I have participated in a number of discussions over the past few months with fellow ministers concerning various issues. Inconsistency is one of the things that consistently comes up in discussions about Apostolic issues. So the question becomes, what impact does consistency have on one's argument? Must one be absolutely consistent within the framework of a particular issue in order for their argument to be received?
I must confess that when one is inconsistent in their argumentation and application I tend to discredit the validity of their argument. This may or may not be a valid response. Be that as it may, it is the common response. The sentiment is as follows: if you cannot consistently apply your own doctrine, then why should I be convinced of it's validity?
Just because someone does not consistently apply their doctrine, that does not mean that their doctrine is wrong. Conversely, if a view is so inherently flawed that it can be applied consistently with little to no success, then it's weakness is self-evident. A doctrine that is practically impossible—or even improbable—to apply consistently in real life does not bear the marks of a true doctrine.
I guess the point that I am getting to with this blog is this: don't be angry because people question your positions when they have gaping inconsistencies.
With that being said, we all have blind spots in our lives. We are all strong in one area and weak in others. But we should seek to have a logically and scripturally consistent presentation of any given doctrine that we teach. And if it cannot be practiced in a livable way then it may be worth reconsidering.