the church

[Right Divider]

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.

Which means that He gave up no power.

 

[Clete]

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")

Well, there is a lot there that could be responded to but responding directly to each point is not called for here because I think I get the gist of your position. Let me just ask you to respond to few points which I think are central to this particular topic....

Would you agree with the following....

1. Reason works. That is, we are rational creatures, created in the image of a rational God, with the ability to rightly distinguish between that which is coherent and that which is not.
2. There is no such thing as an irrational truth.
3. Christian theology and Christian philosophy are the same thing. (The correctness or skill employed therein, not withstanding.)

 

[Synergos]

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.

One thing is reading the Word, and the terms. But it is not the same as undestanding them in their context and meaning. The pride of one's intelligence, individual and collective, is not the best friend in such things especially, be it extremely limited or, subjectively, high.

 

[Synergos]

Well, there is a lot there that could be responded to but responding directly to each point is not called for here because I think I get the gist of your position. Let me just ask you to respond to few points which I think are central to this particular topic....

Would you agree with the following....

1. Reason works. That is, we are rational creatures, created in the image of a rational God, with the ability to rightly distinguish between that which is coherent and that which is not.
2. There is no such thing as an irrational truth.
3. Christian theology and Christian philosophy are the same thing. (The correctness or skill employed therein, not withstanding.)

1. It can work, but if it is subordinated to the blind faith to the authority, tradition, loyalties and other considerations, it begins to see quite indistinctly, vaguely, almost not to see clearly at all, what it would otherwise could see clearly. But a man is able to elevate his reason above those attachments and passions, then it can perform more authentically with regard to simple things, not need anything spiritual.

2. There is not. But the knowledges in the letter of the Sacred Scripture, when not properly aligned/collated, are not the truth yet. For instance, when in one place the poor are spoke as blessed, but in another place the poor in spirit are called the blessed, the truth is what is actually true with regard to those statements. But when you take only the statement about poor being blessed, without understanding what that actually mean in the Word, you do not have the truth. Similarly, with regard to other ideas in the letter. There may be truth, and there may be the appearance of truth, but not the genuine truth, namely, when the statements in the letter are not genuinely collated.

3. It depends what is meant by philosophy. Usually those are different subjects. If you mean the terminology, then it can be derived from the Revelation, for instance, the terms Logos, truth, Divine Truth, etc. But the terms can be ok, but when the theology is not correct or genuine, and the terms are derived from not correct theology, or doctrine, then the philosophy or terms are also not ok. If by philosophy you mean "the natural theology", then it can be supportive of the revealed theology, but not more than that, and those, of course, are not the same.

 

[Idolater]

@Synergos you are linking to an RD post but those are Clete's words.

 

[Synergos]

@Synergos you are linking to an RD post but those are Clete's words.

Thanks. There was some problem with quoting, and somehow it was messed-up, I'll try to change it now.

 

[Right Divider]

1. It can work, but if it is subordinated to the blind faith to the authority, tradition, loyalties and other considerations, it begins to see quite indistinctly, vaguely, almost not to see clearly at all, what it would otherwise could see clearly. But a man is able to elevate his reason above those attachments and passions, then it can perform more authentically with regard to simple things, not need anything spiritual.

You are demonstrating that you do not know what "reason" is. Sound reason, just like truth, is universal. It is not something personal to an individual.

2. There is not. But the knowledges in the letter of the Sacred Scripture, when not properly aligned/collated, are not the truth yet. For instance, when in one place the poor are spoke as blessed, but in another place the poor in spirit are called the blessed, the truth is what is actually true with regard to those statements.

This is double-talk that has no meaning. Yes, truth is truth.

But when you take only the statement about poor being blessed, without understanding what that actually mean in the Word, you do not have the truth. Similarly, with regard to other ideas in the letter. There may be truth, and there may be the appearance of truth, but not the genuine truth, namely, when the statements in the letter are not genuinely collated.

Sound reason takes the entire text into consideration.

3. It depends what is meant by philosophy. Usually those are different subjects. If you mean the terminology, then it can be derived from the Revelation, for instance, the terms Logos, truth, Divine Truth, etc. But the terms can be ok, but when the theology is not correct or genuine, and the terms are derived from not correct theology, or doctrine, then the philosophy or terms are also not ok. If by philosophy you mean "the natural theology", then it can be supportive of the revealed theology, but not more than that, and those, of course, are not the same.

philosophy /fĭ-lŏs′ə-fē/​

noun​

1. The study of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning.
2. A system of thought based on or involving such study.
   "the philosophy of Hume."
3. The study of the theoretical underpinnings of a particular field or discipline.
   "the philosophy of history."

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik​

Theology can be though of as "the philosophy of God". (i.e., the philosophy about God and not God's philosophy).

Theology is "The study of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning related to God".