Вестник Екатеринбургской духовной семинарии (May 2024)
ANTINOMY IN DOGMATICS AND ETHICS
Abstract
The article clarifies the meaning of antinomy in Christian doctrine and moralizing. The key thesis of the study is that in dogmatics, antinomy serves as a boundary for rational cognition; in the moral sphere, antinomy is unacceptable as opening the way to moral relativism. These conclusions are drawn mainly on the basis of studying the works of priest Pavel Florensky (in relation to dogmatics) and priest Nikolai Stelletsky (in relation to ethics). The author sets out to confirm this thesis with the help of the theological method, referring primarily to the Holy Scriptures and the patristic heritage. Another methodological basis of the study is the distinction between the meaning and meaning of statements. The main merit in the theoretical development of the doctrine of antinomy, according to the author, belongs to Pavel Florensky. The article examines the critical remarks made by E. N. Trubetskoy in relation to the theory of Pavel Florensky and initiated a skeptical attitude to the method of antinomy. The author of the article comes to the conclusion that the methodology proposed by Florensky is quite justified and is successfully used in modern theology. As an example, the author cites the dogma of the Divine Trinity, antinomically understood by Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware). Attention is drawn to the theological discussion about the ignorance of Christ, the solution of which is also to refer this issue to the sphere of superintelligent comprehension and recognition of the logical contradiction existing here. The author finds direct indications of the existence of a contradiction in the doctrinal truths of St. Maxim the Confessor and St. Gregory Palamas. Also, the rich material on this topic is the work of St. Simeon the New Theologian. Serbian St. Justin (Popovich) often resorts to this methodology and uses the term «antinomy» in his theological constructions. However, the author of the article claims that the method of antinomy is not universal. Thus, the sphere of practical ethics, which requires clarity and certainty of moral behavior, a clear distinction between good and evil, excludes the antinomic approach.
Keywords
