Formal model
Hermeneutical dependency
Every conclusion rests on texts, on in-between steps and on a tradition's reading principles. This page records those dependencies explicitly, so you can see what a doctrine actually relies on and what follows when any part of it is rejected.
01 · The objects
A claim reported from the text itself, such as what Hebrews says.
An in-between step an argument needs, recorded as its own claim so it can be examined and disputed.
A broader conclusion built from theses and lemmas. Parent claims are where traditions most often disagree.
A typed link from a claim to the claim it rests on: textual premise, lemma, interpretive step, tradition axiom or argument by contrast. Each link is marked necessary or supporting.
A reading principle held by one tradition, such as typology, Torah permanence or one covenant of grace. Claims either require it or are strengthened by it.
A serious rival reading, credited to whoever holds it, with its alternative interpretation, its evidence and the axiom it rejects.
Each Covenant Map and Doctrine Graph connection is linked to the claims that ground or illustrate it.
How rejection spreads: rejecting a claim breaks every claim that needs it as a necessary premise. Rejecting an axiom breaks the claims that require it and weakens those it only strengthens. The effect follows the links through the record. A claim stays broken only if every step on its path was necessary; anywhere a step was only supporting, it is weakened instead. Map connections take on the effect of the claims that ground them.
03 · Rejection analysis
Loading the graph…