Oleg Davydenkov - dogmatic theology. Systematization of Christian doctrine in the ancient Church. Historical review. The relationship of dogmatic theology to other theological sciences

The proposed course of lectures is a transcript of a tape recording and is intended primarily for full-time and correspondence departments Orthodox St. Tikhon's Theological Institute.

Introduction

Before embarking on a course in dogmatic theology, it is useful to ask the question: what is theology? How do Holy Scripture and the Church Fathers understand the essence and purpose of theology?

The words “theologian”, “theology”, “theologize” - are they found in the text of Holy Scripture? - No. A remarkable fact: on the one hand, we say that the source of our doctrine is the Holy Scripture, and at the same time these terms themselves - “theologian”, “theology”, “to theologize” - are not found either in the Old Testament or in the Testament New.

The term “theology” itself is an ancient Greek term; the Greeks called those who taught about the gods theologians.

In Christianity, the term “theology” can be interpreted in two ways. Firstly, theology can be understood as God’s word about Himself, as well as about the world He created. In this case, theology turns out to be identical in content to Divine Revelation. The second, more common, meaning of this word is the teaching of the Church or of some individual theologian about God. Essentially, such a teaching is nothing more than evidence of the understanding of Divine Revelation by one or another author.

In the ancient Church, theology itself was called the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. The remaining parts of the doctrine (about the creation of the world, about the incarnation of God the Word, about salvation, about the Church, about the Second Coming, etc.) belonged to the field of Divine economy or Divine economy (οίκονομία) in Greek. - the art of home management; οίκος - house, νόμος - law), i.e., the activity of God in creation, Providence and salvation of the world.

Literature.

1. Ep. Callistus of Diocles. Holy Scripture and the Holy Fathers on theological education. Per. from English b. g., Typescript, PSTBI.

2. Creations of Abba Evagrius. Aketic and theological treatises. M., 1994.

3. Archim. Alypiy (Kastalsky-Borozdin), archimandrite. Isaiah (Belov). Dogmatic theology: Lecture course. Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, 1994.

4. Clement O. Origins: Theology of the Fathers of the Ancient Church. Per. from French, Moscow, 1994.

5. Reverend Father Abba John, abbot of Mount Sinai, Ladder. St. Petersburg, 1995.

Part one

Introduction to Dogmatic Theology

Section I

Dogmatic theology as a science.

1. The concept of dogmatic theology.

1.1. Subject of dogmatic theology. The concept of dogma

Orthodox dogmatic theology

is a science that systematically reveals the content of basic Christian doctrinal truths (d

gmatos), accepted in full Orthodox Church.

Let us consider the evolution of the very concept of dogma. The word "d" itself

gmat" comes from the Greek verb δοκείν, which in the infinitive sounds like "dokein" or "dokin", depending on the transcription of ancient Greek words according to Reuchlin or Erasmus of Rotterdam. The word “dokin” literally means “to think”, “to consider”, “to believe”, it can also mean to believe, and the word “d”

gmat" comes from the perfect of the verb (“δεδόγμη”), which can be translated into Russian as “determined”, “decided”, “positioned”, “established”.

The term itself

gmat" has a pre-Christian history; it was used in ancient Greek philosophy, where under the concept "d

gmat" were understood as philosophical axioms, that is, postulates that do not require proof, on which a philosophical system is built.

Naturally, different philosophical schools had different

gmats. For example, Plato, in his famous work called “The State,” calls dogmas the rules and norms that relate to human concepts of justice and beauty. Seneca used the same term to designate the foundations of the moral law that every person must follow. And, finally, since this term contains a certain connotation of obligation, it was used to designate decisions of the highest state authority.

In the New Testament we find the use of the word "d"

gmat" in two senses. Firstly, it can be understood as some kind of decree, in particular, in the Gospel of Luke, the word “dogma” refers to the decree of Caesar Augustus Octavian on conducting a census in the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire (Luke 2: 1), and in the book of Acts the Decree of the first Jerusalem of the Apostolic Council are called “τά δόγματα”, i.e. plural from “το δόγμα” (Acts 16:4).

1.2. Properties of dogmas.

1.2.1. Theology (doctrinality).

So, the first property of d

gmatov is

Theological

(“creed”). This property d

It means that d

gmat ​​contains the doctrine of God and His economy, i.e. the main subject about which God tells us

Gmat is God, and all other objects that are present in the content of dogma, that is, man or the world, find a place here only insofar as they are related to God.

This is exactly what

gmats differ from other truths of Christianity, i.e., moral, liturgical, canonical, etc. truths.

Gems are truths of faith that stand above human experience and exceed the cognitive abilities of the human mind, therefore only Divine Revelation can give them firm support and raise them to the level of undoubted certainty.

1.2.2. Godly revelation.

Therefore, the following property

gmatov is

Godly revelation

Which is a property d

gmatos according to the method of their preparation, i.e. d

gmat ​​is not the fruit of the activity of the natural human mind, but the result of Divine Revelation.

This is exactly what

gmats are in principle different from any scientific or philosophical truths. Because philosophical and scientific truths are based on premises that are the product of the work of the cognitive human mind. All D

gmats are based on divinely revealed premises, which are drawn from Divine Revelation. This is precisely why dogmatic theology as a science differs from philosophy, metaphysics and various sciences about nature and man.

The Apostle Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians (Gal. 1:11-12) says this:

“I declare to you, brethren, that the gospel which I preached is not man’s, for I also received it and learned it, not from man, but through the revelation of Jesus Christ.”

Therefore, 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. In contrast to them

principles, as based on Divine Revelation, are absolute and unchangeable.

1.2.3. Churchness.

The number of doctrinal truths is very large, while at the same time the doctrinal truths that we call dogmas are not so many. What is this connected with? This is related to the third property of d

gmatov, namely with

churchliness

gmatov. We can say that churchliness is a property of

gmats according to their method of existence.

It means that only the Universal Church at its Councils can recognize dogmatic authority and significance for this or that Christian truth of the faith.

In fact, outside the Church there can be no

gmatov, because d

The principles are based on premises borrowed from Revelation, and Revelation is not given to any individual individuals, but is given to the Church. It is the Church, through Tradition, as a way of preserving and disseminating Revelation, that contains the revealed truth.

Therefore, the Apostle Paul calls the Church “the pillar and ground of the truth.” And therefore, only the Church, as the guardian of Tradition, is capable of correct interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, only she can unmistakably establish behind this or that truth of Revelation the meaning of the unchangeable rule of faith, i.e. dogma.

From this it follows that outside the Church

Gmatas cannot exist. Therefore, 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.

1.2.4. Legal binding (generally binding).

This property characterizes a Christian’s attitude to dogmas and their content. Legality can be understood in two senses. Firstly, as a formal legality. The Church in its earthly aspect is a certain organization, a certain human community, which is governed in accordance with certain rules and norms, without recognizing which one cannot be a member of the Church.

Therefore, formal legality d

gmatov is manifested in the fact that recognition of the truth of

gmatov is the responsibility of all members of the Church. For example, when a person enters the Church, that is, receives Baptism, he pronounces the Creed three times, which, of course, is a doctrinal document of a dogmatic nature. Thus, recognition of the truth

gmatov is an element of Church discipline. There is some analogy here between the Church as a human community and various secular societies and organizations.

The Apostle Paul (Titus 3:10-11) says: “Turn away the heretic after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a one has become corrupt and sins, being self-condemned.”

Particular attention should be paid to the word “self-condemned”; below we will focus our attention on this word.

In reality, the Church has always had a condescending attitude towards human weakness, the Church has long tolerated human sins, and has been condescending to the weaknesses of human nature, but nevertheless the Church has always been extremely harsh towards those who deliberately seek to distort Church teaching.

1.3. Doctrines and theological opinions

It should be noted that the Church has never dogmatized just for the sake of dogmatizing something, at least the Orthodox Church. Catholics have the opposite tendency - to dogmatize everything that can be dogmatized. Orthodoxy has always been characterized by the opposite approach - to dogmatize only the most necessary, the most essential for our salvation.

However, in addition to d

gmatov, 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

Theological opinion

These are judgments on issues of faith that can be expressed either by some church body, for example, a Council, or by some individual theologian, or by a group of theologians, i.e. judgments on issues of faith that do not have general church recognition.

However, this should not be understood in the sense that arbitrariness and irresponsible fantasy are possible in dogmatic theology. Theological opinion is strictly controlled by Church Tradition.

In relation to theological opinions, the following criteria are applied: the criterion of the truth of theological opinions, which means agreement with the Holy Tradition, and the criterion of the admissibility of theological opinion, i.e. non-contradiction with the Holy Tradition. In principle, dogmatic theology can tolerate any theological opinion that does not contradict Holy Tradition.

1.4. Dogmas and dogmatic formulas and theological terms

When we talk about dogmas, we must clearly distinguish between

gmat ​​in its content from the dogmatic formula.

Actually d

gmat ​​is the content, the ontological truth itself, which is contained in dogma, and the dogmatic formula is the verbal expression of ontological, doctrinal truth, as it were, the linguistic flesh in which the truth is clothed. Although he himself

Gmat in its content is not subject to any change; dogmatic formulas, in principle, can be changed.

For example, the Second Ecumenical Council supplemented and revised the Symbol that was 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.

Therefore, when we talk about what

Although dogmatic formulas are unchangeable, we must understand that the dogmatic formulas themselves, depending on conditions and circumstances, can change in one way or another.

Moreover, we must keep in mind that when we study d

gmata, dogmatic theology, one must always clearly understand that the mere study of dogmatic formulations, their memorization, cannot in any way be identified with comprehension of the very content of the dogma. For example, if a person has memorized the dogmatic formulation of the dogma of the Most Holy Trinity from the Catechism of Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, it does not at all follow from this that he has learned what the Most Holy Trinity is.

1.5. Dogmatic systems (historical review)

It is a mode of presentation in which all individual truths and propositions are parts connected into a whole. The following requirements are imposed on dogmatic systems.

Firstly, the absence of internal contradictions (a dogmatic system should not be internally contradictory, there should not be mutually exclusive provisions).

Secondly, drawing a clear boundary in the process of presentation between the actual dogmas and theological opinions. This does not mean that when presenting a dogmatic system one cannot rely in one way or another on theological opinions; they can be cited, but it must be emphasized that this is precisely the theological opinion of one or another father of the Church.

In addition, it is assumed that the dogmatic system should be not just a set of patristic and biblical quotations on one or another dogmatic issue, but also an author’s text, a specific commentary in which the author tries to comprehend the content of dogmatic truths. A shortened system of dogmatic theology is called a catechism.

In the history of Christian thought, the first attempt to build a dogmatic system was the work of the famous didaskal of the Alexandrian catechetical school -

Clement of Alexandria

(end of the 2nd century), a work entitled “

Stromata

" But Stromats are still nothing more than an attempt to build a system, and not a system in the full sense of the word.

2. Development of dogmatic science

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

Divine Revelation is “that which God 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. And Divine Revelation is not a one-time act, but a process. In the Old Testament, God gradually revealed to people some knowledge of Himself, adapting to the perceptual abilities 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 letter to the Hebrews this way (Heb. 1:1-2): “God, who spoke of old to the fathers in the prophets at many times and in various ways, has in the last days spoken to us in the Son...”, i.e. Christ revealed to us everything we need 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 of Revelation, in Christ Revelation is not fragmentary, but complete, 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 God Himself revealing the truth about Himself. Therefore, in Christ we have the fullness of Divine Revelation.

Holy Scripture directly says that the Lord Jesus Christ revealed to the Church the fullness of the truth, at least the fullness that man is able to comprehend. The Gospel of John (John 15:15) says that the Lord told the disciples “... all that I had heard from the Father...”.

2.2. The theory of "dogmatic development"

How, in this case, should we relate to the appearance of

gmatov? The very fact that new people are appearing in the Church

gmaty, is this evidence of the emergence of new doctrinal truths in the Church?

In Western theology, starting from the middle of the last century, the so-called “theory of dogmatic development”, authored by the Catholic theologian Cardinal Newman, has become widespread.

The meaning of this theory is as follows: the Church possesses the fullness of revealed truth, but 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 makes this hidden knowledge is obvious to the conciliar church consciousness.

This theory is very convenient for Western Christians from the point of view that it easily allows one to justify all sorts of 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. Let's say, in this case, we have to admit that the Church of the times of the apostles, even the holy apostles themselves, knew incomparably less about God than any modern Christian who has taken a course in dogmatics.

2.3. Orthodox view on the development of dogmatic science

Naturally, one cannot agree with such a formulation of the question. However, it is obvious that dogmatic science is indeed developing. But in what sense is it developing? The development of dogmatic science is an ever more precise expression in the word of the known Truth. The truth has already been revealed to us once and for all by Jesus Christ, it is given in Revelation, and its more and more accurate expression in the word is the actual work of the theologian.

Archpriest Georgy Florovsky says about it this way: “D

gmat ​​is by no means a new revelation. D

gmat ​​is only evidence. The whole point of dogmatic definitions comes down to witnessing the eternal truth that was revealed in Revelation and preserved from the beginning.” That is, the Church only formulates

gmata, gives them verbal form, putting the thought of Revelation into precise formulations that do not allow arbitrary interpretations.

From the very beginning of its existence, the Church had no doubt that God is one in essence and threefold in Persons. However, the key term that allowed this faith to be expressed verbally, this undoubted conviction of the Church, appeared only in the 4th century (the term

"consubstantial"

We will see the same thing if we consider the Christological teaching of the Church. The Church has never doubted that Christ is true God and true man. But only in the 5th century, when heated Christological disputes arose, the Church formulated a Christological concept.

gmat ​​and indicated those apophatic definitions that allow us to correctly think about the image of the hypostatic union of two natures in Christ.

Here is what Vikenty Lirinsky said about this:

2.4. Tasks and method of theological dogmatic science

The task of what is called strategic, dogmatic science is to serve the unity of man with God, to introduce man to eternity.

The second, no less important, tactical task of dogmatic science is a purely historical task, the task of evidence. Each era poses its own problems to the church consciousness, and each generation of theologians must give a definite answer to these questions, and certainly in accordance with the Orthodox tradition.

As for the scientific method of dogma, it consists in the systematic disclosure of the basic Orthodox religious truths. This method is as follows: indicate the basis d

gmatos in the Holy Scriptures and give the fundamental provisions of patristic thought on certain dogmatic issues.

Literature

1. Lossky V. N. Essay on the mystical theology of the Eastern Church. Dogmatic theology. M., 1991.

2. Jerome. Sophrony. Elder Silouan. Paris, 1952.

3. Archim. Alicy (Kastalsky-Borozdin), archimandrite. Isaiah (Belov). Dogmatic theology: A course of lectures. Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, 1994.

4. Yannaras X. Faith of the Church. M., 1992 (Translated from modern Greek).

5. Priest Boris Levshenko. Dogmatic theology. Lecture course. PSTBI, 1996.

Section II

Sacred Tradition

1. Holy Scripture about Holy Tradition

Sacred Tradition is the general form of preservation and dissemination by the Church of its teachings. Or another formulation - the preservation and dissemination of Divine Revelation. This very form of preservation and dissemination, as well as the term “Tradition,” is undoubtedly sanctified by the authority of Holy Scripture.

In the books of the New Testament we can find a number of places that indicate the importance of Tradition in the life of the Church. Let's remember these verses.

First, this is 2 Thess. 2:15: “...stand and hold to the traditions which you were taught either by our word or by our message.”

1 Cor. 11:2: “I praise you, brothers, because you remember everything I have and keep the tradition as I handed it down to you.”

1 Tim. 6, 20: “Oh, Timothy! keep what is devoted to you”... Or the Slavic text, more consistent with the Greek original: “Oh, Timothy! Keep the tradition."

2. The concept of Sacred Tradition

Tradition (παράδοδις). Literally, this Greek word means successive transmission, for example, inheritance, as well as the very mechanism of transmission from one person to another, from one generation of people to another.

St. Vincent of Lirinsky asks the question: “What is tradition? - and he himself answers it, “What has been entrusted to you, and not what you have invented, - what you have accepted, and not what you have invented”...

Such a mechanism for the successive dissemination of Divine Revelation also has its basis in the Holy Scriptures, which says that this is exactly how Divine Revelation should be preserved and spread in the world.

1 Cor. 11, 23: “For I am from

I received from the Lord what I also conveyed to you”...

In. 17:8. The Lord Himself speaks about this form of preserving the truth: “For the words that You gave Me, I delivered to them, and they received and understood”...

2.1. The relationship between Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition

If we look at pre-revolutionary textbooks of dogmatic theology or catechisms, we will see that in them Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition are usually opposed.

For example, the Catechism of St. Philareta calls Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition two different ways of disseminating and preserving Divine Revelation.

Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov) says that “under the name of Sacred Tradition we mean the Word of God, not contained in writing by the inspired writers themselves, but orally transmitted to the Church and since then continuously preserved in it.”

We see approximately the same thing in the textbook on dogmatic theology of Archpriest Mikhail Pomazansky, where it is directly stated that Tradition and Scripture are two sources of dogma, or two sources of faith.

In all these definitions, Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition are contrasted with each other. Scripture is seen as something external to Tradition. This is connected, of course, with the Latin influence on Orthodox theology, which began during the period of decline in education in the Christian East. This Latin scholastic influence in this case is manifested in the characteristic tendency of Latin thought to codify Tradition in historical documents, monuments, in other words, to consider Tradition almost exclusively as a certain sum of information about God, about spiritual life, while for the Eastern fathers Tradition is it is always not only knowledge, not so much information, but rather the living experience of knowledge of God, the experience of a three-dimensional vision of the revealed truth, without which true knowledge turns out to be impossible. The overcoming of such an understanding in Orthodox theology began only at the beginning of the 20th century. What is the essence of the Latin view of the relationship between Tradition and Scripture?

2.2. Understanding Sacred Tradition in Modern Orthodox Theology

First, understanding in the sense of the very mechanism of transmission of revealed truth.

The second is Sacred Tradition as a source of doctrine. This view of Holy Tradition is completely justified, however, provided that Tradition is not opposed to Scripture, and Scripture and Tradition are not considered in isolation. Because otherwise, if we contrast Scripture and Tradition, we will find ourselves in a theological dead end. Indeed, how should the Holy Scriptures be interpreted? Naturally, in accordance with Tradition. Which Tradition should be recognized as true and which as false? According to Scripture. It turns out to be a vicious circle.

Western faiths have resolved this issue in different ways. Protestants simply rejected the authority of Tradition in favor of Scripture. Catholics get out of the situation by appealing to the infallible opinion of the Pope, who can in any case accurately indicate how to interpret Scripture and which Tradition should be accepted.

What position do the Orthodox find themselves in, who do not have a Pope and do not reject Tradition? For Orthodoxy, this very opposition between Scripture and Tradition seems completely far-fetched and unfounded.

Here is what the second member of the Message of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith says about this:

2.3. Formal legend

One of the forms of Holy Tradition is Holy Scripture, but Tradition is not limited to Holy Scripture and includes other forms.

There is a term that can be found in theological literature:

formal tradition

These are all historical sources and methods of true knowledge of the Christian Revelation, except for biblical books.

What forms can we identify?

1) ancient symbols and confessions of faith;

2) ancient rules, Apostolic Rules, for example, and canons;

Section III

The concept of knowledge of God and its boundaries

1. Knowledge of God in the life of a Christian. Natural and supernatural path to knowledge of God

Exists a large number of various branches of knowledge, the names of which include the words “knowledge” or “knowledge”: linguistics, jurisprudence, etc.

It is obvious that knowledge of God or knowledge of God cannot be put on a par with these areas of knowledge, since to know something in any science, to be a specialist, means, first of all, to have perfect information on one or another issue.

However, in theology everything is completely different. According to the Holy Scriptures, to know is to experience something personal experience, join. Therefore, the Lord Jesus Christ essentially equates the knowledge of God with salvation, that is, the acquisition of eternal life.

“This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent” (John 17:3).

According to the Holy Scriptures, the goal of human life is knowledge of God, which is achieved through communication with God. The Apostle Paul (Acts 17:26-28) says that God:

1.1. Natural knowledge of God (natural Revelation)

For the Christian who believes that the whole world was created by the creative Divine Word, the universe is revealed as the Revelation of eternal divine ideas. Consequently, it is possible to know God through beauty, harmony, and expediency dissolved in the world. In general, this is nothing more than a natural reaction of the human soul, which, according to Tertullian, is by nature “Christian.”

There is much evidence in the Holy Scriptures that God can be known through His creations. For example, Ps. 18:2: “The heavens proclaim the glory of God, and the firmament proclaims the work of His hands”; Prem. 13, 1-2: “all people are truly vain by nature, who had no knowledge of God, who from visible perfections could not know the Existence and, looking at deeds, did not know the Author”; Rome. 1:20: “His eternal power and Godhead have been visible from the creation of the world through the consideration of creation.”

St. John of Damascus in the first book of “An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith” says: “and the very creation of the world, its preservation and management proclaim the greatness of the Divine” “... and the very composition, preservation and management of creatures shows us that there is a God who created all this , contains and takes care of everything.”

Saint Basil the Great, in his first conversation on the Sixth Day, states that “not to know the Creator from contemplating the world is not to see anything on a clear noon.” Such knowledge of God through consideration of creations is called the path of cosmological inference, when a person, through contemplation and knowledge of the created cosmos, ascends to the understanding that this world has a Creator and Provider.

However, a person can come to a conclusion about the existence of God not only through the study of nature. This can also be done through

self-knowledge

St. John of Damascus asserts that “the knowledge that God exists, He Himself planted in everyone’s nature”...

1.2. Supernatural knowledge of God

Genuine knowledge of God, or knowledge of God in the true sense of the word, can only be called

supernatural

knowledge of God. It is given to a person only through experience, through the direct influx of the Holy Spirit. All the truths of the Christian faith in the Holy Scriptures and the Tradition of the Church are only slightly revealed to us, and in full they are known only in the experience of a grace-filled life.

The Holy Fathers see two successive stages in the supernatural knowledge of God. The first stage is characteristic of the Old Testament, “pre-Christian” humanity. This is Revelation in some external images, for example, images such as the “Burning Bush”, the ladder that Patriarch Jacob saw in a vision, etc. These images have educational significance for a person.

The second level of supernatural knowledge of God is possible only in the New Testament, only in the Christian Church. This so-called intelligent Revelation is a revelation without any external image, which is higher than any image and any word.

These are prayerful contemplations, revelations that take place inside the human soul. During such revelations, God is not shown to man as something external, but is felt and experienced by man within himself. At the same time, a person sees God because he (man) is already in Him and God’s power acts in him. The most striking example of such knowledge of God is the practice of the hesychasts.

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

For the first time in Christian theology, the question of the nature and boundaries of the knowledge of God was posed in the context of the Trinitarian disputes of the 4th century.

In 356, Aetius (Aetius) preached “anomaeism” in Alexandria (anomaeism literally means “unlikeness”). The Anomeans were extreme Arians who denied not only the Orthodox doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son, but even the moderate, compromise doctrine between Orthodoxy and Arianism about the likeness of the Son to the Father.

Then Aetius moved to Antioch, where he began his preaching. The church historian Sozomen tells us about Aetius that he “was strong in the art of inference and experienced in word debate.” Saint Epiphanius of Cyprus writes about Aetius: “From morning to evening he sat at his studies, trying to draw up definitions about God through geometric figures.”

Thus, dogmatics turned for Aetius into a kind of game and dialectic of concepts, and he, in his vanity, went so far as to claim that he “knows God as well as he does not know himself.”

2.1.1. Eunomian doctrine

Aetius had students, among whom was a certain Eunomius, a Cappadocian by birth, who occupied the episcopal see in Cyzicus. It was Eunomius who gave the dialectic of Aetius logical harmony and completeness.

He argued that “the true goal of man and the only content of faith ... lies in the knowledge of God, and, moreover, a purely theoretical one.”

In the context of the Trinitarian disputes of the late 4th century, a very important and fundamental theological question was posed: “How is knowledge of God possible at all?”

For the Orthodox, answering this question was not very difficult, since the Orthodox theory of knowledge of God is based on the idea of ​​consubstantiality; let us remember the words of the Apostle Philip at the Last Supper: “Lord! Show us the Father, and that is enough for us.” And the Lord answers him: “I have been with you for so long, and you do not know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father... Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me” (John 14:8-10).

Thus, for the Orthodox, the fullness of knowledge of God is possible in Christ due to the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son. Naturally, the Anomeans, who were extreme Arians, could not accept such epistemology and were forced to create their own theory of knowledge. Eunomius set about developing this Arian theory of knowledge in detail.

2.1.2. The doctrine of the knowledge of God by the great Cappadocians and St. John Chrysostom

Criticism of the Eunomian theory of names and a positive disclosure of the Orthodox teaching on knowledge belong to the great Cappadocians Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, as well as St. John Chrysostom. First of all, the Cappadocian fathers rejected, as unacceptable anthropomorphism, the idea of ​​Eunomius that God named the essence of objects in any pronounced names.

In contrast to Eunomius, they argued that God creates by His omnipotent will and does not, like man, need any audible words. In this sense, the naming of things, that is, the combination of sounds by which this or that thing is signified, is a product of reason and has a random character.

At the same time, the holy fathers argued that there is no such concept that could most accurately express the divine essence. We cannot reduce our knowledge of God to any one concept. Saint Gregory the Theologian wrote (Sermon 38 // Creative Part 3, p. 196):

“The Divine nature is, as it were, a sea of ​​Essence, indefinite and infinite, extending beyond any concept of time and nature.”

The most profound criticism of Eunomianism was given by St. Basil the Great. Saint Basil rejected the division of names or concepts into ontologically significant and empty ones. In fact, all the concepts and names that people use exist for a reason; they are created by people for a specific purpose.

2.2. Disputes about the nature and boundaries of knowledge of God in the 14th century

After the end of the Eunomian dispute, questions related to epistemology, i.e., the theory of knowledge, were not raised in Christian theology for almost 1000 years. Exactly 1000 years later, a dispute arises again about the boundaries and nature of our knowledge of God. This dispute is connected with the names of Saint Gregory Palamas and his main opponent, the Calabrian monk Varlaam.

2.2.1. Doctrine of Barlaam of Calabria

Varlaam, a Greek by nationality, a learned man, came from Calabria (Calabria is a historical region in Italy). He was of the Orthodox confession. Being nationalistically inclined, he moved from Italy to the territory of what was then Byzantium, to Constantinople, the intellectual center of the Christian East, but the education that Varlaam received in the West was focused not so much on the holy fathers as on scholastic teaching methods.

Like most Western theologians of that time, Barlaam was strongly influenced by St. Augustine. St. Augustine was the first theologian who refused to distinguish between essence and energy in God. He believed that this contradicts the doctrine of simplicity, unity, and integrity of the divine essence.

In this respect, Augustine turned out to be even lower than his pagan teachers, from whom he studied philosophy, such as, say, Plotinus, who made such a division in the Divinity between essence and energies.

From this, Varlaam concluded that the Divine essence is incommunicable, completely unknowable, in this he agreed with the Eastern fathers, however, since he denied in God the distinction between essence and energy, he argued that the energies of the Divine are certain created divine forces.

The reason for the clash was a hesychast dispute. Varlaam visited Athos and became acquainted with the practice of the Athonite monks, who in mental visions contemplated the uncreated, as they were sure, Divine Light. Varlaam considered this a manifestation of ignorance and ridiculed the Athonite ascetics in his pamphlets. Saint Gregory Palamas stood up to defend the authenticity of the experience of Orthodox ascetics.

3. The concept of apophatic and cataphatic theology

According to Orthodox teaching, God is both transcendent and immanent. V. N. Lossky has such beautiful words: “in the immanence of Revelation, God affirms Himself as transcendent to creation,” that is, by revealing Himself in energies, God thereby affirms that He is essentially unapproachable.

Because of this, there are two closely interrelated ways of knowing God. Even pre-Christian authors, in particular the Neoplatonists, knew that the attempt to think of God in Himself ultimately plunges a person into silence; all verbal expressions and concepts, which, by defining, inevitably limit the subject of knowledge, cannot allow us to embrace the infinite.

In other words, the experience of knowledge of God is inexplicable at its limit. And, therefore, the path of negation is legal, the apophatic path, that is, the desire to know God not in what He is, that is, not in accordance with our created experience, but in what He is not.

The path of apophatic theology is, first of all, a practical path. The goal of apophatic theology is personal union with the Living God. This path of ascent to God presupposes the consistent denial by the ascetic of God of all properties and qualities that are in one way or another inherent in created nature. For his ascent, a person must eliminate from his mind the idea of ​​​​everything created, and not only about the material, but also about the spiritual, renounce the most sublime concepts, such as love, wisdom and even the most

The path of apophatic ascent to God is an ascetic path, which presupposes purification on the part of man and allows one to achieve a mysterious union with the Personal God in a state of ecstasy.

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 . Outlining 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 understand 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 last years a lot of alterations and expositions of either the whole theology of Thomas, or sections of it, appeared, adapted to the needs of 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. Characteristics Western medieval theology is as follows: 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 ingenious 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 specific 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. Purely scholastic theology flourished in Spain Latin represented by Bannets, Vasquets, Svarets 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, a preacher, and a 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. Adjoining Hegel, on his right side, are Marageinike, Biederman, Pfleiderer, and on his 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 Schultz, 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.” Previously, Greeks received higher education 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, the system of dogmatics, read at the 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, have come down to us in manuscript. Both systems consist of separate dogmatic and 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 compose 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). Falkovsky'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 of 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; further reported sometimes Short story dogma; 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

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 the practical application of the 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. Derived 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, he was the first important result scholastic method became 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 that 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 the 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 of the 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 a condensed presentation. - Holy Trinity Monastery, Jordanville, 1963; - Platinum, California, 1992
• Mikhail Pomazansky, protopresbyter. Orthodox Dogmatic Theology. - Klin: Christian Life Foundation, 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.

UDC 27-284(075.8)

Russian Orthodox Church IS 12-217-1541

Editor-in-Chief Archpriest Vladimir Vorobyov

Scientific review and text preparation

Archpriest Boris LevU.leliKO

Scientific rt:laktor P. Yu. MShlKov

Worked on the book:

Deacon PaveJl Ermilov, A. S. Nebolsil

I. I. U. Litchev, A. R Foksh"

DaVydnkovV O., "mouth.

D13 Dogmatic GOD, lOvie: Textbook / Archpriest

Oleg Davydenkov. - M.: IZ,"l, - in PSTGU, 2013. - 622 p.

IS BN 978-5-7429-()768-8

The book was prepared on the basis of a course of lectures given51 by the author at the Holy Tikhon Institute of Gods, and then at the Holy Tikhon Humanitarian University

those for more than five years. Content

The educational course presented to the attention of readers covers all the main sections of the dogmatic doctrine of the Orthodox Church.

The book by Archpriest Oleg Davydenkov continues the tradition of Russian

classical dogmatic THOUGHT XIX __ about the beginning of the XX HUNDRED years; at the same time, it also takes into account the most important results of the work of Orthodox theologians of the twentieth century.

INTRODUCTION

Before starting to study the course of dogmatic

Who is theology, it is useful to ask the question: what is theology? How the Holy Scriptures and the Church Fathers understand the essence and purpose of theology?

It should be noted that the very terms “theologian”, “theology”, “theology” are not found in the Holy PIS(: lNII. Probably the reason for this is that

the ancient Greek term “theology” (8. Such severity of the holy fathers is explained by the fact that the mistake

ki in theology can have very serious consequences.

Holy Gregory the Theologian directly calls out the false theologian

blasphemy against God, “and blasphemy is not theologizing, but

Alienation from God"4.

For this reason, holy. Gregory warns those

who embarks on this unsafe path: “To philosophize

Not everyone can talk about God - yes! not everyone. This is available for purchase

not cheap and not crawling on the ground! I'll add it

also: \YOU don’t always philosophize, not .

Word 27, ! 1. (Further: John, "venerable LeSTl3iiua.)

; Gregory the Theologian, saint. Word 34, to those who came from Egypt/ /

Gregory B()goslov, saint. Collection of creations. vol. 1. P. 497.

Introduction

By this, people who have tested themselves, who have spent their lives

contemplation, and first of all purified, at least about

spare both the soul and TeJIO. For the unclean, perhaps not

It is also dangerous to touch something clean, as for weak eyesight

sunbeam" J.

Every theologian is called to enter upon this I1UT sa

purification, the path of KS:ttarsis, for “the perfection of purity is

the beginning of theology"2. According to St. Gregory Bogoslo

the theologian “it must be possible, pure, so that with

was acceptable by the light...”3. What does this path include? P

waiting for ucero, of course, repentance, which means not only from

negation of the mind (the literal meaning of the Greek word !l["TC!,\1 but also a person’s judgment of himself, leading to radical

personality renewal.

Rev. John Climacus teaches that “repentance is for

with God about the correction of life"4. Repentance could not

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 come with us.

to serve 11 people throughout their earthly life, which is not

leave until the last breath. A person who wants to become God must strive to become like Siso, who, despite his obvious holiness to those around him, dying, said: “Truly, I do not know about this.”

did I also suppose the beginning of a show515.

Theology is impossible without the fact that in the Holy Fathers

literature is called the word ~ascesis" (aOXll01<;), т. е. неп

full ascetic effort in the broadest sense

this word. Studying theology presupposes

eventually become a theologian... - keep the commandments and

I Gregory LogosJlov, saint. Word 27, against the Eunomnans and about God, the first I.JI preliminary/ / Gregory the Theologian, holy. Sobra

TI:IOre~JIY. T. 1. P. 386.

1 Joshllll, Rev. The ladder. P.250. Word30, 20.

) Gregory the Theologian, St. Word 28, about theology second/ / Gr

ry theologian, saint. Collection of creations. T. 1. P. 391.

I Joaflfl, Rev. Ladder. P.70. Word5, 1.

5 Ancient patericon, from the south according to GJfaBaM. M., ]899. WITH.

Ch. 20, 6.

EXTERNAL

act from commands. For deeds, like steps, lead to

contemplation"" .

Finally, there cannot be genuine theology without prayer. According to the teaching of the Fathers of the Church, theology and prayer are closely related to each other, Genuine God

The word is always connected with prayer, the glorification of God, the desire of a person to “become a hymn” for the glory of God.

St. Diadochos says that theology is “a certain fiery

change illuminates our mind and through this makes it a leader of ministering spirits... and in the souls of people... having arranged the divine

songs, this divine bride sings loudly

the greatness of God"2, And the Venerable Isaac the Syrian instructs: "To the word

the sacraments themselves contained in the Divine Scripture, do not approach without prayer and asking for help from God, but say: “Grant me, Lord, to REALIZE the feeling contained in them strength." Consider prayer as the key to true understanding

spoken in the Divine Scriptures."

It is obvious that the language of the holy fathers is very different from the language ka modern Christian. You can often hear how

a man who revealed his ignorance in matters of theology (after a remark was made to him), almost with pride

declares: “You know, I’m not a theologian,” But a theologian is one who PRAYS. This thought of Evagrius should warn Chris tian from this kind of statement, because in reality they are saying: “I don’t pray and don’t even strive

to that".

4, Hesychia. According to St. fathers, cannot be REQUIRED th theology without inner silence and heartfelt silence.

In Ps. 45:11 says: Be still and know that I am God. The word “stop” in the Greek text of the psalm corresponds to

okholsua "p; (plural imperative from the verb okhola~w). This verb was used in ancient times in various senses, among other things

I Gregory the Theologian, saint. Word 20, about the installation of bishops and about the dogma of the Holy Trinity / / Grigory BOGOSJIOV, removed. Collection of works

ny. T. 1. P. 305.

2 Diadokh Photikiskiu, blessed. Ascetic word.67 // Good

love. T. 3. P.45.

3 Isaac the Syrian, nрen. Word85 // Like the saints of our father Abba Isaac the Syrian Words of asceticism. M.: Rule of Faith, 1993.

Introduction

it could mean “spend time in conversations with the student”

scientists and philosophers, to be a listener and a student."

Surely, true theology is not a conversation

God, but also listening to God, which presupposes the silence of the Holy. Gregory the Theologian asks the question: “When can one [practice theology]?” And he answers: “Whenever we are

gored by external mud and rebellion... For we really need

stop to understand God (Ps. 45: 11 ">2.

This kind of thought \10WOULD seem unexpected

which is a theoretical pursuit, something akin to philosophy,

We associate hesychasm with Christian mysticism, with

the highest peaks. But in reality, in the tradition of the Orthodox Eastern Church, opposition

theology and mysticism never existed. “Theology and mysticism are by no means opposed

on the contrary, ()they neither support nor COMPLETE each other. First

impossible without the second: if the mystical experience is a personality

new manifestation of the common faith, then theology is the common faith

the expression of what can be experienced by everyone, Outside and

of the mud preserved by the entire Church, personal experience would be deprived

all reliability, all objectivity; it would be

a mixture of true and false, real and Ij) ILLUSOR, uh

would be ""v1ISTIUISM" In bad S\1YSL~ this word, With friend

hand, the teaching of the Church would have no impact

per person's soul, if it did not somehow express the inner

of the experience of truth given in different “measures” to everyone in

Ruyushumu. So, there is no Christian mysticism without theology

more importantly, there is no theology without mysticism.”3

But which of us has the courage to engage in theology?

or call yourself a theologian? Let's pose the question in another way

I Weisman A.D. Greek-Russian dictionary. St. Petersburg, 1882. Col. 121

1211. 2 Gregory the Theologian, St. Slovo27, against the Eunomians and O God

vii first or preliminary // Gregory the Theologian, saint. Assembled

creations. vol. 1. P. 386. .

3 Losskii V.N. Essay on the mystical bosom of the EASTERN Zevi / / Lossky V. N. Essay on the mystical god of the Eastern Hierarchy

in and. Dogmatic theology. M.: Center "SEI", 1991. P. 9-10. Cl.a.J

Losskiu V.N. Essay on the MIl,;tical theology of the Eastern Church.)

INTRODUCTION

Gomu: can BOGOS;10vie be an academic discipline, pre

submitted to academia and university? Is it even possible organize exams in theology, objectively evaluate students' knowledge?

Indeed, this is not an idle question, because studying theology requires great responsibility from a person

Metropolitan Kallist DIOC.Jliyskiy everyone who wants to be

Goslovami divides into three categories. The first is the saints, that is, those who have achieved the fullness of personal experience of communion with God; This

theologians in the true sense of the word. The second one includes

those who do not have such completeness, but trust in the OllbITY of the saints.

Such people can also be good theologians, so

say second-level theologians. Finally, to the third

categories, Lord Kallistus includes those who have no experience, and experience (;does not trust saints. They are bad theologians

we, or, simply I"OVOR5l, are not theologians at all1.

AND ALTHOUGH THE MOST of us are far from holiness, nothing

does not prevent us from striving for sainthood and being theologians in the second meaning of this word. We can trust the saints and

testify about how they lived and how they taught.

What is the purpose of such theology? St. fathers, co

whom we consider our teachers in theology, usually

they began to theologize not 110 of their own free will, but under the influence of external circumstances. Almost all Sts. fathers Orthodox Church- these are ascetics, PO.iJ, visionaries, in life

Their plans usually did not include writing textbooks and scientific works. At St. There is even an opinion among fathers that

that it is impossible to theologize while at the heights of the spirit. According to Rev. Dial.okha, to do theology itself

it is only possible when a person is characterized by “average measures”

ity in spiritual excitement"2.

Archim. Sophrony (Sakharov) conveys the words of the prefi.

I SM. : Kallist DiOICliysky, en. THEOLOGICAL education in Scripture and St. fathers. P.151.

Metropolitan Callistus notes that this classification of theologians does not belong to him personally, but to the saint. Gregory Palamas, however, does not give any references to the works of Thessalon of the Ikian saint.

2 Diadochos of Photicus, blessed. Ascetic word.8 // Philokalia. T. 3. P. 11.

Introduction

Silouan of Athos, his teacher:< Можно С увереннос­ тью сказать, что никто из святых не стал бы искать словесно­

th expression of his spiritual experience and would forever remain

in silence... if he would not have had the task of teaching his neighbor; if love did not give rise to the hope that at least someone, at least one DUTlla... would hear the word and, VOSIFRINYAV

repentance, Sllasstsyu)1.

In addition to the task of teaching one’s neighbor, there is another task,

which is even more relevant these days - not

only teach another, pass on your experience to him, but also protect

to learn the experience of the Church from various RO.·Sh distortions.

As we can see, both of these tasks ARE practical.

Theology does not exist to increase

state knowledge, but for solving very specific problems

life and the Church. According to V.N. Lossky, “Christian

godliness is ultimately always only (;remediation, only

a certain body of knowledge that should serve that

goal, "surpasses all knowledge. This ultimate goal is

union with God, or deification, which the verse speaks of

exact fathers.. .. Christian theory has the highest meaning

highly practical... "2. The ultimate goal of BUGOSHLOVIY 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

this knowledge is not necessary at all), but bringing a person

to living communication with God, to that fullness of vision where words

become OUT OF I UNIMI.

for those who are just beginning to study theology,

There are always many different confusions and questions.

Naturally, these questions must be removed, searched for

answers, because a person with double thoughts Hi:: is firm in

in all their ways (James 1:8). However, it must be kept in mind that

paths of rational knowledge, theological questions are never

not CMOI"YT be completely resolved. Fallen human

the mind is arranged in such a way that no matter how much we answer

his questioning, he will always re-ask."1, us but

new and new questions, demanding more and more from us

I Sophrony (Sakharov), Archimandrite CTapeu Silouan. Paris, 1952. P.82.

Lossky V. N. Essay on the 1stistic theology of the Eastern Church

in and. P. 10.

INTRODUCTION E

“clarifications” of our faith, all of its exact FORMULATIONS are used

mud, thus leading us away from true spiritual life

nor by turning it into a purely intellectual exercise.

Therefore, it would be appropriate to end the introductory chapter of the CJIO with you the Savior: I will see you again, and your heart will rejoice, and no one will take away your joy from you; and on that day you will not ask Me anything (John 16:22-23).

PART ONE

INTRODUCTION

IN DOGMATIC THEOLOGY

[dogmatics], a section of theology aimed at revealing, justifying and systematically presenting Christ. dogmas. As an independent theological science and academic discipline, D. b. arose in the XVII-XVIII centuries. in the West as a result of the differentiation of theology, which occurred in line with the general specialization of knowledge. At the same time, the term “D.” itself arose. b." Since in various Christians. In confessions, the volume of dogmas, their content and interpretation do not always coincide; corresponding epithets are used to indicate the confessional features of dogma, for example: Orthodox. D. b., Catholic. D. b., Lutheran. D. b. etc. In Protestantism D. b. often also called systematic theology. The main sections of D. b. are triadology, anthropology, amartology, christology, soteriology, pneumatology, ecclesiology, sacramentology and eschatology.

History of Orthodox D. b.

Dogmas, according to Orthodoxy. teaching, there are revealed truths. Accordingly, the only infallible source of Orthodoxy. D. b. Divine Revelation expressed in the Holy Scriptures is recognized. Scripture and Holy Legends. The tradition is considered in the Orthodox Church. traditions in 2 inseparable aspects: “vertical” and “horizontal”, i.e., on the one hand, as the direct enlightening influence of the Holy Spirit in the Church and, on the other hand, as the historical transmission in it of the “law of faith” and “law of prayer” " The “horizontal” aspect of Tradition has never been subject to special codification in Orthodoxy. Nevertheless, it is possible to identify a certain list of church-historical sources that have Orthodox. t.zr. unconditional doctrinal authority and serving as the foundation for the Orthodox Church. D. b. This is, first of all, the Nicene-Constantinople Creed and the dogmatic decrees (oros) of the 7 Ecumenical Councils, as well as the dogmatic definitions of the Polish Councils of 879-880, 1156-1157 and 1341-1351.

Along with dogmatic definitions stands the liturgical Tradition of the Church. “It can be said without exaggeration that the anaphora of the liturgies of St. Basil the Great and St. John Chrysostom in its theological and dogmatic authority is in no way inferior to the dogmatic decrees of the Ecumenical Councils" ( Vasily (Krivoshein). 2003. P. 84).

An authoritative source of Orthodoxy. D. b. is also the patristic heritage as a whole. But, taking into account the large number, diversity and unevenness of what was written by the fathers, Church Tradition never attempted to codify the c.-l. a certain corpus of patristic works, which would fully correspond to the principle of consensus patrum. Nevertheless, in Orthodoxy the conviction is generally accepted that only on the basis of patristic thought can Christ be correctly understood. creed in all its integrity and completeness. " Ecumenical Councils began their dogmatic decrees with the words “Following the holy fathers,” thereby expressing their conviction that loyalty to them in spirit is the main sign of Orthodox theology” (Ibid. p. 85).

Unlike Western Christians. Orthodox denominations The 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 (see art. Doctrine).

Question about Orthodox sources. D. b. associated with the problem of the so-called symbolic books of Orthodoxy. Churches, 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" (Glubokovsky N. N. Orthodoxy in its essence // Orthodoxy: Pro et contra. St. Petersburg, 2001. P. 182-198) . The emergence of these confessions dates back to the period of the decline of Orthodoxy. 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 of theological terms that were not characteristic of it, but also of 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 Orthodoxy. D. b., “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” (There same. pp. 82-83).

Tasks, method and structure of Orthodox D. b.

In Orthodox tradition, the dogmatic teaching of the Church is not considered as abstract, purely theoretical knowledge. The Church does not theologize for the sake of theology itself, does not create doctrinal systems for the sake of the systems themselves. “Christian theology, in the final analysis, is always only a means, only a certain body of knowledge that must serve that goal that surpasses all knowledge. This ultimate goal is union with God or deification, which the Eastern fathers talk about” (V. Lossky. Mystical theology. P. 10).

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 St. secret viewers. 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, according to its purpose, D. b. is a sign system that gives a person the right perspective on the path to salvation, understood in Orthodoxy. traditions as deification. The most important characteristic of Orthodoxy. D. b. is its soteriological orientation. D. b. 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 the Bible 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 D. b. it is important to show the historical context in which the dogmas were comprehended and formulated in the language of concepts (see Art. Determination of Faith).

D. b. 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 XVII-XVIII centuries. first a Protestant. and Catholic, and then Orthodox. in theological science, dogmatics acquired a clear structure and began to be built in accordance with 2 main sections: “About God in Himself” (De Deo ad intra) and “About God outside” (De Deo ad extra), each of which was divided into subsections , containing the relevant chapters. The section “About God in Himself” was divided into 2 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 certain dogmatists, in general it was generally accepted in Orthodoxy. D. b. XVIII - beginning XX 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 dogmatic idea accepted as key, e.g. 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.

Attitude D. b. to other theological sciences

D. b. 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 biblical literature. and contribute to their correct interpretation. Asceticism, pastoral theology, moral theology, homiletics, and church law point to the practical application of substantiated d.b. truths and their vitality. Comparative (accusatory) theology and apologetics, considering the doctrine of the Orthodox Church. Church in comparison, on the one hand, with heterodox dogma and, on the other, with non-Christ. worldviews, rely on D. b. and at the same time they give him material for a more detailed understanding and interpretation of dogmas. In addition, in D. b. individual achievements of secular sciences, especially philosophy, are also used. terms and concepts of which found their application in Christ. theology.

Systematization of Christian doctrine in the ancient Church. Historical review

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 Christians. teachers - sschmch. Justin the Philosopher, Athenagoras, sschmch. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Theophilus of Antioch, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and others.

The first systematic exposition of Christ. creed appeared op. Origen (late 2nd-3rd century) “De principiis” (On the principles), in which the sources of the doctrine of the Church are indicated - Holy. Scripture and Holy Tradition, and then the main dogmas are sequentially considered - about the Most Rev. The 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. As presented by Christ. 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 symbol of faith of the Church of Jerusalem addressed to the catechumens; “Sacramental teachings” introduce the newly enlightened to Orthodoxy. the doctrine of the main church sacraments - Baptism, Confirmation and 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 the main Christians. dogmas are 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 One. The Trinity and the Divine Names, then sequentially examines the entire history of God's economy - from the Creation of the world to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

In the West The Church's first experiments in the systematic presentation of Christ. creeds were undertaken by the blj. 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.

All R. VIII century a voluminous work by St. John of Damascus' Expositio fidei orthodoxa (An Accurate Statement of the Orthodox Faith), which is a synthesis of patristic theology on key dogmatic issues. He is distinguished by harmony and consistency in the presentation of doctrinal truths, precision of formulation and utmost fidelity to the Holy Scriptures. Scripture and Holy Tradition. The “accurate presentation” was in the Orthodox Church. The Church was the main dogmatic leadership (until the New Age) and had an impact on the development of Orthodoxy. theology has a significant influence. All later (XII-XV centuries) Byzantine. systematic expositions of church doctrine are inferior in depth to the work of St. John of Damascus and are of a compilative nature. These include: “Panoplia Dogmatica” (Dogmatic armor of the Orthodox faith) mon. Euthymius Zigabena, “Thesaurus Orthodoxae Fidei” (Treasury of Orthodoxy) Nikita Choniates, “Dialogus adversus omnes haereses” (Dialogues of church bishops against atheists, pagans, Jews and all heresies about the one faith of the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ) Archbishop. Simeon of Thessalonica.

History of D. b. in the Roman Catholic Church

In the 9th century. in the West Church (the main example in discussions about adoption, predestination, the Eucharist) a scholastic direction in theology began to take shape (Alcuin, Gottschalk, Rabanus the Maurus, Paschasius Radbert, Prudentius, Remigius, John Scotus Eriugena, Ginkmar of Rheims, Ratramnus of Corby, etc.) , some in the 11th century. was developed in the works of Berengar of Tours, Lanfranc of Bec and others and finally, as a special method, formalized by Anselm of Canterbury and P. Abelard. In the 12th century. the scholastic method was developed by Gilbert of Porretan, partly by Hugh of Saint-Victor, and William of Champeaux. 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. Derived 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 (see: Meyendorff. 2005. pp. 107-112), - in this meaning the word “theology” began to be used starting with Abelard.

In formation Catholic. D. b. 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 Christ. doctrines 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 subjected 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 the Catholic Church. un-tah until the Reformation.

Scholasticism reached its highest flowering in the 13th century. XIV century This was facilitated by 2 factors - the appearance of high fur boots and the revival in the West. Europe's interest in Aristotle's philosophy. All R. XIII century arose new form scientific and theological systematization - summa theologiae. The University of Paris became the main center of scholastic theology. The most significant theologians of this period were representatives of the 2 largest monastic orders, Franciscan and Dominican. Franciscan theologians (Bonaventura and others) gravitated towards ch. arr. to traditional for the early Middle Ages. zap. theology to Platonic-Augustinian concepts. Dominicans (Albert the Great, Thomas Aquinas) - to the newly discovered Aristotelianism. A new direction in the West is associated with the name of Thomas Aquinas. theology - “Thomism”; a whole series of Thomist theological developments received in the Catholic Church. Church dogmatic status. A peculiar synthesis of Augustinianism and Aristotelianism was created by the Franciscan John Duns Scotus.

All R. XIV century in university theology the dominant direction was based on philosophical concept nominalism (William of Ockham, Gregory of Rimini, Pierre d'Ailly, etc.). The most influential theologian was Ockham, who abandoned the principle of justification of faith through reason and thereby subjected a radical revaluation of the foundations of previous scholastic systems. In addition, Ockham revived the discussion on one of the most key problems of Western theology - the question of the relationship between free will and grace, emphasizing the essential necessity of human merit for salvation. A number of theologians responded to Occamism by turning to strict Augustinianism. The most famous of them is Thomas Bradwardine, who in his polemical treatise "De Causa Dei contra Pelagium" (On the Divine Cause, Against Pelagius) defended the absolute sovereignty of God, and therefore the idea of ​​predestination. Ockham's soteriology, recognized in the Catholic Church as semi-Pelagianism, reached its logical conclusion in the works of G. Biel (XV century. ).

The later Middle Ages became a time of development in the West. The churches of the mystical movement (Meister Eckhart, G. Suso, I. Tauler, J. van Ruysbroeck, etc.), which arose as a reaction to the extreme rationalism of scholasticism and gave impetus to the theological movement, which was called “new piety” (devotio moderna; G. Groote, Thomas a à Kempis, J. Gerson, etc.).

Despite criticism from different sides, Thomist theology did not completely lose its position either in the late Middle Ages or in the Renaissance. On the eve of the Reformation, it was represented by a number of theologians (Antony of Florence, Peter of Bergamo, Konrad Köllin), the most authoritative of whom was Italian. Dominican Thomas de Vio, known as Card. Cajetan (XVI century).

The impetus for the development of the Roman Catholic The Reformation gave dogmatism. Some theologians saw the reasons for the intellectual crisis that befell the Catholic Church. The Church, in the dominance of scholasticism and, starting from it, 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 one in Catholicism. theology XVI - 1st half. XVII century became a contrarian direction, which saw its task in the precise formulation of Rome. doctrines as opposed to the new Protestants. 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 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, mostly Spanish, who strove for a positive disclosure of dogmas and were guided by the classical scholastic systems. This movement was called the second scholasticism (D. Bañez, L. Molina, F. Suarez, G. Vazquez, etc.).

All R. XVII century A new attempt to overcome scholastic methods in theology was made by Dionysius Petavius. His op. “De theologicis dogmatibus” (On dogmatic theology) contains 10 treatises: on God and His properties; about the Trinity; about angels; about the creation of the world; about the Incarnation; about the sacraments; about laws; about grace; about faith, hope, love and other virtues; about sin, which are combined in 2 main sections - “About God in Himself” and “About God in His actions.” To substantiate dogmas, Dionysius does not use abstract rational arguments, but the authority of the Holy Father. Scriptures and Holy Legends. Initially, the dogmatic method of Dionysius gained only a few. weak imitators (A. Natalis and others), while the majority are Catholic. theologians still adhered to traditions. scholastic approach (C. Frassen, J. B. Gonet, card. Ludovico Vincenzo Gotti, etc.). However, in the beginning XVIII century "De theologicis dogmatibus" is beginning to attract close attention from a wide circle of Catholics. dogmatists and influence them.

In the 18th century Catholic D. b. finally stands out as a special scientific and theological discipline (in Dionysius it is not yet separated from moral theology). Dogmatic systems are now built in accordance with a clearly developed thematic structure on the basis of the biblical-exegetical and church-historical method, which involves turning to the primary sources of doctrine - the Holy. Scripture, ancient creeds and conciliar decisions, patristics, definitions of church magisterium. The presentation of the material itself is no longer so much dialectical as confessional and apologetic in nature. The disclosure of doctrinal provisions begins not with the formulation of a question, as in scholasticism, but with a precise dogmatic formulation accepted as a fundamental thesis; then various authoritative evidence is given to substantiate the thesis and, finally, a theological conclusion is drawn. In accordance with this method, the dogmatic works of F. A. Gervaise, C. Vista, B. Stattler and others were written.

In the 19th century a number of Catholic theologians refuse to use Aristotelian-Thomistic categories and attempt to reveal Christ. creeds based on philosophical movements of the New Age (K. F. Zimmer, F. K. Baader, A. Günther, G. Hermes, G. Klee, F. von Brenner, F. K. Dieringer, F. A. Staudenmaier, etc. .). This direction, called “liberal theology,” turned out to be in conflict with the official. the position of the Roman throne in the person of Popes Pius IX and Leo XIII, who in their conservative doctrinal policy relied on the theology of the ultramontanists who adhered to the neo-scholastic direction (G. Perrone, F. J. Clemens, B. Jungmann, etc.). In 1879, Pope Leo XIII, with his encyclical “Aeterni patris,” proclaimed official Thomism. Catholic system theology and ordered education to be built on its basis.

In the 1st half. XX century Catholic theology developed under the sign of the opposition of the church magisterium to new ideological trends, primarily the major movement, which was called “Catholic modernism.” Representatives of modernism (A. F. Loisy, E. Leroy, M. Blondel, etc.), based, on the one hand, on the developments of the Protestant. Biblical criticism, and on the other hand, from new natural science concepts, took the position of anti-dogmatism and anthropocentrism. In response, the Vatican continued to defend and consolidate Catholicism. doctrine established by the Council of Trent and Vatican Council I. The result of this policy was the new Roman Catholic. the dogma of the taking of the Virgin Mary into Heavenly Glory with soul and body, proclaimed by Pope Pius XII in the apostolic constitution “Munificentissimus Deus” (1950), which was based on the Mariological developments of M. Jugis. In general, the 20th century was marked by Catholicism. D. b. the search for new approaches in the interpretation and disclosure of dogmas (the so-called new theology in the works of K. Adam, E. Krebs, E. Przywara, M. Schmaus, A. de Lubac, card. Iva Kongara, M. D. Chenu, Zh. Danielou, K. Rahner, H. W. von Balthasar, etc.). Adam, relying on historical and theological research, tried to bring dogmatics closer to the personal experience of God, interpreting it in accordance with modern times. trends in philosophy, psychology, phenomenology of religion. Rahner built his theological concept on the basis of the so-called. open or theocentric anthropology. De Lubac, card. Yves Congard, Danielou, von Balthasar resorted to the creative use of Eastern Patristic ideas in their developments. A number of provisions developed by representatives of the “new theology” formed the basis for the decisions of the Vatican II Council.

Protestant D. b.

Initially, Protestantism, which proclaimed the principle of sola Scriptura, was characterized by a sharply critical attitude towards the total systematization of theology, characteristic of the Middle Ages. Catholicism. The early Protestants contrasted the dialectical sophistication of scholasticism with deliberate simplicity and laconicism in the presentation of their own teaching. Biblical Revelation, according to their approach, is not subject to rationalization, it must be reverently experienced by the heart. This is the character of the first Protestant. generalizing theological op. "Loci communes theologici" (1521), written by F. Melanchthon. In his opinion, to perceive the truths of St. The Scriptures should be guided only by spiritual experience (judicio spiritus) and avoid judgments of reason (judicio rationes).

However, the process of fragmentation that began in the Reformation movement was promoted by Protestants. theologians to greater dogmatic precision. Various currents of Protestantism in accordance with the specifics of their own interpretation of the Holy. The Scriptures were gradually formalized into special confessions, the doctrinal basis of which became the so-called. symbolic books - detailed confessions of faith or catechisms that fulfill their role. But soon the need arose for theological clarification of the provisions contained in the symbolic books themselves, which prompted the Protestants. theologians to create voluminous works of a dogmatic nature, in which the doctrine they professed was substantiated and consolidated in increasingly strict forms.

This tendency manifested itself in the 2nd (1535) and especially in the 3rd (1543) editions of Melanchthon’s “Loci communes theologici”, in which the element of rationalization and systematization increased significantly. All major Lutherans. theologians of the 2nd half. XVI century (W. Striegel, N. Sellnecker, A. Chemnitz) were already confidently following the path outlined by Melanchthon. In the 17th century The process of dogmatization of the teachings of the Reformation was completed in the Protestants. orthodoxy, whose representatives, based on formulations taken from symbolic books and accepted as doctrinal premises, built detailed dogmatic systems using scholastic methodology. The most significant of them are “Compendium locorum theologicorum” (1610) by L. Hutter, a 20-volume op. “Loci theologici” (Jena, 1610-1622) by I. Gerhard, “Theologia didactico-polemica” (1685) by I. A. Quenstedt, “Institutiones theologicae dogmaticae” (1723) by I. Buddea.

Reformed philosophy, the first experience of which is the work of J. Calvin “Institutio christianae religionis,” generally developed in the same direction. The most outstanding Reformed dogmatists of the 16th century are T. Beza, R. Heerbout, F. Turretini; their dogmatic systems represent characteristic examples of Protestants. scholastics.

In con. XVII - early XVIII century a reaction to the extreme rationalism of the orthodox trend was pietism, whose ideologists (F. Ya. Spener, A. G. Franke) called for a return to the origins of the evangelical faith, as they understood it, and emphasized religion. feeling, personal piety, contemplative perception of the Holy. Scriptures. The Pietists did not create any works that could be attributed directly to the field of religious philosophy; nevertheless, they influenced the further development of Protestants. theology.

In con. XVIII century mainstream Protestantism. theology becomes rationalism. In accordance with the spirit of the era, theologians of this trend (W. A. ​​Teller, E. L. T. Henke, J. K. R. Eckermann) considered the individual human mind as the highest criterion in assessing and revealing biblical truths. Christ was perceived by them only as the greatest of the teachers of humanity, Christianity was relegated to the level of natural religion. Rationalism was criticized by representatives of the so-called. supranaturalistic movement (S.F.N. Morus, G.K. Storr), who defended the supernatural principle of Christ. faith and the super-rational character of Christ. creeds. However, among Protestants. theologians of the 1st half. XIX century There were also supporters of a compromise between these trends, who believed that the supernatural truths of faith do not contradict human reason and, moreover, can be deduced from it (F. W. F. von Ammon, K. G. Brettschneider).

In the XIX - early XX century Protestantism was dominated by liberal theology, the characteristic features of which are a non-confessional interpretation of the doctrine, its rethinking in the spirit of the German. classical philosophy (I. Kant, J. G. Fichte, F. W. J. Schelling, G. W. F. Hegel, F. Jacobi, L. Feuerbach), adogmatism, moralism, natural science explanation of supernatural biblical facts, criticism of the historical Christianity, etc. Within the framework of this movement, a tradition of biblical criticism was formed (New Tübingen theological school). F. Schleiermacher is considered to be the founder of liberal theology, who systematically outlined his views in the book. "Christian Faith" (1821). Adjacent to this direction are such diverse theologians as K. Daub, F. K. Marheineke, F. Bauer, D. F. Strauss, A. Ritschl, A. von Harnack and others. In contrast to liberal theology, the Neo-Lutheran direction arose (I Martensen, K.E. Luthardt), whose representatives professed strict confessionalism and adhered to dogmatic precision. The most significant Reformed dogmatists of the same time were A. Ebrard and A. Schweitzer. In addition, a number of large Lutherans. It is quite difficult to correlate dogmatists with k.-l. direction or school (I. A. V. Neander, D. Schenkel, H. Kremer, I. H. Dorner, A. Köhler, etc.).

All R. XX century dominant position in the Protestant. theology took the so-called neo-orthodoxy, which, however, did not represent a single theological movement; rather, it was a tendency inherent in a number of major theologians who belonged to various Protestants. denominations. All of them were united by the rejection not only of liberal theology with its historical-critical method, but also of scholasticism. The book of the doorman is considered to be a kind of manifesto of neo-orthodox Protestantism. Reformed K. Barth “Epistle to the Romans” (1919). The principles of neo-orthodoxy were shared to one degree or another by F. Gogarten, E. Thurneysen, C. H. Dodd, E. K. Hoskins, A. T. S. Nygren, G. E. Brunner, R. Bultmann and others. With this The Protestant tradition is also connected with the direction. existentialism (Bultmann, P. Tillich), based on the ideas of S. Kierkegaard, M. Heidegger and others.

From Protestant. dogmatic works of the 20th century. the most famous are the 13-volume “Church Dogmatics” by Barth, “Systematic Theology” by Tillich, “Dogmatics” by Brunner, “Systematic Theology” by L. Berkoff, as well as the works of W. Pannenberg, J. Moltmann, O. Weber, H. Thielicke, D. Blesha, A. Keiper, G. Bavinka, G. K. Berkauwer, C. Hoxha, etc.

Orthodox D. b. New times

Becoming Orthodox. Church science is associated with the founding in 1631 of Metropolitan. Peter (Mogila) 1st in the Orthodox Church. Churches of the scientific and theological school in modern times. meaning (since 1632 college, since 1701 academy). D. b. at this time it had not yet been allocated as a special academic discipline and until 1711 it was taught by studying individual theological and polemical treatises written in Latin. language based on the characteristic Catholic. dogmatic works of the XV-XVI centuries. scholastic method, in accordance with the Crimea, revealed truths were considered as abstract concepts, split into many particular provisions and subjected to detailed analysis with the help of real and imaginary objections, and then confirmed by dialectical arguments. The most significant theologians of the Kiev-Mogila school, along with Peter (Mogila), were Metropolitan. Sylvester (Kossov), abbot. Isaiah (Kozlovsky), archbishop. Lazar (Baranovich), archimandrite. Ioannikiy (Galjatovsky). There are 2 theology courses preserved in manuscript from this period: the 1st, compiled according to Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae, taught in 1642-1656; The 2nd belongs to Joasaph Krokovsky, who read it in 1693-1697.

In the 18th century method of teaching theology in Russian. Theological schools were changed in accordance with the character of the new Protestants. and Catholic. dogmatic systems. The first experience of this kind was the lectures on theology by Archbishop. Feofan (Prokopovich), read by him in Kyiv Academy(1711-1716). Having divided theology into dogmatic and moral, he laid the foundation for Orthodoxy. dogmatics as an independent church science. Based on his lectures, he created the 1st Orthodox Church. Church system D. b. Finish writing it by Archbishop. Theophanes did not have time - this was done by his successors, Archimandrites David (Nashchinsky), Nikodim (Pankratyev), Cassian (Lekhnitsky) and Metropolitan. Samuel (Mislavsky), after she was in the 2nd half. XVIII century was accepted as the main leadership at the Kyiv Academy; published by Metropolitan Samuel (Mislavsky) in 1782. Focused on the dogmatic writings of the Lutherans. theologians of the 17th century, primarily on Gerhard’s “Loci theologici”, the dogmatic system of Feofan (Prokopovich) is divided into 2 parts - “About God in Himself” and “About God in the Outside”. The 1st part sets out the doctrine of God, one in essence and trinity in persons, in the 2nd - about God the Creator of the visible and invisible world and about the Providence of God, general (in relation to all creation) and private (in relation to fallen man). This structure of dividing dogma, despite the fact that individual Orthodox. theologians (Archbishop Gideon (Vishnevsky), Bishop Kirill (Florinsky), Christopher (Charnutsky), etc.) still continued to follow the methodology of the 17th century, which became Russian. dogmatic science c con. XVIII and before the beginning. XX century generally accepted. The closest successors in time were Archbishop. Feofan were archim. Joakinf (Karpinsky), archbishop. Sylvester (Lebedinsky), archbishop. George (Konissky), bishop. Theophylact (Gorsky) (his course on D.B. served as a teaching guide at the MDA in the last quarter of the 18th century) and bishop. Irenaeus (Falkovsky) (in 1802, an abbreviated version of the dogmatic system of Feofan (Prokopovich) was published under the name “Theologiae christianae compendium”, which served as a textbook in the early 19th century).

In the 2nd half. XVIII century Russian becomes the language of scientific theology for the first time. The first experience was the composition of Met. Plato (Levshin) “Orthodox Teaching, or Abridged Christian Theology” (1765); written based on the lessons taught to the heir to the throne, bud. imp. Paul I, is distinguished by conciseness, clear language, and the absence of excessive formalism. Works of Archimandrite Macarius (Petrovich) “Eastern Orthodox Church Teaching” (1763) and Hierom. Juvenal (Medvedsky) “Christian Theology” (1806) are introductory, catechetical in nature and do not meet all the requirements of dogmatic-theological systematization.

In the 19th century direction of development D. b. in Russia was determined by a number of officials. church documents (Consect of Theological Sciences (1812), Charter of Academies and Seminaries (1814), Rules for Teaching Seminary Sciences (1838)), adopted with the aim of reforming the system of theological education. According to the requirements contained therein, teaching D. b. should have been conducted in Russian. language in accordance with a unified plan, method and direction. As a result, several were developed. educational courses (most of them remained in manuscript), the most significant of which are “Dogmatic Theology” by Archpriest. Peter of Ternavsky (1838), “Dogmatic theology of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church, with the addition of a general introduction to the course of theological sciences” Archbishop. Anthony (Amphiteatrova) (1848, had 7 reprints and for 20 years was the standard textbook on biblical biology for seminaries), “Guide to the study of Christian Orthodox dogmatic theology” by Met. Makaria (Bulgakov) (1869). Along with these brief dogmatic manuals, during the same period, 3 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. Makaria became the first in Russia. theology is an attempt at scientific classification and mutual unification of accumulated dogmatic material (Glubokovsky, 2002, p. 7). 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 the West. dogmatic systems of the 17th century. As a thesis, “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” uses a brief formulation of dogma, 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 dogmatic system of the archbishop. Philaret (Gumilevsky) was built in accordance with the rational-philosophical method of Western Christ. early dogmatists XIX century - in particular, the influence of Catholicism is noticeable here. dogmatic systems of G. Klee and F. von Brenner (Malinovsky N., prot. 1910. P. 124). “Written in a philosophical-critical spirit, [it] devotes a lot of space to apologetic-rational explanation and justification of dogmas” (Justin (Popovich). 2006. P. 57). At the same time, the archbishop. Philaret has a desire for historical illumination of dogmas.

Ep. Sylvester (Malevansky) was entirely guided by the historical-dogmatic method, preference was given to it in the new “Charter of Theological Academies” (1869). He traced how dogmas, being immutable revealed truths in their internal content, develop from the formal side and are refined in a historical perspective.

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

Individual dogmatic topics were developed by Metropolitan. Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Archbishop. (afterwards Patriarch) Sergius (Stragorodsky), archimandrite. (afterwards archbishop) Hilarion (Troitsky), prof. A. I. Vvedensky, prot. Pavel Svetlov, Rev. Ioann Orfanitsky, P. P. Ponomarev, A. D. Belyaev Florovsky Rosis, H. Androutsos, K. Diovuniotis, I. Karmiris, P. Trembelas. In the Serbian Church in the beginning. XX century The dogmatic manuals of Archpriest were widespread. Savva Teodorovich, L. Raich, prot. Milos Andzhelkovic, Rev. S. M. Veselinovich; in the present time general recognition in the Orthodox Church. world received the 3-volume “Dogmatics of the Orthodox Church” by Archimandrite. Justin (Popovich). The largest Romanians. 20th century theologian is prot. Dumitru Staniloae, author of the dogmatic codes “Orthodox Christian Teaching” (1952) and “Textbook on Dogmatic and Symbolic Theology” (1958).

Lit.: 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. AND . Comparative assessment of the 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; Felmy K. X . 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.

A. A. Zaitsev