Jollyblogger is quoting Blogotional favorite G.K. Chesterton.

I am proud of being fettered by antiquated dogmas and enslaved by dead creeds (as my journalistic friends repeat with so much pertinacity), for I know very well that it is the heretical creeds that are dead, and that it is only the reasonable dogma that lives long enough to be called antiquated.. -- From Autobiography (1936) --

It is so typical of Chesterton to say so much with so few words.

Consider what that quote says about journalism -- sounds like something you'd read in a blog today, but he write it 70 years ago.

Consider what that quote says about the value of time -- there is a great value to time in terms of understanding what is and is not important, and what is or is not true. Time tests ideas, the consequences of those ideas are measured and evaluated and understood, and the ideas themselves can then be evaluated.

There are those that might disagree with me here. Challies posted yesterday about the philosophical school of pragmatism. Therein he said this

Pragmatism and Sola Scriptura must stand in opposition as each claims to be the key to determining truth. As Christians we need to decide if we are going to depend upon Scripture as the absolute standard of truth or if we will determine truth by consequences.

I cannot entirely agree with this formulation as Challies makes it. As Tim does opine, Pragmatism cannot be allowed to override scripture, nor can it be used as a substitute. However, is it not possible to use pragmatic concerns to distinguish between competing ideas developed within the context of scripture? Is that not the point that Chesterton is driving at in the quote?

Take for example the doctrine of penal substitution. This is hotly debated at the moment, and those who do not hold the doctrine have arguments that, while not entirely convincing, are based in scripture. The problem in this debate is not reliance on scripture, rather it is the presuppositions that people bring to scripture. So how settle the issue? While I consider the opposing arguments to be weak, they consider mine the same and debate simply rages.

But time, time will tell. One hundred years from now it will be fascinating to see which churches are still standing -- those that adhere to penal substitution, or those that do not. Is that not a valid test of the doctrine? Is that not pragmatic?

There is another qualification to the use of pragmatism in this fashion. Pragmatism as misused, as Challies correctly illustrates, is pragmatism considered in the very short term. We worship a God that is infinite and timeless -- a God whose perspective is equally timeless. God measures results in time frames that exceed our lifetime. What is pragmatic today, may be infinitely unpragmatic when viewed from the perspective of a hundred years hence.

I agree with the pragmatic Chesterton -- I like ideas that have stood the test of time. It will take a long time, more time than I have, before a new idea will gain the validity of an idea such as penal substitution -- about a thousand years at least.

Cross posted at Blogotional.