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.
“The doctrinal statement of Wheaton College, reaffirmed annually by its Board of Trustees, faculty, and staff, provides a summary of biblical doctrine that is consonant with evangelical Christianity. The statement accordingly reaffirms salient features of the historic Christian creeds, thereby identifying the College not only with the Scriptures but also with the reformers and the evangelical movement of recent years.”
Wheaton College is an evangelical college identified with the reformed and evangelical tradition as its doctrinal statement affirms. Its statements of faith are interpreted according to that tradition.
WE BELIEVE that God has revealed Himself and His truth in the created order, in the Scriptures, and supremely in Jesus Christ; and that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are verbally inspired by God and inerrant in the original writing, so that they are fully trustworthy and of supreme and final authority in all they say.
WE BELIEVE that the Holy Spirit indwells and gives life to believers, enables them to understand the Scriptures, empowers them for godly living, and equips them for service and witness.
Those are classic evangelical statements concerning the perspicuity of the Scriptures and that the individual believer with the illumination of the Holy Spirit is the final interpreter of the Scriptures. He/she might use creeds and commentaries to assist but they are not the authoritative interpreters. Anyone familiar with the reformed/evangelical tradition would understand this.
When you say, “Now, of course we Catholics believe, in addition to our belief that Scripture is the final authority, that the bishops in apostolic succession are the authoritative interpreters of that final authority.” That statement directly contradicts the Wheaton doctrinal statement. The statement of faith does not leave the question of who interprets Scripture unspecified since it is interpreted according to the reformed/evangelical tradition. It does not have to specifically exclude Roman Catholic tradition since it was meant to be interpreted by Wheaton’s constituency.
Wheaton’s statement concerning original sin is all encompassing with only one exception; Jesus Christ. All means all, not the Clintonesque “depends on what your definition if is, is”. Anyone familiar with the reformed/evangelical tradition understands “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God” and “there is none righteous, no not one”.
WE BELIEVE that our first parents sinned by rebelling against God's revealed will and thereby incurred both physical and spiritual death, and that as a result all human beings are born with a sinful nature that leads them to sin in thought, word, and deed
When you say “Regarding all human beings born with a sinful nature--we believe that. We believe Mary and Christ are the exceptions.” That contradicts the Wheaton doctrinal statement. Then you say “The statement takes no position one way or the other on whether "all" admits of exceptions.” when in fact, the Wheaton statement does give one exception and only one; Jesus Christ.
WE BELIEVE that Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, and was true God and true man, existing in one person and without sin; and we believe in the resurrection of the crucified body of our Lord, in His ascension into heaven, and in His present life there for us as Lord of all, High Priest, and Advocate.
According to the reformed/evangelical tradition the “one, holy, universal Church” is made up of all who have trusted Christ for their salvation i.e.”Christ’s people”.
WE BELIEVE that the one, holy, universal Church is the body of Christ and is composed of the communities of Christ's people. The task of Christ's people in this world is to be God's redeemed community, embodying His love by worshipping God with confession, prayer, and praise; by proclaiming the gospel of God's redemptive love through our Lord Jesus Christ to the ends of the earth by word and deed; by caring for all of God's creation and actively seeking the good of everyone, especially the poor and needy.
You on the other hand identify the “one, holy, universal Church” as the Roman Catholic Church and all others, with the exception maybe of the Orthodox Church, being schismatic and false, especially the reformed and evangelical churches. That is contrary to Wheaton’s statement of faith.
When you stated “I'm sure a lot of people at Wheaton think like you do. ……… and they are so bound up in their own forms of organization and their own beliefs that they read a statement like this and think the only interpretation possible is theirs.” you are right since the document is to be interpreted according to the reformed/evangelical tradition, not just any tradition. The statement of faith was meant, like any statement of faith, to let everyone know what its position is concerning its fundamental beliefs according to its tradition. If one is going to convert to a different tradition the ethical thing to do is resign or offer an expanded interpretation of the statement of faith that explains the new position and let the powers at Wheaton decide whether to keep him/her on. In this case they didn’t accept changes.
As I said, I don’t see how you could affirm this statement of faith without reservations or why you would want to knowing how it is intended to be interpreted.