Theological antinomy: theologics or theoesthetics?

The article deals with the questions of whether the use of the concept of antinomy in theology is justified, and also whether antinomy is a contradiction that cannot be solved by formal logical means (theologics), or whether it is a paradox that surprises only with its external inconsistency (theoesthetics). The works of Priest Pavel Florensky, Vladimir Lossky, Archbishop Vasily (Krivoshein), Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann, Archpriest Andrew Louth are studied in this article in order to identify the church sources to which they refer when it comes to antinomy. The correlation of the Sacred Tradition with the teaching of antinomism makes it possible to see, on the one hand, the theological suitability of the latter, on the other hand, its relevance to theological thought. The author examines the use of antinomy by St. Justin (Popovich), who adopted this concept through the text of the book of P. Florensky The Pillar and Ground of Truth. As a result, the most developed philosophical and theological teaching of antinomism is seen precisely in the work of priest Pavel Florensky. Despite the predominant stability of his philosophical views, Florensky’s antinomism undergoes significant changes, amounting to the justification of antinomy as a norm of the human mind.