How to choose among conflicting theories in systematic theology?

According to Wolfhart Pannenberg, systematic theology should aim at being as coherent as possible as a test of all its inherent truth claims. But what if two systematic theologies are argued to be coherent presentations of the Christian faith, yet include different and conflicting claims? This is a relevant question raised by Pannenberg’s philosophical-theological method which he does not answer adequately. In this article, we will suggest a solution to the problem. We use resources in Rescher’s and Puntel’s philosophies for using and specifying an aspect of coherence called “cohesiveness”, looking further into the strength of connections and their granularity. Cohesiveness and granularity cannot only be used as criteria for evaluating a systematic theology as a whole, but also for determining which elements are most important to integrate into systematic theology.