Rubric · canonical · THEOLOGICAL-REASONING-v1

Theological reasoning within a single tradition

For arguments internal to one tradition — about religious doctrine, divine attributes, theodicy, salvation, eschatology, or other matters of theological commitment. Scores reasoning quality within the stated tradition, not the truth of the tradition’s premises. For disputes between different traditions sharing source material (LDS vs. Nicene, Sunni vs. Shia, Reform vs. Orthodox), use COMPARATIVE-DOCTRINE-v1.

Status canonical Criteria 4 (weighted 30/25/25/20) Updated May 2026

When this rubric applies

The argument’s conclusion is about what a religious tradition affirms, requires, or implies — on questions like the nature of God, the problem of evil, the conditions of salvation, the structure of the church, or the meaning of religious practice. The disagreement turns on the internal logic of the tradition’s commitments.

Not appropriate when: the disagreement is specifically about what a sacred text means (use SCRIPTURAL-INTERPRETATION), about general moral philosophy outside any particular tradition (use MORAL-PHILOSOPHY), or about an empirical claim presented in religious clothing (use SCIENTIFIC-CLAIM).

Criteria

1. Grounding in the tradition's authoritative sources

weight 30%

Does the argument engage the sources the tradition itself recognizes as authoritative — scripture, councils, magisterium, schools of jurisprudence, foundational thinkers?

10Cites the tradition’s authoritative sources by name and engages their actual content; treats them as the tradition itself does. 7References the tradition’s sources but works from a high level of abstraction. 4Invokes "the tradition" generically without engaging which sources within it are doing the work. 1Asserts a doctrinal claim without engaging the tradition’s authority structure at all.

2. Internal coherence with established doctrine

weight 25%

Is the conclusion compatible with the tradition’s foundational commitments — or does it require quietly abandoning them?

10The conclusion fits cleanly with the tradition’s foundational commitments; tensions with secondary doctrines are acknowledged. 7Coheres with the tradition broadly; one foundational commitment is in mild tension. 4The conclusion requires quietly abandoning a doctrine the tradition has historically affirmed. 1The argument is incompatible with the tradition’s core commitments while claiming to operate within it.

3. Treatment of tradition-internal counterarguments

weight 25%

Does the argument engage the strongest opposing positions that exist within the same tradition (different schools, councils, theologians)?

10Names the leading opposing positions within the tradition and engages each. 7Engages one major opposing position; ignores another the tradition has held seriously. 4Strawmans the opposing position or treats it as a fringe view when it is not. 1Acts as if the tradition is monolithic when it has held this question contested for centuries.

4. Distinguishes faith claims from empirical claims

weight 20%

When the argument touches on empirical matters (history, cosmology, biology), does it keep faith claims and empirical claims appropriately distinct?

10Faith claims and empirical claims are clearly distinguished; argument is honest about which kind of evidence supports which. 7Mostly distinguished; one place where revelation is treated as if it settled an empirical question (or vice versa). 4The two kinds of claims are bundled; rejecting one rejects the other unfairly. 1Claims revelation establishes empirical facts the tradition itself does not require, or claims empirical evidence settles questions of faith the tradition does not so frame.

Version history

v1May 2026 · initial publication