9/29/04:  Check Out That Hair
     I showed this to some folks in channel and they got a hoot out of it (click the image to see it full size).  This is from Spring of 1981, the Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald at Independence High School.  I'm the prosecutor there in the suit.  Yup, real hair, 140 lbs., massive glasses.  And check out how even the guys have Farrah hair-dos!  You can tell this is 1981 because I could bring a rifle (on the table) to school and not end up in prison for life.  Result you ask?  11-1 for conviction (the one was the girlfriend of one of the defense guys, as I recall).  And to continue the trip down memory lane, here's a shot of a singing group I was in the same year, this later that summer as we traveled up to Estes Park, Colorado to compete in the Christian Music Festival up there (we won!).  The group was called "Liberation."  I'm the second guy from the left.  Later that summer my future wife, Kelli, joined the group and stood next to me the rest of the year when we toured.  We would introduce ourselves at some point during the concert and I'd always get to tell the audience how many days were left in our engagement and she'd get to show off her engagement ring.  Yeah, I know, we were kids!  Isn't love grand?

The Personal Bookshelf

But beyond this, my son, be warned: the writing of many books is endless, and excessive devotion [to books] is wearying to the body.  (Ecc. 12:12) (Yes, I've received my author's copies of Scripture Alone and we are just waiting on the main shipment).

9/26/04:  Heading Home from Texas
     Just a quick note from the Dallas/Ft. Worth area.  Just finished up speaking at the Southwest Founder's Conference and Heritage Baptist Church.  Had a great time with the brothers and sisters here.  I want to thank the many, many people who have been sending encouraging notes both about my attempt to discuss the real issues regarding the Seifrid situation as well as about my daughter's letter to the President.
     Also, Doug Wilson has given us a preview of the November debate in a little piece, "What is a Christian?" found here.  So, "Christian" is a word like "quarter" that can be variously interpreted, depending on the whim of the person using the term?  So, trinitarian baptism, not only separated from the gospel, but set in direct opposition to it, makes one an unregenerate, God-hating, righteousness mocking, destined-for-hell Christian?  Why does that remind me of the Jews who said, "We are the children of Abraham!" and Jesus said, "If you were, you would do the works of Abraham."  Given this idea, they did have the "sign" of being Abraham's children, but that was their whole problem.  They were Jews outwardly, not Jews inwardly.  My "brother" due to a covenant sign given without the slightest regard to the Spirit and the Gospel?  See what happens when you change the New Covenant from the covenant in the blood of Christ to the "objective covenant created by sacramental signs filled with unregenerate men devoid of the Spirit"?  How do you evangelize your "brother in Christ" by "grabbing them by their baptism" when there is no Spirit and no Gospel?  Answer:  you don't.  That's the point, and hence the reason for the debate November 5th.

9/22/04:  Christians in Society
     Since sixth grade my daughter, Summer, has been in a Christian school.  But she did not find it challenging, and grew tired of the fact that the kids would claim faith, but live a very, very different life.  So this year she began going to the local high school, and she loves it.  She is learning more, is more challenged, finds the kids significantly easier to talk to, and she can share her faith.  She likes her teachers, the administration, and though their football team isn't very good, she's quite happy.  She is 15, a sophomore.
     A few weeks ago she told me about an assignment in her Accelerated English class.  They were to write a letter to President Bush about a subject they feel strongly about.  Specific instructions about its form were given (here are the instructions, and Summer's letter), but only orally (the written instructions were given by the teacher to the principal later).  They were told to "research" their subject, "use quotes" and look for "statistics" to support their view.  But they were to make it a personal letter, a passionate letter, where they express their own opinion.  In fact, they were to read the letter to the class and do so with passion. 
     I printed Summer's letter out the night before I left for Canada (our home printer having run out of ink, like all inkjets do), but I did not, at that time, read it, as I was rushing to finish packing.  When I returned on Sunday, Summer filled me in on what happened when she read her letter in class.  As I have asked Summer to write up her experiences, I will be very brief.  She wrote against embryonic stem cell research, and in the process, abortion as well (they are, of course, connected).  My daughter can act, so speaking with passion is easy for her.  She received a standing ovation from her entire class--except the instructor.  While all the other students were given full credit for their letters, and allowed to insert them in envelopes and seal them for mailing to President Bush (topics included support for stem cell research and support for gay marriage), the teacher, without ever having read the letter herself, instructed Summer to not seal her envelope, and to see her after class.  When Summer stayed after the teacher asked her to provide her with the resources Summer had used (which she turned in the next class, ten pages worth).  When Summer asked if there was a problem, she was told "I need to make sure those were your words."  Summer was devastated.  Please note, Summer was the only student asked to do this, and that before the teacher actually read the letter.  The next Wednesday her letter was returned to her with no credit assigned.  Reason?  By relying upon "outside sources" (by word count her letter contained, including a definition of what a stem cell is and how it is stored, 17% quotation, i.e., 83% were Summer's own words and opinions, something the teacher could not possibly know by simply hearing the letter read) she was not presenting her own opinion. 
     To make a long story short, after two meetings at the school, numerous phone calls and letters, Summer was offered the opportunity to redo the assignment for full credit (at first only partial credit was offered).  She refused.  The teacher has not been able to demonstrate that Summer did not follow directions.  She did not say "only use one quote" or the like, and in essence, Summer has been told that to find her "voice" she should not seek so much substantiation of her opinion.  At one point the teacher said, "She was not given credit because I didn't tell her to do three hours of research to write the letter."  As Summer commented to me, "They want me to be more of a sophomore, I guess, and just give unsubstantiated opinions."  Summer has seen what happens to folks who give unsubstantiated opinions in my debates.  She knows better. 
     So Summer has failed this assignment.  No credit.  0.  Take a moment to follow the link.  Read the instructions.  Read the letter.  And realize that based solely upon hearing the letter read the teacher treated it differently than everyone else's in the class, and then made the final basis of the rejection "extensive" use of quotes (including definitions, 17%, without any instructions given to the class limiting outside sources).  She even dared to say the letter does not represent Summer's opinion, Summer's "voice."  Summer's response, in person, in a meeting with the principal, the teacher, a secretary, and myself, was eloquent, controlled, respectful, as mature as the day is long, but very forceful.  I am one very proud father, let me tell you.  She has stood on principle to her own detriment, but to the honor of her convictions.  And let me say I truly appreciated the principal's efforts.  He is, I understand, between the proverbial rock and the hard place, and I truly do not believe there is much he can do in his current situation.
     This saga is not over.  I will be meeting with the District Superintendent when I return from Dallas.  I will be sending the letter and documentation to Tom Horne, the Superintendent of Public Instruction here in Arizona.  I have sent the letter to President Bush (the teacher would not send it, though all the other letters were sent) via Congressman Trent Franks of Arizona.  I will post Summer's article on her experience when she finishes it as well. 

9/21/04:  Open Letter to Mark Seifrid, Part IV
     Before continuing to respond to your statement, Dr. Seifrid, I wanted to note the use of the phrase “later Protestant orthodoxy” in your writings on the issue of imputation.  Would you comment on these words of Calvin, who seems to have “added” the imputation of a positive righteousness “to the forgiveness of sins” at a very early stage of “Protestant orthodoxy”:

The ground of our justification, therefore, is, that God reconciles us to himself, from regard not to our works, but to Christ alone, and, by gratuitous adoption, makes us, instead of children of wrath, to be his own children. So long as God looks to our works, he perceives no reason why he ought to love us. Wherefore, it is necessary to bury our sins, and impute to us the obedience of Christ, (because the only obedience which can stand his scrutiny,) and adopt us as righteous through His merits. This is the clear and uniform doctrine of Scripture, “witnessed,” as Paul says, “by the law and the prophets,” (Romans 3:21;) and so explained by the gospel, that a clearer law cannot be desired. Paul contrasts the righteousness of the law with the righteousness of the gospel, placing the former in works, and the latter in the grace of Christ, (Romans 10:5, etc.) He does not divide it into two halves, giving works the one, and Christ the other; but he ascribes it to Christ entirely, that we are judged righteous in the sight of God.  John Calvin, The Necessity of Reforming the Church (Dallas: Protestant Heritage Press, 1995), p. 60.

First, we maintain, that of what description soever any man’s works may be, he is regarded as righteous before God, simply on the footing of gratuitous mercy; because God, without any respect to works, freely adopts him in Christ, by imputing the righteousness of Christ to him, as if it were his own. This we call the righteousness of faith, viz., when a man, made void and empty of all confidence in works, feels convinced that the only ground of his acceptance with God is a righteousness which is wanting to himself, and is borrowed from Christ. John Calvin, The Necessity of Reforming the Church (Dallas: Protestant Heritage Press, 1995), p. 59.

From this it is also evident that we are justified before God solely by the intercession of Christ’s righteousness. This is equivalent to saying that man is not righteous in himself but because the righteousness of Christ is communicated to him by imputation—something worth carefully noting.  Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 1, ed. John T. McNeill and trans. Ford Lewis Battles, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, reprinted 1977), Book III.XI.23, pp. 753-754.

It is hard not to point out, Dr. Seifrid, that these words sound so very much like the Heidelberg Catechism that you would almost be forced, by consistency, to say Calvin took on “the appearance of unreality” (COR, 174) at this point, did he not?  [continue with this article]

9/20/04:  Wisdom
     Some folks find it just too dull and repetitive.  We do a lot of things at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church that go against all the current “wisdom.”  Yes, we are a small flock, and I imagine a number of folks would say that we are so because we refuse to “get with it.”  But I just have to wonder why so many want their churches full of folks who are there to be entertained (we aren’t good at the entertainment part anyway).  I’d rather have a flock of folks who are there because of a common confession, a koinwni,a (fellowship) based upon truth (1 John 1:3-4). 
     One of the odd things we do is we read through Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and if we are feeling brave, the Song of Solomon, one chapter at a time, consecutively, as our opening exercises before Bible Study on Sunday mornings.  I haven’t figured out how many times in the past fifteen years that means I’ve heard Proverbs read, but its probably close to twenty times now.  And every time we go through the text I “see” something new, “hear” something I had forgotten.  This morning we were in chapter 28 of Proverbs, and my attention was captured by these words:

`~b'( WrG"ït.yI hr"ªAt÷ yrEîm.vow> [v'_r" Wlål.h;(y> hr"Atâ ybeäz>[o

Or, if you prefer English,

Those who forsake the law praise the wicked,
But those who keep the law strive with them.

Or,

The ones forsaking torah give praise to the wicked;
The ones keeping torah stir themselves up to strive against them!

What caught my eye was how very relevant this is in our culture today.  People speak of the “culture wars,” and it is quite true that those who hate God’s law (torah), hate the truth about God, hate His ways and therefore hate his people, know this is a war and are more than happy to engage in war-like activities to “win.”  And sadly, unbiblical views of law have infected such a wide spectrum of “evangelicalism” that very, very few in our churches today could possibly say with the Psalmist (119:136),

My eyes shed streams of water,
Because they do not keep Your law.

Surely we could argue that if we love our fellow men, we will be stirred up by their violation of God’s law, for all such violations are, inherently, destructive of true life.  But that is not the ground the Psalmist gives.  The glory and honor of God, the law-giver, should be more than sufficient for us to stir ourselves up and contend with those who overthrow God’s law.  But how often is it true enough for modern Christians? 
     I get tired of striving, don’t you?  May we ask God today to strengthen us for the task to which we have been appointed.  If you live in a godless society that spits upon His law, you have been appointed a watchman, a witness, no matter how lonely the job.

9/18/04: Seifrid Response, Part III
Dear Dr. Seifrid:
     I continue my open letter in response to your written statement.  You wrote,

In order to prevent confusion among those who have read one or more of Dr. White’s blogs, I offer the following brief response, attempting as much as possible to follow the order of his comments posted on September 9, 2004.

Unfortunately, I did not post anything about our interaction on September 9^th of 2004.  The only article posted on that date was in response to Paul Owen’s slanderous personal attack piece.  My response to the SBTS statement was posted on the 4^th and contained many questions directed to you.  Why not respond to those?  That would truly help clarify your stand for everyone who has been following this discussion (if such a term can be fairly used at this point).  Hence, I can only attempt to guess based upon your words what you are referring to.  You wrote:

I never have said that “the concept of imputation is an ‘addition’ made by ‘Protestant Orthodoxy.” I have complained that it was misleading to add the positive imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the forgiveness of sins, as Protestant orthodoxy generally did in describing the imputation of Christ’s righteousness (COR, p. 175). That is to say, as the context of my statement makes clear, that the forgiveness of sins given to us in Christ’s cross and resurrection constitutes the whole of salvation. Paul certainly speaks of justification and forgiveness as equivalent (Rom 4:5-6). Jesus’ words of forgiveness surely imply the same thought (e.g. Mk 2:5). This is not the place to elaborate the implications of this conclusion. This distinction had its origins in internal Protestant debate with Andreas Osiander (whose views we may leave aside here), and came to play a significant role in both Lutheran and Reformed dogmatic systems. But it is hardly central to the doctrine of justification. We can disagree on this matter without calling into question the doctrinal fidelity of the opposing view.

A few of my correspondents over the past few weeks have noted in passing the fact that you, Dr. Seifrid, are a very “nuanced” scholar.  That term keeps coming up.  It is quite possible I am simply not “nuanced” enough.  I just missed the class in seminary that allowed me to understand the following:

Maybe there is a massive difference in meaning between “added” and “addition.”  But the difference, in context, is lost on me.  In fact, the point being made in this entire paragraph is lost on me as well, partly because you did not provide a meaningful source for what you are quoting in the first place.  First you say you did not say it was an addition, but, in the next sentence, you say “I have complained that it was misleading to add the positive imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the forgiveness of sins, as Protestant orthodoxy generally did in describing the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.”  Did Protestant orthodoxy “add the positive imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the forgiveness of sins” or not?  What is the meaningful difference between these statements:

“the concept of imputation is an ‘addition’ made by Protestant orthodoxy”

“…it was misleading to add the positive imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the forgiveness of sins, as Protestant orthodoxy generally did.”

“…there is no need to multiply entities within ‘justification’, as Protestant orthodoxy did when it added the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the forgiveness of sins.”

[continue with this article]

9/15/04: Seifrid Response, Part II

Dear Dr. Seifrid:
     I continue my response to your recently distributed article/reply.  You wrote:

Now, however, Dr White has attacked not the considered opinion of the administration and trustee board of Southern Seminary. He has done so, moreover, almost immediately upon reception of the official document of the seminary affirming my doctrinal fidelity. With all good will, it is still hard to see this response as anything other than self-willed and obstinate. In love and concern, one really has to point to Paul’s admonition to reject a factious person after a first and second warning (Titus 3:10).

As I have said so many times now, it is very disappointing to see how almost universally those who are promoting views that are “distinct” from “Protestant orthodoxy” insist upon focusing upon persons rather than the issues themselves.  As best I can, I will avoid the temptation to respond in kind.
     I once again point out the simple illogic of dismissing a written, reasoned, fair, documented response to the SBTS statement as an “attack.”  This is the way of political dialogue in the United States.  Want to deflect documented facts?  Call them an “attack.”  Look at what has happened to the veterans who have sought to bring forth documented evidence regarding the activities of a candidate for President.  They are dismissed because they are “attacking” someone.  The statement to which you refer, sir, not only misrepresented me, but it never once quoted from anything I wrote, did not deal with any of the citations provided, and did not bring any clarity at all to the issues that prompted the review in the first place.  Simply ignoring that fact will not make it go away.  This is not a political campaign.  This will not come to an end November 3^rd.  Could you explain, logically and rationally, sir, how my response was an “attack”?  Or will you admit that in this situation, to disagree is synonymous with “attack” or “assault”?  Does it not follow from your words that despite the SBTS statement ignoring every issue I raised my proper role is simply to accept what it says, leaving all questions unanswered, leaving the issue unsettled?  Believe me, I do not enjoy this controversy, but I continue to face it and speak to it because I claim that my ultimate priority is the glorification of God through the proclamation of His truth.  The nature of justification, imputation, and the nature of the righteousness imputed to us is part and parcel of the message of the cross.  Hence, since I find your views confusing and in fact in error, and since I find them causing confusion for others, I will not “back down” when told to do so when that command does not include the very necessary answers to the very issues at the heart of the controversy.  And to be honest with you, sir, your reply has only increased those concerns for me, and many others.  But I simply cannot allow you to say I “attacked” the SBTS statement by pointing out facts.  It is a fact it uses terminology that simply is not accurate about what I have done in reviewing your published work.  It is a fact it does not even attempt to answer the many questions your writings have generated.  I would like to invite you to explain your use of such terminology in light of these facts.  Thank you.  [continue with this article]

The Potter and the Clay
Abortion remains the murder of unborn children and must bring the judgment of God.  (Click on the image for a larger version).

Official Retirement
Yes, I am officially retiring...from tennis.  There was a day, more than two decades ago, when I could give anyone a run on the court.  But I played Mike O'Fallon yesterday morning, and it was terribly frustrating to know what you should do but simply lack the ability to do so.  But then the true idiocy exploded when I played again this morning (two mornings in a row).  I never work the same muscle in lifting two days in a row, so why I didn't see this disaster heading my way, I do not know.  To make a long story short, I am a walking sports injury clinic today, and my chiropractor put it quite well, "Get off that court! Don't make me come after you!"  Sprinting, stopping, twisting, turning...not the wisest stuff to be doing if you do not wish injuries.  Anyone have a recumbent bike you would like to sell for the benefit of the cardio vascular health of a bald apologist?

9/14/04:  An Open Letter to Dr. Mark Seifrid (Part 1)
Dear Dr. Seifrid:
     I am in receipt of your recent response to the controversy that has developed due to your book, Christ, our Righteousness.  I had taken a few moments to respond to particularly troubling statements you provided in your book where you sought to differentiate your views from that of “traditional Protestant orthodoxy” (Seifrid, 2000, p. 171).  I did so because I believe passionately in the very elements of “traditional Protestant orthodoxy” you seem to wish to say are sub-biblical or simply non-biblical.  Further, your book had caused concern on the part of a fine pastor on Long Island who had discussed your comments with me.  So, as I seek to serve pastors who are busy in ministry and yet who are concerned about theological trends and movements, I began working through the relevant section of your work.
     In your recent response, sir, you began by making comments that are truly hard to understand.  You wrote:

We Christians have the duty not only to speak the truth, but to speak it in love. That means that we are never permitted to address issues as if they were purely doctrinal. We always speak to and about persons, whom we are called by Christ to love no matter what the nature of our disagreement, or the severity of response that might be necessary. We Christians must be aware of the danger of depersonalization of our discourse which the Internet presents. Had they been true, the charges which James White brought against me in his blogs on his website would have resulted in my dismissal from Southern Seminary. A calling to teach here is contingent without qualification on fidelity to our confessional statement (“the Abstract of Principles”). Yet, as far as I can tell, before posting these charges Dr. White made no attempt to contact me to see if he had understood me correctly, or to ensure that he had understood the issues correctly, or to urge me to retract any statement I had made. Nor, as far as I know, did he contact Southern Seminary to express his concerns. Love surely requires that we seek to correct one another gently. Surely the reputation of the fine institution at which I teach ought to be respected and preserved if at all possible.

Evidently the beginning of your response is directed to the fact that I have repeatedly emphasized that my review of Christ, our Righteousness was not directed at you personally, and that I have engaged in a concerted effort to avoid the use of ad-hominem so as to make sure the subject itself (the gospel of Jesus Christ) would not be obscured, as far as it depends upon me, by personalities, politics, or any other passing, temporal thing.  I confess, I feel rather alone in my effort, for so far, I seem to be the only one pursuing that goal.  You see, Dr. Seifrid, these issues will still impact the next generations of believers long after you and I have left this world.  My children and grand-children will, Lord willing, stand upon the same firm ground in their having peace with God as I do.  And since these are timeless truths, the passionate discussion of them cannot be “personal.”  Since generations before us discussed these things, and generations after us will as well, how can you say what you say here?  While my encounter with the truth of justification is indeed personal, sir, the doctrine itself is true outside of my existence, and hence can be discussed without it being “personal.”  The fact of the matter is, thus far, the reader of the entirety of what has been written over the past few weeks can plainly see that I have sought to maintain a focus upon nothing but the issue that is eternal in importance.  Others have seemingly been very concerned about institutions, careers, personalities, and all sorts of other temporal things.  Are these things truly more important than the eternal verity of how one stands before a holy God, Dr. Seifrid?
     Now, sir, many have pointed out, upon reading your statements, that they simply do not make a lot of sense on a practical level.  Have you contacted every person with whom you have disagreed in print?  When you cite someone and say, “in opposition to…” do you stop and call them on the phone?  Does anyone handle published materials in this fashion?  Surely not. 
     To my knowledge, sir, we have never met.  I do not know you on a personal level.  But you have placed in the public realm through the publication of a book your statements regarding what you call “Protestant orthodoxy.”  Do you seriously expect every person who would see themselves in that camp to call you on the phone and have a “chat” prior to saying anything about what you have said in a published and publicly distributed book? 
      Now, I have asked a number of folks over the past few weeks to document the posting of “charges” on the Internet on my part.  Could you please quote, directly, the text of these “charges”?  Could you tell me where I said, “I accuse Dr. Seifrid of …?”  It seems that given your position, you believe you are free to say whatever you wish in your published works and if anyone disagrees, they need to 1) contact you, and 2) remember that any disagreement will involve personal attack upon you, and 3) take into consideration your employment and position in the review of anything you write.  Have you considered how very odd this truly is?  To your knowledge, did I send “charges” to anyone at Southern Seminary?  To your knowledge, did I contact staff people at Southern and seek to promote some disagreement with you?  The reality is many other issues crowded into my work and I had been forced to put my response to your materials on the back burner during July.  Not only was it not personal but it simply was not the most important thing in my thinking, either.  I have a major debate in a matter of weeks that, though marginally related topically, is really on a different level and subject.  The allegation that I have some vendetta, some agenda, and have in the slightest wished to force some action on the part of Southern is quite simply silly.  Such thoughts never so much as crossed my mind.  I realize I am out of step with “the academy,” but I assure you, I happen to believe that the issues I initially raised regarding imputation are so far more important than either of us that I never once thought about it in the fashion you assume.  [continue with this article]

9/13/04:  Yes, I Have a Copy, Thank You
     Thanks to those of you rushing me copies of Mark Seifrid's 3.5 page reply.  I once again find myself in the Wonderland of Academia, for while the constant accusation has been that by discussing, and disagreeing with, Seifrid's long-published works, I "attacked" or "assaulted" him, in his response he refers to me as a "factious" man, citing Titus 3:10, describes me as "self-willed and obstinate," and insists that all discussion of theology is personal (hence, I guess, when he purposefully disinguishes his own views from "Protestant orthodoxy," does it follow he is personally attacking all those who hold those views, such as myself?  Strangely, that logical conclusion is missing from the response.).  Hence, he seems to be free to link to slander-filled articles like that of Paul Owen (but that is not an attack); he can directly question my motives and spiritual standing (but that is not an attack); but if I respond, that IS an attack.  I don't know, maybe I'm just over-reacting, but might there be just a bit of a double-standard operating here?
     One of the great ironies here is that while you will never find the term "charge" in what I wrote in July (which was the basis of the SBTS statement), Seifrid continues to use this term.  In the single blog entry in which I addressed not imputation as a whole, but the issue of the active and passive obedience of Christ, I had contrasted Seifrid's comments with those of James Boyce, all in the context of saying that Boyce's views would be the proper historical context in which to interpret the Abstract of Principles (I am one of those odd folks that thinks that the original intent of the author is important, like, "What did the original authors of the constitution of the United States mean when they wrote this?").  It was at that time that I said that I think Boyce's view of the subject would be significantly "fuller" than Seifrid's (and it is that blatantly true, irrefuted statement that has been turned into the terrible "charge" I have made!).  And what do we read in Dr. Seifrid's paper today?

I have never been required to affirm all that James P. Boyce believed, only that which he and the other founders regarded as essential for the confessional standard of the seminary. Boyce was a mere fallen human being, as we all are: there are ways in which I disagree with him.

Of course, I have never suggested that one has to believe Boyce is infallible.  But it does seem that here Seifrid confirms that my statement was true.  How odd.  Likewise, many who have been trying to understand why simply questioning Seifrid's long published works would produce such a firestorm of personal ad-hominem without any meaningful substance will find the following most instructive:

It is necessary to observe, however, that while these formulations represent significant aspects of biblical truth, they are syntheses. Nowhere in Scripture does one find the explicit statement that “Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us who believe.” The Scriptures, and Paul in particular, has other ways of speaking about justification....As I have stated openly, I find Luther’s way of speaking about justification much closer to the biblical text than that of later Protestantism. He does not speak of justification as the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us, or does so only very rarely. He speaks instead of God imputing righteousness to us because Christ is present in our hearts by faith....This has huge implications for Christian living, since we cannot then treat the righteousness imputed to us as a sort of immeasurable bank account at our disposal at which we may draw at will: “cheap grace,” as Bonhoeffer rightly named it.

I realize that if I respond, I am now in a no-win situation with a number of people.  No matter how focused my words are upon theological issues, Seifrid has stated, in his reply, that it is personal anyway.  Hence, if I do not question him personally, he is free to question me personally anyway.  If I don't attack him, it is an attack anyway.  No matter how focused upon the issue of the nature of imputation are my words, they will result in personal response.  That much, anyway, has become clear.  So I simply cannot worry about that part.  I will have to take my lumps and trust God with my motivations and response.  So why respond?  Simple.  God's truth demands it.  Is the imputation of Christ's righteousness, as it is plainly laid out in the LBCF 11:1 a man-made "synthesis" without true biblical basis?  I am a man who has stood in defense of sola scriptura for many years.  How can I say I believe sola scriptura and then turn around and say the heart of the gospel is a Protestant addition that is unbiblical and in fact misleading?  And so I will respond, but I pray I will do so in a fashion that will honor Christ by not inserting personal invective so that the issue becomes clouded and uncertain.  I've said it before: I do not matter.  Mark Seifrid does not matter.  God's truth matters.  Calvin knew all about this, for in a sermon on Galatians 2:4 he said,

And forasmuch as our case is altogether like at this day, so as we cannot hold our peace except we will betray both god and man: we must fight stoutly against that hellish tyranny, and against those pelting trash trumpery and illusions of Satan, whereby he would fain [happily] either quite deface the Gospel, or else so turmoil it as a man should not know which is the pure truth. This in effect is the thing that we have to bear in mind. And whereas Saint Paul says, that he yielded not one jot to such men: it is to confirm us so much the better on the thing that I touched even now. Peace and friendship are an amiable thing among men. They be so indeed, and we ought to seek them to the uttermost of our power. But yet for all that, we must set such store by God’s truth, that if all the world should be set on fire for the maintenance thereof, we should not stick at it.

9/11/04:  And Verily It Got Nuttier
     Just a few moments of connection time after speaking at the Conference here in Toronto.  I check in back at home and what do I discover?  Of course, a new "I'm so smart, you are so dumb, so I will keep lying about you but won't face you to be refuted" e-mail from Paul Owen (I had challenged him to appear on the Dividing Line to defend his slanderous statements, but as I predicted, he knows better: see below), but far, far more important than that, a regular in our chat channel wrote to Dr. Mark Seifrid, and in his response Seifrid referred him to Owen's grossly false, utterly ridiculous, insult-filled screed!  Sanity has taken a vacation!  I can't believe Seifrid would refer someone to something so patently absurd as Owen's response.  This proves Seifrid has not even read my articles (if he has, he couldn't possibly refer anyone to such material), and, sadly, that there is no interest on his part in serious discussion of contextual, fair citations of his own book.  I am simply astounded, but remain thankful that for anyone who wishes to honor God's truth, the issues have been clearly presented, and we know before God that we have sought solely to honor God's truth and edify God's people.  We leave the matter in God's hands.  He will judge.
     And to once again document the behavior and mentality of Paul Owen, some of his more sanctified statements:

You need to drink a little less protein, and back off on the testosterone before you overdose on machismo.  ...YOU are the sad one James.  At least I have a genuine career.  I actually work for a living.  You make a living off of attacking people to boost your reputation, and stirring up controversies to give yourself something to talk about as you travel on horseback across the countryside edifying the ignorant masses....the fact of the matter is, you just aren’t that bright.  That is evidenced by your palpable inability to understand the theological positions of other people.  When the issues get more than an inch deep, you start to drown.  Take my advice: From now on, do yourself a favor and stay in the kiddy pool.  You can splash water in the faces of theological toddlers all day long, but when you try to wade into the deep end, you sink very fast....You may now go back to pumping your iron, or blustering from the pulpit, or whatever it is you do in your spare time when you are not occupied with misrepresenting people.

If you are reading this blog, I guess you are part of the "ignorant masses" in the "kiddy pool" and are "theological toddlers."   "Pride and arrogance and the evil way and the perverted mouth, I hate....There is a kind--oh how lofty are his eyes! And his eyelids are raised in arrogance." (Proverbs 8:13, 30:13)

All day long they distort my words; All their thoughts are against me for evil. (Psalm 56:5)

9/10/04:  Off to Toronto!
     Well, you nutty Canadians who have for some odd reason been looking forward to this, here I come.  Off to speak on proclaiming the Gospel in the context of Islam and Roman Catholicism in Toronto this weekend.  Lord willing, back on the Lord's Day, and back to the blog on Monday.

Posted at reformedcatholicism.com in the Comments Section:

"In conclusion, James White's campaign against Mark Seifrid should be seen for what it is--a publicity stunt which serves to get himself attention."

Before God I affirm this statement false, a lie without basis or foundation, refuted by the facts, known not only to God, but to any person with the slightest shred of fairness in their mind who has bothered to read the relevant materials. I implore any lover of truth to read www.aomin.org/Seifrid.html and www.aomin.org/sbtsstatement.html for yourself and see the myriad of falsehoods and caricatures contained in Owen's screed, and I ask that if there is a shred of decency left in those who run this site that in light of its gross and obvious misrepresentations and falsehoods this article be removed unless edited to fit the reality rather than the fantasy it currently reflects.

Finally, I challenge Paul Owen to join me on the Dividing Line next week to defend his statements in this article. I will ask for documentation directly from what I have written to substantiate each and every one of the lies posted here. You have my e-mail address. I have the facts. You know it. 877-753-3341. We can even change the time to fit your schedule. When you slander with lies, don't expect anonymity.

James White

Posted by James White at September 10, 2004

9/9/04:  The False Testimony of Paul Owen
     Today Paul Owen (click here for picture) showed his utter disregard for truth, honesty, and fairness, by posting on reformedcatholicism.com a screed that should pretty well end any confusion in anyone's mind about his ability, or willingness, to speak the truth in love.  I have posted a number of his loving e-mails on this blog, and on the NTRMin webboard, over the past year.  I could go back to 1996 with the same kind of condescending material in my personal e-mail archives (he, of course, cannot produce anything of the like in response).  But until he began to publicly seek to contradict anything I say (even when it gives aid and comfort to Mormons or anyone else, it matters not) I did not make mention of him in public.
     But today Dr. Owen revealed the Crusader in him by posting a long screed on the issue of my review of Mark Seifrid's comments on the imputation of Christ's righteousness, a topic our regular readers will know well.  The basic thesis of the article is that scholars can write whatever they want, and if you dare respond, even with fairness and consistency, you are a mean-spirited person who cares nothing about people but are only out to perform a publicity stunt.  The amount of vitriolic ad-hominem is classic Owen, but what truly angers me is the fact that despite everything I have done to avoid personalities (so that the issue itself can be focused upon), Owen has chosen to make sure it is personal.   Not just his obvious hatred of me (resulting in enough falsehoods to keep me writing for a week just documenting them all), but most sadly, in regard to Dr. Seifrid.  Rather than helping to keep the situation in the bounds it should be in (that of examining the statements in the book and considering their meaning in light of Scripture) Owen's hand grenade is designed only to hurt and to harm. 
     If you wish to see what nearly a decade of pent-up anger and animosity will do to one's ability to read fairly, read Owen's article, see how many times he says I leveled accusations, engaged in a witch hunt, etc., and then remind yourself of what you have read right here.  The clear disjunction between truth and Owen's words will be transparent to any fair-minded individual.
     Next week I will point out some of the more outrageous statements from Owen. 
     Ironically, at the same time Paul Owen has adopted the Michael Moore view of truth and honesty, I heard from one of the "firebrands" I was referring to just below who kindly wrote and said, "Don't be such a lukewarm wuss. If you can't discern what these people are about (and the degree that they are now attacking the Gospel of Christ) you need to get out of the role of public Christian apologist."  I think I saw a "help wanted" sign at my local gunstore.  Yeah, that would be cool.  Maybe I could do web design, IT stuff...that sounds enjoyable.  One thing is for sure, some of these religious folks have simply gone nuts....

9/8/04:  A Word of Rebuke to the Firebrands
     I have said (many times of late) that I hate politics.  The truth of the gospel is not a football to be used in political maneuvering.  Unlike what many seem to wish to assume, I address what I address on this blog (outside of the rare humorous articles) for the betterment of the church of Jesus Christ, to the glory of God.  Sound hokey?  Corny?  Well, it may, but that is our motivation.  It never crossed my mind, for example, in reviewing a few pages in a published work in reference to the imputation of the righteousness of Christ that people would view my action as having the slightest bit of political motivation or relevance. 
     Today I saw an e-mail, forwarded to A&O, that troubled me greatly.  It was from what I will call the “firebrand” side of things.  It seems on one side you have those who wish to just “circle the wagons” and tell that mean apologist guy in Arizona to stop talking about important things regarding the gospel (Robert Gundry does say belief in the imputed righteousness of Christ is “passé” anyway, right?) but on the other side you have the “firebrands” who are just as political but who are out for blood.  I am just as amazed at the one side as I am the other.  I see people on the firebrand side misrepresenting me just as badly as the other side, even while professing to agree with what I’ve had to say.  If someone has a personal beef with someone at Southern, leave me out of it. Don’t use my writings as a bat with which to flail away at the “other side.”  Let me be perfectly clear:  I would have addressed Dr. Seifrid’s assertions in the context I did whether he taught at Southern, Golden Gate, Westminster, or Trinity.  In other words, the other stuff is extraneous and was not, and is not, a matter of concern to me.  I did not look at Christ, our Righteousness and go, “Oh, cool, an issue I can raise with Southern.”  Such was the farthest thought from my mind.  Instead, I saw a book identifying my faith as unbiblical, my doctrinal understanding as deficient, the belief I have defended in debate as an unnecessary addition---understandable---but misleading.  And I replied, nothing more.
     So, if you are rubbing your hands in glee over some “controversy” erupting, stop it.  Please do not promulgate, falsely, the idea of some inter-personal controversy that simply does not exist (at least on my part!).  I intend to stand firmly on the issue of the published statements of Mark Seifrid, not on the personality of James White, Mark Seifrid, or anyone else.  I repeat, the persons involved are irrelevant, the truth under discussion is vital.

From the 1994 WTJ
     In 1994 Richard Gaffin reviewed Mark Seifrid's book, Justification by Faith: The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline Theme (1992).  Please note this book was published twelve years ago.  In the Westminster Theological Journal for the Spring of 1994 (Vol. 56 p. 195), at the very end of his review, Gaffin provides these fascinating words:

One final point: it is remarkable that a study like this says nothing about imputation (unless I’ve missed it, the word doesn’t occur). Perhaps the idea is implicit in Seifrid’s use of “forensic” or “juristic” (which are in fact not given much definition). Or is its absence indicative of an apparently increasing tendency that finds Paul innocent of, or not all that interested in, the notion of imputation (whether of Christ’s righteousness or Adam’s sin)?
     Suffice it here to assert that this troubling trend obviously has momentous implications for the classic Protestant doctrine of justification, for which imputation is definitive. That doctrine, however the vagaries of an overly “introspective conscience” may at times inform it, has certainly not misread the apostle on this point. A gospel in which the gratuitously imputed righteousness of Christ is missing is something other than Paul’s gospel. I wish this stimulating, often instructive study had made that clear.

Gaffin, Piper, Gundry...are we all guilty of "misconstruing" the same author?  I think not.

9/7/04:  Listen to Today's DL for a Full Discussion of the SBTS/Seifrid/Imputation Issue.

9/6/04:  What Do You Get For Seeking to Fairly, Kindly, Honestly Address Published Works While Offering a Defense of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness?
 

Of course, this is the same Paul Owen who has said he would rather have a person in the Roman Catholic Church than a Baptist church to begin with, so I shouldn't be surprised that once again there isn't a shred of interaction, only ad-hominem and insult.  I hadn't mentioned anything about Owen for a while (evidently he was feeling left out), though I was going to use something he said as an example at one point.  When discussing his almost completely unique views of the beliefs of Paul's opponents in Galatia on the NTRMIN web board a few months ago, Owen very humbly pointed out that since he's a real scholar, he has the right to speculate on such things and produce new theories.  At the time I was reminded of the attitude of his kind of "scholarship" and how it is a very worldly-based concept, almost totally free of any relationship to the church, to the edification of the average believer in the pew, and it is central to the reason why any person slightly familiar with modern works of scholarship experience frustration in trying to find anything certain in what they say.  Since there is no longer any basis for discernment in so much of what calls itself "Christian scholarship" today, the worldly idea that "every opinion is worthy of examination and acceptance" takes precedence.  Hence, the range of "scholarly opinion" is as wide as the combined catalogs of all of the Christian publishers churning out the books, but the clarity of the gospel and the Christian faith is not advanced, despite the verbosity.  Instead, this attitude leads even conservative scholars to invest much time and space in reviewing all sorts of strange, normally irrelevant, certainly not edifying, "theories," only to end up having to mute any final conclusions with phrases like "this is a difficult passage" (is there any text that one could not find some "scholar" to dispute and hence make "difficult"?) and "the best we can do is say...".  And we wonder why there is no power in the proclamation from the pulpit?  Perhaps it is because the Apostles did not couch the gospel in such phrases as, "It is possible that in one view we might have properly understood Jesus to mean this, but we really cannot be certain, as there are viable alternatives from another perspective, so you should temper your response based upon the options we have offered."
     Of course, one will note that Owen didn't touch the substance of what has been said.  Any opportunity to add to the large file of "you are such an idiot" e-mails from this kind and gracious Presbyterian scholar will not be passed up, I have learned.  I do hope someone will actually interact with the cited materials and discussion, but so far, no one has. 
     Ironically, it has never once crossed my mind that Dr. Seifrid would ever act like Paul Owen.  I maintain true hope that if he were to actually read what I have written, understand the transparent motivations expressed from the start, that he would never, ever respond in such a fashion. 

Every Once in a While, the Mask Slips...
     It only took a moment for me to track down the quotation my fellow elder, Don Fry, had read from the pulpit in the morning sermon.  Robert Reich, Labor Secretary under President Clinton, now Maurice B. Hexter Professor of Social and Economic Policy at Brandeis University and its Heller Graduate School and national editor of The American Prospect had opined only a few months ago:

The great conflict of the 21st century may be between the West and terrorism. But terrorism is a tactic, not a belief. The underlying battle will be between modern civilization and anti-modernist fanatics; between those who believe in the primacy of the individual and those who believe that human beings owe blind allegiance to a higher authority; between those who give priority to life in this world and those who believe that human life is no more than preparation for an existence beyond life; between those who believe that truth is revealed solely through scripture and religious dogma, and those who rely primarily on science, reason, and logic. Terrorism will disrupt and destroy lives. But terrorism is not the only danger we face. (Robert B. Reich, "The Last Word", The American Prospect, Inside the Crack-Up, July 2004)

Don't be fooled: those who scream the loudest about "tolerance" are the most intolerant of that which they know to be true but actively suppress: the knowledge of God.  Failing to be able to hurt God directly, they take out their anger upon those who remind them of His presence, those who by His grace bow the knee to the one they know they, too, will bow to...someday.  This kind of rhetoric is standard fare in "academia" today.  And the world-view from which it arises pervades our society.  If I did not believe in a sovereign God who can change even the heart of a Robert Reich, I would have little hope.  But thankfully, God's truth stands firm.

See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.  For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form...(Colossians 2:8-9)

9/4/04:  Southern Seminary and Dr. Mark Seifrid
     In the course of seeking to honor God through the accurate handling of His truth and through the defense of the faith, one at times steps on toes you didn't even know were exposed.  Such is the case of late.  I began a short series of articles replying to just a few pages of Mark Seifrid's book, Christ, our Righteousness, and now the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary of Louisville, Kentucky has produced an entire response, one that alleges that I have misunderstood and misrepresented Seifrid.  And while scholars of the rank of Robert Gundry and John Piper have likewise understood Seifrid just as I have, evidently this little blog addresses a more relevant audience than their published books do, hence bringing this statement.
     I have provided a reply, not because I relish engaging Southern Seminary over the issue, but simply because the issue is too important to allow confusion to reign and questions to be unanswered.  Southern's statement does not answer the important questions.  Not a single one of Seifrid's troubling statements in his published works are quoted or explained.  The great doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to His people is not served by allowing these questions to go unanswered.
     I have reproduced the entire text of the statement in the body of my reply.  As of this writing, the statement itself has not been linked to a main index page of Southern's website.  I was going to wait until it was linked, or the search engines picked it up, but the link has been discovered by enterprising young minds that figured trying something as basic as Dr. Seifrid's name at the end of the URL might bring something up.  It did, and the link immediately began circulating. 
     It is my true and heart-felt prayer that my reply will bring clarity to the issue.  Click here for my response to Southern Seminary.