CLASSIFICATIONS.md — etc7-17: God's Character and Justice¶

Per-item audit trail using Classification Decision Trees (Trees 3-5) with tool-verified parsing for Gate 2.

E-Item Classifications¶

E3 (Psa 103:9) -- "He will not always chide: neither will he keep his anger for ever" -- Classified: Cond.¶

Step 1 Vocabulary Scan: V1 -- no destruction vocabulary. V2 -- no conscious-torment vocabulary. However, the verse explicitly denies perpetual divine anger. The denial of perpetual wrath has directional relevance: it limits the duration of divine anger, which bears on the fate question.
Re-assessment: This is not V1/V2 vocabulary per se. The statement is about the duration of divine wrath. A denial of perpetual wrath is consistent with conditionalist direction (wrath ends) and inconsistent with ECT direction (wrath is eternal). Candidate: Cond.
Step 2 Validation Gates:
Gate 1 (Subject): Subject is God (YHWH). Statement is about God's character/behavior toward humans generally. PASS.
Gate 2 (Grammar): Parser output: lo (neg) + la-netsach (to perpetuity) + yariv (Qal Impf 3ms, "contend"); ve-lo (and not) + le-olam (to eternity) + yittor (Qal Impf 3ms from natar, "be angry/keep"). Two synonymous parallel clauses, both negated, both with durational adverbs (netsach, olam). Grammar unambiguously supports "will not contend forever / will not keep anger forever." PASS.
Gate 3 (Genre): Psalmic poetry — worship/devotional. Didactic in function (teaching about God's character). PASS.
Gate 4 (Harmony): Consistent with E6 (Mic 7:18 — retains not anger forever), E8 (Isa 57:16 — not contend forever). No conflicting E-items. PASS.
Result: All gates pass. Classification: Cond. stands.

E6 (Mic 7:18) -- "He retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in mercy" -- Classified: Cond.¶

Step 1 Vocabulary Scan: Denial of perpetual anger + statement that God delights in chesed. Directional: wrath is temporary, mercy is God's delight. Candidate: Cond.
Step 2 Validation Gates:
Gate 1 (Subject): Subject is God. Statement about His character. PASS.
Gate 2 (Grammar): Parser output: lo (neg) + hecheziq (Hiphil Perf 3ms from chazaq, "be strong" — Hiphil = "to hold fast/retain") + la-ad (to perpetuity) + appo (his anger, from aph + 3ms suffix). Ki (because) + chaphets (Qal Ptcp, "desires/delights") + chesed (loyalty/mercy) + hu (he). Grammar is unambiguous: "He does not hold fast his anger forever because he delights in chesed." PASS.
Gate 3 (Genre): Prophetic — direct teaching about God's character. PASS.
Gate 4 (Harmony): Consistent with E3 (Psa 103:9) and E8 (Isa 57:16). No conflict. PASS.
Result: All gates pass. Classification: Cond. stands.

E8 (Isa 57:16) -- "I will not contend for ever, neither will I be always wroth: for the spirit should fail before me, and the souls which I have made" -- Classified: Cond.¶

Step 1 Vocabulary Scan: Denial of perpetual contention/wrath + anthropological reason (spirits would fail). Candidate: Cond.
Step 2 Validation Gates:
Gate 1 (Subject): Speaker is God (1st person). Subject of the wrath limitation is God Himself. PASS.
Gate 2 (Grammar): Parser output: ki (conj) + lo (neg) + le-olam (to eternity) + ariv (Qal Impf 1s, "I contend"); ve-lo (and not) + la-netsach (to perpetuity) + eqtsoph (Qal Impf 1s from qatsaph, "I am angry"). Ki (because) + ruach (spirit/wind) + milliphanay (from before me) + yaatoph (Qal Impf 3ms from ataph, "faint/be overwhelmed"); u-neshamoth (and breaths/souls) + ani (I) + asithi (Qal Perf 1s, "I made"). Grammar unambiguously: "I will not contend forever, nor be angry perpetually, because the spirit would faint before me, and the souls that I have made." The anthropological reason (human spirits would fail) is part of the explicit statement. PASS.
Gate 3 (Genre): Prophetic direct speech ("I will not..."). Didactic. PASS.
Gate 4 (Harmony): Consistent with E3 and E6. No conflict. PASS.
Result: All gates pass. Classification: Cond. stands.

E16 (Ezek 18:4,20) -- "The soul that sinneth, it shall die" -- Classified: Cond.¶

Step 1 Vocabulary Scan: V1 -- "die" (muth) = death/cessation vocabulary applied to the wicked (the sinning soul). Candidate: Cond.
Step 2 Validation Gates:
Gate 1 (Subject): "The soul [nephesh] that sins" — generic human subject. PASS.
Gate 2 (Grammar): Parser output (Ezek 18:4): ha-nephesh (the soul, fs Abs) + ha-chotet (Qal Ptcp fs from chata, "the one sinning") + hi (she/it) + tamuth (Qal Impf 3fs from muth, "she shall die"). Grammar is unambiguous: the subject is nephesh (soul), the predicate is tamuth (shall die). The soul itself dies. PASS.
Gate 3 (Genre): Prophetic didactic — God's direct speech about individual justice. PASS.
Gate 4 (Harmony): Consistent with E17 (Gen 2:17 — mot tamut), E34 (Rom 6:23 — wages of sin is death), E53 (Jas 1:15 — sin brings forth death). No conflicting E-item. PASS.
Result: All gates pass. Classification: Cond. stands.

E31 (2 Pet 3:9) -- "Not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" -- Classified: Cond.¶

Step 1 Vocabulary Scan: V1 -- "perish" (apollymi) = destruction vocabulary. The fate God wants to prevent is apollymi. Candidate: Cond.
Step 2 Validation Gates:
Gate 1 (Subject): "Any" (tinas) — generic human subject. PASS.
Gate 2 (Grammar): Parser output: me (neg) + boulomenos (Pres M/P Ptcp Nom Sg M from boulomai, "wishing/willing") + tinas (Acc Pl M, "any/some") + apolesthai (Aor Mid Inf from apollymi, "to perish"). Grammar unambiguous: God is "not wishing any to perish." The infinitive apolesthai is aorist middle — punctiliar, referring to the act of perishing. PASS.
Gate 3 (Genre): Epistle — didactic. PASS.
Gate 4 (Harmony): Consistent with E33 (John 3:16 — not perish), E34 (Rom 6:23 — wages = death), E44 (2 Thess 1:9 — everlasting destruction). No conflict. PASS.
Result: All gates pass. Classification: Cond. stands.

E33 (John 3:16-17) -- "whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life... God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world" -- Classified: Cond.¶

Step 1 Vocabulary Scan: V1 -- "perish" (apollymi) = destruction vocabulary. The binary is perish vs. eternal life. Candidate: Cond.
Step 2 Validation Gates:
Gate 1 (Subject): "Whosoever believeth" / "the world" — generic human subjects. PASS.
Gate 2 (Grammar): Parser output: pas ho pisteuon (pres act ptcp, "everyone believing") + me apoletai (Aor Mid Subj 3s from apollymi, "should not perish") + all' (but) + eche (Pres Act Subj, "may have") + zoen aionion (eternal life). Grammar unambiguous: the contrast is between apollymi (perish) and zoe aionios (eternal life). Two mutually exclusive outcomes. PASS.
Gate 3 (Genre): Gospel narrative — Jesus' direct teaching (didactic). PASS.
Gate 4 (Harmony): Consistent with E34 (Rom 6:23 — death vs. life), E31 (2 Pet 3:9 — not willing any perish). No conflict. PASS.
Result: All gates pass. Classification: Cond. stands.

E34 (Rom 6:23) -- "The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life" -- Classified: Cond.¶

Step 1 Vocabulary Scan: V1 -- "death" (thanatos) = death/cessation vocabulary as the penalty for sin. Candidate: Cond.
Step 2 Validation Gates:
Gate 1 (Subject): Generic — "sin" produces death for sinners generally. PASS.
Gate 2 (Grammar): Parser output: ta opsonia (Nom Pl N, "the wages") + tes hamartias (Gen Sg F, "of sin") + thanatos (Nom Sg M, "death"). To de charisma (Nom Sg N, "but the gift") + tou Theou (Gen Sg M, "of God") + zoe aionios (Nom Sg F, "eternal life"). Grammar is a verbless equative clause: wages of sin = death. Gift of God = eternal life. The two are in explicit antithetical parallelism. PASS.
Gate 3 (Genre): Epistle — didactic. PASS.
Gate 4 (Harmony): Consistent with E16 (Ezek 18:4 — soul dies), E17 (Gen 2:17 — mot tamut), E33 (John 3:16 — perish vs. life), E53 (Jas 1:15 — sin brings death). No conflict. PASS.
Result: All gates pass. Classification: Cond. stands.

E42 (2 Pet 2:6) -- "Turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes... making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly" -- Classified: Cond.¶

Step 1 Vocabulary Scan: V1 -- "ashes" (tephroo = to turn to ashes) = destruction vocabulary. "Ensample" (hupodeigma) = this is the paradigm for future judgment. Candidate: Cond.
Step 2 Validation Gates:
Gate 1 (Subject): Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and their inhabitants — literal historical entities. PASS.
Gate 2 (Grammar): Parser output: tephrosus (Aor Act Ptcp Nom Sg M from tephroo, "having turned to ashes") + katastrophe (Dat Sg F, "with overthrow") + katekrinen (Aor Act Ind 3s from katakrino, "condemned"). Hupodeigma (Acc Sg N, "example/pattern") + mellonton (Pres Act Ptcp Gen Pl M from mello, "of those about to") + asebein (Pres Act Inf from asebeo, "live ungodly") + tetheikos (Perf Act Ptcp Nom Sg M from tithemi, "having set/placed"). Grammar unambiguous: God condemned Sodom by turning them to ashes, having set them as a paradigm for future ungodly. The aorist participle tephrosus denotes completed action. PASS.
Gate 3 (Genre): Epistle — didactic. PASS.
Gate 4 (Harmony): Consistent with E58 (Jude 1:7 — eternal fire → ashes), E59 (Isa 34:10 — smoke forever but animals dwell). No conflict. PASS.
Result: All gates pass. Classification: Cond. stands.

E44 (2 Thess 1:9) -- "Everlasting destruction" (olethros aionios) -- Classified: Cond.¶

Step 1 Vocabulary Scan: V1 -- "destruction" (olethros) = destruction vocabulary. Candidate: Cond.
Step 2 Validation Gates:
Gate 1 (Subject): "Those who know not God and obey not the gospel" (v.8) — generic human wicked. PASS.
Gate 2 (Grammar): Parser output: hoitines (Nom Pl M, "who indeed") + diken (Acc Sg F from dike, "penalty/justice") + tisousin (Fut Act Ind 3P from tino, "they shall pay") + olethron (Acc Sg M from olethros, "destruction") + aionion (Acc Sg M from aionios, "everlasting/age-lasting"). Grammar: the penalty (dike) they will pay is olethros aionios (everlasting destruction). Paul chose olethros (destruction, G3639), not basanismos (torment, G929). The word is in accusative as the content of the penalty. PASS.
Gate 3 (Genre): Epistle — didactic. PASS.
Gate 4 (Harmony): Consistent with E34 (Rom 6:23 — wages = death), E16 (Ezek 18:4 — soul dies), E33 (John 3:16 — perish vs. life). No conflict. PASS.
Result: All gates pass. Classification: Cond. stands.

E46 (Matt 10:28) -- "God is able to destroy both soul and body in gehenna" -- Classified: Cond.¶

Step 1 Vocabulary Scan: V1 -- "destroy" (apollymi) = destruction vocabulary applied to soul and body. Candidate: Cond.
Step 2 Validation Gates:
Gate 1 (Subject): Generic human — "soul and body" of the wicked in gehenna. PASS.
Gate 2 (Grammar): Parser output: ton dunamenon (Pres M/P Ptcp Acc Sg M from dunamai, "the one being able") + kai psychen kai soma (both soul and body) + apolesai (Aor Act Inf from apollymi, "to destroy"). Apollymi is aorist active infinitive — punctiliar aspect (completed action). The verb is apollymi (G622, "to destroy fully"), not basanizo (G928, "to torment"). The kai...kai construction ("both...and") emphasizes totality. PASS.
Gate 3 (Genre): Gospel — Jesus' direct teaching (didactic). PASS.
Gate 4 (Harmony): Consistent with E34 (Rom 6:23), E44 (2 Thess 1:9), E16 (Ezek 18:4). No conflict. PASS.
Result: All gates pass. Classification: Cond. stands.

E47 (Heb 10:27) -- "A fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries" -- Classified: Cond.¶

Step 1 Vocabulary Scan: V1 -- "devour" (esthio = eat/consume) = destruction/consumption vocabulary. Candidate: Cond.
Step 2 Validation Gates:
Gate 1 (Subject): "The adversaries" (tous hupenantious) — generic human opponents. PASS.
Gate 2 (Grammar): Parser output: puros (Gen Sg N from pur, "of fire") + zelos (Nom Sg N, "zeal/jealousy/indignation") + esthiein (Pres Act Inf from esthio, "to eat/devour") + mellontos (Pres Act Ptcp Gen Sg N from mello, "being about to") + tous hupenantious (Acc Pl M, "the adversaries"). Grammar: fire-indignation is "about to devour" the adversaries. Esthio means "to eat, consume, devour." The genitive absolute construction mellontos esthiein = "which is about to devour." PASS.
Gate 3 (Genre): Epistle — didactic (Hebrews' warning passage). PASS.
Gate 4 (Harmony): Consistent with E34, E44, E46. No conflict. PASS.
Result: All gates pass. Classification: Cond. stands.

E52 (Psa 145:17,20) -- "The LORD is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works... but all the wicked will he destroy" -- Classified: Cond.¶

Step 1 Vocabulary Scan: V1 -- "destroy" (shamad, Hiphil) = destruction vocabulary applied to the wicked. Candidate: Cond.
Step 2 Validation Gates:
Gate 1 (Subject): "All the wicked" (kol ha-reshaim) — generic human wicked. PASS.
Gate 2 (Grammar): Parser output: shomer (Qal Ptcp ms from shamar, "keeps/preserves") + YHWH + et kol ohavav (all who love him); ve-et kol ha-reshaim (and all the wicked) + yashmid (Hiphil Impf 3ms from shamad, "he will destroy"). Shamad in Hiphil = causative destruction ("cause to be destroyed"). The verb is unambiguous: shamad = "to destroy, exterminate." PASS.
Gate 3 (Genre): Psalmic — worship/teaching. Didactic function. PASS.
Gate 4 (Harmony): Consistent with E16 (soul dies), E34 (wages = death), E44 (everlasting destruction). No conflict. PASS.
Result: All gates pass. Classification: Cond. stands.

N-Item Classifications¶

N1 -- "God's self-revealed character places mercy as predominant over judgment: 6 mercy-attributes vs 2 justice-attributes, mercy to thousands vs judgment to 3rd/4th generation" -- Based on: E1, E2 -- Classified: Neutral¶

Gate 0 (Foundation):
N-Test 1 (Universal agreement): Would a scholar from the opposite position agree? YES — the attribute count (6 vs 2) and scope terms (thousands vs 3-4) are arithmetic observations both sides must accept. PASS.
N-Test 2 (No interpretation): Is this the only possible conclusion? YES — counting attributes and comparing "thousands" to "third and fourth" is arithmetic, not interpretation. PASS.
N-Test 3 (Zero added concepts): Does this add anything beyond E1 and E2? NO — it restates the numerical ratio that is in the text itself. PASS.
Step 1 Vocabulary Scan: V1 — no destruction vocabulary. V2 — no conscious-torment vocabulary. Neither applies.
Result: Classification: Neutral stands. This is an observation both sides accept about the text's structure.

N2 -- "Biblical punishment is proportional to deeds — stated in 11+ passages across 9 authors, both testaments" -- Based on: E11, E22, E24, E25, E26, E27, E28, E29, E30, E49, E57 -- Classified: Neutral¶

Gate 0 (Foundation):
N-Test 1 (Universal agreement): Would an ECT scholar agree? YES — ECT scholars do not deny that the Bible teaches proportional judgment. They attempt to reconcile proportionality with ECT (e.g., degrees of torment). Both sides accept the principle. PASS.
N-Test 2 (No interpretation): Is proportionality the only reading? YES — "according to deeds," "many/few stripes," "more tolerable," "just recompense," "for the wrong done" — each passage independently states proportionality. PASS.
N-Test 3 (Zero added concepts): Does this add beyond the E-items? NO — it notes the pattern across the cited passages. PASS.
Step 1 Vocabulary Scan: Neither V1 nor V2. Proportionality is a principle, not destruction or torment vocabulary.
Result: Classification: Neutral stands. Both sides accept proportionality as a biblical principle.

N3 -- "The stated penalty for sin is death (thanatos/muth), not torment (basanizo)" -- Based on: E16, E17, E18, E34, E53 -- Classified: Cond.¶

Gate 0 (Foundation):
N-Test 1 (Universal agreement): Would an ECT scholar necessarily agree? This is the critical test. ECT scholars redefine "death" as "separation from God" (conscious existence apart from God), not cessation. However, the N-item states what the penalty IS CALLED — death/thanatos/muth. It does not state what death MEANS. Both sides must agree that the penalty is NAMED "death" and NOT named "torment." YES — the naming is a textual fact. PASS.
N-Test 2 (No interpretation): Does this require choosing between meanings? NO — the observation is about which word appears (thanatos/muth), not about what it means. The text SAYS "death," not "torment." PASS.
N-Test 3 (Zero added concepts): Does this add beyond the E-items? NO — each E-item names the penalty as death. The N-item notes the pattern. PASS.
Step 1 Vocabulary Scan: V1 — "death" = cessation vocabulary. Candidate: Cond.
Step 2 Validation Gates:
Gate 1 (Subject): Generic — applies to human sinners. PASS.
Gate 2 (Grammar): Each source E-item verified by parser (see E16, E34 above). PASS.
Gate 3 (Genre): Source passages span didactic genres (Torah, prophetic direct speech, epistle, epistle). PASS.
Gate 4 (Harmony): No E-item names the penalty as "torment." PASS.
Result: Classification: Cond. stands. The penalty IS named death, and this naming uses cessation/death vocabulary.

N4 -- "God's anger is explicitly described as temporary: 'not for ever' (Psa 103:9, Isa 57:16, Mic 7:18)" -- Based on: E3, E6, E8 -- Classified: Cond.¶

Gate 0 (Foundation):
N-Test 1 (Universal agreement): Would an ECT scholar agree these passages say God's anger is not forever? ECT scholars argue these apply to Israel, not eschatological wrath. But the N-item states what the passages SAY — they explicitly deny perpetual divine anger. An ECT scholar could restrict the application but cannot deny the texts say this. YES — the textual observation stands. PASS.
N-Test 2 (No interpretation): Is this the only reading? YES — "not forever" is unambiguous in each passage. PASS.
N-Test 3 (Zero added concepts): Does this add beyond E3, E6, E8? NO — it notes the pattern across three passages. PASS.
Step 1 Vocabulary Scan: Denial of perpetual wrath = Cond. direction. V1 relevance: the limitation of wrath duration is relevant to whether wrath is eternal.
Step 2 Validation Gates:
Gate 1: Subject is God. PASS.
Gate 2: Parser verified for each source (see E3, E6, E8 above). PASS.
Gate 3: Psalm, prophecy, prophecy — didactic. PASS.
Gate 4: No E-item states that God's anger IS forever. PASS.
Result: Classification: Cond. stands.

N5 -- "Every recorded divine judgment in Scripture results in death/destruction — none results in ongoing torment" -- Based on: E42, E48, E58, E59 -- Classified: Neutral¶

Gate 0 (Foundation):
N-Test 1 (Universal agreement): Would an ECT scholar agree? YES — ECT scholars do not claim the flood, Sodom, or Nadab/Abihu resulted in ongoing torment in this life. They agree these judgments produced physical death/destruction. They argue the eternal state differs from historical judgments. Both sides accept the historical pattern. PASS.
N-Test 2 (No interpretation): Is this the only reading? YES — checking the result of each judgment is observation, not interpretation. PASS.
N-Test 3 (Zero added concepts): NO — it notes the pattern across the cited passages. PASS.
Step 1 Vocabulary Scan: V1 — destruction/death vocabulary across the pattern. V2 — none. However, this is an observation that both sides accept as historical fact.
Result: Classification: Neutral stands. Both sides accept that historical judgments resulted in death; the disagreement is whether eschatological judgment differs.

N6 -- "God does not take pleasure in executing the death penalty on the wicked — stated three times, once at oath level" -- Based on: E13, E14, E15 -- Classified: Neutral¶

Gate 0 (Foundation):
N-Test 1 (Universal agreement): Would an ECT scholar agree? YES — ECT scholars do not claim God takes pleasure in the wicked's death. Both sides accept that God does not delight in judgment. PASS.
N-Test 2 (No interpretation): Is this the only reading? YES — three passages state this directly. PASS.
N-Test 3 (Zero added concepts): NO addition beyond the E-items. PASS.
Step 1 Vocabulary Scan: Neither V1 nor V2 directly. This is about God's disposition, not the fate vocabulary.
Result: Classification: Neutral stands. Both sides accept God does not delight in judgment.

I-Item Classifications¶

I1 -- "Infinite conscious torment for finite sin is inconsistent with the biblical principle of proportional justice" -- Type: I-A -- Classified: Cond.¶

Source test: All components from E/N tables? YES — draws on E11, E22, E24-30, E49, E57, N2 (all proportionality passages). Text-derived.
Direction test: Aligns with E/N items (proportionality principle)? YES — does not require any E/N statement to mean something other than its lexical value.
Consistency check: Only requires criterion #5 (systematizing multiple proportionality texts into a conclusion). Does not require #1, #2, or #3.
Result: Type I-A confirmed. Position: Cond.

I2 -- "Destruction (cessation) as the final fate is consistent with God's self-revealed character of mercy, temporary anger, and the stated penalty of death" -- Type: I-A -- Classified: Cond.¶

Source test: All components from E/N tables? YES — character (E1-E2, N1), wrath duration (E3, E6, E8, N4), penalty (E16, E34, N3), destruction (E42, E44). Text-derived.
Direction test: Aligns with E/N items? YES — each component is from the text's own vocabulary.
Consistency check: Only requires criterion #5 (systematizing character + penalty + duration texts).
Result: Type I-A confirmed. Position: Cond.

I3 -- "The 'no more death' promise (Rev 21:4) is incompatible with ECT" -- Type: I-A -- Classified: Cond.¶

Source test: All components from E/N tables? YES — E35 (Rev 21:4), E20 (1 Cor 15:26), E54 (Isa 25:8), E55 (Rev 20:14). Text-derived.
Direction test: Aligns with E/N items? YES — the texts say no more death/sorrow/pain; the inference draws the logical consequence for any ongoing death/suffering.
Consistency check: Only requires criterion #5 (systematizing the "no more death" constellation into a compatibility conclusion).
Result: Type I-A confirmed. Position: Cond.

I4 -- "Christ's penalty on the cross was death, not eternal torment; this reveals the nature of the penalty for sin" -- Type: I-A -- Classified: Cond.¶

Source test: All components from E/N tables? YES — E41 (Christ died), E34 (wages = death), E40 (demonstration of righteousness), N3 (penalty = death). Text-derived.
Direction test: Aligns with E/N items? YES — does not require any text to mean other than its lexical value.
Consistency check: Only requires criterion #5 (systematizing cross + penalty texts).
Result: Type I-A confirmed. Position: Cond.

I5 -- "ECT reverses the biblical temporal asymmetry between wrath and mercy" -- Type: I-A -- Classified: Cond.¶

Source test: All components from E/N tables? YES — E9 (Psa 30:5), E10 (Isa 54:7-8), E3 (Psa 103:9), N4 (anger temporary). Text-derived.
Direction test: Aligns with E/N items? YES — the texts state wrath is momentary and mercy lasting.
Consistency check: Only requires criterion #5 (systematizing temporal asymmetry texts into an implication about ECT).
Result: Type I-A confirmed. Position: Cond.

I6 -- "The Anselmian argument is not found in Scripture" -- Type: I-C -- Classified: Neutral¶

Source test: The claim is about the ABSENCE of a concept from the text. The absence observation draws on E/N items (proportionality texts), but the Anselmian framework itself is external. External.
Direction test: Does this override any E/N statement? NO — it notes the absence of a reasoning pattern, which is compatible with all E/N items.
Result: Type I-C confirmed (Compatible External — an observation from outside the text that does not contradict anything in it). Position: Neutral (observational).

I7 -- "God's holiness demands ECT as the necessary consequence of sin" -- Type: I-D -- Classified: ECT-direction¶

Source test: Components from E/N tables? NO — the concept "holiness requires infinite punishment" is external. No text states this. External.
Direction test: Does this override any E/N statement? YES — it overrides E16 (soul that sins dies), E34 (wages = death), E48 (holiness violations → death), E52 (wicked destroyed). Every holiness violation in the text produces death, not ECT. This claim requires redefining the stated penalty.
Result: Type I-D confirmed (Counter-Evidence External). Position: ECT-direction.

I8 -- "God's statements about not retaining anger 'for ever' apply only to His covenant people" -- Type: I-C -- Classified: ECT-direction¶

Source test: All components from E/N tables? The limitation is external — the texts do not state "for Israel only." External.
Direction test: Does this override any E/N statement? NO — it adds a scope qualifier the text does not state, but does not require any E/N statement to mean something other than what it says. It claims the statements have a limited application beyond what the text specifies.
Result: Type I-C confirmed (Compatible External). Position: ECT-direction.

I9 -- "The redeemed's affirmation of God's justice confirms that God's actual method of judgment is recognized as just and true" -- Type: I-B -- Classified: Neutral¶

Source test: Components from E/N tables? YES — E36-E39 (affirmations of justice). Text-derived.
Direction test: Does this claim require any E/N statement to mean something other than its lexical value? Both sides can claim the redeemed would affirm justice under their model. The text does not specify what judgment method the redeemed are affirming. YES — choosing which model the affirmation supports requires interpretation.
FOR: E36-E39 (redeemed affirm justice), E50 (Psa 89:14 — justice foundation of throne).
AGAINST: No E/N items oppose the affirmation itself — the tension is in what judgment model the affirmation covers.
Result: Type I-B confirmed (both sides claim the redeemed's affirmation under their model). Position: Neutral (the affirmation itself is not directional without specifying the judgment model).