Doctrine 'in the flesh'

[Antonios]

Dear Celinda,

Thank you for the previous post. I must admit I don't understand the term 'doctrine in the flesh'. This is a new concept to me.

[Celinda Grace]

Dear Celinda,

Thank you for the previous post. I must admit I don't understand the term 'doctrine in the flesh'. This is a new concept to me. I'm guessing this is Protestant terminology? Could you please explain this further to help me understand?

Actually this is my terminology. I was using it here because that is how Maximus was explaining it. I have also used the terms natural theology vs mystical theology when trying to explain this to others. What I am trying to show by the quotes is that there are two legitimate ways in which to approach scripture because we have two faculties for knowing -reason (rational mind) and intellect (nous, spiritual mind).


The scriptural Word knows of two kinds of knowledge of divine things. On the one hand, there is relative knowledge, rooted only in reason and ideas, and lacking in the kind of experiential perception of what one knows through active engagement; such relative knowledge is what we use to order our affairs in our present life. On the other hand, there is that truly authentic knowledge, gained only by actual experience, apart from reason and ideas, which provides a total perception of the known object through a participation (ìÝèåîéò ) by grace

I prefer the terms natural vs mystical theology so I will stick with these.
Natural theology is the result of studying the literal (literal includes interpreting obvious metaphores, poetry and other literary devices as such), grammatical, historical sense of scripture and reasoning about what it says in order to come up with a reasonable idea of God's character and ways.

Mystical theology is the result of the renewing of the mind by the Spirit and participation in Christ. In this scripture is no longer the source of knowledge, the vision of God is the source. However, scripture provides a storehouse of appropriate material for using as figures or types to express spiritual truth.


"The author of Sacred Scripture is God, in Whose power it is to accommodate not only words for expressing things (which even man is able to do) but also the things themselves."2 St. Thomas, therefore, distinguishes the literal from the spiritual sense by separating the meaning of the written words as understood naturally in the immediate context from the meaning that God gives to these words as perceived from the vision of the Holy Spirit. That is to say that God, as the primary Author of Scripture, gives another meaning to events and actions described by the words. Thus, he explains in Quodlibet Seven:

But the manifestation which is through words produces the historical, or literal, sense. Wherefore, all of that pertains to the literal sense which is understood correctly from the very meaning of the words. But the spiritual sense, as has been said, is taken from, or consists in this, that certain things are expressed through the figure of other things, because visible things are accustomed to be figures of invisible things, as Dionysius says. ST. THOMAS' METHOD OF BIBLICAL EXEGESIS, T. Kuffel

In general mystical theology presents a more unified understanding of God, and is much more centered in the Incarnation and the cross. It sees the spiritual in the natural. Natural theology contains many of the same elements but often the proper relations are not seen or understood. It is a use of the natural to reach the spiritual.

A real life example. In the PC there are lots of arguments over how to understand God's sovereignty and our free will because to the rational mind these seem contradictory. How can God be perfectly soveriegn and we be perfectly free? A proper natural theology holds a tension between the two extremes and does not slide off into either, but neither can it overcome the paradox. A proper mystical insight sees the spiritual relation between these and can then explain it in appropriate terms.

Another example: a strictly historical approach to the Jewish worship system could learn quite a bit about God, but the author of Hebrews is teaching mystical theology when he shows how Christ is prefigured in that system.

PS I am not blaming western culture but more on that in another post.

[Antonios]

Dear Celinda,

Just when I thought I'd convince you of joining our Church, you wiggle your way out of it! :)

Honestly, thank you for the previous post. I thought your term "doctrine of the flesh" was along those lines, I just never heard of it called that and didn't want to misunderstand you. You, of course, explained things very well, truly orthodox, that is. We must never limit ourselves to natural knowledge, which simply relies on our senses, but rather seek relational and mystical knowledge of God, of which the Church plays the important part of.

I await your next post about what you consider to be the stumbling block in the PC's spiritual immaturity if not western culture, and also what it is that keeps them from joining the Church we Christians believe is the One, True, and Holy Church, in all it's fullness.