Введение в догматическое богословие

Before presenting science, it is necessary to resolve questions about the subject, sources and method of it. The correct formulation of these questions and their firm solution are important not only for the current state of science, but can have a beneficial effect on its entire subsequent fate. A definite answer to these questions will give certainty to science itself, will prevent the possibility of it deviating into the field of other sciences and, at the same time, will clarify for us the concept of science. Subject of dogmatic theology “Church teachers distinguish between two types of saving teaching: dogmas and commandments. Dogma is a God-revealed truth that we must believe for our salvation. A commandment is a God-given command or rule that we must fulfill for our salvation. The heavenly Tabor Sermon also represents this very composition of the teaching. This is my beloved Son, and in Him I am well pleased: this is the dogma! Listen to him: this is the commandment!” 21. Two sciences are based on the division of all saving teaching into dogmas and commandments - dogmatic and moral theology. Dogmatic theology studies and expounds the dogmas, or truths of faith; the commandments serve as the subject of moral theology. 22 Looking more closely at the content of the dogmas, we will find in them “the contemplation of God and His properties in His own being and the contemplation of God’s properties and actions in relation to other beings,” that is, “in relation to the world in general, - in a special relation to the world of spirits, in a special relation to man.” So, more precisely and briefly, the subject of dogmatic theology is God with His properties and His relationship to the world and especially to man; whereas the subject of moral theology, which is in contact with dogmatics, is man and his relationship to God, to the world and to himself 23. Natural Knowledge of God The question of God and His relationship to the world is also raised in philosophy. Therefore, for an accurate and definite concept of dogmatic theology, we need to clarify its difference from philosophy. This difference lies, first of all, in the sources from which the content of the sciences is drawn. Philosophical sciences derive their content exclusively from the data of reason. In dogmatic theology, reason cannot be the source of science. – On the one hand, there is no doubt that we “can partly know God, firstly, through thinking about ourselves; secondly, through thinking about the world. How? – We were all born; our parents came from other parents, and so on. Thinking in this way, we reach the first people; and just as it is impossible to give birth to or create oneself, we understand that the first men were created from God. We note that in the world many things are destroyed, while others arise again from other things. Reflecting on this, we reach the beginning of the world and realize that it received its beginning from God. The artist is visible in his work, and the artist is always more perfect than his craft. So, since there is reason in man, there is kindness, then we can know that God, his Creator, is wise and good. Since there is beauty in the world, we can know that in God, its Creator, there is the highest beauty. since God created everything, we can know that He is omnipotent. We notice that, having done a good deed, we are calm, and having done a bad deed, we are restless, although we try to calm ourselves down and although none of the other people bother us. By reflecting on these internal actions, we can come to know the just God, who is secretly present in our hearts and condemns evil and blesses good. We also note that our desires are not satisfied with anything in the world, but are always looking for something new. When we diligently think about what it would be that our heart is always looking for, but does not find in the whole world; then we can know that God is the only true good, which can make us contented and blessed forever (Rom. 1:20; Heb. 11:27; Acts 17:26–8; Wis. 13:5; Grieg. Theologian. about Theologian. 2; Vas. Great. Epistle. 232) 24. Thus, “the visible, when we do not only look at it, but try to penetrate further, becomes a visual glass for contemplating the invisible” 25. The Apostle Paul was so confident in the possibility and reality of natural knowledge of God that “in the hearing of the capital of paganism, in the hearing of the nations and wise men of the pagans,” he said that “the rational knowledge of God is in them” 26 . Lack of Natural Knowledge of God Although “a person can know God by looking at the things created by God; but (on the other hand) this knowledge is imperfect and insufficient” 27. The conditions of our knowledge fully correspond to the conditions of vision. Like the eye, “the spiritual eye sees spiritual objects, or, in other words, the mind understands them, partly according to the properties of the objects themselves: thus, the invisible things of God from the creation of the world were conceived by created things, they are visible with the mind; partly in the image of his internal structure and in his special state: thus, an infant sees objects more sensually, superficially, mostly without union and order in concepts, but an educated mind sees less sensually, goes deeper into objects and discovers union and order between them; partly by the action of the light that mediates between the mind and objects, which can be either natural or supernatural” 28... Bearing in mind the conditions for a clear and complete vision of things, the conditions for perfect and distinct knowledge, we must admit that the position of the object of contemplation, the visual environment, and the state of our mental eye hinder us in the knowledge of God. It is indisputable that “the being of God is above all knowledge, not only of men, but also of Angels.” But God is not only “incomprehensible and infinite in his inner properties, powers and actions”; He is “the same in his external revelations and appearances” 29. God is an unapproachable light (1 Tim. 6:16). “If our eye faints before the created light of the visible sun, how shall not the eye of our mind faint before the light of the eternal Sun of spirits, before which even the highest of the Angels hide their faces.” The incomprehensibility of the Divine itself presupposes the limitations of our cognitive abilities, “the disproportion between limited vision and an infinite object” 30. The limited human mind relates to God, the object of knowledge, as a handful relates to the sea, and even less than a handful. But “can you exhaust the sea with a handful? And even if this were possible, because the sea has limits and a measure of depth, then everything would remain impossible - with a small vessel of the human mind to exhaust the abyss of the wisdom of God, the breadth of which is limitless and the depth is immeasurable" 31 . Even in the natural world, the human mind encounters mysteries. For example, “we would demand an explanation in vain or would try to explain to ourselves how the sun enters the berry and transforms small particles of earth, water, air into grape blood” 32 . “Not being able to find out the hidden things in his own house, how can he explore and comprehend the hidden things of the great house of God” 33. In addition to the natural limitations of our mind, natural knowledge of God is greatly hindered by its sinful darkness 34 . Damaged by sin, the mind is not only little capable of knowledge of God, but “from blindness by crude sensuality” is very prone to unbelief. “The mind, ossified in unbelief, like a night bird, sees only in the darkness of unbelief, loves only its dreams and runs away “from the light of truth, which burns its eyes”; he, “like a blind man, touches his eye and, unable to feel the light in it, concludes that the sun is just as not in the sky as it is not in his eyes, that to believe in the existence and action of the sun and light would be superstition and daydreaming” 35. Finally, the visual environment, the creation of God - this “visual glass for contemplating the invisible,” as darkened by sin, also complicates our knowledge of God. Now man “takes the images of his knowledge no longer from that person who was created in the image of God, but from that one who, having fallen from this height through sin, was, as the psalmist says, like the foolish cattle and became like them (Ps. 4–8:13).” And besides this, “the visible creatures of God, according to the word of the Creator Himself, represent only His backside: His faces cannot be shown. The Light of created things is nothing more than a shadow of the Light of uncreated things; and the shadow, of course, cannot be as clear as the light” 36. Everything that has been said about the insufficiency of natural knowledge of God can be confirmed by the history of mankind. Indeed, what has pagan philosophy done? Has it led even one pagan city or village to the knowledge of the one God? Was it not she, on the contrary, who invented doubt in the existence of God and virtue? “In the times of Christianity, it was easy for the mind to ignite many tricks of natural knowledge, in the sun of Divine Revelation: but even in these times, the natural mind, intending to act without Christ, did not deprive itself of the very remnants of spiritual light, did it not disgrace itself with fury, which was not seen in paganism, and it was the state law that proclaimed atheism?” 37. The meaning of reason in dogmatic theology From what has been said about natural knowledge of God, it follows that it is extremely imperfect and insufficient to be the source of an undoubtedly true and clear teaching about God and His relationship to the world; natural knowledge of God “can only serve as a preparation for faith or as some aid to the knowledge of God from His revelation” 38. The source of dogmatic theology should be the supernatural Revelation of God, preserved in the Church of Christ. The Church of God is alive, which “collectively and successively, according to God’s dispensation, consists of all true believers, united by the tradition of faith,” according to the saying of the apostle. Paul, is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 8:15), she is “the keeper of the manifold wisdom of God,” “in her we must seek the truth and through it we can verify the truth that requires inquiry” 39. So in dogmatic theology, reason may not be the source, but only “a small ladle with which one draws from the source” 40. With such a meaning, reason has every right to be in dogmatic theology; because it is “given by God (by the way) for the knowledge of revealed truth, just as the heart is (given) for accepting feelings of good, and bodily feelings (are given) for impressions of the bodily world 41. Indeed, “if it is possible, according to the Apostle, to be understood by faith (Heb. 11:3), then faith itself can be somewhat understood”; Let us suppose, “we cannot test the depths of the wisdom of God, however, it is also true that we have the command to test the scriptures.” The legitimacy of the participation of reason in the study of dogmas is also confirmed by “the rebuke of the Lord against those who do not think, but I am the essence of God (Mark 8:33),” from which “one can notice that there is some possibility of thinking about the essence of God, because it would be unfair to condemn for not doing the impossible” 42. Since Divine revelation “spreads among men and is preserved in the true church in two ways: through sacred tradition and Holy Scripture”; then from here come two types of sources of doctrine - sacred tradition, “concluded in the symbols, dogmas, rules and interpretations of St. cathedrals and St. father,” and Holy Scripture or books “written by the Spirit of God through men sacred from God, called Prophets and Apostles” 43. To understand the comparative significance and mutual relationship of these sources, it is necessary to say a few words about their origin. “The most ancient and original way of spreading the revelation of God is sacred tradition. From Adam to Moses there were no sacred books. Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself conveyed His Divine teaching and institution to the disciples by His word and example, and not by book. In the same way, at first the Apostles spread the faith and established the Church of Christ” 44. “But when (the revealed teaching) has already been sufficiently revealed and has become more acceptable: then the image of instruction in it is closer to the ordinary and natural order; and for continuous (accurate) and uniform preservation it is enclosed in the Sacred Books” 45. Thus, “God-breathed Scripture is only a continuation and unchangeable, by the special dispensation of the Spirit of God, a strengthened form of tradition (Luke 1:2).” Revealed teaching, as conveyed to us in one way or another, can be called by one general name of tradition, as indeed “the Apostle (2 Thess. 2:15) calls everything that Christians learned from him, as from the Apostle, regarding faith, hierarchy, worship, church deanery and the rules of life.” But the same Apostle, immediately afterwards, “distinguishes between two types of tradition: tradition through an epistle, or written tradition, and tradition through a word, or unwritten tradition. But (so) as written tradition is simpler and more commonly signified by the name of Holy Scripture: then the name of tradition is usually used to mean that which we have learned not through Holy Scripture, but through word and example from the holy Apostles and holy Fathers" 46 . Thus, both Holy Scripture and St. Tradition, insofar as it contains the apostolic teaching, has for the dogmatist the same significance as sources of inspired teaching. And ap. Paul, indeed, “inseparably and equally commands to hold ... both Holy Scripture and sacred traditions.” After this, all that remained was to use these sources to compile a dogmatic Theology. Without special considerations, we could use St. tradition on a par with Holy Scripture only if “if, like the direct disciples of the apostles, we had before our eyes the direct apostolic and therefore undoubtedly true tradition. But Christian traditions have already passed through many countries, peoples, languages, through many centuries. The original apostolic traditions were joined by patristic traditions of different degrees of antiquity. In some parts of the legends there was diversity that extended to the point of contradiction.” Therefore, before using tradition as a source of doctrine, “it became necessary to study the authenticity and dignity of traditions” in order to eliminate from them “wrongful changes and alien admixtures” 47. In this case, some, “paying all attention to what is dark and unreliable in the legends,” recognize the Holy Scripture alone as the source of doctrine. “Others, paying attention in general to the commandment to observe traditions, without research, without reasoning, blindly adhere to traditions that somehow fell into their hands, without trying to find out their authenticity, dignity and purity” 48. Orthodox teaching goes among these extremes, without falling into either one or the other. It does not deny the importance of St. tradition, recognizes it as a source of doctrine, but “not separately, but in conjunction with Holy Scripture” - not an independent, but “an auxiliary source of Christian teaching” 49. Holy Scripture is the main and main source of doctrine “The Providence of God intended to teach in the Holy Books (and indeed did teach) a complete and sufficient composition of the truths of doctrine and moral teaching (2 Tim. 3:16–17)”; so it would be unfair to say that “not all dogmas are contained in Holy Scripture, if we understand dogmas in the strict sense” 50 . It not only contains all the truths of the faith, but “in many places it forbids adding anything to the doctrine contained therein (Deut. 10:2; Prov. 30:5-6; Gal. 1:8-9; Rev. 22:18).” Therefore, after “in the Holy Books the church received a universal and sufficient rule of faith (Phil. 3:16), to admit the unwritten word of God, equivalent to the written word, not only in the government of the church, but also in dogmas, means exposing oneself to the danger of ruining the commandment of God for the tradition of men (Matt. 15:6)” 51. From the previous it follows that Holy Scripture does not need tradition to supplement itself with new truths of faith, that “the silence of Holy Scripture about any tradition shows only that this tradition is not a member of faith.” Holy tradition, in order to be a source of doctrine, needs to be verified by the Holy Spirit. Scripture; in tradition, this can only be the source of dogmatic teaching that “is in accordance with Divine Revelation and Holy Scripture, as Holy Scripture itself teaches this (2 Thess. 2:15),” as the Church of Christ teaches this. “If a tradition contradicts the word of God, then it is a human tradition, not a true tradition.” As a result of all this, “since the Christian teaching is contained in the Holy Books, the Holy Church, for the faithful and unchangeable preservation of this teaching, has a custom and rule - not only to affirm the thoughts of this teaching on the immutable testimony of God-inspired Scripture, but to borrow the very words and expressions for the meaning of the most important objects and parts of the teaching from the same pure source of Scripture” (this is how, for example, it was compiled Niceno-Constantinopolitan symbol) 52. Since "St. Scripture, as the word of God himself, is the only supreme judge of discord and the resolver of perplexities in the faith”; then they “verify the definitions of the councils themselves, so that no council can establish a member of the faith that has not been proven from Holy Scripture.” “Without this caution, we could submit to the definitions of those councils that, under the name of Christianity, can collect vanity or lust for power” 53. Thus, tradition, as a source of doctrine, is dependent on Holy Scripture. But Holy Scripture itself, as a source of doctrine, partly needs the testimony of tradition. So, “how do we know which books are sacred, and why does one or another of them definitely belong to the sacred group? - This is known mostly from legend. So, Holy Scripture itself uses the guidance of tradition” 54 . Holy tradition not only serves as the most reliable witness to the inspired origin of the sacred books, but - which is also very important - clarifies for us their true meaning. Although “everything necessary for salvation is set forth in Holy Scripture with such clarity that everyone who reads it with a sincere desire to be enlightened can understand it (2 Cor. 4:3; Psalm 119:105),” because “the Holy Spirit spoke Holy Scripture to enlighten and not to obscure” 55; but it is also true that not all the truths of the faith are set forth in the Holy Scriptures. Scripture with equal completeness, clarity and certainty - so that “when we place Holy Scripture as the basis of dogmas, without adding tradition,” then “there will be no lack of accuracy and completeness in the presentation of Orthodox teaching” 56. The main source should be Holy Scripture, and tradition is needed in order to “supplement, explain and defend (Orthodox dogmatic teaching) from the wrong-minded”; it is needed “for guidance to the correct understanding of Holy Scripture, for the correct performance of the sacraments and for the observance of sacred rites in the purity of their original establishment” 57 . And so, the “pure source” of dogmatic teaching is “God - His word, contained in the sacred scriptures, clarified by church definitions, teaching and spiritual experiences of godly wise men” 58. Words and Speeches, ed. 1848, 1, 72. “Read. in General l. spirit. enlightened." 1869 7, 75, 84, 73–4.; 1872 4, 71. In one place, M. Philaret calls “the most important truths of faith and piety” dogmas. Words and Speeches, ed. 1861, 111 pp. It is necessary to distinguish from dogmas private “opinions that can be acceptable and rejected without reinforcing or violating the Faith; This, for example, is the opinion about the existence of Angels before the visible world, affirmed by Chrysostom and rejected by Theodoret.” “Thu.” in O.I.Dr. R." 1870 1, 32. “Read. in O. l. spirit. enlightenment,” 1872, 4, 58–61. 1869 7, 73. Zap. about the life of M. Phil. Sushkov 117–8 pp. Extract from Cat. ed. 1824; Wed Catech. 6. Words and Speeches, ed. 1848 1, 319. Words and Speeches, ed. 1861, 333. Words and Speeches, ed. 1848 1, 38–9. Catech. 20; Words and Speeches, ed. 1848 1, 76. Words and Speeches, ed. 1861 6, 52. Ibid. 64; Wed ed. 1848 2, 128–9. Ibid. 185; Wed 1. 101; ed. 1874 2, 396–7. Ibid. ed. 1848 2, 85. Ibid. 1; 276.40; Wed 2, 77. Ibid. 152–3, cf. ed. 1861 333; Bible Histor. 293. Ibid. 6. words and speeches, ed. 1848 2. 56. Read. in O. love. d. enlightenment 1871 13.1; Wed ibid. 1868 5.155. Letters from Phil. K. Muraev, ed. 1869, 264 pp. “Read. in O. l. spirit. pr." 1868 5, 159–160. Words and Speeches, ed. 1848 2, 105; 1, 102; Wed Catech. 4. Catech. 6–7. “Read. in O. l. d. enlightenment." 1868 5, 160–163, 154–5. The books of Holy Scripture exist in different languages. It is important for a dogmatist to know which text of Holy Scripture more accurately expresses the revealed truth. “The authentic text of Holy Scripture is predominantly found in the Hebrew and Greek languages, for translations borrow their authenticity from the original.” The Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament exist both in the original and in translation 70. How to use these respected texts of the Holy Scriptures? “The Holy Orthodox Ecumenical Church, at no council, nor through any of the holy fathers, did not pronounce a rule to adhere exclusively to the text of the seventy interpreters in the explanation of Holy Scripture, with the elimination of the Hebrew text.” It is impossible to “assimilate dogmatic dignity” exclusively to one text, either Greek 70 or Hebrew. It is necessary to use both texts, and on certain grounds, according to the rules established by exegesis, to give preference to the one that will more accurately convey the revealed truth. “In Psalm 21, verse 17, the words: the hoof (pierced) my hands and nose represent an example of an important prophetic saying preserved intact in the text of seventy interpreters; meanwhile, the current Jewish reading of this passage... reveals damage to the text.” How important it is for sacred dogmas to use the Hebrew text when explaining Holy Scripture, an example of this is the saying of the book of Proverbs (8:22) about the Wisdom of God, which, as is known, the Arians relied on in their false teaching, reading this passage according to the Greek translation 70 (creation). After the original texts and Text 70, for the Orthodox Russian dogmatist, the Slavic translation of the Bible is more important. But the Slavic text cannot be given “dogmatic dignity” either, because it also contains inaccuracies that should be eliminated with the help of Jewish and Greek texts and patristic interpretations. “For example, Romans chapter 1 in verse 4 reads about Christ the Savior: the called Son of God. There is good reason to look for guidance in the original text; because the word named, when applied to the Son of God, has an unsatisfactory meaning for dogma. According to the usual use of this word, a betrothed son is contrasted with a true, natural son. The Greek text reads: ὁρισϑεντος ϓιοῦ Θεοῦ, which can be translated: the known Son of God, that is, about the Son of God, about whom at first people did not have exact knowledge, but finally, by His teaching and miracles, they definitely, definitely knew that He is true Son of God... To recognize in this case the Slavic text as completely immobile and not allow the word: named to be preferred, according to the strength of the original Greek text, to the word: proven - would not mean to firmly defend Orthodox dogmas.” “Read. in General I. and D.R.” 1870 1, 34. “Approx. to creativity St. Father." 1858, part 17, pp. 463. 452–468. 468–72, 454–5. 459. 472–81. 480–1. Bib. Histor. 450; Catech. 7–8. Words and Speeches, ed. 1848 2, 55; Wed Bible Historical, 485; Catech. 7. Tradition in its proper sense has its own types: “There are traditions of dogmas, that is, the most important truths of faith and piety. There are traditions of church rules and regulations for the performance of Divine services, and especially the sacraments of faith.” Words and Speeches, ed. 1861, 111 pp. “If even the Apostles had to be tested as to whether they were true apostles, as this is clear from the fact that, in the Revelation of St. John, the Lord Himself approves of the work of the Angel of the Ephesian Church, who tempted the professed Apostles to be and found them false: then how much more after the Apostles, through so many hands, through so many centuries, past traditions must be tested whether they are true apostolic and patristic, and whether they have been subjected to unjust changes and alien admixtures” Words and Speeches, ed. 1848 2, 56. Ibid. 55, Wed. “Read. in O. l. spirit. etc." 1869 7, 71–2. Ibid. 85–6 pp. “Read. in Society I. and D.R.” 1870 1, 33. “Read. in General love d. enlightenment." 1868 5, 167. 152–3. Ibid. 85–6 pp. “Read. in O.I. and D.R. “1870 1, 36. Ibid. 33; Words and Speeches, ed. 1848 56. 54; Catechism. 8; Letters from M. Philaret to Archbishop. Alexy, letter 56, - ​​cf. 112. “Read. in O.I. and D.R.” 1870 1, 35–6. Words and Speeches, ed. 1848 2, 56. “Read. in O.I. and D.R.” 1870 1, 34; “Read. in O. love. spirit. enlightened." 1868 5, 153. Letters from Philar. to the arch. Alexy, letter 56; Catech. 8–9, art. “Read. in O. love. spirit. enlightened." 1869 7, 76. “Read. in O. love. etc.” 1863, 11 pages, – cf. ibid. 1869 7, 86–7; Conversation to. Ch. old, ed. 1850, 95. – Regarding the so-called apostolic symbol, which should also be among the sources of dogma, it should be noted that “Orthodox theologians use this symbol historically, considering it as an ancient document and very common in the West, but not dogmatically - as the basis of theological teaching: because it does not have universal dignity.” It is called apostolic because “it contains the members of the faith confessed by the Apostles, in which mind other symbols are also called apostolic.” This is evidenced by “the silence of the book of Acts, the difference in symbols used in the first three centuries, the unknown about the so-called apostolic symbol in the Eastern churches and councils,” especially the silence about it at the first two ecumenical councils. “Read. in general love spirit. enlightened." 1869 7, 71–2; Bible History, 465–6 pp.