the church

[Synergos]

And how, in your view, are we to determine that?

In my view, at least, for all I know, if a man look to the Lord God Jesus Christ, who is the "Truth", and thus the Light, and shun evils as sins against Him, it is the beginning, but there is also a need to have the loyalty to the truth itself to be higher than the position of the church of one's birth or family, tradition, etc. For otherwise, would not a mean merely try to argue in favor of his own tradition, not being interested what is the actual truth?

Very rarely he can be given, I think, more immediate light from the Word to see what is the true, but more realistically, most people, apart from the explanation by other men, can hard see the truth immediately in such light. However, if they are interested in the truth, being in the affection for the truth itself and good, then they can see in the writings of other men, whether their explanation of the Word is more sound, rational, correct.

 

[Right Divider]

In my view, at least, for all I know, if a man look to the Lord God Jesus Christ, who is the "Truth", and thus the Light, and shun evils as sins against Him, it is the beginning, but there is also a need to have the loyalty to the truth itself to be higher than the position of the church of one's birth or family, tradition, etc. For otherwise, would not a mean merely try to argue in favor of his own tradition, not being interested what is the actual truth?

Very rarely he can be given, I think, more immediate light from the Word to see what is the true, but more realistically, most people, apart from the explanation by other men, can hard see the truth immediately in such light. However, if they are interested in the truth, being in the affection for the truth itself and good, then they can see in the writings of other men, whether their explanation of the Word is more sound, rational, correct.

And when it comes to understanding the scripture, how do we determine what is true?

 

[Synergos]

And when it comes to understanding the scripture, how do we determine what is true?

Ideally, which is exteremely rare, it is the truth that Lord opens to man in enlightening his mind when he reads or hears the Word (provided a man looks to the Lord Jesus Christ, and the truth that he sees agrees with the essentials of the Word, and thus is not some phantasy). How otherwise could Peter recognize the Lord for the Son of Man? Most men, though, at best, acknowledge this heaving heard from others. But most of the most is accepting the opinion on the basis of the trust to authority. So, the Roman-Catholic, the Orthodox and even not a few Protestants accept the views which they are taught in schools, but do they really see from the Word from the Lord, whether the teaching of their church is aligned with the Word or not?

Here is an opinion about the role of the doctrine in explaining the Word:

"76. VIII

THE CHURCH IS FROM THE WORD, AND IS SUCH AS IS ITS UNDERSTANDING OF THE WORD

That the church is from the Word does not admit of doubt, for the Word is Divine truth itself (n. 1-4); the doctrine of the church is from the Word (n. 50-61) and through the Word there is conjunction with the Lord (n. 62-69). But doubt may arise as to whether the understanding of the Word is what makes the church, for there are those who believe that they are of the church because they have the Word, read it or hear it from a preacher, and know something of its sense of the letter, yet how this or that in the Word is to be understood they do not know, and some of them little care. It shall therefore be proved that it is not the Word that makes the church, but the understanding of it, and that such as is the understanding of the Word among those who are in the church, such is the church itself. The proof of this is as follows.

77. The Word is the Word according to the understanding of it in a man, that is, as it is understood. If it is not understood, the Word is indeed called the Word, but it is not the Word with the man. The Word is the truth according to the understanding of it, for it may not be the truth, because it may be falsified. The Word is spirit and life according to the understanding of it, for its letter if not understood is dead. And as a man has truth and life according to his understanding of the Word, so has he faith and love according thereto, for truth is of faith, and love is of life. Now as the church exists by means of faith and love, and according to them, it follows that the church is the church through the understanding of the Word and according thereto; a noble church if in genuine truths, an ignoble church if not in genuine truths, and a destroyed church if in falsified truths.

78. Further, it is through the Word that the Lord is present with a man and is conjoined with him, for the Lord is the Word, and as it were speaks with the man in it. The Lord is also Divine truth itself, as likewise is the Word. From this it is evident that the Lord is present with a man and is at the same time conjoined with him, according to his understanding of the Word, for according to this the man has truth and the derivative faith, and also love and the derivative life. The Lord is indeed present with a man through the reading of the Word, but he is conjoined with him through the understanding of truth from the Word, and according thereto; and in proportion as the Lord has been conjoined with a man, in the same proportion the church is in him. The church is within man; the church that is outside of him is the church with a number of men who have the church within them. This is meant by the Lord's words to the Pharisees who asked when the kingdom of God would come:
The kingdom of God is within you (Luke 17:21).
Here the "kingdom of God" means the Lord, and from him, the church."

So, if I understand the whole case correctly, the genuine doctrine has to be procured, provided it is seens from the Lord in the Word, that this doctrine is true, and correctly and soundly and even rationally explains the Word. And then the Word can be seen as to its various aspecs in the light of that genuine doctrine.

 

[Right Divider]

Ideally, which is exteremely rare, it is the truth that Lord opens to man in enlightening his mind when he reads or hears the Word (provided a man looks to the Lord Jesus Christ, and the truth that he sees agrees with the essentials of the Word, and thus is not some phantasy).

So, if two different men make the claim that they are correct and enlightened, and yet their opinions conflict... then what do we do?

 

[Synergos]

So, if two different men make the claim that they are correct and enlightened, and yet their opinions conflict... then what do we do?

Sound question. In my view, they have to appeal to the point which interpretation better explains the Word

"... 245. It is known that the church is in accordance with its doctrine, and that doctrine is from the Word; nevertheless it is not doctrine but soundness and purity of doctrine, consequently the understanding of the Word, that establishes the church."

The point is not to win the overall applaus, because for those who are interested in the truth, it is truth that is important, even if it is not accepted by many.

 

[Right Divider]

Sound question. In my view, they have to appeal to the point which interpretation better explains the Word

And... how do we determine "which interpretation better explains the Word"?

 

[Synergos]

And... how do we determine "which interpretation better explains the Word"?

A man has to be to able to determine it for himself, though not from his own self-intelligence or wilful passions.

"Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven."

If it is according to the dogmatics of some church, that nobody can actually understand the truth to be the truth, but has to only believe what the church teaches on certain point, that, of course, discourages men to look for the understanding the things for themselves, be it the Word, or doctrines explaining it, but my point that the Word was given to a man, with all the challenges that a man has, yet with the goal that it may be understood. Some of course may understand it more accurately, some less, some not understand at all, but yet it is possible.

 

[Right Divider]

A man has to be to able to determine it for himself, though not from his own self-intelligence or wilful passions.

Again you are dodging the question: HOW is a man able to determine is for himself?

"Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven."

I would suggest that Peter is a bit of a "special case".

How does someone, today, determine what is the correct understanding of the Bible?

If it is according to the dogmatics of some church, that nobody can actually understand the truth to be the truth, but has to only believe what the church teaches on certain point, that, of course, discourages men to look for the understanding the things for themselves, be it the Word, or doctrines explaining it, but my point that the Word was given to a man, with all the challenges that a man has, yet with the goal that it may be understood. Some of course may understand it more accurately, some less, some not understand at all, but yet it is possible.

Again, HOW do we determine WHO is correct?

P.S. Please, no more dodging and red herrings.

 

[Synergos]

Again you are dodging the question: HOW is a man able to determine is for himself?

I would suggest that Peter is a bit of a "special case".

How does someone, today, determine what is the correct understanding of the Bible?

Again, HOW do we determine WHO is correct?

P.S. Please, no more dodging and red herrings.

I spoke about it above. In simple terms: you need to find the doctrine/text/explanation, which explains the text of the Sacred Scripture soundly, rationally. But to be able to see that, you need to have at least a tiny bit of affection of truth for the sake of truth, and also some degree of sound thinking, honestly. This is the true "how". For if you go yourself, on your own to the Old Testament, and New Testament, it would still be difficult for you to understand the truth in its whole context, not only literal, but also spiritual. And so you need to find the text in which both the priniciples of exposition are explained, and the various stories are explained. And then gradually, as you read such a doctrine/text, provided it is the authentic one, you'll be able from to see from the Lord what is the truth in the Word, who is correct.

That is the how and who. Today. It is like the Lord opening up the sight for the blind person. It is up to the Lord how He, or the Truth, does it.

 

[Right Divider]

I spoke about it above. In simple terms: you need to find the doctrine/text/explanation, which explains the text of the Sacred Scripture soundly, rationally.

You're making progress.

But to be able to see that, you need to have at least a tiny bit of affection of truth for the sake of truth, and also some degree of sound thinking, honestly.

Indeed, what does it mean to "think soundly"?

This is the true "how". For if you go yourself, on your own to the Old Testament, and New Testament, it would still be difficult for you to understand the truth in its whole context, not only literal, but also spiritual.

Do you not "go yourself"?

And so you need to find the text in which both the priniciples of exposition are explained, and the various stories are explained. And then gradually, as you read such a doctrine/text, provided it is the authentic one, you'll be able from to see from the Lord what is the truth in the Word, who is correct.

And how do you know "which is the authentic one"?

That is the how and who. Today. It is like the Lord opening up the sight for the blind person. It is up to the Lord how He, or the Truth, does it.

So... if two people both claim that the Lord is opening up the scripture to them and yet they completely disagree on it... what do we do then?

 

[Nick M]

As to the letter, He can be considered to be building it on Peter.

I don't read a lick of Greek and I know what he said. And it is moot. That church is Israel. The church in the wilderness. That is not the church today. They have been set aside.

But the church is built on the confession of Peter, though because the Lord spoke representatively, by correspondences, it does appear that He speaks about Peter. Though, again, in another place, He refers to him as Satan. And you cannot take what you like to fit your doctrine, and then exclude what you do not like. So, if you include the letter, then you have to include both passages. And in that regard, those who built the church on men, Peter in the first place, and not on the Lord Alone and the true confession of Him, do not built it on anything genuine .Which eventually results in the other abominations.

Read what leads up to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

 

[Nick M]

And I just went and read a little more regarding his name "Petros" is a stone easily moved. At least he didn't call him Satan this time. And that is secondary to the fact that the church was Israel. Not the body today.

 

[Clete]

In my view

The truth is not a matter of opinion.

, at least, for all I know, if a man look to the Lord God Jesus Christ, who is the "Truth", and thus the Light, and shun evils as sins against Him, it is the beginning,

So, this right here is the reason I asked the question. You claimed that "the point is not whether the interpretation suits one's doctrine, but whether the interpretation is true." Yet when asked how such truth is to be determined, you immediately appeal to inward disposition, personal orientation, and doctrinal assumptions framed in the language of personal opinion.

That does not provide an objective standard by which interpretations may be tested. It merely describes the state of the interpreter.

(To be clear, your appeal to Jesus as the Truth is quite correct. That is indeed, as you say, the beginning. The issue is the subjective way in which you couch that truth.)

...but there is also a need to have the loyalty to the truth itself to be higher than the position of the church of one's birth or family, tradition, etc. For otherwise, would not a mean merely try to argue in favor of his own tradition, not being interested what is the actual truth?

Now we're getting somewhere!

The fact is that your use of the word "also" here is where you go wrong. Loyalty to the truth is not something we have along side our personal opinions or church or tradition. It is THE supreme thing. Truth is the object of one's loyalty - to the exclusion of all others.

Very rarely he can be given, I think, more immediate light from the Word to see what is the true, but more realistically, most people, apart from the explanation by other men, can hard see the truth immediately in such light. However, if they are interested in the truth, being in the affection for the truth itself and good, then they can see in the writings of other men, whether their explanation of the Word is more sound, rational, correct.

What a man can or cannot see is not the standard. There is simply no such thing as an irrational truth. Whether one detects the errors within a stated claim or not is not relevant to whether such errors exists. What's more, the degree to which one's loyalties are to anything other than the truth itself is the degree to which they are blinded to anything that contradicts the object of that misplaced loyalty. Such loyalties serve to distort one's view of reality, which is the standard. Truth is determined by conformity to reality, not by the intensity of one's convictions concerning it.

So, in continuance of that line of thought, allow me to answer the question I asked you. How are we to determine which interpretation of scripture is true?
Truth, any sort of truth, whether biblical, theological, philosophical, scientific or whatever, is determined by conformity to reality. A thing is true because it corresponds to what is, not because it is ancient, traditional, emotionally satisfying, spiritually appealing, or intensely believed.

For that reason, the highest loyalty of a rational man cannot be to church, tradition, teachers, institutions, experiences, inward impressions, or even his own prior conclusions. His highest loyalty must be to the truth itself, wherever it leads and whatever it overturns.

That is what it means to be intellectual honest. To be loyal to truth is to permit reality to correct you. It is to follow reason, evidence, context, and logical consistency even when they conflict with your preferences, your assumptions, your tradition, or your theological system. A man who is truly loyal to truth does not ask, "What interpretation preserves my system?" He asks, "What interpretation is actually warranted by the text, the context, the grammar, and reality itself?"

Truth remains what it is regardless of whether we perceive it correctly. Our task is therefore not to create truth, nor spiritually intuit it into existence, but to conform our thinking to what is objectively real.

How then do we conform our thinking to what is objectively real?

By the honest use of reason.

Reason is the faculty by which the mind recognizes coherence, contradiction, implication, context, and meaning. It is the means by which we compare our beliefs to reality itself.

For that reason, loyalty to truth necessarily requires loyalty to rational consistency. A contradiction cannot become true through sincerity, tradition, spiritual sentiment, institutional authority, or intensity of conviction. Truth must be coherent because reality itself is coherent.

This is why rationality is not the enemy of truth, but one of its necessary preconditions. If reason is abandoned, then there remains no objective mechanism by which truth can be distinguished from imagination, preference, or doctrinal invention.

A man conforms himself to reality by continually permitting his assumptions, interpretations, doctrines, and conclusions to be tested by reason, evidence, context, and logical consistency, correcting them wherever they fail to correspond with what is objectively true.

One final point, in case you may be thinking that such a position is somehow unpious or that it places one's own mind in authority over scripture or indeed over God himself. I can assure you that nothing could be further from the truth.

Reason is not a standard external to God by which He is judged. Reason is rooted in the nature of God Himself. God is not irrational, contradictory, or incoherent. Scripture presents Him not as the enemy of reason, but as its eternal source.

This is profoundly reflected in John 1, where Christ is identified as the Logos. The term does not merely refer to a spoken word, but to reason, rationality, meaning, coherence, and intelligibility itself. Christ is presented as the eternal rational principle through whom all things were made and by whom reality is rendered intelligible.

For that reason, rational coherence is not something standing above God. It is an expression of His very nature.

This is why contradictions cannot become true through appeals to mystery, tradition, authority, or spiritual sentiment. A thing cannot both be and not be in the same sense and at the same time. Irrationality is not a divine attribute. The honest use of reason is therefore not an act of rebellion against God, but an act of submission to the God who is Truth itself.

To abandon reason is not humility. It is the surrender of the very faculty by which truth, meaning, coherence, and even the words of Scripture themselves are understood.

 

[Synergos]

So... if two people both claim that the Lord is opening up the scripture to them and yet they completely disagree on it... what do we do then?

The point of it is not to spend one's time in idle debating about theoretical situation, but to try to search for the truth for oneself, and then a person will see. It is useful, of course, to have honesty and some basic of sound reason, so that a person give up before anything of common perception. Of course, if a person lost sound reason and is dishonest or deceitful in his thinking, it will be hard to progress.

 

[Right Divider]

The point of it is not to spend one's time in idle debating about theoretical situation,

The Bible is not a book of "theoretical situations". It is the guide book of life.

but to try to search for the truth for oneself,

Truth is not an individual thing. It is something that we all share.

and then a person will see.

Not necessarily.

It is useful, of course, to have honesty and some basic of sound reason, so that a person give up before anything of common perception.

It is not useful to have sound reason, it is essential.

Of course, if a person lost sound reason and is dishonest or deceitful in his thinking, it will be hard to progress.

As Christians, our common union is found in the Bible. If we cannot agree on what it means, we cannot have unity in the faith.

 

[Synergos]

How are we to determine which interpretation of scripture is true?
....
For that reason, loyalty to truth necessarily requires loyalty to rational consistency. A contradiction cannot become true through sincerity, tradition, spiritual sentiment, institutional authority, or intensity of conviction. Truth must be coherent because reality itself is coherent.
....
To abandon reason is not humility. It is the surrender of the very faculty by which truth, meaning, coherence, and even the words of Scripture themselves are understood.

You bring up a lot of interesting considerations, with many of which I agree. In the following I may repeat something of what I have already said, though in some variation. In my personal experience, the determination relates to both a man's interest in the truth for the sake of truth. - This is indeed on the part of man. And the sound reason has to take a certain part in it, lest a man be just confused by the various ideas of those, who have erroneous views, and yet claim that they have to be believed, though they cannot be understood.
On the other hand, it relates also to man's approaching the Lord, who is the Light. On still another hand, it relates to the goals of the Divine Providence, for the Lord, according to what I learn, does not necessarily allow men in this life to come to the genuine true (but this is another issue).

To summarize:

1. Looking to the Lord J.C., who is Light. (in some cases, simply looking to God, when a man does not even know about the Lord).
2. Affection of truth for the sake of truth (thus, not for the sake of status, loyalty, self-advantage in the world, gains), and thus also for the sake of God, and eternal life. That kind of affection/interest is certainly not given with many, but still there can be some approximation to it.
3. Sound reason. Hopefully it is actually sound, at least, to such a degree that a person does not subject on the other hand his thought to the merely sensual confirmations in the first place, but on the other does not allow the various methods of persuasion/authority to persuade him to see the white dove as the grey or as the black, by the skilled arguments. This results in observation whether someone's arguments are consistent, sound, and say the intepretation/method explains the various things in the Word without contradictions or not.

The above may sound challenging, but in practice it can be even more challenging.

Consider the case.

1. In the letter of the OT there is an idea of the three Divine Persons. At least, it appears that there are three persons. However, it is claimed that God is one.
2. In the letter of the NT there is an idea of the three, though it appears in some places that Father is separate from the Son, but in other places, it is stressed that they are one. In some places, it appears as if the Father is higher Divinity, as it were. But in other places, that they are essentially equal. In still other places, the focus shifts to the Divinity of the Lord, that He is the Door, that the One who sees Him sees the Father, that He was given all power in heaven and on earth, and that His Human was glorified, so essentially Divine. Besides, He was called by John in the epistle, the True God and Life Eternal.

So, there was one intepretation of Trinity as per Apostolic Creed. Nothing stated about three distinct persons-god.
There was the Nicean Creed, when the terms were introduced, though it was not specified in the very text, perhaps, with 100% clarity, how exactly the persona/hypostatis to be understood, whether as Person in the nowadays sense of the word, or Divine Attributes. And yet the idea was of course that there one Divine Substance.
Then the Athanasian Creed perhaps made those persons a bit more distinct.

Now, when we regard those ideas in the light of the Word, we cannot deny the Trinity, for the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are spoken about, and it would be incorrect to deny that. But how do we understand it? If according to the letter alone, then there appears to be three, or even distinct persons if per OT. Though the Holy Spirit stands a bit separate, for the Lord, having breathed on the disciples, passed the Holy Spirit to them, which is evidently not a Person (in the nowadays sense of the term).

So, if we just rely on the idea that they, while being distinct persons, yet constitute one God, does it agree with the Word in all places, and with sound reason?

But if we consider the idea, which involves not only the letter, but the spiritual sense, and is not opposite to sound reason, that the Trinity is not outside the Lord, but in Him, as the Soul, Body and Operation are constituents or attributes of One Person, then that interpretation may be more easily seen to be more sound on one hand, though it may not be clear, why there is such appearance of the Father distinct from the Son, in some places, as Individual Persons, and how to explain those.

So, how would a man, not knowing which interpretation is correct, act? Perhaps, study arguments of both sides, apart from prejudices, propagandas, appeal to authority and tradition?

"The Divine Trinity in one Person is to be understood as soul, body, and proceeding operation, which together constitute one essence, for the one is from the other, and therefore the one belongs to the other. In the same way there is a trinity in each man, which taken together constitutes one person, to wit, the soul, the body, and the operation that goes forth. But in man this trinity is finite, because man is only an organ of life; whereas in the Lord the Trinity is infinite and thus Divine, because the Lord is life itself even in respect to the Human, as He Himself teaches in John 5:26; 14:6; and also elsewhere." ("Nine questions")

 

[Right Divider]

You bring up a lot of interesting considerations, with many of which I agree. In the following I may repeat something of what I have already said, though in some variation. In my personal experience, the determination relates to both a man's interest in the truth for the sake of truth. - This is indeed on the part of man. And the sound reason has to take a certain part in it, lest a man be just confused by the various ideas of those, who have erroneous views, and yet claim that they have to be believed, though they cannot be understood.

Sound reason is fundamental to understanding anything. The moment that a man veers off the path of sound reason, he has wondered off into wonderland.

On the other hand, it relates also to man's approaching the Lord, who is the Light. On still another hand, it relates to the goals of the Divine Providence, for the Lord, according to what I learn, does not necessarily allow men in this life to come to the genuine true (but this is another issue).

That is a very bizarre claim. Care to make an argument?

To summarize:

1. Looking to the Lord J.C., who is Light. (in some cases, simply looking to God, when a man does not even know about the Lord).

Trying to make a distinction between God and Lord will lead you to total confusion. Maybe you're there already.

Most of the rest of your post is rambling nonsense that I will not attempt to wade through.

 

[Nick M]

So, if we just rely on the idea that they, while being distinct persons, yet constitute one God, does it agree with the Word in all places, and with sound reason?

Yes. On the first page of the Bible he refers to himself in a plural way. I just want to make sure all the information is taken in and understood. In the "New Testament" we are told one of the persons was emptied of his power. And he came lower than the angels. So him appearing lower does not need an explanation to me.

 

[Right Divider]

Yes. On the first page of the Bible he refers to himself in a plural way. I just want to make sure all the information is taken in and understood. In the "New Testament" we are told one of the persons was emptied of his power. And he came lower than the angels. So him appearing lower does not need an explanation to me.

No, not of His power... but of His position in heaven. Jesus still controlled the storm, etc. He was still the Creator of all things, etc.'

He condescended to take on human flesh and live on earth as a man. The transfiguration demonstrated that He gave up none of His deity.

 

[Nick M]

No, not of His power... but of His position in heaven.

That is power. His position. He came lower than the angels. While still being divine.

7 But He emptied Himself, taking upon Himself the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in the form of a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to death, even death on a cross.