Captivity by scholasticism and liberation by sophistry

Or again about the “legal” theory of atonement In the published article by Alexander Buzdalov, it becomes clear whether the interpretation of the dogma of atonement in the theology of Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov) corresponds to patristic models. The material also contains an attempt to trace the logic of the misconceptions of the bishop’s critics. “Scholasticism among Western heretics replaced religious life with its varied colors of feeling, with its beautiful impulses of will. In Western religious thinking, scholasticism dominates: Catholics study according to Thomas Aquinas, Protestants took up religious thinking for its own sake, without any connection with life. Even ancient church writers reproached heretics for rationalism and Western heretics for rationalism, but Orthodox theologians began to reproach them, starting with A.S. Khomyakov." “...there is talk about redemption, about liberation from punishment for sin’s offense against the truth of God. Christianity turns into some kind of meaningless trade deal with the Lord God. When our school theology fell under the harmful influence of Western theology, then we began to philosophize in a similar way" 1 . In the last arch. Hilarion Troitsky also follows Khomyakov, who reproached not only Western heretics for this “legal-commercial,” Roman-Judaic rationalism, but who argued that the author of the academic “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology,” Metropolitan Macarius of Moscow, “stank of scholasticism” 2 . With Khomyakov’s suggestion, this vivid image has taken root so much that “at present, in Russian theology, the legal understanding of atonement should be considered abandoned and its influence overcome” 3 . In fairness, it must be said that a more restrained disapproving assessment of the rationalistic-scholastic way of presenting Orthodox dogma by Metropolitan. Macarius was also given by such authoritative contemporaries as Saints Philaret (Drozdov) and Ignatius (Brianchaninov), which not only adds solidity to the critics of the “legal” theory, but, it would seem, actually removes the issue from discussion. The use of Met. Macarius, during his work on heterodox systematic expositions of the principles of faith and the borrowing of their form and partly terminology, was indirectly noted in his review by Saint Innocent of Kherson. However, according to the latter, this fact is an advantage, and not a disadvantage of the work: Western theological science served not only as a model of the external system (“scientific processing”), but also, as they say, apagogically, or for consistent refutation (as, in fact, the dogmas themselves were formulated during the Ecumenical Councils - in direct repulsion from false teachings): “The most foreign theological literatures, despite their long-standing development and centuries-old improvements, do not represent, especially in modern times, works with such merits as the Orthodox dogma of the Right Reverend Macarius. Theology, as a science, has been moved far forward by this multi-learned creation and has gained a lot by the fact that it is completely exposed in it from scholasticism and the Latin language <...> depicted with all force <...> those dogmas and positions by which the Orthodox Eastern Church differs from all other Christian faiths” 4. Be that as it may, but if we compare “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” and the educational “Guide to Dogmatic Theology” compiled on its basis by Metropolitan Macarius with his (then still a hieromonk) early work “Extracting dogmatic passages from the writings of St. Demetrius of Rostov,” then no significant difference is found either in the general plan of presentation or in the content. Another circumstance that does not allow us to completely turn this page of church history is that all those dogmas, catechisms and exegeses that were written to correct the shortcomings of the work of the Most Reverend Macarius (as well as the same Metropolitan Philaret), paradoxically turned out to be different and often even greater shortcomings and deviations from the patristic teaching. So, it would seem, the skeptical judgment of St. Ignatius about this classic textbook on dogmatic theology now unexpectedly acquires a new meaning: “For lack of a better [book], I consider sending Macarius’ Theology, which has been much damaged by the school [scholastic] system...” 5 So, to the rationalism of scholasticism (“dry one-sidedness,” “lifeless” logic and similar “damages” of scientific systematicity and transparency), the new Russian theology contrasts the “completeness” and “complex” breadth of “experiential knowledge of God,” church “life with its varied colors of feeling, with its beautiful impulses of the will,” in a word, Christian intuitionism and irrationalism, characteristic of both affirmed, ancient Orthodoxy and Eastern theology. However, already here the new school had its own pitfall, which went unnoticed. At present, the Western roots of Slavophile intuitionism itself are no longer a secret, which is directly related at least not only to patristic thought, with which the Slavophiles were less familiar than with German idealism (romantic transcendentalism) 6 . Actually, St. Khomyakov almost never quotes fathers, apparently relying on his natural intuition for this. “The purely external and, therefore, rational law has taken the place of the moral and living law, which alone is not afraid of rationalism, for it embraces not only the human mind, but also his entire being” 7 . This is a typical contrast of Schellingian and generally romantic epistemology with the “living” intuitive knowledge of the “dead” rationality of their opponents: both terminologically (the only thing missing is the definition of one’s exclusive understanding as “organic”, as highly “living” and creative, as the actualization of the World Spirit, or Mind, but it is used by Khomyakov in another article from this series), 8 and in terms of the idea of the mythical wholeness of “the whole being of man”, that is without the Orthodox, as such, division of the new and old Adam, as a result of which the “living organic matter” of fallen nature, or the totality of sinful passions and opinions, turns out to be an integral part of this experienced intuitionism (“the fullness of the human spirit”) 9. This imposes a clear romantic character on the theology of the Slavophiles, which in excessive polemical enthusiasm was accepted by Russian theology of the early 20th century as patristic. Appeal to the dogmatic theology of Metropolitan. Macarius shows as the first difference the absence of this “beautiful” irrational fog, in which (as if in a mystical “cloud” of the Divine presence) anything can be smuggled in. The most prosaic theological work is going on here. The theologian has no privileged relationship with the Spirit of Truth, no special “experiential” closeness to God, so dogmas are no longer written for one who has become a “friend” and “son” of God, and not just a worker. Here, humbly, just like schoolchildren, they follow immutable models, carefully (using the compass and ruler of classical logic) verify the correctness of each step, compliance with the standards of “weights and measures” stored in the Holy Scriptures and Tradition. “Only the light that comes from heaven and penetrates the whole soul of a person can show him [the mind] the way; only the power bestowed by the Spirit of God can lift him to those inaccessible heights where the Divine appears. “Only he can understand a prophet who is a prophet himself,” says St. Gregory the Wonderworker..." 10 Indeed, Met. Macarius, unlike Alexei Khomyakov, “himself,” of course, was not a “prophet” and a “miracle worker,” rightfully ascending to “impregnable heights,” because “the wisdom of God, secret and hidden (see: 1 Cor 2, 7), is accessible to few and is not accepted by a spiritual person (see: 1 Cor 2, 14). Therefore, such attempts remain mainly convincing words of human wisdom (see: 1 Cor 2:4) - they are always determined by the worldview of their time, because otherwise they would not satisfy their contemporaries and would not achieve their goal, which is why they soon grow old and change. But their relative nature does not diminish their significance: their necessity is clarified from the constant need for them, and they are accepted by the Church as the work of human thought put at the service of Divine revelation" 11 . At the same time, we should not forget that such a “human (spiritual)” gnosis always strives to mix with the “wisdom of God,” which itself never sees its own determination by the “worldview of its time,” but considers itself precisely the “wisdom of God.” In this regard, I would again like to draw attention to the new meaning of the critical judgment about the work of Metropolitan. Macarius of his more venerable contemporary (this time Metropolitan Philaret), who unexpectedly turns out to be much more suitable to his subsequent opponents: “Let it be allowed to also suggest that when drawing up arguments for which? either the truth or the solution of the question was intensified and significant attention was paid to whether a certain thought has a strict dogmatic meaning, or owes its origin to free pious contemplation, or is there only a moral application of dogma, and that, accordingly, each thought was accepted in its inherent measure of strength and was expressed with the accuracy characteristic of it, so that the vague expression of one truth does not cast a shadow on another” 12. In our opinion, it is in this component that the advantage of Metropolitan’s dogma lies. Macarius before his opponents: not because the first one had everything in this regard impeccably, but because these very shortcomings became so worse in later works. Rightly neglecting the base self-interest and blasphemous jurisprudence of Western scholasticism, Russian comprehensive theological voluntarism contrasts it with “ancient church theology,” which “was imbued with completely different ideas. The idea of ​​renewal of human nature, the idea of ​​its deification through the incarnation of the Son of God, dominated there. Sin is not a crime, but a disease, the corruption of nature, which is internally associated with suffering, while liberation from sin, from corruption, gives bliss. Virtue itself is bliss, and sin is suffering. And it’s wonderful that in our worship services you encounter these very thoughts at every step. Our worship is a living element of the ancient church patristic sublime theology. Anyone who is at all familiar with the ancient church teaching about salvation will hear echoes of this lofty teaching in almost every prayer, in almost every stichera.”13 That is, “ancient church theology” still had its own “thoughts,” “ideas,” and “teaching” (and not a complete “living element”), and rather different types of epistemology are opposed, because in any knowledge (and theology is no exception) one cannot do without “dry” systematization as a necessary scientific basis, or precisely without “scholasticism.” The inconsistency of this criticism of Synodal scholasticism for its very “scholasticism” (rational rigor) on the part of neo-Slavophile theology is obvious. “Historical circumstances very soon prompted the Christian Church to more precisely define certain subjects in its teaching. These circumstances were created primarily by the historical environment into which Christianity entered. This historical environment very soon declared itself as something special, as a certain opposition to Christianity, and Christianity had to one way or another determine its relationship to this historical environment” 14. So, is it really possible that by the beginning of the twentieth century such fundamental changes had taken place in the “historical environment” that unanimity faded into the background and became not so significant for the Church? It is hardly possible to seriously assert this. Therefore, strictly speaking, only the “commercial-legal” content of synodal “scholasticism” can the claims of “organic” theology be appropriate. Let us remind you once again that the interpretation of the dogma of atonement as “exemption from punishment for sin’s offense against the truth of God” is categorically denied (as Western heretical, or influenced by it). The truly Orthodox meaning of redemption is declared to be “the idea of ​​renewal of human nature, the idea of ​​its deification through the incarnation of the Son of God.” There is no need to remind that in the Holy Scriptures all these commercial legal terms and images are present in huge quantities, and we will not refer to them here for the simple reason that, as a rule, it is not this terminology itself that is denied, but its literal understanding (although there is also an argument of incorrect synodal translation). Legal terms, according to intuitive theology, must be understood as allegories, as the metalogical language of a parable, adapted to the perceiving consciousness and therefore only approximately expressing an essence that is more complex and generally lies in a completely different (moral) area. Therefore, we will focus specifically on interpretations in order to compare synodal and patristic exegesis, because it is precisely the distortion of the second that the new theory blames on the first, positioning itself as the revival of the second, primordially church, to which God does not need to “adapt” as to the “understanding of rude people” who are capable of perceiving only “anthropomorphic” images. The main criticisms of the legal theory of atonement are as follows: God is unchangeable. The essence of God is love (and not truth), which never turns into enmity towards those who have sinned. The Cross of Christ is a sacrifice of love on the part of God, and not a sacrifice of God's justice. Sin is a disease (not a crime). Salvation consists in the internal change of a person (healing of the soul) and the change (sanctification) of his life, and not in his external (formal) justification before God as a “world agreement” with Him. Legal relations between God and man are impossible as they presuppose the relative equality of the parties, which is impossible between the Creator and the creature. To begin with, let us pay attention to the confirmation of the “legal” theory of atonement by patristic quotations from Metropolitan himself. Macarius 15, which are not simply ignored by his critics, but which are refuted by the same arguments (inaccuracy of translation or “anthropomorphic” allegory). In addition, we point out a number of works of the same period devoted to the dogma of atonement, where, in our opinion, the correspondence of this theory to orthodox teaching is sufficiently convincing: this is the correspondence of Metropolitan. Veniamina Fedchenkova and architect. Feofan of Poltava 16; Levitov P. “In Defense of the Legal Theory of Atonement” (Faith and Reason. 1916. No. 5); arch. Seraphim Sobolev. “Distortion of Orthodox truth in Russian theological thought” (Sofia, 1943); Aivazov I.G. “Dogma of Redemption” (JMP. 1952. No. 1), etc. So the statement that “the unsatisfactoriness of legal interpretation is clear no less from the futility of attempts to defend it than from direct criticism” 17 cannot be considered objective. At least, this is what we intend to show in this work, citing other evidence from Holy Tradition in favor of the legal theory, in addition to those already cited by its defenders. Let's take the one closest to Metropolitan. Macarius, the recognized theological authority of St. Ignatius, especially since he also spoke unsatisfactorily about the “mechanical-analytical” form of the work. However, the content, in particular the legal interpretation of the dogma of atonement, apparently completely satisfied him. “The method of conception, which imparted sinfulness to life, could not be used at the conception of the God-Man, destined to be an atoning Sacrifice for humanity. The sacrifice for the sinfulness of mankind had to be alien to sin, completely immaculate. This is not enough: it had to be of immeasurable price so that it could redeem humanity, guilty before the infinite God, unredeemable, therefore, by any limited price, no matter how great this price may be. Human nature made the God-Man capable of being a Sacrifice, and Divine nature gave this Sacrifice an immeasurable price” 18. As we see, the idea of ​​sanctification of human nature in St. Ignatius (which he, of course, professed in his soteriology) does not in the least contradict the idea of ​​“an atoning sacrifice for sin,” “an immeasurable price for guilt before God.” But, they will say, this is the same synodal period, the same “Western scholastic captivity” (or even an insertion from the official course that does not belong to the saint, a “Jesuitish” correction of censorship, as is sometimes claimed about similar passages in the Catechism of St. Philaret). Let's say. Let's go further, so to speak, back centuries. “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness. The truth here of course is the one that Christ came to create - the eternal truth, perfected through His intercession for us to God the Father, when He satisfied with His death for the sins of the world and transformed the wrath of God into mercy. Those who hunger and thirst for righteousness are those who, being poor in spirit, weeping and meek, with faith in Christ seek mercy from God, forgiveness of sins and adoption. They also ask for the fruits of this truth, that is, the gifts of the Holy Spirit for doing good deeds” 19. Saint Demetrius of Rostov’s widespread use of school rhetoric techniques and appeal to the experience of Western authors is already an undoubted fact: references and quotes from them are given directly in his works. It is also known that the Right Reverend Demetrius used Latin models while working on his “Book of Lives” for the same purpose (as Metropolitan Macarius) of studying literary form. At the same time, the term “satisfaction” (in the sense of fulfilling what is due or compensating for its damage) is also used by him in asceticism: “How many parts does repentance contain? “Three: 1) contrition for sins, 2) verbal confession of them, 3) satisfaction, that is, the appointment of penances by the confessor” 20. Thus, the Sacrifice of the Redeemer, according to St. Demetrius of Rostov, is like a messianic Penance, “assigned” by God Himself and fulfilled by Christ the High Priest as one of the necessary conditions for the spiritual change of a person. Let us also pay attention to the doctrine of the “fruits of righteousness (redemption)” as “gifts of the Holy Spirit” - this is the fundamental difference between legal theory and “anti-legal” theory. Remembering the strong influence of the works of St. Demetrius on the very formation of dogmatic theology of Metropolitan. Macarius, one can assume rather this (indirect) way of influence of Western scholasticism on the latter. However, all this does not mean a distortion of dogma in either case (although, of course, even the borrowing of terminology, not to mention methodology, does not pass without a trace). So let's continue the comparison. “He is the Lamb whose type is indicated by Moses (Exodus 12) and about whom Isaiah proclaims (53). Christ is called “the Lamb of God” either because God gave Him to die for us, or because God accepted the death of Christ for our salvation. As we usually say: this sacrifice was made by so-and-so, instead of saying: this sacrifice was made by so-and-so; so the Lord is called the Lamb of God because God and the Father, out of love for us, gave Him to be slaughtered for us” 21 . In general, the interpretation of Blessed Theophylact rather combines legal and soteriological theories. “John did not say: “took away” sin, but “takes away,” because every day He takes upon Himself our sins, some through baptism, others through repentance. The lambs that were slain in the Old Testament did not completely destroy any sin; but this Lamb takes upon Himself the sin of the whole world, that is, it destroys, blots out. Why didn’t John say: “sins”, but: “sin”? It may also be because, having said “sin,” he spoke about all sins in general; just as we usually say: “man” fell away from God, instead of “all humanity,” so here he, by saying “sin,” designated all sins. Or maybe because the sin of the world consisted of disobedience, since man fell into passion through disobedience to God, and the Lord made amends for this disobedience, being obedient to death and healing the opposite by the opposite” 22. “He adds: “just as You sent Me into the world... and for them I dedicate Myself,” that is, I sacrifice; so You sanctify them too, that is, set them apart as a sacrifice for preaching and make them witnesses of the truth, just as You sent Me as a witness of the truth and a sacrifice. For everything that is sacrificed is called holy. “So that they too,” like Me, “may be sanctified” and offered to You, God, not as sacrifices under the law, sacrificed in an image, but “in the truth.” For the Old Testament sacrifices <...> in type were dedicated to God, prefiguring something else, spiritual. The souls offered to God are in truth sanctified, set apart and dedicated to God, as Paul says: “present your members as a living sacrifice, holy” (Rom. 12:1). So, sanctify and consecrate the souls of the disciples, and make them true offerings, or strengthen them to endure death for the truth” 23. Of course, here we are talking about the “sacrifice” inherent in the inner life of the Most Holy Trinity, which cannot be an expression of anything other than all-encompassing love, to which the redeemed souls, created in the image and likeness of this Divine essence, are grafted (about which Bishop Macarius says nothing: “Why the Trinitarian God was pleased to redeem us, there is one reason for this: His endless love for us sinners”; “Holy Fathers and Teachers The churches unanimously recognized the reason for the coming of the Redeemer into the world as God’s infinite love for people.” However, also the bl. Theophylact contains the idea of ​​the urgency of the “sacrifice under the law” (“Old Testament”, “prototypical”), where the “imagery” of this “slaughter” is unreasonably understood only as allegorical. Because in this case, the sins for which the guilt is “paid” by these lambs also turn out to be “allegorical”. But sins (iniquities) are absolutely real before God, because they have an equally real reward. Therefore, even without the legal aspect of sacrifice, the soteriological aspect (purifying and sanctifying) is impossible. Although God finds the opportunity to unite them in one Sacrifice (or, as Metropolitan Macarius says, finds “a way to reconcile eternal truth with eternal goodness in the redemption of man, to satisfy both and save the lost”), in one Lamb, fulfilling (making fulfilled, perfect) the old law and therefore only revealing a new (eternal) law - the law of love (or freedom), into the sphere of action of which, however, it is impossible for anyone to escape redeemed. St. has the same thought. Basil the Great: “Since the multitude of sacrifices under the law were rejected as useless, then a single Sacrifice was accepted, offered in recent centuries for the remission of sin. For the Lamb of God took away the sin of the world, presenting to Himself an offering and sacrifice for us to God as a fragrant aroma (Eph 5:2).” “There are no longer the everlasting sacrifices (cf. Exodus 29:42), there are no sacrifices on the day of atonement, there are no ashes of the youth that cleanse the defilements (cf. Heb. 9:13). For one sacrifice is Christ and the death of the saints according to Christ; one sprinkling is the bath of regeneration (cf. Titus 3:5); One propitiation for sin is the Blood shed for the salvation of the world. In order to cancel the first, to establish the second” 24. The sacrifice of the Blood of Christ was offered in fulfillment of the old law, and only in this sense abolishes it. Hence the highest degree of legal significance and therefore the effectiveness of this “sacrifice of propitiation for the sin of the world.” “Why did Christ eat it [the Jewish Passover]? In order to comply with everything required by law. When he was baptized, he said: “Thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15); I have come to redeem man from the curse of the law; for “God sent forth His (Only Begotten) Son, who was born of woman, made subject to the law, to redeem those under the law,” and will bring to an end the law itself (Gal. 4:4-5). Lest anyone say that He abolished the law because He could not fulfill it, as it was heavy, difficult and inconvenient to fulfill, He first fulfilled it in its entirety, and then abolished it. That is why He also celebrated the Passover, because the Passover was prescribed by law” 25. Therefore, St. does not at all disdain. John Chrysostom and the Old Testament “legal-commercial” categories in the interpretation of the dogma of atonement: “Know this also, you who intend to receive the sacrament, I ask you, because this saying is an agreement with the Lord. Just as we, when buying slaves, ask those who are being sold in advance whether they want to serve us, so does Christ: intending to accept you into service, He asks in advance whether you want to leave that ferocious and cruel tyrant, and accepts contractual terms from you, because His power is not combined with coercion. <...> Moreover, we do not at all dare to buy bad slaves, but if we do decide, we buy them with a bad intention and give such a price for them; and Christ, redeeming the ungrateful and lawless slaves, paid the price for them as for the best slave, even much greater, so great that neither word nor thought can imagine its greatness - after all, He did not give heaven and earth and the sea, but - what is more precious than all this - paid with His blood and, thus, redeemed us...” Which in no way contradicts or detracts from the motivation of love: “God is merciful! He did not spare the Son in order to spare the servant; betrayed the Only Begotten to redeem ungrateful slaves; He put the blood of His Son in place of the price. Oh, the Lord’s love for mankind!” 26 “It remains to investigate the question and dogma, ignored by many, but for me very much in need of investigation, to whom and for what purpose was this blood shed, shed for us, the great and glorious blood of God, the Bishop and the Sacrifice? We were under the power of the evil one, sold into sin and bought damage for ourselves through voluptuousness. And if the price of Redemption is given to no one other than the one in power, I ask to whom and for what reason such a price was given. If to the evil one, then how insulting this is - the robber receives the price of Redemption, receives not only from God, but God Himself, and for his torment he takes such an immense payment that for it it would have been fair to spare us too. What if the Father? First of all, how? It was not to Him that we were held captive. And secondly, for what reason is the blood of the Only Begotten pleasing to the Father, who did not accept Isaac offered by his father, but replaced the sacrifice - instead of a verbal sacrifice, he gave a ram. Or is it not clear from this that the Father accepts not because he demanded or had a need, but according to the economy and because man needed to be sanctified by the humanity of God, so that He Himself would deliver us, overcoming the tormentor by force, and raise us to Himself through the Son, who mediates and organizes in honor of the Father, to whom He appears to be submissive in everything. These are the deeds of Christ, and let more be honored in silence." 27 This fragment is most often cited by new theology as an example of the correct (anti-legal) interpretation of the dogma of atonement. However, we see here only a statement of the mystery of redemption, as everything that takes place in God and concerns His unknowable essence. In this case, the same legal terminology is used (“sacrifice”, “falling under power”, “sold to sin”, “price of redemption”, “immeasurable payment”), as it quite accurately (or better than others) conveys the “transcendent” for us meaning of what is being done. Finally, it is directly said that the Sacrifice of Atonement is “accepted” by God, and not by beloved humanity (therefore, Metropolitan also cites the same quotation from St. Gregory. Macarius). The same with St. Athanasius the Great (to whom the anti-legal theory especially appeals): “He is the Lord, visible in the Father, and in Him the Father is also visible; He, being the true Son of the Father, finally became man for our sake, to give Himself for us as a sacrifice to the Father and to redeem us through His sacrifice and offering (Eph 5:2)” 28. It goes without saying that, due to Divine inseparability and consubstantiality, the “sacrifice to the Father” is identical to the offering to the entire Trinity, therefore the mystery of redemption is inextricably linked with the Orthodox teaching about the Sacrament of the Eucharist. But, again, the degree of polemical blindness of the representatives of the anti-legal theory can be judged by the following circumstance. Citing the definition of the Local Council of Constantinople of 1156–1157, directed against the Latin teaching on the Eucharist, as confirmation of his theory of the atonement 29, Fr. Peter Gnedich does not see that this definition falls rather on the very theory he defends, because “not to the Father only, but to the entire Holy Trinity” means that the Father is included (which is directly or indirectly denied in anti-legal interpretations). Just as the giving of Christ alone (without invoking the Holy Spirit) to people in the Latin sacramentological teaching 30 turns out to be symmetrical to the limitation of salvation to one atonement as the “economy of the Son” in the anti-legal interpretation of the dogma, as a “sacrifice” exclusively of “God’s love” to humanity. Next. Probably the most authoritative of the Orthodox dogmatists is St. John of Damascus - professes the same legal aspect of “redemption (deliverance) of the condemned” in the economy of salvation: “So, man <...> by God’s righteous judgment, became expelled from paradise; condemned to death and subject to corruption, was not despised by the Compassionate One, who gave him existence and bestowed blissful existence. <...> what was sought was: the destruction of sin, which was spread in many different ways and enslaved man and piled up every kind of vice for life, as well as the return of man to a blissful life; since death entered the world through sin (see Rom. 5:12), just like some wild and ferocious beast tormenting human life. Moreover, it was necessary that the One who Intends to redeem should be infallible and not subject to death through sin, and moreover, it was necessary that the nature [of man] should be strengthened and renewed, and by the very deed instructed and taught the path of virtue, which leads away from corruption and leads to eternal life.” “So He dies, suffering death for us, and sacrifices Himself to the Father for us. For before Him [i.e. We sinned by the Father, and it was necessary that He should accept the ransom that was for us, and that we should thus be freed from condemnation; for the blood of the Lord was not brought to the tyrant” 31. Metropolitan speaks about exactly the same thing. Macarius (quoting both of these fragments from Damascus): about the need to fulfill the “truth of God” as the first “condition” that makes, in principle, possible further (“in addition”) “economy” of our deification, without which “the reconciliation, the reunification of God with man could not even begin.” “He, in our place, paid with His blood the debt to the Truth of God for our sins, which we ourselves were not able to pay,” “he brought for us an exceedingly abundant payment” (leaving the “excess” precisely for the sanctification of the redeemed). “For no matter how great and numerous the sins of the entire human race may be, they are still limited both in nature and in number; and the self-sacrifice, suffering and death of Jesus Christ, the Divine and Infinite Person, must have an infinite price, in all respects, before the court of eternal truth.” Behind every conscious violation there is nihilism, titanism in relation to legitimate power. The wording of Met. Macaria - “the insult caused by our sins to the Majesty of the highest Being” - is quite appropriate, although the Western term “satisfaction” (in its natural-psychological use) cannot be called successful. However, an even greater mistake is, firstly, the complete denial of the crime against the “truth of God” by the critics of Metropolitan. Macarius, because the law of moral and ontological damage to the created nature itself by sin does not exhaust Divine justice in any way, does not explain the expulsion from paradise, the last Judgment and the condemnation of the guilty (who did not accept and did not assimilate the “fruits of redemption”). The fact that sin is also “lawlessness” (1 John 3:4), demonic crime and sedition against the Heavenly King, and not just a disease of the spirit, is undoubtedly a generally accepted church teaching (which is reflected in many of the same church prayers that are offered by doctrinal criteria, for example, to the Most Holy Trinity: “Lord, cleanse our sins; Master, forgive our iniquities; Holy One, visit and heal our infirmities"), and the denial of this cannot be explained by anything other than polemical frenzy (“sin is not a crime, but a disease, the corruption of nature,” as if one excludes the other) 32. And secondly, an equally serious mistake is the connection or even identification of redemption (concerning the mystery of the inner life of the Holy Trinity) and its “fruits” (as the action of God outside): healing and sanctification of human nature, which is very justifiably separated by Metropolitan. Macarius (“Holy Scripture ascribes to God the highest freedom in general in all His actions, affirming that He does everything according to the pleasure of the will (Eph 1:11), and in particular in the redemption of man in our regeneration and sanctification...” “In order to more clearly present the work of our redemption, accomplished by the death of Christ, the word of God depicts it in different parts, indicating, on the one hand, from what evils the Lord delivered us, and on the other, what blessings he acquired for us”). So, and at St. Gregory, we saw the differentiation of the most mystical event of redemption by God (Christ) from Himself (the Father, “accepting” the Sacrifice of the Son) of fallen humanity as necessary for its subsequent internal change by the grace of the Holy Spirit and “raising” to the Father. This is expressed even more clearly in Bl. Theophylact (“Since the Lord sacrificed Himself to the Father for us, propitiating Him with His death, as the High Priest, and then, after the destruction of sin and the cessation of enmity, the Spirit came to us, therefore He says: I will pray the Father and give you a Comforter, that is, I will propitiate the Father for you and reconcile Him with you, who are hostile to Him because of sin, and He, propitiated by My death for you and reconciled to you, will send you the Spirit") 33 and in the already quoted review of St. Innocent of Kherson, who captured the very essence of Macarius’ theology (“Taking as the starting point the concept of the Christian religion as <...> the union of fallen man with God, restored supernaturally through the Sacrament of Redemption and grace,” where grace is the content of the Sacraments of the Church, while the “Sacrament of Redemption” is the Sacrament of the Trinity Itself, according to which Bishop Macarius “divided his dogmatics in the most natural way into two parts <...> The first sets out the general teaching about God, and the second about God as the Savior of fallen people..."). The same “separation” (redemption and salvation) in “house-building” by St. Anthony the Great (“So, God shows people the way of salvation, so that they can assimilate for themselves the merits of the Redeemer, the Son of God. All this is done by the Holy Spirit, who gradually destroys his natural damage in man, in order to put him in a primitive state and so that nothing remains in him that actually belongs to his enemy”) 34 and Rev. Macarius of Egypt (“Moses came, but could not give perfect healing. There were priests, gifts, tithes, sabbaths, new moons, washings, sacrifices, burnt offerings, and all other righteousness was done according to the Law; but the soul could not be healed and cleansed from the unclean current of evil thoughts, and all its truth was not able to heal a person, until the Savior came, the true doctor, who heals nothing, and who gives Himself as a redemptive price for the human race. He alone accomplished the great and saving redemption and healing of the soul; He freed her from slavery, and brought her out of darkness, glorifying her with His own light; He dried up the source of unclean thoughts in her. For it is said: Behold the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the world (John 1:29)") 35. Meanwhile, the very use of the concepts “price of redemption” and “merit of redemption” by the fathers (especially ascetics) is categorically denied by the new theology. Hence the fundamental difference in the legal interpretation of the dogma of atonement by Metropolitan. Macarius, on the one hand, and in Roman Catholic scholasticism and Protestant theology, on the other. In the second case, indeed, we are talking about salvation as only “about liberation from punishment for offending the truth of God by sin” or, as the Right Reverend himself says, “about the essence of sanctification (sanctificatio) and justification (justificatio), understood not in the fact that the grace of God internally acts in a person and makes him renewed, righteous, holy, but in the fact that only externally sins are forgiven and are not imputed to a person, although in fact they are in him remain, and only externally is the righteousness of Christ imputed to him” (which is even logical, given the impossibility of assimilating the grace-filled and, in fact, saving “fruits of redemption”, given only in a single Church). In the case of Russian academic dogmatic theology, there is only a differentiation of these different stages of “house-building of our salvation”, as it should be in a purely scientific-theological (scholastic) work 36 . In particular, the mistake of criticism of the Russian academic theory of atonement is the confusion of Roman (anthropocentric) and Old Testament (theocentric) law, while the former has nothing to do with the “legal” interpretation of the dogma of atonement of Russian “scholasticism” of the synodal period, in contrast to Western scholasticism. In other words, the very idea of the necessity and justice of punishment for violation of the Law of God and the providential execution of this supreme justice on a universal scale and the significance of the Death on the Cross of the Lamb of God is the teaching of the undivided Church, preserved in Western confessions, but distorted by external influence and, accordingly, incorrect interpretations and conclusions, namely, the wrongful identification of this, so to speak, universal atonement for the “sin of the world” (or “original sin”) with personal salvation, which is still far from guaranteed even for church people. When it comes to this turn (Part II, Section II), the Right Reverend Macarius speaks in detail about the “rebirth” (purification, healing, renewal, sanctification) of “human nature” (“By the name of sanctification we mean the active assimilation to us of the merits of Christ, or such a thing in which the All-Holy God, under certain conditions on our part, actually cleanses us from sins, justifies us and makes us sanctified and holy ( 1 Cor 1:1; 2 Cor 1:2)"). In his explanation of the dogma of atonement (Part II, Section I), he does not talk about this, because this is not the time or place, this is not the economic “function”, or the theological-ontological “mechanism” of redemption as such, which, firstly, does not have any “conditions on our part”, and secondly, is deeply connected with the Old Testament and the law (including here the first commandment, violated by our ancestors). It is not “the properties of goodness (love) and truth (justice) in God that are sharply different and even opposed” and not “the actions of these properties are opposed, since each property of the Divine is assigned an “inherent action””, 37 but only the sequence of their theological consideration. “Here the great work of our salvation is presented from two sides: firstly, as a work belonging to God the Savior, who accomplished it through His Only Begotten Son, and secondly, as a work assimilated by God the Savior to man, with the participation of man himself, assimilated through the Church, through baptism and other sacraments of the life-giving Spirit...” Whereas the combination of these Divine “actions” (in contrast to the Divine “properties”, indeed, divided between themselves and functionally different) leads the anti-legal theory of the new Russian theology to actually the same Western error in soteriology (albeit in the opposite way: there salvation is exhausted by redemption, here redemption is exhausted by salvation) 38 . All this becomes especially clear in the next aspect of the dogma. The new Russian theology categorically denies (as contradicting the unchangeable Divine goodness) such a fact of sacred history as the Creator pronouncing a curse on the risen devil and those who entered into a criminal conspiracy with him, the enemy of God, of the ancestors (“this change [of God’s attitude towards people] concerns only the appearance or image in God’s providence about man, and does not mean a curse, enmity, etc., since it “changed only according to in its outer form, continuing to remain the same infinite love of God..."") 39. However, in Holy Scripture and Tradition, this moment in the interpretation of atonement retains its direct meaning: “For it is written: Cursed is everyone who does not constantly do everything that is written in the book of the law. But that by law no one is justified before God is clear, because the righteous will live by faith. But the law is not of faith; but whoever does it will live by it. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, becoming a curse for us—for it is written, Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree—so that the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith. Brethren! I speak according to human reasoning: even a testament confirmed by man, no one revokes or adds to [it]” (Gal 3:10–15). It would seem that the remark about “speaking according to human understanding” transfers this whole problem into the realm of allegory. But why then should the patristic exegetes leave all these concepts in their literal meaning? “And He Himself, being God, put on our flesh and became man for no other purpose than for the salvation of the human race. And what am I saying: He took on our flesh and experienced everything that happens to people when He even took upon Himself the cross in order to free us, captives of sins, from the curse? Paul appeals to this, saying: Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us (Gal. 3:13)” 40. “Why does He go to suffer? To redeem us from the curse of the law. That is why Paul exclaimed: “God sent forth His (Only Begotten) Son, born of a woman, made subject to the law, to redeem those under the law” (Gal. 6:4-5). So, lest anyone say that He abolished the law because He could not fulfill it, as being painful, burdensome and difficult to fulfill, He destroyed it (only) when He fulfilled it all. Therefore, He also celebrated the Passover, since the Passover holiday was one of the requirements of the law” 41. “Christ, in order to give us healing, to destroy the power that aroused Adam to crime, to lift the curse to which the entire human race was subject, was crucified on the Cross... as a result of this sacrifice of Himself, He became a High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek” 42. “The original intention of God was that we should not be born through marriage and corruption, but the transgression of the commandment introduced marriage as a result of Adam’s iniquity, that is, as a result of deviating from the law given to him by God. So, everyone born from Adam is conceived in sins, subject to the condemnation of the progenitor. And what was said: and in sins my mother gave birth to me means that the mother common to all of us - Eve - was the first to give birth to sin, as one who desired pleasure. That is why it is said about us, who fell under our mother’s condemnation, that we too are born in sins. David shows how human nature initially fell under sin in the crime of Eve, and how birth became subject to a curse." 43 “Many people ask: why did the Lord say to the apostles: “you are clean,” when they had not yet been freed from sins, had not received the Spirit, since sin still reigned, the oath still retained its power, for the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world had not yet been slain, our Redeemer from the curse had not yet been hanged on the tree? In what sense were the apostles pure? We can say that although they were not completely freed from sins, they are pure through the word that the Lord preached to them (John 15:3), pure, at least in the sense that they have already accepted the Light, have already been freed from Jewish error” 44. The fundamental aspect of the abolition of the “oath” is not lost in Metropolitan. Macarius: “We were guilty before God and were under His oath, suffering punishment: Christ redeemed us both from guilt for sins and from oaths or punishments, bringing His Blood to the truth of God as the price of deliverance for us.” “...in order to save man from all these evils, in order to reunite him with God and make him blessed again, it was necessary to satisfy for the sinner the infinite truth of God, offended by his fall. Not because God sought revenge, but because no property of God can be deprived of the action inherent in it. Without fulfilling this condition, man would forever remain before God’s justice a child of wrath (see: Eph 2:3), a child of curse (see: Gal 3:10), and reconciliation, the reunion of God with man could not even begin.” But, again, what can we say about Met. Macarius and the testimonies of the teachers of the Church cited by him, if, having accepted as dogma the incompatibility of the “correct concept of God” and “curse,” the anti-legal theory does not see this orthodox teaching (about the need to “break the oath”) in the quotes it itself cites: “...destroyed the condemnation of our crime and then, like the firstfruits, adopted us and adopted us through faith in Him...” 45 The irreducibility of the theological content of atonement to the spiritual and moral rebirth of the sinner (or the irreducibility of the category of “lawlessness” only to the internal law of damage to nature) and the mystical realism of the lawlessness of sin are also reflected in the “Welcome Word of the Holy Fathers” of the Council of Trulla, addressed to the Emperor Justinian: “But since the murderer is the devil, having once raised his neck against the Lord Almighty and fallen ill and Having given birth to the disease of apostasy, unable to see that we arose from the sin of disobedience and ascended into heaven through the mediation of our firstfruits, that is, Christ, who gave Himself as a ransom for us, he did not cease to throw arrows of evil and wound the faithful with passions, in order to separate them from the action of the Spirit, honor and grace given to them; “then the Good Leader and Leader of salvation, God, did not leave us helpless, but raised up in every generation people who opposed him in the field of this life, so that, out of ignorance of the best, they would not deviate onto the rapid paths of lawlessness and would not fall.” The 85th canon of the same council contains, it turns out, a canonical interpretation of the justice-punitive imagery of the Old Testament slaying of the lamb, preserving the same meaning of the substitutionary sacrifice (deliverance from deserved “extermination”) in the true Lamb: “...we command from now on the image of the lamb, taking away the sins of the world, Christ our God, to be represented on icons according to human nature, instead old lamb; and through this, contemplating the humility of God the Word, we are led to remember His life in the flesh, His suffering, and saving death, and thus the accomplished redemption of the world" (Balsamon: "When Moses, by the command of God, announced the death of the Egyptian firstborn, then he commanded the Jews to slaughter a lamb and anoint the Jewish thresholds with its blood, so that they would be inaccessible to the destroyer of the firstborn. So, this lamb represented the Lord. Why, the great and equal Forerunner in the prophets, seeing the Lord Jesus Christ our God, said: behold, the lamb of God, the Son of the Father, taketh away the sin of the world (John 1:29). Some, representing the holy Forerunner on holy icons, depicted a lamb opposite him, shown by the finger of the Forerunner. So, prohibiting this, the holy council determined that since the lamb was accepted as the image of truth, and with the coming of truth came canopies, images and signs, then, although we honor both images and canopies as signs of truth, we prefer the truth; therefore, they decided to abolish what belongs to the image, and instead of the lamb on the holy icons to represent our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and our God according to human nature") 46. Finally, even in “our divine service” itself (the main argument of the anti-legal theory), where, by definition, the Church’s assimilation of the saving “fruits of redemption” is concentrated, we still encounter the “legal” meaning of the Sacrifice of the Cross, which exists simultaneously with the “teaching of salvation” (healing, sanctification, “renewal of nature”), and not instead of it. “...the sun of righteousness, Christ our God, has risen, and having destroyed the oath, He has given a blessing”; “Thou hast redeemed us from the legal oath with Thy honest Blood, having been nailed to the Cross, and pierced with a spear, Thou hast extinguished immortality as a man, O our Savior, glory to Thee”; “For Christ himself is the Passover, and the lamb takes away the sins of the world, on the altar in a bloodless sacrifice, in the most pure mysteries of the honorable body, and in His life-giving Blood, offered from the priest to God and the Father” 47. In addition, for some reason, no one is confused by the legal category of “pardon” in the prayer “Lord, have mercy,” most often repeated in worship (compared to the much less frequently used formula “save,” contrary to the assertion that for Orthodoxy Christ is first and foremost a Savior, and not a Redeemer, Justifier and Reconciler, as in heterodoxy). Of course, such cause-and-effect and procedural categories as “first” and “then,” “before” and “after,” as well as other differentiations and oppositions, are inapplicable to the essence of God, to the inner being of the Trinity, unchangeable and eternal. However, to His actions, according to the orthodox teaching of St. Gregory Palamas on “Divine Union and Separation”, the use of these categories is not only permissible, but is the only correct one. While the “economy of salvation” is the totality of these “separation” (grace-filled) soteriological actions. Therefore, in the first respect (concerning the indivisible Divine essence) “not because He Himself first received from us, on behalf of humanity, the Blood of the Son, so that, having accepted it, He would reward us with sonship; on the contrary, He Himself, by His good pleasure, gave us the Son into the communion of Flesh and Blood, so that in this way we could be obedient to Him even to the point of death, even death on the cross”; and in the second respect (concerning the “economy of salvation” with its “algorithm” and “division of labor”), he first “destroyed the condemnation of our crime and then adopted us, like the first fruits, and made us sons through faith in Him” 48 . Accordingly, challenging the position of Metropolitan’s theology. Macarius that “no property of God can be deprived of the action characteristic of it”, its very argumentation (“not God, but each property appears here to have its own special action”; “necessity and complexity are introduced into the concept of God”) 49 resembles the opposition of monoenergism and monothelitism to the same St. Gregory Palamas and Rev. Maximus the Confessor is 50. Thus, it is precisely that special (non-dialectical, “Chalcedonian”) heteronomy that is directly denied by the new Russian theology 51 and which has many expressions that turns out to be patristic. Firstly, undoubtedly, in the works of the fathers we are talking simultaneously about the damage to nature by sin as an internal (moral-ontological) determinism, and about the “external” condemnation of the same sinner as an unrepentant criminal before the full-fledged Creator, Lawgiver and Autocrat, “Who will soon judge the living and the dead” (1 Pet 4:5) 52. Hence the immutability of the distinction between sin and the sinner in the Church, the irreconcilability of the former as untruth and demonism of the will, and the non-condemnation of the latter as a sufferer and a victim. Secondly, in the anti-legal theory, the primacy of the “law of love” over the law of “truth” in the Divine essence turns out to be arbitrary (as well as vice versa), while the most consistent with Revelation seems to be the category of holiness, which includes (without any contradiction) both of these “principles”: holiness as righteousness and holiness as goodness (“Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good” (Rom. 7:12)). Thirdly, the interpretation of legal (contractual, conventional) relations as necessarily presupposing the proportionality of the parties is justified only in relation to Roman law, while Old Testament law is built on the basis of fundamental inequality, the qualitative subordination of God and man, the Legislator and the executor of the law, where the a priori holiness of the first makes all His properties and actions equally holy and, therefore, inappropriate (or just “rational”, abstractly speculative) reasoning about any discrepancy between their “essence of God” 53. Fourthly, along with the immutability of the Divine nature, there is a change in the existence of God, becoming in one of the Hypostases the God-Man and generally entering into a relationship with a created being in the process of becoming, and inevitably acting on it in an equally differentiated, or “economic” way. Fifthly, Holy Scripture and Tradition really speak not only about the sacrifice of God’s love (but rather to the Church “acquired” by Christ, those who believe in Him, and not to all humanity, just as the old lamb was slain for the redemption of Israel only: “I am the good shepherd, who lays down His life for the sheep” (John 10:11); “The Church of the Lord and God, which He purchased for Himself with His Blood" (Acts 20:28); "...the Church, redeemed by Your Blood") 54, but also about the reverse sacrifice in relation to the truth of God (offered instead of the Church being delivered from the general condemnation of humanity) 55. Or rather, the Sacrifice of love itself consisted in the free sacrifice of the Son of God to Divine truth (or holy justice) instead of sinners inevitably falling under an oath (without which, that is, without the aspect of the triumph of justice, the sacrifice of love itself becomes meaningless, because only “out of love” would have to be forgiven without the Cross, and even impossible, because there is nothing to sacrifice). And, finally, sixthly, as the most essential thing for us, we confess the “inseparability” in essence and “non-fusion” in the process of “economy-building of salvation” of the mysterious act of Redemption from the Father by the Blood of the Son of the iniquities of the human race and the further salvation of the latter in the synergy of the grace of the Savior and the free will of the one being saved. In the same quotes from St. fathers, which leads the new dogmatic theology in the fight against “juridism”, as well as in liturgical texts, the functional distinction between atonement, healing and deification is not so emphasized (due, of course, to their inextricable connection, especially focused in the Eucharist), which allows, it would seem, to legitimately interpret them as synonyms, or the simultaneity of the occurring “liberation from sin” and “renewal of nature” human”, but which turns into unforeseen harmful consequences specifically for soteriology. At the same St. Athanasius the Great, the meaning of the “destruction of the oath” in atonement is expressed by another concept - the “abolition of death”, but, undoubtedly, with the same content of this mysterious action, resolving the conflict of such biblical events as the absentee condemnation by God of the violators of the commandment (law) to death and the curse of the devil and the fallen angels (in the jurisdiction, or in the “power”, of which all those who practice the iniquity of sin find themselves and, therefore, inevitably sharing their fate, that is, the oath, or eternal death): “For He gave the world freedom through the Blood of our Redeemer, He trampled hell also through the death of our Redeemer, He opened the gates of heaven, showing an unhindered path to those who ascend there through our Redeemer. Therefore, one of the saints, having recognized the gift of grace and not being able to repay for it, said: what will I repay to the Lord for all that I have repaid (Ps. 115:3)? For instead of death he received life, instead of slavery freedom, instead of hell the Kingdom of Heaven. From ancient times death reigned from Adam to Moses (Rom. 5, 14), and now the Divine word has been spoken: today you will be with Me in paradise (Luke 23, 43).” “...we taste the Easter of the Lord, who, having given His holy laws, guided us to virtue and for (close) communication with it instituted a festival: for the Easter celebration is truly a departure from vice to virtue and a transition from death to life. This can be learned from the first prototype; for then the Jews were eagerly preparing for the exodus from Egypt to Jerusalem, but now we are passing from death to life; then they went over from Pharaoh to the side of Moses, now we ascend from the devil to the Redeemer, and just as at that time the remembrance of the prototype of salvation was created annually, exactly the same thing is happening today; for when we renew the memory of our redemption, we fast, since we remember death in order to gain the opportunity to live...” “Let us also celebrate Easter, my brothers, rejoicing; for we know that our redemption is determined by the time of suffering; for our Savior did not redeem us by being idle, but by suffering for us, He abolished death. Therefore, He told us about this even earlier: you will be in a world of sorrow (John 16:33).” Therefore, all those who do not appropriate the “gifts of redemption” and continue to commit the iniquity of sin are under the jurisdiction of the oath (as guilt and condemnation to death), and not in the jurisdiction of atonement, with all the ensuing consequences. “There will be no change for them. They will be humiliated, because they have nothing to give in return for their soul. For, having once renounced the honorable blood of Christ, accepted in exchange for the life of the world, they no longer have a redemptive price.” “...they [the Jews] transgress the Law in everything and cause the punishment of the Divine judgment, since they institute days of sorrow instead of joy. The reason was that they put the Lord to death and did not at all fear the Only Begotten. The wicked heretics and senseless apostates are now suffering the same thing beyond all measure; those because they put the Word to death; these, because they tear (His) robe; and they remain in excommunication from the Feast, because they do not live their lives in the spirit of piety and knowledge, but are jealous of the life of the thief Barabbas, whom the Jews interceded in place of the Redeemer. And therefore the Lord cursed them in the form of a fig tree... However, He so spared them out of His love for mankind that He did not destroy the root at the same time; for He did not curse the root, but only deigned that no one should henceforth eat the fruit from it. <...> but He preserved the root, not so that we could be grafted into it; but so that they (the Jews), if they do not continue in their stubborn unbelief, may again be grafted into their own olive tree (Rom. 11:17). And now the Lord has consigned them to damnation for their negligence.” The same applies to Christians themselves: “For the Lord suffered death in these days, so that we would no longer indulge in the works of death; He gave His life so that we could protect ours from the insidious wiles of the devil and - what is most wondrous - the Word became flesh, so that we no longer lived according to the flesh, but living in the Spirit, could render (worthy) worship to God, Who is the Spirit. Whoever does not do this in this regard, but only observes the days, cannot even celebrate Easter, for, as an ungrateful person, he places the blame on grace: he has the days in honor, but does not serve the Lord, Who in these days accomplished the work of redemption. In any case, he must, even if he imagines himself celebrating Easter, heed the word of the Apostolic rebuke (addressed) against him: you look at the days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid for you, for I labored in vain in you (Gal 4:10–11)” 56. If it is true that “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23), then the converse is also true: “death is the wages (punishment) of sin.” Consequently, there are two causes of death: sin as a crime of the self-will of a created being and the retribution of the Creator (where the “intermediary” link between the sinner and the action of sin on his nature is not the “action of Divine justice” 57, or the will of God, as its critic misinterprets the legal theory, but on the contrary: the corruption of fallen nature is the action of Divine justice mediated by the law of existence of this nature). Accordingly, Death on the Cross is retribution for the “sin of the world.” The removal of any of these reasons creates a causal lacuna that has nothing to fill except the fabrications of “one’s own heart,” which turns church theology into yet another speculative “religious philosophy.” In particular, the theodicy of the anti-legal theory, its rehabilitation of the “concept of God” or “Divine essence”, which supposedly does not belong to “compensate” for the untruth of sin with the death of the sinner, which, they say, compromises His goodness, etc., in fact turns out to be a justification not of God (by definition, not in need of justification), but a hidden justification of sin itself, an alternative to that justification (Blood Christ), which He who has to judge placed in His autocracy. “So he has mercy on whomever he wants; and he hardens whomever he wants. You will say to me: “Why else do you accuse me? For who can resist His will?” And who are you, man, that you argue with God?” (Rom 9:18–20). Accordingly, the impossibility of removing another cause of death (from which the Redeemer delivers), namely, the free will of man (given to human nature precisely because of the omnibenevolence of the Creator), makes it impossible for the fruits of the completed redemption of the “human race” (nature, or nature) to be hypopostized for every created person, who is free, even after redemption, to continue to perform those deeds for which “death” was and remains “retribution” 58 . Therefore, if “sin becomes extremely sinful through the commandment” (Rom. 7:13), then sin becomes even more “sinful” (criminal, and therefore deadly) through rejected, not accepted or defiled gifts of redemption (or, says Metropolitan Macarius, “for the assimilation or non-assimilation of which [the grace of the life-giving Spirit] the Lord will one day come to judge the living and the dead...”). The non-identity of “redemption” (sin-guilt) with “purification” (of sin-defilement, or illness), “renewal” or “sanctification” (of nature) and in general “salvation” (contrary to the anti-legal theory that professes this synonymy as a revived patristic truth) is also expressed by the fathers by the simultaneous use of these terms: “... but having redeemed and cleansed from everything, present humanity to the Father as perfect and saints"; “...the appearance of the Savior in the flesh became the redemptive price from death and the salvation of all creation.” “Thus it is said: The soul that sinneth shall die (Ezek 18:20); It was for her that Christ laid down His own soul, giving it as the price of redemption. What did God condemn first? Is it a creation of the Creator, or a work of creation? If God condemned the creation of the Creator, then He condemned Himself. And He will be the same as people. If it is wicked to think this way about God and He condemned the work of creation, then He blots out the work and renews the creation: For we are a creation, created for good works (Eph. 2:10)” 59. It would seem that Rev. Maximus the Confessor, who worked most of all on the Orthodox concept of salvation as deification, who finally formalized this patristic teaching, should be one of the pillars in the substantiation of the anti-legal theory. In fact, this father, almost more consistently than others, refutes its main provisions and, accordingly, fully justifies the “scholastic” (differentiated) approach of Metropolitan. Macaria. “By His coming He liberated and redeemed the nature of men, enslaved to corruption, subjected to death through the Fall and tyrannically controlled by the devil. Innocent and sinless, He paid the entire debt for people, as if He Himself were guilty, returning them to the grace of the Kingdom and giving Himself as a ransom and atonement for us. Instead of our corrupting passions, He brought His life-giving passion - healing and saving medicine for the whole world.” “God rejected us when we, having initially disobeyed [His] commandment, showed ourselves unworthy of communicating with Him face to face. He deposed us when, due to our depravity, he expelled us from the heights of heavenly glory. He became angry when, in revenge and punishment for our depravity, he put us to death. And He showed mercy to us when, through His Only Begotten Son, the incarnate God of the Word, who took upon Himself all our debts, He redeemed us from death and again raised us to His glory.” “God saves with His right hand, giving His Only Begotten Son as a ransom for the salvation of the world, for the Son is the Right Hand of the Father. And He listens, giving to the righteous, in addition to the remission of sins, also spiritual gifts. After all, God hears the one who prays to Him and gives him remission of sins through repentance, and then He listens, granting, in addition to this, the ability to work miracles through spiritual grace.” “After all, there is nothing strange or incredible in the fact that the love of rulers for their subordinates, expressed in action, saved all their subjects from impending misfortune, since the only Creator and King of people, loving by nature, gave His Son to death through the incarnation for the sake of all people, in order to redeem them from the evil that had taken possession of them. How, after all, when under the holy Elisha the prophet the kings of Israel and Judah went to war against the Moabites and, after a great victory, were going to destroy their entire capital, the king of that country - as it seems, according to the custom of the pagans - took his son and, in front of the kings, sacrificed him on the wall (2 Kings 3:27), and thus the kings were appeased and stopped by turning their anger on themselves, and saved their subjects” 60. Translating the spiritual and legal aspect of the doctrine into the category of allegory and connecting redemption and healing, atonement and salvation (or insisting on the complete absorption of Divine love - Divine truth, or reducing Divine justice only to the moral-ontological “autonomous” law of “natural” determinism), the anti-legal theory of theological monism, professing in itself the Orthodox teaching of salvation (healing and deification), unconsciously undermines its foundations, which are based precisely on the “legal” categories of sin-lawlessness, repentance, fear of God, pardon, “breaking the oath” 61, etc., as a result of which this theory itself turns out to be closer to Western Christianity (or, moreover, to the Western idealistic “philosophy of identity”, “metaphysics of morality”, “beautiful impulses” voluntarism) than the Russian academic “scholasticism” she criticizes. There are errors and imperfect formulations in any theology (including patristic). But by the standards by which the new theology judged the “symbolic” books of the Synodal period, it itself does not stand up to criticism. And even more so. “Liberation from the very principles of the legal interpretation of the essence of redemption” 62 (and therefore “liberation” from the Orthodox teaching about sin as a spiritual crime, which also calls into question the right of the Heavenly King to judge his disobedient creation), by its very Slavophile origin in Russian theology, being the right-wing liberal (romantic) component of the pan-European the cultural-revolutionary project of “emancipation”, “liberation movement”, thoughtlessly adopted by this theology, predetermines the most unexpected discrepancies with the same patristic heritage, which the representatives of this school intended to revive from “damage” by Russian classical theology. As a result, it turns out that the use of the methodological schemes of Anselm and Thomas by some Russian theologians of the Synodal period is not the worst option, given their applied nature. But there is an internal rapprochement with the same Western (liberal-democratic, anthropocentric) speculative “legalism” (“human rights”, “freedoms”, etc.), in particular, with the spiritual “experience” of Francis and other Teresas (based on the same forced “bliss”, on the same all-consuming “love of Christ”; it is no coincidence that these Roman Catholic saints are increasingly are recognized as such by the new Russian theology, as if in defiance of the academic, who revered those who “acquired” “demonic charm”) - this can lead to really serious consequences. The attempt of Russian theology of the 20th century to reduce the “essence of redemption according to the teachings of the Eastern fathers” to the “rebirth of human nature” 63 is untenable, first of all, from the point of view of theology as such, theology as an objective science, because the essence of the “rebirth of nature” should be the rebirth of nature, and the essence of “atonement of sin” (as guilt) should be the atonement of sin. Whereas the system, where the essence of one concept is another concept, has always been called sophistry (or, at best, metaphorism, poetics), which in science is the only alternative to scholasticism (with its classical logic). In this connection, I would like to once again cite the paradoxically prophetic wish of Metropolitan. Philaret to dogmatic works, so that “every thought [of dogmatic meaning] was accepted in its inherent measure of strength and was expressed with the accuracy characteristic of it, so that the vague expression of one truth does not cast a shadow on another.” This is what happened to the opponents of Metropolitan. Macarius to a much greater extent than with himself, precisely due to his scholastic way of presentation and minimizing this kind of confusion and unconscious substitutions 64. The very principle of the new “teaching about atonement, or about God’s economy of human salvation (this last name is more often used by the holy fathers)” 65 seems erroneous, because atonement, according to the fathers, is only a part of the “economy of salvation,” certainly the most important, but still not identical to the whole. Otherwise (when equating redemption and salvation), the conclusion about universal salvation becomes inevitable, that is, Origenism, to which this school comes in further historical development, when the formidable eschatological prophecies themselves are declared inconsistent with the “correct concept of God”, allegories of only a “pedagogical” nature 66. Based on such “fruits” of the anti-legal theory, we have even more reason to suspect in it motivations hidden from it itself, non-church introductory ones, namely, to see here a sly attempt, typical of the “superhuman” thought of that time, under the guise of the most “good intentions” to undermine and overthrow the unshakable Christian truths 67 . svshm. Hilarion Troitsky. Letters about the West. Letter 3, 4. Khomyakov A.S. – Popov A. N. 10/22/1848. prot. Peter Gnedich. The Dogma of the Atonement in Russian theological science of the last fifty years (1893–1944). Ch. VII, 2. Below are quotes from this work, indicating only the author and chapter number. arch. Innokenty (Borisov). Journal of the Ministry of Public Education. 1854, November Titov F.I. prot. Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov), Moscow and Kolomna. Part 1. Kiev, 1845. pp. 399–402. prot. Peter Gnedich. Chapter I, 1 ep. Ignatius (Brianchaninov). Works: In 7 volumes. St. Petersburg, 1886. T. 7. P. 380. “In the 1920s, three Schelling journals were published in Russia: Athenaeus, Mnemosyne, and Moskovsky Vestnik. “Mnemosyne” was the organ of the Moscow circle of “lyubomudrov”, which united young Schellingians. In addition to the aforementioned Odoevsky, this included D.V. Venevitinov, I.V. Kireevsky, S.P. Shevyrev, N.A. Melgunov. V.K. Kuchelbecker, M.P. Pogodin, A.S. Khomyakov joined the circle. N.V. Stankevich began with a passion for Schelling. Schelling, he wrote, “formed a part of my life; no world thought comes to my mind except in connection with his system.” From Stankevich's circle came Belinsky, Bakunin, and the Slavophiles K. Aksakov and Samarin. A new outbreak of Schellingian passions occurred in Russia after the death of the philosopher, when his Collected Works began to be published. In 1859, A. Grigoriev wrote: “Schellingism (old and new, it is all the same) penetrated me deeper and deeper - unsystematic and limitless, for it is life, not theory.” In Schelling, Grigoriev was attracted by his interest in organic structure and the artistic potential of consciousness. To one degree or another, these qualities were inherent in all of the listed Russian thinkers, who sought from Schelling a justification for their type of philosophizing” (Gulyga A.V. Schelling’s Philosophical Heritage. In the book: Schelling F.V.I. Works in two volumes. M.: “Mysl”, 1987. Vol. 1. P. 36). Khomyakov A.S. A few words from an Orthodox Christian about Western confessions. Regarding the brochure of Mr. Laurency. “The character of spiritual, organic life that is distinctively characteristic of the Church...” (ibid.; Concerning one district message of the Parisian archbishop). Right there. Regarding the brochure of Mr. Laurency. prot. Peter Gnedich. Introduction. Metropolitan Filaret (Drozdov) - Archpriest A.P. Akhmatov. Peter Gnedich. Chapter I, 1 meter. Filaret (Drozdov). Collection of opinions and reviews. St. Petersburg, 1887. T. 5. P. 358. Khomyakov A.S. Regarding the brochure of Mr. Laurency. svshm. Hilarion Troitsky. The concept of the Church in the anti-Jewish polemics of the first two centuries. St. Basil the Great. Conversation on Psalm 48; St. Gregory the Theologian. Word 41; The chants are mysterious. Word 2 (about the Son); St. Athanasius the Great. About the incarnation of God the Word, and about His coming to us in the flesh. §25; St. Cyril of Jerusalem. Catechetical Teaching XIII; St. John Chrysostom. On the Epistle to the Romans. Conversation X; etc. Metropolitan Veniamin (Fedchenkov). Diaries 1926–1948. M.: “Rule of Faith”, 2008. pp. 91–107. prot. Peter Gnedich. Chapter VII, 2. St. Ignatius Brianchaninov. Exposition of the teaching of the Orthodox Church about the Mother of God. St. Dimitry Rostovsky. Mirror of the Orthodox Confession. Part 2. St. Dimitry Rostovsky. Brief questions and answers about faith and other subjects of knowledge that are most important for a Christian. The sacrament of holy repentance. blzh. Theophylact of Bulgaria. Interpretation of the Gospel of John. Chapter 1. St. Basil the Great. Interpretation of the book of the prophet Isaiah. Chapter 1, 11. St. John Chrysostom. About the betrayal of Judas. Conversation 1, §4. St. John Chrysostom. Catechetical words. Second word, 5; About repentance. Conversation 8. St. Gregory the Theologian. Word 45. St. Athanasius the Great. Tenth holiday (Easter) message. §10. Compare: “Let someone give everything, bring everything as a gift to Him who gave Himself for us as the price of redemption, he will bring nothing equal to that if he presents Himself to Him, understanding the power of the sacrament and having become everything for Christ, as He is for us.” “He is sold, and at the lowest price - for thirty pieces of silver, but He redeems the world, and at a high price - with His own blood.” “...The Son is called <...> Redemption (1 Cor 1:30), as he frees us who are held under sin, as he gave himself for us as an atonement, as a cleansing sacrifice for the Universe.” “...God descended from the heavenly throne, having exhausted His glory in the mortal womb, entered into communion with people as one united God and man, at the great price of redemption he gave up His body to suffer and poured out Divine blood to deliver us from sin” (St. Gregory the Theologian. Homily 1; 29; 30. To the bishops.). “The Council proceeded from the position of Nicholas of Metho, that in the Eucharist and in redemption humanity is opposed to the Divinity and that “nature should not be opposed to hypostasis, nor hypostasis to nature, nor nature to nature, as in Christ, nor hypostasis to hypostasis, as in the Trinitarian Deity,” since otherwise division is introduced into the unity of the Holy Trinity. The Council made a decision: “And at the beginning, during the Master’s Passion, the Life-giving Blood and Flesh of Christ were offered not only to the Father, but to the entire Holy Trinity, and now the Bloodless Sacrifice is offered to the Trinitarian God.” The council imposed an anathema on the defenders of error, whoever they may be, if they still remain with their heresy and do not repent” (Archim. Arseny. Nicholas of Metho, bishop of the 12th century, and his works Christian reading. 1883. No. 3 4. P. 313, 309 Archpriest Peter Gnedich. Chapter VII, 4). From m.: Hier. Pavel Cheremukhin. Council of Constantinople 1157: Nicholas, Bishop of Metho Theological works. M., 1960. P. 87–109. Rev. John of Damascus. An Accurate Statement of the Orthodox Faith. Chapter 45; 71. Compare: “One must know that sin is a falling away from goodness, and lawlessness is a sin against the Divine law. This is the beginning of both sin and lawlessness. This is where they are similar to each other. For the one who sins deviates from the goal, which is in his nature and in accordance with it, and the goal of human nature is to live according to reason, avoiding foolishness. But the lawless person also, by living incontinently, sins against the law that was given to him in nature. And therefore, the disciple of Christ, the Apostle John, rightly brings into one both sin and lawlessness, saying: everyone who commits sin also commits lawlessness (1 John 3:4). In other words: sin is similar to lawlessness, because everyone who acts lawlessly sins” (St. Athanasius the Great. Commentary on Psalms. 50:3). blzh. Theophylact of Bulgaria. Interpretation of the Gospel of John. Chapter 14. Rev. Anthony the Great. Letters to monks. Letter 1. Rev. Macarius of Egypt. Conversation 20, §6. Compare: “Saying something without distinguishing between the meanings of what is being said is nothing more than mixing everything up and trying to leave the subject of research unclear, which is unusual for learned men” (St. Maximus the Confessor. Dialogue with Pyrrhus). It is characteristic that Fr. Peter comes to the need for this theological differentiation when he is forced to object to some clearly unchurch ideas in the anti-legal writings of Prof. V. Nesmelova: “The distinction between forgiveness of guilt in sin and the consumption of the consequences of sin is the basis for a correct understanding of atonement” (ibid.; note 333), but does not notice that this statement of his directly contradicts the theory he defends, where not only guilt and illness in sin, but also atonement itself as a cause and salvation as a consequence are not distinguished. Right there. Chapter I, 3 ep. Sylvester (Malevansky). Experience of Orthodox dogmatic theology. Ed. 3rd. T. 3. P. 459. St. John Chrysostom. Commentary on the book of Genesis. Conversation 3, §4. St. John Chrysostom. About the betrayal of Judas. Conversation 2, §4. St. Justin Philosopher. Apolog. 11.13; Dialog with Tryph., 85,94,103. St. Athanasius the Great. Interpretation of the Psalms. 50:7. blzh. Theophylact of Bulgaria. Interpretation of the Gospel of John. Chapter 13. archim. Arseny. Nicholas of Metho, bishop of the 12th century, and his works Christian reading. 1883. N° 3 4. P. 327–328 prot. Peter Gnedits. Chapter VII, 4. Compare: “You granted certain purifications in the laws and through the sprinkling of hyssop. For the same purpose, grant us now something similar, since You are the same God. Or, perhaps, he secretly talks about some kind of sacrament. Moses in Egypt was commanded to sprinkle the blood of a sheep with hyssop on the pragues (Exodus 12:22), and we were redeemed with the most honest blood. So, since the sprinkling of blood served as a protection so that those living in the house would not suffer anything from the destroyer, then David rightly, making a mysterious reminder of that blood, says: sprinkle me with hyssop, secretly meaning the future cleansing of all by the blood of the true lamb of Christ, desiring to be worthy of this cleansing, which alone can cleanse completely and make it whiter than snow” (St. Athanasius the Great. Interpretation on Psalms 50:9). archim. Arseny. Nicholas of Metho, bishop of the 12th century, and his works Christian reading. 1883. N° 3 4. P. 327–328 prot. Peter Gnedits. Chapter VII, 4. prot. Peter Gnedich. Ch. VII,5. Compare: “BARLAAMITE: ...God is an active essence (ουσιαν ενεργη), but has no other energy than essence, so that He does not be complex. ORTHODOX: See that the word “activity” (το ενεργες) is not an empty sound and yields to Him, planning to mislead the interlocutor by this; for the divine Maximus says that “as it is impossible to exist without existence, so it is impossible to act without energy.” So, objecting to the divine energy, and by calling it indistinguishable from the essence, merging it with it, they made God an inactive essence” (St. Gregory Palamas. Interview of an Orthodox Christian with a Barlaamite. §30–31 St. Maximus the Confessor. To Marinus). "... the divine Cyril says to the Eunomians, who also say that God is complex because of this: “if you think that God becomes complex because he has nature and judgment, that is, will, then pay attention to the fact that the Father naturally has [the property] to give birth and also has [the property] to create creatively through the Son, and is not complex because of this, for these [properties] are the fruit of one and the same nature. The same thing has power and in relation to everything that is inherent in the divine nature" (ibid.; §35 of St. Cyril of Alexandria. Thesaurus de sancta consubstantiali trinitate, 7. PG 75, 100AB). Compare: “Sergius of Stragorodsky is closest to Anthony [Khrapovitsky]. Orthodox teaching is revealed in contrast to the Western. This is the opposite of moral and legal views. Sergius strives to exclude any heteronomy from the teaching of salvation. You cannot ask why a person receives salvation, but you need to ask “how a person works out salvation.” Sergius very convincingly shows the identity of bliss and virtue, salvation and perfection, so that there can be no external reward here. Eternal life is a good thing, and it not only awaits us like something otherworldly, but is also being acquired now. Sergius also correctly depicts the process of moral conversion from sin to God. But the objective side of the process remains too obscure. Even Anthony at one time pointed out that Sergius speaks very carelessly about the sacraments, especially about baptism (“or repentance,” this “or” alone is characteristic). It seems that what is decisive in the sacrament is the moral revolution, the decision to “stop sins.” Through repentance a person is renewed, “the thread of life is, as it were, interrupted.” The assistance of grace only consolidates the decision of the will, the “deed of freedom”” (Arch. Georgy Florovsky. Paths of Russian Theology. Part II, Chapter VII, 11 Met. Sergius Stragorodsky. Orthodox teaching on salvation). It is characteristic that the German classical-idealistic “metaphysics of morality” titanically fought against this same traditional Christian “heteronomy.” Denial of lawlessness in sin (“promoting the idea of guilt in understanding the fall leads to the fact that sin is considered legally as guilt or a crime <…> And the causal relationship between sin and death from sin (death) is mediated by anger, enmity, curse on the part of God, punishing a person with death - death is retribution for sin. Sin does not directly lead the sinner to death, but has an effect on God - an insult, and God, in His turn, acts on a person through punishment” (Arch. Peter Gnedich. Ch. V)), among other things, is in contradiction with the church teaching precisely about “the properties of God”, and not so much even “righteousness”, “autocratic” and “omnipotent”, but “about all providence” (St. John of Damascus. An accurate statement of the Orthodox faith. Ch. XIV), because damage to nature by sin turns out in this case to be something like karma, or fate. Compare: “...between sin and death from sin <...> a direct causal relationship has been determined” (Arch. Pyotr Gnedich. Chapter V). By whom (or what) can this “causal dependence” be “determined” if not by God? This is what representatives of the “legal” theory point out: “In what, in what words, was God’s condemnation of the first parents expressed? None other than in the commandment of paradise: on the day on which you eat of it, you will die (Gen. 2:17). God’s condemnation to death, God’s curse was implicit, but conditional in the quoted words of the Creator and Provider" [Metro. Eleutherius (Epiphany). About redemption.]. “These formidable words,” argues Archimandrite Seraphim, “of Divine justice contained a curse for people if they violated the Divine law given to them” [archim. Seraphim (Sobolev). Distortion of Orthodox truth...]” (Arch. Peter Gnedich. Chapter V). The obvious nature of theodicy, which is the anti-legal theory, which undertakes to “justify God” (as if it itself does not need justification), to remove from Him the “properties” that it seems to be unworthy of His essence, is reminiscent of one Gospel episode: “From that time, Jesus began to reveal to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and high priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day rise again. And, calling Him back, Peter began to rebuke Him: Be merciful to Yourself, Lord! may this not happen to you! He turned and said to Peter: get away from Me, Satan! you are a temptation to me! because you think not about the things of God, but about the things of men” (Matthew 16:21–23). St. Dimitry Rostovsky. Prayer for daily confession of a person entering the path of salvation. Compare: “Again examine the blood and purification. The blood was sprinkled, the purification center accepted it and purification took place. What is purification? Again, listen to what Paul says in Romans: “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through His blood through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood” (3:23-25). And His blood, and His atonement. I said all this because the Savior God and the Only Begotten Son of God became everything for our sake, and not for His own sake. Some were done for our sake, and others were an expression of worship of Him for His own sake according to His deity. “Other” and “other”, not now divided, but united by economy, but separated by thought” (St. John Chrysostom. On the day of remembrance of the martyrs; also that Christ is called the Shepherd and the Lamb; and about the veil, and about the sacrifice of propitiation). St. Athanasius the Great. Interpretation of the Psalms. 54:20. Holiday (Easter) messages. 5, §§2,4; 13, §2; 6, §§1,6; Compare: ""Redemption - the purification of nature - does not yet provide all the necessary conditions for deification. The Church is already the Body of Christ, but it is not yet the fullness of Him who fills all in all (Eph 1:23). The work of Christ is completed, now the work of the Holy Spirit must be completed" [Lossky V.N. Essay on the mystical theology of the Eastern Church]. This is how the author ends the chapter “The Economy of the Son.” “The economy of the Holy Spirit,” in his understanding, in contrast to the economy of the Son, is directed not at the purification of nature, but at the deification of the individual. The work of the Holy Spirit in this understanding means the same thing that in school dogmatics courses is not clearly enough called “sanctification” as opposed to “justification”, “assimilation of redemptive merits” ...” (Arch. Peter Gnedich. Chapter VI, 8). Nevertheless, the “insufficient clarity” of the disclosure of the “work of sanctification” in school dogmatics as an omission does not compare with the destruction in the new school of the patristic principle of the theological distinction between the “dispensation” of the Son and the Holy Spirit. As a result, Fr. Peter Gnedich has no choice but to question the Tradition itself, which turned out to be not so much “pure” of redemptive jurisprudence as the new school: “Having full respect for the above scheme, which has the authority of St. Maximus behind it, it is still appropriate to raise the question: is such an understanding a dogmatic teaching or has the character of the private opinion of the Fathers of the Church? Since the second is more correct, we must conclude that this concept does not form the basis of the mysticism of Orthodoxy” (ibid.). St. Athanasius the Great. To Serapion, Bishop of Tmuis, Epistle 3. §9. Message to Bishop and Confessor Adelphius. §6. Against Apollinaris. Book 1, §19. Rev. Maxim the Confessor. Mystagogy. VIII. Interpretation of the 59th Psalm. Letter XXVI (to Presbyter Thalassius). Compare: “For the Jews, an oath was a sacred act, the sanctity of which is reflected in the statement that one who swears falsely in the name of God dishonors him (see Lev. 19:12), as well as in the idea that even God seals His promises with an oath (see Gen. 22:16–17; 1 Sam. 3:14; Jer. 22:5, 44:26, 49:13; Isa. 45:23). According to biblical law, the court recognized an oath as a form of evidence (see Ex. 22:7–11), therefore, refusal to take an oath was tantamount to losing the lawsuit. The litigants could, by oath, obtain the summons to court of a witness who saw, heard or knew anything related to the litigation. Violation of an oath is prescribed to be expiated by a bloody sacrifice (see Lev. 5:4)" (Izotov V. The essence of the concept of “oath.”). Compare: “...dogmatics cannot be replaced by asceticism [interpreted psychologically], and it should not be dissolved in asceticism. Such temptation is always an indicator of theological decline. There are also decadent features in the Russian school of “moral monism.” This was an undoubted echo of Western theological sentiments and excessive attention to the problem of justification. It was necessary to return to the fathers more fully and with greater humility” (Arch. Georgy Florovsky. Paths of Russian Theology. Part II, Chapter VII, 11). In particular, E. Trubetskoy already spoke about “universal healing” in his presentation of Vl.’s ideas about this subject. Solovyov, and whatever caused any particular objections to the prot. Peter Gnedich: “The work of Christ on earth lies precisely in restoring the unity and integrity of the disintegrated universal organism, in universal healing.” Christ overcomes sin as the beginning of separation and destruction” (Ibid. Ch. 1, 6 Trubetskoy E. World Outlook by Vl. Solovyov. T. 1. P. 408). He also leaves without refutation the following origenic thought of Prof. Nesmelova: "After all, if He had not created the world, then sin would not exist and there would be no destruction from sin. This means that although sin constitutes a distortion and perversion of God’s creation, it still exists only because God’s creation exists, which could be distorted and perverted." Therefore, the dogma of atonement is inextricably linked with the dogma of the creation of the world, and the correct concept of atonement can be formed not on the basis of the concept of God as the Supreme Judge, but as the Creator of the world. And if God is the Creator not of one person, but of the whole world, including fallen spirits, then “if it pleases Him, He can take upon Himself the sins of not only people, but also the sins of all fallen spirits and destroy them with one and the same act of His voluntary death” (Ibid. Chapter II, 3 Timbly V.I. The Science of Man. 2nd edition. Kazan, 1907. Vol. 2: Metaphysics of life and Christian revelation pp. 333, 336). Compare: “Criticism of the dogmas of N. T-th (Meaning Leo Tolstoy) was finally sent to me. It is a criticism of the “Dogmatics of the Holy Macarius” and examines the dogmas as this bishop portrays them. But still, the intention is to show the inconsistency of the teachings of the Orthodox Church" (Letters of St. Theophan the Recluse. Letter 285).