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.
Irrefutable proof is the standard to force the naysayers to admit the truth. In order to achieve this, all opposing arguments and interpretations must be equally irrefutably proven to be false. Furthermore, God not fully trying a matter would be the equivalent of Him not fully and legally resolving it. Under these imperfect circumstances, if bystanders were to agree with God's verdict, assuming a matter to be legally resolved and later finding out it is not, God would be causing others to bear false witness as well. For they would be believing something not legally true. Hypothetically, if God were to partially try a case, leaving it legally unresolved and appealable, He would have to be honest and inform everyone that this is the case, lest they make presumptions and bear false witness that the matter is permanently over. This is not possible, since a partially tried case is an incomplete case, in which justice has not been achieved and the truth has not been established. Additionally, any party in the legal dispute could raise the objection that rendering a verdict at that stage would be presumptive and just plain illegal. Not only must the objection be sustained, but the trial would also have to continue until the trying of facts is complete, in the prosecution of God rather than Satan. If God were to render an illegal, false and presumptive verdict before completely trying the facts (at least with regard to this), Satan's accusation against God of making unjust judgments would be proven legally true. I contend that entertaining such things as being possible or true in one's doctrines concerning God, is blasphemous and satanic in inspiration.
In the final review judgment of man and angels, the denial of direct evidence or bearing false witness is not permitted. God does allow testimony, false accusations and arguments for the purpose of legally proving them false. He uses their own false testimony as evidence of their unrighteousness. People are allowed to give false testimony in court. But when their testimony is irrefutably proven to be false, those who have so testified are forced to admit their falsehoods when they stand at the review judgment of God. The review judgment begins after all cases have been irrefutably legally proven, when what remains is the criminal offenders having to give account, and is for the purpose of orienting beings to justice for the execution of sentence in the case of those who have opposed the truth. The universal genuflect when every knee shall bow, is much spoken of and rightly so. But the cause of the genuflect is the believer's and unbeliever's acknowledgment of the undeniable. If someone were to suggest that there is a possibility of an argument, evidence or testimony not tried or conceived of by God concerning their case during God's review judgment of them, it is universally accepted as ignorance of God's abilities, jurisprudence, hubris and gross error. Some may say that Satan is more intelligent than us and rightly so. But to suggest that Satan can give an argument or evidence not tried or thought of by God after His judgment is rendered, is just as much a non-possibility as it is with humanity. God leaves nothing unexamined and nothing unrecorded. Every act, motivation, desire, deed, disposition or word (whether spoken or written) of each man and angel, is classified and recorded simultaneously as they occur. And it is entered into the court record of events, deeds and testimonies. The court maintains complete historical records of each individual. The Book of Works is used in the review judgment of men. Other books used are a birth registry, a Book of Lineage, the Book of Life, the Lambs Book of Life and the Book of Wrongdoing. Whether births and lineages are in a single volume, I do not know. I can imagine the shock and rapid objection of many crying "double jeopardy" to the suggestion that the Book of Wrongdoings or a criminal record is used for the review judgment, since Christ was already supposedly judged for their sins. However, if God's explanation for the denial of inheritance or reward were, "I cannot say or do not remember", it would not only be farcical, but also would be putting on a pretense. You can check the definition of the word "pretense" and the nicest one is making a claim unsupported by fact. Even the prettiest definition is not a quality of God in a legal review that is to be solely comprised of factual evidence. The Book of Wrongdoings must be used against those who deny their own wrongdoings, to force them to admit to the truth concerning themselves.
The basis for approval, disapproval or rewards, are the very judgments that were legally arrived at by God, whether they are right or wrong doing, which is why it is said that the fornicators, adulterers and murderers are outside the city and that homosexuals have no inheritance in the Kingdom of God. It is on the basis of their wrong doings that they are disqualified. If God were to ignore the basis on which His judgments were made, His judgments would be baseless. Legal arguments cannot deny the basis from which they are made. Yet even the naysayers to this doctrine would admit that His judgments are not baseless. You cannot build a 15 story building, remove the lower 14 floors and expect the top floor to hold its place without them. Concerning the judgment of the wicked, if a person were to question the basis on which God made His judgment and He refused or was unable to give the basis for it, a legal impasse would occur and the wicked would be asked to simply trust Him. This is not legally acceptable, since the disclosure of legal proof is required. In the eyes of the unbelievers, it would seem their case was not fully tried. Furthermore, it prevents God from being able to re-orient the wicked to justice, as the unbeliever's memory and perception of past events may differ from the actual record. The wicked do not suddenly obtain a truthful viewpoint. Missing information is not supplied them. Nor does an accurate historical recollection happen simply because the death of their physical bodies has occurred. Since God knows all things, in order to make a judgment in a case that is appealable, God would have to admit as He renders a verdict, that the said verdict does not settle the matter. Why would God bother to render a verdict that does not resolve a legal matter? If it doesn't, then the defendant's offenses without question remain "alleged". One cannot be found guilty and still be alleged; even the verdict itself is alleged. In order for a case to remain unsettled and unresolved, any verdict would also be classified as such. What is the point of making alleged verdicts? Any case open to appeal because of previously untried, unconsidered evidence or possible defense arguments that can later be raised, makes the verdict in a case only an alleged one, being equal in legal weight to a prosecuting attorney's opening arguments that have yet to be proven legally and factually true. It takes some measure of faith to believe a prosecuting attorney's opening arguments when all the facts have not been seen. The law is not of faith; it is of facts and evidence. Therefore, any alleged verdict or a finding of guilt or innocence in a case when all of the facts and evidence have not been considered, is also a verdict requiring faith. Satan's whole legal argument, accusation and defense is an impure motive and a justification for not having faith in the first place. Without proof, Satan would hardly trust in a judgment requiring the very faith to which his legal stance is opposed. After a trial, if only partial evidence is weighed instead of all possible defenses, concluding with a "trust me" verdict, why bother having a trial at all, when Satan could simply be sentenced to the lake of fire, leaving it at "trust me" from the start? Legally speaking, there is principally no difference between "trust me" verdicts and "trust me" condemnation without a trial. Furthermore, in only partially trying the case against His own Son, the Father could be accused of covering up for Him, in refusing to have all legal avenues and arguments against His Son fully investigated. Satan being found allegedly guilty is equal to the Father saying, "Trust me. You do not need to examine all the evidence. My Son is without an impure motive." One could immediately petition the court as to why they cannot examine all the evidence against the Son, since that is also evidence germane to Satan's motives during his legal insurrection. In fact, the two legal accusations against both parties are inseparable. So then, if faith is required in the absence of the consideration of the complete factual record in the verdict of the exoneration of the one, the Son, then equally and correspondingly the same amount of faith is required in the verdict and condemnation of the other party, namely Satan and the fallen angels. To the measure evidence is omitted and unexamined in the exoneration of the Son, is to the measure that evidence is omitted and unexamined in the condemnation of Satan. Why would God settle for an incomplete verdict leaving the declaration of both parties as only alleged? Furthermore, if someone immediately or later rejects the alleged verdict and asks for the missing and supposedly irrefutable proof, would God supply it? Those who believe in the appeals trial doctrine actually believe this is exactly what occurred. Any trial conducted in the Supreme Court of Heaven ending in the classification of "alleged", is an admission that the trial has made no legal progress whatsoever in resolving the issue. Thus, the whole legal proceeding is vanity.
If men on the earth were asked how they would choose to try a case, if hypothetically they could have all knowledge and the ability to try a case fully and completely to the absolute detail without omission of any kind, do you think they, having such superior abilities and capacities, would choose to only partially try a case, leaving a verdict that is legally questionable? The answer is obvious. So why do those advocating for the appeals trial doctrine suggest that the God of absolute and perfect justice would do such a ghastly thing as to only partially try a case and render an incomplete verdict? Did Satan forget to make arguments in the first trial? Or did he want to enter evidence with the court that was refused by God, in order for the trial to wind up basically a mistrial? The impression, the teaching, or order of the line of reasoning in the appeals trial doctrine strikes me more like the course of a simple conversation between God and Satan, in which God accuses Satan of wrongdoing, Satan responds to the contrary, God sentences Satan to the lake of fire and Satan then questions the veracity of God's judgment. From this simple conversation, God then determines to prove legally that His word or judgment was correct. This does not two full criminal trials make. It strikes a rational person with a legal mindset as simple opening arguments at the onset of the first and only criminal trial of Satan, since there was no actual irrefutable legal proof for either side's arguments at the time. You would think even those holding the appeals trial doctrine when enlightened about this, would admit that for an appeals trial to be possible, there must not have been sufficient legal evidence in the first trial to condemn Satan. If there were, he would have been condemned in the first trial leaving no appeal possible. Any possibility of appeal is an undeniable admission that there actually wasn't sufficient legal evidence to condemn Satan in the first trial. If a verdict is questionable, even if it is later affirmed by a second trial, the original verdict as it was arrived at and rendered, was actually not legally binding and acceptable. This is not the case in man's courts, in which verdicts remain legally binding, even when they are appealed and even until they are overturned. In some cases in man's courts, initial verdicts are not held as legally binding, as in capital crimes and in civil courts for example, primarily in cases where prison time is part of the sentence, in which case verdicts are presumed as legally binding. This is why prisoners are not executed before they have a chance to appeal the verdict. Often times it is customary and required that no one be put to death without an appeal, regardless of how overwhelming and irrefutable the evidence is against a defendant in the first criminal trial.
Ideally in man's case, and in what would actually be God's case, if God were error prone (and He is not), a sentence in any verdict that is appealable cannot be carried out, since an imperfect verdict is near zero legal weight, not being legally binding. The ideal standard sought by man is to not punish those who may possibly be innocent, especially in the case of capital crimes. If asked, would the advocates of the appeals trial doctrine answer that the sentence was not executed against Satan because legally speaking, the eyes of jurisprudence saw Satan at that time as possibly being innocent and the verdict questionable? I would think they would have a bit of a hard time making such a stark admission. Of course I am speaking of what the law or legal process personified would say concerning Satan in the case of a verdict not having achieved irrefutability. Achieving only an "imperfect verdict" in the court of God's "perfect justice" is not a good thing. Therefore, it cannot abide in the arena of the love response of the love for that which is good. Ask a man if he loves his doctrines. If he says he does and part of his doctrines are not good, then he cannot be operating in the love for that which is good. No matter how well intentioned he thinks he is and no matter how much he thinks it is good, it is not. His love for his false doctrines is not the love for that which is good. Perhaps this is why I take the pains of hair splitting examinations in the construction of my doctrines, yet do not neglect doing good when opportunities arise. One should not be neglected for the "supposed" sake of the other; there is room and time for all things. As for those who constantly brag about doing good works, I never see them doing them. Rather, I see them condemning people over tone of voice and choice of words, thinking that close examination of the doctrines of God is not profitable and a waste of time. They actually oppose the deeper knowledge of God. Much of what little knowledge they do have is false and blasphemous.
Take every church's and person's doctrines from all persuasions and set the characters of their doctrines in a legal passion courtroom play in which God the judge, prosecutors, defendants and witnesses act according to each ones particular doctrinal beliefs and policies, and see how much criminal corruption and the many legal and ethics violations of jurisprudence, lawfulness and morality are found, such as witness intimidation, bribery, falsification, illegal altering of courtroom documents and the like. A courtroom drama of the typical street version of the Catholic variety has the witnesses under duress, intimidation or bribery (depending on the way you want to look at it), by starting out being under the sentence of Hell. Remaining under threat of Hell, their testimony may not be genuine. Or by having done good works for the judge, they get the payoff of the removal of the condemnation. As for those of the typical street brand of Calvinism, there is witness tampering, as witnesses are manipulated or controlled by the judge, having no free will or independence. As for those who deny eternal security, one could make the case that the witnesses are under duress, threat or intimidation. What is one to think of a God or judge who accepts disingenuous praise from lesser beings that is not independently or freely given? Whether in witnessing or in praise, all is testimony and all must be lawful and legally acceptable. What of the faith plus works crowd? Is the judge stupid, unable to perceive the hearts of the witnesses, whether or not the testifiers love that which is good? If they do love good and trust in God to save them, He will. No tally of works is added to the equation to finally render them savable. It is wrong for a person to say he loves that which is good, trusts God to save him, then has to do good works in order to make that salvation possible. It is a completely wrong way to view things, since it is not the truth of the matter. Sure, a person who trusts God for deliverance and loves that which is good will indeed do that which he loves; it is natural. But it is a wrong motivation to morph this natural process, which results in a believer having the attitude that he must do good works in order to make salvation possible. One must be good first in order to do good works. Good works are the result or fruit of the deliverance, not the tree or the prerequisite for deliverance. Once again, a bad tree cannot produce good fruit, and as a result transform the bad tree into a good one. So faith plus works demands good works be done before a person is actually made good or becomes righteous. There is the deliverance in this life from slavery to sin and corrupt natural desires and instincts. This is the deliverance or salvation referred to by Paul in Ephesians chapter two, which is past tense, by the means of grace, through the agency of faith, and not by means or as a result of our deeds. It is the same with the eternal or permanent deliverance that shall come. Good deeds are the result of deliverance and righteous living; they indeed are irrefutable legal proof or evidence of it. In the case of Job, it is easy to perceive that he was a righteous man, acting righteously with his fellow men. But Satan accused Job of an evil motive and of having a conflict of interest that if found true, would have colored all of Jobs outward deeds, qualifying them as being under the specter of a conflict of interest. We must remember that God first bragged of Job, his deeds and his state. His deeds equaled his state; they were the result of it. In turning away from evil, Job was harmless toward his fellow man. If his state were found to be with a conflict of interest, his deeds would have been according to that conflict of interest, failing to perform the public good in favor of self-interest. The reason why Job did what he did, is what he actually did his deeds for. When the reasons a person does something are called into question, it is by necessity that the very thing a person does is also called into question. Therefore, with irrefutable legal proof through situations and circumstances, Job's deeds were proven to be good by the vindication of his personal motive, and not subject to appeal.
As for those who stress faith plus works, emphasizing works and the blasphemous book of James, as well as those post college people who travel to far flung Africa for missionary work, thinking that by doing such activities they cannot be questioned, I will say that your outward deeds will be discovered when your motives are, and not before. Therefore, if a person tells me their relative spent time in Africa on missionary work and I do not know their relative in order to even perceive their possible motive, I am not going to presumptively say "Praise God for that." I say this not to be overly harsh on people or discourage missionary work, as I would hope that people are about God's work and serving the needy. The 7,000 who have not bowed their knees to Baal are out there somewhere.