'.
  • Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Trent, against 'not by works', and nothing forced defeats Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16).
  • Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition, and nothing forced defeats Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16).
  • Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.) defeats Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn), and nothing forced defeats Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.).
  • Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn) defeats Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.), and nothing forced defeats Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn).
  • Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11) defeats Law-observant Luke (Jervell), and nothing forced defeats Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11).
  • Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal, and nothing forced defeats Trent, against 'not by works'.
  • Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning) defeats Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means, and nothing forced defeats Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning).
  • Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Sola fide from John (6:28–29), and nothing forced defeats Trent, against 'not by works'.
  • Luther on Galatians 3:11–12 (against faith formed by charity) defeats Faith formed by charity (Aquinas on John 6:29), and nothing forced defeats Luther on Galatians 3:11–12 (against faith formed by charity).
  • Faith formed by charity (Aquinas on John 6:29) defeats Luther on Galatians 3:11–12 (against faith formed by charity), and nothing forced defeats Faith formed by charity (Aquinas on John 6:29).
  • Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life), and nothing forced defeats Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16).
  • Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Obedience as sanctification (John 3:36, Matthew 7:21), and nothing forced defeats Trent, against 'not by works'.

What this rests on. The reasons state 15 defeats and 48 absences of defeat, each a cell of the defeat table, solaFideDispute_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:

• Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), weakest at disputed:
  • In Galatians 2:16 ‘faith of Christ’ (πίστις Χριστοῦ) means our faith in Christ — Dunn 1991; Matlock 2000; Gal 2:16; Rom 3:22; Phil 3:9
  • Second Temple Judaism: in by grace, staying in by works (encoded as a denial, so it ranks disputed) — Sanders 1977
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
  • an inference step — Gathercole 2002; Carson et al. 2001
• Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), weakest at well supported:
  • In Paul, ‘justify’ (δικαιόω) is a verdict: to declare righteous — Bauer 2000, §s.v. δικαιόω; Morris 1965; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Irons 2015; Wright 2009; Fitzmyer 1993, ad loc. Rom 3:24
  • 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 — Silva 1994; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Barr 2004
• Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", weakest at disputed:
  • Luke 7:47 — her love is the evidence of her forgiveness, not its ground — Marshall 1978, ad loc. Luke 7:47; Padilla 2021, pp. 54–54; Kolb and Wengert 2000, §Apology IV, on love and the fulfilling of the law: Luke 7:47–50; Luke 7:41-43; Luke 7:47; Luke 7:47-50
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), weakest at disputed:
  • The yoke refused at Acts 15:10 is the whole law as a condition of salvation — Bruce 1988, ad loc. Acts 15:10; Acts 15:10; Gal 5:1; Jas 2:10; Das 2001
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Trent, against 'not by works', weakest at disputed:
  • Justification is not remission of sins only, but renewal of the inward man — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 11
• Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition, weakest at disputed:
  • ‘Faith of Christ’ is Christ's own faithfulness, the means of God's rescue (encoded as a denial, so it ranks disputed) — Campbell 2009; Martyn 1997, ad loc. Gal 2:16; Hays 2002
  • ‘The righteousness of God’ (δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ) names God's act of rescue in Christ — Campbell 2009; Martyn 1997; Rom 3:21-26
• Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn), weakest at disputed:
  • Second Temple Judaism: in by grace, staying in by works — Sanders 1977
  • an inference step — Dunn 2005; Wright 1997
• Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.), weakest at disputed:
  • Second Temple Judaism also held final vindication according to works (encoded as a denial, so it ranks disputed) — Gathercole 2002; Carson et al. 2001
  • an inference step — Gathercole 2002; Carson et al. 2001
• Law-observant Luke (Jervell), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Jervell 1972
• Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal, weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Moo 2013, ad loc. Gal 1:6; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1
  • an inference step — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.2; Morris 1965
• Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means, weakest at disputed:
  • Justification is not remission of sins only, but renewal of the inward man — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 11
  • an inference step — 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
• Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning), weakest at well supported:
  • Romans 4:4–5 contrasts wages owed with a gift reckoned to the one who believes — Rom 4:4-5; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.18
  • ‘Count’ (λογίζομαι) in Romans 4:3–11 is the language of an account: credited to one — Bauer 2000, §s.v. λογίζομαι; Moo 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:3
  • 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 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:6; Bauer 2000, §s.v. λογίζομαι
  • an inference step — Silva 1994; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Barr 2004
• Sola fide from John (6:28–29), weakest at disputed:
  • The believing of John 6:29 is trust, which brings nothing and receives Christ — Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 6:29; John 6:28-29
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Faith formed by charity (Aquinas on John 6:29), weakest at disputed:
  • The believing of John 6:29 is faith living through charity, the source of works — Thomas Aquinas 2012, §cap. 6, lect. 3, n. 901; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7
• Luther on Galatians 3:11–12 (against faith formed by charity), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Luther 1998, ad loc. Gal 3:12; Luther 1998, ad loc. Gal 3:11
• Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — John Chrysostom, §Homily 31, §1; Stanley 2006
• Obedience as sanctification (John 3:36, Matthew 7:21), weakest at disputed:
  • The obedience of John 3:36 and Matthew 7:21 is sanctification, the fruit of faith — Ridderbos 1997, ad loc. John 3:36; Carson 1991, ad loc. John 3:36; Morris 1992, ad loc. Matt 7:21; Schreiner 2015, pp. 55–55; Hoekema 1994; Murray 1984; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.2; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XIII.1; Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 3:36
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Schreiner 2015, pp. 55–55; Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 3:36; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.2; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XIII.1

Why Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning) defeats Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means, at the level of the claims: whereTrentsWordReadingFalls.

only_pauls_word_prevails

Only the meaning of Paul's word prevails outright. What the debate forces, before any choice between rivals, is exactly this: Paul's "justify" (δικαιόω) does not mean the renewal of the inward person. It is argued two ways, from how the word is used and from Romans 4.

Nothing defeats either argument. The one position that contradicts them, Trent taken as a claim about Paul's word, rests on a definition rated disputed, and its replies fail against arguments whose every link is rated wellSupported or better.

It does not show that sola fide prevails, or that Trent's teaching is refuted. Nothing else is forced. Every other position is attacked by one the debate cannot rule out. One loses, Trent taken as a claim about Paul's word, and every other is in a tie with a rival the debate cannot choose between.

theorem only_pauls_word_prevails : Framework.grounded solaFideDispute.defeats
    = {Party.lexical, Party.romansOnTheWord}
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

trentsWordReadingAnswered

Why Trent, taken as a claim about Paul's word, cannot be defended: the argument from the word defeats it, and nothing defeats that argument. Romans 4, read for the word, defeats it too; one unanswered attacker is enough.

Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means cannot be defended: no admissible position holds it.

• Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning) defeats Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means, and nothing defeats Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning).

What this rests on. The reasons state 1 defeat and 17 absences of defeat, each a cell of the defeat table, solaFideDispute_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:

• Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), weakest at well supported:
  • In Paul, ‘justify’ (δικαιόω) is a verdict: to declare righteous — Bauer 2000, §s.v. δικαιόω; Morris 1965; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Irons 2015; Wright 2009; Fitzmyer 1993, ad loc. Rom 3:24
  • 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 — Silva 1994; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Barr 2004
• Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means, weakest at disputed:
  • Justification is not remission of sins only, but renewal of the inward man — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 11
  • an inference step — 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
• Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), weakest at disputed:
  • In Galatians 2:16 ‘faith of Christ’ (πίστις Χριστοῦ) means our faith in Christ — Dunn 1991; Matlock 2000; Gal 2:16; Rom 3:22; Phil 3:9
  • Second Temple Judaism: in by grace, staying in by works (encoded as a denial, so it ranks disputed) — Sanders 1977
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
  • an inference step — Gathercole 2002; Carson et al. 2001
• Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", weakest at disputed:
  • Luke 7:47 — her love is the evidence of her forgiveness, not its ground — Marshall 1978, ad loc. Luke 7:47; Padilla 2021, pp. 54–54; Kolb and Wengert 2000, §Apology IV, on love and the fulfilling of the law: Luke 7:47–50; Luke 7:41-43; Luke 7:47; Luke 7:47-50
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), weakest at disputed:
  • The yoke refused at Acts 15:10 is the whole law as a condition of salvation — Bruce 1988, ad loc. Acts 15:10; Acts 15:10; Gal 5:1; Jas 2:10; Das 2001
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Trent, against 'not by works', weakest at disputed:
  • Justification is not remission of sins only, but renewal of the inward man — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 11
• Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition, weakest at disputed:
  • ‘Faith of Christ’ is Christ's own faithfulness, the means of God's rescue (encoded as a denial, so it ranks disputed) — Campbell 2009; Martyn 1997, ad loc. Gal 2:16; Hays 2002
  • ‘The righteousness of God’ (δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ) names God's act of rescue in Christ — Campbell 2009; Martyn 1997; Rom 3:21-26
• Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn), weakest at disputed:
  • Second Temple Judaism: in by grace, staying in by works — Sanders 1977
  • an inference step — Dunn 2005; Wright 1997
• Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.), weakest at disputed:
  • Second Temple Judaism also held final vindication according to works (encoded as a denial, so it ranks disputed) — Gathercole 2002; Carson et al. 2001
  • an inference step — Gathercole 2002; Carson et al. 2001
• Law-observant Luke (Jervell), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Jervell 1972
• Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal, weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Moo 2013, ad loc. Gal 1:6; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1
  • an inference step — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.2; Morris 1965
• Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning), weakest at well supported:
  • Romans 4:4–5 contrasts wages owed with a gift reckoned to the one who believes — Rom 4:4-5; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.18
  • ‘Count’ (λογίζομαι) in Romans 4:3–11 is the language of an account: credited to one — Bauer 2000, §s.v. λογίζομαι; Moo 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:3
  • 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 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:6; Bauer 2000, §s.v. λογίζομαι
  • an inference step — Silva 1994; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Barr 2004
• Sola fide from John (6:28–29), weakest at disputed:
  • The believing of John 6:29 is trust, which brings nothing and receives Christ — Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 6:29; John 6:28-29
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Faith formed by charity (Aquinas on John 6:29), weakest at disputed:
  • The believing of John 6:29 is faith living through charity, the source of works — Thomas Aquinas 2012, §cap. 6, lect. 3, n. 901; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7
• Luther on Galatians 3:11–12 (against faith formed by charity), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Luther 1998, ad loc. Gal 3:12; Luther 1998, ad loc. Gal 3:11
• Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — John Chrysostom, §Homily 31, §1; Stanley 2006
• Obedience as sanctification (John 3:36, Matthew 7:21), weakest at disputed:
  • The obedience of John 3:36 and Matthew 7:21 is sanctification, the fruit of faith — Ridderbos 1997, ad loc. John 3:36; Carson 1991, ad loc. John 3:36; Morris 1992, ad loc. Matt 7:21; Schreiner 2015, pp. 55–55; Hoekema 1994; Murray 1984; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.2; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XIII.1; Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 3:36
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Schreiner 2015, pp. 55–55; Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 3:36; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.2; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XIII.1

Why Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning) defeats Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means, at the level of the claims: whereTrentsWordReadingFalls.

trent_on_pauls_word_indefensible

Trent, taken as a claim about Paul's word, cannot be defended. No consistent set of positions that answers its attackers can include it. The two arguments about the word defeat it, and nothing answers either.

Trent's definition can be taken two ways. This is the first, weighed in the debate (whatTrentsDefinitionClaims): if the definition says what Paul's "justify" means, it cannot be defended here, for a stated and cited reason, at a step rated wellSupported.

It does not show that Trent's definition is false as a statement of what God does. That is the other way of taking it, and it can be defended (trent_defensible). Nor that the position contradicts itself: taken alone it can be held without contradiction.

theorem trent_on_pauls_word_indefensible : ∀ (S : Set Party),
    Framework.Admissible solaFideDispute.defeats S → Party.trentOnPaulsWord ∉
    S
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

trentStandsWithSandersAndJervell

Why Trent can be defended: it can be held with Sanders and Jervell, and it answers every position that attacks it. Those are each Reformed strand, Paul's gospel, and the apocalyptic reading, whose "not by works" it denies.

Trent, against 'not by works' is accepted on some resolution.

• A position holding Trent, against 'not by works', Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn), Law-observant Luke (Jervell) can be held.
• None of Trent, against 'not by works', Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn), Law-observant Luke (Jervell) defeats another, and each attack on them is answered from among them:
  • Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Trent, against 'not by works', and Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16).
  • Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" defeats Trent, against 'not by works', and Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you".
  • Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11) defeats Trent, against 'not by works', and Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11).
  • Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition defeats Trent, against 'not by works', and Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition.
  • Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal defeats Trent, against 'not by works', and Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal.
  • Sola fide from John (6:28–29) defeats Trent, against 'not by works', and Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Sola fide from John (6:28–29).
  • Obedience as sanctification (John 3:36, Matthew 7:21) defeats Trent, against 'not by works', and Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Obedience as sanctification (John 3:36, Matthew 7:21).
  • Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn), and Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16).
  • Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.) defeats Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn), and Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn) defeats Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.).
  • Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11) defeats Law-observant Luke (Jervell), and Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11).

What this rests on. The reasons state 18 defeats and 41 absences of defeat, each a cell of the defeat table, solaFideDispute_defeats, computed from the two parties' premises and checked by the kernel. Whether an attack survives turns on the attacker's weakest link and on the rating of what it attacks, so a changed rating can change the verdict. The weakest links:

• Trent, against 'not by works', weakest at disputed:
  • Justification is not remission of sins only, but renewal of the inward man — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 11
• Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn), weakest at disputed:
  • Second Temple Judaism: in by grace, staying in by works — Sanders 1977
  • an inference step — Dunn 2005; Wright 1997
• Law-observant Luke (Jervell), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Jervell 1972
• Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), weakest at disputed:
  • In Galatians 2:16 ‘faith of Christ’ (πίστις Χριστοῦ) means our faith in Christ — Dunn 1991; Matlock 2000; Gal 2:16; Rom 3:22; Phil 3:9
  • Second Temple Judaism: in by grace, staying in by works (encoded as a denial, so it ranks disputed) — Sanders 1977
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
  • an inference step — Gathercole 2002; Carson et al. 2001
• Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", weakest at disputed:
  • Luke 7:47 — her love is the evidence of her forgiveness, not its ground — Marshall 1978, ad loc. Luke 7:47; Padilla 2021, pp. 54–54; Kolb and Wengert 2000, §Apology IV, on love and the fulfilling of the law: Luke 7:47–50; Luke 7:41-43; Luke 7:47; Luke 7:47-50
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), weakest at disputed:
  • The yoke refused at Acts 15:10 is the whole law as a condition of salvation — Bruce 1988, ad loc. Acts 15:10; Acts 15:10; Gal 5:1; Jas 2:10; Das 2001
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition, weakest at disputed:
  • ‘Faith of Christ’ is Christ's own faithfulness, the means of God's rescue (encoded as a denial, so it ranks disputed) — Campbell 2009; Martyn 1997, ad loc. Gal 2:16; Hays 2002
  • ‘The righteousness of God’ (δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ) names God's act of rescue in Christ — Campbell 2009; Martyn 1997; Rom 3:21-26
• Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.), weakest at disputed:
  • Second Temple Judaism also held final vindication according to works (encoded as a denial, so it ranks disputed) — Gathercole 2002; Carson et al. 2001
  • an inference step — Gathercole 2002; Carson et al. 2001
• Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal, weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Moo 2013, ad loc. Gal 1:6; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1
  • an inference step — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.2; Morris 1965
• Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), weakest at well supported:
  • In Paul, ‘justify’ (δικαιόω) is a verdict: to declare righteous — Bauer 2000, §s.v. δικαιόω; Morris 1965; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Irons 2015; Wright 2009; Fitzmyer 1993, ad loc. Rom 3:24
  • 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 — Silva 1994; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Barr 2004
• Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means, weakest at disputed:
  • Justification is not remission of sins only, but renewal of the inward man — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 11
  • an inference step — 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
• Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning), weakest at well supported:
  • Romans 4:4–5 contrasts wages owed with a gift reckoned to the one who believes — Rom 4:4-5; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.18
  • ‘Count’ (λογίζομαι) in Romans 4:3–11 is the language of an account: credited to one — Bauer 2000, §s.v. λογίζομαι; Moo 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:3
  • 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 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:6; Bauer 2000, §s.v. λογίζομαι
  • an inference step — Silva 1994; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Barr 2004
• Sola fide from John (6:28–29), weakest at disputed:
  • The believing of John 6:29 is trust, which brings nothing and receives Christ — Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 6:29; John 6:28-29
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Faith formed by charity (Aquinas on John 6:29), weakest at disputed:
  • The believing of John 6:29 is faith living through charity, the source of works — Thomas Aquinas 2012, §cap. 6, lect. 3, n. 901; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7
• Luther on Galatians 3:11–12 (against faith formed by charity), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Luther 1998, ad loc. Gal 3:12; Luther 1998, ad loc. Gal 3:11
• Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — John Chrysostom, §Homily 31, §1; Stanley 2006
• Obedience as sanctification (John 3:36, Matthew 7:21), weakest at disputed:
  • The obedience of John 3:36 and Matthew 7:21 is sanctification, the fruit of faith — Ridderbos 1997, ad loc. John 3:36; Carson 1991, ad loc. John 3:36; Morris 1992, ad loc. Matt 7:21; Schreiner 2015, pp. 55–55; Hoekema 1994; Murray 1984; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.2; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XIII.1; Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 3:36
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Schreiner 2015, pp. 55–55; Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 3:36; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.2; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XIII.1

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

Why Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal defeats Trent, against 'not by works', at the level of the claims: whereTrentPartsFromPaul.

trent_defensible

Trent can be defended. A consistent set of positions includes it, with Sanders and Jervell, and answers every attack. Every position that defeats Trent, Trent defeats in return: Paul's case, Luke's, Peter's, John's, Paul's gospel, the apocalyptic reading, and the Reformed answer to Chrysostom. The ratings, all at the bottom, break no tie.

The arguments about Paul's word do not attack it. Trent's definition, taken as it stands, says nothing about what "justify" means.

It does not show that Trent prevails. It is not forced (trent_not_forced). It is in a tie with each of those seven positions.

theorem trent_defensible : Framework.CredulouslyAccepted
    solaFideDispute.defeats Party.trent
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

trentAnsweredByPaul

Why Trent is not forced: a set of positions that can be defended includes Paul's case, and Paul's case defeats Trent.

Trent, against 'not by works' is not accepted on every resolution.

• A position holding Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.) can be held, and it holds Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16); Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) conflicts with Trent, against 'not by works': Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Trent, against 'not by works', and Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16).
• None of Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.) defeats another, and each attack on them is answered from among them:
  • Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), and Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Trent, against 'not by works'.
  • Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition defeats Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), and Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition.
  • Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn) defeats Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), and Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn).
  • Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means defeats Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), and Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means.
  • Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life) defeats Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), and Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life).
  • Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", and Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Trent, against 'not by works'.
  • Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means defeats Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", and Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means.
  • Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life) defeats Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", and Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life).
  • Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), and Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Trent, against 'not by works'.
  • Law-observant Luke (Jervell) defeats Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), and Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11) defeats Law-observant Luke (Jervell).
  • Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means defeats Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), and Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means.
  • Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life) defeats Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), and Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life).
  • Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn) defeats Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.), and Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn).

What this rests on. The reasons state 19 defeats and 55 absences of defeat, each a cell of the defeat table, solaFideDispute_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:

• Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), weakest at disputed:
  • In Galatians 2:16 ‘faith of Christ’ (πίστις Χριστοῦ) means our faith in Christ — Dunn 1991; Matlock 2000; Gal 2:16; Rom 3:22; Phil 3:9
  • Second Temple Judaism: in by grace, staying in by works (encoded as a denial, so it ranks disputed) — Sanders 1977
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
  • an inference step — Gathercole 2002; Carson et al. 2001
• Trent, against 'not by works', weakest at disputed:
  • Justification is not remission of sins only, but renewal of the inward man — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 11
• Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", weakest at disputed:
  • Luke 7:47 — her love is the evidence of her forgiveness, not its ground — Marshall 1978, ad loc. Luke 7:47; Padilla 2021, pp. 54–54; Kolb and Wengert 2000, §Apology IV, on love and the fulfilling of the law: Luke 7:47–50; Luke 7:41-43; Luke 7:47; Luke 7:47-50
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), weakest at disputed:
  • The yoke refused at Acts 15:10 is the whole law as a condition of salvation — Bruce 1988, ad loc. Acts 15:10; Acts 15:10; Gal 5:1; Jas 2:10; Das 2001
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.), weakest at disputed:
  • Second Temple Judaism also held final vindication according to works (encoded as a denial, so it ranks disputed) — Gathercole 2002; Carson et al. 2001
  • an inference step — Gathercole 2002; Carson et al. 2001
• Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition, weakest at disputed:
  • ‘Faith of Christ’ is Christ's own faithfulness, the means of God's rescue (encoded as a denial, so it ranks disputed) — Campbell 2009; Martyn 1997, ad loc. Gal 2:16; Hays 2002
  • ‘The righteousness of God’ (δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ) names God's act of rescue in Christ — Campbell 2009; Martyn 1997; Rom 3:21-26
• Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn), weakest at disputed:
  • Second Temple Judaism: in by grace, staying in by works — Sanders 1977
  • an inference step — Dunn 2005; Wright 1997
• Law-observant Luke (Jervell), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Jervell 1972
• Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal, weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Moo 2013, ad loc. Gal 1:6; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1
  • an inference step — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.2; Morris 1965
• Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), weakest at well supported:
  • In Paul, ‘justify’ (δικαιόω) is a verdict: to declare righteous — Bauer 2000, §s.v. δικαιόω; Morris 1965; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Irons 2015; Wright 2009; Fitzmyer 1993, ad loc. Rom 3:24
  • 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 — Silva 1994; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Barr 2004
• Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means, weakest at disputed:
  • Justification is not remission of sins only, but renewal of the inward man — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 11
  • an inference step — 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
• Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning), weakest at well supported:
  • Romans 4:4–5 contrasts wages owed with a gift reckoned to the one who believes — Rom 4:4-5; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.18
  • ‘Count’ (λογίζομαι) in Romans 4:3–11 is the language of an account: credited to one — Bauer 2000, §s.v. λογίζομαι; Moo 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:3
  • 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 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:6; Bauer 2000, §s.v. λογίζομαι
  • an inference step — Silva 1994; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Barr 2004
• Sola fide from John (6:28–29), weakest at disputed:
  • The believing of John 6:29 is trust, which brings nothing and receives Christ — Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 6:29; John 6:28-29
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Faith formed by charity (Aquinas on John 6:29), weakest at disputed:
  • The believing of John 6:29 is faith living through charity, the source of works — Thomas Aquinas 2012, §cap. 6, lect. 3, n. 901; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7
• Luther on Galatians 3:11–12 (against faith formed by charity), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Luther 1998, ad loc. Gal 3:12; Luther 1998, ad loc. Gal 3:11
• Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — John Chrysostom, §Homily 31, §1; Stanley 2006
• Obedience as sanctification (John 3:36, Matthew 7:21), weakest at disputed:
  • The obedience of John 3:36 and Matthew 7:21 is sanctification, the fruit of faith — Ridderbos 1997, ad loc. John 3:36; Carson 1991, ad loc. John 3:36; Morris 1992, ad loc. Matt 7:21; Schreiner 2015, pp. 55–55; Hoekema 1994; Murray 1984; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.2; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XIII.1; Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 3:36
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Schreiner 2015, pp. 55–55; Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 3:36; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.2; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XIII.1

trent_not_forced

Nor is Trent forced. A consistent set of positions that answers every attack holds Paul's case with Luke's and Peter's, and none of them can be held with Trent.

theorem trent_not_forced : ¬Framework.SkepticallyAccepted
    solaFideDispute.defeats Party.trent
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

apocalypticStandsWithLuke

Why the apocalyptic reading can be defended: it can be held with Luke's case, Peter's and the critics', and it answers every position that defeats it. Those are Paul's case, John's, Trent, and Trent taken as a claim about Paul's word.

Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition is accepted on some resolution.

• A position holding Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition, Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.) can be held.
• None of Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition, Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.) defeats another, and each attack on them is answered from among them:
  • Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", and Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" defeats Trent, against 'not by works'.
  • Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means defeats Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", and Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" defeats Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means.
  • Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life) defeats Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", and Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" defeats Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life).
  • Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), and Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" defeats Trent, against 'not by works'.
  • Law-observant Luke (Jervell) defeats Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), and Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11) defeats Law-observant Luke (Jervell).
  • Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means defeats Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), and Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" defeats Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means.
  • Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life) defeats Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), and Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" defeats Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life).
  • Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition, and Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition defeats Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16).
  • Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition, and Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" defeats Trent, against 'not by works'.
  • Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means defeats Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition, and Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" defeats Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means.
  • Sola fide from John (6:28–29) defeats Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition, and Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition defeats Sola fide from John (6:28–29).
  • Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn) defeats Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.), and Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.) defeats Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn).

What this rests on. The reasons state 19 defeats and 56 absences of defeat, each a cell of the defeat table, solaFideDispute_defeats, computed from the two parties' premises and checked by the kernel. Whether an attack survives turns on the attacker's weakest link and on the rating of what it attacks, so a changed rating can change the verdict. The weakest links:

• Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", weakest at disputed:
  • Luke 7:47 — her love is the evidence of her forgiveness, not its ground — Marshall 1978, ad loc. Luke 7:47; Padilla 2021, pp. 54–54; Kolb and Wengert 2000, §Apology IV, on love and the fulfilling of the law: Luke 7:47–50; Luke 7:41-43; Luke 7:47; Luke 7:47-50
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), weakest at disputed:
  • The yoke refused at Acts 15:10 is the whole law as a condition of salvation — Bruce 1988, ad loc. Acts 15:10; Acts 15:10; Gal 5:1; Jas 2:10; Das 2001
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition, weakest at disputed:
  • ‘Faith of Christ’ is Christ's own faithfulness, the means of God's rescue (encoded as a denial, so it ranks disputed) — Campbell 2009; Martyn 1997, ad loc. Gal 2:16; Hays 2002
  • ‘The righteousness of God’ (δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ) names God's act of rescue in Christ — Campbell 2009; Martyn 1997; Rom 3:21-26
• Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.), weakest at disputed:
  • Second Temple Judaism also held final vindication according to works (encoded as a denial, so it ranks disputed) — Gathercole 2002; Carson et al. 2001
  • an inference step — Gathercole 2002; Carson et al. 2001
• Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), weakest at disputed:
  • In Galatians 2:16 ‘faith of Christ’ (πίστις Χριστοῦ) means our faith in Christ — Dunn 1991; Matlock 2000; Gal 2:16; Rom 3:22; Phil 3:9
  • Second Temple Judaism: in by grace, staying in by works (encoded as a denial, so it ranks disputed) — Sanders 1977
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
  • an inference step — Gathercole 2002; Carson et al. 2001
• Trent, against 'not by works', weakest at disputed:
  • Justification is not remission of sins only, but renewal of the inward man — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 11
• Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn), weakest at disputed:
  • Second Temple Judaism: in by grace, staying in by works — Sanders 1977
  • an inference step — Dunn 2005; Wright 1997
• Law-observant Luke (Jervell), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Jervell 1972
• Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal, weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Moo 2013, ad loc. Gal 1:6; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1
  • an inference step — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.2; Morris 1965
• Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), weakest at well supported:
  • In Paul, ‘justify’ (δικαιόω) is a verdict: to declare righteous — Bauer 2000, §s.v. δικαιόω; Morris 1965; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Irons 2015; Wright 2009; Fitzmyer 1993, ad loc. Rom 3:24
  • 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 — Silva 1994; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Barr 2004
• Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means, weakest at disputed:
  • Justification is not remission of sins only, but renewal of the inward man — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 11
  • an inference step — 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
• Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning), weakest at well supported:
  • Romans 4:4–5 contrasts wages owed with a gift reckoned to the one who believes — Rom 4:4-5; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.18
  • ‘Count’ (λογίζομαι) in Romans 4:3–11 is the language of an account: credited to one — Bauer 2000, §s.v. λογίζομαι; Moo 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:3
  • 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 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:6; Bauer 2000, §s.v. λογίζομαι
  • an inference step — Silva 1994; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Barr 2004
• Sola fide from John (6:28–29), weakest at disputed:
  • The believing of John 6:29 is trust, which brings nothing and receives Christ — Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 6:29; John 6:28-29
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Faith formed by charity (Aquinas on John 6:29), weakest at disputed:
  • The believing of John 6:29 is faith living through charity, the source of works — Thomas Aquinas 2012, §cap. 6, lect. 3, n. 901; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7
• Luther on Galatians 3:11–12 (against faith formed by charity), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Luther 1998, ad loc. Gal 3:12; Luther 1998, ad loc. Gal 3:11
• Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — John Chrysostom, §Homily 31, §1; Stanley 2006
• Obedience as sanctification (John 3:36, Matthew 7:21), weakest at disputed:
  • The obedience of John 3:36 and Matthew 7:21 is sanctification, the fruit of faith — Ridderbos 1997, ad loc. John 3:36; Carson 1991, ad loc. John 3:36; Morris 1992, ad loc. Matt 7:21; Schreiner 2015, pp. 55–55; Hoekema 1994; Murray 1984; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.2; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XIII.1; Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 3:36
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Schreiner 2015, pp. 55–55; Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 3:36; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.2; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XIII.1

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

apocalyptic_defensible

The apocalyptic reading can be defended. A consistent set of positions includes it and answers every attack, and that set holds Luke's case and Peter's too. They claim that faith saves, and the apocalyptic reading grants that, denying only that faith is the condition. Of the cases from Paul, Luke and Acts, only Paul's defeats it, and it defeats Paul's in return, over "faith of Christ". Trent it defeats in return over "not by works".

So the disagreement between the Reformed reading and the apocalyptic one lies where scholars place it: between Paul and Campbell, over "faith of Christ" (πίστις Χριστοῦ). It does not lie between Campbell and Luke.

theorem apocalyptic_defensible : Framework.CredulouslyAccepted
    solaFideDispute.defeats Party.apocalyptic
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

apocalypticAnsweredByPaul

Why the apocalyptic reading is not forced: a set of positions that can be defended includes Paul's case, and Paul's case defeats it.

Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition is not accepted on every resolution.

• A position holding Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.) can be held, and it holds Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16); Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) conflicts with Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition: Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition, and Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition defeats Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16).
• None of Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.) defeats another, and each attack on them is answered from among them:
  • Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), and Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Trent, against 'not by works'.
  • Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition defeats Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), and Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition.
  • Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn) defeats Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), and Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn).
  • Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means defeats Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), and Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means.
  • Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life) defeats Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), and Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life).
  • Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", and Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Trent, against 'not by works'.
  • Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means defeats Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", and Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means.
  • Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life) defeats Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", and Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life).
  • Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), and Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Trent, against 'not by works'.
  • Law-observant Luke (Jervell) defeats Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), and Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11) defeats Law-observant Luke (Jervell).
  • Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means defeats Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), and Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means.
  • Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life) defeats Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), and Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life).
  • Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn) defeats Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.), and Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn).

What this rests on. The reasons state 19 defeats and 55 absences of defeat, each a cell of the defeat table, solaFideDispute_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:

• Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), weakest at disputed:
  • In Galatians 2:16 ‘faith of Christ’ (πίστις Χριστοῦ) means our faith in Christ — Dunn 1991; Matlock 2000; Gal 2:16; Rom 3:22; Phil 3:9
  • Second Temple Judaism: in by grace, staying in by works (encoded as a denial, so it ranks disputed) — Sanders 1977
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
  • an inference step — Gathercole 2002; Carson et al. 2001
• Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition, weakest at disputed:
  • ‘Faith of Christ’ is Christ's own faithfulness, the means of God's rescue (encoded as a denial, so it ranks disputed) — Campbell 2009; Martyn 1997, ad loc. Gal 2:16; Hays 2002
  • ‘The righteousness of God’ (δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ) names God's act of rescue in Christ — Campbell 2009; Martyn 1997; Rom 3:21-26
• Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", weakest at disputed:
  • Luke 7:47 — her love is the evidence of her forgiveness, not its ground — Marshall 1978, ad loc. Luke 7:47; Padilla 2021, pp. 54–54; Kolb and Wengert 2000, §Apology IV, on love and the fulfilling of the law: Luke 7:47–50; Luke 7:41-43; Luke 7:47; Luke 7:47-50
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), weakest at disputed:
  • The yoke refused at Acts 15:10 is the whole law as a condition of salvation — Bruce 1988, ad loc. Acts 15:10; Acts 15:10; Gal 5:1; Jas 2:10; Das 2001
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.), weakest at disputed:
  • Second Temple Judaism also held final vindication according to works (encoded as a denial, so it ranks disputed) — Gathercole 2002; Carson et al. 2001
  • an inference step — Gathercole 2002; Carson et al. 2001
• Trent, against 'not by works', weakest at disputed:
  • Justification is not remission of sins only, but renewal of the inward man — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 11
• Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn), weakest at disputed:
  • Second Temple Judaism: in by grace, staying in by works — Sanders 1977
  • an inference step — Dunn 2005; Wright 1997
• Law-observant Luke (Jervell), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Jervell 1972
• Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal, weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Moo 2013, ad loc. Gal 1:6; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1
  • an inference step — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.2; Morris 1965
• Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), weakest at well supported:
  • In Paul, ‘justify’ (δικαιόω) is a verdict: to declare righteous — Bauer 2000, §s.v. δικαιόω; Morris 1965; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Irons 2015; Wright 2009; Fitzmyer 1993, ad loc. Rom 3:24
  • 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 — Silva 1994; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Barr 2004
• Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means, weakest at disputed:
  • Justification is not remission of sins only, but renewal of the inward man — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 11
  • an inference step — 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
• Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning), weakest at well supported:
  • Romans 4:4–5 contrasts wages owed with a gift reckoned to the one who believes — Rom 4:4-5; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.18
  • ‘Count’ (λογίζομαι) in Romans 4:3–11 is the language of an account: credited to one — Bauer 2000, §s.v. λογίζομαι; Moo 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:3
  • 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 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:6; Bauer 2000, §s.v. λογίζομαι
  • an inference step — Silva 1994; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Barr 2004
• Sola fide from John (6:28–29), weakest at disputed:
  • The believing of John 6:29 is trust, which brings nothing and receives Christ — Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 6:29; John 6:28-29
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Faith formed by charity (Aquinas on John 6:29), weakest at disputed:
  • The believing of John 6:29 is faith living through charity, the source of works — Thomas Aquinas 2012, §cap. 6, lect. 3, n. 901; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7
• Luther on Galatians 3:11–12 (against faith formed by charity), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Luther 1998, ad loc. Gal 3:12; Luther 1998, ad loc. Gal 3:11
• Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — John Chrysostom, §Homily 31, §1; Stanley 2006
• Obedience as sanctification (John 3:36, Matthew 7:21), weakest at disputed:
  • The obedience of John 3:36 and Matthew 7:21 is sanctification, the fruit of faith — Ridderbos 1997, ad loc. John 3:36; Carson 1991, ad loc. John 3:36; Morris 1992, ad loc. Matt 7:21; Schreiner 2015, pp. 55–55; Hoekema 1994; Murray 1984; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.2; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XIII.1; Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 3:36
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Schreiner 2015, pp. 55–55; Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 3:36; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.2; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XIII.1

apocalyptic_not_forced

Nor is it forced. A consistent set of positions that answers every attack holds Paul's case, faith alone from Galatians 2:16 read as faith in Christ, and cannot hold the apocalyptic reading with it. Between Paul and Campbell the debate chooses neither: each can be defended, and neither is forced.

theorem apocalyptic_not_forced : ¬Framework.SkepticallyAccepted
    solaFideDispute.defeats Party.apocalyptic
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

lukeStandsWithPeter

Why Luke's case can be defended: it can be held with Peter's, the apocalyptic reading and the critics', and it answers every position that defeats it: Trent, Trent taken as a claim about Paul's word, and Chrysostom.

Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" is accepted on some resolution.

• A position holding Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition, Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.) can be held.
• None of Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition, Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.) defeats another, and each attack on them is answered from among them:
  • Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", and Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" defeats Trent, against 'not by works'.
  • Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means defeats Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", and Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" defeats Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means.
  • Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life) defeats Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", and Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" defeats Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life).
  • Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), and Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" defeats Trent, against 'not by works'.
  • Law-observant Luke (Jervell) defeats Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), and Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11) defeats Law-observant Luke (Jervell).
  • Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means defeats Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), and Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" defeats Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means.
  • Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life) defeats Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), and Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" defeats Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life).
  • Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition, and Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition defeats Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16).
  • Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition, and Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" defeats Trent, against 'not by works'.
  • Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means defeats Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition, and Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" defeats Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means.
  • Sola fide from John (6:28–29) defeats Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition, and Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition defeats Sola fide from John (6:28–29).
  • Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn) defeats Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.), and Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.) defeats Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn).

What this rests on. The reasons state 19 defeats and 56 absences of defeat, each a cell of the defeat table, solaFideDispute_defeats, computed from the two parties' premises and checked by the kernel. Whether an attack survives turns on the attacker's weakest link and on the rating of what it attacks, so a changed rating can change the verdict. The weakest links:

• Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", weakest at disputed:
  • Luke 7:47 — her love is the evidence of her forgiveness, not its ground — Marshall 1978, ad loc. Luke 7:47; Padilla 2021, pp. 54–54; Kolb and Wengert 2000, §Apology IV, on love and the fulfilling of the law: Luke 7:47–50; Luke 7:41-43; Luke 7:47; Luke 7:47-50
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), weakest at disputed:
  • The yoke refused at Acts 15:10 is the whole law as a condition of salvation — Bruce 1988, ad loc. Acts 15:10; Acts 15:10; Gal 5:1; Jas 2:10; Das 2001
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition, weakest at disputed:
  • ‘Faith of Christ’ is Christ's own faithfulness, the means of God's rescue (encoded as a denial, so it ranks disputed) — Campbell 2009; Martyn 1997, ad loc. Gal 2:16; Hays 2002
  • ‘The righteousness of God’ (δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ) names God's act of rescue in Christ — Campbell 2009; Martyn 1997; Rom 3:21-26
• Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.), weakest at disputed:
  • Second Temple Judaism also held final vindication according to works (encoded as a denial, so it ranks disputed) — Gathercole 2002; Carson et al. 2001
  • an inference step — Gathercole 2002; Carson et al. 2001
• Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), weakest at disputed:
  • In Galatians 2:16 ‘faith of Christ’ (πίστις Χριστοῦ) means our faith in Christ — Dunn 1991; Matlock 2000; Gal 2:16; Rom 3:22; Phil 3:9
  • Second Temple Judaism: in by grace, staying in by works (encoded as a denial, so it ranks disputed) — Sanders 1977
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
  • an inference step — Gathercole 2002; Carson et al. 2001
• Trent, against 'not by works', weakest at disputed:
  • Justification is not remission of sins only, but renewal of the inward man — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 11
• Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn), weakest at disputed:
  • Second Temple Judaism: in by grace, staying in by works — Sanders 1977
  • an inference step — Dunn 2005; Wright 1997
• Law-observant Luke (Jervell), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Jervell 1972
• Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal, weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Moo 2013, ad loc. Gal 1:6; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1
  • an inference step — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.2; Morris 1965
• Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), weakest at well supported:
  • In Paul, ‘justify’ (δικαιόω) is a verdict: to declare righteous — Bauer 2000, §s.v. δικαιόω; Morris 1965; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Irons 2015; Wright 2009; Fitzmyer 1993, ad loc. Rom 3:24
  • 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 — Silva 1994; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Barr 2004
• Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means, weakest at disputed:
  • Justification is not remission of sins only, but renewal of the inward man — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 11
  • an inference step — 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
• Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning), weakest at well supported:
  • Romans 4:4–5 contrasts wages owed with a gift reckoned to the one who believes — Rom 4:4-5; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.18
  • ‘Count’ (λογίζομαι) in Romans 4:3–11 is the language of an account: credited to one — Bauer 2000, §s.v. λογίζομαι; Moo 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:3
  • 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 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:6; Bauer 2000, §s.v. λογίζομαι
  • an inference step — Silva 1994; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Barr 2004
• Sola fide from John (6:28–29), weakest at disputed:
  • The believing of John 6:29 is trust, which brings nothing and receives Christ — Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 6:29; John 6:28-29
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Faith formed by charity (Aquinas on John 6:29), weakest at disputed:
  • The believing of John 6:29 is faith living through charity, the source of works — Thomas Aquinas 2012, §cap. 6, lect. 3, n. 901; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7
• Luther on Galatians 3:11–12 (against faith formed by charity), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Luther 1998, ad loc. Gal 3:12; Luther 1998, ad loc. Gal 3:11
• Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — John Chrysostom, §Homily 31, §1; Stanley 2006
• Obedience as sanctification (John 3:36, Matthew 7:21), weakest at disputed:
  • The obedience of John 3:36 and Matthew 7:21 is sanctification, the fruit of faith — Ridderbos 1997, ad loc. John 3:36; Carson 1991, ad loc. John 3:36; Morris 1992, ad loc. Matt 7:21; Schreiner 2015, pp. 55–55; Hoekema 1994; Murray 1984; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.2; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XIII.1; Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 3:36
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Schreiner 2015, pp. 55–55; Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 3:36; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.2; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XIII.1

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

dominical_case_defensible

Luke's case can be defended. "Your faith has saved you", read as Luke gives it, can be held with every position but Trent, however Trent's definition is taken, and Chrysostom. Those are its only attackers, and Luke's case defeats each in return. Against Trent the point at issue is what justification is: Trent's definition denies that faith without charity suffices, and Luke's words say her faith saved her. Against Chrysostom it is whether the right life Jesus requires elsewhere (John 3:36, Matthew 7:21) is a second condition beside faith.

theorem dominical_case_defensible : Framework.CredulouslyAccepted
    solaFideDispute.defeats Party.dominical
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

lukeAnsweredByTrent

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

Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" is not accepted on every resolution.

• A position holding Trent, against 'not by works', Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn), Law-observant Luke (Jervell) can be held, and it holds Trent, against 'not by works'; Trent, against 'not by works' conflicts with Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you": Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", and Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" defeats Trent, against 'not by works'.
• None of Trent, against 'not by works', Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn), Law-observant Luke (Jervell) defeats another, and each attack on them is answered from among them:
  • Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Trent, against 'not by works', and Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16).
  • Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" defeats Trent, against 'not by works', and Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you".
  • Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11) defeats Trent, against 'not by works', and Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11).
  • Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition defeats Trent, against 'not by works', and Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition.
  • Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal defeats Trent, against 'not by works', and Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal.
  • Sola fide from John (6:28–29) defeats Trent, against 'not by works', and Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Sola fide from John (6:28–29).
  • Obedience as sanctification (John 3:36, Matthew 7:21) defeats Trent, against 'not by works', and Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Obedience as sanctification (John 3:36, Matthew 7:21).
  • Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn), and Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16).
  • Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.) defeats Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn), and Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn) defeats Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.).
  • Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11) defeats Law-observant Luke (Jervell), and Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11).

What this rests on. The reasons state 18 defeats and 41 absences of defeat, each a cell of the defeat table, solaFideDispute_defeats, computed from the two parties' premises and checked by the kernel. Whether an attack survives turns on the attacker's weakest link and on the rating of what it attacks, so a changed rating can change the verdict. The weakest links:

• Trent, against 'not by works', weakest at disputed:
  • Justification is not remission of sins only, but renewal of the inward man — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 11
• Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", weakest at disputed:
  • Luke 7:47 — her love is the evidence of her forgiveness, not its ground — Marshall 1978, ad loc. Luke 7:47; Padilla 2021, pp. 54–54; Kolb and Wengert 2000, §Apology IV, on love and the fulfilling of the law: Luke 7:47–50; Luke 7:41-43; Luke 7:47; Luke 7:47-50
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn), weakest at disputed:
  • Second Temple Judaism: in by grace, staying in by works — Sanders 1977
  • an inference step — Dunn 2005; Wright 1997
• Law-observant Luke (Jervell), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Jervell 1972
• Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), weakest at disputed:
  • In Galatians 2:16 ‘faith of Christ’ (πίστις Χριστοῦ) means our faith in Christ — Dunn 1991; Matlock 2000; Gal 2:16; Rom 3:22; Phil 3:9
  • Second Temple Judaism: in by grace, staying in by works (encoded as a denial, so it ranks disputed) — Sanders 1977
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
  • an inference step — Gathercole 2002; Carson et al. 2001
• Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), weakest at disputed:
  • The yoke refused at Acts 15:10 is the whole law as a condition of salvation — Bruce 1988, ad loc. Acts 15:10; Acts 15:10; Gal 5:1; Jas 2:10; Das 2001
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition, weakest at disputed:
  • ‘Faith of Christ’ is Christ's own faithfulness, the means of God's rescue (encoded as a denial, so it ranks disputed) — Campbell 2009; Martyn 1997, ad loc. Gal 2:16; Hays 2002
  • ‘The righteousness of God’ (δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ) names God's act of rescue in Christ — Campbell 2009; Martyn 1997; Rom 3:21-26
• Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.), weakest at disputed:
  • Second Temple Judaism also held final vindication according to works (encoded as a denial, so it ranks disputed) — Gathercole 2002; Carson et al. 2001
  • an inference step — Gathercole 2002; Carson et al. 2001
• Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal, weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Moo 2013, ad loc. Gal 1:6; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1
  • an inference step — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.2; Morris 1965
• Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), weakest at well supported:
  • In Paul, ‘justify’ (δικαιόω) is a verdict: to declare righteous — Bauer 2000, §s.v. δικαιόω; Morris 1965; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Irons 2015; Wright 2009; Fitzmyer 1993, ad loc. Rom 3:24
  • 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 — Silva 1994; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Barr 2004
• Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means, weakest at disputed:
  • Justification is not remission of sins only, but renewal of the inward man — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 11
  • an inference step — 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
• Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning), weakest at well supported:
  • Romans 4:4–5 contrasts wages owed with a gift reckoned to the one who believes — Rom 4:4-5; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.18
  • ‘Count’ (λογίζομαι) in Romans 4:3–11 is the language of an account: credited to one — Bauer 2000, §s.v. λογίζομαι; Moo 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:3
  • 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 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:6; Bauer 2000, §s.v. λογίζομαι
  • an inference step — Silva 1994; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Barr 2004
• Sola fide from John (6:28–29), weakest at disputed:
  • The believing of John 6:29 is trust, which brings nothing and receives Christ — Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 6:29; John 6:28-29
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Faith formed by charity (Aquinas on John 6:29), weakest at disputed:
  • The believing of John 6:29 is faith living through charity, the source of works — Thomas Aquinas 2012, §cap. 6, lect. 3, n. 901; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7
• Luther on Galatians 3:11–12 (against faith formed by charity), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Luther 1998, ad loc. Gal 3:12; Luther 1998, ad loc. Gal 3:11
• Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — John Chrysostom, §Homily 31, §1; Stanley 2006
• Obedience as sanctification (John 3:36, Matthew 7:21), weakest at disputed:
  • The obedience of John 3:36 and Matthew 7:21 is sanctification, the fruit of faith — Ridderbos 1997, ad loc. John 3:36; Carson 1991, ad loc. John 3:36; Morris 1992, ad loc. Matt 7:21; Schreiner 2015, pp. 55–55; Hoekema 1994; Murray 1984; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.2; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XIII.1; Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 3:36
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Schreiner 2015, pp. 55–55; Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 3:36; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.2; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XIII.1

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

Why Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal defeats Trent, against 'not by works', at the level of the claims: whereTrentPartsFromPaul.

dominical_case_not_forced

Luke's case is not forced. A consistent set of positions that answers every attack holds Trent, and cannot hold Luke's case with it.

Between Trent and each Reformed strand, the debate chooses neither. Their weakest links are all disputed, so no rating breaks a tie, and every attack between them runs in both directions.

What would decide between them is what justification is. No rating here settles that. whyTheDominicalCaseStandsAgainstTrent places Luke's disagreement with Trent at Trent's definition. whereTrentPartsFromPaul, in the chapter Where Trent parts from Paul, places Paul's at one step: that a verdict on Christ's finished work excludes the renewal worked in us. The one thing the ratings do decide is that Trent cannot claim its definition as the meaning of Paul's word (trent_on_pauls_word_indefensible).

theorem dominical_case_not_forced : ¬Framework.SkepticallyAccepted
    solaFideDispute.defeats Party.dominical
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

gospelStandsWithTheStrands

Why Paul's gospel can be defended: it can be held with Paul's case, Luke's, Peter's, the critics' and the argument from Paul's word, and it answers both positions that defeat it. Those are Trent, and Trent taken as a claim about Paul's word.

Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal is accepted on some resolution.

• A position holding Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal, Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.), Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning) can be held.
• None of Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal, Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.), Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning) defeats another, and each attack on them is answered from among them:
  • Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal, and Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal defeats Trent, against 'not by works'.
  • Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means defeats Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal, and Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal defeats Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means.
  • Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), and Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal defeats Trent, against 'not by works'.
  • Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition defeats Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), and Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition.
  • Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn) defeats Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), and Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn).
  • Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means defeats Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), and Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal defeats Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means.
  • Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life) defeats Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), and Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life).
  • Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", and Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal defeats Trent, against 'not by works'.
  • Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means defeats Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", and Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal defeats Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means.
  • Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life) defeats Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", and Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life).
  • Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), and Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal defeats Trent, against 'not by works'.
  • Law-observant Luke (Jervell) defeats Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), and Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11) defeats Law-observant Luke (Jervell).
  • Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means defeats Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), and Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal defeats Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means.
  • Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life) defeats Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), and Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life).
  • Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn) defeats Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.), and Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn).

What this rests on. The reasons state 21 defeats and 87 absences of defeat, each a cell of the defeat table, solaFideDispute_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:

• Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal, weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Moo 2013, ad loc. Gal 1:6; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1
  • an inference step — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.2; Morris 1965
• Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), weakest at disputed:
  • In Galatians 2:16 ‘faith of Christ’ (πίστις Χριστοῦ) means our faith in Christ — Dunn 1991; Matlock 2000; Gal 2:16; Rom 3:22; Phil 3:9
  • Second Temple Judaism: in by grace, staying in by works (encoded as a denial, so it ranks disputed) — Sanders 1977
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
  • an inference step — Gathercole 2002; Carson et al. 2001
• Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", weakest at disputed:
  • Luke 7:47 — her love is the evidence of her forgiveness, not its ground — Marshall 1978, ad loc. Luke 7:47; Padilla 2021, pp. 54–54; Kolb and Wengert 2000, §Apology IV, on love and the fulfilling of the law: Luke 7:47–50; Luke 7:41-43; Luke 7:47; Luke 7:47-50
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), weakest at disputed:
  • The yoke refused at Acts 15:10 is the whole law as a condition of salvation — Bruce 1988, ad loc. Acts 15:10; Acts 15:10; Gal 5:1; Jas 2:10; Das 2001
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.), weakest at disputed:
  • Second Temple Judaism also held final vindication according to works (encoded as a denial, so it ranks disputed) — Gathercole 2002; Carson et al. 2001
  • an inference step — Gathercole 2002; Carson et al. 2001
• Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), weakest at well supported:
  • In Paul, ‘justify’ (δικαιόω) is a verdict: to declare righteous — Bauer 2000, §s.v. δικαιόω; Morris 1965; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Irons 2015; Wright 2009; Fitzmyer 1993, ad loc. Rom 3:24
  • 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 — Silva 1994; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Barr 2004
• Trent, against 'not by works', weakest at disputed:
  • Justification is not remission of sins only, but renewal of the inward man — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 11
• Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition, weakest at disputed:
  • ‘Faith of Christ’ is Christ's own faithfulness, the means of God's rescue (encoded as a denial, so it ranks disputed) — Campbell 2009; Martyn 1997, ad loc. Gal 2:16; Hays 2002
  • ‘The righteousness of God’ (δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ) names God's act of rescue in Christ — Campbell 2009; Martyn 1997; Rom 3:21-26
• Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn), weakest at disputed:
  • Second Temple Judaism: in by grace, staying in by works — Sanders 1977
  • an inference step — Dunn 2005; Wright 1997
• Law-observant Luke (Jervell), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Jervell 1972
• Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means, weakest at disputed:
  • Justification is not remission of sins only, but renewal of the inward man — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 11
  • an inference step — 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
• Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning), weakest at well supported:
  • Romans 4:4–5 contrasts wages owed with a gift reckoned to the one who believes — Rom 4:4-5; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.18
  • ‘Count’ (λογίζομαι) in Romans 4:3–11 is the language of an account: credited to one — Bauer 2000, §s.v. λογίζομαι; Moo 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:3
  • 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 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:6; Bauer 2000, §s.v. λογίζομαι
  • an inference step — Silva 1994; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Barr 2004
• Sola fide from John (6:28–29), weakest at disputed:
  • The believing of John 6:29 is trust, which brings nothing and receives Christ — Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 6:29; John 6:28-29
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Faith formed by charity (Aquinas on John 6:29), weakest at disputed:
  • The believing of John 6:29 is faith living through charity, the source of works — Thomas Aquinas 2012, §cap. 6, lect. 3, n. 901; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7
• Luther on Galatians 3:11–12 (against faith formed by charity), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Luther 1998, ad loc. Gal 3:12; Luther 1998, ad loc. Gal 3:11
• Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — John Chrysostom, §Homily 31, §1; Stanley 2006
• Obedience as sanctification (John 3:36, Matthew 7:21), weakest at disputed:
  • The obedience of John 3:36 and Matthew 7:21 is sanctification, the fruit of faith — Ridderbos 1997, ad loc. John 3:36; Carson 1991, ad loc. John 3:36; Morris 1992, ad loc. Matt 7:21; Schreiner 2015, pp. 55–55; Hoekema 1994; Murray 1984; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.2; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XIII.1; Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 3:36
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Schreiner 2015, pp. 55–55; Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 3:36; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.2; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XIII.1

Why Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal defeats Trent, against 'not by works', at the level of the claims: whereTrentPartsFromPaul.

gospel_defensible

Paul's gospel can be defended, together with Paul's, Luke's and Peter's cases and with the argument from Paul's word. A consistent set of positions that answers every attack holds them all.

theorem gospel_defensible : Framework.CredulouslyAccepted
    solaFideDispute.defeats Party.gospel
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

gospelAnsweredByTrent

Why Paul's gospel is not forced: a set of positions that can be defended includes Trent, and Trent defeats it.

Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal is not accepted on every resolution.

• A position holding Trent, against 'not by works', Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn), Law-observant Luke (Jervell) can be held, and it holds Trent, against 'not by works'; Trent, against 'not by works' conflicts with Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal: Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal, and Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal defeats Trent, against 'not by works'.
• None of Trent, against 'not by works', Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn), Law-observant Luke (Jervell) defeats another, and each attack on them is answered from among them:
  • Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Trent, against 'not by works', and Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16).
  • Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" defeats Trent, against 'not by works', and Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you".
  • Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11) defeats Trent, against 'not by works', and Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11).
  • Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition defeats Trent, against 'not by works', and Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition.
  • Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal defeats Trent, against 'not by works', and Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal.
  • Sola fide from John (6:28–29) defeats Trent, against 'not by works', and Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Sola fide from John (6:28–29).
  • Obedience as sanctification (John 3:36, Matthew 7:21) defeats Trent, against 'not by works', and Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Obedience as sanctification (John 3:36, Matthew 7:21).
  • Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn), and Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16).
  • Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.) defeats Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn), and Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn) defeats Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.).
  • Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11) defeats Law-observant Luke (Jervell), and Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11).

What this rests on. The reasons state 18 defeats and 41 absences of defeat, each a cell of the defeat table, solaFideDispute_defeats, computed from the two parties' premises and checked by the kernel. Whether an attack survives turns on the attacker's weakest link and on the rating of what it attacks, so a changed rating can change the verdict. The weakest links:

• Trent, against 'not by works', weakest at disputed:
  • Justification is not remission of sins only, but renewal of the inward man — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 11
• Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal, weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Moo 2013, ad loc. Gal 1:6; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1
  • an inference step — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.2; Morris 1965
• Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn), weakest at disputed:
  • Second Temple Judaism: in by grace, staying in by works — Sanders 1977
  • an inference step — Dunn 2005; Wright 1997
• Law-observant Luke (Jervell), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Jervell 1972
• Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), weakest at disputed:
  • In Galatians 2:16 ‘faith of Christ’ (πίστις Χριστοῦ) means our faith in Christ — Dunn 1991; Matlock 2000; Gal 2:16; Rom 3:22; Phil 3:9
  • Second Temple Judaism: in by grace, staying in by works (encoded as a denial, so it ranks disputed) — Sanders 1977
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
  • an inference step — Gathercole 2002; Carson et al. 2001
• Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", weakest at disputed:
  • Luke 7:47 — her love is the evidence of her forgiveness, not its ground — Marshall 1978, ad loc. Luke 7:47; Padilla 2021, pp. 54–54; Kolb and Wengert 2000, §Apology IV, on love and the fulfilling of the law: Luke 7:47–50; Luke 7:41-43; Luke 7:47; Luke 7:47-50
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), weakest at disputed:
  • The yoke refused at Acts 15:10 is the whole law as a condition of salvation — Bruce 1988, ad loc. Acts 15:10; Acts 15:10; Gal 5:1; Jas 2:10; Das 2001
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition, weakest at disputed:
  • ‘Faith of Christ’ is Christ's own faithfulness, the means of God's rescue (encoded as a denial, so it ranks disputed) — Campbell 2009; Martyn 1997, ad loc. Gal 2:16; Hays 2002
  • ‘The righteousness of God’ (δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ) names God's act of rescue in Christ — Campbell 2009; Martyn 1997; Rom 3:21-26
• Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.), weakest at disputed:
  • Second Temple Judaism also held final vindication according to works (encoded as a denial, so it ranks disputed) — Gathercole 2002; Carson et al. 2001
  • an inference step — Gathercole 2002; Carson et al. 2001
• Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), weakest at well supported:
  • In Paul, ‘justify’ (δικαιόω) is a verdict: to declare righteous — Bauer 2000, §s.v. δικαιόω; Morris 1965; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Irons 2015; Wright 2009; Fitzmyer 1993, ad loc. Rom 3:24
  • 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 — Silva 1994; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Barr 2004
• Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means, weakest at disputed:
  • Justification is not remission of sins only, but renewal of the inward man — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 11
  • an inference step — 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
• Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning), weakest at well supported:
  • Romans 4:4–5 contrasts wages owed with a gift reckoned to the one who believes — Rom 4:4-5; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.18
  • ‘Count’ (λογίζομαι) in Romans 4:3–11 is the language of an account: credited to one — Bauer 2000, §s.v. λογίζομαι; Moo 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:3
  • 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 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:6; Bauer 2000, §s.v. λογίζομαι
  • an inference step — Silva 1994; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Barr 2004
• Sola fide from John (6:28–29), weakest at disputed:
  • The believing of John 6:29 is trust, which brings nothing and receives Christ — Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 6:29; John 6:28-29
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Faith formed by charity (Aquinas on John 6:29), weakest at disputed:
  • The believing of John 6:29 is faith living through charity, the source of works — Thomas Aquinas 2012, §cap. 6, lect. 3, n. 901; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7
• Luther on Galatians 3:11–12 (against faith formed by charity), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Luther 1998, ad loc. Gal 3:12; Luther 1998, ad loc. Gal 3:11
• Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — John Chrysostom, §Homily 31, §1; Stanley 2006
• Obedience as sanctification (John 3:36, Matthew 7:21), weakest at disputed:
  • The obedience of John 3:36 and Matthew 7:21 is sanctification, the fruit of faith — Ridderbos 1997, ad loc. John 3:36; Carson 1991, ad loc. John 3:36; Morris 1992, ad loc. Matt 7:21; Schreiner 2015, pp. 55–55; Hoekema 1994; Murray 1984; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.2; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XIII.1; Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 3:36
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Schreiner 2015, pp. 55–55; Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 3:36; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.2; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XIII.1

Why Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal defeats Trent, against 'not by works', at the level of the claims: whereTrentPartsFromPaul.

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

gospel_not_forced

Nor is it forced. Trent as Trent states it can still be defended, and Paul's gospel cannot be held with it. What would decide between them is the step whereTrentPartsFromPaul names, that a verdict on Christ's finished work excludes renewal, and that step is rated disputed. The argument from Paul's word does not decide it. Taken as a claim about what God does, Trent's definition is not reached by anything the word's meaning shows (lexical_case_does_not_reach_what_god_does).

theorem gospel_not_forced : ¬Framework.SkepticallyAccepted
    solaFideDispute.defeats Party.gospel
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

Where Luke's case and Trent part

The verdicts above say that Luke's case and Trent defeat each other, and that the debate chooses neither. This says why, claim by claim. The two part over what justification is. Trent defines it as the renewal of the inward person by charity poured in, and from that definition it follows that faith without charity does not suffice. Luke's words say that her faith saved her.

whyTheDominicalCaseStandsAgainstTrent

Why Luke's case stands against Trent. Everything turns on Luke's own step: from "your faith has saved you", with "saved" (σῴζω) read as saved from sin and her love as the evidence of forgiveness, to the conclusion that faith suffices.

Trent cannot hold that step together with Luke's words. Two things in Trent's case contradict it, and both are needed: its definition of justification as the renewal of the inward person (Session VI, ch. 7), and the step from that definition to denying that faith suffices (canon 9). Nothing else in Trent's case does: not its account of merit, and not its reading of works.

So the disagreement is not over what Luke says. It is over what justification is. Grant Trent's definition, and "your faith has saved you" cannot mean that faith sufficed. Grant that it did, and Trent's definition cannot stand.

Why Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" stands against Trent, against 'not by works'.

• The crux: \((\href{claims.html#claim-17}{P_{17}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-18}{P_{18}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-19}{P_{19}}) \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-26}{P_{26}}\), a premise of Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you".
• What it does: its conclusion does not follow without it.
• Granted: \(\href{claims.html#claim-17}{P_{17}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-18}{P_{18}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-19}{P_{19}}\), which the break also needs.
• Where the rival breaks: \(\href{claims.html#claim-33}{P_{33}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-33}{P_{33}} \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-26}{P_{26}}\) cannot be held together with \((\href{claims.html#claim-17}{P_{17}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-18}{P_{18}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-19}{P_{19}}) \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-26}{P_{26}}\) and \(\href{claims.html#claim-17}{P_{17}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-18}{P_{18}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-19}{P_{19}}\); each is needed for the break, and without the crux they stand.
• What this rests on:
  • \(\href{claims.html#claim-17}{P_{17}}\) Luke 7:50 — Jesus says ‘your faith has saved you’ after declaring sins forgiven — consensus: Luke 7:50; Marshall 1978, ad loc. Luke 7:50
  • \(\href{claims.html#claim-18}{P_{18}}\) ‘Saved’ (σῴζω) at Luke 7:50 means saved from sin, not healed — well supported: Kolb and Wengert 2000, §Apology IV, on love and the fulfilling of the law: Luke 7:47–50; Padilla 2021, pp. 54–55; Luke 7:47-50; Marshall 1978, ad loc. Luke 7:50
  • \(\href{claims.html#claim-19}{P_{19}}\) Luke 7:47 — her love is the evidence of her forgiveness, not its ground — disputed: Marshall 1978, ad loc. Luke 7:47; Padilla 2021, pp. 54–54; Kolb and Wengert 2000, §Apology IV, on love and the fulfilling of the law: Luke 7:47–50; Luke 7:41-43; Luke 7:47; Luke 7:47-50
  • the step itself — disputed: Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9

The Reformation debate, heard alone

reformationAlone

The positions of the sixteenth-century debate: the four Reformed strands, Paul's gospel, the two arguments about Paul's word, Trent as it states its definition and Trent taken as a claim about Paul's word, the exchange over John 6:29 between Aquinas and Luther, and Chrysostom on John 3:36 with the Reformed answer to him. Not heard: the apocalyptic reading, Sanders and his critics, and Jervell.

def reformationAlone : Dispute Claim { i // i ∉ [Party.apocalyptic,
    Party.sanders, Party.critics, Party.jervell] } :=
  solaFideDispute.restrict fun x =>
    x ∉
      [Party.apocalyptic, Party.sanders,
        Party.critics, Party.jervell]

reformationSettlesTheWord

How far the Reformation debate can be settled. Nothing defeats either argument about Paul's word, so both are accepted first, and nothing joins them. Each Reformed position is defeated by Trent. Trent is defeated by Paul's case, and by Luke's, Peter's and Paul's gospel. Trent taken as a claim about Paul's word is defeated by the argument from the word itself.

What the dispute forces is exactly Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning).

• Stage 1: Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning).
  • Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning) is defeated by nothing.
  • Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning) is defeated by nothing.
• Nothing else is forced:
  • Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), and nothing forced defeats Trent, against 'not by works'.
  • Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", and nothing forced defeats Trent, against 'not by works'.
  • Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), and nothing forced defeats Trent, against 'not by works'.
  • Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Trent, against 'not by works', and nothing forced defeats Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16).
  • Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal, and nothing forced defeats Trent, against 'not by works'.
  • Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning) defeats Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means, and nothing forced defeats Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning).
  • Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Sola fide from John (6:28–29), and nothing forced defeats Trent, against 'not by works'.
  • Luther on Galatians 3:11–12 (against faith formed by charity) defeats Faith formed by charity (Aquinas on John 6:29), and nothing forced defeats Luther on Galatians 3:11–12 (against faith formed by charity).
  • Faith formed by charity (Aquinas on John 6:29) defeats Luther on Galatians 3:11–12 (against faith formed by charity), and nothing forced defeats Faith formed by charity (Aquinas on John 6:29).
  • Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life), and nothing forced defeats Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16).
  • Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Obedience as sanctification (John 3:36, Matthew 7:21), and nothing forced defeats Trent, against 'not by works'.

What this rests on. The reasons state 11 defeats and 34 absences of defeat, each a cell of the defeat table, solaFideDispute_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:

• Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), weakest at disputed:
  • In Galatians 2:16 ‘faith of Christ’ (πίστις Χριστοῦ) means our faith in Christ — Dunn 1991; Matlock 2000; Gal 2:16; Rom 3:22; Phil 3:9
  • Second Temple Judaism: in by grace, staying in by works (encoded as a denial, so it ranks disputed) — Sanders 1977
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
  • an inference step — Gathercole 2002; Carson et al. 2001
• Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), weakest at well supported:
  • In Paul, ‘justify’ (δικαιόω) is a verdict: to declare righteous — Bauer 2000, §s.v. δικαιόω; Morris 1965; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Irons 2015; Wright 2009; Fitzmyer 1993, ad loc. Rom 3:24
  • 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 — Silva 1994; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Barr 2004
• Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", weakest at disputed:
  • Luke 7:47 — her love is the evidence of her forgiveness, not its ground — Marshall 1978, ad loc. Luke 7:47; Padilla 2021, pp. 54–54; Kolb and Wengert 2000, §Apology IV, on love and the fulfilling of the law: Luke 7:47–50; Luke 7:41-43; Luke 7:47; Luke 7:47-50
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), weakest at disputed:
  • The yoke refused at Acts 15:10 is the whole law as a condition of salvation — Bruce 1988, ad loc. Acts 15:10; Acts 15:10; Gal 5:1; Jas 2:10; Das 2001
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Trent, against 'not by works', weakest at disputed:
  • Justification is not remission of sins only, but renewal of the inward man — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 11
• Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal, weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Moo 2013, ad loc. Gal 1:6; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1
  • an inference step — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.2; Morris 1965
• Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means, weakest at disputed:
  • Justification is not remission of sins only, but renewal of the inward man — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 11
  • an inference step — 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
• Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning), weakest at well supported:
  • Romans 4:4–5 contrasts wages owed with a gift reckoned to the one who believes — Rom 4:4-5; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.18
  • ‘Count’ (λογίζομαι) in Romans 4:3–11 is the language of an account: credited to one — Bauer 2000, §s.v. λογίζομαι; Moo 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:3
  • 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 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:6; Bauer 2000, §s.v. λογίζομαι
  • an inference step — Silva 1994; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Barr 2004
• Sola fide from John (6:28–29), weakest at disputed:
  • The believing of John 6:29 is trust, which brings nothing and receives Christ — Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 6:29; John 6:28-29
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Faith formed by charity (Aquinas on John 6:29), weakest at disputed:
  • The believing of John 6:29 is faith living through charity, the source of works — Thomas Aquinas 2012, §cap. 6, lect. 3, n. 901; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7
• Luther on Galatians 3:11–12 (against faith formed by charity), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Luther 1998, ad loc. Gal 3:12; Luther 1998, ad loc. Gal 3:11
• Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — John Chrysostom, §Homily 31, §1; Stanley 2006
• Obedience as sanctification (John 3:36, Matthew 7:21), weakest at disputed:
  • The obedience of John 3:36 and Matthew 7:21 is sanctification, the fruit of faith — Ridderbos 1997, ad loc. John 3:36; Carson 1991, ad loc. John 3:36; Morris 1992, ad loc. Matt 7:21; Schreiner 2015, pp. 55–55; Hoekema 1994; Murray 1984; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.2; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XIII.1; Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 3:36
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Schreiner 2015, pp. 55–55; Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 3:36; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.2; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XIII.1

Why Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning) defeats Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means, at the level of the claims: whereTrentsWordReadingFalls.

reformation_dispute_forces_only_pauls_word

What the Reformation debate forces: the meaning of Paul's word, and nothing else. Heard as Rome and the Reformers alone, the forced positions are exactly the two arguments about Paul's word. Trent cannot claim that its definition is what Paul's "justify" (δικαιόω) means.

Nothing else is forced. Sola fide from each strand, Paul's gospel, and Trent's definition as a claim about what God does each have an attacker they cannot remove.

theorem reformation_dispute_forces_only_pauls_word : Framework.grounded
    reformationAlone.defeats = Solver.toSet (Witness.listSub (fun x => x ∉
    [Party.apocalyptic, Party.sanders, Party.critics, Party.jervell])
    [Party.lexical, Party.romansOnTheWord])
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

trentStandsWithPaulsWord

Why Trent can be defended in the Reformation debate: it can be held with the arguments about Paul's word, and it answers every position that attacks it.

Trent, against 'not by works' is accepted on some resolution.

• A position holding Trent, against 'not by works', Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning) can be held.
• None of Trent, against 'not by works', Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning) defeats another, and each attack on them is answered from among them:
  • Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Trent, against 'not by works', and Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16).
  • Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" defeats Trent, against 'not by works', and Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you".
  • Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11) defeats Trent, against 'not by works', and Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11).
  • Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal defeats Trent, against 'not by works', and Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal.
  • Sola fide from John (6:28–29) defeats Trent, against 'not by works', and Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Sola fide from John (6:28–29).
  • Obedience as sanctification (John 3:36, Matthew 7:21) defeats Trent, against 'not by works', and Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Obedience as sanctification (John 3:36, Matthew 7:21).

What this rests on. The reasons state 12 defeats and 33 absences of defeat, each a cell of the defeat table, solaFideDispute_defeats, computed from the two parties' premises and checked by the kernel. Whether an attack survives turns on the attacker's weakest link and on the rating of what it attacks, so a changed rating can change the verdict. The weakest links:

• Trent, against 'not by works', weakest at disputed:
  • Justification is not remission of sins only, but renewal of the inward man — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 11
• Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), weakest at well supported:
  • In Paul, ‘justify’ (δικαιόω) is a verdict: to declare righteous — Bauer 2000, §s.v. δικαιόω; Morris 1965; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Irons 2015; Wright 2009; Fitzmyer 1993, ad loc. Rom 3:24
  • 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 — Silva 1994; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Barr 2004
• Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning), weakest at well supported:
  • Romans 4:4–5 contrasts wages owed with a gift reckoned to the one who believes — Rom 4:4-5; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.18
  • ‘Count’ (λογίζομαι) in Romans 4:3–11 is the language of an account: credited to one — Bauer 2000, §s.v. λογίζομαι; Moo 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:3
  • 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 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:6; Bauer 2000, §s.v. λογίζομαι
  • an inference step — Silva 1994; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Barr 2004
• Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), weakest at disputed:
  • In Galatians 2:16 ‘faith of Christ’ (πίστις Χριστοῦ) means our faith in Christ — Dunn 1991; Matlock 2000; Gal 2:16; Rom 3:22; Phil 3:9
  • Second Temple Judaism: in by grace, staying in by works (encoded as a denial, so it ranks disputed) — Sanders 1977
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
  • an inference step — Gathercole 2002; Carson et al. 2001
• Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", weakest at disputed:
  • Luke 7:47 — her love is the evidence of her forgiveness, not its ground — Marshall 1978, ad loc. Luke 7:47; Padilla 2021, pp. 54–54; Kolb and Wengert 2000, §Apology IV, on love and the fulfilling of the law: Luke 7:47–50; Luke 7:41-43; Luke 7:47; Luke 7:47-50
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), weakest at disputed:
  • The yoke refused at Acts 15:10 is the whole law as a condition of salvation — Bruce 1988, ad loc. Acts 15:10; Acts 15:10; Gal 5:1; Jas 2:10; Das 2001
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal, weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Moo 2013, ad loc. Gal 1:6; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1
  • an inference step — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.2; Morris 1965
• Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means, weakest at disputed:
  • Justification is not remission of sins only, but renewal of the inward man — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 11
  • an inference step — 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
• Sola fide from John (6:28–29), weakest at disputed:
  • The believing of John 6:29 is trust, which brings nothing and receives Christ — Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 6:29; John 6:28-29
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Faith formed by charity (Aquinas on John 6:29), weakest at disputed:
  • The believing of John 6:29 is faith living through charity, the source of works — Thomas Aquinas 2012, §cap. 6, lect. 3, n. 901; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7
• Luther on Galatians 3:11–12 (against faith formed by charity), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Luther 1998, ad loc. Gal 3:12; Luther 1998, ad loc. Gal 3:11
• Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — John Chrysostom, §Homily 31, §1; Stanley 2006
• Obedience as sanctification (John 3:36, Matthew 7:21), weakest at disputed:
  • The obedience of John 3:36 and Matthew 7:21 is sanctification, the fruit of faith — Ridderbos 1997, ad loc. John 3:36; Carson 1991, ad loc. John 3:36; Morris 1992, ad loc. Matt 7:21; Schreiner 2015, pp. 55–55; Hoekema 1994; Murray 1984; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.2; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XIII.1; Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 3:36
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Schreiner 2015, pp. 55–55; Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 3:36; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.2; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XIII.1

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

Why Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal defeats Trent, against 'not by works', at the level of the claims: whereTrentPartsFromPaul.

trent_defensible_with_pauls_word

Trent, as Trent states it, can be defended in the Reformation debate, together with the arguments about Paul's word. A consistent set of positions that answers every attack holds Trent and both of those arguments.

This is what the two ways of taking Trent's definition come to when weighed: accepting everything the word's meaning shows costs Trent nothing, so long as its definition is a claim about what God does.

theorem trent_defensible_with_pauls_word : Framework.CredulouslyAccepted
    reformationAlone.defeats ⟨Party.trent, trentStandsWithPaulsWord._proof_2⟩
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

reformationAnsweredByTrent

Why sola fide is not forced in the Reformation debate: a set of positions that can be defended includes Trent, and Trent defeats Paul's case.

Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) is not accepted on every resolution.

• A position holding Trent, against 'not by works', Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning) can be held, and it holds Trent, against 'not by works'; Trent, against 'not by works' conflicts with Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16): Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), and Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Trent, against 'not by works'.
• None of Trent, against 'not by works', Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning) defeats another, and each attack on them is answered from among them:
  • Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Trent, against 'not by works', and Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16).
  • Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" defeats Trent, against 'not by works', and Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you".
  • Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11) defeats Trent, against 'not by works', and Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11).
  • Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal defeats Trent, against 'not by works', and Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal.
  • Sola fide from John (6:28–29) defeats Trent, against 'not by works', and Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Sola fide from John (6:28–29).
  • Obedience as sanctification (John 3:36, Matthew 7:21) defeats Trent, against 'not by works', and Trent, against 'not by works' defeats Obedience as sanctification (John 3:36, Matthew 7:21).

What this rests on. The reasons state 12 defeats and 33 absences of defeat, each a cell of the defeat table, solaFideDispute_defeats, computed from the two parties' premises and checked by the kernel. Whether an attack survives turns on the attacker's weakest link and on the rating of what it attacks, so a changed rating can change the verdict. The weakest links:

• Trent, against 'not by works', weakest at disputed:
  • Justification is not remission of sins only, but renewal of the inward man — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 11
• Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), weakest at disputed:
  • In Galatians 2:16 ‘faith of Christ’ (πίστις Χριστοῦ) means our faith in Christ — Dunn 1991; Matlock 2000; Gal 2:16; Rom 3:22; Phil 3:9
  • Second Temple Judaism: in by grace, staying in by works (encoded as a denial, so it ranks disputed) — Sanders 1977
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
  • an inference step — Gathercole 2002; Carson et al. 2001
• Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), weakest at well supported:
  • In Paul, ‘justify’ (δικαιόω) is a verdict: to declare righteous — Bauer 2000, §s.v. δικαιόω; Morris 1965; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Irons 2015; Wright 2009; Fitzmyer 1993, ad loc. Rom 3:24
  • 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 — Silva 1994; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Barr 2004
• Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning), weakest at well supported:
  • Romans 4:4–5 contrasts wages owed with a gift reckoned to the one who believes — Rom 4:4-5; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.18
  • ‘Count’ (λογίζομαι) in Romans 4:3–11 is the language of an account: credited to one — Bauer 2000, §s.v. λογίζομαι; Moo 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:3
  • 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 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:6; Bauer 2000, §s.v. λογίζομαι
  • an inference step — Silva 1994; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Barr 2004
• Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", weakest at disputed:
  • Luke 7:47 — her love is the evidence of her forgiveness, not its ground — Marshall 1978, ad loc. Luke 7:47; Padilla 2021, pp. 54–54; Kolb and Wengert 2000, §Apology IV, on love and the fulfilling of the law: Luke 7:47–50; Luke 7:41-43; Luke 7:47; Luke 7:47-50
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), weakest at disputed:
  • The yoke refused at Acts 15:10 is the whole law as a condition of salvation — Bruce 1988, ad loc. Acts 15:10; Acts 15:10; Gal 5:1; Jas 2:10; Das 2001
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal, weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Moo 2013, ad loc. Gal 1:6; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1
  • an inference step — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.2; Morris 1965
• Trent, against 'not by works', read as what Paul's word means, weakest at disputed:
  • Justification is not remission of sins only, but renewal of the inward man — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 11
  • an inference step — 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
• Sola fide from John (6:28–29), weakest at disputed:
  • The believing of John 6:29 is trust, which brings nothing and receives Christ — Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 6:29; John 6:28-29
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Faith formed by charity (Aquinas on John 6:29), weakest at disputed:
  • The believing of John 6:29 is faith living through charity, the source of works — Thomas Aquinas 2012, §cap. 6, lect. 3, n. 901; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7
• Luther on Galatians 3:11–12 (against faith formed by charity), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Luther 1998, ad loc. Gal 3:12; Luther 1998, ad loc. Gal 3:11
• Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — John Chrysostom, §Homily 31, §1; Stanley 2006
• Obedience as sanctification (John 3:36, Matthew 7:21), weakest at disputed:
  • The obedience of John 3:36 and Matthew 7:21 is sanctification, the fruit of faith — Ridderbos 1997, ad loc. John 3:36; Carson 1991, ad loc. John 3:36; Morris 1992, ad loc. Matt 7:21; Schreiner 2015, pp. 55–55; Hoekema 1994; Murray 1984; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.2; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XIII.1; Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 3:36
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Schreiner 2015, pp. 55–55; Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 3:36; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.2; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XIII.1

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

Why Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal defeats Trent, against 'not by works', at the level of the claims: whereTrentPartsFromPaul.

sola_fide_not_forced_in_the_reformation_dispute

Nor is sola fide forced there. Rome and the Reformers, heard alone, tie. Each Reformed strand and Trent defeat each other over Trent's definition, and every rating on both sides is disputed. What would decide it is the step from a verdict to "renewal is no part of justification", which is disputed in Galatians and again in Romans 4 (see whatTrentsDefinitionClaims).

theorem sola_fide_not_forced_in_the_reformation_dispute :
    ¬Framework.SkepticallyAccepted reformationAlone.defeats ⟨Party.pauline,
    reformationAnsweredByTrent._proof_2⟩
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

The debate without Trent

withoutTrent

Every position but Trent's two: Trent as it states its definition, and Trent taken as a claim about Paul's word. Augustine's explanation of "justify" goes with the second, since that is what it rests on.

def withoutTrent : Dispute Claim { i // i ∉ [Party.trent,
    Party.trentOnPaulsWord] } :=
  solaFideDispute.restrict fun x =>
    x ∉ [Party.trent, Party.trentOnPaulsWord]

withoutTrentSettles

What is settled without Trent. Nothing now defeats Paul's gospel or either argument about Paul's word, so those three are accepted first, and nothing joins them. Luke's case is defeated by Chrysostom, and Chrysostom by Luke's case. Paul's case is defeated by the apocalyptic reading, Peter's by Jervell, John's by Aquinas. Sanders is defeated by the critics and the critics by Sanders, the apocalyptic reading by Paul's case, Jervell by Peter's case, Aquinas by Luther and Luther by Aquinas, and the Reformed answer to Chrysostom by Chrysostom.

What the dispute forces is exactly Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal, Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning).

• Stage 1: Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal, Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning).
  • Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal is defeated by nothing.
  • Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning) is defeated by nothing.
  • Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning) is defeated by nothing.
• Nothing else is forced:
  • Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition defeats Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), and nothing forced defeats Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition.
  • Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life) defeats Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", and nothing forced defeats Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life).
  • Law-observant Luke (Jervell) defeats Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), and nothing forced defeats Law-observant Luke (Jervell).
  • Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition, and nothing forced defeats Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16).
  • Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.) defeats Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn), and nothing forced defeats Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.).
  • Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn) defeats Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.), and nothing forced defeats Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn).
  • Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11) defeats Law-observant Luke (Jervell), and nothing forced defeats Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11).
  • Faith formed by charity (Aquinas on John 6:29) defeats Sola fide from John (6:28–29), and nothing forced defeats Faith formed by charity (Aquinas on John 6:29).
  • Luther on Galatians 3:11–12 (against faith formed by charity) defeats Faith formed by charity (Aquinas on John 6:29), and nothing forced defeats Luther on Galatians 3:11–12 (against faith formed by charity).
  • Faith formed by charity (Aquinas on John 6:29) defeats Luther on Galatians 3:11–12 (against faith formed by charity), and nothing forced defeats Faith formed by charity (Aquinas on John 6:29).
  • Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" defeats Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life), and nothing forced defeats Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you".
  • Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life) defeats Obedience as sanctification (John 3:36, Matthew 7:21), and nothing forced defeats Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life).

What this rests on. The reasons state 12 defeats and 75 absences of defeat, each a cell of the defeat table, solaFideDispute_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:

• Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), weakest at disputed:
  • In Galatians 2:16 ‘faith of Christ’ (πίστις Χριστοῦ) means our faith in Christ — Dunn 1991; Matlock 2000; Gal 2:16; Rom 3:22; Phil 3:9
  • Second Temple Judaism: in by grace, staying in by works (encoded as a denial, so it ranks disputed) — Sanders 1977
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
  • an inference step — Gathercole 2002; Carson et al. 2001
• Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal, weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Moo 2013, ad loc. Gal 1:6; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1
  • an inference step — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.2; Morris 1965
• Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", weakest at disputed:
  • Luke 7:47 — her love is the evidence of her forgiveness, not its ground — Marshall 1978, ad loc. Luke 7:47; Padilla 2021, pp. 54–54; Kolb and Wengert 2000, §Apology IV, on love and the fulfilling of the law: Luke 7:47–50; Luke 7:41-43; Luke 7:47; Luke 7:47-50
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), weakest at disputed:
  • The yoke refused at Acts 15:10 is the whole law as a condition of salvation — Bruce 1988, ad loc. Acts 15:10; Acts 15:10; Gal 5:1; Jas 2:10; Das 2001
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition, weakest at disputed:
  • ‘Faith of Christ’ is Christ's own faithfulness, the means of God's rescue (encoded as a denial, so it ranks disputed) — Campbell 2009; Martyn 1997, ad loc. Gal 2:16; Hays 2002
  • ‘The righteousness of God’ (δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ) names God's act of rescue in Christ — Campbell 2009; Martyn 1997; Rom 3:21-26
• Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn), weakest at disputed:
  • Second Temple Judaism: in by grace, staying in by works — Sanders 1977
  • an inference step — Dunn 2005; Wright 1997
• Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.), weakest at disputed:
  • Second Temple Judaism also held final vindication according to works (encoded as a denial, so it ranks disputed) — Gathercole 2002; Carson et al. 2001
  • an inference step — Gathercole 2002; Carson et al. 2001
• Law-observant Luke (Jervell), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Jervell 1972
• Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), weakest at well supported:
  • In Paul, ‘justify’ (δικαιόω) is a verdict: to declare righteous — Bauer 2000, §s.v. δικαιόω; Morris 1965; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Irons 2015; Wright 2009; Fitzmyer 1993, ad loc. Rom 3:24
  • 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 — Silva 1994; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Barr 2004
• Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning), weakest at well supported:
  • Romans 4:4–5 contrasts wages owed with a gift reckoned to the one who believes — Rom 4:4-5; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.18
  • ‘Count’ (λογίζομαι) in Romans 4:3–11 is the language of an account: credited to one — Bauer 2000, §s.v. λογίζομαι; Moo 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:3
  • 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 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:6; Bauer 2000, §s.v. λογίζομαι
  • an inference step — Silva 1994; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Barr 2004
• Sola fide from John (6:28–29), weakest at disputed:
  • The believing of John 6:29 is trust, which brings nothing and receives Christ — Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 6:29; John 6:28-29
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Faith formed by charity (Aquinas on John 6:29), weakest at disputed:
  • The believing of John 6:29 is faith living through charity, the source of works — Thomas Aquinas 2012, §cap. 6, lect. 3, n. 901; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7
• Luther on Galatians 3:11–12 (against faith formed by charity), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Luther 1998, ad loc. Gal 3:12; Luther 1998, ad loc. Gal 3:11
• Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — John Chrysostom, §Homily 31, §1; Stanley 2006
• Obedience as sanctification (John 3:36, Matthew 7:21), weakest at disputed:
  • The obedience of John 3:36 and Matthew 7:21 is sanctification, the fruit of faith — Ridderbos 1997, ad loc. John 3:36; Carson 1991, ad loc. John 3:36; Morris 1992, ad loc. Matt 7:21; Schreiner 2015, pp. 55–55; Hoekema 1994; Murray 1984; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.2; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XIII.1; Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 3:36
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Schreiner 2015, pp. 55–55; Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 3:36; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.2; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XIII.1

without_trent_pauls_gospel_and_word_prevail

Without Trent, two things are forced. That justification is not the renewal of the inward person, from Paul's gospel. And that Paul's "justify" (δικαιόω) does not mean that renewal, argued two ways. With Trent not heard, nothing attacks either.

Luke's "faith suffices" is no longer among them. Chrysostom, reading John 3:36 and Matthew 7:21, concludes that believing is not enough without a right life, and so stands against it (luke_not_forced_without_trent).

It does not show that faith alone, or even "faith suffices", is refuted. Each is in a tie; see the results that follow.

theorem without_trent_pauls_gospel_and_word_prevail : Framework.grounded
    withoutTrent.defeats = Solver.toSet (Witness.listSub (fun x => x ∉
    [Party.trent, Party.trentOnPaulsWord]) [Party.gospel, Party.lexical,
    Party.romansOnTheWord])
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

lukeAnsweredByChrysostom

Why Luke's case is not forced without Trent: a set of positions that can be defended includes Chrysostom, who defeats it.

Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" is not accepted on every resolution.

• A position holding Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition, Faith formed by charity (Aquinas on John 6:29), Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life), Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.), Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal, Law-observant Luke (Jervell), Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning) can be held, and it holds Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life); Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life) conflicts with Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you": Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life) defeats Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", and Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" defeats Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life).
• None of Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition, Faith formed by charity (Aquinas on John 6:29), Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life), Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.), Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal, Law-observant Luke (Jervell), Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning) defeats another, and each attack on them is answered from among them:
  • Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition, and Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition defeats Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16).
  • Sola fide from John (6:28–29) defeats Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition, and Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition defeats Sola fide from John (6:28–29).
  • Sola fide from John (6:28–29) defeats Faith formed by charity (Aquinas on John 6:29), and Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition defeats Sola fide from John (6:28–29).
  • Luther on Galatians 3:11–12 (against faith formed by charity) defeats Faith formed by charity (Aquinas on John 6:29), and Faith formed by charity (Aquinas on John 6:29) defeats Luther on Galatians 3:11–12 (against faith formed by charity).
  • Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life), and Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition defeats Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16).
  • Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" defeats Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life), and Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life) defeats Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you".
  • Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11) defeats Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life), and Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life) defeats Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11).
  • Sola fide from John (6:28–29) defeats Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life), and Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition defeats Sola fide from John (6:28–29).
  • Obedience as sanctification (John 3:36, Matthew 7:21) defeats Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life), and Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life) defeats Obedience as sanctification (John 3:36, Matthew 7:21).
  • Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn) defeats Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.), and Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.) defeats Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn).
  • Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11) defeats Law-observant Luke (Jervell), and Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life) defeats Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11).

What this rests on. The reasons state 18 defeats and 109 absences of defeat, each a cell of the defeat table, solaFideDispute_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:

• Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — John Chrysostom, §Homily 31, §1; Stanley 2006
• Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", weakest at disputed:
  • Luke 7:47 — her love is the evidence of her forgiveness, not its ground — Marshall 1978, ad loc. Luke 7:47; Padilla 2021, pp. 54–54; Kolb and Wengert 2000, §Apology IV, on love and the fulfilling of the law: Luke 7:47–50; Luke 7:41-43; Luke 7:47; Luke 7:47-50
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition, weakest at disputed:
  • ‘Faith of Christ’ is Christ's own faithfulness, the means of God's rescue (encoded as a denial, so it ranks disputed) — Campbell 2009; Martyn 1997, ad loc. Gal 2:16; Hays 2002
  • ‘The righteousness of God’ (δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ) names God's act of rescue in Christ — Campbell 2009; Martyn 1997; Rom 3:21-26
• Faith formed by charity (Aquinas on John 6:29), weakest at disputed:
  • The believing of John 6:29 is faith living through charity, the source of works — Thomas Aquinas 2012, §cap. 6, lect. 3, n. 901; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7
• Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.), weakest at disputed:
  • Second Temple Judaism also held final vindication according to works (encoded as a denial, so it ranks disputed) — Gathercole 2002; Carson et al. 2001
  • an inference step — Gathercole 2002; Carson et al. 2001
• Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal, weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Moo 2013, ad loc. Gal 1:6; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1
  • an inference step — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.2; Morris 1965
• Law-observant Luke (Jervell), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Jervell 1972
• Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), weakest at well supported:
  • In Paul, ‘justify’ (δικαιόω) is a verdict: to declare righteous — Bauer 2000, §s.v. δικαιόω; Morris 1965; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Irons 2015; Wright 2009; Fitzmyer 1993, ad loc. Rom 3:24
  • 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 — Silva 1994; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Barr 2004
• Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning), weakest at well supported:
  • Romans 4:4–5 contrasts wages owed with a gift reckoned to the one who believes — Rom 4:4-5; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.18
  • ‘Count’ (λογίζομαι) in Romans 4:3–11 is the language of an account: credited to one — Bauer 2000, §s.v. λογίζομαι; Moo 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:3
  • 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 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:6; Bauer 2000, §s.v. λογίζομαι
  • an inference step — Silva 1994; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Barr 2004
• Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), weakest at disputed:
  • In Galatians 2:16 ‘faith of Christ’ (πίστις Χριστοῦ) means our faith in Christ — Dunn 1991; Matlock 2000; Gal 2:16; Rom 3:22; Phil 3:9
  • Second Temple Judaism: in by grace, staying in by works (encoded as a denial, so it ranks disputed) — Sanders 1977
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
  • an inference step — Gathercole 2002; Carson et al. 2001
• Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), weakest at disputed:
  • The yoke refused at Acts 15:10 is the whole law as a condition of salvation — Bruce 1988, ad loc. Acts 15:10; Acts 15:10; Gal 5:1; Jas 2:10; Das 2001
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn), weakest at disputed:
  • Second Temple Judaism: in by grace, staying in by works — Sanders 1977
  • an inference step — Dunn 2005; Wright 1997
• Sola fide from John (6:28–29), weakest at disputed:
  • The believing of John 6:29 is trust, which brings nothing and receives Christ — Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 6:29; John 6:28-29
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Luther on Galatians 3:11–12 (against faith formed by charity), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Luther 1998, ad loc. Gal 3:12; Luther 1998, ad loc. Gal 3:11
• Obedience as sanctification (John 3:36, Matthew 7:21), weakest at disputed:
  • The obedience of John 3:36 and Matthew 7:21 is sanctification, the fruit of faith — Ridderbos 1997, ad loc. John 3:36; Carson 1991, ad loc. John 3:36; Morris 1992, ad loc. Matt 7:21; Schreiner 2015, pp. 55–55; Hoekema 1994; Murray 1984; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.2; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XIII.1; Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 3:36
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Schreiner 2015, pp. 55–55; Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 3:36; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.2; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XIII.1

luke_not_forced_without_trent

Without Trent, Luke's case is not forced either. A consistent set of positions that answers every attack holds Chrysostom, and cannot hold Luke's case with it. Chrysostom reads "whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life" (John 3:36) and "the one who does the will of my Father" (Matthew 7:21) as requiring a right life beside believing. Luke's case reads "your faith has saved you" (Luke 7:50) as saying that faith sufficed.

A reading of two other sayings of Jesus, rated disputed, ties with Luke's. It does not show that Chrysostom outranks Luke, or that any text of Luke's is contradicted. Luke's case defeats Chrysostom in return, and Chrysostom accepts every word of Luke 7:50; what he denies is the step from it to "faith suffices".

theorem luke_not_forced_without_trent : ¬Framework.SkepticallyAccepted
    withoutTrent.defeats ⟨Party.dominical, lukeAnsweredByChrysostom._proof_2⟩
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

paulAnsweredByCampbell

Why Paul's case is not forced without Trent: a set of positions that can be defended includes the apocalyptic reading, which defeats Paul's case over "faith of Christ".

Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) is not accepted on every resolution.

• A position holding Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition, Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.), Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal, Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning) can be held, and it holds Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition; Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition conflicts with Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16): Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition defeats Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), and Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition.
• None of Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition, Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.), Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal, Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning) defeats another, and each attack on them is answered from among them:
  • Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition, and Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition defeats Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16).
  • Sola fide from John (6:28–29) defeats Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition, and Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition defeats Sola fide from John (6:28–29).
  • Law-observant Luke (Jervell) defeats Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), and Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11) defeats Law-observant Luke (Jervell).
  • Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life) defeats Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), and Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11) defeats Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life).
  • Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn) defeats Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.), and Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.) defeats Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn).
  • Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life) defeats Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", and Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11) defeats Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life).

What this rests on. The reasons state 11 defeats and 99 absences of defeat, each a cell of the defeat table, solaFideDispute_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:

• Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition, weakest at disputed:
  • ‘Faith of Christ’ is Christ's own faithfulness, the means of God's rescue (encoded as a denial, so it ranks disputed) — Campbell 2009; Martyn 1997, ad loc. Gal 2:16; Hays 2002
  • ‘The righteousness of God’ (δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ) names God's act of rescue in Christ — Campbell 2009; Martyn 1997; Rom 3:21-26
• Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), weakest at disputed:
  • In Galatians 2:16 ‘faith of Christ’ (πίστις Χριστοῦ) means our faith in Christ — Dunn 1991; Matlock 2000; Gal 2:16; Rom 3:22; Phil 3:9
  • Second Temple Judaism: in by grace, staying in by works (encoded as a denial, so it ranks disputed) — Sanders 1977
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
  • an inference step — Gathercole 2002; Carson et al. 2001
• Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), weakest at disputed:
  • The yoke refused at Acts 15:10 is the whole law as a condition of salvation — Bruce 1988, ad loc. Acts 15:10; Acts 15:10; Gal 5:1; Jas 2:10; Das 2001
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.), weakest at disputed:
  • Second Temple Judaism also held final vindication according to works (encoded as a denial, so it ranks disputed) — Gathercole 2002; Carson et al. 2001
  • an inference step — Gathercole 2002; Carson et al. 2001
• Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", weakest at disputed:
  • Luke 7:47 — her love is the evidence of her forgiveness, not its ground — Marshall 1978, ad loc. Luke 7:47; Padilla 2021, pp. 54–54; Kolb and Wengert 2000, §Apology IV, on love and the fulfilling of the law: Luke 7:47–50; Luke 7:41-43; Luke 7:47; Luke 7:47-50
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal, weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Moo 2013, ad loc. Gal 1:6; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1
  • an inference step — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.2; Morris 1965
• Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), weakest at well supported:
  • In Paul, ‘justify’ (δικαιόω) is a verdict: to declare righteous — Bauer 2000, §s.v. δικαιόω; Morris 1965; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Irons 2015; Wright 2009; Fitzmyer 1993, ad loc. Rom 3:24
  • 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 — Silva 1994; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Barr 2004
• Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning), weakest at well supported:
  • Romans 4:4–5 contrasts wages owed with a gift reckoned to the one who believes — Rom 4:4-5; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.18
  • ‘Count’ (λογίζομαι) in Romans 4:3–11 is the language of an account: credited to one — Bauer 2000, §s.v. λογίζομαι; Moo 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:3
  • 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 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:6; Bauer 2000, §s.v. λογίζομαι
  • an inference step — Silva 1994; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Barr 2004
• Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn), weakest at disputed:
  • Second Temple Judaism: in by grace, staying in by works — Sanders 1977
  • an inference step — Dunn 2005; Wright 1997
• Law-observant Luke (Jervell), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Jervell 1972
• Sola fide from John (6:28–29), weakest at disputed:
  • The believing of John 6:29 is trust, which brings nothing and receives Christ — Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 6:29; John 6:28-29
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Faith formed by charity (Aquinas on John 6:29), weakest at disputed:
  • The believing of John 6:29 is faith living through charity, the source of works — Thomas Aquinas 2012, §cap. 6, lect. 3, n. 901; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7
• Luther on Galatians 3:11–12 (against faith formed by charity), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Luther 1998, ad loc. Gal 3:12; Luther 1998, ad loc. Gal 3:11
• Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — John Chrysostom, §Homily 31, §1; Stanley 2006
• Obedience as sanctification (John 3:36, Matthew 7:21), weakest at disputed:
  • The obedience of John 3:36 and Matthew 7:21 is sanctification, the fruit of faith — Ridderbos 1997, ad loc. John 3:36; Carson 1991, ad loc. John 3:36; Morris 1992, ad loc. Matt 7:21; Schreiner 2015, pp. 55–55; Hoekema 1994; Murray 1984; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.2; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XIII.1; Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 3:36
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Schreiner 2015, pp. 55–55; Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 3:36; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.2; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XIII.1

sola_fide_from_paul_not_forced_without_trent

Without Trent, sola fide from Paul is still not forced. A consistent set of positions that answers every attack holds Campbell's apocalyptic reading, on which "faith of Christ" (πίστις Χριστοῦ) is Christ's own faithfulness, and cannot hold Paul's case with it. What stands in the way is a question about Paul's Greek, not about Rome.

theorem sola_fide_from_paul_not_forced_without_trent :
    ¬Framework.SkepticallyAccepted withoutTrent.defeats ⟨Party.pauline,
    paulAnsweredByCampbell._proof_2⟩
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

peterAnsweredByJervell

Why Peter's case is not forced without Trent: a set of positions that can be defended includes Jervell, who defeats it over the yoke.

Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11) is not accepted on every resolution.

• A position holding Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.), Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal, Law-observant Luke (Jervell), Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning) can be held, and it holds Law-observant Luke (Jervell); Law-observant Luke (Jervell) conflicts with Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11): Law-observant Luke (Jervell) defeats Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), and Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11) defeats Law-observant Luke (Jervell).
• None of Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.), Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal, Law-observant Luke (Jervell), Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning) defeats another, and each attack on them is answered from among them:
  • Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn) defeats Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.), and Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.) defeats Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn).
  • Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life) defeats Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", and Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" defeats Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life).
  • Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11) defeats Law-observant Luke (Jervell), and Law-observant Luke (Jervell) defeats Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11).
  • Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition defeats Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), and Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16) defeats Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition.
  • Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn) defeats Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), and Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.) defeats Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn).
  • Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life) defeats Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), and Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" defeats Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life).

What this rests on. The reasons state 10 defeats and 99 absences of defeat, each a cell of the defeat table, solaFideDispute_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:

• Law-observant Luke (Jervell), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Jervell 1972
• Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), weakest at disputed:
  • The yoke refused at Acts 15:10 is the whole law as a condition of salvation — Bruce 1988, ad loc. Acts 15:10; Acts 15:10; Gal 5:1; Jas 2:10; Das 2001
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.), weakest at disputed:
  • Second Temple Judaism also held final vindication according to works (encoded as a denial, so it ranks disputed) — Gathercole 2002; Carson et al. 2001
  • an inference step — Gathercole 2002; Carson et al. 2001
• Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", weakest at disputed:
  • Luke 7:47 — her love is the evidence of her forgiveness, not its ground — Marshall 1978, ad loc. Luke 7:47; Padilla 2021, pp. 54–54; Kolb and Wengert 2000, §Apology IV, on love and the fulfilling of the law: Luke 7:47–50; Luke 7:41-43; Luke 7:47; Luke 7:47-50
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal, weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Moo 2013, ad loc. Gal 1:6; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1
  • an inference step — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.2; Morris 1965
• Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), weakest at well supported:
  • In Paul, ‘justify’ (δικαιόω) is a verdict: to declare righteous — Bauer 2000, §s.v. δικαιόω; Morris 1965; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Irons 2015; Wright 2009; Fitzmyer 1993, ad loc. Rom 3:24
  • 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 — Silva 1994; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Barr 2004
• Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), weakest at disputed:
  • In Galatians 2:16 ‘faith of Christ’ (πίστις Χριστοῦ) means our faith in Christ — Dunn 1991; Matlock 2000; Gal 2:16; Rom 3:22; Phil 3:9
  • Second Temple Judaism: in by grace, staying in by works (encoded as a denial, so it ranks disputed) — Sanders 1977
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
  • an inference step — Gathercole 2002; Carson et al. 2001
• Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning), weakest at well supported:
  • Romans 4:4–5 contrasts wages owed with a gift reckoned to the one who believes — Rom 4:4-5; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.18
  • ‘Count’ (λογίζομαι) in Romans 4:3–11 is the language of an account: credited to one — Bauer 2000, §s.v. λογίζομαι; Moo 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:3
  • 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 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:6; Bauer 2000, §s.v. λογίζομαι
  • an inference step — Silva 1994; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Barr 2004
• Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition, weakest at disputed:
  • ‘Faith of Christ’ is Christ's own faithfulness, the means of God's rescue (encoded as a denial, so it ranks disputed) — Campbell 2009; Martyn 1997, ad loc. Gal 2:16; Hays 2002
  • ‘The righteousness of God’ (δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ) names God's act of rescue in Christ — Campbell 2009; Martyn 1997; Rom 3:21-26
• Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn), weakest at disputed:
  • Second Temple Judaism: in by grace, staying in by works — Sanders 1977
  • an inference step — Dunn 2005; Wright 1997
• Sola fide from John (6:28–29), weakest at disputed:
  • The believing of John 6:29 is trust, which brings nothing and receives Christ — Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 6:29; John 6:28-29
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Faith formed by charity (Aquinas on John 6:29), weakest at disputed:
  • The believing of John 6:29 is faith living through charity, the source of works — Thomas Aquinas 2012, §cap. 6, lect. 3, n. 901; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7
• Luther on Galatians 3:11–12 (against faith formed by charity), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Luther 1998, ad loc. Gal 3:12; Luther 1998, ad loc. Gal 3:11
• Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — John Chrysostom, §Homily 31, §1; Stanley 2006
• Obedience as sanctification (John 3:36, Matthew 7:21), weakest at disputed:
  • The obedience of John 3:36 and Matthew 7:21 is sanctification, the fruit of faith — Ridderbos 1997, ad loc. John 3:36; Carson 1991, ad loc. John 3:36; Morris 1992, ad loc. Matt 7:21; Schreiner 2015, pp. 55–55; Hoekema 1994; Murray 1984; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.2; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XIII.1; Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 3:36
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Schreiner 2015, pp. 55–55; Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 3:36; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.2; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XIII.1

sola_fide_from_peter_not_forced_without_trent

Nor from Peter. A consistent set of positions that answers every attack holds Jervell's reading of Acts 15, on which the yoke is not the law as a condition of salvation, and cannot hold Peter's case with it.

So without Trent it is forced that faith suffices (Luke) and that justification is not renewal (Paul's gospel). Faith alone still depends on questions about what the texts say: "faith of Christ", "works of the law", the yoke, and, for John, what believing is (sola_fide_from_john_not_forced_without_trent).

theorem sola_fide_from_peter_not_forced_without_trent :
    ¬Framework.SkepticallyAccepted withoutTrent.defeats ⟨Party.apostolic,
    peterAnsweredByJervell._proof_2⟩
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

johnAnsweredByAquinas

Why John's case is not forced without Trent: a set of positions that can be defended includes Aquinas, who defeats it over what believing is.

Sola fide from John (6:28–29) is not accepted on every resolution.

• A position holding Faith formed by charity (Aquinas on John 6:29), Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal, Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning) can be held, and it holds Faith formed by charity (Aquinas on John 6:29); Faith formed by charity (Aquinas on John 6:29) conflicts with Sola fide from John (6:28–29): Faith formed by charity (Aquinas on John 6:29) defeats Sola fide from John (6:28–29), and Sola fide from John (6:28–29) defeats Faith formed by charity (Aquinas on John 6:29).
• None of Faith formed by charity (Aquinas on John 6:29), Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal, Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning) defeats another, and each attack on them is answered from among them:
  • Sola fide from John (6:28–29) defeats Faith formed by charity (Aquinas on John 6:29), and Faith formed by charity (Aquinas on John 6:29) defeats Sola fide from John (6:28–29).
  • Luther on Galatians 3:11–12 (against faith formed by charity) defeats Faith formed by charity (Aquinas on John 6:29), and Faith formed by charity (Aquinas on John 6:29) defeats Luther on Galatians 3:11–12 (against faith formed by charity).
  • Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life) defeats Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", and Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you" defeats Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life).

What this rests on. The reasons state 6 defeats and 72 absences of defeat, each a cell of the defeat table, solaFideDispute_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:

• Faith formed by charity (Aquinas on John 6:29), weakest at disputed:
  • The believing of John 6:29 is faith living through charity, the source of works — Thomas Aquinas 2012, §cap. 6, lect. 3, n. 901; Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), Decree on Justification, ch. 7
• Sola fide from John (6:28–29), weakest at disputed:
  • The believing of John 6:29 is trust, which brings nothing and receives Christ — Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 6:29; John 6:28-29
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Luke 7:50: "your faith has saved you", weakest at disputed:
  • Luke 7:47 — her love is the evidence of her forgiveness, not its ground — Marshall 1978, ad loc. Luke 7:47; Padilla 2021, pp. 54–54; Kolb and Wengert 2000, §Apology IV, on love and the fulfilling of the law: Luke 7:47–50; Luke 7:41-43; Luke 7:47; Luke 7:47-50
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Paul's gospel (Galatians 1), against justification as renewal, weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Moo 2013, ad loc. Gal 1:6; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1
  • an inference step — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.2; Morris 1965
• Paul's word (δικαιόω, by the rule of least meaning), weakest at well supported:
  • In Paul, ‘justify’ (δικαιόω) is a verdict: to declare righteous — Bauer 2000, §s.v. δικαιόω; Morris 1965; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Irons 2015; Wright 2009; Fitzmyer 1993, ad loc. Rom 3:24
  • 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 — Silva 1994; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Barr 2004
• Romans 4:3–8, on Paul's word (by the rule of least meaning), weakest at well supported:
  • Romans 4:4–5 contrasts wages owed with a gift reckoned to the one who believes — Rom 4:4-5; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.18
  • ‘Count’ (λογίζομαι) in Romans 4:3–11 is the language of an account: credited to one — Bauer 2000, §s.v. λογίζομαι; Moo 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:3
  • 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 1996, ad loc. Rom 4:6; Bauer 2000, §s.v. λογίζομαι
  • an inference step — Silva 1994; Moo 1996, §p. 80; Barr 2004
• Sola fide from Paul (Galatians 2:16), weakest at disputed:
  • In Galatians 2:16 ‘faith of Christ’ (πίστις Χριστοῦ) means our faith in Christ — Dunn 1991; Matlock 2000; Gal 2:16; Rom 3:22; Phil 3:9
  • Second Temple Judaism: in by grace, staying in by works (encoded as a denial, so it ranks disputed) — Sanders 1977
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
  • an inference step — Gathercole 2002; Carson et al. 2001
• Sola fide from Peter (Acts 15:9–11), weakest at disputed:
  • The yoke refused at Acts 15:10 is the whole law as a condition of salvation — Bruce 1988, ad loc. Acts 15:10; Acts 15:10; Gal 5:1; Jas 2:10; Das 2001
  • Good works are the fruit and evidence of saving faith, not its ground — Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.2; XVI.2; XVI.5; Calvin 1960, §III.xvi.1; Jas 2:18-22; Eph 2:10; Rom 6:22; Luke 17:10
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Tanner 1990, §Trent, Session VI (1547), canon 9
• Apocalyptic reading, against faith as the condition, weakest at disputed:
  • ‘Faith of Christ’ is Christ's own faithfulness, the means of God's rescue (encoded as a denial, so it ranks disputed) — Campbell 2009; Martyn 1997, ad loc. Gal 2:16; Hays 2002
  • ‘The righteousness of God’ (δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ) names God's act of rescue in Christ — Campbell 2009; Martyn 1997; Rom 3:21-26
• Covenantal nomism (Sanders, Dunn), weakest at disputed:
  • Second Temple Judaism: in by grace, staying in by works — Sanders 1977
  • an inference step — Dunn 2005; Wright 1997
• Variegated nomism (Gathercole, Carson et al.), weakest at disputed:
  • Second Temple Judaism also held final vindication according to works (encoded as a denial, so it ranks disputed) — Gathercole 2002; Carson et al. 2001
  • an inference step — Gathercole 2002; Carson et al. 2001
• Law-observant Luke (Jervell), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Jervell 1972
• Luther on Galatians 3:11–12 (against faith formed by charity), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — Luther 1998, ad loc. Gal 3:12; Luther 1998, ad loc. Gal 3:11
• Chrysostom on John 3:36 (believing is not enough without a right life), weakest at disputed:
  • an inference step — John Chrysostom, §Homily 31, §1; Stanley 2006
• Obedience as sanctification (John 3:36, Matthew 7:21), weakest at disputed:
  • The obedience of John 3:36 and Matthew 7:21 is sanctification, the fruit of faith — Ridderbos 1997, ad loc. John 3:36; Carson 1991, ad loc. John 3:36; Morris 1992, ad loc. Matt 7:21; Schreiner 2015, pp. 55–55; Hoekema 1994; Murray 1984; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.2; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XIII.1; Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 3:36
  • Justification and sanctification are inseparable but distinct — Westminster Assembly 1647, §Q. 77; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 4:6; Rom 4:8; Ezek 36:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rom 3:24-25; Rom 6:6; Rom 6:14; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XI.1; Calvin 1960, §III.xi.6
  • an inference step — Schreiner 2015, pp. 55–55; Calvin 1847, ad loc. John 3:36; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XVI.2; Westminster Assembly 1647, §XIII.1

sola_fide_from_john_not_forced_without_trent

Nor from John. Remove both of Trent's parties from the hearing: its case, and its definition read as a claim about Paul's word. Aquinas remains, and Trent describes justifying faith as he does: the believing Jesus names in John 6:29 is faith formed by charity, not bare trust. A reader can hold Aquinas's reading consistently and answer every objection raised here. John's case cannot be held with it.

Without the Council, John 6:29 still does not compel faith alone, because what believing is remains contested. It does not show that Aquinas's reading wins. John's case can be held just as consistently. Luther's argument and Aquinas's each defeat the other, and neither is removed.

theorem sola_fide_from_john_not_forced_without_trent :
    ¬Framework.SkepticallyAccepted withoutTrent.defeats ⟨Party.johannine,
    johnAnsweredByAquinas._proof_2⟩
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound