What is "Doctrine Matters" folder for?

[Nemo]

In Doctrine Matters, we discuss doctrinal issues that the early Church Fathers have faced, and how they responded to the challenges.

[Kerstin]

In this compilation of apologetics are a number of links of Church Fathers' writings on certain topics, such as the Eucharist, Mary, Apostolic Succession, etc., etc.

https://stpaulcenter.com/library/apol...

[Nemo]

For discussions on doctrine matters, I prefer what C. S. Lewis called "Mere Christianity" approach, that is, to clarify and explain the core teachings of Christianity, the common ground shared by Protestant, Eastern Orthodox and Catholic traditions.

However, doctrinal issues addressed by the Church Fathers in their formal writings fall within the scope of our discussion, and arguments and debates are welcome provided they are carried out in the spirit of charity.

[Cleo]

(moved from Resource Folder)

Are we looking at the Church Fathers from an Orthodox or Catholic perspective or both? I'm sure there's common overlap in how the Fathers are viewed by each, but I know that, for example, the Orthodox take issue with some of Augustine's views which Catholics don't. How do we incorporate the different views (RC & Orth.) or do we even try? :-Z

[Nemo]

Cleo wrote: "the Orthodox take issue with some of Augustine's views which Catholics don't. How do we incorporate the different views (RC & Orth.) or do we even try? "

I think one of the issues is "Original Sin" (vs. "ancestral sin"). Hopefully, we'll get a better understanding of both the Catholic and the Orthodox conceptions.

As for which one to incorporate, or how to incorporate the views, that is entirely up to you. :)

[Kerstin]

Nemo wrote: "For discussions on doctrine matters, I prefer what C. S. Lewis called "Mere Christianity" approach, that is, to clarify and explain the core teachings of Christianity, the common ground shared by P..."

I agree :)

[Clark]

Cleo wrote: "(moved from Resource Folder)

Are we looking at the Church Fathers from an Orthodox or Catholic perspective or both? ... How do we incorporate the different views (RC & Orth.) or do we even try? :-Z"

I'm trying to lead some discussions here using what some call the "shared inquiry" approach, which focuses almost exclusively on the text. My experience so far, though brief, is that at this level we can have a grand time, with great benefit, without encountering cross-tradition conflicts. These discussions are governed by questions that basically ask (from various angles), "What did the author say?" They do not evaluate the author or decide whether the author's positions are true or false, wise or unwise. Generally it is these latter questions on which the faith traditions divide, so in "shared inquiry" one doesn't even need to do the "mere Christianity" thing.

[Nemo]

Clark wrote: ".. These discussions are governed by questions that basically ask (from various angles), "What did the author say?" They do not evaluate the author or decide whether the author's positions are true or false, wise or unwise. Generally it is these latter questions on which the faith traditions divide, so in "shared inquiry" one doesn't even need to do the "mere Christianity" thing.
...."

My experience with this and another GR group is that people from different belief systems / traditions tend to interpret the text from their own perspective, even when they focus (exclusively) on the text. We all look at the same data and evidence, but come away with different conclusions.

As Kerstin put it in the Origen thread, "no text exists in a vacuum". This is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as we are willing to acknowledge our own limitations and respect others' contributions. Different perspectives and interpretations can enrich and deepen our understanding.

Augustine of Hippo writes that many valid interpretations of a Biblical text can co-exist, provided they are consistent with faith and sound reason/logic.

[Clark]

Nemo wrote: "My experience with this and another GR group is that people from different belief systems / traditions tend to interpret the text from their own perspective, even when they focus (exclusively) on the text."

Which is exactly why I try so unreasonably to focus on the text exclusively and to avoid the apparently reasonable introduction of other elements.

If we try, in company with people who come from different traditions, honestly and strenuously to answer a variation of the question "What did Origen actually say?" and if our arguments are based on citations of the text then we minimize the natural and ubiquitous tendency of the human mind to see what it expects.