Theological triage: DRAFT plan

Status: APPROVED by Cameron 2026-10-10 (with one change: F9 became “Christ’s saving death”, and the substitutionary framing moved to S20; weights stay 3/2/1). Site structure: structure.md.

Original status: DRAFT for Cameron’s review. No research has been done under this plan yet. Tier placements are proposals, and citations marked to verify have not yet been checked against the primary text.

Purpose

Sort Christian doctrines into three tiers so the site can answer three different questions:

1. Most correct: which tradition stands closest to Scripture, with more weight on the doctrines that matter most.
2. In the faith: how fully each tradition holds the doctrines essential to the gospel.
3. Shaped by: how much of each tradition’s identity rests on its second- and third-order distinctives.

1. Criteria

Definitions (after Mohler, “A Call for Theological Triage and Christian Maturity”, 2005)

Supporting tests

• Scripture first. A doctrine is first-order only if Scripture ties it to salvation or to the identity of God and Christ (for example 1 Cor 15:1–4, Gal 1:6–9, 1 John 4:2–3, 2 John 7–9, Rom 10:9).
• Creedal confession. The ecumenical creeds record what the early church confessed as the shared faith:
  • Apostles’ Creed (Roman baptismal creed; final form about 8th century)
  • Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (381)
  • Chalcedonian Definition (451). Not received by the Oriental Orthodox, so it is treated as a special case (see section 3).
  • Athanasian Creed (Quicunque vult, about 5th–6th century). It explicitly calls its Trinitarian and Christological content necessary for salvation.
• Vincentian canon (Vincent of Lérins, Commonitorium 2.6, 434): “what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all” (quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus). This counts as evidence of universality, not as a ruling. A doctrine that passes it and is tied to salvation in Scripture is a strong first-order candidate.
• Traditions’ own lines. Each tradition’s own statement of what is essential is recorded, as shown in the next table. Where it disagrees with the default tier, the method shows that disagreement (see section 3).

How each tradition names its essentials

2. Doctrine list

Mapping key: existing categories are justification, baptism, salvation, eucharist, atonement, original-sin, relics, icons, afterlife, and trinity (in progress: Trinity/filioque). NEW marks a topic that would need a new study.

First-order (16)

Second-order (20)

Third-order (18)

3. The traditions disagree on what counts as first-order

The tiers above are a default based on Mohler, the creeds and the Vincentian canon. They are not neutral, and several traditions would draw the lines differently:

• Catholic: visible communion with the bishop of Rome, the Eucharist as “source and summit” (LG 11), and knowingly rejecting defined dogma count as far more central than “second-order” suggests. Marian dogmas are defined dogma.
• Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox: the Church, its sacraments and the councils it receives are not easily separated from “the faith”. Each also considers the other’s Christology (S16) more serious than third-order, though modern joint statements call it largely verbal.
• Lutheran: justification is the “chief article” (Smalcald II.1), so on its own terms S1 is first-order. The real presence (S4) is also treated as a matter of confession, not opinion.
• Reformed and Presbyterian: many classic Reformed writers treat sola fide (S1) as first-order (as do some evangelicals following Galatians 1).
• Baptists: believer’s baptism (S2, T4) is close to constitutive of the church, so it is at least strongly second-order.
• Anabaptist: separation, nonresistance and the ban (Schleitheim) are central to identity, which a doctrine-only list tends to underrate.

How the method shows it:

1. Default tiers plus each tradition’s own tiers. Every doctrine records its default tier and the tier each of the nine traditions assigns it, with citations. Disagreements are shown with a marker on the doctrine page.
2. Sensitivity view. Every score is computed twice: under the default tiers and under each tradition’s self-assigned tiers. If a ranking flips, the site says so in plain language.
3. Contested-first-order list. Doctrines that at least one tradition calls essential but the default calls second-order (S1, S4, S8, S16, S2) get their own section, with a short neutral case for each side.
4. No silent choices. Tier changes go into docs/proximity-changes.md-style change logs (docs/triage-changes.md).

4. Proposed scoring method

All scores are percentages measured against Scripture, using the existing 0–4 verdict scale (docs/scoring.md). The fathers remain a separate, contextual panel with the same tier weighting, as now.

4a. Most correct

Scripture closeness, weighted by tier:

most_correct(t) = Σ w(tier_q) · score(t, q) / Σ w(tier_q) · 4      over scored questions q
default weights: first = 3, second = 2, third = 1

• The weights are a proposal for Cameron to set. The site will show them openly and may let readers adjust them (like the existing slider).
• Unscored questions are left out, never guessed. The site shows how many questions each score rests on.

4b. In the faith

Adherence to first-order doctrines only:

in_the_faith(t) = Σ score(t, q) / (4 · n)     over first-order questions q

• Shown as a threshold-style band: “holds all first-order doctrines”, “holds with qualifications”, or “denies one or more”. It is not a precise percentage, because the point is recognition, not rank.
• Expected result: all nine score at or near full. That is itself a finding worth stating plainly (“these traditions share the gospel core”).
• A sensitivity note shows the result under each tradition’s own first-order list, for example how Catholicism scores Protestant traditions if papal communion counts.

4c. Shaped by

How much a tradition’s identity rests on its distinctives. This describes the tradition and does not grade it:

distinctiveness(t, q) = 1 if t's position on q differs from the majority of the nine (or is confessionally emphasised), else 0
emphasis(t, q)        = 0–2 from the tradition's own confessions (how much space and stress the doctrine gets)
shaped_by(t, tier)    = Σ emphasis · distinctiveness over that tier / total emphasis

• Shown as a stacked bar per tradition (first / second / third-order share of its confessional identity), plus its top three distinctives.
• Example of what this would show: Baptists shaped heavily by S2; Catholics by S8 and S18; Anabaptists by ethics and separation; Lutherans by S1 and S4.
• The emphasis scores are judgement calls, so each one cites the confession article it rests on.

5. Research order

1. Tier sign-off: Cameron reviews this draft (tiers, weights, contested list).
2. Verify citations marked to verify above, and record each tradition’s self-assigned tier for all doctrines.
3. Re-tag existing questions: assign a tier to each of the existing 37+ questions (and the Trinity study). No new research is needed, and early weighted scores are possible.
4. Fill first-order gaps: Christology (F2–F5, F11, plus S16), then Scripture and authority (F15, S7), Creation (F7), Resurrection (F10), Church (F16). This makes “in the faith” complete.
5. Second-order new topics: Church authority (S8, S9), Sacraments (S6), Mary and saints (S18), then Ministry (S10).
6. Third-order new topics: Eschatology (T1, T2), Worship (T13–T15, T17), Spirit and gifts (T12), the rest.
7. Publish scores: most-correct, in-the-faith and shaped-by views, plus the sensitivity view, on the home page.

This order replaces the earlier topic queue only after Cameron approves. Until then, the queued topics (Trinity, Christ, Mary, saints, church authority) continue as planned, and they line up with steps 4–5 anyway.