John Frame’s 9-Point Checklist for Evaluating Theological Writings

Theologian John Frame sets forth the criteria he uses—and tries to avoid—when evaluating theological writings.

1. Scripturality

Are the ideas teachings of Scripture?
Are they at least consistent with Scripture?
This is, of course, the chief criterion.

2. Truth

Even if an idea is not found in Scripture, it may be true—for example, a theory about the influence of Bultmann or Pannenberg.

3. Cogency

Is the author’s case adequately argued?
Are his premises true, his arguments valid?

4. Edification

Is it spiritually helpful?
Harmful?
Hard to say?

5. Godliness

Does the text exhibit the fruit of the Spirit, or is it blasphemous, gossipy, slanderous, unkind, and so forth?

6. Importance

Is the idea important?
Trivial?
Somewhere in between?
Important for some but not for others?

7. Clarity

Are the key terms well defined, at least implicitly?
Is the formal structure intelligible, well thought out?
Are the author’s positions clear?
Does he formulate well the issues to be addressed and distinguish them from one another?

8. Profundity

Does the text wrestle with difficult, or only with easy, questions? . . .
Does it get to the heart of a matter?
Does it note subtle distinctions and nuances that other writers miss?

9. Form and Style

Is it appropriate to the subject matter?
Does it show creativity?

[Frame also lists what he considers to be unsound criteria for evaluating theological writings. In other words, these are the sort of things not to use.]

Emphasis

In this kind of criticism, one theologian attacks another for having an improper “emphasis.”
But there is no such thing as a single normative emphasis.
An emphasis becomes a problem only when it leads to other sorts of problems. . . .

Comparability

Here a work is criticized because it resembles another work that is poorly regarded.
Such resemblance, however, is never sufficient ground for criticism.
The strengths and weaknesses of each work must be evaluated individually.

Terminology

Criticizing the terminology of a work—its metaphors, motifs, and definitions—is never sound unless the terminology causes some of the problems listed above in criteria 1-9.
The terminology itself is never the problem.
This sort of criticism falls under our condemnation of “word-level,” rather than “sentence-level,” criticism.

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