Question. DP’s 95/5 divine-to-human responsibility ratio reads in some passages as a literal numerical claim (the ratio applies to blessing conditions, evangelism quotas, central-figure missions) and in others as a rhetorical asymmetry (the “5% = 100% effort” gloss). Which does UC theology actually treat it as? If literal, it should apply consistently across all responsibility-bearing contexts; if rhetorical, it cannot be quantitatively load-bearing in calculations of providential responsibility.
Why it matters. thread-dp-95-5-ratio-vs-molina-middle-knowledge surfaced that Molina’s middle-knowledge framework achieves DP’s cooperation-and-theodicy goals without quantification. If DP’s 95/5 is a phenomenological asymmetry, it adds little to Molina. If it is a literal numerical claim, it owes an account of how the ratio is known — Sun Myung Moon’s revelation? Theological inference from biblical data? The methodological question is sharp: numerical theological claims usually require either explicit revelation or rigorous derivation, and DP’s text supplies neither for the 95/5 specifically.
Current best guesses. The cleanest defensible position is structural-asymmetric: God’s primary work (95) vs human portion (5) names a direction and proportion without committing to literal percentages. This reading honors DP’s text in most contexts and avoids the unanswerable-quantification problem. The cost is conceding that 95/5 cannot do the load-bearing work it appears to do in specific blessing-condition or evangelism contexts. UC tradition may treat the ratio as literal in pastoral practice; if so, the cluster question is open whether that pastoral practice has firm DP textual grounding.
Source. Raised in _meta/parking/questions.md (dp-1-6 cluster). Engaged by thread-dp-95-5-ratio-vs-molina-middle-knowledge in cluster theodicy-fall-and-divine-constraint.