But it is extremely important to note here the significance of the oros of the Council of Chalcedon, which affirms this distinction, where one and the same term – "consubstantial" – is used in relation to the Divinity and to man: "Following by the Divine Father, we all unanimously teach to confess the One and Same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, perfect in Divinity and perfect in humanity, truly God and truly Man, Who is of soul and body of one essence with the Father and is of one essence with us according to humanity."

If Christ is of the same essence with us in humanity and we are of the same essence with Him, then people are of the same essence with each other. And the relationship between persons and nature in man can be thought of as the same as in God.

There is something common and something different between the image and the Prototype: the common is in the "ineffable difference between the Person and nature", and the difference is in the perishability, the destructibility of human nature. The "decay" of human nature, the destruction of the unity of man, is a consequence of Adam's sin. Hence the lack of feeling of the general unity of individuals after the fall. For this reason, Christ accomplishes the "renewal of nature" in redemption, builds the new unity of mankind, the Church, in the same eternal image: that they may be one, even as we are one (Jn 17:22).

In the teaching of the unity of mankind, in finding the correct concepts and theological terminology for expressing this teaching, lies not only the clarification of the truth of redemption, but also the solution of other problems of modern theology.

The study of the past contributes to the clarification of the present. A careful study of the development of Russian theological science allows the author to express a firm conviction and no less firm conviction that this development is not complete and that it should be directed along the path indicated by church tradition and patristic theology.

LIST OF CITED SOURCES

This list (compiled by the author – Ed.) lists works (individual studies, articles, reviews) devoted to the interpretation of the dogma of redemption. If there are reviews or reviews on any of them (for example, a dissertation), then they are listed immediately after it. The works in the index are arranged in the order of chapters and paragraphs of this study. Works used in several chapters, as a rule, are indicated only to the chapter where they are first cited. Other works used are indicated in the notes.

General Reviews of Russian Theological Literature

Glubokovsky N. N., prof. Russian Theological Science in Its Historical Development and Contemporary State. Warsaw, 1928.

Nikol'skii P. V. Pis'ma o russkom bogoslovii [Letters on Russian Theology]. Vol. 1. St. Petersburg, 1904; Vol. 2. St. Petersburg, 1907.

Florovsky G., prot. The Ways of Russian Theology. Paris, 1937.

TO CHAPTER I 1.

Vvedensky A. M. On the Question of the Methodological Reform of Orthodox Dogmatics // Bogoslovskii vestnik. 1904. № 6.