Question: Which position is best supported for “Referents of “coming” and cloud-coming language”?

VII. Eschatology and Israel/church questions

**Question:** Which position is best supported for “Referents of “coming” and cloud-coming language”?

**Type:** semantic mixture across passages.

**Options**

- `ESC-PAR-01.FINAL`: the major Synoptic and Revelation “coming” texts chiefly refer to the still-future visible bodily parousia.
- `ESC-PAR-01.PLURAL`: Scripture uses coming language for providential judgments and royal vindication (including AD 70) as well as for one still-future bodily return.
- `ESC-PAR-01.FULFILLED`: essentially all major coming texts, including the parousia, were fulfilled in the first century.

**Key texts:** Daniel 7:13–14; Matthew 10:23; 16:27–28; 24:27–31; 26:64; Mark 13; John 14:1–3; Acts 1:9–11; 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18; 2 Thessalonians 1:7–10; 2 Peter 3; Revelation 1:7; 22:7, 12, 20.

**Interpretive forks:** in Daniel 7 the Son of Man comes *to* the Ancient of Days; Old Testament cloud-riding judgment imagery; visibility and universality; whether distinct texts can refer to distinct comings without multiplying bodily returns.

**Dependencies:** Upstream of `ESC-OLIV-01`, partial-preterist readings, and imminence. Acts 1 and resurrection texts constrain the final bodily-return claim.

**Relations:** `PLURAL` correlates with partial preterism; `FINAL` with futurism, but many idealists also distinguish providential comings from the final parousia. `FULFILLED` is a hard conflict with a historic-creedal future-return baseline.

**Identity descriptors:** partial preterist, full preterist, futurist; the simple label “preterist” is insufficient.


Primary horizon of the Olivet Discourse

Question: Which position is best supported for “Primary horizon of the Olivet Discourse”?

VII. Eschatology and Israel/church questions

**Question:** Which position is best supported for “Primary horizon of the Olivet Discourse”?

**Type:** categorical dominant model or passage-level mixture.

**Options**

- `ESC-OLIV-01.AD70_SPLIT`: Matthew 24:4–35/Mark 13/Luke 21 chiefly concern the events culminating in AD 70; a transition then turns to the final return and watchfulness.
- `ESC-OLIV-01.INTERWOVEN`: AD 70 is near fulfillment and type; final tribulation/return is the climactic fulfillment, interwoven rather than cleanly split.
- `ESC-OLIV-01.FUTURE`: much of the discourse, especially from the abomination onward, concerns a future global tribulation and parousia.
- `ESC-OLIV-01.FULL_PRET`: essentially the entire discourse, including the Son of Man’s coming, was exhausted in first-century judgment.

**Key texts:** Matthew 23:29–24:51; Mark 13; Luke 17:20–37; 19:41–44; 21:5–36; Daniel 7; 9:24–27; 11:31; 12:11; 1 Thessalonians 4–5; 2 Thessalonians 2.

**Interpretive forks:** whether the disciples ask one compound question or two; Luke’s “Jerusalem surrounded by armies” as an interpretive parallel to the abomination; local flight and Sabbath details; cosmic de-creation language; gathering of the elect; “all the tribes of the land/earth.”

**Dependencies:** Conditioned by `ESC-PAR-01`, `ESC-OLIV-02`, `ESC-DAN-01`, and often `ESC-REV-01/02`; upstream of tribulation, rapture, and signs/imminence.

**Relations:** `AD70_SPLIT` often pairs with partial preterism and amillennial/postmillennial systems; `FUTURE` with dispensational futurism; `INTERWOVEN` is widespread among historic premillennialists and many amillennial interpreters. `FULL_PRET` conflicts with the historic-creedal boundary if it removes a future visible return.

**Identity descriptors:** partial preterist, futurist, double-fulfillment/typological, full preterist.


“This generation will not pass away”

Question: Which position is best supported for ““This generation will not pass away””?

VII. Eschatology and Israel/church questions

**Question:** Which position is best supported for ““This generation will not pass away””?

**Type:** categorical lexical-referential question.

**Options**

- `ESC-OLIV-02.CONTEMP`: Jesus’ contemporaries; “all these things” must substantially occur by AD 70.
- `ESC-OLIV-02.SIGNGEN`: the generation alive when the terminal signs begin will see their completion.
- `ESC-OLIV-02.PEOPLE`: *genea* means the Jewish people/race will not disappear.
- `ESC-OLIV-02.TYPE`: the unbelieving/wicked “generation” as a moral-spiritual type persists until the end.

**Key texts:** Matthew 11:16; 12:39–45; 16:4; 17:17; 23:36; 24:32–35; Mark 13:28–31; Luke 11:29–32, 50–51; 21:29–33.

**Interpretive forks:** normal Matthean use of *genea*; antecedent of “all these things”; whether the fig tree marks a future starting point; discourse audience and deictic “you.”

**Dependencies:** Direct parent evidence for `ESC-OLIV-01`; also affected by whether prophetic discourse can compress near and far horizons.

**Relations:** `CONTEMP` materially raises AD-70 readings but does not force full preterism, because the discourse can shift horizons or use typology. `SIGNGEN` commonly pairs with futurism. `PEOPLE` and `TYPE` preserve futurism but are lexically more debated.

**Identity descriptors:** not denominational by itself; often functions as a proxy dispute between preterist and futurist readings.


Daniel 9 and the seventieth week

Question: Which position is best supported for “Daniel 9 and the seventieth week”?

VII. Eschatology and Israel/church questions

**Question:** Which position is best supported for “Daniel 9 and the seventieth week”?

**Type:** categorical dominant referent, with a typological option.

**Options**

- `ESC-DAN-01.MESS`: the seventieth week runs continuously and climaxes in Messiah’s atoning work/new covenant; the sacrificial system loses covenantal efficacy.
- `ESC-DAN-01.AD70`: the seventy-week complex culminates in Messiah and Jerusalem’s Roman destruction, without a future seven-year gap.
- `ESC-DAN-01.GAP`: sixty-nine weeks are followed by an indeterminate church-age gap; the seventieth is a future seven-year tribulation involving an antichrist covenant and temple desecration.
- `ESC-DAN-01.LAYER`: an earlier desecration and/or AD 70 typologically anticipates a final opponent and desecration.

**Key texts:** Daniel 7:23–27; 8:9–14, 23–27; 9:24–27; 11:21–45; 12:1, 7, 11–12; Matthew 24:15; 2 Thessalonians 2:3–8; Revelation 11–13.

**Interpretive forks:** antecedent of “he” in Daniel 9:27; who confirms the covenant; what causes sacrifice to cease; decree starting point; whether prophetic chronology permits a gap; relations among Antiochus, Rome, and a final antichrist.

**Dependencies:** Upstream of `ESC-TRIB-01`, `ESC-RAP-02`, `ESC-ANT-01`, and future-temple expectations.

**Relations:** `GAP` is a load-bearing dispensational-futurist node. `MESS/AD70` correlate with covenantal, amillennial, postmillennial, and some historic-premillennial systems. `LAYER` allows a future antichrist without requiring the classic gap construction.

**Identity descriptors:** dispensational futurist (`GAP`); covenantal/preterist or non-dispensational (`MESS/AD70`); eclectic/typological (`LAYER`).


Question: Which position is best supported for “Location and shape of the “great tribulation””?

VII. Eschatology and Israel/church questions

**Question:** Which position is best supported for “Location and shape of the “great tribulation””?

**Type:** multi-horizon; estimate each claim separately.

**Options**

- `ESC-TRIB-01.AGE`: tribulation is a normal recurring condition of the entire church age.
- `ESC-TRIB-01.AD70`: the “great tribulation” language has its principal concrete referent in the Jewish War and Jerusalem’s fall.
- `ESC-TRIB-01.FINAL`: a short, uniquely intense global anti-Christian crisis immediately precedes the return.
- `ESC-TRIB-01.SEVEN`: a future seven-year seventieth week, often divided into two three-and-a-half-year periods.
- `ESC-TRIB-01.LAYER`: church-age tribulation and/or AD 70 form patterns that culminate in a final intensified crisis.

**Key texts:** Daniel 7:25; 9:27; 12:1, 7; Matthew 24:9, 21, 29; John 16:33; Acts 14:22; Romans 8:35; 1 Thessalonians 3:3–4; 2 Thessalonians 1–2; Revelation 1:9; 3:10; 7:14; 11:2–3; 12:6, 14; 13:5–10.

**Interpretive forks:** distinction between persecution/tribulation and divine wrath; global versus local language; the 1,260 days/42 months/time-times-half-time; whether Daniel 9 supplies seven years; whether Revelation’s periods are symbolic.

**Dependencies:** Conditioned by `ESC-DAN-01`, `ESC-OLIV-01`, and `ESC-REV-02`; upstream of rapture timing and imminence.

**Relations:** `SEVEN` strongly correlates with dispensational futurism; `AD70` with partial preterism; `AGE` with idealist/amillennial readings; `LAYER` is common in eclectic and historic-premillennial approaches.

**Identity descriptors:** “pretrib,” “posttrib,” and “prewrath” should not be inferred until the separate rapture variables are scored.


Question: Which position is best supported for “Is the catching up distinct in time from the public appearing?”?

VII. Eschatology and Israel/church questions

**Question:** Which position is best supported for “Is the catching up distinct in time from the public appearing?”?

**Type:** categorical.

**Options**

- `ESC-RAP-01.ONE`: resurrection, catching up/gathering, descent, and public royal appearing are one continuous complex with no extended interval.
- `ESC-RAP-01.TWO`: the church’s catching up and Christ’s later public appearing are temporally separated phases.
- `ESC-RAP-01.PARTIAL`: only watchful or especially faithful believers are initially caught up; others follow later.

**Key texts:** Matthew 24:29–31, 36–44; John 14:1–3; 1 Corinthians 15:22–26, 50–55; 1 Thessalonians 4:13–5:11; 2 Thessalonians 1:6–10; 2:1–8; Revelation 3:10; 19:11–21.

**Interpretive forks:** *apantēsis* (“meeting”) and whether believers escort a returning king; whether John 14 requires removal to heaven; whether Matthew 24’s gathering is the church; whether the church’s non-mention in Revelation 4–18 is evidential; the meaning of “keep from the hour.”

**Dependencies:** Conditioned by `ESC-TRIB-01`, `ESC-PAR-02`, and usually `ESC-ISR-01`; parent of `ESC-RAP-02`.

**Relations:** `TWO` strongly correlates with dispensational premillennialism; `ONE` with historic premillennialism, amillennialism, and postmillennialism. The correlation is not a logical entailment. `PARTIAL` is a minority view across some revivalist/dispensational circles.

**Identity descriptors:** “rapture believer” is not informative—virtually all sides affirm 1 Thessalonians 4. The disputed claims are separation and timing. “Secret rapture” can be polemical and should be replaced by the precise claim `TWO`.


Question: Which position is best supported for “Placement of the catching up relative to a final tribulation”?

VII. Eschatology and Israel/church questions

**Question:** Which position is best supported for “Placement of the catching up relative to a final tribulation”?

**Type:** conditional categorical variable; score only if one posits a distinct or identifiable final tribulation.

**Options**

- `ESC-RAP-02.PRE`: before the entire future tribulation/seventieth week.
- `ESC-RAP-02.MID`: near the midpoint of a seven-year period.
- `ESC-RAP-02.PREWRATH`: after antichristian persecution but before the outpouring of divine eschatological wrath.
- `ESC-RAP-02.POST`: after the tribulation, as part of the one public parousia.

**Key texts:** Daniel 9:27; Matthew 24:21–31; 1 Corinthians 15:51–52; 1 Thessalonians 1:10; 4:13–5:11; 2 Thessalonians 2:1–8; Revelation 3:10; 6:9–17; 7:9–14; 11:15–19; 14:14–20.

**Interpretive forks:** whether the whole period is divine wrath or only its latter portion; trumpet identification; sequence of Revelation; whether the restrainer is the Spirit-indwelt church; whether imminence means no signs can precede the rapture.

**Dependencies:** `PRE/MID/PREWRATH` normally presuppose `ESC-RAP-01.TWO` or a phased complex. `POST` naturally combines with `ESC-RAP-01.ONE`.

**Relations:** `PRE` + `ESC-DAN-01.GAP` + `ESC-ISR-01.DISTINCT` is the classic dispensational bundle. `POST` is common in historic premillennialism. `PREWRATH` is a modern futurist-premillennial mediating position.

**Identity descriptors:** pretribulationist, midtribulationist, prewrath, posttribulationist.


Imminence and prerequisite signs

Question: Which position is best supported for “Imminence and prerequisite signs”?

VII. Eschatology and Israel/church questions

**Question:** Which position is best supported for “Imminence and prerequisite signs”?

**Type:** categorical temporal claim.

**Options**

- `ESC-PAR-02.SIGNLESS`: Christ may return for the church at any moment; no predicted event must occur first.
- `ESC-PAR-02.SIGNS`: identifiable events—gospel mission, apostasy, man of lawlessness, tribulation, or cosmic signs—precede the one return.
- `ESC-PAR-02.DUAL`: an imminent rapture has no prerequisite, while the later public appearing has signs.
- `ESC-PAR-02.EXPECT`: “watch/readiness” expresses certainty and unknown day, not a claim that the return is signless.

**Key texts:** Matthew 24:14, 32–51; 25:1–13; Acts 1:6–11; Romans 13:11–12; 1 Corinthians 1:7; Philippians 3:20; 1 Thessalonians 1:9–10; 5:1–11; 2 Thessalonians 2:1–8; Titus 2:13; James 5:7–9; 2 Peter 3:8–14; Revelation 22:7, 12, 20.

**Interpretive forks:** readiness versus temporal nearness; apostolic expectation; whether predicted events were fulfilled in the first century; whether “unknown day/hour” permits a known sequence.

**Dependencies:** Conditioned by `ESC-PAR-01`, `ESC-OLIV-01`, `ESC-ANT-01`, and `ESC-RAP-01`; feeds rapture timing.

**Relations:** `SIGNLESS/DUAL` correlate with pretribulationism; `SIGNS/EXPECT` with posttribulationism, amillennialism, and postmillennialism. Partial preterism can preserve practical imminence by assigning many signs to AD 70.

**Identity descriptors:** “imminentist” is ambiguous until signless imminence is distinguished from watchful expectancy.


Question: Which position is best supported for “Antichrist, beast, and man of lawlessness”?

VII. Eschatology and Israel/church questions

**Question:** Which position is best supported for “Antichrist, beast, and man of lawlessness”?

**Type:** multi-horizon identity mapping.

**Options**

- `ESC-ANT-01.FINAL`: a future individual ruler is the principal referent.
- `ESC-ANT-01.FIRST`: a first-century ruler or regime (often Nero/Rome) is the principal referent.
- `ESC-ANT-01.RECUR_FINAL`: many antichrists and recurring beastly systems culminate in a final individual or regime.
- `ESC-ANT-01.SYSTEM`: the symbols chiefly portray recurring anti-Christian political/religious power without requiring one terminal individual.
- `ESC-ANT-01.HIST`: a long-lived institution within church history, classically the papal office in Protestant historicism.

**Key texts:** Daniel 7:7–27; 8:9–27; 9:26–27; 11:21–45; Matthew 24:15, 24; 2 Thessalonians 2:1–12; 1 John 2:18–27; 4:1–6; 2 John 7; Revelation 13; 17; 19:19–21.

**Interpretive forks:** John’s plural “many antichrists” versus a singular expectation; whether Daniel’s little horns, Paul’s man, and Revelation’s beast are the same referent; temple literal or ecclesial; Nero redivivus imagery; individual versus corporate-personal symbolism.

**Dependencies:** Conditioned by `ESC-DAN-01`, `ESC-REV-01/02`, and `ESC-TEM-01`; upstream of signs, tribulation, and mark readings.

**Relations:** `FINAL` correlates with futurism across both premillennial and some amillennial traditions; `FIRST` with partial preterism; `SYSTEM` with idealism; `HIST` with older confessional Protestant historicism and Seventh-day Adventism. `RECUR_FINAL` is a common eclectic synthesis.

**Identity descriptors:** futurist, partial preterist, idealist, historicist. Avoid treating “the Antichrist” as a biblical proper name that automatically unifies all passages.


Question: Which position is best supported for “Relation of Christ’s return to the millennium”?

VII. Eschatology and Israel/church questions

**Question:** Which position is best supported for “Relation of Christ’s return to the millennium”?

**Type:** categorical high-level chronology.

**Options**

- `ESC-MIL-01.PRE`: the visible return precedes a future earthly reign of the risen Christ with his saints.
- `ESC-MIL-01.AMIL`: Revelation 20’s millennium symbolizes the present interadvent age and/or saints’ heavenly reign; the return, general resurrection, judgment, and new creation close the age.
- `ESC-MIL-01.POST`: a long era of extraordinary gospel success and societal discipling occurs within history before the visible return; the “thousand years” need not be arithmetically literal.

**Key texts:** Psalm 2; 72; 110; Isaiah 2:1–4; 11; 24–27; 65:17–25; Daniel 2:34–45; 7:9–27; Matthew 13; 19:28; 25:31–46; Acts 3:19–21; 1 Corinthians 15:20–28; Revelation 19:11–20:15.

**Interpretive forks:** sequence versus recapitulation between Revelation 19 and 20; first resurrection; binding of Satan; mortal nations and final rebellion; whether Isaiah 65 describes an intermediate kingdom or the new creation in prophetic idiom.

**Dependencies:** Conditioned by `ESC-REV-03`, `ESC-MIL-02`, `ESC-MIL-03`, `ESC-HERM-01`, and kingdom trajectory. Upstream of resurrection and judgment schedules.

**Relations:** `PRE` is a hard constraint against a single return only after the millennium, but does not itself decide historic versus dispensational premillennialism; use `ESC-ISR-01`, `ESC-TEM-01`, and rapture variables for that. `AMIL` and `POST` both place the return after the millennial reign but differ chiefly on the historical trajectory and character of that reign.

**Identity descriptors:** historic premillennialist = usually `PRE` + one-return/posttrib + less rigid Israel/church distinction; dispensational premillennialist = usually `PRE` + Israel distinction + futurist tribulation, often pretrib; amillennialist; postmillennialist. Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, and much Reformed tradition are broadly amillennial; some Reformed/Puritan streams are postmillennial; many Baptist, Bible-church, and Pentecostal streams are premillennial.


Question: Which position is best supported for “The “first resurrection” in Revelation 20”?

VII. Eschatology and Israel/church questions

**Question:** Which position is best supported for “The “first resurrection” in Revelation 20”?

**Type:** categorical referent.

**Options**

- `ESC-MIL-02.BODILY`: bodily resurrection of believers/martyrs at Christ’s return, before the millennium.
- `ESC-MIL-02.REGEN`: spiritual resurrection in regeneration/union with Christ during the present age.
- `ESC-MIL-02.HEAVEN`: the martyrs’ entrance into and conscious reign in heaven after bodily death—the first, spiritual/heavenly resurrection or vindication.
- `ESC-MIL-02.CORP`: a corporate revival/vindication of the faithful cause or church.

**Key texts:** John 5:21–29; 11:23–26; Romans 6:1–11; Ephesians 2:4–6; Colossians 2:12–13; 3:1–4; Philippians 3:10–11; Revelation 6:9–11; 20:4–6.

**Interpretive forks:** whether “came to life” has the same sense in Revelation 20:4 and 20:5; whether John sees souls in heaven or resurrected bodies on earth; “first” as first in a series or first kind/order; martyr focus.

**Dependencies:** Directly conditions `ESC-MIL-01` and `ESC-RES-01`.

**Relations:** `BODILY` strongly supports premillennialism and a two-stage resurrection. `REGEN/HEAVEN` support amillennialism/postmillennialism and a single general bodily resurrection. `CORP` is a minority postmillennial/historicist option.

**Identity descriptors:** premillennial (`BODILY`); Augustinian/amillennial (`REGEN` or `HEAVEN`, with differences); some postmillennial/historicist (`CORP`).


Binding of Satan

Question: Which position is best supported for “Binding of Satan”?

VII. Eschatology and Israel/church questions

**Question:** Which position is best supported for “Binding of Satan”?

**Type:** categorical dominant timing/degree.

**Options**

- `ESC-MIL-03.PRESENT`: Christ’s first advent bound Satan in the defined respect that he can no longer keep the nations from gospel light; Satan remains active in other respects.
- `ESC-MIL-03.FUTURE`: Revelation 20 describes a future, much more complete confinement after Christ’s return.
- `ESC-MIL-03.PROGRESS`: the first advent decisively limited Satan, gospel victory progressively manifests that defeat, and a final release precedes the return.

**Key texts:** Matthew 12:22–30; Luke 10:17–20; John 12:31–32; 16:11; Colossians 2:15; Hebrews 2:14; 1 Peter 5:8; 1 John 5:19; Revelation 12:7–12; 20:1–3, 7–10.

**Interpretive forks:** the explicit purpose “so that he might not deceive the nations”; whether abyss imagery permits other satanic activity; how present-tense warnings about the devil relate to binding; duration and final release.

**Dependencies:** Upstream of `ESC-MIL-01` and `ESC-KING-01`; conditioned by Revelation structure.

**Relations:** `FUTURE` strongly supports premillennialism. `PRESENT` supports amillennialism and can support postmillennialism; `PROGRESS` especially suits postmillennial already/not-yet readings.

**Identity descriptors:** premillennial, amillennial, postmillennial; not a separate denominational identity.


Question: Which position is best supported for “Expected gospel/cultural trajectory before the return”?

VII. Eschatology and Israel/church questions

**Question:** Which position is best supported for “Expected gospel/cultural trajectory before the return”?

**Type:** categorical dominant expectation, with substantial uncertainty possible.

**Options**

- `ESC-KING-01.VICTORY`: the Great Commission will produce widespread, durable discipling of nations and a recognizable era of righteousness/peace before the return.
- `ESC-KING-01.MIXED`: gospel advance and opposition coexist throughout the age, with neither a promised global Christian civilization nor inevitable linear collapse.
- `ESC-KING-01.DECLINE`: apostasy, deception, and persecution increasingly characterize the terminal period; Christ returns to rescue rather than after broad historical victory.
- `ESC-KING-01.AGNO`: Scripture promises mission success and final victory but does not reveal a confidently chartable global social trend.

**Key texts:** Psalm 2; 22:27–31; 72; 110; Isaiah 2:1–4; 11:1–10; Daniel 2:34–35, 44–45; Matthew 13:24–43, 31–33, 47–50; 24:9–14; 28:18–20; 1 Corinthians 15:25–26; 2 Thessalonians 2; 2 Timothy 3:1–5; Revelation 11:15; 20:7–10.

**Interpretive forks:** mustard seed/leaven as numerical-historical growth or kingdom hiddenness; “all nations” as representation or societal discipling; final apostasy’s scale and duration; whether royal Psalms are presently realized through mission or await the return.

**Dependencies:** Conditioned by `ESC-HERM-01`, `ESC-MIL-03`, and kingdom inauguration; strongly conditions `ESC-MIL-01.POST` versus `AMIL`.

**Relations:** `VICTORY` is the distinguishing postmillennial node. `MIXED/AGNO` are common in amillennialism. `DECLINE` is common in premillennial futurism but neither premillennialism nor amillennialism logically requires pessimism about every historical period.

**Identity descriptors:** postmillennial optimism, amillennial “realized” kingdom, premillennial futurism. “Optimist/pessimist” is usually too crude; specify the predicted pre-return trajectory. Theonomy, Christian Reconstruction, and Christian nationalism are separate ethical/political profiles; none is entailed by postmillennialism.


Question: Which position is best supported for “Is the messianic kingdom presently inaugurated?”?

VII. Eschatology and Israel/church questions

**Question:** Which position is best supported for “Is the messianic kingdom presently inaugurated?”?

**Type:** multi-select kingdom-timing claims; do not normalize these options against one another.

**Options**

- `ESC-KING-02.INAUGURATED`: Jesus inaugurated the promised kingdom in his ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension.
- `ESC-KING-02.PRESENT-MILLENNIAL`: the thousand-year reign is principally a present spiritual or heavenly reality.
- `ESC-KING-02.FUTURE-CONSUMMATION`: the kingdom awaits public consummation at Christ’s return.
- `ESC-KING-02.DISTINCT-FUTURE-PHASE`: a distinctive earthly and/or national form of the covenanted messianic kingdom begins only after the return.

**Key texts:** Daniel 2:34–45; 7:13–14; Matthew 3:2; 4:17; 11:11–12; 12:28; 13; 28:18; Luke 17:20–21; 19:11–27; Acts 1:3–8; 2:29–36; 14:22; Colossians 1:13; Hebrews 2:5–9; 12:22–29; Revelation 1:5–6, 9.

**Interpretive forks:** “at hand/has come upon you”; kingdom of God versus kingdom of heaven; present session as Davidic reign; mystery form of the kingdom; whether “church age” is itself the promised kingdom or a distinct intercalation.

**Dependencies:** Conditioned by `ESC-DAV-01`, `ESC-HERM-01`, and covenantal architecture; upstream of `ESC-KING-01` and `ESC-MIL-01`.

**Relations:** `INAUGURATED + FUTURE-CONSUMMATION` spans much progressive dispensational, historic-premillennial, amillennial, and postmillennial theology. `PRESENT-MILLENNIAL + FUTURE-CONSUMMATION` is characteristic of careful amillennialism. `DISTINCT-FUTURE-PHASE` is associated with premillennial and especially classic dispensational distinctions.

**Identity descriptors:** inaugurated eschatology, future-kingdom dispensationalism, realized millennium.


Question: Which position is best supported for “Number and timing of bodily resurrections”?

VII. Eschatology and Israel/church questions

**Question:** Which position is best supported for “Number and timing of bodily resurrections”?

**Type:** categorical schedule within the shared baseline of a real bodily resurrection.

**Options**

- `ESC-RES-01.GENERAL`: righteous and wicked are raised in one general eschatological complex at Christ’s return.
- `ESC-RES-01.TWO`: resurrection of the righteous precedes the millennium; resurrection of the wicked follows it.
- `ESC-RES-01.MULTI`: several stages—Christ, church, tribulation martyrs/Old Testament saints, and finally the wicked—are chronologically distinguished.

**Key texts:** Daniel 12:1–3; Matthew 13:36–43; 25:31–46; John 5:25–29; 6:39–54; 11:24; Acts 24:14–15; 1 Corinthians 15:20–28, 50–55; 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18; Revelation 20:4–15.

**Interpretive forks:** “an hour” in John 5; singular “resurrection of both”; “each in his own order” in 1 Corinthians 15; first resurrection; whether judgment tableaux compress multiple stages.

**Dependencies:** Strongly conditioned by `ESC-MIL-01`, `ESC-MIL-02`, and `ESC-REV-03`; upstream of `ESC-JDG-01`.

**Relations:** `GENERAL` is close to a hard constraint for ordinary amillennial/postmillennial systems. `TWO` follows naturally from sequential premillennial Revelation 20. `MULTI` correlates with dispensational chronology. All options should retain bodily continuity/transformation; denial of bodily resurrection is outside the stated conservative/creedal baseline.

**Identity descriptors:** general-resurrection (Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Reformed, many non-dispensational evangelicals); two-stage historic premillennial; multi-stage dispensational premillennial.


Question: Which position is best supported for “Continuing corporate role of ethnic/national Israel”?

VII. Eschatology and Israel/church questions

**Question:** Which position is best supported for “Continuing corporate role of ethnic/national Israel”?

**Type:** categorical dominant model.

**Options**

- `ESC-ISR-01.FULFILLED`: Israel’s covenant vocation reaches its corporate fulfillment in Messiah and the one Jew-Gentile church; ethnic Israel has no separately promised eschatological polity or role.
- `ESC-ISR-01.CONVERT`: one covenant people, with a future large-scale conversion of ethnic Jews into the church but no separate saving covenant or necessary territorial kingdom.
- `ESC-ISR-01.ROLE`: one salvation and one new humanity, while converted corporate Israel retains a distinctive vocation and possibly national/territorial role.
- `ESC-ISR-01.PROGRAM`: church and national Israel remain distinguishable covenantal peoples/administrations in the eschatological program, especially in a future millennium.

**Key texts:** Genesis 12:1–3; 17:4–8; Exodus 19:5–6; Jeremiah 31:31–37; Matthew 21:33–46; Luke 21:24; Acts 1:6–8; 3:19–21; Romans 9–11; Galatians 3:16, 26–29; 6:16; Ephesians 2:11–22; 3:4–6; 1 Peter 2:4–10.

**Interpretive forks:** referent of “Israel” and “Israel of God”; natural branches in Romans 11; whether one new humanity erases or reconciles ethnic vocation; irrevocability of gifts/calling; distinction between soteriological unity and historical role.

**Dependencies:** Conditioned by `ESC-FRM-01`, `ESC-HERM-01`, and `ESC-ISR-02`; upstream of land, throne, temple, millennium, and often rapture.

**Relations:** `FULFILLED/CONVERT` correlate with covenant theology and progressive covenantalism; `ROLE` with progressive dispensationalism and some covenantal premillennialists; `PROGRAM` with classic/revised dispensationalism. A future Jewish conversion is historically common even within covenant theology.

**Identity descriptors:** supersessionist/non-supersessionist is too binary. If used, distinguish punitive supersessionism, economic succession, typological fulfillment, future conversion, and continuing national vocation. “Christian Zionist” usually implies `ROLE/PROGRAM` plus a land claim, but not always.


“All Israel will be saved” in Romans 11

Question: Which position is best supported for ““All Israel will be saved” in Romans 11”?

VII. Eschatology and Israel/church questions

**Question:** Which position is best supported for ““All Israel will be saved” in Romans 11”?

**Type:** categorical referent.

**Options**

- `ESC-ISR-02.FUTURE`: a future corporate turning of ethnic Israel near the end of the age.
- `ESC-ISR-02.REMNANT`: the total elect remnant of ethnic Israel saved across history.
- `ESC-ISR-02.CHURCH`: the whole redeemed people of God, Jew and Gentile.
- `ESC-ISR-02.PROCESS`: corporate Israel saved through the ongoing remnant/fullness dynamic, possibly culminating in a larger final turning.

**Key texts:** Isaiah 27:9; 59:20–21; Jeremiah 31:31–37; Romans 9:6–8, 27; 10:1; 11:1–32; 2 Corinthians 3:14–16.

**Interpretive forks:** “and so” as manner or temporal sequence; whether “Israel” changes referent between Romans 11:25 and 11:26; Gentile fullness; olive-tree identity; the citation’s “from/to Zion”; corporate versus every-individual scope.

**Dependencies:** Direct evidence for `ESC-ISR-01`; can be assessed without first deciding land or millennium.

**Relations:** `FUTURE` is compatible with covenantal, progressive dispensational, and classic dispensational systems and therefore should not be used as a proxy for dispensationalism. `CHURCH/REMNANT` more often accompany stronger fulfillment/supersession readings.

**Identity descriptors:** future-conversionist, remnant reading, ecclesial reading; no clean denominational division.


Who receives the promised new covenant?

Question: Which position is best supported for “Who receives the promised new covenant?”?

VII. Eschatology and Israel/church questions

**Question:** Which position is best supported for “Who receives the promised new covenant?”?

**Type:** categorical covenantal-referent model.

**Options**

- `ESC-COV-01.CHURCH`: the new covenant promised to Israel/Judah is directly inaugurated in Christ and constitutes the present Jew-Gentile church.
- `ESC-COV-01.PARTAKE`: the church presently partakes in the new covenant’s spiritual blessings, while its formal/national realization with Israel and Judah awaits the future.
- `ESC-COV-01.REMNANT`: the covenant is made with Israel in the faithful Messiah and Jewish remnant; incorporated Gentiles genuinely join that same covenant, with a future fullness of Israel possible.
- `ESC-COV-01.STAGES`: present ecclesial fulfillment and a later corporate-Israel realization are complementary stages of the one new covenant.

**Key texts:** Jeremiah 31:31–37; 32:36–44; Ezekiel 36:22–32; Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:1–18; Romans 11:11–32; Galatians 3:13–29; Ephesians 2:11–22; Hebrews 8:6–13; 9:15; 10:14–18.

**Interpretive forks:** direct recipients named “house of Israel and Judah”; Jesus’ and Paul’s present-tense cup language; Hebrews’ application to its Christian audience; participation versus ratification; one covenant in stages versus two applications.

**Dependencies:** Conditioned by `ESC-FRM-01`, `ESC-HERM-01`, and `ESC-ISR-01`; contributes back to church/Israel identity and future restoration.

**Relations:** `CHURCH/REMNANT` correlate with covenant theology and progressive covenantalism; `PARTAKE` with classic/revised dispensationalism; `STAGES` with progressive dispensationalism and some future-conversion covenantalists. None supplies a second way of salvation.

**Identity descriptors:** covenant theology, new-covenant/progressive covenantal, classic or progressive dispensational.


Land and national-restoration promises

Question: Which position is best supported for “Land and national-restoration promises”?

VII. Eschatology and Israel/church questions

**Question:** Which position is best supported for “Land and national-restoration promises”?

**Type:** categorical dominant fulfillment mode.

**Options**

- `ESC-ISR-03.TERR`: specific territorial/national promises require a future restoration of Israel in the promised land, commonly in the millennium.
- `ESC-ISR-03.TYPO`: the land was historically tasted/fulfilled and typologically expands through Christ to inheritance of the world and new creation; no separate future territorial fulfillment is required.
- `ESC-ISR-03.BOTH`: territorial restoration and universal new-creation expansion are complementary stages.
- `ESC-ISR-03.COND`: restoration or tenure is covenant-condition dependent; some prophetic forms were conditional or exhausted even though God’s saving purpose continues.

**Key texts:** Genesis 12:7; 13:14–17; 15:18–21; 17:8; Deuteronomy 4:25–31; 30:1–10; Joshua 21:43–45; 1 Kings 4:20–21; Nehemiah 9:7–8; Psalm 37; Isaiah 11; Jeremiah 30–33; Ezekiel 36–37; Amos 9:11–15; Matthew 5:5; Romans 4:13; Galatians 3; Hebrews 4; 11:8–16; Revelation 21–22.

**Interpretive forks:** oath unconditionality versus tenure conditions; “forever”; whether Joshua/Solomon fulfill extent claims; New Testament universalization; whether modern political Israel is prophetic fulfillment, providential precursor, or theologically neutral.

**Dependencies:** Conditioned by `ESC-HERM-01`, `ESC-FRM-01`, and `ESC-ISR-01`; influences millennium and temple.

**Relations:** `TERR/BOTH` correlate with Christian Zionism and dispensationalism, but theological support for Israel’s civil security is not identical to a prophetic land claim. `TYPO` correlates with covenantal and progressive-covenantal systems.

**Identity descriptors:** Christian Zionist, non-Zionist, territorial-restorationist, new-creation fulfillment. Political policy should not be inferred mechanically from any one exegesis.


Location and timing of Davidic kingship

Question: Which position is best supported for “Location and timing of Davidic kingship”?

VII. Eschatology and Israel/church questions

**Question:** Which position is best supported for “Location and timing of Davidic kingship”?

**Type:** categorical with an already/not-yet option.

**Options**

- `ESC-DAV-01.PRESENT`: Jesus presently occupies David’s promised throne through resurrection, ascension, and session at God’s right hand.
- `ESC-DAV-01.FUTURE`: the Davidic throne in its promised governmental form awaits Christ’s future earthly reign from Jerusalem.
- `ESC-DAV-01.BOTH`: Christ is already enthroned as Davidic king and will manifest that kingship in a distinctive future earthly/national phase.

**Key texts:** 2 Samuel 7:12–16; Psalm 2; 89; 110; Isaiah 9:6–7; Jeremiah 23:5–8; Luke 1:31–33; 19:11–27; Acts 2:22–36; 13:32–39; 15:13–18; 1 Corinthians 15:24–28; Revelation 3:21; 5:5.

**Interpretive forks:** whether David’s throne and God’s heavenly throne can be the same royal reality; “restore the kingdom to Israel”; session until enemies subdued; present versus public manifestation.

**Dependencies:** Conditioned by framework, typology, and Israel role; upstream of millennium.

**Relations:** `FUTURE` correlates with classic dispensationalism; `PRESENT` with covenantal amillennial/postmillennial views; `BOTH` with progressive dispensationalism and inaugurated-eschatology premillennialism.

**Identity descriptors:** dispensational, inaugurated-kingdom, covenantal; not normally denominational on its own.


Question: Which position is best supported for “Ezekiel’s temple, sacrifices, and future sanctuary”?

VII. Eschatology and Israel/church questions

**Question:** Which position is best supported for “Ezekiel’s temple, sacrifices, and future sanctuary”?

**Type:** categorical dominant fulfillment.

**Options**

- `ESC-TEM-01.LIT`: Ezekiel 40–48 predicts a physical millennial temple with restored ritual sacrifices understood as memorial, ceremonial, or kingdom-purificatory—not a repetition of Christ’s atonement.
- `ESC-TEM-01.FUT_NOEQ`: a future physical temple is likely from Daniel/Jesus/Paul/Revelation, but Ezekiel’s detailed vision is not necessarily a straightforward blueprint for that temple.
- `ESC-TEM-01.TYPO`: temple, priesthood, river, land, and presence are symbolic/typological of Christ, the church, gospel mission, and finally the New Jerusalem.
- `ESC-TEM-01.COND`: Ezekiel offers an ideal or conditional restoration arrangement for postexilic Israel that was never realized in that form.
- `ESC-TEM-01.BOTH`: typological fulfillment now/new creation plus a future concrete sanctuary stage.

**Key texts:** Ezekiel 37:24–28; 40–48; Haggai 2; Zechariah 6:9–15; 14:16–21; Daniel 9:27; Matthew 24:15; John 2:19–22; 2 Thessalonians 2:4; Hebrews 7–10; Ephesians 2:19–22; 1 Peter 2:4–10; Revelation 11:1–2; 21:22; 22:1–5.

**Interpretive forks:** architectural specificity; tribal allotments; sin/purification offerings after the cross; “memorial” despite no explicit memorial label; whether Hebrews makes any restored animal cult theologically impossible; Ezekiel’s river and Revelation 22.

**Dependencies:** Conditioned by `ESC-HERM-01`, `ESC-ISR-03`, `ESC-MIL-01`, and `ESC-ANT-01`; future tribulation temple and millennial Ezekiel temple should be modeled as distinct claims.

**Relations:** `LIT/BOTH` strongly correlate with dispensational premillennialism. `TYPO` with covenantal amillennial/postmillennial and progressive-covenantal readings. `FUT_NOEQ` allows a future antichrist temple without accepting millennial sacrifices.

**Identity descriptors:** dispensational literal-temple, typological temple, future-temple futurist. All orthodox options must preserve Hebrews’ claim that Christ’s atonement is once for all.


The 144,000

Question: Which position is best supported for “The 144,000”?

VII. Eschatology and Israel/church questions

**Question:** Which position is best supported for “The 144,000”?

**Type:** categorical symbolic referent.

**Options**

- `ESC-ISR-04.ETHNIC`: a literal-number or representative end-time remnant from the twelve tribes of ethnic Israel, distinct in role from the multinational multitude.
- `ESC-ISR-04.CHURCH`: the complete church/messianic army, heard as Israel’s numbered tribes and seen as the innumerable multinational multitude.
- `ESC-ISR-04.FIRST`: a first-century Jewish-Christian remnant sealed through the coming judgment.
- `ESC-ISR-04.BOTH`: an Israel-shaped symbol of the whole church that may also highlight a distinct Jewish remnant.

**Key texts:** Ezekiel 9:1–11; Revelation 7:1–17; 9:4; 14:1–5; 21:12–14; Romans 11; James 1:1; 1 Peter 1:1.

**Interpretive forks:** “heard” versus “saw” identity pattern in Revelation; irregular tribe list; literal number versus 12×12×1000; whether the multitude is a second group; firstfruits and virgin-warrior imagery.

**Dependencies:** Conditioned by Revelation horizon and `ESC-ISR-01`; contributes modestly back to Israel/church models.

**Relations:** `ETHNIC` correlates with dispensational futurism; `CHURCH` with idealist/amillennial readings; `FIRST` with partial preterism; `BOTH` with eclectic readings.

**Identity descriptors:** not a denomination-defining issue, but often used as evidence for Israel/church distinction.


Identity of Babylon in Revelation 17–18

Question: Which position is best supported for “Identity of Babylon in Revelation 17–18”?

VII. Eschatology and Israel/church questions

**Question:** Which position is best supported for “Identity of Babylon in Revelation 17–18”?

**Type:** multi-horizon symbolic identification.

**Options**

- `ESC-BAB-01.ROME`: first-century imperial Rome and its economic/idolatrous order.
- `ESC-BAB-01.JERU`: apostate Jerusalem as the covenant-breaking city implicated in prophets’ blood.
- `ESC-BAB-01.FUT_CITY`: a specific future rebuilt or geopolitical city/empire.
- `ESC-BAB-01.SYSTEM`: the recurring transnational system of idolatrous empire, luxury, violence, and exploitation, with possible final concentration.
- `ESC-BAB-01.HIST`: a later church-historical institution, classically papal Rome in Protestant historicism.

**Key texts:** Isaiah 13–14; 21; 47; Jeremiah 50–51; Ezekiel 16; 23; 26–28; Matthew 23:29–39; 1 Peter 5:13; Revelation 11:8; 14:8; 16:19; 17–18.

**Interpretive forks:** seven hills/kings; maritime trade; “great city”; prophets and saints’ blood; wilderness harlot imagery; Old Testament oracles repurposed for a new empire.

**Dependencies:** Conditioned by `ESC-REV-01/02`; related to beast identity but not necessarily identical with it.

**Relations:** `ROME` works with both early and late dates and many eclectic readings; `JERU` especially with early-date partial preterism; `FUT_CITY` with strict futurism; `SYSTEM` with idealism/eclecticism; `HIST` with historicism.

**Identity descriptors:** Roman preterist, Jerusalem preterist, futurist, idealist, historicist.


Mark of the beast and 666

Question: Which position is best supported for “Mark of the beast and 666”?

VII. Eschatology and Israel/church questions

**Question:** Which position is best supported for “Mark of the beast and 666”?

**Type:** multi-horizon symbol/referent.

**Options**

- `ESC-MARK-01.NERO`: 666/616 encodes Nero Caesar and the mark evokes first-century imperial allegiance/economic coercion.
- `ESC-MARK-01.FUT`: a future regime will impose a concrete, economically enforced identifier or oath; the technology is unspecified.
- `ESC-MARK-01.ALLEGIANCE`: forehead/hand symbolism signifies ideological and behavioral allegiance to beastly power across the age, in parody of God’s seal.
- `ESC-MARK-01.HIST`: a church-historical office/system or its mandated religious allegiance.
- `ESC-MARK-01.LAYER`: a first-century referent establishes a repeatable allegiance pattern that may culminate finally.

**Key texts:** Exodus 13:9, 16; Deuteronomy 6:4–9; 11:18; Ezekiel 9; Revelation 7:3–8; 13:11–18; 14:1, 9–12; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4.

**Interpretive forks:** Hebrew/Greek/Latin gematria and the 616 manuscript variant; symbolic forehead/hand background; economic enforcement; whether a physical mechanism and spiritual allegiance are alternatives or layers.

**Dependencies:** Conditioned by `ESC-ANT-01`, `ESC-REV-01/02`, and dating; downstream practical speculation should remain much less confident than the broad allegiance theme.

**Relations:** `NERO` correlates with preterism; `FUT` with dispensational futurism; `ALLEGIANCE` with idealism; `LAYER` with eclecticism. No biblical text identifies a modern technology, so “microchip/digital currency” should be modeled as a very low-level application hypothesis, not a doctrinal option.

**Identity descriptors:** preterist, futurist, idealist, historicist.


The two witnesses of Revelation 11

Question: Which position is best supported for “The two witnesses of Revelation 11”?

VII. Eschatology and Israel/church questions

**Question:** Which position is best supported for “The two witnesses of Revelation 11”?

**Type:** categorical dominant referent, with a layered option.

**Options**

- `ESC-WIT-01.LITERAL`: two future individual prophetic witnesses, often compared with Moses and Elijah.
- `ESC-WIT-01.FIRST`: two individuals or a concrete witness in the first-century Jerusalem crisis.
- `ESC-WIT-01.CHURCH`: the witnessing church portrayed through the legally sufficient two, two lampstands, and Zechariah’s olive trees.
- `ESC-WIT-01.LAYER`: a corporate church symbol that may be embodied by representative individuals in a final crisis.

**Key texts:** Deuteronomy 19:15; 1 Kings 17; 2 Kings 1; Zechariah 4; Malachi 4:5–6; Matthew 17:1–13; Revelation 1:20; 11:1–13.

**Interpretive forks:** literal numeration versus symbolic legal witness; Moses/Elijah miracle patterns; lampstands as churches; “the great city”; locality and global spectatorship.

**Dependencies:** Conditioned by Revelation horizon, temple, and tribulation readings.

**Relations:** `LITERAL` correlates with futurism; `FIRST` with preterism; `CHURCH` with idealism/amil; `LAYER` with eclecticism.

**Identity descriptors:** rarely denominational; useful as a test case for one’s symbolism calibration.


Question: Which position is best supported for “Armageddon, Gog/Magog, and the final battle(s)”?

VII. Eschatology and Israel/church questions

**Question:** Which position is best supported for “Armageddon, Gog/Magog, and the final battle(s)”?

**Type:** categorical relation among battle visions.

**Options**

- `ESC-WAR-01.ONE`: Revelation 16, 19, and 20 recapitulate the same final assault and divine victory from different angles.
- `ESC-WAR-01.TWO`: Revelation 19 and 20:7–10 depict two distinct rebellions separated by the millennium.
- `ESC-WAR-01.PATTERN`: Ezekiel’s Gog, first-century/recurring imperial conflicts, and a final assault form a typological pattern rather than a one-to-one timetable.
- `ESC-WAR-01.GEO`: the texts predict identifiable future geopolitical coalitions/events, often involving national Israel.

**Key texts:** Ezekiel 38–39; Zechariah 12–14; 2 Thessalonians 1:6–10; Revelation 16:12–16; 19:11–21; 20:7–10.

**Interpretive forks:** repeated carrion-feast imagery; Gog/Magog before or after millennial conditions; symbolic compass-point nations; Israel/land referents; sequence versus recapitulation.

**Dependencies:** Strongly conditioned by `ESC-REV-03`, `ESC-MIL-01`, and `ESC-ISR-03`.

**Relations:** `TWO/GEO` correlate with sequential premillennial futurism; `ONE` with recapitulative amillennialism; `PATTERN` with idealist/eclectic readings.

**Identity descriptors:** futurist-geopolitical, idealist, recapitulationist; modern nation-name mappings should be assigned far lower confidence than the textual structure.


Schedule of eschatological judgment

Question: Which position is best supported for “Schedule of eschatological judgment”?

VII. Eschatology and Israel/church questions

**Question:** Which position is best supported for “Schedule of eschatological judgment”?

**Type:** categorical relation among judgment scenes.

**Options**

- `ESC-JDG-01.GENERAL`: one public general judgment at Christ’s return, described from several angles, with works evidencing union with Christ and determining degrees/recompense.
- `ESC-JDG-01.TWO`: judgment of resurrected saints/kingdom participants and judgment of the wicked are separated by the millennium.
- `ESC-JDG-01.MULTI`: distinct sessions include the church’s judgment seat, sheep-and-goats/nations judgment, Israel or tribulation judgments, and the great white throne.

**Key texts:** Ecclesiastes 12:14; Daniel 7:9–14; 12:2; Matthew 12:36; 13:36–50; 16:27; 25:31–46; John 5:22–29; Acts 17:30–31; Romans 2:5–16; 14:10–12; 1 Corinthians 3:10–15; 4:5; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Revelation 20:4, 11–15.

**Interpretive forks:** whether multiple images describe different sessions or one event; who “brothers” are in Matthew 25; judgment “according to works”; believer reward/loss versus condemnation; relation of books to book of life.

**Dependencies:** Conditioned by `ESC-RES-01`, `ESC-MIL-01`, and Revelation structure.

**Relations:** `GENERAL` is standard in Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Reformed, and many evangelical confessions; `TWO` with historic premillennialism; `MULTI` especially with dispensational charts. Multiple biblical judgment metaphors do not by themselves prove multiple dates.

**Identity descriptors:** general-judgment, premillennial two-stage, dispensational multiple-judgment.


Nature and duration of final punishment

Question: Which position is best supported for “Nature and duration of final punishment”?

VII. Eschatology and Israel/church questions

**Question:** Which position is best supported for “Nature and duration of final punishment”?

**Type:** categorical final-outcome model.

**Options**

- `ESC-HELL-01.ECT`: the finally impenitent remain consciously under irreversible punishment without end.
- `ESC-HELL-01.COND`: immortality is God’s gift to the redeemed; the wicked undergo judgment culminating in irreversible destruction/cessation (“second death”).
- `ESC-HELL-01.UR`: eschatological punishment is ultimately restorative and God eventually reconciles every person.

**Key texts for the dispute:** Isaiah 33:14; 66:24; Daniel 12:2; Malachi 4:1–3; Matthew 10:28; 25:31–46; Mark 9:43–48; John 3:16; Romans 2:5–12; 5:18–19; 6:23; 1 Corinthians 15:22–28; Philippians 2:9–11; 2 Thessalonians 1:9; 1 Timothy 2:3–6; 4:10; 2 Peter 2:6; Revelation 14:9–11; 20:10–15; 21:8.

**Interpretive forks:** *aiōnios* and the parallel in Matthew 25:46; death/destruction/perishing as process, ruin, or cessation; whether humans are naturally immortal; apocalyptic smoke/fire imagery; whether universal-sounding texts concern every individual, all kinds, or cosmic reconciliation under judgment; difference between the beast/devil and human fate in Revelation.

**Dependencies:** Relatively orthogonal to millennium and rapture. It interacts with anthropology and intermediate state but should not be inferred from a denominational eschatology chart.

**Relations:** `ECT` is the dominant historic Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant confessional view. `COND` is held by Seventh-day Adventists and a minority of inerrantist evangelicals/Anglicans. `UR` has historic minority advocates but is rejected by many conservative confessions; its compatibility with the user’s broader conservative framework must be separately assessed. Hope or prayer concerning the number finally saved belongs to `ESC-HELL-02`, not this outcome node.

**Identity descriptors:** traditionalist/ECT, conditionalist/annihilationist, universal-reconciliationist.


Question: Which position is best supported for “Epistemic and prayer posture toward the final scope of salvation”?

VII. Eschatology and Israel/church questions

**Question:** Which position is best supported for “Epistemic and prayer posture toward the final scope of salvation”?

**Type:** multi-select posture claims; do not normalize these options against one another.

**Options**

- `ESC-HELL-02.EXPECT-SOME-LOST`: Scripture warrants expecting that some persons will remain finally lost.
- `ESC-HELL-02.HOPE-ALL`: one may hope and pray for universal salvation without teaching it as the revealed outcome.
- `ESC-HELL-02.CONFIDENT-ALL`: Scripture warrants confidence that every person will finally be reconciled.
- `ESC-HELL-02.SUSPEND`: the final number saved is not revealed clearly enough to adopt one of the preceding postures.

**Key texts:** Matthew 7:13–14, 21–23; 13:36–50; 19:23–26; 25:31–46; Luke 13:22–30; Romans 5:18–19; 9–11; 1 Corinthians 15:22–28; Philippians 2:9–11; 1 Timothy 2:1–6; 4:10; 2 Peter 3:9; Revelation 21–22.

**Interpretive forks:** whether warning texts reveal actual final outcomes or genuine conditions that need not be instantiated; whether universal-sounding texts identify every individual or all peoples/cosmic submission; difference between a permitted hope, a liturgical prayer, and a doctrinal prediction.

**Dependencies:** Conditioned by `ESC-HELL-01`, divine-will/atonement scope, and views of warning language. `EXPECT-SOME-LOST` can pair with ECT or conditionalism; `HOPE-ALL` can coexist with either and therefore must not update the outcome node as if it were universalism. `EXPECT-SOME-LOST` conflicts with `CONFIDENT-ALL`; `SUSPEND` conflicts with claiming either expectation as revealed. `CONFIDENT-ALL` ordinarily permits `HOPE-ALL`, but doctrinal confidence and prayer posture remain distinguishable.

**Relations:** Hopeful universalism is found in some Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and Protestant theologians without constituting their communion’s dogmatic outcome claim.

**Identity descriptors:** expects-final-loss, hopeful-universalist, confident-universalist, eschatologically agnostic.


Question: Which position is best supported for “Consciousness between death and resurrection”?

VII. Eschatology and Israel/church questions

**Question:** Which position is best supported for “Consciousness between death and resurrection”?

**Type:** categorical anthropological model.

**Options**

- `ESC-INT-01.CONSC`: the dead remain consciously present with Christ or in Hades while awaiting bodily resurrection.
- `ESC-INT-01.SLEEP`: the person is unconscious between death and resurrection (“soul sleep”/conditionalist anthropology).
- `ESC-INT-01.ATEMP`: from the deceased person’s perspective death opens immediately onto resurrection/final presence, sometimes framed as divine timelessness rather than an experienced interval.

**Key texts:** Psalm 6:5; 88:10–12; Ecclesiastes 9:5–10; Daniel 12:2; Matthew 10:28; Luke 16:19–31; 23:43; John 11:11–14; Acts 7:59–60; 1 Corinthians 15; 2 Corinthians 5:1–10; Philippians 1:20–24; 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18; Revelation 6:9–11.

**Interpretive forks:** sleep as metaphor for bodily death or total unconsciousness; phenomenological “under the sun” speech in Ecclesiastes; parabolic status of Luke 16; punctuation/word order in Luke 23:43; “naked/unclothed” in 2 Corinthians 5; whether time is experienced after death.

**Dependencies:** Interacts with `ESC-MIL-02.HEAVEN`, anthropology, hell, and postmortem purification; largely independent of millennium/rapture timing.

**Relations:** `CONSC` is the majority Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant view. `SLEEP` is characteristic of Seventh-day Adventism and some conditionalist or restorationist groups, with a small evangelical minority. `ATEMP` is a speculative minority synthesis and should usually receive a wider confidence interval.

**Identity descriptors:** conscious-intermediate-state, soul-sleep/psychopannychist, immediate-resurrection/atemporal.


Postmortem purification of the saved

Question: Which position is best supported for “Postmortem purification of the saved”?

VII. Eschatology and Israel/church questions

**Question:** Which position is best supported for “Postmortem purification of the saved”?

**Type:** categorical; partly canon- and tradition-dependent.

**Options**

- `ESC-INT-02.NONE`: no postmortem purifying process; believers are perfected by grace at death and/or resurrection.
- `ESC-INT-02.PURG`: saved persons may undergo a finite postmortem purification while their final salvation is secure.
- `ESC-INT-02.MYSTERY-PRAYER`: the church may pray for the departed and affirm postmortem healing/purification without defining a Latin purgatorial mechanism.

**Key texts:** Matthew 5:25–26; 12:32; Luke 12:47–48; 1 Corinthians 3:10–15; Philippians 1:6; Hebrews 9:27; 12:14, 22–24; Revelation 21:27. Catholic and Orthodox arguments also use 2 Maccabees 12:38–46, making the canon question an upstream dependency.

**Interpretive forks:** whether 1 Corinthians 3 tests works or purifies persons; temporal implications of “age to come”; prayer for the dead and the canon; purification versus satisfaction for sin; immediate perfection versus a process experienced by the saved.

**Dependencies:** Conditioned by canon, justification/sanctification, anthropology, and `ESC-INT-01`; mostly orthogonal to millennial chronology.

**Relations:** `NONE` is standard conservative Protestant/evangelical teaching; `PURG` is Roman Catholic dogma; `MYSTERY-PRAYER` approximates Orthodox traditions that affirm prayer for the dead without the same scholastic model.

**Identity descriptors:** Protestant no-purgatory, Roman Catholic purgatory, Orthodox postmortem mystery/prayer.


Question: Which position is best supported for “Postmortem opportunity for repentance or saving response”?

VII. Eschatology and Israel/church questions

**Question:** Which position is best supported for “Postmortem opportunity for repentance or saving response”?

**Type:** multi-select scope and mechanism claims, separate from purification of persons already saved.

**Options**

- `ESC-INT-04.NONE`: death ordinarily closes the opportunity for repentance and saving response.
- `ESC-INT-04.LIMITED`: only some who lacked a meaningful earthly opportunity may receive a postmortem encounter or opportunity.
- `ESC-INT-04.UNIVERSAL-OPPORTUNITY`: all who die outside saving faith receive a genuine postmortem opportunity.
- `ESC-INT-04.REMEDIAL-CERTAINTY`: postmortem judgment itself is remedial and eventually brings every person to willing reconciliation.

**Key texts:** Ecclesiastes 11:3; Matthew 12:32; 25:31–46; Luke 16:19–31; John 5:28–29; Romans 2:6–16; 10:9–17; Hebrews 9:27; 1 Peter 3:18–20; 4:6; Revelation 20:11–15; 21:24–27; 22:14–15.

**Interpretive forks:** fixed gulf in Luke 16; whether judgment after death excludes later repentance; identity and purpose of Christ’s proclamation to spirits/dead; whether Revelation’s nations and outside-city language is temporal process or final-state contrast.

**Dependencies:** Conditioned by exclusivism/inclusivism, `ESC-HELL-01/02`, `ESC-INT-03`, and the interpretation of Hebrews 9:27. It can coexist with `ESC-INT-02.PURG` because the nodes address different populations. `NONE`, `LIMITED`, and `UNIVERSAL-OPPORTUNITY` are mutually exclusive scope claims as defined; `REMEDIAL-CERTAINTY` can pair with `UNIVERSAL-OPPORTUNITY` and adds an outcome/mechanism claim.

**Relations:** `NONE` is standard conservative Protestant teaching and compatible with Catholic purgatory for the already saved. `LIMITED` appears in some inclusivist proposals; `UNIVERSAL-OPPORTUNITY` and especially `REMEDIAL-CERTAINTY` correlate with restorationist universalism.

**Identity descriptors:** no-second-chance, postmortem-evangelization, inclusivist-opportunity, remedial-universalist.


Question: Which position is best supported for “Christ’s descent and proclamation to the dead/spirits”?

VII. Eschatology and Israel/church questions

**Question:** Which position is best supported for “Christ’s descent and proclamation to the dead/spirits”?

**Type:** categorical referent.

**Options**

- `ESC-INT-03.DEAD`: between death and resurrection Christ descended to the realm of the dead and proclaimed victory and/or liberated the righteous dead.
- `ESC-INT-03.ANGELS`: the risen Christ proclaimed triumph to imprisoned rebellious spirits/angels associated with Noah’s era.
- `ESC-INT-03.NOAH`: Christ, through the Spirit in Noah, preached to Noah’s contemporaries while they were alive; they are now imprisoned spirits.
- `ESC-INT-03.DEATH`: descent language chiefly denotes burial, the state of death, or humiliation rather than a local journey.

**Key texts:** Psalm 16:8–11; Acts 2:24–32; Romans 10:6–7; Ephesians 4:8–10; 1 Peter 3:18–22; 4:6; Revelation 1:18.

**Interpretive forks:** “spirits” as humans or angels; timing of the preaching; dative relation “in which”; lower parts of the earth; relation of the Apostles’ Creed to 1 Peter.

**Dependencies:** Interacts with intermediate-state geography and postmortem opportunity but does not by itself establish evangelization after death.

**Relations:** versions of `DEAD` are common in Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, and patristic interpretation; `ANGELS/NOAH/DEATH` are common Protestant evangelical readings. Creedal affirmation of the descent does not settle its exegesis.

**Identity descriptors:** harrowing-of-Hades, victory proclamation, Noahic preaching, descent-as-death.


Question: Which position is best supported for “Continuity of the present creation with the new creation”?

VII. Eschatology and Israel/church questions

**Question:** Which position is best supported for “Continuity of the present creation with the new creation”?

**Type:** categorical spectrum.

**Options**

- `ESC-NEW-01.RENEW`: the present cosmos is judged, purified, liberated, and transformed into the new heavens and new earth.
- `ESC-NEW-01.REPLACE`: the present cosmos ceases to exist and God creates a numerically new cosmos.
- `ESC-NEW-01.RADICAL`: radical discontinuity and real continuity are both affirmed without specifying numerical identity.

**Key texts:** Isaiah 11; 35; 65:17–25; 66:22; Matthew 19:28; Acts 3:21; Romans 8:18–25; 1 Corinthians 15:35–58; Colossians 1:15–20; 2 Peter 3:7–13; Revelation 21–22.

**Interpretive forks:** flood analogy in 2 Peter 3; “passed away/found no place”; *kainos* (“new” in quality) and resurrection-body analogy; whether Isaiah 65’s death language belongs to millennium or accommodated new-creation imagery.

**Dependencies:** Interacts with land typology, millennium, and ecological/embodiment implications; not strongly dependent on rapture.

**Relations:** `RENEW/RADICAL` are increasingly common across Catholic, Orthodox, Reformed, and evangelical theology; popular “heaven forever” speech can conceal the shared biblical claim of embodied resurrection and new creation. `REPLACE` appears in some older evangelical presentations.

**Identity descriptors:** creation-renewal, replacement/de-novo creation, embodied-new-earth. This issue is often a better confidence exercise than the misleading binary “go to heaven or live on earth.”


Nicene/creedal Christian

VIII. Composite identity and denominational descriptor catalog

- **Kind:** boundary-family descriptor.
- **Core:** one God in three irreducible persons; Father, Son, and Spirit fully divine; eternal Son incarnate as fully God and fully human; bodily resurrection; future resurrection and judgment.
- **Common:** acceptance of the Apostles’ and Nicene creeds; Chalcedonian two-natures Christology.
- **Variable:** authority model, canon at Old Testament edges, atonement mechanism, salvation order, baptism, Eucharist, polity, gifts, millennium.
- **False inference warning:** “Nicene” does not mean Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or high church.


Evangelical

- **Kind:** transdenominational coalition descriptor.
- **Core:** high functional authority of Scripture; necessity of the gospel and personal faith/conversion; centrality of Christ’s saving cross and resurrection; active proclamation/discipleship.
- **Common:** Protestant 66-book canon; justification by faith; missions; often but not universally biblical inerrancy.
- **Variable:** Calvinist/Arminian, Baptist/paedobaptist, cessationist/charismatic, complementarian/egalitarian, sacramental depth, eschatology, politics.
- **False inference warning:** It is not a church polity or a precise confession, and contemporary regional uses differ.


Fundamentalist

- **Kind:** historical/ethos descriptor with doctrinal tendencies.
- **Core:** defense of supernatural and creedal basics against modernist revision; strong biblical inerrancy; separation from perceived doctrinal compromise is often central.
- **Common:** dispensational premillennialism, revivalist conversionism, conservative social ethics, cessationism; KJV/TR preferences in some substreams.
- **Variable:** Baptist, Presbyterian, or independent polity; Calvinist or non-Calvinist soteriology; KJV-only is not entailed.
- **False inference warning:** Do not define the label simply as “very conservative evangelical”; separatist history and institutional culture matter.


Confessionally Reformed

- **Kind:** doctrinal/ecclesial family descriptor.
- **Core:** Scripture as sole final infallible norm; Nicene/Chalcedonian orthodoxy; strong divine sovereignty; covenantal and federal theology; unconditional election; effectual calling; perseverance; forensic justification by faith; Reformed account of Word and sacraments; substantive subscription to a Three Forms of Unity or Westminster-family confession.
- **Common:** infant baptism and covenant children in visible church; Presbyterian or continental Reformed polity; spiritual real presence; regulative principle; amillennialism or postmillennialism; Lord’s Day Sabbath.
- **Variable:** supralapsarian/infralapsarian order, atonement wording at edges, creation view within confessional limits, cessationism/continuationism, two kingdoms/theonomy, millennium between amil/postmil and occasional historic premil.
- **False inference warning:** “Five-point Calvinist” alone is insufficient for this descriptor.


Calvinist/Reformed soteriology

- **Kind:** doctrinal-subset descriptor.
- **Core:** pervasive inability apart from grace; unconditional individual election; effectual grace/calling; divine preservation of the elect; atonement intentionally and effectively saving the elect in a distinctive sense.
- **Common:** compatibilist providence; monergistic regeneration before or logically prior to faith; forensic imputation.
- **Variable:** baptism, polity, covenant model, gifts, millennium, worship, denominational home.
- **False inference warning:** Calvinist does not entail Presbyterian, paedobaptist, cessationist, or confessionally Reformed.


Presbyterian

- **Kind:** polity-first denominational descriptor.
- **Core:** rule through a plurality of elders in graded/connected courts rather than bishops or independent congregations; ordinarily Reformed confessional ancestry.
- **Common:** infant baptism; covenant theology; Westminster standards; spiritual presence in the Supper; Reformed soteriology.
- **Variable:** strictness of confessional subscription, ordination of women, gifts, creation, eschatology, sexual ethics, and even conservative versus mainline authority assumptions.
- **False inference warning:** A polity label cannot by itself establish current doctrinal conservatism.


Reformed Baptist

- **Kind:** composite confessional descriptor.
- **Core:** believer baptism; congregational/local-church polity; regenerate membership; Reformed/Calvinistic salvation; Scripture as final authority; usually a Baptist adaptation of covenant theology.
- **Common:** 1689 London Baptist Confession or descendant; immersion; two ordinances; regulative principle; definite atonement; elder-led congregationalism.
- **Variable:** Sabbath, covenant-of-grace administration before Christ, communion admission, gifts, millennium, republication, law/gospel details.
- **False inference warning:** It is not simply “a Baptist who likes some Calvinist authors”; confessional and covenantal content may be intended.


Baptist

- **Kind:** church-and-ordinance family descriptor.
- **Core:** baptism of professing believers rather than infants; congregational/local-church responsibility; regenerate church membership; Scripture as final authority; religious liberty and noncoercion are historically important.
- **Common:** immersion; two ordinances rather than seven sacraments; memorial or spiritual-presence Supper; local church autonomy; believers normally admitted to membership after baptism.
- **Variable:** Calvinist, Arminian, or mixed soteriology; elder-led or single-pastor structure; closed/open communion; cessationist/charismatic; dispensational/covenantal; women’s ordination; worship style.
- **False inference warning:** “Baptist” does not entail dispensationalism, memorialism in the thinnest sense, or once-saved-always-saved.


Confessional Lutheran

- **Kind:** confessional church-family descriptor.
- **Core:** Scripture alone; justification by grace through faith for Christ’s sake; sharp law/gospel distinction; monergistic conversion; Word and sacraments as objective means of grace; infant baptism that grants/regenerates; Christ’s true body and blood orally present in the Supper; subscription to the Book of Concord.
- **Common:** universal atonement; election to salvation without symmetrical decree to damnation; grace can be resisted and believers can fall away; liturgical worship; amillennialism.
- **Variable:** church polity, degree of liturgical uniformity, creation positions across Lutheran bodies, ordination and ethics across conservative/mainline synods.
- **False inference warning:** Lutheran monergism is not identical to five-point Calvinism; real presence is not Roman transubstantiation.


Anglican

- **Kind:** liturgical/episcopal and historically confessional family descriptor.
- **Core:** episcopal order; common-prayer/liturgical inheritance; creedal Christianity; historic connection to the Thirty-Nine Articles and Anglican formularies, with greatly varying subscription.
- **Common:** infant baptism; two dominical sacraments with other sacramental rites; real spiritual participation in the Eucharist; daily office; threefold ministry.
- **Variable:** Reformed, Lutheran-like, Anglo-Catholic, Arminian, or broad-church soteriology; Eucharistic mechanism; Marian devotion; gifts; women’s ordination; sexual ethics; eschatology.
- **False inference warning:** “Anglican” alone has low predictive power on several disputed doctrines; province and churchmanship are essential metadata.


Wesleyan/Methodist

- **Kind:** soteriological and ecclesial family descriptor.
- **Core:** universal atonement; prevenient grace enabling response; resistible grace; synergistic response without merit; strong emphasis on sanctification and holy love; possibility or goal of entire sanctification in a defined sense.
- **Common:** conditional security or real apostasy possibility; infant baptism plus believer dedication/confirmation patterns; connexional polity, often episcopal; methodical discipleship and works of mercy.
- **Variable:** exact meaning and timing of entire sanctification; charismatic gifts; sacramental efficacy; assurance; women’s ordination; conservative versus mainline authority and ethics.
- **False inference warning:** Wesleyan perfection does not ordinarily mean absolute sinlessness or inability to err.


Anabaptist/Mennonite

- **Kind:** discipleship-and-church family descriptor.
- **Core:** voluntary believer baptism; visible discipleship and obedience; church as a disciplined covenant community; strong separation of church coercion from state power; enemy love and nonresistance in classical forms.
- **Common:** congregational/community discernment; memorial/covenant-meal emphasis; simple living; refusal of oaths; foot washing in some bodies; free-will or non-Calvinist soteriology.
- **Variable:** sacramental language, charismatic gifts, communal property, women’s ministry, eschatology, and contemporary authority/sexual-ethics positions among denominations.
- **False inference warning:** “Anabaptist” is not synonymous with generic credobaptist or with every modern Mennonite denomination.


Stone-Campbell/Churches of Christ prototype

- **Kind:** restoration-movement family descriptor.
- **Core:** restoration of New Testament church practice; suspicion of binding post-biblical creeds; believer baptism by immersion closely linked to forgiveness/entry into Christ; congregational autonomy; weekly Lord’s Supper.
- **Common:** free-will soteriology; plurality of local elders; baptism treated as more than a bare optional symbol; a cappella worship in Churches of Christ; cessationism in many streams.
- **Variable:** instrumental music across movement branches, openness of communion, women’s roles, exact sacramental account, Trinity/confessional vocabulary, ethics.
- **False inference warning:** Disciples of Christ, independent Christian Churches, and Churches of Christ are related but doctrinally distinct streams; autonomous congregations vary.


Classical Pentecostal

- **Kind:** pneumatological and revivalist family descriptor.
- **Core:** all New Testament gifts remain available; a distinguishable baptism/empowerment in the Holy Spirit; expectation of tongues, prophecy, healing, and mission in the Spirit.
- **Common:** tongues as initial physical evidence of Spirit baptism in many classical denominations; believer baptism; Arminian/Wesleyan or finished-work soteriology; divine healing; premillennial expectation; expressive worship.
- **Variable:** sanctification as second work versus progressive; trinitarian versus Oneness streams; women’s ministry; prosperity teaching; exact rapture timing; congregational versus denominational governance.
- **False inference warning:** Pentecostal does not entail prosperity gospel, and “charismatic” does not entail tongues as necessary initial evidence.
- **Guardrail:** Oneness denial of eternal personal distinctions is outside the catalog’s Nicene boundary even though it is historically Pentecostal.


Charismatic

- **Kind:** pneumatological descriptor crossing denominations.
- **Core:** prophecy, tongues, healing, and other gifts may continue in the church today and should be practiced under biblical testing/order.
- **Common:** experiential prayer, healing ministry, expectation of present divine guidance.
- **Variable:** infant/believer baptism, Spirit baptism timing, tongues as evidence, prophecy authority, soteriology, polity, Eucharist, eschatology.
- **False inference warning:** Continuationism alone does not identify someone as Pentecostal, prosperity-oriented, or non-liturgical.


Cessationist

- **Kind:** pneumatological descriptor.
- **Core:** at least apostleship and revelatory/sign gifts tied to foundational revelation ceased or are not ordinary after the apostolic era.
- **Common:** closed-canon argument, providential rather than gift-mediated guidance; openness to extraordinary miracles despite no continuing miracle-worker gift.
- **Variable:** “hard” versus “soft” cessation, view of impressions, healing prayer, providence, Reformed versus dispensational framework.
- **False inference warning:** Cessationism does not mean God no longer performs miracles or answers prayer.


Roman Catholic

- **Kind:** communion/confessional descriptor.
- **Core:** Scripture and apostolic Tradition as one deposit authoritatively interpreted by the church’s magisterium; communion with the bishop of Rome and defined papal primacy/infallibility; episcopal apostolic succession; 73-book canon; seven sacraments; baptismal regeneration; Eucharistic real presence/transubstantiation and sacrificial memorial; justification involving infused grace and cooperation; purgatorial purification; defined Marian dogmas; invocation of saints; ordained male priesthood.
- **Common:** infant baptism; amillennial/inaugurated eschatology; natural-law moral reasoning.
- **Variable:** Thomist, Molinist, Augustinian, charismatic, and other theological schools; creation chronology; many non-defined eschatological details.
- **False inference warning:** Catholic teaching does not place Scripture and merely human customs as two unrelated competing authorities, nor teach that people initially earn grace without grace.


Eastern Orthodox

- **Kind:** communion/liturgical descriptor.
- **Core:** Scripture within Holy Tradition and the worshiping church; seven ecumenical councils; episcopal apostolic succession; baptism, chrismation, and Eucharist as initiatory mysteries; real Eucharistic participation; theosis; veneration of icons and saints; invocation of saints; rejection of the filioque as a unilateral Western addition.
- **Common:** broader Old Testament canon; infant baptism and infant communion; ancestral corruption with less emphasis on inherited culpability; synergistic healing account of salvation; strong liturgical authority; generally amillennial.
- **Variable:** exact enumeration/explanation of mysteries; toll-house and other intermediate-state opinions; political arrangements; calendar; some creation and eschatological details.
- **False inference warning:** Orthodox “synergy” is intended as grace-enabled participation, not autonomous merit; Orthodoxy does not dogmatically use every Roman Catholic scholastic mechanism.


Seventh-day Adventist

- **Kind:** Protestant restorationist denomination descriptor.
- **Core:** Protestant Bible authority; Trinity and Christ’s saving work in the mainstream denomination; seventh-day Sabbath; premillennial return; heavenly-sanctuary/investigative-judgment framework; conditional immortality and final annihilation; strong end-time remnant identity.
- **Common:** Ellen G. White as a genuine prophetic gift subordinate to Scripture; health practices; believer baptism by immersion; soul sleep; historicist apocalyptic reading.
- **Variable:** young-earth details, degree and use of Ellen White’s authority among members, perfection/generation theology, contemporary evangelical alignment.
- **False inference warning:** Official Adventist claims of sola Scriptura must be distinguished from the practical epistemic weight members assign to Ellen White.


Dispensationalist

- **Kind:** hermeneutical/eschatological system descriptor.
- **Core:** distinguishable divine economies/dispensations; enduring significance of ethnic/national Israel; future fulfillment of major national and land promises; grammatical-historical concern against church-exhaustive spiritualization; premillennial return.
- **Common:** future seventieth week/tribulation; rebuilt-temple expectations; pretribulation rapture in classic/popular forms; law discontinuity; Baptist or independent Bible-church setting.
- **Variable:** pre-, mid-, pre-wrath, or posttribulation rapture; classical, revised, or progressive dispensationalism; Calvinist or Arminian soteriology; gifts; covenant language.
- **False inference warning:** Premillennial does not entail dispensational, and dispensational does not strictly entail pretribulationism.


Covenant theologian

- **Kind:** biblical-theological/system descriptor.
- **Core:** one redemptive plan centered in Christ; covenant of grace substantially unites the redeemed across Testaments; strong typological and ecclesial fulfillment; federal/representative Adam and Christ.
- **Common:** covenant of works and covenant of redemption; infant baptism as covenant sign; moral-law continuity; amillennialism or postmillennialism; Reformed soteriology.
- **Variable:** Baptist covenant theology, republication, number/naming of covenants, Israel’s future conversion, Sabbath, theonomy/two kingdoms.
- **False inference warning:** Covenant theology does not entail replacement hostility toward Jewish people, nor erase every future role for ethnic Israel.


Progressive covenantalist/New Covenant Theology family

- **Kind:** biblical-theological system descriptor.
- **Core:** covenants progressively culminate in Christ and the new covenant; typology transforms earlier institutions; one people of God in Christ; law is mediated as the law of Christ rather than a simple continuing Mosaic code.
- **Common:** believer baptism and a professedly regenerate new-covenant community; non-Sabbatarianism; Christological fulfillment of land/temple; evangelical/Baptist setting.
- **Variable:** Calvinist/Arminian soteriology, exact distinction between progressive covenantalism and New Covenant Theology, millennium, gifts.
- **False inference warning:** Discontinuity with Mosaic administration does not imply rejection of the Old Testament’s moral authority.


Premillennial

- **Kind:** single-axis eschatological descriptor.
- **Core:** Christ returns before the millennium of Revelation 20 and reigns in a distinctive post-return phase before the final state.
- **Common:** future tribulation and Antichrist; more linear Revelation 19–20 reading.
- **Variable:** historic versus dispensational; Israel/church; rapture timing; millennium population/temple/sacrifices; gifts and soteriology.
- **False inference warning:** It does not entail pretribulationism or dispensationalism.


Amillennial

- **Kind:** single-axis eschatological descriptor.
- **Core:** the “millennium” is the present/intermediate reign of Christ and his saints or another non-post-return earthly thousand-year phase; Christ’s return brings general resurrection, judgment, and final state.
- **Common:** symbolic/recapitulation reading of Revelation 20; inaugurated kingdom; covenantal or sacramental traditions.
- **Variable:** optimistic/pessimistic cultural outlook; partial preterist/idealist emphasis; future conversion of Israel; tribulation intensity.
- **False inference warning:** “Amillennial” does not mean “no millennium,” no future return, or no bodily resurrection.


Postmillennial

- **Kind:** single-axis eschatological descriptor.
- **Core:** through gospel/Spirit advance, the world experiences a long era of widespread discipling or kingdom blessing before Christ’s return.
- **Common:** partial preterism, optimistic kingdom texts, present binding of Satan; Reformed covenant theology; Christ returns to general resurrection/judgment.
- **Variable:** duration/literal thousand years, degree of cultural transformation, theonomy, tribulation timing, future Israel.
- **False inference warning:** It does not entail uninterrupted progress, theonomy, or salvation by politics.


Historic premillennial

- **Kind:** eschatological subtype.
- **Core:** premillennial return without a necessary dispensational Israel/church separation or secret pretribulation rapture.
- **Common:** church passes through final tribulation; one public return/catching up; future Antichrist; inaugurated kingdom.
- **Variable:** Israel’s future role, millennium details, Revelation framework, historic versus future fulfillment of Olivet discourse.
- **False inference warning:** “Historic” identifies family resemblance, not unanimous agreement among early fathers.


Complementarian

- **Kind:** ministry/sex-role descriptor.
- **Core:** men and women share equal dignity while at least the senior governing/teaching office of church is restricted to qualified men; many also affirm differentiated responsibilities in marriage.
- **Common:** male eldership; husband headship; conservative sexual ethics.
- **Variable:** women deacons, preaching under authority, seminary teaching, parachurch leadership, civil roles, eternal-subordination arguments.
- **False inference warning:** Complementarianism ranges from minimal office restriction to broad “patriarchal” role systems; one number is misleading without a subtype.


Egalitarian

- **Kind:** ministry/sex-role descriptor.
- **Core:** spiritual gifts and church offices are open without sex-based restriction; marriage is ordered by mutual submission rather than unilateral male governing authority.
- **Common:** redemptive-trajectory or local-problem readings of 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14; women apostles/teachers/prophets as counterevidence.
- **Variable:** authority of Scripture, sexual ethics, head-covering practice, gender theory, church polity.
- **False inference warning:** Egalitarianism does not entail a low view of Scripture or affirming same-sex ethics.


High-church/sacramental

- **Kind:** worship/ecclesial-style descriptor.
- **Core:** strong visible-church, ordered-liturgy, sacramental, calendar, and ordained-ministry emphasis.
- **Common:** weekly Eucharist; vestments; episcopal or priestly ministry; infant baptism; historic prayers and creeds.
- **Variable:** Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, or even Reformed theology; papacy; number and mechanism of sacraments; Marian devotion.
- **False inference warning:** Liturgical form does not determine justification, authority, or Eucharistic metaphysics.


Low-church/free-church

- **Kind:** worship/ecclesial-style descriptor.
- **Core:** simpler worship; stress on preaching, conversion, voluntary membership, and local congregation; rites often called ordinances.
- **Common:** believer baptism, congregationalism, memorial emphasis, informal prayer.
- **Variable:** sacramental depth, charismatic gifts, Calvinist/Arminian soteriology, weekly communion, formal liturgy.
- **False inference warning:** “Low church” does not mean weak ecclesiology or anti-historical by definition.


Non-denominational

- **Kind:** organizational/branding descriptor.
- **Core:** formal independence from a named denomination or avoidance of denominational branding.
- **Common:** evangelical statement of faith; congregational or elder-led governance; believer baptism; contemporary worship; Baptist-like or charismatic theology.
- **Variable:** nearly every doctrine in the catalog.
- **False inference warning:** This label has very low doctrinal specificity and often conceals an implicit Baptist, dispensational, Reformed, or Pentecostal prototype.


Christian Zionist

- **Kind:** eschatological/public-theology descriptor.
- **Core:** modern Jewish return and/or the State of Israel has positive theological significance related to biblical land/restoration promises.
- **Common:** dispensationalism; future national conversion/restoration; territorial promise not exhausted in Christ/church.
- **Variable:** specific Israeli policies, rapture timing, willingness to criticize state actions, two-covenant theology (not entailed), premillennialism in all cases.
- **False inference warning:** Exegetical belief about Israel’s future does not mechanically settle prudential foreign policy or justice for Palestinians.


Theonomic/Christian-reconstructionist

- **Kind:** law/public-theology descriptor.
- **Core:** enduring normative relevance of Mosaic civil law or its penal/general-equity principles for civil government under Christ.
- **Common:** postmillennialism; covenant theology; regulative principle; Christian magistracy.
- **Variable:** exact continuity of penalties, establishment, religious liberty, political method, church/state institutional separation.
- **False inference warning:** Postmillennialism, Christian nationalism, and theonomy overlap in some circles but none entails the others.


Two-kingdoms

- **Kind:** public-theology family descriptor.
- **Core:** God rules church and civil/common life in distinguishable modes; the institutional church’s mandate and tools differ from the state’s and from Christians’ ordinary vocations.
- **Common:** Lutheran or Reformed ancestry; narrow institutional-church mission; religious-liberty or natural-law reasoning.
- **Variable:** how “spiritual” and “common” kingdoms relate, state establishment, political participation, Christian influence on law, transformational activity by individuals.
- **False inference warning:** Two-kingdoms theology does not entail political quietism or moral neutrality.


Institutional mission and social action.


Baptismal subjects from ecclesiology and salvation/covenant perspectives.


Baptismal efficacy from ecclesiology and salvation perspectives.


`AUTH-01=sola_scriptura_final_infallible_norm -> AUTH-02=protestant_39_book_ot` (`raises`, moderate; historical canon evidence remains necessary).


`AUTH-01=Scripture_and_authoritative_Tradition -> AUTH-03=bishops_magisterium_or_council` (`raises`, strong).


`AUTH-01=Scripture_and_authoritative_Tradition -> MARY-01, MARY-02, MARY-03, SAC-01=broader_sacramental_set, ECC-06=succession` (`raises`, strong).


`AUTH-04=low_secondary_doctrine_perspicuity -> credence_range_width_for_secondary_nodes` (`raises`, moderate).


`AUTH-05=robust_confessional_subscription -> historical_reception_weight` (`raises`, moderate); this does not replace exegesis.


`HERM-01=strong_covenant_continuity -> BAP-01=infant_household_subjects` (`raises`, strong).


`HERM-01=strong_covenant_continuity -> SAB-01=fourth_commandment_continues` (`raises`, moderate).


`HERM-01=strong_discontinuity -> believer_only_new_covenant_membership` (`raises`, strong).


`HERM-02=Christological_ecclesial_fulfillment_exhaustive -> ESC-ISR-03=land_typology and ESC-TEM-01=temple_typology` (`raises`, strong).


`HERM-02=future_direct_national_fulfillment -> ESC-ISR-01=continuing_national_program, ESC-TEM-01=future_sanctuary, ESC-MIL-01=premillennial` (`raises`, moderate to strong).


`HERM-03=symbolic_recapitulation -> ESC-REV-03=recapitulation and ESC-MIL-01=amil_or_postmil` (`raises`, strong/moderate).


`HERM-05=apostolic_pattern_normative -> PNE-04=postconversion_Spirit_baptism, SUP-05=weekly, SAC-04=foot_washing` (`raises`, varying); each practice still needs its own textual branch.


`HERM-06=threefold_law_moral_continuity -> SAB-01=continuing, ETH-08=tithe_baseline, PUBLIC-01=general_equity` (`raises`, varying).


`GOD-03=open_future x GOD-04=meticulous_exhaustive_decree` (`hard conflict` under ordinary definitions).


`GOD-04=meticulous_compatibilist_decree -> ELEC-002=unconditional_individual_election` (`raises`, strong but not entailment).


`ANT-003=representative_or_federal_Adam -> ANT-004=inherited_guilt` (`raises`, strong).


`ANT-005=total_moral_inability -> CALL-001=inward_effectual_call or ANT-007=prevenient_enabling_grace` (`raises` both as rival solutions).


`ANT-006=libertarian_freedom_required -> CALL-002=resistible_grace and ELEC-002=conditional_foreknown_faith` (`raises`, moderate/strong).


`ANT-007=universal_prevenient_grace -> CALL-002=resistible and ATN-004=universal_intent` (`raises`, strong/moderate).


`ELEC-002=unconditional_individual + CALL-001=effectual + CALL-002=ultimately_irresistible -> CONV-001=monergistic` (`raises`, strong).


`CONV-001=monergistic -> CONV-002=regeneration_logically_precedes_faith` (`raises`, strong but some monergists use simultaneous language).


`ATN-004=definite_saving_intent -> ATN-005=accomplished_application_for_elect` (`raises`, strong; distinguish intent, sufficiency, and application).


`ATN-002=penal_substitution + ATN-006=active_obedience -> JUS-002=imputed_righteousness` (`raises`, strong but union models can integrate them).


`JUS-001=forensic_only_as_definition x JUS-001=intrinsically_transformative_only_as_definition` (`hard conflict`); layered accounts may affirm declaration and transformation without conflation.


`JUS-003=faith_alone_instrument -> JUS-005=James_vindicatory_or_demonstrative and JUS-006=works_as_evidence` (`raises`, strong).


`JUS-003=faith_formed_by_love -> JUS-005 and JUS-006=works_in_final_justifying_assessment` (`raises`, moderate/strong).


`PER-001=unconditional_perseverance -> PER-002=warnings_as_means_or_false_profession` (`raises`, strong).


`PER-001=real_loss_possible -> PER-002=warnings_address_regenerate_danger` (`raises`, strong).


`SAN-002=entire_sanctification -> PER-005=assurance_by_Spirit_witness_and_holy_love` (`raises`, historical Wesleyan correlation, not entailment).


`BAP-03/BAP-001=baptism_instrumentally_regenerates -> CONV-002=faith_regeneration_order` (`constrains`, strong, especially for infants).


`ECC-06=historical_episcopal_succession_necessary -> GOV-01=episcopal, GOV-07=sacramental_ordination, SAC-03=authorized_successor_validity` (`raises`, strong).


`ECC-06=doctrinal_apostolicity_without_chain -> GOV-01=presbyterian_or_congregational` (`permits`; no positive entailment).


`GOV-02=elder_bishop_same_office -> GOV-01=presbyterian_or_congregational` (`raises`, strong).


`GOV-02=distinct_bishop_order -> GOV-01=episcopal` (`raises`, strong).


`BAP-01=infants_proper_subjects -> MEM-02=covenantal_or_sacramental_membership` (`raises`, strong).


`BAP-01=professors_only -> MEM-02=regenerate_professing_membership` (`raises`, strong).


`BAP-03=objective_covenant_or_regenerative_efficacy -> BAP-05=recognize_valid_infant_baptism and SAC-02=objective_efficacy` (`raises`, strong).


`BAP-01=infant + MEM-02=covenantal_membership -> SUP-04=paedocommunion` (`raises`, moderate); confirmation/fencing principles may counter-update.


`SUP-01=objective_real_presence -> SUP-03=fenced_or_closed_communion and SUP-05=high_frequency` (`raises`, moderate).


`SUP-06=propitiatory_repeat x ATN-005=once_for_all_cross_accomplishment` (`hard conflict` as defined); sacrificial memorial/representation is not necessarily a repeat.


`GEN-01=male_elders_only -> GEN-03` does **not** settle every teaching act; model preaching, elder authority, mixed classes, and prophecy separately.


`GEN-01=egalitarian_reading -> GEN-02=women_deacons and GEN-03=women_preaching` (`raises`, strong).


`PNE-01=cessation_of_revelatory_gifts -> PNE-02=CANONICAL-APOSTOLIC-PROPHECY-ONLY, PNE-05=no_governing_apostles, PNE-08=nonrevelatory_impressions` (`raises`, strong).


`PNE-01=continuation -> PNE-02=TRUE-REVELATION-FALLIBLE-REPORT or SPIRIT-PROMPTED-NONREVELATORY-IMPRESSION` (`raises`, moderate); continuation does not entail either model.


`PNE-04=Spirit_baptism_subsequent -> PNE-03=tongues_as_evidence` (`raises`, moderate); classical Pentecostal doctrine makes it strong, generic charismatic doctrine does not.


`PNE-02=new_universally_binding_doctrinal_or_covenantal_revelation_continues x AUTH-01=apostolic_deposit_closed` (`hard conflict` as defined). Other true but noncanonical, local, or non-doctrinal revelation claims create a softer tension whose strength depends on the prophecy model; Scripture itself records true prophecies that were not inscripturated.


`WOR-01=strict_regulative_principle -> WOR-03=psalms_or_canonical_songs, WOR-04=restricted_instruments, WOR-07=fewer_holy_days` (`raises`, varying).


`WOR-05=ICON-VENERATION -> AUTH-01=authoritative_tradition` (`raises`, strong); the Christological depictability question is the incarnation fork inside `WOR-05`, not the kenosis node `CHRIST-02`.


`SAB-01=fourth_command_continues + SAB-02=first_day -> SAB-03=restricted_ordinary_work` (`raises`, moderate).


`ESC-REV-01=early_date -> ESC-REV-02=preterist_or_eclectic` (`raises`, moderate; early date does not entail preterism).


`ESC-REV-02=preterist -> ESC-BAB-01=Jerusalem_or_Rome_first_century, ESC-MARK-01=first_century_imperial_referent` (`raises`, strong).


`ESC-REV-03=sequential -> ESC-MIL-01=premillennial` (`raises`, strong).


`ESC-REV-03=recapitulation -> ESC-MIL-01=amil_or_postmil` (`raises`, strong).


`ESC-PAR-01=all_parousia_fulfilled x future_visible_bodily_return` (`hard conflict`); partial cloud-coming fulfillment is compatible with a future return.


`ESC-OLIV-02=generation_first_century -> ESC-OLIV-01=AD70_or_split_horizon` (`raises`, strong).


`ESC-DAN-01=gap_seventieth_week -> ESC-TRIB-01=future_seven_year and ESC-TEM-01=future_temple` (`raises`, strong).


`ESC-RAP-01=two_phase_return -> ESC-RAP-02=pre_mid_or_prewrath` (`permits/raises`, strong).


`ESC-RAP-01=one_public_return -> ESC-RAP-02=posttribulation` (`raises`, strong).


`ESC-MIL-02=first_resurrection_bodily -> ESC-MIL-01=premillennial and ESC-RES-01=multiple_resurrections` (`raises`, strong).


`ESC-MIL-02=regeneration_or_heavenly_reign -> ESC-MIL-01=amil_or_postmil` (`raises`, strong).


`ESC-MIL-03=Satan_presently_bound -> ESC-KING-01=gospel_expansion_possible` (`raises`, moderate; does not settle optimism degree).


`ESC-KING-01=worldwide_gospelized_era_before_return -> ESC-MIL-01=postmillennial` (`raises`, strong).


`ESC-ISR-02=FUTURE -> ESC-ISR-01.CONVERT or ESC-ISR-01.ROLE` (`raises`, strong) but does not by itself choose between those options or entail land, temple, millennium, or rapture views.


`ESC-ISR-03=territorial_restoration -> ESC-TEM-01=literal_future and ESC-MIL-01=premillennial` (`raises`, moderate, not entailment).


`ESC-MIL-01=premillennial + sequential_Revelation_20 -> ESC-RES-01=at_least_two_resurrections` (`near-hard constraint`).


`ESC-HELL-01=final_universal_reconciliation x irreversible_binary_final_judgment_reading` (`hard conflict`); the dispute concerns the semantic/exegetical premise.


`ESC-INT-01=soul_sleep -> MARY-03/saint_invocation` (`lowers`, strong).


`ESC-INT-02.PURG -> AUTH-02=deuterocanon and AUTH-01=Tradition` (`raises`, moderate/strong).


`ESC-NEW-01=renewal_continuity -> PUBLIC-02=creation_care_or_cultural_vocation` (`raises`, weak/moderate; eschatology does not directly specify a policy).


`CREA-01=ordinary_consecutive_days -> CREA-02=young_earth` (`raises`, strong).


`CREA-03=universal_common_ancestry -> CREA-05=animal_death_before_fall` (`raises`, very strong).


`CREA-04=nonhistorical_Adam -> ANT-003=historical_federal_head` (`lowers`, strong).


`CREA-04=historical_representative_Adam -> ANT-003=federal_or_realist_solidarity` (`raises`, moderate; does not choose between them).


`ETH-01=no_valid_divorce -> ETH-02=no_remarriage_while_spouse_lives` (`raises`, strong).


`ETH-01=valid_divorce_for_porneia_or_abandonment -> ETH-02=innocent_party_may_remarry` (`raises`, moderate; the exception’s scope remains disputed).


`ETH-03=traditional_creation_order_reading -> GEN-01=male_eldership` (`historically correlated`, weak/moderate, not entailment).


`ETH-10=personhood_from_fertilization -> ETH-04=reject_methods_that_intentionally_or_predictably_destroy_embryos` (`constrains`, strong).


`ETH-06=nonresistance -> ETH-07=oppose_capital_punishment and PUBLIC-01=contrast_society` (`raises`, strong/moderate).


`PUBLIC-01=theonomic_magistracy -> HERM-06=Mosaic_civil_general_equity` (`raises`, strong).


`PUBLIC-02=narrow_institutional_mission -> individual_Christian_social_vocation` (no negative entailment; keep separate).


`ECC-08=papal_universal_jurisdiction_and_defined_infallibility -> AUTH-03=universal_magisterium and ECC-06=episcopal_succession` (`raises`, very strong); succession or Petrine prominence alone does not entail papal jurisdiction.


`MARR-01=asymmetrical_servant_headship -> GEN-01=male_eldership` (`raises`, moderate) but marital and ecclesial authority require separate exegesis.


`ANTH-04=embodied_sex_categories -> ETH-03=traditional_marriage_boundary and GEN-01=sex_specific_office` (`historically correlated`, varying, not entailment).


`ESC-HELL-02.HOPE-ALL -> ESC-HELL-01.UR` (no entailment); hopeful posture must not be counted as a second outcome argument.


`ESC-INT-02.PURG -> ESC-INT-04` (no entailment); purification of the saved and opportunity for the unsaved address different populations and may be estimated independently.