Judicial hardening

Question: Does God’s hardening cause unbelief, confirm prior unbelief, withdraw restraining grace, or appoint people to a historical role?

V. Salvation, grace, justification, and sanctification

**Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass.

- **Question:** Does God’s hardening cause unbelief, confirm prior unbelief, withdraw restraining grace, or appoint people to a historical role?
- **Option ELEC-005.A — Sovereign causal hardening:** God actively renders a person obstinate as a just judgment within his purpose.
- **Option ELEC-005.B — Confirmatory/judicial hardening:** a person first resists; God then gives the person over to an established trajectory.
- **Option ELEC-005.C — Withdrawal/permission:** God withholds or removes softening influence and the sinner hardens himself.
- **Option ELEC-005.D — Corporate-vocational hardening:** hardening chiefly serves a temporary redemptive-historical purpose and need not settle every hardened individual’s final destiny.
- **Key texts:** Exodus 4:21; 7:3,13–14,22; 8:15,32; 9:12,34; 10:1,20; 14:4; Deuteronomy 2:30; Isaiah 6:9–13; Matthew 13:10–17; John 12:37–43; Romans 1:24–28; 9:17–18; 11:7–32; 2 Thessalonians 2:9–12.
- **Interpretive fork:** Sequence the self-hardening and divine-hardening statements in Exodus, while noting God announces his purpose before the cycle. In Romans 11, ask whether hardening is partial, temporary, corporate, and potentially reversible. If “giving over” is withdrawal rather than positive influence, raise B/C.
- **Upstream:** PROV-003, ELEC-004, doctrine of corporate identity.
- **Downstream:** CALL-002, PER-002, Israel/church theology.
- **Entailments/incompatibilities:** A and B can both be true if divine hardening is judicially occasioned by prior sin. D does not entail that no hardened person is lost.
- **Common correlations, not entailments:** A with strong Augustinian readings; B/C across Reformed, Lutheran, and Arminian accounts; D with many Romans 9–11 corporate readings.
- **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “hardened,” “vessel of wrath,” “given over.”


General call and inward/effectual call

Question: Does Scripture distinguish an outward gospel invitation from an inward call that infallibly brings the elect to faith?

V. Salvation, grace, justification, and sanctification

**Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass.

- **Question:** Does Scripture distinguish an outward gospel invitation from an inward call that infallibly brings the elect to faith?
- **Option CALL-001.A — Distinct effectual call:** the gospel goes broadly; in the elect the Spirit’s inward call creates willing faith and certainly succeeds.
- **Option CALL-001.B — One grace-enabled but resistible call:** the Spirit genuinely enables through the gospel, but the hearer may finally resist.
- **Option CALL-001.C — Sacramental/Word call that objectively gives resistible grace:** God’s Word and sacraments deliver what they promise, yet the gift can be rejected.
- **Option CALL-001.D — Nontechnical calling language:** different texts use “call” for invitation, vocation, or the saved community; no single two-call mechanism should be imposed.
- **Key texts:** Isaiah 55:1–7; Matthew 11:28; 22:1–14; Luke 14:15–24; John 6:37,44–45; 10:16,26–29; Acts 16:14; Romans 8:28–30; 10:8–17; 1 Corinthians 1:18–31; 2 Thessalonians 2:13–14.
- **Interpretive fork:** If everyone “called” in Romans 8 is justified and glorified, classify that call as effectual or as a label for believers after response. If “many called, few chosen” uses the same theological sense, a single technical definition fails. Lydia’s opened heart can be enabling or effectual depending on whether the narrative implies certain response.
- **Upstream:** ELEC-002, ANT-005/007, CONV-002.
- **Downstream:** CALL-002, assurance, evangelistic theology.
- **Entailments/incompatibilities:** A entails a form of grace that succeeds, but not necessarily that every divine influence is irresistible. B/C conflict with A only concerning the saving call’s guaranteed success.
- **Common correlations, not entailments:** A with Reformed theology; B with Arminian/Wesleyan and provisionist accounts; C with Lutheran and other sacramental traditions.
- **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “effectually called,” “gospel invitation,” “drawn.”


Resistibility of saving grace

Question: Can a person finally resist the specific grace by which God intends to bring that person to saving faith?

V. Salvation, grace, justification, and sanctification

**Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass.

- **Question:** Can a person finally resist the specific grace by which God intends to bring that person to saving faith?
- **Option CALL-002.A — Effectual grace:** regenerating/calling grace overcomes resistance by changing the will, without coercion.
- **Option CALL-002.B — Resistible sufficient grace:** God enables and genuinely wills the person’s salvation, but the person can finally refuse.
- **Option CALL-002.C — Resistible means, monergistic creation of faith:** Word/sacrament can be resisted, yet when faith is created it is God’s work alone; do not force this into a simple Calvinist/Arminian binary.
- **Key texts:** Matthew 11:20–24; 23:37; Luke 7:30; John 6:37,44–45,65; Acts 7:51; 13:46,48; 16:14; Romans 8:29–30; 9:14–24; 10:21; 1 Corinthians 1:18–31.
- **Interpretive fork:** Determine whether resisted Spirit/grace texts refer to the same operation as regeneration or only outward/convicting grace. Determine whether “all the Father gives will come” is an infallible causal promise, a description of receptive believers, or covenant language. C rises if one distinguishes resistibility of the means from noncooperative creation of faith.
- **Upstream:** ANT-005/006/007, ELEC-002, CALL-001.
- **Downstream:** CONV-001/002, PER-001, evangelism.
- **Entailments/incompatibilities:** A and B are direct contradictories only when the same person, divine intention, and operation are specified. A does not mean sinners never resist God in any sense.
- **Common correlations, not entailments:** A with Reformed; B with Arminian/Wesleyan; C with confessional Lutheranism.
- **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “irresistible grace,” “resistible grace,” “dragged,” “wooed.”


Ordinary necessity of explicit gospel faith

Question: Must a person consciously hear and believe the gospel of Christ before death to be saved, or may Christ apply salvation extraordinarily without such knowledge?

V. Salvation, grace, justification, and sanctification

**Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass.

- **Question:** Must a person consciously hear and believe the gospel of Christ before death to be saved, or may Christ apply salvation extraordinarily without such knowledge?
- **Option CALL-003.A — Restrictivist/exclusivist:** ordinarily and without a revealed exception, conscious faith in Christ through the gospel is necessary.
- **Option CALL-003.B — Inclusivist through Christ:** Christ alone saves, but God may apply his work to people who respond to available revelation/grace without explicit pre-mortem knowledge of Jesus.
- **Option CALL-003.C — Extraordinary-infant/incapacity exception only:** explicit faith is required of the capable; infants and the profoundly impaired may be saved exceptionally.
- **Option CALL-003.D — Postmortem opportunity/hope:** some who lacked a fair hearing may receive a decisive disclosure after death.
- **Key texts:** Psalm 19:1–6; John 3:16–18,36; 10:16; 14:6; Acts 4:12; 10:1–48; 17:22–31; Romans 1:18–25; 2:12–16; 10:9–17; 1 Timothy 2:5–6; 1 Peter 3:18–20; 4:6; Revelation 7:9–10.
- **Interpretive fork:** If Romans 10 describes a necessary chain for salvation rather than the ordinary missionary means, raise A/C. If Cornelius is already accepted/saved before Peter, raise B; if his piety prepares him to hear the necessary gospel, raise A. Romans 2’s law-on-heart judgment can describe saved Gentiles, hypothetical obedience, or conscience establishing guilt. Postmortem options depend heavily on disputed Petrine texts.
- **Upstream:** nature of general revelation; ANT-008; ATN-004; divine justice.
- **Downstream:** mission urgency, treatment of unevangelized persons.
- **Entailments/incompatibilities:** All orthodox forms here can affirm Christ as the sole ground; inclusivism is not universalism. A and B conflict over actual saved adults without explicit faith. D is a major framework tension for many conservative confessions.
- **Common correlations, not entailments:** A/C with most conservative Protestant traditions; B with some evangelical, Catholic, and Orthodox accounts; D with a minority of patristic/evangelical proposals.
- **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “exclusivist,” “inclusivist,” “anonymous Christian,” “unevangelized.”


Atonement images and primary model

Question: Which biblical images describe what Christ’s death and resurrection accomplish, and must one be the controlling mechanism?

V. Salvation, grace, justification, and sanctification

**Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass.

- **Question:** Which biblical images describe what Christ’s death and resurrection accomplish, and must one be the controlling mechanism?
- **Option ATN-001.A — Penal substitution/satisfaction emphasis:** Christ bears the judicial penalty due sinners and satisfies divine justice.
- **Option ATN-001.B — Christus Victor/ransom emphasis:** Christ defeats sin, death, the devil, and hostile powers, liberating captives.
- **Option ATN-001.C — Sacrificial/expiatory-participatory emphasis:** Christ cleanses, consecrates, and brings his people through death into new life.
- **Option ATN-001.D — Recapitulation/representative obedience emphasis:** the faithful last Adam redoes humanity’s story and restores it through union.
- **Option ATN-001.E — Moral influence/example emphasis:** the cross supremely reveals divine love, awakens repentance, and patterns self-giving.
- **Option ATN-001.F — Governmental emphasis:** God publicly demonstrates the gravity of sin and upholds moral order while mercifully forgiving.
- **Axis type:** multi-select. The probability question should concern adequacy, centrality, or exclusivity, not force users to choose only one image.
- **Key texts:** Leviticus 16–17; Isaiah 52:13–53:12; Mark 10:45; John 12:31–33; Romans 3:21–26; 5:12–21; 6:1–11; 8:3; 2 Corinthians 5:14–21; Galatians 3:13; Colossians 2:13–15; Philippians 2:5–11; Hebrews 2:14–18; 9–10; 1 Peter 2:21–25; 1 John 2:2; Revelation 5.
- **Interpretive fork:** For each model ask: (1) is the image explicit, (2) does it explain an objective change before human response, (3) does it depend on another model, and (4) is it claimed as one facet or an exhaustive theory? Victory through cancelling the record of debt (Colossians 2) may make A and B mutually reinforcing rather than rivals.
- **Upstream:** ANT-003, divine justice, sacrificial typology.
- **Downstream:** ATN-002/003/004/005, JUS-001/002, SAN-001.
- **Entailments/incompatibilities:** Affirming B–E does not negate A. A model becomes incompatible with A only when it explicitly denies penalty-bearing substitution. Moral influence alone conflicts with texts read as objective propitiation/ransom.
- **Common correlations, not entailments:** A with Reformation Protestantism and many evangelicals; B/D with patristic and Eastern emphases and increasingly evangelicals; F with some Arminian theologians.
- **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “PSA,” “Christus Victor,” “ransom theory,” “governmental theory,” “atonement theory.”


Penal substitution specifically

Question: Did Christ bear the judicial penalty/wrath due his people in their place?

V. Salvation, grace, justification, and sanctification

**Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass.

- **Question:** Did Christ bear the judicial penalty/wrath due his people in their place?
- **Option ATN-002.A — Strong penal substitution:** legal penalty, substitution, and satisfaction of justice are explicit and central.
- **Option ATN-002.B — Penal-substitution facet:** genuinely biblical but one image nested within sacrifice, union, victory, and covenant.
- **Option ATN-002.C — Representative-substitution without transferred punishment:** Christ enters the consequences of sin and death for us, but the Father does not punish him with the identical penalty due sinners.
- **Option ATN-002.D — Non-penal account:** substitution is sacrificial/representative, not penal.
- **Key texts:** Exodus 12; Leviticus 16–17; Isaiah 53:4–12; Mark 10:45; Romans 3:21–26; 5:6–11; 8:3,32; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 3:10–14; Hebrews 9:11–28; 1 Peter 2:24; 3:18.
- **Interpretive fork:** Decide whether “bore sins,” “curse,” “condemned sin in the flesh,” and sacrificial blood describe transferred judicial liability, representative entry into death, cleansing, or a combination. Ask whether Isaiah’s servant is punished by God, suffers the consequences permitted by God, or offers himself cultically.
- **Upstream:** sacrificial hermeneutics; PROV-003; divine justice.
- **Downstream:** ATN-003/005, JUS-002, assurance.
- **Entailments/incompatibilities:** A entails objective substitution and penalty-bearing. B is compatible with A except on “central/exhaustive.” C/D conflict with A over transferred punishment, not necessarily over substitution.
- **Common correlations, not entailments:** A/B with Reformed, Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, and many Wesleyan evangelicals; C/D with some Anabaptist, Orthodox, and revisionist evangelical accounts.
- **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “penal substitutionary,” “cosmic child abuse” (a polemical label that should never be used as an option).


Propitiation, expiation, and divine wrath

Question: Does Christ’s sacrifice turn away righteous divine wrath, remove sin, provide a mercy-seat meeting, or all three?

V. Salvation, grace, justification, and sanctification

**Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass.

- **Question:** Does Christ’s sacrifice turn away righteous divine wrath, remove sin, provide a mercy-seat meeting, or all three?
- **Option ATN-003.A — Propitiation and expiation:** Christ’s sacrifice removes guilt and satisfies/turns away God’s righteous wrath.
- **Option ATN-003.B — Primarily expiation/cleansing:** the object removed is sin/defilement; reconciliation follows without depicting a change in God’s disposition.
- **Option ATN-003.C — Mercy-seat/covenant-presence emphasis:** `hilastērion` in Romans 3 evokes the mercy seat where God publicly deals with sin; propitiation/expiation is not reducible to one English term.
- **Key texts:** Leviticus 16; Psalm 78:38; Isaiah 53; Romans 1:18; 3:21–26; 5:9–11; Hebrews 2:17; 9:5–15; 1 John 2:2; 4:10.
- **Interpretive fork:** Resolve the lexical range of `hilastērion/hilaskomai/hilasmos` from Septuagint and cultic context. If Romans links the sacrifice to rescue from wrath, raise A; if the cultic action’s direct object is sin/uncleanness, raise B/C. Avoid treating lexical choice alone as an entire atonement model.
- **Upstream:** ATN-001/002; Levitical sacrifice model.
- **Downstream:** assurance, divine immutability, ATN-004.
- **Entailments/incompatibilities:** A may include B/C. B conflicts only with the claim that wrath is objectively borne/averted, not with divine judgment generally.
- **Common correlations, not entailments:** A with much Protestant evangelical theology; B/C with some biblical-theological, Orthodox, and modern accounts.
- **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “propitiation,” “expiation,” “appeasing an angry God.”


Intent and extent of the atonement

Question: For whom did God intend Christ’s death to secure salvation, and for whom is it sufficient/provided?

V. Salvation, grace, justification, and sanctification

**Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass.

- **Question:** For whom did God intend Christ’s death to secure salvation, and for whom is it sufficient/provided?
- **Option ATN-004.A — Definite/particular redemption:** Christ intended infallibly to secure every saving benefit for the elect in a way not intended for the non-elect.
- **Option ATN-004.B — Unlimited provision, conditional application:** Christ died for every person, making salvation genuinely available; benefits are applied only through faith.
- **Option ATN-004.C — Multiple-intention/hypothetical universalism:** the death is sufficient and genuinely willed/offered for all under the gospel condition, while God additionally intends the certain salvation of the elect.
- **Option ATN-004.D — Corporate atonement:** Christ dies for the covenant people/world as a corporate whole; individuals participate through union by faith.
- **Option ATN-004.E — Universal actual reconciliation with resistible/losable participation:** an objective benefit is accomplished for all, though not all finally enjoy it.
- **Key texts favoring universal scope readings:** John 1:29; 3:16–17; 4:42; 12:32; Romans 5:18; 2 Corinthians 5:14–21; 1 Timothy 2:1–6; 4:10; Hebrews 2:9; 2 Peter 2:1; 3:9; 1 John 2:2.
- **Key texts favoring definite-people readings:** Isaiah 53:10–12; Matthew 1:21; 20:28; John 6:37–40; 10:11,14–16,26–29; 11:51–52; 17:9; Acts 20:28; Romans 8:31–34; Ephesians 5:25–27; Hebrews 9:28; Revelation 5:9.
- **Interpretive fork:** For each “all/world” text decide whether it means every individual, all peoples without ethnic distinction, the created order, or a representative corporate whole. For “sheep/church/many” texts decide whether naming a special beneficiary excludes other intended beneficiaries. Then distinguish sufficiency, provision, purchase, substitution, intercession, and application instead of mapping them to one scalar.
- **Upstream:** ELEC-001/002; ATN-001/002/003; meaning of universal quantifiers; priestly intercession.
- **Downstream:** ANT-007, CALL-003, CALL-001, assurance, gospel-offer wording.
- **Entailments/incompatibilities:** A and B conflict only if A denies any atoning intention toward the non-elect and B asserts the same saving intention for every individual. C is deliberately asymmetric. Unlimited provision does not entail universal salvation; definite atonement does not entail a restricted gospel invitation.
- **Common correlations, not entailments:** A with five-point Reformed theology; B with Arminian, Wesleyan, Lutheran, many Baptist and dispensational traditions; C with some Reformed/Amyraldian accounts.
- **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “limited atonement,” “unlimited atonement,” “four-point Calvinist,” “Amyraldian.”


Accomplishment and application

Question: Did the cross itself accomplish reconciliation/forgiveness for particular persons, or create an objective provision whose saving effects arise only upon union/faith?

V. Salvation, grace, justification, and sanctification

**Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass.

- **Question:** Did the cross itself accomplish reconciliation/forgiveness for particular persons, or create an objective provision whose saving effects arise only upon union/faith?
- **Option ATN-005.A — Definitive personal accomplishment:** the cross actually purchases and secures faith, justification, and final salvation for its intended people.
- **Option ATN-005.B — Objective universal provision:** the cross removes the legal barrier/provides forgiveness for all, but no person is justified until faith.
- **Option ATN-005.C — Objective universal verdict plus subjective reception:** God’s acquittal/reconciliation is in some sense announced or accomplished for humanity, while it benefits individuals through faith.
- **Option ATN-005.D — Corporate accomplishment:** Christ creates a reconciled new-covenant humanity; application is incorporation into that body.
- **Key texts:** John 19:30; Romans 3:24–26; 4:25; 5:1,9–11,18–19; 8:32–34; 2 Corinthians 5:14–21; Ephesians 2:13–18; Colossians 1:19–23; Hebrews 9:11–15; 10:10–18.
- **Interpretive fork:** Determine whether “reconciling the world/not counting trespasses” describes an accomplished change for every person or the apostolic message by which reconciliation is received. In Romans 5:18–19, decide how the two “all/many” groups correspond. Ask whether purchase of a person entails purchase of the faith by which benefits are applied.
- **Upstream:** ATN-004, ELEC-002, CONV-005.
- **Downstream:** JUS-007, CONV-002, assurance.
- **Entailments/incompatibilities:** A strongly correlates with ATN-004.A but definite intent and accomplished application remain analytically distinct. C must distinguish universal objective verdict from universal final justification to avoid entailing universalism.
- **Common correlations, not entailments:** A with Reformed definite redemption; B with many Arminian/Baptist accounts; C with some Lutheran “objective justification” formulations; D with union/corporate models.
- **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “finished work,” “objective justification,” “potential atonement.”


Christ’s active obedience and imputation

Question: Is Christ’s lifelong obedience, as well as his death, counted to believers as the positive righteousness by which they are justified?

V. Salvation, grace, justification, and sanctification

**Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass.

- **Question:** Is Christ’s lifelong obedience, as well as his death, counted to believers as the positive righteousness by which they are justified?
- **Option ATN-006.A — Imputation of active and passive obedience:** Christ’s whole obedience under the law is reckoned to believers.
- **Option ATN-006.B — Death/resurrection-focused imputation:** forgiveness and righteous status rest on Christ’s atoning death and vindicating resurrection; a separate transfer of lifelong merit is not taught.
- **Option ATN-006.C — Union/participation account:** believers share the righteous status/life of the obedient Messiah through union rather than a discrete bookkeeping transfer of acts.
- **Option ATN-006.D — Infused/imparted righteousness:** Christ’s obedience grounds grace by which persons are made righteous; justification is not exhausted by imputation.
- **Key texts:** Matthew 3:15; 5:17; Galatians 4:4–5; Romans 3:21–26; 4:24–25; 5:12–21; 8:3–4; 1 Corinthians 1:30; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Philippians 2:8; 3:9; Hebrews 5:8–9; 10:5–10.
- **Interpretive fork:** If the Adam–Christ parallel assigns justification to Christ’s “one obedience” encompassing his representative life, raise A/C. If “obedience” is specifically obedience unto death, raise B. Then decide whether “become righteousness of God” and “found in him” are forensic imputation, participatory union, transformation, or layered.
- **Upstream:** ANT-003, LAW-002, JUS-001/002, CONV-005.
- **Downstream:** assurance, merit, sanctification.
- **Entailments/incompatibilities:** A and C can be integrated. A conflicts with B only if B denies any positive righteousness from Christ’s life. D conflicts with an exclusively extrinsic account, not necessarily with a forensic declaration.
- **Common correlations, not entailments:** A with confessional Reformed theology and many Baptists and with classical Lutheran teaching on Christ’s whole obedience, although Lutherans formulate imputation differently; B with some modern Lutheran theologians and modern evangelical accounts; C with union-centered Protestant and patristic accounts; D with Catholic/Orthodox accounts.
- **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “active obedience,” “imputed righteousness,” “alien righteousness.”


Monergism and synergy in conversion

Question: Is the decisive movement from spiritual death to saving life God’s action alone, or does enabled human cooperation help distinguish the converted from the unconverted?

V. Salvation, grace, justification, and sanctification

**Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass.

- **Question:** Is the decisive movement from spiritual death to saving life God’s action alone, or does enabled human cooperation help distinguish the converted from the unconverted?
- **Option CONV-001.A — Effectual monergism:** God alone causes regeneration and the willing faith that follows; the person is active in believing but not a co-cause of new birth.
- **Option CONV-001.B — Monergistic gift through resistible means:** God alone creates faith through Word/sacrament, but a person can resist and forfeit grace; the asymmetry cannot be reduced to deterministic election.
- **Option CONV-001.C — Grace-enabled synergy:** grace initiates, enables, and sustains; the person’s non-meritorious free assent/cooperation is a genuine condition.
- **Option CONV-001.D — Covenant-response description without causal ordering:** Scripture attributes salvation to grace and commands repentance/faith without specifying comparative causal contribution.
- **Key texts:** Deuteronomy 30:6,11–20; Jeremiah 31:18; Ezekiel 11:19; 18:31; 36:25–27; John 1:12–13; 3:3–8; 6:44; Acts 2:38; 16:14,31; Romans 9:16; 10:9–17; 1 Corinthians 2:14; 2 Corinthians 5:20; 6:1; Ephesians 2:1–10; Philippians 2:12–13; James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:23.
- **Interpretive fork:** If new birth/heart replacement causally produces receptive faith, raise A/B. If commands to make a new heart and not receive grace in vain indicate enabled cooperation at the decisive point, raise C/D. Clarify whether “cooperation” means earning grace (rejected by all options here) or freely not resisting prior grace.
- **Upstream:** ANT-005/006/007, CALL-001/002, ELEC-002.
- **Downstream:** CONV-002/003/004, BAP-001, PER-001.
- **Entailments/incompatibilities:** A and C conflict if “decisive differentiating cause” is held constant. B is a counterexample to treating monergism as equivalent to irresistible grace or Reformed election.
- **Common correlations, not entailments:** A with Reformed; B with Lutheran; C with Arminian, Wesleyan, Catholic, Orthodox, and many Anabaptist accounts.
- **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “monergist,” “synergist,” “decision,” “cooperate.”


Logical order of regeneration and faith

Question: Does regeneration produce faith, does faith precede regeneration as its condition, or are both inseparable aspects of union with Christ?

V. Salvation, grace, justification, and sanctification

**Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass.

- **Question:** Does regeneration produce faith, does faith precede regeneration as its condition, or are both inseparable aspects of union with Christ?
- **Option CONV-002.A — Regeneration logically precedes faith:** the Spirit gives life/new disposition, which certainly issues in faith.
- **Option CONV-002.B — Faith logically precedes regeneration:** enabled hearing and faith are the condition through which the Spirit grants new life.
- **Option CONV-002.C — Simultaneous/union package:** calling, faith, regeneration, and union occur together temporally; Scripture does not license a causal micro-order.
- **Option CONV-002.D — Word/sacrament creates faith and regeneration together:** the external means is instrumentally prior, while God alone gives both life and trust.
- **Key texts:** John 1:12–13; 3:3–8,14–16; 5:24; 6:44–45; 20:31; Acts 16:14; Romans 6:1–11; 10:9–17; Galatians 3:2,26; Ephesians 1:13; 2:1–10; Colossians 2:12–13; James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:3,23; 1 John 5:1.
- **Interpretive fork:** In 1 John 5:1, decide whether the perfect-tense new birth is causal/temporally prior to believing or simply an enduring state evidenced by present faith. In John 20:31 and Galatians 3, decide whether life/Spirit comes through faith or whether “life” is an applied benefit distinct from initial regeneration. If union is the encompassing event, C may better represent the text than a temporal sequence.
- **Upstream:** definitions of “regeneration,” “life,” and “faith”; CONV-001; BAP-001.
- **Downstream:** assurance, infant regeneration, ordo salutis.
- **Entailments/incompatibilities:** A and B contradict only on logical causality, not necessarily clock time. C is not a 50/50 compromise; it claims underdetermination or common causal union.
- **Common correlations, not entailments:** A with Reformed ordo; B with Arminian/Wesleyan and many Baptists; C with union-centered biblical theology; D with Lutheran/sacramental accounts.
- **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “born again before believing,” “faith precedes regeneration.”


Nature of saving faith

Question: What distinguishes saving faith from temporary, dead, or merely intellectual belief?

V. Salvation, grace, justification, and sanctification

**Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass.

- **Question:** What distinguishes saving faith from temporary, dead, or merely intellectual belief?
- **Option CONV-003.A — Knowledge, assent, and personal trust:** saving faith receives/rests on Christ; works necessarily follow but are not part of faith’s justifying instrumentality.
- **Option CONV-003.B — Faith as allegiance/faithful trust:** commitment and loyalty are intrinsic to `pistis`, while obedience remains grace-enabled rather than meritorious.
- **Option CONV-003.C — Faith formed/animated by love:** living faith justifies in a grace-created relation with love; unformed assent is insufficient.
- **Option CONV-003.D — Bare faith as sufficient instrument:** a moment of genuine persuasion/trust secures eternal life even if discipleship and enduring fruit fail.
- **Option CONV-003.E — Fiducial-union account:** faith is the Spirit-created means of union with Christ; its components should not be atomized.
- **Key texts:** Habakkuk 2:4; John 2:23–25; 3:16–18; 6:26–71; 8:30–47; 11:25–27; Romans 3:21–28; 4:1–25; 10:8–13; Galatians 2:16–20; 5:6; Ephesians 2:8–10; Hebrews 3:6,14; 11; James 2:14–26; 1 John 2:3–6,19.
- **Interpretive fork:** Determine whether apparently believing defectors never possessed saving faith, possessed it temporarily, or possessed eternal life without discipleship. Decide whether obedience is (a) constitutive of faith, (b) inevitable evidence, (c) a normal but defeasible fruit, or (d) a separate discipleship condition.
- **Upstream:** JUS-003, PER-001, lexical analysis of `pistis/pisteuō`.
- **Downstream:** CONV-004, PER-004/005, assurance, gospel formulation.
- **Entailments/incompatibilities:** A and B may overlap if “allegiance” describes trust’s shape rather than works as co-instrument. C conflicts with strict faith-alone accounts if love is a co-instrument of initial justification. D conflicts with any option defining perseverance/fruit as necessary evidence.
- **Common correlations, not entailments:** A with classic Protestantism; B with some New Testament scholarship and “allegiance” proposals; C with Catholic accounts; D with Free Grace theology; E with union-centered Protestant accounts.
- **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “belief,” “trust,” “allegiance,” “saving faith,” “easy-believism.”


Repentance and faith

Question: Is repentance a distinct condition of receiving salvation, one aspect/fruit of faith, or chiefly a discipleship summons?

V. Salvation, grace, justification, and sanctification

**Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass.

- **Question:** Is repentance a distinct condition of receiving salvation, one aspect/fruit of faith, or chiefly a discipleship summons?
- **Option CONV-004.A — Distinct inseparable graces:** conversion includes both turning from sin and trusting Christ; neither merits justification.
- **Option CONV-004.B — Repentance as the negative/turning aspect of faith:** one conversion response viewed from two directions.
- **Option CONV-004.C — Repentance as faith’s necessary fruit/evidence:** faith alone is instrumentally prior, but genuine faith inevitably turns.
- **Option CONV-004.D — Change-of-mind reception:** repentance in evangelistic contexts is fundamentally changing one’s mind about God/Christ, not promising moral reform.
- **Option CONV-004.E — Discipleship distinction:** belief is the sole condition of eternal life; costly repentance may belong to fellowship or discipleship rather than initial salvation.
- **Key texts:** Isaiah 55:6–7; Mark 1:14–15; Luke 3:3–14; 13:1–5; 15; 24:46–47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 11:18; 16:30–31; 17:30; 20:21; 26:18–20; Romans 2:4; 10:9–13; 2 Corinthians 7:9–11; 2 Timothy 2:25.
- **Interpretive fork:** Ask whether commands to repent name sorrow, intellectual change, renunciation, return to covenant fidelity, or the whole conversion. Compare Acts’ repentance language with John’s belief language without treating one author’s preferred term as denial of the other. Decide whether subsequent deeds are definition, condition, or evidence.
- **Upstream:** CONV-003; JUS-003; law/gospel at LAW-008.
- **Downstream:** PER-004, assurance, evangelistic practice.
- **Entailments/incompatibilities:** A–C can describe different relations in one event. D is incompatible with A only when it excludes any volitional turning. E conflicts with accounts making repentance necessary to initial salvation.
- **Common correlations, not entailments:** A/B/C across Reformed, Lutheran, Wesleyan, and Baptist traditions with different nuances; D/E with portions of Free Grace theology.
- **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “repent of sins,” “turn or burn,” “faith alone,” “Lordship.”


Union with Christ and the ordo salutis

Question: Is union with Christ the overarching source of the applied benefits of salvation, and where is it logically placed?

V. Salvation, grace, justification, and sanctification

**Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass.

- **Question:** Is union with Christ the overarching source of the applied benefits of salvation, and where is it logically placed?
- **Option CONV-005.A — Union as comprehensive and logically prior:** election, calling, faith, justification, adoption, sanctification, and glorification are distinct benefits received in Christ.
- **Option CONV-005.B — Faith precedes union instrumentally:** the Spirit joins believers to Christ through faith, after which benefits are theirs.
- **Option CONV-005.C — Regeneration creates union and faith:** effectual union/life precedes and produces conscious faith.
- **Option CONV-005.D — Sacramental-covenantal incorporation:** baptism is the ordinary objective means/sign-seal of incorporation, sustained through living faith.
- **Option CONV-005.E — Forensic priority:** justification is the legal basis upon which transformative communion/adoption follows.
- **Key texts:** John 15:1–11; Romans 5:12–21; 6:1–11; 8:1–17; 1 Corinthians 1:30; 6:17; 12:13; 2 Corinthians 5:17–21; Galatians 2:20; 3:26–29; Ephesians 1:3–14; 2:4–10; Colossians 2:9–13; 3:1–4.
- **Interpretive fork:** Determine whether “in Christ” is primarily covenant representation, Spirit-created participation, ecclesial membership, or a locative shorthand for salvation. Ask whether faith unites, union generates faith, or both arise in effectual calling. Do not infer temporal order from the literary order of benefits without further evidence.
- **Upstream:** ELEC-001, ANT-003, BAP-001.
- **Downstream:** JUS-001/002, SAN-001, PER-001, adoption.
- **Entailments/incompatibilities:** A can incorporate B–E as sub-orders. B and C conflict on causal priority. Union accounts need not deny forensic justification; forensic-priority accounts need not deny participation.
- **Common correlations, not entailments:** A/C with Reformed union theology; B with many evangelical and Arminian accounts; D with Lutheran, Reformed sacramental, Catholic, and Orthodox accounts; E with some Protestant scholastic orders.
- **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “union with Christ,” “participation,” “ordo salutis.”


Spirit reception and “baptism in the Holy Spirit”

Question: Is Spirit baptism identical with conversion/initiation, or a distinct normally subsequent empowering experience?

V. Salvation, grace, justification, and sanctification

**Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass.

- **Question:** Is Spirit baptism identical with conversion/initiation, or a distinct normally subsequent empowering experience?
- **Option CONV-006.A — Conversion-initiation:** every believer is baptized by/in the Spirit into Christ’s body at conversion; later fillings are repeatable empowerments.
- **Option CONV-006.B — Subsequent empowerment:** believers receive the indwelling Spirit in salvation and may later receive a distinct Spirit baptism for witness/gifts.
- **Option CONV-006.C — Subsequent crisis of sanctifying grace:** Spirit baptism substantially identifies an entire-sanctification or purity experience.
- **Option CONV-006.D — Sacramental initiation/confirmation pattern:** baptism and laying on of hands/chrismation are ecclesial means of Spirit initiation, not necessarily reducible to one subjective moment.
- **Option CONV-006.E — Redemptive-historical transition:** Acts’ delays are unique signs of gospel expansion; they do not establish a normative second stage.
- **Key texts:** Matthew 3:11; Luke 11:13; 24:49; John 7:37–39; 14:17; Acts 1:4–8; 2:1–39; 8:4–24; 9:17; 10:44–48; 11:15–17; 19:1–7; Romans 8:9; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:2–5; Ephesians 1:13–14; 5:18.
- **Interpretive fork:** Decide whether 1 Corinthians 12:13 means the Spirit is agent, medium, or both, and whether it names conversion. In Acts, decide if Samaritans/Ephesian disciples were regenerate Christians before receiving the Spirit; if yes, raise B/D, and if their delay marks apostolic validation of new people-groups, raise E. Separate initial evidence (tongues) as an additional node rather than smuggling it into B.
- **Upstream:** Acts normativity; BAP-001; CONV-002.
- **Downstream:** SAN-002/003, charismatic identity, assurance.
- **Entailments/incompatibilities:** A and B conflict only over whether “Spirit baptism” names a post-conversion work; both affirm later fillings. B does not by itself entail tongues as universal initial evidence. C and B may overlap in holiness-Pentecostal systems.
- **Common correlations, not entailments:** A/E with Reformed, Baptist, and many evangelical accounts; B with Pentecostal/charismatic traditions; C with some Wesleyan-Holiness Pentecostals; D with Catholic/Orthodox and some Anglican/Lutheran patterns.
- **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “Spirit-baptized,” “second blessing,” “full gospel,” “charismatic.”


Saving efficacy of water baptism

Question: What, if anything, does God ordinarily accomplish through water baptism?

V. Salvation, grace, justification, and sanctification

**Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass.

- **Question:** What, if anything, does God ordinarily accomplish through water baptism?
- **Option BAP-001.A — Regenerative/forgiving means of grace:** God ordinarily grants new birth, forgiveness, union, and the Spirit through baptism received according to his promise.
- **Option BAP-001.B — Instrumental covenant sign and seal:** baptism objectively confirms/promises grace and incorporates into the visible covenant community; saving efficacy is received by faith and not tied automatically to the moment.
- **Option BAP-001.C — Believer’s symbolic ordinance:** baptism publicly depicts and confesses a regeneration/union already received through faith.
- **Option BAP-001.D — Occasion/instrument of appeal-faith:** baptism is the God-appointed conversion response through which faith calls on Christ, without water working automatically.
- **Option BAP-001.E — Objective incorporation with possible forfeiture:** baptism truly incorporates into Christ/church, yet salvific life may later be rejected.
- **Key texts:** Matthew 28:18–20; Mark 16:16 (longer ending textual issue); John 3:5; Acts 2:38–41; 8:12–17,36–39; 10:44–48; 16:14–34; 22:16; Romans 6:1–11; 1 Corinthians 1:13–17; 6:11; 12:13; Galatians 3:26–29; Colossians 2:11–13; Titus 3:5–7; 1 Peter 3:18–22.
- **Interpretive fork:** Decide whether “water and Spirit,” “washing of regeneration,” and burial with Christ denote water baptism, Spirit renewal, or metaphor. In 1 Peter 3:21, locate efficacy in water, Christ’s resurrection, God’s pledge, or the believer’s appeal. Acts 10 shows Spirit reception can precede water, but does not by itself prove water is merely symbolic.
- **Upstream:** sacramental hermeneutics; CONV-002/005/006; JUS-003.
- **Downstream:** BAP-002, ANT-008, assurance, NCV-001, PER-001.
- **Entailments/incompatibilities:** A/E conflict with C if C denies any divine conferral through baptism. B and D can overlap. Baptismal efficacy does not entail mechanical salvation apart from faith; symbolic baptism does not imply baptism is optional.
- **Common correlations, not entailments:** A with Lutheran, Catholic, Orthodox, Churches of Christ, and some Anglican accounts; B with Reformed paedobaptists; C with many Baptists and free churches; D with Restorationist and mediating evangelical readings.
- **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “baptismal regeneration,” “sacramentalist,” “ordinance,” “baptism saves.”


Children, households, and baptismal-covenant status

Question: Are believers’ children proper recipients of baptism and, if so, what status does it identify?

V. Salvation, grace, justification, and sanctification

**Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass.

- **Question:** Are believers’ children proper recipients of baptism and, if so, what status does it identify?
- **Option BAP-002.A — Covenant paedobaptism:** believers’ children belong to the visible covenant community and should receive its initiating sign, without presuming every child regenerate.
- **Option BAP-002.B — Regenerative paedobaptism:** infants can receive Spirit-created faith/new birth through God’s baptismal promise.
- **Option BAP-002.C — Credobaptism:** baptism is for professing disciples; children may be loved/holy in a relational sense without receiving the sign before faith.
- **Option BAP-002.D — Dedication with covenant hope:** children receive prayer, formation, and covenant-shaped presumption short of baptism.
- **Key texts:** Genesis 17:7–14; Matthew 19:13–15; 28:19–20; Acts 2:38–39; 8:12; 10:44–48; 16:14–15,30–34; 18:8; Romans 4:9–12; 1 Corinthians 1:16; 7:14; Colossians 2:11–13; household patterns in the Old Testament.
- **Interpretive fork:** Decide whether circumcision-to-baptism continuity is established by Colossians 2/covenant structure or interrupted by the new covenant’s professing membership. Household baptisms raise paedobaptism only if household language likely includes children and if faith language applies representatively rather than to each hearer. “Promise ... to your children” must be read with “everyone whom the Lord calls.”
- **Upstream:** ANT-008, BAP-001, LAW-001/007, NCV-001.
- **Downstream:** church membership, assurance, discipline.
- **Entailments/incompatibilities:** A and C prescribe incompatible recipients. A does not entail infant regeneration; B does. Credobaptism does not entail rejection of covenant continuity in every respect.
- **Common correlations, not entailments:** A with Reformed/Presbyterian; B with Lutheran, Catholic, Orthodox, and some Anglican; C with Baptist, Anabaptist, and many Pentecostal; D with some Baptist/free churches.
- **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “paedobaptist,” “credobaptist,” “covenant child,” “believer’s baptism.”


Forensic declaration and transformative renewal

Question: Is justification itself exclusively God’s forensic verdict, or does the biblical category include inward renewal?

V. Salvation, grace, justification, and sanctification

**Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass.

- **Question:** Is justification itself exclusively God’s forensic verdict, or does the biblical category include inward renewal?
- **Option JUS-001.A — Forensic-only definition:** justification is God’s once-for-all declaration of righteous status; regeneration and sanctification are inseparable but distinct.
- **Option JUS-001.B — Forensic-primary with participatory context:** justification is declarative, but cannot be understood apart from resurrection, union, and incorporation.
- **Option JUS-001.C — Declarative-transformative:** God’s justifying word both declares and effects a new righteous reality.
- **Option JUS-001.D — Inclusive renewal definition:** justification includes forgiveness, sanctification, and inward renewal by infused grace.
- **Key texts:** Deuteronomy 25:1; Proverbs 17:15; Isaiah 50:8; Luke 7:29,35; 18:9–14; Romans 3:19–5:21; 6:1–11; 8:30–34; 1 Corinthians 4:4; 6:11; Galatians 2:15–21; Titus 3:4–7; James 2:14–26.
- **Interpretive fork:** In courtroom texts, `dikaioō` normally declares/vindicates rather than morally transforms, raising A/B. In 1 Corinthians 6:11 and Titus 3, the clustered saving acts may indicate conceptual distinction or an inclusive event, raising C/D. Determine whether God’s performative verdict creates status only or also inward reality under the same term.
- **Upstream:** lexical/legal hermeneutics; CONV-005; resurrection participation.
- **Downstream:** JUS-002/003/006/007, assurance, sanctification.
- **Entailments/incompatibilities:** A conflicts with D on the definition, not on whether renewal necessarily occurs. B and C can approach one another depending on “effects.” All options can deny moral self-achievement.
- **Common correlations, not entailments:** A/B with Protestant traditions; C with some participatory/ecumenical accounts; D with Catholic and some Orthodox accounts.
- **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “forensic,” “made righteous,” “declared righteous,” “infused.”


Ground and mode of received righteousness

Question: Is the righteousness by which believers stand before God imputed, imparted/infused, covenant-membership status, or participation in Christ?

V. Salvation, grace, justification, and sanctification

**Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass.

- **Question:** Is the righteousness by which believers stand before God imputed, imparted/infused, covenant-membership status, or participation in Christ?
- **Option JUS-002.A — Imputed alien righteousness:** Christ’s righteousness is credited to the believer and received through faith apart from works.
- **Option JUS-002.B — Forgiveness/status without discrete transfer:** God counts faith/union with the righteous Christ for righteousness; Scripture need not posit a transferable merit substance.
- **Option JUS-002.C — Infused/imparted righteousness:** grace actually makes the believer righteous; this renewed state belongs within justification.
- **Option JUS-002.D — Union/participation:** Christ himself is the believer’s righteousness; imputation and transformation are derivative aspects of incorporation.
- **Option JUS-002.E — Covenant vindication:** justification declares that one belongs to God’s covenant family, grounded in Christ and received by faith.
- **Key texts:** Genesis 15:6; Romans 3:21–26; 4:1–11,22–25; 5:17–19; 8:1–4; 1 Corinthians 1:30; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 2:15–21; 3:6–14; Philippians 3:8–9; Titus 3:5–7.
- **Interpretive fork:** Decide whether “faith counted as righteousness” means faith itself, its object, or the credited righteousness of Christ. Decide whether “become righteousness of God” is exchange/imputation, apostolic embodiment, or participation. Ask whether covenant membership is the content of the verdict or a consequence of acquittal.
- **Upstream:** ANT-003, ATN-006, JUS-001, CONV-005.
- **Downstream:** JUS-003/006, assurance, merit language.
- **Entailments/incompatibilities:** A and D are often combined. C conflicts with A only if the justifying ground is the believer’s inherent state rather than Christ’s righteousness; Catholic accounts qualify all created righteousness as grace. E does not by itself decide imputation.
- **Common correlations, not entailments:** A with Reformed/Lutheran/Baptist; C with Catholic and some Orthodox; D across patristic and union-focused Protestant accounts; E with New Perspective/covenantal readings.
- **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “imputation,” “infusion,” “union,” “covenant membership.”


Faith alone, faith formed by love, and works

Question: What is the instrument/condition of initial justification, and what role do works play?

V. Salvation, grace, justification, and sanctification

**Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass.

- **Question:** What is the instrument/condition of initial justification, and what role do works play?
- **Option JUS-003.A — Faith alone as instrument:** faith receives Christ apart from works; living faith necessarily produces works as evidence and fruit.
- **Option JUS-003.B — Faith alone with defeasible fruit:** works are expected and rewardable but are not logically necessary evidence that initial faith was saving.
- **Option JUS-003.C — Faith formed by love/grace-enabled obedience:** no pre-grace work merits initial justification, but living faith and charity cooperate within continued justification.
- **Option JUS-003.D — Covenantal allegiance condition:** faithful allegiance is integral to saving faith; obedience is neither external merit nor merely optional evidence.
- **Option JUS-003.E — Initial faith, final according-to-works distinction:** entry is by faith apart from works; final vindication is according to a Spirit-produced life.
- **Key texts:** Genesis 15:6; Habakkuk 2:4; Matthew 7:21–27; 19:16–30; 25:31–46; John 3:16–18; 5:24–29; Romans 3:21–4:25; 8:1–17; Galatians 2:16; 5:6; Ephesians 2:8–10; Philippians 2:12–13; James 2:14–26.
- **Interpretive fork:** Determine whether Paul excludes all works, Torah works, boasting/merit, or pre-conversion works; then ask whether James addresses the same “justify,” “faith,” and time point. Separate ground (Christ), instrument (faith), necessary path/evidence (works), and public/final verdict rather than assigning all to one slot.
- **Upstream:** CONV-003/004, JUS-001/002/004/005.
- **Downstream:** JUS-006, PER-004/005, assurance.
- **Entailments/incompatibilities:** A and C conflict if charity/obedience is a co-instrument or inherent ground of initial justification. A and E can be combined. B conflicts with claims that perseverance/fruit is necessary evidence of genuine faith.
- **Common correlations, not entailments:** A with magisterial Protestantism and many evangelicals; B with Free Grace; C with Catholic accounts; D with allegiance proposals; E with several Reformed, Anglican, and New Perspective formulations.
- **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “sola fide,” “works salvation,” “faith formed by love,” “final justification.”


“Works of the law” in Paul

Question: What does Paul principally exclude by “works of the law”?

V. Salvation, grace, justification, and sanctification

**Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass.

- **Question:** What does Paul principally exclude by “works of the law”?
- **Option JUS-004.A — All human obedience as justifying ground:** the phrase includes any works done to establish righteous standing.
- **Option JUS-004.B — Mosaic Torah observance:** the direct referent is deeds required by the Mosaic law, with a broader anti-boasting conclusion.
- **Option JUS-004.C — Jewish boundary markers:** circumcision, food, and calendar practices that demarcate Jew from Gentile are especially in view.
- **Option JUS-004.D — Sin-dominated works in the flesh:** Paul opposes works performed outside the Spirit, not grace-enabled obedience as such.
- **Option JUS-004.E — Layered reading:** immediate ethnic/Torah controversies instantiate the wider impossibility of justification by any human doing.
- **Key texts:** Romans 2:17–3:31; 4:1–16; 7:7–13; 9:30–10:13; Galatians 2:11–3:29; 4:21–5:6; 6:13–15; Ephesians 2:8–18; Philippians 3:2–11; Dead Sea Scroll expression is historical context, not biblical evidence.
- **Interpretive fork:** Track where circumcision, food fellowship, and Jew/Gentile unity control the discourse, raising B/C. Track universal indictment, Abraham before circumcision, boasting, and wage/debt logic, raising A/E. Ask whether Spirit-enabled works are excluded from ground, instrument, or only from boastful self-establishment.
- **Upstream:** Pauline-covenant hermeneutics; LAW-003/005; JUS-001.
- **Downstream:** JUS-003/005/006, Israel/church relation.
- **Entailments/incompatibilities:** C does not entail that moral works can justify. A does not entail that ethnic context is irrelevant. E explicitly treats these as nested rather than rival scopes.
- **Common correlations, not entailments:** A/E with classic Protestant readings; B/C with New Perspective readings; D with some Catholic, Orthodox, and participatory interpretations.
- **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “Old Perspective,” “New Perspective on Paul,” “legalism,” “works-righteousness.”


James 2 and the justification of Abraham/Rahab

Question: Does James teach evidential vindication, a distinct later justification by works, or justification through living faith and works together?

V. Salvation, grace, justification, and sanctification

**Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass.

- **Question:** Does James teach evidential vindication, a distinct later justification by works, or justification through living faith and works together?
- **Option JUS-005.A — Evidential/public vindication:** works demonstrate a prior genuine faith before people/history; Genesis 22 evidences Genesis 15.
- **Option JUS-005.B — Declarative vindication before God at a later stage:** Abraham’s obedient faith receives a real later verdict, distinct from initial justification.
- **Option JUS-005.C — One living-faith justification:** faith and works cooperate organically; “faith alone” means dead assent, not living faith apart from merit.
- **Option JUS-005.D — Rescue/usefulness context:** `save` and `justify` focus on temporal usefulness/deliverance and reward rather than eternal justification.
- **Key texts:** Genesis 15:1–6; 22:1–19; Joshua 2; Matthew 7:21–27; Romans 4:1–8; Hebrews 11:8–31; James 1:19–2:26.
- **Interpretive fork:** Identify the imagined audience of “show me your faith,” the temporal gap between Genesis 15 and 22, and the semantic range of `dikaioō`. Ask whether Paul’s “works” and James’s “works,” and Paul’s polemical “faith” and James’s dead “faith,” denote the same realities.
- **Upstream:** JUS-001/003/004; CONV-003.
- **Downstream:** JUS-006, PER-004/005.
- **Entailments/incompatibilities:** A and C can agree that works are necessary evidence while disagreeing whether they are included in justifying faith. D conflicts with readings that make James directly address eternal justification.
- **Common correlations, not entailments:** A with common Reformed/Baptist explanations; C with Catholic, Orthodox, and some Protestant readings; D with some Free Grace readings.
- **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “justified by works,” “dead faith,” “evidence.”


Final judgment according to works

Question: How do works function in the final judgment of believers?

V. Salvation, grace, justification, and sanctification

**Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass.

- **Question:** How do works function in the final judgment of believers?
- **Option JUS-006.A — Evidence of faith/union:** works publicly evidence the reality of faith and Spirit-wrought life; Christ’s righteousness alone grounds acceptance.
- **Option JUS-006.B — According to works, not on their merit:** works are the divinely ordained criterion/path of the verdict while grace in Christ remains its ground.
- **Option JUS-006.C — Grace-enabled instrumental condition:** persevering love/obedience is a real condition for final salvation, itself made possible by grace.
- **Option JUS-006.D — Rewards only for believers:** salvation is already irrevocably settled; the believer’s works determine reward/loss, not entrance into life.
- **Option JUS-006.E — Distinct initial and final justification:** present justification is by faith; a future justification/vindication is according to the total life.
- **Key texts:** Ecclesiastes 12:14; Matthew 7:21–23; 12:36–37; 16:27; 25:31–46; John 5:24–29; Romans 2:5–16; 8:1,30–39; 14:10–12; 1 Corinthians 3:10–15; 4:5; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Galatians 6:7–9; Revelation 20:11–15; 22:12.
- **Interpretive fork:** Decide whether Romans 2 describes an actual Spirit-enabled path for believers, a hypothetical law standard, or impartiality that exposes all and drives to Christ. In judgment scenes, ask whether deeds are evidence, condition, basis, or reward metric. Distinguish “according to” from “on the meritorious ground of.”
- **Upstream:** JUS-001/002/003/005, SAN-001, PER-001.
- **Downstream:** assurance, merit/reward, perseverance.
- **Entailments/incompatibilities:** D conflicts with C where the texts concern entry into eternal life. A/B/E may overlap. A future verdict according to works does not by itself negate present assurance or sola fide.
- **Common correlations, not entailments:** A with many Reformed/Baptist accounts; B/E with some Reformed, Anglican, and New Perspective accounts; C with Catholic/Orthodox/Wesleyan; D with Free Grace and some dispensational accounts.
- **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “final justification,” “judgment of believers,” “rewards judgment.”


Universal/objective and personal/subjective justification

Question: Do resurrection/reconciliation texts teach an objective justifying verdict for all humanity prior to faith?

V. Salvation, grace, justification, and sanctification

**Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass.

- **Question:** Do resurrection/reconciliation texts teach an objective justifying verdict for all humanity prior to faith?
- **Option JUS-007.A — Universal objective justification, personal reception by faith:** Christ’s resurrection/death establishes a universal acquittal or reconciliation; faith receives its benefit.
- **Option JUS-007.B — Universal atonement/proclamation, justification only by faith:** the objective work is for all, but Scripture reserves “justified” for believers.
- **Option JUS-007.C — Definite objective justification of the elect, applied in time:** Christ secures the elect’s verdict, though they remain under wrath until united by faith.
- **Option JUS-007.D — Corporate verdict in Christ:** resurrection vindicates the representative new humanity; persons share the verdict through incorporation.
- **Key texts:** John 3:18,36; Romans 4:25; 5:1,9,18–19; 8:1,30; 2 Corinthians 5:14–21; Colossians 1:20–23; 1 Timothy 3:16.
- **Interpretive fork:** Decide whether Romans 4:25 means Christ was raised because justification had occurred or in order to effect it. In Romans 5, decide whether the scope of the two Adams is coextensive and whether “justification of life” is verdict, provision, or eschatological gift. Reconcile any universal verdict with present condemnation/unbelief texts.
- **Upstream:** ATN-004/005, JUS-001, CONV-005.
- **Downstream:** assurance, mission, baptismal theology.
- **Entailments/incompatibilities:** A must distinguish an objective verdict from final salvation or it entails universalism. B denies that “justification” properly applies before faith. C is compatible with temporal application and prior experiential condemnation.
- **Common correlations, not entailments:** A with some confessional Lutheran systems; B with many Arminian/evangelical accounts; C with Reformed; D with corporate/participatory accounts.
- **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “objective justification,” “subjective justification,” “universal acquittal.”


Perseverance and the possibility of losing salvation

Question: Will every truly regenerate/justified person finally be saved?

V. Salvation, grace, justification, and sanctification

**Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass.

- **Question:** Will every truly regenerate/justified person finally be saved?
- **Option PER-001.A — Preservation and necessary perseverance:** God infallibly preserves every true believer, who will continue in faith (despite serious falls) to the end.
- **Option PER-001.B — Conditional security:** a true believer remains secure while living in faith but can finally abandon Christ and forfeit salvation.
- **Option PER-001.C — Irrevocable eternal life without necessary perseverance:** anyone once genuinely saved remains eternally saved even if faith, obedience, or fellowship later collapses.
- **Option PER-001.D — Corporate perseverance:** God will preserve the church; individuals remain by faith and may be cut off.
- **Option PER-001.E — Sacramental-covenantal life with possible forfeiture:** persons can truly participate in saving covenant grace and later lose its fruit through unbelief/mortal apostasy.
- **Key preservation texts:** John 6:37–40; 10:27–30; 17:11–12; Romans 8:28–39; Philippians 1:6; 1 Thessalonians 5:23–24; 2 Timothy 1:12; 1 Peter 1:3–5; 1 John 2:19; Jude 24. Romans 11:29 can support divine faithfulness only through an additional inference: in context the irrevocable gifts/calling concern Israel corporately, not directly every individual believer’s perseverance.
- **Key conditional/apostasy texts:** Ezekiel 18:24; Matthew 10:22; 24:9–13; John 15:1–10; Romans 11:17–22; 1 Corinthians 9:24–10:13; Galatians 5:2–4; Colossians 1:21–23; Hebrews 3:6,12–14; 6:4–12; 10:26–39; 2 Peter 2:18–22; Revelation 2–3.
- **Interpretive fork:** First define “true believer/regenerate/justified.” Then classify apparent apostates as false professors, real covenant participants without regeneration, regenerate people who lose salvation, or saved people who lose reward/fellowship. Decide whether preservation promises concern every individual given to Christ and whether conditional clauses state means God ensures, uncertain conditions, or marks of genuine faith.
- **Upstream:** ELEC-001/002, CALL-001, CONV-003/005, BAP-001, NCV-001.
- **Downstream:** PER-002/003/004/005, JUS-006, assurance, discipline.
- **Entailments/incompatibilities:** A, B, and C are mutually incompatible with the same definitions. A entails perseverance as outcome, not sinless progress. C must distinguish salvation from discipleship/reward. D can combine with B/E.
- **Common correlations, not entailments:** A with Reformed and many Baptists; B with Arminian/Wesleyan, Pentecostal, Anabaptist, and some Lutheran accounts; C with Free Grace and some dispensational Baptists; E with Catholic/Orthodox/sacramental traditions.
- **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “once saved always saved,” “perseverance of the saints,” “conditional security,” “apostate.”


How apostasy warning passages function

Question: What state do warning-passages describe, and what causal role do the warnings play?

V. Salvation, grace, justification, and sanctification

**Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass.

- **Question:** What state do warning-passages describe, and what causal role do the warnings play?
- **Option PER-002.A — False-professor exposure:** the subjects experienced community blessings and apparent faith but were never regenerate.
- **Option PER-002.B — Real covenant participation, not inward saving union:** the subjects truly shared external new-covenant benefits yet lacked the saving root.
- **Option PER-002.C — Hypothetical impossibility:** the author describes what would follow if the elect could fall, to show the absurdity or spur confidence.
- **Option PER-002.D — Means of preservation:** the danger is real as a conditional, and God uses warnings to ensure the elect persevere; the described outcome never befalls a true elect person.
- **Option PER-002.E — Real loss of salvation:** regenerate believers are warned against an apostasy that can actually sever them from saving grace.
- **Option PER-002.F — Loss of temporal blessing/reward:** the warnings concern discipline, premature death, inheritance/reward, or usefulness rather than eternal salvation.
- **Key texts:** Synoptic soils (Matthew 13; Mark 4; Luke 8); John 15:1–10; Acts 8:9–24; 1 Corinthians 9:24–10:13; Galatians 5:2–4; Hebrews 3:6–4:13; 6:4–12; 10:19–39; 12:15–29; 2 Peter 2:1,18–22; 1 John 2:19; Revelation 2–3.
- **Interpretive fork:** For each warning, code the subject predicates (“enlightened,” “tasted,” “shared in Holy Spirit,” “bought,” “escaped”), threatened outcome (“burned,” “no sacrifice,” “destroyed,” lost reward), and rhetorical audience. Then decide whether these predicates elsewhere denote regeneration. Treat Hebrews’ warning units as one correlated discourse rather than several independent proofs.
- **Upstream:** PER-001, BAP-001, NCV-001, lexical semantics of participation.
- **Downstream:** PER-003/005, pastoral exhortation.
- **Entailments/incompatibilities:** E entails PER-001.B/E. D entails the warnings describe genuine instruments, not empty theatrics. A and B differ over objective covenant participation even while agreeing the subject was never inwardly regenerate.
- **Common correlations, not entailments:** A/D with Reformed/Baptist perseverance; B with Reformed covenantal accounts; E with Arminian/Lutheran/Catholic/Orthodox; F with Free Grace.
- **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “false convert,” “covenant member,” “tasted but not swallowed,” “lost reward.”


Irrecoverable apostasy and restoration

Question: Do Scripture’s “impossible to renew” and unpardonable-sin texts identify an irrecoverable state before death?

V. Salvation, grace, justification, and sanctification

**Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass.

- **Question:** Do Scripture’s “impossible to renew” and unpardonable-sin texts identify an irrecoverable state before death?
- **Option PER-003.A — Definitive apostasy can be irrecoverable:** a knowledgeable, settled repudiation of Christ may cross a point after which restoration is impossible.
- **Option PER-003.B — Rhetorical impossibility while repudiation continues:** renewal is impossible so long as the person keeps recrucifying/rejecting Christ, not necessarily after repentance.
- **Option PER-003.C — Covenant curse/historical judgment:** the warning evokes wilderness/covenant judgment without authorizing certainty that a living person cannot repent.
- **Option PER-003.D — False-professor exposure:** the irreversible state proves the person never possessed saving life.
- **Option PER-003.E — Loss/reward reading:** severe temporal judgment or inheritance loss, not loss of eternal salvation.
- **Key texts:** Numbers 13–14; 1 Samuel 2:25; Matthew 12:22–32; Mark 3:22–30; Luke 12:10; Hebrews 6:4–8; 10:26–31; 12:15–17; 1 John 5:16–17; examples of restored Peter (Luke 22; John 21) and church discipline/restoration (2 Corinthians 2:5–11; Galatians 6:1; James 5:19–20).
- **Interpretive fork:** Distinguish ordinary grave sin, fearful lapse, and public repudiation after full knowledge. Resolve the temporal force of the participles in Hebrews 6 and whether Esau sought repentance or merely reversal of the blessing. Use restoration narratives to block overbroad claims that any serious post-conversion sin is unpardonable.
- **Upstream:** PER-001/002; doctrine of repentance.
- **Downstream:** discipline, pastoral care, assurance.
- **Entailments/incompatibilities:** A does not entail that clinicians/pastors can identify the state infallibly. B/C preserve the warning’s force without declaring a penitent beyond mercy. E depends on the warning outcome being non-final.
- **Common correlations, not entailments:** A with some conditional-security and sacramental accounts; B/C across traditions; D with some perseverance readings; E with Free Grace.
- **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “apostate,” “unpardonable sin,” “reprobate.”


Lordship salvation and discipleship

Question: Is submission to Christ’s lordship inherent in saving faith, inevitable evidence of it, or a subsequent discipleship commitment?

V. Salvation, grace, justification, and sanctification

**Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass.

- **Question:** Is submission to Christ’s lordship inherent in saving faith, inevitable evidence of it, or a subsequent discipleship commitment?
- **Option PER-004.A — Lordship inherent:** receiving Jesus savingly includes a disposition to follow him as Lord; perfection is not required.
- **Option PER-004.B — Lordship as inevitable fruit:** faith’s instrument is trust alone, yet regeneration necessarily begins a life of obedience.
- **Option PER-004.C — Free Grace distinction:** eternal life is received by faith apart from a commitment to discipleship; costly following governs fellowship, maturity, inheritance, and reward.
- **Option PER-004.D — Conditional discipleship:** obedient perseverance is a grace-enabled condition of remaining in saving union.
- **Key texts:** Matthew 7:13–27; 10:32–39; 16:24–27; Luke 6:46; 9:23–26; 14:25–35; John 3:16; 5:24; 6:28–29,40,47; 8:30–32; 10:27; Romans 4:5; 10:9; 1 Corinthians 3:10–15; 6:9–11; James 2; 1 John 2:3–6.
- **Interpretive fork:** Determine whether the Synoptic cost-of-discipleship sayings state the condition of eternal salvation, vocation for existing disciples, or eschatological allegiance that reveals faith. In John, decide whether simple belief language supplies a complete condition or assumes a thick relational sense. In 1 Corinthians 3, decide whether “saved through fire” applies to all catastrophic unfruitfulness or only ministers’ work.
- **Upstream:** CONV-003/004, JUS-003, PER-001.
- **Downstream:** assurance, evangelism, discipline, reward theology.
- **Entailments/incompatibilities:** C conflicts with any claim that continued fruit is logically necessary evidence of regeneration. A/B do not entail perfection or works as the meritorious basis.
- **Common correlations, not entailments:** A/B with Reformed, Wesleyan, and many evangelical traditions; C with Free Grace dispensational circles; D with conditional-security traditions.
- **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “Lordship salvation,” “Free Grace,” “easy-believism,” “carnal Christian.”


Grounds and structure of assurance

Question: On what evidence may a Christian assign confidence to personal salvation?

V. Salvation, grace, justification, and sanctification

**Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass.

- **Question:** On what evidence may a Christian assign confidence to personal salvation?
- **Option PER-005.A — Promise/Christ-centered assurance:** assurance rests primarily on Christ’s sufficiency and the gospel promise received by present faith.
- **Option PER-005.B — Promise plus inward and outward evidences:** the Spirit’s witness, present faith, love, obedience, and perseverance confirm one’s calling.
- **Option PER-005.C — Sacramental/objective assurance:** baptism, absolution, Eucharist, and the external Word give a concrete promise outside fluctuating introspection.
- **Option PER-005.D — Conditional present assurance:** one may know one presently trusts Christ but cannot claim unconditional final security apart from continued faith.
- **Option PER-005.E — Full certainty not ordinarily available:** hopeful confidence is possible, but infallible personal certainty requires special revelation or risks presumption.
- **Key texts:** John 5:24; 6:37; 10:27–30; Romans 5:1–5; 8:15–39; 2 Corinthians 13:5; Galatians 4:6; Hebrews 6:11–20; 10:19–25; 1 Peter 1:3–9; 2 Peter 1:5–11; 1 John 2:3–6; 3:14–24; 5:10–13.
- **Interpretive fork:** Decide whether 1 John’s “that you may know” rests on the apostolic promise, doctrinal confession, ethical/social tests, or their conjunction. Determine whether self-examination seeks evidence of regeneration, faithful participation at the table, or present fidelity. Model assurance as a separate probability from truth of election; subjective certainty can be mistaken.
- **Upstream:** PER-001/004, JUS-001/003, BAP-001, CONV-003.
- **Downstream:** pastoral experience, scrupulosity, discipline.
- **Entailments/incompatibilities:** A and B/C are compatible if evidences confirm rather than ground salvation. D follows naturally from conditional security but does not require constant doubt. E conflicts with a claim that assurance is of the essence of saving faith.
- **Common correlations, not entailments:** A/B with Reformed and Baptist traditions; C with Lutheran/Reformed sacramental and other liturgical accounts; D with Arminian/Pentecostal; E with some Catholic accounts.
- **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “assured,” “saved,” “presumptuous,” “certainty of salvation.”


Definitive and progressive sanctification

Question: Is sanctification principally a completed consecration, a gradual transformation, or both?

V. Salvation, grace, justification, and sanctification

**Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass.

- **Question:** Is sanctification principally a completed consecration, a gradual transformation, or both?
- **Option SAN-001.A — Definitive plus progressive:** believers are once-for-all set apart/break sin’s dominion and are progressively conformed to Christ.
- **Option SAN-001.B — Primarily progressive renewal:** sanctification normally names lifelong growth; positional language is better classified as consecration/justification.
- **Option SAN-001.C — Participatory/sacramental process:** sanctification is growth in communion with divine life through Spirit, church, and means of grace.
- **Option SAN-001.D — Crisis-plus-growth:** a distinct post-conversion act of consecration/purifying grace transforms the trajectory, followed by growth.
- **Key texts:** John 17:17–19; Acts 20:32; 26:18; Romans 6:1–23; 8:1–17,29; 12:1–2; 1 Corinthians 1:2,30; 6:11; 2 Corinthians 3:18; 7:1; Ephesians 4:20–24; Philippians 2:12–13; 3:12–16; Colossians 3:1–17; 1 Thessalonians 4:3–8; 5:23–24; Hebrews 10:10,14; 12:14.
- **Interpretive fork:** Identify whether aorist/perfect “sanctified” texts denote cultic status, decisive moral transfer, or completed purification. Then integrate imperatives and growth language. A rises if Romans 6 and Hebrews distinguish a definitive breach with sin from ongoing transformation.
- **Upstream:** CONV-005, JUS-001, BAP-001.
- **Downstream:** SAN-002/003/004, PER-004/005.
- **Entailments/incompatibilities:** A can incorporate B/C. D becomes incompatible only if it claims a crisis is necessary and the others deny it.
- **Common correlations, not entailments:** A with Reformed and many Baptist accounts; B with broad evangelical usage; C with Catholic/Orthodox/liturgical traditions; D with Wesleyan-Holiness and Keswick variants.
- **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “sanctified,” “positional sanctification,” “second work.”


Entire sanctification and perfection

Question: Can or should believers expect a distinct work of grace yielding perfect love or freedom from willful sin before death?

V. Salvation, grace, justification, and sanctification

**Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass.

- **Question:** Can or should believers expect a distinct work of grace yielding perfect love or freedom from willful sin before death?
- **Option SAN-002.A — Entire sanctification/perfect love:** God can cleanse the heart from the governing bent toward willful sin, enabling wholehearted love; mistakes/infirmities remain.
- **Option SAN-002.B — Crisis consecration without eradication:** a post-conversion surrender/filling brings empowerment but not entire cleansing or guaranteed victory.
- **Option SAN-002.C — Progressive maturity, no sinless state:** substantial victory and mature love are possible, but remaining sin persists until glorification.
- **Option SAN-002.D — Strong perfection possibility:** by grace a believer may become free from all actual sin for a sustained period.
- **Key texts favoring strong holiness expectation:** Deuteronomy 30:6; Matthew 5:48; 22:37–40; Romans 6:1–14; 1 Thessalonians 5:23–24; Hebrews 12:14; 1 John 2:1–6; 3:3–10; 4:17–18.
- **Key texts favoring continuing sin:** 1 Kings 8:46; Ecclesiastes 7:20; Matthew 6:12; Romans 7:14–25; Galatians 5:16–17; Philippians 3:12–14; James 3:2; 1 John 1:8–10.
- **Interpretive fork:** Define “perfect” (`teleios`) as mature/complete love or absolute sinlessness. In 1 John, determine whether “does not sin” means never commits an act, does not continue as a settled practice, or describes the regenerate identity eschatologically. Decide whether Romans 7 depicts Christian experience (SAN-004).
- **Upstream:** SAN-001, SAN-004, definition of sin (willful transgression versus any want of conformity).
- **Downstream:** assurance, holiness identity, Spirit-baptism theology.
- **Entailments/incompatibilities:** A is not identical to sinless perfection because it typically excludes involuntary infirmity from willful sin. C conflicts with D on actual possibility, and with A only if A claims eradication that C denies.
- **Common correlations, not entailments:** A with Wesleyan-Holiness/Nazarene/Wesleyan; B with Keswick and some Pentecostal; C with Reformed, Lutheran, Baptist, and many evangelicals; D with a minority of perfectionist traditions.
- **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “entirely sanctified,” “Christian perfection,” “sinless perfection,” “higher life.”


Agency and means in sanctification

Question: How do divine action, human effort, communal practice, and means of grace relate in growth?

V. Salvation, grace, justification, and sanctification

**Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass.

- **Question:** How do divine action, human effort, communal practice, and means of grace relate in growth?
- **Option SAN-003.A — Dependent synergistic effort:** the Spirit is decisive, and believers actively put sin to death, train, obey, and use means.
- **Option SAN-003.B — Monergistic sanctification in source, active in effect:** God alone produces holy willing/working; the believer’s exertion is itself the result and instrument of grace.
- **Option SAN-003.C — Sacramental/ecclesial means:** Word, baptismal identity, Eucharist, confession/absolution, prayer, and church discipline are ordinary instruments.
- **Option SAN-003.D — Faith-rest/abiding emphasis:** victory comes chiefly by trusting Christ’s indwelling life and ceasing self-reliant striving.
- **Option SAN-003.E — Habit/virtue cooperation:** Spirit-enabled practices form stable virtues; sanctification normally works through embodied habits and community.
- **Key texts:** Psalm 119; John 15:1–11; 17:17; Romans 6:11–14; 8:13; 12:1–2; 1 Corinthians 9:24–27; 15:10; 2 Corinthians 3:18; Galatians 5:16–25; Ephesians 4:20–5:21; Philippians 2:12–13; Colossians 3:1–17; 1 Timothy 4:7–16; Hebrews 3:12–14; 10:19–25; 12:1–14; James 1:19–27.
- **Interpretive fork:** Treat divine causation and commanded effort as potentially layered rather than zero-sum. Determine whether “apart from me you can do nothing” rules out cooperative agency or grounds it. Ask which practices Scripture directly names as Spirit-used means and which are later prudential extensions.
- **Upstream:** ANT-006, CONV-001/005, BAP-001, ecclesiology.
- **Downstream:** assurance, spiritual formation, SAN-002.
- **Entailments/incompatibilities:** A/B can describe the same action at creaturely and divine levels. D conflicts only with effort-denying quietism, not with active abiding. C/E are compatible with A/B.
- **Common correlations, not entailments:** A/B across Protestant traditions with different emphases; C with liturgical/sacramental traditions; D with Keswick/higher-life movements; E with Wesleyan, Catholic/Orthodox, Anglican, and formation-focused evangelicals.
- **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “let go and let God,” “works,” “means of grace,” “spiritual disciplines.”


The speaker and condition in Romans 7:7–25

Question: Whom does Paul portray in the “I do what I hate” section?

V. Salvation, grace, justification, and sanctification

**Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass.

- **Question:** Whom does Paul portray in the “I do what I hate” section?
- **Option SAN-004.A — Mature/ordinary believer:** Paul describes real Christian conflict with indwelling sin.
- **Option SAN-004.B — Pre-conversion person under law:** the speaker knows the law but lacks the liberating Spirit described in Romans 8.
- **Option SAN-004.C — Israel/Adam representative:** the rhetorical “I” reenacts Israel’s or Adamic humanity’s encounter with commandment.
- **Option SAN-004.D — Transitional awakening:** a person convicted and drawn by grace but not yet living in full new-covenant freedom.
- **Option SAN-004.E — Rhetorical prosopopoeia/composite:** Paul speaks in character; no single autobiographical life stage is the exhaustive referent.
- **Key texts:** Romans 6:1–23; 7:1–25; 8:1–17; compare Galatians 5:16–25; Philippians 3:6–14; 1 Timothy 1:13–16.
- **Interpretive fork:** Track temporal verbs, the change from “we” to “I,” “sold under sin” versus Romans 6’s freedom, delight in God’s law, absence/presence of the Spirit, and the transition at 8:1–4. Ask whether vivid present tense signals current autobiography or rhetorical narration.
- **Upstream:** Pauline rhetoric; SAN-001/002.
- **Downstream:** expectations for victory, assurance, anthropology of the will.
- **Entailments/incompatibilities:** A and B are passage-level alternatives, but a person may affirm Christian conflict from Galatians 5 while rejecting A. C/E can incorporate autobiographical resonance without making biography the controlling referent.
- **Common correlations, not entailments:** A common in Augustinian/Reformed readings; B common in Wesleyan, some early-church, and some Reformed readings; C/E common in newer Pauline scholarship.
- **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “Romans 7 Christian,” “wretched-man theology,” “victorious life.”


Theosis, participation, and conformity to Christ

Question: Should salvation be framed as participation in divine life (“theosis/deification”), and what does that mean?

V. Salvation, grace, justification, and sanctification

**Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass.

- **Question:** Should salvation be framed as participation in divine life (“theosis/deification”), and what does that mean?
- **Option SAN-005.A — Strong theosis by grace:** humans truly participate in God’s uncreated life/energies while never sharing the divine essence or becoming gods by nature.
- **Option SAN-005.B — Union-and-conformity theosis:** “partakers of the divine nature” means Spirit-mediated union, adoption, immortality, and moral conformity; theosis is acceptable with careful qualification.
- **Option SAN-005.C — Adoption/sanctification language preferred:** Scripture teaches union and glorification, but “deification” risks confusing Creator and creature.
- **Option SAN-005.D — Forensic benefits structurally prior:** participation is a real consequence of justification/adoption, not the encompassing definition of salvation.
- **Key texts:** Genesis 1:26–28; Psalm 82; John 1:12–18; 14:20–23; 17:20–26; Romans 8:14–30; 2 Corinthians 3:18; 5:17; Galatians 2:20; 4:4–7; Ephesians 1:3–14; Colossians 1:27; 2 Peter 1:3–4; 1 John 3:1–3.
- **Interpretive fork:** Define “divine nature” in 2 Peter 1 by its context—escape from corruption and growth in virtue—or as deeper ontological communion. Determine whether John 17’s unity is analogous participation, ecclesial love, or both. Exclude any reading that erases Creator/creature distinction.
- **Upstream:** CONV-005, Trinitarian anthropology, JUS-001.
- **Downstream:** SAN-001/003, sacraments, glorification.
- **Entailments/incompatibilities:** A/B can affirm forensic justification. C can affirm every biblical participation text while rejecting the label. Pantheistic identity with God is incompatible with all options in this framework.
- **Common correlations, not entailments:** A with Eastern Orthodox; B with patristic retrieval, some Reformed/Lutheran/Anglican writers; C/D with many evangelical and scholastic Protestant accounts.
- **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “theosis,” “deification,” “participation,” “union.”


Adoption: declaration, regeneration, or covenant incorporation

Question: How is adoption related to justification, regeneration, union, and baptism?

V. Salvation, grace, justification, and sanctification

**Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass.

- **Question:** How is adoption related to justification, regeneration, union, and baptism?
- **Option CONV-007.A — Distinct forensic-relational benefit:** God legally and relationally receives justified believers as heirs; adoption is not identical to regeneration.
- **Option CONV-007.B — Regenerative sonship:** new birth and reception of the Spirit constitute filial life; legal declaration and transformation are facets.
- **Option CONV-007.C — Union-derived participation in Christ’s sonship:** believers are sons because they are united to the eternal Son.
- **Option CONV-007.D — Baptismal/covenantal incorporation:** adoption is ordinarily conferred/marked in baptism and ecclesial incorporation.
- **Key texts:** John 1:12–13; Romans 8:14–23; 9:4; Galatians 3:23–4:7; Ephesians 1:5; 2:18–19; 1 John 3:1–3; Hebrews 2:10–18; 12:5–11.
- **Interpretive fork:** Decide whether `huiothesia` emphasizes legal placement/heirship, Spirit-enabled filial relation, corporate Israel-to-Christ transfer, or all three. In Galatians 3–4, determine whether baptismal union, faith, and Spirit reception identify one initiation complex.
- **Upstream:** CONV-005, JUS-001, BAP-001, LAW-007.
- **Downstream:** assurance, inheritance, sanctification.
- **Entailments/incompatibilities:** A–D can be layered; conflict arises only when one facet is declared exhaustive. Divine adoption does not entail that humans become divine by nature.
- **Common correlations, not entailments:** A with Reformed ordo formulations; B/C across Protestant and patristic accounts; D with sacramental traditions.
- **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “child of God,” “adopted,” “sonship.”


Macro-framework for the biblical covenants

Question: Which organizing account best explains continuity and discontinuity across Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Christ, Israel, and the church?

V. Salvation, grace, justification, and sanctification

**Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass.

- **Question:** Which organizing account best explains continuity and discontinuity across Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Christ, Israel, and the church?
- **Option LAW-001.A — Classic covenant theology:** one covenant of grace is administered through multiple historical covenants, often set against a covenant of works with Adam.
- **Option LAW-001.B — Classic dispensationalism:** Israel and the church remain distinguishable peoples/programs; biblical dispensations mark changes in stewardship, with promises to national Israel retained in their ordinary sense.
- **Option LAW-001.C — Progressive dispensationalism:** one unfolding kingdom plan culminates in Christ, with greater Israel/church continuity while retaining a future for ethnic/national Israel.
- **Option LAW-001.D — Progressive covenantalism:** the biblical covenants form a typological sequence fulfilled in Christ and the new-covenant people; no overarching covenant of grace needs to be posited as a separate biblical covenant.
- **Option LAW-001.E — New Covenant Theology:** Christ’s law and the new covenant govern the church; the Mosaic covenant, including its law-code as covenant, is obsolete.
- **Option LAW-001.F — Lutheran law/gospel and testament framework:** organizes Scripture less by a covenant-of-grace system and more by promise/gospel versus accusing law, with sacramental testament emphasis.
- **Option LAW-001.G — Canonical/biblical-covenant agnosticism:** affirm each named covenant and fulfillment in Christ without adopting a full macro-system.
- **Axis type:** composite model. These are bundles built from lower-level nodes, not primitive mutually exclusive data.
- **Key texts:** Genesis 2–3; 6–9; 12,15,17,22; Exodus 19–24; Deuteronomy 28–30; 2 Samuel 7; Jeremiah 31:31–34; Ezekiel 36–37; Luke 22:20; Romans 4; 9–11; Galatians 3–4; Ephesians 2–3; Hebrews 7–10.
- **Interpretive fork:** Model first: (1) whether Genesis 2 is covenantal, (2) Abraham–Moses relation, (3) Mosaic covenant’s function, (4) Israel/church continuity, (5) new-covenant membership, (6) law continuity, and (7) fulfillment of land/kingdom promises. Derive the macro-label afterward.
- **Upstream:** LAW-002/003/004/005/006/007/008/009, NCV-001.
- **Downstream:** baptism, ecclesiology, eschatology, ethics.
- **Entailments/incompatibilities:** Some definitions are mutually exclusive, but real thinkers occupy hybrids. “Dispensational” does not entail antinomianism; “covenant theologian” does not entail paedobaptism (Reformed Baptists are a counterexample).
- **Common correlations, not entailments:** Listed in option names; denominational adherence varies widely.
- **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “covenantal,” “dispensational,” “progressive covenantalist,” “New Covenant Theology,” “replacement theology.”


Covenant of works with Adam

Question: Did God enter a covenant of works/life/creation with Adam in which perfect obedience would obtain confirmed life?

V. Salvation, grace, justification, and sanctification

**Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass.

- **Question:** Did God enter a covenant of works/life/creation with Adam in which perfect obedience would obtain confirmed life?
- **Option LAW-002.A — Formal covenant of works:** Adam was federal head under a covenant promising life and threatening death based on obedience.
- **Option LAW-002.B — Covenant of life/creation with filial grace:** the arrangement is covenantal and probationary, but “works” can misleadingly imply merit independent of divine generosity.
- **Option LAW-002.C — Adamic command without covenant:** Scripture narrates command, vocation, and penalty but does not identify a covenant or promised merit.
- **Option LAW-002.D — Typological/protological covenant:** later Scripture reads Adam covenantally and Christologically even if Genesis lacks formal covenant markers.
- **Key texts:** Genesis 1:26–2:17; 3:1–24; Hosea 6:7; Romans 5:12–21; 7:7–13; 10:5; 1 Corinthians 15:21–49; Galatians 3:10–14; Revelation 2:7; 22:1–5,14.
- **Interpretive fork:** Ask whether command, parties, sanction, and implied life suffice for covenant, and whether Hosea 6:7 reads “like Adam” or “at Adam.” Determine whether the Adam–Christ representative parallel entails a covenant headship or can rest on typological solidarity.
- **Upstream:** definition of covenant; ANT-003.
- **Downstream:** ANT-004, ATN-006, JUS-002, LAW-003.
- **Entailments/incompatibilities:** A and C conflict on whether there was a covenant. D may support A/B without settling the original literary form. Covenant of works does not entail that Adam could earn against strict justice apart from grace.
- **Common correlations, not entailments:** A/B with Reformed covenant theology; C with dispensational, progressive covenantal, Lutheran, and many Baptist accounts; D across biblical theology.
- **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “covenant of works,” “merit,” “probation.”


Character of the Mosaic covenant

Question: Is the Mosaic covenant fundamentally an administration of grace, a republication of works, a conditional national covenant, or a mixed/typological arrangement?

V. Salvation, grace, justification, and sanctification

**Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass.

- **Question:** Is the Mosaic covenant fundamentally an administration of grace, a republication of works, a conditional national covenant, or a mixed/typological arrangement?
- **Option LAW-003.A — Administration of covenant of grace:** its sacrifices/promises deliver Christ in shadow; law guides a redeemed people, though it also exposes sin.
- **Option LAW-003.B — Subservient/conditional national covenant:** alongside the Abrahamic promise, Israel’s tenure and temporal blessing are conditioned on national obedience.
- **Option LAW-003.C — Typological republication of works:** at the typological/national level, the Adamic works principle is republished to drive to Christ and govern land inheritance.
- **Option LAW-003.D — Grace covenant with pedagogical works principle:** the covenant is gracious overall, while a hypothetical or pedagogical “do this and live” principle reveals inability.
- **Option LAW-003.E — Distinct obsolete old covenant:** it is neither simply covenant of grace nor covenant of works; it is a temporary bilateral covenant superseded by the new.
- **Key texts:** Exodus 19:3–8; 20:1–24:8; Leviticus 18:5; 26; Deuteronomy 4–7; 28–30; Jeremiah 31:31–34; Luke 10:25–28; Romans 3:19–20; 7:7–13; 9:30–10:13; 2 Corinthians 3:6–18; Galatians 3:10–25; 4:21–31; Hebrews 3–4; 7–10.
- **Interpretive fork:** Hold together exodus-before-law grace, conditional “if you obey,” sacrificial forgiveness, Abrahamic priority, exile sanctions, and New Testament old/new contrasts. Ask whether Leviticus 18:5 promises eschatological life by perfect works, covenant life in the land, or a principle fulfilled in Christ/Spirit.
- **Upstream:** LAW-002/004; Pauline reading of Torah at JUS-004.
- **Downstream:** LAW-005/006/008/009, JUS-003/004, assurance.
- **Entailments/incompatibilities:** B–D may coexist at different levels. A and E conflict only if A says the Mosaic form itself remains an administration after Christ. “Republication” needs a typed scope; without it the label hides several propositions.
- **Common correlations, not entailments:** A/D with classic Reformed; B/C with some Reformed republication views; E with New Covenant Theology and progressive covenantalism; Lutheran accounts stress condemning ministry and promise.
- **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “republication,” “works principle,” “old covenant,” “legal covenant.”


One covenant of grace across the canon

Question: Is there one post-fall covenant of grace substantively uniting all saved people before and after Christ?

V. Salvation, grace, justification, and sanctification

**Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass.

- **Question:** Is there one post-fall covenant of grace substantively uniting all saved people before and after Christ?
- **Option LAW-004.A — One covenant, multiple administrations:** all the elect are saved through the one covenant of grace, administered through promises, sacrifices, circumcision/passover, and then Word/sacraments.
- **Option LAW-004.B — One saving promise, not one formally named covenant:** salvation is always by Christ/grace/faith, but “covenant of grace” is a theological synthesis rather than a covenant spanning every epoch.
- **Option LAW-004.C — Successive covenants culminating in new covenant:** covenants relate typologically and progressively; unity is in Christ’s plan, not shared membership in one administrated covenant.
- **Option LAW-004.D — Distinct dispensational administrations with one gracious salvation:** all who are saved are saved by grace through faith, while covenant obligations/peoples differ.
- **Key texts:** Genesis 3:15; 12:1–3; 15; 17; Exodus 6:2–8; 19–24; 2 Samuel 7; Jeremiah 31; Luke 1:68–75; Romans 4; 9:6–8; Galatians 3:6–29; Ephesians 2:11–22; Hebrews 6–10.
- **Interpretive fork:** Determine whether Abrahamic, Mosaic, and new covenant relations are administrations of one covenant or genuinely distinct covenants linked by promise/typology. Ask whether Paul’s single seed and one people imply one covenant administration or one Christ across distinct covenants.
- **Upstream:** covenant definition; LAW-003; LAW-007.
- **Downstream:** BAP-002, NCV-001, law continuity.
- **Entailments/incompatibilities:** A and C conflict on formal structure while agreeing on one Savior and one gracious ground. D does not teach multiple ways of salvation.
- **Common correlations, not entailments:** A with Westminster/Reformed; B with many Baptists/Lutherans; C with progressive covenantalism; D with dispensationalism.
- **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “covenant of grace,” “one people,” “two peoples,” “dispensation.”


Tripartite division of Mosaic law

Question: Should Mosaic commands be classified as moral, ceremonial, and civil/judicial, with differing continuity?

V. Salvation, grace, justification, and sanctification

**Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass.

- **Question:** Should Mosaic commands be classified as moral, ceremonial, and civil/judicial, with differing continuity?
- **Option LAW-005.A — Stable tripartite distinction:** moral law continues, ceremonial law is fulfilled, civil law expires except for general equity.
- **Option LAW-005.B — Useful retrospective distinction:** the categories describe differing functions but are interwoven and not a directly revealed taxonomy.
- **Option LAW-005.C — Whole-covenant obsolescence with selective New Testament reauthorization:** Mosaic law as a unit is obsolete; commands bind Christians insofar as carried into Christ’s/new-covenant law.
- **Option LAW-005.D — Torah continuity transformed in Christ:** the whole Torah remains Scripture and is fulfilled/transposed rather than neatly partitioned.
- **Key texts:** Exodus 20–23; Leviticus 18–20; Deuteronomy 4:1–14; 12–26; Matthew 5:17–48; 15:1–20; Mark 7:19; Acts 10–11; 15; Romans 7:7–13; 13:8–10; 1 Corinthians 5:1–13; 9:8–10; Galatians 3:19–25; 5:1–6; Colossians 2:16–23; Hebrews 7–10.
- **Interpretive fork:** Determine whether Jesus/Paul identify enduring moral norms while ending cultic/boundary markers, and whether civil commands supply trans-cultural equity. Ask whether the New Testament’s reuse of Torah is continuity of the Mosaic covenant or fresh apostolic application through Christ.
- **Upstream:** LAW-003/004; fulfillment hermeneutic.
- **Downstream:** LAW-006/009, ethics, church-state views.
- **Entailments/incompatibilities:** A and C differ on why a command binds, even when producing the same ethic. B can mediate. Rejection of the tripartite scheme does not entail rejection of the Old Testament’s moral authority.
- **Common correlations, not entailments:** A with Reformed/Anglican and much Catholic moral theology; C with New Covenant Theology and some dispensationalism; B/D across biblical-theological approaches.
- **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “moral law,” “ceremonial law,” “civil law,” “general equity.”