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 | 9 | Human theologian, every occurrence | Grace, Salvation, Sainthood, Prayer and Intercession, Messianic Promise, Deity/Sonship/Resurrection/Lordship of Christ |
| High | 11 | Human theologian | Gospel, Incarnation, Faith, Effectual Calling, Sanctification, Assurance of Salvation, Universal Scope of the Gospel |
| Medium | 16 | Native speaker review | Inspiration of Scripture, Adoption, Providence, Spiritual Gifts, Unity of Jews and Gentiles, Evangelism, Church as God’s People |
| Low | 4 | Automated review only | Apostleship, Thanksgiving, Mutual Edification, Christian Fellowship |
Why Critical doctrines cluster where they do
Romanian’s Critical-risk cluster centers on grace, salvation, sainthood, and intercession because these are precisely the doctrines where Orthodox theosis/synergy theology and Western Protestant forensic theology have developed the same vocabulary in genuinely different directions over many centuries — a different kind of risk from a syncretism-vocabulary language, since both readings are historically Christian, well-developed, and internally coherent. The core Christological doctrines (deity, sonship, resurrection, lordship of Christ) are Critical for the more universal reason shared across languages in this pipeline: any language’s mistranslation here would destroy essential, creedal Christian doctrine.
Review routing rationale
Critical and High risk doctrines (20 of 40) require mandatory human theologian review because an automated or native-speaker-only check could confirm the Romanian is fluent and theologically serious by either Orthodox or Evangelical standards without catching that it silently privileges one tradition’s system over Paul’s actual argument in Romans. Native speaker review is sufficient for Medium-risk doctrines, where the concern is cultural fit (e.g. national-identity entanglement with “misiune” and “evanghelizare”) rather than a direct cross-tradition doctrinal collision.