Часть первая. О Боге в Самом Себе

The first and fundamental truth of Christian doctrine and all Christian theology is the truth of the existence of God. It is fitting for one who comes to God to believe, for there is (Heb. 11:6) God, the highest, infinite and most perfect Being, by whom we live, move and have our being (Acts 17:28), and on whom everything depends. Confidence in the existence of God and the feeling of dependence on Him are contemporary with the human race, have existed at all times, in all countries and among all peoples, and their expression was and is found in the reverent veneration of this highest Being, or in religion, which has always constituted and now constitutes a necessary accessory of all human societies, enlightened and unenlightened, wild and educated. Holy Scripture presents this truth as so generally known and characteristic of man that it does not find it necessary to prove it. Only a fool, and only in his heart, can decide to deny the existence of God: the fool says in his heart: there is no God (Ps. 13:1). The universal and ineradicable confidence in the existence of the highest Being has its deepest foundation, on the one hand, in the God-like nature of the human spirit, on the other, in the special relationship of the Divinity itself to the human spirit. The idea of ​​God is immediately inherent or innate in the human spirit. In the depths of his soul, he carries an inner feeling of the existence of the Divine, a desire for the infinite, the need and ability to cognize the Divine, to feel the closeness or presence and power of Him when He reveals himself to him. And God, for His part, is in special closeness to the human spirit - closer than to all unreasonable creatures; He inwardly and mysteriously influences the human spirit in necessary and special cases, makes it known about Himself and at the same time imparts to it undoubted confidence in His existence. Recognizing the reality of the direct, constant influence of the Divine on the human spirit and the existence in man of a special ability or sense of perception of this divine influence is necessarily forced both by the impossibility of otherwise explaining the origin of the universal innate idea of ​​the Divine in people, and by the correct concepts of God’s providence. The idea of ​​God is the idea of ​​a self-existent, infinite, all-perfect Being; but can the world as a set of objects and phenomena limited and imperfect, or the human mind, also limited and imperfect, be the source of such an idea? Obviously, the real reason for its origin must lie outside of nature and man, in the highest Being corresponding to this idea. On the other hand, if providence is the constant influence of God, for the purpose of preservation and management, on the entire created world, then it is all the more necessary to recognize such an influence especially on what is highest in it - on the human spirit. Without such an influence of the Divine on the human spirit, man’s search for God and the ability to know Him could not lead to the conviction or sensation of the existence of the Divine, just as someone who has healthy organs, for example, vision and hearing, does not see or hear anything when there are no corresponding visual and auditory impressions from objects. But the real influence of the Divine, in turn, presupposes that a person has a special ability to perceive this influence, to sense His presence, just as the influences of the external world are perceived under the condition of possessing the appropriate organs. It is this feeling of the mysterious influence of the Divine by the inner feeling of man that serves as the basis for our confidence in the existence of the Divine. To this often dark, but ever-living feeling we owe the preservation and universality of religion in the human race, despite all the degrees of deep decline of various tribes and peoples in mental and moral terms, as well as the everlasting desire for knowledge of God 151. Conviction in the existence of God, thus, has an experiential basis - internal religious experience, receptivity to the mysterious touch or revelation of God in the human spirit, convinces a person that God really exists. The Christian soul, cleansed from sin and brought closer to God, becomes especially receptive to the influences of the Divine. But Christianity provides a basis for conviction in the existence of God and an external, historical one - in the appearance of God in the flesh in the person of I. Christ. There is God because, indeed, there is the Lord and Christ. The presence in man of a special organ or ability to perceive the influence of the Divine on him, and the closeness of God himself to those capable of feeling His presence and His eternal power, is also indicated by Holy Scripture. He created is, says the apostle about God. Paul, from one blood the whole language of mankind shall live throughout the whole face of the earth, having set the pre-ordained times and the boundaries of their settlements: seek the Lord, that they may yet grasp Him (ψηλαφήσειαν) and find Him, for He is not far from the One who exists for us. For in Him we live, and we move, and we are... of this we also are a generation (γένος) (Acts 17:26–28). According to the apostle, the purpose of every person, as created by God, is to seek and find the Lord; the means to this are the sense of touch, but, of course, not the sensual, for which the presence of the Divine is elusive, but the spiritual. And God, whose race we are, contributes to this in every possible way. He is not far from each of us, and not only not far, but also close to us, as close as nothing else is close to us: in Him (ἐν Ἀυτῷ) we live, and we move, and we are. So, to the extent that we feel within ourselves our own life, the power of movement, the good of being, we cannot help but feel the presence and closeness to ourselves of the One from Whom it flows, by Whom it is supported, and to Whom, according to the law of its affinity, it certainly rushes: no one lives for us (for ourselves)... if we live, we live in the Lord (Rom. 14: 7-8). God, says the son of Sirach, filled them (people) with insight and showed them good and evil. He set His eye on their hearts to show them the greatness of His deeds, so that they glorify His holy name and proclaim the greatness of His works... He established an everlasting covenant with them and showed them His judgments. Their eyes saw the greatness of glory, and their ears heard the glory of His voice (Sir. 17:6-11; fn. Deut. 30:12-14; Rom. 10:6-10). Universal direct confidence in the existence of God, based on the idea of ​​God inherent in our spirit, finds justification for itself before the court of reason in the so-called. proof of the existence of God. These proofs in themselves, without a preceding belief in the existence of God, as Kant’s philosophical criticism of them showed, cannot lead a person to recognize the existence of God with forced evidence. Faith in the existence of God, both historically, in the religious consciousness of mankind, and psychologically, in the personal experience of everyone, precedes any rational proof of its truth; in fact, as based on religious experience, it serves as a more reliable basis for the truth of the existence of God than these proofs, which are not accessible to everyone and are not free from objections. Without the preliminary recognition of this truth, there would be no evidence, since it is impossible to prove, that is, to bring a number of different kinds of considerations to justify something, if this something does not previously exist in thought, even if only in the form of a premonition 153. However, these proofs have their significance even with the immediate and preceding certainty in the existence of God, just as with the immediate certainty of the existence of external objects and in the form in which they appear to us, the analysis of sensory knowledge has its significance. The proofs of the existence of God provide a justification for the need and reasonableness of religious belief in the existence of God. And if they do not lead non-believers to faith, then they explain to believers that their faith can be justified from the point of view of reason. They are also important for establishing a clear and definite concept of God. Despite the universality of belief in the existence of God, however, the most religious ideas about God among different peoples and individuals are varied, and for many they are confused and untenable. But in the proofs of the existence of God, in each individual case, the very concept of God is clarified from one side or the other, and is cleared of incorrect and false ideas. Finally, they can dispose and awaken to faith those who have it hidden or dormant at the bottom of their souls, revive, excite and evoke religious feelings. As for the phenomenon that even with universal internal evidence of God’s existence there are atheists, it cannot serve as a refutation of the reality of such evidence. The fact is that man is a morally free being, and by virtue of this freedom he can reject the most obvious and necessary truths of our consciousness (for example, the existence of the sensory world, free will), the clearest facts of experience. The Jews, for example, rejected the obvious actions of the power of God in the miracles of I. Christ, explaining them by the power of Beelzebub, even the reality of miracles, the very events in which, apparently, the power of God was manifested (healing, for example, a man born blind - John 9), the divinity of the messenger and teachings of I. Christ. And. Christ said about them that when they see they do not see, and when they hear they do not hear and do not understand, for their hearts have become hardened (Matthew 13:13-15; cf. John 12:40). For such people, inner, secret messages about God cannot be heard, just as sounds cannot be heard for the deaf, or light and colors for the blind. Without hearing the internal testimony about God, however, they come to deny His existence not as a result of any compulsory reasons. Atheism is a negative doctrine. Conviction in atheism cannot be acquired through scientific research and evidence: the non-existence of God cannot be proven. A proponent of atheism may have the right to say that he does not know anything about God, that he sought and did not find God, and not at all that he directly knows that there is no God. He passes off his decisive ignorance of God as complete knowledge that God does not exist. The real roots of atheism lie not in logical thinking and scientific knowledge, but in the general mental mood of a person, in one or another practical considerations; more often, the denial of the existence of God comes from the sinner’s enmity against God. The idea of ​​God's retributive justice prevents the sinner from living as he wants. In order to sin freely, for him there is an incentive for his peace of mind to say in his heart: there is no God. However, since he cannot help but have a simple idea about God in himself - it is a necessary component of his self-consciousness, it is quite rightly said that there were and are no atheists in the precise sense of the word, those who would always remain faithful to their denial of God and who would not agree even in the depths of their souls with the truth of the existence of God. “The fog that darkens in me the consciousness of the existence of God,” Diderot wrote to Voltaire (in 1749), “usually arises at night, and the sunrise always disperses it” 154. § 13. The possibility and nature of our knowledge of God I. No one has seen God anywhere (πώποτε - never; John 1:18; sn. 6:46; 1 John 4:12). God lives in the light unapproachable, but no one has seen Him, but man can see Him (1 Tim. 6:16). But if it is impossible for people to see God, just as we see objects of the external world and through this we know them, if He dwells in the unapproachable light, that is, in this kind of region of being and life, which stands far above the limits of the human mind, where, therefore, its gaze is not able to penetrate, just as the vision of the eye is not able to penetrate into the inner region of sunlight, then can God be knowable by man? In God, in relation to the knowability of Him by the created spirit, and not only human, but also angelic, according to the unchangeable and constant teaching of the Orthodox Church, two sides must be distinguished: the incomprehensible or unknowable side and the knowable side. Incomprehensible is the innermost being of God, or what God Himself is in Himself, in complete detachment from His manifestations in the world: “what God is in His essence,” teaches the “Orthodox Confession,” “this cannot be known by any creature, not only visible, but also invisible, that is, not even by the angels themselves: since there is absolutely no comparison between the Creator and creation” (rep. on question 8; But God did not leave us completely ignorant of Himself. Everything that is useful and necessary for us to know about God, and that we can comprehend, He revealed to us in the works of His creation and providence, through the law and the prophets and through His only begotten Son. Incomprehensible in Himself, in His inner nature and being, He is knowable to us by that side of His being, which He reveals in His actions and discoveries in the world. Therefore, a person can acquire such knowledge of God that is sufficient for his weak forces under the conditions of earthly life. II. The idea of ​​the incomprehensibility of God in His inner being is inseparably and directly related to faith in His existence. “The feeling of the Divine innate in our spirit, passing into rational consciousness and being imbued with it, is always, in the words of St. Justin, “a thought about something inexplicable,” 155 in other words, a thought about God as a Being immeasurably towering above all finite beings, and therefore incomprehensible to our mind. We believe in God as God because this faith is always inseparably connected with the consciousness of Him as a Being unlike all finite beings and standing infinitely above them, and, consequently, our own mind - and such consciousness of ours is always stronger and deeper, the deeper and more vibrant our faith in the existence of God 156. The revelation of both the Old and New Testaments clearly teaches about the incomprehensibility of God for us, indicating the reason for this in the incommensurable greatness of the being of God in comparison with the being of our spirit. To Moses, who prayed to God: show me Yourself, that I may see You intelligently, God, despite his extraordinary closeness to Himself, said: You cannot see My face: for no man will see My face and live (Exodus 33:13.20). The reason, therefore, for man’s inability to directly behold the boundless greatness of the face, that is, of the being of God, is the narrowness and limitations of his nature; if a person dreamed, at any cost, to know the essence of God, then all his efforts, except for futility, would have to end in the deadly destructiveness of his own nature. And therefore God promised to show Moses not His very face, but only His back, that is, the reflection of His glory (vv. 22–23; sn. 1 Kings 19:11–12). And this thought, the thought of the impossibility of knowing the secret of the inner being of God, permeates the entire Old Testament teaching about God. It portrays not only the being itself, but also the ways and actions of God as unsearchable. One of Job's friends (Zophar) asks the righteous sufferer, assuming, of course, a negative answer to his question: can you find God by research? Can you completely comprehend the Almighty? He is above the heavens - what can you do? deeper than the underworld - what can you find out? His measure is longer than the earth and wider than the sea (Job 11:7-8). Another of his friends (Elihu) confesses: God is great, and we cannot know Him, the number of His years is unsearchable (36:26; fn. 37:23). According to the images of other sacred writers, His mind is unsearchable (Is. 40:28) and immeasurable (Ps. 146:5), His deeds are incomprehensible (Eccl. 3:11; 8:17; Wis. 9:13; Sir. 18:2-6; fn. Rom. 11:33-34) 157. The New Testament revelation, affirming the impossibility of seeing God as dwelling in the unapproachable light and, therefore, even more so, the impossibility of cognizing the hidden being of God 158, teaches that the complete comprehensibility of God is characteristic only of Himself. According to the Savior, no one knows the Son except the Father: no one knows the Father but the Son (Matthew 11:27; John 6:46). Ap. Paul also says: Who is the message of man even in man, even the spirit of man living in him; Likewise, no one knows God’s message, but the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:11). For the Spirit tests all things, even the depths of God (verse 10). From this it follows that not only for man, but also for all created beings, the being of God is unknown. We are God now, teaches the apostle. Paul, we do not know Him completely, but only in part, just as we see Him not face to face, but like a mirror (δἰ ἐσόπτρου) in fortune telling (ἐν ἀινίγματι, - 1 Cor. 13, 12). In other words, we now see God not directly (face to face), as we see objects of the physical world, but only as in a mirror, i.e. We see only the reflection of the image of God in the affairs of the world and revelation, this is not enough: even with the help of a mirror, one can still sufficiently cognize objects if their images are reflected in it clearly and separately. The Apostle adds that the image of God appears to us in the mirror of the world and revelation gloomily, in fortune-telling (as if through a dark glass, fortune-telling), so that considerations must be made in order to form the clearest possible understanding of the properties of the lofty object that appears. Therefore, our knowledge of God is only partial knowledge, and not wholly, compared to when the hedgehog is partially abolished, and we see Him as He is (John 3:2). Hence, our real knowledge of God is actually faith in what God reveals to us about Himself, and not vision. We walk by faith, not by sight (2 Cor. 5:7). By faith we understand, says the apostle (Heb. 11:3), but unless you believe, you cannot understand (Isa. 7:9). That is why the entire teaching of the Orthodox Church about God, expressed in the creed, begins with the word “I believe.” The direct opposite of the frank teaching about the incomprehensibility of God’s being is the view that allows for the complete knowability of God by the human mind. This view arose in pagan antiquity. A pagan, who thought of himself in his gods in different states and positions of his life, could rightfully say that he knows his gods as well as himself 159. It tried to penetrate Christianity through various kinds of false teachings and heresies. Thus, already in the 2nd century it was spread by those of the Gnostic systems, which were based on the pantheistic concept of God 160. Later, in the 4th century, the followers of Arius, Aetius, and even more Eunomius 161 especially defended the idea of ​​the complete (adequate) cognition of God. The basis for the opinion of the latter, in their reasoning about objects of faith generally guided by speculation and the rules of dialectics (Aristotle), was very common in theological disputes of the 4th century. theory of names as expressors of the objective essence of objects. According to this theory, whoever knows the name also knows the essence, because the essence is supposedly fully expressed in the name it acquires. As a name that seemed to embrace and completely exhaust the entire being of God, they pointed to the name Ἀγέννητος - Unborn as peculiar exclusively to God and no one else. In modern times, the doctrine of the perfect knowability of the Divine was repeated in philosophy by representatives of idealistic pantheism (Spinozo, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel). For them, it is a direct conclusion from the general principles of pantheism, from the point of view of which the very mind or consciousness of man is only a manifestation (modus) of the Divine mind and consciousness, otherwise, human consciousness is the self-consciousness of God. The one-sidedness and even, from the point of view of a believing religious consciousness, the downright blasphemous nature of the view that the boundless greatness of God can be grasped by limited human thought is obvious. The Church, in the person of the fathers and teachers, resolutely condemned such extreme teaching 162. Refuting the self-confident assertion about the possibility of knowing God completely and rationally, not excluding His essence, they, who themselves tried to comprehend the truths of revelation with a more inner feeling, a sense of faith, than with reason, pointed out to researchers of the essence of God: “it is safer, according to the advice of wisdom (Eccl. 5:1), not to explore the deepest, but to preserve for oneself inviolable the pledge of faith... It is more pious to believe that the greatness of God is above understanding, rather than, defining the boundaries of His glory with some assumptions, to think that there is nothing higher than what is comprehended by reason."... "The nature of God, in itself, in its essence, is above all comprehending thinking: it is inaccessible and elusive to any rational methods of thought, and no power has yet been discovered in people capable of comprehending the incomprehensible, and has not been invented no means to comprehend the inexplicable 163. The reason for such inaccessibility to the mind of the being of God lies not in any motives unworthy of God to deliberately hide His nature from people, but on the one hand, in the limitations of the mind, according to which we can cognize the Divine only by “small measures,” and on the other, in the very boundlessness of the divine nature, which cannot be embraced by any limited reason 164. As “standing above all essence, He is above all understanding,” why if God were known by His inner being, He would not be God 165. And according to St. Gregory the Theologian, "The Divinity will necessarily be limited if it is comprehended by thought. For the concept is also a type of limitation" 166. That is why, the ecumenical teachers explained, “the comprehension of the essence of God is higher not only than people, but also any created rational nature, if by rational nature we mean created nature.” And the powers on high, even the seraphim and cherubim. do not comprehend the beings of God; on the contrary, they are even more aware of its incomprehensibility than we are, just as sighted people feel the intolerance of sunlight much more than the blind! 167 Due to its limitations, the human spirit cannot penetrate into the essence of even many finite beings and objects; it does not comprehend the essence of matter and the elements operating in nature, the essence of our soul and the image of its union with the body, the nature of angels, archangels and other ethereal forces; all the more, therefore, is the being of God incomprehensible to him 168 . Our limited spirit is still connected to the material body; it, like a fog, lies between us and the purely immaterial Deity, “just as in ancient times a cloud stood between the Egyptians and the Jews,” and prevents the spiritual eye from receiving the rays of divine light with complete clarity; the general sinfulness of people makes a person even less able to rise to pure contemplation of the Divine 169. The most saints of God, who received revelations on earth, for example, the prophets and apostles, did not acquire perfect knowledge of God and expected knowledge, higher than the present, only in eternity 170. As incomprehensible in His being, God cannot be defined by any word or name. Of the names acquired by Him by revelation or invented by people, not only not one individually, but all together do not express the essence of God. They designate not what God Himself is, “not His nature, but only what relates to nature (τὰ περὶ τὴν φύσιν),” or what He is not, or any of His actions or relations to the world and man (the Arian theory of names, untenable in itself, therefore, especially not applicable to God). This is also His name – “Unborn”; it indicates only what is not in God, and not at all what the essence of God is in itself 171. It is not even possible to find a completely appropriate name to express this essence. The name of God is wonderful (Ps. 8, I). “The Divinity is unnameable... Just as no one has ever inhaled all the air into himself, so neither the mind has completely contained, nor the voice has embraced God’s essence in any name,” says St. Gregory the Theologian 172. Therefore they called God unnameable, unspeakable, ineffable, indescribable. “This powerlessness to express the inexpressible, exposing our natural poverty,” notes St. Gregory of Nyssa, all the more proves the glory of God, teaching us that there is one thing, as the apostle says, the name corresponding to God - the certainty that He is above every name (Heb. 11:6). For the fact that He transcends every movement of thought and is beyond (any) comprehension by means of the name, serves as evidence for people of His ineffable greatness.” 173. This impossibility of embracing God with one name is the reason for His many names, which we attribute to Him. Note. – While affirming the impossibility for man to see, that is, the same thing as to know God completely, revelation at the same time indicates that some of God’s chosen ones were rewarded with visions of God. Jacob, in his own words, saw God face to face (Gen. 32:30). About Moses, God Himself said: I speak to him (Moses) from mouth to ear, and openly, and not in fortune-telling (like other prophets in the days of Moses); and he sees the image of the Lord (Num. 12:8). Ave. Isaiah, describing the vision he had of the Lord on a high and exalted throne (chap. 6), says: my eyes saw the King, the Lord of hosts (6, 5). Ave. Daniel also saw the Ancient of Days (Dan. 7). St. Ezekiel had a similar vision - a vision of the likeness of the glory of the Lord (Ezekiel 1-2). In addition, Scripture conveys many appearances of God to people in the form of a man or an angel. There is, of course, no contradiction of all these and similar evidence with the clear teaching of the same Scripture about the impossibility of man seeing the very being of God. The visions described are only figurative revelations of God to people, corresponding to the circumstances and abilities of those who receive them. Those who were rewarded with visions did not contemplate the very essence of God, but “what was contemplated was,” as St. I. Chrysostom, “only the condescension” of God, under which, according to St. father, one must understand “that when God does not appear as He is, but shows Himself as much as the one who has to contemplate Him is capable of this, adapting the appearance of the face to the weakness of those who contemplate... Therefore, hearing the words of the prophet: I have seen the Lord, the Holy Father teaches, do not assume that he saw His very essence, but only condescension, and, moreover, darker than the heavenly powers; for he could not see so much, how many cherubim,” although the cherubim do not dare to look closely not only “at His pure and unalloyed essence, but also at His condescension itself.” According to the seer, they cover their faces and protect themselves with wings (Isa. 6. 1-2), not being able to bear the shine and rays from the throne of God 174. In the same sense, we should understand the words of the Savior about the pure in heart that they will see God (Matthew 5:8), as well as the words of the Apostle about seeing God face to face in the future life (1 Cor. 13:12). As for the manifestations of God itself, especially in human form, their common basis is the incarnation of the Son of God; through them the Lord prepared the human race to receive the Son of God, who at the end of times would be revealed bodily on earth and to all people. The stories about the visions and appearances of God, therefore, do not in the least shake the truth: “It is impossible for man to see God, but angels do not dare to look at Him” (church hymn), that is, the truth about the incomprehensibility of God’s being. III. Being incomprehensible in His being, God, however, is not absolutely inaccessible to human knowledge. The view that affirms the complete incomprehensibility of God has always been recognized by the church as extreme, contrary to the teaching of the word of God and sound thinking. This view appeared in pagan philosophy, stemming from the doctrine of the complete opposition between God and the world and the impossibility of any contact between them (dualism). In Christian antiquity, some of the Gnostics taught that God is unknowable, which is why they called Him “the Unknown God” 175, in the 4th century. – Arius, who separated God from the world to the point of denying the possibility of any direct relationship between God and the world 176. And in subsequent times this view did not disappear at all in the Christian world. Mystics have always maintained that the Divine is inaccessible to cognition by reason, that all knowledge about Him is limited only by faith, a warm feeling of the Divine, and the desire to clothe the impressions of religious feeling in rational forms should not take place. But with particular persistence the unknowability of the Divine and the supersensible world in general has been proven in modern times by philosophy - by that direction in solving the question of knowledge, which is known under the name of agnosticism (ἄγνοια - ignorance, ignorance; ἀ - not and γιγνώσϰω - I know, γνῶσις - cognition) 177. Agnosticism proceeds from the assumption that man, due to his limitations, cannot know the essence of things and all his knowledge is limited only to the external side of things, as far as they appear to our senses as phenomena. In view of such limitations, a person must abandon all attempts as completely vain and beyond his strength to comprehend the essence of things and the entire surrounding world; and since the ideas of God, the soul and all the phenomena of the spiritual world in general belong to this same area, then all of them, as lying outside the possibility of their sensory perception, and therefore their knowledge by man, must be abandoned, and to engage in knowledge of them means to indulge in an even more fruitless task than scooping up a boundless ocean with a spoon. Such a solution to the question of knowledge of the supersensible world can serve as an excuse, albeit imaginary, for a cold, indifferent attitude towards religion and direct disbelief in the existence of God, which is why agnosticism is currently widespread and not only among philosophers. The extreme nature of the doctrine of the complete unknowability of the Divine is obvious to the believing consciousness. The existence of religion, which is impossible without knowledge of God, shows that the common sense of mankind has never doubted the possibility of knowledge of God. If knowledge of God were completely impossible for us, then the preaching of the Gospel would be in vain, our faith would be in vain, and this would open up a direct reason for atheism with all its destructive consequences for the life and spiritual improvement of mankind. God deigned to reveal Himself in creation and providence, in the visible and God-like nature of the human soul, and especially in supernatural revelation - through the law and the prophets, and, finally, through the incarnate Son of God Himself. Therefore, a person gifted with the ability to know God can and should know Him to the best of his ability. This is his first and most sacred duty. God is the Creator, Lord, Provider and the highest Benefactor of man; in Him we live, we move, and we are, according to the word of the Apostle (Acts. 17, 28); It would therefore even be unnatural if man did not strive to know God. But this knowledge also contains the highest good for man. This is the eternal life: that they may know Thee the one true God, and Him that Thou hast sent, Jesus Christ, says the Savior to us (John 17:3). The word life here means the complete satisfaction of all the highest needs and aspirations of the human soul: life for the mind, life for the will, life for the heart. Without the knowledge of God there is no life for the soul, for there is no truth for the mind, no good for the will, no bliss for the heart. God is the source of life for our spirit (Ps. 35:10). As for the newest philosophical agnosticism, which recognizes the “unknown God” as the only true God of humanity, it proceeds from false grounds. It is possible to affirm the complete unknowability of God only from a deistic point of view, imagining Him to be in solitude, away from the world and man, having no significant relation to it (only transcendent to the world, but not immanent at the same time). The natural conclusion from such ideas is the denial of the self-revelation of God to man, and hence the possibility of knowledge of God; the world from this point of view is not revealing, but hiding God. Agnosticism stands on this point of view with its free ignorance of God, with its free godlessness. But it is impossible to deny the possibility of knowledge of God with the recognition that God is present in the world, immanent in it, and the world is involved in the Divine, that is, it exists because it accepts (takes its part) from the fullness of divine being, truth and perfection - with the conviction that, as Scripture says, everything is from Him, by Him and to Him (Rom. 11:37) that He is especially close to man. Agnosticism comes from the wrong foundations in its assertion of the unknowability of God and in epistemological terms. They assume that religious knowledge cannot be empirical (experiential), that is, based on a special sensory perception, that it is devoid of a material element. The unconditional, agnostics argue, lies outside the realm of sensory perception, cannot give a feeling about Itself or make an impression on us, and therefore we cannot be convinced of the real existence of the Divine, much less cognize It. But the idea that there is no experiential basis or sensory perception in religious knowledge is an erroneous idea. Of course, it is impossible to sense the Divine with external senses, which reveal to us things limited by space and time, but it is possible and, indeed, there is an influence of the Divine on a person not only externally, mediated by nature, but also internally - on the soul, perceived by the inner sense. It is this gracious influence of the Divine on the soul, His mysterious touch on the human soul that serves as the experimental basis for the knowledge of God. Of course, such sensations are not yet the very knowledge of the Divine, but they, becoming the subject of further work of our cognitive power, are transformed into ideas and concepts, just as they are transformed into ideas and concepts and impressions from the finite world, received with the help of external senses. Thus, the basis of the knowledge of God lies in the same way as the basis of knowledge about the finite world. The difference between one and the other is only a qualitative difference, in the nature of the experience 178. They can, of course, say that there is no such experience at all - those who do not have such experience. But to deny religious experience because only one experience of external knowledge is supposed to be possible and generally known does not mean reducing the proof to a simple statement: “what I don’t see is not there”? When entire generations and generations of people testify to the existence of a special religious experience, it cannot be rejected on the basis of the assumption that only one experience of external knowledge is possible. And how can we reject in particular the Christian experience, when at a certain historical time in the person of I. Christ the Word Himself became flesh and dwelt in us (dwelt with us), and we saw His glory, as the only begotten of the Father, filled with grace and truth (John 1:14), when the self-seers of the Word certify that when they proclaim about Him, they proclaim what they heard, what they saw with their own eyes, what they examined and what their hands touched (1 John 1:1-3) and this testimony of theirs is confirmed by the living experience of the Christian Church for thousands of years. § 14. Methods of knowledge of God There are two main and essential ways of knowing God: natural and supernatural. I. The natural way of knowing God is the knowledge of God from the natural revelation of God; by the name of this latter we mean everything that God reveals about Himself, about His properties and actions in visible and unreasonable nature, in the God-like nature of man himself and in his historical destinies. Visible nature, or, as St. Gregory the Theologian: “heaven, earth, sea, in a word - the whole world, is the great and glorious book of God,” which eloquently preaches to all people, speaking all languages, about the omnipotence, wisdom, goodness of the Creator and Provider of everything - God 179. In Holy Scripture there are many majestic images of how nature proclaims the glory of its Creator revealed in it (for example, Psalms 103 and 148: in the book of Job 26. 28. 36–41 chapters). The heavens, it says, will tell the glory of God (Ps. 18:2); fill the whole earth with the glory of the Lord of hosts (Isa. 6:8). The human soul, created in the image of God, endowed with immortality and the ability for limitless perfection, with innate aspirations for the Divine, for truth, goodness and beauty, can testify to man even more clearly about the existence and perfections of its Creator 180. Finally, the voice of God is heard and the ways of God are visible in the history of kingdoms and nations and the lives of individuals, for the history of mankind, like the life of individuals, is not a concatenation of simple accidents, but is controlled by the providence of God and is led to a specific goal (Acts 17:26; Ps. 66:4-5; Deut. 4:34-35, etc.). Observing and reflecting on the works of creation and God's providence, a person can collect fragmented traces of divine perfections in the world and, combining them together, form from them in the depths of his spirit in some mysterious and incomprehensible way the idea of ​​​​a divine personality, giving evidence (the appearance) of an invisible thing (Heb. 11: 1). About the possibility of knowing God in this way, accessible to all people, St. Paul testifies this way: the rational things of God (γνωστὀν τοῦ Θεοῦ, i.e., what can be known about God) are clearly in them (i.e., the pagans): God has revealed (ἐφανέρωσε) to them. For His invisible essence, from the creation of the world, has been conceived by creatures, and His ever-present power and Divinity are visible (Rom. 1:19-20). The leader of man in such knowledge is the idea of ​​the highest and most perfect Being contained in the inner being of man, in his God-likeness, or the innate desire for the Divine and the ability to touch or directly feel Him (Acts 17:2-28), when He deigns to touch the human soul with His gracious influence, to knock on the door of the human heart (Apoc. 3, 20). When a person searches for traces of the Divine in the world, the innate idea of ​​God tells the human mind where these traces are visible, where they are not, what can be attributed to God, what cannot. If there were no such idea in man, the visible and finite could not lead to the thought of the invisible and infinite. Without the mysterious influence of God's grace (the grace of God as Creator and Provider), how could one who sincerely seeks the knowledge of the one God form from the reflections of the Divine scattered in the world the image of a transcendental personal God, not being content with the recognition of cosmic and world-immanent principles? St. Gregory the Theologian, referring to the natural knowledge of God, writes: “God has always been, is and will be, or better said, always exists... because He concentrates in Himself the entire being, which did not begin and will not cease. Like a certain sea of essence, indefinite and infinite, stretching beyond any idea of time and nature, with one mind (and this is very unclear and insufficient - not in reasoning what is in Himself, but in reasoning what is around Him), through sketching out some outlines, He is shaded into one kind of image of reality, escaping before it is caught, and escaping before it is imagined, just as much illuminating the sovereign in us (i.e., the mind), if it is purified, as fast as the speed of flying lightning illuminates the gaze. And this, it seems to me, is in order to attract the comprehensible to Oneself (for the completely incomprehensible is hopeless and inaccessible), and to surprise the incomprehensible, and through surprise to arouse greater desire and through desire to purify, and through purification to make God-like; and when we have become such, we will already talk as with friends (the word dares to say something bold) - talk to God, who has entered into unity with the gods and is known by them, perhaps as much as He knows those known by Him (1 Cor. 13:12).” 181. Thus, although God reveals Himself in the works of His creation and providence, and is not far from each of us, and the world does not ghostly, but really testifies to God, knowledge of the true God from natural revelation is possible only through the mysterious and incomprehensible illumination of the human spirit in its natural quest for the Divine from the side of the Spirit of God, Who wills and breathes wherever He wills (John 3:8 ). It goes without saying that in this case the natural activity of human cognitive powers is not eliminated or violated. Reason acts in natural knowledge of God according to its inherent laws. The paths that he can follow when composing the concept of God on the basis of the self-revelation of the Divine in the world are the following: 1) the path of denial (via negationis) or exclusion from the idea of ​​God as an infinite being of all the features of finitude and limitation noticed in the world as inconsistent with the innate idea of ​​God (for example, Numbers 23, 19). In this way, the mind can come to conclusions about God that He is infinite, eternal, immortal, etc. 2) The path of causality (via causalitatis) or conclusion from action to the first cause, when, for example, from the independence and conditionality of the world, a conclusion is made about its self-existent and unconditional cause (as in the cosmological proof of the existence of God), from purposefulness and order in creation to the wisdom of the Creator (in physical-teleological proof), from the connection between sin and evil as the punishment of sin, to the justice of God, etc. 3) The path of analogy (via analogiae), which consists in the knowledge of God through the knowledge of man, created in His image and likeness, or through self-consciousness. Following this path, they draw a conclusion, for example, from the existence in our soul of the idea of God as an all-perfect being to His very existence (as in the ontological, or otherwise, psychological proof of the existence of God), from conscience or moral law to the existence of its culprit - God (moral proof), from the existence in our moral consciousness of the idea of truth, i.e., reward for virtue and punishment for sin - to the existence of the omnipotent and a just God (ethico-teleological proof). 4) The path of excellence (via eminentiae), when the perfections attributed to God are raised to an infinite degree. Thus, a person can come to recognize in God the properties of omniscience, omnipotence, wisdom, all-goodness, and so on. 182. In a natural way, many of the pagan sages, indeed, acquired some knowledge about God, consistent with the truth, and those who did not know God in this way, according to the Apostle, are unrequited (Rom. 1:20) 183. The natural way of knowing God, under certain moral conditions on the part of man, could lead to definite and true ideas about God, but in reality this way of knowing God has become insufficient since the very time of the fall of man. History undoubtedly confirms this to us. The concepts of the Divine that people had, left to their own forces in the matter of knowledge of God, were of two kinds: folk and philosophical. Folk concepts have always been, on the one hand, extremely diverse to the point of contradiction, and on the other hand, extremely insufficient and absurd. The idea of ​​the unity of God was almost completely lost among the ancient peoples and was replaced by belief in many gods (polytheism); the glory of the incorruptible and infinite God is changed into the likeness of the corruptible image of man, and birds, and four-footed animals, and creeping things (Rom. 1:23). People deified all kinds of created beings, so that, as someone beautifully said (Bossuet), everything was a god among them, except God alone; There was no preaching of monotheism in the pagan world. The Greeks and Romans are recognized as the most educated peoples of antiquity: but even among them we see partly a mixture of all types of idolatry, and the dominant one was the deification of people - Zeus and Jupiter with subordinate gods; these gods were the personification not only of human perfections and virtues, but also of passions and vices, as the pagan writers themselves portrayed them (Hesiod, Homer, Ovid in their “Metamorphosis”). The concepts of God of the sages and philosophers, although to some extent were better, however, were far from perfect, disagreed with each other and were often sinful. The history of philosophy strongly confirms what Cicero said: “there is not a single absurdity that philosophers do not teach.” 184 The pagan sages of antiquity partly contained the same beliefs that the people had, and partly added new errors to them. Some fell into pantheism, which recognized everything as God, others into materialism, which rejected the existence of everything spiritual, others into dualism, which allowed two principles - good and evil, others into doubt about everything, and even into atheism. Although the best of the sages came to the best concepts, they themselves hesitated and doubted and clearly revealed the insufficiency of their own strength in the matter of knowledge of God and the need for higher help. In general, humanity, having only natural revelation, has not realized the idea of ​​true religion 185. The newest sages boast that the mind has now been improved and can by itself satisfactorily know God. But this is completely unfair. Only those of them philosophize better who borrow their concepts from the Christian revelation, while others, and the most famous ones, repeat the same errors, only in a new form, that were in ancient times (especially pantheism, materialism). From here it is clear how insufficient natural revelation alone is to communicate true knowledge of God to people. The main reason for this is the deep damage to human nature as a result of the Fall, the descent into sensuality to the point of being likened to senseless cattle, the darkening in him of the image of God along with the idea of ​​God inscribed in him (Rom. 1:21-25). A corrupted heart cannot be a faithful guide of the mind in recognizing the works of God in the world and distinguishing them from the Creator, and a mind darkened by passion cannot draw conclusions consistent with the truth and be illuminated from above. Wisdom will not enter an evil soul, says the Wise One, and will not dwell in a body enslaved to sin, for the Holy Spirit of wisdom will move away from wickedness and shy away from foolish speculations and will be ashamed of the approaching unrighteousness (Wisdom 1:4-5). With the Fall of man, the infection of sin in the form of phenomena of physical evil penetrated into the visible world, which ceased to be the same reflection of the glory of God as it was immediately after creation - before the Fall: now the whole world lies in evil (1 John 5:19). Dualistic, for example, ideas about the Divine, no doubt, came from observations of two opposite orders of phenomena in the world - good and evil 186. Finally, with the development of evil in humanity, the voice of God in the history of nations was often drowned out and is being drowned out by the voice of human passions. The insufficiency of natural revelation, given man’s innate desire to know God and His holy will and the powerlessness to achieve this on his own, indicates the need for a special revelation of God for humanity. One natural revelation would torment with a feeling of spiritual thirst, without giving satisfaction. Therefore, as the apostle says, when the world through its wisdom did not know God in the wisdom of God, it pleased God through the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe (1 Cor. 1:21). II. The possibility of undeniably true knowledge of God is granted to man only in the supernatural revelation of God (ἀποϰάλυψις, revelatio specialis), first through the law and the prophets, and then through the incarnate Son of God Himself and the Holy Spirit. The supernatural revelation of God, preventing the human mind from deviating along the path to the truth in the matter of natural knowledge of God, at the same time imparts knowledge of such subjects to which a person could never rise on his own (for example, the secrets of the Holy Trinity, the creation of the world, the origin of evil, redemption, sanctification, the final destinies of the world and man). As providing an answer to all the highest questions of existence and life, this revelation is able to satisfy all the highest needs of our spirit: to bring light to the mind, strength to the will, peace to the heart, and as coming from the very source of truth - the Son of God (John 14:16) and the Spirit of truth (John. 14:17), spoken through the prophets and apostles, it represents a truth about which there should be no room for any doubts or uncertainty, so natural in relation to human teachings, even true ones. Supernatural revelation is given not for certain individuals or nations, but for all mankind, for God wants all mankind to be saved and to come into the mind (knowledge) of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4). That this is precisely the revelation of the New Testament is recognized by everyone. The Savior is the Light of the world (John 1:5; 12:46; Duke 2:32); He gave the apostles the command to preach the gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15), even to the last of the earth (Acts 1:8), with all their tongues (Matthew 28:19; 24:14). But even in Old Testament times, although the Jews were entrusted with the word of God (Rom. 3:2), the revelation was given not for this people alone, but “for all people, as necessary and saving for all.” “Because of sinful impurity and weakness of spirit and body,” not everyone is “able to directly receive revelation from God.” Therefore, God “used special messengers of His revelation, who would convey it to all people who wanted to accept it” 187. Among God's chosen people there were always men who were worthy and capable of being organs of revelation for communicating it to all their people and all pagans. This people was called to be the guardian of the given revelation. But through him, the pagan peoples also had the opportunity to learn the divinely revealed truth, and those who sincerely sought it actually learned how it is revealed from biblical evidence and the data of ancient history. If, however, among the ancient peoples, with the exception of Israel, false ideas about the Divine prevailed, it was not because God was hiding from them, but because they, like the first son of Adam, themselves were in a hurry to leave the face of God, and their descendants died for centuries, not knowing anything about the preaching of the prophets and about the Messiah, just as many millions are dying now, not knowing anything about His teaching even now. The granting of God's supernatural revelation to people does not eliminate the significance and need for natural knowledge of God, just as the natural moral law and conscience retain their significance even with a positive or revealed moral law. Natural knowledge of God, raising questions about the subjects of religion and not giving a satisfactory answer to them, gives birth in the soul to a thirst for higher religious knowledge and, thus, disposes people to hear and accept the revealed word of God; under the influence of this latter, in turn, the innate religious feeling is revived and directed, just as the moral sense and conscience of a natural (not regenerated by grace) person is revived when his behavior is illuminated by the law of God, proclaimed in revelation. Natural knowledge of God is also important in the sense that it helps to assimilate the truths of revelation, providing explanations for them from internal religious experience and visible nature. Natural religious experience or movements of religious feeling, experienced during the natural quest for the Divine, bring the truths of the revealed word of God closer to the soul, which is why they can be accepted not by mere subordination of the mind to revelation (2 Cor. 10:5) or by external faith, just as the moral demands of the positive law of God receive special vitality and meaning due to the fact that they are recognized together with the requirements of the moral nature of man (Rom. 2, 14–15; 10, 8; Deut. 30, 14). And there is much in visible nature that can serve as a justification and explanation of the truths of revelation. The Savior, speaking, for example, about the providence of God, points to birds and lilies of the field (Matthew 6:26 et seq.), and thus explains the teaching of supernatural revelation with examples taken from the field of natural revelation. In a similar way, ap. Paul, speaking about the resurrection of the dead, points to the grain sown and dying (1 Cor. 15:36-38). § 15. Moral conditions for the knowledge of God Few of the pagans, having nature before their eyes, knowing history and delving into their souls, could know the true God, and, moreover, know only as one and as the Artist (but not the Creator) and Provider of the world; It is impossible to rise to the gospel concept of God without hearing the word of the gospel. And now the world is not for everyone an open book talking about God (materialistic natural science). In the same way, not all of those who have the supernatural revelation of God actually know God. God revealed His glory to the Jews in Christ the Savior in a way that He had not revealed before, but they did not know Him. This man is not from God, some of them declared (John 9:16); He deceives the people (7, 12); He has a demon (8, 48). You have seen Me, and you do not believe, said I. Christ to the Jews (6, 16). And they saw, and they hated both Me and My Father (15:24). The same is observed in the Christian world. There were and are many people who sometimes even have a broad theoretical acquaintance with the sources of God's revelation, but in their souls they remain not only unbelievers, but also hostile towards Christianity (rationalism). It is clear from this that in order to acquire a living knowledge of God and conviction in it, it is not enough to possess certain mental abilities and rational activity alone. Revelation is not an object of curiosity, not an abstract doctrine, but the living and active word of God (Heb. 4:12), regenerating a person into eternal life (1 Peter 1:23-25), saving his soul (James 1:21). To assimilate and understand it, you need something other than mental receptivity. Of course, this receptivity is also necessary, for faith comes from hearing, and hearing from the word of God (Rom. 10:17) or from the preacher (Art. 14), and, therefore, begins with the perception of revealed truth by the mind. But besides this and above all, living religious knowledge obviously requires special moral conditions. With the effort to assimilate the word of God with the mind alone, especially the Christian word, it has always been and will remain a mystery, which God hid from the wise and prudent and revealed to infants (Matthew 11:25), so that those who do not see would see, and those who see would become blind (John 9:39). The sages of the ancient classical world, who wanted to know the gospel with one mind, did not know God in the wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:21), but simple, non-bookish Galilean fishermen learned and proclaimed to the world the lofty secrets of Christian teaching. Knowledge in general is not a matter of reason alone. He is always, openly or covertly, influenced by the feeling, inclinations, will and tastes of the knower, in general by the entire structure of his mental life. And this dependence of our knowledge on our feelings and will, on our entire “I,” is all the more significant and essential, the more important the very object of knowledge is for us. It is clear from this that religious knowledge, which has significant vital and practical significance, is especially dependent on them. Religious truths all correspond to the religious and moral aspirations and demands of our nature, and therefore their assimilation is possible on this moral and practical basis. This is what revelation itself teaches about the conditions of living religious knowledge 188 . As the primary and most necessary condition for such knowledge, it points to the need for a person’s moral preparedness to assimilate the truths of revelation, namely, purity of heart (feelings) and good direction of will (virtue). In a person who sincerely seeks the knowledge of God, the inner, true man, created in the image of God, must awaken, who must condemn the old man within himself, renounce the passions that drive his mind and will, from the slavery of sensuality, from the world with the threefold lust operating in it - the lust of the flesh, the lust of the hair and the pride of life (1 John. 2:16), in general – from sin. Sin separates a person from God, weakens spiritual vision and sensitivity to the higher world. The Wise One also said: wisdom does not enter into an evil soul; it dwells below in a body guilty of sin (Wisdom Sol. 1:4). The Savior Himself teaches that only the pure in heart will see God (Matthew 5:8). Ap. John, telling us that now it has not yet been revealed what we will be, but that one day we will be like Him, for we will see Him as He is, continues: and everyone having this hope Nan purifies himself, as He is pure... everyone who sins has neither seen Him nor known Him (1 John 3:2-3:6). Such importance in the matter of knowledge of God of moral purity, purity of moral mood and behavior (heart - in biblical language) of a person is explained from the following. The most essential importance in the matter of knowledge of God is that the religious feeling be alive and pure in a person - the natural attraction and gravitation of the god-like human soul towards God and the ability to perceive influences from the supersensible world. But if a person’s spirit, his heart (feeling) and will are filled with attractions to the creature, which happens in a state of sinful impurity, there is no place left in him for attractions to God. All this, naturally, should have a painful effect on the higher aspects of the spirit, by which it is brought closer to God, in particular, on religious feeling. The latter weakens and becomes dead for perceptions from the supersensible world, just as, for example, conscience, with a person’s deep moral decline, ceases to be the “voice of God” in a person. The heart has a very strong influence on the character and direction of a person’s thinking and overall behavior. From the heart, according to the Savior, come evil thoughts (Matt. 15:19; cf. Luke 6:45). This is confirmed by experience. It has been noted that “the system of our thinking very often represents the history of our heart” (Fichte), “what are our inclinations, so are our opinions” (Goethe). Love, for example, encourages you to idealize your object, anger, on the contrary, forces you to see only bad things in your enemy; Despair and grief color everything dark, and joy, on the contrary, makes everything bright. And this manifests itself not only in everyday thinking, but also in scientific thinking. Thinking is also closely dependent on will. The will activates the very ability of thinking, directs it to certain objects and to certain aspects of an object, supports it in a certain direction or suspends the action of thinking. The will outlines this or that conclusion and the goal of thinking; she wants the mind to come to its favorite conclusions. From this it is clear that a person’s predisposition to one or another worldview depends on this or that mood of the heart and the direction of the will. Therefore, if the heart lives a normal and healthy life, if the attraction to God and, in general, everything unconditional, good and beautiful in it is not overshadowed by passions and vices, then such a mood and direction of its will also dispose the mind to accept the corresponding worldview; for such a heart, the Christian teaching about God cannot but seem higher and more perfect than all other teachings; on the contrary, a heart disposed in the opposite way is able to turn the mind away from accepting such a teaching, incline it to hesitation and doubt, and attract it to recognize as truth teachings that are consistent with the direction of the heart. Doing evil does not come to the light (John 3:20), the Savior said. “An unclean life,” according to Chrysostom, “prevents the knowledge of high truths... Just as it is impossible for someone who is mistaken, but lives well, to remain forever in error, so, on the contrary, it is not easy for someone who leads a vicious life to rise to the knowledge of our dogmas; but those who wish to comprehend the truth must cleanse themselves of passions. Whoever cleanses himself from them will get rid of error and come to know the truth." And again: "a vicious life humiliates the dogmas about the resurrection, the immortality of the soul, about judgment, and accepts a lot of opposites, fate, necessity, lack of faith in providence. The soul, mired in numerous vices, tries to invent this kind of consolation for itself, so as not to grieve at the thought that there is a judgment and that reward awaits us for good and evil... I don’t think that it would be possible to find even one person living viciously who would not hold onto any of the satanic thoughts that there is fate, that everything happens by chance and is arranged without order and reasoning.” 189 In a similar way, one of the ancient apologists of Christianity (Theophilus) said: “show me your man, and I will show you my God” 190. And this is a deep truth: such is a person, such is his God, such is his faith 191. A person with a corrupt heart and a bad life not only turns away from the revealed truth, but is also unable to understand it. This is because there is nothing akin to her in him. “Like is known by like,” it was rightly said in ancient times (Empedocles). Just as all the efforts of the most active mind cannot give an idea of ​​the taste of a fruit that we have never tasted, of the smell of a flower that we have not smelled, and even less of a feeling that we have never experienced, so without approaching revelation through life and deeds, the truths of revelation will remain alien to the soul. We understand more what corresponds to the usual content of our soul, its makeup, and especially what we have experienced. We all know that people are mortal, and yet we fully begin to know this only when death creeps up on us or kidnaps those dear and close to us - then we begin to understand what it means to die. So, for true knowledge of God, it is necessary, first of all, to cleanse a person from sin, liberation from passions and vices - purity of the heart (feelings and will). “We must first purify ourselves, and then converse with the Pure One,” says St. Gregory the Theologian 192. The pagans, according to the apostle, did not know the true God because their thoughts became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened (Rom. 1:21). The unbelief of the Jews came from the hardening of their hearts (Matthew 13:15). You judge according to the flesh, I. Christ told them, that is, judge both His face and teaching according to the demands of your corrupted nature. In general, a spiritual person does not accept even the Spirit of God: for he has foolishness, and cannot understand, he strives for spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14). But the struggle with passions as an expression of attachment to the sensory world is still the threshold of spiritual knowledge. For true knowledge of God, positive progress in virtue, especially in love, is also necessary. The Savior said: whoever wants to do His (God’s) will understands the teaching that is from God, or I say from Myself (John 7:17). According to Ap. John: He says that he knows Him (God), and does not keep His commandments; it is a lie, and in this there is no truth (1 John 2:4). Everyone who loves... knows God; but if you do not love, you do not know God, for God is loving (4:7-8). On the necessity of virtue for the knowledge of God, St. Athanasius writes: “for the study and true understanding of what is said in Scripture, a good life, a pure soul, and Christ-like virtue are required, so that the mind, having succeeded in this, is able to achieve what it wants and acquire it, to the extent that knowledge of God’s Word is possible for human nature. For without a pure mind and without imitating the life of the saints, no one will be able to understand the words of the saints. Whoever wants to see the light of the sun will, without a doubt, wipe and make his eye clear, bringing himself to almost the same purity as what he wants to see, so that in this way the eye itself becomes light and sees the light of the sun... So, whoever wants to comprehend the thought of theologians must first purify and whiten the soul with life, and by becoming like the saints in deeds, approach them, so that, leading the same way of life as them, they will understand what is revealed to them by God." 193 Abba Dorotheos explains the meaning of love for the knowledge of God with the following comparison: “Imagine,” he says, “a circle on earth. Assume that this circle is the world, the very middle of the circle is God; and the straight lines going from the circle to the center are the paths, that is, the lives of people... So, as much as the saints enter inside the circle to the middle of it, wanting to get closer to God, so much as they enter, they become closer to God and to each other and the more they come closer to each other, the more they come closer to God. So think about distance: the more they move away from each other, the more they move away from God. This is the nature of love: the more we unite with our neighbor, the more we unite with God.” 194 So, the more a person cleanses his heart from sin, the more he tries to reveal and improve his moral powers, especially to succeed in love, the more he becomes like God, the more capable he is of knowing Him. Then what is inaccessible to his mind becomes accessible to his heart. Moral purity and good life, disposing a person to accept revealed truth and making him capable of understanding it, are of great importance in the matter of knowledge of God and in the sense that it opens access to his heart to the gifts of the Holy Spirit - the spirit of knowledge and understanding (Is. 11:2). Revealed truth is truth of a supernatural nature; To assimilate it, therefore, a supernatural, beneficial influence is necessary; Natural human efforts alone are not enough for this. Revelation teaches: God opens the mind to understand Scripture (Luke 24:45); He guides into all truth (John 16:13); He reveals His secrets according to His good pleasure to worthy people (Matt. XI, 25-27; Luke 10, 21-24). When Peter, one of the Savior’s closest disciples, on behalf of all twelve, confessed to Him: You are the Christ, the Son of the living God, - He said to him: Blessed are you Simon, var Jonah, for flesh and blood have not been revealed to you, but My Father who is in heaven (Matthew 16:16-17). St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians: no one can speak (of course, with living faith) the Lord Jesus precisely by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3). The desire for moral purity makes the soul especially receptive to grace-filled impressions, and from the grace-filled influence and insight, the knowledge of God becomes purer and more perfect. With mental and moral acceptability of the truths of revelation, diligent and constant prayer is also required from those seeking Christian knowledge. Necessary in general, prayer is especially necessary for achieving success in the knowledge of God. This is indicated by the very impossibility of living assimilation of the truths of faith without grace-filled enlightenment, as well as by the fact that God does not refuse the gifts of His grace to those who turn to Him with faith (James 1:5). The example of the Savior Himself and all God-enlightened men teaches us this. The Savior prayed to the Heavenly Father for His disciples, so that they would be sanctified by the truth (John 17:17-20). The apostles also prayed for themselves (Acts 4:29) and for the believers, so that God would enlighten them with the knowledge of the truth and allow them to grow in the knowledge of Him (Eph. 1:16–23; 3:14–21, etc.). The psalmist cried: open (Lord) my eyes, and I will understand the wonders of Your law (Ps. 119:18). To Justin the philosopher, who was looking for divine truth, the elder who taught him, pointing out where this truth is located (i.e., Holy Scripture), inspired: “But first of all, pray that the doors of light will be opened to you, for these things (i.e. proclaimed in the word of God) no one can see or understand unless God and Christ give Him understanding.” 195 So the church, in order to acquire the knowledge of God, calls, first of all, to pray to God for the opening of the eyes of the mind and heart to understand His word. § 16. Division of the doctrine of God in Himself In the creeds of the church of all times, the first definition of God in Himself is this: “God is one in the Holy Trinity”; More often, the same is expressed like this: “God is one in nature and essence, but in persons He is threefold” (Right. Part 1. Answers to questions 8 and 9). The entire teaching about God in Himself is thus divided into two main sections: I department. – the doctrine of God as one in being; II department - the doctrine of the Trinity God in Persons. In this order we will present this teaching. An excellent philosophical and theological explanation and substantiation of the doctrine of the origin and content of the idea of ​​God, its significance for faith in God and knowledge of God, was given by the late Professor V.D. Kudryavtsev in his works, especially: “Religion, its essence and origin,” “Sources of the idea of ​​Deity” and “Metaphysical analysis of ideal knowledge” (Collected works. I and II vol.). Here the issues related to this are explained both negatively, by analyzing and refuting false and one-sided theories, and positively, through the disclosure and firm substantiation of the correct view. This is recognized, and rightly so, as the special scholarly merit of the late Orthodox great philosopher. The main provisions on the same issue are briefly outlined in his work: “The Initial Foundations of Philosophy.” “To the pious soul,” testifies I. Ya. Sergiev (Kronstadtsky), of blessed memory, “the existence of God is as obvious as one’s own existence, because with every thought, good or bad, desire, intention, word or deed, corresponding changes occur in the heart - calm or anxiety, joy or sorrow - and this is due to the action on it of the God of spirits and all flesh, Who is reflected in the pious soul like the sun in a drop of water; the purer this drop, the better, the clearer the reflection, and vice versa. Also: the Lord God in relation to our soul is the same as the external air in relation to the mercury of a thermometer, with the difference that the expansion and standing, the increase and decrease of mercury occurs due to changes in the state of the atmosphere, but our God remains unchanged; faith and good deeds, and inevitably shrinks, worries, and languishes as a result of his distance from God.” Sergieva I. I. prot. My life in Christ. Moscow. 1894 I vol. 15–16 pp. Sn. Evdokima Bishop Speech at consecration. For a detailed overview of the evidence for the existence of God, see V. D. Kudryavtsev in “Collected Works.” II volume. “If the strictly logical standard of a priori-rational proof is applied to the proofs of the existence of God,” he says, “then they do not stand up to criticism, since in them, on the one hand, the truth deduced in the conclusion is assumed in the premises, on the other, the premises themselves do not have that axiomatic indisputability that is required for the full consistency of the conclusion derived from them” (497 p.). This applies to all existing proofs of the existence of God. See also: Mikhail (Gribanovsky) bishop. Existence of God. St. Petersburg 1891 Kudryavtseva V.D. Atheism. Collected op. II volume III century Gottinger, Apol. Christ I part. I part. Nesmelova V. Science of man Kaz. 1905 I volume VIII chapter. Glagoleva S. S. Atheism. Art. in God. enz. II volume Sylv. Ep. Op. Dogma. God. § 37. "If the destinies of God are a great abyss (Ps. 35:7), as the prophet says, and His ways, as the apostle says, are unsearchable, and therefore completely untested (Rom. 11:33), then how much more unsearchable is He whose judgments and ways are such. And it is not surprising that such is God Himself, if such is God's," writes Vasily V. against the Anomeans (in Book V, Vol. III, vol. 171 pp.). Sirach depicts the incomprehensibility of God in the following terms: we can say a lot (of course, about the works of God in the universe), and yet we will not comprehend Him, and the end of the words: He is everything (that is, we will comprehend only one thing: He is everything and the Creator and the never-ceasing Provider of the world). Where will we get the strength to glorify Him? for He is above all His works... Glorifying the Lord, extol Him as much as you can, but even then He will be more excellent; and magnifying Him, add strength: but do not labor, for you will not comprehend. Who saw Him and will explain? and who will glorify Him as He is? There are many things hidden that are much greater than these; for we see a small part of His works (Sir. 43:29-35). St. I. Chrysostom, explaining 1 Tim. 6, 16 writes: "pay attention to the accuracy of Paul's expressions. He did not say: 'who is an unapproachable light,' but: in the light he who lives is unapproachable, so that you may know that if a dwelling is unapproachable, then much more is God living in it." He said this not so that you would imply a dwelling and place with God, but so that you would recognize with great conviction the incomprehensibility of Him. Moreover, he did not say: “living in an incomprehensible light,” but: unapproachable, which is much more incomprehensible. Incomprehensible is that which, although explored and found, remains incomprehensible to those who seek it; and inaccessible is that which does not allow even the beginning of research and which no one can approach." Prot. anom. Demon. III, 2. In the pagan world, such a view was, however, primarily the view of the common people, and not the conviction of their sages. The answer of the philosopher Simonides to King Hieron, who asked what God is, is known. "The more I think about the being of God," said the philosopher, "the less I understand Him. His being is incomprehensible" (Cicer De natur. deor. n. 22). Plato said: “It is difficult to understand God, but it is impossible to express Him.” St. Gregory B., regarding this judgment of the “Hellenic theologian,” notes that he said this “not without a cunning thought: in order to be considered as having comprehended him, he said difficultly, and in order to avoid exposure, he called it ineffable. But, as I reason, it is impossible to say, and even more impossible to understand.” Sl. 28, O theologian. 2 (III volume, 19 pages, according to the edition in Russian translation, 1844). For example, “Valentine, Ptolemy, Basilides,” according to St. Irenaeus, boasted “that they searched the depths of God.” Prot. heresy Book II, XXVIII, 9. Aetius, according to St. Epiphany (Er. LXXVI, at the end; -V vol. 167 pp. in Russian translation) said: “I know God as well as myself, and I do not know myself as much as I know God.” Eunomius, according to Socrates, also asserted: “God knows about his essence no more than we do; it is known to Him no more, and to us no less; but what we know about it, it is He who knows, and vice versa, what He knows, it will be indifferently found in us (Church. ist. IV, 7; sn. Theodore. Haeret fabul. Lib. IV, pp. de Eunom. et Aet). It is necessary to have in view of the fact that both of them spoke so from the point of view of the Arian theory of names, and not from the point of view that names are only simple signs for designating known ideas that do not express the very essence of the subject. False teaching of heretics of the 2nd century. the knowability of the being of God was refuted by St. Irenaeus in the book. “Against heresies” (II book, chapters 25 and 28; IV book, chapters 19–20, etc.). – Against Eunomius and those who agreed with him they wrote: St. Gregory of Nyssa - Twelve books against the Eunomians (V and VI volumes according to the edition of his works in Russian translation), St. Gregory the Theologian - Five words about theology against the Eunomians - (III volume of his works in Russian translation), St. Vasily V. – Refutation – in 5 books – of the defensive speech of the evil Eunomius (III volume in Russian translation), St. Chrysostom - On the incomprehensibility of the nature of God in conversations against the Anomeans (Works of St. I. Chrysostom in Russian translation, Vol. I, St. Petersburg, 1895). For a set of patristic explanations, see I. Damascene. Exact. izl. pr. faith. I quarter, 2, 4 and 12 chapters. Grigor. nis. Prot. anom. XII book. 2 hours (VI part. 304–305 pp. in Russian translation). About the beatitudes (II part 440 pp.). Sn. Vasil. V. Pis. 227 (235), to Amphilochius (in VII volume). Grigor. B. Sl. 28, O theologian. 2 (III part 27 pages according to the 1846 edition). Afan. Sl. in lingual 2; Quest. ad. Antioch. resp. ad quaest. 1. Sn. Sylvester Bishop Op. Dogma. God. I t. § 39. Grigor. B. Sl. 28 (III part 26 pages). Vasil. V. Prot Eunom. 1 part (III part 13 pages according to the 1891 edition). Grigor. B. Sl. 28 (III part 20 pages). Zlat. Prot. anam Bes. III, 3. 5–6; IV; 2. Grigor. B. Sl. 28 (III part 38–49 pp.) Vasil. V. IIrot. anom. 1 book. (III part 31–32 pp.). Pis. 16, prot. Eunomius (VI part 51 page). Grigor. nis. Prot. Eunom. XII book. (VI vol. 295–298; pp. 308–312). Grigor. B. Sl. 28 (III part 28 pages). Sl. 27, about the theologian 1 (III part 7 p.) Sl. 20 (II part 162–166 pp.). Grigor. B. Sl. 28 (III part 19 33–36 pp.). Vasil. V. Prot. anom. 1 book. (32–33 pp.). Damascus. Accur. izl. Ave. v. I book., 4 and 9 chapters. In the words of St. I'rigory of Nyssa, “every name, both invented by people and taught in the holy books, has the power to designate something only from what is thought about the divine nature (περὶ τὴν ϑείαν φύσιν νοουμένων), and do not express nature itself (To Aulalius, the devil about the fact that there are not three gods - IV part 117 p.), but according to the expression of Gregory B., something “from what is around God” (Sk. 30, about the theology 4. - III part 96 p.). See also: Grigor. nis. Prot. anom. 12 books 2 hours (VI part 316 pp. et seq.). Vasil. V. Prot. anom. 1 book. (III part 27–28 pp.). Grigor. B. Sl. 30, O theologian. 4 (III part 96 pages). Grigor. nis. Prot. anom. 12 books (VI part 494 pp.; sn. II quarter, 3 chapters). 3lat. Prot. anom. Demon. III, 3. Sn. Irin. Prot heresy. IV book. 20 ch. Such were they, according to the testimony of St. Irenaeus, Cerdon and Marcion. Prot. heresy Book I, XXVII, 1–2 Filostorg Hist ecless. Lib. II, p. 3. Agnosticism, as an admixture or addition, is combined with different philosophical directions: the critical philosophy of Kant and the newest - positivism, with which it is especially related, neo-Kantianism, relativism and evolutionism, but the actual representatives of agnosticism are J. St. Mill and Herb. Spencer. In the modern mental movement of mankind, agnosticism is a transitional stage from materialism to a higher and true worldview (theism). But not everyone has the courage, having rejected the crude principles (principles) of materialism, to directly and openly incline towards the worldview sanctified by Christianity. Literature - Vvedensky A.I. Faith in God, its origin and foundations. Dept. I, chapter V; dept. III, ch. II Tikhomirova P. B. Presentation and critical analysis of the foundations of Spencerian relativism (Vera and Raz. 1894, II vols. 1 and 2 hours). Voznesensky A. Is God knowable as absolute and infinite? (Vera and Raz. 1895, II vol. 1 part). Mityakina A. Agnosticism as a worldview, according to the review of Max Muller (Chronicle Thu. 1895, Part II). Chelpanova G. prof. Introduction to Philosophy. Kyiv. 1907 pp. 252–269. A. D. Balfour. Foundations of faith. Per. from English V. S. Solovyova. Moscow. 1900 Sn. above, § 5, note. Grigor. B. Sl. 6 (1 volume, 281 pages according to the 1843 edition). “To the knowledge of God,” says St. Basil V., “it is not so much heaven and earth that leads us, but rather our own structure, if one prudently examines himself, as the prophet says, being amazed at Your understanding from Me (Ps. 138:6), that is, having examined myself, I recognized the superiority of Your wisdom.” On the Hex. Demon. IX (I volume 142 pages according to the 1891 edition). Grigor. B. Sl. 45, for Easter (IV vol. 154–155 pp.). In the above words of St. Father clearly indicated, firstly, the condition of natural knowledge of God (likeness to God through purification), and secondly, the very path or process of knowledge of God in its main points: “shading the outlines into one image” - exposure; attraction to this appearance and amazement at its incomprehensibility; desire for more, leading to full knowledge of God or conversation with God. Such ways of knowing God from created things were indicated by medieval Catholic theology. It is natural for the mind to move in the knowledge of God along these paths, but they can lead to the knowledge of a personal God only under the condition of the mysterious divine illumination of the human heart. But it is impossible to recognize as correct the view of Roman Catholic theology that the mind of a natural person by itself, through its own conclusions from the consideration of created things, can come to the knowledge of God. See prof. for more details on this. Vvedensky. Faith in God, etc. III department. I Ch. In the book. Wise One Straw. XIII, 1-9 it says about the same thing: “All people are truly vain by nature, who had no knowledge of God, who from visible perfections could not know the Existing One and, looking at works, did not recognize the Creator, but considered as gods ruling the world either fire, or wind, or moving air, or the circle of stars, or stormy water, or the heavenly bodies. If, being captivated by them beauty, they revered them as gods, they should have known how much better their Lord was, for He, the Author of beauty, created them... From the greatness of the beauty of creatures, the Author of their existence is comparatively known... They are inexcusable: if they could understand so much that they were able to explore the temporary world, then why did they not immediately find their Lord? On the insufficiency of the natural way of knowing God, see: Glagoleva S.S. Supernatural revelation and natural knowledge of God outside the true church. Kharkov. 1900 (and in Vera and Raz. for 1900). Goettinger. Apology of Christianity. I part 2 part. XI Thu. Vozdvizhensky M. priest. Human aspiration. nature to deity. truth and the unattainability of its people. forces (Prospect Ob. 1881, II). N. The need for superfoods. revelations (Chronicle Thu. 1846, III). – To what extent could human thought (philosophy) really rise in the matter of knowledge of God? For this, in addition to courses in the history of ancient philosophy, see the works of: Prof. N.I. Korsunsky. The fate of the idea of ​​God in the history of religion and philosophy. worldview of ancient Greece. Kharkov, 1890 (also in Ver. and Raz. 1884–1890). His own. The religious worldview of the historians of Greece and others (Vera and R. 1892) Prof. Ostroumova M. A. History of philosophy in relation. to revelation. Prof. P. Linitsky. Morals and religious concepts in ancient Greek. philosophers (Tr. K. Ak. 1870, 11–12; 1871, 3; 1872, 4). His own. Uch. Plato on the Divinity (ib. 1875, 9–12; 1876, 2). – The awareness of the insufficiency of natural forces and the need for higher help (the manifestation of the gods) for the knowledge of God was expressed by many of the pagan sages and poets, especially Plato: “we will wait,” says one of his dialogues (Alcibiad. II, 150; fn. Tim. p. 23), “whether it is God or a God-inspired person who will teach us our religious duties and, as he says Athena from Homer Diomede, will take away the darkness from our eyes.” The most expressive evidence of this consciousness can be the inscription found by the ap. Paul in Athens on one of the altars: to the unknown God (Acts 17:23). All the efforts of natural reason to know God ended in the ancient world in bleak doubt. Pilate's mocking question: what is truth? (John 18:38) - generally characterizes the state of the contemporary pagan world. An instructive example of paganism striving for the truth and not finding it in it (pagan religion and philosophy) is St. Justin, philosopher and martyr, who finally found it in Christianity. – And in general, when pagan seekers of truth became convinced of the untruth of religious beliefs in their homeland, they went to other nations to see if the truth was with them. "If (moral) evil," says St. Chrysostom, "did not exist and was not discovered, then who would seek the cause of evil and by this search produce heresies? So Parkion, and Manes and Valentinus, and most of the pagans got their beginning from here." If it were not for this evil, like “a great darkness that spread throughout the entire universe,” then “the providence of God would have been revealed to everyone, as on bright noon and in clear weather.” To a believing father. III, 10 (I volume). Space katih. About revelation deities For a detailed justification of this position, see prof. Glagolev in the decree. book “Supernatural revelation”, etc. Sn. below, Ave. Dogma. Theologian II volume § “On the preparation of the pagan world to receive the Redeemer.” Literature. – Vvedensky A.I. Faith, its origin and foundations. Dept. III. Ch. 2. Glagoleva S.S. On the conditions for the emergence of religious faith (Theological Vestn. 1892, 11 books). Svetlova P. prot. Sources of the current opinion about faith as the opposite of knowledge (Stran. 1895 and 1866 and in a separate ed.). Goettinger. Apologist. Christ I. parts 1 and 2 div. Dobrotvorsky V. About the religious organ in the human soul (Spirit. Demon. XII vol.). A. G. On the holiness of life as a necessary condition for the knowledge of God (Spirit. Dem. 1871, No. 25). Golosova. Moral conditions on the part of man for accepting revelation. Riga. 1894 Vissarion bishop. Moral life as a condition in the knowledge of God (Faith and Church. 1900, 7 books). Bogdashevsky D.I. On the causes of modern unbelief (Tr. Kyiv. Ak. 1910, Jan.-Feb.). Yurkevich M. The heart and its meaning in the spirit. human life (Tr. K. Ak. 1860, 1). The participation of the heart in the knowledge of the truths of faith (Chronicles, Thur. 1861 I). Religious feeling, faith and knowledge (Stran. 1863 II). Feeling and reason in matters of faith and unbelief (ibid., 1872, II vol.). Zlat. On 1 Cor. Demon. VIII, 2; on Acts Demon. XLVII, 4. “Why,” writes Bishop Theophan, “Epicurus removed God from the rule of the world?” “Because he judged Him according to his own mood, because he loved to indulge in sweet inaction and peace.” “Why did Origen come to the idea of the incompatibility of eternal torment with the goodness of God?” “Because he judged Him according to his own kindness... In a similar way, others can and do imagine God only as a formidable and indiscriminate despot... Everyone judges by himself, by his own knowledge and by his own mood.” Add. to “Letters on the Christian Life.” 242 pp. Theophilus. To Autolycus, I, 2. "In whom," writes Prof. A. I. Vvedensky, "the features of his godlikeness are clear, for that his God is at the same time the supreme example of perfection, and the unconditional truth, and the giver of truly human, morally intelligent life. For a heartless, dry and rational thinker, his God is only Wisdom, dispassionate and indifferent to the living demands of the spirit. For a person who has not yet awakened (as in infant nations or savages), or the highest moral and rational aspirations have already fallen silent, God is only the “Strong One,” the omnipotent giver of material external goods. Finally, for the person. who, “having stooped to the foolishness of beasts of burden,” has lost the last difference from an animal - the ability to advocate the fragmentation of phenomena to their single basis (such as fetish worshipers, animists, phenomenists, etc.) there is no longer a single and omnipotent God, but mutually limited gods: in a word, like is known by like." Faith in God, etc. Proceedings. Rev. 1891, I vol. 451 pp. Grigor. B. Sl. 20 (II part 165 pages). He writes: "not everyone can philosophize about God, because people who have tested themselves, who have spent their lives in contemplation, and who have first of all purified, or at least purified, both soul and body, are capable of this. For an unclean person, it may be unsafe to touch a pure thing, as for a weak-sighted person to touch a ray of sunlight. When is this possible? - When we are free from external mud (i.e. not we are enslaved to the flesh) and rebellion, when what is sovereign in us (the mind) does not merge with worthless and wandering images” (Sk. 27, about the theology 1, III part 7 p.). The need for moral purity for the knowledge of God is a truth that was clearly recognized and expressed by the best of the pagan sages. Plato, for example, says that only then can the seer enjoy the sight of eternal things if he becomes akin and similar to what he sees. The eye would never have seen the sun if it had not been designed like the sun. Likewise, the soul will never see beauty if it has not already become beautiful. Therefore, let everyone first become godlike and beautiful if he wants to see the beautiful (Ennead. 1, 6), cleanse the soul of passions, renounce sensuality and everything earthly (Phed. p. 16, 23). One of the representatives of French freethinking in the 18th century. – Rousseau said to his son: “My son, always keep your soul in that state that allows you to desire that there is a God, and you will never doubt His existence.” Afanas. Sl. about incarnation God of the Word, 57. Teach. Macarius of Egypt, in explaining the same truth, i.e. the need for active knowledge of the truth, says: “I consider those who proclaim spiritual teaching without tasting or experiencing it to be like a man who, on a hot summer afternoon, walks through an empty, waterless country; drinks from it, - or a person who says about honey that it is sweet, but has not tasted it himself and does not know the power of its sweetness.” Sl. on the elevation of the mind, 18 ch. Sn. Philokalia. Moscow. 1883 I vol. 225 pp. The question of active knowledge is well explained and based on experience among ascetics. Philokalia. Moscow. 1884 II vol. 659 pp. Just. Conversation with Tryphon. Chapter 7 You might be interested in: