The teaching of St. Apostle Paul on Christian life “in the spirit” and his original independence

Assumptions that the Apostle of Languages ​​reduces the ordinary course of Christian life to the actions of the Spirit according to Hellenistic influences through the book of the Wisdom of Solomon, for previously only extraordinary gifts were supposedly spiritual. – The inaccuracy of this Theory, since for St. Paul a) all Christian existence was miraculous and b) always allowed for unusual spiritual discoveries, and c) the latter were associated with an unchanging Christian transformation. – The relationship between the Spirit and Christ in the Apostle. – Incorrect interpretations about the different lighting and understandings of Christian life by the Apostle - from the side of the Spirit and from the point of view of faith; the mutual solidarity of these factors and the unity of the apostolic understanding. It is assumed that St. Paul was an innovator when he began to explain ordinary Christian life by the actions of the Spirit, while previously they were understood in this sense, as if only extraordinary gifts. However, the second point is illuminated incorrectly. On the contrary, it is clear that according to the chief apostolic understanding, a Christian invariably is with Christ, and Christ incessantly dwells in every Christian. Therefore, here there is neither a sporadic accident of spiritual invasion, nor a miraculous exclusivity of its manifestation, which, while emerging with unprecedented clarity, in no way suppresses the normal Christian dispensation 1 . From this it is obvious that before the eyes of St. Paul did not have an imaginary criticism of the extreme, and he did not have to work to eliminate it in order to be carried away in the diametrical direction. That is why we do not find in him any adversatism imposed on the past. We agree that the Hellenic evangelist was called upon to be the organizer of a Christian social regime for cosmic conditions and, in these interests, had to take care of ensuring the ordinary order of life, where any extraordinary thing is often even a disruption and shock to healthy progress. According to the meaning of his mission, he focuses on ensuring that the ordinary is always truly Christian for everyone. This motivates the fact that for him Christian grace is introduced into the being of a person and is reflected in the ordinary activities of life. The question now comes down to solving the problem: does this ubiquity of calm functioning really deny sporadic extremeness and is absolutely incompatible with it, so that for the second a completely different agent would be necessary? All this will be revealed to us with sufficient satisfaction when we acquire the apostolic view of the very Christian existence of believers. We will stick mainly to messages that relate to the time after the supposed crisis - with an appeal to the Hellenistic elements. This is especially the case with the apostolic letter to the Galatians, which is most exploited by “critical” authors for the sake of genetic reconstructions. What exactly and specifically is the essence of Christian rebirth? This is best illuminated by comparison with the past. Due to his sinful exhaustion, man is incapable of good, since his weakened forces are fettered by the bonds of carnality and work for its benefit. The desire for good will not be crowned with success and is more often accompanied by the opposite result, for externally stimulated energy acts only in the familiar and accessible area of ​​carnal alienation from God. It is not surprising that for such pain, the pure brightness of the divine law serves only as an irritation, aggravating the severity. The inability to fulfill is accompanied by an uncontrollable darkening of the commandment and actually entails a complete violation, which results in a conscious transgression of the categorically expressed will of God. The Apostle always taught this, everywhere and everywhere, and the result of all the persistent aspirations of the most sincere mind is called the “curse” of final hopelessness. Consequently, each of the earthly beings is helpless to create righteousness for himself and to implement its norms. For him, deliverance is probable only on the indispensable condition that he ceases to be his former self. But since at the same time life is preserved and reaches its highest flourishing, it follows that what was hitherto must be replaced by another, when the personality, absorbed by it, thinks, feels and acts in this new consciousness of the infused subject. Here a person dies in his individual originality and merges with his liberator to such an identification that he is transformed according to him, and he, as it were, settles into his imitator and functions through the organs of his indestructible personality. The first moment of Christian grace will be the self-denial of a complete break with everything that has existed and ruled until now. This is the beginning of rebirth, which arises and is established under the banner of an irrevocable confession: “I live no more” (Gal. 2:20). It is clear that - despite its truth - this subjective negation is inseparable from the objective, life-giving factor in dignity, which is necessarily contrary to the entire previous order. Death to sin is accompanied by the revival of Christ, and by this we are necessarily convinced that “Christ lives in the justified.” What remains of sinful individuality is only the outer shell of fleshiness, but from now on man, dwelling in it temporarily, emerges from under its domination by faith in the Son of God for the vitality drawn from Him, which is why the flesh continues to become lifeless, as previously was the case with the spirit. For this new stage of existence, all the previous tools turn out to be unsuitable, since they were adapted to the fleshly atmosphere, and the redeemed is in Christ Jesus, when they have no power and where both circumcision and uncircumcision (Gal. 5: 6, 15), with which the pre-grace life was created and fueled, are actually ineffective. All connections with the past are interrupted and all the foundations that held humanity disappear. If it lives even after being separated from the past, then we must agree that here before us is an absolutely “new creation” (Gal. 6:15), for the ancient mimoidosha was all new (2 Cor. 5:17). By being crucified to Christ (Gal. 2:19), the redeemed feels that the world is crucified in relation to him, and he is mutually for the cosmos (Gal. 6:14). A Christian is a completely new creation, created according to God in righteousness and the excellence of truth (Eph. 4:24), since, having been baptized into Christ, they have all put on Christ (Gal. 3:27). As a result, it turns out that the blessed one is separated from the entire cosmic world flow and lives, regardless of it, with unusual resources for which there is neither a source nor a similarity. From all these sides, reborn man is a complete and embodied miracle of the historical world 2. For the latter, he is an absolute mystery in his origin and is only a fleeting inhabitant in him, since the life of everyone is hidden with Christ in God (Col. 3:3), and everyone has residence in heaven (Phil. 3:20). In this area all cosmic differences between Judaism and Hellenism disappear (Rom. 10:12) in the unity of the brotherhood of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13), in which there is neither Jew nor pagan, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female (Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11), because everyone is identified with each other with the absolute non-participation of such characteristics in them as sons of God. In everything and in everything they are not of the world, but above the world. These are the forms in which St. draws. Paul's Christian renewal. Its entire originality lies in the fact that it originates and functions exclusively by the divine Deliverer. For this reason Christ is the ever-present inner force in every believer, but the factual basis for this is rooted in the removal of all previous factors. This means that this ever-present co-presence of Christ is the greatest supernaturalism everywhere, and every member of the grace-filled union is incomparable and extraordinary news in all its functions. Isn't this quite similar to the early Christian picture, in which we saw that all the redeemed were created and defined by the extraordinary gifts of Christ's grace? And the whole difference will be that previously this extremeness took possession of humanity through astonishing discoveries, but now it is revealed that it then penetrated the entire system and became normal in its very extremeness, as soon as all being rises to it and is saturated with it. Of course, on this basis, special manifestations of excessive tension are possible and probable. The Apostle clearly testifies to them in application to his personal evangelistic work and for his church communities. Let us note that the Writer assimilates the miraculousness of St. Paul no less than Peter, depicting their evangelistic construction as identical in their unusualness. This is exactly confirmed by the message in Galatians. It says that at the apostolic meeting in Jerusalem the equality of the author was sanctioned, for the pillars saw (Gal. 2:7) and therefore recognized (Gal. 2:9) that he, along with Cephas, was entrusted with the Gospel of uncircumcision. This conviction was achieved through tangible clarity, since he who promoted one also contributed to the other (Gal. 2:8), and the results were observable. It is clear that there are facts of missionary practice, where the mutual communication of personal human power and incoming divine power is stated, from which an extraordinary combination was necessarily obtained. In this case, it is hardly permissible to dispute that these were the signs and wonders that Paul and Barnabas spoke about at the Apostolic Council when reporting on the missionary experience of their first journey (Acts 15:12) 3. In this regard, the apostolic self-testimony about the many revelations of the Lord with raptures into heaven acquires indisputable importance (2 Cor. 12:1). This indication is weakened by critical guesses about the composition of the second letter to the Corinthians, allowing for all sorts of divisions and cuts. But no matter what is obtained on this subject, the Galatian news will always confirm that the Apostle assimilated the extreme influence of the divine not only before the supposed turning point with an inclination towards Hellenic concepts, but carried this faith with him invariably. And it is characteristic that in his eyes this was not a violation of the usual Christian disposition, for it served to infuse the power of Christ into human weakness (2 Cor. 12:9). Here supernaturalism nourished and supported Christian normality, just as in the primal Church the latter was created by spiritual gifts. At this point the analogy is undeniable, and it extends to the life of the entire family of believers. In this regard, it is unshakable that for St. Paul, all those he converted were his spiritual children (Gal. 4:19), who should be formed in everything in imitation of their father (1 Cor. 11:1). It is inevitable that the teacher repeated himself to a certain extent in his students. And we read about the giving of the Spirit to the Galatians and about the performance of miracles among them (Gal. 3:5 δυνάμεις ἐν ὑμῖν ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἢ ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως). And since “powers” ​​are associated with faith, it is categorically suggested that within it lies the fearless possibility of such acts. The Christian faith is miraculous by its nature and invariably remains miraculous, although this potentiality is not revealed at all times and not to the same extent. Under such conditions, it is fundamentally impossible to agree that the supposed recognition of spiritual gifts was a passing conviction, which the evangelist abandoned and then began to profess simply the continuous action of spirituality. Such a rejection is unthinkable simply because it would contradict the very essence of saving faith. But this was the fundamental dogma of all the apostolic hopes, and St. Paul would never have dared to sacrifice a single element of it. For all this, the Apostle receives an unshakable justification for the primordial doctrine of the constant legality of the extraordinary actions of the Spirit in Christian societies while they remain true believers. It is clear that in this justification the subject being interpreted will also receive special lighting. Spiritual miracle-working is closely combined with faith, and this, being truly life-giving and redeemingly grace-filled, concentrates everyone in Christ with the dignity of brothers and provides sonship with God. Believers are children of God and are united in God according to their spiritual being. In this form, faith leads to its single producer, from whom all its private acts emanate, identical in their origin and equal in the interests of achieving the goal of divine providence realized through them. From this point of view, it is immutable that spiritual gifts, growing on the soil of faith, despite all the differences in external manifestations, must be strictly united in their source, for all this is produced by one and the same Spirit, dividing each individually as He pleases (1 Cor. 12:11). From this side, talents are mutually solidary and, by their very mutual adaptability, are equivalent as joint means for revealing and confirming the intentions of the original culprit. This is the correlation of spiritual gifts. They are built on the foundation of faith and therefore are strong only if this support is strong and retains all its steadfastness. Gifts occur only with faith and therefore only with it have the proper meaning, but they appear, as it were, beyond faith, when it has already opened and while it is functioning in its immediate functions. From this it follows that for the emergence and fruitfulness of gifts, it is necessary that faith be fully revealed in its natural properties, without which they are deprived of support for their proper use. But the grace-filled power of faith requires that it certainly acts from itself through love itself (Gal. 5:6) 4 and without it it cannot be vital, falling to the level of circumcision and uncircumcision, since the second is not an appendage, but a necessary reflection of the very soul of faith. Then for our question it is formulated that without love, which embodies the very essence of the Christian faith, all spiritual gifts are insignificant, which will be empty wonders - without solid foundations and without a receptive application (1 Cor. 13:1). At the same time, we see that spiritual “actions of forces” are always possible with faith, but are not unconditionally obligatory in it for everyone and at every moment, because they do not constitute its usual function, serving as extraordinary companions and the highest witnesses of normal development to the intended ideal. In this sense, they are transitory and will disappear completely when the feat of faith is crowned with absolute completion (1 Cor. 13:8). On the contrary, faith is absolutely impossible without love, where all its own existence is exhausted. Therefore, love will not cease, being eternal (1 Cor. 13:8). Hope still somewhat approaches it, but growing out of faith, it becomes hope in what contains and promises righteousness. So it is said about her that ἀπεκδεχόμεθα (Gal. 5:5). Here faith is depicted as a source that actually imparts the corresponding good through the Spirit communicated through it. It is obvious that faith has produced all its effects, and the closest and necessary thing for it is justification in delivering the truth of God to people. For this reason, the apostolic formula cannot at all be attributed to the expectation of (receiving) righteousness itself, since the latter is here thought of as being given in advance in realized faith. It is irresistible that this is not the hope of righteousness, but the hope of righteousness of all that it has to deliver at its time of final reaping (cf. Gal. 6:9) 5 . But it is clear that in this era of realization of all aspirations there will be no place for hope (cf. Rom. 8:24), which will be eliminated by possession. Hope is also not an eternal moment and does not contain the very essence of faith, being its living and most gratifying reflex. Contrary to this, love is for faith the essential internal force of its very life and in its all-perfect development exhausts all energy, depriving it of its special originality. Here faith turns into believing love and is absorbed in it. This clearly reveals that love alone does not cease and in the trinity of blessed gifts of Christian rebirth is greater than faith and hope (1 Cor. 13:13). For the special subject of our speech, this fundamentally explains that all spiritual gifts are subordinate to love, as the most important manifestation of faith, on which they themselves are built. Now the future is sufficiently foreshadowed in the most difficult question of ordering and regulating spiritual actions. They are called forth by faith and therefore are normalized by it in their fruitfulness through love. In terms of being and its qualitative suitability, all spiritual gifts depend on faith and, naturally, are subject to it, subject to its control. With such a view, it is not at all surprising, or rather, completely natural, that when discovered, the spiritual powers of the Apostle turn out to be subject to free human disposal (1 Cor. 14:1) and in their application can be directed so that everything will be decent and in order (1 Cor. 14:40), for the prophetic spirits obey the prophets (1 Cor. 14:32). But this does not at all destroy the unusualness of gifts, and they retain all their extraordinaryness, because not everyone has them (1 Cor. 12:29) and not always (cf. 1 Cor. 14:30). As a result of all this, it turns out that spiritual excellence is revered by St. Paul accessible to a truly Christian revival, having for itself an everlasting foundation in faith on which it is built. For these reasons, such phenomena were permissible for him from the very moment of the establishment of faith, and the Apostle could confidently confess all the certainty of the greatest outpourings of the Spirit in the primal Church. Here the Hellenic evangelist finds himself in harmonious solidarity with the early Christian tradition, just as it led to the apostolic teaching about the inner and inseparable dwelling of Christ in all the justified. This agreement is all the more impressive and valuable because it does not erase the individual characteristics of different images, but reconciles them in the unity of evidence of different sides and stages of a common object. These are the extraordinary actions of God among believers and during the dispensation of faith. They are necessary in their very miraculousness, because in a dilapidated world the miraculous power of God’s grace is installed, which is supernatural both in its source in God and in its incommensurability with the medium of its manifestation. It is inevitable that the invasion of this factor is accompanied by a vivid reflection of its greatness with all its dazzlingness. However, energy is directed to ensure that this force becomes an inseparable element of all renewed existence. Unusuality directly leads to the constancy of calm and continuous action. This provides a transition to Pavlovian formulas along with the assurance that it adequately corresponds to objective movement. But the latter does not cease to be itself because it now flows along a certain channel, and supernaturalism in relation to the cosmos continues to be miraculous, although it is already expressed in the entire Christian way of life. And we know that the Hellenic evangelist portrays the Christian as the greatest miracle in his very normal Christian existence. This means that the Apostle of Languages ​​does not at all deny extraordinary spiritual influences, for they are thought to be rooted in the Christian being itself and therefore always legitimate. Here the early Christian tradition prepares the ground for Paulinistic contemplation, which - in turn - categorically certifies its objective truth by the miraculous nature of the equally assumed factor. With such objective unity, it is logical that both sides confirm themselves mutually, and each speaks not about itself, but about the other. The early Christian community was built up and nourished by spiritual gifts in order to settle down in the world with its characteristic organization for assured progression. This explains that the most characteristic documents of this period in the (authentic) conciliar epistles are almost completely silent about the miraculous powers of the influence of God in the sphere of grace and focus on ensuring a lasting Christian order, while it would be absurdly strange if the primacy of the Church accepted only momentary ecstatic states. On the contrary, St. Paul devoted all his energy to streamlining life-Christian relationships and bringing them within certain boundaries, and it is precisely in him that he treats in the most detail and clearly the gifts of the action of the Spirit of God. Genetic criticism is clearly exposed by this riddle and cannot be resolved until it is agreed that “tradition” and the Apostle of Languages ​​are mutually identical in the commonality of the subject they equally understand and coincide in its entire outline, despite all the differences in points of view and moments of observation. Under such conditions, the Hellenic evangelist did not have the slightest motives and materials to violate the primordial contemplation with original transformations or to transform himself in the grave crisis of trampling on all his previous hopes. Therefore, he should have neither hesitation nor changes - and on the issue under consideration this is justified in principle. The soul of all the Christian convictions of the great Hellenic missionary was the doctrine of faith, in which, as specifically Christ’s, he found his salvation and the key to all the age-old secrets of world history. This is the dogmatically immutable foundation of all apostolic aspirations and wisdom. Everything is rooted in this point and develops from it. It is inevitable that any foreign addition would have to be an artificial addition, not justified by the principles of faith. Therefore, deviation regarding the actions of the Spirit would serve for the latter as an unmotivated appendage that does not flow naturally from it. But it is enough to mention that in our case the situation is diametrically opposite. Without any comments, it is irresistible and indisputable that the ever-present penetration of spiritual rebirth in Christians is caused by faith and is built on it, when it gives the Spirit in sonship to God through Christ (Gal. 4:6), by which they live with their characteristic fruits (Gal. 5:22, 25). The ordinary Christian life is actually the life of faith. The same is no less true for extraordinary spiritual gifts, because the “actions of powers” ​​arise with faith, are determined by it according to their source, are illuminated by their dignity and are regulated in joint subordination. Faith itself, by nature and influence, is an exceptional Christian miracle, and in it sparks of grace-filled miraculousness constantly lurk, flashing with a bright flame from the breath of the Spirit of God on a worthy altar, where wonderful warmth is guarded by believing Christian love. We see that St. Paul, spiritual gifts are closely combined with faith and are revealed from it. It is clear that they, merging at their core with the eternal, reviving influence, are not eliminated by it and can be in the inner community. For this reason, both of these classes do not at all mark two incompatible currents and they do not need to allow for the unnatural fragmentation of the integral Christian personality of the Apostle. And the same relationship to faith shows that the evangelist was unshakable in his dogmatic conviction and did not diverge from the early Christian tradition in the confession and understanding of a single regenerating spiritual power, and all differences are reconciled in it, since the Divisions of gifts are the same, and so is the Spirit; and the divisions of services are, and so is the Lord; and divisions of actions are the essence, and God is the same, acting all in all (1 Cor. 12:4–6). So: on the dogmatic question studied by St. Paul does not appear to be in conflict with the chief apostolic views, and agreement with them indicates that he was built on the basis of factual data. Then he had no reason to sacrifice objectivity and withdraw from it for the sake of alien theoretical abstractions. Radical modifications are impossible here, just as they are not found in existence. In all this we must accept the inevitable conclusion that the Hellenic evangelist understood spiritual effectiveness in the same way, and he did not need to come up with different explanations for it. This predetermines what follows, because according to its interpretations, criticism is obliged to admit that St. Paul later considered the spirit-bearing energy to be special in comparison with the early Christian interpretation, and its influence had to be motivated in other ways. This leads us to a review of critical speculations about transformations in apostolic Christology. It is believed that initially the Church was dominated by belief only in extraordinary divine influences through the stimulation of momentary ecstatic states. For the Apostle, such a view turned out to be unsuitable. There were many contributing reasons, but the most important one was that for him, natural man was naturally sinful and incapable of original correction or improvement. Equally, grace was considered an equally durable quality of the regenerated nature itself. For these two extremes, with the nature of mutual negation, there was no mediating connection and no satisfactory transition. If previously messianic deliverance was understood in the sense of the well-deserved realization of hopes and the crowning of spiritual aspirations, here strict continuity was stated in the change of moments without the need for reconciling interventions. Moreover, it is not surprising that the outward revelation of all the inner ideal wealth should have been accompanied by astonishing discoveries of the saving divine power, which, in each of its application, was resolved by miraculousness. Not so with St. Paul, and such factors were certainly not enough for him to ensure Christian renewal. Being ever-present, the latter required the inseparable participation of blessed energy. From here it inevitably followed that the presence of rebirth postulates the internal co-presence of its producing culprit in people. This forced us to confess that Christ abides in every member of the Lord’s society, abolishing the reigning sinful elements and displacing them with His life-giving principles. Already this universality of the invasion forced us to think of the Deliverer as unlimited by the framework of individuality with the assimilation of His permeability everywhere. As for the nature of this immensity, perfect spirituality as an essential property is obvious from the very natural contrast of fleshiness and its negation. As a result, both the identity and identification of the glorified Lord with the Spirit were formulated with the complete absorption of the second. This resolved the most difficult Christological task, but it arose under external Hellenistic influences, which gave new illumination to the fact of human helplessness, and therefore was eliminated only by strictly appropriate means. Naturally, on this point, a Hellenistic source is revealed in the book of the Wisdom of Solomon, where both concepts merge in the unity of their object and, due to their equivalence for it, freely replace one another. For St. For Paul, this was a truly saving combination, and he hastened to take advantage of it with the proclamation of the spiritual life-giving of the Savior, and at the same time he also adopted shades of materialism in the understanding of spirituality itself. We have sufficiently argued that there was not the slightest reason or basis for these transformations. Therefore, it now remains to be seen whether there is at least a point of application for them in the apostolic contemplations, so that the use of extraneous elements of Hellenistic origin is possible. Such support is found in Paul’s view of grace-filled rebirth, for which it is accepted that the last Adam became a life-giving spirit (1 Cor. 15:45). If this evidence is used to reveal the ever-continuing grace, then it is indisputable that the Redeemer, glorified at the completion of his earthly deed, is of course. This categorically rejects all reinterpretations of this reference, and it rightly refers to Christ incarnate, even if already exalted 6 . But such a belief is least favorable for genetic similarities. First of all, it is important that spiritual life-giving is depicted as a harmonious crown, consistent with all previous development. This is perhaps the highest stage, and yet it is related to the others in its essence. The difference is only in degree. The lowest is stated for the “first man” in the sense that he was a living soul and had reserves to temporarily ensure only his personal existence. Contrary to this, the Lord turned out to be the creator of life itself and, possessing it autonomously, distributes it to everyone around him, being a life-giving spirit for them. From all this it is clear that spirituality is depicted as an primordial property of the very nature of Christ and is not at all confined to one or another moment. Then it cannot be said that the idea of ​​the pneumatic nature of the Lord was invented later to eliminate the difficulties of theological construction, where it was necessary to extend the personal dignity of the Deliverer to all believers. In this case, for the sake of this, it would be argued that spirituality was an incidental element and is associated exclusively with the glorified state, without including the early period of earthly service. One might expect a sharp overshadowing of this originality, that it is not akin to the earlier content, which would be contrary to it. Here the Deliverer of this era was supposed to appear fleshly as “Christ according to the flesh” (2 Cor. 5:16), who was allegedly presented to the consciousness of the “previous” Apostles and is now rejected by the Holy One. Pavel. But he himself seemed to have previously accepted these hopes, and therefore their echoes are also heard in Christological modifications. This shows that spirituality was introduced later, because it does not directly grow from the previous one, but only borrows some reflections from it. In these interests, the critical guess is especially dear that the pneumaticity of the evangelist was not alien to materiality. At the same time, factual indications were obtained regarding the view of the repressed, and in the new one there were real data for rapprochement with Hellenistic speculation. It is not surprising that in critical circles the categorical opinion is firmly established and widely reigns that both the New Testament and the Hellenic evangelist presented spirituality materialistically 7 . However, such a judgment is false on all sides 8. There is no factual justification for it, and at the very beginning something is taken here that is completely contrary to the intentions and aspirations of the apostles. The critics themselves emphasize that St. Paul had a low view of all material things and noticed in them a connection with sinfulness. If we put aside the exaggeration, then we agree that materialistic dominance was for St. Paul was unnatural and was attracted to every kind of error. Therefore, redemption was depicted as spiritual deliverance and through spirituality. The latter was necessarily devoid of everything that was strictly and exclusively materialistic, and this meant that it was not material. A reverse understanding would be incompatible with the fundamental apostolic premises and therefore completely incredible 9 . But it is indisputable that Hellenism was least successful in understanding and substantiating true spirituality, which always had deeply materialistic shades for it, even with all the subtleties of abstraction. Then it turns out that Paul’s teaching about the spirit is certainly not Greek in its origin and meaning 10. This is also unshakable when applied to the issue under discussion. Divine rationality, of course, was everywhere presented in its superiority under cosmic limitation. But since spirituality was considered alien to materiality, then it is natural that they could not merge with each other and were not combined in the unity of internal solidarity. Such disunity is seen everywhere, and in Philo the Logos almost absorbs everything, giving almost no role to the activity of the spirit 11 . The pseudo-Solomonic identification of these concepts will not be Hellenistic and is rooted in ancient Israelite views 12. Accordingly, apostolic pneumatology renounces all Hellenistic influences, acquiring the character of biblical independence, 13 and its special clarity should say that St. Paul had real support in the contemplation of the face of Christ Jesus and in the experience of His spiritual influence. Thus, it is not at all confirmed that the idea of ​​​​the spirituality of the Lord was a later one and was attracted to satisfy the needs of Hellenistic hostility towards everything carnal, where otherwise the internal dominance of the Christian revival would be incomprehensible. For this, there was no need to transfer a new definition to the historical Deliverer, since it was necessary only to explain the influences of the exalted Lord. It is not surprising that the Apostle does not reveal a doctrinal transformation, for there are no echoes of materialistic ideas on our subject. And if there is no significant change and there are no particular reasons for it in the postulates of the Hellenistic structure, then the most commented fact loses the tendentious sharpness of genetic adaptations. Thus, the cardinal critical point about the identity of Christ glorified and the Holy Spirit with the absorption of the original peculiarity or individuality of the second is correctly illuminated before us. This conviction is motivated by the fact that in order to ensure the universality of grace, it was necessary for the Apostle to attribute spirituality to the Redeemer, since only with this could He penetrate into the sphere of sinful carnality 14 . It is in this tone that the above thesis is formulated, which meets with support in the widespread interpretation that the evangelist valued little the historical feat of Christ and concentrated everything on His spiritually glorious renewal, when there was not enough room for other spirituality. In these interests, it is again allowed that St. Paul closely adheres to the book of the Wisdom of Solomon, leaning towards a “philosophical-mystical” understanding 15. Under such conditions, even attempts at personal interpretation are not crowned with success. They express apodictically that the spirit of holiness, according to which he who was born of the seed of David was revealed as the Son of God through the resurrection from the dead (Rom. 1:4), is precisely the Holy Spirit. Moreover, it is inevitable that Christ acts in the quality and dignity of the Spirit, all whose functions are now associated with the person of the Lord 16 and have their source in Him, where any additions are unnecessary. In this title, the Redeemer delivers from the legalistic yoke and provides believers with all the privileges of freedom 17, being “the holy power of God” 18. With such inseparability from Christ’s personality, spiritual activity also acquires an individual flavor, but the latter is borrowed from the personal participation of God 19 and rests on the fact that “every activity of the exalted Lord is mediated through His Spirit” 20 . Therefore, all personal hints are smoothed out in their energy 21 and weakened with the help of a guess, as if “the church distinction of three persons in the deity was not understood in the sense of the current distinction of three personalities,” thereby eliminating the separate individuality of the Spirit 22. In all these interpretations, false facts are often put forward and their true nature is only erroneously determined. It has long been noticed and successfully emphasized that the Apostle borrows everything from grace-filled experience, for which rebirth is always spiritual. It is understandable if it is now said that Christ acts spiritually or as a spirit; however, this only states a genuine phenomenon and does not at all affirm a known theory. The imposition of the latter would not correspond to an objective account of accurate observation, which simply testifies to empirical truth apart from and apart from reference to doctrinal tendencies 23 . For now, we will have no more than that the exalted Lord renews us spiritually, and this does not at all affect the hypostasis of the Spirit. There should be a deliberate speech about this, and here it is convenient to recall that it rejects in advance borrowings from the pseudo-Solomon’s creation, since it does not treat two personalities in wisdom and spirituality, which are rather the essence of the properties of God and therefore are themselves united in their personal medium. This does not contain or prepare for hypostatic reciprocity. For her, duality is not allowed in view and because of the indissolubility of individual spiritual manifestations from the person of Christ. But here the properties of spirituality are actually assigned to Christ, and to resolve the question of its originality, such cases are necessary where the personalities of the Lord and the Spirit are compared. This is the clear apostolic indication (in Gal. 4:6) that “God sent the Spirit of His Son” πνεῦμα τοῦ). Philologically it is argued with sufficient strength that the verb used presupposes a separate existence for the one sent in comparison with the sender (cf. Acts. 7:12, 11:22, 17:14) and affirms for the Spirit, along with the Father, the same individuality that is assigned to the Son (Gal. 4:4 αὐτοῦ) 24. Through this, the Spirit is a really pre-existing personality, which is sent by God. It is all the more surprising that the Spirit is called Son. Catholics base their dogma of the Filioque 25 on the text under discussion, and this serves to benefit critical intentions, since the “procession” is easily reconciled with the assumption that spirituality is entirely found in the Son and is unthinkable without Him. The true movement of apostolic logic does not justify such interpretations. The hypostasis of the Spirit was confirmed in it at the very beginning, and there was not the slightest need to affirm it again. Then we should not look for personality predicates here. A Filioque, belonging to the hypostatic properties, is not at all connected with the given place in which we are obliged to see the subsequent moment. For the individual, this will be the qualitative side of the subject, because for undoubted individuality it is important to find out its only dignity. In turn, the latter is usually based on natural advantages, the degree of which is measured by the indisputable value taken. By the strength of this, the apostolic rapprochement of the Spirit with the Son to the point of indissolubility puts forward their mutuality according to natural equality and formulates before us exclusively the truth of consubstantiality. This gives the final definition to the personality that, with its individual isolation, it is naturally identical with the divine Son. This strict gradualism in the revelation of the idea is the best guarantee of its own consistency and finds support in all other exegetical considerations. And there is no doubt that the genitive cases τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ (6th art.) and αὐτοῦ τὸν θεὸς (4th art.) do not differ from each other in energy, from which it follows that the relation of the Spirit to the Son exactly coincides with the relation of the Son to To my father. But there, in addition to the personality (ἐξαπέστειλεν) of the Son, the very name of Him also directly marks the nature of His connection with the Father, which is why here, too, only a characterization of this sonship is possible in the sense that it is divine in its perceived nature. It was precisely this divinity that was required by all previous considerations. They depict the hopelessness of humanity in its subjection to the elements of the world (Gal. 4:13), when it is absolutely unable to escape from its slavery. Here the very initiative of liberating intentions will be higher than human or divine, and even more so the very fulfillment must be created by purely divine means. Therefore, the whole process is caused by God himself, and for actual implementation it is destined that it is achieved by a person who is not created and, therefore, essentially divine. Thus, the Son requires natural divinity, which is acquired by Him through natural affinity with the Father. In this tone, a similar thing is read about the Spirit, that He is co-essential with the Son of God and through Him with God himself, i.e., unconditionally divine. It is obvious that the ultimate goal of the apostolic explanations is to testify to the natural divinity of the Spirit. In this case, it is perplexing why this is achieved through a roundabout way of mathematical argumentation, that two quantities that are separately equal to a third (Father and Spirit = Son) are also equal mutually (Spirit = Father), while it would be easier to say this directly. Since the thought remains the same, then, based on this originality, it is necessary to conclude that it was not admitted in vain and marks its own special shade. It is permissible to guess about it in the course of the apostolic edification. Here it is stated that the very idea of ​​redemption belonged solely to God and therefore it needed a divine instrument that adequately corresponded to its greatness. For this reason, the sent one is the natural Son of God, who arranges everything with truly divine superiority. The task reaches its absolute crown, and through adoption all believers are made sons of God by grace (Gal. 4:5, 6 init.). The immediate mission ends with this result, because the desired authority for inheritance is indisputably secured by the conferred sonship. But it goes without saying that then there is still a need to constantly ensure this success in delivering the pledges of the inheritance itself. This is already a function for which a special agent is required. He is faced with the actual continuation of the work in the actual strengthening of what has been gained and the inseparability of harmonious agreement with it. For this, it is inevitable that the second should be invariably faithful to the first and take his place as a double. The future is guaranteed unshakably only under this condition, and it is realized with absoluteness only with the natural identity of both engines. We are talking about the filial feat, and from here it is natural that - as the recipient of the latter - the Spirit is defined in terms of its relationship to the Son 26, for it takes upon itself the filial functions 27 and invariably carries them out in the creation of Christian revival among people 28. This in the analyzed expression satisfactorily reveals its unusualness, which illuminates for us the subject being analyzed at the point of interest. From this we see that St. Paul strives for a decisive affirmation of the closeness of the Spirit to the Son, but the very need and energy of these efforts are motivated only by their indisputable individuality, since a deliberate fencing of natural solidarity turned out to be necessary. The result will be that even where the fusion is apparently formulated most clearly, on the contrary, the personality of the Spirit along with the Filial 29 is clearly emphasized. With all this, natural equality in the unity of nature and in the consent of activity is no less resolutely stated. This again explains the apostolic testimonies. We found that the Spirit continues the saving ministry of Christ and, being actively personal, strictly adheres to this purpose in the sphere of the grace-filled rebirth of humanity. Here the Spirit appears everywhere with the mission of Christ and is perceived precisely as Christ 30). In turn, the Lord functions with the indispensable participation of the Spirit 31 and in his gracious influences is entirely spiritual. They coincide with each other in terms of the real outcome and are solidary in it. Therefore, if both factors agreed on a beneficial trend, no difference was felt between them in the beneficial experience, and it is not surprising if it is not noted in the observation of the facts of the regenerating influence. On the contrary, it is quite normal that for them a continuous spirituality is stated, in which only the divine Redeemer is revealed in Christian hearts. In this concept, the apostolic formula (2 Cor. 3:17) that “the Lord is the Spirit” (ὁ δὲ κύριος τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν) is outlined before us in its immediate meaning. In it, identity refers primarily to the grace-filled effectiveness in the restoration and justification of Christian freedom 32. For this area, the Lord enters with all the distinctions of the Spirit, as the Spirit liberates in the dignity of the Lord and we are transformed into the glory of the Lord, precisely because this is natural with the Spirit, since He is the Lord and furthers the purposes of the Lord (2 Cor. 3:18). Undoubted natural equality here does not at all turn into personal absorption, which the reasoning does not touch at all. And the parallelism with nomystical lethality convinces us that it is interpreted exclusively about the regenerating activity of Christ, and it, being spiritual, does not eliminate the individuality of the Spirit - in agreement with the fact that the law is not exhausted in its existence by the letter, although it actually worked with murderous literalness. Likewise, Christ acts spiritually, without eliminating the Spirit and without being covered by It personally, for such a property rests simply on the equal spirituality of the nature itself. This quality was not a later addition to the original idea of ​​Christ for the sake of theoretical requests. Of course, it is unshakable that the last Adam became a life-giving spirit (1 Cor. 15:45), and this was his acquisition. With all this, success is predetermined by the natural differences that he was a man from heaven (1 Cor. 15:47), where his personality has its own ontological foundations, alien to cosmic materiality or essentially spiritual. Consequently, the Lord was spiritual from the beginning, and therefore it cannot be said that this quality was acquired only by the Exalted One through the application to him of the concept of the Holy Spirit, when spiritual pre-existence, drawing closer to the Jewish speculation about the spirit of the Messiah reigning over the waters 33, almost directly resolves into pure abstraction 34. In this case, there will be no need for unusual motives for the concept of the spiritual Christ, since it is original and remains the same. At the same time, it is obvious that the dominance of this idea could not be accompanied by a significant revolution in the religious and moral worldview of the Apostle. From this, the true value of further critical guesses about the results of the supposed Christological transformation is sufficiently justified. They think of her that the latter appeared to satisfy unexpected needs caused by the invasion of Hellenism. This allows us to assume that the previous manuals, which had their own goals and other paths, were not at all suitable for the new task. Naturally, the old direction will differ radically from the later one on the most important question of how the grace-filled rebirth passes from Christ to people and gives rise to true life in them. Through this, in the apostolic doctrine of Christian grace, two currents are stated, for which two characteristic slogans are named. This is faith and the Spirit. With such a contrast, it is inevitable that the whole of Christian existence is in no way built on the first. It was put forward according to the Jewish method of justification and abolished all these methods in the dignity of a factor that delivers what is sought to an absolute degree. Therefore faith is not the initial or introductory act, but the whole fullness of righteousness with its corresponding reflections. In this sense, it is necessarily the basis of Christian moral activity, and is necessarily “promoted by love” (Gal. 5:6), which serves as a kind of factual measure for it, which creates the need for a person to account for his behavior with the inevitability of judgment 36. However, it would be a mistake to consider faith as the exclusive center of Pavlova’s entire religious and moral system, and on this basis she has a strong competitor. This is the Spirit, which is depicted as the creator of life itself, where it captures contemplation and ecstatic admiration. But mysticism is always characterized by coldness of indifference to everything really historical. That is why, in the case of the evangelist, the historical personality is so overshadowed by the pneumatic Christ that, in addition to the danger of pantheism, there were points of contact with Neoplatonic religiosity. Accordingly, a derogatory view of everything worldly and of being in the world itself is formulated, which ceases to be the field of the developing kingdom of God. Naturally, the entire attitude of Christians will be exhausted by the enthusiasm of passions in continuous dying for the cosmos 37 . From this side, the moral feat of the work of self-improvement is deprived of all religious importance, since everything worldly in ourselves and in everything around us loses it 38 . Here pneumatology will be in decisive contrast to pisteology. Was there some unity between them and what special things do they note in the common subject of the moral and Christian structure? Careful consideration (especially Gal. 2:20) convinces that faith provides the possibility of grace-filled life in cosmic conditions under which it would otherwise be unthinkable, since it does not fit into them and rests in the Lord, from where it is drawn only through a believing merger with the Savior. In the view of the Spirit, the most cosmic obstacles are not allowed or taken into account, and the regenerate imagines himself absorbed in Christ with the denial of all consciousness of space, time and his own individuality 39 . This is the same life in God, but no longer in the world, but outside the world. In this tone, the death of Christ is also illuminated as a mystical withdrawal from cosmic frailty with a transfer to the sphere of eternity, 40 when any difference between the religious and moral moments was smoothed out and the second was attributed to the Spirit. As a result, all this abolished the personality itself 41. Before such a collapse of all the premises of his teaching, the Apostle smooths out the extremes and, equating the Spirit with the knowledge of God, finds a moral basis in faith, which is imprinted by subjectivity and activity, that is, it affirms individual originality and guarantees the freedom of one’s own tension 42 . Here the Calvary sacrifice becomes the pacification and reconciliation of God and opens up space for the justified to remain normally in the world 43 . This ensures the internal value of moral achievement without correlation with religious interests, and a person acquires resources for his own normal growth, in which the kingdom of God is prepared and anticipated on earth 44. In this, both currents coincide, and in the end we find in them two quantitatively different types of piety, of which in one world its goods are simply rejected, in the other they are overcome and serve as the basis for Christian re-creation 45 . There is an enthusiastic rise above all spatial and chronological restrictions, here there is a calm subordination and implementation of 46 with the same inviolability of hope for complete cosmic independence. When applied to moral tasks, these directions diverge diametrically and reflect, as it were, two souls combined in the chest of the Apostle, in whom similar antinomies coexisted, which were the components of his individuality and the support of strength 47. This attempt has no direct contact with genetic reconstructions, and for them its undoubted solidarity is all the more precious, because unexpected and unintentional agreement always serves as objective confirmation of the accuracy and impartiality of critical observations and constructions. And there is no doubt that the correspondence between them is amazing. With genetic connections, it is stated that the material and cosmic interferes with direct communication with Christ, why everything happens in the spirit and through the Spirit. In this case, with this factor, the entire totality of the material-cosmic is rejected and trampled underfoot due to its uselessness and hostility, and the new being is transferred from the cosmic region and leaves it unconditionally. But life in the Spirit consists precisely in renunciation of all materiality with its absolute elimination. Based on this coincidence, it is quite logical to conclude that Christological pneumatology developed and took root in apostolic dogmatics along the path outlined by criticism, which turns out to be the only legitimate way to penetrate the secrets of Pavlov’s “Gospel”. Of course, this will not be true before it is exegetically confirmed that pneumatic contemplation rested on a (dualistic) disregard for everything material and was not suitable for moral regulation - contrary to the principle of faith that normalized the cosmic wanderings of people. Therefore, everything will be clarified when we answer categorically whether the named contrast with such sharp outlines of the opposing sides is found in the apostolic doctrine? The first thesis - about the influence of the Spirit - is formulated with all rigor, and weakening it only undermines the hypothesis itself, since both terms will have identical content. However, even now the moral indifferentism of the pneumatic view remains in all its severity. If a person is removed by the Spirit from the cosmic-material environment, then for the spiritualized one it does not exist at all. Carnal-worldly and material relations do not affect the pneumatic in the least. They remain outside of divine holiness and therefore are sinful, but this only states their objective qualities and does not give them a moral assessment in the sense of vices, with their filth bursting into the atmosphere of the purest spirits of God. There is no collision between the areas described, and then ethical conflicts between them are virtually impossible 48 . Here the very basis for moral action and moral judgment disappears. To refute such interpretations, it is hardly necessary to add that this erases real earthly existence and along with it abolishes a specific historical personality, without which there will not even be an object for spiritualization. But without any experience it was irresistible that this position bordered on the absurd and was absolutely unnatural. For the sake of spirituality itself, it was necessary to protect the individuality that fell within it. Therefore, the Apostle’s “I do not live” (in Gal. 2:20) is closely combined with “I live,” which affirms the personality where Christ dwells. This means that spirituality is based on strong individual security, and it is also guaranteed by faith in the Son of God 49 . This reveals the internal connection between the interaction and intercommunication of faith and the Spirit, 50 of which the second is preceded and prepared by the first. And we find that the very reception of the Spirit is conditioned by the hearing of faith (Gal. 3:25) and is mediated through it. So this is indisputable and factual, since God sent the Spirit of His Son to Christians precisely and solely in view of their sonship (Gal. 4:6), and they are children of God only by faith in the Lord the Savior (Gal. 3:26). Spirituality is a special attribute of filial fullness, but since this is brought by faith, then in fact spiritual life takes its very beginning in it (Gal. 3:3). In all this it is certain that faith is considered a prius for the installation of the Spirit, which must necessarily function in accordance with its true inclinations. This harmony testifies to the complete solidarity of both factors and does not allow us to expect them to separate later with anything less than hostility. Naturally, they try to avoid this conclusion with the help of the trick that supposedly such primacy is applicable only to missionary practice starting from the catechumen 51, while the conversion of Paul himself was built on spiritual insight, which was always for him the objective basis for the subjective conviction of faith 52. Again this is not a convincing idea. The Evangelist speaks in principle and does not at all hint at missionary adaptations, for, without touching on the origin of the filial state, he confines spiritual participation to it alone, which he does not allow before or in addition to it. It is impossible to imagine any other order, since it would turn out that a person has filial privileges without having sonship itself. This means that I live in words not for this purpose, but Christ the Apostle lives in me and for himself he does not describe life before faith, because without it, even before it, there would be no Christian life. On the contrary, it is the life of faith, by which the former persecutor died to the law by the law, that he might live to God (Gal. 2:19). And since the new being is actually Christ’s, the individual-carnal part is rejected and partly turns out to be dangerous for the spiritual and not reconciled with it, threatening cosmic obscurations at the slightest contact. On this score, a warning is made that from now on all individual earthly existence is supported not by ordinary resources and is organized by faith. It is clear that this outlines the previous situation with the connotation that the life of Christ in me occurs from my side of the life of faith in the Son of God. In this unity, both acts coincide and remain inseparable, which is why their separation is absolutely unthinkable. Hence the false and tendentious reinterpretation that in the few cases of the primacy of faith, the Apostle immediately reinforces its subjective fragility with an appeal to spiritual inviolability, behind which lies God himself 53 . Putting on Christ by being baptized into Him (Gal. 3:27) is not at all depicted as the granting of sonship, but confirms its actual presence by reference to the completed merger with the divine Son 54. Likewise, the admonition of the Corinthians to test whether they are in the faith recommends measuring not the degree of strength of this faith, but its very existence, by the presence of Christ in them (2 Cor. 13:5). Therefore, it is already necessary for the emergence of spirituality and necessarily predetermines that the latter develops the feat of faith and works together with it. The dwelling of the Spirit in the hearts of Christians confirms their gracious sonship and serves as a reflection of it (Gal. 4:7), as we read earlier (Gal. 3:26) that it is generated by faith. The Spirit functions on the basis of faith and applies its principles. It is clear that their moral energy will be equal in jointly rewarding those reborn with all filial prerogatives and in maintaining them at a corresponding height. And the final crowning is motivated by this reciprocity, since we draw hope from the fruits corresponding to righteousness from faith through the Spirit (Gal. 5:5). Moreover, the very desire for this goal requires identical consent. But we have seen that a person, living by faith, lives only by it and in the flesh itself, which is deprived of any active intervention in this life process 55. No less than that, walking by the Spirit is closed in pure spirituality (Gal. 5:25) to such self-conclusion that with it a Christian will certainly and forever not fulfill carnal lusts (Gal. 5:16: καὶ ἐπιθυμίαν σαρκὸς οὐ μὴ τελέσητε), for carnality in its lusts is contrary to spiritual attractions, and their imperceptible or unintentional interweaving is fundamentally impossible without a person not feeling violent adversarial carnal pressure to your spiritual zeal (Gal. 5:17) 56. From this side, spiritual fruitfulness will be precisely the content of life by faith in the flesh, but without the flesh. This negative formula is now illuminated positively, that life without carnal participation is spiritual fruitfulness. It is obvious that even at this level, spiritual functions are intertwined with the elements of faith and are fueled by it 57 . It is not surprising that the important extraordinary operations of the Spirit also fall under its control, as we have actually found that spiritual gifts are regulated by faith 58 . We have traced the relationship between both factors at all stages and, as a result, we do not see the slightest contrast between them. They are reflected in the community of blessed prosperity. This begins with deliverance from sinful helplessness in acquiring the freedom of Christ. The death of the Lord does not simply deny or condemn slavery, but abolishes it by granting dominion. Here the fact is repressed and suppressed by the fact. From this point of view, the opinion is erroneous that when assessing the scale of faith in the Calvary sacrifice, only the legal importance of crediting the truth of Christ in removing barriers between humanity and God is learned, while the perception of divine revival is achieved through spiritual and mystical contemplation. This exaggeration is refuted by the fact that everywhere the onset of hereditary legal capacity is stated with all the data for the uncontrolled use of bequeathed property, which happens in real possession. Likewise, Christ’s replacement of sinful people is not limited to legal abstraction; on the contrary, in this very act the unity of every person with the Lord is conceived, which is why regenerating life-giving does not seem independent of the substitutionary propitiation of Christ, but is included in the latter and follows from it 59 . From this side it is exegetically unfounded that St. Paul understood justification only legally, 60 meanwhile he necessarily contained the legal aspect and the actual consolidation of the legal order with all its advantages. New life is not an addition to righteousness, but co-inherent in it, for the second is the justification of life (Rom. 5:18), which must proceed according to its origin or with ethical correctness 61. Therefore, for the Apostle, the righteousness of God was not just an element of his Gospel, but embraced the latter entirely 62 in all the depth of the gospel of real renewed existence. Under such conditions, there is hardly any need to argue that the faith was not accepted by St. Paul for purely intellectual energy 63 and was for him the power of real deliverance with the message of real filial freedom. The former slavery consisted in the suppression of weakened spirituality through carnality, from which it is clear that triumph will be truly spiritual unconstrainedness. This creates the ground and scope for pneumatic influences, which previously would not have had a corresponding point of application and would have been deprived of all fruitfulness. They are established on the revival of faith and function in its sphere. The work of the Spirit is established on faith and moves along the paths of faith, which is why it is normalized by it in its actual manifestations among members of the Christian brotherhood. Outside and apart from faith there are no “manifestations of the Spirit for profit” (1 Cor. 12:7). This means that spirituality in its application is ensured by faith at all stages of establishment and functioning. But such a judgment is no less unshakable and vice versa. Faith, since it boils down to spiritual liberation, must certainly be accompanied by the fullness of spiritual vitality and is completely impossible without it 64. For this reason, the Spirit serves as a seal of the presence of faith and testifies to its normal state. And if faith is a preliminary and an inseparable companion of the Spirit, then, in turn, the Spirit turns out to be a necessary factor in the very existence of faith in the regenerate. They cannot be dissolved or opposed, since they converge in a single center, and therefore the Apostle does not have two different views through them, since by their togetherness he characterizes an integral, blessed individuality. In it they are inseparable, although they mark different sides. Through this, the true relationship between both moments is more accurately determined. Faith, clinging us to the suffering and risen Christ, takes us away from sinful infancy and rewards us with the power of inheritance by sonship, which is acquired through communion with the natural Son for the second time or through adoption, but truly. Faith through the Lord bestows and protects filial dignity. The latter inevitably reveals itself with its characteristic spirituality and receives its vitality from the Spirit, which is the indispensable engine of filial rebirth and prosperity. In the end, both ensure one position in its emergence and development with a harmonious desire to protect filial integrity. Here the ethical tasks will be solidary by the very generality of their subject and for him boil down to preventing the invasion of cosmic-flesh principles, since this subject rests precisely on the absolute overcoming of their decisive insubordination. Therefore, both faith and the Spirit are equally negative for the world and reject all its participation in the origin and progression of the “new creation” of the children of God. At this point there is not the slightest difference, and faith no less than the Spirit turns man away from the cosmos, because together with him it grounds grace-filled autonomy 65 . Now it is clear that negativity itself is directed towards establishing the dominance of a regenerated being, which by its very essence conquers and adapts everything to its interests and goals. From here arises a corresponding need to transform the cosmic according to its type with the transformation of the entire structure. This is the indispensable ethical task of every Christian on this earthly pilgrimage, in order to transform everything worldly through the influences of grace. Here the believer departs from his actual blessing and only to the extent of it achieves this or that success. Christian moral life is not a simple confession of an ideal, from which a well-known ethical program for one’s behavior when influencing the environment is theoretically extracted 66 . No, this is here an application of the revival itself, the degree of which determines the entire result. That is why anchorites and hermits often had the greatest ennobling influence on the world, while at the same time they ran away from it and were eliminated in every possible way. And the whole reason is that in Christianity, morality is a direct reflection of personal moral purity, which necessarily spreads outward in width and depth in proportion to its reserves, just as the sun radiates with ease and irresistibility 67 . Therefore, the great Christian ascetics had to shine with the light of their virtues and regenerate ethically connected modernity to the last peripheries, where their own moral strength penetrated. But if Christian ethical demands are drawn from grace-filled renewal and are carried out according to its elements, then it is clear to the point of dazzling that this work is accomplished with the help of the very factors that create the real foundation. And since faith and the Spirit jointly participate here, this categorically testifies that they also fulfill the ethical feat. For these reasons, it would be fundamentally false to say that in the Apostle of Languages ​​only faith is given ethical importance, while the Spirit supposedly produces only ecstatic indifference. On the contrary, both of them jointly evoke and guarantee the most ethical energy, which is why they are inseparable during its functioning. True, a Christian lives in the world by faith, but this life of faith is always accomplished in the Spirit, which is obligatory during the ethical feat of faith in dominating the cosmos and transforming it. With such a correlation between the strict reciprocity of the ethical process and the regenerated state, it is necessary that all ethnic norms are derived from the second. And St. Paul had no need to turn to outside aids, given the ever-prevailing source in the contemplation of grace-filled renewal. It goes without saying that the genetic involvement of the book of the Wisdom of Solomon is also unnecessary, which, however, does not suffer from school-philosophical tendentiousness on this subject, for even in the most characteristic places (Wisdom 8:7) it reflects in its terminology the general heritage of the eclecticism of that time 68. Of course, there Sophia is depicted as “the principle of universal reason and moral law” 69 - only for the Apostle all this was combined in the historical Deliverer, from Whom all ethical resources were drawn in the revival itself. In the latter, in terms of their influence, faith and the Spirit jointly participate, since this very gracious reality rests on them, since the first bestows sonship, the second enters into the content of filial life. We get a state of grace and its activity is ethical. These are two sides that coincide in a complete object, but still do not absorb and are not covered to the point of identity. Therefore, their solidarity in a specific connection does not at all speak of the personal unity of the primary culprits and rather convinces of their individual duality with complete equality in essence. By this, difference is not denied and agreement is ensured, since in faith Christ rewards sonship and predetermines filial spirituality, and the Spirit bestows filial fruits and preserves sonship itself. Hence it is natural that the Apostle does not systematically distinguish between the extraordinary and ordinary actions of the Spirit (Emil Sokolow ski, Geist und Leben nach den Schviften des Paulus, S. 1: These 4). For all these reasons, and from a biblical-theological point of view, it is unfair to believe that the essence of religion is enthusiasm (cf. above on pp. 600, 574), although such a view is now noticeably advanced in theology (according to the testimony of Prof. Ernst von D obschütz, Die urchristlichen Gemeinden: sittengeschichtliche Bilder, Lpzg 1902, S. V). It is even less permissible to reduce the “heavenly delights” of St. Paul almost directly to history (Emile Lombard, Les extases et les suffranees de l'Apôtre Paul: essai d'une interpretation de 2Corinthiens XII, 1 – 10 in “Revue de théologie et de philosophie” 1903, no. 5 & 6 [Septembre et Novembre], p. 480 suiv. 494 suiv.) in the form of neuropathic hallucinations sui generis (p. 490), while other diseases are attributed to the evangelist - such as ophthalmia (p. 467 suiv. 490), but with the denial of malaria and epilepsy (p. 468 suiv.). However, not accepting the latter entirely and leaning in favor of morbid nervousness, Ad, Harnack still admits that in Galatia the Apostle suffered an epileptic seizure, supposedly suggested by an allusion (in Gal. IV, 14) to the ancient custom of spitting out from such misfortunes: see Medicinisches aus der ältesten Kirchengeschichte in “Texte und Untersuchungen" VIII, 4 (Lpzg 1892). S. 93–94. See also book. I. page 759, 273. Wed. in our book: The Gospel of Christian Freedom in the Epistle of St. Apostle Paul to the Galatians (St. Petersburg 1902), pp. 112 – 113, and in the magazine “The Wanderer” 1902, No. 7, pp. 27–29. It is now quite clear that in the teaching of the Spirit the Apostle of tongues does not see any development and on this subject his view remains the same even in those epistles that are considered “Deutero-Paulinistic” (Emil Sokolowski: Geist und Leben nach den Schriften des Paulus, S. IV, and Die Begriffe Geist und Leben bei Paulus, S. VI). Wed. in our book: The Gospel of Christian Freedom in the Epistle of St. Apostle Paul to the Galatians, pp. 79–80, and in “The Wanderer” 1902, No. 6, pp. 1109–1110. See in our book: The Gospel of Christian Freedom in the Epistle of St. Apostle Paul to the Galatians, pp. 119–120, and in the magazine “The Wanderer” 1902, No. 7, pp. 35–36. See here: The Gospel of Christian Freedom in the Epistle of St. Apostle Paul to the Galatians, pp. 119, and in “The Wanderer” 1902, No. 7, pp. 35. See above on page. 240 words 249., as well as cf. at A.V. , about the Resurrection in the body in “Soulful Reading” 1904, No. 5, p. 54. See above on page. 295, 790, as well as in the book. 1st on page 719 ff., 215. See and Dr. Rudolf Busse, Zur Pneumatologie des Apostels Paulus (Berlin 1900), S. 7. See also Arthur Titius, Die neutestamentliclie Lehre von der Seligkeit II, S. 229, 1. See Prof. Ferd. Kattenbusch, Das apostolische Symbol II (Lpzg 1900), S. 672 and to this cf. in Heinrich Weinel, Die Auslegung des Apostolischen Bekenntnisses von F. Kattenbusch und die neutestamentliche Forschung in “Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde des Urchristentums” II (1901), 1, S. 34. In Philo and in created beings, πνεῦμα from a strictly psychological point of view is almost generalized with νοῦς (Quod deter, potiori insidiari soleat § 22 [M. I, 207. C.-W. I, 276–277. Yonge I, p. 262]; cp. C. Siegfried, Philo vou Alexandria als Ausleger des A. T., S. 240, † Edwin Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek [Oxford 1889], p. 126), and objectively it merges with the air, it means wisdom (see Edward Hicks, Traces of Greek Philosophy and Roman Law in the New Testament, London 1896, p. 47). It goes without saying that - in turn - the teaching of the Old Testament about the Spirit does not find parallels in Hellenism and in Philo: cf. L. Hackspil in Revue biblique international XI, 1 (1-er Janvier 1902), p. 69. Wed. Arthur Titius, Die neutestamentliche Lehre von der Seligkeit II, S. 245: "in der Vergeisterung des Pneuma Paulus wesentlich selbstständig vorgeht". Wed. book I, pp. 724–725, 215. Prof. Joh. Weiss, Die Nachfolge Christi und die Predigt der Gegenwart (Göttingen 1895), S. 94. Rud. Buse, Zur Pheumatologie des Apostels Paulus, S. 5. R. Busse, Zur Pheumatologie des Apostels Paulus, S. 8: “Der lebhafte Ton, in dem Paulus von dem πνεῦμα ἂ γιον spricht, die Häufung der Ausdrücke, die eine Persönlichkeit voraussetzen, lassen sicherlieh Schluss zu, dass sich Paulus die Einwirkung des πνεῦμα als die einer Person vorgestellt hat.” Along with this, “das α᾿ ποχαλυ᾿ πτειν in 1. Cor. 2, 10, das βου᾿ λεςθαι in 1. Kor. 12, 11 ist als ein von der Person Gottes ausgehendes zu denken. In diesem Sinne muss das Wesen und Wirken des paulinischen πνεῦμα ἂ γιον als das einer Person aufgefasst werden.” R. Busse ibid., S. 8 and 18: 9. Joh. Gloël, Der Heilige Geist in der Heilsverkündigung des Paulus, S. 377 u. Anm. 1. See Prof. Hermann Gunkel, Die Wirkungen des heiligen Geistes nach der populären Anschauung der apostolischen Zeit und nach der Lehre des Apostels Paulus (Göttingen 1888), S. 86–87. Cp. and David Somerville, St. Paul's Conception of Christ (Edinburgh 1897), p. 118–119. Wed. book I, pp. 247, 66. See, for example, Rud Cornely, Epistola ad Galatas in Cursus Scripturue sacraë commentariorum in Nov. Test. Pars II-in libros didacticos, vol. III (Parisiis 1892), p. 529. To this whole department regarding Gal. IV, 4, 5, 6, see in our book: The Gospel of Christian Freedom in the Epistle of St. Apostle Paul to the Galatians, pp. 100–104, and in the magazine “The Wanderer” 1902, No. 7, pp. 16–20. Regarding the mission of the Holy Spirit, cf. and about. prof. P.Ya. Svetlova, Course of Apologetic Theology (Kyiv 1901), pp. 370 words Without denying certain Hellenistic overtones or semi-philosophical influences in the doctrine of the Spirit, Rev. Prof. James Denney rightly says that “in St. Paul Spirit is in the last resort coextensive with Christianity" (The Theology of the Epistle to the Romans 7: The New Life and the Spirit in "The Expositor" 1901, XII, p. 422), why there is "a subject of experience" (p. 424) and - therefore - "the Spirit is co-extensive with Christian experience" (p. 427). Wed. book I, pp. 557, 248. 728, 215. But Alfred Hegler's unfair conclusion does not follow from this. (regarding the book by S. R. Nösger) in “Theologische Rundschau” IV, 11 (Nowember 1901), S. 446: “es der Theologie nicht gelungen ist, auf dem Grund der orthodoxen Trinitätslehre das spezifische Wirken des Geistes als persönlichen göttlichen Heilsfactors verständlich zu machen.” Likewise, Alexander Röhricht seems to admit that the Spirit is a person strictly as a substitute for Christ and in connection with Him (Das menschliche Personenleben und der christliche Glaube nach Paulus, Gütersloh 1902, S. 87), and not by its being in the trinity itself (S. 98). However, the personality of the Spirit is not only not eliminated, but rather is affirmed (cf. Prof. R. S. Moberly, Atonement and Personality, London 1901, p. 176. 180 sq.) through the recognition that it is He who mediates the presence and activity of the Son (p. 169. 181; cf. Rev. Hugh R. Mackintosh in The Critical Review XI, 6 [November, 1901], p. 532. 534. 536–537), why the Spirit is Christ’s (R. S. Moberly ibid., pp. 194–197. 203 sq.). See also above on page. 644, 810. This leads to the following conclusion from Prof. D. Johannes Haussleiter, Was versteht Paulus unter christlichem Glauben? Eine Untersuchung der Formel πι᾿ στις Χριστοῦ in Greifswalder Studien: Theologische Abhandlungen Hermann Cremer dargebracht, Gütersloh 1895, S. 171: “Der unsichtbare, zu Gott erhöhete Christus ist gegenwärtig im Geist. Im Geist teilt er sich mit; wer den heiligen Geist hat, hat ihn.” If Ad. Harnack based on 2 Cor. III, 17, apparently, brings the divinity of Christ closer only to spirituality (Das Wesen des Christentums, Lpzg 1900, S. 101), then Rev. Prof. Samuel McComb objects, “But the, many passages in which Christ and the Spirit are distinguished—and there is a notable one at the end of this very Epistle-suffice to bar out the identification here assumed.” The Apostle does not say, “The Lord is a Spirit,” but “the Lord is the Spirit.” That is to say, for the purpose which St. Paul has in hand, that is, of showing how, when the heart turns to Christ, the Spirit enters into it and dwells there, the influence of Christ and the influence of the Spirit may be spoken of as synonymous.” This is unity of action, and from here we can conclude only to the equality of the acting forces. Therefore, "we are not here dealing with any depositions as to the person of our Lord. It is the nature of His influence in the hearts of believing men that is under discussion. That influence is spiritual, persuasive, and makes its appeal to the springs of our inner life, in contrast with the influence of the older, which was legal, coercive and externally binding" (Professor Harnack on our Lord's Resurrection). Expositor" 1901, XI, p. 358). See book. I, pp. 246, 64. 863, 538 and A. Edersheim, The Life and Times of Lesus the Messias I 2, p. 178 and not 2 and about. M.P. Fiveysky I, pp. 226 and approx. 2. M, Steffen, Das Verhältnis von Geist und Glauben bei Paulus: ein Versuch zur Charakteristik seiner Frömmigkeit in "Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde des Urchristentums" II (1901), 2, S. 115. M. Steffen ibid. II (1901), 2, pp. 118–123. See also on page. 603. M. Steffen in "Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft" II (.1901), 2, S. 123–132. M. Steffen ibid. II (1901), 2, pp. 132–133. Wed. and above, on pp. 414, 1248. M. Steffen “Zeitschrift für die nentestamentliche Wissenschaft” II (1901), 2, S. 133–139. Wed. above str. 605,594. M. Steffen ibid. II (1901), 3, S. 234 ff. M. Steffen ibid. II (1901), 3, pp. 238–239. M. Steffen ibid. II (1901), 3, pp. 241–243. M. Steffen ibid. II (1901), 3, S. 244 ff. M. Steffen ibid. II (1901), 3, S. 251 ff. M. Steffen in “Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft II (1901), 3, S. 255.” M. Steffen ibid. II (1901), 3, S. 261. M. Steffen ibid. II (1901), 3, S. 257. M. Steffen in "Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliehe Wissenschaft" II (1901), 3, S. 238, 1. In this sense, Rev. Prof. Charles Bigg sees in Gal. II, 20 the mystical dignity of faith in establishing the sacrament of union through it with Christ (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude, Edinburgh 1901, p. 38). According to Rev. Prof. James Denney, the concept of the Spirit characterizes everything Christian according to its source in God, and according to the idea of ​​faith, it is described from the side of our reciprocity in this divine action. This means that in both cases a single object is captured, and if in it, with a certain classification, only one properties are predominantly put forward, then nevertheless, at the same time, the entire sum of necessary qualities is necessarily assumed. See "The E[positor" 1901, XII, p. 423. 426–427. M. Steffen in "Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft" II (1901), 3, S. 259–260. M. Steffen ibid. II (1901), 3, pp. 257–258. M. Steffen in "Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft" II (1901), 3, S. 257–258. Of course, there is certainly the participation of the Spirit here, for, according to the fair observation of Rev. Prof. James Denncy (in The Expositor 1901, XII, p. 425) - The New Testament affirms the inextricable connection of baptism with the Holy Spirit. Of course, the flesh remains in its physical definitions that are natural to it, and therefore the vague words of Fr. Archpriest I.I. Belyaev, as if “a real-sacramental person is free from the physical characteristics that nature endows a person with” (Teaching of St. Apostle Paul on Faith, Moscow 1900, p. 386), since supposedly “in a Christian, the characteristics of the sexes are also real-sacramentally destroyed” (p. 384). Since religion must be expressed in morality (Alexander Röhricht, Das menschliche Personenleben und der christliche Glaube nach Paulus, S, 103, 1), the possibility of sin for a Christian is thereby assumed by St. Paul (cf. Pfarrer R. Vömel, Der Begriff der Gnade im Neuen Testament in “Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie” herausg. von Prof. A. Schlatter und H. Cremer VII (1903), 5, S. 32), - as in the Old Testament (see Prof. Hermann Cremer, Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre im Zusammenhange ihrer geschichtlichen Voraussetzung, S. 47 1), - so clearly (see Lie. theol. Gerhard Bindemann, Das Gebet um tägliche Vergebung der Sünden in der Heilsverkündigung Jesu und in den Briefen des Apostels Paulus in “Beiträge zur Förderuug christlicher Theologie” VI [Gütersloh 1902], 1, S. 86 ff.), which is the opposite opinion (for example, also in Prof. N. J. Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der neutestamontl. Theologie II, S. 59. 118. 121; Wilhelm Karl'a, Beiträge zum Verständnis der soteriolo-gischen Erfahrung und Spekulationen Paulus, Strassburg 1896, S. 14 ff.) is considered not only doctrinaire false (Mach Meyer, Die Sünde des Christen nach Pauli Briefen an die Korinther und' Römer, Gütersloh 1902, S. 67. 73), but also heretical (S. 75). The Apostle decisively proclaimed the unity of religion and morality (S. 18), as principles and applications (S. 31), and for him religiosity is inseparable from morality, and the ethical is necessarily religious (S. 42). Therefore, justification affirms the actual fundamental break with sin (Prof. Rudolf Trümpert, Die Lehre von der Sünde nach den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, Darmstadt 1901, S. 11), which was for all New Testament writers an evil (S. 24) of not just a bodily origin (S. 25), which creates an ethical task for the believer to fulfill when the guidance of the Spirit. Naturally, a court is accepted according to cases (M. Meyer 1. cit., S. 58). The last thought (G. Bindemann 1. cit., S. 78 ff.), obviously, is not in conflict with the teaching of grace-filled righteousness by faith (S. 81 ff.) and therefore is not alien to the apostolic system (S. 85), and this affirms its original immutability. Nor does the reference to what St. Paul does not mention asking the Lord's Prayer for the remission of sins (see G. Bindemann, 1. cit., S. 10. 11. 64). This is necessarily presupposed by the essence of the matter (Lic. theol. Max Meyer, Der Apostel Paulus als armer Sünder: ein Beitrag zur paulinischen Hamartologie, Gütersloh 1903, S. 32), for the Christian does not immediately receive from the outside final perfection (S. 34), which he must achieve through gradual development (S. 23 f.), and here no one is completely free from sin, in fact, by one’s Christian title (Prof. Paul Feine, Die Erneuerang des paulinischen Christentums durch Luther, Lpzg 1903, S. 14. 25); Even the Hellenic evangelist himself considered moral purification necessary for himself (M. Meyer I. cit., S. 33. 39 f. 49), allegedly depicting in Rom. VII Christian state (S. 54. 56, but against this Fr. Alexy B. Bugrov, Orthodox dogmatic account of original sin, Kyiv 1904, pp. 19 ff. 119 ff.; cf. and above on pp. 570, 502). In any case, it does not follow from anywhere that St. Paul was a pneumatic enthusiast (cf. and note 919), since he conquered the whole world (G. Binemann 1. cit., S. 75) and made the deepest revolution in it (Dr. Chr. A. Bugge, Das Christentum als Religion des Fortschritts: zwei Abhandlungen, aus dem Norwegischen übersetzt von 0. V. Harling, Giessen 1900, S. 4). Then it was impossible for him to forget about human fallibility, which for Christianity is undoubtedly allowed by the concept of responsibility. This means that there is no gap in the ethical contemplations of the Apostle, and in this point he has no difference from Christ (G. Bindemann 1. cit., S. 103). From this side, the idea of ​​duality of ethical currents, which they try to connect with aspects of faith and Spirit, is again eliminated. Therefore, Rev. Prof. James Denney rightly states (in The Expositor 1901, XII, p. 430) that "The Spirit is not at all antinomian" and "does not open the door to antinomianism or to moral anarchism." See above on page. 782, 917. This means that the Apostle Paul’s assumptions for the perception of the Spirit are of a purely moral nature (Prof. S. F. Georg Heinrici, Das Urchristentum, Göttingen 1902, S. 46), and therefore early Christianity was not and should not be revered by a society of enthusiasts (S. 47), about which cf. and above on pp. 601, 574. 752, 862. See Rev. Prof. James Denney; The Theology of the Epistle to the Romans 5: Faith and the Righteousness of God in The Expositor 1901, VIII, p. 84 sq. So does Prof. Herm. Cremer, Die paulmische Rechtfertigungslehre im Zusammenhange ihrer geschichtlichen Voraussetzungen (Gutersloh 1899), S. 330 ff. 335, whereby it is assumed that justification is actually election (S. 80), for, being equal to faith (S. 48), in itself it occurs without moral regeneration (S. 51). Rev. Prof. James Denney, The Theology of the Epistle to the Romans: The Righteousness of God and the New Life in The Expositor 1901, X. p. 302. Rev. Prof. James Denney, in "The Expositor" 1901, X. p. 299. So erroneously suggests William Mackintosh, The Xatural History of the Christian Religion (Glasgow 1894), p. 423 et cf. 424 sq. All this applies exclusively to the grace-filled regeneration, and therefore Rev. Prof. Charles Bigg rightly observes of the Apostle of Tongues (A Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude, p. 42) that “it is simply the free expression of his mystic belief that all external authority disappeared with the advent of the Spirit,” and “closely to the continuity of the faith is its authority.” In the view of St. Paul there is no authority except that of the inner light; the spiritual man judged all things, and is judged of none. Freedom is emancipation from all external control; it is based on that conscious union with God which lifts a man above all precepts and ordinances.” But it is clear that grace-filled freedom carries within itself its own limitations, because it certainly and always is only Christian (cf. in “The Wanderer” 1903, XII, pp. 641–643, and cf. The Gospel of Christian freedom in the Epistle of St. Apostle Paul to the Galatians, pp. 116–117, and in “The Wanderer” 1902 g., VII, pp. 32–33). In a broader application, it is well said by E. Renan that “the strength of the building of religion is in exact proportion to the amount of virtue, self-sacrifice and self-devotion that are laid in its foundation”: Vorträge von Ernest Renan, frei bearbeitet von Dr. Gottfried Hessel (Lpzg 18S0), S. 42. See Edm. Pfleiderev. Die Phiposohie des Heraklit von Ephesus im Lichte der Mystericnidee, S. 293. Cf. and above on pp. 660, 840. .Book S.N. Trubetskoy. The doctrine of the Logos in its history I, pp. 89 and in “Questions of Philosophy and Psychology” VII, 40 (Book V for 1897), pp. 827. You might be interested in: