The following information is a classic example of how those who crafted the Evangelicals and Catholics Together document made statements which can be understood in two different ways:

Some of the Evangelical leaders who signed this agreement have written us and pointed to this paragraph as proof that they did not compromise the gospel and did affirm justification by faith. So why do we think this statement is ambiguous?

At first glance this statement certainly sounds good. But in light of:

1. 450 years of disagreement;

2. knowing that the men who wrote this agreement were aware of past history;

3. both Catholics and Protestants using the same words but defining them differently;

4. the fact that no explanation is given as to which set of definitions are used

—then we cannot possibly know the proper meaning of these words.

So is it the Catholic or Protestant position that is being presented here? What did the Roman Catholic men mean who signed this statement and used these words? Catholics historically have given different meanings to the terms "grace," "Justification," and "faith."

So our question is, "Why did the framers of this agreement—knowing that the doctrine of justification by faith has been and continues to be the watershed issue between Catholics and Protestants—not take the time to define terms precisely?" Why did they leave us guessing?

We also find it very interesting that there is the absence of the word "alone" in the above statement about justification. Catholics argue adamantly that it is not by grace through faith alone that a person is saved. Rather, they argue it is by faith and one’s cooperation in the power of Christ with additional requirements given by the Church. If the Catholic signers of this document really did agree with Evangelicals that justification was by faith alone, then why didn’t they just say that and place into this document the crucial, historic phrase that we are justified by grace through faith alone?

Possibly the most eye-opening statement in this document is given when the authors set forth the following:

Is it really true that no matter how "imperfect our commune, however deep our disagreements, however difficult the way," we are still united? Apparently they thought there is no issue that currently exists which is deep enough to keep us from calling each other Christians.

Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses both claim to accept Jesus Christ as "Lord and Savior," but this does not mean they agree with us on the meaning of the words "Lord" and "Savior." Therefore, this does not automatically make them Christian.

Most people realize that when Evangelicals and Catholics say that they accept Jesus Christ as Savior, that yes, for both Jesus is the Savior. But how a person receives Jesus’ salvation is not agreed upon by the Catholics and Evangelicals. Knowing this, why didn’t the authors of the agreement tell us what they meant?

In other words, if the Catholic Church teaches that salvation is by faith-works, and therefore denies the free gift of salvation Jesus offers by faith alone, biblically how can Jesus actually be the Savior of those in the Catholic Church? And if He is not their Savior, how can He be their Lord? If He can be, then don’t Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons also have a legitimate claim to say that Christ is their Lord and Savior? And if they can do that, isn’t the meaning of Scripture being twisted to suit anyone’s private interpretation?

Is Christ really the Lord and Savior of all groups who claim Him, in spite of the fact that they proclaim different ways a man can receive salvation?

Jesus Himself says no:

Here are more ambiguous words. What do they mean? Scholars on both sides realize that Roman Catholicism accepts the Apocrypha as Scripture. Protestantism does not. Are Protestants now ready to concede that the Holy Spirit did guide the Catholic Church to bring the Apocrypha into the canon when it had already been rejected as false by Jesus Christ, the apostles, and the church for 15 centuries? Or is a denial of the Apocrypha as Spirit-inspired Scripture something Roman Catholics now agree to? Who knows? The agreement doesn’t tell us. It just makes another vague statement.

Further problems can be seen in the section that has to do with evangelization and missions. The authors of the document argue:

To any knowledgeable participant in either community, these comments raise such questions as:

• How can we witness together if we are proclaiming different gospels?

• What exactly have the signers of this agreement concluded is the one mission of Christ?

• How do Protestants answer those who ask about the anathemas against Protestant views of salvation found in the documents of the Council of Trent, Vatican I and II?

Sadly, the authors do not explain. They simply admit:

It is not surprising that these Evangelicals and Catholics seeking to be united spiritually do not "know the way" to the visible unity for which they hope. After all, they admit they do not agree on the different authorities they accept. Among points of difference are:

• The sole authority of Scripture (sola scriptura) or Scripture as authoritatively interpreted only by the Catholic Church.

In brief, the two communities are following different "maps" on the way to unity. So is it surprising they do not know the way to the unity which they seek?

Protestants have held to the concept of sola scriptura (Scripture as the only final spiritual authority) because God Himself teaches that all Scripture is inspired and profitable for teaching, for reproof and correction (2 Timothy 3:16), This means that true unity comes only in Christ and only on the basis of what the Bible teaches about salvation. Until the participants can agree on these things, how can they proclaim they are united in "one mission"?

8 Ibid., p. 10.