# Theological Credence Catalog **Version:** 1.0 **Prepared:** 2026-08-06 **Artifact type:** flat, model-ingestible research catalog; not a confession, creed, or spiritual ranking. ## Purpose and boundary This is a probability-ready catalog of recurring doctrinal questions among Christians who affirm that Scripture, in the original writings, is wholly true and that faithful copies and translations substantively preserve its teaching. It is designed to replace brittle identity claims (“I am postmillennial,” “I am Reformed,” “I am Baptist”) with revisable credences about defined propositions. The uncertainty belongs to readers and their inferential models, not to Scripture’s truthfulness. A 60% credence means “I may be interpreting or synthesizing the perfect text incorrectly,” not “this part of Scripture is only 60% reliable.” The catalog maps serious interpretive alternatives; it does not imply that all alternatives have equal evidence, equal historical standing, or equal compatibility with the stated framework. The classic creedal center—one God in three persons, the full deity and humanity of Christ, his bodily resurrection, and his future triumph—is treated as a boundary of the catalog rather than as a set of equiprobable denominational options. A tool may still permit very high but non-infinite personal credences for these claims. This is a broad doctrinal catalog, not an inventory of every disputed verse or every possible ethical case. Each record captures a recurring axis that materially affects theology, worship, church practice, Christian identity, or another record. ## Probability vocabulary - **Credence**: a person’s present degree of belief in a proposition, expressed from 0 to 1 or 0% to 100%. - **Odds**: a comparison between options. “Postmillennialism is twice as likely as amillennialism” means `P(postmil) / P(amil) = 2`; it does not determine either probability until the remaining options are assigned mass. - **Credence range**: a range such as 45–60%, used when a person is uncertain about the exact value of their own credence. This is the closest implementation of the requested “confidence interval.” It is not a frequentist statistical confidence interval. - **Exclusive option set**: options are rival answers to one question and should sum to 100%, including an `underdetermined_or_hybrid` option when appropriate. - **Multi-select option set**: several options can be true together. Atonement motifs are the clearest example; Christus Victor and penal substitution need not compete for one fixed 100%. - **Conditional link**: learning or adopting one interpretation should move the odds of another. A link may be `raises`, `lowers`, or `constrains`, with suggested strengths `weak`, `moderate`, and `strong`. - **Hard constraint**: two propositions logically contradict one another as defined. - **Soft correlation**: positions often travel together historically or hermeneutically but neither entails the other. ## Rules for a sound implementation 1. **Use evidence clusters, not prooftext counts.** Parallel Synoptic accounts, repeated quotations, and verses resting on the same lexical or hermeneutical judgment should normally be one evidence unit. Otherwise the same reason gets counted several times. 2. **Keep text and interpretation distinct.** A record names a passage and then the fork that makes it bear differently on the options. 3. **Expose priors.** Historical consensus, simplicity, ecclesial authority, philosophical coherence, and personal experience may legitimately affect a user’s prior, but they should not masquerade as additional Bible verses. 4. **Model shared hermeneutics as upstream nodes.** Covenant continuity, typology, the use of the Old Testament in the New, apocalyptic symbolism, and whether Acts is prescriptive drive many downstream readings. 5. **Use soft updates by default.** “Paedobaptism raises the probability of covenant theology” is usually sound; “paedobaptism proves covenant theology” is not. 6. **Do not force false exclusivity.** Some questions are families of claims, emphases, or mechanisms rather than rival propositions. 7. **Reserve hard constraints for definitions.** Credobaptism as defined excludes presenting an infant as a proper baptismal subject; it does not exclude every other Reformed belief. 8. **Let local exegesis and global coherence update each other.** A reading of Romans 9 affects election; a developed account of election also changes the prior brought back to Romans 9. A factor graph or iterative Bayesian network fits this better than a one-way tree. 9. **Track source channels separately.** Suggested channels are `biblical_text`, `canonical_pattern`, `historical_reception`, `confessional_authority`, `philosophical_coherence`, and `lived_experience`. 10. **Do not infer a person’s complete theology from a label.** Identity records below are prototypes with core, common, and variable features. 11. **Make asymmetry visible.** Intellectual humility does not require treating a 95/5 question as 50/50. 12. **Permit suspension.** `underdetermined_or_hybrid` is a legitimate destination, not an error state. ## Flat issue-record schema Every issue record uses these fields: - `ID` - `Question` - `Type`: one of `exclusive`, `exclusive_with_hybrid`, `multi_select`, `untyped_do_not_normalize`, or `typed_freeform_review_required` - `Options` - `Text clusters` - `Decision logic` - `Dependencies` - `Identity links` - `Guardrail` when an option presses against the catalog’s conservative or creedal boundary Sections V–VII preserve equivalent domain-specialist labels: `Key texts` means `Text clusters`; `Interpretive fork` and `Decision logic` serve the same role; `Upstream`/`Downstream` together mean `Dependencies`; and `Relations`/`Booleanized identity labels` supply identity links and correlation cautions. The JSONL artifact normalizes these records into a common wrapper. If a record does not explicitly declare `Type`, its JSONL `option_set_type` is `untyped_do_not_normalize`. A product must not force its options to sum to 100% until a human or later curation pass marks the node exclusive or multi-select. A nonstandard explicit type becomes `typed_freeform_review_required`. Cross-domain mirrors receive `mirror_group_ids` and, where appropriate, `domain_view_of`; their repeated text clusters must never be counted as independent evidence. Dependency syntax: - `A=x -> B=y (raises|lowers, weak|moderate|strong)` - `A=x x B=y (hard conflict)` - `A <-> B (shared latent judgment; do not count as independent evidence)` --- # I. Authority, canon, and hermeneutics ### AUTH-01 — Final doctrinal authority - **Question:** What is the final norm by which binding Christian doctrine is identified and corrected? - **Type:** exclusive_with_hybrid - **Options:** `sola_scriptura_final_infallible_norm`; `prima_scriptura_with_authoritative_tradition`; `scripture_and_apostolic_tradition_authoritatively_interpreted_by_church`; `underdetermined_hybrid`. - **Text clusters:** 2 Timothy 3:14–17 and Psalm 19/119; Mark 7:5–13; Acts 17:10–12; 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 15:1–3; 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 3:6; 1 Timothy 3:15; Acts 15:1–29; John 16:12–15; Jude 3. - **Decision logic:** Ask whether Scripture’s sufficiency for equipping entails that it is the only infallible rule; whether “traditions” in Paul are recoverable only where inscripturated or also through a protected ecclesial transmission; and whether Acts 15 models a permanently authoritative teaching office or an unrepeatable apostolic council. Distinguish apostolic tradition from later customs. - **Dependencies:** `AUTH-01=sola_scriptura -> AUTH-02=protestant_66 (raises, moderate)`; `AUTH-01=scripture_and_tradition -> ECC-06=apostolic_succession (raises, strong)`; `AUTH-01=scripture_and_tradition -> MARY-02/03 and SAC-01=seven_sacraments (raises, strong)`. This node changes the evidential weight of historical reception across almost the entire catalog. - **Identity links:** Protestant, evangelical, Lutheran, Reformed, Baptist, Anglican, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox. ### AUTH-02 — Old Testament canon - **Question:** Which books belong to the Old Testament canon? - **Type:** exclusive_with_hybrid - **Options:** `protestant_39_book_ot`; `roman_catholic_deuterocanon`; `eastern_orthodox_broader_canons`; `open_or_underdetermined_at_edges`. - **Text clusters:** Luke 24:27, 44; Romans 3:2; Matthew 23:35/Luke 11:51; Hebrews 11; Jude 9, 14–15; New Testament uses of the Greek Old Testament; disputed books’ own contents. No biblical passage supplies a complete table of contents. - **Decision logic:** Biblical data can test coherence and show use or allusion, but recognition of the exact list necessarily depends on manuscript history and reception. A quotation or allusion does not by itself confer canonicity; neither does lack of a New Testament quotation exclude a book. - **Dependencies:** `AUTH-01=sola_scriptura -> AUTH-02` creates a bootstrapping question that must be answered with providence and historical reception; `AUTH-02=broader_canon -> ESC-INT-02.PURG and ESC-INT-02.MYSTERY-PRAYER` (`raises` separately, moderate/strong, especially via 2 Maccabees 12). - **Identity links:** Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox. ### AUTH-03 — Location of interpretive authority - **Question:** When competent Christians disagree, where is the church’s most trustworthy interpretive judgment located? - **Type:** exclusive_with_hybrid - **Options:** `individual_conscience_under_scripture`; `local_congregation`; `confessional_communion`; `bishops_in_apostolic_succession`; `universal_magisterium_or_council`; `distributed_hybrid`. - **Text clusters:** Acts 15:1–29; Matthew 16:17–19 and 18:15–20; John 16:13; Acts 17:11; 1 Corinthians 14:29–33; 1 Timothy 3:15; Ephesians 4:11–16; 2 Peter 3:15–16. - **Decision logic:** Determine whether promises of guidance attach uniquely to apostles, to their successors, to the whole church, or to ordinary Spirit-enabled discernment; and whether the Bereans model private judgment or responsible testing within the covenant community. Second Peter 1:20–21 concerns prophecy’s divine origin rather than directly choosing between private and magisterial interpretation. - **Dependencies:** `AUTH-03=bishops_or_magisterium -> GOV-01=episcopal and ECC-06=apostolic_succession (raises, strong)`; `AUTH-03=congregation -> GOV-01=congregational (raises, moderate)`; `AUTH-03=confessional_communion -> AUTH-05=subscriptional (raises, strong)`. - **Identity links:** congregationalist, Presbyterian, Anglican, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, restorationist. ### AUTH-04 — Perspicuity of Scripture - **Question:** How clear is Scripture on matters necessary for salvation and on secondary doctrine? - **Type:** exclusive_with_hybrid - **Options:** `clear_on_essentials_not_equally_all_topics`; `broadly_clear_to_diligent_believers`; `requires_authoritative_ecclesial_tradition_for_reliable_doctrine`; `underdetermined`. - **Text clusters:** Deuteronomy 30:11–14; Psalm 19:7; Psalm 119:105, 130; Luke 24:25–27, 45; Acts 8:30–35; 2 Peter 3:15–16; Ephesians 4:11–14. - **Decision logic:** Weigh texts describing Scripture as accessible and illuminating against texts acknowledging difficulty and the need for teachers. Do not turn “some things are hard” into “nothing is clear,” or “the gospel is clear” into “every disputed inference is obvious.” - **Dependencies:** Higher perspicuity lowers the prior for a necessary infallible teaching office but does not determine polity. Low secondary-doctrine perspicuity should widen credence ranges across the catalog. - **Identity links:** evangelical, confessional Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox. ### AUTH-05 — Role of creeds and confessions - **Question:** How binding should post-biblical doctrinal summaries be? - **Type:** exclusive_with_hybrid - **Options:** `no_creed_but_bible_or_minimal_statement`; `ministerial_confession_correctable_by_scripture`; `robust_subscription_with_allowed_exceptions`; `authoritative_ecumenical_dogma`; `hybrid`. - **Text clusters:** Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Corinthians 15:3–7; Philippians 2:5–11; 1 Timothy 3:16; 2 Timothy 1:13–14; Jude 3; Acts 15. - **Decision logic:** Early formulae support faithful summaries, but the dispute is whether later creeds merely witness to Scripture, bind officers as church contracts, or express protected conciliar judgments. - **Dependencies:** `AUTH-05=authoritative_ecumenical_dogma -> AUTH-03=episcopal_or_council (raises)`; `AUTH-05=robust_subscription -> denominational prototype confidence (raises)`; individual doctrinal credence must not be replaced by subscription alone. - **Identity links:** restorationist, non-denominational, Baptist, Reformed, Lutheran, Anglican, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox. ### TEXT-01 — Preferred New Testament textual tradition - **Question:** Which manuscript/text-critical model most probably preserves the original New Testament wording at disputed places? - **Type:** exclusive_with_hybrid - **Options:** `eclectic_critical_text`; `byzantine_priority`; `textus_receptus_priority`; `confessional_preservation_model`; `passage_by_passage_hybrid`. - **Text clusters:** Matthew 5:18; John 10:35; 1 Peter 1:24–25; major variants Mark 16:9–20, John 7:53–8:11, Acts 8:37, 1 John 5:7–8. The primary evidence is manuscript, versional, and patristic rather than an inspired statement naming a later edition. - **Decision logic:** Separate confidence in providential preservation from confidence in one printed text; distinguish “a passage is ancient/canonical” from “this wording is original”; do not derive a textual method solely from verses promising endurance of God’s word. - **Dependencies:** Usually weak for core doctrine because major teachings rest on multiple undisputed texts. `TEXT-01=TR_priority -> ID=fundamentalist_or_KJV_tradition (raises, sometimes strong)` is sociological, not logical. - **Identity links:** KJV-only, confessional bibliology, Byzantine-priority, mainstream evangelical scholarship. ### HERM-01 — Covenant continuity across the Testaments - **Question:** How much continuity should be presumed between the Abrahamic/Mosaic people of God and the new-covenant church? - **Type:** exclusive_with_hybrid - **Options:** `strong_continuity_one_covenant_people`; `promissory_continuity_with_new_covenant_transformation`; `strong_discontinuity_distinct_stewardships`; `multiple_covenant_or_progressive_hybrid`. - **Text clusters:** Genesis 12:1–3; 15; 17; Exodus 19:4–6; Jeremiah 31:31–34; Ezekiel 36:22–28; Matthew 5:17–20; Acts 2:38–39; Romans 4; 9–11; Galatians 3–4; Ephesians 2:11–22; Hebrews 7–10; 1 Peter 2:9–10. - **Decision logic:** Ask whether the new covenant renews and expands earlier covenant structures or makes a categorically new, regenerate community; whether Abraham’s seed is defined christologically without remainder; and which Mosaic elements expire, transform, or continue. - **Dependencies:** Strong shared latent node for baptism subjects, law/Sabbath, Israel/church, land promises, church membership, and eschatology. `HERM-01=strong_continuity -> BAP-01=infant_household_subjects (raises, strong)`; `HERM-01=strong_discontinuity -> ESC-FRM-01=dispensational (raises, moderate/strong)`. - **Identity links:** covenant theology, progressive covenantalism, dispensationalism, Lutheran law/gospel, New Covenant Theology. ### HERM-02 — Typology and fulfillment of Old Testament promises - **Question:** When the New Testament applies an Old Testament promise to Christ or the church, does that exhaust, expand, or coexist with its earlier national/territorial sense? - **Type:** exclusive_with_hybrid - **Options:** `christological_ecclesial_fulfillment_normally_exhaustive`; `already_not_yet_expansion_including_ethnic_israel`; `parallel_or_future_literal_national_fulfillment`; `text_specific_hybrid`. - **Text clusters:** Matthew 2:15; 5:17; John 2:19–22; Acts 2:16–21 and 15:13–18; Romans 4:13 and 9–11; 1 Corinthians 10:1–11; Galatians 3:16, 26–29; Hebrews 8–12; 1 Peter 2:4–10; Revelation 21–22. - **Decision logic:** Determine whether New Testament reuse redefines the referent, adds a climactic referent while retaining the earlier one, or guarantees multiple fulfillments. Avoid making “literal” synonymous with “non-typological”; biblical typology claims real fulfillment. - **Dependencies:** `HERM-02=exhaustive_christological -> ESC-ISR-01=church_as_eschatological_israel and ESC-MIL-01=amil_or_postmil (raises)`; `HERM-02=future_literal_national -> ESC-ISR-01=distinct_future and ESC-MIL-01=dispensational_premil (raises, strong)`. - **Identity links:** Reformed, progressive covenantal, dispensational, premillennial, amillennial. ### HERM-03 — Apocalyptic-symbolic default - **Question:** What default level of symbolism should govern Daniel, Zechariah, Revelation, and apocalyptic portions of the Gospels? - **Type:** exclusive_with_hybrid - **Options:** `symbolic_recapitulation_default`; `symbolic_with_linear_historical_sequence`; `referentially_literal_futurist_default`; `passage_specific_hybrid`. - **Text clusters:** Daniel 2, 7–12; Zechariah 1–6, 12–14; Matthew 24; Revelation 1:1, 12–20; 5; 7; 12–14; 17; 20–22; Old Testament sources echoed by Revelation. - **Decision logic:** Decide how Revelation’s own decoded symbols set the default, whether repeated endings indicate recapitulation, whether numbers are schematic or arithmetical, and whether Old Testament imagery is transformed or predicts corresponding physical objects. - **Dependencies:** Major upstream node for Revelation chronology, millennium, tribulation, temple, Israel, and judgments. It should not be counted again as independent evidence at every downstream record. - **Identity links:** idealist, preterist, historicist, futurist, dispensational, amillennial. ### HERM-04 — Prophetic horizon - **Question:** Do biblical prophecies characteristically have one historical referent, typological escalation, or multiple fulfillments? - **Type:** exclusive_with_hybrid - **Options:** `single_primary_fulfillment_with_applications`; `type_and_antitype_escalation`; `dual_or_multiple_fulfillment`; `prophetic_pattern_or_recursion`; `text_specific_hybrid`. - **Text clusters:** Isaiah 7:14 with Matthew 1:22–23; Hosea 11:1 with Matthew 2:15; Joel 2 with Acts 2:16–21; Daniel 9:24–27; Matthew 24; 2 Samuel 7 with Luke 1:32–33 and Acts 2:29–36. - **Decision logic:** Ask whether New Testament fulfillment language identifies the sole intended referent, a climactic sensus plenior, or one realization in a recurring pattern. Do not use “double fulfillment” as an unfalsifiable rescue for every prediction. - **Dependencies:** Strongly coupled to `HERM-02`, `ESC-OLIV-01`, `ESC-REV-02`, and `ESC-ISR-01`. - **Identity links:** preterist, futurist, typological/covenantal, dispensational. ### HERM-05 — Narrative normativity in Acts - **Question:** Which apostolic-era events are intended as repeatable norms for churches? - **Type:** exclusive_with_hybrid - **Options:** `explicit_epistolary_command_required`; `apostolic_pattern_normative_unless_repealed`; `salvation_historical_transition_model`; `discerned_case_by_case`. - **Text clusters:** Acts 2:1–47; 4:32–37; 6:1–6; 8:4–25; 10:44–48; 15; 19:1–7; 20:7; 1 Corinthians 11–14; pastoral epistles. - **Decision logic:** Determine whether repeated events establish a pattern, whether unique Jew/Samaritan/Gentile transitions explain variations, and how later didactic texts control narrative inference. - **Dependencies:** Major upstream node for Spirit baptism, tongues as evidence, communal property, deacons, weekly communion, healing, and church decision-making. - **Identity links:** Pentecostal, charismatic, restorationist, cessationist, episcopal/presbyterian/congregational. ### HERM-06 — Old Testament law in Christian ethics - **Question:** How does Mosaic law norm new-covenant believers? - **Type:** exclusive_with_hybrid - **Options:** `threefold_law_with_moral_law_continuing`; `law_gospel_with_enduring_divine_commands`; `law_of_christ_new_covenant_republication`; `theonomic_general_equity_including_civil_norms`; `dispensational_or_case_by_case_discontinuity`. - **Text clusters:** Matthew 5:17–48; 15:1–20; 22:34–40; Acts 15; Romans 3:31; 6:14; 7:1–6; 8:1–4; 13:8–10; 1 Corinthians 9:8–21; Galatians 3–6; Colossians 2:13–23; Hebrews 7–10; James 2:8–12. - **Decision logic:** Ask what “fulfill” and “not under law” mean, whether the New Testament republishes the moral law, whether the civil/ceremonial/moral division is exegetical or systematic, and how apostolic use of Mosaic commands models continuity. - **Dependencies:** Upstream for Sabbath, tithing, food laws, civil government, sexual ethics, and covenant models. `HERM-06=theonomic -> PUBLIC-01=Christian_magistracy (raises)`; `HERM-06=new_covenant_law -> SAB-01=nonbinding (raises)`. - **Identity links:** Reformed, Lutheran, New Covenant Theology, dispensational, theonomic. --- # II. Theology proper, Christology, and Mariology ### GOD-01 — Classical immutability and impassibility - **Question:** How should divine constancy be reconciled with texts in which God grieves, relents, responds, or becomes angry? - **Type:** exclusive_with_hybrid - **Options:** `classical_immutable_impassible_with_analogical_affection_language`; `immutable_character_with_real_relational_mutability`; `theistic_mutualism_or_passibility`; `underdetermined`. - **Text clusters:** Exodus 3:14; Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:11, 29, 35; Psalm 102:25–27; Malachi 3:6; James 1:17; Genesis 6:5–7; Exodus 32:7–14; Hosea 11:8–9; Jonah 3:10; John 1:14; Hebrews 13:8. - **Decision logic:** Decide whether change-language is anthropomorphic/analogical, describes changes in creaturely relations to an unchanging God, or reveals responsive changes in God’s experience. Distinguish immutability of being, character, knowledge, will, and relations. - **Dependencies:** `GOD-01=classical -> GOD-02=simplicity (raises, strong)` and `GOD-03=exhaustive_definite_foreknowledge (raises)`; incarnation requires distinguishing change in the assumed human nature from change in divine nature. - **Identity links:** classical theist, Thomist, Reformed scholastic, Lutheran scholastic, theistic mutualist, open theist. - **Guardrail:** A God who is unreliable in character or ceases to be God conflicts with pervasive biblical claims; not every passibilist view entails that. ### GOD-02 — Divine simplicity - **Question:** Are God’s attributes and essence really identical, or are divine attributes distinct features perfectly united in God? - **Type:** exclusive_with_hybrid - **Options:** `strong_classical_simplicity`; `moderate_or_qualified_simplicity`; `property_or_social_model_rejecting_strong_simplicity`; `underdetermined`. - **Text clusters:** Exodus 3:14; Deuteronomy 6:4; Psalm 86:10; Isaiah 44:6; John 4:24; 1 John 1:5 and 4:8; Romans 11:33–36; 1 Timothy 6:15–16. Much of the dispute is a metaphysical synthesis rather than the exegesis of one explicit proposition. - **Decision logic:** Ask whether “God is love/light” identifies essence or predicates an attribute, whether divine aseity excludes composition, and whether strong simplicity can preserve real Trinitarian distinctions and contingent acts. - **Dependencies:** Strongly coupled to `GOD-01` and models of divine freedom; only weakly connected to most denominational practices. - **Identity links:** Thomist, classical Protestant, Eastern Orthodox essence/energies tradition, analytic theist. ### GOD-03 — Divine knowledge of future contingents - **Question:** What grounds God’s knowledge of future contingent acts? - **Type:** exclusive_with_hybrid - **Options:** `exhaustive_foreknowledge_grounded_in_divine_decree_or_causal_knowledge`; `simple_foreknowledge_of_libertarian_acts`; `middle_knowledge_molinism`; `dynamic_omniscience_open_future`; `underdetermined`. - **Text clusters:** Psalm 139:1–16; Isaiah 41:21–29 and 46:9–11; Jeremiah 1:5; Matthew 11:20–24; 26:34; John 13:19; Acts 2:23; Romans 8:29–30; 1 Samuel 23:10–13; Genesis 22:12; Jeremiah 18:7–10; Mark 13:32. - **Decision logic:** All of the first three options affirm exhaustive definite foreknowledge; they differ over its modal ground. Determine whether conditional counterfactuals reveal middle knowledge, whether libertarian future acts can be infallibly foreknown without being decreed, whether “now I know” is accommodated/relational speech, and whether prophecy requires an exhaustively settled future or divine ability to determine select outcomes. - **Dependencies:** `GOD-03=decree_grounded -> PROV-002=exhaustive_definite_decree and ELEC-002=unconditional (raises)`; `GOD-03=middle_knowledge -> PROV-002=Molinist_actualization (raises, strong)`; `GOD-03=open_future -> PROV-002=meticulous_exhaustive_decree (hard conflict as ordinarily defined)`. - **Identity links:** Calvinist, Molinist, Arminian, open theist. - **Guardrail:** Open theism is accepted by some self-described evangelicals and rejected by many conservative confessions; the tool should mark this contested boundary rather than silently remove it. ### GOD-04 — Scope and mode of providence - **Question:** Does God specifically ordain all events, permit libertarian creaturely choices within his plan, or govern chiefly through responsive sovereignty? - **Type:** exclusive_with_hybrid - **Options:** `meticulous_compatibilist_decree`; `molinist_concurrence`; `general_concurrence_with_libertarian_freedom`; `responsive_or_risk_model`; `mystery_or_hybrid`. - **Text clusters:** Genesis 50:20; Job 1–2; Proverbs 16:9, 33 and 21:1; Isaiah 10:5–19; Lamentations 3:37–38; Matthew 10:29–31; Acts 2:23 and 4:27–28; Romans 8:28–30; Ephesians 1:11; James 1:13–17. - **Decision logic:** Ask whether the same event can be intended by God for good and by creatures for evil without making God morally blameworthy; distinguish decree, permission, concurrence, foreknowledge, and coercion. - **Dependencies:** Major upstream node for election, prayer, evil, assurance, and spiritual gifts. `GOD-04=meticulous -> ELEC-002=unconditional_individual (raises, strong)` but does not logically entail it. - **Identity links:** Reformed/Calvinist, Lutheran, Molinist, Arminian, open theist. ### TRIN-01 — Procession of the Holy Spirit (filioque) - **Question:** Does the Spirit eternally proceed from the Father alone, or from the Father and the Son? - **Type:** exclusive_with_hybrid - **Options:** `from_father_alone`; `from_father_and_son`; `from_father_through_son`; `formulae_compatible_when_qualified`. - **Text clusters:** John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7, 13–15; Romans 8:9; Galatians 4:6; Revelation 22:1. Historical language and the distinction between eternal procession and temporal mission are decisive. - **Decision logic:** Determine whether the Son’s sending of the Spirit in history reveals eternal origin, whether “proceeds from the Father” is exclusive, and whether “through the Son” reconciles East and West. - **Dependencies:** Strong identity link but few downstream evangelical practices. - **Identity links:** Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Western creedal Protestant, Anglican. ### TRIN-02 — Eternal generation of the Son - **Question:** Does Scripture teach that the Son is eternally begotten/generated from the Father while fully equal and uncreated? - **Type:** exclusive_with_hybrid - **Options:** `eternal_generation`; `eternal_sonship_without_generation_language`; `incarnational_or_resurrection_begetting_only`; `underdetermined`. - **Text clusters:** Psalm 2:7 with Acts 13:33 and Hebrews 1:5; John 1:1–18; 5:26; 17:5; Colossians 1:15–17; Hebrews 1:1–3; Micah 5:2. - **Decision logic:** Weigh the textual/lexical history of *monogenēs*, the Father granting life “in himself” to the Son, and New Testament applications of Psalm 2. Distinguish eternal relation of origin from creation or temporal beginning. - **Dependencies:** `TRIN-02=eternal_generation -> Nicene_identity (raises, strong)`; do not infer ontological inferiority. - **Identity links:** Nicene, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, confessional Reformed/Lutheran/Anglican, some modern evangelical revisions. - **Guardrail:** Any view making the Son created or less than fully divine lies outside the catalog’s creedal center. ### TRIN-03 — Eternal relations of authority and submission - **Question:** Is the Son’s submission to the Father solely economic/incarnational, or an eternal personal relation? - **Type:** exclusive_with_hybrid - **Options:** `economic_submission_only`; `eternal_filial_order_without_authority_hierarchy`; `eternal_functional_subordination_or_authority_submission`; `underdetermined`. - **Text clusters:** John 5:18–30; 10:30; 14:28; 17:1–5; 1 Corinthians 11:3; 15:24–28; Philippians 2:5–11; Hebrews 5:7–9. - **Decision logic:** Decide whether mission reveals eternal relation, whether “greater” and final subjection refer to incarnate messianic office, and whether authority/submission language can be eternal without dividing will or nature. - **Dependencies:** Often correlated with complementarianism, but `TRIN-03 <-> GEN-01` is a debated analogy, not an entailment; do not let one count as independent textual evidence for the other. - **Identity links:** classical Nicene, evangelical complementarian, social Trinitarian. ### CHRIST-01 — Christ’s impeccability - **Question:** Was the incarnate Son capable of sinning, even though he certainly did not sin? - **Type:** exclusive_with_hybrid - **Options:** `impeccable_not_able_to_sin`; `peccable_able_but_perfectly_faithful`; `mystery_due_two_natures`. - **Text clusters:** Matthew 4:1–11; Hebrews 2:17–18 and 4:15; James 1:13; John 5:19, 30; 8:29, 46; 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:22. - **Decision logic:** Ask whether genuine temptation requires metaphysical ability to yield, whether the divine person can sin, and how a real human will operates in inseparable union with the divine nature. - **Dependencies:** Depends heavily on Chalcedonian two-natures Christology; few denominational consequences. - **Identity links:** classical Christology, some evangelical analytic debates. - **Guardrail:** Christ’s actual sinlessness is part of the shared conservative/creedal boundary. ### CHRIST-02 — Meaning of Christ’s kenosis - **Question:** In what sense did the Son “empty himself” in the incarnation? - **Type:** exclusive_with_hybrid - **Options:** `addition_of_servant_form_without_surrender_of_attributes`; `refraining_from_independent_use_of_prerogatives`; `functional_limitation_by_spirit_dependent_human_life`; `ontological_kenosis_or_attribute_relinquishment`; `hybrid`. - **Text clusters:** Philippians 2:5–11; John 1:14; 5:19; 17:5; Mark 13:32; Luke 2:40, 52; Hebrews 2:9–18; Colossians 1:15–20 and 2:9. - **Decision logic:** Grammar favors emptying “by taking” servant form, but Jesus’ growth and limited human knowledge require a model of lived human consciousness. Distinguish nonuse, veiling, human limitation, and surrender of deity. - **Dependencies:** Interacts with miracles-by-Spirit, impeccability, and models of the hypostatic union. - **Identity links:** classical two-natures Christology, Spirit Christology, kenotic Christology. - **Guardrail:** A model in which the Son ceases to be fully divine conflicts with the stated creedal boundary. ### MARY-01 — Perpetual virginity - **Question:** Did Mary remain a virgin after Jesus’ birth? - **Type:** exclusive_with_hybrid - **Options:** `perpetual_virginity`; `ordinary_marital_relations_and_later_children`; `underdetermined`. - **Text clusters:** Matthew 1:18–25; 13:55–56; Mark 6:3; Luke 1:34; John 7:3–5; 19:25–27; Acts 1:14; uses of “brother” for kin; Old Testament background sometimes applied to Ezekiel 44:1–3. - **Decision logic:** Determine whether “until” implies a later change, whether Jesus’ brothers are Mary’s children, Joseph’s earlier children, or cousins/kin, and whether entrusting Mary to John implies no surviving sons. - **Dependencies:** `AUTH-01=authoritative_tradition -> MARY-01=perpetual (raises, strong)`; this question by itself does not determine Marian intercession or sinlessness. - **Identity links:** Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, traditional Anglican/Lutheran, most Baptist/non-denominational traditions. ### MARY-02 — Marian sinlessness and immaculate conception - **Question:** Was Mary preserved from original sin and/or personally sinless by a unique grace? - **Type:** exclusive_with_hybrid - **Options:** `immaculate_conception_and_personal_sinlessness`; `personal_holiness_without_immaculate_conception`; `faithful_but_fallen_and_in_need_of_redemption`; `underdetermined`. - **Text clusters:** Genesis 3:15; Luke 1:28, 35, 46–49; Romans 3:23 and 5:12–19; Hebrews 4:15; Revelation 12. The strongest case for the first option also invokes church tradition and theological fittingness. - **Decision logic:** Ask whether “favored/graced one” entails preservation from sin, whether universal sin-language admits a unique exception, and whether Mary’s “Savior” excludes or can include preservative redemption. - **Dependencies:** `AUTH-01=scripture_and_tradition -> MARY-02=immaculate (raises, strong)`; `ANT-004=inherited_guilt` (with `ANT-003` Adamic solidarity) creates the theological problem the immaculate conception is formulated to solve. - **Identity links:** Roman Catholic (immaculate conception), Eastern Orthodox (high holiness but different ancestral-sin framework), Protestant. ### MARY-03 — Invocation of Mary and the saints - **Question:** May Christians ask glorified saints to intercede for them? - **Type:** exclusive_with_hybrid - **Options:** `permissible_and_fitting_invocation`; `possible_but_not_scripturally_warranted`; `prayer_should_be_addressed_to_God_alone`; `underdetermined`. - **Text clusters:** 1 Timothy 2:1–5; Hebrews 12:1, 22–24; Revelation 5:8 and 8:3–4; Luke 15:7, 10; Deuteronomy 18:9–14; Isaiah 8:19; ordinary requests for living believers’ prayers. - **Decision logic:** Determine whether heavenly presentation of prayers implies awareness and intercession, whether asking differs from necromancy or worship, and whether Christ’s unique mediation permits subordinate intercession as it does among living believers. - **Dependencies:** `AUTH-01=authoritative_tradition` and `ESC-INT-01=conscious_intermediate_state` raise this option; soul sleep lowers it strongly. - **Identity links:** Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, high-church Anglican, Protestant. --- # III. Creation and human constitution ### CREA-01 — Genre and chronology of Genesis 1 - **Question:** What temporal/genre claim do the six creation days make? - **Type:** exclusive_with_hybrid - **Options:** `ordinary_consecutive_solar_days`; `day_age_or_long_epochs`; `framework_literary_structure`; `analogical_workdays`; `gap_or_restoration_reading`; `underdetermined_hybrid`. - **Text clusters:** Genesis 1:1–2:3; Exodus 20:8–11 and 31:12–17; Psalm 104; Proverbs 8:22–31; Hebrews 4:1–11; the sequence and literary parallels within Genesis 1. - **Decision logic:** Evaluate *yom* with numbered evenings/mornings, the force of the Sabbath analogy, the relation between days 1–3 and 4–6, and whether divine work/rest is analogical. Keep the age of the earth and common ancestry as related but separate questions. - **Dependencies:** `CREA-01=ordinary_days -> CREA-02=young_earth (raises, strong but not strict)`; `CREA-01=framework_or_analogical -> old_earth (permits, not entails)`. - **Identity links:** young-earth creationist, old-earth creationist, framework interpretation, evolutionary creation. ### CREA-02 — Age of the earth and genealogical chronology - **Question:** Does Scripture require a creation only thousands of years ago? - **Type:** exclusive_with_hybrid - **Options:** `young_earth_chronology`; `old_earth_compatible_with_scripture`; `biblically_underdetermined`. - **Text clusters:** Genesis 5 and 11; Exodus 20:11; 1 Chronicles 1; Luke 3:23–38; apparent genealogical telescoping in biblical genealogies; 2 Peter 3:8 is theological context, not a direct conversion formula for Genesis days. - **Decision logic:** Ask whether “fathered” genealogies are complete chronological chains, whether creation-week interpretation fixes age, and which claims come from natural evidence rather than direct exegesis. - **Dependencies:** Coupled to `CREA-01`, `CREA-04=death_before_fall`, and flood geology, but should receive independent scientific/historical evidence in a separate channel. - **Identity links:** young-earth creationist, old-earth creationist, intelligent design, evolutionary creation. ### CREA-03 — Common ancestry and providential evolution - **Question:** Did God create present life through common ancestry and evolutionary processes? - **Type:** exclusive_with_hybrid - **Options:** `independent_special_creation_of_major_kinds`; `guided_or_providential_common_ancestry_except_humans`; `universal_common_ancestry_with_special_human_calling`; `evolutionary_creation`; `underdetermined`. - **Text clusters:** Genesis 1:11–27 and 2:7, 21–23; Psalm 104; Matthew 19:4–6; Acts 17:24–29; 1 Corinthians 15:38–49. Natural evidence is a distinct and substantial input. - **Decision logic:** Determine what “according to kinds” asserts, whether dust/rib language specifies immediate material mechanism, and whether divine creation is compatible with secondary causes. - **Dependencies:** `CREA-03=universal_common_ancestry -> CREA-04=historical_Adam_models` requires careful reconciliation but does not logically exclude a historical couple; `GOD-04=secondary_cause_concurrence` raises compatibility. - **Identity links:** special creationist, old-earth creationist, intelligent design, evolutionary creation. ### CREA-04 — Historical Adam and Eve - **Question:** What historical claim does Scripture make about Adam and Eve as the first humans and covenant heads? - **Type:** exclusive_with_hybrid - **Options:** `sole_biological_progenitors_of_all_humans`; `historical_pair_among_or_ancestral_to_larger_population`; `genealogical_universal_ancestors`; `archetypal_or_literary_figures_without_unique_historical_pair`; `underdetermined`. - **Text clusters:** Genesis 2–5; 1 Chronicles 1:1; Hosea 6:7; Matthew 19:4–6; Luke 3:38; Acts 17:26; Romans 5:12–21; 1 Corinthians 11:8–12 and 15:21–49; 1 Timothy 2:13–14; Jude 14. - **Decision logic:** Ask whether Paul’s Adam/Christ parallel requires a unique historical individual and federal act, whether Genesis genealogies place Adam in ordinary history, and whether universal descent must be exclusively genetic. - **Dependencies:** `CREA-04=nonhistorical -> ANT-003=Adam_as_federal_historical_head (lowers, strong)`; impacts original sin, death before fall, and sometimes marriage/ordination arguments. - **Identity links:** young-earth and old-earth creationism, evolutionary creation, conservative evangelical boundary debates. - **Guardrail:** Many conservative confessions require a historical first pair; the nonhistorical option should be marked as pressing against, though not uniformly excluded from, the user’s framework. ### CREA-05 — Human and animal death before the fall - **Question:** Did any creaturely death occur before human sin? - **Type:** exclusive_with_hybrid - **Options:** `no_animal_or_human_death`; `animal_death_but_no_human_death`; `ordinary_biological_death_with_spiritual_and_covenantal_death_from_fall`; `underdetermined`. - **Text clusters:** Genesis 1:29–31; 2:17; 3:14–24; Isaiah 11:6–9 and 65:17–25; Romans 5:12–21 and 8:18–23; 1 Corinthians 15:21–26, 42–49. - **Decision logic:** Determine whether Romans 5’s “death through sin” is human-specific, whether animal predation is excluded by “very good,” and whether Isaiah depicts restored creation literally, symbolically, or eschatologically. - **Dependencies:** `CREA-05=no_death -> young_earth_and_global_fall_cosmology (raises)`; `CREA-03=common_ancestry -> ordinary_animal_death (raises, strong)`. - **Identity links:** young-earth creationist, old-earth creationist, evolutionary creation. ### CREA-06 — Extent and character of Noah’s flood - **Question:** Was the flood geographically global, anthropologically universal but regional, or a large local judgment? - **Type:** exclusive_with_hybrid - **Options:** `global_geological_and_human_flood`; `regional_geography_with_all_target_humans`; `large_local_judgment`; `literary_theological_account_with_historical_core`; `underdetermined`. - **Text clusters:** Genesis 6–9; Genesis 10–11; Psalm 104:5–9; Isaiah 54:9; Matthew 24:37–39; Luke 17:26–27; 1 Peter 3:18–22; 2 Peter 2:5 and 3:5–7. - **Decision logic:** Assess the universal language in its ancient narrative context, ark purpose and dimensions, covenant with creatures, later apostolic use, and whether “all the earth” can denote the known/inhabited land elsewhere. - **Dependencies:** Strongly correlated with young-earth flood geology but not logically identical; scientific/geographical evidence must be a separate channel. - **Identity links:** young-earth creationist, old-earth creationist, evangelical accommodation models. ### ANTH-01 — Meaning of the image of God - **Question:** What principally constitutes the image of God in humanity? - **Type:** multi_select - **Options:** `substantive_rational_moral_capacity`; `relational_communion`; `functional_royal_vocation_and_dominion`; `embodied_representation`; `Christological_destiny`. - **Text clusters:** Genesis 1:26–28; 5:1–3; 9:6; Psalm 8; 1 Corinthians 11:7; 2 Corinthians 3:18 and 4:4; Colossians 1:15 and 3:10; James 3:9. - **Decision logic:** The text can support multiple complementary dimensions. A tool should score emphases independently and ask which dimension grounds universal dignity after the fall. - **Dependencies:** Affects anthropology, disability theology, vocation, gender arguments, and sanctification, but does not by itself settle any of them. - **Identity links:** rarely denominational; important across Catholic, Orthodox, Reformed, and evangelical anthropology. ### ANTH-02 — Human constitution - **Question:** How are body, soul, and spirit related? - **Type:** exclusive_with_hybrid - **Options:** `substance_dualism_body_and_soul_spirit_synonymous`; `trichotomy_body_soul_spirit`; `holistic_or_monist_anthropology_with_postmortem_continuity`; `emergent_or_hylomorphic_unity`; `underdetermined`. - **Text clusters:** Genesis 2:7; Ecclesiastes 12:7; Matthew 10:28; Luke 23:43; 1 Corinthians 2:14–3:4 and 15; 2 Corinthians 5:1–10; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; Hebrews 4:12; James 2:26. - **Decision logic:** Decide whether “soul” and “spirit” name separable components or overlapping aspects, whether Hebrews 4 uses rhetorical parallelism, and what survives bodily death. - **Dependencies:** Strongly connected to intermediate state, soul sleep, sanctification models, and sometimes deliverance teaching. - **Identity links:** dichotomist Reformed/Lutheran, trichotomist Pentecostal/Keswick streams, hylomorphic Catholic/Orthodox, holistic biblical anthropology. ### ANTH-03 — Origin of each human soul - **Question:** How does each person’s immaterial life originate? - **Type:** exclusive_with_hybrid - **Options:** `creationism_God_creates_each_soul`; `traducianism_soul_propagated_with_body`; `hylomorphic_generation_of_whole_person`; `underdetermined`. - **Text clusters:** Genesis 2:7; 5:3; Numbers 16:22; Psalm 51:5; 139:13–16; Ecclesiastes 12:7; Zechariah 12:1; Hebrews 7:9–10 and 12:9. - **Decision logic:** Ask whether God as “Father of spirits” implies special creation, whether Levi’s presence “in” Abraham implies propagation, and which model best explains inherited corruption without making God author of sin. - **Dependencies:** Coupled to original sin transmission and anthropology; little direct denominational identity. - **Identity links:** some Reformed traducianism, Catholic/most scholastic creationism, hylomorphism. --- # IV. Moral theology and public theology ### ETH-01 — Divorce exceptions - **Question:** Under what conditions may a Christian initiate or recognize divorce? - **Type:** exclusive_with_hybrid - **Options:** `no_divorce_as_morally_permitted_though_separation_possible`; `sexual_immorality_exception`; `sexual_immorality_and_unbelieving_abandonment`; `broader_covenant-breaking_or_abuse_application`; `case_specific_underdetermined`. - **Text clusters:** Genesis 2:18–24; Deuteronomy 24:1–4; Malachi 2:13–16; Matthew 5:31–32 and 19:3–12; Mark 10:2–12; Luke 16:18; 1 Corinthians 7:10–16. - **Decision logic:** Determine the scope of *porneia*, why Mark/Luke omit Matthew’s exception, whether Paul’s “not enslaved” permits divorce, and whether severe abuse is a form of abandonment or a separate inference from protection/justice texts. - **Dependencies:** `ETH-01` must be separated from `ETH-02` remarriage; high views of ecclesial annulment authority change application. - **Identity links:** Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, conservative Protestant, Anabaptist. ### ETH-02 — Remarriage after divorce - **Question:** When, if ever, may a divorced person marry another while the former spouse lives? - **Type:** exclusive_with_hybrid - **Options:** `never_while_former_spouse_lives_unless_union_invalid`; `permitted_for_innocent_party_after_biblical_divorce`; `permitted_after_abandonment_or_irremediable_covenant_end`; `penitential_case_by_case`. - **Text clusters:** Deuteronomy 24:1–4; Matthew 5:31–32; 19:3–12; Mark 10:11–12; Luke 16:18; Romans 7:1–3; 1 Corinthians 7:8–16, 39. - **Decision logic:** Decide whether the exception modifies divorce only or also remarriage, whether “not enslaved” frees to remarry, and whether Jesus describes every subsequent union as ongoing adultery or its inception as adulterous. - **Dependencies:** `ETH-01` strongly constrains this record; sacramental/annulment models create different option definitions. - **Identity links:** Roman Catholic annulment practice, Eastern Orthodox economy, conservative Protestant traditions. ### MARR-01 — Headship and mutual submission in marriage - **Question:** Does Christian marriage include an enduring asymmetry of governing responsibility, or a fully mutual partnership without sex-based authority? - **Type:** exclusive_with_hybrid - **Options:** `mutual_submission_without_unilateral_spousal_authority`; `husband_servant_headship_with_asymmetrical_final_responsibility`; `head_as_source_or_covenant_unity_without_governing_authority`; `broad_patriarchal_household_governance`; `underdetermined_or_mixed`. - **Text clusters:** Genesis 1:26–28; 2:18–25; 3:16–19; Proverbs 31:10–31; 1 Corinthians 7:1–5 and 11:3, 8–12; Galatians 3:28; Ephesians 5:21–33; Colossians 3:18–19; 1 Peter 3:1–7. - **Decision logic:** Determine whether Ephesians 5:21 grammatically governs every following household relation, what *kephalē* (“head”) contributes, whether creation order establishes authority or interdependence, and whether the husband’s Christlike self-giving includes a final governing responsibility. Distinguish descriptive ancient household form from the enduring marital ethic. - **Dependencies:** `MARR-01=asymmetrical_headship -> GEN-01=male_eldership` (`raises`, moderate) but neither entails the other; `TRIN-03` analogies are disputed and must not be double-counted as textual evidence. - **Identity links:** complementarian, patriarchal, egalitarian, traditional Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant marriage. ### ETH-03 — Same-sex sexual relationships - **Question:** Can a covenantal same-sex sexual union be morally faithful within biblical sexual ethics? - **Type:** exclusive_with_hybrid - **Options:** `all_same_sex_sexual_acts_outside_biblical_marriage`; `texts_condemn_exploitative_idolatrous_or_excessive_forms_not_covenantal_unions`; `affirming_covenantal_same_sex_marriage`; `traditional_ethic_with_disputed_pastoral_categories`. - **Text clusters:** Genesis 1:26–28 and 2:18–24; Genesis 19 with Ezekiel 16:49–50 and Jude 7; Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13; Matthew 19:4–6; Romans 1:18–32; 1 Corinthians 6:9–11; 1 Timothy 1:8–11. - **Decision logic:** Determine the lexical scope of *malakoi* and *arsenokoitai*, whether Romans 1 addresses all same-sex relations or lust/idolatry/excess, how creation-order reasoning functions, and whether covenantal forms unknown or unaddressed in the ancient world change the moral category. - **Dependencies:** `HERM-06=continuing_creation_and_moral_norms -> traditional (raises, strong)`; `AUTH-01` and theological anthropology also matter. Orientation, temptation, identity, civil law, pastoral inclusion, and sexual acts must remain distinct questions. - **Identity links:** traditionalist, Side B/celibate gay Christian, affirming, mainline, evangelical. - **Guardrail:** The affirming reading is rejected by most historical conservative confessions; include it for explicit comparison without implying equal support within the stated framework. ### ANTH-04 — Embodied sex, gender identity, and intersex conditions - **Question:** How should embodied sex, social gender, internal gender identity, dysphoria, and atypical sexual development relate in Christian anthropology? - **Type:** multi_select - **Options:** `male_and_female_are_created_embodied_sex_categories`; `rare_intersex_or_DSD_conditions_are_variations_requiring_case_specific_discernment`; `many_gendered_customs_and_nonmoral_roles_are_culturally_variable`; `internal_gender_identity_can_govern_social_recognition_despite_embodied_sex`; `medical_transition_can_be_morally_permissible`; `dysphoria_calls_for_compassion_without_reclassifying_embodied_sex`; `Scripture_leaves_some_modern_clinical_questions_underdetermined`. - **Text clusters:** Genesis 1:26–28 and 2:18–25; Deuteronomy 22:5; Isaiah 56:3–5; Matthew 19:4–12; Acts 8:26–39; Romans 8:18–25; 1 Corinthians 6:12–20 and 11:2–16; Galatians 3:28; Philippians 3:20–21. - **Decision logic:** Ask whether “male and female” describes an exhaustive created bodily pattern, which clothing and role markers are cultural, and whether bodily integrity or internal identity should govern social-recognition or medical decisions. Biblical eunuch texts provide at most analogical evidence about altered, nonprocreative, or socially atypical status; they do not directly classify eunuchs as intersex/DSD cases. Keep medical diagnosis, names/pronouns, social roles, puberty suppression, hormones, and surgery as separate applications. - **Dependencies:** Related to `ANTH-01` image of God, `MARR-01`, `GEN-01/03`, and `ETH-03`, but none supplies an automatic answer. Natural science and clinical evidence require distinct source channels. - **Identity links:** traditional embodied-sex anthropology, gender-critical, affirming, pastoral-accommodation models. - **Guardrail:** The override/transition option is rejected by most traditional conservative confessions; include it explicitly for comparison without treating pastoral compassion as agreement on ontology. ### ETH-04 — Contraception and procreative openness - **Question:** Must every marital sexual act remain open to procreation? - **Type:** multi_select - **Options:** `each_marital_act_must_remain_procreatively_open`; `nonabortifacient_contraception_can_be_permissible_with_responsible_motives`; `periodic_abstinence_or_natural_family_planning_can_be_permissible`; `procreative_openness_applies_to_marriage_as_a_whole_not_each_act`; `method_and_motive_require_case_specific_judgment`. - **Text clusters:** Genesis 1:28; 2:24; 38:8–10; Psalm 127:3–5; Malachi 2:15; 1 Corinthians 7:2–5; 1 Timothy 5:8. No passage directly classifies modern contraceptive methods. - **Decision logic:** Ask whether Onan is judged for contraception as such or refusal of levirate duty, whether procreation is an end of every act or of marriage generally, and how stewardship and mutual consent apply. - **Dependencies:** Embryo-status questions constrain methods that may act after fertilization; `AUTH-01=tradition_authoritative` raises traditional natural-law conclusions. - **Identity links:** Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox pastoral economy, Protestant. ### ETH-05 — Alcohol - **Question:** Does biblical wisdom require abstinence from beverage alcohol or permit moderate use? - **Type:** multi_select - **Options:** `universal_total_abstinence_norm`; `moderate_use_morally_permitted_while_drunkenness_forbidden`; `contextual_abstinence_required_by_love_conscience_or_vocation`. - **Text clusters:** Psalm 104:14–15; Proverbs 20:1 and 23:29–35; Isaiah 5:11; John 2:1–11; Romans 14:13–23; Ephesians 5:18; 1 Timothy 3:3, 8 and 5:23; Titus 2:3. - **Decision logic:** Distinguish use from drunkenness, ask whether biblical “wine” was inherently nonalcoholic, and allow conscience/neighbor-love restrictions without universalizing them. The alcohol strength and ordinary dilution of ancient wine are evidence modifiers, not doctrinal options. - **Dependencies:** Mostly practice and holiness traditions, not core doctrinal nodes. - **Identity links:** temperance/Wesleyan/Baptist streams, sacramental traditions, Christian liberty. ### ETH-06 — War, force, and enemy love - **Question:** May Christians participate in lethal military or police force? - **Type:** exclusive_with_hybrid - **Options:** `Christian_pacifism_nonresistance`; `just_war_and_strictly_limited_force_permitted`; `policing_permitted_but_warfare_rejected`; `case_specific_or_just_peacemaking_hybrid`. - **Text clusters:** Exodus 20:13; Matthew 5:38–48 and 26:51–54; Luke 3:14 and 22:35–38; John 18:36; Acts 10; Romans 12:14–21 and 13:1–7; 1 Peter 2:13–23; Revelation 13:10. - **Decision logic:** Determine whether enemy-love commands prohibit all lethal force or govern personal retaliation, whether Romans 13 authorizes Christian participation or merely describes the state, and how soldiers’ conversions without recorded resignation function. - **Dependencies:** `PUBLIC-01=two_kingdoms -> just_force (raises)`; `HERM-06` affects use of Old Testament warfare. - **Identity links:** Anabaptist/Mennonite, Quaker, just-war Catholic/Reformed/Anglican, Lutheran two kingdoms. ### ETH-07 — Capital punishment - **Question:** Does civil government retain authority to execute murderers or other offenders? - **Type:** exclusive_with_hybrid - **Options:** `retained_and_sometimes_required_for_murder`; `permitted_in_principle_but_never_mandated_and_prudentially_abolishable`; `superseded_or_incompatible_with_new_covenant_ethic`; `underdetermined`. - **Text clusters:** Genesis 9:5–6; Exodus 21; John 8:1–11 with textual-status caution; Romans 13:1–7; Acts 25:11; Matthew 5:38–48. - **Decision logic:** Ask whether Genesis 9 is a universal creation covenant, what “sword” denotes in Romans 13, and whether mercy/turn-the-other-cheek governs state punishment. - **Dependencies:** Coupled to public theology, law continuity, and pacifism but not entailed by any one. - **Identity links:** Anabaptist, Catholic developments, Reformed/evangelical just-war traditions. ### ETH-08 — Tithing - **Question:** Are new-covenant Christians obligated to give ten percent? - **Type:** exclusive_with_hybrid - **Options:** `binding_ten_percent_minimum`; `wisdom_baseline_not_legal_requirement`; `free_proportionate_generous_giving`; `church_or_clergy_tithe_model`. - **Text clusters:** Genesis 14:18–20 and 28:20–22; Leviticus 27:30–33; Deuteronomy 14:22–29; Malachi 3:8–10; Matthew 23:23; 1 Corinthians 9:6–14 and 16:1–2; 2 Corinthians 8–9. - **Decision logic:** Determine whether pre-Mosaic tithes establish creation norms, whether Jesus’ words address people under Mosaic law, and how apostolic proportionate/cheerful giving relates to a fixed percentage. - **Dependencies:** `HERM-06=continuing_moral_law_or_theonomy -> binding_tithe (raises)`; church funding model affects application. - **Identity links:** many evangelical/Pentecostal churches, free-church stewardship, sacramental parish systems. ### ETH-09 — Head coverings in gathered worship - **Question:** Does 1 Corinthians 11 require a physical head covering for women in worship today? - **Type:** exclusive_with_hybrid - **Options:** `universal_physical_covering`; `culturally_variable_symbol_of_enduring_sex_distinction`; `hair_itself_is_covering`; `passage_specific_underdetermined`. - **Text clusters:** 1 Corinthians 11:2–16; Genesis 1–2; Numbers 5:18; possible Greco-Roman and Jewish background. - **Decision logic:** Decide whether Paul grounds the practice in creation/angels or decorum, whether the final hair argument identifies or analogizes the covering, and what “custom” in verse 16 rejects. - **Dependencies:** Correlated with complementarianism and plain-reading traditions but not entailed by them. - **Identity links:** Anabaptist, Brethren, some Reformed/Pentecostal traditions, mainstream evangelical. ### ETH-10 — Beginning of individual human life and abortion - **Question:** At what point should the developing human be treated as a human neighbor with the ordinary protection owed to innocent life? - **Type:** exclusive_with_hybrid - **Options:** `from_fertilization`; `from_implantation`; `from_formation_quickening_or_brain_development`; `from_viability_or_birth`; `underdetermined`. - **Text clusters:** Genesis 1:26–27 and 9:6; Exodus 21:22–25; Job 3:3 and 10:8–12; Psalm 51:5 and 139:13–16; Jeremiah 1:5; Luke 1:15, 41–44; Galatians 1:15. Embryology is a separate evidence channel. - **Decision logic:** Determine the grammar and injury referent of Exodus 21, whether prenatal personal pronouns and divine calling imply full moral status, and whether biblical texts distinguish biological life, ensoulment, and legal personhood. Uncertainty can itself support a precautionary conclusion. - **Dependencies:** `ANTH-03=special_soul_creation` raises a timing question but does not answer it; contraception and reproductive-technology judgments depend on this node. - **Identity links:** pro-life evangelical/Catholic/Orthodox, consistent-life ethic, abortion-permissive Christian ethics. ### ETH-11 — Euthanasia, assisted death, and refusing treatment - **Question:** May a Christian intentionally cause death to end suffering, and how does that differ from declining disproportionate treatment? - **Type:** exclusive_with_hybrid - **Options:** `intentional_killing_never_permitted_but_burdensome_treatment_may_be_refused`; `physician_assistance_permitted_in_extreme_cases`; `aggressive_preservation_required_unless_death_immediate`; `case_specific_hybrid`. - **Text clusters:** Exodus 20:13; 1 Samuel 31:1–6 and 2 Samuel 1:1–16; Job 1:20–22; Psalm 31:15; Proverbs 31:6–9; Matthew 27:34; Romans 14:7–9; Philippians 1:20–26. Medical proportionality is an ethical inference rather than an explicit biblical rule. - **Decision logic:** Distinguish intending death from accepting death, analgesia with foreseen side effects from lethal intent, suicide from martyrdom, and ordinary care from extraordinary treatment. - **Dependencies:** Human dignity, providence, suffering, and resurrection shape the prior; no single eschatological position entails a medical answer. - **Identity links:** Catholic/Orthodox natural-law ethics, evangelical bioethics, some progressive Christian ethics. ### ETH-12 — Oaths and sworn testimony - **Question:** Do Jesus and James prohibit all oaths or only manipulative/casual swearing? - **Type:** exclusive_with_hybrid - **Options:** `all_formal_oaths_prohibited`; `solemn_truthful_public_oaths_permitted`; `oaths_permitted_only_under_authority_or_necessity`; `underdetermined`. - **Text clusters:** Leviticus 19:12; Deuteronomy 6:13; Matthew 5:33–37 and 23:16–22; Matthew 26:63–64; 2 Corinthians 1:23; Hebrews 6:13–18; James 5:12; Revelation 10:5–6. - **Decision logic:** Decide whether “do not swear at all” is absolute, hyperbolic intensification against evasive vows, or a rule for ordinary speech; weigh divine and apostolic oath-like appeals. - **Dependencies:** `ETH-06=Anabaptist_nonresistance` often correlates with total oath refusal through a shared Sermon-on-the-Mount hermeneutic. - **Identity links:** Anabaptist/Mennonite, Quaker, Reformed/Anglican/Lutheran permission. ### ETH-13 — Wealth, poverty, and prosperity teaching - **Question:** What material expectations and obligations ordinarily accompany faithful discipleship? - **Type:** multi_select - **Options:** `prosperity_as_normative_covenant_blessing`; `contentment_and_generosity_with_variable_providence`; `preferential_solidarity_and_voluntary_simplicity`; `communal_sharing_as_church_norm`; `ascetic_vocation_for_some`. - **Text clusters:** Deuteronomy 8 and 28; Proverbs 3:9–10; Malachi 3:8–12; Matthew 6:19–34; 19:16–30; Luke 4:16–21; 6:20–26; 12:13–34; Acts 2:42–47 and 4:32–5:11; 2 Corinthians 8–9; Philippians 4:10–20; 1 Timothy 6:3–19; James 2 and 5. - **Decision logic:** Ask which old-covenant material promises transfer directly, whether Acts describes required common ownership or radical voluntary generosity, and whether “hundredfold” promises are present material guarantees or kingdom/community blessings amid persecution. - **Dependencies:** `HERM-01/HERM-06=strong_direct_continuity` can raise prosperity readings if typology and suffering texts are underweighted; `PUBLIC-02=integral_mission` raises corporate economic concern. - **Identity links:** prosperity gospel, Pentecostal/charismatic (not synonymous), Anabaptist simplicity, monastic/ascetic, mainstream evangelical stewardship. - **Guardrail:** A transactional guarantee that faithful giving secures wealth or healing conflicts with substantial New Testament counterevidence and should be given a low default within this framework. ### ETH-14 — Slavery texts and the scope of biblical abolition - **Question:** Do Scripture’s slavery regulations and household codes tolerate a temporary institution, regulate a permissible form, or contain principles that require abolition? - **Type:** multi_select - **Options:** `redemptive_trajectory_requires_abolition`; `some_ancient_servitude_was_temporarily_permitted_but_severely_bounded`; `ancient_forms_must_be_distinguished_from_modern_race_chattel_slavery`; `household_codes_are_pastoral_accommodation_not_timeless_ideal`; `kidnapping_race_chattel_and_person_ownership_are_intrinsically_condemned`. - **Text clusters:** Exodus 21; Leviticus 25:39–55; Deuteronomy 15 and 23:15–16; Matthew 7:12; 20:25–28; 1 Corinthians 7:20–24; Galatians 3:28; Ephesians 6:5–9; Colossians 3:22–4:1; 1 Timothy 1:10 and 6:1–2; Philemon; Revelation 18:11–13. - **Decision logic:** Distinguish Israelite debt service, foreign permanent slavery, Roman slavery, kidnapping, and modern race chattel slavery; ask whether apostolic nonrevolutionary instructions imply moral endorsement or seed a status-dissolving trajectory in union and brotherhood. - **Dependencies:** This record is an important calibration test for hermeneutics later used in gender and sexuality debates; shared method should be modeled, but outcomes must not be forced to match. - **Identity links:** abolitionist evangelical, proslavery historical readings, redemptive-movement hermeneutics, liberation theology. ### PUBLIC-01 — Church and civil order - **Question:** What positive role should civil government have in relation to true religion and the church? - **Type:** multi_select - **Options:** `institutional_church_state_separation`; `equal_religious_liberty_and_noncoercion`; `two_kingdoms_distinct_vocations`; `Christian_magistrate_support_without_ecclesial_control`; `confessional_establishment_or_theonomic_civil_norms`; `Anabaptist_contrast_society`; `public_law_may_draw_on_natural_law_or_creation_norms`. - **Text clusters:** Psalm 2; Isaiah 2:2–4 and 49:23; Daniel 2 and 7; Matthew 22:15–22 and 28:18–20; John 18:36; Acts 5:29; Romans 13:1–7; 1 Timothy 2:1–4; 1 Peter 2:9–17; Revelation 13 and 17–18. - **Decision logic:** Determine whether Old Testament kingship supplies a new-covenant civil model, what “not from this world” says about source versus scope, and whether nations as nations are discipled or people from nations are. - **Dependencies:** `HERM-06=theonomic` and `ESCH=postmil` often raise confessional-state models; `ETH-06=pacifism` raises contrast-society models. These are correlations, not deductions. - **Identity links:** Baptist religious liberty, Lutheran/Reformed two kingdoms, Christian nationalism, theonomy, Anabaptism, Catholic integralism. ### PUBLIC-02 — Mission of the institutional church - **Question:** Is the church’s corporate mission narrowly Word/sacrament/discipleship, or does it include social transformation as a coordinate mandate? - **Type:** exclusive_with_hybrid - **Options:** `great_commission_word_and_sacrament_priority`; `integral_mission_evangelism_and_justice`; `kingdom_transformation_or_cultural_mandate`; `institutional_church_narrow_individual_Christian_broad`; `hybrid`. - **Text clusters:** Genesis 1:26–28; Isaiah 58 and 61; Micah 6:8; Matthew 5:13–16; 25:31–46; 28:18–20; Luke 4:16–21; Acts 2:42–47 and 6:1–7; Galatians 2:10 and 6:10; Ephesians 2:8–10; James 1:27. - **Decision logic:** Distinguish what the church as institution must do from what Christians in their vocations must do; ask whether Jesus’ kingdom signs define the church’s continuing mandate and whether mercy ministry is constitutive or consequent. - **Dependencies:** Public theology and eschatology shift emphases; do not infer political program directly from “kingdom.” - **Identity links:** missional, integral mission, two kingdoms, social gospel (guardrail varies), evangelical. --- # V. Salvation, grace, justification, and sanctification ### ANT-001 — Human constitution at death and resurrection **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. - **Question:** Is a human person constituted by two distinguishable aspects, three distinguishable aspects, or an integrated psychosomatic unity whose biblical terms substantially overlap? - **Option ANT-001.A — Dichotomy:** body and immaterial soul/spirit; “soul” and “spirit” substantially overlap. - **Option ANT-001.B — Trichotomy:** body, soul, and spirit are meaningfully distinct constituents. - **Option ANT-001.C — Holistic/conditional distinction:** Scripture can distinguish bodily and immaterial existence, but ordinarily speaks of the person as an integrated whole; component language should not become a precise metaphysical map. - **Key texts:** Genesis 2:7; Ecclesiastes 12:7; Matthew 10:28; Luke 23:43,46; 1 Corinthians 15:35–54; 2 Corinthians 5:1–10; Philippians 1:21–24; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; Hebrews 4:12; Revelation 6:9–11. - **Interpretive fork:** If 1 Thessalonians 5:23 and Hebrews 4:12 enumerate ontologically distinct parts, raise B. If their lists are rhetorical descriptions of the whole person and “soul/spirit” overlap elsewhere, raise A or C. If the intermediate-state texts require conscious disembodied personal existence, reduce strongly materialist versions of C, but they do not by themselves distinguish A from B. - **Upstream:** lexical semantics of `nephesh`, `ruach`, `psychē`, and `pneuma`; interpretation of the intermediate state. - **Downstream:** accounts of regeneration, sanctification, death, and the image of God. - **Entailments/incompatibilities:** Strict materialism conflicts with a reading of Luke 23:43 and Philippians 1:23 that locates conscious personal presence with Christ before resurrection. Dichotomy does not entail Platonism or contempt for the body. - **Common correlations, not entailments:** Trichotomy correlates with some Pentecostal, Keswick, and dispensational writers; dichotomy with much Reformed theology; holistic language with many contemporary biblical theologians across traditions. - **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “dichotomist,” “trichotomist,” “holist.” ### ANT-002 — Origin of each human soul **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. - **Question:** Does God create each soul immediately, or do parents generate the whole human person under providence? - **Option ANT-002.A — Creationism:** God directly creates each soul, which is united to the body. - **Option ANT-002.B — Traducianism:** the immaterial as well as bodily life is propagated through parents. - **Option ANT-002.C — Agnostic/whole-person generation:** Scripture affirms divine formation and human descent without specifying a mechanism. - **Key texts:** Genesis 2:7; 5:3; Psalm 51:5; 139:13–16; Ecclesiastes 12:7; Isaiah 42:5; Zechariah 12:1; Acts 17:25–26; Hebrews 12:9. - **Interpretive fork:** If “Father of spirits” and God “forms the spirit” describe immediate creation, raise A. If Adam’s descendants are generated in his likeness and sinful humanity is propagated as a whole, raise B. If both are ordinary providential descriptions rather than metaphysical mechanisms, raise C. - **Upstream:** ANT-001; doctrine of providential concurrence. - **Downstream:** ANT-003 and ANT-004 explanations of inherited corruption/guilt. - **Entailments/incompatibilities:** Neither A nor B entails a particular theory of original guilt. A needs an explanation of corruption without God creating a sinful soul; B needs an account that preserves God as creator and avoids materializing the soul. - **Common correlations, not entailments:** Creationism is common in Reformed scholastic and Roman Catholic accounts; traducianism in some Lutheran and evangelical accounts. - **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “creationist” here must be disambiguated from creation-age debates; “traducian.” ### ANT-003 — Adamic headship and solidarity **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. - **Question:** Why does Adam’s sin affect his descendants? - **Option ANT-003.A — Federal/representative headship:** Adam acted as covenant representative; his trespass is judicially counted to those he represented. - **Option ANT-003.B — Natural/seminal headship:** humanity participated in Adam through organic descent. - **Option ANT-003.C — Corporate solidarity:** Adam is the fountain and representative pattern of humanity, without a separately specified imputation mechanism. - **Option ANT-003.D — Primarily imitation plus inherited mortality/corruption:** Adam introduces a ruined condition which every person ratifies by personal sin. - **Key texts:** Genesis 2:15–17; 3:1–24; 5:1–3; Romans 5:12–21; 1 Corinthians 15:21–22,45–49; Hebrews 7:9–10; Hosea 6:7 (translation disputed). - **Interpretive fork:** In Romans 5, decide what `because all sinned` means: each personally sinned, all sinned in Adam, or all sin because death/corruption spread. Then decide whether the Adam–Christ parallel is chiefly forensic representation, causal solidarity, or both. A tight symmetrical imputation reading raises A; a genealogical-participation reading raises B; deliberate under-specification raises C. - **Upstream:** ANT-001, ANT-002; covenant-of-works judgment at LAW-002. - **Downstream:** ANT-004, ANT-005, ATN-006, JUS-002. - **Entailments/incompatibilities:** A and B can be combined. D becomes incompatible with A only if D denies any representative counting of Adam’s act. - **Common correlations, not entailments:** Federal headship correlates with covenantal Reformed theology; natural headship with some Augustinian and Lutheran accounts; corporate-solidarity language spans evangelical traditions. - **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “federalist,” “realist,” “Augustinian,” “Pelagian” (the last should not be inferred merely from rejecting inherited guilt). ### ANT-004 — Inherited guilt **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. - **Question:** Are Adam’s descendants born judicially guilty of Adam’s first sin, or born corrupted and mortal but guilty only upon personal sin? - **Option ANT-004.A — Immediate imputed guilt:** Adam’s guilt is directly counted to every natural descendant. - **Option ANT-004.B — Mediate imputation:** guilt attaches through the inherited corrupt nature. - **Option ANT-004.C — Ancestral corruption/mortality without inherited personal culpability:** all inherit death and a sinful condition; culpability attaches to personal sin. - **Option ANT-004.D — Accountability-qualified inherited condition:** all need Christ from conception, while Scripture leaves the precise culpability of those incapable of moral response unresolved. - **Key texts:** Psalm 51:5; 58:3; Romans 5:12–19; 1 Corinthians 15:22; Ephesians 2:1–3; Deuteronomy 24:16; Ezekiel 18:1–23; Jeremiah 31:29–30. - **Interpretive fork:** If Romans 5:18–19 describes condemnation through Adam’s one act in the same representational sense that Christ’s obedience grounds justification, raise A. If condemnation presupposes participation through an inherited corrupt nature, raise B. If Ezekiel 18 controls the definition of personal guilt and Romans 5 concerns mortality/corruption and universal personal sin, raise C. D separates universal need for atonement from confident claims about infant culpability. - **Upstream:** ANT-003; grammatical reading of Romans 5:12; LAW-002. - **Downstream:** ANT-005, ANT-008, BAP-002, ATN-004. - **Entailments/incompatibilities:** A and C are contradictory if “guilt” is held constant. Universal corruption does not entail immediate imputed guilt. Infant salvation does not settle this node. - **Common correlations, not entailments:** A with confessional Reformed and many Baptists; versions of B with Augustinian traditions; C with Eastern Orthodox, some Anabaptist, and some Wesleyan accounts. - **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “original sin,” “Augustinian,” “ancestral sin,” “Pelagian.” These terms frequently conflate guilt, corruption, mortality, and inability. ### ANT-005 — Extent of corruption and moral inability **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. - **Question:** What can fallen persons do toward saving faith apart from special divine grace? - **Option ANT-005.A — Total moral inability:** every faculty is corrupted; no one can make the morally good turn to Christ without effectual renewing grace. - **Option ANT-005.B — Total inability answered by universally enabling grace:** no one can respond unaided, but prevenient grace restores a real capacity to accept or resist. - **Option ANT-005.C — Severe corruption without total inability:** sinners need initiating/assisting grace but retain some native capacity to cooperate. - **Option ANT-005.D — Natural ability with moral culpability:** sinners possess the relevant faculties but invariably refuse apart from grace; “cannot” describes settled moral unwillingness rather than missing capacity. - **Key texts:** Genesis 6:5; 8:21; Deuteronomy 30:11–20; Jeremiah 13:23; 17:9; John 3:19–21; 6:44,65; 8:34–36; Romans 3:9–18; 8:5–8; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Ephesians 2:1–5; Acts 7:51. - **Interpretive fork:** If death, slavery, inability to submit, and inability to come entail incapacity to produce faith, raise A or B. Then ask whether Scripture teaches a universal enabling grace (ANT-007). If commands imply only responsibility, not ability, they do not lower A. If commands and resisted invitations imply restored or retained alternative possibility, raise B/C/D. - **Upstream:** ANT-004; ANT-006 definition of freedom; ANT-007. - **Downstream:** CONV-001, CONV-002, ELEC-002, CALL-001, CALL-002. - **Entailments/incompatibilities:** B entails both total unaided inability and some universal enabling grace. A alone does not entail unconditional election; Lutheran monergism is a counterexample to a full Calvinist package. - **Common correlations, not entailments:** A with Reformed and Lutheran monergism; B with Wesleyan-Arminianism; C with many synergistic sacramental traditions. - **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “total depravity,” “semi-Pelagian,” “free will.” Total depravity concerns extent, not maximum intensity of wickedness. ### ANT-006 — Human freedom in salvation **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. - **Question:** What kind of freedom is required for responsibility and a genuine response to grace? - **Option ANT-006.A — Compatibilist freedom:** a person acts freely when acting according to desires/reasons without external coercion, even if the action is certainly ordered within God’s decree. - **Option ANT-006.B — Libertarian freedom:** for at least some choices, with all prior conditions fixed, the agent genuinely could choose otherwise and is the decisive creaturely source. - **Option ANT-006.C — Source/incompatibilist freedom without simple contrary choice:** responsibility rests in agent causation or ownership; “could have done otherwise” is not the sole criterion. - **Option ANT-006.D — Mystery/dual affirmation:** Scripture affirms exhaustive sovereignty and meaningful responsibility without furnishing a full metaphysical model. - **Key texts:** Genesis 50:20; Deuteronomy 30:19; Joshua 24:15; Proverbs 16:1,9,33; Isaiah 10:5–15; Matthew 23:37; John 6:37,44; Acts 2:23; 4:27–28; Romans 8:7–8; 9:14–24; Philippians 2:12–13; James 1:13–17. - **Interpretive fork:** If one event can be intentionally ordered by God and voluntarily intended by humans (Genesis 50; Acts 2/4), raise A or D. If invitations, laments, and blame presuppose categorical alternative possibility, raise B/C. Decide whether biblical “choice” language specifies a metaphysic or simply identifies responsible agency. - **Upstream:** PROV-001, PROV-002; definition of causation and moral responsibility. - **Downstream:** ANT-005, ELEC-002, CALL-002, CONV-001. - **Entailments/incompatibilities:** Strict exhaustive determinism is incompatible with B as defined. Compatibilism does not entail that God is morally blameworthy for evil; that depends on PROV-003. - **Common correlations, not entailments:** A with much Reformed theology; B with Arminian, Wesleyan, Molinist, and many Baptist thinkers; D with confessional Lutherans and many non-systematic evangelicals. - **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “free-will Christian,” “determinist,” “compatibilist,” “libertarian.” ### ANT-007 — Prevenient and universally enabling grace **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. - **Question:** Does God grant every hearer or every human enough prior grace to make a genuinely resistible saving response possible? - **Option ANT-007.A — Universal prevenient grace:** Christ’s work and/or the Spirit restores response-ability broadly to all. - **Option ANT-007.B — Hearer-focused enabling grace:** sufficient enabling accompanies the gospel call, without a claim that every person at every time has equal opportunity. - **Option ANT-007.C — Common grace but not restored saving ability:** God restrains sin, gives gifts, and renders people accountable, but saving ability comes only with effectual calling. - **Option ANT-007.D — Sacramental/Word-mediated sufficient grace:** God objectively offers enabling grace through appointed means which can be resisted. - **Key texts:** Genesis 6:3; John 1:9; 6:44; 12:32; 16:8–11; Acts 7:51; 17:26–30; Romans 1:18–32; 2:4; Titus 2:11; 1 Timothy 2:4–6; 2 Peter 3:9. - **Interpretive fork:** Determine whether “draw all,” “grace ... to all,” and universal divine saving desire describe every individual, all peoples, or gospel expansion. Then ask whether drawing merely invites/convicts or restores libertarian capacity. Resisted Spirit texts raise B/D only if they concern saving grace in the same sense as effectual call. - **Upstream:** ANT-005, ANT-006; ATN-004; CALL-001. - **Downstream:** ELEC-002, CALL-002, CONV-001, CONV-002. - **Entailments/incompatibilities:** A/B are incompatible with C only on the narrow proposition “grace restores a saving ability universally/to every hearer.” Universal atonement does not entail universal prevenient grace. - **Common correlations, not entailments:** A with Wesleyan-Arminianism; B with some classical Arminians and provisionist Baptists; C with Reformed theology; D with confessional Lutheran monergism operating through resistible means of grace and with some other sacramental accounts. Lutheran resistance is not a positive co-cause of faith. - **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “Arminian,” “provisionist,” “monergist,” “prevenient grace.” ### ANT-008 — Infants, diminished capacity, and moral accountability **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. - **Question:** On what basis may there be hope for the salvation of infants and people never capable of ordinary profession? - **Option ANT-008.A — Elect-infants agnosticism:** God certainly saves those infants whom he elects, while Scripture does not disclose the extent. - **Option ANT-008.B — Universal infant salvation through Christ:** all who die without moral capacity are graciously saved by Christ. - **Option ANT-008.C — Covenant-child presumption:** children of believers have a distinctive covenant promise/status; claims about others remain more guarded. - **Option ANT-008.D — Baptismal incorporation with extraordinary divine freedom:** ordinarily God grants new birth through baptism, yet is not bound by the sacrament. - **Option ANT-008.E — Age/state of accountability:** inherited effects are real, but personal condemnation attaches when a person becomes morally accountable and sins knowingly. - **Key texts:** Genesis 17:7; Deuteronomy 1:39; 2 Samuel 12:22–23; Isaiah 7:15–16; Jonah 4:11; Matthew 18:1–14; 19:13–15; Mark 10:13–16; Romans 5:12–21; 7:9; 1 Corinthians 7:14; Acts 2:39. - **Interpretive fork:** Decide whether kingdom-reception texts concern exemplary humility, actual salvific belonging, or both. Decide whether David’s “I shall go to him” expresses reunion or merely death. Determine whether covenant-child holiness in 1 Corinthians 7 is salvific, ecclesial, or relational. Combine with the meaning of inherited guilt rather than treating one tender passage as an independent proof. - **Upstream:** ANT-004, ELEC-001/002, BAP-001/002, NCV-001. - **Downstream:** pastoral assurance, baptism practice, disability theology. - **Entailments/incompatibilities:** B conflicts with any claim that some infants are finally condemned. Paedobaptism neither entails D nor guarantees universal salvation of baptized infants. - **Common correlations, not entailments:** A with Westminster/Reformed caution; B with many modern Baptists and evangelicals; C with covenantal paedobaptists; D with Lutheran, Catholic, and Orthodox sacramental accounts; E with Wesleyan, Anabaptist, and many Baptist traditions. - **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “age of accountability,” “covenant child,” “infant salvation.” ### PROV-001 — Divine foreknowledge and counterfactual knowledge **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. - **Question:** What is the logical basis and scope of God’s knowledge of future free acts? - **Option PROV-001.A — Classical exhaustive foreknowledge grounded in decree/simple knowledge:** God infallibly knows all actual future events; his knowing is not passive learning from creation. - **Option PROV-001.B — Simple foreknowledge of libertarian acts:** God infallibly knows the actual future, including undetermined creaturely choices, without that knowledge determining them. - **Option PROV-001.C — Middle knowledge/Molinism:** before decreeing a world, God knows what every possible free creature would do in every feasible circumstance. - **Option PROV-001.D — Open future:** God knows all possibilities exhaustively, but some future libertarian acts do not yet exist as definite truths to be known. - **Key texts:** 1 Samuel 23:10–13; Psalm 139:1–16; Isaiah 40–48, especially 46:9–11; Jeremiah 18:1–11; Matthew 11:20–24; 24:36; Acts 2:23; Romans 8:29; 1 Peter 1:1–2,20; passages where God “regrets” or tests (Genesis 6:6; 22:12; Exodus 32:7–14). - **Interpretive fork:** If predictive prophecy and God’s declared end from the beginning require a single exhaustively definite future, reduce D. If counterfactual statements (1 Samuel 23; Matthew 11) report truths about undetermined creaturely choices prior to decree, raise C. If regret/testing texts are accommodated or anthropomorphic, retain A–C; if they disclose genuine acquisition of knowledge, raise D. - **Upstream:** doctrine of divine eternity, simplicity, immutability; hermeneutics of anthropomorphic language. - **Downstream:** PROV-002, ANT-006, ELEC-002, prayer/providence models. - **Entailments/incompatibilities:** D is incompatible with exhaustive definite foreknowledge of every future choice. C entails creaturely counterfactual truths logically prior to God’s creative decree, not that creatures exist before it. - **Common correlations, not entailments:** A with Reformed and much classical theology; B with classical Arminianism; C with Molinists across Catholic and Protestant settings; D with open theism and is a confessional boundary issue in many conservative denominations. - **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “Calvinist,” “Arminian,” “Molinist,” “open theist,” “classical theist.” ### PROV-002 — Scope of divine determination **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. - **Question:** Does God’s eternal purpose render every event certain, or does it establish a world containing some non-determined creaturely outcomes? - **Option PROV-002.A — Exhaustive definite decree:** whatsoever occurs is included in God’s providential decree, with primary/secondary causes distinguished. - **Option PROV-002.B — Meticulous providence through middle knowledge:** God selects a feasible world whose libertarian acts he does not cause but whose complete history he knowingly actualizes. - **Option PROV-002.C — Sovereign permission with some open creaturely determination:** God fixes his redemptive ends and many means while creatures settle some outcomes. - **Option PROV-002.D — Scriptural dual affirmation without mechanism:** all events fall under providence and humans act responsibly; Scripture does not reveal the modal relation. - **Key texts:** Genesis 45:5–8; 50:20; Job 1–2; Proverbs 16:1,9,33; 19:21; 21:1; Isaiah 10:5–19; 46:9–11; Lamentations 3:37–38; Amos 3:6; Ephesians 1:11; Acts 2:23; 4:27–28; James 4:13–16. - **Interpretive fork:** If “works all things according to the counsel of his will” and the cross texts specify an exhaustive determining counsel, raise A. If they establish comprehensive governance but leave causal modality open, B or D remain. If conditional prophecy and frustrated intentions describe genuinely unsettled outcomes, raise C. - **Upstream:** PROV-001, ANT-006. - **Downstream:** PROV-003, ELEC-002, CALL-002, prayer and suffering. - **Entailments/incompatibilities:** A and C conflict only if C explicitly denies that every event was rendered certain by decree. A does not entail divine moral agency identical to creaturely agency. - **Common correlations, not entailments:** A with Reformed confessions; B with Molinism; C with many Arminian and open models; D with Lutherans and many evangelicals wary of speculation. - **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “meticulous providence,” “determinism,” “risk,” “permission.” ### PROV-003 — God’s relation to sinful acts **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. - **Question:** How can the same event be within God’s purpose and still be creaturely evil? - **Option PROV-003.A — Asymmetric concurrence:** God ordains/sustains the event as a righteous first cause while creatures produce its sinful defect from corrupt intentions. - **Option PROV-003.B — Permission plus governance:** God permits rather than positively determines the sinful choice, then limits and redirects it. - **Option PROV-003.C — Middle-knowledge permission:** God actualizes a world knowing the free evil that would occur and incorporates it into providence. - **Option PROV-003.D — Greater-good/dual-intention description without causal resolution:** Scripture reveals opposed intentions in one event but not the metaphysical mechanism. - **Key texts:** Genesis 50:20; Job 1:6–22; 2 Samuel 24:1 with 1 Chronicles 21:1; Isaiah 10:5–19; Habakkuk 1–2; Acts 2:23; 4:27–28; Romans 9:14–24; James 1:13–17. - **Interpretive fork:** If Genesis 50 and the cross assign intentional divine purpose and evil human purpose to the numerically same act, reject models that make the event wholly outside providence. Decide whether “ordain” describes causal concurrence, permission, world-selection, or outcome-governance. James 1 blocks any account in which God tempts from evil desire. - **Upstream:** PROV-001, PROV-002, ANT-006. - **Downstream:** theodicy, assurance, prayer, ELEC-004. - **Entailments/incompatibilities:** All options must distinguish divine holiness from sinful creaturely intention within this framework. B and C may overlap. A is incompatible with a definition of permission as complete absence of divine ordination, but not with “permission” as an asymmetric mode of ordaining. - **Common correlations, not entailments:** A with Augustinian/Reformed accounts; B with Arminian and many Baptist accounts; C with Molinism; D across traditions. - **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “author of sin,” “permission,” “ordination,” “determinist.” ### ELEC-001 — Referent of election “in Christ” **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. - **Question:** Is saving election primarily God’s choice of particular persons, his choice of Christ and the covenant people as a corporate body, or both at different levels? - **Option ELEC-001.A — Individual election:** before creation God chose particular persons to be united to Christ and saved. - **Option ELEC-001.B — Corporate election with conditional personal participation:** Christ is the chosen One and the church is chosen in him; individuals share election through faith-union. - **Option ELEC-001.C — Corporate election that includes divinely selected members:** the people is a corporate object, yet God also chooses which individuals come to belong. - **Option ELEC-001.D — Primarily vocational/historical election in disputed texts:** some election passages concern service, covenant role, or historical privilege rather than final salvation. - **Key texts:** Genesis 12:1–3; Exodus 19:4–6; Deuteronomy 7:6–8; Isaiah 42:1; Matthew 22:14; John 6:37–45; 15:16; Acts 13:48; Romans 8:28–30; 9–11; 1 Corinthians 1:26–31; Ephesians 1:3–14; 2 Thessalonians 2:13–14; 1 Peter 1:1–2; 2:4–10. - **Interpretive fork:** In Ephesians 1, decide whether “us” identifies previously selected persons placed into Christ, or the corporate people whose status is determined in the Chosen One. In Romans 8 and Acts 13, decide whether the sequence and appointment refer to specific persons. In Romans 9–11, separate election to historical vocation from election to mercy before exporting conclusions to every passage. - **Upstream:** covenant/union hermeneutic at CONV-005; Israel/church relation at LAW-007. - **Downstream:** ELEC-002/003/004, CALL-001, PER-001. - **Entailments/incompatibilities:** B conflicts with A only if B denies any divine selection of individuals for membership. C can absorb much of the evidence claimed by both. Corporate language does not entail conditional election. - **Common correlations, not entailments:** A with Reformed, Lutheran, and some Baptist theology; B with corporate-election Arminians; C with many mediating evangelical accounts. - **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “elect,” “chosen,” “corporate election,” “Calvinist.” ### ELEC-002 — Basis and conditionality of saving election **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. - **Question:** Is God’s choice unto salvation conditioned on foreseen faith/perseverance, or is faith a result of an unconditional choice? - **Option ELEC-002.A — Unconditional election:** God chooses particular sinners from mercy, not because he foresees their faith, works, or superior response. - **Option ELEC-002.B — Conditional individual election:** God chooses those whom he foreknows will freely respond to grace and/or persevere in faith. - **Option ELEC-002.C — Conditional corporate participation:** God unconditionally chooses Christ and the saving community; an individual’s elected status is conditioned on union with Christ by faith. - **Option ELEC-002.D — Middle-knowledge election:** God chooses a world and redemptive order in which he knows which persons would freely respond under the graces/circumstances supplied. - **Key texts:** Deuteronomy 7:6–8; Matthew 11:25–27; John 6:37–45,65; Acts 13:48; Romans 8:28–30; 9:6–24; 11:5–7; Ephesians 1:3–14; 2:8–10; 2 Timothy 1:9; 2 Thessalonians 2:13–14; 1 Peter 1:1–2. - **Interpretive fork:** Decide whether “foreknow” means fore-love/relational choice, foresight of response, or knowledge of persons without specifying causal order. In Romans 9, decide whether the decisive contrast concerns individual salvation, historical covenant vocation, or both. In 2 Thessalonians 2:13, decide whether “through sanctification and belief” states the means/effect or the foreseen condition of choosing. - **Upstream:** PROV-001/002, ANT-005/006/007, ELEC-001. - **Downstream:** CALL-001/002, CONV-001/002, PER-001, ATN-004. - **Entailments/incompatibilities:** A and B are contradictory on the stipulated basis of election. A does not entail equal ultimacy of election and reprobation. B does not entail that faith merits salvation. - **Common correlations, not entailments:** A with Reformed, Lutheran, and some Baptist traditions; B with classical Arminianism; C with corporate-election Arminianism; D with Molinism. - **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “unconditional election,” “foreseen faith,” “Arminian,” “Calvinist.” ### ELEC-003 — Election to salvation, service, or covenant privilege **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. - **Question:** When a passage says “chosen,” what is the object or purpose of the choice? - **Option ELEC-003.A — Final-salvation election:** choice unto effectual calling, justification, holiness, perseverance, and glory. - **Option ELEC-003.B — Vocation/service election:** choice for a role in redemptive history, which may include people not finally saved. - **Option ELEC-003.C — Corporate covenant privilege:** choice into an externally administered people that contains both faithful and unfaithful members. - **Option ELEC-003.D — Layered election:** the same passage or canonical pattern may include historical, corporate, and saving purposes without collapsing them. - **Key texts:** Genesis 12:1–3; Deuteronomy 7:6–11; Isaiah 41:8–9; 44:1–2; 45:1–7; Matthew 22:14; John 6:70–71; 13:18; 15:16; Romans 9–11; 1 Corinthians 1:26–31; Ephesians 1:4–5; 1 Peter 2:9–10. - **Interpretive fork:** Ask whether the chosen group/person is promised final salvation, assigned an office, granted covenant privileges, or called to holiness. Judas and unbelieving Israel show that some biblical election is not itself final-salvation election; Romans 8:29–30 shows a form tightly connected to glory. - **Upstream:** lexical/contextual analysis; ELEC-001; LAW-007. - **Downstream:** ELEC-002/004, PER-002, NCV-001. - **Entailments/incompatibilities:** A–C are not globally exclusive; they are passage-level classifications. It is invalid to infer from one vocational-election text that no text teaches saving election, or vice versa. - **Common correlations, not entailments:** Reformed readings often distinguish common covenant election from saving election; Arminian readings more often foreground corporate/vocational categories in Romans 9. - **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “chosen people,” “elect nation,” “elect individual.” ### ELEC-004 — Reprobation and the decree concerning the lost **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. - **Question:** Is the non-election/condemnation of the lost symmetrical with election, asymmetrical, conditional on foreseen unbelief, or left largely unrevealed? - **Option ELEC-004.A — Asymmetrical single predestination:** God positively chooses and supplies grace to the elect; he passes over others and condemns them for their sins. - **Option ELEC-004.B — Symmetrical double predestination:** God positively decrees both election to life and reprobation to condemnation, while creaturely guilt remains real. - **Option ELEC-004.C — Conditional reprobation:** condemnation is decreed/foreknown for those who persist freely in unbelief; no one is passed over without genuinely sufficient grace. - **Option ELEC-004.D — Corporate/historical hardening:** primary “vessels” texts concern corporate roles or judicial hardening in history, not an antecedent decree of individual damnation. - **Option ELEC-004.E — Restrained agnosticism:** affirm election and just condemnation but avoid a detailed hidden-decree account. - **Key texts:** Exodus 4–14; Proverbs 16:4; Matthew 11:25–27; 25:41; John 12:37–41; Romans 9:17–24; 11:7–32; 1 Peter 2:8; Jude 4; Ezekiel 18:23; 33:11; 1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9. - **Interpretive fork:** Determine whether “prepared for destruction” is passive/reflexive or a divine action contrasted with God’s active preparation for glory. Ask whether Pharaoh’s hardening is unconditional, judicial after self-hardening, or a corporate-historical instrument. Universal saving-desire texts influence whether non-election is lack of intended provision or resisted mercy. - **Upstream:** PROV-003, ELEC-001/002, CALL-002, ANT-006. - **Downstream:** doctrines of divine goodness, assurance, evangelism. - **Entailments/incompatibilities:** B and C conflict on an unconditional positive decree of reprobation. A is not identical to B. Belief in final punishment does not entail any one option here. - **Common correlations, not entailments:** A with mainstream confessional Reformed accounts; stronger B with some high Calvinist accounts; C with Arminian/Wesleyan and many Lutheran formulations; D with corporate-election readings. - **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “double predestinarian,” “reprobate,” “high Calvinist.” ### ELEC-005 — Judicial hardening **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.” ### CALL-001 — General call and inward/effectual call **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.” ### CALL-002 — Resistibility of saving grace **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.” ### CALL-003 — Ordinary necessity of explicit gospel faith **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.” ### ATN-001 — Atonement images and primary model **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.” ### ATN-002 — Penal substitution specifically **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). ### ATN-003 — Propitiation, expiation, and divine wrath **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.” ### ATN-004 — Intent and extent of the atonement **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.” ### ATN-005 — Accomplishment and application **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.” ### ATN-006 — Christ’s active obedience and imputation **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.” ### CONV-001 — Monergism and synergy in conversion **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.” ### CONV-002 — Logical order of regeneration and faith **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.” ### CONV-003 — Nature of saving faith **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.” ### CONV-004 — Repentance and faith **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.” ### CONV-005 — Union with Christ and the ordo salutis **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.” ### CONV-006 — Spirit reception and “baptism in the Holy Spirit” **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.” ### BAP-001 — Saving efficacy of water baptism **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.” ### BAP-002 — Children, households, and baptismal-covenant status **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.” ### JUS-001 — Forensic declaration and transformative renewal **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.” ### JUS-002 — Ground and mode of received righteousness **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.” ### JUS-003 — Faith alone, faith formed by love, and works **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.” ### JUS-004 — “Works of the law” in Paul **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.” ### JUS-005 — James 2 and the justification of Abraham/Rahab **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.” ### JUS-006 — Final judgment according to works **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.” ### JUS-007 — Universal/objective and personal/subjective justification **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.” ### PER-001 — Perseverance and the possibility of losing salvation **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.” ### PER-002 — How apostasy warning passages function **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.” ### PER-003 — Irrecoverable apostasy and restoration **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.” ### PER-004 — Lordship salvation and discipleship **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.” ### PER-005 — Grounds and structure of assurance **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.” ### SAN-001 — Definitive and progressive 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.” ### SAN-002 — Entire sanctification and perfection **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.” ### SAN-003 — Agency and means in 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.” ### SAN-004 — The speaker and condition in Romans 7:7–25 **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.” ### SAN-005 — Theosis, participation, and conformity to Christ **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.” ### CONV-007 — Adoption: declaration, regeneration, or covenant incorporation **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.” ### LAW-001 — Macro-framework for the biblical covenants **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.” ### LAW-002 — Covenant of works with Adam **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.” ### LAW-003 — Character of the Mosaic covenant **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.” ### LAW-004 — One covenant of grace across the canon **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.” ### LAW-005 — Tripartite division of Mosaic law **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.” ### LAW-006 — Third use of the law **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. - **Question:** Does God’s moral law function as a positive guide for regenerate Christian obedience? - **Option LAW-006.A — Strong third use:** the moral law, epitomized in the Decalogue and interpreted through Christ, is a normative rule of gratitude. - **Option LAW-006.B — Third use through Christ/apostles:** Old Testament law instructs, but the immediate covenant norm is the law of Christ as reapplied in the New Testament. - **Option LAW-006.C — Primarily accusing/pedagogical law:** law chiefly exposes and restrains sin; sanctification flows from gospel/Spirit, though commands still instruct. - **Option LAW-006.D — Torah-shaped wisdom:** law forms moral imagination and love rather than functioning mainly as a codified rule. - **Option LAW-006.E — Antinomian/no normative law:** grace removes any binding moral command as command. - **Key texts:** Psalm 1; 19; 119; Jeremiah 31:33; Matthew 5:17–48; 22:34–40; John 14:15; Romans 3:31; 6:14; 7:12,22; 8:3–4; 13:8–10; 1 Corinthians 9:20–21; Galatians 5:13–26; 6:2; 1 Timothy 1:8–11; James 1:22–25; 2:8–12; 1 John 2:3–6. - **Interpretive fork:** Determine whether “not under law” means not under Mosaic covenant, not under condemnation, or not under law as a method of justification. Decide whether “law of Christ” renews, replaces, or fulfills Decalogue norms. Separate law as guide from law as power; Paul denies the latter without necessarily denying the former. - **Upstream:** LAW-003/005/008; JUS-003. - **Downstream:** sanctification, assurance, ethics. - **Entailments/incompatibilities:** E conflicts with explicit New Testament commands and is outside most conservative frameworks. B/C do not entail moral relativism. A does not entail justification by law. - **Common correlations, not entailments:** A with Reformed; B with progressive covenantal/New Covenant Theology and many Baptists; C with some Lutheran formulations; D across virtue/biblical theology. - **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “third use,” “antinomian,” “under law,” “law of Christ.” ### LAW-007 — Israel, the church, and one people of God **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. - **Question:** How do ethnic/national Israel and the multinational church relate in the saving plan? - **Option LAW-007.A — One covenant people, church as expanded/remnant Israel:** believing Jews and Gentiles form one olive tree/people; unbelief excludes, faith grafts in. - **Option LAW-007.B — One people with distinct future ethnic-Israel role:** the church shares Israel’s promises in Christ while ethnic Israel retains a future corporate conversion/vocation. - **Option LAW-007.C — Distinct Israel and church within one plan:** the church does not become Israel; national promises await Israel while both are saved through Christ. - **Option LAW-007.D — Typological fulfillment:** Israel’s land, temple, and nation typologically expand to Christ/new creation/church rather than requiring a separate national fulfillment. - **Option LAW-007.E — Remnant/corporate mystery without system:** Romans 9–11 promises divine faithfulness and future mercy but leaves institutional mapping underdetermined. - **Key texts:** Genesis 12:1–3; Jeremiah 31:31–37; Ezekiel 36–37; Matthew 21:33–46; Luke 22:28–30; Acts 1:6–8; 3:19–21; Romans 2:25–29; 4; 9–11; 1 Corinthians 10:1; Galatians 3:6–29; 6:16; Ephesians 2:11–22; Philippians 3:3; 1 Peter 2:4–10; Revelation 7; 21. - **Interpretive fork:** In Romans 11, decide whether “all Israel” means ethnic Israel corporately in the future, the elect remnant across history, or the total Jew-Gentile people. Decide whether New Testament application of Israel titles to the church transfers identity, shares vocation, or typologically fulfills it. Keep soteriological unity separate from national/eschatological role. - **Upstream:** ELEC-001/003/005, LAW-001/004, typology. - **Downstream:** BAP-002, NCV-001, eschatology, mission to Jews. - **Entailments/incompatibilities:** B combines one people with a distinct future; this disproves a simple replacement/nonreplacement binary. C must still affirm one way of salvation through Christ. D need not deny future Jewish conversion. - **Common correlations, not entailments:** A/D with covenant theology and progressive covenantalism; B across historic premillennial and some Reformed readings; C with classic dispensationalism; E across traditions. - **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “replacement theology,” “supersessionist,” “one people,” “Israel distinct.” ### LAW-008 — Law and gospel as kinds of divine speech **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. - **Question:** Is the law/gospel distinction a controlling hermeneutic, and how are commands and promises related? - **Option LAW-008.A — Formal law/gospel distinction:** law commands, exposes, and condemns; gospel promises and gives forgiveness in Christ. Either Testament can contain either speech. - **Option LAW-008.B — Covenant-historical old/new contrast:** law/gospel substantially tracks old-covenant administration versus new-covenant fulfillment, while allowing promise in the old. - **Option LAW-008.C — Indicative-imperative integration:** grace’s accomplished indicative grounds Spirit-enabled commands; command is not reducible to condemnation. - **Option LAW-008.D — Torah/gospel continuity:** law is gracious covenant instruction; contrast is flesh versus Spirit/misuse versus fulfillment, not law versus grace. - **Key texts:** Exodus 20:1–17; Deuteronomy 30:11–20; Jeremiah 31:31–34; Matthew 5:17–48; Luke 24:44–47; John 1:16–17; Romans 3:19–31; 7:7–13; 8:1–4; 10:4–13; 2 Corinthians 3:6–18; Galatians 3:10–25; Hebrews 8–10. - **Interpretive fork:** Ask whether “law” names a speech-act, Torah/covenant, works principle, or moral norm in each passage. If the same command both accuses the sinner and guides the regenerate, A/C rise together. If old/new covenant is the main contrast in 2 Corinthians/Hebrews, raise B. If Torah is consistently framed as gracious gift, raise D but still account for curse. - **Upstream:** LAW-003/005/006, JUS-004. - **Downstream:** preaching, assurance, sanctification, repentance. - **Entailments/incompatibilities:** A and C can coexist. A does not equate Old Testament with law and New Testament with gospel. D conflicts only with a claim that law has no gracious/instructional function. - **Common correlations, not entailments:** A with Lutheran and Reformed traditions with important differences; B/C with covenantal and evangelical biblical theology; D with some New Perspective and Torah-positive readings. - **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “law/gospel,” “indicative/imperative,” “legalism,” “nomism.” ### LAW-009 — Sabbath and Lord’s Day continuity **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. - **Question:** Does the fourth commandment bind Christians, and how is it fulfilled? - **Option LAW-009.A — Christian Sabbath transferred to first day:** a one-in-seven moral creation ordinance continues; resurrection/apostolic practice locates it on the Lord’s Day. - **Option LAW-009.B — Lord’s Day observance without full Sabbath transfer:** weekly gathered worship is apostolic and binding, but Mosaic rest regulations are not simply transferred. - **Option LAW-009.C — Sabbath fulfilled in Christ/new creation:** no day is morally binding as Sabbath; believers gather by wisdom and apostolic pattern. - **Option LAW-009.D — Seventh-day continuity:** the seventh-day Sabbath remains the commanded day for Christians. - **Option LAW-009.E — Eschatological rest plus present rhythm:** Hebrews 4 gives an already/not-yet fulfillment while creation rhythm continues prudentially or morally. - **Key texts:** Genesis 2:1–3; Exodus 16; 20:8–11; 31:12–17; Deuteronomy 5:12–15; Isaiah 56:1–8; 58:13–14; Matthew 12:1–14; Mark 2:27–28; Acts 20:7; Romans 14:5–6; 1 Corinthians 16:1–2; Colossians 2:16–17; Hebrews 4:1–11; Revelation 1:10. - **Interpretive fork:** Determine whether Sabbath is creation ordinance, Mosaic covenant sign, moral Decalogue command, or all three. Decide whether Colossians’ “Sabbath” includes weekly Sabbath and whether Romans 14 treats day-observance as disputable. First-day meeting texts establish practice more clearly than transfer of the command. - **Upstream:** LAW-003/005/006; creation ordinance hermeneutic. - **Downstream:** worship and ethics. - **Entailments/incompatibilities:** A and D disagree on day; C denies continuing moral day obligation. B/E allow a spectrum. Lord’s Day observance does not by itself entail Sabbatarian restrictions. - **Common correlations, not entailments:** A with Puritan/Reformed confessions; B with many Lutheran, Anglican, Baptist, and evangelical accounts; C with dispensational/New Covenant Theology and some evangelicals; D with Seventh-day Adventist and Seventh Day Baptist traditions. - **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “Sabbatarian,” “Christian Sabbath,” “Lord’s Day,” “seventh-day.” ### NCV-001 — Membership and efficacy of the new covenant **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. - **Question:** Does the new covenant contain only regenerate persevering members, or can persons genuinely belong in an external/objective sense and later fall away? - **Option NCV-001.A — Regenerate-only essential membership:** everyone in the new covenant has forgiveness, law written on the heart, and saving knowledge; visible churches contain false professors who are not covenant members in this sense. - **Option NCV-001.B — Dual-aspect membership:** the new covenant has an inward saving substance and an outward visible administration including some who break covenant. - **Option NCV-001.C — Objective sacramental membership with possible apostasy:** baptism truly brings persons into new-covenant life, which can later be repudiated/forfeited. - **Option NCV-001.D — Corporate membership conditioned on persevering faith:** the covenant people is elect in Christ; individuals participate genuinely while remaining by faith. - **Option NCV-001.E — Already/not-yet mixed realization:** Jeremiah’s unbreakable universal knowledge is inaugurated now but reaches exhaustive membership only in consummation. - **Key texts:** Deuteronomy 30:1–6; Jeremiah 31:31–34; 32:37–41; Ezekiel 11:19–20; 36:22–32; Luke 22:20; John 6:45; Acts 2:38–39; Romans 11:17–22; 1 Corinthians 10:1–22; 11:25–32; 2 Corinthians 3; Hebrews 6:4–8; 8:6–13; 10:14–39; 12:18–29. - **Interpretive fork:** Determine whether Jeremiah’s “they shall all know me” describes every member now, the eschatological ideal, or the covenant’s saving substance. Then classify Hebrews’ warned subjects. Decide whether a branch “in” the olive tree or participant in holy things is covenantally in Christ without being regenerate. - **Upstream:** LAW-003/004/007, BAP-001/002, PER-001/002. - **Downstream:** baptism recipients, church discipline, assurance, perseverance. - **Entailments/incompatibilities:** A is in tension with C/D if “membership” is univocal. B resolves this by positing two aspects, but must avoid equivocation. Paedobaptism correlates with B/C but is not entailed; some Reformed Baptists affirm A. - **Common correlations, not entailments:** A with Reformed Baptist, progressive covenantal, and New Covenant Theology; B with Presbyterian/Reformed covenant theology; C with Lutheran/Catholic/Orthodox; D with corporate-election Arminian readings; E across inaugurated-eschatology accounts. - **Boolean-like descriptors to soften:** “new-covenant member,” “visible/invisible church,” “breakable covenant.” --- # VI. Church, ministry, sacraments, Spirit, worship, and Sabbath ### ECC-01 — Primary referent of *ekklesia*: local assembly, universal church, or both **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** Does New Testament church language refer primarily to a concrete local assembly, to the one translocal body of Christ, or analogically to both? **Options:** `LOCAL-PRIORITY`; `UNIVERSAL-PRIORITY`; `BOTH-NONCOMPETITIVE`; `VISIBLE-INSTITUTIONAL-UNIVERSAL`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Matthew 16:18; Ephesians 1:22–23; 5:25–32; Hebrews 12:22–24 → one church transcending place: presently instantiated spiritual reality, eschatological assembly, or visible catholic institution? - Matthew 18:17; Acts 5:11; 14:23; 20:17, 28; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 5:4–13; Revelation 2–3 → ordinarily a local body with identifiable leaders, gathering, and discipline. - Acts 9:31 (textual number variation notwithstanding); 1 Corinthians 12:28; Galatians 1:13 → can a regional or universal body be called “church” institutionally? **Decision logic:** - If universal-body texts denote a presently organized visible society, update toward `VISIBLE-INSTITUTIONAL-UNIVERSAL`. - If authority-bearing acts always terminate in a gathered local body, update toward `LOCAL-PRIORITY`. - If union with Christ creates one universal organism while governance remains local, update toward `BOTH-NONCOMPETITIVE`. **Dependencies:** Upstream: meaning of kingdom, body, temple, bride, covenant people. Downstream: denominational authority, membership, catholicity, online church, interchurch councils. **Relations:** `LOCAL-PRIORITY` does not entail congregationalism; episcopal dioceses contain local assemblies. `UNIVERSAL-PRIORITY` does not entail Rome, Orthodoxy, or episcopacy. Universal-church realism correlates with creedal catholicity. **Incompatibilities:** “Only local churches exist” is incompatible with a presently existing universal church in the same ontological sense, but not with an eschatological universal assembly. **Booleanized identity labels:** local-church Baptist, catholic, connectional, independent, non-denominational. ### ECC-02 — Visible and invisible church **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** Is the one church adequately distinguished as visible profession/community and invisible company of the regenerate or elect? **Options:** `VISIBLE-INVISIBLE-DISTINCTION`; `VISIBLE-MIXED-ONE-CHURCH`; `VISIBLE-SACRAMENTAL-IDENTITY`; `REGENERATE-LOCAL-IDEAL`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Matthew 13:24–30, 36–43, 47–50 → mixture in the kingdom, the church, or the world? - Matthew 7:21–23; Romans 9:6; 2 Timothy 2:19 → profession and saving reality can diverge. - Acts 2:41–47; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 5:1–13 → churches address professing saints while containing hypocrites and offenders. - Ephesians 5:25–27; Hebrews 12:23; Revelation 21:2 → perfected elect church now invisibly real, or only eschatologically pure? **Decision logic:** - If “church” can name the elect known perfectly only to God, update toward `VISIBLE-INVISIBLE-DISTINCTION`. - If biblical usage reserves church for identifiable covenant assemblies despite mixed spiritual condition, update toward `VISIBLE-MIXED-ONE-CHURCH`. - If valid sacramental incorporation objectively makes one a church member even without final salvation, update toward `VISIBLE-SACRAMENTAL-IDENTITY`. - If local membership should require credible regeneration while allowing fallible admission, update toward `REGENERATE-LOCAL-IDEAL`. **Dependencies:** Upstream: election, covenant membership, apostasy warnings, sacramental efficacy. Downstream: infant baptism, membership interviews, discipline, assurance. **Relations:** A visible/invisible distinction strongly supports but does not entail a regenerate-church membership ideal. Mixed covenant membership strongly updates toward paedobaptist or sacramental membership but permits credobaptism. **Incompatibilities:** Perfectly pure visible membership before the judgment conflicts with the pervasive presence of false professors, but “regenerate membership” normally claims an admission standard, not infallibility. **Booleanized identity labels:** true church, visible church, invisible church, believers’ church, sacramental church. ### ECC-03 — Israel and the church as covenant people **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** How continuous are Israel and the New Testament church? **Options:** `ONE-PEOPLE-STRONG-CONTINUITY`; `ONE-PEOPLE-ADMINISTRATIVE-DISTINCTION`; `ISRAEL-CHURCH-DISTINCTION`; `TWO-PEOPLES-OR-DESTINIES`; `RECAPITULATION-IN-CHRIST`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Genesis 12:1–3; 17:1–14; Romans 4:9–17; Galatians 3:6–29 → Abrahamic covenant expanded to Gentile believers, transformed in Christ, or still containing distinct national promises? - Jeremiah 31:31–34; Hebrews 8:6–13; 10:15–18 → new covenant membership entirely regenerate, progressively realized, or externally mixed like prior administrations? - Romans 9–11, especially 11:17–29 → one olive tree with future ethnic-Israel ingrafting, two distinguishable groups, or remnant language fulfilled within the church? - Ephesians 2:11–22; 1 Peter 2:9–10 → Gentiles incorporated into Israel’s privileges, a new third people, or typological recapitulation? - Acts 15:13–18; Amos 9:11–12 → church as restored Davidic people now, initial fulfillment awaiting Israel, or both? **Decision logic:** - If Abrahamic membership structure remains unless explicitly revoked, update `ONE-PEOPLE-STRONG-CONTINUITY` and indirectly paedobaptism. - If Jeremiah 31 makes all new-covenant members savingly know God, update `RECAPITULATION-IN-CHRIST`, credobaptism, and regenerate membership. - If Romans 11 requires a corporate future for ethnic Israel not exhausted by the church, update `ISRAEL-CHURCH-DISTINCTION`; this does not by itself establish dispensationalism. - If land, nation, and throne promises retain non-typological national fulfillment, update `TWO-PEOPLES-OR-DESTINIES`. **Dependencies:** Upstream: covenant theology, typology, prophecy fulfillment, law continuity. Downstream: baptism subjects, church membership, eschatology, mission to Jewish people, political theology. **Relations:** Strong continuity correlates with covenant theology and paedobaptism but does not entail either. Israel/church distinction correlates with premillennialism and dispensationalism but can coexist with covenantal or historic premillennial models. **Incompatibilities:** “The church simply replaces Israel with no continuing significance for ethnic Israel” conflicts with models that require Romans 11:25–29 to predict corporate ethnic restoration; neither is identical to the often-polemical label “replacement theology.” **Booleanized identity labels:** covenantal, dispensational, progressive covenantal, new-covenant theology, replacement theology, Israel-first. ### ECC-04 — Marks and minimum conditions of a true church **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** Which features are constitutive of a church rather than signs of its health? **Options:** `WORD-SACRAMENTS-DISCIPLINE`; `WORD-ORDINANCES`; `GOSPEL-PEOPLE-LEADERS`; `APOSTOLIC-SUCCESSION-SACRAMENTS`; `GATHERED-COVENANT-COMMUNITY`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Acts 2:41–42; 14:21–23 → teaching, baptism, meal, fellowship, prayers, and elders: descriptive pattern or constitutive checklist? - Matthew 18:15–20; 1 Corinthians 5:1–13 → discipline and keys essential to church identity or duties a true but disordered church may neglect? - 1 Timothy 3; Titus 1:5 → elders/deacons necessary for mature order, but can a newly planted or temporarily leaderless body be a church? - Galatians 1:6–9; 1 John 4:1–3; Revelation 2–3 → at what degree of doctrinal corruption does lampstand status cease? - Matthew 28:18–20 → baptizing and teaching commissioned to the church as institution, to apostles, or to all disciples? **Decision logic:** - Treat features as separate variables: constitutive, normally necessary, health mark, or merely common. - If valid ordinances require authorized ministry and succession, update `APOSTOLIC-SUCCESSION-SACRAMENTS`. - If the keys belong to the assembled congregation, update `GATHERED-COVENANT-COMMUNITY` or `WORD-ORDINANCES`. - Distinguish “defective church” from “no church”; thresholds should carry ranges, not a single binary. **Dependencies:** Upstream: authority, succession, sacrament validity, gospel definition. Downstream: ecumenical recognition, rebaptism, communion admission, church planting. **Relations:** Reformation “marks” correlate with Presbyterian/Reformed/Lutheran identity. “Gospel, people, leaders” correlates with evangelical church planting. Neither formula entails a particular polity without added premises. **Incompatibilities:** If episcopal succession is strictly constitutive, a body without it cannot be a church in that specified sense; this directly conflicts with succession-independent definitions. **Booleanized identity labels:** true church, false church, healthy church, apostolic church, evangelical church. ### ECC-05 — Catholicity, denominationalism, and visible unity **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** What degree and form of visible unity does Scripture require among faithful churches? **Options:** `ONE-VISIBLE-COMMUNION`; `CONNECTIONAL-PLURALITY`; `DENOMINATIONAL-PLURALISM-AS-PERMISSIBLE`; `LOCAL-AUTONOMY-WITH-FELLOWSHIP`; `RESTORATIONIST-NONDENOMINATIONAL`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - John 17:20–23; Ephesians 4:1–6; 1 Corinthians 1:10–13 → organic spiritual unity, institutional unity, doctrinal unanimity, or visible cooperative witness? - Acts 15:1–35 → binding translocal council, extraordinary apostolic event, or model of voluntary association? - Romans 14:1–15:7 → tolerable diversity inside one communion; which doctrines count as disputable? - 2 John 7–11; Galatians 1:6–9 → unity limited by Christological and gospel boundaries. **Decision logic:** - If John 17 unity must be visibly institutional, update `ONE-VISIBLE-COMMUNION`. - If Acts 15 supplies a continuing conciliar form, update `CONNECTIONAL-PLURALITY`. - If local churches retain final jurisdiction yet owe recognition/cooperation, update `LOCAL-AUTONOMY-WITH-FELLOWSHIP`. - If denominations institutionalize condemned party spirit, update `RESTORATIONIST-NONDENOMINATIONAL`; then separately test whether “non-denominational” networks function as denominations. **Dependencies:** Upstream: universal church, polity, doctrinal triage. Downstream: ecumenism, shared communion, ministerial recognition, denominational membership. **Relations:** Institutional unity correlates with episcopacy; connectional plurality with presbyterianism; local autonomy with congregationalism. These are strong correlations, not entailments. **Incompatibilities:** Exclusive claim to be the sole visible church conflicts with mutual recognition of multiple communions as equally true churches. **Booleanized identity labels:** catholic, ecumenical, denominational, non-denominational, restorationist, separatist. ### ECC-06 — Apostolicity and succession **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** Is apostolic continuity primarily continuity of teaching, continuity of ordained office, continuity of sacramental communion, or a combination? **Options:** `DOCTRINAL-SUCCESSION`; `EPISCOPAL-SUCCESSION`; `PRESBYTERAL-SUCCESSION`; `SACRAMENTAL-COMMUNION-SUCCESSION`; `CHARISMATIC-MISSIONAL-CONTINUITY`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Matthew 16:18–19; John 20:21–23 → authority given uniquely to Peter, to the apostolic college, or through them to the whole church? - Acts 1:15–26 → replacement of Judas establishes a continuing office or only restores the Twelve as eschatological witnesses? - Acts 14:23; 1 Timothy 4:14; 2 Timothy 1:6; 2:2; Titus 1:5 → ordination chain and guarded deposit: succession of office, doctrine, or both? - Ephesians 2:20; Revelation 21:14 → foundational apostles are unrepeatable. - 1 Clement and later history are important historical evidence but not biblical premises; keep them as a separate evidence channel. **Decision logic:** - If “foundation” means the apostolic office cannot recur, reduce continuing-apostle models while leaving bishop/presbyter succession open. - If authority and sacramental validity are transmitted by episcopal laying on of hands, update `EPISCOPAL-SUCCESSION`. - If faithful transmission of the apostolic deposit is the sufficient continuity condition, update `DOCTRINAL-SUCCESSION`. **Dependencies:** Upstream: Peter/keys, office ontology, sacramental validity. Downstream: church recognition, ordination, Eucharistic communion, restorationism. **Relations:** Episcopal succession correlates with Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and some Lutheran identities, but those communions disagree about what succession guarantees. Doctrinal succession correlates with Protestantism. **Incompatibilities:** A necessary unbroken tactile succession is incompatible with the claim that a church may fully constitute ordained ministry de novo solely by Scripture and congregational call. **Booleanized identity labels:** apostolic, successionist, restorationist, episcopal, catholic, Protestant. ### ECC-07 — Church and civil authority **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** What institutional relation should obtain between the church and civil magistrate? **Options:** `ESTABLISHMENT`; `COOPERATIVE-DISTINCTION`; `TWO-KINGDOMS`; `FREE-CHURCH-SEPARATION`; `THEONOMIC-MAGISTRACY`; `ANABAPTIST-SEPARATION`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Psalm 2:10–12; Isaiah 49:23; 60:10–16 → rulers as patrons/enforcers of true worship, typological kingdom imagery, or eschatological conversion? - Matthew 22:15–22; John 18:36; 2 Corinthians 10:3–5 → jurisdictional distinction, political quietism, or only rejection of coercive kingdom advance? - Romans 13:1–7; 1 Peter 2:13–17 → magistrate’s task limited to civil justice or normed by the whole moral law? - 1 Timothy 2:1–4 → political peace for mission, not necessarily establishment. - Revelation 13; 17–18 → perennial warning about sacralized empire. **Decision logic:** - If old-covenant civil laws continue as standards for modern states, update `THEONOMIC-MAGISTRACY`. - If the new covenant gives church and state distinct sanctions and memberships, update `TWO-KINGDOMS` or `FREE-CHURCH-SEPARATION`. - If converted rulers retain positive duties to protect and materially support true worship without controlling doctrine, update `COOPERATIVE-DISTINCTION` or `ESTABLISHMENT`. **Dependencies:** Upstream: law continuity, Israel/church, kingdom eschatology. Downstream: religious liberty, coercion, public theology, mission methods. **Relations:** Postmillennialism correlates with establishment or theonomy in some traditions but entails neither. Baptist identity correlates with religious liberty, though history is mixed. **Incompatibilities:** Coercive civil penalties for heresy are incompatible with principled equal civil liberty for all religious profession, as those claims are ordinarily defined. **Booleanized identity labels:** Christian nationalist, theonomist, two-kingdoms, establishmentarian, separatist, free-church. ### ECC-08 — Petrine primacy, papal jurisdiction, and infallibility **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** Did Christ give Peter an office that continues uniquely in the bishop of Rome, and if so, what authority does that office possess? **Options:** `PAPAL-UNIVERSAL-ORDINARY-JURISDICTION-AND-DEFINED-INFALLIBILITY`; `PETRINE-ROMAN-PRIMACY-WITH-CONCILIAR-CONSTRAINTS`; `PRIMACY-OF-HONOR-WITHOUT-UNIVERSAL-JURISDICTION`; `EPISCOPAL-COLLEGIALITY-WITHOUT-UNIQUE-PETRINE-SUCCESSOR`; `PETER-AS-REPRESENTATIVE-APOSTLE-NO-PERMANENT-ROMAN-OFFICE`; `UNDETERMINED-HYBRID`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Matthew 16:13–20 → Peter personally as rock and key-bearer, Peter’s confession, Christ, or Peter as representative of the apostolic church; determine how this relates to Matthew 18:18. - Luke 22:24–32 → a unique commission to strengthen the brothers, pastoral restoration, or temporary apostolic role. - John 21:15–19 → universal shepherding office, Peter’s restoration and martyrdom, or a representative pastoral charge shared with other elders. - Acts 1–12; 15:1–29 → Peter’s real prominence alongside James and conciliar discernment; ask whether Acts 15 depicts papal judgment, council presidency, or collegial apostolic authority. - Galatians 1:18; 2:1–14 → recognized Petrine importance together with Paul’s public correction; determine whether correction is compatible with defined infallibility, which is limited to particular teaching acts. - 1 Peter 5:1–4, 13 → Peter as fellow elder and the debated “Babylon”/Rome reference; neither by itself establishes later jurisdiction. **Decision logic:** - Separate six claims often collapsed into “the pope”: Peter’s personal prominence, a continuing Petrine office, Roman succession to that office, universal jurisdiction, supremacy over councils, and infallibility under defined conditions. - If the singular promises to Peter establish a transmissible universal office and historical reception identifies Rome as its seat, update `PAPAL-UNIVERSAL-ORDINARY-JURISDICTION-AND-DEFINED-INFALLIBILITY`. - If the promises establish primacy while Acts 15 and the episcopal college constrain unilateral rule, update a conciliar primacy model. - If Matthew 18, Ephesians 2:20, and the unrepeatable apostolic foundation distribute or terminate the relevant authority, update collegial or no-permanent-office models. - Patristic testimony, Roman succession lists, conciliar canons, and later definitions are essential evidence channels but must remain distinct from direct biblical inference. **Dependencies:** Upstream: `AUTH-01/03`, `ECC-06`, interpretation of the keys, and authority of conciliar tradition. Downstream: visible-church identity, doctrinal definitions, episcopal appointments, sacramental communion, and ecumenism. **Relations:** Universal papal jurisdiction/infallibility is core Roman Catholic teaching; primacy of honor without universal jurisdiction is characteristic of Eastern Orthodox accounts; Anglican and Protestant models vary from historical respect to categorical rejection. **Incompatibilities:** Universal ordinary jurisdiction by divine institution conflicts with the claim that no continuing bishop possesses jurisdiction over every church. Defined *ex cathedra* infallibility should not be caricatured as personal impeccability or inability to err in every statement. **Booleanized identity labels:** papal, ultramontane, conciliar, Petrine, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Protestant. ### BAP-01 — Proper subjects of water baptism **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** Should baptism be administered only to professing disciples, also to infant children of covenant households, or presumptively to broader household/catechumen groups? **Options:** `CREDOBAPTISM`; `PAEDOBAPTISM-COVENANTAL`; `PAEDOBAPTISM-SACRAMENTAL`; `HOUSEHOLD-PRESUMPTION`; `BELIEVER-PLUS-EXCEPTIONAL-INFANT`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Matthew 28:18–20 → “make disciples” then baptize professing learners, or disciple nations by baptizing and teaching them, including covenant households? - Acts 2:38–39 → promise to children as covenant inclusion or to all whom God calls, with calling controlling reception? - Acts 8:12, 36–38; 10:44–48; 16:14–15, 30–34; 18:8 → normative faith-before-baptism pattern; do household baptisms imply, permit, or exclude infants? - Romans 4:9–12; Colossians 2:11–12 → baptism succeeds circumcision covenantally, or the parallel is spiritual circumcision and union with Christ rather than subject continuity? - 1 Corinthians 7:14 → children’s “holy” status is covenantal inclusion, legitimacy/relational holiness, or household consecration short of baptism? - Jeremiah 31:31–34; Hebrews 8 → new-covenant membership entirely regenerate or mixed in external administration? **Decision logic:** - If covenant membership of believers’ children continues absent revocation, strongly update `PAEDOBAPTISM-COVENANTAL`. - If every baptism narrative and baptism’s stated meaning presuppose personal repentance/faith, update `CREDOBAPTISM`. - If baptism itself ordinarily incorporates and regenerates infants, update `PAEDOBAPTISM-SACRAMENTAL`. - Household texts are weak alone because the presence and status of infants are unstated; their weight depends heavily on covenant priors. **Dependencies:** Upstream: ECC-03, new-covenant membership, original sin, sacramental efficacy. Downstream: membership, communion admission, rebaptism, ecclesial identity. **Relations:** Paedobaptism strongly correlates with covenant theology and historic episcopal churches; credobaptism with regenerate membership and congregationalism. None of these are strict entailments. **Incompatibilities:** “Personal credible profession is always a necessary precondition” conflicts with ordinary infant baptism. Both can agree that adult converts must profess faith. **Booleanized identity labels:** Baptist, paedobaptist, Reformed, Presbyterian, Anglican, Lutheran, Catholic, Orthodox, believer’s church. ### BAP-02 — Mode: immersion, pouring, or sprinkling **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** Is full-body immersion required, normally preferred, or one valid mode among several? **Options:** `IMMERSION-REQUIRED`; `IMMERSION-NORMATIVE-NOT-REQUIRED`; `POURING-OR-SPRINKLING-VALID`; `TRINE-IMMERSION`; `MODE-ADIAPHORON`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Mark 1:9–10; Acts 8:38–39 → “into/out of water” implies immersion or merely approach/departure? - Romans 6:3–4; Colossians 2:12 → burial imagery enacted by immersion or union-with-Christ reality signified independently of mode? - Acts 2:17–18, 33; 10:44–48; Titus 3:5–6; Hebrews 9:10, 13, 19–22 → Spirit poured out and cleansing sprinkled: relevant baptismal imagery or distinct metaphors? - Ezekiel 36:25–27 → sprinkled water plus Spirit as new-covenant background. - 1 Corinthians 10:1–2; 1 Peter 3:20–21 → typological “baptisms” do not straightforwardly settle mode. **Decision logic:** - If *baptizō* lexically requires submersion and burial is ritual form, update `IMMERSION-REQUIRED`. - If baptism primarily signifies cleansing/Spirit outpouring and biblical washings use multiple applications, update `POURING-OR-SPRINKLING-VALID`. - Distinguish lexical default from necessary ritual rule; a likely default does not entail invalidity of other modes. **Dependencies:** Upstream: sacramental validity, typology, lexical method. Downstream: rebaptism, recognition of other communions. **Relations:** Immersion correlates with Baptist/Restorationist/Orthodox practice; pouring/sprinkling with Reformed/Anglican/Catholic practice. Orthodox immersion normally accompanies infant baptism, showing mode and subject are independent. **Incompatibilities:** `IMMERSION-REQUIRED` conflicts with claims that non-immersive baptism is valid, not with claims that immersion is pastorally preferable. **Booleanized identity labels:** immersionist, Baptist baptism, sprinkling church, trine-immersion. ### BAP-03 — Baptismal efficacy and the relation of sign to grace **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** What does baptism do, and under what conditions? **Options:** `ORDINARY-INSTRUMENT-OF-REGENERATION`; `OBJECTIVE-COVENANT-INCORPORATION`; `MEANS-OF-GRACE-BY-FAITH`; `SIGN-AND-SEAL`; `PUBLIC-SYMBOL-AND-OBEDIENCE`; `SAVING-BAPTISM-AS-SPIRIT-REALITY`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - John 3:5 → water baptism and Spirit, natural birth and Spirit, or Ezekiel 36’s unified cleansing? - Acts 2:38; 22:16 → baptism instrumentally remits/washes sins, sacramentally expresses faith, or metonymically invokes Christ? - Romans 6:3–4; Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:12 → water rite effects union, signifies an already-real union, or speaks of Spirit baptism? - 1 Corinthians 12:13; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 3:21 → one Spirit incorporation; baptism saves through resurrection and appeal/pledge, explicitly not mere external washing. - 1 Corinthians 1:14–17; Luke 23:39–43 → baptism ordinarily important without being an exceptionless condition of salvation. **Decision logic:** - If baptismal predications are direct instrumental claims about the rite, update `ORDINARY-INSTRUMENT-OF-REGENERATION`. - If covenant status changes objectively but saving benefit requires persevering faith, update `OBJECTIVE-COVENANT-INCORPORATION`. - If Scripture joins sign and grace sacramentally while distinguishing them, update `MEANS-OF-GRACE-BY-FAITH` or `SIGN-AND-SEAL`. - If faith/Spirit baptism fully explains salvation texts and water baptism follows as testimony, update `PUBLIC-SYMBOL-AND-OBEDIENCE`. - Avoid the false binary “baptism saves automatically” versus “baptism does nothing.” **Dependencies:** Upstream: justification, regeneration, sacramental causality, visible/invisible church. Downstream: infant baptism, assurance, emergency baptism, rebaptism. **Relations:** Baptismal regeneration correlates with Lutheran, Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and Restorationist settings, but their mechanisms differ sharply. Memorial-symbolic views correlate with Baptist evangelicalism. **Incompatibilities:** Unqualified automatic regeneration of every baptized person conflicts with any view making saving efficacy depend on faith/election; ordinary instrumentality can include exceptions and later apostasy models. **Booleanized identity labels:** baptismal regenerationist, sacramental, ordinance-only, Campbellist, Reformed sign-and-seal. ### BAP-04 — Baptism, profession, membership, and the keys **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** Is baptism necessarily the church-administered entrance into visible membership, and may an unbaptized believer be a member? **Options:** `BAPTISM-STRICT-PREREQUISITE`; `BAPTISM-NORMATIVE-WITH-EXCEPTIONS`; `BAPTISM-INCORPORATES-BY-ITS-NATURE`; `MEMBERSHIP-BY-PROFESSION-FIRST`; `NO-FORMAL-MEMBERSHIP-SEQUENCE`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Acts 2:41–42, 47 → received word, baptized, added: fixed sequence or missionary-era pattern? - Matthew 28:19–20 → baptism is public discipling boundary entrusted to church. - 1 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:27 → Spirit incorporation, water incorporation, or sacramental union of both. - 1 Corinthians 5:12–13 → identifiable inside/outside boundary, but does baptism define it? **Decision logic:** - If water baptism is the objective initiatory rite of the visible church, update `BAPTISM-STRICT-PREREQUISITE` or `BAPTISM-INCORPORATES-BY-ITS-NATURE`. - If membership recognizes credible discipleship and baptism is a commanded but remediable irregularity, update `BAPTISM-NORMATIVE-WITH-EXCEPTIONS`. - Different baptism definitions create hidden disagreement: a paedobaptized adult may count as baptized under one model and unbaptized under another. **Dependencies:** Upstream: BAP-01 to BAP-03, membership ontology, authority to baptize. Downstream: open membership, communion, leadership eligibility. **Relations:** Strict sequence correlates with Baptist closed membership and sacramental traditions for different reasons. **Incompatibilities:** If valid baptism is strictly constitutive of membership, “recognized member while knowingly unbaptized” is incoherent by definition. **Booleanized identity labels:** closed membership, open membership, baptismal membership, believers’ church. ### BAP-05 — Rebaptism and recognition of prior baptism **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** When, if ever, should someone receive water baptism after a previous rite? **Options:** `NEVER-REPEAT-VALID-BAPTISM`; `REPEAT-IF-SUBJECT-INVALID`; `REPEAT-IF-MODE-INVALID`; `REPEAT-IF-FORMULA-OR-MINISTER-INVALID`; `REPEAT-AFTER-GENUINE-CONVERSION`; `CONDITIONAL-BAPTISM`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Ephesians 4:5 → “one baptism” as once-only water rite, common Christian initiation, or Spirit baptism. - Acts 19:1–7 → Christian rebaptism after defective baptism, or first Christian baptism after John’s preparatory baptism? - Acts 8:9–24 → Simon’s defective response does not result in recorded rebaptism. - Hebrews 6:1–6; 10:26–29 → initiation is not endlessly repeatable; exact referent disputed. - Matthew 28:19 → Trinitarian formula as validity condition or theological summary. **Decision logic:** - First assess whether the earlier act met the model’s subject, mode, intent, formula, and authorized-minister conditions. - If infant baptism is valid, later believer’s baptism is repetition; if infant baptism is not baptism, the same act is first baptism. Store these as different propositions, not contradictory descriptions of one fact. - If sacramental character is indelible, update `NEVER-REPEAT-VALID-BAPTISM` plus `CONDITIONAL-BAPTISM` in doubtful cases. **Dependencies:** Upstream: BAP-01 to BAP-03, sacramental validity, church recognition. Downstream: membership transfers, interdenominational conversion. **Relations:** “No rebaptism” correlates broadly with paedobaptist traditions. Restorationist and some charismatic groups may rebaptize for formula or understanding. **Incompatibilities:** A rite cannot simultaneously be a valid once-for-all baptism and require repetition as though invalid, though pastoral reaffirmation is a distinct category. **Booleanized identity labels:** Anabaptist, rebaptizer, conditional baptism, one-baptism church. ### BAP-06 — Authorized administrator and formula **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** Must baptism be administered by ordained clergy, by a church-authorized representative, or may any Christian baptize? **Options:** `BISHOP-OR-PRIEST-NORMALLY`; `ORDAINED-MINISTER-REQUIRED`; `CHURCH-AUTHORIZED-ADMINISTRATOR`; `ANY-DISCIPLE-MAY-BAPTIZE`; `EMERGENCY-LAY-BAPTISM`; `TRINITARIAN-FORMULA-REQUIRED`; `JESUS-NAME-FORMULA-REQUIRED`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Matthew 28:18–20 → commission to apostles as office-holders, to the church, or to all disciples. - Acts 2:38; 8:12–17, 36–38; 9:18; 10:47–48; 1 Corinthians 1:14–17 → named administrators are apostles/evangelists or sometimes unspecified. - Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5 → “in the name of Jesus” as spoken formula or theological allegiance. - 1 Corinthians 14:40; pastoral epistles → order and authorization by inference rather than explicit baptismal rule. **Decision logic:** - If Matthew 28 attaches baptism to a continuing teaching office, update ministerial restrictions. - If no text makes office a validity condition and the commission extends to all disciples, update `ANY-DISCIPLE-MAY-BAPTIZE`. - Trinitarian-versus-Jesus-name debates turn on whether Acts reports a liturgical formula or distinguishes Christian from other baptisms. **Dependencies:** Upstream: succession, office, sacramental validity, Trinity. Downstream: recognition of irregular or emergency baptisms. **Relations:** Clergy-only administration correlates with sacramental traditions; church authorization with Baptist/Reformed traditions; lay baptism with low-church or emergency practice. **Incompatibilities:** Oneness rejection of the triune identity is incompatible with Nicene Trinitarianism; merely saying “in Jesus’ name” is not by itself such a rejection. **Booleanized identity labels:** valid baptism, lay baptism, apostolic/Jesus-name baptism, Trinitarian baptism. ### SUP-01 — Mode of Christ’s presence **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** In what sense are Christ’s body and blood present in the Supper? **Options:** `SUBSTANTIAL-CHANGE`; `SACRAMENTAL-UNION`; `REAL-SPIRITUAL-PRESENCE`; `OBJECTIVE-MYSTERY-PRESENCE`; `DYNAMIC-RECEPTION-BY-FAITH`; `MEMORIAL-SYMBOLIC-PRESENCE`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Matthew 26:26–29; Mark 14:22–25; Luke 22:19–20 → “this is” identity, sacramental predication, covenant-symbolic language, or performative gift? - John 6:25–71 → Eucharistic realism, faith in Christ’s incarnate sacrifice, or both with layered fulfillment? - 1 Corinthians 10:16–21 → real participation/communion in body and blood; spiritual participation, sacramental realism, or covenant identification parallel to idol feasts? - 1 Corinthians 11:23–32 → discerning “the body” means sacramental body, ecclesial body, or both; judgment implies objective holiness of the meal. - Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7 → meal practice does not itself define metaphysics. **Decision logic:** - If institution words require change of elements’ substance, update `SUBSTANTIAL-CHANGE`. - If body and bread coexist under sacramental union, update `SACRAMENTAL-UNION`. - If participation is real but Christ’s human body remains in heaven and believers ascend by the Spirit, update `REAL-SPIRITUAL-PRESENCE`. - If “remembrance” and covenant symbolism exhaust the act’s objective content, update `MEMORIAL-SYMBOLIC-PRESENCE`. - Treat John 6’s Eucharistic relevance as a parent variable; do not count its verses repeatedly as independent evidence. **Dependencies:** Upstream: Christology, ascension, sacramental causality, sign/reality language. Downstream: adoration, fencing, reservation, frequency, ministerial validity. **Relations:** Substantial change correlates with Catholicism; sacramental union with Lutheranism; spiritual presence with Reformed traditions; memorialism with Zwinglian/Baptist/Restorationist traditions. “Real presence” alone underdetermines the model. **Incompatibilities:** A change in underlying substance and no change beyond communal symbolism are incompatible. Spiritual presence is not equivalent to absence. **Booleanized identity labels:** real presence, transubstantiationist, consubstantiationist (often rejected by Lutherans), Reformed, memorialist. ### SUP-02 — Eucharistic efficacy: means of grace, covenant renewal, or memorial **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** What benefit does faithful reception confer? **Options:** `OBJECTIVE-MEANS-OF-GRACE`; `MEANS-BY-FAITH`; `COVENANT-RENEWAL-MEAL`; `ASSURANCE-AND-NOURISHMENT`; `MEMORIAL-AND-PROCLAMATION`; `PRIMARILY-HORIZONTAL-UNITY`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - 1 Corinthians 10:16–17 → participation in Christ and one body: grace conferred, covenant communion enacted, or social unity signified? - 1 Corinthians 11:26–32 → proclamation and self-examination; divine judgment indicates objective efficacy or covenant seriousness. - Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24–25 → remembrance as mental recollection, liturgical memorial before God, or covenant-renewal action. - John 6:53–58, if Eucharistic → sacramental nourishment; if not, faith in Christ’s death. **Decision logic:** - If unworthy reception can objectively bring judgment, this raises objective holiness but does not alone specify how worthy reception gives grace. - If the Supper is a divine promise attached to signs, update `MEANS-BY-FAITH` or `OBJECTIVE-MEANS-OF-GRACE`. - If its explicit verbs are remember and proclaim, update memorial/proclamation, but these may coexist with means-of-grace claims. **Dependencies:** Upstream: SUP-01, faith and sacrament, covenant theology. Downstream: frequency, fencing, pastoral care. **Relations:** Means-of-grace views correlate with frequent communion but do not entail it. Memorialism correlates with less frequent practice historically, not logically. **Incompatibilities:** “The rite has no divinely appointed efficacy beyond participants’ thoughts” conflicts with objective means-of-grace models. **Booleanized identity labels:** sacramental, covenant renewal, communion-as-memorial, means of grace. ### SUP-03 — Admission: open, close, closed, or baptized-only communion **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** Who may receive the Supper? **Options:** `OPEN-ALL-PROFESSING-CHRISTIANS`; `BAPTIZED-BELIEVERS`; `SAME-DENOMINATION-OR-DOCTRINE`; `SAME-LOCAL-CHURCH`; `EPISCOPAL-COMMUNION-ONLY`; `PASTORALLY-FENCED-SELF-EXAMINATION`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Acts 2:41–42 → baptism before breaking bread as mandatory sequence or narrative order. - 1 Corinthians 5:6–13 → exclude the disciplined immoral; local church or all recognized Christians? - 1 Corinthians 10:16–22 → table fellowship expresses ecclesial and doctrinal communion, not merely private devotion. - 1 Corinthians 11:27–32 → self-examination, ministerial fencing, or both? - Romans 14:1–15:7 → receive disputing believers; does this govern table admission? **Decision logic:** - If the Supper visibly declares one church body and shared doctrine, update tighter communion. - If baptism is universally the initiatory rite, update `BAPTIZED-BELIEVERS`; disagreement then shifts to which baptisms are valid. - If self-examination is the principal biblical fence, update `PASTORALLY-FENCED-SELF-EXAMINATION` or open communion. - Distinguish `close` (like-faith/order), `closed` (local members), and `open`; users often collapse them. **Dependencies:** Upstream: baptism validity, church unity, discipline, presence. Downstream: ecumenism, membership transfers, paedocommunion. **Relations:** Closed communion correlates with strict Baptist, Lutheran, and Catholic/Orthodox practices for different reasons. **Incompatibilities:** Unrestricted invitation regardless of Christian profession conflicts with every model that treats the meal as covenantal Christian communion. **Booleanized identity labels:** open communion, close communion, closed communion, fenced table, intercommunion. ### SUP-04 — Paedocommunion and age of first reception **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** May baptized infants or young covenant children receive before an articulate profession or confirmation? **Options:** `PAEDOCOMMUNION`; `DISCERNMENT-REQUIRED`; `PROFESSION-REQUIRED`; `CONFIRMATION-OR-CATECHESIS-REQUIRED`; `HOUSEHOLD-DISCRETION`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Exodus 12:3–4, 24–27 → Passover household participation as precedent, or participation conditioned by ability and old-covenant form? - 1 Corinthians 10:1–4 → all Israel shared sacramental types, including children; typology supports communal inclusion or warns against presumption? - 1 Corinthians 11:27–32 → “examine himself” and “discern the body” universally require cognitive capacity, address culpable adults only, or regulate households through heads? - Matthew 19:13–15; Acts 2:39 → kingdom/covenant inclusion, but not direct meal commands. **Decision logic:** - If baptism fully initiates and the Supper sustains all members, update `PAEDOCOMMUNION`. - If each recipient must personally examine and discern, update `DISCERNMENT-REQUIRED`. - If profession, not mere cognitive ability, marks communicant membership, update `PROFESSION-REQUIRED`. **Dependencies:** Upstream: BAP-01, child covenant status, SUP-02, membership. Downstream: confirmation, family discipleship. **Relations:** Paedocommunion correlates with Orthodoxy and some covenantal Reformed communities, but most Western paedobaptists delay admission. **Incompatibilities:** Infant reception conflicts with a universal articulate-profession prerequisite, not with age-appropriate pastoral examination. **Booleanized identity labels:** paedocommunionist, confirmed communicant, covenant child, open table. ### SUP-05 — Frequency and placement in worship **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** How often should the church celebrate the Supper? **Options:** `EVERY-LORDS-DAY`; `FREQUENT-NORM`; `MONTHLY-OR-PERIODIC`; `ANNUAL-PASSOVER-PATTERN`; `PASTORAL-DISCRETION`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Acts 2:42, 46 → daily/common meals, Eucharist, or overlapping practice? - Acts 20:7 → weekly Sunday purpose of gathering or one notable farewell service? - 1 Corinthians 11:18–26; 16:2 → “when you come together” and first-day rhythm suggest weekly practice or only regulate occasions. - Luke 22:14–20; 1 Corinthians 5:7–8 → Passover continuity supports annual pattern or typology fulfilled in recurring Eucharist. **Decision logic:** - If Acts 20:7 states the ordinary purpose of Lord’s Day assembly, update `EVERY-LORDS-DAY`. - If “as often” grants latitude, update `PASTORAL-DISCRETION`; it does not imply infrequency. - Means-of-grace views raise expected frequency, but this is a prudential update rather than entailment. **Dependencies:** Upstream: worship pattern, efficacy, early-church descriptive/normative method. Downstream: liturgical structure, pastoral practice. **Relations:** Weekly communion correlates with liturgical/sacramental traditions and Restorationism; quarterly/monthly with many evangelical traditions. **Incompatibilities:** An explicit divinely mandated weekly minimum conflicts with fully discretionary timing. **Booleanized identity labels:** weekly Eucharist, frequent communion, quarterly communion, primitive church pattern. ### SUP-06 — Eucharistic sacrifice, memorial, and once-for-all atonement **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** May the Supper be called a sacrifice, and in what sense? **Options:** `PROPITIATORY-SACRIFICE-MADE-PRESENT`; `UNBLOODY-SACRAMENTAL-REPRESENTATION`; `MEMORIAL-OFFERING-OF-PRAISE`; `NO-SACRIFICIAL-SENSE-BEYOND-THANKSGIVING`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Malachi 1:11 → Eucharistic offering among nations, Gentile prayer/praise, or eschatological pure worship? - Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24–26 → memorial makes one sacrifice liturgically present, proclaims it, or recalls it. - Hebrews 7:27; 9:12, 24–28; 10:10–18 → Christ’s offering strictly unrepeatable; does sacramental representation repeat it or participate in the same event? - Hebrews 13:10, 15–16; 1 Peter 2:5 → Christian altar and spiritual sacrifices. **Decision logic:** - Any model positing a new or repeated bloody propitiation is sharply disfavored by Hebrews. - If sacramental memorial is participation in the one once-for-all offering rather than repetition, `UNBLOODY-SACRAMENTAL-REPRESENTATION` remains compatible with once-for-all language. - If New Testament church sacrifices are praise, generosity, and self-offering, update `MEMORIAL-OFFERING-OF-PRAISE`. **Dependencies:** Upstream: priesthood of Christ, presence, sacramental representation. Downstream: priestly ministry, altar language, liturgy. **Relations:** Sacrificial Eucharistic language correlates with Catholic/Orthodox/Anglican traditions; rejection with many Protestants. The historical word “sacrifice” is too polysemous for a binary. **Incompatibilities:** Repetition of Calvary as a new atoning event conflicts with once-for-all atonement; sacramental participation does not definitionally do so. **Booleanized identity labels:** Mass as sacrifice, Eucharistic sacrifice, altar, memorial meal. ### SUP-07 — Elements and presiding minister **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** Which elements and administrator conditions are essential or normative? **Options:** `BREAD-AND-WINE-ESSENTIAL`; `GRAPE-JUICE-PERMISSIBLE`; `LEAVENED-OR-UNLEAVENED-OPEN`; `ORDAINED-PRESIDER-REQUIRED`; `ELDER-OR-CHURCH-DELEGATE`; `ANY-GATHERED-BELIEVERS`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Matthew 26:26–29; 1 Corinthians 10:16; 11:23–26 → bread and “fruit of the vine”; ordinary fermented wine, generic grape product, or symbol allowing substitutes? - Exodus 12:15–20; 1 Corinthians 5:7–8 → unleavened Passover requirement continues sacramentally or is typological/moralized? - Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7; 1 Corinthians 11 → no presider explicitly named; ecclesial order inferred from apostolic oversight and pastoral office. - 1 Corinthians 11:20–22, 33–34 → common meal context versus distinct ritual meal. **Decision logic:** - If institution by Christ fixes matter strictly, update `BREAD-AND-WINE-ESSENTIAL`. - If symbol function rather than chemical identity controls, update substitutes in necessity but not ordinary preference. - Administrator rules depend more on ecclesiology and sacrament validity than on an explicit Supper text. **Dependencies:** Upstream: office, succession, regulative principle, alcohol ethics. Downstream: validity, ecumenical recognition, home communion. **Relations:** Ordained presider correlates with episcopal/presbyteral churches; grape juice with temperance-influenced evangelicalism; unleavened bread with Western liturgy, leavened with much of the East. **Incompatibilities:** If wine is essential matter, intentional juice-only celebration is invalid; if validity lies in faithful obedience under available means, it may be irregular but valid. **Booleanized identity labels:** wine church, grape-juice church, Eucharistic minister, home communion. ### GOV-01 — Basic polity **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** Where does ordinary final earthly jurisdiction reside? **Options:** `EPISCOPAL`; `PRESBYTERIAN-CONNECTIONAL`; `CONGREGATIONAL-ELDER-LED`; `CONGREGATIONAL-DIRECT`; `APOSTOLIC-NETWORK`; `HYBRID`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Matthew 16:18–19; 18:17–20 → keys entrusted to Peter, apostolic officers, elders, or assembled congregation? - Acts 14:23; 20:17, 28; Philippians 1:1; Titus 1:5–7 → local plural overseers; does translocal supervision emerge elsewhere? - Acts 15:1–35; 16:4 → binding council of apostles and elders, unique apostolic settlement, or permanent connectional precedent? - 1 Corinthians 5:4–5, 12–13; 2 Corinthians 2:6 → assembled congregation executes discipline, assents to leaders’ act, or follows apostolic judgment? - 1 Timothy 5:17–22; Titus 1:5 → Timothy/Titus as temporary delegates, local pastors, or proto-bishops? - Hebrews 13:7, 17; 1 Peter 5:1–5 → real leader authority under the chief Shepherd. **Decision logic:** - If Peter/apostolic authority descends through a singular regional overseer, update `EPISCOPAL`. - If Acts 15 supplies continuing elder courts with binding authority over churches, update `PRESBYTERIAN-CONNECTIONAL`. - If Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians 5 place final keys in the assembled body, update a congregational option. - Elder leadership and congregational final authority can coexist; do not encode them as opposites. **Dependencies:** Upstream: apostolic succession, elder/bishop relation, keys. Downstream: discipline, ordination, property, councils, pastoral accountability. **Relations:** Episcopal, Presbyterian, and congregational polities are mutually exclusive only when defined by final jurisdiction. Many churches are hybrid in practice. **Incompatibilities:** Final jurisdiction cannot simultaneously be exclusively vested in a diocesan bishop and exclusively in each local congregation in the same dispute. **Booleanized identity labels:** episcopal, presbyterian, congregational, elder-led, pastor-led, independent, connectional. ### GOV-02 — Are elder, overseer/bishop, and pastor one office? **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** Do New Testament terms name one office from different angles or distinct ranks? **Options:** `ONE-OFFICE-THREE-DESCRIPTIONS`; `BISHOP-DISTINCT-FROM-PRESBYTER`; `PASTOR-DISTINCT-FROM-RULING-ELDER`; `DEVELOPING-PATTERN-NOT-FIXED`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Acts 20:17, 28 → the same men are elders and overseers charged to shepherd; strong evidence for terminological overlap. - Titus 1:5–7 → elder and overseer appear interchangeable. - 1 Peter 5:1–4 → elders shepherd and exercise oversight. - 1 Timothy 3:1–13; Philippians 1:1 → overseers and deacons named, with no separate presbyter list. - 1 Timothy 5:17; Ephesians 4:11 → ruling/teaching distinctions may imply functional specializations or distinct offices. - 2–3 John; Revelation 2–3 → “the elder” and “angel” have disputed institutional significance. **Decision logic:** - Direct interchange in Acts/Titus strongly updates `ONE-OFFICE-THREE-DESCRIPTIONS` for the apostolic period. - A distinct later episcopate requires either development authorized by apostolic principle or reinterpretation of singular oversight texts; it is not established merely by the English word “bishop.” - If some elders labor especially in word/teaching, update functional differentiation; additional premises are needed for two offices. **Dependencies:** Upstream: lexical identity versus later office development. Downstream: polity, ordination, succession, senior-pastor model. **Relations:** One-office terminology correlates with Baptist and some Presbyterian accounts, but Presbyterians may distinguish teaching and ruling elders within one order or as two classes. **Incompatibilities:** Strict divine-right monarchical episcopacy conflicts with the claim that Scripture makes all bishops and presbyters the same rank permanently. **Booleanized identity labels:** bishop, presbyter, elder, pastor, teaching elder, ruling elder. ### GOV-03 — Number and nature of continuing church offices **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** Which offices continue after the apostolic age? **Options:** `TWO-OFFICES-ELDER-DEACON`; `THREE-OFFICES-MINISTER-ELDER-DEACON`; `THREEFOLD-BISHOP-PRIEST-DEACON`; `FIVEFOLD-MINISTRY`; `NO-FIXED-OFFICE-SCHEMA`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:1–13 → overseers and deacons as two-office pattern. - Acts 6:1–6 → institution of deacons, prototype of diaconal service, or unique Seven with preaching roles? - 1 Timothy 5:17; Romans 12:6–8 → teaching/ruling specializations. - Ephesians 4:11–13; 1 Corinthians 12:28 → apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherd-teachers: offices, gifts, foundational ministries, or continuing fivefold structure? - 1 Peter 2:5, 9; Revelation 1:6 → priesthood of all believers; does this exclude a distinct ministerial priesthood or define its context? **Decision logic:** - If Ephesians 4 roles continue “until” mature unity, update continuing functions, but not necessarily five juridical offices. - If pastor/elder/overseer are one and Philippians/1 Timothy name only that office plus deacons, update `TWO-OFFICES-ELDER-DEACON`. - If word-and-sacrament ministry differs in order from governing elders, update `THREE-OFFICES-MINISTER-ELDER-DEACON`. **Dependencies:** Upstream: GOV-02, apostle/prophet continuation, priesthood. Downstream: ordination tracks, voting, women deacons, mission commissioning. **Relations:** Threefold bishop-priest-deacon correlates with Catholic/Orthodox/Anglican polity; fivefold with apostolic/charismatic networks. **Incompatibilities:** A closed two-office claim is incompatible with a divinely mandated continuing office of apostle distinct from elder. **Booleanized identity labels:** two-office, three-office, fivefold ministry, clergy, priesthood of all believers. ### GOV-04 — Plurality of elders and the senior/solo pastor **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** Is a plurality of qualified elders in every local church divinely required, ordinarily normative, or optional? **Options:** `PLURALITY-REQUIRED`; `PLURALITY-NORMATIVE`; `SINGLE-PASTOR-PERMISSIBLE`; `SENIOR-PASTOR-AMONG-ELDERS`; `CONGREGATIONAL-LEADERSHIP-WITHOUT-ELDERS-TEMPORARILY`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Acts 14:23; 20:17; Philippians 1:1; Titus 1:5; James 5:14; 1 Peter 5:1 → consistent plurals: mandate, ordinary mature pattern, or incidental grammar? - 1 Timothy 3:1–7; Titus 1:6–9 → singular generic “overseer” does not establish solo leadership. - Revelation 2–3 “angel of the church” → senior pastor/bishop, heavenly angel, messenger, or corporate representative? - Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18 → James’s prominence as senior leader without disproving plurality. **Decision logic:** - Repeated local plural patterns strongly update `PLURALITY-NORMATIVE`. - To infer `PLURALITY-REQUIRED`, add a premise that apostolic appointment patterns bind every established church. - Prominence or first-among-equals can coexist with plurality; unilateral final authority cannot. **Dependencies:** Upstream: descriptive/normative hermeneutics, elder office. Downstream: accountability, church planting, leadership succession. **Relations:** Plurality correlates with Presbyterian, elder-led Baptist, and restoration movements. Senior-pastor practice appears across polities. **Incompatibilities:** Exclusive unilateral pastoral rule conflicts with coequal elder plurality, though administrative delegation does not. **Booleanized identity labels:** elder-led, plurality, senior pastor, solo pastor, Moses model. ### GOV-05 — The congregation’s authority and voting **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** Does the assembled congregation possess final authority in doctrine, membership, discipline, officer selection, or property? **Options:** `CONGREGATION-HOLDS-KEYS`; `CONGREGATION-CONSENTS`; `ELDERS-HOLD-KEYS`; `BISHOP-OR-COURT-HOLDS-KEYS`; `DOMAIN-SPLIT`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Matthew 18:17–20 → “tell it to the church” gives congregation final adjudication or publicizes an elder decision? - Acts 6:2–6 → congregation selects servants and apostles appoint; shared jurisdiction or unique event? - Acts 14:23 → *cheirotoneō* means congregational election or apostolic appointment. - 1 Corinthians 5:4–5, 12–13; 2 Corinthians 2:6 → assembly disciplines and “majority” acts. - Galatians 1:6–9; 1 John 4:1 → whole church judges teaching. - Hebrews 13:17; 1 Thessalonians 5:12–13 → leaders genuinely govern; congregationalism is not leaderlessness. **Decision logic:** - If church in Matthew 18 refers to the gathered membership and “majority” is operative in restoration, update `CONGREGATION-HOLDS-KEYS`. - If selection/discipline texts reflect consent under apostolic or elder governance, update `CONGREGATION-CONSENTS`. - Separate domains; a church may give elders teaching/operational authority but members final membership and officer authority. **Dependencies:** Upstream: meaning of church, keys, elder authority. Downstream: bylaws, discipline, ordination, abuse safeguards. **Relations:** Congregational authority correlates with member voting but need not entail votes on every decision. **Incompatibilities:** Sole final authority of the congregation and sole final authority of an external bishop are jurisdictionally incompatible. **Booleanized identity labels:** congregational, elder-ruled, elder-led, member-led, democratic church. ### GOV-06 — Translocal councils, denominations, and local autonomy **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** Can a synod, presbytery, diocese, or network issue binding decisions for a local church? **Options:** `BINDING-COUNCILS`; `CONNECTIONAL-COURTS`; `EPISCOPAL-JURISDICTION`; `ADVISORY-ASSOCIATIONS`; `STRICT-LOCAL-AUTONOMY`; `COVENANTAL-NETWORK-AUTHORITY`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Acts 15:1–35; 16:4 → translocal decree binding churches; grounded in unique apostles or continuing conciliar authority? - Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5 → outside ministers appoint local elders during mission; temporary church-planting authority or lasting hierarchy? - 2 Corinthians 8:16–24 → interchurch representatives and financial accountability without obvious jurisdiction. - Revelation 2–3 → Christ addresses distinct churches, supporting local accountability but not necessarily autonomy. - 1 Corinthians 14:33; Colossians 4:16 → common interchurch practice and shared letters. **Decision logic:** - If Acts 15’s authority rests on apostles’ revelatory office, its post-apostolic analogue may be persuasive but not infallible. - If elders as one regional presbytery govern multiple congregations, update `CONNECTIONAL-COURTS`. - If no body may exercise keys outside the local assembly, update `STRICT-LOCAL-AUTONOMY`. **Dependencies:** Upstream: apostolic succession, universal/local church, polity. Downstream: appeals, ordination, discipline portability, doctrinal standards. **Relations:** Autonomy correlates with Baptist/congregational identity; it does not entail isolation or rejection of confessions. **Incompatibilities:** A local church cannot be both finally autonomous and subject to compulsory external adjudication in the same domain. **Booleanized identity labels:** autonomous, connectional, diocesan, presbyterial, network church, independent. ### GOV-07 — Ordination: recognition, conferral, or sacramental character **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** What happens in ordination and who may perform it? **Options:** `CONGREGATIONAL-RECOGNITION`; `ELDER-COLLEGE-COMMISSIONING`; `PRESBYTERIAL-CONFERRAL`; `EPISCOPAL-SACRAMENT`; `CHARISMATIC-CALL-RATIFIED`; `FUNCTIONAL-APPOINTMENT`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Acts 6:3–6; 13:1–3; 14:23 → selection, prayer, fasting, laying on hands, appointment. - 1 Timothy 4:14; 2 Timothy 1:6 → gift given “through/by” prophecy and laying on hands: sacramental conferral, charismatic confirmation, or commissioning? - 1 Timothy 5:22; Titus 1:5 → guarded appointment authority. - Numbers 27:18–23 as background → representative transfer/commissioning, but covenantal continuity must be argued. **Decision logic:** - If laying on hands instrumentally confers office and grace through an episcopal chain, update `EPISCOPAL-SACRAMENT`. - If a preexisting divine call/gifting is publicly tested and recognized, update `CONGREGATIONAL-RECOGNITION` or `CHARISMATIC-CALL-RATIFIED`. - Separate validity, regularity, and prudence: an irregular ordination need not be no ordination. **Dependencies:** Upstream: succession, office ontology, charismatic gifts, congregational authority. Downstream: ministerial transfers, sacrament validity, women’s ordination. **Relations:** Sacramental ordination correlates with threefold ministry. Congregational recognition correlates with free-church polity. **Incompatibilities:** Indelible sacramental character conflicts with purely revocable functional appointment as complete accounts of the same act. **Booleanized identity labels:** ordained, licensed, commissioned, consecrated, apostolically ordained. ### GOV-08 — Deacons: office, service, and governing authority **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** What is the deacon’s role? **Options:** `MERCY-AND-ADMINISTRATION`; `LITURGICAL-ASSISTANT`; `GOVERNING-BOARD`; `WORD-AND-MISSION-MINISTRY`; `FLEXIBLE-SERVICE-OFFICE`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Acts 6:1–6 → deacon prototype focused on distribution, or the Seven as unique commissioned evangelists? - Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:8–13 → recognized office distinct from overseers. - Romans 16:1–2 → Phoebe as officeholder/deacon or generic servant/patron. - 1 Timothy 3:12 → household-management qualification implies church governance or general character. **Decision logic:** - If Acts 6 defines the office, update mercy/administration; if not technically diaconal, weight 1 Timothy 3 more heavily. - Stephen and Philip’s preaching shows deacons may teach by gift, but does not entail preaching is constitutive of the office. - A governing deacon board requires inference; no text plainly gives deacons authority over elders. **Dependencies:** Upstream: office count, women deacons, congregational structure. Downstream: budgets, benevolence, liturgy, leadership pipeline. **Relations:** Governing boards correlate with some Baptist practice; liturgical diaconate with episcopal churches. **Incompatibilities:** Deacons as final governors over elders conflicts with elder-oversight models unless “deacon” is being used non-biblically as a corporate title. **Booleanized identity labels:** deacon board, servant deacon, permanent deacon, diaconate. ### GEN-01 — Women as elders, overseers, or senior pastors **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** May a qualified woman hold the authoritative teaching/governing office of elder/overseer? **Options:** `MALE-ELDERS-REQUIRED`; `EGALITARIAN-ALL-OFFICES`; `LOCAL-AUTHORITY-RESTRICTED-BUT-OTHER-MINISTRIES-OPEN`; `TRAJECTORY-OR-REDEMPTIVE-MOVEMENT`; `CONTEXTUAL-RESTRICTION-ONLY`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - 1 Timothy 2:8–15 → transcultural restriction grounded in creation/fall, local response to false teaching, restriction on domineering/false teaching, or temporary Ephesian condition? - 1 Timothy 3:1–7; Titus 1:5–9 → “husband of one wife” male office requirement, idiom for marital fidelity, or presumptive case grammar? - 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 → women pray/prophesy in assembly under headship; proves public speech but not necessarily elder office. - 1 Corinthians 14:33b–35 → absolute silence, judging-prophecy restriction, disruptive questioning, or textual/discourse issue? - Romans 16:1–7; Philippians 4:2–3 → Phoebe, Priscilla, Junia, and female coworkers: significant ministry; exact offices disputed. - Genesis 1:26–28; 2:18–25; 3:16; Galatians 3:28 → creation equality/order, fall distortion, and new-creation implications. **Decision logic:** - If 1 Timothy 2’s rationale in Adam and Eve makes the rule universal and *authentein* concerns ordinary authority, strongly update `MALE-ELDERS-REQUIRED`. - If the passage addresses a local false-teaching pattern and women may otherwise teach with authority, update `CONTEXTUAL-RESTRICTION-ONLY`. - Examples of female ministry update ministry breadth, but only examples plausibly identifying women as overseers directly update office eligibility. - Equal worth and salvation status do not by themselves entail identical offices; creation order does not by itself specify which offices are restricted. **Dependencies:** Upstream: creation order, headship, office definition, hermeneutics of occasional commands. Downstream: ordination, preaching, denominational affiliation, mission roles. **Relations:** Male eldership correlates with complementarianism; all-office eligibility with egalitarianism. Both labels bundle marriage/family claims that should be separately modeled. **Incompatibilities:** Universal male-only elder qualification and women’s eligibility for that same office are incompatible. “Woman may preach under elder oversight” is not necessarily incompatible with male eldership. **Booleanized identity labels:** complementarian, egalitarian, patriarchal, soft complementarian, women’s ordination, female pastor. ### GEN-02 — Women deacons and deaconesses **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** May women hold the diaconal office? **Options:** `WOMEN-DEACONS`; `DEACONESSES-DISTINCT-ORDER`; `MALE-DEACONS-ONLY`; `GENERIC-FEMALE-SERVANTS-NOT-OFFICERS`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Romans 16:1–2 → Phoebe is “deacon of the church,” an official title or generic servant; patron/protector language increases her recognized role. - 1 Timothy 3:11 → “women” means female deacons, deacons’ wives, or women assistants. - 1 Timothy 3:12 → “husband of one wife” applies to all deacons or male cases only. - Acts 6 → male Seven are descriptive selection, not explicit universal sex qualification. **Decision logic:** - If Romans 16 uses *diakonos* as it does for recognized ministers and 1 Timothy 3:11 is a parallel qualification section, update `WOMEN-DEACONS`. - If verse 11 interrupts male-deacon qualifications to address wives, update `MALE-DEACONS-ONLY`. - Eligibility depends partly on whether deacons exercise governing/authoritative teaching functions. **Dependencies:** Upstream: GOV-08, nature of authority, lexical usage. Downstream: ordination and ministry pathways. **Relations:** Women deacons coexist with male-only elders in many conservative churches; do not make the questions one variable. **Incompatibilities:** “Every ordained office is male-only and deacon is ordained office” conflicts with women deacons; changing either premise resolves it. **Booleanized identity labels:** deaconess, women deacons, complementarian, ordained women. ### GEN-03 — Women teaching or preaching to mixed adult assemblies **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** Apart from holding elder office, what teaching speech may women exercise? **Options:** `NO-AUTHORITATIVE-MIXED-TEACHING`; `PREACHING-UNDER-ELDER-AUTHORITY`; `OCCASIONAL-TESTIMONY-OR-EXHORTATION`; `ALL-GIFTED-TEACHING`; `PROPHECY-BUT-NOT-DOCTRINAL-GOVERNANCE`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - 1 Timothy 2:11–12 → one combined act “teach-and-exercise authority,” two prohibited acts, or abuse-specific verb? - 1 Corinthians 11:5; Acts 2:17–18; 21:9 → women pray and prophesy publicly; prophecy’s relation to sermon/teaching is contested. - 1 Corinthians 14:26–35 → participatory speech under order; women’s silence has scoped or universal readings. - Acts 18:24–26 → Priscilla and Aquila instruct Apollos privately or in a less formal setting. - Colossians 3:16; Titus 2:3–5 → mutual and sex/age-specific teaching. **Decision logic:** - If preaching the gathered church is definitionally the elder’s authoritative teaching act, male eldership strongly updates `NO-AUTHORITATIVE-MIXED-TEACHING`. - If authority belongs to the elders while a nonelder speaker ministers under delegation, update `PREACHING-UNDER-ELDER-AUTHORITY`. - If New Testament prophecy is authoritative congregational speech, women prophets strongly update broad public speaking; it still may not settle elder office. **Dependencies:** Upstream: GEN-01, prophecy nature, sermon/office relation. Downstream: platform policies, theological education, mission. **Relations:** Male-only eldership often correlates with male-only preaching, but the entailment depends on a theory of preaching. **Incompatibilities:** A blanket rule that women may never speak to a mixed gathering conflicts with 1 Corinthians 11 unless that passage concerns a different gathering or nonverbal action. **Booleanized identity labels:** women preachers, male-pulpit, complementarian preaching, egalitarian ministry. ### GEN-04 — Headship, veiling, and head coverings **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** Does 1 Corinthians 11 require a physical head covering, culturally equivalent symbolism, long hair, or no continuing practice? **Options:** `PHYSICAL-COVERING-REQUIRED`; `CULTURAL-SYMBOL-REQUIRED`; `LONG-HAIR-IS-COVERING`; `FIRST-CENTURY-LOCAL-PRACTICE`; `HEADSHIP-PRINCIPLE-WITHOUT-SYMBOL`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 → “head” means authority/source/prominence; “covering” is garment, hairstyle, or both; angels and “nature” universalize or rhetorically support local decorum. - Numbers 5:18 and Greco-Roman/Jewish customs may inform background but should be a distinct historical-evidence node. - Genesis 1–2 → creation-grounded differentiation may support transcultural principle without fixing symbol. **Decision logic:** - If covering and hair are distinguished in the argument and creation/angels ground the command, update `PHYSICAL-COVERING-REQUIRED`. - If shame/honor symbolism is culturally variable while headship remains, update `CULTURAL-SYMBOL-REQUIRED`. - If verse 15 defines hair as the covering referenced throughout, update `LONG-HAIR-IS-COVERING`. **Dependencies:** Upstream: headship, cultural-command hermeneutics. Downstream: worship practice, gender presentation. **Relations:** Covering practice correlates with Anabaptist, Brethren, Orthodox, and some Reformed groups but crosses broader complementarian/egalitarian lines. **Incompatibilities:** Physical-covering-as-continuing-command conflicts with a claim that no external practice is required; it need not conflict with cultural-symbol accounts if the current culture retains that symbol. **Booleanized identity labels:** head-covering church, veiling, plain church, complementarian. ### GEN-05 — Clergy/laity distinction and the priesthood of all believers **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** Does ordained ministry form a distinct priestly order, a governing/teaching office within the common priesthood, or only a functional role? **Options:** `SACRAMENTAL-PRIESTHOOD`; `ORDAINED-MINISTRY-WITHIN-COMMON-PRIESTHOOD`; `FUNCTIONAL-OFFICE-NO-ONTOLOGICAL-DISTINCTION`; `RADICAL-EVERY-MEMBER-MINISTRY`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - 1 Peter 2:5, 9; Revelation 1:6; 5:10 → all believers are priests; exclusive sacrificial priesthood abolished or ministerial priesthood remains analogically? - Hebrews 7–10 → Christ alone fulfills high-priestly mediation; does ordained priesthood participate ministerially without rival mediation? - Ephesians 4:11–16; 1 Corinthians 12 → leaders equip the whole body for ministry. - 1 Timothy 4:14; 5:17–22; 2 Timothy 1:6 → formal office and ordination distinguish ministers. **Decision logic:** - If Eucharistic presidency is sacrificial representation and ordination confers character, update `SACRAMENTAL-PRIESTHOOD`. - If Christ’s unique priesthood and universal believer-priesthood exclude a separate sacrificing order but not pastors, update `ORDAINED-MINISTRY-WITHIN-COMMON-PRIESTHOOD`. - Universal gifts do not entail absence of office; office texts prevent that shortcut. **Dependencies:** Upstream: ordination, Eucharistic sacrifice, church office. Downstream: confession, sacrament administration, lay preaching. **Relations:** “Priesthood of all believers” is shared Protestant language but ranges from ordered ministry to anti-clericalism. **Incompatibilities:** Exclusive sacerdotal mediation necessary for access to God conflicts with direct access through Christ for all believers; ministerial representation need not. **Booleanized identity labels:** clergy, laity, priest, pastor, every-member ministry, anti-clerical. ### GEN-06 — Marriage, celibacy, and eligibility for ordained ministry **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** May or must clergy marry, and may churches require celibacy? **Options:** `CLERICAL-MARRIAGE-PERMITTED`; `MARRIAGE-NORMALLY-EXPECTED`; `EPISCOPAL-OR-PRIESTLY-CELIBACY-REQUIRED`; `CELIBACY-CHARISM-NOT-OFFICE-RULE`; `MARRIED-BISHOPS-RESTRICTED`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - 1 Timothy 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6 → “husband of one wife” requires marriage, permits it while demanding fidelity, or excludes remarriage/polygamy? - 1 Corinthians 7:7–8, 25–35 → celibacy as gift and undistracted service, not a universal command. - Matthew 19:10–12 → voluntary celibacy for kingdom. - 1 Corinthians 9:5 → apostles, including Cephas, may travel with believing wives. - 1 Timothy 4:1–5 → forbidding marriage as false teaching; does a voluntary vocational discipline count? **Decision logic:** - If pastoral qualifications presume but do not mandate marriage, update `CLERICAL-MARRIAGE-PERMITTED`. - If a church rule concerns voluntary admission to an office rather than teaching marriage unclean, 1 Timothy 4 may not directly prohibit it. - If celibacy must be a personal charism, lower a universal institutional mandate. **Dependencies:** Upstream: ordination ontology, vocation, reading of qualifications. Downstream: clergy discipline, episcopal practice. **Relations:** Mandatory priestly celibacy correlates specifically with Latin Catholic discipline, not all sacramental priesthood; Eastern traditions ordain married presbyters. **Incompatibilities:** “Every elder must be married” conflicts with eligibility of celibate men such as Paul under common readings. **Booleanized identity labels:** celibate clergy, married pastor, monastic, priestly celibacy. ### MEM-01 — Formal, identifiable church membership **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** Does the New Testament require or strongly imply a defined membership roll/covenant beyond regular attendance? **Options:** `FORMAL-MEMBERSHIP-REQUIRED`; `IDENTIFIABLE-COVENANTAL-MEMBERSHIP`; `RELATIONAL-MEMBERSHIP-WITHOUT-ROLL`; `ATTENDANCE-PLUS-PASTORAL-CARE`; `SACRAMENTAL-PARISH-MEMBERSHIP`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Acts 2:41, 47; 4:4; 6:1–7 → numbered/added community indicates a roll, rhetorical counting, or recognizable belonging. - 1 Corinthians 5:12–13; 2 Corinthians 2:6 → “inside/outside” and majority require a defined electorate/boundary or only known regular fellowship. - 1 Timothy 5:9–12 → widow list shows administrative lists, not necessarily universal membership lists. - Hebrews 13:17; 1 Peter 5:2–3 → leaders must know for whom they give account; members must know whom to obey. - Romans 16:1–16; letters of commendation → portable recognition between churches. **Decision logic:** - If discipline, majority action, and pastoral accountability require a determinate set, update `FORMAL-MEMBERSHIP-REQUIRED` or `IDENTIFIABLE-COVENANTAL-MEMBERSHIP`. - A determinate set need not require a modern signed covenant or database; do not smuggle implementation into the biblical proposition. - If baptism sacramentally incorporates into a territorial parish, update `SACRAMENTAL-PARISH-MEMBERSHIP`. **Dependencies:** Upstream: church boundary, baptism, polity. Downstream: voting, discipline, pastoral care, communion. **Relations:** Formal covenants correlate with Baptist/congregational polity; parish membership with established/sacramental traditions. **Incompatibilities:** A church cannot exercise exclusion from a defined “inside” while denying any socially identifiable belonging, though it may lack paperwork. **Booleanized identity labels:** church member, covenant member, regular attender, parishioner, member in good standing. ### MEM-02 — Regenerate, covenantal, or sacramental membership **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** What spiritual status should be required or presumed for visible membership? **Options:** `CREDIBLE-REGENERATION-REQUIRED`; `CREDIBLE-PROFESSION-REQUIRED`; `BAPTIZED-COVENANT-MEMBERSHIP`; `BAPTISMAL-INCORPORATION`; `MIXED-HOUSEHOLD-COVENANT`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Acts 2:38–42; 8:12; 10:44–48 → profession/Spirit/baptism sequence for converts. - Jeremiah 31:31–34; Hebrews 8 → all new-covenant members know God, or only covenant’s saving substance while visible administration remains mixed? - 1 Corinthians 1:2; 5:1–13; 10:1–12 → “sanctified” church contains serious sin and possible unbelief. - Romans 9:6; 11:17–22; John 15:1–6 → external covenant relation with fruitless branches or only apparent relation? - 1 Corinthians 7:14 → holy children within a household. **Decision logic:** - Because humans cannot infallibly detect regeneration, even `CREDIBLE-REGENERATION-REQUIRED` operationalizes as credible profession and fruit. - If children or baptized persons possess objective covenant standing without personal faith, update mixed/covenantal models. - If new-covenant membership is coextensive with saving knowledge of God, update regenerate-membership models. **Dependencies:** Upstream: ECC-02/03, BAP-01/03, apostasy. Downstream: discipline, child status, table admission. **Relations:** Regenerate membership correlates with Baptist polity; mixed covenant membership with paedobaptism; baptismal incorporation with sacramental traditions. **Incompatibilities:** “Every visible member is regenerate by definition” conflicts with “some visible members possess real covenant membership yet are unregenerate,” unless “member” changes sense. **Booleanized identity labels:** believers’ church, covenant member, baptized member, nominal Christian, regenerate church. ### MEM-03 — Scope and process of corrective discipline **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** Which sins or errors warrant formal discipline, and is Matthew 18 a universal sequence? **Options:** `MATTHEW-18-UNIVERSAL-SEQUENCE`; `PRIVATE-OFFENSE-SEQUENCE`; `PUBLIC-SINS-PUBLIC-CORRECTION`; `DISCIPLINE-FOR-SCANDALOUS-UNREPENTANCE`; `DISCIPLINE-INCLUDES-SERIOUS-DOCTRINAL-ERROR`; `LEADER-DIRECTED-PROCESS`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Matthew 18:15–20 → all sins, sins “against you” (textual variant), private offenses, or paradigm with exceptions? - 1 Corinthians 5 → notorious public sexual sin receives immediate assembly action. - Galatians 2:11–14; 1 Timothy 5:19–20 → public rebuke of public/elder sin with evidentiary safeguards. - Titus 3:9–11; Romans 16:17–18; 2 John 9–11 → divisive or Christologically false teaching warrants separation. - 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14–15 → disorderly conduct and disobedience; shame as a brother, not enemy. **Decision logic:** - Distinguish private reconciliation, pastoral correction, removal from office, table suspension, and excommunication. - If Matthew 18 addresses private offense, do not require a private first step for public danger or already-public scandal. - Discipline threshold generally combines seriousness, clarity, and unrepentance rather than any single sin occurrence. **Dependencies:** Upstream: keys, polity, doctrinal triage, procedural justice. Downstream: membership removal, restoration, abuse response. **Relations:** Strong discipline correlates with confessional and regenerate-membership churches but can occur in any polity. **Incompatibilities:** Automatic confidential handling of every allegation conflicts with public-authority reporting duties and biblical public rebuke cases; civil reporting is a separate jurisdictional question. **Booleanized identity labels:** disciplined church, church discipline, Matthew 18 process, watch-care. ### MEM-04 — Meaning and effect of excommunication **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** Is excommunication merely removal from a local roll, exclusion from the table, authoritative declaration of kingdom status, medicinal judgment, or surrender to divine judgment? **Options:** `MEMBERSHIP-REMOVAL`; `TABLE-EXCLUSION`; `DECLARATIVE-KEYS`; `MEDICINAL-SACRAMENTAL-CENSURE`; `COVENANT-CUTTING-OFF`; `LOCAL-NOT-FINAL-JUDGMENT`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Matthew 16:19; 18:17–20 → heaven ratifies faithful church judgment, church declares prior heavenly judgment, or apostolic authority only? - 1 Corinthians 5:4–5, 11–13 → deliver to Satan for flesh’s destruction/salvation; removal into world, severe spiritual judgment, or both. - 1 Timothy 1:19–20 → apostolic handing over to Satan for corrective learning. - 2 Thessalonians 3:14–15 → exclusion while admonishing as brother; not every censure equals final excommunication. - John 20:23 → ministerial forgiveness/retention of sins or apostolic gospel proclamation. **Decision logic:** - If keys authoritatively declare covenant/kingdom standing, update `DECLARATIVE-KEYS`; distinguish fallible authority from infallible salvation verdict. - If table fellowship constitutes visible communion, table exclusion and membership removal strongly couple but may be staged. - Restoration purpose updates `MEDICINAL-SACRAMENTAL-CENSURE` or at least a remedial rather than merely punitive theory. **Dependencies:** Upstream: polity, church visibility, communion admission. Downstream: interchurch recognition, assurance, restoration. **Relations:** Sacramental censure correlates with episcopal/presbyteral polity; membership removal language with congregationalism. **Incompatibilities:** Treating excommunication as an infallible sentence of eternal damnation conflicts with fallible church judgments and restoration examples. **Booleanized identity labels:** excommunicated, disfellowshipped, under discipline, barred from communion. ### MEM-05 — Restoration, transfer, and portability of discipline **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** What evidence warrants restoration, and must other churches honor a former church’s discipline? **Options:** `RESTORE-ON-CREDIBLE-REPENTANCE`; `RESTORE-AFTER-DEFINED-FRUITS-AND-TIME`; `IMMEDIATE-FORGIVENESS-DELAYED-OFFICE`; `ORIGINATING-CHURCH-CONTROLS`; `RECEIVING-CHURCH-INDEPENDENTLY-JUDGES`; `PRESBYTERY-OR-BISHOP-ADJUDICATES`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - 2 Corinthians 2:5–11; 7:8–12 → restore and comfort a repentant offender; whether the individual is 1 Corinthians 5’s man is debated but principle remains. - Luke 17:3–4; Matthew 18:21–35 → repeated forgiveness on repentance. - 1 Timothy 3:2, 7; Titus 1:6–9 → restored fellowship does not automatically restore qualification or public reputation. - Acts 9:26–28; Romans 16:1–2; 2 Corinthians 3:1 → commendation and careful reception. - 3 John 9–10 → local authority can be abusive; external judgments require evaluation. **Decision logic:** - Separate forgiveness, fellowship, membership, table access, leadership eligibility, and legal/safety restrictions. - Repentance may entail prompt relational restoration while office qualifications require a longer or permanent consequence. - Portability depends on confidence in the original church’s jurisdiction, process, and evidence. **Dependencies:** Upstream: excommunication, polity, repentance theology, abuse safeguards. Downstream: transfer letters, restoration plans, ministerial credentials. **Relations:** Connectional polities structurally strengthen portability; autonomous churches still may honor discipline through comity. **Incompatibilities:** “Forgiven therefore immediately qualified for leadership” conflicts with qualifications involving reputation and testedness. **Booleanized identity labels:** restored, member in good standing, disqualified, transferable discipline, church hopping. ### MEM-06 — Children and adolescents in membership **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** Are children of believers members by covenant/baptism, nonmember disciples, or eligible upon credible profession? **Options:** `COVENANT-CHILD-MEMBER`; `BAPTIZED-NONCOMMUNICANT-MEMBER`; `PROFESSING-YOUTH-MEMBER`; `ADULT-MEMBERSHIP-THRESHOLD`; `HOUSEHOLD-UNDER-PARENTAL-COVENANT`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Acts 2:39; 1 Corinthians 7:14 → covenant holiness/inclusion or special relationship short of membership. - Ephesians 6:1–3; Colossians 3:20 → children addressed within churches as disciples/covenant members or as present family dependents. - Matthew 19:13–15 → kingdom belongs to such; status, analogy of dependence, or saving inclusion? - Acts 2:41; 8:12 → baptism/addition following personal response for missionary converts. **Decision logic:** - Paedobaptism plus baptismal incorporation strongly updates child membership, but paedobaptists differ on communicant status. - Credobaptism leaves age undefined; credible profession, not biological adulthood, may control. - Membership responsibilities such as voting can be distinct from membership status. **Dependencies:** Upstream: BAP-01, MEM-02, paedocommunion, covenant family. Downstream: discipline, voting, pastoral care, youth ministry. **Relations:** Child membership correlates with paedobaptism; youth voting policies are institutional rather than direct biblical conclusions. **Incompatibilities:** “Only personally professing believers are church members” conflicts with infant membership, but not with recognizing children as holy/under church care in another sense. **Booleanized identity labels:** covenant child, noncommunicant member, junior member, baptized member. ### SAC-01 — Number and category of sacraments/ordinances **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** Are baptism and the Supper the only dominical sacraments, or do other rites share sacramental status? **Options:** `TWO-ORDINANCES`; `TWO-GOSPEL-SACRAMENTS-PLUS-OTHER-RITES`; `SEVEN-SACRAMENTS`; `MYSTERIES-NOT-FIXED-BY-NUMBER`; `NO-SACRAMENT-CATEGORY`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Matthew 28:19; Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:23–26 → baptism and Supper directly instituted by Christ for repeated church use. - Acts 8:14–17; 19:6; Hebrews 6:2 → laying on hands/confirmation as distinct rite or apostolic transition. - John 20:22–23; James 5:14–16 → confession/absolution and anointing as sacramental channels or pastoral practices. - Ephesians 5:22–33; Matthew 19:4–6 → marriage as mystery/sign but not necessarily church-administered sacrament. - Acts 6:6; 1 Timothy 4:14; 2 Timothy 1:6 → ordination conveys gift or commissions office. **Decision logic:** - Define sacrament before counting: direct institution by Christ, visible sign of invisible grace, promise attached, and church administration yield different counts. - If only rites with explicit dominical command and material sign qualify, update two. - If apostolic rites instrumentally confer grace in recurring church practice, update a broader sacramental set. **Dependencies:** Upstream: sacramental definition and causality. Downstream: clergy authority, marriage, confession, healing. **Relations:** “Two sacraments” correlates with magisterial Protestantism; “two ordinances” with free churches; “seven” with Catholicism. Orthodoxy often resists an exhaustive count. **Incompatibilities:** Exactly-two-as-exhaustive and exactly-seven-as-exhaustive are incompatible; both may still recognize other sacred rites under different names. **Booleanized identity labels:** sacramental, ordinance church, seven sacraments, dominical sacraments, mysteries. ### SAC-02 — Objective efficacy, faith, and worthy reception **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** Is sacramental grace conferred by the performed rite, by God’s promise through the rite, only through recipient faith, or only as symbolic testimony? **Options:** `EX-OPERE-OPERATO-PROPERLY-QUALIFIED`; `OBJECTIVE-PROMISE-WITH-RESISTIBLE-FRUIT`; `EFFICACY-THROUGH-FAITH`; `SIGN-SEAL-TO-ELECT`; `SYMBOLIC-OBEDIENCE`; `COMMUNAL-PERFORMATIVE-EFFICACY`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Romans 6:3–4; Galatians 3:27; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 3:21 → direct sacramental predication or shorthand for faith/Spirit reality. - 1 Corinthians 10:1–12 → all receive sacramental types, not all receive saving benefit. - 1 Corinthians 11:27–32 → objective judgment in unworthy reception. - Romans 4:11 → circumcision as sign and seal of righteousness already received by faith in Abraham; applicability to all sacraments disputed. - Hebrews 4:2 → promised word fails to benefit without faith, a possible general means-of-grace principle. **Decision logic:** - Separate valid occurrence, objective covenant effect, saving grace, fruitful reception, and perseverance. - “Ex opere operato” in careful sacramental theology does not mean magical benefit regardless of impediment; model the technical claim, not the caricature. - Unworthy reception supporting objective effect does not establish saving effect without faith. **Dependencies:** Upstream: faith/justification, election, sign/reality. Downstream: baptismal regeneration, Eucharistic efficacy, assurance. **Relations:** Objective efficacy correlates with sacramental traditions; sign-and-seal with Reformed; symbolic obedience with many Baptist free-church accounts. Restorationist/Stone–Campbell churches should be scored rite by rite: they commonly link baptism instrumentally to forgiveness or entry into Christ even when the Supper is chiefly memorial. **Incompatibilities:** Purely subjective remembrance conflicts with any objective covenant change caused or enacted by the rite. **Booleanized identity labels:** ex opere operato, means of grace, sign and seal, sacramentalist, memorialist. ### SAC-03 — Validity versus fruitfulness and the administrator’s status **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** Does a rite’s validity depend on correct form, matter, intent, ministerial authorization, succession, recipient faith, or minister holiness? **Options:** `FORM-MATTER-INTENT-REQUIRED`; `AUTHORIZED-MINISTER-REQUIRED`; `SUCCESSION-REQUIRED`; `CHURCH-AUTHORIZATION-SUFFICIENT`; `RECIPIENT-FAITH-FOR-FRUIT-NOT-VALIDITY`; `MINISTER-HOLINESS-NOT-DETERMINATIVE`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Matthew 28:19–20; 1 Corinthians 11:23–26 → fixed institution gives required form/content. - 1 Corinthians 1:12–17; 3:5–9 → sacrament/gospel does not derive power from prestigious minister. - Philippians 1:15–18 → Christ proclaimed through bad motives still has effect; analogy to rite validity is indirect. - Numbers 20:7–13; John 11:49–52 → God may act through sinful officeholders; again analogical. - 1 Corinthians 11:20 → disorder can make a gathering “not” truly the Lord’s Supper in functional or invalidating sense. **Decision logic:** - Do not collapse validity (the rite occurred), liceity/regularity (it was authorized), and fruitfulness (it benefited recipients). - If efficacy rests on Christ’s promise, ministerial moral failure need not invalidate. - Succession requirements depend on ECC-06/GOV-07; Scripture does not state them in a single validity formula. **Dependencies:** Upstream: ordination, succession, sacramental causality. Downstream: rebaptism, intercommunion, abuse by clergy. **Relations:** Minister-independent validity is shared across many traditions despite disputes about authorization. **Incompatibilities:** “Any materially correct act by anyone is valid” conflicts with strict succession/authorization conditions; both can reject Donatist dependence on minister holiness. **Booleanized identity labels:** valid sacrament, invalid orders, irregular baptism, Donatist, apostolic succession. ### SAC-04 — Foot washing as ordinance **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** Is foot washing a continuing church ordinance, a mandatory ethical pattern expressed variably, or a first-century hospitality act? **Options:** `CONTINUING-LITERAL-ORDINANCE`; `LITERAL-PRACTICE-COMMENDED`; `HUMBLE-SERVICE-PRINCIPLE`; `CULTURAL-HOSPITALITY-ACT`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - John 13:1–17, especially 13:14–15 → explicit “you also ought” and example: literal repeated rite or enacted paradigm of humble service? - 1 Timothy 5:10 → washing saints’ feet as recognized good work, supporting literal hospitality but not necessarily gathered ordinance. - Luke 7:44; Genesis 18:4 → cultural hospitality background. **Decision logic:** - If Christ’s explicit example-command has the same recurring ritual force as “do this” at the Supper, update `CONTINUING-LITERAL-ORDINANCE`. - If the act’s culturally specific function is servanthood, update `HUMBLE-SERVICE-PRINCIPLE`. - Direct command gives literal practice more weight than mere cultural reconstruction; frequency and ecclesial administration remain unstated. **Dependencies:** Upstream: regulative principle, sacrament definition, cultural-command hermeneutics. Downstream: Maundy Thursday and denominational practice. **Relations:** Ordinance status correlates with Mennonite, Brethren, Adventist, and some Pentecostal traditions. **Incompatibilities:** Continuing literal obligation conflicts with the claim that literal foot washing has no continuing normative force. **Booleanized identity labels:** foot-washing church, three ordinances, humble-service rite. ### SAC-05 — Anointing, confession, absolution, and healing rites **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** Are anointing the sick and confession/absolution sacramental, ordinance-like, or pastoral practices? **Options:** `ANOINTING-SACRAMENT`; `ANOINTING-CONTINUING-PASTORAL-RITE`; `ANOINTING-SYMBOLIC-OR-MEDICINAL`; `PRIVATE-CONFESSION-SACRAMENT`; `MUTUAL-CONFESSION-AND-DECLARED-ABSOLUTION`; `DIRECT-CONFESSION-TO-GOD-NORM`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - James 5:14–16 → elders anoint and pray; oil sacramental sign, medicine, honor/care, or Spirit symbol? - Mark 6:13 → apostolic healing with oil as precedent or mission sign. - John 20:22–23; Matthew 16:19; 18:18 → ministerial power to forgive/retain, church’s declarative keys, or gospel proclamation. - James 5:16; 1 John 1:9 → mutual confession and confession to God. - Acts 19:18 → public confession in conversion/revival. **Decision logic:** - James plainly supports continuing elder prayer for the sick; the open questions are the oil’s mechanism and sacramental category. - If ordained ministers judicially absolve through the keys, update `PRIVATE-CONFESSION-SACRAMENT`. - If forgiveness rests directly on Christ and ministers announce it through the gospel, update `MUTUAL-CONFESSION-AND-DECLARED-ABSOLUTION`. **Dependencies:** Upstream: office, keys, sacramental efficacy, healing gifts. Downstream: pastoral care, last rites, assurance. **Relations:** Sacramental anointing/confession correlates with Catholic/Orthodox practice; Reformation traditions may retain absolution without classing penance among gospel sacraments. **Incompatibilities:** Necessary priestly confession for forgiveness conflicts with the claim that private confession to a minister is never ordinarily required, though both may value pastoral confession. **Booleanized identity labels:** confession, absolution, last rites, healing service, anointing. ### PNE-01 — Continuation or cessation of revelatory and sign gifts **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** Do prophecy, tongues, miraculous healing gifts, and related signs continue ordinarily until Christ’s return? **Options:** `HARD-CESSATIONISM`; `CLASSICAL-CESSATIONISM`; `OPEN-BUT-CAUTIOUS`; `CONTINUATIONISM`; `PENTECOSTAL-EXPECTATION`; `THIRD-WAVE-CHARISMATIC`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Acts 2:16–21, 38–39 → Joel’s “last days” outpouring extends through the church age or refers especially to apostolic inauguration? - 1 Corinthians 12–14 → instructions for continuing church life or regulation of temporary foundational gifts? - 1 Corinthians 13:8–12 → “the perfect” is canon completion, church maturity, death/beatific vision, or Christ’s return? - Ephesians 2:20; 3:5; Hebrews 2:3–4; 2 Corinthians 12:12 → apostles/prophets and signs are foundational/attesting; does this end every analogous gift or only foundational authority? - Romans 12:3–8; 1 Peter 4:10–11 → gift lists embedded in ordinary church exhortation. - Revelation 11:3–6; 19:10 → prophecy appears eschatologically; genre and identity are disputed. **Decision logic:** - If prophecy is inherently infallible canonical revelation and prophets are foundation-limited, update cessation of that gift. - If New Testament congregational prophecy can be true yet noncanonical and evaluated, foundational closure does not entail cessation. - Lack of later canonical revelation supports closed canon but does not alone establish cessation of every miracle. - Separate gift availability, expected frequency, office continuation, and claimed modern instances. **Dependencies:** Upstream: PNE-02/PNE-05, canon closure, redemptive-historical method. Downstream: worship, guidance, mission, healing. **Relations:** Cessationism correlates with confessional Reformed and some dispensational traditions; continuationism with Pentecostal/charismatic movements. Neither determines inerrancy. **Incompatibilities:** A claim that no post-apostolic prophecy or sign gift is divinely given conflicts with a claim that the same gifts ordinarily continue. “God may perform miracles” is compatible with cessation of miracle-workers. **Booleanized identity labels:** cessationist, continuationist, charismatic, Pentecostal, open but cautious, Reformed charismatic. ### PNE-02 — Nature and authority of New Testament prophecy **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** Is all genuine prophecy infallible revelation, or can a genuine gift involve fallible human reporting that must be sifted? **Options:** `INFALLIBLE-REVELATION`; `TRUE-REVELATION-FALLIBLE-REPORT`; `SPIRIT-PROMPTED-NONREVELATORY-IMPRESSION`; `INSPIRED-EXHORTATION`; `CANONICAL-APOSTOLIC-PROPHECY-ONLY`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Deuteronomy 13:1–5; 18:15–22; Jeremiah 23 → false prediction or speaking for other gods marks false prophet; does this norm every new-covenant use of “prophecy”? - Acts 11:27–30; 21:4, 10–14 → Agabus and disciples: precise infallible predictions, approximate/fallible reports, or accurately conditional warnings? - 1 Corinthians 13:9; 14:29–33 → prophecy is partial and others weigh it; weigh applicability/identity or sift mixed content? - 1 Thessalonians 5:19–22 → do not despise prophecies, test everything. - Ephesians 2:20; 3:5 → apostolic-prophetic foundation may refer to a special class. **Decision logic:** - If “Thus says the Lord” revelation by definition cannot contain error, update `INFALLIBLE-REVELATION`; modern fallible impressions should receive another label. - If congregational prophecy is commanded to be weighed because delivery can mix human error, update `TRUE-REVELATION-FALLIBLE-REPORT`. - Distinguish revelation source, cognitive impression, verbal report, interpretation, and application; probability can differ at each layer. - Inerrant Scripture should remain the final public norm in every conservative option. **Dependencies:** Upstream: revelation theory, canon closure, biblical prophet continuity. Downstream: PNE-01, guidance, discipline for false prophecy. **Relations:** Fallible-prophecy models correlate with continuationist evangelicalism; infallible-prophecy models can yield either cessationism or tightly tested continuationism. **Incompatibilities:** A modern utterance cannot be both intrinsically God’s own errorless speech and genuinely erroneous in its asserted content. A true revelation can be misinterpreted under layered models. **Booleanized identity labels:** prophet, prophetic word, impression, revelation, “God told me,” fallible prophecy. ### PNE-03 — Tongues: human languages, heavenly speech, prayer language, and evidence **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** What is the gift of tongues and what role does it play? **Options:** `HUMAN-LANGUAGES-ONLY`; `HUMAN-AND-HEAVENLY-LANGUAGES`; `PRIVATE-PRAYER-LANGUAGE`; `PUBLIC-GIFT-REQUIRING-INTERPRETATION`; `INITIAL-EVIDENCE-OF-SPIRIT-BAPTISM`; `SIGN-OF-JUDGMENT-AND-MISSION`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Acts 2:4–11 → identifiable human languages; normative definition or one manifestation? - Acts 10:44–48; 19:1–7 → tongues accompany Spirit reception in some episodes, but Acts 8 is ambiguous and many conversions omit them. - 1 Corinthians 12:10, 28–30 → not all speak in tongues, apparently against universal gift; Pentecostal answers may distinguish public gift from initial evidence. - 1 Corinthians 13:1 → “tongues of angels” literal heavenly language or hyperbole. - 1 Corinthians 14:2, 4, 13–19, 27–28 → God-directed unintelligible speech, private self-edification, and public interpretation; is silent prayer permitted in assembly? - Isaiah 28:11–12; 1 Corinthians 14:20–25 → covenant-judgment sign to unbelievers, evangelistic sign, or paradoxical rhetoric. **Decision logic:** - Acts 2 strongly establishes human languages as at least one type. - “Not all speak in tongues” lowers universal-evidence claims unless two distinct tongue phenomena are independently supported. - If “no one understands” means no hearer happens to know the human language, it does not prove heavenly speech; if paired with spirit praying mysteries, it updates a prayer-language model. **Dependencies:** Upstream: PNE-01, Spirit-baptism model, genre of Acts. Downstream: worship order, Pentecostal identity, assurance. **Relations:** Initial evidence correlates with classical Pentecostalism; continuation without initial evidence with charismatic/Third Wave; human-languages-only with cessationism but does not entail it. **Incompatibilities:** “Every Spirit-baptized believer necessarily speaks in tongues” conflicts with a single-category reading of 1 Corinthians 12:30 as expecting “no.” **Booleanized identity labels:** tongues-speaker, prayer language, initial evidence, Pentecostal, charismatic. ### PNE-04 — Baptism in/with the Holy Spirit **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** Does Spirit baptism occur at conversion for every believer, as a subsequent empowering experience, or in more than one sense? **Options:** `CONVERSION-INITIATION`; `SUBSEQUENT-SECOND-BLESSING`; `CONVERSION-PLUS-REPEATABLE-EMPOWERINGS`; `SACRAMENTAL-CONFIRMATION`; `PENTECOSTAL-INITIAL-EVIDENCE`; `CORPORATE-HISTORICAL-PENTECOST`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Matthew 3:11; Acts 1:5; 2:1–4 → Pentecost as once-for-all corporate event, repeatable individual pattern, or both. - Acts 2:38–39 → repentance/baptism/gift of Spirit as integrated initiation. - Acts 8:12–17; 19:1–7 → delayed Spirit reception as normative subsequence, apostolic authentication at salvation-historical boundary crossings, or defective prior initiation. - Acts 10:44–48 → Spirit before water baptism. - Romans 8:9; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:2–5 → every Christian has/was baptized by one Spirit. - Ephesians 5:18; Acts 4:31 → repeatable filling distinct from initiation. **Decision logic:** - If 1 Corinthians 12:13 refers to the same Spirit baptism and includes every body member, update `CONVERSION-INITIATION`. - If Acts’ delays are prescriptive patterns rather than redemptive-historical transitions, update `SUBSEQUENT-SECOND-BLESSING`. - Conversion-initiation can coexist with later empowerings; avoid treating “one baptism, many fillings” as cessationist. **Dependencies:** Upstream: Acts hermeneutics, tongues, water/Spirit relation. Downstream: assurance, initiation rites, ministry empowerment. **Relations:** Second blessing plus tongues correlates with classical Pentecostalism; conversion-initiation with Reformed/Baptist evangelicalism; confirmation with sacramental traditions. **Incompatibilities:** “Every believer has received Spirit baptism at conversion” conflicts with “some true believers have not yet received Spirit baptism” if both use the term identically. **Booleanized identity labels:** baptized in the Spirit, Spirit-filled, second blessing, Pentecostal, confirmed. ### PNE-05 — Apostles and prophets after the first century **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** Do the offices/titles apostle and prophet continue, and with what authority? **Options:** `TWELVE-AND-PAUL-UNREPEATABLE`; `FOUNDATIONAL-APOSTLES-ENDED-MISSIONARIES-CONTINUE`; `CONTINUING-LOWERCASE-APOSTLES`; `CONTINUING-GOVERNING-APOSTLES`; `CONTINUING-PROPHETS-NONSCRIPTURAL`; `ALL-PROPHETIC-OFFICE-ENDED`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Acts 1:21–26; 1 Corinthians 9:1; 15:7–9 → eyewitness and direct commission qualifications for capital-A apostles. - Romans 16:7; 2 Corinthians 8:23; Philippians 2:25 → *apostolos* can mean emissary/missionary beyond the Twelve; Junia’s construction disputed. - Ephesians 2:20; 3:5 → foundational apostles and prophets. - Ephesians 4:11–13 → gifts “until” unity/maturity; continuing functions or foundational persons whose work continues through teaching? - 2 Corinthians 12:12; Revelation 2:2 → apostolic signs and tests. **Decision logic:** - Lexical breadth allows missionary “apostles” without granting foundational authority. - If foundation is laid once, reduce `CONTINUING-GOVERNING-APOSTLES`; a later emissary category remains open. - If modern apostles claim jurisdiction equal to Paul or doctrinal revelation binding all churches, the closed-canon and foundation variables become decisive. **Dependencies:** Upstream: succession, canon, prophecy nature. Downstream: fivefold ministry, networks, discipline, new revelation. **Relations:** Continuing governing apostles correlate with New Apostolic Reformation-style networks; the broad label “apostolic church” does not prove that model. **Incompatibilities:** Unique unrepeatable foundational apostolate conflicts with contemporary equal-authority apostles, not with missionaries called apostles in a generic sense. **Booleanized identity labels:** apostolic, fivefold, missionary apostle, NAR, prophet, continuationist. ### PNE-06 — Healing gifts, prayer, medicine, and atonement **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** Should miraculous healing be expected, guaranteed, specially gifted, or sought while ordinarily using medicine? **Options:** `HEALING-GIFT-CONTINUES`; `GOD-HEALS-SOVEREIGNLY-NO-STABLE-GIFT`; `HEALING-IN-ATONEMENT-GUARANTEED-NOW`; `HEALING-IN-ATONEMENT-ESCHATOLOGICALLY`; `ORDINARY-PROVIDENCE-AND-MEDICINE`; `CESSATION-OF-SIGN-HEALERS`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Isaiah 53:4–5; Matthew 8:16–17; 1 Peter 2:24 → physical healing presently guaranteed by atonement, Jesus’ ministry fulfillment, or final restoration with present foretastes? - 1 Corinthians 12:9, 28, 30 → “gifts of healings” distributed variably. - James 5:14–18 → elders’ prayer of faith will save/raise the sick; categorical promise, providential generalization, spiritual salvation, or special faith? - 2 Corinthians 12:7–10; Galatians 4:13; Philippians 2:25–30; 1 Timothy 5:23; 2 Timothy 4:20 → faithful ministers experience unhealed illness and use ordinary means. - Mark 16:9–20 → signs passage has major textual-critical status; do not make it the sole load-bearing premise. **Decision logic:** - If full physical healing is guaranteed now for sufficient faith, unexplained faithful nonhealing creates a serious likelihood penalty and pastoral risk. - If atonement guarantees resurrection and sometimes anticipates it through gifts, update `HEALING-IN-ATONEMENT-ESCHATOLOGICALLY`. - Medicine and prayer are not competitors unless a separate premise makes use of means unbelief. **Dependencies:** Upstream: PNE-01, inaugurated eschatology, suffering theology. Downstream: pastoral care, healing services, prosperity teaching. **Relations:** Expected healing correlates with charismatic identity; cessationists usually still affirm providential miracles in answer to prayer. **Incompatibilities:** Universal guaranteed healing now conflicts with the claim that God may purposefully leave faithful believers ill in this age. **Booleanized identity labels:** divine healing, faith healer, healing in the atonement, prosperity gospel, prayer-and-medicine. ### PNE-07 — Demons, deliverance, and territorial spiritual warfare **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** How should churches understand demonic influence in believers and the practice of deliverance? **Options:** `BELIEVERS-CANNOT-BE-DEMONIZED`; `BELIEVERS-MAY-BE-OPPRESSED-NOT-POSSESSED`; `BELIEVERS-MAY-NEED-DELIVERANCE`; `EXORCISM-AS-SPECIALIST-MINISTRY`; `ORDINARY-RESISTANCE-THROUGH-TRUTH-PRAYER`; `TERRITORIAL-SPIRITS-STRATEGIC-WARFARE`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Mark 1:21–28; 5:1–20; Luke 10:17–20; Acts 8:5–8; 16:16–18; 19:11–20 → deliverance in Jesus/apostolic mission; continuing model or kingdom-attesting concentration? - 1 Corinthians 6:19; 1 John 4:4; 5:18 → Spirit’s indwelling and divine protection exclude possession, not necessarily influence. - Ephesians 6:10–20; James 4:7; 1 Peter 5:8–9 → ordinary resistance by truth, righteousness, faith, prayer, sobriety. - 2 Corinthians 10:3–6 → spiritual warfare against arguments/thoughts, or broader demonic strongholds? - Daniel 10:12–21; Deuteronomy 32:8–9 (textual tradition); Psalm 82 → territorial powers, salvation-historical imagery, or heavenly council without prescribed mapping practice. **Decision logic:** - Define “possession,” “demonization,” oppression, temptation, and indwelling; translation-driven binaries create false disagreement. - Narrative examples prove real deliverance but do not automatically establish elaborate diagnostic methods. - Territorial beings may exist without authorizing Christians to name, map, or directly address them. **Dependencies:** Upstream: continuationism, inaugurated kingdom, anthropology. Downstream: counseling, mission strategy, prayer practices. **Relations:** Deliverance ministry correlates with Pentecostal/charismatic settings; ordinary-resistance accounts with cessationist and confessional traditions. **Incompatibilities:** Complete demon ownership/control of a Spirit-indwelt believer conflicts with strong indwelling-protection claims; lesser influence remains compatible. **Booleanized identity labels:** deliverance ministry, spiritual warfare, demonized Christian, territorial spirits. ### PNE-08 — Guidance, inner impressions, and “hearing God” **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** How does the Spirit ordinarily guide believers after the apostolic era? **Options:** `SCRIPTURE-WISDOM-PROVIDENCE`; `ILLUMINATION-NOT-NEW-REVELATION`; `INNER-PROMPTINGS-FALLIBLE`; `DIRECT-PERSONAL-WORDS`; `PROPHETIC-GUIDANCE`; `CASTING-LOTS-OR-SIGNS-IN-EXCEPTIONAL-CASES`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Psalm 119:105; Romans 12:1–2; James 1:5 → Scripture-renewed wisdom and prayer. - John 10:27; 16:13 → every believer recognizes individualized guidance, sheep recognize Christ in salvation, or apostles uniquely guided into truth? - Acts 8:29; 10:19; 13:2; 16:6–10 → direct Spirit guidance in mission; normative, exceptional, or apostolic? - Romans 8:14 → moral/adoptive leading versus decision-specific impressions. - Colossians 3:15 → “peace” as communal reconciliation, not necessarily private decision signal. - Proverbs 3:5–6; 16:9, 33 → providential direction including lots, without promise of subjective certainty. **Decision logic:** - Separate normative obligation (“God commands”) from fallible guidance (“I sense it may be wise”). - If modern impressions are fallible, language should encode confidence and remain corrigible by Scripture/community. - Direct Acts speech supports possibility more strongly than predictable universality. **Dependencies:** Upstream: prophecy nature, canon, illumination. Downstream: vocation, marriage, mission decisions, pastoral authority. **Relations:** “Hearing God” correlates with charismatic spirituality but may refer merely to Scripture in other communities. **Incompatibilities:** A private impression cannot bind another’s conscience as inerrant divine command while also being acknowledged as fallible. **Booleanized identity labels:** hears God, led by the Spirit, prophetic guidance, biblicist, contemplative. ### PNE-09 — Procession of the Spirit and the *filioque* **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** Does the Spirit eternally proceed from the Father alone, from the Father through the Son, or from the Father and the Son? **Options:** `FROM-FATHER-ALONE`; `FROM-FATHER-THROUGH-SON`; `FROM-FATHER-AND-SON`; `BIBLICALLY-UNDERDETERMINED`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - John 15:26 → Spirit “proceeds from the Father” while the Son sends him; eternal origin versus economic mission? - John 14:16–17, 26; 16:7, 13–15 → Father and Son send; Spirit receives what is the Son’s. - Romans 8:9; Galatians 4:6; Philippians 1:19; 1 Peter 1:11 → “Spirit of Christ/Son” implies eternal relation, economic belonging, or both? - Revelation 22:1 → river from throne of God and Lamb as suggestive eschatological image, not a technical procession proof. **Decision logic:** - Do not infer eternal procession directly from every temporal sending text without a premise linking missions and processions. - John 15:26 directly names the Father as source; whether this excludes the Son is the decisive fork. - `FROM-FATHER-THROUGH-SON` can function as bridge formula, but traditions differ over whether it equals or rejects *filioque*. **Dependencies:** Upstream: Trinity, eternal relations, mission-procession analogy. Downstream: Nicene identity, East/West ecclesial communion. **Relations:** Father-alone correlates with Eastern Orthodoxy; Father-and-Son with Western Catholic/Protestant traditions. **Incompatibilities:** Exclusive Father-alone origin conflicts with Son-as-co-principle in the same technical sense; both affirm the Spirit is sent through/by the Son economically. **Booleanized identity labels:** filioque, Eastern, Western, Nicene, procession. ### WOR-01 — Regulative, normative, and convergent principles **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** May the church include any edifying practice not forbidden, or only elements positively instituted by Scripture? **Options:** `STRICT-REGULATIVE`; `REGULATIVE-ELEMENTS-CIRCUMSTANCES`; `NORMATIVE-PRINCIPLE`; `CONVERGENT-EARLY-CHURCH-NORM`; `PASTORAL-PRUDENCE`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Deuteronomy 12:29–32; Leviticus 10:1–3 → unauthorized worship condemned; old-covenant ceremonial specificity or enduring principle? - Exodus 20:4–6; Matthew 15:7–9; Colossians 2:20–23 → human-invented worship can be vain/will-worship. - 1 Corinthians 11–14 → apostolic regulation of elements and concern for edification/order. - Acts 2:42; Colossians 3:16; 1 Timothy 4:13 → recurring elements of teaching, prayer, song, sacraments, reading. - Romans 14; 1 Corinthians 6:12; 10:23, 31 → liberty bounded by edification and God’s glory. **Decision logic:** - If old-covenant unauthorized-worship judgments express a trans-covenantal rule, update regulative models. - Every regulativist must distinguish “element” from “circumstance”; many apparent disputes concern categorization. - If New Testament silence grants liberty under general moral constraints, update normative/prudential models. **Dependencies:** Upstream: law continuity, church authority, sufficiency of Scripture. Downstream: music, drama, images, calendar, dance, liturgy. **Relations:** Regulative principle correlates with Reformed/Presbyterian and some Baptist traditions; normative with Lutheran/Anglican/evangelical settings. **Incompatibilities:** “Only positively commanded elements are permissible” conflicts with “any nonforbidden edifying element is permissible” when a disputed act is truly an element. **Booleanized identity labels:** regulative, normative, RPW, biblical worship, traditional worship. ### WOR-02 — Fixed liturgy, free worship, and prescribed prayer **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** Should corporate worship follow a stable inherited liturgy, a biblically structured but adaptable order, or spontaneous leading? **Options:** `FIXED-HISTORIC-LITURGY`; `BIBLICAL-ORDO-WITH-FLEXIBILITY`; `FREE-WORSHIP`; `CHARISMATIC-SPONTANEITY`; `BOOK-OF-COMMON-PRAYER-OR-EQUIVALENT`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Matthew 6:9–13; Luke 11:2–4 → Lord’s Prayer as exact repeated form or model. - Acts 2:42; 1 Corinthians 14:26–40 → stable apostolic elements alongside participatory contributions. - 1 Corinthians 11:23–26; 15:3–5; Philippians 2:6–11; 1 Timothy 3:16 → transmitted formulas/hymns/creedal material, though exact genre disputed. - Revelation 4–5 → heavenly liturgical pattern for earthly worship or apocalyptic vision not direct rubrics. - Ephesians 5:18–20; Colossians 3:16 → Spirit-filled mutual song can occur in fixed or free forms. **Decision logic:** - Scripted prayer is positively modeled; spontaneity cannot be made the definition of sincerity. - “All things decently and in order” supports intelligibility and peace, not one exact order. - Historical liturgy adds evidence from catholic reception, but that should be a separate tradition-weight variable. **Dependencies:** Upstream: tradition authority, regulative principle, charismatic gifts. Downstream: calendar, vestments, weekly communion, prayer language. **Relations:** Fixed liturgy correlates with sacramental/episcopal traditions; free worship with evangelical churches; charismatic worship can itself develop stable scripts. **Incompatibilities:** “Only extemporaneous prayer is spiritually authentic” conflicts with Christ-given and canonical prayers; fixed liturgy and genuine spiritual agency are not incompatible. **Booleanized identity labels:** liturgical, low church, high church, free church, Spirit-led. ### WOR-03 — Song repertoire: psalms only, canonical songs, or uninspired hymns **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** What may the gathered church sing? **Options:** `EXCLUSIVE-PSALMODY`; `INSPIRED-CANONICAL-SONGS`; `PSALMS-HYMNS-SPIRITUAL-SONGS-BROAD`; `DOCTRINALLY-SOUND-SONGS`; `TRADITIONAL-HYMNS`; `CONTEMPORARY-WORSHIP`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16 → three terms are headings within the Psalter, overlapping genres including new Christian songs, or broad song categories. - Psalm 96:1; 98:1; 149:1; Revelation 5:9; 14:3 → “new song” means newly composed song, renewed praise, or canonical eschatological song. - Matthew 26:30; Acts 16:25; 1 Corinthians 14:15, 26; James 5:13 → singing is commanded, content sometimes unspecified. - 1 Corinthians 14:26 → a congregant “has a hymn/psalm,” potentially new contribution. **Decision logic:** - If Ephesians/Colossians’ three terms jointly denote the canonical Psalter, update `EXCLUSIVE-PSALMODY`. - If “teaching and admonishing” permits freshly composed Christ-centered truth, update broader hymnody. - Style-age labels do not map cleanly to theological options; assess text, function, and musical form separately. **Dependencies:** Upstream: regulative principle, canon sufficiency, translation. Downstream: instruments, worship identity, industry ethics. **Relations:** Exclusive psalmody correlates with some Presbyterian/Reformed groups. Traditional versus contemporary is aesthetic/historical, not a direct doctrinal binary. **Incompatibilities:** Exclusive canonical-text singing conflicts with authorization of uninspired lyrics in corporate praise. **Booleanized identity labels:** exclusive psalmist, hymnal church, contemporary worship, blended worship. ### WOR-04 — Musical instruments, choirs, bands, and dance **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** Which musical forms are authorized in new-covenant worship? **Options:** `A-CAPPELLA-REQUIRED`; `INSTRUMENTS-PERMITTED`; `INSTRUMENTS-POSITIVELY-FITTING`; `CHOIR-OR-SPECIAL-MUSIC-PERMITTED`; `CONGREGATIONAL-SONG-PRIORITY`; `DANCE-PERMITTED`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Psalms 33; 47; 81; 95; 98; 149–150 → instruments/dance as timeless praise, temple-ceremonial forms, or eschatological imagery. - 2 Chronicles 29:25–30 → instruments appointed in temple service, supporting either divine authorization or ceremonial limitation. - Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16 → new-covenant command mentions singing/making melody, not explicit instruments; silence prohibits or permits? - Revelation 5:8; 14:2; 15:2 → heavenly harps as symbolic or exemplary. - 1 Corinthians 14:7–8 uses instruments illustratively, not as worship command. **Decision logic:** - Regulative-principle plus temple-ceremonial discontinuity strongly updates `A-CAPPELLA-REQUIRED`. - Psalm continuity and heavenly imagery update permission or fittingness. - Permission for instruments does not settle performance-centered special music; congregational mutual address is a separate variable. **Dependencies:** Upstream: WOR-01, old-covenant worship continuity. Downstream: service design and denominational identity. **Relations:** A cappella correlates with Churches of Christ, some Reformed Presbyterians, and certain Anabaptists for distinct arguments. **Incompatibilities:** Instrument use is incompatible with a-cappella-as-divine-requirement, not with congregational-song priority. **Booleanized identity labels:** a cappella, instrumental worship, worship band, choir church, liturgical dance. ### WOR-05 — Images, icons, crosses, and depictions of Christ **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** Are visual images in worship permissible, venerated, pedagogically useful, or forbidden—especially images of Christ? **Options:** `NO-RELIGIOUS-IMAGES-IN-WORSHIP`; `NO-DEPICTIONS-OF-CHRIST`; `IMAGES-PERMITTED-NOT-VENERATED`; `ICON-VENERATION`; `CROSSES-ONLY-OR-NONFIGURAL-ART`; `PEDAGOGICAL-ART`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Exodus 20:4–6; Deuteronomy 4:15–19 → ban on making any divine image for worship, any religious image, or idolatrous bowing/service only? - Exodus 25:18–22; Numbers 21:8–9; 1 Kings 6:23–35 → commanded sacred images show images per se are not forbidden; later destruction of bronze serpent in 2 Kings 18:4 warns against veneration. - John 1:14, 18; Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3 → incarnation makes Christ depictable, or invisible divine person remains beyond image? - Acts 17:29; Romans 1:22–25 → divine nature not represented by art. - Hebrews 9:23–24 → sanctuary images/copies and heavenly reality. **Decision logic:** - Distinguish making, liturgical use, honor/veneration, and worship/adoration. - Incarnation is the key pro-icon update; second-commandment and two-natures concerns are key anti-depiction updates. - Commanded cherubim defeat a universal ban on all visual religious art but do not establish icons of God. **Dependencies:** Upstream: Christology, commandment numbering/interpretation, tradition. Downstream: architecture, children’s materials, devotional practice. **Relations:** Icon veneration correlates with Orthodoxy/Catholicism; no-Christ-images with some Reformed traditions; image permission with most evangelicals. **Incompatibilities:** Veneration of icons as a mandated means of honoring prototypes conflicts with claims that all such liturgical gestures violate the second commandment. **Booleanized identity labels:** iconoclast, iconodule, imageless worship, crucifix, plain cross. ### WOR-06 — Charismatic contributions and order in the assembly **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** How should prophecy, tongues, spontaneous prayer, and congregational contributions function in worship? **Options:** `GIFTS-CEASED-NO-PRACTICE`; `OPEN-MICROPHONE-PARTICIPATION`; `ELDER-SCREENED-CONTRIBUTIONS`; `ORDERED-CHARISMATIC-LITURGY`; `TONGUES-ONLY-WITH-INTERPRETATION`; `PRIVATE-NOT-CORPORATE-PRAYER-LANGUAGE`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - 1 Corinthians 14:26–33, 39–40 → each brings a contribution, two or three speak, others weigh, tongues require interpretation; direct enduring rubric or temporary apostolic-era regulation? - 1 Thessalonians 5:19–22 → do not quench/despise; test and retain good. - Ephesians 5:18–21 → Spirit-filled mutual address. - 1 Corinthians 12:7; 14:12 → gifts for common good/edification. - 1 Timothy 3:4–5; Hebrews 13:17 → leader oversight inferred. **Decision logic:** - Continuationism plus direct normativity of 1 Corinthians 14 updates ordered participation, not disorder. - If an uninterpreted tongue edifies only the speaker, the corporate-common-good premise lowers public use. - Elder screening may implement “weighing,” but pre-approval versus after-the-fact evaluation remains underdetermined. **Dependencies:** Upstream: PNE-01 to PNE-03, polity, WOR-02. Downstream: service format, safety, participation. **Relations:** Charismatic identity correlates with spontaneous practice, but many charismatic churches are highly platform-controlled. **Incompatibilities:** Unrestricted simultaneous speech conflicts with Paul’s intelligibility and order requirements under all continuationist readings. **Booleanized identity labels:** open worship, charismatic worship, seeker-sensitive, Spirit-led, orderly worship. ### WOR-07 — Holy days and the church calendar **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** May or should churches observe Christmas, Easter/Pascha, Lent, saints’ days, and an annual liturgical calendar? **Options:** `LORDS-DAY-ONLY`; `REDEMPTIVE-HISTORY-FESTIVALS-PERMITTED`; `HISTORIC-CALENDAR-COMMENDED`; `CALENDAR-BINDING-BY-CHURCH-AUTHORITY`; `INDIVIDUAL-LIBERTY-NOT-CORPORATE-INSTITUTION`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Romans 14:5–6 → individual liberty over days, church authorization, or Jewish-calendar disputes only? - Galatians 4:9–11; Colossians 2:16–17 → bondage to calendrical observance versus freedom to observe voluntarily. - John 10:22–23 → Jesus at non-Mosaic Feast of Dedication: participation or mere location? - Esther 9:20–32 → post-Mosaic feast instituted by covenant community; old-covenant precedent only? - 1 Corinthians 5:7–8; 16:8; Acts 20:6, 16 → Christianized feast language, chronological markers, or actual observance? **Decision logic:** - If regulative principle prohibits church-created sacred days, update `LORDS-DAY-ONLY`. - If Romans 14 grants voluntary observance unto the Lord, update permission but not mandatory calendar. - A church’s authority to order common worship may support calendar use without claiming divine obligation. **Dependencies:** Upstream: WOR-01, church authority, Sabbath. Downstream: worship planning, fasting, denominational identity. **Relations:** Historic calendar correlates with liturgical churches; Christmas/Easter observance is widespread among nonliturgical evangelicals. **Incompatibilities:** A divinely forbidden sacred-day innovation conflicts with mandatory calendar observance; voluntary private commemoration may be treated separately. **Booleanized identity labels:** liturgical calendar, church year, no-Christmas, holy days, feast days. ### WOR-08 — Gathered presence, online church, and multisite models **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** What degree of embodied co-presence is necessary for a church assembly and its ordinances? **Options:** `EMBODIED-LOCAL-GATHERING-REQUIRED`; `DIGITAL-PARTICIPATION-SUPPLEMENTAL`; `REMOTE-GATHERING-CAN-CONSTITUTE-CHURCH`; `MULTISITE-ONE-CHURCH`; `MULTISITE-MULTIPLE-CHURCHES`; `HOME-DISTRIBUTED-NETWORK`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Matthew 18:20; Acts 2:42–47; 20:7; 1 Corinthians 5:4; 11:17–34; 14:23 → bodily “coming together” as constitutive or technologically adaptable presence? - Hebrews 10:24–25 → assembling entails physical gathering, any synchronous fellowship, or covenant participation. - 1 Corinthians 10:17; 11:20–22, 33 → one bread/body and waiting/eating together suggest shared place and meal. - 2 John 12; 3 John 13–14; Romans 1:11–12 → letters serve at distance, but face-to-face presence is preferred for fullness. **Decision logic:** - Digital teaching/fellowship can be genuine while not constituting the assembly; model supplement and replacement separately. - If one eldership, membership, discipline, and Supper define one church across sites, update `MULTISITE-ONE-CHURCH`; if regular assemblies hold the keys, update multiple churches. - Emergency accommodation does not establish ordinary ecclesiology. **Dependencies:** Upstream: ECC-01, polity, membership, sacramental presence. Downstream: livestream communion, remote voting, church planting. **Relations:** Multisite correlates with large evangelical churches but can use episcopal or congregational logic. **Incompatibilities:** “Physical co-presence is constitutive” conflicts with a permanently virtual church claiming full assembly status; it does not conflict with pastoral streaming. **Booleanized identity labels:** online church, multisite church, house church, hybrid worship, gathered church. ### SAB-01 — Continuity of the fourth commandment **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** Does the Sabbath command continue morally, continue transformed in the Lord’s Day, remain as creation rhythm without legal obligation, or find fulfillment in Christ? **Options:** `CHRISTIAN-SABBATH-CONTINUES`; `CREATION-ORDINANCE-CONTINUES`; `SABBATH-FULFILLED-NOT-BINDING`; `MORAL-PRINCIPLE-NOT-DAY-LAW`; `SEVENTH-DAY-CONTINUES`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Genesis 2:2–3; Exodus 16:22–30; 20:8–11 → creation ordinance before Sinai or retrospective foundation for Israel’s covenant sign? - Exodus 31:12–17; Deuteronomy 5:12–15 → creation/moral command and specifically Mosaic covenant sign/redemption memorial. - Isaiah 56:2–7; 58:13–14 → eschatological Gentile Sabbath observance or old-covenant prophetic blessing. - Mark 2:27–28 → Sabbath for humanity and Son’s lordship imply continuity, or Jesus’ authority to fulfill/transform it. - Romans 14:5–6; Galatians 4:10–11; Colossians 2:16–17 → day observance is liberty/shadow; whether “Sabbath” includes weekly command is decisive. - Hebrews 4:1–11 → continuing “Sabbath-rest” as weekly observance, salvation rest, eschatological rest, or layered. **Decision logic:** - Creation grounding strongly updates some trans-Mosaic continuity. - Identification as Mosaic covenant sign plus shadow language updates fulfillment/nonbinding. - A moral rest-and-worship principle can remain while ceremonial day details lapse. **Dependencies:** Upstream: law categories, covenant continuity, typology. Downstream: SAB-02/03, worship obligation, economics. **Relations:** Christian Sabbath correlates with Reformed confessions; fulfillment/nonbinding with Lutheran, new-covenant, and many evangelical readings; seventh-day with Adventist/Sabbatarian groups. **Incompatibilities:** “No day is morally binding” conflicts with “the fourth commandment binds one day in seven,” though both can encourage Sunday worship. **Booleanized identity labels:** Sabbatarian, non-Sabbatarian, Christian Sabbath, creation ordinance, seventh-day. ### SAB-02 — Which day: seventh day, first day, or no divinely fixed day **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** If a weekly sacred day continues, is it Saturday, Sunday, either by church order, or no fixed day? **Options:** `SEVENTH-DAY-SATURDAY`; `FIRST-DAY-LORDS-DAY`; `APOSTOLIC-CHURCH-TRANSFER`; `ANY-ONE-DAY-IN-SEVEN`; `NO-DIVINELY-FIXED-DAY`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Matthew 28:1–10; John 20:1, 19, 26 → resurrection and appearances on first day establish pattern or are narrative facts. - Acts 20:7 → first-day bread-breaking as ordinary worship or one exceptional meeting. - 1 Corinthians 16:1–2 → first-day financial setting aside indicates corporate gathering or private saving. - Revelation 1:10 → “Lord’s Day” is Sunday, eschatological Day of the Lord, or imperial terminology. - Exodus 20:8–11 → seventh day remains explicit; no New Testament verse says “the Sabbath changed.” - Colossians 2:16; Romans 14:5 → no fixed sacred day under new covenant. **Decision logic:** - If fourth-commandment day specification continues unchanged, update Saturday. - If resurrection plus apostolic gathering authoritatively reorients the weekly cycle, update Sunday/transfer. - Sunday worship does not entail Sabbath transfer; model historical-resurrection gathering and moral Sabbatarianism separately. **Dependencies:** Upstream: SAB-01, apostolic-practice normativity, church authority. Downstream: worship schedule, commerce, identity. **Relations:** Sunday worship is near-universal across non-Sabbatarian and Christian-Sabbath traditions; Seventh-day Baptists and Adventists separate baptism/polity from day. **Incompatibilities:** A divinely required seventh-day Saturday and a divinely transferred first-day obligation cannot both specify the exclusive day. **Booleanized identity labels:** Sunday church, Seventh-day, Lord’s Day, Sabbath transfer, Adventist. ### SAB-03 — Permitted work, commerce, recreation, and mercy **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** If Sabbath/Lord’s Day obligation remains, what activities are restricted? **Options:** `STRICT-REST-AND-WORSHIP`; `WORKS-OF-NECESSITY-AND-MERCY`; `RECREATION-PERMITTED`; `COMMERCE-RESTRICTED`; `PERSONAL-CONSCIENCE`; `CORPORATE-WORSHIP-ONLY-OBLIGATION`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Exodus 20:8–11; 34:21; Nehemiah 13:15–22 → ordinary labor and commerce cease; civil/covenantal Israel rule or moral pattern? - Isaiah 58:13–14 → turning from “pleasure/own ways” forbids recreation, self-serving commerce, or irreverent pursuit. - Matthew 12:1–14; Mark 2:23–28; Luke 13:10–17; John 5:1–18 → necessity, mercy, worship, and human good govern Sabbath. - Matthew 12:5 → priestly temple work is blameless. - Romans 14:5–6 → conscience liberty if day observance not morally fixed. **Decision logic:** - Strictness is downstream of SAB-01; do not infer it merely from Sunday attendance. - Jesus rejects burdensome interpretation while affirming doing good; whether he relaxes or authoritatively interprets continuing law is the fork. - “Recreation” is not one biblical category; assess restorative, commercial, competitive, and worship-displacing forms separately. **Dependencies:** Upstream: SAB-01/02, civil-law continuity. Downstream: employment, sports, shopping, public policy. **Relations:** Strict practice correlates with Puritan/Reformed Sabbatarianism; personal-conscience views with non-Sabbatarian evangelicalism. **Incompatibilities:** A full-day divinely mandated cessation from ordinary commerce conflicts with treating commerce as morally indifferent that day. **Booleanized identity labels:** strict Sabbatarian, blue-law, Lord’s Day observance, Sunday recreation. ### SAB-04 — Obligation and purpose of weekly corporate assembly **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** Is weekly Lord’s Day assembly morally mandatory, covenantally ordinary with exceptions, or chiefly prudential? **Options:** `WEEKLY-ASSEMBLY-OBLIGATORY`; `ORDINARY-DUTY-WITH-PROVIDENTIAL-EXCEPTIONS`; `FREQUENT-ASSEMBLY-NOT-FIXED-DAY`; `SACRAMENTAL-SUNDAY-OBLIGATION`; `VOLUNTARY-FELLOWSHIP`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Hebrews 10:24–25 → do not forsake assembly, especially as Day approaches; weekly fixed meeting or sustained community participation? - Acts 2:42–47; 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2 → frequent/first-day patterns. - 1 Corinthians 11:18, 20, 33; 14:23 → expected whole-church gatherings. - Revelation 1:10; John 20:19, 26 → Lord’s Day and resurrection rhythm. - Romans 14:5 → freedom over days may coexist with common church order. **Decision logic:** - New Testament clearly expects recurring embodied assembly; exact weekly frequency derives from first-day pattern and historic reception. - Distinguish moral obligation, church precept, and evidence of spiritual health. - Illness, caregiving, danger, and works of necessity are exceptions, not rival doctrines. **Dependencies:** Upstream: SAB-01/02, church authority, WOR-08. Downstream: discipline, attendance expectations, online accommodation. **Relations:** Strong weekly obligation crosses Catholic, Orthodox, Reformed, Baptist, and Pentecostal identities, though rationales differ. **Incompatibilities:** Treating gathered worship as wholly optional to Christian discipleship conflicts with sustained New Testament assembly commands/patterns. **Booleanized identity labels:** Sunday obligation, faithful attender, forsaking assembly, church online. ### MIS-01 — Bearer of the Great Commission **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** Is the Great Commission given institutionally to the church and its officers, distributively to every disciple, particularly to cross-cultural missionaries, or in layered senses? **Options:** `CHURCH-AS-INSTITUTION`; `EVERY-BELIEVER-DIRECTLY`; `APOSTLES-AND-SUCCESSORS`; `SPECIALLY-CALLED-MISSIONARIES`; `LAYERED-WHOLE-CHURCH-PARTICIPATION`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Matthew 28:16–20 → addressed to the Eleven yet extending “to the end of the age”; authority passes to church officers, all disciples made by them, or both. - Luke 24:44–49; Acts 1:8 → apostolic witness from Jerusalem to ends of earth; unique eyewitness mission or paradigm for church. - John 20:21–23 → apostles sent as Jesus was sent; office-specific or whole-church identity? - Acts 8:1–4; 11:19–21 → scattered ordinary believers announce the word. - Romans 10:14–15; Acts 13:1–4 → heralds are sent/commissioned, suggesting differentiated missionary vocation. - 1 Peter 2:9–12; 3:15 → all believers proclaim excellencies and give a defense. **Decision logic:** - Ordinary believer witness does not entail every believer possesses the same cross-cultural commission or office. - Institutional responsibility can be fulfilled through members; individual duty and corporate authority are compatible layers. - Baptizing, teaching, and disciplining churches suggest an ecclesial endpoint beyond isolated conversions. **Dependencies:** Upstream: polity, office, baptism authority. Downstream: para-church legitimacy, missionary calling, funding, accountability. **Relations:** Every-believer language correlates with evangelical activism; church-institution emphasis with confessional/sacramental ecclesiology; both often coexist. **Incompatibilities:** “Only apostles personally were commissioned and the mandate ended with them” conflicts with the stated end-of-age horizon unless continuity is mediated another way. **Booleanized identity labels:** missionary, missional, Great Commission Christian, sent one, evangelist. ### MIS-02 — Object and aim: individuals, peoples, nations, or social order **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** Does “disciple all nations” chiefly mean make disciples from every people, disciple nations corporately, establish churches among peoples, or transform social orders? **Options:** `INDIVIDUALS-FROM-ALL-NATIONS`; `PEOPLE-GROUP-CHURCH-PLANTING`; `NATIONS-AS-CORPORATE-DISCIPLES`; `SOCIAL-ORDER-TRANSFORMATION`; `MULTILEVEL-DISCIPLESHIP`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Matthew 28:19 → grammatical object is “all nations”; nations as people groups whose members become disciples or corporate collectives that can be discipled. - Genesis 12:3; Psalm 22:27–28; 72; Isaiah 2:2–4; 19:23–25; 49:6 → nations blessed and worshiping; conversion of peoples, rulers/societies, or eschatological consummation. - Matthew 24:14; Revelation 5:9; 7:9 → witness and redeemed persons from every tribe/language/people/nation. - Acts 14:21–23 → making disciples and establishing elders in local churches. - Revelation 21:24–26; 22:2 → nations and kings in new creation; continuity of redeemed cultures or apocalyptic fullness. **Decision logic:** - If *ethnē* is distributive (“people from every nation”), update `INDIVIDUALS-FROM-ALL-NATIONS`. - If prophetic national conversion texts are progressively fulfilled before the return, update corporate/social aims and likely postmillennial expectations. - Even individual-focused readings usually imply church planting because disciples are baptized, taught, gathered, and led. **Dependencies:** Upstream: eschatology, kingdom, covenant, prophecy fulfillment. Downstream: strategy, public theology, metrics, postmillennial identity. **Relations:** Corporate discipling correlates with postmillennialism/theonomy but entails neither. People-group strategy correlates with modern evangelical missiology. **Incompatibilities:** A mission exhausted by private individual salvation conflicts with models that treat transformed communal obedience as part of discipling, though all conservative options prioritize personal faith. **Booleanized identity labels:** Great Commission, disciple the nations, unreached peoples, Christianization, missional. ### MIS-03 — Church, mission agency, and para-church authority **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** May mission agencies independently send and govern missionaries, or should missions remain directly under local churches/denominations? **Options:** `LOCAL-CHURCH-EXCLUSIVE-SENDING`; `DENOMINATIONAL-BOARD`; `PARACHURCH-AGENCY-LEGITIMATE`; `APOSTOLIC-TEAM-WITH-CHURCH-ACCOUNTABILITY`; `BIVOCATIONAL-SELF-SENT-WITH-RECOGNITION`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Acts 13:1–4; 14:26–28 → Antioch church/Spirit sends and receives report; church control, prayerful commendation, or partnership? - Acts 15:36–41; 16:1–5 → mobile apostolic teams choose coworkers and act across churches. - Philippians 4:10–18; 3 John 5–8 → churches financially partner with itinerant workers. - 2 Corinthians 8:16–24 → interchurch appointed delegates form ad hoc cooperative agency. - Romans 15:23–29 → Paul solicits support from a church for independently directed mission. **Decision logic:** - If baptism, discipline, doctrine, and ordination are exclusively church powers, agencies should not become quasi-churches even if logistics are delegated. - Apostolic-team narratives support specialized translocal structures, but unique apostolic authority limits direct equivalence. - Model sending authority, employment, funding, theological accountability, and field strategy separately. **Dependencies:** Upstream: MIS-01, ECC-01, GOV-06. Downstream: missionary discipline, sacraments on field, donor control. **Relations:** Agency legitimacy correlates with evangelical voluntarism; denominational boards with connectional churches; direct local sending with independent Baptist models. **Incompatibilities:** An agency exercising church keys while denying it is a church conflicts with definitions making those keys constitutive, unless it acts by delegated church authority. **Booleanized identity labels:** para-church, church-based missions, mission board, apostolic team, independent missionary. ### MIS-04 — Gospel proclamation and social action **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** Is social mercy/justice part of the church’s mission, an implication of disciple-making, or chiefly the vocation of individual Christians? **Options:** `PROCLAMATION-PRIORITY-CHURCH`; `WORD-AND-DEED-INTEGRAL-MISSION`; `CHURCH-MERCY-TO-ALL-WITH-PRIORITY-HOUSEHOLD`; `INSTITUTIONAL-SPIRITUAL-MISSION-INDIVIDUAL-SOCIAL-VOCATION`; `KINGDOM-TRANSFORMATION`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Matthew 4:23; 9:35; Luke 4:16–21 → Jesus proclaims and heals; unique messianic signs or mission pattern. - Matthew 25:31–46 → mercy to “least of these” means persecuted disciples/messengers, all needy people, or both. - Luke 10:25–37; Galatians 6:10; James 1:27; 2:14–17 → broad neighbor love and practical care. - Acts 6:1–7; 11:27–30; 2 Corinthians 8–9 → institutional church relief, often focused on believers. - Acts 14:17; 17:22–31; Romans 1–3 → common grace/creation and explicit repentance proclamation. - Matthew 28:18–20 → teach obedience to all Christ commanded, potentially including justice and mercy. **Decision logic:** - Distinguish mission’s unique center (gospel/disciples), necessary fruit (love/justice), institutional competencies, and all-Christian vocation. - Evidence of church-administered relief establishes some corporate mercy ministry, though not every modern policy program. - If kingdom transformation is the commission’s direct object, social action receives constitutive rather than derivative status. **Dependencies:** Upstream: kingdom, church/state distinction, Great Commission scope. Downstream: budgets, NGOs, political engagement, mission metrics. **Relations:** Integral mission correlates with Lausanne-style evangelicalism and some mainline language, but theological content differs. Two-kingdoms correlates with institutional narrowing, not personal quietism. **Incompatibilities:** “The institutional church must never organize material relief” conflicts with Acts/Pauline relief examples. “Social improvement without gospel witness exhausts mission” conflicts with explicit proclamation commands. **Booleanized identity labels:** social gospel, integral mission, holistic mission, word-and-deed, gospel-centered. ### MIS-05 — Contextualization and syncretism **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** How far may missionaries adapt language, forms, customs, and social belonging without compromising the gospel? **Options:** `MINIMAL-CONTEXTUALIZATION`; `CRITICAL-CONTEXTUALIZATION`; `FUNCTIONAL-EQUIVALENCE`; `HIGH-CONTEXTUALIZATION`; `INSIDER-MOVEMENT`; `EXTRACTION-AND-VISIBLE-SEPARATION`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Acts 15:1–29; Galatians 2:1–14; 1 Corinthians 7:17–24 → Gentiles need not adopt Jewish culture; social continuity where possible, bounded by gospel truth. - Acts 17:16–34; 1 Corinthians 9:19–23 → Paul uses local categories and adapts for mission without joining idolatry. - 1 Corinthians 8–10 → cultural participation assessed through idolatrous meaning, conscience, witness, and thanksgiving. - 2 Corinthians 6:14–7:1; 1 Thessalonians 1:9–10 → decisive separation from idolatry. - 2 Kings 5:17–19 and 1 Corinthians 7:20–24 → difficult cases of continued social location; not direct endorsement of insider identity. - Revelation 2:14, 20 → accommodation can become syncretism. **Decision logic:** - Separate neutral form, socially contested symbol, explicitly false confession, and idolatrous ritual participation. - Gospel translation requires contextualization; the dispute concerns boundaries, not whether context matters. - High-context models gain probability when continued identity does not communicate false worship; lose probability when communal meaning necessarily affirms another lord or denies Christ. **Dependencies:** Upstream: law/food/idolatry, ecclesial identity, religious profession. Downstream: insider movements, Bible translation, worship forms. **Relations:** Insider movements correlate with frontier mission agencies; extraction models with separatist churches. Neither maps perfectly to conservative/liberal. **Incompatibilities:** Explicitly affirming propositions that deny Christ’s deity, death, or lordship is incompatible with faithful contextualization, even if privately redefined. **Booleanized identity labels:** contextual, indigenous, insider movement, syncretistic, extractionist. ### MIS-06 — Church planting, conversion, and “belonging before believing” **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** Is the normal missionary aim a gathered church of professing converts, gradual incorporation of seekers, renewal of existing churches, or broader networks? **Options:** `CONVERT-BAPTIZE-GATHER`; `BELONG-BEFORE-BELIEVE`; `HOUSEHOLD-NETWORK-CONVERSION`; `RENEW-EXISTING-CHURCHES`; `DISCIPLE-MAKING-MOVEMENTS`; `SACRAMENTAL-INCORPORATION-THEN-CATECHESIS`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Acts 2:37–47; 8:12; 14:21–23 → repentance/faith, baptism, addition, teaching, elders: compressed narrative or prescribed sequence. - Matthew 28:19–20 → baptism and teaching as discipling process; order grammatically underdetermined. - Luke 14:25–33 → count cost before claiming discipleship. - John 1:39–46; 4:39–42; 1 Corinthians 14:23–25 → seekers encounter community before full confession. - Acts 10; 16:14–34; 18:8 → household/social-network spread. - 1 Corinthians 3:5–10; Titus 1:5 → planting, watering, ordered maturation. **Decision logic:** - Distinguish social welcome, catechumenate, visible membership, baptism, and assurance; “belong” is otherwise ambiguous. - Narrative sequence strongly updates `CONVERT-BAPTIZE-GATHER` for adult converts. - Household-network methods gain support as social conduits, not proof that a head’s faith saves or baptizes all automatically. **Dependencies:** Upstream: baptism subjects/efficacy, membership, conversion. Downstream: seeker services, movement metrics, ecclesial depth. **Relations:** Disciple-making movements correlate with rapid multiplication strategies; sacramental incorporation with paedobaptist mission; seeker belonging with attractional churches. **Incompatibilities:** Full membership without any Christian profession conflicts with regenerate/professing membership models, though nonmember belonging can be broad. **Booleanized identity labels:** church planter, seeker-sensitive, disciple-making movement, attractional, missional community. ### MIS-07 — Priority: unreached peoples, local need, or strategic opportunity **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** Should missions prioritize peoples with no viable church, all places equally, receptive fields, cities, or the poor/marginalized? **Options:** `UNREACHED-PEOPLES-PRIORITY`; `NO-ACCESS-FIRST`; `LOCAL-AND-GLOBAL-BALANCE`; `STRATEGIC-CITIES`; `RECEPTIVE-FIELDS`; `POOR-AND-MARGINALIZED-PRIORITY`; `CHURCH-STRENGTHENING`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Romans 15:19–24; 2 Corinthians 10:13–16 → Paul’s ambition not to build on another foundation supports pioneering priority or his unique apostolic calling. - Matthew 24:14; 28:19; Revelation 7:9 → every nation/people represented. - Acts 1:8 → simultaneous local-regional-global witness, not necessarily a chronological ladder. - Acts 13–19 → strategic urban centers with regional diffusion. - Luke 4:18; 6:20; 14:13–24; James 2:1–7 → good news and welcome to poor/marginalized; spiritual/economic senses debated. - Acts 14:21–23; 15:36, 41; 18:23 → Paul revisits and strengthens existing churches. **Decision logic:** - Paul supplies a strong pioneering-mission example but the body has diverse callings; do not universalize one apostolic strategy to every church. - “Unreached” is an operational construct; separate no access, no believers, no indigenous church, and low percentage. - Priorities should be modeled as portfolio weights under finite resources, not exclusive truth claims. **Dependencies:** Upstream: Great Commission object, eschatology, spiritual gifts. Downstream: funding, deployment, training, metrics. **Relations:** Unreached-peoples priority correlates with evangelical mission agencies; parish/local balance with established churches; city strategy with church-planting networks. **Incompatibilities:** “All mission resources must go only where no church exists” conflicts with apostolic strengthening of existing churches. **Booleanized identity labels:** frontier missions, unreached, home missions, urban church planting, global missions. ### MIS-08 — Missionary vocation, tentmaking, and financial support **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** Is a special missionary call required, and should missionaries be salaried, self-supporting, or flexibly supported? **Options:** `SUBJECTIVE-CALL-PLUS-CHURCH-CONFIRMATION`; `OBJECTIVE-GIFT-OPPORTUNITY-COMMISSION`; `DIRECT-DIVINE-CALL`; `FULL-TIME-SUPPORTED`; `TENTMAKING`; `MIXED-SUPPORT`; `NO-DISTINCT-MISSIONARY-CALL`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Acts 13:1–4; 16:6–10 → Spirit/direct vision calls and church commissions; universal model or apostolic guidance? - Romans 1:1; Galatians 1:15–16 → Paul’s exceptional apostolic call. - Romans 10:14–15 → preachers must be sent; by God, church, or both. - 1 Corinthians 9:3–18; 2 Corinthians 11:7–9; Philippians 4:10–18 → right to support alongside voluntary nonuse. - Acts 18:1–4; 20:33–35; 1 Thessalonians 2:9 → tentmaking for witness and nonburden. - 3 John 5–8 → churches should support workers so they take nothing from outsiders. **Decision logic:** - A mysterious subjective call is not the only biblical route; gifting, character, opportunity, desire, and church sending can jointly ground vocation. - Supported ministry is a right, not an exceptionless command; tentmaking is an apostolic option, not a superior spirituality. - Financial model should update with field access, scandal risk, local economics, and church maturity. **Dependencies:** Upstream: Spirit guidance, church sending, office. Downstream: candidate assessment, fundraising, bivocational ministry. **Relations:** “Missionary call” language correlates with revivalist evangelicalism; tentmaking with business-as-mission and access-limited contexts. **Incompatibilities:** “Receiving support is unspiritual” conflicts with Paul’s explicit defense of the right; “all missionaries must be salaried” conflicts with his voluntary tentmaking. **Booleanized identity labels:** called missionary, tentmaker, faith mission, supported worker, business as mission. ### MIS-09 — Women in cross-cultural mission **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** Which missionary functions may women perform, especially where church planting involves evangelism, theological teaching, or temporary leadership? **Options:** `ALL-MISSION-ROLES`; `ALL-NONELDER-ROLES`; `WOMEN-AND-CHILDREN-MINISTRY`; `EVANGELISM-AND-TEAM-LEADERSHIP-NOT-LOCAL-ELDERSHIP`; `MALE-HEADSHIP-ON-MIXED-TEAMS`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Romans 16:1–7, 12; Philippians 4:2–3 → women as deacon/patron, coworkers, laborers, and possibly Junia among/well known to apostles. - Acts 16:14–15, 40; 18:24–26; 21:9 → Lydia hosts a church, Priscilla instructs Apollos with Aquila, daughters prophesy. - John 4:28–42; Matthew 28:1–10 → women bear decisive witness, though not necessarily ordained office. - 1 Timothy 2:11–15; 1 Corinthians 14:33–35 → restrictions apply cross-culturally, only to settled church office, or contextually? - Titus 1:5 → church plants should reach qualified elders. **Decision logic:** - GEN-01 and GEN-03 are upstream; do not create a stricter rule overseas merely by applying the label “missionary.” - If temporary missionary authority is apostolic/elder-like, male-office restrictions update limits; if it is evangelistic/team authority, the inference weakens. - Historical necessity does not itself settle biblical permission, but examples of female coworkers carry positive weight. **Dependencies:** Upstream: GEN-01 to GEN-03, missionary office, apostle/evangelist distinctions. Downstream: team structure, ordination, field practice. **Relations:** Conservative complementarians span from broad female mission leadership to women-only ministry; “complementarian missionary” is not a single option. **Incompatibilities:** Women serving as local elders is incompatible with a universal male-elder rule; women evangelizing or leading logistics is not inherently so. **Booleanized identity labels:** woman missionary, missionary pastor, complementarian missions, egalitarian missions. ### MIS-10 — Conversion, coercion, and religious liberty **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** May civil, familial, economic, or institutional pressure be used to bring people into Christian profession? **Options:** `VOLUNTARY-FAITH-AND-RELIGIOUS-LIBERTY`; `CIVIL-SUPPORT-NO-COERCED-CONVERSION`; `ESTABLISHMENT-WITH-PENALTIES-FOR-PUBLIC-ERROR`; `HOUSEHOLD-OR-CORPORATE-INCORPORATION`; `MISSION-BY-PERSUASION-AND-SERVICE`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - Matthew 10:14; Mark 10:21–22; John 6:60–71 → hearers may refuse and depart; judgment belongs to God. - Matthew 13:24–30, 36–43 → do not uproot tares; field is explicitly world, so church-state application is analogical. - John 18:36; 2 Corinthians 4:1–5; 10:3–5 → kingdom advances by truth, not worldly compulsion or manipulation. - Acts 8:9–24; 13:6–12; 16:16–40; 19:8–10 → preaching contests spiritual/political powers yet seeks persuasion. - 1 Peter 3:15–16; 2 Timothy 2:24–26 → gentleness in apologetics/correction. - Luke 14:23 “compel them to come in” → urgent invitation, providential grace, or literal coercion? Parable genre sharply limits coercive inference. **Decision logic:** - Genuine faith cannot be mechanically produced by force; the remaining question is whether magistrates may restrain public false worship or support truth. - Distinguish evangelistic persuasion, church discipline of professing members, parental formation of children, and civil coercion of outsiders. - Means that exploit material vulnerability can undermine the credibility of profession even when aid itself is commanded. **Dependencies:** Upstream: ECC-07, anthropology/conversion, household covenant. Downstream: baptismal consent, mission ethics, establishment. **Relations:** Religious liberty correlates with Baptist/free-church identity; establishment with some Reformed/Anglican/Catholic histories. Modern adherents vary. **Incompatibilities:** Forced verbal assent as a valid conversion conflicts with accounts requiring personal faith; civil establishment need not entail forced baptism. **Booleanized identity labels:** religious liberty, proselytism, coercive mission, establishment, free church. ### MIS-11 — Mission to Jewish people and dual-covenant proposals **Type:** `untyped_do_not_normalize` pending an explicit exclusivity/multi-select curation pass. **Question:** Does the church have a distinct obligation to evangelize Jewish people, and is explicit faith in Christ necessary for them? **Options:** `ONE-GOSPEL-JEW-FIRST`; `ONE-GOSPEL-NO-STRATEGIC-PRIORITY`; `DISTINCT-JEWISH-MISSION`; `DUAL-COVENANT`; `FUTURE-SOVEREIGN-CONVERSION-WITH-PRESENT-WITNESS`; `MESSIANIC-JEWISH-CONTINUITY`. **Key texts and interpretive forks:** - John 14:6; Acts 4:12; Romans 3:22–30; 10:1–17 → one saving gospel for Jew and Gentile. - Matthew 10:5–6; 15:24; Acts 1:8; 13:46; Romans 1:16 → salvation-historical “Jew first,” continuing strategic priority, or completed apostolic order? - Romans 9–11 → present remnant, Gentile mission provoking jealousy, and possible future “all Israel”; supports ongoing concern without specifying agency strategy. - 1 Corinthians 9:20; Acts 21:17–26 → contextual Jewish practice without making law a saving covenant. - Galatians 2:11–21; 5:2–6 → one table and justification, resisting separate saving paths. **Decision logic:** - If explicit union with Christ is necessary for all, lower `DUAL-COVENANT`. - A future sovereign restoration does not remove present evangelistic duty unless a separate text suspends it. - Messianic Jewish cultural continuity must be separated from theological claims of two churches or two means of justification. **Dependencies:** Upstream: ECC-03, soteriology, eschatology. Downstream: agency priorities, contextualization, interfaith relations. **Relations:** Distinct Jewish mission correlates with dispensational and some Reformed evangelical groups; dual-covenant views are uncommon in conservative inerrantist theology. **Incompatibilities:** Two saving covenants, one without Christ, conflicts with universal one-gospel claims in Acts/Romans under standard conservative readings. **Booleanized identity labels:** Jewish missions, Messianic Jewish, dual covenant, Israel-first, replacement theology. --- # VII. Eschatology and Israel/church questions ### `ESC-FRM-01` — Covenant/dispensational architecture **Question:** Which position is best supported for “Covenant/dispensational architecture”? **Type:** categorical archetypes, best treated as a latent framework profile rather than a single proved proposition. **Options** - `ESC-FRM-01.CT`: One covenant of grace administered across biblical covenants; the church is the one transhistorical people of God in Christ. - `ESC-FRM-01.PC`: Progressive covenantalism/new-covenant theology: the biblical covenants culminate typologically in Christ and the new-covenant people, without requiring the classic covenant-of-grace construction. - `ESC-FRM-01.PD`: Progressive dispensationalism: one salvation and one new humanity, with already/not-yet fulfillment and a continuing corporate future for Israel. - `ESC-FRM-01.CD`: Classic/revised dispensationalism: distinguish Israel and the church as covenantal-historical administrations, with national promises to Israel still requiring distinctive fulfillment. **Key texts:** Genesis 12:1–3; 15; 17; Exodus 19:4–6; 2 Samuel 7; Jeremiah 31:31–37; Luke 22:20; Acts 2; Romans 4; 9–11; Galatians 3–4; Ephesians 2–3; Hebrews 8–10; 1 Peter 2:4–10. **Interpretive forks:** whether the Abrahamic land, seed, and nation promises are expanded, transposed, or preserved in their original national form; whether the new covenant is made directly with the church, with Israel and shared by the church, or with the Christ-defined people of God; whether typology may exhaust a promise or only enlarge it. **Dependencies:** Upstream of `ESC-ISR-01`, `ESC-ISR-03`, `ESC-DAV-01`, `ESC-TEM-01`, and often `ESC-MIL-01`. It also influences, but does not determine, baptism and ecclesiology outside this catalog. **Relations:** `CT` strongly correlates with amillennialism or postmillennialism; `CD` with dispensational premillennialism and a pretribulational rapture; `PD` often combines inaugurated kingdom theology with future national-Israel expectations. None of those are hard entailments. Modern dispensationalism ordinarily affirms salvation through Christ alone; “two ways of salvation” is not a fair default description. **Identity descriptors:** confessional Reformed/Presbyterian and many Reformed Baptists (`CT`, with internal differences); some conservative Baptist/free-church theologians (`PC`); Bible-church, independent Baptist, and dispensational seminary traditions (`CD`/`PD`). ### `ESC-HERM-01` — How Old Testament promises reach their eschatological fulfillment **Question:** Which position is best supported for “How Old Testament promises reach their eschatological fulfillment”? **Type:** ordered spectrum or passage-by-passage mixture. **Options** - `ESC-HERM-01.DIRECT`: grammatical-historical referents, especially Israel, land, temple, and nations, remain controlling in the final fulfillment. - `ESC-HERM-01.TYPO`: Christological/apostolic typology can transform the form of fulfillment: land can expand to world/new creation, temple to Christ/church, and Israel to the Messiah-defined covenant people. - `ESC-HERM-01.BOTH`: typological inauguration and a later concrete national/territorial fulfillment are both intended. - `ESC-HERM-01.CASE`: no global rule; infer the fulfillment mode independently for each promise. **Key texts:** Genesis 12; 15; 17; Isaiah 2; 11; 19; 60–66; Ezekiel 36–48; Amos 9:11–15; Matthew 2:15; John 2:19–22; Acts 2; 7; 15:13–18; Romans 4:13; Galatians 3:16, 26–29; Hebrews 3–4; 11:8–16; 1 Peter 2; Revelation 21–22. **Interpretive forks:** authorial intent versus canonical sensus plenior; whether later revelation merely clarifies or can reconfigure an earlier promise; whether “literal” properly describes referent, genre, fulfillment, or all three. **Dependencies:** A high-leverage parent for nearly every Israel, temple, and millennium variable. It should not be counted as independent evidence again after its passage-level consequences have been used. **Relations:** `DIRECT` correlates with dispensationalism; `TYPO` with covenant theology/progressive covenantalism; `BOTH` with progressive dispensationalism. These remain soft correlations. **Identity descriptors:** “literalist,” “grammatical-historical,” “Christocentric,” “redemptive-historical,” and “typological” often function as identity words but are too underspecified to use as binary labels. ### `ESC-REV-01` — Date of Revelation **Question:** Which position is best supported for “Date of Revelation”? **Type:** categorical historical hypothesis. **Options** - `ESC-REV-01.EARLY`: composed before Jerusalem’s destruction, commonly placed in the late 60s. - `ESC-REV-01.LATE`: composed in the late first century, commonly in the reign of Domitian. - `ESC-REV-01.OTHER`: another first-century date or a composite/redaction hypothesis. **Key textual data:** Revelation 1:1, 3, 9; 2–3; 6:9–11; 11:1–13; 13:18; 17:9–11; 22:6, 10. Dating also depends substantially on external patristic evidence, so it cannot honestly be derived from biblical texts alone. **Interpretive forks:** whether the temple in Revelation 11 is standing, remembered, or symbolic; the referent of 666; the seven kings; the condition of the seven churches; how to read Irenaeus and other external witnesses. **Dependencies:** Influences `ESC-REV-02`, `ESC-OLIV-01`, `ESC-BAB-01`, and `ESC-MARK-01`. **Relations:** `EARLY` raises the probability of a substantial first-century/preterist horizon but does not entail it. `LATE` sharply lowers readings requiring the whole book to predict AD 70, but remains compatible with idealist, eclectic, and futurist readings. **Identity descriptors:** early dating is common among partial preterists and some postmillennial Reformed writers; late dating is common across Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Reformed, Lutheran, and evangelical scholarship. ### `ESC-REV-02` — Dominant fulfillment horizon of Revelation **Question:** Which position is best supported for “Dominant fulfillment horizon of Revelation”? **Type:** mixture variable; the four lenses need not be mutually exclusive. Prefer assigning each passage a horizon or assigning explanatory weights. **Options** - `ESC-REV-02.PRET`: substantial fulfillment in the first-century conflict involving Jerusalem and/or Rome. - `ESC-REV-02.HIST`: successive fulfillment through major periods of church history. - `ESC-REV-02.FUT`: substantial fulfillment in a concentrated crisis immediately before Christ’s return. - `ESC-REV-02.IDEAL`: symbolic portrayals of recurring church-age conflict, worship, witness, judgment, and victory. - `ESC-REV-02.ECL`: consciously layered/eclectic: first-century referent, recurring pattern, and final climax. **Key texts:** Revelation 1:1, 3, 19; 4–5; 6:9–17; 7; 11; 12–14; 17–20; 22:6–10. **Interpretive forks:** the force of “soon” and “near”; whether symbols have one historical referent or patterned recurrences; whether the visions narrate sequence or recapitulate; whether “earth/land” is global or Judean in a given context. **Dependencies:** Conditioned by `ESC-REV-01`, `ESC-HERM-01`, and `ESC-REV-03`; upstream of the beast, Babylon, mark, witnesses, tribulation, millennium, and war variables. **Relations:** partial preterism often pairs with amillennialism or postmillennialism; futurism with premillennialism, especially dispensational; idealism with amillennialism; historicism with older Protestant polemics and Seventh-day Adventism. Eclectic readings cut across traditions. **Identity descriptors:** “preterist” must be qualified as partial or full. Partial preterists retain a future visible return, resurrection, and judgment. Full preterism crosses the historic-creedal boundary noted above. ### `ESC-REV-03` — Structure of Revelation’s visions **Question:** Which position is best supported for “Structure of Revelation’s visions”? **Type:** categorical dominant model, with a hybrid option. **Options** - `ESC-REV-03.PROG`: mainly chronological progression; later series and Revelation 20 follow earlier events in time. - `ESC-REV-03.RECAP`: substantial recapitulation; seals, trumpets, bowls, and final-battle scenes retell the age/finale from different angles. - `ESC-REV-03.TELE`: telescoping progression: the seventh seal contains trumpets and the seventh trumpet contains bowls. - `ESC-REV-03.HYB`: local sequence inside cycles plus global recapitulation or interlocking. **Key texts:** Revelation 6:12–17; 8:1–2; 10:7; 11:15–19; 12:1–6; 14:14–20; 15:1; 16:17–21; 19:11–21; 20:1–10. **Interpretive forks:** repeated end-of-world imagery; whether “then/after this” marks visionary order or historical order; interludes; the relationship of the battles in chapters 16, 19, and 20. **Dependencies:** Upstream of `ESC-MIL-01`, `ESC-RES-01`, `ESC-JDG-01`, and `ESC-WAR-01`. **Relations:** `PROG` strongly supports premillennial readings of Revelation 19–20; `RECAP` supports amillennial/postmillennial readings. This is a conditional dependence, not a strict entailment, because local recapitulation can coexist with a future millennium. **Identity descriptors:** sequential/futurist readings are common in dispensational premillennialism; recapitulation is common in Augustinian, Reformed amillennial, and idealist traditions. ### `ESC-PAR-01` — Referents of “coming” and cloud-coming language **Question:** Which position is best supported for “Referents of “coming” and cloud-coming language”? **Type:** semantic mixture across passages. **Options** - `ESC-PAR-01.FINAL`: the major Synoptic and Revelation “coming” texts chiefly refer to the still-future visible bodily parousia. - `ESC-PAR-01.PLURAL`: Scripture uses coming language for providential judgments and royal vindication (including AD 70) as well as for one still-future bodily return. - `ESC-PAR-01.FULFILLED`: essentially all major coming texts, including the parousia, were fulfilled in the first century. **Key texts:** Daniel 7:13–14; Matthew 10:23; 16:27–28; 24:27–31; 26:64; Mark 13; John 14:1–3; Acts 1:9–11; 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18; 2 Thessalonians 1:7–10; 2 Peter 3; Revelation 1:7; 22:7, 12, 20. **Interpretive forks:** in Daniel 7 the Son of Man comes *to* the Ancient of Days; Old Testament cloud-riding judgment imagery; visibility and universality; whether distinct texts can refer to distinct comings without multiplying bodily returns. **Dependencies:** Upstream of `ESC-OLIV-01`, partial-preterist readings, and imminence. Acts 1 and resurrection texts constrain the final bodily-return claim. **Relations:** `PLURAL` correlates with partial preterism; `FINAL` with futurism, but many idealists also distinguish providential comings from the final parousia. `FULFILLED` is a hard conflict with a historic-creedal future-return baseline. **Identity descriptors:** partial preterist, full preterist, futurist; the simple label “preterist” is insufficient. ### `ESC-OLIV-01` — Primary horizon of the Olivet Discourse **Question:** Which position is best supported for “Primary horizon of the Olivet Discourse”? **Type:** categorical dominant model or passage-level mixture. **Options** - `ESC-OLIV-01.AD70_SPLIT`: Matthew 24:4–35/Mark 13/Luke 21 chiefly concern the events culminating in AD 70; a transition then turns to the final return and watchfulness. - `ESC-OLIV-01.INTERWOVEN`: AD 70 is near fulfillment and type; final tribulation/return is the climactic fulfillment, interwoven rather than cleanly split. - `ESC-OLIV-01.FUTURE`: much of the discourse, especially from the abomination onward, concerns a future global tribulation and parousia. - `ESC-OLIV-01.FULL_PRET`: essentially the entire discourse, including the Son of Man’s coming, was exhausted in first-century judgment. **Key texts:** Matthew 23:29–24:51; Mark 13; Luke 17:20–37; 19:41–44; 21:5–36; Daniel 7; 9:24–27; 11:31; 12:11; 1 Thessalonians 4–5; 2 Thessalonians 2. **Interpretive forks:** whether the disciples ask one compound question or two; Luke’s “Jerusalem surrounded by armies” as an interpretive parallel to the abomination; local flight and Sabbath details; cosmic de-creation language; gathering of the elect; “all the tribes of the land/earth.” **Dependencies:** Conditioned by `ESC-PAR-01`, `ESC-OLIV-02`, `ESC-DAN-01`, and often `ESC-REV-01/02`; upstream of tribulation, rapture, and signs/imminence. **Relations:** `AD70_SPLIT` often pairs with partial preterism and amillennial/postmillennial systems; `FUTURE` with dispensational futurism; `INTERWOVEN` is widespread among historic premillennialists and many amillennial interpreters. `FULL_PRET` conflicts with the historic-creedal boundary if it removes a future visible return. **Identity descriptors:** partial preterist, futurist, double-fulfillment/typological, full preterist. ### `ESC-OLIV-02` — “This generation will not pass away” **Question:** Which position is best supported for ““This generation will not pass away””? **Type:** categorical lexical-referential question. **Options** - `ESC-OLIV-02.CONTEMP`: Jesus’ contemporaries; “all these things” must substantially occur by AD 70. - `ESC-OLIV-02.SIGNGEN`: the generation alive when the terminal signs begin will see their completion. - `ESC-OLIV-02.PEOPLE`: *genea* means the Jewish people/race will not disappear. - `ESC-OLIV-02.TYPE`: the unbelieving/wicked “generation” as a moral-spiritual type persists until the end. **Key texts:** Matthew 11:16; 12:39–45; 16:4; 17:17; 23:36; 24:32–35; Mark 13:28–31; Luke 11:29–32, 50–51; 21:29–33. **Interpretive forks:** normal Matthean use of *genea*; antecedent of “all these things”; whether the fig tree marks a future starting point; discourse audience and deictic “you.” **Dependencies:** Direct parent evidence for `ESC-OLIV-01`; also affected by whether prophetic discourse can compress near and far horizons. **Relations:** `CONTEMP` materially raises AD-70 readings but does not force full preterism, because the discourse can shift horizons or use typology. `SIGNGEN` commonly pairs with futurism. `PEOPLE` and `TYPE` preserve futurism but are lexically more debated. **Identity descriptors:** not denominational by itself; often functions as a proxy dispute between preterist and futurist readings. ### `ESC-DAN-01` — Daniel 9 and the seventieth week **Question:** Which position is best supported for “Daniel 9 and the seventieth week”? **Type:** categorical dominant referent, with a typological option. **Options** - `ESC-DAN-01.MESS`: the seventieth week runs continuously and climaxes in Messiah’s atoning work/new covenant; the sacrificial system loses covenantal efficacy. - `ESC-DAN-01.AD70`: the seventy-week complex culminates in Messiah and Jerusalem’s Roman destruction, without a future seven-year gap. - `ESC-DAN-01.GAP`: sixty-nine weeks are followed by an indeterminate church-age gap; the seventieth is a future seven-year tribulation involving an antichrist covenant and temple desecration. - `ESC-DAN-01.LAYER`: an earlier desecration and/or AD 70 typologically anticipates a final opponent and desecration. **Key texts:** Daniel 7:23–27; 8:9–14, 23–27; 9:24–27; 11:21–45; 12:1, 7, 11–12; Matthew 24:15; 2 Thessalonians 2:3–8; Revelation 11–13. **Interpretive forks:** antecedent of “he” in Daniel 9:27; who confirms the covenant; what causes sacrifice to cease; decree starting point; whether prophetic chronology permits a gap; relations among Antiochus, Rome, and a final antichrist. **Dependencies:** Upstream of `ESC-TRIB-01`, `ESC-RAP-02`, `ESC-ANT-01`, and future-temple expectations. **Relations:** `GAP` is a load-bearing dispensational-futurist node. `MESS/AD70` correlate with covenantal, amillennial, postmillennial, and some historic-premillennial systems. `LAYER` allows a future antichrist without requiring the classic gap construction. **Identity descriptors:** dispensational futurist (`GAP`); covenantal/preterist or non-dispensational (`MESS/AD70`); eclectic/typological (`LAYER`). ### `ESC-TRIB-01` — Location and shape of the “great tribulation” **Question:** Which position is best supported for “Location and shape of the “great tribulation””? **Type:** multi-horizon; estimate each claim separately. **Options** - `ESC-TRIB-01.AGE`: tribulation is a normal recurring condition of the entire church age. - `ESC-TRIB-01.AD70`: the “great tribulation” language has its principal concrete referent in the Jewish War and Jerusalem’s fall. - `ESC-TRIB-01.FINAL`: a short, uniquely intense global anti-Christian crisis immediately precedes the return. - `ESC-TRIB-01.SEVEN`: a future seven-year seventieth week, often divided into two three-and-a-half-year periods. - `ESC-TRIB-01.LAYER`: church-age tribulation and/or AD 70 form patterns that culminate in a final intensified crisis. **Key texts:** Daniel 7:25; 9:27; 12:1, 7; Matthew 24:9, 21, 29; John 16:33; Acts 14:22; Romans 8:35; 1 Thessalonians 3:3–4; 2 Thessalonians 1–2; Revelation 1:9; 3:10; 7:14; 11:2–3; 12:6, 14; 13:5–10. **Interpretive forks:** distinction between persecution/tribulation and divine wrath; global versus local language; the 1,260 days/42 months/time-times-half-time; whether Daniel 9 supplies seven years; whether Revelation’s periods are symbolic. **Dependencies:** Conditioned by `ESC-DAN-01`, `ESC-OLIV-01`, and `ESC-REV-02`; upstream of rapture timing and imminence. **Relations:** `SEVEN` strongly correlates with dispensational futurism; `AD70` with partial preterism; `AGE` with idealist/amillennial readings; `LAYER` is common in eclectic and historic-premillennial approaches. **Identity descriptors:** “pretrib,” “posttrib,” and “prewrath” should not be inferred until the separate rapture variables are scored. ### `ESC-RAP-01` — Is the catching up distinct in time from the public appearing? **Question:** Which position is best supported for “Is the catching up distinct in time from the public appearing?”? **Type:** categorical. **Options** - `ESC-RAP-01.ONE`: resurrection, catching up/gathering, descent, and public royal appearing are one continuous complex with no extended interval. - `ESC-RAP-01.TWO`: the church’s catching up and Christ’s later public appearing are temporally separated phases. - `ESC-RAP-01.PARTIAL`: only watchful or especially faithful believers are initially caught up; others follow later. **Key texts:** Matthew 24:29–31, 36–44; John 14:1–3; 1 Corinthians 15:22–26, 50–55; 1 Thessalonians 4:13–5:11; 2 Thessalonians 1:6–10; 2:1–8; Revelation 3:10; 19:11–21. **Interpretive forks:** *apantēsis* (“meeting”) and whether believers escort a returning king; whether John 14 requires removal to heaven; whether Matthew 24’s gathering is the church; whether the church’s non-mention in Revelation 4–18 is evidential; the meaning of “keep from the hour.” **Dependencies:** Conditioned by `ESC-TRIB-01`, `ESC-PAR-02`, and usually `ESC-ISR-01`; parent of `ESC-RAP-02`. **Relations:** `TWO` strongly correlates with dispensational premillennialism; `ONE` with historic premillennialism, amillennialism, and postmillennialism. The correlation is not a logical entailment. `PARTIAL` is a minority view across some revivalist/dispensational circles. **Identity descriptors:** “rapture believer” is not informative—virtually all sides affirm 1 Thessalonians 4. The disputed claims are separation and timing. “Secret rapture” can be polemical and should be replaced by the precise claim `TWO`. ### `ESC-RAP-02` — Placement of the catching up relative to a final tribulation **Question:** Which position is best supported for “Placement of the catching up relative to a final tribulation”? **Type:** conditional categorical variable; score only if one posits a distinct or identifiable final tribulation. **Options** - `ESC-RAP-02.PRE`: before the entire future tribulation/seventieth week. - `ESC-RAP-02.MID`: near the midpoint of a seven-year period. - `ESC-RAP-02.PREWRATH`: after antichristian persecution but before the outpouring of divine eschatological wrath. - `ESC-RAP-02.POST`: after the tribulation, as part of the one public parousia. **Key texts:** Daniel 9:27; Matthew 24:21–31; 1 Corinthians 15:51–52; 1 Thessalonians 1:10; 4:13–5:11; 2 Thessalonians 2:1–8; Revelation 3:10; 6:9–17; 7:9–14; 11:15–19; 14:14–20. **Interpretive forks:** whether the whole period is divine wrath or only its latter portion; trumpet identification; sequence of Revelation; whether the restrainer is the Spirit-indwelt church; whether imminence means no signs can precede the rapture. **Dependencies:** `PRE/MID/PREWRATH` normally presuppose `ESC-RAP-01.TWO` or a phased complex. `POST` naturally combines with `ESC-RAP-01.ONE`. **Relations:** `PRE` + `ESC-DAN-01.GAP` + `ESC-ISR-01.DISTINCT` is the classic dispensational bundle. `POST` is common in historic premillennialism. `PREWRATH` is a modern futurist-premillennial mediating position. **Identity descriptors:** pretribulationist, midtribulationist, prewrath, posttribulationist. ### `ESC-PAR-02` — Imminence and prerequisite signs **Question:** Which position is best supported for “Imminence and prerequisite signs”? **Type:** categorical temporal claim. **Options** - `ESC-PAR-02.SIGNLESS`: Christ may return for the church at any moment; no predicted event must occur first. - `ESC-PAR-02.SIGNS`: identifiable events—gospel mission, apostasy, man of lawlessness, tribulation, or cosmic signs—precede the one return. - `ESC-PAR-02.DUAL`: an imminent rapture has no prerequisite, while the later public appearing has signs. - `ESC-PAR-02.EXPECT`: “watch/readiness” expresses certainty and unknown day, not a claim that the return is signless. **Key texts:** Matthew 24:14, 32–51; 25:1–13; Acts 1:6–11; Romans 13:11–12; 1 Corinthians 1:7; Philippians 3:20; 1 Thessalonians 1:9–10; 5:1–11; 2 Thessalonians 2:1–8; Titus 2:13; James 5:7–9; 2 Peter 3:8–14; Revelation 22:7, 12, 20. **Interpretive forks:** readiness versus temporal nearness; apostolic expectation; whether predicted events were fulfilled in the first century; whether “unknown day/hour” permits a known sequence. **Dependencies:** Conditioned by `ESC-PAR-01`, `ESC-OLIV-01`, `ESC-ANT-01`, and `ESC-RAP-01`; feeds rapture timing. **Relations:** `SIGNLESS/DUAL` correlate with pretribulationism; `SIGNS/EXPECT` with posttribulationism, amillennialism, and postmillennialism. Partial preterism can preserve practical imminence by assigning many signs to AD 70. **Identity descriptors:** “imminentist” is ambiguous until signless imminence is distinguished from watchful expectancy. ### `ESC-ANT-01` — Antichrist, beast, and man of lawlessness **Question:** Which position is best supported for “Antichrist, beast, and man of lawlessness”? **Type:** multi-horizon identity mapping. **Options** - `ESC-ANT-01.FINAL`: a future individual ruler is the principal referent. - `ESC-ANT-01.FIRST`: a first-century ruler or regime (often Nero/Rome) is the principal referent. - `ESC-ANT-01.RECUR_FINAL`: many antichrists and recurring beastly systems culminate in a final individual or regime. - `ESC-ANT-01.SYSTEM`: the symbols chiefly portray recurring anti-Christian political/religious power without requiring one terminal individual. - `ESC-ANT-01.HIST`: a long-lived institution within church history, classically the papal office in Protestant historicism. **Key texts:** Daniel 7:7–27; 8:9–27; 9:26–27; 11:21–45; Matthew 24:15, 24; 2 Thessalonians 2:1–12; 1 John 2:18–27; 4:1–6; 2 John 7; Revelation 13; 17; 19:19–21. **Interpretive forks:** John’s plural “many antichrists” versus a singular expectation; whether Daniel’s little horns, Paul’s man, and Revelation’s beast are the same referent; temple literal or ecclesial; Nero redivivus imagery; individual versus corporate-personal symbolism. **Dependencies:** Conditioned by `ESC-DAN-01`, `ESC-REV-01/02`, and `ESC-TEM-01`; upstream of signs, tribulation, and mark readings. **Relations:** `FINAL` correlates with futurism across both premillennial and some amillennial traditions; `FIRST` with partial preterism; `SYSTEM` with idealism; `HIST` with older confessional Protestant historicism and Seventh-day Adventism. `RECUR_FINAL` is a common eclectic synthesis. **Identity descriptors:** futurist, partial preterist, idealist, historicist. Avoid treating “the Antichrist” as a biblical proper name that automatically unifies all passages. ### `ESC-MIL-01` — Relation of Christ’s return to the millennium **Question:** Which position is best supported for “Relation of Christ’s return to the millennium”? **Type:** categorical high-level chronology. **Options** - `ESC-MIL-01.PRE`: the visible return precedes a future earthly reign of the risen Christ with his saints. - `ESC-MIL-01.AMIL`: Revelation 20’s millennium symbolizes the present interadvent age and/or saints’ heavenly reign; the return, general resurrection, judgment, and new creation close the age. - `ESC-MIL-01.POST`: a long era of extraordinary gospel success and societal discipling occurs within history before the visible return; the “thousand years” need not be arithmetically literal. **Key texts:** Psalm 2; 72; 110; Isaiah 2:1–4; 11; 24–27; 65:17–25; Daniel 2:34–45; 7:9–27; Matthew 13; 19:28; 25:31–46; Acts 3:19–21; 1 Corinthians 15:20–28; Revelation 19:11–20:15. **Interpretive forks:** sequence versus recapitulation between Revelation 19 and 20; first resurrection; binding of Satan; mortal nations and final rebellion; whether Isaiah 65 describes an intermediate kingdom or the new creation in prophetic idiom. **Dependencies:** Conditioned by `ESC-REV-03`, `ESC-MIL-02`, `ESC-MIL-03`, `ESC-HERM-01`, and kingdom trajectory. Upstream of resurrection and judgment schedules. **Relations:** `PRE` is a hard constraint against a single return only after the millennium, but does not itself decide historic versus dispensational premillennialism; use `ESC-ISR-01`, `ESC-TEM-01`, and rapture variables for that. `AMIL` and `POST` both place the return after the millennial reign but differ chiefly on the historical trajectory and character of that reign. **Identity descriptors:** historic premillennialist = usually `PRE` + one-return/posttrib + less rigid Israel/church distinction; dispensational premillennialist = usually `PRE` + Israel distinction + futurist tribulation, often pretrib; amillennialist; postmillennialist. Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, and much Reformed tradition are broadly amillennial; some Reformed/Puritan streams are postmillennial; many Baptist, Bible-church, and Pentecostal streams are premillennial. ### `ESC-MIL-02` — The “first resurrection” in Revelation 20 **Question:** Which position is best supported for “The “first resurrection” in Revelation 20”? **Type:** categorical referent. **Options** - `ESC-MIL-02.BODILY`: bodily resurrection of believers/martyrs at Christ’s return, before the millennium. - `ESC-MIL-02.REGEN`: spiritual resurrection in regeneration/union with Christ during the present age. - `ESC-MIL-02.HEAVEN`: the martyrs’ entrance into and conscious reign in heaven after bodily death—the first, spiritual/heavenly resurrection or vindication. - `ESC-MIL-02.CORP`: a corporate revival/vindication of the faithful cause or church. **Key texts:** John 5:21–29; 11:23–26; Romans 6:1–11; Ephesians 2:4–6; Colossians 2:12–13; 3:1–4; Philippians 3:10–11; Revelation 6:9–11; 20:4–6. **Interpretive forks:** whether “came to life” has the same sense in Revelation 20:4 and 20:5; whether John sees souls in heaven or resurrected bodies on earth; “first” as first in a series or first kind/order; martyr focus. **Dependencies:** Directly conditions `ESC-MIL-01` and `ESC-RES-01`. **Relations:** `BODILY` strongly supports premillennialism and a two-stage resurrection. `REGEN/HEAVEN` support amillennialism/postmillennialism and a single general bodily resurrection. `CORP` is a minority postmillennial/historicist option. **Identity descriptors:** premillennial (`BODILY`); Augustinian/amillennial (`REGEN` or `HEAVEN`, with differences); some postmillennial/historicist (`CORP`). ### `ESC-MIL-03` — Binding of Satan **Question:** Which position is best supported for “Binding of Satan”? **Type:** categorical dominant timing/degree. **Options** - `ESC-MIL-03.PRESENT`: Christ’s first advent bound Satan in the defined respect that he can no longer keep the nations from gospel light; Satan remains active in other respects. - `ESC-MIL-03.FUTURE`: Revelation 20 describes a future, much more complete confinement after Christ’s return. - `ESC-MIL-03.PROGRESS`: the first advent decisively limited Satan, gospel victory progressively manifests that defeat, and a final release precedes the return. **Key texts:** Matthew 12:22–30; Luke 10:17–20; John 12:31–32; 16:11; Colossians 2:15; Hebrews 2:14; 1 Peter 5:8; 1 John 5:19; Revelation 12:7–12; 20:1–3, 7–10. **Interpretive forks:** the explicit purpose “so that he might not deceive the nations”; whether abyss imagery permits other satanic activity; how present-tense warnings about the devil relate to binding; duration and final release. **Dependencies:** Upstream of `ESC-MIL-01` and `ESC-KING-01`; conditioned by Revelation structure. **Relations:** `FUTURE` strongly supports premillennialism. `PRESENT` supports amillennialism and can support postmillennialism; `PROGRESS` especially suits postmillennial already/not-yet readings. **Identity descriptors:** premillennial, amillennial, postmillennial; not a separate denominational identity. ### `ESC-KING-01` — Expected gospel/cultural trajectory before the return **Question:** Which position is best supported for “Expected gospel/cultural trajectory before the return”? **Type:** categorical dominant expectation, with substantial uncertainty possible. **Options** - `ESC-KING-01.VICTORY`: the Great Commission will produce widespread, durable discipling of nations and a recognizable era of righteousness/peace before the return. - `ESC-KING-01.MIXED`: gospel advance and opposition coexist throughout the age, with neither a promised global Christian civilization nor inevitable linear collapse. - `ESC-KING-01.DECLINE`: apostasy, deception, and persecution increasingly characterize the terminal period; Christ returns to rescue rather than after broad historical victory. - `ESC-KING-01.AGNO`: Scripture promises mission success and final victory but does not reveal a confidently chartable global social trend. **Key texts:** Psalm 2; 22:27–31; 72; 110; Isaiah 2:1–4; 11:1–10; Daniel 2:34–35, 44–45; Matthew 13:24–43, 31–33, 47–50; 24:9–14; 28:18–20; 1 Corinthians 15:25–26; 2 Thessalonians 2; 2 Timothy 3:1–5; Revelation 11:15; 20:7–10. **Interpretive forks:** mustard seed/leaven as numerical-historical growth or kingdom hiddenness; “all nations” as representation or societal discipling; final apostasy’s scale and duration; whether royal Psalms are presently realized through mission or await the return. **Dependencies:** Conditioned by `ESC-HERM-01`, `ESC-MIL-03`, and kingdom inauguration; strongly conditions `ESC-MIL-01.POST` versus `AMIL`. **Relations:** `VICTORY` is the distinguishing postmillennial node. `MIXED/AGNO` are common in amillennialism. `DECLINE` is common in premillennial futurism but neither premillennialism nor amillennialism logically requires pessimism about every historical period. **Identity descriptors:** postmillennial optimism, amillennial “realized” kingdom, premillennial futurism. “Optimist/pessimist” is usually too crude; specify the predicted pre-return trajectory. Theonomy, Christian Reconstruction, and Christian nationalism are separate ethical/political profiles; none is entailed by postmillennialism. ### `ESC-KING-02` — Is the messianic kingdom presently inaugurated? **Question:** Which position is best supported for “Is the messianic kingdom presently inaugurated?”? **Type:** multi-select kingdom-timing claims; do not normalize these options against one another. **Options** - `ESC-KING-02.INAUGURATED`: Jesus inaugurated the promised kingdom in his ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension. - `ESC-KING-02.PRESENT-MILLENNIAL`: the thousand-year reign is principally a present spiritual or heavenly reality. - `ESC-KING-02.FUTURE-CONSUMMATION`: the kingdom awaits public consummation at Christ’s return. - `ESC-KING-02.DISTINCT-FUTURE-PHASE`: a distinctive earthly and/or national form of the covenanted messianic kingdom begins only after the return. **Key texts:** Daniel 2:34–45; 7:13–14; Matthew 3:2; 4:17; 11:11–12; 12:28; 13; 28:18; Luke 17:20–21; 19:11–27; Acts 1:3–8; 2:29–36; 14:22; Colossians 1:13; Hebrews 2:5–9; 12:22–29; Revelation 1:5–6, 9. **Interpretive forks:** “at hand/has come upon you”; kingdom of God versus kingdom of heaven; present session as Davidic reign; mystery form of the kingdom; whether “church age” is itself the promised kingdom or a distinct intercalation. **Dependencies:** Conditioned by `ESC-DAV-01`, `ESC-HERM-01`, and covenantal architecture; upstream of `ESC-KING-01` and `ESC-MIL-01`. **Relations:** `INAUGURATED + FUTURE-CONSUMMATION` spans much progressive dispensational, historic-premillennial, amillennial, and postmillennial theology. `PRESENT-MILLENNIAL + FUTURE-CONSUMMATION` is characteristic of careful amillennialism. `DISTINCT-FUTURE-PHASE` is associated with premillennial and especially classic dispensational distinctions. **Identity descriptors:** inaugurated eschatology, future-kingdom dispensationalism, realized millennium. ### `ESC-RES-01` — Number and timing of bodily resurrections **Question:** Which position is best supported for “Number and timing of bodily resurrections”? **Type:** categorical schedule within the shared baseline of a real bodily resurrection. **Options** - `ESC-RES-01.GENERAL`: righteous and wicked are raised in one general eschatological complex at Christ’s return. - `ESC-RES-01.TWO`: resurrection of the righteous precedes the millennium; resurrection of the wicked follows it. - `ESC-RES-01.MULTI`: several stages—Christ, church, tribulation martyrs/Old Testament saints, and finally the wicked—are chronologically distinguished. **Key texts:** Daniel 12:1–3; Matthew 13:36–43; 25:31–46; John 5:25–29; 6:39–54; 11:24; Acts 24:14–15; 1 Corinthians 15:20–28, 50–55; 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18; Revelation 20:4–15. **Interpretive forks:** “an hour” in John 5; singular “resurrection of both”; “each in his own order” in 1 Corinthians 15; first resurrection; whether judgment tableaux compress multiple stages. **Dependencies:** Strongly conditioned by `ESC-MIL-01`, `ESC-MIL-02`, and `ESC-REV-03`; upstream of `ESC-JDG-01`. **Relations:** `GENERAL` is close to a hard constraint for ordinary amillennial/postmillennial systems. `TWO` follows naturally from sequential premillennial Revelation 20. `MULTI` correlates with dispensational chronology. All options should retain bodily continuity/transformation; denial of bodily resurrection is outside the stated conservative/creedal baseline. **Identity descriptors:** general-resurrection (Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Reformed, many non-dispensational evangelicals); two-stage historic premillennial; multi-stage dispensational premillennial. ### `ESC-ISR-01` — Continuing corporate role of ethnic/national Israel **Question:** Which position is best supported for “Continuing corporate role of ethnic/national Israel”? **Type:** categorical dominant model. **Options** - `ESC-ISR-01.FULFILLED`: Israel’s covenant vocation reaches its corporate fulfillment in Messiah and the one Jew-Gentile church; ethnic Israel has no separately promised eschatological polity or role. - `ESC-ISR-01.CONVERT`: one covenant people, with a future large-scale conversion of ethnic Jews into the church but no separate saving covenant or necessary territorial kingdom. - `ESC-ISR-01.ROLE`: one salvation and one new humanity, while converted corporate Israel retains a distinctive vocation and possibly national/territorial role. - `ESC-ISR-01.PROGRAM`: church and national Israel remain distinguishable covenantal peoples/administrations in the eschatological program, especially in a future millennium. **Key texts:** Genesis 12:1–3; 17:4–8; Exodus 19:5–6; Jeremiah 31:31–37; Matthew 21:33–46; Luke 21:24; Acts 1:6–8; 3:19–21; Romans 9–11; Galatians 3:16, 26–29; 6:16; Ephesians 2:11–22; 3:4–6; 1 Peter 2:4–10. **Interpretive forks:** referent of “Israel” and “Israel of God”; natural branches in Romans 11; whether one new humanity erases or reconciles ethnic vocation; irrevocability of gifts/calling; distinction between soteriological unity and historical role. **Dependencies:** Conditioned by `ESC-FRM-01`, `ESC-HERM-01`, and `ESC-ISR-02`; upstream of land, throne, temple, millennium, and often rapture. **Relations:** `FULFILLED/CONVERT` correlate with covenant theology and progressive covenantalism; `ROLE` with progressive dispensationalism and some covenantal premillennialists; `PROGRAM` with classic/revised dispensationalism. A future Jewish conversion is historically common even within covenant theology. **Identity descriptors:** supersessionist/non-supersessionist is too binary. If used, distinguish punitive supersessionism, economic succession, typological fulfillment, future conversion, and continuing national vocation. “Christian Zionist” usually implies `ROLE/PROGRAM` plus a land claim, but not always. ### `ESC-ISR-02` — “All Israel will be saved” in Romans 11 **Question:** Which position is best supported for ““All Israel will be saved” in Romans 11”? **Type:** categorical referent. **Options** - `ESC-ISR-02.FUTURE`: a future corporate turning of ethnic Israel near the end of the age. - `ESC-ISR-02.REMNANT`: the total elect remnant of ethnic Israel saved across history. - `ESC-ISR-02.CHURCH`: the whole redeemed people of God, Jew and Gentile. - `ESC-ISR-02.PROCESS`: corporate Israel saved through the ongoing remnant/fullness dynamic, possibly culminating in a larger final turning. **Key texts:** Isaiah 27:9; 59:20–21; Jeremiah 31:31–37; Romans 9:6–8, 27; 10:1; 11:1–32; 2 Corinthians 3:14–16. **Interpretive forks:** “and so” as manner or temporal sequence; whether “Israel” changes referent between Romans 11:25 and 11:26; Gentile fullness; olive-tree identity; the citation’s “from/to Zion”; corporate versus every-individual scope. **Dependencies:** Direct evidence for `ESC-ISR-01`; can be assessed without first deciding land or millennium. **Relations:** `FUTURE` is compatible with covenantal, progressive dispensational, and classic dispensational systems and therefore should not be used as a proxy for dispensationalism. `CHURCH/REMNANT` more often accompany stronger fulfillment/supersession readings. **Identity descriptors:** future-conversionist, remnant reading, ecclesial reading; no clean denominational division. ### `ESC-COV-01` — Who receives the promised new covenant? **Question:** Which position is best supported for “Who receives the promised new covenant?”? **Type:** categorical covenantal-referent model. **Options** - `ESC-COV-01.CHURCH`: the new covenant promised to Israel/Judah is directly inaugurated in Christ and constitutes the present Jew-Gentile church. - `ESC-COV-01.PARTAKE`: the church presently partakes in the new covenant’s spiritual blessings, while its formal/national realization with Israel and Judah awaits the future. - `ESC-COV-01.REMNANT`: the covenant is made with Israel in the faithful Messiah and Jewish remnant; incorporated Gentiles genuinely join that same covenant, with a future fullness of Israel possible. - `ESC-COV-01.STAGES`: present ecclesial fulfillment and a later corporate-Israel realization are complementary stages of the one new covenant. **Key texts:** Jeremiah 31:31–37; 32:36–44; Ezekiel 36:22–32; Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:1–18; Romans 11:11–32; Galatians 3:13–29; Ephesians 2:11–22; Hebrews 8:6–13; 9:15; 10:14–18. **Interpretive forks:** direct recipients named “house of Israel and Judah”; Jesus’ and Paul’s present-tense cup language; Hebrews’ application to its Christian audience; participation versus ratification; one covenant in stages versus two applications. **Dependencies:** Conditioned by `ESC-FRM-01`, `ESC-HERM-01`, and `ESC-ISR-01`; contributes back to church/Israel identity and future restoration. **Relations:** `CHURCH/REMNANT` correlate with covenant theology and progressive covenantalism; `PARTAKE` with classic/revised dispensationalism; `STAGES` with progressive dispensationalism and some future-conversion covenantalists. None supplies a second way of salvation. **Identity descriptors:** covenant theology, new-covenant/progressive covenantal, classic or progressive dispensational. ### `ESC-ISR-03` — Land and national-restoration promises **Question:** Which position is best supported for “Land and national-restoration promises”? **Type:** categorical dominant fulfillment mode. **Options** - `ESC-ISR-03.TERR`: specific territorial/national promises require a future restoration of Israel in the promised land, commonly in the millennium. - `ESC-ISR-03.TYPO`: the land was historically tasted/fulfilled and typologically expands through Christ to inheritance of the world and new creation; no separate future territorial fulfillment is required. - `ESC-ISR-03.BOTH`: territorial restoration and universal new-creation expansion are complementary stages. - `ESC-ISR-03.COND`: restoration or tenure is covenant-condition dependent; some prophetic forms were conditional or exhausted even though God’s saving purpose continues. **Key texts:** Genesis 12:7; 13:14–17; 15:18–21; 17:8; Deuteronomy 4:25–31; 30:1–10; Joshua 21:43–45; 1 Kings 4:20–21; Nehemiah 9:7–8; Psalm 37; Isaiah 11; Jeremiah 30–33; Ezekiel 36–37; Amos 9:11–15; Matthew 5:5; Romans 4:13; Galatians 3; Hebrews 4; 11:8–16; Revelation 21–22. **Interpretive forks:** oath unconditionality versus tenure conditions; “forever”; whether Joshua/Solomon fulfill extent claims; New Testament universalization; whether modern political Israel is prophetic fulfillment, providential precursor, or theologically neutral. **Dependencies:** Conditioned by `ESC-HERM-01`, `ESC-FRM-01`, and `ESC-ISR-01`; influences millennium and temple. **Relations:** `TERR/BOTH` correlate with Christian Zionism and dispensationalism, but theological support for Israel’s civil security is not identical to a prophetic land claim. `TYPO` correlates with covenantal and progressive-covenantal systems. **Identity descriptors:** Christian Zionist, non-Zionist, territorial-restorationist, new-creation fulfillment. Political policy should not be inferred mechanically from any one exegesis. ### `ESC-DAV-01` — Location and timing of Davidic kingship **Question:** Which position is best supported for “Location and timing of Davidic kingship”? **Type:** categorical with an already/not-yet option. **Options** - `ESC-DAV-01.PRESENT`: Jesus presently occupies David’s promised throne through resurrection, ascension, and session at God’s right hand. - `ESC-DAV-01.FUTURE`: the Davidic throne in its promised governmental form awaits Christ’s future earthly reign from Jerusalem. - `ESC-DAV-01.BOTH`: Christ is already enthroned as Davidic king and will manifest that kingship in a distinctive future earthly/national phase. **Key texts:** 2 Samuel 7:12–16; Psalm 2; 89; 110; Isaiah 9:6–7; Jeremiah 23:5–8; Luke 1:31–33; 19:11–27; Acts 2:22–36; 13:32–39; 15:13–18; 1 Corinthians 15:24–28; Revelation 3:21; 5:5. **Interpretive forks:** whether David’s throne and God’s heavenly throne can be the same royal reality; “restore the kingdom to Israel”; session until enemies subdued; present versus public manifestation. **Dependencies:** Conditioned by framework, typology, and Israel role; upstream of millennium. **Relations:** `FUTURE` correlates with classic dispensationalism; `PRESENT` with covenantal amillennial/postmillennial views; `BOTH` with progressive dispensationalism and inaugurated-eschatology premillennialism. **Identity descriptors:** dispensational, inaugurated-kingdom, covenantal; not normally denominational on its own. ### `ESC-TEM-01` — Ezekiel’s temple, sacrifices, and future sanctuary **Question:** Which position is best supported for “Ezekiel’s temple, sacrifices, and future sanctuary”? **Type:** categorical dominant fulfillment. **Options** - `ESC-TEM-01.LIT`: Ezekiel 40–48 predicts a physical millennial temple with restored ritual sacrifices understood as memorial, ceremonial, or kingdom-purificatory—not a repetition of Christ’s atonement. - `ESC-TEM-01.FUT_NOEQ`: a future physical temple is likely from Daniel/Jesus/Paul/Revelation, but Ezekiel’s detailed vision is not necessarily a straightforward blueprint for that temple. - `ESC-TEM-01.TYPO`: temple, priesthood, river, land, and presence are symbolic/typological of Christ, the church, gospel mission, and finally the New Jerusalem. - `ESC-TEM-01.COND`: Ezekiel offers an ideal or conditional restoration arrangement for postexilic Israel that was never realized in that form. - `ESC-TEM-01.BOTH`: typological fulfillment now/new creation plus a future concrete sanctuary stage. **Key texts:** Ezekiel 37:24–28; 40–48; Haggai 2; Zechariah 6:9–15; 14:16–21; Daniel 9:27; Matthew 24:15; John 2:19–22; 2 Thessalonians 2:4; Hebrews 7–10; Ephesians 2:19–22; 1 Peter 2:4–10; Revelation 11:1–2; 21:22; 22:1–5. **Interpretive forks:** architectural specificity; tribal allotments; sin/purification offerings after the cross; “memorial” despite no explicit memorial label; whether Hebrews makes any restored animal cult theologically impossible; Ezekiel’s river and Revelation 22. **Dependencies:** Conditioned by `ESC-HERM-01`, `ESC-ISR-03`, `ESC-MIL-01`, and `ESC-ANT-01`; future tribulation temple and millennial Ezekiel temple should be modeled as distinct claims. **Relations:** `LIT/BOTH` strongly correlate with dispensational premillennialism. `TYPO` with covenantal amillennial/postmillennial and progressive-covenantal readings. `FUT_NOEQ` allows a future antichrist temple without accepting millennial sacrifices. **Identity descriptors:** dispensational literal-temple, typological temple, future-temple futurist. All orthodox options must preserve Hebrews’ claim that Christ’s atonement is once for all. ### `ESC-ISR-04` — The 144,000 **Question:** Which position is best supported for “The 144,000”? **Type:** categorical symbolic referent. **Options** - `ESC-ISR-04.ETHNIC`: a literal-number or representative end-time remnant from the twelve tribes of ethnic Israel, distinct in role from the multinational multitude. - `ESC-ISR-04.CHURCH`: the complete church/messianic army, heard as Israel’s numbered tribes and seen as the innumerable multinational multitude. - `ESC-ISR-04.FIRST`: a first-century Jewish-Christian remnant sealed through the coming judgment. - `ESC-ISR-04.BOTH`: an Israel-shaped symbol of the whole church that may also highlight a distinct Jewish remnant. **Key texts:** Ezekiel 9:1–11; Revelation 7:1–17; 9:4; 14:1–5; 21:12–14; Romans 11; James 1:1; 1 Peter 1:1. **Interpretive forks:** “heard” versus “saw” identity pattern in Revelation; irregular tribe list; literal number versus 12×12×1000; whether the multitude is a second group; firstfruits and virgin-warrior imagery. **Dependencies:** Conditioned by Revelation horizon and `ESC-ISR-01`; contributes modestly back to Israel/church models. **Relations:** `ETHNIC` correlates with dispensational futurism; `CHURCH` with idealist/amillennial readings; `FIRST` with partial preterism; `BOTH` with eclectic readings. **Identity descriptors:** not a denomination-defining issue, but often used as evidence for Israel/church distinction. ### `ESC-BAB-01` — Identity of Babylon in Revelation 17–18 **Question:** Which position is best supported for “Identity of Babylon in Revelation 17–18”? **Type:** multi-horizon symbolic identification. **Options** - `ESC-BAB-01.ROME`: first-century imperial Rome and its economic/idolatrous order. - `ESC-BAB-01.JERU`: apostate Jerusalem as the covenant-breaking city implicated in prophets’ blood. - `ESC-BAB-01.FUT_CITY`: a specific future rebuilt or geopolitical city/empire. - `ESC-BAB-01.SYSTEM`: the recurring transnational system of idolatrous empire, luxury, violence, and exploitation, with possible final concentration. - `ESC-BAB-01.HIST`: a later church-historical institution, classically papal Rome in Protestant historicism. **Key texts:** Isaiah 13–14; 21; 47; Jeremiah 50–51; Ezekiel 16; 23; 26–28; Matthew 23:29–39; 1 Peter 5:13; Revelation 11:8; 14:8; 16:19; 17–18. **Interpretive forks:** seven hills/kings; maritime trade; “great city”; prophets and saints’ blood; wilderness harlot imagery; Old Testament oracles repurposed for a new empire. **Dependencies:** Conditioned by `ESC-REV-01/02`; related to beast identity but not necessarily identical with it. **Relations:** `ROME` works with both early and late dates and many eclectic readings; `JERU` especially with early-date partial preterism; `FUT_CITY` with strict futurism; `SYSTEM` with idealism/eclecticism; `HIST` with historicism. **Identity descriptors:** Roman preterist, Jerusalem preterist, futurist, idealist, historicist. ### `ESC-MARK-01` — Mark of the beast and 666 **Question:** Which position is best supported for “Mark of the beast and 666”? **Type:** multi-horizon symbol/referent. **Options** - `ESC-MARK-01.NERO`: 666/616 encodes Nero Caesar and the mark evokes first-century imperial allegiance/economic coercion. - `ESC-MARK-01.FUT`: a future regime will impose a concrete, economically enforced identifier or oath; the technology is unspecified. - `ESC-MARK-01.ALLEGIANCE`: forehead/hand symbolism signifies ideological and behavioral allegiance to beastly power across the age, in parody of God’s seal. - `ESC-MARK-01.HIST`: a church-historical office/system or its mandated religious allegiance. - `ESC-MARK-01.LAYER`: a first-century referent establishes a repeatable allegiance pattern that may culminate finally. **Key texts:** Exodus 13:9, 16; Deuteronomy 6:4–9; 11:18; Ezekiel 9; Revelation 7:3–8; 13:11–18; 14:1, 9–12; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4. **Interpretive forks:** Hebrew/Greek/Latin gematria and the 616 manuscript variant; symbolic forehead/hand background; economic enforcement; whether a physical mechanism and spiritual allegiance are alternatives or layers. **Dependencies:** Conditioned by `ESC-ANT-01`, `ESC-REV-01/02`, and dating; downstream practical speculation should remain much less confident than the broad allegiance theme. **Relations:** `NERO` correlates with preterism; `FUT` with dispensational futurism; `ALLEGIANCE` with idealism; `LAYER` with eclecticism. No biblical text identifies a modern technology, so “microchip/digital currency” should be modeled as a very low-level application hypothesis, not a doctrinal option. **Identity descriptors:** preterist, futurist, idealist, historicist. ### `ESC-WIT-01` — The two witnesses of Revelation 11 **Question:** Which position is best supported for “The two witnesses of Revelation 11”? **Type:** categorical dominant referent, with a layered option. **Options** - `ESC-WIT-01.LITERAL`: two future individual prophetic witnesses, often compared with Moses and Elijah. - `ESC-WIT-01.FIRST`: two individuals or a concrete witness in the first-century Jerusalem crisis. - `ESC-WIT-01.CHURCH`: the witnessing church portrayed through the legally sufficient two, two lampstands, and Zechariah’s olive trees. - `ESC-WIT-01.LAYER`: a corporate church symbol that may be embodied by representative individuals in a final crisis. **Key texts:** Deuteronomy 19:15; 1 Kings 17; 2 Kings 1; Zechariah 4; Malachi 4:5–6; Matthew 17:1–13; Revelation 1:20; 11:1–13. **Interpretive forks:** literal numeration versus symbolic legal witness; Moses/Elijah miracle patterns; lampstands as churches; “the great city”; locality and global spectatorship. **Dependencies:** Conditioned by Revelation horizon, temple, and tribulation readings. **Relations:** `LITERAL` correlates with futurism; `FIRST` with preterism; `CHURCH` with idealism/amil; `LAYER` with eclecticism. **Identity descriptors:** rarely denominational; useful as a test case for one’s symbolism calibration. ### `ESC-WAR-01` — Armageddon, Gog/Magog, and the final battle(s) **Question:** Which position is best supported for “Armageddon, Gog/Magog, and the final battle(s)”? **Type:** categorical relation among battle visions. **Options** - `ESC-WAR-01.ONE`: Revelation 16, 19, and 20 recapitulate the same final assault and divine victory from different angles. - `ESC-WAR-01.TWO`: Revelation 19 and 20:7–10 depict two distinct rebellions separated by the millennium. - `ESC-WAR-01.PATTERN`: Ezekiel’s Gog, first-century/recurring imperial conflicts, and a final assault form a typological pattern rather than a one-to-one timetable. - `ESC-WAR-01.GEO`: the texts predict identifiable future geopolitical coalitions/events, often involving national Israel. **Key texts:** Ezekiel 38–39; Zechariah 12–14; 2 Thessalonians 1:6–10; Revelation 16:12–16; 19:11–21; 20:7–10. **Interpretive forks:** repeated carrion-feast imagery; Gog/Magog before or after millennial conditions; symbolic compass-point nations; Israel/land referents; sequence versus recapitulation. **Dependencies:** Strongly conditioned by `ESC-REV-03`, `ESC-MIL-01`, and `ESC-ISR-03`. **Relations:** `TWO/GEO` correlate with sequential premillennial futurism; `ONE` with recapitulative amillennialism; `PATTERN` with idealist/eclectic readings. **Identity descriptors:** futurist-geopolitical, idealist, recapitulationist; modern nation-name mappings should be assigned far lower confidence than the textual structure. ### `ESC-JDG-01` — Schedule of eschatological judgment **Question:** Which position is best supported for “Schedule of eschatological judgment”? **Type:** categorical relation among judgment scenes. **Options** - `ESC-JDG-01.GENERAL`: one public general judgment at Christ’s return, described from several angles, with works evidencing union with Christ and determining degrees/recompense. - `ESC-JDG-01.TWO`: judgment of resurrected saints/kingdom participants and judgment of the wicked are separated by the millennium. - `ESC-JDG-01.MULTI`: distinct sessions include the church’s judgment seat, sheep-and-goats/nations judgment, Israel or tribulation judgments, and the great white throne. **Key texts:** Ecclesiastes 12:14; Daniel 7:9–14; 12:2; Matthew 12:36; 13:36–50; 16:27; 25:31–46; John 5:22–29; Acts 17:30–31; Romans 2:5–16; 14:10–12; 1 Corinthians 3:10–15; 4:5; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Revelation 20:4, 11–15. **Interpretive forks:** whether multiple images describe different sessions or one event; who “brothers” are in Matthew 25; judgment “according to works”; believer reward/loss versus condemnation; relation of books to book of life. **Dependencies:** Conditioned by `ESC-RES-01`, `ESC-MIL-01`, and Revelation structure. **Relations:** `GENERAL` is standard in Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Reformed, and many evangelical confessions; `TWO` with historic premillennialism; `MULTI` especially with dispensational charts. Multiple biblical judgment metaphors do not by themselves prove multiple dates. **Identity descriptors:** general-judgment, premillennial two-stage, dispensational multiple-judgment. ### `ESC-HELL-01` — Nature and duration of final punishment **Question:** Which position is best supported for “Nature and duration of final punishment”? **Type:** categorical final-outcome model. **Options** - `ESC-HELL-01.ECT`: the finally impenitent remain consciously under irreversible punishment without end. - `ESC-HELL-01.COND`: immortality is God’s gift to the redeemed; the wicked undergo judgment culminating in irreversible destruction/cessation (“second death”). - `ESC-HELL-01.UR`: eschatological punishment is ultimately restorative and God eventually reconciles every person. **Key texts for the dispute:** Isaiah 33:14; 66:24; Daniel 12:2; Malachi 4:1–3; Matthew 10:28; 25:31–46; Mark 9:43–48; John 3:16; Romans 2:5–12; 5:18–19; 6:23; 1 Corinthians 15:22–28; Philippians 2:9–11; 2 Thessalonians 1:9; 1 Timothy 2:3–6; 4:10; 2 Peter 2:6; Revelation 14:9–11; 20:10–15; 21:8. **Interpretive forks:** *aiōnios* and the parallel in Matthew 25:46; death/destruction/perishing as process, ruin, or cessation; whether humans are naturally immortal; apocalyptic smoke/fire imagery; whether universal-sounding texts concern every individual, all kinds, or cosmic reconciliation under judgment; difference between the beast/devil and human fate in Revelation. **Dependencies:** Relatively orthogonal to millennium and rapture. It interacts with anthropology and intermediate state but should not be inferred from a denominational eschatology chart. **Relations:** `ECT` is the dominant historic Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant confessional view. `COND` is held by Seventh-day Adventists and a minority of inerrantist evangelicals/Anglicans. `UR` has historic minority advocates but is rejected by many conservative confessions; its compatibility with the user’s broader conservative framework must be separately assessed. Hope or prayer concerning the number finally saved belongs to `ESC-HELL-02`, not this outcome node. **Identity descriptors:** traditionalist/ECT, conditionalist/annihilationist, universal-reconciliationist. ### `ESC-HELL-02` — Epistemic and prayer posture toward the final scope of salvation **Question:** Which position is best supported for “Epistemic and prayer posture toward the final scope of salvation”? **Type:** multi-select posture claims; do not normalize these options against one another. **Options** - `ESC-HELL-02.EXPECT-SOME-LOST`: Scripture warrants expecting that some persons will remain finally lost. - `ESC-HELL-02.HOPE-ALL`: one may hope and pray for universal salvation without teaching it as the revealed outcome. - `ESC-HELL-02.CONFIDENT-ALL`: Scripture warrants confidence that every person will finally be reconciled. - `ESC-HELL-02.SUSPEND`: the final number saved is not revealed clearly enough to adopt one of the preceding postures. **Key texts:** Matthew 7:13–14, 21–23; 13:36–50; 19:23–26; 25:31–46; Luke 13:22–30; Romans 5:18–19; 9–11; 1 Corinthians 15:22–28; Philippians 2:9–11; 1 Timothy 2:1–6; 4:10; 2 Peter 3:9; Revelation 21–22. **Interpretive forks:** whether warning texts reveal actual final outcomes or genuine conditions that need not be instantiated; whether universal-sounding texts identify every individual or all peoples/cosmic submission; difference between a permitted hope, a liturgical prayer, and a doctrinal prediction. **Dependencies:** Conditioned by `ESC-HELL-01`, divine-will/atonement scope, and views of warning language. `EXPECT-SOME-LOST` can pair with ECT or conditionalism; `HOPE-ALL` can coexist with either and therefore must not update the outcome node as if it were universalism. `EXPECT-SOME-LOST` conflicts with `CONFIDENT-ALL`; `SUSPEND` conflicts with claiming either expectation as revealed. `CONFIDENT-ALL` ordinarily permits `HOPE-ALL`, but doctrinal confidence and prayer posture remain distinguishable. **Relations:** Hopeful universalism is found in some Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and Protestant theologians without constituting their communion’s dogmatic outcome claim. **Identity descriptors:** expects-final-loss, hopeful-universalist, confident-universalist, eschatologically agnostic. ### `ESC-INT-01` — Consciousness between death and resurrection **Question:** Which position is best supported for “Consciousness between death and resurrection”? **Type:** categorical anthropological model. **Options** - `ESC-INT-01.CONSC`: the dead remain consciously present with Christ or in Hades while awaiting bodily resurrection. - `ESC-INT-01.SLEEP`: the person is unconscious between death and resurrection (“soul sleep”/conditionalist anthropology). - `ESC-INT-01.ATEMP`: from the deceased person’s perspective death opens immediately onto resurrection/final presence, sometimes framed as divine timelessness rather than an experienced interval. **Key texts:** Psalm 6:5; 88:10–12; Ecclesiastes 9:5–10; Daniel 12:2; Matthew 10:28; Luke 16:19–31; 23:43; John 11:11–14; Acts 7:59–60; 1 Corinthians 15; 2 Corinthians 5:1–10; Philippians 1:20–24; 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18; Revelation 6:9–11. **Interpretive forks:** sleep as metaphor for bodily death or total unconsciousness; phenomenological “under the sun” speech in Ecclesiastes; parabolic status of Luke 16; punctuation/word order in Luke 23:43; “naked/unclothed” in 2 Corinthians 5; whether time is experienced after death. **Dependencies:** Interacts with `ESC-MIL-02.HEAVEN`, anthropology, hell, and postmortem purification; largely independent of millennium/rapture timing. **Relations:** `CONSC` is the majority Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant view. `SLEEP` is characteristic of Seventh-day Adventism and some conditionalist or restorationist groups, with a small evangelical minority. `ATEMP` is a speculative minority synthesis and should usually receive a wider confidence interval. **Identity descriptors:** conscious-intermediate-state, soul-sleep/psychopannychist, immediate-resurrection/atemporal. ### `ESC-INT-02` — Postmortem purification of the saved **Question:** Which position is best supported for “Postmortem purification of the saved”? **Type:** categorical; partly canon- and tradition-dependent. **Options** - `ESC-INT-02.NONE`: no postmortem purifying process; believers are perfected by grace at death and/or resurrection. - `ESC-INT-02.PURG`: saved persons may undergo a finite postmortem purification while their final salvation is secure. - `ESC-INT-02.MYSTERY-PRAYER`: the church may pray for the departed and affirm postmortem healing/purification without defining a Latin purgatorial mechanism. **Key texts:** Matthew 5:25–26; 12:32; Luke 12:47–48; 1 Corinthians 3:10–15; Philippians 1:6; Hebrews 9:27; 12:14, 22–24; Revelation 21:27. Catholic and Orthodox arguments also use 2 Maccabees 12:38–46, making the canon question an upstream dependency. **Interpretive forks:** whether 1 Corinthians 3 tests works or purifies persons; temporal implications of “age to come”; prayer for the dead and the canon; purification versus satisfaction for sin; immediate perfection versus a process experienced by the saved. **Dependencies:** Conditioned by canon, justification/sanctification, anthropology, and `ESC-INT-01`; mostly orthogonal to millennial chronology. **Relations:** `NONE` is standard conservative Protestant/evangelical teaching; `PURG` is Roman Catholic dogma; `MYSTERY-PRAYER` approximates Orthodox traditions that affirm prayer for the dead without the same scholastic model. **Identity descriptors:** Protestant no-purgatory, Roman Catholic purgatory, Orthodox postmortem mystery/prayer. ### `ESC-INT-04` — Postmortem opportunity for repentance or saving response **Question:** Which position is best supported for “Postmortem opportunity for repentance or saving response”? **Type:** multi-select scope and mechanism claims, separate from purification of persons already saved. **Options** - `ESC-INT-04.NONE`: death ordinarily closes the opportunity for repentance and saving response. - `ESC-INT-04.LIMITED`: only some who lacked a meaningful earthly opportunity may receive a postmortem encounter or opportunity. - `ESC-INT-04.UNIVERSAL-OPPORTUNITY`: all who die outside saving faith receive a genuine postmortem opportunity. - `ESC-INT-04.REMEDIAL-CERTAINTY`: postmortem judgment itself is remedial and eventually brings every person to willing reconciliation. **Key texts:** Ecclesiastes 11:3; Matthew 12:32; 25:31–46; Luke 16:19–31; John 5:28–29; Romans 2:6–16; 10:9–17; Hebrews 9:27; 1 Peter 3:18–20; 4:6; Revelation 20:11–15; 21:24–27; 22:14–15. **Interpretive forks:** fixed gulf in Luke 16; whether judgment after death excludes later repentance; identity and purpose of Christ’s proclamation to spirits/dead; whether Revelation’s nations and outside-city language is temporal process or final-state contrast. **Dependencies:** Conditioned by exclusivism/inclusivism, `ESC-HELL-01/02`, `ESC-INT-03`, and the interpretation of Hebrews 9:27. It can coexist with `ESC-INT-02.PURG` because the nodes address different populations. `NONE`, `LIMITED`, and `UNIVERSAL-OPPORTUNITY` are mutually exclusive scope claims as defined; `REMEDIAL-CERTAINTY` can pair with `UNIVERSAL-OPPORTUNITY` and adds an outcome/mechanism claim. **Relations:** `NONE` is standard conservative Protestant teaching and compatible with Catholic purgatory for the already saved. `LIMITED` appears in some inclusivist proposals; `UNIVERSAL-OPPORTUNITY` and especially `REMEDIAL-CERTAINTY` correlate with restorationist universalism. **Identity descriptors:** no-second-chance, postmortem-evangelization, inclusivist-opportunity, remedial-universalist. ### `ESC-INT-03` — Christ’s descent and proclamation to the dead/spirits **Question:** Which position is best supported for “Christ’s descent and proclamation to the dead/spirits”? **Type:** categorical referent. **Options** - `ESC-INT-03.DEAD`: between death and resurrection Christ descended to the realm of the dead and proclaimed victory and/or liberated the righteous dead. - `ESC-INT-03.ANGELS`: the risen Christ proclaimed triumph to imprisoned rebellious spirits/angels associated with Noah’s era. - `ESC-INT-03.NOAH`: Christ, through the Spirit in Noah, preached to Noah’s contemporaries while they were alive; they are now imprisoned spirits. - `ESC-INT-03.DEATH`: descent language chiefly denotes burial, the state of death, or humiliation rather than a local journey. **Key texts:** Psalm 16:8–11; Acts 2:24–32; Romans 10:6–7; Ephesians 4:8–10; 1 Peter 3:18–22; 4:6; Revelation 1:18. **Interpretive forks:** “spirits” as humans or angels; timing of the preaching; dative relation “in which”; lower parts of the earth; relation of the Apostles’ Creed to 1 Peter. **Dependencies:** Interacts with intermediate-state geography and postmortem opportunity but does not by itself establish evangelization after death. **Relations:** versions of `DEAD` are common in Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, and patristic interpretation; `ANGELS/NOAH/DEATH` are common Protestant evangelical readings. Creedal affirmation of the descent does not settle its exegesis. **Identity descriptors:** harrowing-of-Hades, victory proclamation, Noahic preaching, descent-as-death. ### `ESC-NEW-01` — Continuity of the present creation with the new creation **Question:** Which position is best supported for “Continuity of the present creation with the new creation”? **Type:** categorical spectrum. **Options** - `ESC-NEW-01.RENEW`: the present cosmos is judged, purified, liberated, and transformed into the new heavens and new earth. - `ESC-NEW-01.REPLACE`: the present cosmos ceases to exist and God creates a numerically new cosmos. - `ESC-NEW-01.RADICAL`: radical discontinuity and real continuity are both affirmed without specifying numerical identity. **Key texts:** Isaiah 11; 35; 65:17–25; 66:22; Matthew 19:28; Acts 3:21; Romans 8:18–25; 1 Corinthians 15:35–58; Colossians 1:15–20; 2 Peter 3:7–13; Revelation 21–22. **Interpretive forks:** flood analogy in 2 Peter 3; “passed away/found no place”; *kainos* (“new” in quality) and resurrection-body analogy; whether Isaiah 65’s death language belongs to millennium or accommodated new-creation imagery. **Dependencies:** Interacts with land typology, millennium, and ecological/embodiment implications; not strongly dependent on rapture. **Relations:** `RENEW/RADICAL` are increasingly common across Catholic, Orthodox, Reformed, and evangelical theology; popular “heaven forever” speech can conceal the shared biblical claim of embodied resurrection and new creation. `REPLACE` appears in some older evangelical presentations. **Identity descriptors:** creation-renewal, replacement/de-novo creation, embodied-new-earth. This issue is often a better confidence exercise than the misleading binary “go to heaven or live on earth.” --- # VIII. Composite identity and denominational descriptor catalog ## How to score descriptors These records are not propositions that compete on a probability simplex. They are prototypes. A tool should maintain two separate values: - `truth_credence`: the user’s credence in each doctrinal option. - `descriptor_fit`: weighted similarity between the user’s doctrinal profile and a defined historical or contemporary prototype. For each descriptor, use `core` features as high-weight, `common` features as medium-weight, and `variable` features as zero- or low-weight. Never use a common association as if it were entailed. A person’s self-identification is additional data, not something the doctrinal score may simply override. Ambiguous labels should be disambiguated before scoring. In particular, “Reformed” may mean Reformed soteriology, a Reformed confession, or a broad cultural/ecclesial identity; “charismatic” does not mean classical Pentecostal; “evangelical” is a coalition descriptor; and “non-denominational” describes governance/branding more than a doctrine. ### ID-NICENE — Nicene/creedal Christian - **Kind:** boundary-family descriptor. - **Core:** one God in three irreducible persons; Father, Son, and Spirit fully divine; eternal Son incarnate as fully God and fully human; bodily resurrection; future resurrection and judgment. - **Common:** acceptance of the Apostles’ and Nicene creeds; Chalcedonian two-natures Christology. - **Variable:** authority model, canon at Old Testament edges, atonement mechanism, salvation order, baptism, Eucharist, polity, gifts, millennium. - **False inference warning:** “Nicene” does not mean Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or high church. ### ID-EVANGELICAL — Evangelical - **Kind:** transdenominational coalition descriptor. - **Core:** high functional authority of Scripture; necessity of the gospel and personal faith/conversion; centrality of Christ’s saving cross and resurrection; active proclamation/discipleship. - **Common:** Protestant 66-book canon; justification by faith; missions; often but not universally biblical inerrancy. - **Variable:** Calvinist/Arminian, Baptist/paedobaptist, cessationist/charismatic, complementarian/egalitarian, sacramental depth, eschatology, politics. - **False inference warning:** It is not a church polity or a precise confession, and contemporary regional uses differ. ### ID-FUNDAMENTALIST — Fundamentalist - **Kind:** historical/ethos descriptor with doctrinal tendencies. - **Core:** defense of supernatural and creedal basics against modernist revision; strong biblical inerrancy; separation from perceived doctrinal compromise is often central. - **Common:** dispensational premillennialism, revivalist conversionism, conservative social ethics, cessationism; KJV/TR preferences in some substreams. - **Variable:** Baptist, Presbyterian, or independent polity; Calvinist or non-Calvinist soteriology; KJV-only is not entailed. - **False inference warning:** Do not define the label simply as “very conservative evangelical”; separatist history and institutional culture matter. ### ID-CONFESSIONAL-REFORMED — Confessionally Reformed - **Kind:** doctrinal/ecclesial family descriptor. - **Core:** Scripture as sole final infallible norm; Nicene/Chalcedonian orthodoxy; strong divine sovereignty; covenantal and federal theology; unconditional election; effectual calling; perseverance; forensic justification by faith; Reformed account of Word and sacraments; substantive subscription to a Three Forms of Unity or Westminster-family confession. - **Common:** infant baptism and covenant children in visible church; Presbyterian or continental Reformed polity; spiritual real presence; regulative principle; amillennialism or postmillennialism; Lord’s Day Sabbath. - **Variable:** supralapsarian/infralapsarian order, atonement wording at edges, creation view within confessional limits, cessationism/continuationism, two kingdoms/theonomy, millennium between amil/postmil and occasional historic premil. - **False inference warning:** “Five-point Calvinist” alone is insufficient for this descriptor. ### ID-CALVINIST — Calvinist/Reformed soteriology - **Kind:** doctrinal-subset descriptor. - **Core:** pervasive inability apart from grace; unconditional individual election; effectual grace/calling; divine preservation of the elect; atonement intentionally and effectively saving the elect in a distinctive sense. - **Common:** compatibilist providence; monergistic regeneration before or logically prior to faith; forensic imputation. - **Variable:** baptism, polity, covenant model, gifts, millennium, worship, denominational home. - **False inference warning:** Calvinist does not entail Presbyterian, paedobaptist, cessationist, or confessionally Reformed. ### ID-PRESBYTERIAN — Presbyterian - **Kind:** polity-first denominational descriptor. - **Core:** rule through a plurality of elders in graded/connected courts rather than bishops or independent congregations; ordinarily Reformed confessional ancestry. - **Common:** infant baptism; covenant theology; Westminster standards; spiritual presence in the Supper; Reformed soteriology. - **Variable:** strictness of confessional subscription, ordination of women, gifts, creation, eschatology, sexual ethics, and even conservative versus mainline authority assumptions. - **False inference warning:** A polity label cannot by itself establish current doctrinal conservatism. ### ID-REFORMED-BAPTIST — Reformed Baptist - **Kind:** composite confessional descriptor. - **Core:** believer baptism; congregational/local-church polity; regenerate membership; Reformed/Calvinistic salvation; Scripture as final authority; usually a Baptist adaptation of covenant theology. - **Common:** 1689 London Baptist Confession or descendant; immersion; two ordinances; regulative principle; definite atonement; elder-led congregationalism. - **Variable:** Sabbath, covenant-of-grace administration before Christ, communion admission, gifts, millennium, republication, law/gospel details. - **False inference warning:** It is not simply “a Baptist who likes some Calvinist authors”; confessional and covenantal content may be intended. ### ID-BAPTIST — Baptist - **Kind:** church-and-ordinance family descriptor. - **Core:** baptism of professing believers rather than infants; congregational/local-church responsibility; regenerate church membership; Scripture as final authority; religious liberty and noncoercion are historically important. - **Common:** immersion; two ordinances rather than seven sacraments; memorial or spiritual-presence Supper; local church autonomy; believers normally admitted to membership after baptism. - **Variable:** Calvinist, Arminian, or mixed soteriology; elder-led or single-pastor structure; closed/open communion; cessationist/charismatic; dispensational/covenantal; women’s ordination; worship style. - **False inference warning:** “Baptist” does not entail dispensationalism, memorialism in the thinnest sense, or once-saved-always-saved. ### ID-LUTHERAN — Confessional Lutheran - **Kind:** confessional church-family descriptor. - **Core:** Scripture alone; justification by grace through faith for Christ’s sake; sharp law/gospel distinction; monergistic conversion; Word and sacraments as objective means of grace; infant baptism that grants/regenerates; Christ’s true body and blood orally present in the Supper; subscription to the Book of Concord. - **Common:** universal atonement; election to salvation without symmetrical decree to damnation; grace can be resisted and believers can fall away; liturgical worship; amillennialism. - **Variable:** church polity, degree of liturgical uniformity, creation positions across Lutheran bodies, ordination and ethics across conservative/mainline synods. - **False inference warning:** Lutheran monergism is not identical to five-point Calvinism; real presence is not Roman transubstantiation. ### ID-ANGLICAN — Anglican - **Kind:** liturgical/episcopal and historically confessional family descriptor. - **Core:** episcopal order; common-prayer/liturgical inheritance; creedal Christianity; historic connection to the Thirty-Nine Articles and Anglican formularies, with greatly varying subscription. - **Common:** infant baptism; two dominical sacraments with other sacramental rites; real spiritual participation in the Eucharist; daily office; threefold ministry. - **Variable:** Reformed, Lutheran-like, Anglo-Catholic, Arminian, or broad-church soteriology; Eucharistic mechanism; Marian devotion; gifts; women’s ordination; sexual ethics; eschatology. - **False inference warning:** “Anglican” alone has low predictive power on several disputed doctrines; province and churchmanship are essential metadata. ### ID-WESLEYAN — Wesleyan/Methodist - **Kind:** soteriological and ecclesial family descriptor. - **Core:** universal atonement; prevenient grace enabling response; resistible grace; synergistic response without merit; strong emphasis on sanctification and holy love; possibility or goal of entire sanctification in a defined sense. - **Common:** conditional security or real apostasy possibility; infant baptism plus believer dedication/confirmation patterns; connexional polity, often episcopal; methodical discipleship and works of mercy. - **Variable:** exact meaning and timing of entire sanctification; charismatic gifts; sacramental efficacy; assurance; women’s ordination; conservative versus mainline authority and ethics. - **False inference warning:** Wesleyan perfection does not ordinarily mean absolute sinlessness or inability to err. ### ID-ANABAPTIST — Anabaptist/Mennonite - **Kind:** discipleship-and-church family descriptor. - **Core:** voluntary believer baptism; visible discipleship and obedience; church as a disciplined covenant community; strong separation of church coercion from state power; enemy love and nonresistance in classical forms. - **Common:** congregational/community discernment; memorial/covenant-meal emphasis; simple living; refusal of oaths; foot washing in some bodies; free-will or non-Calvinist soteriology. - **Variable:** sacramental language, charismatic gifts, communal property, women’s ministry, eschatology, and contemporary authority/sexual-ethics positions among denominations. - **False inference warning:** “Anabaptist” is not synonymous with generic credobaptist or with every modern Mennonite denomination. ### ID-RESTORATIONIST — Stone-Campbell/Churches of Christ prototype - **Kind:** restoration-movement family descriptor. - **Core:** restoration of New Testament church practice; suspicion of binding post-biblical creeds; believer baptism by immersion closely linked to forgiveness/entry into Christ; congregational autonomy; weekly Lord’s Supper. - **Common:** free-will soteriology; plurality of local elders; baptism treated as more than a bare optional symbol; a cappella worship in Churches of Christ; cessationism in many streams. - **Variable:** instrumental music across movement branches, openness of communion, women’s roles, exact sacramental account, Trinity/confessional vocabulary, ethics. - **False inference warning:** Disciples of Christ, independent Christian Churches, and Churches of Christ are related but doctrinally distinct streams; autonomous congregations vary. ### ID-PENTECOSTAL — Classical Pentecostal - **Kind:** pneumatological and revivalist family descriptor. - **Core:** all New Testament gifts remain available; a distinguishable baptism/empowerment in the Holy Spirit; expectation of tongues, prophecy, healing, and mission in the Spirit. - **Common:** tongues as initial physical evidence of Spirit baptism in many classical denominations; believer baptism; Arminian/Wesleyan or finished-work soteriology; divine healing; premillennial expectation; expressive worship. - **Variable:** sanctification as second work versus progressive; trinitarian versus Oneness streams; women’s ministry; prosperity teaching; exact rapture timing; congregational versus denominational governance. - **False inference warning:** Pentecostal does not entail prosperity gospel, and “charismatic” does not entail tongues as necessary initial evidence. - **Guardrail:** Oneness denial of eternal personal distinctions is outside the catalog’s Nicene boundary even though it is historically Pentecostal. ### ID-CHARISMATIC — Charismatic - **Kind:** pneumatological descriptor crossing denominations. - **Core:** prophecy, tongues, healing, and other gifts may continue in the church today and should be practiced under biblical testing/order. - **Common:** experiential prayer, healing ministry, expectation of present divine guidance. - **Variable:** infant/believer baptism, Spirit baptism timing, tongues as evidence, prophecy authority, soteriology, polity, Eucharist, eschatology. - **False inference warning:** Continuationism alone does not identify someone as Pentecostal, prosperity-oriented, or non-liturgical. ### ID-CESSATIONIST — Cessationist - **Kind:** pneumatological descriptor. - **Core:** at least apostleship and revelatory/sign gifts tied to foundational revelation ceased or are not ordinary after the apostolic era. - **Common:** closed-canon argument, providential rather than gift-mediated guidance; openness to extraordinary miracles despite no continuing miracle-worker gift. - **Variable:** “hard” versus “soft” cessation, view of impressions, healing prayer, providence, Reformed versus dispensational framework. - **False inference warning:** Cessationism does not mean God no longer performs miracles or answers prayer. ### ID-ROMAN-CATHOLIC — Roman Catholic - **Kind:** communion/confessional descriptor. - **Core:** Scripture and apostolic Tradition as one deposit authoritatively interpreted by the church’s magisterium; communion with the bishop of Rome and defined papal primacy/infallibility; episcopal apostolic succession; 73-book canon; seven sacraments; baptismal regeneration; Eucharistic real presence/transubstantiation and sacrificial memorial; justification involving infused grace and cooperation; purgatorial purification; defined Marian dogmas; invocation of saints; ordained male priesthood. - **Common:** infant baptism; amillennial/inaugurated eschatology; natural-law moral reasoning. - **Variable:** Thomist, Molinist, Augustinian, charismatic, and other theological schools; creation chronology; many non-defined eschatological details. - **False inference warning:** Catholic teaching does not place Scripture and merely human customs as two unrelated competing authorities, nor teach that people initially earn grace without grace. ### ID-EASTERN-ORTHODOX — Eastern Orthodox - **Kind:** communion/liturgical descriptor. - **Core:** Scripture within Holy Tradition and the worshiping church; seven ecumenical councils; episcopal apostolic succession; baptism, chrismation, and Eucharist as initiatory mysteries; real Eucharistic participation; theosis; veneration of icons and saints; invocation of saints; rejection of the filioque as a unilateral Western addition. - **Common:** broader Old Testament canon; infant baptism and infant communion; ancestral corruption with less emphasis on inherited culpability; synergistic healing account of salvation; strong liturgical authority; generally amillennial. - **Variable:** exact enumeration/explanation of mysteries; toll-house and other intermediate-state opinions; political arrangements; calendar; some creation and eschatological details. - **False inference warning:** Orthodox “synergy” is intended as grace-enabled participation, not autonomous merit; Orthodoxy does not dogmatically use every Roman Catholic scholastic mechanism. ### ID-SEVENTH-DAY-ADVENTIST — Seventh-day Adventist - **Kind:** Protestant restorationist denomination descriptor. - **Core:** Protestant Bible authority; Trinity and Christ’s saving work in the mainstream denomination; seventh-day Sabbath; premillennial return; heavenly-sanctuary/investigative-judgment framework; conditional immortality and final annihilation; strong end-time remnant identity. - **Common:** Ellen G. White as a genuine prophetic gift subordinate to Scripture; health practices; believer baptism by immersion; soul sleep; historicist apocalyptic reading. - **Variable:** young-earth details, degree and use of Ellen White’s authority among members, perfection/generation theology, contemporary evangelical alignment. - **False inference warning:** Official Adventist claims of sola Scriptura must be distinguished from the practical epistemic weight members assign to Ellen White. ### ID-DISPENSATIONAL — Dispensationalist - **Kind:** hermeneutical/eschatological system descriptor. - **Core:** distinguishable divine economies/dispensations; enduring significance of ethnic/national Israel; future fulfillment of major national and land promises; grammatical-historical concern against church-exhaustive spiritualization; premillennial return. - **Common:** future seventieth week/tribulation; rebuilt-temple expectations; pretribulation rapture in classic/popular forms; law discontinuity; Baptist or independent Bible-church setting. - **Variable:** pre-, mid-, pre-wrath, or posttribulation rapture; classical, revised, or progressive dispensationalism; Calvinist or Arminian soteriology; gifts; covenant language. - **False inference warning:** Premillennial does not entail dispensational, and dispensational does not strictly entail pretribulationism. ### ID-COVENANT-THEOLOGY — Covenant theologian - **Kind:** biblical-theological/system descriptor. - **Core:** one redemptive plan centered in Christ; covenant of grace substantially unites the redeemed across Testaments; strong typological and ecclesial fulfillment; federal/representative Adam and Christ. - **Common:** covenant of works and covenant of redemption; infant baptism as covenant sign; moral-law continuity; amillennialism or postmillennialism; Reformed soteriology. - **Variable:** Baptist covenant theology, republication, number/naming of covenants, Israel’s future conversion, Sabbath, theonomy/two kingdoms. - **False inference warning:** Covenant theology does not entail replacement hostility toward Jewish people, nor erase every future role for ethnic Israel. ### ID-PROGRESSIVE-COVENANTAL — Progressive covenantalist/New Covenant Theology family - **Kind:** biblical-theological system descriptor. - **Core:** covenants progressively culminate in Christ and the new covenant; typology transforms earlier institutions; one people of God in Christ; law is mediated as the law of Christ rather than a simple continuing Mosaic code. - **Common:** believer baptism and a professedly regenerate new-covenant community; non-Sabbatarianism; Christological fulfillment of land/temple; evangelical/Baptist setting. - **Variable:** Calvinist/Arminian soteriology, exact distinction between progressive covenantalism and New Covenant Theology, millennium, gifts. - **False inference warning:** Discontinuity with Mosaic administration does not imply rejection of the Old Testament’s moral authority. ### ID-PREMILLENNIAL — Premillennial - **Kind:** single-axis eschatological descriptor. - **Core:** Christ returns before the millennium of Revelation 20 and reigns in a distinctive post-return phase before the final state. - **Common:** future tribulation and Antichrist; more linear Revelation 19–20 reading. - **Variable:** historic versus dispensational; Israel/church; rapture timing; millennium population/temple/sacrifices; gifts and soteriology. - **False inference warning:** It does not entail pretribulationism or dispensationalism. ### ID-AMILLENNIAL — Amillennial - **Kind:** single-axis eschatological descriptor. - **Core:** the “millennium” is the present/intermediate reign of Christ and his saints or another non-post-return earthly thousand-year phase; Christ’s return brings general resurrection, judgment, and final state. - **Common:** symbolic/recapitulation reading of Revelation 20; inaugurated kingdom; covenantal or sacramental traditions. - **Variable:** optimistic/pessimistic cultural outlook; partial preterist/idealist emphasis; future conversion of Israel; tribulation intensity. - **False inference warning:** “Amillennial” does not mean “no millennium,” no future return, or no bodily resurrection. ### ID-POSTMILLENNIAL — Postmillennial - **Kind:** single-axis eschatological descriptor. - **Core:** through gospel/Spirit advance, the world experiences a long era of widespread discipling or kingdom blessing before Christ’s return. - **Common:** partial preterism, optimistic kingdom texts, present binding of Satan; Reformed covenant theology; Christ returns to general resurrection/judgment. - **Variable:** duration/literal thousand years, degree of cultural transformation, theonomy, tribulation timing, future Israel. - **False inference warning:** It does not entail uninterrupted progress, theonomy, or salvation by politics. ### ID-HISTORIC-PREMILLENNIAL — Historic premillennial - **Kind:** eschatological subtype. - **Core:** premillennial return without a necessary dispensational Israel/church separation or secret pretribulation rapture. - **Common:** church passes through final tribulation; one public return/catching up; future Antichrist; inaugurated kingdom. - **Variable:** Israel’s future role, millennium details, Revelation framework, historic versus future fulfillment of Olivet discourse. - **False inference warning:** “Historic” identifies family resemblance, not unanimous agreement among early fathers. ### ID-COMPLEMENTARIAN — Complementarian - **Kind:** ministry/sex-role descriptor. - **Core:** men and women share equal dignity while at least the senior governing/teaching office of church is restricted to qualified men; many also affirm differentiated responsibilities in marriage. - **Common:** male eldership; husband headship; conservative sexual ethics. - **Variable:** women deacons, preaching under authority, seminary teaching, parachurch leadership, civil roles, eternal-subordination arguments. - **False inference warning:** Complementarianism ranges from minimal office restriction to broad “patriarchal” role systems; one number is misleading without a subtype. ### ID-EGALITARIAN — Egalitarian - **Kind:** ministry/sex-role descriptor. - **Core:** spiritual gifts and church offices are open without sex-based restriction; marriage is ordered by mutual submission rather than unilateral male governing authority. - **Common:** redemptive-trajectory or local-problem readings of 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14; women apostles/teachers/prophets as counterevidence. - **Variable:** authority of Scripture, sexual ethics, head-covering practice, gender theory, church polity. - **False inference warning:** Egalitarianism does not entail a low view of Scripture or affirming same-sex ethics. ### ID-HIGH-CHURCH — High-church/sacramental - **Kind:** worship/ecclesial-style descriptor. - **Core:** strong visible-church, ordered-liturgy, sacramental, calendar, and ordained-ministry emphasis. - **Common:** weekly Eucharist; vestments; episcopal or priestly ministry; infant baptism; historic prayers and creeds. - **Variable:** Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, or even Reformed theology; papacy; number and mechanism of sacraments; Marian devotion. - **False inference warning:** Liturgical form does not determine justification, authority, or Eucharistic metaphysics. ### ID-LOW-CHURCH — Low-church/free-church - **Kind:** worship/ecclesial-style descriptor. - **Core:** simpler worship; stress on preaching, conversion, voluntary membership, and local congregation; rites often called ordinances. - **Common:** believer baptism, congregationalism, memorial emphasis, informal prayer. - **Variable:** sacramental depth, charismatic gifts, Calvinist/Arminian soteriology, weekly communion, formal liturgy. - **False inference warning:** “Low church” does not mean weak ecclesiology or anti-historical by definition. ### ID-NONDENOMINATIONAL — Non-denominational - **Kind:** organizational/branding descriptor. - **Core:** formal independence from a named denomination or avoidance of denominational branding. - **Common:** evangelical statement of faith; congregational or elder-led governance; believer baptism; contemporary worship; Baptist-like or charismatic theology. - **Variable:** nearly every doctrine in the catalog. - **False inference warning:** This label has very low doctrinal specificity and often conceals an implicit Baptist, dispensational, Reformed, or Pentecostal prototype. ### ID-CHRISTIAN-ZIONIST — Christian Zionist - **Kind:** eschatological/public-theology descriptor. - **Core:** modern Jewish return and/or the State of Israel has positive theological significance related to biblical land/restoration promises. - **Common:** dispensationalism; future national conversion/restoration; territorial promise not exhausted in Christ/church. - **Variable:** specific Israeli policies, rapture timing, willingness to criticize state actions, two-covenant theology (not entailed), premillennialism in all cases. - **False inference warning:** Exegetical belief about Israel’s future does not mechanically settle prudential foreign policy or justice for Palestinians. ### ID-THEONOMIC — Theonomic/Christian-reconstructionist - **Kind:** law/public-theology descriptor. - **Core:** enduring normative relevance of Mosaic civil law or its penal/general-equity principles for civil government under Christ. - **Common:** postmillennialism; covenant theology; regulative principle; Christian magistracy. - **Variable:** exact continuity of penalties, establishment, religious liberty, political method, church/state institutional separation. - **False inference warning:** Postmillennialism, Christian nationalism, and theonomy overlap in some circles but none entails the others. ### ID-TWO-KINGDOMS — Two-kingdoms - **Kind:** public-theology family descriptor. - **Core:** God rules church and civil/common life in distinguishable modes; the institutional church’s mandate and tools differ from the state’s and from Christians’ ordinary vocations. - **Common:** Lutheran or Reformed ancestry; narrow institutional-church mission; religious-liberty or natural-law reasoning. - **Variable:** how “spiritual” and “common” kingdoms relate, state establishment, political participation, Christian influence on law, transformational activity by individuals. - **False inference warning:** Two-kingdoms theology does not entail political quietism or moral neutrality. --- # IX. Cross-record logic and implementation appendix ## Cross-domain mirror nodes Several questions intentionally appear twice because a domain specialist needs a different option granularity. These true mirror pairs must share an evidence object or be merged during product implementation; they are not independent confirmations: - `ANTH-02` and `ANT-001`: human constitution. - `ANTH-03` and `ANT-002`: origin of the soul. - `GOD-03` and `PROV-001`: foreknowledge; the latter has finer modal options. - `GOD-04` and `PROV-002`: scope/mode of providence. - `HERM-02` and `ESC-HERM-01`: typological versus direct fulfillment. - `TRIN-01` and `PNE-09`: the *filioque*. - `PUBLIC-01` and `ECC-07`: church/civil authority. - `PUBLIC-02` and `MIS-04`: institutional mission and social action. - `PNE-04` and `CONV-006`: Spirit baptism viewed from pneumatology and conversion. - `BAP-01` and `BAP-002`: baptismal subjects. - `BAP-03` and `BAP-001`: baptismal efficacy. Recommended ingestion policy: choose one canonical display node, preserve the alternate record as a linked `domain_view`, and attach shared passage judgments to both through a single evidence-cluster ID. The following are **related clusters, not mirrors**. They may share a latent hermeneutical judgment and receive dependency edges, but must not receive `domain_view_of` or be collapsed into one question: - `HERM-01`, `ECC-03`, `LAW-001/004/007`, `ESC-FRM-01`, and `ESC-COV-01`: covenant continuity and Israel/church identity. - `PUBLIC-02`, `MIS-02`, and `MIS-04`: mission bearer, object, and social action. - `HERM-06`, `LAW-005/006/008`, and `SAB-01`: Mosaic law and Christian normativity. - `ETH-09` and `GEN-04`: head coverings, with the latter also modeling sex/headship. ## Flat high-leverage dependency catalog Each line is a conditional update suggestion, not a deterministic proof, unless explicitly marked `hard`. The `NODE=value` expressions below are deliberately human-readable display aliases, not guaranteed declared option IDs. In JSONL they are marked `machine_resolvable: false` and accompanied only by resolved `node_ids`. A deterministic implementation must curate an `option_group_id -> member_option_ids` alias map before turning these statements into executable updates. ### Authority and interpretive method - `DEP-001`: `AUTH-01=sola_scriptura_final_infallible_norm -> AUTH-02=protestant_39_book_ot` (`raises`, moderate; historical canon evidence remains necessary). - `DEP-002`: `AUTH-01=Scripture_and_authoritative_Tradition -> AUTH-03=bishops_magisterium_or_council` (`raises`, strong). - `DEP-003`: `AUTH-01=Scripture_and_authoritative_Tradition -> MARY-01, MARY-02, MARY-03, SAC-01=broader_sacramental_set, ECC-06=succession` (`raises`, strong). - `DEP-004`: `AUTH-04=low_secondary_doctrine_perspicuity -> credence_range_width_for_secondary_nodes` (`raises`, moderate). - `DEP-005`: `AUTH-05=robust_confessional_subscription -> historical_reception_weight` (`raises`, moderate); this does not replace exegesis. - `DEP-006`: `HERM-01=strong_covenant_continuity -> BAP-01=infant_household_subjects` (`raises`, strong). - `DEP-007`: `HERM-01=strong_covenant_continuity -> SAB-01=fourth_commandment_continues` (`raises`, moderate). - `DEP-008`: `HERM-01=strong_discontinuity -> believer_only_new_covenant_membership` (`raises`, strong). - `DEP-009`: `HERM-02=Christological_ecclesial_fulfillment_exhaustive -> ESC-ISR-03=land_typology and ESC-TEM-01=temple_typology` (`raises`, strong). - `DEP-010`: `HERM-02=future_direct_national_fulfillment -> ESC-ISR-01=continuing_national_program, ESC-TEM-01=future_sanctuary, ESC-MIL-01=premillennial` (`raises`, moderate to strong). - `DEP-011`: `HERM-03=symbolic_recapitulation -> ESC-REV-03=recapitulation and ESC-MIL-01=amil_or_postmil` (`raises`, strong/moderate). - `DEP-012`: `HERM-05=apostolic_pattern_normative -> PNE-04=postconversion_Spirit_baptism, SUP-05=weekly, SAC-04=foot_washing` (`raises`, varying); each practice still needs its own textual branch. - `DEP-013`: `HERM-06=threefold_law_moral_continuity -> SAB-01=continuing, ETH-08=tithe_baseline, PUBLIC-01=general_equity` (`raises`, varying). ### God, humanity, and salvation - `DEP-014`: `GOD-03=open_future x GOD-04=meticulous_exhaustive_decree` (`hard conflict` under ordinary definitions). - `DEP-015`: `GOD-04=meticulous_compatibilist_decree -> ELEC-002=unconditional_individual_election` (`raises`, strong but not entailment). - `DEP-016`: `ANT-003=representative_or_federal_Adam -> ANT-004=inherited_guilt` (`raises`, strong). - `DEP-017`: `ANT-005=total_moral_inability -> CALL-001=inward_effectual_call or ANT-007=prevenient_enabling_grace` (`raises` both as rival solutions). - `DEP-018`: `ANT-006=libertarian_freedom_required -> CALL-002=resistible_grace and ELEC-002=conditional_foreknown_faith` (`raises`, moderate/strong). - `DEP-019`: `ANT-007=universal_prevenient_grace -> CALL-002=resistible and ATN-004=universal_intent` (`raises`, strong/moderate). - `DEP-020`: `ELEC-002=unconditional_individual + CALL-001=effectual + CALL-002=ultimately_irresistible -> CONV-001=monergistic` (`raises`, strong). - `DEP-021`: `CONV-001=monergistic -> CONV-002=regeneration_logically_precedes_faith` (`raises`, strong but some monergists use simultaneous language). - `DEP-022`: `ATN-004=definite_saving_intent -> ATN-005=accomplished_application_for_elect` (`raises`, strong; distinguish intent, sufficiency, and application). - `DEP-023`: `ATN-002=penal_substitution + ATN-006=active_obedience -> JUS-002=imputed_righteousness` (`raises`, strong but union models can integrate them). - `DEP-024`: `JUS-001=forensic_only_as_definition x JUS-001=intrinsically_transformative_only_as_definition` (`hard conflict`); layered accounts may affirm declaration and transformation without conflation. - `DEP-025`: `JUS-003=faith_alone_instrument -> JUS-005=James_vindicatory_or_demonstrative and JUS-006=works_as_evidence` (`raises`, strong). - `DEP-026`: `JUS-003=faith_formed_by_love -> JUS-005 and JUS-006=works_in_final_justifying_assessment` (`raises`, moderate/strong). - `DEP-027`: `PER-001=unconditional_perseverance -> PER-002=warnings_as_means_or_false_profession` (`raises`, strong). - `DEP-028`: `PER-001=real_loss_possible -> PER-002=warnings_address_regenerate_danger` (`raises`, strong). - `DEP-029`: `SAN-002=entire_sanctification -> PER-005=assurance_by_Spirit_witness_and_holy_love` (`raises`, historical Wesleyan correlation, not entailment). - `DEP-030`: `BAP-03/BAP-001=baptism_instrumentally_regenerates -> CONV-002=faith_regeneration_order` (`constrains`, strong, especially for infants). ### Church, ministry, sacraments, Spirit, and worship - `DEP-031`: `ECC-06=historical_episcopal_succession_necessary -> GOV-01=episcopal, GOV-07=sacramental_ordination, SAC-03=authorized_successor_validity` (`raises`, strong). - `DEP-032`: `ECC-06=doctrinal_apostolicity_without_chain -> GOV-01=presbyterian_or_congregational` (`permits`; no positive entailment). - `DEP-033`: `GOV-02=elder_bishop_same_office -> GOV-01=presbyterian_or_congregational` (`raises`, strong). - `DEP-034`: `GOV-02=distinct_bishop_order -> GOV-01=episcopal` (`raises`, strong). - `DEP-035`: `BAP-01=infants_proper_subjects -> MEM-02=covenantal_or_sacramental_membership` (`raises`, strong). - `DEP-036`: `BAP-01=professors_only -> MEM-02=regenerate_professing_membership` (`raises`, strong). - `DEP-037`: `BAP-03=objective_covenant_or_regenerative_efficacy -> BAP-05=recognize_valid_infant_baptism and SAC-02=objective_efficacy` (`raises`, strong). - `DEP-038`: `BAP-01=infant + MEM-02=covenantal_membership -> SUP-04=paedocommunion` (`raises`, moderate); confirmation/fencing principles may counter-update. - `DEP-039`: `SUP-01=objective_real_presence -> SUP-03=fenced_or_closed_communion and SUP-05=high_frequency` (`raises`, moderate). - `DEP-040`: `SUP-06=propitiatory_repeat x ATN-005=once_for_all_cross_accomplishment` (`hard conflict` as defined); sacrificial memorial/representation is not necessarily a repeat. - `DEP-041`: `GEN-01=male_elders_only -> GEN-03` does **not** settle every teaching act; model preaching, elder authority, mixed classes, and prophecy separately. - `DEP-042`: `GEN-01=egalitarian_reading -> GEN-02=women_deacons and GEN-03=women_preaching` (`raises`, strong). - `DEP-043`: `PNE-01=cessation_of_revelatory_gifts -> PNE-02=CANONICAL-APOSTOLIC-PROPHECY-ONLY, PNE-05=no_governing_apostles, PNE-08=nonrevelatory_impressions` (`raises`, strong). - `DEP-044`: `PNE-01=continuation -> PNE-02=TRUE-REVELATION-FALLIBLE-REPORT or SPIRIT-PROMPTED-NONREVELATORY-IMPRESSION` (`raises`, moderate); continuation does not entail either model. - `DEP-045`: `PNE-04=Spirit_baptism_subsequent -> PNE-03=tongues_as_evidence` (`raises`, moderate); classical Pentecostal doctrine makes it strong, generic charismatic doctrine does not. - `DEP-046`: `PNE-02=new_universally_binding_doctrinal_or_covenantal_revelation_continues x AUTH-01=apostolic_deposit_closed` (`hard conflict` as defined). Other true but noncanonical, local, or non-doctrinal revelation claims create a softer tension whose strength depends on the prophecy model; Scripture itself records true prophecies that were not inscripturated. - `DEP-047`: `WOR-01=strict_regulative_principle -> WOR-03=psalms_or_canonical_songs, WOR-04=restricted_instruments, WOR-07=fewer_holy_days` (`raises`, varying). - `DEP-048`: `WOR-05=ICON-VENERATION -> AUTH-01=authoritative_tradition` (`raises`, strong); the Christological depictability question is the incarnation fork inside `WOR-05`, not the kenosis node `CHRIST-02`. - `DEP-049`: `SAB-01=fourth_command_continues + SAB-02=first_day -> SAB-03=restricted_ordinary_work` (`raises`, moderate). ### Eschatology - `DEP-050`: `ESC-REV-01=early_date -> ESC-REV-02=preterist_or_eclectic` (`raises`, moderate; early date does not entail preterism). - `DEP-051`: `ESC-REV-02=preterist -> ESC-BAB-01=Jerusalem_or_Rome_first_century, ESC-MARK-01=first_century_imperial_referent` (`raises`, strong). - `DEP-052`: `ESC-REV-03=sequential -> ESC-MIL-01=premillennial` (`raises`, strong). - `DEP-053`: `ESC-REV-03=recapitulation -> ESC-MIL-01=amil_or_postmil` (`raises`, strong). - `DEP-054`: `ESC-PAR-01=all_parousia_fulfilled x future_visible_bodily_return` (`hard conflict`); partial cloud-coming fulfillment is compatible with a future return. - `DEP-055`: `ESC-OLIV-02=generation_first_century -> ESC-OLIV-01=AD70_or_split_horizon` (`raises`, strong). - `DEP-056`: `ESC-DAN-01=gap_seventieth_week -> ESC-TRIB-01=future_seven_year and ESC-TEM-01=future_temple` (`raises`, strong). - `DEP-057`: `ESC-RAP-01=two_phase_return -> ESC-RAP-02=pre_mid_or_prewrath` (`permits/raises`, strong). - `DEP-058`: `ESC-RAP-01=one_public_return -> ESC-RAP-02=posttribulation` (`raises`, strong). - `DEP-059`: `ESC-MIL-02=first_resurrection_bodily -> ESC-MIL-01=premillennial and ESC-RES-01=multiple_resurrections` (`raises`, strong). - `DEP-060`: `ESC-MIL-02=regeneration_or_heavenly_reign -> ESC-MIL-01=amil_or_postmil` (`raises`, strong). - `DEP-061`: `ESC-MIL-03=Satan_presently_bound -> ESC-KING-01=gospel_expansion_possible` (`raises`, moderate; does not settle optimism degree). - `DEP-062`: `ESC-KING-01=worldwide_gospelized_era_before_return -> ESC-MIL-01=postmillennial` (`raises`, strong). - `DEP-063`: `ESC-ISR-02=FUTURE -> ESC-ISR-01.CONVERT or ESC-ISR-01.ROLE` (`raises`, strong) but does not by itself choose between those options or entail land, temple, millennium, or rapture views. - `DEP-064`: `ESC-ISR-03=territorial_restoration -> ESC-TEM-01=literal_future and ESC-MIL-01=premillennial` (`raises`, moderate, not entailment). - `DEP-065`: `ESC-MIL-01=premillennial + sequential_Revelation_20 -> ESC-RES-01=at_least_two_resurrections` (`near-hard constraint`). - `DEP-066`: `ESC-HELL-01=final_universal_reconciliation x irreversible_binary_final_judgment_reading` (`hard conflict`); the dispute concerns the semantic/exegetical premise. - `DEP-067`: `ESC-INT-01=soul_sleep -> MARY-03/saint_invocation` (`lowers`, strong). - `DEP-068`: `ESC-INT-02.PURG -> AUTH-02=deuterocanon and AUTH-01=Tradition` (`raises`, moderate/strong). - `DEP-069`: `ESC-NEW-01=renewal_continuity -> PUBLIC-02=creation_care_or_cultural_vocation` (`raises`, weak/moderate; eschatology does not directly specify a policy). ### Creation and ethics - `DEP-070`: `CREA-01=ordinary_consecutive_days -> CREA-02=young_earth` (`raises`, strong). - `DEP-071`: `CREA-03=universal_common_ancestry -> CREA-05=animal_death_before_fall` (`raises`, very strong). - `DEP-072`: `CREA-04=nonhistorical_Adam -> ANT-003=historical_federal_head` (`lowers`, strong). - `DEP-073`: `CREA-04=historical_representative_Adam -> ANT-003=federal_or_realist_solidarity` (`raises`, moderate; does not choose between them). - `DEP-074`: `ETH-01=no_valid_divorce -> ETH-02=no_remarriage_while_spouse_lives` (`raises`, strong). - `DEP-075`: `ETH-01=valid_divorce_for_porneia_or_abandonment -> ETH-02=innocent_party_may_remarry` (`raises`, moderate; the exception’s scope remains disputed). - `DEP-076`: `ETH-03=traditional_creation_order_reading -> GEN-01=male_eldership` (`historically correlated`, weak/moderate, not entailment). - `DEP-077`: `ETH-10=personhood_from_fertilization -> ETH-04=reject_methods_that_intentionally_or_predictably_destroy_embryos` (`constrains`, strong). - `DEP-078`: `ETH-06=nonresistance -> ETH-07=oppose_capital_punishment and PUBLIC-01=contrast_society` (`raises`, strong/moderate). - `DEP-079`: `PUBLIC-01=theonomic_magistracy -> HERM-06=Mosaic_civil_general_equity` (`raises`, strong). - `DEP-080`: `PUBLIC-02=narrow_institutional_mission -> individual_Christian_social_vocation` (no negative entailment; keep separate). - `DEP-081`: `ECC-08=papal_universal_jurisdiction_and_defined_infallibility -> AUTH-03=universal_magisterium and ECC-06=episcopal_succession` (`raises`, very strong); succession or Petrine prominence alone does not entail papal jurisdiction. - `DEP-082`: `MARR-01=asymmetrical_servant_headship -> GEN-01=male_eldership` (`raises`, moderate) but marital and ecclesial authority require separate exegesis. - `DEP-083`: `ANTH-04=embodied_sex_categories -> ETH-03=traditional_marriage_boundary and GEN-01=sex_specific_office` (`historically correlated`, varying, not entailment). - `DEP-084`: `ESC-HELL-02.HOPE-ALL -> ESC-HELL-01.UR` (no entailment); hopeful posture must not be counted as a second outcome argument. - `DEP-085`: `ESC-INT-02.PURG -> ESC-INT-04` (no entailment); purification of the saved and opportunity for the unsaved address different populations and may be estimated independently. ## Hard-constraint policy Only definitions and direct contradictions should zero out an option. Recommended examples: - `baptism_subjects=professing_believers_only` and `baptism_subjects=infants_as_proper_subjects` cannot both be the single answer on an exclusive subject node, though a person may be uncertain between them. - `one_public_return_with_no_phase` and `secret_pretrib_return_as_distinct_event` are incompatible as defined. - `salvation_can_finaly_be_lost` and `every_regenerate_person_infallibly_perseveres` are incompatible as universal claims. - `canonical_level_new_revelation_continues` and `all_public_normative_revelation_closed_with_apostles` are incompatible unless one of the terms is redefined. - `Christ_ceased_to_be_divine` conflicts with the creedal boundary; `Christ lived with genuine human limitations` does not. Do **not** hard-code these common but nonnecessary bundles: - Calvinist → Baptist or paedobaptist. - Paedobaptist → Presbyterian. - Premillennial → pretribulational. - Postmillennial → theonomic. - Complementarian → cessationist. - Egalitarian → affirming sexual ethic. - Charismatic → prosperity gospel. - Catholic → one particular theory of election. - Future conversion of Israel → modern-state policy. ## Suggested elicitation order 1. Record the user’s authority/canon/confession priors. 2. Ask the high-leverage hermeneutic nodes: covenant continuity, typology, apocalyptic default, narrative normativity, and Mosaic-law continuity. 3. Ask theology-proper and anthropology controls: foreknowledge/providence, Adamic headship, corruption/ability. 4. Elicit salvation in sequence: election/call, atonement, conversion, justification, perseverance, sanctification. 5. Elicit church in sequence: nature/apostolicity, polity/offices, baptism, membership/discipline, Eucharist, other rites. 6. Elicit pneumatology before downstream worship/guidance practices. 7. Elicit eschatological controls before labels: Revelation date/horizon/structure; Olivet/Daniel; millennium mechanics; then rapture and Israel subquestions. 8. Ask creation and moral/public questions independently where their evidence is substantially orthogonal. 9. Compute identity-descriptor fit only after component credences exist. 10. Show the user which upstream interpretation is doing the most work and offer a counterfactual: “If your confidence in this upstream reading fell by 20 points, what would happen downstream?” ## Range and normalization rules - For an exclusive node, point estimates must sum to 100%. - Credence ranges need not have endpoints that each sum to 100%, but they must be jointly feasible: for every option `i`, `lower_i <= upper_i`, `sum(lower_i) <= 100%`, and `sum(upper_i) >= 100%`. - Offer an `underdetermined_or_hybrid` option before silently renormalizing away uncertainty. - Store comparative statements as odds constraints. Example: `postmil:amil = 2:1`. - If the user later supplies `premil = 25%` and those are the only three options, normalize the remaining 75% in the 2:1 ratio: `postmil = 50%`, `amil = 25%`, `premil = 25%`. - For multi-select nodes, do not normalize across options; each motif or emphasis receives its own credence. - When a single text cluster drives several nodes, store one evidence observation and propagate conditional influence. Do not award a fresh likelihood multiplier at every downstream node. - Let users override suggested link direction/strength and preserve the reason for the override. ## Recommended record additions for an eventual data model - `option_id` - `display_name` - `plain_definition` - `mutual_exclusion_group` - `core_text_clusters` - `interpretive_forks` - `upstream_links` - `downstream_links` - `hard_conflicts` - `soft_correlations` - `historical_reception_summary` - `source_channel_weights` - `point_credence` - `credence_lower` - `credence_upper` - `descriptor_fit_weights` - `user_rationale` - `counterevidence_that_would_move_me` - `last_revised` ## Calibration sources for denominational prototypes These are orientation sources for label definitions, not an extra layer of inspired evidence: - [Westminster Confession with Scripture proofs — Orthodox Presbyterian Church](https://opc.org/WCF-WIP.html) - [Canons of Dort — Christian Reformed Church](https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/confessions/canons-dort) - [Baptist Faith and Message 2000 — Southern Baptist Convention](https://bfm.sbc.net/bfm2000/) - [Brief Statement of Doctrinal Position — Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod](https://www.lcms.org/about/beliefs/doctrine/brief-statement-of-lcms-doctrinal-position) - [To Be a Christian: An Anglican Catechism — Anglican Church in North America](https://anglicanchurch.net/catechism/) - [Articles of Religion — The Wesleyan Church](https://www.wesleyan.org/about/articles-of-religion) - [Statement of Fundamental Truths — Assemblies of God USA](https://ag.org/en/Beliefs/Statement-of-Fundamental-Truths) - [Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective — Mennonite Church USA](https://www.mennoniteusa.org/who-are-mennonites/what-we-believe/confession-of-faith/) - [Catechism of the Catholic Church](https://www.vatican.va/content/catechism/en.html) - [The Orthodox Faith — Orthodox Church in America](https://www.oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith) - [28 Fundamental Beliefs — Seventh-day Adventist Church](https://adventist.org/en/beliefs) ## Scope cautions for an agent building the tool - The catalog is conservative-framework-compatible but intentionally includes adjacent contested options so users can state why they assign them low probability. - “Historically common” and “exegetically likely” are separate claims. - A denomination’s official confession, a congregation’s practice, and a member’s actual beliefs are three different objects. - Catholic and Orthodox positions should be represented in their own terms rather than reconstructed as defective Protestant answers; their authority premise is itself an explicit upstream node. - Minority readings should not be erased, but a tool need not give every reading an equal default prior. - Do not turn credence sharing into a spiritual ranking, orthodoxy score, or social-pressure mechanism. - Always display the proposition next to the percentage. A naked percentage attached to a label is too ambiguous to be useful.