Faith according to the teachings of St. Apostle Paul: regarding the essay “Teaching of St. Apostle Paul about faith." Archpriest John Belyaev

On the subject of the essay: The teaching of St. Apostle Paul on faith. Archpriest Ioann Belyaev, teacher (?) of the Pyatigorsk gymnasium. In three parts (but in one book). Moscow 1900. 482 pp. Ts. 1 r. 50 k. on plain paper and 2 r. on Veleneva. All that is known about this book in Russian theological literature is that it was published with unprecedented defects and sloppy negligence. This has already been convincingly revealed on the pages (459 - 460) of “Christian Reading” (in the September book for 1901): the main culprit of such charm was named there in the Moscow bookseller G. T. Brilliantov, who here confirmed his low reputation in this part 1, although responsibility is not removed from the author. Indeed, typographically, the publication is extremely poor. The Russian text is filled with a wide variety of typographical errors, but Fr. I. Belyaev loves extracts in the originals, and it is often completely impossible to understand. The Greek excerpts are especially abundant, where typos predominate to such an extent that even what is familiar turns out to be almost incomprehensible 2 . When Hebrew words are cited, 3 the result is simply phenomenal outlines of an unnaturally curious quality. In addition to all this, the absence of at least a brief table of contents makes it very difficult to use, and then the author, imitating the wise and therefore foolish manner, assigns all the notes to the general section 4 with a special serial count for each chapter in all parts, during which there are also numerical paragraphs in sequence - from beginning to end. Under such conditions, it is not very easy to find notes in the text, while the opposite is sometimes barely possible after much effort. Reading such a book is a difficult feat, which is not always crowned with success. All this is true and deeply regrettable, but we do not consider it possible now to limit ourselves to purely external characteristics, because the subject is too high and forces one to become familiar with the very content of the book of interest. Let us go into the details of the scientists of her research. The entire Christian life of St. was built on faith in the Lord the Redeemer. Paul and for St. Paul, and with the concept of faith - justifying and saving - the entire theology of the apostle in language is essentially connected. Therefore, the importance of studying this apostolic teaching is self-evident and undeniable. In this sense, Fr. Archpriest Belyaev, although he motivates his position with reasons that are partly remote for a special topic and partly too general 5, exaggerating the difficulty of the issue to the degree of “incomprehensibility” attested in 2 Peter. III, 16 6. But in any case, for the success and fruitfulness of the work, the most important thing here is an accurate and correct clarification of the problem itself. On this score, the author expresses regret that there is no dogmatic “universal” definition of faith, which is why private opinions are possible and occur. To eliminate and replace the one-sidedness of the latter, he wants to achieve a “general definition of faith on the basis of all the works” of Pavlov, when obligatory completeness is acquired, and for this purpose “all attention will be primarily paid to the establishment of New Testament concepts from the general course of the ideas of the Apostle” 7. All these arguments are not entirely clear because Protestantism, Catholicism and Orthodoxy have adopted different views on the present subject, which for all of them is apparently not so vague. Along with this, Fr. I. Belyaev treats only the concept and thus considers the apostolic faith to be some kind of dogmatic-theoretical problem of an abstract nature. This causes natural bewilderment that the evangelist left his teaching on faith without proper formulation, if this was the first dogmatic member of the apostolic confession, to which it would be impossible to attract others, since it is characterized by vagueness and does not have strict outlines. However, it is stated that the apostle does not have definitions of faith 8, and everything is exhausted by descriptions bordering on hints 9. To justify this, the author cites his own considerations, but it is not enough to say about them that they are unconvincing, since we read 10 that St. Paul had to refrain from formal definitions, for they would be the fruit of worldly wisdom, meanwhile it was condemned as “foolishness”... No less unfounded is another reasoning, as if all this is revealed from 1 Tim. III, 9 11, since "keeping in a clear conscience" does not at all mean concealment from outsiders and the "sacrament of faith", of course, does not at all coincide with the theoretical definition. Equally doubtful is the new statement that the evangelist "did not have the goal of theoretically analyzing the faith and indicating its constituent elements" in view of addressing his sermon to all believers, and not only to the wise 12, although it was the first always and most of all they need clear definiteness, as the entire history of symbols with their formulated universal obligatory nature convinces us of this. Despite this, oh. I. Belyaev energetically insists that obvious definitions “should not be sought” 13 and “one cannot even assume,” again putting forward extremely original arguments that 1) the apostle was the son of his time and the claim to find theoretical (author’s) conclusions in him would be a demand for the impossible, that 2) St. Paul “was not at all a supporter of human wisdom” and therefore in his epistles he did not could "use the methods of the disgraced powerful of the world", that 3) he gained his knowledge through "admiration", and "the insufficiency of ordinary word expression could not give him the possibility of definitions in relation to the essence of Christianity" 14. All this is said rather in vain and does little to help solve the problem. However, for our immediate interests, the only thing that is dear to us is the recognition that in the apostolic writings there are no desirable complete definitions, and partial ones predominate 15. For this reason, everything here depends on personal effort in summarizing the details scattered across different messages. But in reality it turned out that hitherto there were simply private attempts 16 and even everyone “can only express private opinions οπίστις” 17 . Under such conditions, Fr. I. Belyaev dooms himself in advance to the same fate. He directly agrees that his “definitions and conclusions necessarily bear traces of a subjective understanding of the creation of the Apostle Paul” 18, as in other cases “only subjective positions” of “human subjective understanding” 19 are presented. Such a conclusion is quite inevitable according to the author’s premises, but it is fatal for the study with all its results. For this you need to remember very little. The chosen topic forced us to find out exactly how St. himself taught in authenticity. Paul on faith. According to these properties, it belongs entirely to the field of (New Testament) biblical theology and draws all its scientific typicality from it. Here everything leans towards presenting the taken side of the well-known apostolic teaching in all objective-historical immediacy, and this is acquired with the strictest consideration of the historical gradualism of the external formulation of the doctrine in connection with historical needs and demands. This historical exegesis helps to clarify this apostolic teaching in its actual dimensions and qualities, with which it was proclaimed by the sacred writer himself. There should be no place for subjectivity here and everything strives to achieve historical objectivity. Once the latter is determined in accordance with historical circumstances, it naturally follows that in fact, in external expression, everything is proportional to the conditions of time and life. In this context, much is expressed with historical relativity and is revealed on particular occasions, while others are touched upon weakly or are completely left in the shadows. In this case, there is no scope for absolute formulas and the search for such cannot be included in the tasks of the biblical and theological interpretation of the apostolic views. It goes without saying that historical analysis must be accompanied by theoretical generalizations and their fundamental assessment, but all this will be a simple conclusion upon completion of biblical-theological work and does not serve its own purpose, which is embraced by historically objective reproduction and commentary. O. prot. I. Belyaev does exactly the opposite and at this point reveals a lack of awareness or disregard for the mandatory scientific method. The retribution of this is that what is later and inferential turns out to be the closest and almost the only one for him, and therefore his own subject of study disappears from attention and is not outlined by its natural properties, meanwhile, this is the whole importance of each biblical-exegetical work. At the same time, the author’s results are deprived of objective support in an accurate exegetical analysis 20 and lose significantly even in their subjective insight, while their strict application and logical steadfastness color everything with tendentiousness, inseparable from the obscuring of reality. As a result, subjectivism absorbs everything and in this sense it was irremovable for Fr. AND. Belyaev, but its predominance, in the absence of a biblical-exegetical basis, 1) takes away from it the value of at least only a personal understanding of the apostolic teaching being analyzed, for it is given in addition to the latter, and 2) displaces the historical image, which should serve as the primary object of scientific sophistication. Through this, all the work loses its true scientific value, since it is dear to everyone to know how St. himself taught about faith. Apostle Paul, and for the majority (until the author became a major celebrity) it is hardly interesting how Fr. understands this teaching. prot. I. Belyaev. In all this, it is indisputable that, deviating from the scientific method, the work in question is kept below the line of the biblical-theological scientific level. In view of this fundamental circumstance, we further limit ourselves to only more general considerations regarding the methodological processing of the material and on the question of the nature of the illumination of the subject in relation to its apostolic expression. “The first part talks about the life of Apostle Paul before and after his conversion”: this is what Fr. I. Belyaev, but this does not at all clarify the connection of this point with the chosen topic, nor its position in the course of the work, because the reference to “direct contact with life” is not applicable to the period of non-rebirth, for the Christian era is not justified in the book itself, and in general “further increases the difficulty of resolving the question of faith in Apostle Paul” 21. This section actually tells – in chronological order – generally known historical facts. Here the author most of all puts into his own words the New Testament instructions (Acts and the Apostolic Epistles), accompanying the abstract with detailed quotations, where he unnecessarily writes out entire pages 22 , as in other places 23 , sometimes on controversial (for criticism) issues not all textual evidence is listed 24 . All this is invariably accompanied by lengthy discussions. All the interest lies in them, and in essence they more often resemble subjective dreams. Here are examples. The author exaggeratedly emphasizes that the Pharisees were a “sect” 25 and in vain guesses about the “saturation” of Sadducees with pagan rationalism 26. At the same time, it is accepted that Saul was alien to the extremes of the Pharisees 27 - and all this without the slightest argument and without agreement with the later statement that “all the instructions, decrees and demands of the teachers and elders were reflected in Saul’s soul” 28. If we add that the persecution was motivated precisely by the Judaism of Pharisaic Zealotism (Gal. I, 13.14), then it will not be so phenomenally surprising for us that in order to save his hypothesis, Fr. I. Belyaev admits that, “by acting as a decider of the life and death of people, a person thereby, as it were, declares the rights of his personality to participate in the divine sphere to rule the human kingdom,” and this contains “self-testimony of the royalty and chosenness of nature” 29. Such theories are simply strange and, of course, do not help scientific clarification, but they are far from uncommon in the research of Fr. I. Belyaeva. The author with particular concentration follows the “growth of the inner spiritual man,” whose disposition in Saul was supposedly influenced by the fact that “the eyes of this Pharisaical disciple were presented with both sinful paganism and Judaism striving for righteousness with all its needs and worries” 30. As a result, “Savlovo’s heart persistently began to talk about the possibility of becoming a religious figure” 31. And this determination is strengthened to the point of unshakability. Thus, Saul’s “spiritual organism” in mind, will and feeling was distinguished by its “chosenness” 32, and – with a “living consciousness” 33 – it “seeks victorious crowns” 34. Moreover, it inclined “self-authority” when “Saul’s very character demanded that he take on the most difficult and sublime task possible and carry it out with dignity” 35 in “a lofty and unattainable ideal, the reward for which would be great.” 36 Failures do not disappoint in the least in this undertaking, no matter how heroic or selfish. On the contrary, “if others were unable to realize their ideals, then the son and ardent disciple will achieve what he wants and will be a worthy bearer of ideals” “for his father and for himself” 37, in order to “stand for everyone before God and for everyone to realize the ideal of everyone in himself” 38, for his fathers, for the people 39, for all people 40, even for the pagans 41. How all this was formed in Saul and what he came to. in the end? According to the author, “the rationalists Sadducees, mystic Essenes, pagan philosophers of various directions (in the form of Epicureanism, Stoicism, skepticism, Platonism), all of this naturally extended their hands to Saul” 42, but he rejected all these invitations, and in the pagan world a sad picture of life unfolded before him 43. Then “he turned with a contrite heart.” Saul to the people of God,” however, he did not find what he was looking for in Israel either. 44 From the realm of fantastic assumptions, Fr. I. Belyaev now enters the sphere of Pavlova’s actual history, and yet the nature of the work does not change at all. Various artificial and completely unnecessary suggestions are used to argue for the indisputable truth for everyone that from now on Saul focused on (achieving) righteousness from the law, although this was given by itself 45 , and then the author tries to understand this ideal 46 . By creating for himself non-existent difficulties, he eliminates them with an arbitrary selection of Christian apostolic sayings, the suitability of which for the time of “Judaism” is sometimes extremely doubtful.47 In any case, then we see that - in place of righteousness - the “supreme ideal” is already declared to be ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ, and δικαιοσύνη serves only as a subjective preparation for ??????? and both are crowned together in the first 48 . The legal interpretation, which is not fair for New Testament use, is, of course, true for Jewish application, but it did not and did not allow such a distinction between moments, for “righteousness” directly included salvation and with the necessary compulsion predetermined participation in the “kingdom of God.” The route is drawn in a roundabout way, and it is natural that the forward movement does not have a regular progression. Here it all comes down to the characterization of sub-legal struggles, which are depicted in extremely sharp and gloomy terms, being “a type of universal history in this regard” 49. However, it is difficult to comprehend the causes and nature of such a condition. It turns out that, having become “in the truth of the law blameless” (Phil. III, 6), Saul was now convinced of the futility of all his efforts 50 with such integrity that it was as if “every lawyer should have drawn these conclusions” 51 in the impossibility of justification by the execution of the law 52. This eliminates the very basis for internal conflicts, since there is no factor causing them. Then they inevitably disappear reasons for external clashes, since all the previous tensions were resolved only by the desire to find new paths. From this point of view, anti-Christian persecution is a complete mystery, while its culprit is sometimes portrayed as an almost fanatical monster “with a flame of energy and opposition to Christians” 53. And all this is all the more shameful in a moral sense, since Saul himself “doubted his own justice” 54. Here the author again returns to what was rejected and asserts that all persecution was taken for the sake of protecting and protecting the “most sacred covenants of the fathers” from wicked attempts on the part of Christ’s confessors 55 . In view of Savlov’s admitted self-denial of legalistic ideals, such an explanation, of course, is not enough, io. I. Belyaev puts forward an extremely original guess. Having wavered in his legalistic correctness, Saul began to inwardly gravitate towards Christianity, but for complete confidence he needed his own revelation of the risen Lord. This is what he “could hope for,” and from here is born the thirst to see Christ and know His will.56 The desire does not come true, and the persecutor has the following “sequence of thoughts.” If Christ was truly resurrected, then He is the Son of God. Then it cannot be that He did not appear as the protector of His followers. I will drive them away. He may appear to protect them, and I will see Him and recognize Him. If He does not appear, then what His followers say about Him is a lie.”57... There is no need to explain that this idea is perhaps more than strange. For us, it is only important because it clearly reveals the groundlessness and fantastic nature of the author’s considerations. For them Fr. I. Belyaev does not have documentary data from the period of Jewish bitterness and builds everything according to the information from the writings of the Christian era. Any conclusions here are necessarily problematic and require strict care when assessing the evidence. The author evades this task and, diligently using the materials of the second chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, does not at all touch on the controversial issue of the time of the apostolic life captured in it; in another place this “picture of a deeply dramatic struggle between the inner and outer man” is directly attributed to the Christian state 58, as previously Christian features (for example, Acts XXIV, 14) were entirely confined to Judaism 59 ), and later Christian testimonies characterize both the “natural” 60 and the legal 61 positions of people. It is not surprising that the judgments turned out to be internally fragile and mutually inconsistent. It is no less clear that in further interpretations much arouses bewilderment. With disappointment in legalism, Saul’s whole mood is imbued with an attraction to Christianity 62, and the trip to Damascus contributed to the resolution of the spiritual crisis in the direction of Christian truth 63. The subjectivity of all guesses is associated with such arguments and theories that, contrary to the author’s intentions, we find in them a striking agreement with the thoughts of scientists who tendentiously advocate in favor of the natural transformation of a Pharisee and persecutor into a Christian and an apostle... And Fr. I. Belyaev does not destroy all the danger if he mentions that during the event in question the “fruitfulness of Saul’s past efforts” was revealed 64 and “his most cherished and most sublime desires came true.” 65 It is true that the author speaks of a “miraculous conversion striking the whole world” 66 and of a “turning point” 67, but, casting doubt on everything the opposite indications, these words themselves do not seem so immutable. As a result, we have that the first part of the analyzed work does not have scientific strength and persuasiveness in reproducing the true history of the growth of the pre-elected apostle of languages. As for the relationship of this section with the whole and with the main theme of the book, it is absolutely elusive. The author only once tries to argue for some connection, and even here it is unsuccessful. He notes that after conversion, “the center of personality and the main subject of Paul’s teaching was Christ,” however, all attention should have been focused on faith, for the Lord indwells us with it (Eph. III, 17), and “apparently the center of personality moves from Christ to faith, although the latter serves only as a path to acquiring Christ.”68 From this follows no more (confused) statement of the simple fact of Pavlov’s Christian existence, and all concerns to the past is limited to referring to the fact that now “Saul believed in Jesus Christ” 69. It is self-evident that here the question of faith is not at all prepared by previous research, which absolutely does not provide anything for understanding the subject itself. They could still serve as material for understanding Gal. II, 16, but by mentioning this expression more than once 70, the author in no way takes away from it its inherent mystery. This means that after long wanderings we come to the second part without any enrichment, but with considerable and unnecessary fatigue. In this part about. I. Belyaev wants to offer a “definition of faith according to the teachings of the Apostle Paul” 71 and for this, first of all, “presents direct data” from the apostolic writings 72 under the following headings: a) the area of objects of faith, indicating shades in the construction of speech, b) the attitude of people to faith, c) predicates of faith α) by the presence of life in it, β) by the participation of God (Father, Son and Spirit) in it gift, d) the discovery of faith in the sphere of intellect, will and feelings and in religious-moral states, e) equivalents of faith from the intellectual and volitional field, from religious-moral states, from the relationship of God to the world, from the field of individuals, as well as f) “opposites of faith” in the same categories of mind and will. The examination is carried out scrupulously, and this very sophistication testifies to a scholastic abstraction that values ​​theoretical harmony too much. The author actually writes out in Greek all the texts where the words πίστις, πιστεύω, πιστός are found. But the latter were known from time immemorial in the Greek language and in it, of course, did not have that exclusively Christian meaning that was acquired by St. Pavel in a special application. In this case, the task could only come down to finding out how original and original the apostolic understanding is in comparison with the usual moments for these terms. Then the intrinsic dignity of the apostolic concept in its independence in origin and content would be more clearly illuminated. Here philological observations would be very useful for biblical-theological exegesis. But oh. I. Belyaev is suspicious of this use of philology 74 and even makes insinuations about it 75, but he himself does not see the most characteristic philological phenomena that are important for understanding the essence of the subject. For example, it is rightly noted that the combination of πιστεάειν with εἰς is a purely New Testament creation and is explained by analogy with βαπτίζειν † εἰς, meanwhile beings. πίστις is always associated (except Col. II, 5) with ἐν, with which, on the contrary, πιστεύειν does not occur. All this serves no little to the most accurate comprehension of the apostolic idea 76 . Without all these and similar conditions, a mechanical selection of quotes with a purely external classification is inversely proportional to diligence in its results. We are not talking about particular oddities that in this way the scope of “objects of faith” includes: “everything,” a lie, someone, the possibility of the existence of supports, eating everything, eating, a certain kind of wisdom, coming, etc. It is much more important that with this indiscriminate accumulation, the specially apostolic peculiarity is necessarily smoothed out, dissolving in many other signs and being lowered to their level. As a result, the general formula inevitably turns out that the apostle does not have a definition of faith and only descriptions are found 77. This disappointing conclusion makes one think as if the author is looking for something that is not in reality and is not expected. This reflects the fatal force of the fundamental abstraction of the author’s view, that in the speech about “objects of faith” faith itself is forgotten and disappears, as a real object. If the evangelist does not give the desired definition of faith, then, of course, it does not in any way follow from this that he does not connect certain predicates with it, and therefore it is necessary to establish what special life phenomena were thought of by the apostle under the name of faith. But oh. I. Belyaev again deviates from this goal. The road to it was closed earlier, and the direction was taken in a completely different direction. We noted that the author has lost everything original in the concept of faith among the mass of all kinds of qualifications assigned to it by the widespread use of the term. There is hardly any need to argue that at the same time, the most real features necessarily disappear before our eyes, losing their typical character among other qualities noted by the word πίστις. Consequently, the idea and fact of faith are not yet revealed to us in its own and special apostolic image, since all individuality is taken away from it. Everything that follows almost completely does not make up for these irreparable shortcomings. Here, first, the comments of ancient and modern writers on faith are given as applied to familiar headings 78, then some apostolic expressions are analyzed (Phil. I, 29. Heb. XI, 3 and 8. Gal. V, 6. Rom. I, 17 Gal. III, 11 Heb. X, 38, etc.) with extracts of theses known from the initial author's classification 79, then everything is supported by quotations from various commentators for the considered apostolic sayings 80 and, finally, the extracted provisions are explained in detail 81 . It seems that everything has already been done, but oh. I. Belyaev is not content with this and presents a deliberate analysis, of the usual type, for the evidence of Heb. XI, 1, although the same conclusions are obtained 82. Everywhere the author revolves in the circle of his acquired contemplations and does not move forward at all. And we read that most of the signs found relate to any faith, and the Christian is distinguished only by two, that it “introduces a person into the world of religious and moral states” and “has Christ Jesus as its goal,” 83, however, the first is not at all exclusively Christian and is inherent in every religious “faith,” while the second destroys almost all typicality, since all the difference is found only at the point of application of force, which by this very fact will be identical in any modifications. It is impossible to create anything lasting on such a shaky foundation. When there is no basis or material, then, naturally, there is no objectively unshakable structure. All this is justified by the book of Fr. I. Belyaeva. When combining his observations, he starts from the conviction that “faith is a phenomenon” and, “as existing on a person and in a person, it is a manifestation of a person, a manifestation of a person” 84. But a phenomenon reveals something and serves as an external form of existence for it. Through this, the idea that “faith is a certain form of human existence” is justified. It goes without saying that this is an empty logical fiction, which is suitable for all kinds of “phenomena,” and their multiplicity in each subject makes integral human existence doubtful... The unnaturalness of such argumentation is accompanied by inevitable confusion. Faith is considered external to man, who is the substrate for this form, and yet it is called substance 85, embodied in man. The concept of appearance is eliminated, and faith is assigned the objective meaning of external reality, which was previously alien to man 86 . Then the very assimilation of this external content, being a process 87, will no longer be faith, and if it merges with it, then it turns out to be creative for the perceived objectivity itself. Of course, the author insists on the moment of divine participation, but the noted conclusion is not completely abolished, since man is proclaimed as a worker (producer) of faith on a par with God and Christ 88 . At the same time, faith is constantly being added up and does not end in its creative productivity, why Fr. I. Belyaev finds “it is more correct to see in faith a continuously changing series of acts of faith, which carries within itself an indication of a corresponding series of volitional acts, or volitional activity in faith” 89. It is not surprising that the author accepts 90 the unbiblical, anti-Paulinistic and all kinds of dubious judgment about. Archimandrite Sergius, as if “faith in Christ is the productive cause of salvation” 91. In this concept, doubt is also raised by the summary formula that faith is the divine-human indwelling of the Lord Jesus by man 92, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, the consent of Christ God and the merciful participation of God the Father 93. In this definition, God in all the persons of the Holy Trinity is again depicted as external to the very act of faith, and the name of the entire process “theanthropic” does not deprive people of their original dignity next to the deity, which will actually be only an external object if “in the New Testament πίστις is used (only) in the sense of subjective faith” 94. This subjective faith seems to be given in advance, and hence it is logical for Fr. I. Belyaev’s categorical statement that “faith in Christ is a certain infusion of Jesus Christ into a person or the likeness of a believer to Christ” 95. The last remark decisively testifies that a person becomes a believer even before the beginning of the indwelling or use of Christ, and therefore faith is still independent of the later influence of the Father, Son and Spirit. This is the first observation. Then it strikes everyone that the author’s thesis suffers from extreme elasticity and is equally applicable to all New Testament writers, perhaps even to all Christian ones, and if we take away the name of Christ, then to all religious faiths. This commonality irresistibly convinces us that the objective phenomenon is not captured in all its typicality, with which it was reflected in the mind of the Apostle Paul. In this case, Fr. I. Belyaev argues beyond the fact - in documentary data and the reality corresponding to them. The author himself admits that the most accurate edition for the concept under consideration 96 is still subjective 97 . To this we must add that it is so deathly lifeless that Fr.’s own tins are quite suitable here. prot. Belyaev about people who “seem to turn into an intellectual prism” 98 and “find scholastic pleasure” 99 in “scholastic definitions and contemplations” 100. We think that there is no need for further clarification on this subject, but the first point necessarily raises objections. In it, a person is credited with active participation in the process of faith during the indwelling of Christ or during “Christ-likeness.” This interpretation contains shades that are absolutely alien and even contrary to all the fundamental convictions of St. Apostle Paul. In his Christian hopes, he unshakably adhered to the truth that in achieving justification and righteousness a person is completely helpless, and any personal efforts are inevitably resolved by the final hopelessness of complete despair. Therefore, faith, being precisely justifying, cannot in any way be built on independent human activity, even if the latter is even subordinate to the divine. Of course, this does not at all deny the consciousness of perception, in which all the abilities of a rational subject work. The author treats all this repeatedly and at length, but in vain and fruitlessly, sometimes confusing simple things, if he emphasizes that the evangelist “does not find direct indications that there is an element of feeling in faith” 101, while in other places the opposite is evidenced 102, and “this position is not only a conclusion, but the words of the apostle” 103. The question is about faith, as delivering righteousness, and in this regard, St. Paul categorically rejected original human activity. Everything here is from God according to His supreme goodness, which saves and pardons the sinner, and in addition to the zeal that conditions him. In this sense, faith from the subjective side is inseparable from grace and is determined exclusively from it. Here about. I. Belyaev incorrectly represents the apostolic thought and therefore turns out to be unfair to the evangelistic life itself. From his point of view, St. Paul did not at all allow for human merit in the “acquisition” of justification and everywhere put forward faith in this special dignity of it, as opposed to other methods. Therefore, the preaching of the faith aroused energetic opposition and was accompanied by the apostle’s tireless defense. The entire evangelistic movement was, in fact, a continuous and fiery struggle for the principle of faith according to its supreme absolutism and in spite of all attempts. Here the doctrine comes into close contact with life and illuminates it, from where it itself reveals a lot in its external historical formulation and internal structure. Such a path is necessarily outlined by the very essence of biblical and theological research, but Fr. I. Belyaev deviated from this road and passed by the apostolic life. For him, the very contrast of the apostolic understanding with other concepts disappears, and we do not hear the slightest echo of any collisions. In the entire book there is never any special mention of the legal principles of extreme legalism and the clashes of St. Paul with the Judaists, but this was the essence of the entire apostolic feat, which was a reflection of nomism and the struggle for the faith... So with Fr. I. Belyaev, history itself disappeared, but along with it, the entire apostolic teaching lost the vital reality of its actual origin, lost any movement of its historical revelation and is depicted as a complete scholastic creation of theoretical abstraction. As a result, we have that the author did not give the genesis of the apostolic doctrine of faith according to its historical origin and development and did not accurately indicate the very content. The subjective side of the question has not found a satisfactory interpretation, and this predetermines the fate of the study of the objective properties of faith in its actions and fruits in people. This task is directly caused by the progress of the author’s work, and the third part of it is from Fr. I. Belyaeva is natural and appropriate. We approach it with the following preliminaries: faith is a comprehensive word 104 and embraces the entire personality in all religious and moral activities 105. Therefore, “the entire theology of the Apostle Paul revolves around πίστις, turning into pisteology” 106. Along with this, faith, being a “heavenly state” 107, is associated with the apostolic life 108 and every Christian. Through this, the prospect opens up before us that in the third section of the work “the conditions for the emergence of faith, its growth and influence on man” will be described 109. In the literal sense of the words, for this it would be necessary to explain how faith in people is born and proceeds, what is accompanied and ends, but the author goes from afar and first depicts the stages that humanity (seemingly) went through on the way to realizing its destiny. If faith were already recognized as the only means to fulfill the latter, then this treatise would be useful for negatively affirming the main thesis from the unsuitability of all other methods; since this was not previously mentioned, the whole discussion turns out to be insufficiently relevant for the topic at hand. Moreover, it is not alien to many “perplexities.” O. prot. Belyaev believes that the purpose of man is in sonship with God or godlikeness 111, and (before Christ) “people did not know (only that) the path to this lies through “sonship” in relation to God in faith” 112. In this case, confession of this truth should be obligatory for everyone, meanwhile it is stated that “a sinner (άμαρτωλός) is one who theoretically and practically recognizes himself as godlike” 113. This criterion is applied to Adam 114 and Eve 115 - of course, out of the conviction that there was “only pretentious godlikeness” 116, however, it is categorically evidenced that “the truth is [this is] the primitive state of the created first man,” for “the state of the primordial man is godlikeness, since the primordial man had everything that in his life become like God" 117. With such considerations, the author argues that people were forced to agree with the fact of their non-godlikeness and see it as a sin. This is declared to be “a person’s pre-experimental conclusion about his sinfulness” from the “pre-experimental period” 118, and before we read that false theoretical concepts were reflected through pride throughout life 119, which made people recognize their sinful wrongness. This falsehood will give rise to a new one, which, inventing the second “period of post-experience conclusion about one’s sinfulness,” Fr. I. Belyaev sees it in the active attempts of “natural” humanity to fight against sin 120, as if previously - until the flood 121 - there was only sinful domination without any opposition. The third period of “post-legal withdrawal” is squeezed into the general scheme as the moment that finally crushed human conceit. Seen in this light, the entire characterization of legalism raises serious doubts in general and in particular. It is said that “the law could not have as its goal δικαιοσύνη, the complete justification of man” 122. The meaning of his gift becomes incomprehensible, and the author resorts to a fantastic guess that the law was asked for by the Jews - similar to the later election of the king, 123 although this again does not reveal the significance of the entire institution. It is stated that only “now for the Jewish man God is not an unknown God” 124. Unreasonably casting a shadow over the entire past of human history, Fr. I. Belyaev is no less merciless towards the present, since he proclaims “the law of God” as “a reason for the atheistic activity of man,” whom he “put in a hostile attitude towards God” 125, meanwhile, “after all, the law is all Scripture” 126, and “among the Jews the conviction has only grown that the law is good” 127. In terms of its other influences, the law is also portrayed as surprisingly mysterious. Contrary to previous remarks, it is expressed that “a person, only too tired of the futility of searches, wished and agreed to accept theoretical legal righteousness,” but when the latter exposed his lack of godliness, he was not slow to “see here a great insult to himself” 128. This result was unremarkable 129, since there is no reason to assert that even one of the law-makers was free from the feeling of being offended by the laws." 130. Repulsive by the lifelessness of its dead system 131, this law evokes "a thirst for opposition to it, a thirst for revenge" 132, and from "revenge for insults" was born "hostility towards God" 133 together with opposition to legalism 134. All these horrors are motivated by the wounded pride of a person taking revenge for the feeling of being offended by the law,” 135 but it is simply impossible to comprehend such furious resentment, as long as the person himself passionately sought a legalistic norm, which was given at the most convenient moment as the best example for regulating human energy. 136 It would seem that the means fully corresponded to the end, but the law fatally condemned people to damnation 137, while the humble acceptance of it with a confession of spiritual kindness 138 for some reason is elevated to a “proud statement of the consciousness of powerful forces” 139 which the law crushes without a trace 140, whereas it was granted for their successful application. These particular inconsistencies are crowned with a joint result. According to the author, sublegalism was the path to faith 141. Before this accidental mention, there was no talk about it at all, and yet it is categorically defended that the “post-legal conclusion” was the happy crown of all the preparation of people for Christian deliverance 142, for “the law led the under-legislators to Christ” 143, being “a transitional step to godlikeness in faith” 144. According to the natural order of things, the second should naturally replace the first, since he strove for it, and it was the satisfaction of his requests, because it was “to the “post-legal conclusion” of man that God responded to people with the life, death and resurrection of the God-man - Christ. In the conclusion, man bitterly and joylessly admitted his powerlessness to achieve his destination with his own strength. On the cross he was given the opportunity to acquire all the necessary strength to fulfill his great destiny." 145. It turns out that there is mutuality of all-perfect agreement, but in reality it was completely contrary, that legalism and legalists still remain hostile to the faith of Christ and the Jewish people abandon it for the sake of their nomism. The theory is not justified by history, and on the other hand, that “lawless” paganism turned out to be the most capable of assimilating the gospel of Christ. Thus, all the author’s “conclusions” do not lead to the intended goal and do not yet explain at all the historical dignity of the factor of faith, for which the truly original apostolic thought is obscured, that even the entire Old Testament economy was based on it. Subjective understanding 146 about. I. Belyaev does not bring him even close to the topic, which is why he continues to treat it almost directly to the point. Here we have the actual description of Christ’s feat for the sake of saving people 147 - and again with some peculiarities. Thus, regarding the incarnation, it is excessively put forward that it was necessary for a living example 148. Along with this, the task of the coming of the Son of God is supposed to be the elimination of obstacles 149, which consisted in the insult of the Divine, the wrath of God and the Law of Moses, 150, but the latter, in its results, exactly coincided with the commandment of Paradise 151, which the author too boldly finds in Rom. VII, 9 152, and therefore the role of later stages, which needlessly delayed redemption, is incomprehensible. Sin, abolished by the Lord, is considered an “act of human will” 153 as a “substantial sin” 154, although earlier it was called “an error of thought” 155, then it is declared to be communication with demons and even “the indwelling of the prince of this world 156. The life of Christ is illuminated from the side that He was a model of law-fulfillment for imitation 157, when the apostle saw here the fundamental elimination of legalism. In the death of the Lord, its inevitability according to the perception of humanity is overly emphasized 158, meanwhile, “the likeness of sinful flesh” also required it only in likeness 159. Other points - payment for sins 160, confirmation of one's teaching 161 and the establishment of a covenant 162 - do not exhaust the apostolic views on the Sacrament of Calvary, being purely formal or unsuitable in legal nuances. In any case, at the end of everything, we receive that through the feat of Christ salvation was brought to people, and the necessary benefits were provided by the resurrection 163. Now everything will be in the assimilation of such a high good, and at this point we are approaching the topic, because for the consistency of the process, impoverishment with Christ 164, accomplished by faith 165, is recommended. In fact, the sought-for matters are not found, because Fr. I. Belyaev tells us rather about the structure of the church, whereby for “unification” the hierarchy 166 and the sacraments 167 are involved - with the primacy of baptism 168. This means that we have approached faith, but have not touched at all the life of faith in us and ours in faith. Chapter Three answers this question 169 . In it, the author immediately allows for different degrees or measures of faith 170. This, of course, is unfair for its subjective dignity when a person achieves justification, since the latter is an instantaneous and complete act. We are obviously talking about staying in faith and assessing life accordingly. In his classifications, Fr. I. Belyaev gives full scope to scholastic sophistication, where virtuosity borders on the fantastic. He distinguishes “stages” according to the methods of perception - through external feelings, mind, heart and will 171 - and for all headings he manages to select apostolic texts, allowing for the real isolation of such faiths 172 or at least their chronological continuity 173, while the entire distinction is recognized as artificial, contemplative 174. This is also true for considerations based on the apostolic analogies with the physical-organic life of man 175. More important is the division of the “pisteological process” into beginning, continuation and end 176, when we are presented with a “god-like - temporal, theomorphized - temporal classification of degrees, ages or periods of a known process or faith” in parallel to the above-mentioned “anthropomorphized classification” 177. From this point of view, four periods are distinguished - the natural indwelling of Christ, earthly Christlikeness, heavenly Christlikeness after death until the revelation of the kingdom of glory and in it godlike deification 178. All these stages are then described in detail 179 . And for this treatise, its complete subjectivity is stated 180. This is self-evident to everyone, and this is not the essence of the question. Of the listed periods, the author focuses more on the second, barely touching on the others. The first is only preparatory 181, and in it “man remains himself” 182, from which it follows that justifying faith has not yet begun to function. Of course, "in this period a living intellectual, heartfelt, active indwelling of Christ takes place. However, this is not yet an accomplished fact, but only a fact in potentia, a fact in tendency" 183 . “The indwelling of Christ in the subject has not yet taken place: he lives and still uses natural forces and means to instill Christ in himself..., but this is not yet the real indwelling of Christ in man” 184. Consequently, this is almost a simple theoretical fiction, and Fr. I. Belyaev substantiates it with artificial exegetical stretches, if the “imagination of Christ” (Gal. IV, 19), equating it with birth” 185, arbitrarily dates 186 to the moment of the emergence of grace-filled existence, meanwhile, it captures the entire process of Christ-likeness to the very end, where the believer is already made the “image” of Christ. The third and fourth periods are beyond our knowledge and are mostly mentioned by the author with the involvement of some apostolic texts, sometimes also violently. On the contrary, the second is discussed at length, but is treated specifically about the sacraments and again not without originalities such as the one that “in the Eucharist the sacrament of baptism is uniquely repeated 187, and “the fact that a person can begin the sacrament, for example, baptism, clearly says” that “a real-sacramental person can sin and die, a physically-natural person can be a saint and live" 188. The question of faith completely disappears from attention, and Fr. I. Belyaev fell into such bewilderment about this that at the end of book 189 - without any preliminaries and without the slightest connection - he raises the question: “does not the theomorphized-temporal classification of degrees of faith contradict the teaching of the Apostle, that once upon a time faith and hope will be abolished?” The answer is not very intelligible, that “as long as the world exists, as long as people live, faith will undoubtedly exist,” and then the abolition of faith is mentioned, although humanity, of course, will not be destroyed, being in glorification or condemnation. In any case, we do not see the actions of faith itself, and the fourth (and last) chapter 190 does not show them to us. It should talk about the fruits of the Christian faith,” but in fact, it almost repeats the previous description of the periods about the shading of those benefits that are gained by a person in each of them - with the “imagination of Christ,” with the action of the sacraments, etc. What is new is that now Fr. I. Belyaev lists 191 the fruits of the fourth stage, which he previously found 192 to be superior to human comprehension. It is clear that all this does not reveal the participation of faith in Christian life in the least, and we do not receive explanations on the most important points. If Christian existence is brought about through faith, then it is indisputable that it continuously continues to influence the entire subsequent movement, which without this would no longer be a believer. The author misinterpreted the 193 apostolic expression (Rom. I, 17) “from faith to faith” in the sense of different degrees or measures of faith, when it states that when assimilating the truth of God, a person always and everywhere moves in the realm of faith. Therefore, it was necessary to clearly depict how exactly the latter functions. At the same time, the quality of the participation of faith in relation to other Christian discoveries should of itself be illuminated, and at the same time, perplexities about the eternal preservation of love alone with the disappearance of faith would be eliminated. In this case, Fr. I. Belyaev rather complicates the solution of the problem with a categorical statement that faith is (always and in principle) greater and broader than life, 194 forgetting that the second can absorb the first and be a complete believer, which is the true Christian ideal. When qualities are unclear, the degree of participation of faith along with other factors is also dim. This is especially necessary to say about the Holy Spirit. The author’s entire speech about the “period of earthly Christlikeness” actually boils down to Him. Here everything revolves around mysterious-sacramental consecration. Faith seems to be completely obscured and suppressed. And it was all the more obligatory to precisely formulate its relationship to the Holy Spirit, since on this subject the Apostle allowed 195 a duality of views, heterogeneous and inconsistent, partly retaining old concepts and partly original and innovative. Simultaneously with the objective interpretation of the doctrine, this would also protect its internal dignity in terms of the conditions of its origin and in connection with the Gospel of Christ and the teaching of other New Testament writers. We see that Fr. prot. Belyaev does not clearly highlight the factor of faith and extends it to the entire Christian existence. Naturally, nothing is assigned to faith with exclusivity, as something peculiar to it individually. As a result, it concludes that faith, which is unclear from the subjective side, turns out to be vague in the author’s opinion in its objective content. But if on the first question the Apostle bases everything on the concept of grace or a gift perceived by faith, then the latter directly outlines the second, objective, moment, for such a gift is our closest unification in faith with Christ to the point that, merging with the Son of God, we ourselves become children of God with all the necessary fruits and privileges. This means that, subjectively combined with grace, objectively the Christian faith is inseparable from sonship with God. These moments appear clearly in the teaching of St. Paul, how they were the most important in his evangelism and in general. O. prot. Belyaev obscures them, and therefore his characterization turns out to be too broad, not expressing the typical features of the Apostle of Languages’ own contemplation. This is confirmed by the new addition 196, where - again without connection with the previous one (even after the notes) and without correlation with parts of the work - a comparison of New Testament doctrines regarding faith is presented. The author manages to find all the (accepted by him) Paulinistic elements in Christ and the other apostles with the usual virtuosity, extracting 197 from M.?Sh, 26 (“Why are you so fearful, you of little faith”?) that the will participates in faith. This solidarity testifies only to the abstract impersonality of the author’s formula, if it is equally suitable for the Epistle of Jude 198 Everything individual is smoothed out and disappears so much that Paul’s scheme is applied entirely to James 199 without the slightest thought about the difficulties that prevail on this point in science and church confession. Such elasticity – in turn – confirms that Fr. prot. Belyaev, proposing his own construction of the doctrine of faith on the basis of apostolic sayings, did not give us the most apostolic understanding of faith in its subjective action and objective content. The special task of the work remains unfulfilled, and this is consistent with the truth we have argued that, having deviated from the biblical and theological requirements, Fr. I. Belyaev chose the wrong method. Therefore, it turned out that he recommends to us his personal views, when only truly apostolic ones in all their integrity are needed and important for everyone. Hence, exegetical analysis, which dominates biblical and theological works, acquired originality, which often robs it of its true meaning. There are sometimes obvious errors here: for example, under “this city” Acts. XXII, 3 of course Tarsus, where Gamaliel also falls 200, although it is self-evident that Jerusalem is thought of; The Samaritan woman 201 seems to be included among the Jewish people; conclusion under the law of Gal. III, 23 refers exclusively to the enslavement of condemnation 202; Saul's exclamation “Lord” (Acts IX, 5) is interpreted solely and directly in application to the deity 203; mention is made of Paul's conversations with Christ in connection with heavenly raptures 204, which are said to have “acquainted the Apostle with the essence of Christianity, and the “raptured states” are indescribable by human words 205; in Gal.V, 13, unreasonably (see V, 1) only natural human freedom is seen 206. At the same time, the author eliminates in advance the “written debate” about the authenticity of Paul’s writings 207, meanwhile, after without any prompting, he raises the question of the original language of the Epistle to the Hebrews 208 and even testifies that “only then can a more or less correct understanding of the teaching of Apostle Paul on πίστις be established if we are previously confident that the epistles on the basis of which a known understanding is proposed πίστις, indeed come from Apostle Paul. Therefore, questions about the understanding of πίστις in Apostle Paul and the authenticity of his messages have a close relationship." All these and similar details only indicate that Fr. I. Belyaev has little interest in the actual exegetical analysis, although sometimes he burdens the book with unnecessary information - about the “unknown God” of the Athenians 210, about the fact that St. To Paul in Troas, in a vision, the Macedonian is not an ordinary person, 211, etc. All this turns out to be true in the handling of exegetical material. For the apostolic texts under discussion, the opinions of ancient and modern writers are usually sought out and written down, often in abundance and in authentic languages. In difficult places, there is considerable diversity and even disagreement in interpretations. However, in most cases Fr. prot. Belyaev does not try to achieve the most probable understanding of the apostolic expression taken with a critical assessment and willingly accepts all shades, as if his scheme accommodates anything. At times, the author prefers personal reflections and indulges in scholastic sophistication. Thus, in Heb. XI, 3 πίστις and νοοῦμεν are considered 212 mutually in the positions of prius and posterius or as res contemporales, for which dativus contemporantiae is invented, and at the end it is added 213 that all this is not real... Everywhere it is interpreted more in relation to the apostolic testimonies than about them themselves, and Fr. I. Belyaev is only interested in his own abstract system, which he is ready to apply to any authority, because he needs the latter only as a point of departure. This motivates the special attitude towards benefits. For his special subject, the researcher complains about the small number of works 214 and considers the use of extensive literature to be unnecessary for the matter 215. Keeping silent about the omissions in the bibliography, we must note that the author himself is to blame for the paucity of books when he detached his topic from its inherent biblical and theological soil and took away the literary treasures of the latter due to the brevity of their mention of faith 216, although the instability of such a consideration is sufficiently refuted by his own statement, known to us, that all of Paul’s theology is pisteology 217. Behind all that Fr. I. Belyaev is blaming himself in vain. He read a lot and in a special “alphabetical list of works” notes 218 99 individual works, cites them often in his work and uses a lot - however, more mechanically - through extracts, which are not always necessary. The author's disdain is not justified by anything, and therefore it remains far from harmless. With attentiveness to the entire body of relevant literature, Fr. prot. Belyaev would sooner find a true scientifically fruitful position for his question, which would then receive a more correct formulation and objective course. At the same time, literary study would provide an independent foundation for constructions and, through the unification of all the most important views, would open up the opportunity to move forward oneself or through this make it easier for others. Nowadays, literary baggage is completely dead material for a book and often loses its value for use in subjective light and application. The author's speech itself deserves a few comments. He loves to compose his own words - chosenness 219, savlinism 220, single-element 221, implicit 222, modus, modulated, modulating 223, concretization 224, abstracted 225, resultant, resultant 226, analysis 227, conscientious 228, metamorphose 229, mysterically 230, third-heavenly admirer 231, sin 232 - but does not always accurately use even accepted terms and, for example, mistakenly calls a Jew a Judaist 233. Pretentious combinations of the kind abound - the attractive dictatorship of reason in life 234, unfading seeds 235, a fiery creature 236, a burning feeling 237, an eagle's powerful character 238, the historical and psychological depth of humanity 239. All phraseology is artificial and pompous. Here are examples: “the grace of God rose into the gold of Saul’s human personality” 240; “the actions of grace into the human perfection of the Apostle infuse currents of divine influence and structure of the human personality for the good of it and those entering into communication with it” 241; “ideals and possible demands of ideals in the sphere of these factors” 242; “popular aspirations... with their massive numbers and heaviness only confirmed the steadfastness, height and desire for the implementation of ideals” 243; “among the flowers and fragrances of luxury, it (Epicurean philosophy) presented him (Saul) with an open cup filled with food and drink, with inscription: let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we will die” (1 Cor. XV, 32) 244; “Saul’s soul could not answer with the delight of a solved riddle” 245; "ideal... lit over a man’s head the crown of immortality and godlikeness, the crown of greatness and the radiant reflection of Divine glory" 246; "the covenants and blood of the ancestors and the entire Jewish people had an irresistible influence on the entire spiritual organism of Saul" 247; “Saul lived in the realm of the spiritual man” 248; “In Apostle Paul, the center of his personality was not only the center of a great human personality, but also the center of a grace-filled personality, indicated from above, and brought into the life of the whole world under the direct influence of God” 249. “the memory of the paradise he saw and the dirty tricks of the angel of Satan constantly excited the Apostle to an active life in the world of visions” 250 or “in the supernatural world” 251; St. Paul acquires “personal thinking,” that “he thinks in Christ, in the states of Christ, and views everything through the prism of the personality of Christ.” 252 Along with this, an incomprehensible inclination to prefer foreign terminology clearly prevails everywhere, outlandish examples of which we have already encountered more than once. In general, the entire presentation is clumsy, difficult, confusing and makes it difficult to understand the author’s thoughts, and due to the frequent obscurity of the latter, all this is a significant obstacle to familiarization with the subject. It would be unfair to remain silent about the merits of the essay. The author worked hard, zealously and with self-devotion - and here we see an ethical feat of high subjective value. But this is beyond the scope of our reviewer competence, and now we are called upon to judge only the result, and not the process. On the other hand, the energy of the author’s thought, logically sharp and inventive, is no less indisputable. However, even these undoubted advantages in the present case do not help scientific success, because the subtle logical weaving, reminiscent of a cobweb, borders more on scholastic sophistication and envelops the object in artificial patterns, covering rather than revealing it in its true outlines. This means that all these valuable qualities did not find a fruitful application in the book under consideration, and for it we must state that in it the question is posed and analyzed without compliance with scientific biblical and theological requirements and does not receive an exact answer in relation to the subjective side and objective content of justifying and saving faith - according to the teaching of St. Apostle Paul. Therefore, one cannot help but regret that such a promising and diligent work brings us so few positive results. According to “Volgar”, some interesting information about this bookseller was reported, for example, in No. 9170 of “New Time” for September 14, 1901 (Friday) on column 2 of page 3. See pages 128, 129, 192 and 196. Page 432–435. But cf. below to approx. 205 at page 710. Page 391. See even lower to note. 96, 146, 174, 175, 180, 218, on page 699. 704, 706, 711. See about the latter below to approx. 200 words on page 710. See page 4. Wed. and below to approx. 107. on page 701. See, for example, pp. 56–57, 58. See at least pp. 237–238, 342–343. For example, on page 10 about Roman citizenship. See also below to approx. 58–61 on page 693. Page 105. See and note. 47 on page 692. See, for example, pp. 52, 279. At the same time, of course, it is true that in faith itself there is an indisputable (intellectually -) dynamic element, as this - from the psychological side - is revealed in the excessively figurative speech of P. N. Sokolov “On Faith”: see the Kharkov magazine “Faith and Reason” 1902, No. 4, p. 188. The moments of knowledge, will and feeling in faith and in relation to it are considered in all detail in “The experience of the philosophical history of religions” prof. Alexey Iv. Vvedensky, Religious consciousness of paganism Ï Basic questions of the philosophical history of natural religions (Pro-legomena). – Religions of India (Moscow 1902), pp. 29–102. See especially p. 131; “So, taking into account that philological and philosophical research in the field of pre-Christian word usage of the word “faith” in order to clarify the “New Testament” meaning of this word tends to deny the divine inspiration (?!?) of the writings of the Apostle Paul, suffers from an unscientific pre-occupation of the view (?) and therefore lacks substance (?), then we reject this thankless task “... See, for example, Prof. Johannen Haussleiter, Was versteht Paulas unter christlichem Glauben in Greifswalder Studien: Theologische Abhandlungen Hermann Cremer dargebracht, Gutersloh 1895, S. 159–181. For clarity and persuasiveness, it is useful to take the quoted passage in its entire context, preserving the author’s grammatical discretion. "So, reasoning (?) essentially, salvation (?) is a free and grace-filled transition of a person from evil to good, from life according to the elements of the world and from enmity against God to a selfless life and to communion with God. What serves as the condition for such a transition? In the proper and strict sense, such a condition or productive cause can be faith in Christ." See Orthodox teaching on salvation. The experience of revealing the moral and subjective side of salvation on the basis of Holy Scripture and the works of the Holy Fathers. Sergiev Posad 1895. Pp. 228; 2nd edition, Kazan 1898, p. 227. By the way, this second edition, without improving the first in any way, can somewhat compete with the book by Fr. I. Belyaeva due to her typographical and proofreading malfunction... Page 217, 219, 226, 244, 362. Page 160. Of course, strenuous efforts to find some special moral meaning in Christian dogmas, in which our “nets of James” are now so diligently and fruitlessly practicing so zealously and fruitlessly, are equally in vain...? Page 284, 288–291, 295, 312. Page 356. In another place - on the contrary - it is said (p. 381) that “the imagination of Christ in man (Gal. IV, 19) is replaced by the birth of the believer in Christ.” For example, later than others (in 1901) and especially M. Geffken. Page 433 et cf. 132. See also above note. 14 on page 687. Page 366. Wed. still to approx. 11, 152, 193, on pp. 687, 705, 708. Page 243. Wed. above to note 150, on page 704. You might be interested in: