Verdict changes under the source-proximity principle
Verdict changes under the source-proximity principle
Verdict changes under the source-proximity principle
Back to conventions · scoring
All 37 questions were re-weighed (Step X.4 in each reasoning file). Most verdicts did not change: they report what the fathers taught, and the re-weighing changes how much each one counts, not what it says. Four verdicts changed:
| Question | Old verdict | New verdict | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| I1 | Early diversity; settled in favour of icons in 787; Incarnation argument answers Deut 4 | Scripture permits made images (cherubim) but forbids representing the invisible God; no T1–T2 support for images in worship; early evidence hostile (Epiphanius); settled only in 787 (T4) | The pro-icon sources are all T4. The only earlier datable witness is hostile. The old wording hid that a 787 settlement lacks early support. |
| I2 | προσκύνησις/λατρεία distinction coherent; application to icons a 7th–8th-c. development | The distinction applied to images has no biblical warrant (Exod 20:5) and no T1–T3 support; a T4 development | Scripture now leads the weighing, and Exod 20:5 (LXX) addresses bowing to images directly. The old weighing leaned on the Gen 23:7 lexical point, which concerns persons. Patristic overrides for I2 adjusted: Catholic and Orthodox 4→3, Presbyterian 1→2, Lutheran 1→2 (see overrides). |
| S3 | Split: Augustine’s unconditional election vs. the earlier foreknowledge line; no double decree | Split in the fathers; Scripture favours election by God’s purpose (Rom 9:11–16; Eph 1:5, 11); no double decree in either | The patristic split stands, and no T1 text was verified. The benchmark reading is now stated. Corporate readings of Rom 9 were weighed and judged weaker given 9:15–16. Confidence stays medium. |
| L3 | Post-mortem purification assumed; not the later defined purgatory (Med–high) | Taught from Augustine (T3), anticipated in a T2 vision; no clear Scripture basis (Medium) | ‘Assumed’ overstated the early evidence. Perpetua’s vision is not doctrine, and 1 Cor 3 is a Day-of-judgment testing of works. |
Later positions that lack early or biblical support (verdicts unchanged)
- Trent VI canon 24 (works increase justification) and Dositheus 13 (works ‘meriting’): no T1–T2 or biblical support (Q2.4).
- Imputation of Christ’s active obedience (Presbyterian/Lutheran): neither Scripture nor any tier states it explicitly (Q6.4).
- Damnation of unbaptized infants (Augustine, T3) (B4.4).
- Propitiatory re-offering in the Mass (Trent XXII): against ἐφάπαξ, and later than the T1 ‘sacrifice’ language (E2.4).
- Transubstantiation as a metaphysical account (E3.4).
- Anselm’s honour-satisfaction (A4.4).
- Modern Orthodox denial of any inherited liability (O2.4).
- Relic veneration as τιμή distinct from λατρεία: explicit only from T3 (R2.4).
- Denial of ordinary assurance (Trent VI canon 16) against 1 John 5:13 (S4.4).
- Purgatory as defined (Florence/Trent) (L3.4).
Positions where the early and biblical evidence runs against a Protestant position are listed in scoring §3d (B1, E1, R3, B3 immersion).