4 of 4

Hill also allowed that the GWU executive team could require leaders to affirm "justification by faith alone" in the student application process.

InterVarsity's Bear Trap Statement, adopted in 1960 at the national staff conference, specified that sinners are justified "by the Lord Jesus Christ through faith alone." By contrast, the Doctrinal Basis of 2000 said that InterVarsity believes in "justification by God's grace to all who repent and put their faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation."

The word alone's shift in placement is significant, said Doug Sweeney, professor of history of Christian thought at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

"Tridentine Roman Catholics could not sign the Bear Trap Statement, for justification by faith alone was anathematized at the Council of Trent," said Sweeney. "Such Roman Catholics could sign the 2000 statement, however, for Catholics have always taught that salvation is found in Christ alone. Further, the 2000 statement allows for a Tridentine commitment to the necessity of faith being formed or perfected by love before one is finally justified. This is the doctrine that the 16th-century Reformers opposed most strenuously."

Hill said some critics are thinking "with their church history primer rather than their biblical text."

"What evangelical Protestant could possibly object to that language [in the 2000 doctrinal basis]?" he said. "It is biblically centered. It is biblically correct. Faith is in Christ Jesus alone …. This was run by many Reformed theologians inside and outside the fellowship when it was adopted. No one objected. As a matter of fact, they felt it strengthened the prior statement by specifically stating in whom we put our faith. To suggest that Inter-Varsity has somehow watered down its statement of justification by faith is erroneous, to be honest."

So far, the GWU debate shows no sign of spreading to other InterVarsity chapters. But given the importance of justification to Protestants' understanding of the gospel, said Lawrence, more ministries can expect more conflict over it.

"This debate has a long pedigree," he said. "Again and again, it has caused division among Protestants."

Article updated November 4.

Collin Hansen is a CT editor at large.

Copyright © 2009 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Christianity Today also posted "Alec Hill Responds" today.

Previous Christianity Today articles on Catholicism include:

The Post-Neuhaus Future of Evangelicals and Catholics Together | Charles Colson says the convert to Catholicism helped break down the most important barrier. (January 23, 2009)

Let Us Reason Together About Life | A new statement from Evangelicals and Catholics Together encourages discourse on the most divisive of issues. (October 10, 2006)

Churchly Holiness: An Evangelical Response | Even as Jesus loves all human beings, he will judge all human works. (October 10, 2006)

Sticking Points | Despite recent rapprochement, evangelicals and Catholics remain far apart on key issues. Collin Hansen reviews Is The Reformation Over? by Mark Noll and Carolyn Nystrom (December 10, 2005)

What I'd Like to Tell the Pope About the Church | Responding to the main criticism Catholics have against evangelicals: that we have no doctrine of the church. (June 15, 1998)

Does "The Gift of Salvation" Sell Out the Reformation? (April 27, 1998)

Evangelicals and Catholics Together: A New Initiative | "The Gift of Salvation" A remarkable statement on what we mean by the gospel. An Evangelical Assessment by Timothy George (December 8, 1997)

Betraying the Reformation? | Two responses to R. C. Sproul's critical assessment of the ecumenical document "Evangelicals and Catholics Together." An Evangelical Response by Donald G. Bloesch (October 7, 1996)

Should Catholics and Evangelicals Join Ranks? | By Kenneth S. Kantzer (July 18, 1994)

first page |  4 of 4

share this page

November 2009, Vol. 53, No. 11