The Principled Legal Standard for the First Genuine Doctrinal Reformation of the Church

The Standard for Legal Proof in God's Court

God does not leave any verdict open to appeal. He does not try half of the evidence in a case or half of the possible arguments. An appeal in God's court would be an error due to the failure of God to properly and completely try or weigh a legal issue. God's judgment or verdict is also a declarative statement, in which the truth concerning a particular issue has been found, the issue fully tried in all respects possible and the judgment or verdict legally obtained. The idea that an appeal is possible is an admission that the truth of a matter is yet to be arrived at, since other legally plausible explanations are still possible, and therefore doubt still exists. If one were to bring up a possible avenue of defense, testimony or evidence left untried after a verdict was reached, God would be found to have been falsely stating that the matter had been fully weighed and reconciled. Because of this, God refuses to allow any testimony, evidence, possible argument or avenue of defense to go untried, even if He has to bring up the issue Himself. It is not the defendant's responsibility to try every possible defense. Rather, it is the court's responsibility to fully try a case, considering every legal avenue of defense. Additionally, it is the court's responsibility to confirm by legal examination the lawful status of a subject of the court, so that nothing is left untried or legally unconfirmed. Could this be the reason God brought up the case of Job to Satan? If God were to leave evidence or possible arguments untried and render a verdict in the case, it would be an act of wrongdoing or sin. An act such as this would be unloving, uncaring, illegal, immoral, unrighteous and so forth, according to the passunmeno principle. Another problem could develop perhaps at a much later date. A third party may question God's verdict in a particular case, pointing out a possible defense or argument not disproven, resulting in a second rebellion. It is beneficial for all that God refuse to do anything less than weigh all arguments, motions, evidence and testimony in a court case, in order to avoid complications that may later develop. The objective or standard in trying a matter is to end or resolve it. If I were to ask which way is the best way to try a case, partially or completely, with doubt or without, before reaching a verdict, naturally your response must be the latter, as the former is indefensible.

As much as God calls for us to have faith in Him, and we do because He is trustworthy and good and we perceive it, faith is not accepted as legally admissible evidence or proof according to legal standards of evidence in God's court. It is however acceptable as testimony. A man of faith may perceive the goodness of God and speak of it. And being true in reality, the man's testimony is not impeachable. The very word "faith" is used with legal restrictions and in certain places in the texts. It has to do with believing in God concerning things for which there is no legal evidence at the time. In other places, faith is used in terms of trusting in God because He has been proven trustworthy by legal evidence. Men also may testify as to what they believe when it is untrue in reality. And their testimony is proven false. With regard to the believer, there is another "faith" which is the reliance on what a believer knows is true and is confirmed by the evidence in his own spiritual life, such as his own experience of being delivered from the slave market of sin and inability. This legal faith is trust or reliance based on the evidence of the inner workings of God in the believer and is witnessed by the believer, to which he may attest. He should expect for Satan to require proof of this by motive testing (the trying of one's faith). If one's faith or profession is without legal evidence and is not questioned by Satan, then God Himself will provide legal confirmation for the believer's testimony of God concerning himself. Satan will not trust God's judgment to be correct without evidence. Even if Satan were to do so, another down the line may not, resulting in a complete repetition of the matter that could have been prevented if all evidence and possible arguments were tried in the first place. The truth must also prove that it cannot be refuted. Any truth that does not establish itself as irrefutable has not established itself as truth, and therefore is not legally true. Anyone arguing against this is arguing for a lesser, fallible god with a lesser problematic legal standard, that for arguments sake could be avoided. The very fact that I as a lesser being think of these things, and God who is the highest being having infallibly perfect legal standards, should be principled proof enough that this is the truth of God.