27.11.2019

Dogmatic theology - read, download - Archpriest Oleg Davydenkov. The relationship between Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition. Disputes about the nature and boundaries of knowledge of God in the 4th century

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. confessions, the volume of dogmas, their content and interpretation do not always coincide, to indicate confessional features Dogmatists use appropriate epithets, 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, 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. “The Ecumenical Councils began their dogmatic decrees with the words “Following the holy fathers,” thereby expressing their conviction that faithfulness 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 in Art.).

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 theological terms that are not characteristic of him, but also 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.).

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 (Borisov), the idea of God's love from prof. A.D. Belyaev, 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, and church law point to the practical application of substantiated laws. truths and their vitality. Comparative (accusatory) theology and, considering the doctrine of Orthodoxy. 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 overview

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, smch. 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. The “catechumen teachings” are a dogmatic interpretation of the creed of the Jerusalem Church addressed to the catechumens; the “secret teachings” introduce the newly enlightened to the Orthodox Church. the doctrine of basic 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 model in discussions about adoption, predestination, the Eucharist), a scholastic direction in theology began to take shape (Rabanus the Maurus, Paschasius Radbertus, Prudentius, Remigius, John Scotus Eriugena, Reims, Ratramnus of Corby, etc.), such as in the 11th century was developed in the works of Berengar of Tours, Lanfranc of Bec and others, and finally, as special method, designed 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, 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 a new form of scientific and theological systematization arose - 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 (and others) gravitated towards ch. arr. to traditional for the early Middle Ages. zap. theology to Platonic-Augustinian concepts. Dominicans (, 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 the philosophical concept of nominalism (William of Ockham, Pierre d'Ailly, etc.). The most influential theologian was Ockham, who abandoned the principle of justification of faith through reason and thereby subjected to a radical revaluation of the foundations of previous scholastic systems. In addition In addition, Ockham revived the debate 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 the polemical treatise "De Causa Dei contra Pelagium" (On the Divine Cause, Against Pelagius) defended the absolute sovereignty of God, and consequently, the idea of predestination. Occam's soteriology, recognized in the Catholic Church as semi-Pelagianism, reached its logical conclusion in 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., Thomas a à Kempis, J., etc.).

Despite criticism from various quarters, Thomistic 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., 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, who wrote a voluminous 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. Banes, 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. creed based philosophical movements New times (K.F. Zimmer, F.K., A., G., 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., 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. Yves Kongara, M. D. Chenu, Zh. ., 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 dogmatic character, 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. Buddey.

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., R. Heerbout, F. Turretini; their dogmatic systems represent characteristic examples of Protestants. scholastics.

In con. XVII - early XVIII century Pietism became a reaction to the extreme rationalism of the orthodox trend, the ideologists of which (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, characteristic features which are a non-confessional interpretation of the doctrine, its rethinking in the spirit of dumb. classical philosophy (I. Kant, J. G. Fichte, F. W. J. Schelling, G. W. F. Hegel, F. Jacobi, L. Feuerbach), adogmatism, moralism, natural scientific explanation of supernatural biblical facts, criticism 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). Such diverse theologians as K., F. K. Marheineke, F. Bauer, D. F. Strauss, A. Ritschl, A. von, etc. are adjacent to this direction. 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., A. Koehler, 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., E. Tourneysen, C. H., E. K. Hoskins, A. T. S. Nygren, G. E., R. and others. Tradition is also associated with this direction Protestant. existentialism (Bultmann, P. Tillich), based on the ideas of S. Kirkegaard, 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. Blesch, A. Kuyper, G. Bavinka, G. K. Berkauver, 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 singled out 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), which he read at the 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. Theophan did not have time - this was done by his successors, Archimandrites David (Nashchinsky), Nikodim (Pankratyev), Cassian (Lekhnitsky) and Metropolitan. Samuil (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 Ternavsky (1838), “Dogmatic theology of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church, with the addition general introduction in 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.

In the 20th century in Russian theology emigration, a conceptual approach prevailed in the coverage of dogmatic issues. Prot. Sergius considered church dogmas in connection with the religious and philosophical idea of Sophia. Prot. Nicholas used the principles of the so-called as the starting point for his theological developments. Eucharistic ecclesiology. Prot. Georgy Florovsky, protopr. John Meyendorff and V.N. Lossky called for a creative revival of patristic dogmatic consciousness. P. N. Evdokimov, Archpriest also worked in the field of dogmatics. Boris Bobrinsky, S. S. Verkhovskoy and others.

In Russia, starting from the 50-60s. XX century D. b. began to be revived thanks to the works of Rev. Liveria Voronova, Rev. 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 20th centuries. From Greek The most famous dogmatists are Z. 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 Orthodox Church» 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.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.

Dictionary foreign words Russian language

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.

Today, theology is understood as a set of religious sciences, among which there are basic, comparative moral, and pastoral sciences, but theology in the proper sense of the word is dogmatic theology.

A few words about the term “theologian.” How honorable the title of “theologian” was in ancient times is evidenced by the fact that among the host of saints of the Orthodox Church, only three saints of God were awarded this high title. Firstly, this is John the Theologian, the author of the fourth Gospel, who laid the foundations for the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and was the link that connects Divine Revelation with patristic theology. Secondly, this is Saint Gregory the Theologian, who defended the Orthodox teaching of the Holy Trinity during the fierce trinitarian disputes of the 4th century and sang the Most Holy Trinity in his poetic works. And, finally, Simeon the New Theologian, an ascetic who lived at the turn of the 10th-11th centuries, who, based on personal experience, sang in his “Divine Hymns” the union of man with the Triune Divinity.

So there are not too many theologians in theology. The word “theology” itself does not appear immediately in the Christian lexicon. Even the apostolic men and apologists of the second century were wary of it, since it reminded them of the philosophical speculations of pagan thinkers. The word “theology” was first introduced into the Christian lexicon by the apologist of the second half of the 2nd century, Athenagoras of Athens. With this term he designated the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. This word finally gained a foothold in the Christian dictionary somewhat later, mainly thanks to the Alexandrian theological school, such representatives as Clement of Alexandria and, in particular, Origen (1, 1).

However, the holy fathers, when using the term “theology,” often used it in a meaning noticeably different from the one in which we understand it today. For example, Evagrius of Pontus, an author of the 4th century, writes: “If you are a theologian, then you will pray truly, and if you pray truly, then you are a theologian.”

Saint Diadochos of Photikis (5th century) said that theology “conveys the greatest of gifts to the soul, uniting it with God in an indestructible union.”

In some of the holy fathers one can find real hymns to theology, for example, Peter of Damascus calls theology the highest of the eight degrees of spiritual contemplation, the eschatological reality of the future age, which allows us to come out of ourselves in ecstatic admiration.

Thus, theology means something more to the Holy Fathers than it means to us. Although the holy fathers were not alien to the modern understanding of this word, that is, the understanding of theology as a systematic presentation of Christian doctrine using the abilities human mind, since reason is a gift of God and should not be denied, but such an understanding was secondary.

First of all, theology was understood as a vision of the God of the Trinity, which presupposes not only the work of the human mind, but also the full participation of the human person. Consequently, it must include both the ability of intuitive spiritual comprehension, what in patristic language is called by the Greek word “νοΰς” (“mind”), and the participation of the human heart (καρδία), naturally, in the biblical and patristic, and not in the anatomical sense of this words. We can say that among the holy fathers, “theology” (θεολογία) is practically synonymous with the word “theory” (θεωρία), contemplation, which presupposes direct communication with the living God, and, therefore, an inextricable connection with prayer.

Another essential point of the patristic teaching on theology: theology must necessarily be integral part man's complete service to God. Genuine theology is not speculative schemes and textbooks, genuine theology is always alive, therefore it is always liturgical, mystical, doxological.

“This is a gift of God, the fruit of the inner purity of a Christian’s spiritual life. Theology is identified with the vision of God, with the direct vision of the personal God, the personal experience of the transformation of creation by uncreated grace. Theology is not a theory of the world, a metaphysical system, but an expression and formulation of the experience of the Church, not an intellectual discipline, but experiential communication, communion” (Quoted by).

Although the word “theology” does not appear in Holy Scripture, we can nevertheless find many places in the Bible where the nature of theology is spoken of. Let us dwell on five biblical texts that allow us to partially understand what the essence of theology is.

1. In. 1, 18: “No one has ever seen God; The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has revealed.”

[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.

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).

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.

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 overview

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 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. The “catechumen teachings” are a dogmatic interpretation of the creed of the Jerusalem Church addressed to the catechumens; the “secret teachings” introduce the newly enlightened to the Orthodox Church. 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.

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 Radbertus, 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.

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 a new form of scientific and theological systematization arose - 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 the philosophical concept of 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 to 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 Among them is Thomas Bradwardine, who in the polemical treatise “De Causa Dei contra Pelagium” (On the Divine Cause, Against Pelagius) defended the absolute sovereignty of God, and consequently, the idea of predestination. Ockham’s soteriology, recognized in the Catholic Church as semi-Pelagianism, reached logical conclusion in the works of G. Biel (XV 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.).

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.

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.

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 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 and others.

Orthodox D. b. New times

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 at the 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 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.

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

The proposed course of lectures is a transcript of a tape recording and is intended, first of all, for students of full-time and correspondence departments of the 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 term “theology” itself is an ancient Greek term; the Greeks called those who taught about the gods theologians.

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: A course of lectures. 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

gmatov), accepted by the entirety of the 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. the plural of “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.

That's why the following property d

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 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 Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition two different ways dissemination and preservation of 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 tradition

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

This is all historical sources and ways of truly knowing the Christian Revelation, in addition to 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

There are a large number of different 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.

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 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 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 of theological terms 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 Orthodox dogmatic theology, “as not having a general church character in their origin, as usually not high 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. pp. 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 of 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. Extracted from revealed sources, a dogma was first established as an initial thesis, then subjected to critical evaluation, so that ultimately a new theological “discovery” was made through intelligent interpretation. A logical connection was established between various dogmas, uniting them into a formally consistent system. This approach involved identifying the implicit truths of faith, which, when revealed through the intellect, were called theological conclusions. Thus, theology began to be perceived no longer as an experimental knowledge of God, the fruit of spiritual contemplation, but as one of the scientific disciplines, although the first among others - in this sense the word “theology” began to be used, starting with Abelard.

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

The impetus for the development of Roman Catholic dogmatics was given by the Reformation. Some theologians saw the reasons for the intellectual crisis that befell the Catholic Church in the dominance of scholasticism and, starting from it, 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 the entire dogmatic system of V. Lossky was the doctrine of the Divine energies of St. 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, 20 06.
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 newest condition. - Warsaw, 1928. - P. 6.

Style secrets

1 0 0

If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl+Enter.

Dogmatic theology - read, download - Archpriest Oleg Davydenkov. The relationship between Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition. Disputes about the nature and boundaries of knowledge of God in the 4th century

History of Orthodox D. b.

Tasks, method and structure of Orthodox D. b.

Attitude D. b. to other theological sciences

Systematization of Christian doctrine in the ancient Church. Historical overview

History of D. b. in the Roman Catholic Church

Protestant D. b.

Orthodox D. b. New times

History of Orthodox D. b.

Tasks, method and structure of Orthodox D. b.

Attitude D. b. to other theological sciences

Systematization of Christian doctrine in the ancient Church. Historical overview

History of D. b. in the Roman Catholic Church

Protestant D. b.

Orthodox D. b. New times

Introduction

Literature.

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

1.2. Properties of dogmas.

1.2.1. Theology (doctrinality).

1.2.2. Godly revelation.

1.2.3. Churchness.

1.2.4. Legal binding (generally binding).

1.3. Doctrines and theological opinions

1.4. Dogmas and dogmatic formulas and theological terms

1.5. Dogmatic systems (historical review)

2. Development of dogmatic science

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

2.2. The theory of "dogmatic development"

2.3. Orthodox view on the development of dogmatic science

2.4. Tasks and method of theological dogmatic science

Literature

Section II

Sacred Tradition

1. Holy Scripture about Holy Tradition

2. The concept of Sacred Tradition

2.1. The relationship between Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition

2.2. Understanding Sacred Tradition in Modern Orthodox Theology

2.3. Formal tradition

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

1.1. Natural knowledge of God (natural Revelation)

1.2. Supernatural knowledge of God

2. The nature and boundaries of knowledge of God

2.1. Disputes about the nature and boundaries of knowledge of God in the 4th century

2.1.1. Eunomian doctrine

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

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

2.2.1. Doctrine of Barlaam of Calabria

3. The concept of apophatic and cataphatic theology

History of Orthodox dogmatic theology

Tasks, method and structure of Orthodox dogmatic theology

The relationship of dogmatic theology to other theological sciences

Systematization of Christian doctrine in the ancient Church

History of Dogmatic Theology in the Roman Catholic Church

Protestant dogmatic theology

Literature

Used materials

Editor's Choice