Well, it means that the overarching idea that's held by the general (current) churchgoer is more significant that the definitions placed on specific doctrinal teachings by various (dead) apologists. Religions - the successful ones - grow and evolve. And doctrines change.
Is there just one overarching idea that the general (current) churchgoer believes? What is that idea?
Or, is the doctrinal belief(s) of the general churchgoer a complex set that is most heavily influenced by their preachers/pastors who, in turn, take their doctrinal cues from the major theologists and apologists of their particular denomination which are, in turn, heavily influenced by cultural shifts?
Either way, it may be an interesting point but, as a response to my earlier post, I don't really see what it has to do with what I was saying in this post:
Originally Posted by benbradley
Is it Christian doctrine that all Christian doctrine is logically compatible? I know a lot of people assume it all should be.
If one believes the Bible is the inerrant Word of God and believes His teachings/commandments to be perfect, then yes. And that's what theological apologists (e.g. Plantinga, William Lane Craig, St. Anslem, Aquinas, Tertullian, etc.) have spent centuries trying to prove. Granted, they dance with modal logic which can be logically compatible with anything because, you know, "possibilities."
Ben was asking if it's "doctrine" that all Christian doctrine must be logically compatible. And, I answered that, yes, it is IF you are a person who believes that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God and believes His teachings/commandments to be perfect.
The belief that God is perfect and that His commands are perfect IS part of major Christian doctrine. It is something that must be believed in the overwhelming majority of Christian faiths. Sure, that might change one day, but we're talking about the reality of now and not what might happen in 100 years.
I was also making the point (expounding on it here) that apologists have, over the centuries and continuing to today, utilized their time to create some rather complex and creative post hoc rationalizations for how the many facets of Christian doctrine (as proscribed mainly in the Bible) are all logically coherent, given that many of those Biblical teachings/commandments are severely contradictory.
What any of that discussion of doctrinal logical coherence and theological attempts at compatibilism has to do with your point about "the overarching idea that's held by the general (current) churchgoer is more significant..." is something that I'm not following.
Indeed, you brought up a point. But it seems to be one that is, at best, slightly orthogonal and, at worst, totally unrelated to what ben and I were discussing. Thus, my confusion.
