Soteriology of protopresbyter Pyotr Gnedich: school theologian against scholastic theology

The article is devoted to the criticism of elements of scholastic theology in the master’s thesis of protopresbyter Pyotr Gnedich Dogma of redemption in Russian theological science (1893-1944). Father Pyotr Gnedich is one of the most prominent representatives of Orthodox theology of the Soviet period. Gnedich’s main work - his master’s thesis - examines the problem of the Western theology influence on Russian soteriology. Te conclusions father Pyotr arrived at are disappointing: almost all domestic authors in varying degrees depended on the non-Orthodox thought. However, Gnedich himself never fully escaped the influence of pro-Western scholastic theology. In line with the Western tradition, he focuses on the crucifixion of the Saviour and highlights the soteriology as the first theology. Criticizing the absolutization of God’s justice, Gnedich absolutizes God’s immutability. In Dogma the all-church status of St. Maxim the Confessor’s teaching about the “act of Christ as the fulfillment of Adam’s mission, uniting of the created and non-created worlds, the deification of the cosmos” is called into doubt. Te use of key concept of Orthodox theology - theosis - in the system of Vladimir Lossky is criticized. Gnedich’s own theology, thus, belongs to the transitional period of the native science, when dogmatic theology is trying to get rid of the Western influence, but at the same time depends on the theology it criticizes. Te question about the identical character of the ideas of protopresbyter Pyotr Gnedich and hegemon Paul (Cheremukhin) is considered separately. Tese authors are united by the general doctrine about the nature and purpose of theology, special emphasis on the doctrine of salvation, as well as misconceptions about Catholic soteriology. Today it is difficult to determine the nature of the discovered parallels. Nevertheless, we are far from suspecting plagiarism. Rather, the similarity of ideas results from friendly relationship between the authors. Such perichoresis necessitates the perception of the heritage of protopresbyter Pyotr Gnedich and hegemon Paul (Cheremukhin) as a single entity