|
Listen to this post:
|
I allow, indeed I declare, that the mystery of the Godhead surpasses rational apprehension; and it may be that in the end it will have to be represented by a contradiction. But it is essential that this should happen only when all our rational resources are at an end. It is ludicrous if we represent divine mysteries by avoidable contradictions, by muddles, which more disciplined thinking would enable us to dispel. And it is idolatrous if we cultivate paradox for the sake of paradox, when we could speak clearly.
. . . [ancient writers] simply observed that traditional statements about God’s ousia (that is, God’s essence or being) were full of contradictions; or rather, perhaps, they did not even observe this fact, but became accustomed to tolerate contradictions in theology, assuming that they spring necessarily from the inability of the human mind to comprehend the divine. As I have said, I myself accept the argument that if God really is God as Christians have described him, he must be beyond the reach of human apprehension. But if one believes this, then it is a pity to become nervous and try to restrict the quite proper desire for accurate thinking, for fear I suppose that God should be captured after all! No, I say! God is a fox; and he likes fox-cubs. (Christopher Stead, “The Concept of Divine Substance” in Substance and Illusion in the Christian Fathers (Variorum, 1985) 5,13)
