There's nothing wink wink or nod nod about my attitude. That you think there is only shows your unspoken and unthought-through assumptions about Catholics.
I can subscribe to that statement without reservation whatsoever and I stated exactly that. Not only have you not read the doctrinal statement carefully, you have not read carefully what I wrote. Where in what I wrote did I wink or nod? I said "no qualms" and "absolutely." That's not wink wink or nod nod.
That you and others may think that the statement excludes Catholics and that any Catholic who says he can sign it is disingenous and hypocritical and dishonest is something you read into the statement. The statement itself includes nothing that excludes Catholics. It could have been written in such as way as to exclude Catholics. It could have required signers to abjure the authority of the bishop of Rome or to deny baptismal regeneration or a dozen other things. It does none of these because in most cases Evangelicals don't agree on these matters.
I purchased a copy of Saturday's WSJ today. I read the article. If the reporter's account is accurate, Dr. Litfin essentially told Hochschild what you and Petronius Maximus have told me: As an Evangelical Protestant, I, Duane Litfin, tell you, Joshua Hochschild that you cannot in good faith sign this statement because it says the Bible is the final authority and you Catholics have another final authority. Hochschild corrected Litfin's arrogant claim to tell Catholics what they believe about the authority of the Bible and of the Church. He pointed out that we do give final authority to the Bible and turn to the magisterium to resolve disputes, which is exactly, exactly what Litfin was doing and exactly what Presbyterian synods, congregational councils, pastors of congregations, Episcopal conventions, Lutheran synods, Southern Baptist state and national conventions do all the time. "Final" authority in the statement cannot mean that no body ever can pass judgment on the interpretation of a passage of scripture because all of Wheaton's constituent Christian groups do that all the time. And Duane Litfin himself was doing exactly that. So whatever "final" means here, it cannot mean that it excludes any official teaching authority to interpret Scripture. The question is which sorts of official teaching authority are acceptable. Wheaton has no trouble with the Southern Baptist Convention as resolving disputes about the meaning of the Scriptures or with the official board of an independent Baptist Church doing so.
Now, please pay close attention: if "final authority" meant no body ever can legitimately adjudicate disputes about the meaning of Scripture, then what in the world does the Wheaton statement of faith do? This doctrinal statement is itself a passing of judgment on the meaning of Scriptures. It is saying that this interpretation of passages X, Y, and Z of the scriptures is acceptable and any interpretation of the same passages that contradicts the one given here is not acceptable. The Wheaton College Board of Trustees, in setting this doctrinal statement, has acted as the magisterium for Wheaton College students and faculty.
Moreover, since there was now a dispute over how to properly interpret the Board of Trustees' magisterial interpretation of Scripture for Wheaton College--namely the dispute between Joshua Hochschild, who believes a Catholic can legitimately sign it and Duane Litfin, who believes a Catholic cannot, Litfin was acting as a the pope of Wheaton College in exercising a second level of magisterial authority, adding a "not" clause to the Wheaton Statement of Faith, namely, interpreting its clause about "scripture final authority" so as to exclude Catholics. The words of the statement by themselves are silent, just as the US Constitution was silent about judicial review.
If the article is accurate, Litfin did not seek the authoritative interpretation of the college faculty in this dispute over how to interpret the college doctrinal statement nor the board of trustees but acted as the arbiter. Read the article. The chair of the philosophy department himself interpreted the Wheaton doctrinal statement as signable by a Catholic and pleaded with Litfin to retain Hochschild. I would bet that a number of other faculty agreed with the chair of the philosophy department. Hochschild was considered an outstanding young teacher. His colleagues wanted to retain him. Litfin acted as pope here.
I imagine that, as chief executive, Litfin was within his rights to interpret for his side of the dispute what the statement meant, though one can ask whether the issue should not have been discussed more broadly with faculty and the board of trustees (with whom he discussed it behind the scenes, of course, we don't know).
But neither Litfin nor you can rightly tell us Catholics that we are dishonest in signing a statement like this unless you have evidence we signed in bad faith. Litfin may be authorized by the board to do the papal interpretation of this doctrinal statement for the Christian community known as Wheaton College, but what gives him the right to tell Catholics that they are disingenous if they say that they affirm that the Bible is the final authority?
And for you to tell me that I took a wink wink mental reservation approach to this when I told you exactly the opposite is an insult.
Your prejudices are showing.
Either Wheaton accepts anyone who signs the statement as signing in good faith (unless Wheaton has proof that he signed in bad faith) or Wheaton modifies to statement to make it impossible for a Catholic to sign it. But for Litfin to add an interpretive gloss to the board-approved statement that excludes people not because of what they themselves say they believe but because they adhere to a Christian tradition that Litfin believes cannot sign in good faith is unjust. Wheaton has not denominational tests for anyone else, only for Catholics. If they want to admit or exclude people on the basis of denominational adherence, then write that into their policies.
But if they claim to employ a doctrinal statement as the sole criterion, then either they have to write the statement so as to make clear that certain beliefs are excluded or they have to accept anyone who signs in good faith unless they can prove that the person did not.
The fundamental point is that on the basic points included in this doctrinal statement, Catholics and Evangelicals do in fact agree. Their differences lie elsewhere. If Wheaton does not want Catholics teaching there, then they better include the genuine disagreement issues in their doctrinal statement. To claim that unspecified, hidden meanings govern the interpretation of the text without spelling them out in writing makes a mockery of any doctrinal statement.
Please retract your accusation that I acted in bad faith with a wink and a nod when I said that I could in good conscience as a Catholic sign that doctrinal statement.
I see that I failed to reply to your final question. It illustrates that you don't quite understand the issues at stake here. I am not arguing that Evangelical Protestants and Catholics agree on everything. I stated clearly that we do not agree. We disagree about the nature of the Church, priesthood, sacraments. But the Wheaton doctrinal statement totally ignores all of those issues, precisely because on those issues Evangelicals and Protestants also disagree among themselves.
Why convert? The word "convert" is a bad choice but it is used by everyone so I'll use it. What is involved here is a matter of historic schism. Protestants are in schism with Catholics, Catholics are in schism with Orthodox. Orthodox and Catholics believe nearly the same things about the Church and sacraments and priesthood but despite nearly identical beliefs, cannot share the Eucharist because they are not in ecclesial fellowship. They are in schism. Protestants and Catholics disagree about a lot of doctrine (but not about the doctrines specified in the Wheaton statement). In addition to doctrinal disagreement, they also are in ecclesial schism.
One could, as an Evangelical, change one's mind doctrinally and come to believe the various Catholic doctrines about the Church and sacraments. One would not yet be a Catholic because one would not have gone through the formal process of overcoming the schism. It would be possible to overcome the schism in groups if all Protestants or specific groups of Protestants could agree with Catholics to end the schism. That's not likely to happen because Protestants don't have authority structures that could formally enter into ecclesial reconciliation with Catholic authority structures. Individuals can, however, take the formal steps to be readmitted to full communion with the bishop of Rome (by means of being admitted to full communion with a local bishop who is in communion with the bishop of Rome). Anglican parishes have done this but my guess is that they were admitted more as a group of individuals than as an ecclesial unit. One of the continuing Anglican groups is now coming close to a full overcoming of schism and it will probably be admitted as a unit because it has its own leadership and leadership structures and the members understand themselves as under the authority of their bishop. (Under certain circumstances I suppose the bishop could be recognized as a Catholic bishop, perhaps only after (re)consecration. There are also groups that once were in fellowship with the bishop of Rome but went into schism or at least an irregular relationship--their schism or irregular situation has been overcome--the Campos prelature in Brazil, for example. But they started with Catholic authority structures which went out of fellowship and then were brought back into fellowship. Protestants as a matter of principle abandoned most of those kinds of authority structures, though the high church Protestant confessions like Lutherans and Episcopalians and even Presbyterians have authority structures closer to those of Catholics.
The individual process of overcoming the schism involves affirming that one does agree with all Catholic teaching (a formal profession of Catholic faith), receiving the sacrament of confession, being confirmed (unless one is a lapsed Catholic who was once confirmed, in which case, only sacramental confession would be needed), and then receiving Eucharist for the first time. If one had never been baptized one was not in schism and the word "conversion" would actually apply. But Christians baptized as non-Catholics are not rebaptized. They are Christians but out of fellowship; fellowship is restored when doctrinal agreement is affirmed and a formal reception in the Catholic church, into communion with the bishop, takes place.
I take the differences between Evangelicals and Catholics very seriously as does, I assume, Dr. Hochschild. I am not saying there are no differences. It's just that the Wheaton doctrinal statement does a lousy job of specifying Catholic/Evangelical differences and as a result, a Catholic can affirm it totally and without reservation.
Correction: it would perhaps be better to avoid the word "schism" with regard to the Catholic/Eastern Orthodox situation. But they are out of fellowship, lack full communion. The points I was making in #114 hold, but the term would best be avoided. In the case of Protestants and Catholics, we are in schism.
I would expect professors to know what they protest & label them, & me, protestants. What is left can have the capital P version Protestant. They are simply Protestant by tradition, or more simply not Catholics.