Something Chesterton Said

I gave the last word in my dissertation to G. K. Chesterton. Part of the borrowed inscription was: “The ordinary man . . . has always cared more for truth than for consistency. If he saw two truths that seemed to contradict each other, he would take the two truths and the contradiction along with them.” I have always believed this; one cannot believe the Bible otherwise, nor can he be a Christian, for our faith is built upon the ultimate contradiction: the God-Man, and many others besides. But churches and theological schools, as John Williamson Nevin observed long ago, are not founded or maintained by ordinary men, but by Great Ones, who make their ways and their names in the world by emphasizing one truth at the expense of others, enthralling lesser men by giving them many infallible proofs that the truth upon which they stand apart from others is indubitably true. 

Believing this describes an actual state of affairs, one’s view of the world of theological letters, including, and perhaps most especially, the intentionally conservative, is radically changed, those worlds becoming filled to the brink with sophism and superfluity, a great, long chronicle of wasted time in which for every true word that is spoken, ten false or useless ones are, where one word from a true master, when finally heard, will overrule a lifetime of deep, expert lucubration. How many oceans of ink have been spilled, how many shelves have been filled, how many sects and parties have taken their rise, how many reputations for deep scholarship and wisdom have been made among the intelligent and ambitious, because they have taken extra-ordinary measures to avoid taking two truths from the Holy Tradition that seem to contradict each other, and the contradiction along with them--avoiding the Mystery, the doxology, and most particularly, the fear of God that comes when we step into the realm where we no longer have the mastery of him?

Comments

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

I think this is very true, and never more applicable than when we must wrestle with troubling parts of the Bible. So often, people resolve apparent contradictions or inconsistencies in scripture by forcing passages to say something completely different. The result is that the "inerrancy" of scripture is preserved by disengaging what scripture actually is saying. I think it far better to take each part at its word, and ask what God means to teach us by including both pictures in his inspired scripture.

[Joe]

"A Puritan may think that is is blasphemous that God should become a wafer. A Moslem thinks it is blasphemous that God should become a workman in Galilee. And he is perfectly right, from his point of view; and given his primary principle. But if the Moslem has principle, the Protestant has only prejudice. That is, he has only a fragment; a relic; a superstition. If it be profane that the miraculous should descend into the plane of matter, then certainly Catholicism is profane; and Protestantism is profane; and Christianity is profane. Of all human creeds or concepts in that sense, Christianity is the most utterly profane. But why a man should accept a Creator who was a carpenter, and then worry about holy water, why he should accept a local Protestant tradition that God was born in some particular place mentioned in the Bible, merely because the Bible had been left lying about in England, and then say it is incredible that a blessing should linger on the bones of a saint, why he should accept the first and most stupendous part of the story of Heaven on Earth, and then furiously deny a few small obvious deductions from it -- that is a thing I do not understand; I never could understand; I have come to the conclusion that I shall never understand. I can only attribute it to superstition." - G.K. Chesterton

[David Gray]

>A Puritan may think that is is blasphemous that God should become a wafer.

Of course no Puritan would say that.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Of course no Puritan would say that.<<<

A lot of them did.

[David Gray]

>A lot of them did.

None of them said that. Read it again.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>None of them said that. Read it again.<<<

A review of Puritan anti-papist polemics shows many such references in the 17th century. It was stock in trade. It has nothing to do with belief in the real presence, but a rejection of Roman Catholic Eucharistic theology.

[David Gray]

>A review of Puritan anti-papist polemics shows many such references in the 17th century. It was stock in trade.

The accusation of blasphemy certainly was. But not in the way that Chesterton states it. They did not "think that is is blasphemous that God should become a wafer" but rather that men should say so when God did not.

>It has nothing to do with belief in the real presence, but a rejection of Roman Catholic Eucharistic theology.

Well the above, given the context I provide, is certainly true.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>They did not "think that is is blasphemous that God should become a wafer" but rather that men should say so when God did not.<<<

That's rather a distinction without a difference.

[David Gray]

>That's rather a distinction without a difference.

Then you don't understand it.

[Mairnéalach]

Bless your enemies, and do not curse them. -Jesus of Nazareth
Whomever does not love the Lord, let him be accursed.- Paul of Tarsus

You gotta love a book in which each of these statements is just as true as the other.

[Joe]

"To be dogmatic and to be egotistic are not only not the same thing, they are opposite things. Suppose for instance, that a vague sceptic eventually joins the Catholic Church. In that act he has at the same moment become less egotistic and become more dogmatic. The dogmatist is by the nature of the case not egotistical, because he believes that there is some solid obvious and objective truth outside of him which he has perceived and which he invites all men to perceive. And the egotist is in the majority of cases not dogmatic, because he has no need to isolate one of his notions as being related to truth; all of his notions are equally interesting because they are related to him.

"The true egotist is as much interested in his own errors as in his own truth; the dogmatist is interested only in the truth, and only in the truth because it is true. At the most, the dogmatist believes that he is in the truth; but the egotist believes the truth, if there is such a thing, is in him."

- G.K. Chesterton

[David Gray]

That is Chesterton performing at a higher level than in the first instance.

[Joe]

>But churches and theological schools, as John Williamson Nevin observed long ago, are not founded or maintained by ordinary men, but by Great Ones, who make their ways and their names in the world by emphasizing one truth at the expense of others, enthralling lesser men by giving them many infallible proofs that the truth upon which they stand apart from others is indubitably true.

"Great Ones", in other words (Chesterton's): egotists.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

You gotta love a book in which each of these statements is just as true as the other.

You don't have to, I suppose - but I certainly do.

[Joe]

"Now the mistake of critics is not that criticise the world; it is that they never criticise themselves. They compare the alien with the ideal; but they do not at the same time compare themselves with the ideal; rather they identify themselves with the ideal."

"When the critic calls the present good or bad, he ought to be comparing it with the ideal and not with the rather dismal reality called himself."

- G.K. Chesterton

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>That is Chesterton performing at a higher level than in the first instance.<<<

You only say that because, like most Western Christians, you believe that truth is either/or. But in the Eastern Churches, the truth can be both/and. We like the reconciliation of opposites and holding things in dynamic tension.

[David Gray]

>You only say that because, like most Western Christians,

You mean like that Chesterton fellow?

>you believe that truth is either/or.

Even so that comment does not make sense in context. There is no either/or situation between the two Chesterton quotes.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>You mean like that Chesterton fellow?<<<

He fits the bill.

>>>Even so that comment does not make sense in context. There is no either/or situation between the two Chesterton quotes.<<<

Chesterton was closer to right in the original post: "The ordinary man . . . has always cared more for truth than for consistency. If he saw two truths that seemed to contradict each other, he would take the two truths and the contradiction along with them.”

[Bill R]

"The ordinary man . . . has always cared more for truth than for consistency. If he saw two truths that seemed to contradict each other, he would take the two truths and the contradiction along with them.”

Chesterton is often entertaining, but not always edifying. Is God not consistent? If so, then ought we not to strive for consistency in our thinking? Yes, I'll leave room for mystery, but I'm persuaded that God is the Lord of reason, and in most cases a knowledge of God is reasonable, not mysterious. Allegations that Westerners believe either/or, while Easterners believe both/and are largely meaningless.

"Bless your enemies, and do not curse them. -Jesus of Nazareth
Whomever does not love the Lord, let him be accursed.- Paul of Tarsus"

This would be a true contradiction only if Paul asserted that whoever does not love the Lord is Paul's enemy, and that in such cases Paul curses him. But instead Paul simply asserts that the one who does not love God is subject to a curse--but not from Paul. We may not curse; God can. For vengeance is His.

I certainly don't deny mystery, but I'm not willing to rush to it. God gives us revelation that we may understand, for He created reason. We have a duty to use it in theology as much as in any science.

[Mairnéalach]

Bill R,

I wasn't necessarily positing the statements were contradictory or mysterious. Rather, I suppose I was highlighting the sort of thing which often tempts well-meaning Christians to engage in theological hemming and hawing. In their case, it's not exactly God's mystery which offends, but his justice.

Usually, when I hear Christians talk about the incomprehensible mystery of God, my eyes glaze over. I'm more or less a rationalist. I'm content to be astounded by one single mystery: the fact that, given how sinful I am, God allowed me to get out of bed this morning. Now THAT's a mystery I can sink my teeth into.

[James A. Altena]

This illustrates why I much prefer C. S. Lewis to Chesterton. Chesterton is great for a snappy quote; but he often has a certain (dare I say it?) egotistical streak and pretentiousness in his prose -- an "Oh, look at what a clever thing I just said" self-consciousness that sometimes led him off the rails into what I term Walt-Whitman-Land. ("Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself.") One never finds such a thing in Lewis; he is eminentely quotable in his own way, and yet always sober, judicious, eminently logical and consistent, un-self-conscious, and not given to Chesterton's sweeping prejudices.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Is God not consistent?<<<

Yes. God is also ineffable, which means that his consistency may not always be apparent to his creatures. The logic of faith is not linear, it is paradoxical: the first shall be last and the last shall be first; the Body of Christ is one and the Body of Christ is many; the immortal God became man and suffered death. Those who attempt to straightjacket God in linear logic constrained by the limits of human reason take the first step towards remaking God in their own image.

[Dirk Van Glabeke]

>>>Is God not consistent?<<<

the moment you beieve in inconsistencies you can believe in anything

[al sends]

Stuart,
I think you changed the reason for the question... The proposition is that God is contradictory not that he is paradoxical. God-man is not a contradiction it is a paradox. Not that I could ever, and I mean ever, give correction to GKC I think that wording is unhelpful.

2 cents... keep the change.

Al sends

[holmegm]

>>>They did not "think that is is blasphemous that God should become a wafer" but rather that men should say so when God did not.<<<

>That's rather a distinction without a difference.

No, not really. God *could* become a pumpkin, if He wanted to. But it's not "putting God in a box" or whatever the phrase is to say that we have no reason to think that He has or will. And it's not a contradiction to accept the great mysteries that are presented in the Bible, but to reject other mysteries that were constructed by men.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>And it's not a contradiction to accept the great mysteries that are presented in the Bible, but to reject other mysteries that were constructed by men.<<<

So, in other words, you reject one construct of the Eucharist because it was devised by men, but accept another, also devised by men, but one of much more recent provenance that uses assumptions and logic unknown to the earliest Church?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>The proposition is that God is contradictory not that he is paradoxical. God-man is not a contradiction it is a paradox. <<<

All Truth comes from God. All paradoxes involve the reconciliation of opposites. If the logic of our faith is paradoxical, it is because it is contradictory from our perspective, which as much as we can do insofar as a creature can never fully understand his Creator. That God became man is more than a paradox--it is a contradiction. God is eternal; man is finite. God is impassible; man is changeable. God is immortal; man dies. That God became man and died on a cross was a radical and deeply disturbing idea to the ancients precisely for that reason. It was, as Paul said, a scandal to the Jews (who knew God to be invisible, incomprehensible and impassible) and a folly to the Greeks (who knew that gods did not die like common criminals.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>the moment you beieve in inconsistencies you can believe in anything<<<

You mean, as when atheists believe there are no non-contingent causes?

[David Gray]

>So, in other words, you reject one construct of the Eucharist because it was devised by men, but accept another, also devised by men, but one of much more recent provenance that uses assumptions and logic unknown to the earliest Church?

And so we see Stuart drifting away from the original point which was Chesterton misrepresenting the Puritans...

[GL]

That is a great quote, except that the word "Great" in the quote should be changed to "Fallen." And in "emphasizing one truth at the expense of others" they assume a prerogative that it not theirs, but Gods. All the divisions in the Church which we mourn are because of Fallen Ones who insist that the truth or truths they emhasize are supreme. The Church was not divided by ordinary Joes like us, but by "Great Ones" insisting they were right and others were wrong and that their pet "truth" trumped the pet "truth" of others, forgeting that Jesus is the Truth. But we cannot resist eating the forbidden fruit, especially those who cosider themselves the "Great Ones."

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>And so we see Stuart drifting away from the original point which was Chesterton misrepresenting the Puritans...<<<

Not really. You assume that all Puritans were sophisticated theologians who could make the kind of epistemological distinction upon which you are insisting. But most of them, like most of the Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists and Orthodox were not--and thus the distinction you make would be (and was) lost upon them.

[coco]

They did not "think that is is blasphemous that God should become a wafer" but rather that men should say so when God did not

David G, help me out here. What did God "not say" when he said "this is my body"? I really need a clear expression of your take on holy communion or whatever you may call it.

Cheers.

[David Gray]

>Not really. You assume that all Puritans were sophisticated theologians who could make the kind of epistemological distinction upon which you are insisting.

Purporting to represent people's thoughts in language they would never have considered to represent their thoughts is a low practice. Chesterton in the first quote did so. Handwaving on your part doesn't change that. Your attempt to channel the discussion into which view of the Lord's Supper is correct is an evasive tactic which takes us away from the question of what did the Puritans believe. holmegm said it well.

[David Gray]

>I really need a clear expression of your take on holy communion or whatever you may call it.

The subject has been discussed before and I don't intend to indulge you when all it would due is detract from the point at hand. If you really "need" to know what I think at this precise moment in time contact me offline. I'm not afraid to use my name or provide an email address where I can be contacted.

[coco]

A link to previous discussion would be fine. Pity it can't simply be stated in a way that (say) a first-century convert to Christianity could have understood.

[dilys]

I knew a poet who said her failsafe recipe to begin (I thought quite good) poetry was to take two phenomena as unrelated or contradictory as possible, and examine both of them with close attention at the same time until some radiant commonality emerged.

What appear to be Biblical contradictions may, in my experience, be approached as a sort of Koan. Why should it all be handed to us in black-letter declarative rubric?

[firinnteine]

I am not a Puritan, and I think the way many Puritans understood the Eucharist was in fact a misunderstanding. Furthermore, I love G. K. Chesterton.

HOWEVER, the fact remains that Chesterton quite regularly straw-manned Puritan and Calvinist thought and practice (one of the weaknesses of his otherwise excellent introduction to St. Thomas Aquinas). This failure in charity is perhaps understandable, but not therefore defensible, and certainly wrong.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>HOWEVER, the fact remains that Chesterton quite regularly straw-manned Puritan and Calvinist thought and practice (one of the weaknesses of his otherwise excellent introduction to St. Thomas Aquinas). <<<

Imitation is the sincerest form of theology. Everybody uses straw men, because they are so easy to knock over or set on fire.

[David Gray]

>Everybody uses straw men, because they are so easy to knock over or set on fire.

But it is not an admirable practice.

[David Gray]

>Pity it can't simply be stated in a way that (say) a first-century convert to Christianity could have understood.

Who says it can't?

[coco]

Cool! two sentences would do.

Something like (in my case): "When Christ said 'this is my body, this is my blood; do this in memory of me', he meant it. What was bread and wine before now is His body and blood, though retaining the appearances of the former".

Care to have a go?

[David Gray]

>Care to have a go?

See above oh anonymous one...

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Something like (in my case): "When Christ said 'this is my body, this is my blood; do this in memory of me', he meant it. What was bread and wine before now is His body and blood, though retaining the appearances of the former".<<<

Every week, before receiving Communion, we pray,

"O Lord, I also believe and profess that this which I am about to receive is truly your most pure Body and life-giving Blood, which, I pray, make me worthy to receive for the remission of all my sins and for life everlasting".

Or, you can look to the Epicleses of the Divine Liturgies:

St. Basil:

For this reason, all-holy Master, since you have enabled us sinners and unworthy servants to minister at your holy altar--not because of our righteousness, for we have done nothing good upon this earth, but because of your mercies and compassion which you have so richly poured out upon us--we have the courage to approach your holy altar, and while offering to You the symbol of the holy Body and Blood of your Christ, we call upon You and beseech You, O Father of Holies, that according to the good pleasure of your kindness, your Holy Spirit may come upon us and upon the gifts offered to you, and bless and sanctify them and show this bread to be the precious Body of your Christ, and this Chalice to be the precious Blood of your Christ, poured forth for the life of the world".

St John Chrysostom:

"We offer You this spiritual sacrifice, and we implore, pray and entreat You, send down your Holy Spirit upon us, and upon these gifts lying before us, and make this bread the precious body of your Christ, and that whch is in this chalice the precious blood of your Christ, changing them by your Holy Spirit".

[coco]

See above oh anonymous one...

You took up the 'blasphemy' theme in a way that suggested you support the charge, so could you please clarify?

All the best.

[James A. Altena]

For accuracy, the dispute here about Chesterton and the Puritans is not the original quote by Dr. Hutchens, but the one posted subsequently by "Joe."

Simiarly, the issue is not about whether there are truths about God that are paradoxical, and therefore may appear contradictory to us (though ultimately they cannot be such, the apparent contradiction being due to our finitude and falleness). I'm sure everyone here accepts that. It is about whether Chesterton fairly represented what Puritans as a whole actually believed or not. I'm not a great fan of the Puritans, but Firinnteine and David Gray are right here.

And, once again, per Fr. Reardon, I do not think that disputing about differing theologies of the Eucharist between different denominations is a right or profitable use of this blog site. The header says that it is devoted to "Touchstone's editors on news and events of the day" -- not refighting the Reformation or East-West schism.

[David Gray]

>For accuracy, the dispute here about Chesterton and the Puritans is not the original quote by Dr. Hutchens, but the one posted subsequently by "Joe."

Yes.

>And, once again, per Fr. Reardon, I do not think that disputing about differing theologies of the Eucharist between different denominations is a right or profitable use of this blog site.

Yes.

Oddly enough Coco's immense curiousity and need to know my views on the Lord's Supper, right now, have not led him to contact me offline.

[Bill R]

"I'm not a great fan of the Puritans, but Firinnteine and David Gray are right here."

Thanks, James. Since I am a great fan of the Puritans (one tiny area where we differ), I much appreciate your charity.

By the way, the Puritans were not often polemical (the events surrounding the Westminster Confession being the one great exception). If you read widely in Puritan literature, you will find that their one true obsession is right living--in other words, sanctification, holiness. And because it was steeped in Scripture (and, perhaps surprisingly, the Church Fathers), Puritan literature has little in it with which any Touchstonian Christian would strongly disagree.

[Bill R]

"And, once again, per Fr. Reardon, I do not think that disputing about differing theologies of the Eucharist between different denominations is a right or profitable use of this blog site. The header says that it is devoted to "Touchstone's editors on news and events of the day" -- not refighting the Reformation or East-West schism."

Right again, James. It's a tough job being a cop here on Mere Comments, but someone's gotta do it!

[David Gray]

>And because it was steeped in Scripture (and, perhaps surprisingly, the Church Fathers), Puritan literature has little in it with which any Touchstonian Christian would strongly disagree.

Perhaps why Father Neuhaus has frequently quoted Richard Baxter.

[James A. Altena]

I agree with Bill and David. When I say I'm not a great fan of the Puritans, I do not mean that in any way to deprecate their real and considerable virtues. (Of course, Baxter was not a typical representative, being very "High Church" for those circles, to the point that the C. of E. offered him a bishopric if only he would swim the Thames -- I'm not sure I'd call him a Puritan as opposed to say, William Perkins.) I do think that what they have to offer was already given before them by the fathers and classical Anglican divines, and better, without their peculiar defects.

A hilarious side anecdote -- years ago I was told (by a now deceased priest friend) that one modern scholar (whose name escapes me), writing a commentary on the "Song of Songs," sought out a commentary by a 17th c. Puritan author titled "Bowels of Compassion Unloos'd." He found it at either Harvard or Yale (I forget which) -- but erroneously catalogued in the medical school library under the subject heading "Constipation -- Remedies." Said scholar gleefully repeatedly noted this howler, to the embarrassment of the schoool in question, in the endnotes to his book.

[Joe]

"A modern 'thinker' will find it easier to make up a hundred problems than to make up one riddle. For in the case of the riddle he has to maker up the answer." - G.K. Chesterton

[Joe]

"And in the darkest of the books of God there is written a truth that is also a riddle. It is of the new things that men tire - of fashions and proposals and improvements and change. It is the old things that startle and intoxicate. It is the old things that are young. There is no sceptic who does not feel that many have doubted before. There is no worshipper of change who does not feel upon his neck the vast weight of the weariness of the universe. But we who do the old things are fed by nature with a perpetual infancy. No man who is in love thinks that any one has been love before. No woman who has a child thinks that there have been such things as children..."

- G.K. Chesterton

[Bill R]

"I do think that what they have to offer was already given before them by the fathers and classical Anglican divines, and better, without their peculiar defects."

Minus the last phrase, James, the Puritans for the most part might well agree with you. They didn't see themselves an innovators--quite the converse. Their virtue, from the point of view of those who admire them, is that they set out to make sure that the common Englishman understood the Gospel and to insure that it affected the lives of those who confessed it. They acted, if you'll pardon the expression, as if the bowels of their compassion were truly unloos'd!

[David Layman]

To Dr. Hutchens:
This is a "rabbit trail": I know the work of John Nevin intimately. I do not know the sentiment you attribute to him. I would be curious as to its source.

Thanks from another Nevin enthusiast.

[Pr. Dave Poedel]

Chesterton caught the essence of Lutheran theology: we love paradoxes and live with them in joy: simul justus et peccatator!

[coco]

Oddly enough Coco's immense curiousity and need to know my views on the Lord's Supper, right now, have not led him to contact me offline

'Ere! David, gimme a chance! you posted at midnight my time. I'm not that avid a reader...

The way I see it: either you hold that the RC/EO take on the Eucharist is blasphemy or you don't. If you do, I would have thought you could illustrate it very straightforwardly. And being blasphemy, I'd've thought you'd be "in like Flynn" to extirpate it.

If you don't, I'm happy enough. But still curious.

[James A. Altena]

There is a third alternative. One could hold the RC/EO views of the Eucharist (which are not identical) to be in error without holding them to be blasphemous. The same applies for RCs and EOs regarding various Protestant views. Theological error is not simply reducible to blasphemy, as the latter requires willful intent not present in the former.

[James A. Altena]

Dear Bill,

I don't share your confidence. As staunch advocates of sola scriptura, the Puritans had no hesitation in rejecting the consensus of the fathers when that didn't line up with their particular views.

[coco]

James A,

Indeed, but the term 'blasphemy' being bandied about suggests that it's one of the alternatives I suggested.

I wouldn't apply the term to a view of the Lord's Supper that didn't incorporate the concept of real presence.

'Error' or 'failure to understand' certainly, but not 'blasphemy'.

[coco]

On the question of an RC/EO difference, James, I think many are willing to hold that they are identical de facto: in the sense that if other issues were agreed upon, the Eucharist would not be a stumbling block.

Stuart?

[James A. Altena]

That doesn't make the different views identical de facto, any more than it would for, say original sin. It merely means that both views are allowable theologeumena within the Tradition.

[coco]

By de facto I mean nothing more than reception by an EO of RC communion, or vice versa, with the same spiritual benefit. This already happens from time to time.

I do appreciate your clarification.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>On the question of an RC/EO difference, James, I think many are willing to hold that they are identical de facto: in the sense that if other issues were agreed upon, the Eucharist would not be a stumbling block.<<<

There have been several agreed statements on the Eucharist, which takes this issue off the table of outstanding Orthodox/Catholic disputes. The general concensus among theologians in both Churches is the patristic view that the entire Anaphora is a single consecratory action, and that the transformation of the elements is, in the most fundamental sense, accomplished through the divine grace and descent of the Holy Spirit, who is invoked either explicitly or implicitly in the Anaphora itself. The Latin Church has even gone so far as to allow that the Words of Institution are not even necessary for a Liturgy to be valid, if in fact its Anaphora never included one (e.g., the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, now used in its original form by the Chaldean Catholic Church).

For their part, Orthodox theologians have dismissed the old polemical tack of claiming that the Epiclesis is the "Kodak Moment", together with the charge that heretical Latins removed the Epiclesis from the Roman Canon. Thanks to the groundbreaking work of Alexander Schmemann, the Orthodox consensus is one cannot pick one particular word or phrase as the point at which the wine and bread become Body and Blood ("What part of the Liturgy is most important? All of it!"). Thanks to extensive scholarship by both Western and Eastern theologians, it is now also conceded that the Roman Canon never had an explicit epiclesis, and rather than being a defect, this is actually a sign of the Canon's great antiquity, since it predates the pneumatological controversies of the 4th and 5th centuries. The emphasis on the Epiclesis is now rightly dismissed as a reflexive imitation of the Scholastic emphasis on the Institution narrative. In short, among those who actually give thought to such things, no problem exists.

One might still find Catholic or Orthhodox extremists who insist on the old polemical positions, but they are increasingly marginal, and their arguments on this point are actually a mask for the one remaining substantive issue--papal prerogatives.

[James A. Altena]

Fine post, Stuart. Of course, as we know, there are polemicists on both sides who also still wish to "wave the bloody shirt" on original sin, the filioque, and similar matters.

[smh]

Answer to Mr. Layman: What I am doing here is summarizing what I see Nevin saying in the opening sections of The Sect System: You remember, when he opens the book on denominational founders he has purchased from the itinerant salesman and, beholding the august visages of Winebrenner, et al., and makes one ironical comment after another about the greatness (i.e., self-importance) he sees in their faces: the grave ape in the honorary doctor's robes. My specific attribution to Nevin breaks off after "Great Ones," and my own blends in thereafter.

I have never seen the book to which he refers--no doubt it is a rarity--but I have seen the "face of greatness" many times. My most vivid memories of it have been on portraits of Emerson, Wagner, Finney, Henry Ward Beecher, and on a chap from Florida with a Faustian list of doctorates [Philosophie, Juristerei und Medizin, und leider auch Theologie, durchaus studiert!] who advertised his own school's theological diplomas from the back of Pulpit Helps.

And I am, of course, being just as ironical here as Nevin was. I can't think of a single sect-founder (and I am using this term in its broadest sense--it could apply within the context of any church, including Catholicism and Orthodoxy) who didn't think he was doing something great for God.

[Bill R]

I think this is a fine post by Dr. Hutchens, and in particular I enjoyed:

"How many oceans of ink have been spilled, how many shelves have been filled, how many sects and parties have taken their rise, how many reputations for deep scholarship and wisdom have been made among the intelligent and ambitious, because they have taken extra-ordinary measures to avoid taking two truths from the Holy Tradition that seem to contradict each other, and the contradiction along with them--avoiding the Mystery, the doxology, and most particularly, the fear of God that comes when we step into the realm where we no longer have the mastery of him?"

Dr. Hutchens was careful to use "seem to contradict," which is the nature of paradox, rather than actual contradiction (which, ironically, Chesterton--the master of paradox--apparently employed). I would only state once again that many apparent contradictions, or paradoxes, will yield rational explanations upon careful study. But the toughest (free will and predestination, for example) will not, and for that we are indeed left with mystery and paradox. I can live with that.

[David Layman]

Dr. Hutchens:

Thanks for your response. Now I understand the context in which you are presenting Nevin' observations. The Sect System is one of Nevin's most masterful dissections of "the sect system." It was one of the first things of Nevin I read, which is part of the reason I had forgotten Nevin's tone and attitude in the pages you refer to.

For anyone else who might be interested, an accessible edition is to be found in Catholic and Reformed: Selected Theological Writings of John Williamson Nevin, Pickwick Publications (June 1978), (available from Amazon).

[Gene Godbold]

David L,
Here's a paradox: If you went to seminary and were ordained, then you would be both a clergyman and a Layman.
:-)

[Bill R]

"Here's a paradox: If you went to seminary and were ordained, then you would be both a clergyman and a Layman."

And, Gene, if you were ordained, you'd be Pastor Godbold--very apt, wouldn't you say? Almost as good as the name of an M.D. in the midwestern town of my childhood--Dr. Bonebrake. (Ouch!)

[Gene Godbold]

Hey Bill
Actually, I was ordained a deacon back in November of 2001. Should I use the office well, Paul says I'll gain great boldness in the faith. (I think I'm getting a little bolder, at least. :-)

[Labrialumn]

Stuart, do you deny the law of non-contradiction? And are you saying that the Eastern Orthodox Church also denies the law of non-contradiction?

BTW, Socrates was rather ealier than the early Church, so it cannot be true that logic was unknown to them.

That being the case, I find that the Eucharist is true, from the Scriptures, from what God has said.

The Unmoved Mover of Plato is impassable. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is not. He is eternal, perfect and unchanging in His character, but Plato errs in some of his conceptions, because he did not deduce so great a God as is.

The Puritans were a university movement.

Coco, 1 Corinthians 10:16 - chapter 11. The -teaching passage- on the Eucharist, and not all that obtuse.

So what if one graduates from seminary, and is not ordained?

[James A. Altena]

"The Puritans were a university movement."

They would have been amazed to hear that, since they were by law excluded from university preferment (and often even admission as students) in England. Where did you ever get such a notion?

[Bill R]

"They would have been amazed to hear that, since they were by law excluded from university preferment (and often even admission as students) in England. Where did you ever get such a notion?"

There's some truth here, James. The Puritan movement was quite strong at Cambridge. There were a number of Puritan professors, and one college(can't recall which) was considered the "Puritan house." John Owen, the Puritan extraordinaire, was Provost of Oxford. You seem to be confusing non-conformity with Puritanism per se. A great number of Puritans were Anglicans in good standing, and were rectors of prominent Anglican parishes (such as Thomas Watson).

[Bill R]

"So what if one graduates from seminary, and is not ordained?"

Well then, you're not quite there. You remain, ahem, a semi-narian. ;-)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Stuart, do you deny the law of non-contradiction? And are you saying that the Eastern Orthodox Church also denies the law of non-contradiction?<<<

There are no contradictions, but there are many appearances of contradiction. Man is constrained by the limits of his finite mind and sense, hence cannot comprehend the full mystery of God. Where there are two truths apparently in contradiction, we hold that both are true, and keep them in dynamic tension.

>>>The Unmoved Mover of Plato is impassable. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is not. He is eternal, perfect and unchanging in His character, but Plato errs in some of his conceptions, because he did not deduce so great a God as is.<<<

The Fathers would be very surprised to learn that God is NOT impassible. At the same time, the Greeks would laugh at the notion that God was ever a little baby who poo'ed in his diaper, let alone allowed himself to be nailed to a cross. Thus, we have a dichotomy, yet both statements are true: God is impassible, yet God became man and died on a cross.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>"So what if one graduates from seminary, and is not ordained?"<<<

What if one is only attending classes part-time? Is one then a demi-seminarian?

[David Gray]

>There are no contradictions, but there are many appearances of contradiction. Man is constrained by the limits of his finite mind and sense, hence cannot comprehend the full mystery of God. Where there are two truths apparently in contradiction, we hold that both are true, and keep them in dynamic tension.

Very well stated.

[Dirk Van Glabeke]

>>>There are no contradictions, but there are many appearances of contradiction. Man is constrained by the limits of his finite mind and sense, hence cannot comprehend the full mystery of God. Where there are two truths apparently in contradiction, we hold that both are true, and keep them in dynamic tension.<<<

smoke and mirrors
always the same thing, when confronted with a problem, just say: it's a mystery boys
just as all the others with their gods do
but still, mine is the right one or be damned

if you can't comprehend, how do you know it's just 'apparently'?

[Stuart Koehl]

Interdictus!

[Dirk Van Glabeke]

>>>Very well stated<<<

maybe, well stated, but just as the trick with the rabbit, just a trick

[Dirk Van Glabeke]

>>>Interdictus!<<<

little boy games

[Bob Gardner]

"always the same thing, when confronted with a problem, just say: it's a mystery boys."

Or we could pretend that we know it all, thus making gods of ourselves. No, that won't do.

Some more Chesteron quotes:
"Atheism is indeed the most daring of all dogmas . . . for it is the assertion of a universal negative." ("Charles II" Twelve Types)

"There is no bigot like the atheist." (Magic)

"The atheist is not interested in anything except attacks on atheism." ("Frozen Free Thought" The Well and the Shallows)

"Progress is Providence without God. That is, it is a theory that everything has always perpetually gone right by accident. It is a sort of atheistic optimism, based on an everlasting coincidence far more miraculous than a miracle." ("Wells and the World State" What I Saw in America)

"There are arguments for atheism, and they do not depend, and never did depend, upon science. They are arguable enough, as far as they go, upon a general survey of life; only it happens to be a superficial survey of life." (ILN 1-3-31)

"I do not feel any contempt for an atheist, who is often a man limited and constrained by his own logic to a very sad simplification." ("Babies and Distributism" The Well and the Shallows)

"Somehow one can never manage to be an atheist." (The Ball and the Cross)

"If there were no God, there would be no atheists." (Where All Roads Lead)

No offense meant.

[Dirk Van Glabeke]

this just proves that funny quotes don't make an argument

each village has a torch: the teacher
and also a fire extinguisher: the priest

Victor Hugo

Bob, we could go on and on
and really not saying anything

No offense meant

[Clark Coleman]

But the toughest (free will and predestination, for example) will not, and for that we are indeed left with mystery and paradox.

I find no contradiction between free will and predestination. If I had enough space in the margin of my journal, I would write the proof here.

[David Layman]

>David L,
>Here's a paradox: If you went to seminary and were ordained,
>then you would be both a clergyman and a Layman.
>:-)
I tried, but it was not God's will. So I remain an ordinary layman. ;-)

[Clark Coleman]

smoke and mirrors
always the same thing, when confronted with a problem, just say: it's a mystery boys
just as all the others with their gods do
but still, mine is the right one or be damned

if you can't comprehend, how do you know it's just 'apparently'?

Excellent question, deserving thoughtful answers from all of us. Let me give it a try with one of my favorite illustrations.

Read Matthew 20:29-34 and then the parallel account in Luke 18:35-43. Many have noted that one account lists two beggars and the other only mentions the one who cried out. Knowing how different ancient authors, including the gospel authors, related only the facts that each author found salient explains this difference easily enough.

However, there is a flat out contradiction that seems much harder to resolve. Matthew clearly indicates that Jesus and his apostles were passing out of Jericho, while Luke clearly has them on the road approaching Jericho, which is further confirmed by the ensuing events with Zacchaeus in Jericho at the beginning of Luke chapter 19. How can they be passing away from Jericho at the same time that they are approaching Jericho?

Oddly enough, modern archaeology provides a solution. We now know that Herod the Great, among his building projects, built a new Jericho a stone's throw down the road from the old one. Archaeologists and historians refer to the newer one as Herodean Jericho, but at the time they both were simply called Jericho. When on the road between them, you are leaving one and approaching the other.

For more than a millenium, no man would have known such answer. Should a man therefore lose his faith in the inerrancy of Scripture because he does not know the answer, and the contradiction seems so blatant and unresolvable? That would be foolish and sad, would it not?

So, to answer your question: How do I know that apparent contradictions are only apparent? Because my faith is not a blind faith, but one that has been proven over and over through centuries of such resolutions of apparent contradictions. My trust in eventual resolutions is therefore based on a solid foundation, not on my own wishful thinking.

[Mairnéalach]

Dirk, perhaps what you're protesting against (legitimately) would be the pretentious abuse of blathering about God's being completely unknowable. For the sake of dogged consistency, I'll use another Chesterton quote:

The trend of good is always towards Incarnation. But, on the other hand, those refined thinkers who worship the Devil, whether in the swamps of Jamaica or the salons of Paris, always insist upon the shapelessness, the wordlessness, the unutterable character of the abomination.

[coco]

Coco, 1 Corinthians 10:16 - chapter 11. The -teaching passage- on the Eucharist, and not all that obtuse

Labrialumn, I'm glad you agree with me. How anyone could think after reading that that he is not eating and drinking the flesh and blood of the Lord, I cannot see.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>each village has a torch<<<

Each village also has an idiot.

[Dirk Van Glabeke]

>>> >>>each village has a torch<<<

Each village also has an idiot.<<<

ah, you just looked in the mirror LOL

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>However, there is a flat out contradiction that seems much harder to resolve. Matthew clearly indicates that Jesus and his apostles were passing out of Jericho, while Luke clearly has them on the road approaching Jericho, which is further confirmed by the ensuing events with Zacchaeus in Jericho at the beginning of Luke chapter 19. How can they be passing away from Jericho at the same time that they are approaching Jericho?<<<

This is not a good example of contradiction in scripture, since there is no substantial difference in the two narratives.

These are inconsequential, facile errors of fact that are found in just about every history book or biography ever written. Since we have two independent writers using a variety of oral sources, it should not surprise that there are differences of detail in the recounting of the story. The differences themselves do not affect the substance of the story, or its significance in the overall narrative of Jesus' life.

That there are such differences points to the authenticity of the Gospels, rather than to their unreliability. As an historian, if I were confronted with multiple narratives of an event that were identical in all detail, I would immediately conclude that either their authors colluded in the writing, or that most of the narratives were in fact dependent upon one common, written source.

>>>For more than a millenium, no man would have known such answer. Should a man therefore lose his faith in the inerrancy of Scripture because he does not know the answer, and the contradiction seems so blatant and unresolvable? That would be foolish and sad, would it not?<<<

For most of a millennium, men did not, because the understanding of the inerrancy of Scripture did not encompass the notion that every last word, every last detail, was literally true. The Fathers undestood that the Gospels gave different accounts of the same events, and deliberately chose NOT to reconcile them. Tatian did, when he compiled the Diatessaron, which was used as a single combined Gospel in Syria until the fifth century. But even in Syria, eventually the Fathers decided that the rich variety of pespectives found in four distinct Gospels superior to the unified and entirely consistent narrative of the Diatessaron.

[James A. Altena]

"For most of a millennium, men did not, because the understanding of the inerrancy of Scripture did not encompass the notion that every last word, every last detail, was literally true. The Fathers understood that the Gospels gave different accounts of the same events, and deliberately chose NOT to reconcile them."

The first sentence is true, the second not entirely accurate. In fact, the fathers often devoted great ingenuity to reconciling seemingly diverse details in accounts of the same incident in different Gospels. What is true, however, is that they did not have the small-minded obsessive literalness of either certain fundamentalists (or atheists) that every detail must be squared in order for the accounts to have veracity. Perhaps that is what you meant by your second sentence anyway, Stuart?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Perhaps that is what you meant by your second sentence anyway, Stuart?<<<

Exactly. For instance, I have never come across any patristic commentary on the Gospels that even bothered to note that in one instance, Jesus is going into Jericho, and in another he is coming out. That kind of thing they considered inconsequential.

[Gene Godbold]

It's obvious to anyone with the least amount of historical imagination that the evangelists brought somewhat different perspectives and emphases to the table when relating the acts and ministry of the Messiah.

I'm working on a project right now with a colleague in which we are relating various methods from particular papers selected from the scientific literature. We're dealing with the same paragraphs of the dryest and most un-ambiguous (one would think) material imaginable. And yet in our independent descriptions, it is sometimes difficult to tell that we are "on the same page". Who can imagine what sort of inconsistencies might come up in guys remembering an oral tradition (even though they were trained in this sort of thing) years after the fact? It amazes me that the Gospels are as coherent and congruent as they are both with themselves and with the rest of Scripture (both Old and New). It speaks to the teaching power of Jesus, the intelligence and education of the writers, their training, and (above all) the guidance of the Author through the mediation of the Holy Ghost.

[Brian Kelly]

Did St. Augustine not confess that he would not believe a word of scripture were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church? I believe he also lent his talents to disproving the "apparent" contradictions in the Bible, or at least in the New Testament. Perhaps some of the commentators here should peruse this work, if it can be found in a library. An example is the Good Theif, who prior to his conversion on the cross, abused Christ, and after hearing "Father forgive them," turned against his cohort and became Christ's advocate. One gospel tells of his good word, another states that both thieves blashemied.

A visible, living, authority, divinely established, is essential for true religion. Without it, what basis would anyone have to maintain that any book of the Bible is "the word of God"? Did not the early fathers have disagreements, even St. Jerome early on, as to what books were or were not inspired. Was there not controversy over Hebrews and the Third Epistle of John and the Apocalypse all the way into the late fourth century?

Was it not at the regional Council of Carthage,397, approved by Pope Siricius, that the canon was confirmed with over forty bishops signing and Rome approving its decision? Of course, St. Augustine earlier, had decreed the same canon for his diocese.

Concerning the Eucharist, the Real Presence of Christ is certainly clear from scripture. But it is the one true Church that teaches the faithful the Eucharistic doctrine. We must "hear the Church" Christ said.

Furthermore, Protestants actually believe in 67 inspired books. To be consistent, they must hold that their own table of contents is also the "word of God". I mean, if one rejects the Petrine authority over the whole Church, then by what authority is their table of contents guaranteed to be the infallible word on the sacred list. Catholics say, the Pope, confirming tradition. Protestants say, it is my belief, and I am guided by the Holy Spirit in rejecting the six books in the traditional Canon. My table of contents is an inspired list and the Holy Spirit moves me to believe it.

[Gene Godbold]

Paul says that faith comes by hearing the Word of God.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>An example is the Good Theif, who prior to his conversion on the cross, abused Christ, and after hearing "Father forgive them," turned against his cohort and became Christ's advocate. One gospel tells of his good word, another states that both thieves blashemied.<<<

Both are true.

>>>Was it not at the regional Council of Carthage,397, approved by Pope Siricius, that the canon was confirmed with over forty bishops signing and Rome approving its decision? Of course, St. Augustine earlier, had decreed the same canon for his diocese.<<<

No, actually. Nice story, though. The fact is, the Canon never "officially" closed, and there are at present at least three different Christian canons of Scripture (four, if you count the Reformed communities) in use around the world:

1. The Latin canon and its translations.
2. The Greek canon, and its translations.
3. The Syrian canon (hardly translated at all)
4. The Protestant canon.

Of these four, three of them have independent, apostolic origins, indicating a broad consensus within the Body of Christ. Individual Churches or communions of Churches may at various times have issued authoritative statements regarding the canon used by THEM, but these did not apply to the others. For instance, Carthage is a local council that was not adopted by the Christian East, neither Chalcedonian or non-Chalcedonian. In the East, no such authoritative statement was ever made or adopted. Rather, the canon closed by consensus in different places at different times. As to why this consensus emerged, Bruce Metzger put it best: the books in the canon of the New Testament are there because nobody could keep them out.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Paul says that faith comes by hearing the Word of God.<<<

The Word of God has many manifestations. Scripture to Paul was the Old Testament. The Gospels, most of the Epistles, the Apocalypse--none of these were yet written, not, at least, in final form. For Paul, the Word was broader and more charismatic than just Scripture alone. It was the Apostolic witness, the prophesy of the Church, the teachings of its preachers. All that was filled with the Holy Spirit manifested the Word of God.

[Dirk Van Glabeke]

Clark,

>>>So, to answer your question: How do I know that apparent contradictions are only apparent? Because my faith is not a blind faith, but one that has been proven over and over through centuries of such resolutions of apparent contradictions.<<<

when replying to Stuarts post about contradictions and mysteries

>>>two truths apparently in contradiction, we hold that both are true, and keep them in dynamic tension<<<

I was not thinking about certain contradictions (real or apparent) in scriptures, but about contradictions
such as are found in the description of God. Where God is defined as amongst other things, infinite loving and infinite powerful. Aspects which are in contradiction with the existence of the suffering of the innocent.

If one accepts this kind of contradiction by just saying: it's a mystery. One can as well accept all mysteries of all faiths. Even if these are themselves in contradiction, one can keep on saying, it's a mystery ad infinitum and go praying at the temple of all gods. (just to be on the safe side)

[Brian Kelly]

Stuart,

"Both are true."

That was my point.

"No, actually. Nice story, though. The fact is, the Canon never "officially" closed, and there are at present at least three different Christian canons of Scripture (four, if you count the Reformed communities) in use around the world:

1. The Latin canon and its translations.
2. The Greek canon, and its translations.
3. The Syrian canon (hardly translated at all)
4. The Protestant canon."

For the Catholic Church the question of the canon did officially close by the first decade of the 5th century. Not by way of Rome making an ex cathedra pronouncement, but by way of Rome confirming the canon as decreed at Carthage. Pope Damasus had already issued a list of the same exact canon of books after summoning St. Jerome back to Rome in 382 for a synod dealing with that specific question. And this canon was also accepted by the Catholic bishops of the East. Indeed, they had determined it exactly so at Alexandria prior to this Roman synod.

According to one scholar, Zahn, another synod at Carthage (419) sent a request to Pope Boniface for official confirmation:
"Let this be sent to our brother and fellow-bishop, Boniface [of Rome], and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things that we have received from our fathers to be read in church."

And, according to George J Reid's article in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"So at the close of the first decade of the fifth century the entire Western Church was in possession of the full Canon of the New Testament In the East, where, with the exception of the Edessene Syrian Church, approximate completeness had long obtained without the aid of formal enactments, opinions were still somewhat divided on the Apocalypse. But for the Catholic Church as a whole the content of the New Testament was definitely fixed, and the discussion closed."

Reid verifies what you wrote on the Syrian canon, at least at Edessa not Antioch. However, my point is that the Catholic bishops of the east at that time (before Nestorianism and the Monophysites) accepted Rome's decision. Rome had to reject certain local campaigns for the Shepherd of Hermas and even the so-called gospel of Clement, while the east fell into unanimity with Rome on accepting the Apocalypse and Hebrews.

There is an article on a site called Let Us Reason on "Who Gave Us the Scriptures" that simplifies everything for the gullible. I quote:

"Actually the Catholic Church in 397 the Council of Carthage had the 27 books considered the canon. However these books were read and distributed as Scripture for over 300 years by individual Christians and church’s long before their church councils claimed to give us the Bible."

I can picture all these individual Christians writing out the sacred texts (who knows where they got them from)as if there were no hierarchy. The fact is that there was disagreement as to which books were inspired and which were not -- not a whole lot of disagreement -- but enough to easily create schism.

From the fifth century on to the sixteenth there was no need for Rome to make an solemn definition on the question of the canon until Luther. The Council of Trent did not issue the first "official" decree on the subject, but it did issue the first ex cathedra magisterial pronouncement on the canon, in an effort to protect the Bible from Luther's razor.

The whole issue of every schism and every heresy boils down to a rejection of the authority of the pope. And, an acephalous and fallible church is a false church, the kind of church that even conservative Christians who prefer to have no human person to obey (just their holy book) find comfortable.