Doctrine Analysis
Doctrine Analysis
This Language Package’s doctrine_risk_registry.json tracks 40 doctrines across Romans 1-16, each assigned a risk tier that drives Phase 2 review routing.
Risk tier summary
| Tier | Count | Review routing | Example doctrines |
|---|---|---|---|
| Critical | 10 | Human theologian, every occurrence | Sonship of Christ, Deity of Christ, Incarnation, Resurrection of Christ, Lordship of Christ, Salvation, Adoption, Assurance of Salvation |
| High | 19 | Human theologian | Gospel, Divine Calling, Grace, Faith, Sanctification, Universal Scope of the Gospel, Unity of Jews and Gentiles |
| Medium | 9 | Native speaker review | Spiritual Gifts, Christian Fellowship, Mission to the Nations, Evangelism, Kingdom Mission |
| Low | 2 | Automated review only | Thanksgiving, Mutual Edification |
Why Critical doctrines cluster where they do
Nine of Arabic’s ten Critical-risk doctrines trace back to a single underlying collision: Islamic tawhid’s strict, indivisible monotheism versus Trinitarian claims about Christ’s person and work. This is a different shape of risk than a syncretism-prone language where a fluent-sounding wrong word imports a foreign framework — here, the correct word is already established and unavoidable, but it arrives pre-loaded with a specific Quranic counter-claim (Jesus as prophet only, not crucified, not divine, not begotten). The tenth, Assurance of Salvation, is Critical for a related but distinct reason: it contradicts the deeds-and-decree soteriology that shapes mainstream Islamic piety even where no explicit Quranic denial exists.
Review routing rationale
Critical and High risk doctrines (29 of 40) require mandatory human theologian review because an automated or native-speaker-only check could confirm the Arabic is grammatically correct and even doctrinally traditional without catching that the underlying claim needs active theological defense for a reader holding the mainstream Islamic counter-position. Native speaker review is sufficient for Medium-risk doctrines, where the concern is cultural and contextual fit (e.g. safety implications of evangelism vocabulary, or the political weight of certain terms) rather than doctrinal contradiction.