Last year, some prominent Catholics and Protestant Evangelicals produced an ecumenical document titled "The Gift of Salvation." The document is a sincere attempt to outline the areas of agreement between our two faiths on the nature of salvation. As the title suggests, both parties agree salvation is indeed a gift of God, not something man forces upon God. Both parties recognize, however, there remain huge areas of disagreement that, hopefully, can be discussed and rectified in the future.

TGS is the second attempt at a joint-statement on the nature of salvation, the first being in 1994 under the title, "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" (abbreviated "ECT"). Both documents are in the line of efforts stemming back to the 1970's and 80's when Lutherans and Catholics, and Anglicans and Catholics, engaged in official dialogues and subsequently forged joint-statements on various doctrinal issues, especially the doctrine of Justification. Pope John Paul II has given his endorsement to these efforts, as have many other prominent Catholics. I also believe all Catholics should give deference to these efforts, praying men of all faiths will reach accord in God’s truth.

But are there any problems with these kinds of documents? Well, it depends on your point of view. Most people who applaud the efforts of ECT and TGS feel it is long overdue that Catholics and Protestants beat their theological swords into plowshares. For one, they would like to see Catholics and Protestants present a united front to the world, and in doing so, have more clout in ridding the earth of our present social ills, e.g., abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, homosexuality, etc. They feel since there is a significant amount of overlap between Catholic and Protestant beliefs, hence, we should accentuate this common ground and formalize such agreements in documents such as ECT and TGS for all the world to see. All in all, they feel it would be God-glorifying to have Catholics and Protestants holding hands across the great divide after 475 years of virtual hatred for one another.

Conversely, others feel though there may be significant overlap between Catholic and Protestant beliefs, grave dangers exist in getting too chummy too fast with an historically antagonistic opponent. First, zealous proponents of "overlap" ecumenism have a tendency to minimize the divergences between the two faiths, so much so that traditional and essential Catholic truths are increasingly obfuscated. Second, they suggest our present social ills are neither upon us nor will they get any worse merely because Catholics and Protestants neglect to solve their theological differences. After all, in the four hundred years following the Protestant Reformation, the populous, by and large, had exhibited a respectable adherence to the biblical and natural laws of God, even though sharp disagreements persisted in theological areas. It is only within this century there has been an avalanche of dissent from traditional doctrines and mores in Western culture, including mores among both Catholics and Protestants. Thus, the impetus to cure our social ills may not necessarily lie in cataloguing and advertising the areas of theological agreement between Catholic and Protestant, but in obeying the simple moral truths we already know as Catholics and Protestants. We don’t have to comprehend the nature of the atonement and justification exhaustively in order to obey laws such as "do not kill," "do not commit adultery," and "do not bear false witness." As God said to the Israelites when He gave them his moral laws, "Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach" (Deut. 30:11). Thus, we are commanded and expected to obey God’s simple laws of morality no matter what confusions of life we confront.

Hence, we cannot judge the veracity of current ecumenical documents based merely on the degree of cooperation and friendship they generate between Catholics and Protestants. As always, we must judge the ideas of men by our traditional standards of truth and let the proverbial chips fall as they may. For example, John Paul II, though he is one of the most ecumenically minded popes the world has ever known, has made it clear in his statements and encyclicals he will never compromise the doctrinal truths of the historic Catholic Church in order to make new bed-fellows. Vatican II said the same before him. It is true a few years ago John Paul had discussed the idea of lifting the anathemas the 1546 Council of Trent had placed on Luther and Lutheranism. Rest assured, however, the Pope did not contemplate lifting the anathemas because he found substantial "overlap" between Catholicism and the 16^th century Luther, but because the Lutheranism of today is so different from its originator. Yes, Lutheranism has "come a long way baby."

As in any honest judgment, we must separate the good from the bad. First, in defense of TGS, let me point out that the document does not claim to be an exhaustive or definitive statement on the nature of salvation. It admits: "we recognize that there are necessarily interrelated questions that require further and urgent exploration." I applaud the TGS signers for making this clear to the reader. However, my concern in this article lies in the tendency I see in TGS to claim unity of belief based on half-truths and ambiguities. I cannot help but conclude after carefully reading TGS that it was purposely crafted to take out the "hot buttons" so everyone included could feel comfortable in signing the document. Perhaps they felt this was the wisest way to continue the dialogue so as to keep everyone at the table. I will not judge their motives. What I would like to do, however, is point out some of these half-truths and ambiguities so when the signers meet again for more in-depth discussions they will show greater care in safeguarding our traditional Catholic truth.

There are many statements in TGS to which a traditional Catholic can ascribe. For example, such statements as "...we are powerless to restore the ruptured bonds of union with God," or "In justification we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, through whom the love of God is poured forth into our hearts (Romans 5:5)," or "Thus it is that as justified sinners we have been saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved," all ring true in Catholic theology. These are the areas of genuine "overlap" in our respective faiths no one can deny.

Then there are what I call the "middle-of-the-road" statements which, in one sense, can be endorsed by Catholicism, but upon deeper reflection must be rejected unless the statement is further qualified. For example, TGS states: "We agree that justification is not earned by any good works or merits of our own; it is entirely God’s gift, conferred through the Father’s sheer graciousness..." On the one hand, Catholics who are knowledgeable of the Council of Trent’s dictum, "neither faith nor works merit the grace of justification," can give a hearty ‘Amen’ to TGS’s proposal. But on a deeper level we must ask the fair question: Are these Evangelicals implicitly denying works are necessary for justification and are they surreptitiously trying to get the Catholics to agree with them? We have reason to raise this question because no where in the document does TGS specify, suggest, or allow that works are necessary for justification. Without going in to too much depth in the limited space we have, Catholics affirm with Paul in Romans 4:1-8 that on a strict wage-based or contractual basis works do not merit justification, but they also affirm with Paul in Romans 2:4-13 and James in James 2:24 that under the auspices of a grace-based relationship with God, works do indeed merit justification, as the Council of Trent also stipulated. TGS, while it gives high praise for "sola fide," totally ignores the necessity of works in justification.

Another "middle-of-the-road" statement in TGS is: "In justification, God, on the basis of Christ’s righteousness alone, declares us to be no longer his rebellious enemies but his forgiven friends, and by virtue of his declaration it is so." Here is an attempt to do what the Lutheran/Catholic and Anglican/Catholic dialogues of the 70's and 80's had done: integrate Catholicism’s doctrine of "infused righteousness" with Protestantism’s "declared righteousness." For those not familiar with these terms, "infused righteousness" represents Catholicism’s dogma that justification consists chiefly in God infusing His grace (grace being a substantive essence) into us internally and actually making us righteous, whereas Protestantism’s "declared righteousness" means in justification God merely labels us, in a one-time event, with the title of "justified," but internally we remain condemnably sinful. The Council of Trent’s theologians called the Protestant view a "legal fiction" because it forced God to declare something as existent that wasn’t a reality, i.e., they said it made God a liar. Hence, we are suspicious of TGS’s intent in this regard because while there is a marked emphasis on the "declared" side of the equation, no where in the document do we find any specific mention, or allowance for, infused grace in the act of justification. TGS tries to patch-up the issue by stating, "by virtue of his declaration it is so," but according to the way the sentence is crafted the only thing God is making "so" is "declared" righteousness, not infused righteousness.

We should take further issue with TGS’s statement, "In justification, God, on the basis of Christ’s righteousness alone, declares..." We see evidence here of a movement in the nomenclature of Evangelicalism that shifts from the traditional language of "faith alone" to the theologically PC "Christ alone." Anyone familiar with the recent rumblings and rivalries among Evangelicals regarding how to comprehend justification will understand the reasons for the shift: since "faith," in much of Evangelicalism, is understood as a volitional human act, which, by their own admission, implies one is "doing something" to attain salvation, some (mostly the Reformed denominations) have opted to use the phrase "Christ alone," since it serves to eliminate the human element from justification. Since the Calvinist denominations deny free will in salvation (and there are a number of them among the Evangelical signers), this implicitly denies the Catholic doctrine of free will. This is an important distinction, since the issue of free will in salvation historically has been one of the major dividing lines between Catholics and Protestants, as well as between many Protestant denominations themselves. Curiously, TGS does not even touch on this matter, nor do they list it as something to be discussed in the future.

In addition, we cannot say, at least not without the proper qualification, it is on the basis of "Christ’s righteousness alone" that God declares justification. Christ’s, and only Christ’s, righteous act made it possible for God to provide our justification, but the actual declaration (and, as I specified above, the actual infusion of grace), is only effectuated when we become righteous by accepting and living in God’s grace. It can’t be by "Christ’s righteousness alone" if our righteousness is also required to complete the process of justification. This is an important point because what may really be behind the TGS statement "through Christ’s righteousness alone God declares justification" is the popular Evangelical belief that once God declares us justified, then the category of justification is completed and sealed, upon which one enters the area of sanctification, never having to worry about striving for or losing his salvation. In the end, the phrase "Christ’s righteousness alone" may have one goal in mind: to dispel Catholicism’s insistence on good works and sacraments to achieve final justification. For further evidence of this, lets look at the next proposition in TGS.

Another "middle-of-the-road" statement in TGS is: "...Christians are bound to live according to the law of love in obedience...Scripture calls this the life of holiness, or sanctification...Sanctification is not fully accomplished at the beginning of our life in Christ, but is progressively furthered as we struggle, with God’s grace and help, against adversity and temptation." From one perspective, Catholics can agree with everything said above. Unfortunately, what is said above is only a half-truth. Why? Because Protestants believe sanctification is the only aspect of salvation "progressively furthered." In Catholicism, justification itself, not just sanctification, is in process, and will not reach fruition until we stand at God’s judgment throne. Essentially, sanctification and justification are interchangeable terms that both describe the internal transformation God performs in us. In short, Catholicism teaches it is God’s goal to make us sufficiently holy and justifiably worthy to enter his heavenly kingdom for citizenship.

One more "middle-of-the-road" statement in TGS is: "We may therefore have assured hope for the eternal life promised to us in Christ." The problem with this statement is the writers do not define what they mean by "assured hope." Knowing many Evangelicals believe in the ‘once saved, always saved’ theory, we wonder if "assured hope" is merely a watered down attempt to preserve this Evangelical belief, or have these ecumenists come to realize, as Catholicism believes, one can lose the salvation he once attained? It is hard to make a judgment from the meager statement they give us. Suffice to say, however, any future attempts at ecumenical dialogue should flesh-out this issue and let the reader know where, in fact, they do stand, since it is one of the most important issues in understanding the nature of justification.

Having discussed the "overlaps" and the "middle-of-the-road" statements in TGS, we now turn to those statements that suggest, perhaps, an overall agenda seething in the minds of the Evangelical signers, and consequently, statements that should raise concerted objection among traditional Catholics. For example, after explaining the nature of faith as "not merely intellectual assent but an act of the whole person, involving the mind, the will, and the affections, issuing in a changed life," TGS reaches the conclusion: "We understand that what we here affirm is in agreement with what the Reformation traditions have meant by justification by faith alone (sola fide)." Uummm.... Is this a subliminal plug to promote Reformation theology and define everything TGS is forging together as coming under the rubric of "sola fide"? Or perhaps it is a convenient way for the Protestants to validate their belief in "saving faith" and advertise their common (but wrong) understanding of Catholic faith as ‘mere intellectual assent’ As we shall see, probably a little bit of both.

First, it seems by the way the Evangelicals have fashioned this paragraph that they wish to set up the Reformation "sola fide" as the benchmark to be achieved in this and all future discussions with Catholics. The implication seems to be that the Catholics must recognize and in some manner capitulate to the basic tenets of the Reformation if any agreement is to be reached. Consequently, I find it difficult not to conclude that any Catholic who signs his name to this document is tipping his hat to the historic views of Luther, the very person the Pope of his day excommunicated and whose ideas the Council of Trent anathematized. Am I creating an unnecessary loggerhead here? I don’t think so. Read these words from the Council of Trent for yourself:

The explicit denial of the Reformation belief in "sola fide" is clear and unambiguous in these words. Moreover, these words are the infallible dogma handed down to us 450 years ago. It is our Tradition and it will never change. Consequently, as Catholics, we cannot merely give lip service to Trent while holding our own, or some other popular, ideas of justification.

Second, some try to justify their acceptance of the tenets of "sola fide" by claiming the Catholic notion of faith is only an intellectual recognition of God, and thus, they claim Catholics believe works must be added because the faith, being only a mental act, is not sufficient to satisfy God. In turn, they esteem the Protestant understanding of faith, which is understood by TGS as: "an act of the whole person, involving the mind, the will, and the affections, issuing in a changed life," — a definition which supposedly eliminates the need to add "Catholic" works, since the faith portion of the equation has already incorporated the essence of works and thus has satisfied the requirements of God. Protestants often refer to this as "saving faith," or what John Calvin’s pithy but contradictory verbiage described as "justified by faith alone, but by a faith that is not alone." But this is a distortion of Catholic and biblical truth. Granted, mere mental assent to theological truth is not what God wants, but this is not the Catholic concept of faith. Catholic faith is as much a living, personal relationship with God as Protestant faith claims to be. Nevertheless, the Council of Trent condemned all versions of solitary faith, whether weak or strong, and specifically condemned Luther’s idea of "firm faith" as being sufficient for justification. The Council held that no matter how great your faith and no matter how much of your mind, will and affections are involved, it was still not enough for the individual to be fully justified. Actual works of love and continual resistence to sin had to be consciously and consistently added to the strong and visceral faith in order to be fully justified. It further taught that faith, no matter how strong, did not automatically produce good works nor keep one from sin. It takes great effort and sacrifice to maintain these works and to satisfy God (1 Pet. 4:18). In fact, in accord with biblical doctrine, Catholicism teaches a man could live a whole life of the robust faith Protestants claim for themselves, but still fall away and come under damnation because he did not consistently add works to his faith to the very end (cf., Ezekiel 18:24f; Hebrews 6:4-6; 10:29-38). This, again, is why Catholicism teaches we cannot know absolutely we will go to heaven, since we don’t know if in the future we will fall into sin and fail to repent of it. TGS seems either to ignore or to eliminate this fear.

One last item: when Evangelicals assert what they affirm in TGS "is in agreement with what the Reformation traditions have meant by justification by faith alone" they imply Reformation theology was a monolithic consensus of belief, with hardly a divergent claim among its many adherents. But this is far from the truth. Each group (e.g., Lutheran, Calvinist, Zwinglian, Anglican, Anabaptist, Arminian, Wesleyan, et al) had differing, and sometimes diametrically opposed, conceptions of what "sola fide" actually meant and what was actually required for justification. Today, amongst the thousands of Protestant denominations dotting the landscape of Christendom, the differences are even greater. Hence, claiming TGS speaks for the "Reformation traditions" is a claim falling more on the side of wishful thinking than reality.

Finally, we must conclude that brief ecumenical documents, though possibly making strides in turning theological swords into plowshares, are, by the very nature of their brevity, full of theological pitfalls and doctrinal caveats. Unless these dangerous areas are recognized and eliminated, then the signers have put their Catholic readers in a very uneasy and compromising position. Although the Catholic Church is ecumenically minded, there is a reason why she doesn’t promote "mixed marriages," precisely because each side, unless they recognize one side as true and authoritative but the other as not-so-true and non-authoritative (as the Council of Trent was not afraid to do), will be forced into unending compromise on their respective beliefs, and their children may be the inheritors of some freakish amalgamation that is neither Catholic nor Protestant.

I hope the Catholic signers of TGS will seriously consider these facts the next time they meet with their Evangelical counterparts.

Robert Sungenis, President: Catholic Apologetics International; Author: Not By Faith Alone.