Oleg Davydenkov - dogmatic theology. The completeness of the New Testament Revelation and the development of dogmatic science. The relationship of dogmatic theology to other theological sciences

DOGMATIC THEOLOGY or dogmatics for short, is also called “Christian doctrine.” To indicate which church or which confession the doctrine is being expounded, the name of the church or confession is added. Hence the names: Orthodox dogmatic theology, Orthodox dogma; dogmatic theology or doctrine of Catholic, Lutheran, Evangelical, Reformed and others. These names have become commonly used in the last two centuries, but before this science had other and, moreover, different names, as will be seen below from the review of its history.

Dogmatic theology as a science . Expounding the dogmas of the Christian faith, Christian doctrine, dogmatics is a systematic and scientific presentation of the entire totality of Christian dogmas. Dogmatics, like moral, polemical and apologetic or basic theology, is a systematic science and, together with these three sciences, constitutes one group of theological sciences, called systematic theology, and many theologians combined moral theology into one system with dogmatic, others - apologetic, others - polemical , and sometimes all these types of theology were presented together. Schleiermacher, having divided all theology into three types: systematic, historical and practical, classified dogmatics as historical theology on the basis that each time has its own dogmatics. The base is not solid. Let dogmatics develop and change with each era, but the same happens with all other sciences; However, can all sciences be considered historical? Dogmatics, in comparison with other sciences, is even the least susceptible to change, because its objective content - dogmas as drawn from the unchanged Holy Scripture, is always the same. The changes and destinies of dogmatics are set forth in a special science - the “history of dogmatics”. As for the historical presentation of the dogmas themselves, it constitutes only a part of dogma, and in modern times it has even become a special science, separate from dogmas - the “history of dogmas.” With few exceptions, all theologians - ancient, medieval, modern, Orthodox, Roman Latin, Protestant - presented dogmatics systematically. But the systematic presentation of dogmas should not mean the derivation of all of them from one dogmatic fundamental principle, as in philosophy sometimes the entire content of an entire system is deduced from one principle, but the unification of all particular dogmas around one or several basic dogmas. Such fundamental principles in dogmatics are the doctrine of the triune God, the doctrine of the person and work of Christ. The doctrine of the triune God is a unifying principle in the creed, in Orthodox and Roman-Latin dogmatics and in many Protestant ones; and the doctrine of the person and work of Christ is accepted as a central dogma in some Protestant dogmas, for example. at Thomasius's. The content of dogma can be grouped and combined around other dogmatic principles. So, for example, in our book “Divine Love” the most important Christian dogmas are revealed from the beginning of God’s love. The famous Protestant theologian Ritschl based his dogmatic system on the idea of ​​the kingdom of God, and in this matter he had predecessors in German theology. Even in Russian theology, Innokenty (Borisov) warned him of this, who based his dogmatic-apologetic lectures on the idea of ​​the kingdom of God. And even in ancient times, apologetic-historical, and partly dogmatic, material united the idea of ​​the kingdom of God in Blessed Augustine in his extensive work “On the City of God.” There were also experiments in the deductive, purely philosophical construction of dogma from one beginning. Thus, Schleiermacher, in his dogmatics, tried to derive the entire Christian doctrine from the complete sense of man’s dependence on God. But his experience shows that it is impossible to derive with logical necessity the entire dogmatic content of Christianity from one beginning. His anthropological principle of dogma turned out to be too narrow for it to be possible to derive all Christian dogmas from it, and his dogma is incomplete. By its very nature, purely inferential dogmatics will be religious philosophy itself, the philosophy of faith, the general thing of religion, and not dogmatics. It is difficult and even impossible to expect and hope that such a religious philosophy or purely rational dogmatics will coincide in its content and spirit with positive dogmatics, which draws its content not from reason, but from Revelation. True, the laws of reason are given to us by God, and therefore natural or natural theology (theologia naturalis), as the fruit of reason, should not be in conflict with positive or supernatural Revelation, also given from God. But the powers and abilities of our spirit are limited, and in addition, they are weakened, perverted and damaged by sin. Meanwhile, in positive Revelation, there are such truths, called the mysteries of faith, which reason not only cannot conceive of on its own, but cannot fully understand them even after they have been generalized to it by God in positive Revelation. And these truths are the most basic dogmas of Christianity, such as the doctrine of the Trinity, the incarnation of the Son of God in the person of Christ, His redemption of the human race, and grace. Given the incomprehensibility of the basic dogmas of the Christian faith, reason will be powerless to derive the entire dogmatic content of Christianity from one beginning, even if the theologian does not lose sight of the revealed doctrine, and even tries not to diverge from it.

Not only the objective principles or material foundations of his science, but even the particular ones that make up the content of its truth, the dogmatist does not seek and discover, but takes ready-made ones from Revelation through the dogmatic teaching of his church. In this way, dogmatics, like all theology in general, differs significantly from philosophy and all secular sciences. True, both in philosophy and in secular sciences, the objects of knowledge are also given. They are the same here as in theology - God, world, man. In human cognitive abilities, organs are given and ways and means of cognition of these objects are indicated, and the process of cognition itself is predetermined; but the results of knowledge are not predetermined. A person has a desire for truth, but when realizing this desire in knowledge, a person encounters many difficulties and often accepts a lie as the truth, and rejects the truth as a lie. Be that as it may, the discovery of truth is the main task of philosophy and all secular sciences. But for a dogmatist this task in the strict sense of the word does not exist, because dogmatic truths are given in Revelation and in church teaching, and a dogmatist does not need or even have the opportunity to find and discover them. The so-called discoveries that occur in natural science, philosophy and historical sciences , in dogmatics it cannot be. However, in the field of dogma there can be and have been errors, and even serious ones, such as heretical teachings; and on the other side there appeared creations filled with pure and sublime truth. Thus, a dogmatist, no less than any other scientist, must be animated by the desire for truth, and he must make efforts to achieve the truth. But achieving it for him consists not in discovery, but in revealing the truth. For example, we already know the truth from Revelation that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the human race; it is impossible and unnecessary to reveal this truth. The task of the dogmatist in relation to it is to firmly believe in it and overcome doubts if they began to creep into the soul, to fully perceive it, to understand it correctly and as deeply as possible, to fully and comprehensively reveal it and determine its relationship to other dogmas . And such a task is immeasurable, so that not only one person, even a genius, but even all of humanity will never exhaust it to the end, will never achieve a perfect understanding of the dogma of salvation; It’s already good if humanity moves closer and closer to it, as an unattainable ideal. In connection with this positive task, there is a negative one - the exposure and refutation of incorrect teachings about dogma. This task is the subject of another science; its successful implementation is impossible without an excellent knowledge and understanding of positive creed. And how much work the fight against heresies cost the church is known from the history of these latter. So, the main and fundamental task of dogmatics is to extract dogmatic material as fully as possible from the Holy Scriptures and church teaching, to correctly and deeply understand and evaluate, to comprehensively recognize and clearly recognize the content contained in this material; and for this you need to bring your entire spirit closer together, to akin to this content, to make the biblical-church teaching of faith your faith, your thought, to experience it as the thought and feeling of your spirit, to have a deep conviction in its truth and divinity. The second task of the dogmatist is to present scientifically what has been perceived and assimilated by the spirit, that is, to apply to the dogmatic content all the best and most reliable scientific techniques that are generally used when processing material by scientists, in accordance with those special requirements that are caused by the processing the actual dogmatic material, namely, to present the doctrine systematically, reasonably, completely, in accordance with the content and spirit of the primary sources of Christian doctrine. For purely scientific purposes, it is not only possible, but also necessary, to study the best dogmatism of other confessions, because heterodox theologians also apply scientific techniques with care and skill. For example, the philological and historical study of the Bible has been brought to a high degree of perfection in the West, and the history of heresies, confessions and churches, especially Western and ancient, has been just as widely developed there. Therefore, we, Orthodox theologians, can learn a lot from Western dogmatists. But slavish admiration for them is harmful even from a scientific point of view. The third task of a dogmatist is to present dogmas in the spirit of the Orthodox Church, in accordance with its teachings, for which one must be an Orthodox Christian himself, filially love his church, firmly believe in the truth of its teachings and imprint its spirit in his theology.

The success of both the study of the Christian faith and the scientific construction of dogma is harmed by one-sidedness: 1) mysticism, which attaches excessive importance to feeling to the detriment of cognitive activity itself, which attributes too much value to the internal direct perception of the content of faith and neglects the external means of knowledge of God - the teaching of the church and even the teaching of the divine Revelations; 2) excessive and one-sided rationality, weakening immediate religiosity and piety, drying up the feeling of faith, cooling its warmth, predisposing to disbelief in the miracles and mysteries of faith and leading to a perverted understanding of Christian dogmas, and then to their denial, to semi-rationalism and rationalism.

Previously, moral, polemical and apological theologies were expounded in conjunction with dogmatic theology. But at present, each of these sciences has grown so much and they have become so isolated from each other that it is difficult to present them together or jointly in one system. Let dogmatics be the basis of moral theology, since Christian moral teaching has its roots in Christian dogmas; and apologetic theology, since it is precisely Christian dogmas that have to be substantiated and defended; and polemical theology, since the latter expounds and exposes the perversions of Christian dogmas; nevertheless, for the purposes of scientific completeness and thoroughness, each of these sciences must be presented separately, although, of course, the moralist, apologist, and polemicist, whether in the research of particular subjects, or in constructing the whole edifice of their sciences, must constantly keep in mind Orthodox dogmas , as the fundamental basis of his works. In the same way, although a dogmatist can defend dogmas from attacks from non-believers, he can also draw moral conclusions from dogmas, or touch on the dogmatic perversions of heterodox churches and confessions, but he should touch on all this only in passing. Otherwise, on the one hand, he will deviate too much from his direct task - the positive disclosure of Christian dogmas, and on the other hand, he will go too far into the field of other sciences, which are developed by special specialists, and will unnecessarily burden and overcrowd his science with subjects that only relate to it. an indirect relationship, which, moreover, is considered in more detail in other sciences. For a dogmatist, his own task is sufficient - the positive disclosure in an integral system of the entire totality of Christian dogmas. When we say this, we mean dogmatics as a science, as a system. And in works devoted to the study of individual subjects of his science, a dogmatist, of course, is free to reveal dogmas not only positively, but also to clarify their moral meaning, or to defend them through a thorough, specially scientific refutation of the opinions of non-believers and rationalists, or, finally, to explain in detail and refute incorrect views on the dogmas of theologians of other churches and confessions. The question of the relationship between moral theology and dogmatic theology requires further special comment. Even after the fragmentation of theology into specialties, the Latins, and more often the Protestants, had experiences of combining moral theology with dogmatic theology. At the present time, there has even appeared a need to revive dogmatics by merging moral theology with it. We, however, believe that a book of purely dogmatic content, whether it covers a whole system of science, or reveals any department of it, or concludes a study of its particulars, will not be devoid of warmth of feeling and will have a fruitful influence on readers if the person who wrote it has deep faith in the truth of Christian dogmas, if he is a true Christian and a religious person. The sincerity of his conviction, the strength of faith, the warmth and vitality of feeling will themselves be communicated to his writing, whether it be purely dogmatic or otherwise. And without these conditions for the fruitfulness of any theological work in general, the merging of moral teaching with religious teaching will not enhance the vitality of this latter.

History of dogmatic theology. The history of dogmatic theology is divided into three periods: ancient or patristic, medieval or scholastic and modern times. The seed of dogmatic systems were the creeds that appeared from the earliest times of Christianity in private churches - Jerusalem, Rome, Cyprus and others. Similar in content and presentation, they were a detailed disclosure of the baptismal formula commanded by Jesus Christ and contained a brief confession of faith in the triune God - creator and savior.

History of dogmatics as a science. The first extensive and scientific dogmatic system appeared two centuries after the beginning of Christianity, in 228 - 230. This is Origen’s work “On the Elements”, which has come down to us not in the Greek original, but in a free translation into Latin, made in 397-398 Mr. Rufin. It was recently translated into Russian by N. Petrov and published by the Kazan Theological Academy. Origen's work consists of four books; but its dogmatic system is set out in the first three books, and the fourth book sets out the rules for the interpretation of Holy Scripture. Origen's work is dogmatic-philosophical; revealing church teaching, Origen also exposes his private dogmatic opinions, bearing the imprint of Neoplatonic philosophy. In the 4th century, “18 catechetical and 5 secret teachings” of St. appeared. Cyril of Jerusalem. This is the same as today's catechetical conversations. In the catechumen teachings the teaching of the symbol of the Jerusalem church is explained, and in the sacramental teachings the teaching about the sacraments of baptism, confirmation and communion is revealed. Those and other teachings can be called popular preaching dogmatics. The “Great Catechetical Discourse” of Gregory of Nyssa is somewhat more scientific and philosophical in nature than these teachings. In its forty chapters, the dogmatic-apologetic Christian doctrine is briefly presented. In the West, a work reminiscent of the current catechisms appeared in the 5th century. This is the “Enchiridion, or Manual Book to Lawrence” by St. Augustine. In the 5th century, the “Abridged Exposition of Divine Dogmas” appeared by Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus. The first 23 chapters of this work are dogmatic, and the last 6 are of moralizing and polemical content. This short but meaningful work constitutes the fifth book of Theodoret’s extensive work entitled “ Summary harmful heretical teaching." In the first four books of this work, heretical teachings are refuted. In the arrangement of dogmatic material, Theodoret apparently imitated St. John of Damascus. His dogmatics under the title “An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith” appeared in the 8th century. and constitutes the crown of dogmatic science of the fatherly period. Damascene composed his dogma from sayings and thoughts borrowed from the writings of the famous fathers of the East; He borrowed especially much from the works of Gregory the Theologian and Maximus the Confessor. The author himself divided it into 100 chapters, and the students of Peter Lombard divided it into 4 more books, modeled on the dogmatic system of their teacher. The dogmatics of Damascus have always been highly respected in the Greek and Russian churches and have been translated into Slavic and Russian many times. It was translated into Slavic in the 12th century. John Exarch of Bulgaria, freely, but purely and clearly, translated only 48 chapters; in the 16th century Prince Andrei Kurbsky (Rumyants. Bible No. 193, Collected by the director of Count Uvarov No. 216); in the 17th century Epiphany Slavinetsky, literally, but dark; in the 18th century Archbishop of Moscow Ambrose Zertis-Kamensky, from Latin. In the 19th century it has been translated several times into Russian. An incomplete translation of it at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy was published in Christian Reading for 1839, 1840 and 1841. In Moscow it was translated in 1834. Its translation at the Moscow Theological Academy was published in 1844, and in 1855. The 4th edition has already been published. A new translation of it was recently made by Professor Bronzov.

The medieval or scholastic period of dogmatics begins several centuries later than the medieval era in world history, - precisely from the 11th century. Famous medieval scholastic dogmatic theologians in the West were: Anselm of Canterbury, Hugo-a-Saint-Victor, Peter Lombard, Abelard, Alexander Gales, Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scott, Durand, William of Ockham and others. Theologians who adhered to the direction of Thomas Aquinas were called Thomists. The followers of Duns Scott formed the school of Scottists. There were other less common schools. The most famous of the scholastic theologians of the Middle Ages was Thomas Aquinas. His theology has not been forgotten to this day. Pope Leo XIII ordered the teaching of Thomas' theology in seminaries. Therefore, in recent years, a lot of alterations and expositions of either the whole theology of Thomas, or sections of it, have appeared, adapted to the needs modern education . The theological systems of the scholastics were called sums of theology or sums of opinions. In spirit, structure and method of processing, medieval scholastic dogmatics was a combination of theology with philosophy, either Platonic or Aristotelian. The influence of Aristotle's philosophy was especially strong at that time. The characteristic features of Western medieval theology are the following: strict systematization of dogmatic material, internal development of dogmatic truth according to categories of thinking (reality, possibility, necessity, being, causality, modality), abstraction of thought, formalism, fragmentation and punctuality in presentation, passion for sophisticated research and witty solutions to insoluble questions, neglect to study the primary sources of dogma - the Holy Scriptures and patristic works (scholastic theologians valued and knew almost only Augustine), preference for the word of thought, abstract thought over concrete content, formal coherence and validity over factual truth. Scholastic theology was a refined logomachy or philosophical dialectic, a purely rational science; it moved closer to formal logic and pure mathematics; was school science, dry and lifeless. But in school, scholastic theology dominated not only in the Middle Ages, but continued to exist, and sometimes even prevail, in modern times, and not only in the West, but also penetrated into the East and was a school science here for several centuries. Along with scholastic theology, mystical theology also flourished in the Middle Ages. It is in many ways the opposite of scholastic theology: scholasticism wanted to know revealed truth through reason, demonstratively, dialectically, and mysticism - through pious feeling, direct vision, and inner conviction; scholasticism was subordinate to Aristotle, and mysticism to Plato; scholastics have nominalism, mystics have realism; in the matter of knowledge of God, scholasticism exaggerated the importance of reason, syllogisms, formal proofs, dialectics, and as a result achieved a one-sided, external and formal understanding of Christianity, and not a complete and vital one; mysticism, on the contrary, belittled the importance of rational knowledge, sought to bring the entire spirit closer to religious truth, demanded moral purification of the spirit and recognized the mystical contemplation of God as the highest level of knowledge of God. However, scholasticism and mysticism sometimes became so close that the same theologians wrote both scholastic and mystical works, for example. quizzers. In mysticism itself in the Middle Ages there were two directions, the moral-practical one, adjacent to Augustine, and the contemplative one, which had its roots in the writings that at that time were attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite. In their writings, mystics discussed the relationship of faith to knowledge, freedom and natural powers to grace, love, and mystical contemplation as the highest path of knowledge and life. The mystical path of life came closer to asceticism, so widespread in the Middle Ages, and the mystical path of knowledge consisted primarily of self-deepening, direct contemplation and inner feeling, unity with God. Both in content and in presentation, mystical writings are completely different from scholastic ones. Gerson distinguished three types of theology: symbolic, proper and mystical, and recognized the latter as the most perfect. The most famous of the medieval mystical theologians were the following: Bernard of Clairvaux, Hugo-a-saint-Victor, Richard-a-saint-Victor, Bonaventure, Ruisbroeck, Suso, Tauler, Thomas a à Kempis, John Gerson (he owns the theory of mystical theology), Henry Eckart (pantheist), unknown author of the book: “German Theology”. The names of Bernard, Bonaventure, and Gerson are well known; but Thomas a à Kempis gained truly worldwide fame with his essay: “On Following Christ.” This book has been translated into all the languages ​​of educated peoples and has been sold in thousands of editions. It was translated into Russian by Count Speransky, K.P. Pobedonostsev and an as yet unknown translator.

In the Middle Ages, Western scholasticism did not penetrate into the East, neither into the Greek nor into the Russian Church. But, on the other hand, independent theology did not flourish here either. The development of science and education was not favored by the political state and civil life of the Christian peoples of the East. The Byzantine Empire was losing internal strength and external power, and by the modern era it was conquered by the Turks and lost its independence. In the Middle Ages, the following dogmatic systems appeared in Greece: “The Dogmatic Armory of the Orthodox Faith” by Euthymius Zigaben; “Treasure of the Orthodox Faith” by Niketas Choniates; “Church conversations about the one true faith of Christ” St. Simeon of Thessalonica. These books are dogmatic and polemical in content and character. And later, the dogmatic writings of the Greeks were combined with polemics directed primarily against the Latins.

The Russian people accepted the faith from the Greeks and from them they adopted the creations of the famous fathers of the East, for example. Chrysostom, Basil the Great, Athanasius of Alexandria, John of Damascus, which, translated into Slavic, replaced independent works on theology. These latter could not exist for many centuries, since there were no higher schools, no learned people, and the Mongol pogrom and the yoke suppressed for a long time the sprouts of spiritual enlightenment and theological learning that had begun.

The great era of modern times began with a terrible pogrom, which was carried out by Luther's reform in the Latin Church. Having hitherto indivisibly and completely ruled the peoples of the West, this church split into two hostile parts: one remained faithful to the traditions of its church and its head - the pope, the other separated from it and formed a special confession - the Protestant. In church government, discipline and worship, Protestantism took a path directly opposite to the structure of the Latin Church. It deviated less from it in its doctrine, as can be seen from the fact that it retained the Niceno-Constantinopolitan symbol as a symbol of faith; nevertheless, the doctrine of the Protestant confession differs significantly from the Roman Latin one. Protestant dogmatics is completely different from the dogmatics of the Roman-Latin Church, and has its own special history. Therefore, in the modern era, in addition to the history of dogmatics of the Latin Church and the history of dogmatics of the Orthodox Church, we also have the history of Protestant dogmatics, which in turn has ramifications, since Protestantism split into several confessions or sects. The Reformation brought about increased activity on the part of the Latin Church and its learned theologians. The Council of Trent had a significant influence on the fate of Latin theology. At many of its meetings, dogmatic issues were discussed and resolved, mainly those in which the Lutherans disagreed with the papists. At the same council it was decided to compile the Roman Catechism, published later, under Pope Pius V. Of the dogmatists of the 16th century. the most famous was Cardinal Bellarmin with his learned and skillfully composed extensive dogmatic-polemical work: Disputationes de controversiis christianae fidei adversus nostri temporis haereticos. Then the works of other Latin theologians were necessarily turned into polemics against Protestants. In Spain, purely scholastic theology flourished in Latin in the persons of Bannetz, Vasquez, Svarez and others. After the decline of theology in the 18th century, it appeared in the 19th century. there are many extensive and brief systems of dogma. These are the dogmatics of Penck, Perrone, Kleutgen (unfinished), Jungmann, Kachthaler, Pesch, Einig, Jansen in Latin; in German by Klee, Brenner, Staudenmaier, Berlage, Drey, Kuhn (unfinished), Schaeben, Oswald, Ziemar, Heinrich, Schell, Bautz; in French by Lamotte, in English by Gunter. The scholastic attitude is maintained in the Ultramontane dogmatists, written in Latin. Among the Roman-Latin theologians there were also freethinkers who were condemned by their church. These are: Munich professor Hermes, convicted in 1835, and Gunther, convicted in 1857.

The father of the Protestant confession was a translator of Holy Scripture into German, preacher, polemicist; He also compiled the catechisms of his confession. But he did not write the dogmatic system of his confession. The first experience of Protestant dogmatics was made by another head of Lutheranism, Melanchthon, under the title Loci communes theologici (1521). Loci - theses, principles. This book was compiled from lessons on the interpretation of the Apostle Paul's Epistle to the Romans. It most fully reveals the doctrine of salvation with the addition of dogmatic and moral teaching. Subsequently, Melanchthon significantly expanded his dogmatics. Luther approved of it, and it became a model for subsequent Lutheran dogmatists. Of these, the most famous are the following: Chemnitz (Loci theologici 1591); Hutter (Compendium theologiae 1610), nicknamed “the reborn Luther”; his disciple John Gorard, with his unusually extensive, 20-volume, system (Loci theologici 1610 - 1621), replete with materials and scholarship and moderate in polemics, its publication was repeated; Kalov (Systema locorum theologicorium 1655 - 1677), Quenstedt (Theologia didactico-polemica 1685); Bayer (Compendium theologiae positivae 1686); Gollazius (Examen theologiae acroamaticae 1707); Budday (Institutiones theologiae dogmaticae 1723). All these dogmatists are of a scholastic nature and are held in great esteem by Lutherans of the church orientation.

A counterbalance to scholastic dryness, formalism and lifelessness of dogma of the 17th century. appeared in the first half of the 18th century. in pietism, a mystical direction. The Pietists (Count Zinzendorf, Spener, Breithaupt, Rambach, Lange, etc.) attached importance to feeling, not reason, piety, not learning; their works are imbued with warmth of feeling, but they do not have scientific rigor and, in general, their scientific significance is insignificant. In the 18th century, especially in the second half of it, materialism and atheism in France, deism in England and rationalism in Germany dealt a heavy blow to Christianity and delayed for a long time the development of theology in general, dogmatics in particular. Deists and rationalists retained in Christianity only the moral side of it, and among the dogmas - only the truths of natural theology: the truth of the existence of God, the immortality of the soul and some others. The miracle was rejected by them, and at the same time almost all purely Christian dogmas were rejected or deeply distorted, such as: the doctrine of the inspiration of Holy Scripture, the doctrine of the trinity of persons in God, the divinity of Christ, the atonement, grace, sacraments, about supernatural conception, about the resurrection and ascension of Christ, about the primitive innocent state of the first parents and about their fall, about the existence of good and evil spirits, about the general resurrection and retribution. There were also semi-rationalists at that time who did not clearly break ties with church doctrine, but gave dogmas a predominantly moral meaning. These were the theologians: those who adhered to the philosophy of Kant.

In the 19th century, the Lutheran confession was enriched with many systems of dogma. Based on their direction, they can be divided into several categories. The dogmatists of the church or orthodox direction may include the following: at the beginning of the century, the dogmatists of Knapp, Hahn, and Steudel; Karla Gase “Hut. redivivus, or dogmatics of the Evangelical Lutheran Church" (1st ed. in 1828, and in 1883 12th ed.), his own "Evangelical Protestant Dogmatics" (1826 1st ed. , in 1860, 5th ed.); Danish dogmatics of Bishop Martensen, translated into German in 1850; Thomasia's The Person and Works of Christ (1st ed. in 1850s, 2nd in 1860s); Friedrich Philippi “Church Doctrine”, 1854 - 1879; Luthardt's "The Reduction of Dogmatics" - from 1854 to 1900. ten editions were published; Kanisa “Lutheran Dogmatics Explained Genetically” (1st ed. 1861 - 1868, 2nd 1874); Schöberlein's "Principle and System of Dogmatics" 1881; Heinrich Schmid “Dogmatics of the Evangelical Lutheran Church” (1st ed. in 1843, 7th in 1893). The dogmatists of the biblical school, Beck and Kübel, can also be included here. It should be noted that even among the dogmatists of the church there are opinions that disagree with the symbolic teaching of the Lutheran confession. Free-thinking or rationalist theologians fall into several schools, for the most part according to the philosophies to which they adhere. Thus, Schelling's philosophy was reflected in Daub's writings. To Hegel, to right side adjoining him are Marageinike, Biederman, Pfleiderer, and to the left are Strauss and the Tübingen school with Baur at the head. Theologians are Hegelians of the left - extreme rationalists. Kant, whose followers in the 18th century were Tieftrunk, Genke, Eckermann, also had followers at the beginning of the 19th century in the person of Ammon, Wegscheider, De-Wette, Reynard and others (the dogmatists of Ammon, De-Wette and especially Wegscheider had many publications). And in late XIX century, new followers appeared in the person of the Novocantians. Albrecht Ritschl belongs here, also adjacent to Schleiermacher and Lotze. His dogmatic system entitled: “On Justification and Reconciliation”, 1-3 volumes, went through three editions. Ritschl has a whole school of followers, such as Schulz, Kaftan, Tiketger, Hermann and others. Lincius also belongs to the Novo-Kantians (his dogmatics had two editions, in 1876 and 1893). There is also a numerous and difficult to define school of theologians intermediate direction standing in the middle between ecclesiastical and rationalistic theology and trying to reconcile ecclesiasticalism with rationalism. The founder of mediate theology was Schleiermacher, whose “Christian Doctrine” was published from the twenties to the sixties in five editions. Schleiermacher’s attempt to put the feeling of man’s dependence on God at the basis of religion and theology did not find imitators, but the task he set for himself to reconcile church theology with rationalism was accepted sympathetically by many theologians, who began to be called theologians of the intermediate direction. These include Twesten, Karl Nitsch, Voigt, Rothe, Schenkel, Plitt, Kremer, Dorner, Köhler, Friedrich Nitsch, Frank, W. Schmidt, Ettingen and others. Some of these theologians are closer to church teaching, others are closer to rationalism. It must be confessed that it is very difficult to classify Lutheran dogmatists into groups and to precisely limit one group from another. A church theologian may turn out to be a rationalist in particular points of theology; one and the same dogmatist can be, if not a follower of two philosophical directions, then at least an inconsistent adherent of one of them, etc. For example, Karl Gase can be classified as a church theologian, but he can also be recognized as a Kantian.

Side by side with the Lutheran, without fighting it, the dogmatics of the Reformed confession developed. The father of the dogmatics of this confession was Calvin. He published his dogmatic system Institutio christianae religionis in 1536, but until 1559 he revised it several times. In the 18th century, in the Socinian sect of the Reformed confession, the so-called biblical theology arose, the father of which is recognized as the Arminian theologian Cocceus with his Summa theologiae ex scripturis repelita of 1769. The most prominent dogmatists were the reformers of the 19th century. essence I. Lange, Ebrard, Schweitzer etc.

Dogmatics in the Orthodox Easte. In the East, in the Orthodox Church, dogma in the modern era developed partly depending on Western theology, partly independently. All countries in which the churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, and Alexandria once flourished fell under the rule of the Turks and hitherto almost all are under their yoke, and theology here is in decline even to this day. Theological activity appeared here only occasionally in fragmentary works. So, in Greece in the middle of the 18th century. The theology of Vincent Damodos, which remained in the manuscript, appeared, influencing the theological systems of Athanasius of Paria and Theocritus. Eugene Bulgaris also used it when teaching theology at the academy he founded in 1753 on Mount Athos and soon became deserted. In 1865, the dogmatic-polemical system of Nikolai Damal appeared under the title “On the Beginnings.” First the Greeks higher education received in the West; and since 1837 they have had their own university in Athens with a theological faculty. But the latter does not shine with either professors or the number of students, and its departments remain empty for many years. The yoke of an uneducated, heterodox and fanatical people, poverty and some kind of centuries-old stagnation of life hinder both the spread of general education and the growth of theology in the churches of the East.

Much happier than them in all respects is their younger sister - the Russian Church. Not even three centuries had passed since the interregnum, when there were no schools in Rus', but the teaching of all sciences had long been established on solid foundations and their development was ensured. The first theological schools appeared first in Kyiv, and then in Moscow in the 17th century, and in the same century they grew to the level of higher schools and at the same time the systems of theology taught in them appeared. Thus, a system of dogmatics, read in Kyiv Academy from 1642 to 1656 and compiled according to the theology of Thomas Aquinas, and the system of Joasaph of Krakow, taught there from 1693 to 1697. Both systems consist of separate dogmatic-polemical treatises. In the 17th century Prominent theologians in Kievan Rus were Epiphany Slavinetsky, Kirill Tranquillion, Zecharia Kopystensky, Isaiah Kozlovsky, Peter Mogila, Ioannikiy Golyatovsky and others, and in Moscow Rus Simeon of Polotsk and his disciple Sylvester Medvedev, not alien to papist errors, representatives of Western education, Greek brothers Ioannikis and Sophronius Likhud, representatives of the Greek enlightenment. The influence of both on the direction of school scholarship in Moscow did not last long.

In the 18th century famous theologians who came out of the Kyiv Academy were St. Demetrius of Rostov, who, however, did not compile dogmatism, Feofan Prokopovich, Stefan Yavorsky, Georgy Konissky, Sylvester Kulyabka, Samuil Mislavsky, Irinei Falkovsky, and others. As dogmatists, the most famous of them are Feofan Prokopovich and Stefan Yavorsky. F. Prokopovich was inclined towards Protestantism. In addition to many other diverse works, he compiled dogmatics in Latin from his lectures at the academy. It was based on the dogmatics of Gerard. He only managed to compile the first half of the system; and since it was adopted at the Kyiv Academy in the second half of the 18th century. into the leadership, then many rectors of the academy were busy with the work of finishing his system according to his plan, namely David Nashchinsky, Nikodim Pankratiev, Cassian Lekhnitsky and Samuil Mislavsky, who published it with his addition in 1782, and it was also published in 1792 It was published in an abbreviated form by Bishop Falkovsky of Chigirin under the title Theologiae christianae compendium in two volumes (in 1802, 1810, 1812 and 1827). Falkowski's theology served as a guide at the beginning of the 19th century.

In contrast to Theophanes, Stefan Yavorsky leaned towards Roman Catholicism. His most important work is “The Stone of Faith,” which is dogmatic and polemical in content, scholastic in nature, written under the influence of Bellarmine’s work. Under the influence of Stefan Yavorsky, the Moscow Academy from the very beginning of the 18th century. They began to call scientists from the Kyiv Academy. They brought with them scholastic theology. The theological systems of Theophylact Lopatinsky, Kirill Florinsky and some other rectors of the academy have reached us in manuscripts. All of them are of a scholastic structure and character: they consist of unrelated dogmatic-polemical treatises; they discuss sometimes insoluble issues; there is noticeable artificiality in the formulation and solution of questions; divisions are fractional; the method of presentation is syllogistic.

However, even in the 18th century. We had theologians who not only did not imitate scholastic models, but also directly condemned scholasticism. Thus, the works of Dmitry of Rostov are completely free from scholasticism; Feofan Prokopovich did not like scholasticism and his works were alien to scholasticism; Kirill Florinsky recognized many of the sophistications of scholasticism as empty, strange and unnecessary ranting; The dogmatic system of Theophylact of Gorsky, which served as a teaching guide in the Moscow Academy in the last quarter of the 18th century, was distinguished by its harmony and elaboration of the plan and strict consistency in the presentation of the material, and this distinguished it favorably from scholastic systems.

Metropolitan Plato especially contributed greatly to the weakening of scholasticism in theology and in its teaching. He directly stated that the theological systems taught in schools smell of school and human wisdom, while the theology of Christ does not consist in pretentious words and not in human wisdom, but in the manifestation of spirit and power. He put an end to the challenge of scientists from Kyiv and eliminated their systems, which had previously been models for Moscow theologians. Since his time, some subjects began to be taught at the academy in Russian, essays began to be written in it and used in debates. Not without his instructions, the Holy Synod in 1798 introduced the teaching of many new theological sciences in the academy, namely hermeneutics, moral theology, church history and church jurisprudence, whereas previously all theology consisted only of dogma with the addition of elements from moral, polemical and apologetic theology. Plato attached great importance to the study of Holy Scripture and even wrote instructions for teaching it himself. Thus, the opportunity was given for a thorough study of the primary source of dogma, and this latter was placed on a real and solid foundation. By making these orders, which tended to eliminate scholasticism that was alien and unnecessary to us, to strengthen the teaching of the Russian language, to simplify and, at the same time, to expand and improve theology, Plato in his own theology also gave a model for how theology should be taught and written. Although his “Orthodox Teaching or Abbreviated Christian Theology”, both in its small volume and in its very composition, is more of a catechism than a scientific system of dogmatics, and it was compiled from the lessons taught by Plato to the heir to the throne, Pavel Petrovich; however, it was a new and remarkable work in Russian theology. It was written in Russian, generally understandable, concise, without scholastic formalism, in beautiful, clear language. In the 1st part, natural theology is presented, in the 2nd - Christian doctrine, in the 3rd - the commandments. Plato's Theology was published in 1765 and again in 1780. It was translated into Latin in 1774, French in 1776 and Greek in 1782.

In the 19th century scholasticism still remained in theology and its teaching. Thus, in the first decades it was taught in academies and seminaries in Latin and still had scholastic features in its content and presentation; but it was already a remnant of the past, a relic of antiquity. At the beginning of the 19th century. Theological schools were transformed according to the charter of Count Speransky and were divided into three categories: lower - theological schools, middle - seminaries, higher - theological academies. Both in academies and seminaries they began to teach as full a range of theological sciences as possible, and dogmatics was completely separated from the sciences related to it, still retaining first place among all theological sciences, why its teaching, right up to the new transformation of theological schools into in the sixties, was the privilege of the rectors of seminaries and academies. In the 19th century, the theologians who wrote the dogmatic system or influenced it with their works were the following. Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. He compiled the “Orthodox Catechism,” which had two editions, was approved in a revised form by the Holy Synod and the Ecumenical Patriarchs and became a textbook on the Law of God in all Russian schools. In addition, the dogmatic teaching was revealed by Philaret in many of his sermons. Gorodkov compiled “Dogmatic Theology Based on the Writings of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow,” 1887. The distinctive features of Philaret’s theology are independence and power of thought, sharpness of analysis, accuracy and originality of language. Innocent (Borisov), Archbishop of Kherson. He is famous as a church speaker, as a talented, original and prolific theologian. His apologetic-dogmatic lectures, given by him at the Kyiv Academy, are not particularly rich in scholarship, but they are fresh and independent in thought, lively and brilliant in presentation. The complete collection of his works has now been republished by Wolf. A professor of theology at Moscow University, Archpriest Pyotr Ternovsky compiled “Dogmatic Theology”..., published in 1838, 1839 and 1844 and now a bibliographic rarity. Anthony (Amphiteatrov), Archbishop of Kazan, compiled “Dogmatic theology of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church, with the addition of a general introduction to the course of theological sciences.” It was a textbook in seminaries for twenty years (1st edition in 1848, 8th in 1862). Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow, compiled “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology”, in 5 volumes; (1st edition in 1849 - 53. , 2nd in 1850 - 1856, last in 1895). Macarius’ method of revealing dogmas is as follows: first, the connection of the revealed dogma with the previous one is indicated; then sometimes a brief history of the dogma is given; then church teaching is presented, most often according to the “Orthodox Confession” of Peter Mogila; after this, the foundations or proofs of the dogma are given from the Holy Scriptures, then from the works of the fathers and teachers of the church, and finally from reason, borrowed either from the works of the fathers or from secular sciences, and rationalistic opinions that disagree with the dogma are also refuted; it concludes with a moral application. The system pays more attention to the external argumentation of dogmas than to the internal disclosure of their thoughts. Such processing of an object imparts strict definiteness to both the entire system and its parts, but at the same time introduces into it stereotyped monotony, dry formalism, and fragmentation of objects into parts, often connected to each other in an external way. But in the abundance of references to sources, this dogmatics far surpasses all other Russian dogmatics. The same author’s “Guide to the Study of Christian Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” is an abbreviation of his system of dogmatics and has served as a textbook in theological seminaries since the late sixties. Filaret (Gumilevsky), Archbishop of Chernigov, published “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” in two volumes (published in 1864, 1865, 1882). It is compiled from his lectures, which he gave at the Moscow Theological Academy in the thirties and which were written under the influence of the Roman-Latin dogmatists of Klee and Brenner. This dogmatics is free from scholastic artificiality, but is not processed with such care as the system of Macarius. Archpriest Favorov, a professor at Kyiv University, compiled “Essays on Dogmatic Orthodox Christian Teaching,” which was published in several editions. Like Ternovsky’s theology once upon a time, these essays were intended to aid university students in their study of theology. For the same purpose, Sidonsky, a professor of theology at St. Petersburg University, published “A Genetic Introduction to Orthodox Theology.” Professor of the Moscow Theological Academy A. Belyaev wrote the book “Divine Love. The experience of revealing the most important Christian dogmas from the beginning of God’s love,” which had two editions in 1880 and 1884. Bishop of Smolensk John (Sokolov) gave lectures on dogmatics at the academy orally, and they were published from the notes of student listeners many years after the death of John . Bishop Sylvester (Malevansky), rector of the Kyiv Academy, compiled from his academic lectures “The Experience of Orthodox Dogmatic Theology with a Historical Presentation of Dogmas”, in five volumes, from 1878 to 1891 (there is also a 2nd edition). The main difference between this system and other Russian dogmas is that it devotes a lot of space to the history of dogmas. In the dogmatic departments, special attention is paid to the internal disclosure of dogmas, as well as to the disclosure and refutation of incorrect opinions. Only classical passages of Holy Scripture are given in full with proper explanations; others are only indicated. In the second half of the 19th century. In Russia, conditions have developed that are quite favorable for the development of theology in general, dogmatics in particular: the former excessive severity of censorship has been limited, literacy and enlightenment have spread, and since the sixties the number of spiritual journals has increased; The requirement of the academic regulations, issued at the end of the sixties, that not only doctoral, but also master's works be published, increased the number of scientific studies in all branches of theology. It remains to be wished that in the coming 20th century, theological works in Russia, while multiplying quantitatively, improve qualitatively, and that Orthodox theology develops independently, gradually liberating itself from subordination to Western heterodox theology.

To conclude our review of the history of dogmatics, let us make a remark about the language of this science. It is noteworthy that a huge number of works on this science are written in Latin, namely: all the works of Western fathers and teachers of the church; all medieval systems of dogma, both scholastic and mystical; almost all Roman Catholic systems of the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries. and Ultramontane 19th centuries; almost all Protestant dogmatists of the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries; almost all, finally, Russian theological systems of the 17th, 18th and early 19th centuries. But now only Ultramontane dogmatists are published in Latin, while remaining strictly scholastic.

* Alexander Dmitrievich Belyaev,
Doctor of Theology, Professor
Moscow Theological Academy

Text source: Orthodox theological encyclopedia. Volume 4, column. 1126. Petrograd edition. Supplement to the spiritual magazine "Wanderer" for 1903. Modern spelling.

Other materials

Introduction

PART ONE. INTRODUCTION TO DOGMATIC THEOLOGY
Section I. Dogmatic theology as a science
Chapter 1. The concept of dogmatic theology
1.1. Subject of dogmatic theology. The concept of dogma
1.2. Properties of dogmas
1.2.1. Theology (doctrinality)
1.2.2. Godly revelation
1.2.3. Churchness
1.2.4. Generally binding (legally binding)
1.3. Dogmas and theological opinions. Heresy
1.4. Dogmas, dogmatic formulas and theological terms
1.5. Dogmatic systems
1.6. Reasons for the emergence of dogmas
1.7. Basic principles for revealing the content of dogmatic truths
1.8. Purpose of dogmas
1.9. Mastering dogmatic truths human consciousness
Chapter 2. Development of dogmatic science
2.1. The Completeness of New Testament Revelation and the Development of Dogmatic Science
2.2. The theory of "dogmatic development"
2.3. Orthodox view on the development of dogmatic science
2.4. Tasks and method of theological dogmatic science
Section II. Sacred Tradition
Chapter 1. Sacred Tradition in the Orthodox Faith
1.1. The concept of Sacred Tradition
1.2. The relationship between Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition: Holy Scripture as a form of Holy Tradition
1.3. Modern Orthodox theology on Sacred Tradition
Chapter 2. Forms of Tradition
2.1. Rule of Faith
2.1.1. Articles of Faith and Confessions of Faith
2.1.2. Conciliar definitions of faith
2.1.3. Symbolic books
2.2. Liturgical tradition
2.3. Creations of St. fathers and teachers of the Church
2.3.1. Sanctity of Life
2.3.2. Soundness, or truth, of teachings
2.3.3. Church Testimony
2.4. Other forms of Sacred Tradition
Section III. Knowledge of God and its boundaries
Chapter 1. Knowledge of God in the life of a Christian. Natural and supernatural ways of knowing God
1.1. Natural knowledge of God (knowledge of God based on natural Revelation)
1.2. Knowledge of God based on the Holy Scriptures and the works of the saints. fathers
1.3. Supernatural knowledge of God
Chapter 2. The nature and boundaries of knowledge of God
2.1. Disputes about the nature and boundaries of knowledge of God in the 4th century.
2.1.1. Eunomian doctrine
2.1.2. The doctrine of the knowledge of God of the Great Cappadocians and Saints. John Chrysostom
2.2. Disputes about the nature and boundaries of knowledge of God in the 14th century.
2.2.1. Doctrine of Barlaam of Calabria
2.2.2. The teaching is holy. Gregory Palamas on the difference between essence and energy in God
Chapter 3. The concept of apophatic and cataphatic theology

PART TWO. ABOUT GOD IN HIMSELF
Section I. Being, essence and properties of God
Chapter 1. The concept of the apophatic properties of God
1.2. Immutability
1.3. Eternity
1.4. Immeasurability and Omnipresence
Chapter 2. The concept of cataphatic properties of God
2.1. The relationship of the cataphatic properties of God to God Himself and the truth of our ideas about God
2.1.1. On the ontological status of Divine properties
2.1.2. On the reliability of our knowledge of God
2.2. Cataphatic properties of God
2.2.1. Reason, wisdom and omniscience
2.2.2. Holiness
2.2.3. Omnipotence
2.2.4. All-bliss (supreme bliss)
2.2.5. Goodness, love and mercy
2.2.6. God's Truth
2.2.7. The goodness and truth of God in their relationship
2.3. Anthropomorphisms of Holy Scripture

Section II. About God, Trinity in Persons
Chapter 1. Testimonies of Divine Revelation about the Trinity
1.1. Dogma of the Holy Trinity
1.1.1. The Dogma of the Holy Trinity - the foundation of the Christian religion
1.1.2. The Holy Trinity and analogies of the trinity from the created world
1.2. Evidence from Revelation of the Trinity of Persons in God
1.2.1. Evidence of the Trinity in the Old Testament
1.2.2. New Testament Evidence
1.2.3. Belief ancient Church in the Trinity of the Godhead
1.3. Revelation's Evidence of the Divine Dignity and Equality of the Divine Persons
1.3.1. Divine Dignity of God the Father
1.3.2. Evidence from Revelation of the Divine Dignity of the Son and His Equality with the Father
1.3.3. Evidence from Revelation of the Divine Dignity of the Holy Spirit and His Equality with the Father and the Son
Chapter 2. Short story dogma of the Holy Trinity
2.1. Pre-Nicene period in the history of Trinity theology
2.1.1. The teaching of the apologists
2.1.2. Monarchianism
2.1.3. Origen's doctrine of the Trinity
2.2. Trinitarian disputes of the 4th century
2.2.1. Prerequisites for the emergence of Arianism. Lucian Samosatsky
2.2.2. Doctrine of Arius
2.2.3. Controversy with Arianism in the 4th century. Triadology of the saints. Athanasius the Great
2.2.4. Doukhoborism (πνευματομαχία)
2.3. Trinitarian errors after II Ecumenical Council
Chapter 3. Triadology of the Great Cappadocians
3.1. Trinity terminology
3.1.1. The terms "essence" and "nature"
3.1.2. The terms “hypostasis” and “person”
3.2. Conceptual and terminological system of Cappadocian triadology
Chapter 4. Consubstantial Persons of the Most Holy Trinity and Their Difference in Hypostatic Properties
4.1. Evidence of Revelation about the Relationship of Divine Persons
4.2. Personal (hypostatic) properties
4.3. The Trinity of Divine Persons and the category of number (quantity)
4.4. How to correctly think about the relationships of Divine Persons?
The image of the pre-eternal birth and the pre-eternal procession
4.5. Doctrine of the Monarchy of the Father
4.6. Roman Catholic doctrine of the Filioque
4.7. Consubstantial Persons of the Most Holy Trinity
4.8. Image of the Revelation of the Holy Trinity in the world

PART THREE. ABOUT GOD IN HIS RELATION TO THE WORLD AND MAN
Section I. God as Creator and Provider of the world
Chapter 1. God as Creator of the World
1.1. Non-Christian concepts of the origin of the world
1.1.1. Dualism
1.1.2. Pantheism
1.2. Christian doctrine of the origin of the world
1.3. The main objections to the doctrine of the creation of the world out of nothing
1.4. Image of God's creation of the world
1.5. Creation and time
1.6. Participation of all Persons of the Holy Trinity in the work of creation
1.7. The motive and purpose of creation
1.8. Perfection of creation
Chapter 2. God as the Provider of the world
2.1. The concept of God's Providence
2.2. The Reality of God's Providence
2.3. The main objections to the reality of Providence
2.4. False teachings about Providence
2.5. Actions of Divine Providence
2.6. Items of Divine Providence and types of Providence
2.7. Images of Divine providence for the world
2.8. Participation of the Persons of the Holy Trinity in the work of Providence
2.9. On the possibility of knowledge of God's Providence by man
Chapter 3. The spiritual world, or angelic
3.1. Angels in Scripture
3.2. Objections to the existence of angels
3.3. Creation of Angels by God
3.4. Time of creation of angels
3.5. The Nature of Angels
3.6. Properties of Angelic Nature
3.6.1. Spirituality and disembodiment
3.6.2. The relationship of angels to space and time
3.6.3. Immortality
3.7. Perfection of Angelic Nature
3.8. Number of angels
3.9. Heavenly hierarchy
3.10. Archangels
3.11. On the prayerful veneration of angels
3.12. God's providence for the spiritual world
3.12.1. God's providence for good angels
3.12.2. God's providence regarding evil spirits and the origin of evil

Section II. Orthodox teaching about man
Chapter 1. The Creation of Man
1.1. Creation of man by God
1.2. Marriage. God-established method of human reproduction
1.3. The origin of the entire human race from Adam and Eve. Pre-Adamism and Polygenism
Chapter 2. Origin and properties of the human soul
2.1. The Composition of Human Nature: Dichotomy and Trichotomy
2.2. The importance of the body in the composition of human nature
2.3. Origin of human souls
2.3.1. Opinion about the pre-existence of human souls
2.3.2. Opinion on the creation of human souls
2.3.3. Opinion about the birth of human souls
2.4. Properties of the human soul
2.5. The difference between the human soul and the souls of animals
Chapter 3. The image and likeness of God in man
3.1. General concept about the image of God in man
3.2. The likeness of God, the relationship between image and likeness
3.3. Personalistic understanding of the image of God in modern Orthodox theology
Chapter 4. Appointment of a person
4.1. The purpose of man in relation to God
4.2. A person's purpose in relation to himself
4.3. The purpose of man in relation to the rest of creation
Chapter 5. The State of Man Before the Fall
5.1. Perfection of human nature before the Fall
5.2. God's care for man before the Fall
5.3. Was Adam immortal before the Fall?
5.4. Did Adam distinguish between good and evil before the Fall?

Section III. About God the Savior and His special relationship to the human race
Chapter 1. The Fall and its consequences
1.1. The Essence of the Fall
1.2. Consequences of the Fall
1.2.1. Consequences of the Fall in the relationship between God and man
1.2.2. Consequences of the Fall in human nature
1.2.3. Consequences of the Fall in relationships between people
1.2.4. Consequences of the Fall in outside world and in the relationship between the world and man
1.3. Orthodox teaching on the spread of sin in the world
1.3.1. Concept of sin
1.3.2. The universality of sin and the way it spreads throughout the human race
1.3.3. Original sin
1.4. Imputation of original sin
Chapter 2. Teaching of the Church about the Face of Christ the Savior
2.1. The Eternal Council of the Most Holy Trinity for the salvation of the human race. Participation of the Persons of the Holy Trinity in the salvation of man
2.2. The Lord Jesus Christ is the true God
2.3. The Lord Jesus Christ is a true man
2.3.1. Revelation Evidence of the Humanity of Jesus Christ
2.3.2. Misconceptions about the humanity of Jesus Christ
2.3.3. Differences between Jesus Christ and us in humanity
2.4. Orthodox teaching about the Person of the Redeemer
2.4.1. A Brief History of Dogma
2.4.2. Orthodox teaching on the hypostatic essence and the complex hypostasis
2.4.3. The image of the hypostatic union of two natures in Christ
2.4.4. Consequences of the hypostatic union of two natures in Jesus Christ in relation to Himself
2.4.5. Consequences of the hypostatic union of two natures in Jesus Christ in relation to the Most Holy Trinity
2.4.6. Consequences of the hypostatic union of two natures in Jesus Christ in relation to the Virgin Mary

Section IV. The doctrine of the accomplishment of our salvation by the Lord Jesus Christ, or the sacrament of atonement
Chapter 1. The concept of salvation and redemption in the light of Holy Scripture
1.1. Etymology of the word "redemption"
1.2. Purpose of Redemption
1.3. Biblical and patristic images of the salvation accomplished by Christ
Chapter 2. Theories of the Atonement
2.1. Legal theory of atonement
2.2. Positive sides legal theory
2.3. Disadvantages of legal theory
2.4. Moral theory of the atonement
2.5. Pros and cons of the moral theory of the atonement
2.6. Attempts to comprehend the patristic teaching on atonement in the works of modern Orthodox theologians
Chapter 3. The Work of Redemption and Its Components
3.1. Why is the work of redemption accomplished by Christ the Savior associated with the greatest feat for Him?
3.2. How to reconcile the doctrine of Divine mercy with the idea of ​​Divine truth and justice?
3.3. Ingredients of Redemption
3.3.1. Incarnation
3.3.2. Teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ
3.3.3. Prophecies of Jesus Christ
3.3.4. Miracles of the Savior. The purposes for which Jesus Christ performed miracles
3.3.5. death on the cross
3.3.6. The Descent of Jesus Christ into Hell and Victory over Hell
3.3.7. Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ
3.3.8. The Ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ into Heaven
3.3.9. Eternal reign of Jesus Christ after Ascension into heaven
3.4. The saving fruits of the redemptive feat of Jesus Christ

PART FOUR. ABOUT GOD AS SANCTIFYER, JUDGE AND WINNER
Section I. The Teaching of the Church About God the Sanctifier
Chapter 1. The need for Divine help for people to assimilate salvation
Chapter 2. The doctrine of grace as a power that sanctifies us
2.1. The concept of grace in the light of Holy Scripture
2.2. Participation of the Persons of the Holy Trinity in the distribution of grace
2.3. Types of Grace
2.3.1. Universal grace
2.3.2. Actually church grace
2.4. The Relation of Grace to Freedom
2.4.1. False Teachings About the Relation of Grace to Freedom
2.4.2. Orthodox teaching on the relationship of grace to freedom
2.4.3. The importance of faith and good works in the dispensation of salvation

Section II. About the Church as an instrument through which the Lord accomplishes our salvation
Chapter 1. The concept of the Church of Christ
1.1. About the Church as a mediator in the work of sanctification
1.2. The concept of the Church of Christ
1.3. The concept of the Church of Christ on earth
1.4. Founding of the Church by the Lord Jesus Christ
1.5. Purpose and purpose of the Church
1.6. The Necessity of Belonging to the Church for Salvation
Chapter 2. Christological and pneumatological aspects of the Church
2.1. Lord Jesus Christ - Head of the Church
2.2. The Holy Spirit in the life of the Church
2.2.1. Christological aspect of the Church
2.2.2. The Pneumatological Aspect of the Church
2.2.3. Christological and pneumatological aspects of the Church in their unity
Chapter 3. Essential properties of the true Church of Christ
3.1. Unity of the Church
3.2. Holiness of the Church
3.3. Conciliarity, or catholicity, of the Church
3.4. Apostleship of the Church
Chapter 4. God-established church hierarchy
4.1. Apostles
4.2. Bishops
4.3. Elders
4.4. Deacons
Chapter 5. Union between the earthly Church and the heavenly Church
5.1. Intercessions of the saints for believers living on earth
5.2. Veneration of the saints
5.3. Veneration of the relics of the holy saints of God
5.4. Veneration of holy icons

Section III. The concept of the sacraments as a means of human sanctification
Chapter 1. Orthodox teaching on the sacraments (sacramentology)
1.1. The concept of the sacraments. The difference between the sacraments and other sacred rites
1.2. The reality of the sacraments. Conditions for the validity of the sacraments
1.3. The effectiveness of the sacraments
1.4. The main differences between the Orthodox teaching on the sacraments and the Roman Catholic one
Chapter 2. The Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation
2.1. Sacrament of Baptism
2.2. Sacrament of Confirmation
Chapter 3. The Sacrament of the Eucharist
3.1. Eucharist as a sacrament
3.2. Offering of bread and wine in the sacrament of the Eucharist
3.3. Image of the presence of the Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Gifts
3.4. Relation of the Eucharist to the Sacrifice of Calvary
3.5. Eucharist as sacrifice
3.6. Liturgical Conclusions
3.7. The necessity and salvific value of communion of the Holy Mysteries
Chapter 4. Other Sacraments
4.1. Sacrament of Repentance
4.2. Sacrament of the Priesthood
4.3. Sacrament of marriage
4.4. The Sacrament of Anointing

Section IV. About God as Judge and Rewarder
Chapter 1. About God as a Judge and Rewarder for every person
1.1. Corporeal death and immortality of the soul
1.2. Private court
1.3. Retribution after a private trial
1.3.1. The state of the souls of the righteous after private judgment
1.3.2. The state of the souls of sinners after a private trial
1.4. Prayers of the Church for the departed
1.5. The afterlife of babies
1.6. Roman Catholic teaching on purgatory
Chapter 2. About God as Judge and Rewarder for the entire human race
2.1. The unknown time of the Second Coming
2.2. Signs of the Second Coming
2.3. Antichrist and the time of his coming
2.3.1. The idea of ​​the Antichrist in the light of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition
2.3.2. Warfare of the Antichrist with the Kingdom of Christ
2.4. The Second Coming of Christ, its reality and image
2.5. Resurrection of the Dead
2.5.1. The Reality of the Resurrection of the Dead
2.5.2. The universality and simultaneity of the resurrection of the dead
2.5.3. Change of the living at the resurrection of the dead
2.5.4. Identity of resurrected bodies with living bodies
2.5.5. Properties of resurrected bodies
2.6. General Court
2.6.1. Validity of universal judgment
2.6.2. The image and content of the general court
2.6.3. Related circumstances of the general trial
2.7. The false doctrine of chiliasm
2.8. Retribution after the General Judgment
2.8.1. Retribution for sinners, eternity and degrees of torment of sinners
2.8.2. Reward to the righteous, eternity and degrees of BLISS OF THE RIGHTEOUS
2.8.3. False doctrine of universal salvation (apokatastasis)

Article from the encyclopedia "Tree": website

Dogmatic theology (dogmatics)- a section of theology aimed at revealing, justifying and systematically presenting Christian dogmas

As an independent theological science and academic discipline, dogmatic theology arose in the 17th-18th centuries in the West as a result of the differentiation of theology that occurred in line with the general specialization of knowledge. At the same time, the term “dogmatic theology” itself arose. Since in various Christian denominations the scope of dogmas, their content and interpretation do not always coincide, to indicate confessional features Dogmatics uses the corresponding epithets, for example: Orthodox dogmatic theology, Catholic dogmatic theology, Lutheran dogmatic theology, etc. In Protestantism, dogmatic theology is often also called systematic theology. The main branches of dogmatic theology are triadology, anthropology, amartology, Christology, soteriology, pneumatology, ecclesiology, sacramentology and eschatology.

History of Orthodox dogmatic theology

Unlike Western Christian confessions, the Orthodox Church does not attach decisive dogmatic significance to the following doctrinal monuments of antiquity: the so-called. The Apostles' Creed, the Athanasian Creed and the Creed of St. Gregory the Wonderworker, - preserving their historical significance.

The question of the sources of Orthodox dogmatic theology is connected with the problem of the so-called. symbolic books of the Orthodox Church, to which in Russian pre-revolutionary academic theology it was customary to include “The Orthodox Confession of Faith of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East” (1662) and “The Message of the Patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic Church on the Orthodox Faith” (1723). However, according to the remark of Prof. N.N. Glubokovsky, “essentially, in Orthodoxy there are no “symbolic books” in the technical sense of the word. All talk about them is extremely conditional and corresponds only to Western religious schemes, in contradiction with the history and nature of Orthodoxy.” The emergence of these confessions dates back to the period of decline of Orthodox theology, when it “was forced to arm itself with Western scholastic theological weapons and ... this, in turn, led to a new and dangerous influence on Orthodox theology not only with theological terms that are not characteristic of it, but also with theological and spiritual ideas" (Vasily (Krivoshein). 2003. P. 46). Therefore, along with other confessions of faith and dogmatic decrees of the 16th and subsequent centuries, these texts cannot be considered as generally binding sources of Orthodox dogmatic theology, “as not having a general church character in their origin, as usually low in the level of theological thought, and often divorced from patristic and liturgical tradition and as bearing traces of the formal and sometimes significant influence of Roman Catholic theology "(Vasily (Krivoshein). 2003. P. 82-83).

Tasks, method and structure of Orthodox dogmatic theology

At the same time, the Orthodox faith presupposes the dual unity of a person’s dogmatic consciousness and his spiritual life. True dogmatics is always ascetic and is born after. true spiritual achievement, leading to the heights of knowledge of God. In turn, asceticism is dogmatic, that is, it is built in accordance with the theological experience of the Church, dogmatically expressed by the holy seers. The slightest damage to one of the aspects of this duality inevitably affects the other. A false dogmatic attitude, when strictly followed, leads to distortions in the field of spiritual life. False, delusional spiritual experiences become the source of false theological conclusions.

Thus, by its purpose, dogmatic theology is a sign system that gives a person the right perspective on the path to salvation, understood in the Orthodox tradition as deification. The most important characteristic Orthodox dogmatic theology is its soteriological orientation. Dogmatic theology is built on a priori accepted divinely revealed truths and dogmas. However, the totality of dogmas is not given in Revelation in the form of a specific list of theses. Therefore, the primary task of dogmatic theology is to identify the actual dogmas from the many contained in the Holy Scriptures. Scripture and Holy Tradition of non-dogmatic (spiritual-moral, liturgical, church-historical, canonical, etc.) provisions, then interpret them in the spirit of the uninterrupted church tradition and, finally, point out their soteriological significance.

In their content, dogmas are unchanged - in the process of church history, only changes in their terminological expression and clarification occurred in accordance with changes in rational assimilation and the nature of the heresy that arose, which necessitated a response. Therefore, for dogmatic theology it is important to show the historical context in which dogmas were conceptualized and formulated in the language of concepts.

Dogmatic theology was formed on the basis of the Creed, a more or less complete and detailed interpretation of which is the majority of ancient dogmatic-systematic works. In the 17th-18th centuries, first in Protestant and Catholic, and then in Orthodox theology, dogmatics acquired a clear structure and began to be built in accordance with two main sections: “About God in Himself” (De Deo ad intra) and “About God in the outside” " (De Deo ad extra), each of which was divided into subsections containing corresponding chapters. The section “About God in Himself” was divided into two subsections: “About the One God in Essence” and “About the Trinity God in Persons.” The section “About God in the Outside” included subsections: “About God the Creator”, “About God the Provider”, “About God the Savior”, “About God the Sanctifier”, “About God the Judge and Rewarder”. Despite the adjustments made to this scheme by some dogmatists, in general it was generally accepted in Orthodox dogmatic theology of the 18th - early centuries. century. The exception was attempts at a conceptual presentation of dogmas, when the principle of systematization was not a specific structure for constructing dogma, but some dogmatic idea accepted as the key one, for example. the idea of ​​the Kingdom of God in the dogmatic-apologetic lectures of Archbishop. Innokenty (Borisova), the idea of ​​God's love from prof. A.D. Belyaeva, the idea of ​​the Sacrifice of Christ as an expression of His love by Archpriest. Pavel Svetlova.

The relationship of dogmatic theology to other theological sciences

Dogmatic theology is inextricably linked with other church-scientific disciplines. Exegesis, Church history, patrolology, liturgics, based on the dogmatic consciousness of the Church, help in identifying the sources of dogmatic theology and contribute to their correct interpretation. Asceticism, pastoral theology, moral theology, homiletics, church law point to practical use truths substantiated by dogmatic theology and their vitality. Comparative (accusatory) theology and apologetics, considering the doctrine of the Orthodox Church in comparison, on the one hand, with heterodox doctrine and, on the other, with non-Christian worldviews, rely on dogmatic theology and at the same time provide it with material for a more detailed understanding and interpretation of dogmas. In addition, dogmatic theology also uses individual achievements of secular sciences, especially philosophy, many of the terms and concepts of which have found their application in Christian theology.

Systematization of Christian doctrine in the ancient Church

Attempts to systematically present and interpret revealed dogmas were made already in the first centuries of church history. Elements of systematization are present in the works of early Christian teachers - sschmch. Justin the Philosopher, Athenagoras, sschmch. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Theophilus of Antioch, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and others.

The first systematic presentation of Christian doctrine was the work of Origen (late 2nd-3rd centuries) “De principiis” (On the Principles), which points to the sources of the doctrine of the Church - the Holy. Scripture and Holy Tradition, and then the main dogmas are sequentially considered - about the Holy Trinity, about rational created beings, their primitive state and fall, about the incarnation of God the Word, about the actions of the Holy Spirit, about the resurrection of the dead and the final Judgment. In his presentation of Christian doctrine, Origen did not avoid a number of significant errors: the recognition of the pre-existence of souls and the inevitable final restoration of all rational beings, including the devil, to their original sinless state.

The next systematic exposition of the doctrine of the Church in time (IV century) is “Catecheses” (Catechetical Teachings) and “Catecheses mystagogicae quinque” (Sacramental Teachings) of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. “Catechetical teachings” are a dogmatic interpretation of the creed of the Church of Jerusalem addressed to the catechumens; “Sacramental teachings” introduce the newly enlightened to the Orthodox teaching about the main church sacraments - Baptism, Confirmation and the Eucharist. However, this work is more catechetical than dogmatic-theological in nature. "Oratio catechetica magna" (Great Catechetical Word) by St. Gregory of Nyssa is of great value in this regard. This presentation of basic Christian dogmas is characterized by theological depth and philosophical persuasiveness. "Expositio rectae confessionis" (Exposition of Divine Dogmas) Blessed. Theodoret of Cyrus (IV-V centuries) clearly and concisely conveys the church teaching about the Holy Trinity and the Divine Names, then consistently examines the entire history of God's economy - from the Creation of the world to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

In the Western Church, the first attempts at systematic exposition of Christian doctrine were undertaken by Bl. Augustine (IV-V centuries) in the works “Enchiridion” (Guide to Lawrence, or On Faith, Hope and Love), “De doctrina christiana” (On Christian Teaching), “De civitate Dei” (On the City of God). The treatises “De ecclesiasticis dogmatibus” (On church dogmas) by Gennadius of Marseille (5th century) and “De fide” (On faith, or On the rule of faith) by Fulgentius of Ruspia (5th-6th centuries) are also systematic.

History of Dogmatic Theology in the Roman Catholic Church

A distinctive feature of the theology of the scholastics was the desire to conceptualize dogmas and their detailed analysis using the categories of rational thinking. Extracted from revealed sources, a dogma was first established as an initial thesis, then subjected to critical evaluation, so that ultimately a new theological “discovery” was made through intelligent interpretation. A logical connection was established between various dogmas, uniting them into a formally consistent system. This approach involved identifying the implicit truths of faith, which, when revealed through the intellect, were called theological conclusions. Thus, theology began to be perceived no longer as an experimental knowledge of God, the fruit of spiritual contemplation, but as one of the scientific disciplines, although the first among others - in this sense the word “theology” began to be used, starting with Abelard.

In the formation of Catholic dogmatic theology, the first important result of the scholastic method was Op. "Quatuor libri sententiarum" (Four Books of Sentences) by Peter of Lombardy (12th century), which is a clearly ordered presentation of the main themes of Christian doctrine from the doctrine of God to the doctrine of the end of the world. Initially, a number of theological conclusions of Peter of Lombardy were subject to sharp criticism, but at the IV Lateran Council (1215) they were completely freed from suspicion of heresy; his “Sentences” became the main textbook on theology in Catholic universities until the Reformation.

The impetus for the development of Roman Catholic dogmatics was given by the Reformation. Some theologians saw the reasons for the intellectual crisis that befell Catholic Church, in the dominance of scholasticism and, starting from it, they tried to create a new scientific and theological method, which would be built not on a rational-philosophical, but on an exegetical and church-historical basis (M. Cano, I. Maldonat). However, the dominant direction in Catholic theology of the 16th - first half of the 17th centuries was the contrarian direction, which saw its task in the precise formulation of Roman doctrine as opposed to the new Protestant teachings (I. Eck, I. Emser, I. Cochleus, K. Vimpina, I. Dietenberger, A. Pigge, G. Witzel, I. Fabri, P. Canisius, card Gasparo Contarini, G. Seripando, etc.). The presentation of dogmas here was polemical in nature, emphasis was placed on the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. Within the framework of this approach, Catholic doctrine was determined at the Council of Trent (1545-1563). The card is recognized as the largest representative of contrarian theology. Robert Bellarmine, who wrote the lengthy Op. "Disputationes de controversiis fidei christianae adversus hujus temporis haereticos" (Discourses on controversial issues of the Christian faith, against the heretics of our time). At the same time, in the same period in Catholic. In the Church there was a galaxy of theologians, mainly Spanish, who strived for a positive disclosure of dogmas and were guided by the classical scholastic systems. This current was named second scholasticism(D. Bañez, L. Molina, F. Suarez, G. Vazquez, etc.).

Protestant dogmatic theology

Along with these brief dogmatic manuals, during the same period three voluminous systems of dogmatics appeared in Russia: “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” by Metropolitan. Macarius (Bulgakov) (5 volumes, published in 1849-1853), “Orthodox dogmatic theology” by Archbishop. Philaret (Gumilevsky) (2 volumes, published in 1864) and “The Experience of Orthodox Dogmatic Theology with a Historical Presentation of Dogmas” by Bishop. Sylvester (Malevansky) (1878-1891).

"Orthodox-Dogmatic Theology" Met. Macarius was the first attempt in Russian theology to scientifically classify and mutually unify the accumulated dogmatic material. It is distinguished by a clear structure, logical order and clarity of presentation. Method of Metr. Macarius is close to the orthodox or church-apologetic method of Western dogmatic systems of the 17th century. As a thesis in "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology" a brief formulation of dogma is used, in most cases taken from the "Confession of the Orthodox Faith" by Metropolitan. Peter (Tombs) or "Messages of the Patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic Church on the Orthodox Faith." Then the thesis is confirmed by biblical and patristic quotations and justified by arguments from reason. The shortcoming of the essay is that the author was unable to free himself from the bonds of scholasticism. For him, a dogma is a complete theoretical formula that must be logically justified and forcibly accepted. Hence the dryness and lifelessness of the essay, the tension of the evidence.

The dogmatic system of the archbishop. Philaret (Gumilevsky) was built in accordance with the rational-philosophical method of Western Christian dogmatics of the beginning. XIX century, - in particular, the influence of the Catholic dogmatic systems of G. Klee and F. von Brenner is noticeable here. According to Justin (Popovich), "Written in a philosophical-critical spirit, [it] devotes a lot of space to apologetic-rational explanation and justification of dogmas". At the same time, the archbishop. Philaret has a desire for historical illumination of dogmas. According to Prof. N.N. Glubokovsky, Archbishop Philaret failed to show the movement of Eastern theological thought. At the same time, in comparison with the Dogmatics of Metropolitan Macarius, this work is a significant step forward as it is deeper in content.

At the beginning of the century, the 4-volume “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” appeared by Archpriest. Nikolai Malinovsky (1910); the work did not contribute anything significantly new to the development of Russian dogmatic science, since it was focused on the dogmatic systems already existing in Russia and was of a compilative nature.

Sergius Bulgakov's "Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church" received universal recognition in Orthodox Church. A supplement to this work is “Dogmatic Theology” - a course of lectures by V. Lossky, posthumously published by his students. The author, without going into the history of theological disputes, was able to show in a brief and at the same time very capacious presentation the depth and unity of the theological thought of the holy fathers of different eras. The basis of V. Lossky’s entire dogmatic system was the doctrine of Divine energies Saint Gregory Palamas. This work is perceived as a living testimony of Orthodoxy. In a relatively small course, of course, it was impossible to cover all issues of dogmatics equally fully. The author touches on some important dogmatic topics only in passing (for example, the doctrine of the Sacraments). In this work, the influence of the previous works of Rev. George Florovsky and less - “Dogmatika” by Bishop Sylvester.

In Russia, starting from the 1950-60s, dogmatic theology began to be revived thanks to the works of Archpriest. Liveria Voronova, prot. Pyotr Gnedich, V.D. Sarychev and others.

In Greece, Serbia, and Romania, dogmatics as a scientific and theological tradition began to take shape only at the turn of the 19th and centuries. Of the Greek dogmatists, the most famous are Z. Rosis, H. Androutsos, K. Diovuniotis, I. Karmiris, P. Trembelas. In the Serbian Church at the beginning of the 20th century. The dogmatic manuals of Archpriest were widespread. Savva Teodorovich, L. Raich, prot. Milos Andzhelkovic, Rev. S. M. Veselinovich; in the present Since then, the three-volume “Dogmatics of the Orthodox Church” by Archimandrite has received general recognition in the Orthodox world. Justin (Popovich). The largest Romanian theologian of the 20th century is Archpriest. Dumitru Staniloae, author of the dogmatic codes "Orthodox Christian Teaching" (1952) and "Textbook on Dogmatic and Symbolic Theology" (1958).

Literature

• Anthony (Amphitheaters), Archbishop. Dogmatic theology of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church, with the addition of a general introduction to the course of theological sciences. St. Petersburg, 18628;
• Filaret (Gumilevsky), Archbishop. Orthodox dogmatic theology. Chernigov, 1864. Parts 1-2;
• aka. Review;
• Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan. Orthodox dogmatic theology. St. Petersburg, 1868;
• aka. A guide to the study of Christian Orthodox dogmatic theology. M., 1898;
• Belyaev A.D. Divine Love: The Experience of Revealing the Most Important Christs. dogmas from the beginning of Divine love. M., 1880;
• aka. Dogmatic theology // PBE. 1903. T. 4. P. 1126-1150;
• Vvedensky A. I. Comparative assessment dogmatic systems of Metropolitan. Macarius (Bulgakov) and Bishop. Sylvester (Malevansky) // CHOLDP. 1886. Book. 2/4. pp. 127-352;
• aka. On the issue of methodological reform of Orthodoxy. Dogmatists // BV. 1904. No. 6. P. 179-208;
• Sylvester (Malevansky), bishop. Theology. 1892. T. 1. P. 1-172;
• Hall F. J. Introduction to Dogmatic Theology. N. Y., 1907;
• Malinovsky N.P., prot. Orthodox dogmatic theology. Serg. P., 1910. T. 1;
• aka. Essay on Orthodox dogmatic theology. Serg. P., 1912;
• Hilarion (Troitsky), Archbishop. Comments, amendments and additions to “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” by Archpriest. N. P. Malinovsky. Serg. P., 1914;
• aka. Theology and freedom of the Church: (On the tasks of the liberation war in the field of theology) // BV. 1915. No. 3. P. 98-134;
• Florovsky. Paths of Russian theology;
• Congar Y. A History of Theology. Garden City (N.Y.), 1968;
• Lossky V. Mystical theology. 1991;
• aka. Dogmatic theology. 1991;
• McGrath A. Theological thought of the Reformation: Trans. from English Od., 1994;
• Muller D. T. Christian dogmatics: Trans. from English Duncanville, (Tech.), 1998;
• Felmi K.H. Introduction to modern Orthodox theology: Trans. with him. M., 1999;
• Lortz J. History of the Church, considered in connection with the history of ideas: Trans. with him. M., 2000. T. 1-2;
• Meyendorff I., protopr. Byzantine theology: Trans. from English Minsk, 2001;
• aka. Rome, Constantinople, Moscow: Ist. and theologian. research M., 2005;
• Glubokovsky. 2002. pp. 6-19;
• Lisova N. N. Review of the main directions of Russian theology. academic science in the XIX - early XX century // BT. 2002. Sat. 37. P. 6-127;
• Gnedich P., prot. The dogma of atonement in Russian theology. science of the last 50th anniversary (1st half of the XX century) // Ibid. pp. 128-151;
• Vasily (Krivoshein), archbishop. Symbolic texts in the Orthodox Church. Kaluga, 2003;
• Justin (Popovich), St. Collection creations. M., 2006. T. 2: Dogmatics Orthodox. Churches.
• Davydenkov O., priest. Dogmatic theology: Course of Lectures. parts I and II. M.: St. Tikhon's Theological Institute, 1997:
• http://www.sedmitza.ru/lib/text/431669/ (electronic version)
• Alypiy (Kastalsky-Borozdin), archim., Isaiah (Belov), archim. Dogmatic theology: A course of lectures. Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, 2002:
• http://azbyka.ru/otechnik/bogoslovie/dogmaticheskoe-bogoslov...ij/ (electronic version)
• Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan. Orthodox dogmatic theology. St. Petersburg, 1868
• Mikhail Pomazansky, archpriest. Orthodox dogmatic theology in concise presentation. - Holy Trinity Monastery, Jordanville, 1963; - Platinum, California, 1992
• Mikhail Pomazansky, protopresbyter. Orthodox Dogmatic Theology. - Klin: Foundation " Christian life", 2001; - M., Publishing Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, Publishing House "Dar", 2005; - Klin: Christian Life Foundation, 2015:
• https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Mihail_Pomazanskij/pravoslavnoe-d...ie/ (electronic version)
• Ξεξάκης Γ. Νικόλαος. Ορθόδοξος Δογματική. Τόμος Α΄ Προλεγόμενα εις την Ορθόδοξον Δογματικήν. (Xexakis Nikolaos. Orthodox Dogmatics. Volume 1: Introduction to Orthodox Dogmatics). – Αθήνα 2000, 2006.
• Ξεξάκης Γ. Νικόλαος. Ορθόδοξος Δογματική. Τόμος Β΄ Η Θεολογία του ομοουσίου. (Xexakis Nikolaos. Orthodox Dogmatics. Volume 2: Theology of Consubstantiality) – Άθήνα: Εννοια, 2006 .
• Ξεξάκης Γ. Νικόλαος. Ορθόδοξος Δογματική. Τόμος Γ΄: Η περί δημιουργίας διδασκαλία. (Xexakis Nikolaos. Orthodox Dogmatics. Volume 3: The Doctrine of the Creation of the World.) - Άθήνα: Εννοια, 2006.

Used materials

• Zaitsev A. A., “Dogmatic theology” // Orthodox Encyclopedia, T. 15, pp. 542-548:
• http://www.pravenc.ru/text/178718.html (material used partially)
• "4. Russian school of dogmatists (chapter from the book) // Alypiy (Kastalsky-Borozdin), archimandrite, Isaiah (Belov), archimandrite. Dogmatic theology: A course of lectures. Holy Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, 2002:
• http://azbyka.ru/otechnik/bogoslovie/dogmaticheskoe-bogoslov...7_5 (electronic version on the portal ABC of faith

  Prof. N. N. Glubokovsky. Russian theological science in its historical development and the latest state. - Warsaw, 1928. - P. 6.

In the New Testament the word "dogma" is used in several meanings. For example, it may denote a certain decree. Thus, in the Gospel of Luke, the word “δό γμα” refers to the decree of Caesar Augustus Octavian on conducting a census in the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire (see:). In the Book of Acts “τὰ δό γματα” the decrees of the First Jerusalem Apostolic Council are named (see:).

In the messages of St. Paul (see: ;) this term is used either to designate the provisions of the Law of Moses, or to designate Christian teaching in its entirety. In this sense, this term was used sschmch. Ignatius of Antioch, martyr. Justin the Philosopher, Clement of Alexandria and Origen, and it was precisely this understanding of it that was generally characteristic of Christian authors of the 2nd – early 4th centuries.

A change in the meaning of this term occurs in the 4th century, when some Church Fathers, trying to systematize Christian teaching, began to distinguish between doctrinal and moral truths. This difference is found among saints. Cyril of Jerusalem, at St. Gregory of Nyssa and - at the turn of the IV-V centuries. - at the saints John Chrysostom. All of them called dogma in Revelation only that which relates to the area of ​​faith, and not morality. Thus, the term “dogma” is assigned to doctrinal truths.

Subsequently, the scope of this concept was even more narrowed, and in subsequent centuries, dogmas began to be understood primarily as those doctrinal truths, which were discussed at the Ecumenical Councils and approved by the Ecumenical Councils.

In order to understand the essence of what a dogma is, one should consider the properties of dogmas.

1.2. Properties of dogmas

1.2.1. Theology (doctrinality)

The first property of dogmas (property in content) is theological, "credulity". It means that the dogma contains the doctrine of God and His economy: the main subject about which the dogma tells us is God; all other objects present in the content of the dogma (man or the world) find a place here only insofar as they relate to God. This is precisely what distinguishes them from other truths of Christianity - moral truths, liturgical, canonical, etc. Dogmas are the truths of faith, they stand above human experience, above the cognitive abilities of the human mind, therefore only Divine Revelation can give them “firm support”.

1.2.2. Godly revelation

Another property of dogmas is revelation(property of dogmas according to their Source). This property means that dogma is not the fruit of the activity of natural human reason, but the result of Divine Revelation. This is what distinguishes them from any scientific or philosophical truths. Philosophical and scientific truths are based on premises that are the product of the work of the human mind; dogmas are based on divinely revealed premises drawn from Divine Revelation. In this way, dogmatic theology as a science differs from philosophy and the sciences about nature and man. Ap. Paul says: I declare to you, brethren, that the gospel which I preached is not that of men, for I also received it and learned it, not from man, but through the revelation of Jesus Christ.(). Ancient Christian authors, wanting to emphasize the divinely revealed origin of dogmas, called them “the dogmas of the Lord and the apostles (τοῖ ς δό γμασιν τοῦ Κυρί ου καὶ τῶ ν ἀ ποστό λων)” and etc.

Any scientific and philosophical truths are, to a greater or lesser extent, relative and, as human knowledge develops, they can either be rejected altogether, or be changed or supplemented in some way. Dogmas based on Divine Revelation are absolute and unchangeable.

Since the property of a dogma is revelation from God, only such doctrinal truth as taught by Jesus Christ and preached by His apostles can be revered as a dogma. An opinion expressed even by a deeply respected Father of the Church, but having no basis in the Apostolic Tradition, cannot be elevated to the level of a dogma of faith.

1.2.3. Churchness

The number of doctrinal truths is very large, but at the same time there are not so many doctrinal truths, which are called dogmas. This is connected with the third property of dogmas - churchliness. We can say that churchliness is a property of dogmas by the way they exist. It means that only the Ecumenical Council at its Councils can recognize dogmatic authority and significance for this or that truth of the faith.

In fact, there cannot be true dogmas outside the Church, because dogmas are based on premises borrowed from Revelation, and Revelation was given not to some individuals separately, but to the entire Church. It is through Tradition as a way of preserving and disseminating that Revelation contains divinely revealed truth. Ap. Paul calls the Church pillar and foundation of truth(). From this follows the conclusion that outside the Church in the strict sense of the word there can be no dogmas. Therefore, for example, in Protestant communities, where apostolic succession has been stopped and there is no divinely established church hierarchy, it is impossible to talk about any dogmas in the strict sense of the word.

Although the revealed truth is contained in Revelation and is in itself divine, without a special church act it cannot be elevated to the dignity of dogma. If there were no Church with the God-given rights and means necessary to formulate and affirm the most important truths of the faith in the meaning of dogmas, then there would be no dogmatic teaching. For this reason, St. the fathers, speaking about dogmas, called them “church dogmas.”

1.2.4. Generally binding (legally binding)

This property characterizes a Christian’s attitude to dogmas and their content. Legality can be understood in two senses.

Firstly, as a formal legal obligation: the Church in its earthly aspect is a certain organization that exists in accordance with certain rules and norms. The formal legality of dogmas is expressed in the fact that recognition of their truth is the duty of all members of the Church. For example, when a person enters the Church, that is, receives baptism, he pronounces, which, of course, is a doctrinal “document” of a dogmatic nature. Thus, recognition of the truth of dogmas is an element of church discipline and is a condition of belonging to the Church. Ap. Paul says: The heretic, after the first and second admonition, turn away, knowing that such a one has become corrupted and sins, being self-condemned ().

Secondly, we should talk about soteriological legality. Particular attention should be paid here to the word “self-condemned.” in some cases he may show condescension towards the weaknesses of human nature, but nevertheless he always treats with extreme severity those who deliberately seek to distort the revealed teaching. This undoubtedly demonstrates the Church’s concern for its members. Such severity would be incomprehensible if the legality of dogmas were purely formal. But the formal binding nature of dogmas is conditioned by their soteriological binding nature, since dogmas are directly related to human salvation. They represent the foundation on which the spiritual life of a Christian is built; they are norms and rules that allow a person to religiously correctly organize his spiritual life. Ap. Paul says that the heretic is not simply “condemned,” that is, excommunicated from the Church by a decree of some church body, but is “self-condemned.” A person who perverts dogmas, one way or another, brings himself under condemnation, that is, to a greater or lesser extent, he separates himself from God.

As V. N. Lossky writes, “the entire complex struggle for dogmas, which was waged over the centuries, seems to us, if we look at it from a purely spiritual point of view, first of all, by the tireless care of the Church in every historical era to provide Christians with the opportunity to achieve completeness.. ... connection with God."

“Dogmatic consciousness is organically connected with the entire course of inner spiritual life. Change anything in your dogmatic consciousness, and yours will invariably change to the corresponding extent. spiritual appearance and in general the image of your spiritual existence,” notes Archimandrite. Sophrony (Sakharov). Rev. Justin (Popovich) speaks about this as follows: “Since the saints - eternal and saving Divine truths are taught by the life-giving power of the Trinity Divinity, then they contain all the power of new life according to Christ, all the power of grace-filled gospel morality. They are truly verbs of eternal life " .

Having considered the properties of dogmas, we can give a definition of this concept. Dogma- this is theological, revealed truth, formulated and taught as an indisputable and obligatory rule of faith for all believers.

1.3. Dogmas and theological opinions. Heresy

In the history of the Roman Catholic Church there is a tendency to dogmatize as many theological postulates as possible. Orthodoxy has always been characterized by the opposite approach - to dogmatize only the most necessary, the most essential for our salvation.

In addition to dogmas, Divine Revelation contains much that is mysterious and not entirely clear. The presence of this area of ​​the mysterious in Divine Revelation determines the existence of the so-called theological opinions (theologumens, Greek θεολογού μενον) .

Theological opinion- this is a judgment on doctrinal issues expressed by a theologian, group of theologians or any church body (including the Council), which has not received church-wide recognition. If they are unconditionally true, then the truth and meaning of theological opinions are conditional and relative.

The legality of the existence of theological opinions does not mean, however, that arbitrariness is possible in theology. In relation to theological opinions, which are always strictly verified in accordance with Church Tradition, the following criteria are applied: 1) the criterion of the truth of the theological opinion, which presupposes agreement with the Holy Tradition, and 2) the criterion of the admissibility of the theological opinion, which prescribes non-contradiction with the Holy Tradition. In principle, dogmatic theology tolerates any theological opinion that meets the second criterion.

Examples of theological opinions are the question of the composition of human nature (dichotomy, i.e. the opinion that human nature is composed of two components - soul and body, and trichotomy, according to which the spirit is an independent principle in man, which is no less different from the soul radically, how the soul is different from the body); the question of whether absolute incorporeality is inherent in angels and human souls or whether they have some special subtle corporeality; whether each soul is created by God out of nothing or comes in some mysterious way from the souls of its parents, etc.

As you can see, these are basically mysterious questions of ontology that are not of significant importance for human salvation, which are unlikely to receive final resolution in this century.

Certain doctrinal truths must be distinguished from theological opinions, recognized by the entirety of the Orthodox Church, but in the strict sense of the word they are not dogmas, since they were never discussed or approved by the Ecumenical Councils. However, some of them are no less important than those adopted at the Councils. They were not discussed, as a rule, for the reason that there have never been serious disagreements in the Church regarding these truths. Examples of such doctrinal truths can be: God’s creation of the world “out of nothing,” the creatureliness and immortality of the human soul, the divine establishment of church sacraments. All of these are doctrinal truths, unconditionally accepted by the entirety of the Orthodox Church.

In theological literature one can also find such expressions as “dogma of the Resurrection”, “dogma of the Redemption”, “dogma of the Church”. These are also correct and completely acceptable expressions.

It is necessary to distinguish from private theological opinions that are found among certain theologians false theological opinions, which in one form or another are rejected by church authority. Such opinions can be found even among St. fathers. The mere designation of a particular teacher by the Father of the Church does not guarantee that this author could not have erroneous opinions on a particular issue.

Why is this possible? Rev. Barsanuphius the Great explains this as follows: “Do not think that people, even saints, can completely comprehend all the depths of God, for the apostle says: we know in part and we prophesy in part()... The saints... having received approval from above, set forth a new (their) teaching, but at the same time they retained what they had received from their former teachers, that is, an incorrect teaching... They (the saints) did not pray God, so that He would reveal to them regarding their first teachers: whether what was taught to them was inspired by the Holy Spirit, but, considering them wise and reasonable, they did not examine their words; and thus the opinions of their teachers were mixed with their own teaching...” Indeed, sometimes the false opinions expressed by one or another Church Father are not the product of his own theological work, but uncritical borrowing from some authoritative teacher of the past.

Close to a false theological opinion is the concept of “heresy” (Greek αἵρεσις - choice, preference, direction, teaching). Initially, this word did not have a negative connotation and was used, in particular, to refer to various philosophical schools of antiquity. Traces of such word usage are also visible in the New Testament, where, for example, it speaks of Pharisaic heresy (), Sadducee heresy() And Nazirite heresy(). However, the apostles already used the words heresy() And heretic() in the meaning that was subsequently assigned to them in the dogmatic consciousness of the Church. By the beginning of the era of the Ecumenical Councils (IV century), one of the main tasks of which was the fight against heresies, this word began to be understood as a false dogmatic teaching that distorts the fundamental foundations of Christian doctrine.

The emergence of heresies begins, as a rule, with the separation of a certain group of people from the catholic church tradition and the opposition to the dogmatic Tradition of the Church of some private theological opinion, which is torn out of the general dogmatic context and absolutized. At its core, heresy is always a preference for part of the truth over the entire church teaching.

As a rule, heresy is associated with a rationalistic approach to the data of Divine Revelation, with the abuse of philosophical means in solving theological problems, with the replacement of the experienced knowledge of God with knowledge about God, with the forgetting of the truth that “the dogmas of the Church often appear to our minds as antinomies, which are all the more insoluble, the more sublime the mystery they express." Therefore, the task of theology “is not to eliminate antinomy by adapting dogma to our understanding, but to change our mind so that we can come to the contemplation of the reality revealed by God, ascending to God and uniting with Him to a greater or lesser extent.”

It should be noted that heresy is rarely the result of a purely theoretical error; usually the invention of heresies and adherence to heretical teachings is an expression of some distortion of spiritual life, exposure to sinful passions. Clement of Alexandria points out that heretics are characterized by such sinful qualities as pride, self-love, arrogance, deceit, etc., which, in fact, becomes the reason for heretics to consciously oppose themselves to the Church.

After one or another false teaching is collectively condemned as heretical, all those who continue to persist in it are considered by the Church as heretics and are subject to excommunication.

It is not always possible to establish a clear formal distinction between erroneous theological opinion and heresy. There have been cases in the history of theological thought when some theological opinions, which were perceived as acceptable until a certain time, were subsequently recognized as false and condemned. For example, some of the ideas of Origen (3rd century) were condemned in the 6th century, when some followers of the Alexandrian didaskal began to draw conclusions from his premises that were completely incompatible with the dogmatic Tradition of the Church.

1.4. Dogmas, dogmatic formulas and theological terms

Speaking about dogmas, it is necessary to clearly distinguish between dogma itself in terms of its content and dogmatic formula.

Actually, dogma is the revealed truth itself, and dogmatic formula- this is the verbal expression of truth, its verbal form, the “linguistic flesh” in which truth is clothed. Although the dogma itself is not subject to any change in its content, dogmatic formulas can be changed. For example, the Second Ecumenical Council approved the text of the Creed, which is significantly different from the Symbol adopted at the First Ecumenical Council. The very content of the dogma of the Holy Trinity, naturally, did not change, but a new dogmatic formula was communicated, a new way of expressing doctrinal truth. It must be borne in mind that the mere study of dogmatic formulations and their memorization cannot in any way be identified with comprehension of the content of the dogma. Thus, if a person has memorized the formulation of the dogma of the Most Holy Trinity from the catechism, it does not at all follow from this that he has come to know the Most Holy Trinity Itself.

When St. fathers fought for the purity of the Orthodox faith, they were forced to develop a specific terminology- in order to clearly express dogmatic truths through words. Some of the terms (incarnation, atonement, sacrament, etc.) were borrowed from Holy Scripture. Some terms proposed by St. fathers, are not found on the pages of the Bible, but the validity of their appearance is undoubted. There are many examples of such terms: “Trinity” (τριά ς) is a term first used by the saint. Theophilus of Antioch in the second half of the 2nd century. ; “consubstantial” (ὁ μοού σιος) – a term authorized by the First Ecumenical Council; the terms “essence” (οὐ σί α), “Mother of God” (Θεοτό κος), “God-man” (θεά νθρωπος); terms from the oros of the IV Ecumenical Council, describing the image of the union of two natures in the single Person of our Lord Jesus Christ, etc.

Thus, theological terms- these are terms borrowed from the Holy Scriptures or artificially created, with completely exact value, which make it possible to clearly express the revealed truth by means of human language.

1.5. Dogmatic systems

Already in the first centuries of the existence of the Church, there appeared a desire to present Christian doctrine in a systematic form, which was aimed at the convenience of both presentation and perception of doctrinal truths.

Dogmatic system- a way of presenting a doctrine in which all individual truths and positions are parts connected into a single whole. The following requirements are imposed on dogmatic systems:

1) absence of internal contradictions (there should be no mutually exclusive provisions in a dogmatic system);

2) the presence of a clear boundary between the actual dogmas and theological opinions. This does not mean that when constructing a dogmatic system one cannot rely in one way or another on theological opinions; but at the same time it must be emphasized that this is the theological opinion of one or another saint. father or theologian, and not doctrinal truth, accepted by the entirety of the Church.

In addition, it is assumed that the dogmatic system should be not just a set of patristic and biblical quotations on a particular dogmatic issue, but also an author’s text, a specific commentary in which the author tries to comprehend the content of dogmatic truths, identify internal connections between various dogmas and theological opinions. The abbreviated system of dogmatic theology is called catechism.

In the history of Christian thought, the first attempt to build a dogmatic system was the work of “Stromata” by the famous teacher of the Alexandrian catechetical school, Clement of Alexandria (late 2nd century). But “Stromat” is still nothing more than an attempt to build a system, and not a system in the full sense of the word.

For the first time, the successor and continuer of Clement’s work, Origen (III century), managed to create a system of dogmatic theology of Christian doctrine in its entirety. His work “On Principles” is the first complete system of Christian theology. This system turned out to be imperfect, since many of the postulates and premises on which Origen was based were false and subsequently even fell under the anathema of the Ecumenical Councils. Despite this, Origen also had a huge positive influence on the development of theology. For several centuries, Origen's system remained the only coherent system of Christian theology. Many St. the fathers learned theology precisely from the works of Origen, gradually overcoming the erroneous opinions contained in Origen's texts.

Of the ancient Church Fathers who tried to build integral dogmatic systems, it should be noted St. Cyril of Jerusalem (IV century). His famous “Catechetical Words” are a detailed work; however, it must be said that it is of a propaedeutic nature, since it is addressed to the catechumens, that is, people who have not yet even entered the Church. An example of constructing a system of dogmatic theology can also be called the “Great Catechetical Word” by St. Gregory of Nyssa (IV century) and “Abridged Exposition of Divine Dogmas” by Blessed. Theodoret of Cyrrhus (first half of the 5th century).

In the Christian West, the first attempt at a systematic presentation of dogmas was made by Lactantius (d. after 325) in the work “Divine Institutions” (Books IV-VII). Among other dogmatic systems created in the West, it should be noted “Lawrence's Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love” by Blessed. Augustine and “On Church Dogmas” by Gennady of Marseilles (late 5th century).

The most perfect work, representing the pinnacle of systematization of patristic theological thought, should be recognized as the work of St. John of Damascus “The Source of Knowledge” (VIII century). From a dogmatic point of view, the third, final part of this work, which is called “An Accurate Exposition of the Orthodox Faith,” is of particular importance. This book has not lost its scientific significance to this day. Both in the East and in the West, it was a textbook of theology for many centuries, and in the Christian East - right up to the New Age, when examples of Western scholastic systems began to be used to present dogmatic teaching in Orthodox theological science. In the West, before the translations of the works of St. John of Damascus into Latin, the work of Isidore of Seville enjoyed great authority ( ca 560–636) “Sentences” in three books, which was the prototype of the medieval “summa theologiae”.

In the history of Russian theological thought there were several authors who worked on the construction of dogmatic systems. First of all, you need to name Met. Macarius (Bulgakov), his “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” was first published in 1849–1853. This is a thorough work, although somewhat scholastic. In addition, this work is not completely independent: when constructing his system, the author partly relied on the works of Western dogmatists. Overall, however, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology is an excellently structured manual in which one can find a good selection of biblical and patristic quotations on almost all dogmatic issues.

Archbishop's work (later Metropolitan) Philaret (Gumilevsky) “Dogmatic Theology” is an attempt to overcome the scholastic influence that is observed in Metropolitan. Macaria. The work of the archbishop. Filareta, however, did not become widespread.

“The Experience of Dogmatic Theology” Archbishop. Kanevsky Sylvester (Malevansky) is a voluminous work in five volumes, in which the author proposed a historical method of presenting dogmas, that is, he made an attempt to show how the dogmatic teaching of the Church developed in a historical perspective. This is his great merit.

“Orthodox dogmatic theology” prot. Nikolai Malinovsky is a work, also large in volume and quite interestingly written, but somewhat uneven: it has more and less successful sections. This fact is due to the fact that Rev. N. Malinovsky tried to use as many different sources as possible in his work and did not always approach them critically.

After 1917, there were no attempts in the Russian theological tradition to build an integral system of dogmatic theology. “Dogmatic Theology” by V. N. Lossky, in essence, is nothing more than a course of lectures on dogmatic theology. It is impossible to call this work a dogmatic system in the full sense of the word.

However, Orthodox dogmatic theology did not stop developing in the 20th century. Among the Greek theologians, professors P. N. Trembelas, A. Theodora and K. V. Skouteris proposed their dogmatic systems, whose works were published in the second half of the 20th century.

Three-volume work by Archimandrite. Justin (Popovich) (1894–1978) “Dogmatics of the Orthodox Church” is an attempt to build a dogmatic system in the Serbian Orthodox Church. Rev. Justin is not only a famous theologian, but also one of the greatest ascetics of our time, however, his work, for all its merits, is not completely independent: he reveals his dependence, especially in the first volume, on Russian dogmatists of the pre-revolutionary time.

The work of the famous Romanian theologian Fr. Dumitru Staniloae (1903–1993) "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology".

What is the traditional structure of dogmatic systems? Most modern dogmatists adhere to next principle presentation of the material: first about God in Himself (Deus ad intra), then about God in His manifestation to the creature (Deus ad extra). This is precisely the principle that underlies the Metropolitan systems. Macarius, Archbishop Philareta, Archbishop. Sylvester and other authors. All attempts to build a system of dogmatic theology in a different way were not very successful. For example, Rev. Pavel Svetlov (1861–1945) tried to build an entire system of dogma around the doctrine of salvation, Archpriest. Peter Leporsky (1871–1923) - around the dogma of the Incarnation, but these attempts did not receive recognition. This manual uses the traditional method of presenting the material.

1.6. Reasons for the emergence of dogmas

For what reason do dogmas appear? First of all, because of the emergence of heresies. The purpose of dogmas is to protect church teaching from heretical distortions. The very word that in the era of the Ecumenical Councils denoted conciliar definitions of faith - the Greek “oros” (ὅρος) literally means “border”, “limit”. By formulating dogmas, the Church protects the purity of its teaching. Dogmas, expressed in theological formulas, are boundaries set for the human mind so that it does not deviate from the correct worship of God. These are the limits that separate truth from heretical distortions and show the human mind how it should think correctly about God.

According to V.N. Lossky, “dogma is a certain means, a certain reasonable instrument that gives us the opportunity to participate in the Tradition of the Church, a certain witness of Tradition, its outer edge, or rather, those narrow gates that, in the light of Tradition, lead to the knowledge of the Truth ".

1.7. Basic principles for revealing the content of dogmatic truths

Dogma, the purpose of which is to protect the purity of Orthodox dogma, protects the revealed truth from distortion, but does not provide its exhaustive interpretation. According to V.N. Lossky, “at every moment of his historical existence he formulates the Truth of faith in his dogmas: they always express a completeness cognizable in the light of Tradition, which nevertheless can never be fully revealed.”

The interpretation of dogmas presupposes some internal work of a person; on this path, certain rules are necessary that a person must follow in order to avoid mistakes.

What is the basic principle of revealing the content of dogmatic truths? It is expressed in the first words of the definition of faith of the IV Ecumenical Council: “Following the divine fathers.” This is exactly how, following the divine fathers, one must strive to reveal the content of dogmatic truths.

According to V.N. Lossky, “theological systems... can be considered in their most direct relationship with the life goal, the achievement of which they should... contribute, in other words, contribute to union with God.”

1.9. The assimilation of dogmatic truths by human consciousness

There cannot be complete rational comprehension by the human mind of the content of a dogma.

Priest Pavel Florensky called Christians a cross for the human mind: the fallen human mind acts based on the premise that there are no barriers to its cognitive abilities, that everything that exists can be rationally comprehended in one way or another. Trying to comprehend the dogma, a person must perform the feat of self-denial, renunciation of his reason, that is, renounce the claim to omniscience, to comprehend everything. Comprehension of dogmas is always associated with a certain ascetic effort.

Chapter 2. Development of dogmatic science

2.1. The Completeness of New Testament Revelation and the Development of Dogmatic Science

Divine Revelation is “that which He Himself revealed to men, so that they could rightly and savingly believe in Him and worthily honor Him.”

It is from Divine Revelation that all the teaching of the Orthodox Church is drawn. Divine Revelation is not a one-time act, but a process. In the Old Testament, He gradually revealed to people some knowledge about Himself, adapting to the peculiarities of perception of pre-Christian humanity.

In the New Testament we have the completion and fulfillment of the Old Testament Revelation in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Apostle Paul begins his Epistle to the Hebrews: God, who spoke of old to the fathers in the prophets at many times and in various ways, has in these last days spoken to us in the Son(), i.e. Christ revealed to people everything necessary for salvation. In the Old Testament, Revelation was fragmentary, since each author of the Holy Books, each of the prophets reported only a certain facet of knowledge about God, which was personally revealed to him. Moreover, this knowledge was indirect, since each of the prophets spoke about what he, as a person, knew about God.

In Christ we have the completion and fullness of Revelation, because Christ is not just someone who knows something about God, but God Himself. Here it is no longer people testifying to their experience, but Himself revealing to man the truth about Himself.

Holy Scripture directly says that the Lord revealed to the Church the fullness of the truth, at least the fullness that man is able to comprehend. The Gospel of John says that the Lord told the disciples everything I heard from the Father... (). The Holy Spirit, who descended on the disciples on the day of Pentecost, did not bring any new revelation, any new teaching, He only reminded the disciples of what Christ taught. The Lord himself, during his farewell conversation with his disciples, speaks about the Holy Spirit: ... He will take from Mine and tell you(). According to the interpretation of the majority of St. fathers, from Mine means: “from My teaching.” As the saint writes. John Chrysostom, Christ “says: “He will receive from Mine,” that is, what I said, that He (the Spirit) will also speak.”

The entire fullness of revealed truth is preserved in the Church of Christ. Sschmch. Irenaeus of Lyons says: “The apostles, like a rich man in a treasury, completely put into the Church everything that relates to the truth, and entrusted it to the bishops.” The Holy Scriptures also note that the apostles announced to the Church all the will of God(), and not just some part of it. It is precisely because of the completeness of the New Testament Revelation, which is confirmed by the identity of the experience of the saints of all eras and all peoples, that there can be no new revelations, doctrinal truths, or new covenants. Any such phenomena fall under the anathema of the Apex. Pavla: even if we or an angel from heaven were to preach to you a gospel different from what we preached to you, let him be anathema ().

2.2. The theory of "dogmatic development"

How is faith in the completeness of the New Testament Revelation combined with the fact that new ones appear in the history of the Church? Does this also mean the emergence of new doctrinal truths?

In Western theology, starting from the mid-19th century, the so-called theory of “dogmatic development”, authored by the Catholic theologian Cardinal John Henry Newman (1801–1890), became widespread. The essence of this theory is that, although it has the fullness of revealed truth, nevertheless for the conciliar consciousness of the Church this truth is hidden or, at least, very implicitly felt and experienced, until theological thought reaches a certain development and will not make this secret knowledge obvious to the conciliar church consciousness. J. Newman viewed Revelation as a developing Christian “idea.” In fact, from his theory of “continuing Revelation” it followed that through the identification and formulation of new dogmas in the Church, the emergence of completely new knowledge about doctrinal truths is possible.

This theory is very convenient for Western Christians, since it easily allows one to justify arbitrary dogmatic innovations of both the Roman Catholic Church and Protestant denominations. On the one hand, this theory seems quite logical, but on the other hand, it leads to paradoxical conclusions. In this case, we will have to admit, for example, that the times of the apostles and even the holy apostles themselves knew incomparably less about God than any modern Christian who has taken a course in dogmatics. Naturally, one cannot agree with such an understanding of the problem. However, it is obvious that dogmatic science is indeed developing. But in what sense?

2.3. Orthodox view on the development of dogmatic science

The development of dogmatic science is an ever more precise expression in the word of the known Truth. has already been revealed to us once and for all by Jesus Christ, it is given in Revelation, but its more and more accurate expression in the word is the actual work of the theologian. In other words, we can not talk about the development of church consciousness, but only about improving the ways of expressing this consciousness.

Prot. Georgy Florovsky writes about it this way: “Dogma is in no way a new Revelation. Dogma is only evidence. The whole point of dogmatic definitions is to testify to the unchangeable truth, revealed and preserved from the beginning.” According to the archbishop. Sylvester (Malevansky), communicates the divinely revealed doctrinal truths in formulations, “without expanding their circle and without changing their inner being and spirit.”

The Church only formulates dogmas, gives them verbal form, putting the truths of Revelation into precise formulations that do not allow arbitrary interpretations. Thus, from the very beginning of its existence, the Church had no doubt that God is one in essence and trinity in Persons. However, the key terms that made it possible to verbally express this undoubted conviction of the Church were established only in the 4th century. (terms “hypostasis”, “essence”, “consubstantial”). Or: The Church has never doubted that there is a true God and a true Man. But only in the 5th century, when heated Christological disputes arose, the Church formulated the Christological dogma and proposed terms that allow us to correctly think about the image of the hypostatic union of two natures in Christ.

2.4. Tasks and method of theological dogmatic science

The “strategic” task of theological dogmatic science is to serve the unity of man with God, to introduce man to eternity. The “tactical” task is historical, the task of evidence. Each era poses its own problems to the church consciousness, each generation of theologians must give a definite answer to these questions, and certainly in accordance with the Orthodox tradition (Holy Tradition).

Scientific method dogmatic theology as a science is to

1) systematically reveal the basic Orthodox doctrinal truths;

2) indicate the basis of dogmas in the Holy Scriptures and give the fundamental provisions of patristic thought on certain dogmatic issues;

3) give an explanation of theological terms and dogmatic formulations that arose in the history of Orthodox theological thought;

4) point out the difference between the dogmatic teaching of the Church and the main heresies;

5) point out the differences between dogmas and theological opinions, while clearly indicating those sections of Orthodox dogma where freedom of theological opinions is possible;

6) take into account the main achievements of modern Orthodox dogmatic thought.

The book was prepared on the basis of a course of lectures given by the author at the Orthodox St. Tikhon's Theological Institute, and then at the Orthodox St. Tikhon's humanitarian university for more than fifteen recent years. The content of the educational course offered to the attention of readers covers all the main sections of the dogmatic teaching of the Orthodox Church. The book by Archpriest Oleg Davydenkov continues the tradition of Russian classical dogmatic thought of the 19th – early 20th centuries; at the same time, it takes into account most important results works of Orthodox theologians of the 20th century.

PART ONE. INTRODUCTION TO DOGMATIC THEOLOGY

PART TWO. ABOUT GOD IN HIMSELF

PART THREE. ABOUT GOD IN HIS RELATION TO THE WORLD AND MAN

PART FOUR. ABOUT GOD AS SANCTIFYER, JUDGE AND WINNER

1 . Charisma. In the 7th century Rev. Thalassius of Libya wrote about the grace of theology, which he called the fulfillment of the highest desires 9. Thus, theology is not a human study of the Divine life, but primarily our response to Divine Revelation.

The Prologue of the Gospel of John tells us this (see: John 1:18): the source of theology is in God. Therefore, theology is not so much our attempts to know God, but God’s seeking and testing of us. The peculiarity of theology is that, unlike other sciences that deal with a certain passive object, the subject of theological science is God Himself, Who can never be a passive object of the knowledge of God, but always its active Subject.

True theology became possible only thanks to the Incarnation, the coming to earth of the Son of God, who revealed to us the true knowledge of God.
And we can be theologians only because of the gift we received from Him (charisma). A true theologian is always, according to the word of the fathers, θεοδ ί δακτος, that is, taught by God, and not only taught from people or even from the Scriptures.
Since theology is a gift of God, it requires from a person, first of all, trust in God and faith in Him. Although reason is essential in the matter of knowledge of God, it can only develop correctly within the limits of faith. Ap.

Paul says: By faith we understand that the worlds were built by the word of God. (Heb. 11:3). Faith, trust in God is, therefore, both an instrument of knowledge of God and its necessary condition.

2 . Mystyrion. In the Great Cappadocians 10 we can come across an expression that is strange at first glance: the mystery of theology.

What does this mean? Why is theology called mystery? A mystery is not just a collection of some insoluble problems and puzzles.

It's there something like that, which is still accessible to our understanding, although it cannot be revealed to us completely for the reason that it something extends into Divine infinity. Theology is a mystery because it is something that extends beyond the limits of any mind, 11 surpassing our attempts to express in human language that which goes far beyond the limits of human understanding.

After all, our understanding is weak, and our language is even more imperfect. If we forget about this limitation of our understanding and try to replace the ineffable Divine word with human logic, then our word ceases to be theology and, as the saints said. fathers, is reduced to the level of technology, that is, literally to the work of an artisan. That is why theological thinking, according to the words of St.

Paul, always fortune-telling(1 Cor. 13:12). Theology is forced to use antinomies, paradoxes and analogies precisely because it extends its language beyond its inherent limits. And since the field of theology is the Divine mystery, theological thinking must be both negative and positive at the same time. It is this combination that makes possible some idea of ​​God and allows us to come into contact with the Divine mystery.
Here are examples of this kind of expressions.
The author, known under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite: He Himself is above the mind and essence, and He is completely incapable of either being knowable or existing. And complete ignorance, understood in in the best sense, is the knowledge of the One who is above everything knowable 12.
Rev. Maximus the Confessor: Infinity is undoubtedly something related to God, but not God Himself, Who is infinitely higher than infinity itself 13.
A great many such examples can be cited in patristic texts, and for a person alien to the patristic tradition, these statements seem to be nothing more than a play on words. Indeed, they will seem like this kind of game if we lose sight of the fact that true theology is impossible without catharsis.

3 . Catharsis. On the one hand, theology is a gift, but on the other hand, it requires collaboration from a person, a synergy of human and Divine will.

For we are fellow workers(συνεργο ί) with God. (1 Cor. 3:9). Genuine theology is always God-human. However, if the source of theology is in God, then in what way should human collaboration be expressed? First of all, in the conversion, openness of the human heart to Divine love, in the transformation of a person’s entire life through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, theology is not just an academic pursuit that can be indulged in for a few hours a week, but a way of life. There can be no true theology without striving for perfection. Therefore, according to the unanimous opinion of St. fathers, true theologians are undoubtedly saints.

It should be noted that calling theology a science creates some ambiguity. And in fact, can we call theology a science along with, for example, geology, botany, mathematics, etc.? Of course no. In all natural sciences, the scientist is required to first collect facts with the greatest possible accuracy, then analyze them with dispassionate rigor and draw some logical conclusions.

At the same time, the moral life of a scientist is not of fundamental importance. Theology, of course, is also scientific in the sense that it strives for precision and intellectual rigor. But meeting these criteria in itself does not constitute the essence of theology.

Here, for example, is how Rev. talks about this. John Cassian: one must penetrate into the essence of heavenly verbs and contemplate with a pure eye the deep and hidden mysteries, which human teaching, secular learning, and only purity of spirit through the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit cannot achieve.
Unlike other sciences, theology always requires a personal relationship with God. It embraces a person in his entirety and requires internal transformation from him. In Evagrius of Pontus we find a wonderful image of What there is genuine theology.

Evagrius likens the theologian to the beloved disciple of the Savior, who at the Last Supper reclined on the chest of his Savior. Evagrius of Pontus says: The breast of the Lord is the knowledge of God, and the one who falls to it will become a theologian 15.
Without such close personal communication with God, theology inevitably degenerates into pseudo-theology. St. Diadochos emphasizes that genuine theology cannot exist without intense spiritual life: Our minds, for the most part, are little disposed to prayer, due to its oppression and limitation by the virtue of prayer; he is more willing to delve into theology.

So, in order not to give way to his free ranting within himself and not to indulge his desire to endlessly indulge in lofty soaring, we will exercise ourselves most in prayer, psalmody and reading the Scriptures. By doing so, we... Let us not allow him, carried away by vanity, to dissipate in the air under the influence of complacency and loquaciousness. 16 Rev. John Climacus speaks out even more strictly: It is not safe for anyone who has any passion to touch on theology 17 .
Such severity of St. fathers is explained by the fact that errors in theology can have very serious consequences. Holy Gregory the Theologian directly calls false theology blasphemy against God, and blasphemy is not theology, but alienation from God 18 .
For this reason, holy. Gregory warns those who embark on this unsafe path: Not everyone can philosophize about God - yes! not everyone. This is not purchased cheaply and does not creep on the ground! I’ll add one more thing: you can’t always philosophize, not in front of everyone and not touching on everything, but you must know: when, in front of whom and how much.

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. It may be unsafe for an unclean person to touch something pure, just as it is unsafe for someone with weak eyesight to touch something pure. sunbeam 19 .
Every theologian is called to embark on this path of self-purification, the path of catharsis, for the perfection of purity is the beginning of theology 20 . According to St. Gregory the Theologian, a theologian should be as pure as possible, so that the light would be acceptable to the light. 21. What does this path include? First of all, of course, repentance, which means not only a change of mind (the literal meaning of the Greek word μετ ά νοια), but also a person’s judgment of himself, leading to a radical renewal of personality.
Rev. John Climacus teaches that repentance is a covenant with God about the correction of life 22. Repentance cannot be, as Protestants believe, a one-time, instant act. Repentance is a continuous process, it is both the starting point of our movement towards God, and something that must be present in a person throughout his entire earthly life, which cannot be left until the last breath. A person who wants to engage in theology must strive to be like Abba Sisoes, who, despite his obvious holiness to those around him, when dying, said: Truly, I do not know about myself whether I even considered the beginning of repentance 23 .
Theology is impossible without what in patristic literature is called the word asceticism (ἄ σκησις), that is, unceasing ascetic effort in the broadest sense of the word. Practicing theology requires a person to work on himself. Holy

Gregory the Theologian teaches: Do you want to become a theologian over time? - Keep the commandments and do not act outside the commandments. For deeds, like steps, lead to contemplation 24.
Finally, there cannot be true theology without prayer. According to the teachings of the Church Fathers, theology and prayer are closely related. Genuine theology is always associated with prayer, the glorification of God, the desire of man himself to become a hymn to the glory of God.
St. Diadochos says that theology illuminates our mind with a certain fiery change and through this makes it a companion of the ministering spirits. and in the souls of people. Having arranged godly songs, this divine bride-wife sings loudly the greatness of God 25. And Rev. Isaac the Syrian instructs: Do not approach the words of the sacraments contained in the Divine Scripture without prayer and asking for help from God, but say: grant me, Lord, to receive the feeling of the power contained in them. Consider prayer as the key to the true understanding of what is said in the Divine Scriptures 26.
It is obvious that the language of the Holy Fathers is very different from the language of a modern Christian. You can often hear a person who has revealed his ignorance in matters of theology (after a remark made to him) almost proudly declare: I, you know, am not a theologian. But a theologian is one who prays.

This thought of Evagrius should warn Christians against this kind of statements, because in reality they are saying thereby: I do not pray and do not even strive for this.

4 . Hesychia. According to St. Fathers, there can be no true theology without inner silence and heartfelt silence. Ps.45 says: Stop and know that I am God.

The word stop in the Greek text of the psalm corresponds to σχολ ά σατε (imperative plural from the verb σχολ ά ζω). This verb was used in ancient times in various senses; among other things, it could mean spending time in conversations with scientists and philosophers, being a listener and a student 27 . Indeed, true theology is not only talking about God, but also listening to God, which presupposes silence. Holy

Gregory the Theologian asks the question: When is it possible [to engage in theology]? And he answers: When we are free from external mud and rebellion. Because it really is necessary stay, to understand God (Ps. 45:11) 28 .

These kinds of thoughts may seem surprising. We are accustomed to believe that theology is precisely a certain theoretical activity, something akin to philosophy, and we associate hesychasm with Christian mysticism, with its highest peaks. But in reality, in the tradition of the Orthodox Eastern Church, the opposition between theology and mysticism has never existed.
Theology and mysticism are by no means opposed; on the contrary, they support and complement each other. The first is impossible without the second: if mystical experience is a personal manifestation of a common faith, then theology is a general expression of what can be experienced by everyone. Outside of the truth preserved by the entire Church, personal experience would be devoid of all reliability, all objectivity; it would be a mixture of true and false, real and illusory, it would be mysticism in the bad sense of the word.

On the other hand, the teaching of the Church would have no impact on the human soul if it did not somehow express the inner experience of truth, given in varying degrees to each believer. So, there is no Christian mysticism without theology and, what is more significant, there is no theology without mysticism 29.
But which of us has the courage to practice theology or call ourselves a theologian? Let us pose the question differently: can theology be an academic discipline taught in the academy and at the university? Is it even possible to organize exams in theology and objectively evaluate students’ knowledge?
Indeed, this is not an idle question, because practicing theology requires great responsibility from a person.
Metropolitan Callistus of Diocleia divides all those who want to be theologians into three categories. The first is the saints, i.e. those who have achieved completeness personal experience communication with God; these are theologians in the true sense of the word. The second group includes those who do not have such completeness, but trust the experience of the saints.

Such people can also be good theologians, second-level theologians, so to speak. Finally, in the third category, Bishop Kallistus includes those who have no experience and do not trust the experience of the saints. They are bad theologians, or, simply put, not theologians at all 30.
And although most of us are far from holiness, nothing prevents us from striving for holiness and being theologians in the second meaning of the word. We can trust the saints and testify to how they lived and how they taught.
What is the purpose of such theology? St. the fathers whom we consider our teachers in theology usually began to theologize not of their own free will, but under the influence of external circumstances. Almost all Sts. the fathers of the Orthodox Church are ascetics, ascetics, whose life plans usually did not include writing textbooks and scientific works.

At St. Fathers even come across the opinion that it is impossible to theologize while at the heights of the spirit. According to Rev. Diadoche, it is possible to engage in theology itself only when a person is characterized by an average measure of spiritual excitement 31.
Archim. Sophrony (Sakharov) conveys the words of St. Silouan of Athos, his teacher: It is safe to say that none of the saints would seek verbal expression of their spiritual experience and would forever remain in silence. if he had not had the task of teaching his neighbor; if love did not give rise to hope that at least someone, at least one soul. will hear the word and, having accepted repentance, will be saved 32.
In addition to the task of teaching one’s neighbor, there is another task, which is even more urgent today - not only to teach another, to pass on one’s experience to him, but also to protect the experience of the Church from various kinds of distortions.
As we can see, both of these tasks are practical. Theology does not exist to increase theological knowledge, but to solve very specific problems of life in the Church. According to V.N. Lossky, Christian theology is ultimately always only a means, only a certain body of knowledge that should serve a goal that surpasses all knowledge.

This ultimate goal is union with God, or deification, about which the Eastern fathers speak. . Christian theory has a highly practical significance. 33. The ultimate goal of theology is not simply the acquisition of a certain amount of knowledge about God (although, of course, one should not conclude from this that the acquisition of this knowledge is not necessary at all), but to bring a person to living communication with God, to that fullness of vision where words become unnecessary.
Those who are just beginning to study theology always have many different perplexities and questions. Naturally, these questions must be asked and answers sought, because a man with double thoughts is not firm in all his ways(James 1:8). However, it must be borne in mind that along the paths of rational knowledge theological questions can never be completely resolved. The fallen human mind is designed in such a way that no matter how much we answer its questions, it will constantly pose new and new questions to us, demanding from us more and more clarification of our faith, more and more precise formulations of the truth, thus leading us astray from genuine spiritual life, turning it into a purely intellectual exercise.
Therefore, it would be appropriate to end the introductory chapter with the words of the Savior: I will see you again, and your heart will rejoice, and no one will take your joy away from you; and on that day you will not ask Me anything(John 16:22–23).