PART ONE. INTRODUCTION TO DOGMATIC THEOLOGY SECTION I. DOGMATIC THEOLOGY AS A SCIENCE

Updated July 22, 2021
Hello, dear readers of the KtoNaNovenkogo.ru blog. Since the formation of more or less developed social communities, all sorts of prohibitions, regulations and laws began to appear.

These were various directives, restrictions and rules that all members of a particular community or citizens of a particular settlement were obliged to strictly follow.

The underlying and fundamental "precepts" were called dogmas or dogmas. A couple of thousand years ago it was clear to everyone what this meant, but do we now understand what dogma is?

What is remarkable about the history of the origin of this word? What role and significance did dogmas have in various spheres of human life and the functioning of society as a whole?

Dogma - what is it in simple words

This term is multifaceted in its semantic shades and voluminous in its spectrum of use. It does not belong to one sphere and therefore has several meanings that are interconnected by one common idea:

1. in religion, dogma (religious dogma) is a truth, law or concept (what is it?), accepted by all believers as an immutable dogma, unchangeable in any context (for example, the position of the trinity of God);
   Dogma is a basic position in religious teaching, accepted on faith and not subject to criticism.
2. in science, dogmas are important provisions, judgments and statements that have been studied by experts and confirmed scientifically; these can also be doctrines that do not raise doubts about their reliability (read about the difference between dogma and doctrine below);
3. in society, dogma is a concept, statement, judgment, initially accepted as an undeniable truth and not subject to discussion, re-verification and/or criticism.

There are quite a lot of synonymous definitions for the word “dogma”, but the closest concept in terms of semantic load is “ doctrine ” - this is a teaching, a system of views or theories used in science, politics and jurisprudence.

As for the difference between these concepts, it lies only in the degree of recognition: dogma is something confirmed, a kind of axiom (what is it?), officially recognized by society or simply accepted on faith by some community.

A doctrine is a specific opinion or teaching that can be formed by one individual or a small group of like-minded people.

So, for example, in religion one priest can convey his own thought, which is not necessarily accepted by the entire church. This will be a doctrine. It will become a dogma or tenet as soon as it is recognized by the governing body of this church or the head of a religious association.

The meaning of the word dogma

— The meaning of this word, as a term used not only in Theology, is clarified from the sense in which it was used in ancient literature. Cicero used the word dogma to designate doctrines that, being generally known, had the meaning of undeniable truth. In this sense, Christian writers, for example. Origen and St. Isidore, called Socrates the legislator of Attic dogmas, the teachings of Plato and the Stoics - dogmas. According to Xenophon, a dogma is a command of command, to which everyone, both commanders and ordinary soldiers, must unquestioningly . In Herodian it denotes the definition of the Senate, to which the entire Roman people must unquestioningly submit. This meaning of the word D. was retained in the Greek translation of 70 interpreters, where in the books of St. Daniel, Esther, Maccabees, the word δόγμα refers to a royal decree, subject to immediate execution, as well as a royal or state law, unconditionally binding on every subject. In the New Testament, in the Gospel of Luke, δόγμα is called Caesar's command to take a census of the population of the Roman Empire, in the book. The Acts of the Apostles are the royal laws, in the epistle to the Colossians and Ephesians the laws of Moses, which had divine authority. Then, in the book. Acts (XV, 20-28) for the first time the word δόγμα designates those definitions of the church that should have indisputable authority for each of its members. From the use of this word by Ignatius the God-Bearer, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Vincent of Lirinsky and other church fathers, the concept of D. is clarified in greater detail. For them: 1) D. is an indisputable divine (given through divine revelation) truth, and in this sense, the dogmas of faith are called God's (δ. τοΰ Θεοΰ), divine (δ. Θεία), Lord's (δ. τοΰ Κυρίου) and are opposed to products human, especially so-called speculative thinking and personal opinions; 2) D. is the truth relating to the internal essence of religion, that is, the truth of theoretical, or contemplative, teaching, teaching of faith, how it differs from the rules of life or practical activity of a Christian; 3) being of divine origin, D. is the truth defined and formulated by the church, therefore dogmas are usually called church dogmas (τά τής έκκλησίας δόγματα), or church dogmas (τά έκκλεσιαστικά δόγματα), and 4) D. is the truth, the unconditional recognition of which is completely necessary for a Christian to rightfully consider himself a member of the church.

N.B.

A brief history and synonyms for the word “dogma”

Translated from the Hellenic (ancient Greek) language, the concept “δοκεω” means “ opinion, position or decree .” This term originally appeared in philosophical teachings. Only later did the “dogma” spread in religion, politics, medicine, law, other sciences and spheres of society.

So, in its homeland, in Ancient Greece, “dogma” (or “dogma”) meant an order that had to be carried out unquestioningly, absolutely precisely and immediately.

It is interesting that the word “dogma” at different times had different shades of meaning , although most philosophical and encyclopedic dictionaries give almost similar definitions.

of synonyms still remain :

1. peremptory nature;
2. scholasticism;
3. straightforwardness;
4. formalism;
5. doctrinaire;
6. stereotype;
7. standard;
8. stamp;
9. lack of initiative;
10. limitation.

Depending on the area, topic and immediate context, the same concept can be used differently. As examples illustrating the “scattering” of the semantic load of dogmas , we can cite several tenacious stereotypes:

1. Shoemakers are drunkards, merchants are thieves, traffic cops are bribe-takers;
2. A bespectacled person means an intellectual;
3. Politicians are liars;
4. Jews always have money;
5. The rich are corrupt and heartless, the poor are suffering and good;
6. You sit on maternity leave and do nothing; housework is not work;
7. Cirrhosis of the liver means an alcoholic...

Using these examples, it is easy to trace the meaning of such a specific concept as dogmatic thinking .

It is usually used in cases where there is schematic thinking based on frozen, unchangeable and outdated formulas and truths that are considered irrefutable.

PART ONE. INTRODUCTION TO DOGMATIC THEOLOGY SECTION I. DOGMATIC THEOLOGY AS A SCIENCE

Already in the first centuries of the existence of the Church, there appeared a desire to present Christian doctrine in a systematic form, which was aimed at the convenience of both presentation and perception of doctrinal truths.

Dogmatic system

- a way of presenting a doctrine in which all individual truths and positions are parts connected into a single whole. The following requirements are imposed on dogmatic systems:

1) absence of internal contradictions (there should be no mutually exclusive provisions in a dogmatic system);

2) the presence of a clear boundary between the actual dogmas and theological opinions. This does not mean that when constructing a dogmatic system one cannot rely in one way or another on theological opinions; but at the same time it must be emphasized that this is the theological opinion of one or another saint. father or theologian, and not doctrinal truth, accepted by the entirety of the Church.

In addition, it is assumed that the dogmatic system should be not just a set of patristic and biblical quotations on a particular dogmatic issue, but also an author’s text, a specific commentary in which the author tries to comprehend the content of dogmatic truths, identify internal connections between various dogmas and theological opinions. A shortened system of dogmatic theology called a catechism

.

In the history of Christian thought, the first attempt to build a dogmatic system was the work of “Stromata” by the famous teacher of the Alexandrian catechetical school, Clement of Alexandria (late 2nd century). But “Stromat” is still nothing more than an attempt to build a system, and not a system in the full sense of the word.

For the first time, the successor and continuer of Clement’s work, Origen (III century), managed to create a system of dogmatic theology of Christian doctrine in its entirety. His work “On Principles” is the first complete system of Christian theology. This system turned out to be imperfect, since many of the postulates and premises on which Origen was based were false and subsequently even fell under the anathema of the Ecumenical Councils. Despite this, Origen also had a huge positive influence on the development of theology. For several centuries, Origen's system remained the only coherent system of Christian theology. Many Sts. the fathers learned theology precisely from the works of Origen, gradually overcoming the erroneous opinions contained in Origen's texts.

Of the ancient Church Fathers who tried to build integral dogmatic systems, it should be noted St. Cyril of Jerusalem (IV century). His famous “Catechetical Words” are a detailed work; however, it must be said that it is of a propaedeutic nature, since it is addressed to the catechumens, that is, people who have not yet even entered the Church. An example of constructing a system of dogmatic theology can also be called the “Great Catechetical Word” by St. Gregory of Nyssa (IV century) and “Abridged Exposition of Divine Dogmas” by Blessed. Theodoret of Cyrrhus (first half of the 5th century).

In the Christian West, the first attempt at a systematic presentation of dogmas was made by Lactantius (d. after 325) in the work “Divine Institutions” (Books IV-VII). Among other dogmatic systems created in the West, follows about the blessed one. Augustine and “On Church Dogmas” by Gennady of Marseilles (late 5th century).

The most perfect work, representing the pinnacle of systematization of patristic theological thought, should be recognized as the work of St. John of Damascus “The Source of Knowledge” (VIII century). From a dogmatic point of view, the third and final part of this work, which is called “An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith,” is of particular importance. This book has not lost its scientific significance to this day. Both in the East and in the West, it was a textbook of theology for many centuries, and in the Christian East - right up to the New Age, when examples of Western scholastic systems began to be used to present dogmatic teaching in Orthodox theology. In the West, before the translations of the works of Rev. John of Damascus into Latin, the work of Isidore of Seville (c. 560–636) “Sentences” in three books, which was the prototype of the medieval “summa theology,” enjoyed great authority.

In the history of Russian theological thought there were several authors who worked on the construction of dogmatic systems. First of all, you need to name Met. Macarius (Bulgakov), his “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” was first published in 1849–1853. This is a most thorough work, although somewhat scholastic58. In addition, this work is not completely independent: when constructing his system, the author partly relied on the works of Western dogmatists. Overall, however, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology is an excellently structured manual in which one can find a good selection of biblical and patristic quotations on almost all dogmatic issues.

Archbishop's work (later Metropolitan) Philaret (Gumilevsky) “Dogmatic Theology” is an attempt to overcome the scholastic influence that is observed in Metropolitan. Makaria59. The work of the archbishop. Filareta, however, did not become widespread.

“The Experience of Dogmatic Theology” Archbishop. Kanevsky Sylvester (Malevansky) is a voluminous work in five volumes60, in which the author proposed a historical method of presenting dogmas, that is, he made an attempt to show how the dogmatic teaching of the Church developed in a historical perspective. This is his great merit.

“Orthodox dogmatic theology” prot. Nikolai Malinovsky61 is a work, also large in volume and quite interestingly written, but somewhat uneven: it has more and less successful sections. This fact is due to the fact that Rev. N. Malinovsky tried to use as many different sources as possible in his work and did not always approach them critically.

After 1917, there were no attempts in the Russian theological tradition to build an integral system of dogmatic theology. “Dogmatic Theology” by V. N. Lossky62, in essence, is nothing more than a course of lectures on dogmatic theology. It is impossible to call this work a dogmatic system in the full sense of the word.

However, Orthodox dogmatic theology did not stop developing in the 20th century. Among the Greek theologians, professors P. N. Trembelas63, A. Theodora64 and K.V. Skouteris65 proposed their dogmatic systems, whose works were published in the second half of the 20th century.

Three-volume work by Archimandrite. Justin (Popovich) (1894–1978) “Dogmatics of the Orthodox Church”66 - an attempt to build a dogmatic system in the Serbian Orthodox Church. Rev. Justin is not only a famous theologian, but also one of the greatest ascetics of our time, however, his work, for all its merits, is not completely independent: he reveals his dependence, especially in the first volume, on Russian dogmatists of the pre-revolutionary time.

The work of the famous Romanian theologian Fr. Dumitru Staniloae (1903–1993) “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology”67.

What is the traditional structure of dogmatic systems? The majority of modern dogmatists68 adhere to the following principle of presenting the material: first about God in Himself (Deus ad intra), then about God in His manifestation to the creature (Deus ad extra). This is precisely the principle that underlies the Metropolitan systems. Macarius, Archbishop Philareta, Archbishop. Sylvester and other authors. All attempts to build a system of dogmatic theology in a different way were not very successful. For example, Rev. Pavel Svetlov (1861–1945) tried to build an entire system of dogma around the doctrine of salvation69, prot. Peter Leporsky (1871–1923) - around the dogma of the Incarnation, but these attempts did not receive recognition. This manual uses the traditional method of presenting the material.

Use of the term dogma in Christianity

Despite the fact that throughout the last century the definition of dogma has changed every now and then, the essence of this concept remains the same:

dogma is an established belief or generally accepted truth, a certain basic position in any teaching, accepted as an indisputable fact.

But in different religions - for example, in Orthodoxy and Islam - the interpretations will differ.

Now the religion with the largest number of followers is divided into several branches. Until 1054, it was united, which means that only dogmas were in effect here. However, the two churches and the two heads of these churches were too far from each other in every sense, which led to inevitable changes.

Let us remember that the cause of the discord was the change by the Western Church of one of the most important dogmas : Catholics believed that the holy spirit could come not only from God the Father, but also from God the Son.

They believe in the virgin birth of the Mother of God and her bodily ascension, and they dogmatize the holiness and infallibility of the Pope, whom they honor as the vicar of Jesus Christ.

Orthodox believers look at these things differently and accept other provisions as dogmas. In particular, they profess not one, but two different images of the Holy Trinity - as the essence of three persons and as the manifestation of these persons in energy.

Unlike Catholics, Orthodox Christians dogmatize the celebration of Sunday in parallel with the celebration of Saturday. However, these laws and many others formed the basis of most modern beliefs.

Who is Jesus?

Spas Pantokrator; XIII century; Byzantium. Constantinople

If Jesus is just a moral teacher, there is no hope for us - let's be aware of this. Death has not been defeated. No heavenly Jerusalem awaits us. But besides Tolstoyism - in all its many iterations - there were other heresies in the history of Christianity.

Many of them recognized Jesus as God's preeminent messenger, even (in a sense) the Son of God. However, the Church insisted - and insists - that our Lord Jesus Christ is a perfect God and a perfect man. This is a dogma, and those who do not accept it are alien to the Orthodox faith.

Why is this so? Let's turn to probably the most famous words of Scripture - God is love. Many people who have never opened the Bible know these words; few know who they belong to - they are attributed either to Leo Tolstoy, then to some Indian teachers, or to someone else. In fact, they are pronounced by the Apostle John: He who does not love does not know God, because God is love. God's love for us was revealed in the fact that God sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we could receive life through Him. This is love, that we did not love God, but He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins (1 John 4 :8-10). The Apostle Paul speaks of the same thing: God proves His love for us by the fact that Christ died for us while we were still sinners (Rom 5 :8).

If we think a little about the words of the apostles, they seem very strange to us. How then can the terrible death of the Righteous be evidence of God's love? It wouldn’t even occur to us to see God’s love in the fact that a good, righteous person was slandered, unjustly condemned, subjected to mockery and torture, and finally killed with a sophisticated and painful death. Human fidelity can be discerned here, but faith in God’s love may sooner be shaken. But the apostles see here an unshakable foundation and an inexhaustible source of faith in God’s love. Why? Because for the apostles, the sacrifice of Christ is a sacrifice on the part of God, and this only makes sense if we share the apostles’ faith that Christ is God. In Jesus Christ, God and man are one person, and the sacrifice that Christ makes for our salvation is a sacrifice made by God.

The Apostle John pronounces the words God is love, meaning God, Who became man and accepted torment and death for the sake of saving His rebellious creations. This foundation of our faith in the love of God is protected by dogmas, and they protect it from attempts by heresies to destroy this faith.

The heretics of the past disputed either the Divinity of Christ or His humanity; for the Docetists (and later Cathars) the human nature of Christ was illusory; The Arians, although they recognized Christ as the supernatural Son of God, refused to see in him God, co-eternal with the Father.

Both turned our hope into dust: if Jesus is not a man, then there is no Atonement. He remains deeply alien to the human race that he supposedly came to save; Golgotha ​​is not the highest manifestation of God’s saving love, but an illusion, a hologram, a cinematic special effect. If He is not God, then there is no God’s love in Calvary - moreover, there is its denial. In this case, it was not God who took on flesh and was crucified and buried for us, the ungrateful and evil-willed, but God who gives up to death a righteous man deeply devoted to Him. Whether this righteous man is simply a man (as liberal theologians believe) or the highest of angelic creations (as Arius believed back in the 4th century and modern Jehovah's Witnesses believe), in any case, he is not God, and his sacrifice is in no way a sacrifice from the outside God.

And so, in order to protect our hope, the Dogma of Chalcedon was adopted at the Fourth Ecumenical Council - the Church clearly formulates its original belief that Jesus is a perfect God and a perfect man. We may refuse to acknowledge it, but then the apostolic belief that God is love is not our faith. In this case, God (no matter how we imagine Him) did not take on our flesh and accept our death in order to save us.

A person who refuses to recognize dogmas cannot share our hope - not because we do not allow him to do so, but because all our hope rests on the fact that God took on man and suffered for the sake of the suffering, was killed for the sake of the mortified and buried for the sake of the buried.

Dogmas in other religions and areas

It is interesting that in Buddhism , for example, there are no dogmas at all , only doctrines.

Perhaps this is explained by what Shakyamuni Buddha often repeated: you cannot take on faith what you have not verified in your own experience. This also applies to his teaching. Nevertheless, Buddhism also has its own doctrines .

The main ones concern the absence of God and the presence of interdependence in the emergence of things. Buddhists also have their own view of the structure of the universe, which they consider to consist of dozens of heavens. These multiple celestial layers form 31 spheres of existence, each of which has several stages or levels.

Adherents of Buddhism dogmatize the laws of samsara (suffering on the path to rebirth) and the four noble truths through which one can achieve nirvana (what is it?).

Islam , perhaps, has the most dogmas and doctrines, and all of them are written down in the holy book - the Koran.

The main provisions of Islam are divided into three subsections: About God, about judgment, about salvation. Among the main dogmas it is worth mentioning the belief in the afterlife, the inevitability of judgment day and the immortality of the soul.

Muslims dogmatize the worship of one and only god (Allah), revere the Prophet Mohammed as the messenger of Allah and strictly adhere to five times of prayer during the day.

The presence of a small number of dogmas in law is due to the fact that each country has its own laws, and most of them are constantly subject to change.

Therefore, it cannot be said that in jurisprudence (what is it?) there are some special dogmas. Most often, fundamental laws are called legal or legal doctrines and express the legal policy of a particular state.

Science , paradoxically (how is that?), is simply replete with dogmas, and not all of them are proven facts. We are sure that 2 + 2 = 4 and the earth is round. We believe that man descended from the monkey, and matter in any form is unconscious.

However, just a few decades ago everyone believed that nerve cells do not regenerate, and this was a dogma. So, when talking about dogmatism in science, it is better to stick to “material confirmation”.

For example, in 1961, the British scientist Francis Crick published the future central dogma of biology and medicine - a one-way way for genetic information to flow from DNA to proteins. This postulate is considered central, since it explains the most important question of humanity - the secret of life, that is, the principle of the existence of living systems.

As for doctrines , it is better to recall the history of the 20th century, which is replete with a variety of doctrines. The most common are military ones .

They are associated not only with the conduct of combat operations, but also with the features of defense and strategy. There are doctrines related to the internal life of the state. For example, the doctrine of information and food security.

About the differences between angels and elves

Divine Liturgy. Angel with ripids (fragment).; Greece.; XVI century

There are different ways in which elves can be depicted - as wise and beautiful creatures, like Tolkien's elves; in the form of creatures that are stupid and ugly, like Rowling’s house elves; in the form of pointy-eared girls with bows, like in Japanese comics, or in some other way. Any person who ardently insists that true elves are like this and only like this, and that any attempts to portray them in any other way are a disastrous delusion, will seem simply crazy.

Most people agree that elves don't exist - what's the point of arguing about the shape of the ears of fictional creatures? Even if a person believes in elves in a certain sense - that is, he is warmed by the idea that somewhere in remote places or in other dimensions elves exist - any dogma in this belief will seem inappropriate to him.

Faith in elves is not at all a matter of life and death: even if a person himself treats it very reverently, he understands that other people get along just fine without it.

If they also have some dreams that warm their soul, then these may be completely different dreams. If you have fallen into the wrong views regarding elves, there is no danger for you; if you faithfully adhere to what is right, it promises you nothing. And does it even make sense to talk about right or wrong views on elves? Everyone is free to choose what they like best. Belief in elves is adogmatic.

When we talk not about elves, but, say, about high voltage current, our views become much more rigid; As you know, a safety instructor is the most boring of people. Regarding the current, you cannot believe what you like best. There are right and wrong views about current, and the wrong views can cost you your life.

Why can one afford an adogmatic approach to elves, but not to electricity? The fact is that electricity actually exists. It relates to the real world. With regard to fictional creatures, everyone is free to fantasize, but reality is what it is, regardless of what we think about it. As the school physics textbook says, “reality is something that exists independently of us and our thoughts about it.” Reality has a certain stubborn “intractability” - it does not depend in any way on our beliefs. This means that some ideas about reality are true, some are wrong. When we have to act in the real world, we are well aware that it is dangerous to be guided by incorrect ideas.

It's not worth trying to dissuade a person who thinks wrongly about elves, but we should certainly try to convince a person who thinks wrongly about high voltage current.

If people have different ideas about a place like Moscow, then some of these ideas are true, some are not. If a person is sure that polar bears walk along the snowy streets of Moscow in search of spreading cranberries, he is mistaken. In real-life Moscow, polar bears do not walk the streets, and cranberries, a creeping and spreading shrub, do not exist, and they do not grow on asphalt.

Is God Real? If the atheists are right and God is no more real than elves or Santa Claus, and faith is just a dream, a fantasy, a fairy tale that can bring a little comfort and perhaps moral instruction, then there really is no point in dogma. But if God is real—and, as the Church believes, more real than anything else, then some statements about Him are true and some are false. Some people hold deeply erroneous ideas about Him, others - less erroneous; the views of others, despite possible unprincipled errors, are generally true. By recognizing this, we do not fall into narrowness; we simply acknowledge that God actually exists. Faith as a dream is adogmatic; faith as a certain relationship with supernatural reality inevitably presupposes some knowledge and certain rules - dogmas.

"Dogma" by Godless Kevin Smith

And for dessert it remains to eat the piquant cherry that decorated our snow-white cake - to remember one of the highest-grossing films, which turned exactly 20 years old in May of this year. This is the infamous film Dogma , directed by Kevin Smith from his own script.

Despite the fact that the releases clearly indicated the genre (comedy-parody), many Roman Catholic communities organized protests and demonstrations, trying to boycott the release of the film on the big screen.

And it wasn’t a matter of “the perverted sense of humor of the creators,” but of flouting the notorious political correctness , without which you can’t even take a step nowadays, so as not to inadvertently offend the feelings of believers, people of a different race, or women who have suffered from male sexism (what is that?).

All this and even more is involved here. However, the creators did not laugh at another Catholic dogma that allows absolution of sins to everyone who passes through the arch of such and such a church in such and such a town before such and such an hour - they laughed at what faith itself has become today.

And it was similar to what you feel when you watch the antics of a screaming man who has just had a handful of snow shoved down his collar. Although Catholics, perhaps, are not even recommended to watch such things, not to mention movies - there will probably be some taboo dogma.

If you really hit the road

Icon of the Trinity of St. Andrei Rublev

Opening the Gospel, we find ourselves in a situation of choice - the door is open, we are called, we can respond and go on our way. And here dogmas turn out to be the subject not of theoretical reasoning, but of everyday practice. The simplest and most obvious manifestation of faith—prayer—is already dogmatic.

You can say that “the recognition or non-recognition of Jesus as the Messiah, the ideas of the Trinity, the Atonement and Salvation, the whole church philosophy have no meaning” only up to a certain point: until you try to pray. As soon as you begin to pray, you will inevitably be faced with the question of whether to address Jesus as Lord and Savior or not; say glory to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit or not.

At the same time, refusing to confess Jesus as Lord will be a choice no less dogmatic - only a choice of other dogmas. Any prayer and any act of worship of God requires a certain religious choice - and this can only be avoided by refusing to pray.

While we are not planning to go anywhere and are only talking about travel, we can consider it unimportant which way to go, or consider all paths the same; but as soon as we decide to go, we choose a very specific path and abandon others.

It is impossible to be disingenuous in prayer; It is impossible to address Jesus as Lord and Son of God and at the same time not believe it or consider it unimportant. However, this is not just about what words we will use—and what words we will not use—to God. A Christian's personal relationship with God, his personal trust and hope are inextricably linked with belief in certain truths about God. Trust and hope - both as a life position and as an emotional experience - stand on a certain, dogmatically clear idea of ​​​​God; if we destroy this concept, we destroy everything - trust, hope, spiritual life and ethics.