Urgency of the research. The concept of kenosis underwent especial development in 20th-century Russian Orthodox thought, largely due to the scholarly research conducted by V. N. Lossky and archpriest Sergii Bulgakov. The discussion over kenosis between the two scholars is crucial to current theological discourse, especially dogmatic theology.
Target setting. The views of V. N. Lossky and archpriest Sergii Bulgakov on the concept of “kenosis” are in need of a fresh reading and rethinking, in a dialogical mode. Such an approach will allow us to see the advantages and disadvantages of these views and assess their creative potential.
Actual scientific researches and issues analysis. This topic, in varying degrees, was covered in the works of such researchers as: B. Gallagher, R. Williams, Hieromonk Nikolay (Sakharov), A. Papanicolaou, M. Sebo, P. Gavrilyk and others.
The research objective. To critically analyze and compare V. N. Lossky’s and Fr. Sergii Bulgakov’s interpretations of the concept of “kenosis”.
The statement of basic materials. It has been found that the discrepancies between V. N. Lossky’s and archpriest Sergii Bulgakov’s views on kenosis are explained by the fact that these thinkers built their teachings on different methodological foundations, using different sources and tools. For Lossky, kenosis was temporal in nature and was limited to the christological dimension, while for Bulgakov kenosis meant an eternal intrathroic metaphysical reality that manifested itself much earlier and on a much larger scale. If Bulgakov insisted that the Incarnation was determined by ontological necessity (ontological altruism), then Lossky, by contrast, was of the opinion that it was caused by the need to solve the human problem of sin and became possible only due to the free act of the Divine will.
Conclusions. The following conclusions were drawn from the given study: firstly, Lossky intended to conceptualize kenosis in unity and in harmony with the patristic tradition; Bulgakov, on the other hand, advanced his speculative view of kenosis, one that lacks any solid theological basis. Secondly, Lossky’s understanding of kenosis has stronger exegetical support than that of Bulgakov’s.
Keywords: V. N. Lossky, archpriest Sergii Bulgakov, kenosis, the Trinity, God’s incarnation.
References:
- Bauer, W, Danker, FW, Arndt WF & Gingrich FW 2000. ‘A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature’, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
- Gorodetzky, N 1938. ‘The Humiliated Christ in Modern Russian Thought’, SPCK, London.
- Law, DR 2011. ‘Kenotic Theology’, in The Cambridge Dictionary of Christian Theology, eds IA McFarland, DAS Fergusson, K Kilby & IR Torrance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 261-262.
- Smith, SM 2003. ‘Kenozis, kenoticheskaya teologiya (Kenosis, kenotic theology)’, v Teologicheskij enciklopedicheskij slovar, red. U Ellvel, per. VV Rynkevich, Duhovnoe vozrozhdenie, Moskva, c. 571-573.
- Bulgakov, S 1933. ‘Agnec Bozhij. O Bogochelovechestve (The Lamb of God. On God-manhood)’, ch. 1, YMCA-Press, Paris.
- Bulgakov, S 1936. ‘Uteshitel. O Bogochelovechestve (The Comforter. On God-manhood)’, ch. 1, YMCA-Press, Tallinn.
- Losskij, V 2006. ‘Dogmaticheskoe bogoslovie (Dogmatic theology)’, v Bogovidenie, per. VA Reshikova, sost. i vstup. sl. AS Filonenko, ACT, Moskva, s. 455-550.
- Losskij, V 2006. ‘Spor o Sofii (The dispute over the Sofia)’, v Bogovidenie, per. VA Reshikova, sost. i vstup. sl. AS Filonenko, ACT, Moskva, s. 11-108.
- Saharov, N 2012. ‘Ponyatie kenosisa v bogoslovskoĭ mysli arhimandrita Sofroniya (Saharova) (The concept of kenosis in the theological thought of archimandrite Sofroniy (Sakharov))’, Cerkov i vremya. Nauchno-bogoslovskiĭ i cerkovno-obshestvennyĭ zhurnal, № 58 (1), c. 53-82.
- Uilyams, R 2009. ‘Bogoslovie V. N. Losskogo: izlozhenie i kritika (The theology of Vladimir Nikolaievich Lossky: an exposition and critique)’, Duh i litepa, Kiev.