In general, I think Tracy's decision to make doctrine the focus of the book is a mistake: he is good at explicating it but poor at making it important.
Two of Collins' books deal with the authenticity of Article 20 of the Thirty nine Articles and whether the church has the power to make doctrine.
He surmised that had radar been a factor in making doctrine, many theorists would have reasoned that massed defenses would make all strategic air attacks too costly, inhibiting if not entirely suppressing the concepts that proved decisive in World War II and essential to the creation of the United States Air Force.
In 1619 they reached a climax at the Synod of Dort in the Netherlands, which spelled out various corollaries of predestination, as Calvin had never done, and made the doctrine central to Calvinism.
This is a moderate Stoic cosmopolitanism, and empire made the doctrine very easy for many Romans by identifying the Roman patria with the cosmopolis itself.
The geography of the Vimy battlefield made the doctrine of defence-in-depth difficult to execute.
Zarathustra addresses noble lies to the crowd, which make his doctrines appear to be afrmative and salvational, but try to seduce the majority to their own self-destruction.
He suggests that Swinburne's real error lies in his attempt to make the doctrine intelligible at all, which robs the doctrine of its mystery, turning it into "something that any bright philosophy or theology student can clearly grasp here and now", rather than something that will be understood only "when we see the Triune God face to face" (56; cf. Alston 2005 and section 3 below).
In Spinoza's eyes the combination of these doctrines made the world unintelligible.
In his youth, Kant's doctrines made a great impression on him; later he was stirred both by Fichte's metaphysical idealism and by Husserlian phenomenology.
In either case, they are likely to make bad doctrine.
