Bethlehem and Golgotha ​​(letter to a Friend)

My dear friend! About ten years ago, here in Russia, in Erivan, the work of St. Irenaeus of Lyons, “Proof of the Apostolic Preaching,” which was lost in the original Greek, was discovered in Armenian translation. We became acquainted with this work through the German translation, from which the Russian translation was also made. In this work, seven years ago, I was especially struck by the following words: “Others do not attach any importance to the descent of the Son of God and the economy of His incarnation, which the apostles announced and the prophets predicted that through this the perfection of our humanity should be realized. And such should be counted among those of little faith” (chapter 99). Do you know, Friend, what the words of the Holy Father seem to me like? They seem to me a reproach to our modernity. The Holy Father reproaches our modernity for lack of faith. No wonder these words were heard at the beginning of the 20th century! People are forgetting more and more the economy of the incarnation, they do not believe in it, they want to do without it; in their beliefs they are replacing the Son of God incarnate with a great man, a great teacher, Jesus of Nazareth. But it is not about these people that I, my Friend, want to talk to you in this letter, when they have already sung in the church: “Christ is born...” It is not to these people who are alien to the Church of Christ that my gaze is directed in the present case. I look at church society, at church people. Can they listen with full consciousness to the words of the church song: “Christ from heaven - hide!” My eyes turn to our school theology, and - alas! – I clearly see that it does not teach people to celebrate the Feast of the Nativity of Christ in the fullness of theological contemplation. The reproach of St. Irenaeus of Lyons for lack of faith largely applies to our school theology; it does not attach enough importance to the economy of the incarnation and does not at all teach that it is through this economy that the perfection of our humanity must be realized. The center of our salvation in our school theology has been transferred from Bethlehem to Calvary. This transference among us, in Russian theology, happened relatively recently, about two hundred years ago, when the Latin direction of theology came to Moscow through Catholic Poland and Kyiv and when various scholastic fathers received greater authority than the ancient fathers of the Church. The ancient Church spoke about salvation incomparably more sublimely and more fascinatingly than our present Latin theology. The theological thought of the ancient Church reverently walked not so much around Golgotha ​​as around Bethlehem. Take, Friend, the works of the greatest theologians of the ancient Church. You will find entire essays, extensive words about the incarnation from everyone. And the inspired word of Gregory the Theologian “On Epiphany or on the Nativity of the Savior”! Is it possible to read this word without trembling of the heart, without the delight of joy?! Take "An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith" by St. John of Damascus. The third book of this famous dogmatic work deals with our salvation. But what exactly is being said here? Here, almost all the time, the holy father talks about the mystery of the incarnation. And when you pick up a seminary textbook on dogmatics (Makarius) 1, you are involuntarily amazed at how impoverished the thought there is, as soon as it concerns embodiment. There is not even a separate paragraph about the incarnation. Interesting § 86 – Consequences of the hypostatic union of two natures in Jesus Christ. The consequences are threefold: a) in relation to Himself, b) in relation to the Most Holy Virgin, His Mother, and c) in relation to the Most Holy Trinity. But for the human race, the hypostatic union of two natures in Jesus Christ seemed to remain without consequences! After all, this means that the inextricable connection between the incarnation of the Son of God and our salvation is dissolved. If it is not destroyed, then the fundamental idea by which the Church of Christ lived, was inspired, fought and labored for entire centuries is obscured and distorted. How intense was the theological life in the ancient Church! Permanent Councils, debates on faith, theological writings. If you, Friend, asked me: what is the main and most important thought of the ancient Church? - I would not hesitate to answer: “For our salvation, the incarnation of the Son of God is necessary.” Ebionites, Nazarenes, Arians of all kinds, Apollinarians, Nestorians - they all wavered this very truth, and for this they were convicted, condemned, excommunicated and anathematized. Saint Athanasius the Great does not consider those who call Arians Christians to be of sound mind. On the incarnation of the Son of God, the Church of Christ based the meaning of human life, hope for salvation, hope for future bliss, hope for the life of the future century. But our school theology has darkened the truth of the incarnation, and from this it has happened that with its teaching about salvation it cannot satisfy the believer, the salvation of the thirsty human soul. For outsiders, the doctrine of salvation, as it has been taught for two hundred years in school courses, is only a subject of ridicule and blasphemy. Leo Tolstoy mocked this teaching in his “Critique of Dogmatic Theology,” 2 he mocked it rudely, and yet some of our theologians were forced to object in the sense that it was in vain that Tolstoy accepted the dogmatics of Macarius as the teaching of the Church. Recently I came across an educational book - a manual on the Law of God for the gymnasium. When I read the discussion about the fourth member of the Creed, I’ll tell you frankly, my Friend, I felt creepy and even scared. The legal theory of salvation, developed by our dogmatists of the 19th century, is presented there in a particularly crude form. But the lessons of childhood can influence religious ideas and the final structure of spiritual life. A secular higher school will give you nothing. And the legal scheme of salvation can be very harmful to spiritual life. According to the legal scheme, the matter of our salvation is presented in this form. Adam's sin is a crime against God, an insult to the Divine Majesty. Man's guilt is immeasurable. The higher the insulted person, the greater the guilt of the offender. God, the Infinite Being, is insulted. Man's guilt is also endless. The truth of God demands satisfaction for the insult. For an endless insult and satisfaction an infinite must be given, but a limited person could not give such satisfaction. Then God sent His Son to earth so that He could bear the punishment for man's sin. The very incarnation of the Son of God was already the beginning of His punishment for the sins of the world. The entire earthly life of the Lord has the same meaning. The punishment of the Son of God and the satisfaction of God's righteousness ended in the death of Jesus Christ on the cross, so that “the incarnation and all earthly life served only as a preparation and, as it were, a gradual ascent of Him to this great sacrifice” (Macarius, § 96). So Christ “in return fulfilled us and suffered everything that was required for the remission of our sins. The possibility in general of [such a replacement] of one person by another before the court of God's truth, such payment of a moral debt by one person instead of another or others must necessarily (?!) be recognized by common sense: a) when this replacement has the will of God and the consent of the Supreme Lawgiver and Judge Himself, b) when the person who has accepted to pay the debt instead of other unpaid debtors is not himself in the same debt before God, c) when he voluntarily decides to fulfill all the requirements debt, whatever the Judge will offer, and d) when, finally, he really brings such payment that would fully satisfy the debt” (Macarius, § 98). Since the one who suffered and died was the God-man, not only all people, but also all creatures in the aggregate cannot compare with Him in dignity. The suffering and death of the Divine Person, without a doubt, is able to replace all our innumerably multiple disobedience to the will of God. God could not remain dissatisfied with such a sacrifice for our sins, because God was the one who satisfied (Macarius, § 98). Our sins are numerous, but they are limited both in nature and in number, and self-sacrifice, suffering and death of the Divine Person must have an infinite price before the court of eternal truth; the satisfaction brought by Jesus Christ is incomparably greater than was required, and therefore the suffering and death of the Savior have the meaning not only of a ransom for us and the payment of a debt, but also the meaning of the greatest merits before the court of eternal truth (Macarius, § 98). With these and similar reasoning, my Friend, it is impossible to celebrate the Nativity of Christ. Really, what is Christmas? This is the birth of such a Person who can be punished in such a way that the truth of God will be satisfied. Legal theory casts a shadow over the great feast of the Nativity of Christ. Not only that. The luminous night of the Resurrection also fades from this theory. I have always been amazed at how poor the paragraph on the resurrection of Christ is in our dogmatists. The impression I get from reading these paragraphs is this: the author feels that it is awkward not to write about the resurrection, but he is perplexed about what to write. And so some see in the resurrection of Christ only proof that the satisfaction brought by the suffering of Christ is accepted, that it is real. Macarius has less than a page on the resurrection of Christ. The Resurrection of Christ, however, is considered here as a victory over death, but the reasoning about why, as a result of the Resurrection of Christ, we will all be resurrected one day is not distinguished by certainty and convincingness. Thus, my Friend, legal theory, focusing on Calvary, deprives us of the full joy of the holidays of Christmas and the Resurrection of Christ. What do you think is the conclusion from legal theory for moral, for spiritual life? I think that the direct logical conclusion from this theory is the denial of all spiritual moral life. In fact, Christ suffered for us and paid our debts. Have we become better, cleaner because of this? The guilt of sin has been removed from us. Let’s assume that the thief was subject to legal punishment according to the manifesto. Has he stopped being a thief? And do we need to be better? Who demands this from us and why? Do we need to avoid sin and fight it? After all, the satisfaction brought is “abundant,” endless. It is enough for any number of my sins. And so Catholics and Protestants, blindly believing in the legal fiction of medieval scholasticism, drew a logical conclusion in theory: they crossed out the entire moral life. This is in theory, not in practice, because the heart sometimes feels the truth better than logic. You, Friend, may be surprised: how did Catholics and Protestants cross out the moral life? Yes, that's exactly it. If our relationship with God and our salvation are limited to legal bills, insult, punishment and satisfaction, and if the satisfaction brought for us is even “abundant,” then we can live as we please. Pay your debts - Christ has already paid them in advance. And now, instead of the feat of fighting sin, there is a blasphemous trade in indulgences even to this day. Do not think that indulgences are an abuse. They are a direct derivation from the legal theory of the atonement. Catholic theologians are only more consistent than ours. Our dogmatists, expounding the legal theory of atonement, for a long time keep pace with their Catholic models, but then, feeling that something is wrong, they step aside and get confused in contradictions, while Catholics boldly reach the point of absurdity. Our people want to correct Catholic teaching, when it needs to be abandoned entirely. And here even the Reverend Sylvester 3 speaks respectfully of Anselm, not finding anything in him that is contrary to Orthodoxy. How do they think about correcting Catholic dogma in our country? We are developing a doctrine about the subjective side of atonement. A person must, they say, participate in satisfaction on his own part - through faith, good deeds, suffering in life, crucifying the flesh with passions and lusts. This is exactly what I can’t understand! If satisfaction for me was brought by Christ, and even “abundant,” then what can I add here? Infinity will not become larger, no matter how many units you add to it. In addition, they told me that I cannot satisfy the truth of God, which the Son of God satisfied, and now it turns out that my satisfaction also means something, as if without it even the infinite satisfaction given in the death of the God-man on the cross is not enough! And then, what are my good deeds, my struggle with sin and passions - a condition of salvation or a consequence of salvation? Am I virtuous because I am saved, or am I saved because I am virtuous? Thus, having turned off the Catholic path, our dogmatics finds itself in an impenetrable forest of irreconcilable contradictions. And what illumination does my entire moral life receive, artificially attached to a legal theory of salvation that can do without it! The entire earthly life of Christ, I said, is converted by legal theory into punishment. In the same way, my spiritual life seems to be a punishment. I must not be virtuous because this is good and joyful in itself, but because I must satisfy the truth of God through an unpleasant and painful struggle with sin. From this illumination alone, real spiritual life perishes. I do not pray because my soul desires it; no, I “atone for sins.” I would like to say in the words of the poet: After all, prayer is for you begging for a place On the cart that Christ is dragging to heaven 4. Almsgiving, fasting, worship - all these are external deeds that are credited to my account for payment later as a reward, or at least to mitigate the coming punishment. True, a person who lives in the sphere of civil, external and, of necessity, legal relations is always inclined to transfer legal views to the matter of salvation. But this, my Friend, should be looked at as a belittlement of the idea of ​​salvation due to human weakness. Let the popular prints of the Last Judgment depict the weighing of a person’s deeds on scales, but to elevate this idea to the level of a dogmatic theory - no, I will never reconcile myself with this and will always fight against it. Thus, my dear Friend, it is impossible to agree with the legal theory of salvation, which neglects both the incarnation and the resurrection, and knows only Golgotha ​​with the darkened sun, with the confused creature, with the trembling earth, with the disintegrating stones. This theory is alien, non-church, penetrated into church theology only two hundred years ago, established here after the defeat of the Orthodox Russian Church by Peter I. This theory, adapted to Orthodoxy, is contradictory and does not explain anything. Finally, it is directly harmful to moral life. However, imagine, my Friend, that in our country this theory still finds defenders who defend it with energy worthy of a more respectable application. I just can’t understand why they need her, why she is dear to them, why she is so sweet and amiable. But others are inclined to look at the rejection of the legal theory of atonement as some kind of campaign against Orthodoxy. Even such concepts as satisfaction and merit, which are absolutely alien to Orthodoxy, find defenders among us. But in my opinion, to allow these concepts into theology means to distort the pure image of sound teachings about salvation. It’s especially wonderful, Friend, that’s what. Opponents of the legal theory of atonement (to which I consider it my sacred duty to belong) are sometimes accused of... what do you think? In Protestantism. Lord God! But Protestants speak falsely about salvation no better than Catholics. They also adhere to legal theory. Opponents of the legal theory point to its undoubtedly Catholic origin, and its defenders reproach them for sympathizing with Protestant Germans. I am certainly not to blame for such an inclination towards Protestant Germans. Frankly, my friend, I tell you: I have not read a single Protestant German book about salvation. I tried to read, but after a few pages I gave up with disgust - the same lifeless scholasticism as that of Catholics or our dogmatists of the 18th-19th centuries. I learned the teaching about salvation from Saints Irenaeus of Lyons, Athanasius the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, from the Monk John of Damascus, in all our liturgical books, where the inspired hymns of the ancient Church speak. Thank God, blind trust in the fabrications of the Catholic Middle Ages in Rus' over the past 25 years has begun to fluctuate significantly. Books have long appeared - by Father P. Ya. Svetlov “The Significance of the Cross in the Work of Christ” 5, Archimandrite (now Archbishop) Sergius 6 “Orthodox Teaching on Salvation”. Both of these books, perhaps, appeared in the world thanks to the participation of Archbishop Anthony, 7 who for 30 years has been tirelessly advocating for the cleansing of our theology from Catholic scholasticism. To tell you, Friend, in truth, the books of Father Svetlov and Archbishop Sergius still do not satisfy me, and precisely on one point: insufficient importance is given in them to the very fact of the incarnation of the Son of God on earth, although Father Svetlov in the second chapter has collected excellent patristic material on the issue of the incarnation, which is not put at the center of the work devoted to the meaning of the Cross. In a brief outline, the doctrine of salvation, beginning in Bethlehem and through Calvary coming to the resurrection and Olivet, can be stated as follows. In paradise people sinned. Their sin consisted of disobedience to the will of God, that is, in asserting their own will, in self-will. Man turned away from God by abusing freedom. Sin is not a crime, not an insult to God. This is a human illness and misfortune. Created in incorruption and bliss, man could remain so only by carrying out the will of God. And the violation of this fundamental law of existence had the immediate consequence of a perversion of human nature. Sin was a loss of spiritual health. Man fell into decay, death and suffering. The original state of man contained within itself a source of bliss. The distorted nature itself received a source of suffering. It was from this state of suffering that the person had to be healed and saved. The point is not in the forgiveness of sin and not in the satisfaction of the offended God, but in the healing of the person himself and in the return of primitive bliss to him. The sick man himself could not heal himself. The wisdom and goodness of God creates the economy of the incarnation. The Son of God is incarnated, and in the single Hypostasis of the God-Man two natures are united - Divine and human - “unfused, unchangeable, inseparable, inseparable.” This unity of natures in itself is the source of human salvation. There is a renewal of man, “the deification of man,” a new creation. God once created Adam, the dust of the earth. Adam turned to dust again. From this dust of dusty Adam, the Word, incarnate, borrows flesh, human nature, from the Pure Virgin. Human nature is one and is not just an abstract idea. Therefore, the unity of God and man in Christ is the eternal unity of the Divine with humanity. The real unity of humanity explains the transfer of Adam's sin to Old Testament man. The same unity explains the salvation of all in Christ. It is not debts that are transferred from one to another, but human nature itself changes. Humanity is gaining new strength. The original beauty of our nature is restored (words of St. Cyril of Alexandria). A new existence begins. The unity of the human race, cut apart by sin, is being restored. On the basis of the incarnation, the Church is created, this universal human organism of love. Having assumed human nature, the Son of God together with him overcomes the sinful self-affirmation of the creature. On Golgotha, the God-Man made a renunciation of the sinful, human will. This will trembled at the cross, wanted to pass by it, asked: let the cross pass by, but, united with the will of the Divine in Christ, it said to the Father: “Not my will, but Thine be done.” In suffering, the Son learned obedience, humbled Himself, becoming obedient even to death, and death on the cross. By the disobedience of one the many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one the many will be made righteous. Golgotha ​​and the Cross are a turning point in history. Before, man came from God; now he turns to God. God does not sue man on Golgotha, is not self-satisfied with the execution of his Son, but takes the shit and joyfully kisses the returning prodigal, unfortunate son. It's done! We took the pea-grass sheep, human nature, the incarnate Son of God, and brought it to the Father. Golgotha ​​and the Cross are a turning point in the consciousness and will of sinful humanity. Every moral turning point occurs with pain and suffering. This is how it was accomplished on the Cross, where for us, for our sake, but also with us, as He calls us brothers, Christ suffered. Truly Christ fought for us to the point of blood on Calvary. But why is this terrible Golgotha ​​saving me? Not by itself, but because in Bethlehem the Son of God accepted my nature into the unity of His Hypostasis. Through the unity of natures in Christ, humanity was able to break its sinful will on Calvary. Thus, Golgotha ​​receives true theological illumination from Bethlehem, over which the Heavenly Host glorified God on the great night of Christmas. Bearing my human nature, the Firstborn from the dead passed through the gates of death and the grave, without seeing corruption. Corruption and death were defeated, incorruption and eternal life were granted. The natures in Christ are inseparably united, and Christ, having ascended in glory, seated our nature at the right hand of the Divine glory. But all this again is not at all because our debts have been paid, our appointed punishment has been suffered, but because from the very unity of our natures in the person of Christ we have truly become different. At the first creation, God breathed into Adam the breath of life, and Adam became a living soul. It is the same with the new creation. “I carry a storm of breath,” descended on the apostles and the Spirit of God was given to the entire Church, which became the source of new, grace-filled life. The work of salvation accomplished by Christ forms the basis of the new moral life of humanity in the Church. If a person was sick, now he is healed and his spiritual health is restored. Renewal of nature must also pass through the individual; salvation must become personal. And man, through the struggle with sinful and passionate nature, achieves his own personal salvation. The ascetic feat of Christian life is neither a punishment that satisfies the truth of God, nor a “service” before God, but it is precisely the accomplishment of my personal salvation, a certain regime that restores spiritual health. Just as sin and its consequence, suffering, are inextricably linked with sin, so bliss is connected with virtue. Virtue itself is bliss. Bliss is not given to a Christian as an external reward. May there be no such mercenaryism and trading in the holy cause of salvation! Bliss, like a tree from grain, grows from virtue, from a person’s affirmation in the will of God and in goodness. Through good deeds a person does not earn his own payment or reward, does not deserve bliss for himself, but does them because he is good and is likened to the All-Good God. The ascetic feat of fighting sin is sorrowful, but also joyful, difficult, but also lightens the soul. There are also bearers of triumphant Christianity on earth, always joyful, always with Easter chants on their lips, and their faces are like the face of an Angel. At the same time, the servant of sin suffers, has no peace and joy, and in appearance is likened to the gloomy faces of demons. In this presentation, my dear Friend, the doctrine of salvation seems to me pure and sublime, consistent and coherent, alien to the mercenary-trading spirit of Catholic dogma and Protestant wisdom. This same teaching also motivates me to the saving feat of fighting sin, to cleansing my heart from sinful habits, to confirming my will in goodness. The legal account of merit and good deeds must be alien to the moral realm; This is the area of ​​purely conventional human relations, and conditional morality is not morality. I think that it is quite possible to do without the legal element both in the field of religious doctrine and in the field of moral teaching. This element separates moral teaching from doctrine, and in the church’s understanding of salvation, doctrine directly turns into moral teaching. The salvation accomplished by Christ entails the accomplishment of one’s own salvation by man in the ascetic struggle with sin and passions, and this accomplishment of salvation gives the person being saved bliss in itself. The Cross of Christ is not eliminated, Golgotha ​​is not dispensed with in the proposed understanding of salvation, but receives its undeniably proper place in the system of Divine economy; only for the sake of Golgotha ​​the quiet night of Bethlehem and the bright night of the Resurrection are not darkened. The thought that theologizes about salvation comes to Bethlehem, sees the Baby lying in a manger, and reverently bows before Him as the Savior of the world. Christ was secretly born from the Virgin in a den, secretly He rose from the cave of Joseph of Arimathea, but the theological thought in Christmas sees the creation of a new creature and the deification of man, and on Easter the victory over corruption and death triumphs. These two great triumphs are overshadowed by the legal theory of atonement, depriving them of their full meaning and referring only to Calvary. Do not be surprised, my dear Friend, that I wrote all my arguments without citing evidence from church authorities. It would be easy to do this. I have collections of extracts. But why repeat the same thing? Each of the great theologians of the ancient Church, although in different words, says, in essence, the same thing that I said in my own language. I find the ideas about salvation expressed on almost every page of the patristic works, especially in the sacred East, and I find them in all centuries. These creations are like a blooming and fragrant garden. And I come to our dogmatists of the 18th-19th centuries, and they seem to me like a waterless, dry and rocky desert. I will draw your attention, dear Friend, to only one thing. Read carefully the service for the Annunciation and Christmas. In our churches, stichera and canons are skipped, instead stretching out endless and meaningless partes. In these two services you will find truths set forth in this letter of mine, but you will not see any hints of the legal theory of atonement. Here are a few thoughts from the service for the Annunciation: “Rejoice, O Blessed One, O One who delights in God, for you have received God incarnate in Your womb, and by You you call humanity to ancient bliss for the sake of compassion.” “Adam is renewed, and the shadow of our being, by the deification of Him who received confusion, became the Church of God.” “Since the beginning of time, the sacrament has been revealed today, and the Son of God, the Son of Man, comes to pass, so that we may receive something worse and give us something better. Adam of old lied (deceived), and God, desiring to be, did not exist; Man is God, so he can make Adam God.” And here is from the Christmas services: “To raise up and co-glorify human fallen nature has clearly come.” “Let all creation rejoice and play, for Christ has come to renew us and save our souls.” “Having been corrupted by transgression in the image of God, all that exists is corruptible, 8 the best of Divine life has fallen away, and the wise Creator renews it again.” “He renewed us as man.” “Through the communion of the flesh, the bitter one gave the Divine nature.” “From the very unity and communion you made the ringed one into God.” “The glorious sacrament is being established today, nature is being renewed and God the Man is born.” “People... are now consoled by the rebirth.” Such words, Friend, are not found in dogmatists. I can imagine what a wretched service the defenders of the legal theory of the atonement would put together at Christmas. But, thank God, the ancient Church, which left us its worship, did not know this theory. We cleave to her ideas in worship, and she labored for the truth of the Incarnation, for the mystery of Bethlehem of the century, because she wanted to defend for a sinful and unfortunate person the greatest joy and hope - for a blissful rebirth, for the restoration of original beauty. Take comfort, Friend, with this joy in the days of Christ's Nativity! Starting with A.S. Khomyakov, back in the 19th century. Voices speaking out against “Western dominance” in Russian theology began to sound increasingly louder. Criticism of the influence of Western scholasticism on Russian theology was directed primarily against the so-called “legal theory” of salvation, based on the soteriology of Anselm of Canterbury and reflected in manuals on dogmatics of the 19th century, in particular in “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” by Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakova, † 1882). The first studies directed against “juridism” in the doctrine of salvation can be called the master’s thesis of Professor Archpriest P. Ya. Svetlov “The Meaning of the Cross in the Cause of Christ,” which was defended at the MDA in 1893, and the work of Archimandrite Sergius (Stragorodsky) “The Orthodox Doctrine of Salvation,” which was defended by him in 1885. Analyzing scholastic system of atonement, Father Pavel Svetlov noted that “all the immensely great content of the word of the godfather in scholastic theology tends to be contained in the narrow formula of the doctrine of satisfaction.” The cross thereby becomes only a bloody payment for the sins of people to God’s infinite justice (P. Svetlov. The meaning of the Cross in the work of Christ: an experience in explaining the dogma of atonement. Kyiv, 1907. P. 9). Thus, the legal “understanding of life is essentially opposite to the Christian one and ... it was unanimously rejected by the word of God and the fathers of the Church” (Arch. Sergius. Orthodox doctrine of salvation. M., 1991. P. 95). These works were supported by Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), an ardent opponent of the “legal theory.” (However, Metropolitan Anthony’s own understanding of the mystery of atonement, set forth later in the article “Dogma of Redemption” (1917), was subject to unfounded criticism from such famous hierarchs as Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev, †1950) and Archbishop Feofan (Bystrov, †1940). Archimandrite Hilarion occupies a special place in the controversy surrounding the doctrine of salvation. In contrast to the “legal theory” of salvation, which speaks of the significance of the Calvary sacrifice, Archimandrite Hilarion calls the Incarnation as the basis of human salvation, as “rebirth, renewal, recreation and deification” of human nature. A detailed presentation of these soteriological thoughts of Archimandrite Hilarion in the article “Bethlehem and Golgotha” is preceded by a number of early works - “Christianity or the Church?”, articles “Incarnation”, “Incarnation and Humility”, “Incarnation and the Church” (see Volume 3 of this edition) and a lecture “Theology and Freedom of the Church” (see Volume 2 of this edition). Considering the doctrine of salvation sschmch. Hilarion, it is fair to mention the remark of the famous 20th-century theologian Archbishop Vasily (Krivoshein): “Archbishop Hilarion identifies the entire redemptive and saving work of Christ with one incarnation and in his speech says literally nothing about Christ’s death on the cross. He wants to base his theology on church hymns, but he quotes only the hymns of the Nativity, Epiphany, and Annunciation, completely ignoring the texts of Holy Week, the Feasts of the Cross and even Holy Easter, so that in his concept there is no place not only for death on the cross, but also for the Resurrection of Christ, but only for His Nativity and Incarnation” (“Symbolic Texts in the Orthodox Church,” 1964). Archbishop Macarius (Bulgakov). A guide to the study of Christian Orthodox dogmatic theology. St. Petersburg, 1869. – Note. ed. This refers to “Critique of Dogmatic Theology” by L. Tolstoy, which expresses his negative attitude towards the Sacraments of the Church. – Approx. ed. Bishop Sylvester (Malevansky). Experience of Orthodox dogmatic theology (with a historical presentation of dogmas). T. 4. Kyiv, 1889. pp. 159–161. – Approx. ed. Inaccurate quote from Ibsen's dramatic poem "Brand". See: G. Ibsen. Complete set of works. Per. A. and P. Hansen. T. 3. M., 1909. P. 130. – Note. ed. P. Ya. Svetlov. The meaning of the Cross in the work of Christ. Experience in explaining the dogma of atonement. Kyiv, 1893. – Note. ed. Archbishop Sergius (Stragorodsky) (1867–1944), later Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' (1943–1944). In 1895 he was awarded a master's degree in theology for his dissertation “Orthodox teaching on salvation. The experience of revealing the moral and subjective side of salvation on the basis of the Holy Scriptures and the works of the patrists.” – Approx. ed. Archbishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky, 1863–1936), later Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia, the first primate of the Russian Church Abroad. In 1888 he was awarded a Master of Divinity degree for his dissertation “Psychological Evidence in Support of Free Will and Moral Responsibility.” – Approx. ed. That is, which was the cause of the corruption of the created world. – Approx. ed. You might be interested in: