In continuing to reflect on the audacity of Called to Communion’s justification for their attachment to Rome, I was struck by Bryan Cross’ Jesuitical efforts to distinguish the Roman Catholic from the Protestant convert’s determination to join the church he believes is true. In the post on sola scriptura that ran for miles, Cross wrote this:
The objection is understandable, but it can be made only by those who do not see the principled difference between the discovery of the Catholic Church, and joining a Protestant denomination or congregation. Of course a person during the process of becoming Catholic is not under the authority of the Church. At that stage, he or she is like the Protestant in that respect. But the Catholic finds something principally different, and properly finds it by way of qualitatively different criteria. The Protestant is seeking a group of persons who believe, teach and practice what his interpretation of Scripture indicates was the belief, teaching and practice of the Apostles. He retains his final interpretive authority so long as he remains Protestant. No Protestant denomination has the authority to bind his conscience, because [in his mind] the Church must always remains subject to Scripture, which really means that the Church must always remains subject to [his interpretation of] Scripture, or at least that he is not ultimately subject to anyone’s interpretation but his own.
The person becoming Catholic, by contrast, is seeking out the Church that Christ founded. He does this not by finding that group of persons who share his interpretation of Scripture. Rather, he locates in history those whom the Apostles appointed and authorized, observes what they say and do viz-a-viz the transmission of teaching and interpretive authority, traces that line of successive authorizations down through history to the present day to a living Magisterium, and then submits to what this present-day Magisterium is teaching. By finding the Magisterium, he finds something that has the divine authority to bind the conscience.
In other words, part of Cross’ point is that the Roman Catholic converts finds a church that has antiquity and apostolic succession on its side.
Fine. But since other churches also claim to be successors to the apostles, why isn’t the Roman Catholic doing exactly what the Protestant does? The Eastern churches have as much apostolic succession and antiquity on their side (probably more) as Rome. So the convert who comes across the importance of apostolic succession and history now needs to decide whether or not to join Rome or one of the Orthodox communions. At which point, the convert needs to choose a church that aligns with his own understanding of apostolic succession and antiquity. In the case of the convert to Rome, to use Cross’ words, he “retains final interpretive authority” so long as he needs to decide how to apply the standards of apostolic succession to the communions that claim it.
Like I say, coming to truth requires interpretation and personal choice. I understand the appeal of submission to higher authorities and relinquishing the mess that comes with discernment. But the CTC solution (and supporting rationale) resembles Homer Simpson’s wish for a Land of Chocolate.
128 Comments
Erik, but Bryan has written so much and there is so little time.
Sean, where can the story of Bryan and Mormons be found?
Darryl,
Here’s the link on the mormonism;
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/
Sean and Andrew, thanks as well.
Richard – OPC & URC ministers & elders are hardcore and will seriously consider the issues. Most evangelicals are content with some tasty waves and a cool buzz and aren’t that into theology.
I skimmed Bryan’s piece on how the teenage Mormon missionaries crushed his faith. What the heck is going to happen when the girl scouts come around in the spring peddling cookies?
“There are pretty big differences between the Dutch members of the URC and the converts (like me) in how we view these things.”
And, Erik, your congregation isn’t Dutch, or not much. Seriously, it will be interesting to see how the URCNA grows and how the relative emancipation from ethnicity will affect that growth.
MikelMann – We’re probably about half & half in terms of people who grew up in the CRC/URC and those that didin’t.
Hi, Erik and Darryl (only 2 OLT Guys who replied (sorta
) to my original comment about my sugesstion for Darryl to make use of Hillsdale’s thoughts @ OLT about Christian involvement in THIS, God’s and Jesus”s, world via their Creation activity. Darryl, I voted against JFK in 1960, partly because he was avidly following his Dad Joe’s counsel– “Get laid as often as you can!” And FOR Nixon because I didn’t know as much about him as I did later! Erik— I feel sure that you and I and Darryl have a few views similar to Mormons like Mitt, and R.Catholics like Ryan— for me, 60 years of real and beautiful Biblical marriage. I assume you both have similar but shorter like experiences. I regret that Darryl, I guess, never had the blessings of kids and grandkids. Also Mormons generally have a high view of human life for all folks of ANY age made in His Image. There is more common ground! With Obama, NO common ground! (Maybe a pulse 
) Erik and other of my friends and relatives— I will try to be brief. Many of you say that laws don’t change HEARTS). Therefore a waste of time for believers. I say “NO”. Laws change BEHAVIOR in many cases. Worthwhile! —- More abortions when “legal”—- unsafe speeds by cars when no speed limit signs—- On and on! ‘ Nuff said?” C’mon. Darryl, tell us if you are completely at home in the Hillsdale atmosphere! With Love! Anyhow! Old Bob
Erik Charter: I skimmed Bryan’s piece on how the teenage Mormon missionaries crushed his faith. What the heck is going to happen when the girl scouts come around in the spring peddling cookies?
RS: That is how the cookie crumbles?
Bob – If it makes you happy I’m voting for Romney. I’m not out campaigning for him, though. I voted for Ron Paul in the Caucus. Last election I wrote in Paul instead of voting for McCain. I’m more pragmatic now.
Bob, on your criteria — JFK was sleeping around — then you should not oppose Obama. But I think your autobiography is flawed. Not many Americans knew about JFK’s dalliances. It was still a culture that thought such matters should be kept private. So I’m betting you opposed JFK for the reasons most American Protestants did — he was Roman Catholic. And now you tell me that I should support a public declaration signed by Protestants and Roman Catholics?!? Hey, what gives!
Erik, that’s easy. Spend.
Dear Erik and Darryl, Darryl— I did NOT vote against JFK because he was RC. I like some RC’s more than U2, I am sure. How about a post on my thoughts about you and Hillsdale? Vote for Obama because we have no info that he was anything like Bill Clinton in his vile treatment of Hillary and JFK’s treatment of Jackie? Gotta be kiddin, Darryl!” Erik— Vote for Ron Paul with his rank isolationism? Hitler would have loved him! And RP’s hatred of Israel? No, I don’t think 1948 was a time of fulfillment of Israel’s promise of victory! You fellows amaze me! Love, anyhow! Old Bob
Erik, About the Mormon Missionaries; my best friend, a Deacon in the PCA, was approached by some Mormon missionaries about a ago. As he was recalling the conversation he had with them to me I got the feeling he was leaving something out. I’ll never forget putting him on the spot and asking him, “Did you pretend you were Catholic in this conversation?” His answer, “uh, maybe, yeah I did.”. The Reformed person is left no better than the Mormon I tryng to explain their denomination. The Reformed and the Mormon both hold that the ancient Church lost the true faith along the way and that their hero (be it Calvin or Joseph Smith) had to come along to re-establish things. When the Mormons came to Bryan’s door he had already graduated seminary and reali2d he still had nothing more to appeal to then they did. Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Bob, so let me get this straight, you’re showing all that love you advocate when you disdain anyone who votes for Obama? Could it be that you are as combative as I except we have different concerns?
BTW, I’m fine with the education here at Hillsdale. I’m fine with the U.S. Constitution. I just don’t need to baptize the college or the law to have respect for it.
Old Bob,
You’re concerned about the state of morality, and rightly so. I’m a little puzzled though that you seem much quicker to judge someone’s politics than their doctrine. Surely, you don’t believe that earth is more important than heaven?
Jeremy, please do not spread slander. Some Protestants do say that Rome fell after Augustine. Some don’t. It is possible to say that Rome had problems without saying that it ceased to be a church.
But your difficulty is that you believe an institution cannot err. That’s where the difference between Rome and Geneva is. Reformed Protestantism has no creedal position on how to interpret history. Though we do believe it needs to be interpreted as opposed to CTC’s view that it just falls out of the sky.
Jeremy – Why do you presume that God had to keep the visible church on the right track the whole time it has been in existence? Isn’t this the same God whose plan of salvation was merely expressed in type and shadow for thousands of years?
Hey, Ol’ Bob, I don’t like either candidate because of their track records. Romney was pro-choice before he flopped over to the pro-life side. Why was he pro-abortion? Because he was running for governor in one of the most liberal states in the union. Doesn’t sound like conviction to me, sounds like expediency.” Whatever will get me elected” should be the campaign motto for each candidate. Do you agree with Romney’s state healthcare system in Massachussets ? He is an insider, a country club Republican, one for the good ol’ boys. I would vote for Ron Paul over him. As for Paul’s “rank isolationism” and your “Hitler would have loved him” comment, those are cheap shots. There is no threat like Hitler in the world today, so to insinuate Ron Paul would do nothing to help an ally is pure speculation. Where has all of our intervention got us? I have some skin in the fight.(My son is in Afghanistan) and he is not fighting for American freedom. Call it “peace-keeping’ or nation building, but whatever you call it don’t call it protecting America. I am not a liberal and I don’t like Obama, but I will not blindly follow the Republicans just because there is no one else to follow. I learned my lesson with “W”. He had republican majorities in congress for his first two years and he did nothing to further a conservative agenda. The federal government became larger, meddled in more areas and spent more money than ever. For an old gospel kind of guy you’d think you would point to the gospel instead of politics for the real answer to changing men’s hearts.
D.G.
The only problem being that none of us has said that, or thinks that.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Bryan, have you heard of hyperbole? Have you heard of Monty Python? Have you ever seen a late night talk show monologue?
D.G.
If you want Old Life (and your comments here) to be understood as a Reformed version of Monty Python or the Onion or Letterman or the Wittenburg Door (which I used to read in seminary), that’s fine with me. But, then it seems to me that you need to update your “About” page to reflect that. Otherwise, presenting yourself as offering serious theological appraisals and evaluations while actually offering comedic parody could be misleading to readers who think your accusations and characterizations of other’s positions (with which you disagree) are meant to be taken seriously, and as truthful. Hyperbole becomes misrepresentation when it is presented as serious commentary.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Jeremy,
Regarding the similarities between Romanism and Mormonism,
Sola Scriptura means the Bible and the Bible alone is the infallible rule of faith.
Not the Bible and the infallible Book of Mormon. Not the Bible and</b the infallible teachings of the pope or the magisterium, not to mention Rome's infallible (lost) oral traditions.
Bryan, you may want to consider that your reflections are overly serious and claim way too much. To bring them down to earth, you can appeal to history (not your strong suit because of the way you think history and historical knowledge work). You can also appeal to humor.
Look, I doubt you have much of a taste for H. L. Mencken or P.J. O’Rourke. But I’d encourage you somehow not to take yourself too seriously. The matters you discuss are serious often. But the way you describe them is frankly laughable considering that we do not live in the age of John Henry Newman. If not O’Rourke or Mencken, try Chesterton.
Mr. Cross appeals to our private judgement in regard to Mr. Hart’s hyperbole, but somehow fails to mention his own hypocrisy.
And that’s not hyperbole.
Dear Darryl, Erik, John Sizer, & Darren. I thought that as a teacher for 31 years, I was at least adequate in expressing my thoughts clearly. I guess I was wrong! Examples: Darryl— Says that I think I am showing love when I disdain Obama. Darren— That I think earth is more important than heaven. My list goes on! Go read some my few former posts, please. Why do I keep going back to OLT? Hoped my comments would be read carefully and bring a bit of balance. I guess I was wrong! Again. Love, (I mean it!). Old Bob. But (PS) I think I can better spend more time with my sweet wife, 25 grandkids and mates of 7 of them. And the movie 2016. And Bill Bennett’s History books and talk program “Morning in America”, And books by J.I. Packer. And Larry Arnn. And Francis A. Schaeffer. And John Murray. And Dr. Machen. And Bio Prof. Son Tim’s book “Science and Grace”. (Crossway). And Charles Colson. On and on! As we used to say in my NJ days of youth 1928-1950, “So-long, youse guys!”
The same Bill Bennett who writes books about virtue while being a gambling addict? An illustration why we’re not crazy about mixing the church with politics.
Machen was a 2K thinker, wasn’t he?
I do salute you for your family. That’s a great legacy.
Jeremy Tate wrote: “The Reformed person is left no better than the Mormon I tryng to explain their denomination. The Reformed and the Mormon both hold that the ancient Church lost the true faith along the way and that their hero (be it Calvin or Joseph Smith) had to come along to re-establish things.”
GW: An utterly false and ignorant assertion. Comparing Calvin to Joseph Smith is like comparing apples to oranges (or, better yet, comparing gold to dung). As I have pointed out elsewhere, historic Protestants are reformationists, while traditional Mormons are restorationists. (Not to mention that historic Protestants are orthodox Trinitarian Monotheists, whereas traditional Mormons are polytheistic and anti-trinitarian.) The church can become corrupt, degenerate in doctrine and morals, and thus be in need of reformation, without ceasing to be a genuine expression of Christ’s visible church. The Reformers sought to reform the church, not to restore the church.