By Professor Mikhail Nikolaevich Skaballanovich
There is something firm, constant, and unchangeable in Christian doctrine. This is what we call dogma. Such a stable element is also present in the doctrines of all other religions. But just as Christianity so surpasses these other religions that, in comparison, they can hardly be called religions, so there must be a great difference between the dogma of Christianity and any other, a difference not only in content (material), but also in character and form. No other dogma can possess such firmness, immutability, and strength as the Christian one. It is as if God Himself, into whose being the dogma strives to enter by the only true path, imparts to it, through this ideological attachment, something of its own immutability and immutability. Our faith is the faith of Noah and Abraham. The fundamental content of our faith and theirs is the same, and the details are unimportant. Heaven and earth change, preparing their “passage,” but this faith and dogma of piety loses not a single iota or trait of its content, being the best image and witness of God on earth, the true voice of the eternally unchanging God in the changing reality around us. In this regard, no religion offers anything comparable to Christianity. The religious views of Hesiod and Homer, on the one hand, and Euripides and Sophocles, on the other, are so vast that unity and commonality often only reside in the names of the gods. The most astonishing thing about this unchanging element of Christian doctrine is that it does not suppress religious thought, but that the latter can operate upon it, rework it, and make it entirely new. Christian doctrine, thus, without changing in its foundations and essence, allows the living work of the mind upon itself and, through this, provides a union of solid stability and firmness with movement and life, impossible in other religions. Thus, dogma, in the sense and form in which it exists in Christianity, is something possible only here; it is a unique and original phenomenon of Christianity.
Denoting an unchanging element in Christian doctrine, dogma cannot be subject to any development or perfection. The fundamental characteristic of dogma is forgotten when people speak not only of its development, but also, for example, of its revelation, precise definition, and so on. Even if the content of dogma gains greater clarity, distinctness, and validity over time, this will be something new and not unimportant in dogma. It is commonly said that the form of dogma, its formula, changes, but not its content and thought. But a) who does not know how inseparable form is from content? b) in dogma, its formula is precisely what is most constant, as we hope to demonstrate.
Even more so, people’s understanding of dogma could not change—for this understanding is the essence of the matter; dogma is the understanding of truth by Christians, by the Church. Dogma could be expressed in different words at different times, just as one thought often allows for different forms of expression. But beneath these words always lay a single thought, transcending the words that expressed it and therefore requiring different expressions. This thought, this “mind,” was one for all Christians. They possessed the “mind of Christ.” For those who possessed such a thought, such a mind, any deviation from it was immediately apparent. The subject at hand was one about which there could be no two opinions or thoughts.
But beyond this thought, this series of unchanging propositions of religious faith, intellectual work was possible. These propositions could serve as premises for a whole series of conclusions, generalizations, constructions, assumptions, aspirations, and so on. They could be compared with a number of other propositions, with the conclusions of science, illuminated, and clarified by them. In this way, dogma could enter the history of human thought in general, and from this perspective, it is possible to speak of the history of dogmas. It is the history of their clarification.
This history alone can solve the difficult task of separating dogmatic from non-dogmatic doctrine.
Not all theological propositions and not all manifestations of popular faith are dogmas or are made into them, says Seeberg. The concept of dogma, according to current usage, refers to the formal recognition of certain propositions by the organized church. Dogmas are expressions of church faith, and therefore they are established by the church, even if political interests sometimes interfered with this establishment (Council of Chalcedon). Behind the revelation and formulation of dogma stands, as dogma, the faith of the church and the need for an ecclesiastical (religious) disposition. This is evident from the fact that all dogmas, in general, fundamentally relate to salvation and redemption. Although dogmas are of divine, revealed origin, since their formulation and expression, which we clearly recognize, were developed by man under a variety of influences and accidental circumstances, the question always arises as to whether they fully express the ideas of redemptive faith or whether the dogma, or rather its given form and expression, have been transcended and infused with alien elements from other religious forms, for example, from legal relations or natural religions. Thus, it may happen that elements of lower religious levels have at times penetrated the ordinary (everyday) and even scientific understanding of the Christian faith. This is inevitable, since dogmas have become an integral part of popular culture.”2 For example, with regard to the dogma of atonement, it has already been established that legal concepts and legal interpretation, never sanctified by the Orthodox Church, have been introduced into the formula currently accepted by Russian dogmatists; they have been borrowed here from Catholic and Protestant dogmatics. The same can be said, according to Seeberg, about the influence of the principles of naturalistic religions on the presentation and disclosure in our dogmatics of the doctrine of creation, the origin of man, the origin of the human soul at birth, the fate of man after death and the last judgment, etc. “Do such influences and elements distort dogmas? For the most part, they are completely harmless to them, and most importantly, they are inevitable and necessary in the process of their disclosure. True, the element of mobility and chance often acts, complicating the historical examination of religion. Sometimes One is amazed at how strongly purely political and impure personal motives, the force of inertia, and deep partisanship played a role in the formulation of dogmas. This can even give rise to distrust of these formulas. But one cannot look at individual individuals, as well as entire groups of them and the official bodies that developed dogma, in isolation. They are only instruments, conduits of broad spiritual aspirations; they created an image for the vague movements and needs of the great masses, either forming thoughts from premonitions or drawing and developing conclusions from thoughts. The councils and their leaders did not represent their own, arbitrary inventions, but they found words for the feelings and aspirations of the entire life of their time. It was not personal sentiments and political intrigues that created dogma, but the religious life of the church. It was not so much that a certain Arius thought one way, and a certain Athanasius another, and that Emperor Constantine cared about unity in political interests, and this caused the Nicene redefinition, but all these individuals with their Their power and persuasion were merely instruments through which a great process of inner necessity was accomplished. Ultimately, they were not masters, but servants of historical development; they brought about events as extraordinary means, not as producers. Otherwise, history would have turned into a collection of heroic tales, all beginning with the words, “Once upon a time there was a man.”
Thus, dogmatics teaches us to understand the guiding threads of all church development. But in their exposition and revelation, dogmas influenced the life of the church more profoundly and powerfully than might appear to a superficial observer. Just as dogma must be explained from church life, so too must its influence on that life be demonstrated. Protestantism provides proof. If so, then the most fundamental question about dogma is the question of its preservation in the church. Could the church, and in what way, by what means, preserve within itself the precious treasure of dogmatic teaching, instilled in it by God over centuries and taught with particular clarity by Christ? It was not so much the thought process itself, the attempts to delve into and elucidate it, however lengthy and complex this work, that was important for dogma, as its preservation. And no less difficult than reflecting on dogma was its preservation. If we examine the process of this preservation, we will easily discover two aspects, two types or stages. First and foremost, this preservation was ideological and intellectual, taking place within church tradition, understood in the broadest sense, since it included Holy Scripture as the expression of apostolic tradition. This preservation then turned to the aid of human words and the pen: attempts arose to protect dogma from change through verbal formulas—symbols and creeds.
Consequently, the question of preserving dogma in the church is divided into two subsets: the question of tradition as the ideological, intellectual treasury of dogma, and the question of symbols as formulas of dogma. A consideration of both questions must be preceded by a picture of the very development of the concept of dogma and the term “dogma” within church consciousness, for only with this development, from the moment of a distinct awareness of the dogmatic element, could Christianity apply particular diligence to the reliable preservation of dogma. The Formation of the Concept and Term “Dogma”
The concept of dogma, in almost all its current clarity and fullness, was formed in the Christian Church—or, more accurately, scholarship—very early, during the era of the first ecumenical councils. Christianity adopted a word from classical Greek for this original concept, which it itself had developed. Like any word, it is far from adequately expressive of this concept, but it is more suitable than others. Being a verbal noun from δοκέω—δόγμα, it has the same meaning of opinion, thought, but by intensifying the root character and creating a firm and energetic γ, it imparts to the concept, opinion, and thought precisely the flavor of firmness, authority, stability, and grandeur that is conceived in the Christian concept of dogma and which constitutes the complete opposite of δόξα with its light, playful ξ.
The meanings in which the word is used by the classics vary, but always have a nuance of this “firmness of thought.” In Xenophon, δόγμα is the highest order to the troops3; in Gorodian, it is a decree of the Senate4. Also in B. 3. In Daniel, it refers to royal decrees5 and laws6. In the Book of Esther, the issuance of a decree on the extermination of the Jews is expressed by the verb δόγματίζειν7; in 2 Macc.8, it is the people’s decision to establish a holiday in memory of deliverance from enemies. The Gospel of Luke also uses the word in this way, calling it a decree on a census9, and in the Book of Acts, imperial decrees10. But the word has long since, also since classical antiquity, acquired, so to speak, a practical meaning: that of law, and a purely theoretical meaning: that of thought. This latter meaning, once the word was adopted by ecclesiastical language, only needed to be revealed in order to give it its true meaning—”legislated thought”—in conjunction with the first meaning. Thus, Cicero already refers to the use of the word dogma regarding indisputable and unquestionable philosophical propositions. 11 The use of the word in the Book of Acts, in the story of how Paul and Timothy, passing through the cities of Asia Minor, “delivered to them the statutes—δόγματα—ordained by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem”12, where the word apparently denotes the decrees of the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem, constitutes a transition to the later Christian meaning of the word—regarding the decrees of the Council. Nevertheless, here too the word still has a purely practical connotation, since the decrees of the Apostolic Council were precisely of this nature. And the Apostle Paul understands only this practical meaning of the word. In the expressions: “having abolished the law of the commandments by teachings – ενδόγμασι –”13 and “having destroyed the handwriting of teachings which was against us”14, he calls the prescriptions of the law of Moses δόγματα for their imperative character. This is confirmed by his use of δογματίζεθαι in the same sense, unsympathetic to the apostle, in the context of the last passage: “if you have died with Christ to the rudiments of the world, why do you, who live in the world, adhere to the ordinances (δογματίζεσθε, Slav., “consider”): do not handle, do not taste, do not handle”15. (In the Russian translation of the Bible, δόγματα in the two passages of Apostle Paul cited above is unfairly considered to designate Christ’s teaching.)
For the apostolic fathers, the word originally had a purely practical meaning. “Now this is what you should do concerning the apostles and prophets, according to the ordinance (δόγμα) of the gospel: receive every apostle that comes to you,” we read in Διδαχή16. Apostle Barnabas calls the Mosaic laws regarding unclean animals dogmas, and in another place he says: “The Lord’s dogmas are three: the expectation of life, its beginning, and its consummation.”17 The latter usage is closer to the current meaning than the previous ones. It is even closer in Ignatius the God-Bearer, where it denotes the entire Christian teaching, but primarily from the practical side: “Strive to be established (βεβαιωθήναι) in the dogmas of the Lord and the apostles, so that in everything you do you may prosper well in body and spirit, in faith and love, in the Son and in the Father and in the Spirit, in the beginning and in the end.”18 Tatian19 and Origon use the word in the sense of the entire Christian teaching (secundum dogma nostrorum, or – secundum ecclesiae fidem; των κατά χριστιανισμό σωτηρίων δογμάτων)20.
In the Fathers of the 4th and 5th centuries. The word is already a terminus technicus, almost in the current sense. Cyril of Jerusalem21, Gregory the Theologian22 call dogmas the truths of doctrine taught to catechumens (the trace, the most important and fundamental truths of Christian doctrine), and the former considers them as necessary for piety as good deeds. “The image of piety consists of two things: pious dogmas and good deeds. And dogmas without good deeds are not pleasing to God, and deeds performed without pious dogmas are not accepted by God. What is the use of knowing dogmas about God well and shamefully committing adultery?”23. Here, therefore, is given a distinction between dogmas and moral demands, which is not characteristic of the fathers of the 2nd-3rd centuries, assimilating a speculative character to them. The same is true for other fathers of the 4th-5th centuries. With the assimilation of such a meaning, a word acquires a special aura of grandeur, and it is rarely used without the highest epithets. Basil V. calls dogmas divine and immutable.24 John Chrysostom and Gregory of Nyssa call dogmas ecclesiastical.25 Blessed Theodoret calls them apostolic.26 Lactatius says that Christ taught the apostles and dedicated them to preaching his dogma and teaching.27
The most precise and closest to the present definition of the concept of “dogma” from the church writers of that time is found in Vincent of Lirin, also famous for his teaching on the Church and its universality: “catholic dogma, i.e. the universal and most ancient faith (catholicum dogma, id est universalis et vetusta fides)”; “It is not natural for the dogmas of heavenly philosophy to be subject to any change, truncation or mutilation,” “like an earthly institution, which can be perfected only by continuous corrections or censures.”28 A similar understanding of dogma is found in one homily of the 4th century, attributed to St. Chrysostom, on the words: “By what authority do you do this?”, where the author, addressing a heretic who is mistaken about the Holy Trinity, says: “much of what we say is said polemically, and not dogmatically (άγονιτικώς κηρύτεται, ού δογμάτικώς); before me “the same as for every believer, the dogma of piety stands unshakable.”29 At the same time, the word does not lose its broader meaning. St. Irenaeus also speaks of dogmata impia et irreligiosa30. Vincent31 speaks of the dogmas of heretics. Eusebius32 speaks of δο᾿ γματα άθεα; Augustine – of pestifera et mortifera dogmata33. Theodoret about μυσαρα (vile) δο᾿ γματα34. Sozomen – about δο᾿ γματα έλληνικά – the beliefs of the Greek religion35; Isidore of Pelusium calls Socrates “the legislator of Attic dogmas.”36
However, even the ecumenical councils, although they use the word in its current sense (Sixth Ecumenical Council, Canon 1: “If anyone does not maintain and accept the dogmas of piety… let him be anathema”), call their dogmatic definitions δρος. The Kormchaya Kniga (Kormchaya Book) first labels these definitions as dogmas. But it’s not the name that’s important, but the idea. By the end of the 4th century, no educated Christian could doubt the term “dogma.” Thus, gradually, in the ecclesiastical consciousness, and often in ecclesiastical literature, this concept, new both for paganism and even for Old Testament theology, took shape, new in some of the aspects that now came to be understood within it. True, it signified that purely theoretical (with the elimination of the practical sphere) teaching about God, the “heavenly philosophy,” in the words of Vincent, which was far from alien to all pre-Christian humanity; it signified a teaching that had its foundation in revelation (which teaching was also in the Old Testament) – the teaching of God, the Lord, Christ, the apostles, but it also noted that feature of this teaching, that the latter passed through the ecclesiastical consciousness (after all, the crown meaning of the word “to think,” “to think” is “thought,” “opinion”), a consciousness in its collective infallible – that it became ecclesiastical and “unshakable” (Basil the Great), like the church. Notes
1 Following Catholicism, which recently proclaimed a new dogma and justified it by claiming that it was implicitly contained in the previous doctrine, our best dogmatists are also falling into this error. While they attempt to soften this thought, and to this end, they fall into the contradiction “Religion is a matter of the soul,” we read in one dogmatics a quotation from Vincent of Lirins: “Let it be likened to bodies; with the increase of years, bodies reveal their members, but remain what they were. As many members as babies have, so many as adults; and if anything is added with the passage of years, it all existed before in embryo, so that later, in the elderly, nothing new is discovered that was not already hidden in children. The dogmatic teaching of the Christian faith must also necessarily follow this law of progress, even though it may strengthen over the years, expand over time, and rise over the centuries, yet it remains indestructible and undamaged, whole and perfect, in all the subdivisions of its parts, in all, so to speak, its members and senses, without the slightest trace of change, without any loss in its content, without any alteration of its definitions — Dogmas, before the mind that studies them, “continue to appear,” the author himself continues, “not in their pure, original form, in which they are contained in divine revelation, but in a more or less developed form —- as having already passed through various and many stages of their development.” Here everything is based on comparison (with an organism), which is not proof, and the development of dogma is directly permitted. “While recognizing the immutability and imperfection of Christian doctrine in its content,” we read in another dogmatics, “the Orthodox Church does not, however, reject the possibility of a certain kind of perfectibility and development (!). But it posits this perfectibility and development in the precise definition and explanation or disclosure of the same dogmas, immutable in their essence. The perfectibility and development of Christian doctrine, therefore, can have not an objective, but only a subjective, relation to human consciousness, to the assimilation and understanding of dogma by people.” What is dogma without a relation “to human consciousness,” “to its assimilation and understanding by people”?
2Seeberq L., Lehrbnch der Dogmengeschiehte, Leipz. 1908, I, 1–3.
3Xenophon, Anubis. III 3, £40; I, 6.
4Herodian. Hist. VII, 10
5Dan. 2:13; 3:10; 6:9.
6Dan. 6:8–15.
7Ezekiel 3:9.
82Mac. 10:8; 15:36.
9Luke 2:1.
10Acts 17:7; In Thessaloniki, Paul and Silas were accused of “doing contrary to Caesar’s decrees, saying that another Jesus is king.”
11 Cicero. Quaes. Acad. I. IV c. 9.
12 Acts 16:4.
13 Ephesians 2:15.
14 Colossians 2:14.
15 Colossians 2:20.
16 Deidachi 11:3.
17 Barnabas, Epistle 10:9, 1:6.
18 Ignatius B. Magnesia 13:1.
19 Tatian, To the Greeks, 42:16.
20 Origen, On the Beginning 1, 76, 4, 6.
21 Cyril Hierarch. Chapter 4
22 Gregory B. Sermon on the Baptism
23 Cyril Hierarch. Chapter 4
24 Basil V. Homily on Psalm 44.
25 Zlat. on Gal., Gregory of Nys. Archpriest Eun. XII.
26 Theodoret, Church History 2, 7.
27 Lactantius, De murt. persec. II.
28 Vincent Lear. Reminder (Commonit.) 1, 22
29 Magne Patrol, s gr. t 56, col, 422.
30 Irenaeus, Against Heresies I, 11.
31 Vincent, Reminder 1, 18.
32 Eusebius, on Ps. 66, 12.
33 Augustine, On the City of God XVIII, 51.
34 Theodoret, On I. On Question 16.
35 Sozomen, Church History V. 16.
36 Isidore of Pelusium, Letter 11.
Source in Russian: Skaballanovich M. The Preservation of Dogma in the Church // Transactions of the Kyiv Theological Academy. 1910. No. 9. pp. 17-78.
