Evaluating a Theological Argument: A Methodological Essay

Evaluating a Theological Argument: A Methodological Essay

J. Neil Daniels

Introduction: The Imperative of Doctrinal Discernment

Theological argumentation lies at the heart of Christian intellectual life, from the apostolic witness and the ecumenical councils to the enduring efforts of reform and renewal within the church. The Christian community is not called to receive doctrine passively but to engage it critically, to "test the spirits to see whether they are from God" (1 John 4:1) and to "examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good" (1 Thess 5:21). In our present context, characterized by both unprecedented access to theological resources and widespread doctrinal instability, the need for sound, charitable, and rigorous theological evaluation has never been greater.

This task is no mere academic exercise. Doctrine is not abstract theory but the church’s effort to articulate the truth of God as revealed in Scripture, and it necessarily shapes worship, discipleship, evangelism, and every facet of Christian life. False doctrine distorts spiritual formation; sound doctrine cultivates godliness and enduring faith. The stakes are high: theological arguments make claims about the living God, the nature of salvation, and the interpretation of His infallible Word. This essay seeks to establish a robust framework for evaluating theological arguments with intellectual precision and spiritual discernment.

Understanding the Anatomy of Theological Argumentation

Before a theological argument can be properly assessed, its structure and character must be understood. A theological argument is a reasoned attempt to establish or defend a doctrinal claim, employing premises drawn from Scripture, theology, and other sources within a framework shaped by divine revelation. While sharing certain features with philosophical discourse, theological reasoning remains distinct in its source and purpose. It is not a speculative enterprise, but rather a response to God’s self-revelation.

Typically, a theological argument includes a thesis, supporting premises (often grounded in exegetical or historical claims), and inferential reasoning that links the two. Yet beneath this structure lie deeper strata: hermeneutical commitments, metaphysical assumptions, and ecclesiological presuppositions that shape the argument’s force and direction. These often-unspoken factors influence both what is argued and how it is received within particular confessional communities.

Furthermore, theological arguments never exist in isolation. They arise within traditions and are often framed in conversation with prior doctrinal formulations. Recognizing this historical and ecclesial embeddedness is essential for fair and accurate evaluation. Arguments that may appear novel in one setting may, in another, reflect long-standing orthodox convictions.

The Primacy of Scriptural Warrant

The foundation of any sound theological argument is Scripture. As the church’s supreme authority—the norma normans—Scripture must govern and norm every doctrinal claim. No argument, however elegant or historically supported, can be accepted or even entertained if it contradicts the teaching of sacred Scripture. Thus, theological evaluation begins with careful biblical scrutiny.

Such scrutiny requires more than the citation of proof texts. It demands faithful exegesis informed by the grammatical-historical method, attentive to literary genre, redemptive-historical context, and canonical coherence. (I briefly discussed this in a previous blog, "Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth: The Art and Discipline of Biblical Study.") Arguments that rely on isolated verses, allegorical leaps, or manipulative eisegesis must be dismissed. Instead, one must ask whether the conclusion follows naturally from careful, contextual engagement with the biblical text.

A further consideration is the analogia fidei, the principle that Scripture interprets Scripture. A theological argument must be evaluated not only by individual texts but by its congruence with the broader biblical canon and the unfolding of salvation history. Any theological claim that sets one part of Scripture against another, or fails to account for the unity of God’s revelation, undermines its own credibility.

Logical Rigor and Rational Coherence

Although theology deals with mysteries that surpass the grasp of unaided reason, it does not follow that theological arguments are exempt from the demands of logic. The truth of God is internally consistent, and theological formulations ought to reflect that consistency. A doctrine may be mysterious, but it must not be incoherent.

Evaluating an argument’s logical structure involves testing whether its premises adequately support its conclusion, whether its key terms are clearly defined and consistently employed, and whether it avoids fallacious reasoning. Errors such as equivocation, circularity, or non sequiturs must be identified and corrected. An argument’s assumptions must also be examined for coherence and theological viability. (For further study, see my book, Thinking Clearly: How to Recognize Truth, Avoid Fallacies, and Build Sound Arguments.)

This requirement extends beyond isolated arguments to the broader theological system. A claim may appear plausible on its own but create insoluble tensions when integrated into the wider doctrinal framework. While the presence of paradox in theology is sometimes inevitable, internal contradiction is not. Distinguishing between legitimate mystery and flawed reasoning is a vital component of theological evaluation.

Historical Consciousness and Traditional Wisdom

While Scripture alone is the church’s infallible authority, no theological argument should ignore the accumulated wisdom of the church’s past two millennia. The creeds, confessions, and writings of theologians across the centuries represent the church’s sustained engagement with Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. To neglect this history is to invite both arrogance and error.

Evaluating a theological argument requires situating it within this broader tradition. One must ask whether it reflects continuity with apostolic teaching or represents an unwarranted innovation. Claims to rediscover “forgotten truths” must be carefully tested, for while legitimate doctrinal development is possible, novelty is more often a sign of deviation than insight.

This is not to sacralize tradition or to treat historical consensus as infallible. The church’s tradition is fallible and reformable. But arguments that overturn long-standing doctrinal consensus bear a heavy burden of proof. Sound theological evaluation will weigh arguments with a posture of historical humility, learning from the church’s collective discernment while maintaining Scripture’s final authority.

Philosophical Clarity and Theological Precision

Every theological argument rests upon philosophical foundations, whether acknowledged or not. These foundations shape its categories, assumptions, and interpretive framework. Identifying and assessing them is essential for a comprehensive evaluation.

This includes determining whether the argument’s metaphysical assumptions are compatible with biblical teaching. Uncritical reliance on philosophical systems—whether Platonic dualism, Cartesian rationalism, or postmodern constructivism—often distorts theological reflection. Conversely, a refusal to engage philosophy at all may leave theology conceptually impoverished. The aim is neither to baptize secular systems nor to retreat into fideism, but to employ philosophical tools critically and in service of divine revelation.

Theological clarity also demands conceptual precision. Doctrines such as the Trinity, the incarnation, or justification are not well served by vague or careless language. Theological evaluation must ask whether an argument articulates its claims with sufficient depth and accuracy to withstand scrutiny.

Ecclesial Usefulness and Pastoral Fruit

Theology exists to serve the church. Doctrinal arguments must be evaluated not only for their truthfulness but for their capacity to nourish the faith and mission of the people of God. A position may be logically consistent and historically grounded yet fail the test of edification.

This does not mean that theological claims should be judged by their popularity or ease of application. The truth may be difficult or divisive. But one must ask whether a doctrine, if embraced, will promote holiness, clarity, and love for Christ, or whether it fosters confusion, pride, or disunity. The evaluation of pastoral fruit is not an afterthought but an essential test of theological soundness.

Moreover, theology should be accessible, as I've written about previously in "Putting the Cookies on the Bottom Shelf: The Art of Effective Bible Teaching." While not all believers will grasp the depths of every argument, doctrines must be capable of being taught, understood, and lived out by the church. Esoteric formulations that cannot be meaningfully appropriated may be intellectually interesting, but they ultimately fail their pastoral purpose.

The Discipline of Charitable and Courageous Evaluation

The practice of theological evaluation requires more than analytical skill; it demands the cultivation of intellectual and spiritual virtues. Chief among these are humility, charity, and courage.

Humility reminds us that we are finite, fallible creatures seeking to understand the infinite God. Charity urges us to interpret others’ arguments fairly, seeking clarity rather than controversy. Courage calls us to name error when necessary, even in the face of opposition. Theological disagreement must never become an excuse for factionalism, nor should fear of division inhibit the defense of truth.

Evaluating theological arguments requires patience, diligence, and above all, prayer. We must strive to judge rightly, not to win debates but to uphold the honor of Christ and the integrity of His gospel. In this, we follow the example of the noble Bereans, who examined the Scriptures daily to see whether the things they heard from an apostle were so (Acts 17:11).

Conclusion: The Calling to Discernment

The careful evaluation of theological arguments is a sacred responsibility entrusted to the church. In an era of theological confusion and doctrinal instability, the ability to discern truth from error is vital for the preservation of the gospel and the edification of the body of Christ. This task demands exegetical skill, logical clarity, historical awareness, philosophical discernment, and pastoral sensitivity, held together by a spirit of humility and devotion to God’s Word.

When rightly undertaken, theological evaluation safeguards the faith once for all delivered to the saints, equips the church for sound teaching, and glorifies the triune God. In this work, we take up the call not merely to preserve tradition, but to confess and commend the truth in every generation, for the good of the church and the glory of God.

Appendix: Summary of John M. Frame’s Criteria for Evaluating Theological Writings

Adapted from John M. Frame, “Appendix E: Evaluating Theological Writings,” in The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1987), 369–70.

In Appendix E of The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, John M. Frame offers a concise and practical framework for evaluating theological writings. His list is especially directed toward seminary students and emerging theologians but remains useful for readers at all levels. Frame outlines nine positive criteria and three erroneous ones, offering both diagnostic and prescriptive insight into theological analysis.

The foremost and non-negotiable standard is Scripturality—whether the theological claims are taught in, or at least consistent with, Scripture. This criterion governs all others. A secondary but still valid consideration is truth, which may extend to extra-biblical matters such as historical or theological developments, provided they are accurate. Cogency examines the logical soundness of the argument, focusing on the truth of its premises and the validity of its conclusions. Closely related is clarity, which considers whether terms are well-defined, the structure is coherent, and the author’s position is intelligible.

Edification and godliness address the spiritual dimensions of the work. Frame asks whether the writing is spiritually beneficial and whether it manifests Christian virtue or, conversely, sinful dispositions. He also emphasizes importance, encouraging discernment between substantive theological contributions and trivialities. Profundity evaluates whether the work tackles difficult theological questions with insight and depth, rather than merely rehearsing familiar or shallow points. Lastly, form and style matter insofar as they should be appropriate to the subject matter and exhibit creative engagement.

Frame also warns against three faulty criteria: emphasis, comparability, and terminology. A critique based on a theologian’s perceived over- or under-emphasis lacks substance unless it results in a concrete error. Similarly, dismissing a work solely because it resembles another discredited source is fallacious; each work must be evaluated on its own merits. Finally, critiques focused merely on a theologian’s choice of terminology are unsound unless the terminology itself leads to confusion, error, or lack of clarity.

Frame’s evaluative framework integrates doctrinal, logical, spiritual, and rhetorical dimensions, insisting that theological judgment be anchored in Scripture, expressed with precision, and undertaken in the service of edification and truth. His checklist rightfully continues to serve as a valuable tool for theological students, writers, and readers committed to the faithful stewardship of doctrine.

For Further Study 

Anizor, Uche. How to Read Theology: Engaging Doctrine Critically and Charitably. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2018.

Barrett, Matthew. God’s Word Alone: The Authority of Scripture—What the Reformers Taught...and Why It Still Matters. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2016.

Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics: Volume 1, Prolegomena. Edited by John Bolt. Translated by John Vriend. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003.

Bloesch, Donald G. A Theology of Word and Spirit: Authority and Method in Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992.

Daniels, J. Neil. Thinking Clearly: How to Recognize Truth, Avoid Fallacies, and Build Sound Arguments. Amazon KDP, 2025.

Frame, John M. The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1987.

Grenz, Stanley J., and Roger E. Olson. Who Needs Theology? An Invitation to the Study of God. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1996.

Helm, Paul. Faith, Form, and Fashion: Classical Reformed Theology and Its Postmodern Critics. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2014.

McGrath, Alister E. The Genesis of Doctrine: A Study in the Foundations of Doctrinal Criticism. Oxford: Blackwell, 1990.

Muller, Richard A. Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: Volume 1, Prolegomena to Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003.

Nash, Ronald H. The Word of God and the Mind of Man: The Crisis of Revealed Truth in Contemporary Theology. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 1982.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2005.

Ward, Timothy. Words of Life: Scripture as the Living and Active Word of God. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009.