Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 69(1-4), 11-24. doi: 10.2143/JECS.69.1.

3214949
© 2017 by Journal of Eastern Christian Studies. All rights reserved.

The Epistemological Contours

of Florovsky’s Neopatristic Theology

Paul L. Gavrilyuk *

This paper explores the ecclesiological and epistemological underpinnings of

Florovsky’s neopatristic synthesis.1 I discuss Florovsky’s account of the norms
and sources of theology – in particular, revelation, experience, scripture, and
tradition. Central to Florovsky’s account of theological knowledge is a cat-
egory of “ecclesial experience”, which had significant precedents in Russian
theology, especially in the work of Pavel Florensky. I then argue that
­Florovsky’s theory of theological knowledge is a peculiar version of social
epistemology, grounded in ecclesiology. I draw attention to his engagement
with the work of the nineteenth-century Russian theologians Ivan Kireevsky
and Aleksei Khomiakov.

Divine Revelation and Ecclesial Experience

The seminal essays for understanding the sources and norms of Florovsky’s
historical theology are “The Father’s House” (1926) and “Theological Frag-
ments” (1931). According to Florovsky, knowledge of God is communicated
in divine revelation, which is “the source and the criterion of the Christian
Truth”.2 Revelation consists of divine actions and words in history. What
God discloses transcends history, yet the disclosure itself is bound up with
history and becomes constitutive of the history of salvation.3 Hence, the

* University of St. Thomas.

1
 This paper is based on the thirteenth chapter of my book Georges Florovsky and the Rus-
sian Religious Renaissance. See Paul Gavrilyuk, Georges Florovsky and the Russian Religious
Renaissance: Changing paradigms in historical and systematic theology (Oxford, 2013).
2
 ‘The Authority of the Ancient Councils’ in Georges Florovsky, Collected Works of Georges
Florovsky (Belmont/MA, 1989), I, p. 97, further quoted as CW.
3
 Georges Florovsky, ‘Bogoslovskie otryvki’, Put’, 31 (1931), pp. 3-21; Idem, Izbrannye
bogoslovskie stat’i (Moscow, 2000), p. 122 (English translation: ‘Revelation, Philosophy
and Theology’, CW III, p. 24).
12 Paul L. Gavrilyuk

starting point of any theological investigation must be a historical record of

divine acts, rather than abstract speculation about the God-world relation-
ship.4 Florovsky emphasized the historical character of revelation to such an
extent that other modes of divine self-disclosure, such as general revelation
through nature, received very little attention in his writings. He criticized
Russian sophiology for prioritizing speculative cosmology over historical rev-
elation. He also questioned the legitimacy of natural theology with a resolve
reminiscent of his Swiss contemporary Karl Barth.5 Florovsky also opposed
those hermeneutical strategies that de-historicized the content of revelation,
such as ancient allegorical interpretation, or Bultmanian demythologization.6
As a general principle, Florovsky rejected the possibility of a continuing
historical revelation. In line with the manuals of Orthodox theology, he
maintained that “revelation is completed with the founding of the Church
and with the Holy Spirit’s descent into the world”.7 The only exception was
the ultimate divine self-disclosure in the eschaton. Florovsky associated spec-
ulations about a future revelation with the idea of the “Third Covenant”
espoused by the advocates of the “new religious consciousness”, such as
Dmitry Merezhkovsky. Florovsky looked with a mixture of dread and disgust
upon “extra-ecclesial mysticism” that so mesmerized the writers and artists
of the Silver Age.
According to Florovsky, the Church is the only legitimate recipient and
interpreter of divine revelation. He expresses this conviction in no uncertain
terms: “Revelation is given, and is accessible, only in the Church; that is,
only through life in the Church, through a living and actual belonging to

4
 Andrew Blane, Georges Florovsky (Crestwood/NY, 2009), pp. 154-155; Georges
­ lorovsky, ‘The Lamb of God’, Scottish Journal of Theology, 4 (1951), pp. 13-28, here 13;
F
‘Theological Tensions among Christians’, CW XIII, pp. 9-13, at 12. As Florovsky wrote
in Puti russkogo bogosloviia (Paris, 1981), p. 445, “Two paths are possible in theology: from
above and from below, from God and from man, from revelation or from experience.
Patristic and scholastic theologies pursue the first path. ‘New theology’ prefers the way from
below”.
5
 Georges Florovsky, ‘The Work of the Holy Spirit in Revelation’, The Christian East, 13
(1932), pp. 49-64, here 50: “So-called ‘natural theology’ is no theology in the true sense
of the word”.
6
 See ‘Bogoslovskie otryvki’, in Florovsky, Izbrannye bogoslovskie stat’i, pp. 123-124.
7
 ‘Revelation, Philosophy and Theology’, CW III, p. 23; see ‘Catholicity of the Church’,
CW I, p. 49.
The Epistemological Contours of Florovsky’s Neopatristic Theology 13

the mystical organism of the Body of Christ”.8 In most cases, Florovsky

leaves the referent of the “Church” undefined, although in this context he
treats the term expansively, as including ancient Israel. He assumes, although
he rarely states this assumption explicitly, that the historical referent of the
“Church” is continuous with the Greek patristic, Byzantine, and contempo-
rary Eastern Orthodox Church. The Church receives, articulates, preserves,
transmits, defends, and upholds the truth of divine revelation. Florovsky
associates these activities at different points with what he calls “ecclesial expe-
rience” or “ecclesial life”.
Florovsky’s earliest engagement with the category of experience was occa-
sioned by his reading of Pavel Florensky. At the beginning of his major theo-
logical work, The Pillar and Ground of the Truth (1914), Florensky wrote:
“‘Living religious experience as the only legitimate way of understanding
dogmas’ – this is how I would express the general aspiration of my book”.9
In his ecclesiological debut “The Father’s House”, Florovsky drew on Flo­
rensky by asserting that “all Christian teaching is a description of ecclesial
experience”.10 More precisely, “all fullness of knowledge is originally given
in the experience and consciousness of the Church and only needs to be
recognized as such”.11 To theologize is to draw on the reservoir of revealed
knowledge received by the Church.
Following Aleksei Khomiakov, Florovsky held that in her catholic fullness
the Church is infallible: “The Church alone possesses the force and the
capacity for true and catholic synthesis. Therein lies her potestas magisterii,
the gift and unction of infallibility”.12 Florovsky located infallibility in the

8
 Florovsky, ‘Revelation, Philosophy and Theology’, CW III, p. 36.
9
 Pavel Florensky, Stolp i utverzhdenie istiny, 2 vol. (Moscow, 1990), I, p. 3. For discussion
of this passage, see Avril Pyman, Pavel Florensky. A Quiet Genius: The Tragic and Extraor-
dinary Life of Russia’s Unknown da Vinci (New York, 2010), p. 72.
10
 See ‘Dom Otchii’ (1927), in Florovsky, Izbrannye bogoslovskie stat’i, p. 10. See Johann
Adam Möhler, Unity in the Church or the Principle of Catholicism: Presented in the Spirit
of the Church Fathers of the First Three Centuries, ed. and transl. with an introduction by
Peter C. Erb (Washington D.C., 1996), p. 87.
11
 See ‘Problematika khristianskogo vossoedineniia’, in Florovsky, Izbrannye bogoslovskie
stat’i, p. 175; emphasis in the original. In Florovsky, Puti russkogo bogosloviia, p. 274, he
credited a similar point to A. Khomiakov.
12
 Florovsky, Puti russkogo bogosloviia, p. 507; see Idem, Bible, Church, Tradition: An East-
ern Orthodox View: The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky (Vaduz, 1987), vol. 1, p. 103.
On the infallibility of the church, see also Aleksei Stepanovich Khomiakov, ‘Tserkov
14 Paul L. Gavrilyuk

Church’s ability to offer a catholic synthesis based on the shared experience

of believers throughout the ages. He contrasted the “living experience of the
Church” with the “subjective religious experience” and “solitary mystical
consciousness” which could not serve as reliable sources of Church
doctrine.13

Scripture and Tradition

The “living experience of the Church”, as Florovsky uses the expression, is

not a separate source of knowledge of God, but rather a set of historical
practices that mediate the content of divine revelation, enshrined in scripture
and tradition. Scripture is a fruit of the Church’s reception of divine revela-
tion. As such, the Church holds a chronological, hermeneutical, and episte-
mological priority over scripture. Chronologically, the Gospels are “records
of church experience and faith”.14 Florovsky was especially fond of repeating
Tertullian’s assertion in De praescriptione hereticorum that outside the Church
there could be no scripture, properly speaking.15 This is because Biblical
teaching could be correctly understood, interpreted, and transmitted only
within the community that brought it about: namely, the Church.16
Hermeneutically, scripture is a part of the tradition of the Church. As
such, the tradition is not a second source of Christian doctrine, the authority
of which could be variously calibrated in relation to scripture. The core of
the apostolic tradition was summarized in the ancient rules of faith, which

odna’, in Sochineniia bogoslovskie, ed. Aleksej Stepanovich Khomiakov (St. Petersburg,

1995), pp. 39-56, here 40; Sergius Bulgakov, The Orthodox Church, ed. Donald Lowrie
(Dobbs Ferry/NY, 1935), p. 79; Möhler, Unity in the Church, p. 106. In nineteenth-
century Orthodox theology, ‘The Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs’ (1848) asserted the
infallibility of the Church in reaction to the Roman Catholic claims of papal infallibility.
13
 Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition, p. 49.
14
 Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition, p. 25; see ‘Bogoslovskie otryvki’ in Idem, Izbrannye
bogoslovskie stat’i, p. 127.
15
 Tertullian, De praescriptione haereticorum, xxxvii; Florovsky first developed this point
independently in ‘Dom Otchii’, in Florovsky, Izbrannye bogoslovskie stat’i, p. 28, and later
supported it with other patristic proof-texts, probably drawn from Möhler, Unity in the
Church, p. 97. See Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition, pp. 73-92.
16
 See ‘Bogoslovskie otryvki’ in Florovsky, Izbrannye bogoslovskie stat’i, p. 127; Idem, Bible,
Church, Tradition, p. 98; Florovsky, Puti russkogo bogosloviia, pp. 177, 274-275; see,
‘Tserkov odna’, p. 42.
The Epistemological Contours of Florovsky’s Neopatristic Theology 15

served as a basis for ancient Christian baptismal instruction and preaching.

Drawing on the work of a distinguished Anglican historical theologian,
Henry Ernest William Turner (1907-1995), Florovsky held that the rule of
faith served as an ancient hermeneutical principle of scripture.17 The rule of
faith safeguarded the integrity of scripture against the attacks of the heretics.
By receiving and interiorizing the rule of faith within the Church, the believ-
ers were able to grasp the skopos: that is, the overarching plan and the intent
of scripture. Thus, the rule of faith was not an externally imposed criterion.
Both scripture and the rule of faith originated in the ecclesial experience of
the reception, appropriation, and transmission of divine revelation.18
As a repository of ecclesial experience, tradition is not merely a collection
of ancient artifacts, but rather “the inner, charismatic or mystical memory
of the Church”.19 In opposition to the leaders of the “new religious con-
sciousness”, who criticized the “historical Church” for quenching the Spirit
and awaited God’s more powerful revelation in the future, Florovsky located
the work of the Holy Spirit squarely within the “historical Church” and saw
the tradition itself as charismatic, mystical, and liberating. On occasion,
­Florovsky expressed himself boldly, as only a true son of the Russian Reli-
gious Renaissance could: “[L]oyalty to tradition means not only concord
with the past but in a certain sense freedom from the past. Tradition is not
only a protective, conservative principle; it is primarily the principle of growth
and regeneration […] Tradition is the constant abiding of the Spirit, and
not only the memory of words. Tradition is a charismatic, not an historical,
principle”.20 Such words could have been written by Zenkovsky or Bulgakov,

17
 Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition, pp. 82, 124 n. 11, referring to Henry Ernest
­ illiam Turner, The Pattern of Christian Truth: A Study in the Relations between Orthodoxy
W
and Heresy in the Early Church, The Bampton Lectures 1954 (London, 1954), pp. 193-
194.
18
 I develop this point in Paul Gavrilyuk, ‘Scripture and Regula Fidei: Two Interlocking
Components of the Canonical Heritage’, in Canonical Theism: A Proposal for Theology and
the Church, eds. William J. Abraham, Jason E. Vickers and Natalie B. van Kirk (Grand
Rapids/MI, 2008), pp. 27-42.
19
 See ‘Bogoslovskie otryvki’, in Florovsky, Izbrannye bogoslovskie stat’i, p. 136. See Sergius
Bulgakov, The Orthodox Church (Crestwood/NY, 1988), p. 19: “Tradition is the living
memory of the Church”.
20
 Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition, p. 47. On this passage, see Aiden Nichols, Light
from the East: Authors and Themes in Orthodox Theology (London, 1995), pp. 141-142.
16 Paul L. Gavrilyuk

who also stressed the pneumatological and dynamic character of tradition.

In a subtle way, Florovsky also departed from the Renaissance theologians
by insisting that a deeper understanding of tradition was itself creatively
liberating. In Florovsky’s mind, twentieth-century Orthodox theology first
had to emancipate itself from its intellectual captivity to the thought-patterns
of the West by expanding its historical horizon beyond the possibilities of
the nineteenth century. In order to accomplish this task, Orthodox theology
had to “return to the Fathers”.
The catholicity of ecclesial experience safeguards the unity and continuity
of Christian teaching. To participate in ecclesial experience is to overcome
the subjectivity of private religious experience: “It is precisely through the
‘common mind’ of the Church that the Holy Spirit speaks to the believers”.21
To the extent to which the “mystical memory of the Church” does not fail,
tradition could be said to conquer time. Florovsky clarifies that “time-­
conquering unity is manifested and revealed in the experience of the Church,
especially in its Eucharistic experience”.22
Florovsky emphasizes a vital connection between the lex orandi and lex
credendi in patristic theology. As Florovsky contended in The Ways of Russian
Theology, this connection was lost in modern Russian theology. But the
“worshipping Church”, unlike “school theology”, did not lose its patristic
moorings. In Florovsky’s judgment, “one can be best initiated into the spirit
of the Fathers by attending the offices of the Eastern Church, especially in
Lent and up to Trinity Sunday.23 More generally, for Florovsky, “true theo­
logy can spring only out of a deep liturgical experience”.24 The reconnection

21
 Florovsky, ‘The Lamb of God’, p. 16. See Idem, Bible, Church, Tradition, p. 49: “We
put forward no subjective religious experience, no solitary mystical consciousness, not the
experience of separate believers, but the integral, living experience of the Catholic Church,
catholic experience, and Church life”.
22
 Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition, p. 45; see ‘Revelation, Philosophy and Theology’,
CW III, p. 39.
23
 Georges Florovsky, ‘In Ligno Crucis: The Patristic Doctrine of the Atonement’, unpub-
lished typescript, p. 9, GFP PUL, Box 2, f. 1; Cf. Idem, ‘The Ethos of the Orthodox
Church’, in CW IV, p. 21.
24
 Georges Florovsky, ‘The Legacy and the Task of Orthodox Theology’, Anglican Theo-
logical Review, 31 (1949), pp. 65-71, here 70. More concretely, in his essay ‘Eucharist and
Catholicity’ (1929), Florovsky reflected on the ecclesiological significance of the Eucharis-
tic prayers, drawing on the liturgical theology of Nicholas Cabasilas (c. 1320-c. 1390). See
‘Evkharistiia i sobornost’, in Florovsky, Izbrannye bogoslovskie stat’i, pp. 77-82; see Idem,
The Epistemological Contours of Florovsky’s Neopatristic Theology 17

of liturgical practice with dogmatic theology would be systematically under-

taken by Florovsky’s follower, Alexander Schmemann.25

Ecclesiology: Three Conversations

The Renaissance leaders were involved in three conversations germane to

Florovsky’s neopatristic ecclesiology. The first conversation concerned the
concept of sobornost’ or catholicity, as developed by Khomiakov. For Khomi-
akov, the third mark of the church, its catholicity, was more than an expres-
sion of its universality. Catholicity captured both the oneness of the Church
and the variety of each member’s spiritual gifts. According to Khomiakov,
the unity of the Orthodox Church was based on the bond of free and rational
love among the believers, rather than on external authority. For Florovsky,
this unity also involved an acquisition of a common theological mind.
During his American period, Florovsky became increasingly critical of
Khomiakov, claiming that everything that was expressed by the Russian term
sobornyi had been already captured by the Greek term katholike. Hence, there
was no need to adopt the Russian term in order to account for the third
mark of the Church.26 This semantic quibble, reflecting Florovsky’s increas-
ing alienation from Russian theology, should not detract from the point that
Florovsky understood catholicity in the Khomiakovan sense of free “unity in
plurality”, rather than in the more traditional sense of “universality”. As I
show later in this article, Florovsky also drew on Khomiakov’s deeply original
epistemology of sobornost’.

‘Eastern Orthodox Worship and Devotional Life: An Interpretation’, The Shane Quarterly,
11/1 (1950), pp. 19-34; Idem, ‘O smerti krestnoi’, Pravoslavnaia Mysl’, 2 (1930), pp. 148-
187; Idem, Izbrannye bogoslovskie stat’i (Moscow, 2000), pp. 92, 100, 101, 103, 105, 111
(‘Redemption’, CW III, pp. 134, 137, 139, 141-2, 159).
25
 Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition, p. 50. See, for example, Alexander Schmemann,
Introduction to Liturgical Theology, The Library of Orthodox Theology (London, 1966);
Idem, Of Water and the Spirit: A Liturgical Study of Baptism (Crestwood/NY, 1997).
26
 Florovsky, transcription of the lecture under the title ‘Seminar – 1967’, p. 3, GFP PUL,
Box 4, where on p. 2 he notes that he “passionately dislikes” the term “sobornost”, and
that the term “katholike” covers all valid aspects of the term “sobornyi”. On p. 11 of the
same document, he notes that he “completely disagrees” with the Eucharistic ecclesiology
of Nikolai Afanasiev.
18 Paul L. Gavrilyuk

The second conversation was the enchurching of life and culture pursued
by the Renaissance leaders. There was a broad spectrum of attitudes towards
enchurching. The representatives of the “new religious consciousness” move-
ment saw enchurching as a creation of the new church of the Third Cove-
nant in opposition to the “historical Church”, which they associated with the
pre-revolutionary Russian Orthodox ecclesiastical establishment. Florovsky
was convinced that the religious experimentations of the “new religious con-
sciousness” movement were deviations from authentic ecclesiality. The other
extreme was represented by those who urged a return precisely to the “his-
torical Church”, to the fullness of its sacramental life. While Florensky’s and
Bulgakov’s vision of enchurching included a good measure of theological
revision, they could not be dismissed as free religious philosophers, since they
also chose to become Orthodox pastors. As a personal choice, Florovsky fol-
lowed the same path of becoming a priest, although theologically he found
much to criticize in Florensky’s and Bulgakov’s sophiologies. For Florovsky,
the enchurching of culture could mean only one thing: the bringing of Rus-
sian religious philosophy into line with the perennial philosophy of the
Church Fathers. As he insisted, Russian religious thought lost its way, aban-
doned “the Father’s House”, left its patristic homeland in a misguided pur-
suit of Western theological paradigms. What was at stake in the conversation
between Florovsky and the Renaissance leaders was the historical and theo-
logical identity of Orthodoxy, as well as the canonical boundaries of the
Church.
The second conversation in turn spilled over into the third one, con-
ducted within the framework of the emerging ecumenical movement.
­Florovsky’s ecclesiological reflections were stimulated by various ecumenical
exchanges in which he was formally and informally engaged. This position
differentiated Florovsky the ecumenist from the traditionalist Orthodox,
who regarded any involvement in the ecumenical dialogue as compromising
the “purity” of Orthodoxy. The nature and boundaries of the Church were
subjects commonly raised in the exchanges between the Anglican and Rus-
sian émigré theologians who were members of the Fellowship of St. Alban
and Sergius. Bulgakov was initially the acknowledged leader of the Russian
Orthodox side, gradually yielding his role to Florovsky. Two factors contrib-
uted to this development. First, the Anglican interlocutors were befuddled
by the intricacies of Bulgakov’s sophiology and came to regard Florovsky’s
The Epistemological Contours of Florovsky’s Neopatristic Theology 19

position as more representative of the Orthodox tradition. Second, several

influential Anglican theologians joined Florovsky in resisting Bulgakov’s pro-
posal for intercommunion under the auspices of the Fellowship. In the end,
Florovsky’s more cautious approach prevailed, and Bulgakov, due to his fail-
ing health and advanced age, ceded his prominent place in the ecumenical
movement to his protégé.

Ecclesial Epistemology of Catholic Transformation

Florovsky’s approach to the epistemology of theology is closely tied to his

ecclesiology. Theological inquiry must involve a transformation of a theolo-
gian’s mind by the ever-deepening incorporation into the life of the Church.
The aim of this incorporation is to reach the fullness of communion with
the Church as the Body of Christ, thereby accomplishing “the catholic trans-
figuration of personality”.27. Incorporation into the church provides access
to the main sources of the revealed truth and prepares the mind to receive
these sources in a catholic manner. Without the “catholic transfiguration of
personality”, one might quote the Church Fathers as external authorities,
while failing to enter the mind of the Fathers.28 Put differently, a theologi-
an’s mind must be transformed by the reality to which the patristic authors
bear witness. Since the Church Fathers have attained the “catholic fullness”
of the faith, they serve not only as pastoral guides, but also as epistemic
exemplars.29 We might describe Florovsky’s admittedly fragmentary reflec-
tions as an ecclesial epistemology of catholic transformation.
The most likely source of Florovsky’s ecclesio-epistemological reflections
was Khomiakov. This nineteenth-century Russian lay theologian maintained
that “individual thinking could be powerful and productive only when the
highest knowledge and people who express it are bound up with the rest of

27
 Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition, p. 43.
28
 For Florovsky’s use of the expression ‘the mind of the Fathers’, see Florovsky, ‘Letter
to S. Tyshkevich’, pp. 189-191; Idem, ‘The Lamb of God’, p. 16; Florovsky, Bible,
Church, Tradition, pp. 9-16. Florovsky’s account of historical knowledge bears a striking
similarity to the ideas developed in Robin G. Collingwood, Essays in the Philosophy of His-
tory (Austin/TX, 1965).
29
 Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition, p. 44.
20 Paul L. Gavrilyuk

the social organism by the bonds of free and rational love”.30 He saw the
Russian Orthodox peasant commune (Russian: mir or narod) as an exem-
plary case of such a social organism. Khomiakov’s central insight – that the
process of knowledge acquisition involves a properly functioning community
of knowers, rather than an autonomously operating solitary mind – was
about a century ahead of its time. In fact, he anticipated the development of
social epistemology, which became an established field of philosophical
inquiry only in the second half of the twentieth century.
In relation to religious knowledge, Khomiakov sketched out what ­Berdyaev
called an “epistemology of catholicity (Russian: sobornost’)”, or ecclesial epis-
temology of love.31 According to Khomiakov, the third mark of the Church,
its catholicity, was more than universality. Rather, catholicity uniquely
reflected “unity in plurality”, the free unity of mind and spirit that was
established between the believers in ecclesial communion.32 Building on the
work of Ivan Kireevsky, Khomiakov held that “the understanding of truth
is based on communion of love and is impossible without such a commun-
ion. Inaccessible to an individual mind, the truth is accessible to the com-
munity of minds, bounded by love. This feature sharply distinguishes the
Orthodox doctrine from all others: from Latinity, built on external author-
ity, and from Protestantism, which leaves individual freedom in the desert
of abstract intellectualism”.33 Consequently, Khomiakov asserted that
“the rationality (Russian: razumnost’) of the Church is the highest form of
human rationality”.34 Khomiakov’s religious epistemology of catholicity was
a special case of social epistemology developed in the context of Orthodox

30
 Aleksei Stepanovich Khomiakov, Sobranie otdel’nykh statei i zametok raznorodnago
s­oderzhaniia (Tipografiia P. Bakhmet’eva) (Moscow, 1861), p. 174, discussed in Vasilii
­Vasilevich Zenkovsky, Russkie mysliteli i Evropa (Paris, 1926), p. 85.
31
 Nicolai Berdyaev, Aleksei Stepanovich Khomiakov (Moscow, 2005), pp. 28-29, 112-113.
Berdyaev’s account of the epistemology of catholicity, or the epistemology of catholic
consciousness, followed Zenkovsky, Russkie mysliteli, p. 85, and E. Skobtsova, A. Khomia-
kov (Paris, 1929), pp. 41-42.
32
 Khomiakov, ‘Tserkov odna’, p. 279. See ‘Bogoslovskie otryvki’, in Florovsky, Izbrannye
bogoslovskie stat’i, p. 133.
33
 Khomiakov, Sobranie otdel’nykh statei, p. 283. In the judgment of Serge Bolshakoff, this
passage sums up “the whole of Khomyakov”, see Sergius Bolshakoff, The Doctrine of the
Unity of the Church in the Works of Khomyakov and Moehler (London, 1946), p. 56. For
Florovsky’s appreciation of this point, see his Puti russkogo bogosloviia, pp. 280-281.
34
 Khomiakov, Sobranie otdel’nykh statei, p. 283.
The Epistemological Contours of Florovsky’s Neopatristic Theology 21

ecclesiology. In addition to love, which is most fully realized in the Eucha-

ristic assembly, Florovsky stressed ascetic effort, repentance, the renunciation
of the self, and the cultivation of discernment as means of attaining the
desired catholic transformation.35
By relying on Khomiakov, Florovsky went to the source of Solovyov’s
theory of integral knowledge, accepting Solovyov’s conception of faith
and his critique of “abstract principles”, but rejecting the philosopher’s reli-
ance on “non-ecclesial” mysticism. Florovsky was not only familiar with
­Khomiakov’s writings directly, but also closely studied the philosophy of
Sergei Trubetskoy, who had developed Khomiakov’s epistemology of catho-
licity.36 Florovsky’s account of catholic transformation was also anticipated
by Florensky’s epistemological explorations, which accorded the central role
to conversion in the acquisition of knowledge of God. Although Florovsky
was later quite critical of The Pillar and Ground of the Truth, he learned from
Pavel Florensky more than he was inclined to admit.37
In terms of contemporary analytic philosophy, Florovsky’s theological
epistemology can be classified as a species of reliabilism.38 According to relia-
bilism, a true belief is knowledge if it is certain and obtained by a reliable
process. For Florovsky, religious beliefs are certain because they are grounded
in ecclesial experience. In this respect, religious beliefs are akin to perceptual
beliefs, since they are obtained by means of vision-like apprehension. The
reliability of religious belief is secured by the knower’s ecclesial incorpora-
tion. Unlike most non-religious forms of philosophical reliabilism, F ­ lorovsky’s
proposal requires a catholic transformation of the theologian’s mind, a pro-
cess of making personal judgment conform to the mind of the Fathers, to
the mind of the Church, and, ultimately, to the mind of Christ. It is this
catholicity that Florovsky found lacking in the leaders of the Russian Reli-
gious Renaissance, especially in Florensky, Berdyaev, and Bulgakov.

35
 See ‘Bogoslovskie otryvki’, in Florovsky, Izbrannyi bogoslovskie stat’i, p. 132; Florovsky,
‘Evkharistiia i sobornost’, Put’, 19 (1929), pp. 3-22; Florovsky, Izbrannye bogoslovskie stat’i,
pp. 76-78.
36
 S. N. Trubetskoy, ‘O prirode chelovecheskogo soznaniia’, in Sochineniia (Moscow,
1994), pp. 483-593 [first published in 1889-1891].
37
 Florovsky, ‘Tomlenie dukha’, Put’, 20 (1930), pp. 102-107, here 103.
38
 Alvin I. Goldman, Reliabilism and Contemporary Epistemology: Essays (New York,
2012).
22 Paul L. Gavrilyuk

Although Khomiakov’s teaching regarding sobornost’ was widely dis-

cussed by the Renaissance thinkers, Florovsky’s epistemology of ecclesial
incorporation was anti-Renaissance. Most Renaissance religious philoso-
phers, particularly Nicholas Berdyaev, Semen Frank, Nicholas Lossky, Lev
Shestov, Lev Karsavin, and Boris Vysheslavtsev, regarded an unquestioning
alignment with the teaching of the Church as potentially limiting the free-
dom of theological inquiry, while at the same time recognizing the spiritual
importance of Eastern Orthodox tradition as their common point of refer-
ence. For ­Florovsky, however, these thinkers remained “free religious phi-
losophers” who refused to align their views with the common teachings of
the Church.
On these grounds, Florovsky looked down upon his Russian contempo-
raries, believing himself to possess the “authentic ecclesiality” that they were
lacking. He was, for example, unjustly dismissive of the work of Pavel
Evdokimov (1900-1970), a remarkable, yet neglected, Orthodox moral theo-
logian who creatively integrated the insights of the Russian Religious Renais-
sance with patristic wisdom. According to Florovsky, “Evdokimov continues
the tradition of Fr. S. Bulgakov and does not follow the spirit of the Holy
Fathers, despite quoting from them”.39 Florovsky often presumed an episte-
mological advantage over the Renaissance leaders, who did not reach “catho-
lic transformation”. But why was Florovsky uniquely qualified to transcend
the hermeneutical divide between the twentieth century and late antiquity?
After all, many Russian theologians, such as Evdokimov, Bulgakov, and
Zenkovsky, were thoroughly immersed both in patristic thought and in the
sacramental life of the Church. The fact that Evdokimov did not share
­Florovsky’s philosophical assumptions or his theological programme should
not disqualify him from having access to the mind of the Fathers. What
qualities, either spiritual or scholarly, could give Florovsky such an epistemic
advantage over his contemporaries? In the absence of good grounds for such
an advantage, Florovsky owed them a measure of epistemic humility.

39
 Florovsky, ‘Letter to S. Tyshkevich’, p. 211.
The Epistemological Contours of Florovsky’s Neopatristic Theology 23

The Modalities of Theological Reasoning

Dogma for Florovsky is “intellectual vision, a truth of perception”.40 For him,

“faith itself is a sort of vision”.41 These definitions echo Berdyaev’s words in
The Philosophy of Freedom: “Christian dogmas are neither intellectual theories,
nor metaphysical teachings; they are rather facts, visions, and living
experience”.42 While Florovsky concurred with Berdyaev’s and Florensky’s
emphasis on the experiential character of dogmatic theology, he did not
share their fascination with the mystics, whose writings were not accepted
by the Orthodox Church. Yet, similar to these theologians, Florovsky closely
associates knowledge of God with intuition and spiritual perception.43 Thus,
for example, he speaks of the “intuition of creaturehood” as constitutive of
the perennial philosophy of the Church Fathers. While Florovsky offers no
developed account of spiritual perception, he privileges this mode of know-
ing over discursive reasoning.
Given the emphasis on knowledge-vision, there appears to be a tension
between Florovsky’s theological epistemology and his philosophy of history.
According to Florovsky, historical interpretation involves informal inferences
based on “sympathetic imagination”. Hence, historical knowledge is indirect
and inferential, and in this respect unlike perceptual and intuitive knowl-
edge. He is equally adamant that knowledge of God is available only through
historical revelation. Since for Florovsky all theological knowledge is a form
of historical knowledge and all historical knowledge involves a form of infer-
ence, it follows that all theological knowledge is inferential. In other words,
a historical theologian has direct access only to the surviving patristic writ-
ings and other ancient sources, and only indirect access to the “ecclesial
experience” attested by the sources.

40
 Florovsky, ‘Revelation, Philosophy and Theology’, CW III, p. 29.
41
 Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition, p. 25; see ‘Bogoslovskie otryvki’, in Idem, Izbrannye
bogoslovskie stat’i, p. 125.
42
 Berdyaev, Filosofia Svobody, p. 22.
43
 See ‘Dom Otchii’, in Florovsky, Izbrannye bogoslovskie stat’i, p. 31; Idem, Bible, Church,
Tradition, pp. 53-54. The concept of intellectual vision is variously developed in Pla-
tonism, German Idealism, and the Christian tradition of the spiritual senses. See Paul
Gavrilyuk, Sarah Coakley, eds., The Spiritual Senses: Perceiving God in Western Christian-
ity (New York, 2012).
24 Paul L. Gavrilyuk

Florovsky made no attempt at reconciling his account of theological

knowledge-vision with his account of inferential historical knowledge as
“reading signs”. It is possible to interpret his account of theological knowl-
edge as involving a short inference, or layers of increasingly sharper insight
into the mystery of God contemplated by faith. On this harmonizing read-
ing, Florovsky could be interpreted as not excluding discursive reasoning
altogether, but rather placing a higher premium on intellectual intuition in
the acquisition of knowledge of God.

Conclusion

According to Florovsky, the main locus of revelation is history, the only

legitimate recipient of religious experience and interpreter of scripture is the
Church, and the chief mode of apprehending divine truths is non-inferential.
While he did not develop his key epistemological insights at length, Flo-
rovsky offered a rudimentary, yet original, theory of theological knowledge,
which I have called the ecclesial epistemology of catholic transformation.
Florovsky’s theory of knowledge is a species of social epistemology, rooted
in Khomiakov’s account of sobornost’. I plan to develop Florovsky’s episte-
mological insights in the years ahead.

Abstract

This paper explores the epistemological insights scattered through Georges

Florovsky’s (1893-1979) considerable scholarly corpus. The author systema-
tizes Florovsky’s account of theological norms and sources, including divine
revelation, ecclesial experience, Scripture and tradition. He observes that
­Florovsky’s epistemological reflections were much stimulated by Aleksei Khomi-
akov (1804-1860) and proposes that Florovsky’s account of religious knowl-
edge was a form of social epistemology which could be described as the
ecclesial epistemology of catholic transformation. While underdeveloped, this
epistemological vision is a backbone of Florovsky’s neopatristic synthesis.