Multi-Frame Comparison

Compare two or three theological frames on a doctrine or question while holding tension. Each frame gets its own logic—no premature consensus, no “basically the same” shortcuts.

Core Protocol

Jump to Prompt What this does

Separate frame logic Argument maps Traceable sources Tension held

When to use it

Use this after you’ve defined the doctrine/question and want a fair, structured comparison across traditions.

After a first interpretation pass
Before a debate, class, or post
When authority disputes block “closure”

What it prevents

Forced harmonization. If the frames disagree about what counts as decisive evidence, the output keeps that disagreement visible.

What this protocol does

This prompt builds parallel frame profiles, then runs a side-by-side argument map on your specific thesis. It ends by listing live tensions—exactly where the frames diverge—and refuses to resolve them unless you type SYNTHESIZE.

1) Frame profiles

Authority anchors, hermeneutics, preferred texts, and internal boundary lines—each frame on its own terms.

2) Parallel argument maps

Claim → premises → inference chain → vulnerabilities, with citations labeled as [Primary], [Secondary], or [Uncited].

3) Live tensions (no closure)

Where the disagreement actually lives: premise conflict, inference jump, or authority weighting that blocks resolution.

Best practice: keep the doctrine/question narrow and name a specific thesis. “Compare everything about salvation” is too big—pick one decision point.

Copy-paste prompt

Click “Copy Prompt” to grab the full instruction set. Then paste it into ChatGPT / Pickaxe and fill in your inputs.

Multi-Frame Comparison Without Synthesis

Prompt: Multi-Frame Comparison Without Synthesis

Purpose
Compare two or three theological frames on a doctrine/question while holding tension and avoiding premature consensus.

When to use
After you’ve done a first pass of interpretation on a text or defined a doctrine to compare across traditions.

Role and method
You are an AI interlocutor for theological inquiry.
Do not act as a pastor, counselor, or authority.
Ask clarifying questions before answering.
Present each frame in its own logic, charitably and critically.
Do not synthesize or recommend unless I explicitly type SYNTHESIZE.

Task
Construct parallel profiles and argument maps for multiple frames on a defined doctrine or question.

Inputs
Doctrine/question: [e.g., “What is the nature of the Eucharist?” or “Soteriology: the order of salvation”]
Frames to compare (2–3): [e.g., Reformed, Catholic, Orthodox]
Key sources to prioritize (optional): [list passages, councils, confessions, theologians; else leave blank]
Scope constraints (optional): [e.g., limit to 500 words per frame; modern representatives only]

Constraints
No synthesis, verdicts, or applications.
Use fair, representative descriptions. Avoid strawmen.
Label sources as [Primary], [Secondary], or [Uncited]. If you cannot verify, mark [Unverified].
Keep claims traceable to sources or clearly mark [Speculative].

Output format

Frame Profiles
For each frame (separate sections):
- Authority anchors: (Scripture, councils/creeds/confessions, magisterium, key theologians) [Primary/Secondary]
- First principles and typical hermeneutics: (how texts are read; key interpretive priorities)
- Representative arguments and preferred texts: (bullet list with short rationale) [Primary/Secondary]
- Internal tensions/boundary conditions: (known debates or limits within the frame)

Parallel Argument Maps on [state your specific thesis]
For each frame:
- Claim (one sentence)
- Premises (3–5 bullets referencing sources or principles)
- Inference chain (numbered steps from premises to claim)
- Vulnerabilities/objections
  - From within the frame (self-critique)
  - From other frames (strongest opposing critique, “steelman”)

Live Tensions (do not resolve)
List the unresolved disagreements between frames:
- What evidence would move the needle for each frame?
- Which authority disputes prevent closure?
- Practical implications that would still differ even if theoretical overlap exists

Clarifying questions back to me
Ask 2–3 questions that would help refine fairness or scope
(e.g., historical period focus, representative theologians, translation choices).

Guardrail macro (optional, paste at top or bottom)
Do not synthesize or recommend. Keep frames separate.
If I type SYNTHESIZE, provide a separate section that attempts a synthesis and marks where it departs from each frame.

Quick follow-ups
- “Add quotations from representative sources for each frame with citations if possible.”
- “What would each frame count as decisive counterevidence against itself?”
- “Outline a 15-minute teaching plan to present both frames fairly.”

Tip: If you want an even cleaner result, pair this with: Parallel Argument Map on the same thesis.

Quick start

Minimal Input

// Paste the prompt above, then add:

DOCTRINE/QUESTION:
Nature of the Eucharist

FRAMES:
Reformed, Catholic, Orthodox

SPECIFIC THESIS:
“Is Christ substantially present in the Eucharist?”

SCOPE:
≤350 words per frame

OPTIONAL SOURCES:
(leave blank to let the model propose candidates)

House rule: If a source can’t be verified, mark [Unverified]. If a claim can’t be sourced, mark [Uncited] or [Speculative].

Want the full library? Go back to Method Protocols and choose a different instrument.