Reformed Theology

Christ, our Righteousness

James White

7/9/04:  Dr. Seifrid on Imputation
     As the implications of the major shift in sections of academia regarding the history and background of the New Testament, and in particular, regarding the proper reading of Paul and the specifics of his conflict with the Jews, filters down out of the ethereal realms into the pulpits and therefore into the churches (aka, the various “new perspectives” on Paul, those of Sanders, Dunn, and especially NT Wright), responses from a number of authors are appearing not so much on book shelves in the “mainstream” but on book listings in the more academic quarters.  Among the small (but growing) number of responses interacting with the entrance of the general “New Perspectives” viewpoint into the conservative mainstream is Mark Seifrid’s 2000 book, Christ, Our Righteousness, a part of the New Studies in Biblical Theology series.  Seifrid is a professor at Southern Seminary who did his doctoral work at Princeton.  The editor of the series is D.A. Carson.
     Many are recommending this as a “response” to NPism, but the book ends with a troubling section that seems to hand the case back to Wright and others on one of the most important areas of dispute: does the biblical doctrine of justification involve the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the believer?  Is this the ground of the peace we have with God (Romans 5:1), or is this a traditional extrapolation without foundation in the text itself?  Seifrid’s comments are troubling to many:

It is fair to say that something of the ‘Christ-centred’ understanding of justification which Luther and Calvin grasped was lost in subsequent Protestant thought, where justification came to be defined in terms of the believer and not in terms of Christ. It is worth observing that Paul never speaks of Christ’s righteousness as imputed to believers, as became standard in Protestantism (173-174).

At first glance one is taken aback by such a statement.  It is surely common place for “subsequent” generations to be accused of adding to or taking away from the thought of earlier generations, and surely there is a natural “formalization” process that may or may not produce a more balanced viewpoint of any particular theological formulation.  But I find it hard to understand how a recognition of the centrality of the divine act of justification in the life of the believer (this is the realm in which we all encounter the work of Christ, is it not, on the most personal, self-shattering level?) is tantamount to defining justification “in terms of the believer and not in terms of Christ” (emphasis added).  Must not justification be defined first and foremost as the divine action of the Father based upon the work of the Son?  But how can the term be understood aright without recognizing that it is God’s intention to justify the ungodly through Christ’s work?  And given the constant temptation of man to insert himself into the work of God, is it not natural that we would have to defend the truth at that very point?  I cannot follow Seifrid’s perspective at this point.  What is more, what is the purpose of the final sentence?  If by stating this we are saying nothing more than what is said when we say, “The creedal formulation of the Trinity does not appear in those exact words in Scripture,” then surely no one can argue otherwise.  But that does not seem to be the intention here, in light of what comes after.

The common Protestant formulation of justification as the ‘non­imputation of sin and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness’ is understandable as a way of setting forth justification as a forensic reality, in distinction from the Tridentine claim that an infused, imparted or inherent righteousness had to be added to the grace of forgiveness. It nevertheless treats the justifying verdict of God as an immediate and isolated gift. The justification of the believer is thereby separated from the justification of God in his wrath against us. Salvation is then portioned out, so that one possesses it piecemeal. It is held together as a series of ideas (justification, sanctification, glorification), rather than being grasped — by faith — as the comprehensive act of God in Christ. The insistence that the sanctification of the believer always accompanies justification does not fully overcome this deficiency. Indeed, Protestant confessions sometimes take on the appearance of unreality at this point because they speak of believers in themselves.* Once one shifts away from Paul’s frame of reference in Christ to one located in the believer, the continuing demand of faith, hope and love is obscured (174-175).

One is again left wondering at the assertion that the recognition of the fundamental error of Rome regarding the nature of justification, and emphasizing those elements of the truth denied by Rome, results in justification being treated “as an immediate and isolated gift.”  Immediate, yes, in the sense that Paul himself places justification as a past tense reality that brings peace with God (Romans 5:1), but why would this require it to be “isolated”?  When we focus upon the proclamation or defense of the deity of Christ, does this mean we are viewing that truth in isolation from all the other truths of the Trinity?  Surely not.  So unless we are going to adopt the methodology of many in academia today that involves, in essence, a post-modern rejection of the propriety or usefulness of systematic theology, upon what basis are we to accept this assertion that to view justification in the “imputation/non-imputation” (forced upon us, we do believe, by Paul’s own argumentation) is to make it “isolated” from all other divine truths?  Why is God’s justification in His wrath against us “separated” from the justification of the believing sinner whose sins are imputed to Christ and Christ’s righteousness imputed to him?  We are not told.  Is it wrong to see justification as a rich, full, divine truth that is placed like the perfect diamond at the center of the entire work of God in Jesus Christ?  If so, why?  Why do we have to flatten out the doctrine just to do “justice” to one aspect or another?
     I confess I do not understand why Dr. Seifrid says salvation is “portioned out” in historic Protestant theology.  Is the recognition of various aspects of soteriology wrong?  If the Word differentiates between, for example, differing uses of “sanctify,” should we not as well?  If a false teacher introduces a novelty into the church’s teaching on the means by which God glorifies Himself in the salvation of His people, are we precluded from correctly relating the relationship between elements of that work, such as calling, justification, sanctification, and glorification?  Did not the Apostle Paul himself write,

Romans 8:29-30   29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;  30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

Did Paul fail to grasp the “comprehensive act of God in Christ” by distinguishing these divine actions?  Surely not.  So why one must abandon the recognition of distinct elements in the work of God in Christ so as to hold only to a “comprehensive act of God in Christ” is not explained.  A hint as to the reasoning is found in the assertion that the constant, consistent insistence of Reformed theology that those who are justified will also be sanctified “does not fully overcome this deficiency.”  That is, even in the old systematic schemes of the modern era there was clearly a self-professed cohesion, a consistency that showed that in fact the over-all “comprehensive act of God in Christ” was not being overlooked, even if in the heat of battle the beauty of the forest might be obscured by the individual trees.
            Next we are told that some confessions (the specific citation given is to the Heidelberg Catechism, Answer to Question 60) “take on the appearance of unreality at this point because they speak of believers in themselves.”  The citation given is, “God ... imputes to me the perfect satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ, as if I had never committed nor had any sin, and had myself accomplished all the obedience which Christ has fulfilled for me.”  Again, it hardly seems fair to the framers of the catechism to think that they were contemplating this separately from the over-arching work of God in Christ.  Is there no place for the believer to consider the interface of that glorious work and my own personal standing before God?  Has anyone ever suggested, in the history of Protestant thought, that such a divine truth should be separated from its Christological foundations and made a truth unto itself, focused solely upon the believer?  Surely not.  Whether the catechism’s statement is true should not be evaluated as to whether it carries the proper “emphasis” as interpreted by a particular scholar, but whether it reflects the reality of biblical teaching.  And I believe firmly that it does.
     We can appreciate the need to exhort believers to “faith, hope, and love,” but it is once again hard to understand what he means by “demand” and why we must believe that to properly recognize that I am the object of Christ’s work of redemption in a personal fashion (not individualistically, as if separated from the people of God, but personally, as a whole person, united with Christ, justified, forgiven, adopted) is to in some way lose focus upon the centrality and glory of Christ in redemption. 
     As time allows, I wish to continue reviewing these comments and considering this form or presentation which questions, and ultimately rejects, the Reformed teaching on the imputation of the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

More in Response to Southern Seminary Professor's Denial of Imputed Righteousness
     I continue examining the claims of Southern Seminary professor Mark Seifrid on the issue of justification and the imputed righteousness of Christ.  Seifrid writes,

By virtue of their extrinsic character and finality, Christ’s cross and resurrection exclude the notions of an inherent righteousness and progress in justification which Protestant divines were concerned to avoid. As a result, 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 (175).

While I would agree that the cross and the resurrection are extrinsic and final, the issue is how that external act interfaces with me, the believer.  Rome has had many years to find ways of connecting the extrinsic and final to the internal and incomplete (it is highly doubtful Dr. Seifrid has ever listened to Scott Hahn spin Hebrews’ testimony to the finality of the crucifixion), and the mere observation that the cross and resurrection are final and extrinsic does not even begin to speak to the sacramentalism Rome has imposed upon the message.  Such a dismissal of Rome’s theology, while it may be based upon a true observation, shows little interaction with those who most aggressively promote it. 
     But more problematic is the assertion that, in essence, the theology of the Westminster Confession, the London Baptist Confession, etc., is guilty of “multiply(ing) entities within justification,” with specific reference to “adding” the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the forgiveness of sins.  One could wish these words were not being written “within the camp,” but such is the situation we face today.  It is important to clearly understand what is being said here.  The belief that justification is a full, rich term that, due to the truth of the union of the elect with Christ in His death includes the imputation of the very righteousness of Christ (positively and negatively, as we will see later) to the believer as the grounds of their relationship through life to God, the grounds of the peace we have with Him by faith (Romans 5:1), is here styled an addition to the biblical truth, which seemingly is that justification is the forgiveness of sins alone and not the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.  It is hard to know how to read this without understanding it to be clearly saying that the concept of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is an unbiblical addition without support in the text of Scripture.  This is exactly what Seifrid is saying:

When Paul speaks of ‘justification’ as the forgiveness of sins, he has in view the whole of justification, the resurrection from the dead, not merely an erasure of our failures which must be supplemented by an ‘imputed’ righteousness (Rom. 4:6-8, 25). Likewise, the further distinction which some Protestants made between the imputation of Christ’s active righteousness (in fulfilling the law) and his passive obedience (in dying on the cross) is unnecessary and misleading. This view, too, arose from a failure to grasp that Christ’s work represents the prolepsis of the final judgment and the entrance of the age to come.’

But does Paul only speak of justification as the forgiveness of sins?  Surely not!  And the passage that is cited militates directly against Seifrid’s position!  As the text is far too large for a blog entry, I here offer as an excursus the exegesis of Romans 4:4-8 that appears in The God Who Justifies. 
     To summarize, there is most clearly in these verses a plain teaching of the concept of imputation that is not a Protestant “addition” to the forgiveness of sins, but is part and parcel of the rich work of Christ envisioned in the biblical text itself.  We must reject Seifrid’s mischaracterization of both the biblical evidence and the theology of the Reformation.
    I will continue my response to Seifrid’s position in future blog entries.

7/11/04:  Continuing Review of Mark Seifrid's Views on the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness
     I have been examining the claims of Southern Seminary professor Mark Seifrid from his book, Christ, Our Righteousness, wherein he claims the Protestant belief in the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is an “addition” to Paul’s teaching on the subject of justification that is without basis in the text itself, and that, in fact, such a belief is in error.  I had not commented on the entirety of the last quotation, so I repeat it:

Likewise, the further distinction which some Protestants made between the imputation of Christ’s active righteousness (in fulfilling the law) and his passive obedience (in dying on the cross) is unnecessary and misleading. This view, too, arose from a failure to grasp that Christ’s work represents the prolepsis of the final judgment and the entrance of the age to come.’ His ‘passive obedience’ was the fulfilment of the law which condemned us! In Christ and in hope, the triumph over sin and death is ours here and now. Yet it is not ours: we possess it only in faith. In this way, and only in this way, the grace of God and the demand for obedience meet. In reducing ‘justification’ to a present possession of ‘Christ’s imputed righteousness’, Protestant divines inadvertently bruised the nerve which runs between justification and obedience (175).

 I have provided my exegesis of Romans 4:4-8, which clearly indicates the propriety of speaking of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.  I likewise raised the issue, presented in 4:6-8, of how Paul say the forgiveness of sins in the LXX citation in the positive light of the imputation of righteousness as well, a vitally important fact.  Seifrid goes on in the above citation to join the many today (from those writing on the basis of some facet of the “new perspectives” on Paul, to some New Covenant writers, to some dispensationalists) who find the imputed righteousness of Christ, and especially that aspect of that doctrine that sees a positive nature of the fulfillment of God’s law in Christ as part of that righteousness, to involve a fundamental “failure” on the part of later Protestant dogmaticians.  Why does the positive righteousness of Christ as the One to whom the people of God are joined in union involve any fundamental denial of “the prolepsis of the final judgment and the entrance of the age to come”?  We are not told.  Seeing the certainty of the final judgment and our vindication because of Christ does not change the fact that we continue to live in this “present evil age” and as such need to have a foundation upon which to stand in grace.  Is the “peace” we have with God, having been justified by faith, created merely by the pondering of the future and final vindication?  Or is it grounded in the forensic nature of the verdict of justification, seen so powerfully in Romans 8:31ff? 
     What is Seifrid’s point in saying Christ’s “passive obedience” was the fulfillment of the law which condemned us?  While that is quite true, how does this substantiate the assertion being made?  “In Christ and in hope, the triumph over sin and death is ours here and now.”  Quite true again, but the issue is how is it ours here and now, and not merely in view of a future, eschatological vindication?  Why can’t that triumph be seen in the fact that in the here and now I stand clothed in the perfect, seamless robe of Christ’s righteousness?  Evidently because, if that righteousness is imputed to us, then it is “ours,” but then it would not be of faith.  “Yet it is not ours: we possess it only in faith.”  If by this is only meant “it is not intrinsically ours but only by faith” then yes, of course; but if it means “it cannot be imputed to me the believer because it must only be by faith” then surely not.  Why would true, saving faith exclude the imputation of Christ’s righteousness?  We are not told.  Evidently it has something to do with the assertion, “In this way, and only in this way, the grace of God and the demand for obedience meet.”  Once again it is hard not to start seeing a style of “covenant nomism” lurking in the shadows.  Demand for obedience on the part of whom, the Savior (He fulfilled the demand!) or the sinner (100% failure rate)?  The grace of God and the demand for obedience are, in fact, perfectly fulfilled in refusing to separate (not distinguish, which we must, but separate) the righteousness of Christ into separate categories so as to be able to deny one aspect of it (His positive righteousness) and reduce justification to a synonym for forgiveness.  But this is exactly where Seifrid is going: “In reducing ‘justification’ to a present possession of ‘Christ’s imputed righteousness’, Protestant divines inadvertently bruised the nerve which runs between justification and obedience.”  Why?  Again, we are not told.  Is it being suggested that if we indeed possess, by imputation, the righteousness of Christ, that we will not obey?  Does it then follow that full justification is held out as a goal to be obtained only upon conditions of fulfilled obedience?  Surely not.  So how does providing the perfect ground of peace with God do anything other than ground our obedience firmly in the realm of grace, thanksgiving, and appreciation?  Indeed, without the imputed righteousness of Christ, what is the ground for one’s obedience to God?  Again, we are not told.  But it is surely something to be considered when a professor at Southern Seminary, viewed by many as a Reformed school, would publish a work in which the imputed righteousness of Christ (and I will argue later this is exactly what is intended by the statement of faith of Southern Seminary) is identified as an “addition” to the biblical message, one that “bruises” the nerve that runs between justification and obedience (whatever that means, specifically), and is in fact a simple error.  Indeed, the next section we will examine begins, “It is not so much wrong to use the expression ‘the imputed righteousness of Christ’ as it is deficient.” 
     I confess, reading this coming from “inside” the camp makes one feel very much like Mel Gibson’s character in We Were Soldiers when he sent out the “broken arrow” notification: the lines had collapsed and it was no longer possible to tell friend from foe.  However, carrying that analogy out a bit, they won the battle anyway.  It was just a struggle (Jude 3-4).  To be continued….

7/27/04:  An Interesting Expansion in the LBCF, 1689
     As I am continuing my commentary on Professor Seifrid's comments on justification (thought I had forgotten that, didn't you?), I was doing some reading and ran across an interesting "expansion" in the London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) that is not found in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1648).  Seemingly it comes from the Savoy Declaration, but I haven't had time to follow that out.  Compare the two statements in chapter Eleven, section 1, of each confession:

The expansion, as you can see, is most relevant to today's situation. Samuel Waldron in his wonderfully useful work, A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith wrote,

Paragraph 1 of the Confession enunciates the classic Protestant distinction between the active and passive obedience of Christ.  This distinction has been popularly understood to entail a division of Christ's work into two divisions or parts.  The perfect life of obedience to the law of God up to, but not including the cross, has been viewed as Christ's active obedience.  Such an understanding, however, has no biblical support.  The active and passive obedience of Christ are not two separate parts of Christ's work, but his one work looked at in two ways.  Philippians 2:8, for instance, describes Christ as "becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross'.  In many places the cross is viewed as the culminating activity in Christ's obedience to the Father's will (John 14:31; 15:10; Rom. 5:17-19; Heb. 5:8-9; 10:5-10).
     If there is no division of Christ's obedience into two separate parts in the Bible, why is this distinction necessary?  The answer is that we had a twofold need if we were to inherit eternal life.  We needed, firstly, the forgiveness of the guilt of our sins.  This is provided by Christ's passive obedience, his suffering the penalty of the law.  Secondly, we needed the gift of a positive righteousness. This is provided by Christ's active obedience, his obedience to the precepts of God's law and all the other dimensions of the preceptive will of the Father for him.

One can see why Reformed Baptists, especially, have no basis upon which to waffle on this point, at least confessionally.  What this has to do with our review of Seifrid's position will come out in our next installment. 

7/30/04:  The Abstract of Principles on Justification
     We noted a few days ago that the London Baptist Confession of Faith (LBCF) of 1689 very clearly asserts the unified righteousness of Christ.  What I mean by this phrase is that one cannot cut the righteousness of Christ our divine substitute into sub-parts while maintaining the whole: while everyone can and should distinguish between the active and passive obedience of Christ (obviously, His perfect life can be distinguished from his perfect death, but not separated therefrom), if our union with Christ by the electing decree of God is complete so that we have His unified righteousness not just a part of it.  Just as we must distinguish between the divine and the human in Christ, we are precluded by the unity of His person from dividing them up so as to make two persons.  The Incarnation creates one divine Person with two natures; likewise it produced one perfect righteousness which cannot be divided up into “that which only Christ has and the elect do not receive” and “the portion given to believers.”  There is no question of our union with Him in His death, but if our union is only in His death then whence is our life?  Does this not make our union with Christ an almost temporary addition rather than a true union?  So, when I speak of the unified righteousness of Christ, I am referring to His righteousness in the fulness expressed by the entirety of His incarnate life and death, echoing the emphasis found in Paul in the Carmen Christi:

And having entered into human existence,
He humbled Himself
     By becoming obedient to the point of death,
     Even the death one dies on a cross!

Is the obedience Christ showed up to the point of death irrelevant or unnecessary?   Or was it merely preparatory? 
     Well, we noted the LBCF affirms, explicitly, the unified righteousness of Christ as that which is imputed to the believer.  We have been looking at Mark Seifrid’s comments in his book, Christ, Our Righteousness.  Yes, Seifrid has made further comments on this issue in the newly released work, Justification: What's at Stake in the Current Debates (Husbands/Treier, IVP 2004), and we will get to those, but we have to start with the fuller treatment before discussing the follow-ups.  At one point Seifrid writes,

It is better to say with Paul that our righteousness is found, not in us, but in Christ crucified and risen.  The Westminster Confession (and that of my own institution) puts the matter nicely when it speaks of ‘receiving and resting on [Christ] and his righteousness by faith’.  (175)

 What caught my attention was the statement concerning the WCF and that of Seifrid’s own institution, that being Southern Seminary.  The doctrinal norm for Southern is the Abstract of Principles (see it here on the Southern Seminary website).  Here is what it says about justification:

Justification is God's gracious and full acquittal of sinners, who believe in Christ, from all sin, through the satisfaction that Christ has made; not for anything wrought in them or done by them; but on account of the obedience and satisfaction of Christ, they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith.

Now, did both the WCF and the Abstract have in mind the imputation of the unified righteousness of Christ (i.e., active and passive obedience)?  It surely seems to be the case.  The Westminster Longer Catechism says,

WLC 70  What is justification? A. Justification is an act of God's free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone.

And,

WLC 71  How is justification an act of God's free grace? A. Although Christ, by his obedience and death, did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to God's justice in the behalf of them that are justified, yet in as much as God accepteth the satisfaction from a surety, which he might have demanded of them and did provide this surety, his own only Son, imputing his righteousness to them, and requiring nothing of them for their justification but faith, which also is his gift, their justification is to them of free grace.

But in the case of the Abstract of Principles, we have the clear words of one of those most responsible for them.  James Petigru Boyce was one of the founding professors of Southern Seminary.  His Abstract of Systematic Theology (1887) is still a very useful resource.  He discusses justification in chapter 35.  There, on page 399, we read,

(b) Our justification is due also to the active obedience of Christ, and not to passive obedience only.

1.  Righteousness involves character, conduct and action, even more than suffering endured as penalty.  The sinlessness of Christ is therefore plainly taught, and especially in connection with imputation.  2 Cor. 5:21.

2.  The gracious salvation he brings is said to establish the law.

3.  He assures us, that he came to fulfill the law.  Matt. 5:17.

4.  The obedience of Christ is not only contrasted with the disobedience of Adam, but is declared to be the means by which many shall be made righteous.  Rom. 5:19.

It thus appears, that the ground of justification is the whole meritorious work of Christ.  Not his sufferings and death only, but his obedience to, and conformity with the divine law are involved in the justification, which is attained by the believer.  The question is here sometimes asked, how the active obedience of Christ can avail to us, when he was himself a man and under the law, and owed obedience personally on his own behalf.  The answer to this is twofold, in each case depending upon the doctrine of the incarnation of the Son of God.  On the one hand, the position was one voluntarily assumed by the Son of God.  He was under no obligation to become man.  He was not, and could not be made man without his own consent.  In thus voluntarily coming under the law, his obedience would have merit to secure all the blessings connected to the covenant, under which he assumed such relation.  But besides this, the fulfilment of the law would not simply be that fulfilment due by a mere man, which is all the law could demand of him on his own behalf, so that the merit secured is that due to the Son of God, thus as man rendering obedience to the law.  That merit is immeasurable and is available  for all for whom he was the substitute.

It seems, then, that what the Abstract of Principles meant by “receiving and resting on [Christ] and his righteousness by faith” was significantly fuller than Seifrid’s suggested understanding.

8/25/04:  The Imputation Controversy
     Who knows?  Maybe that title will end up on a book in the not too distant future.  But one thing is for sure: I’m simply amazed that a few blog entries interacting with a theologian’s denial of what used to be assumed to be a central, important aspect of theological teaching and belief (the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to the believer as the sole ground of his or her standing before God, not as some separate thing outside of Christ, but as a vitally important truth regarding why we have true and full peace with God through Christ) could produce such an amazing amount of “chatter.”  But despite the fact that I haven’t even completed my brief, basic, hardly-to-be-called in-depth interaction with the important section of Dr. Mark Seifrid’s book, Christ, Our Righteousness, it seems I have truly stirred up a hornet’s nest by daring to even note the presence of his teaching on imputation, let alone anything else.  Evidently, if you cite someone, in context, correctly, and do not agree, but instead ask questions of their position and point out problems with it, this is considered by some as an “attack.”  I do not know how we are to engage in discussion of vital issues if we are prohibited by some kind of political correctness from even noting our disagreement and, if need be, rejection of what someone else is promoting.  But it is even more mind-boggling that someone who believes in the imputation of the righteousness of Jesus Christ in accord with the confessions of Presbyterian and Baptists churches would find resistance in defending that faith from…those who once confessed the same beliefs!  I well know all those who are denying part or all of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ say that you still “get” the same final result in their systems.  I don’t buy it.  But why would anyone think that we are in some fashion guilty of “attacking” someone merely by reviewing their claims and responding to them in the fashion we have?  It is an incredible commentary on how deeply theological dialogue has been influenced by society: just as you dare not state a position in the context of “right and wrong” in the political realm, so too we dare not raise the specter that someone might just be wrong in something they say in the theological realm.
     Now, if your memory is a bit fuzzy, I have taken the time to bookmark the articles directly related to my reviewing the relevant material in Seifrid’s Christ, our Righteousness.  There are five blog entries, all in the month of July. 

There, that was easy.  As you review this material, remember that Seifrid has said that the distinction of the active and passive obedience of Christ (which underlies the theological foundation of Southern Seminary as well as the London Baptist Confession of Faith) is “unnecessary and misleading,” and that to teach the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, at least as Seifrid imagines it has been taught by later generations of “Protestant divines” “inadvertently bruised the nerve which runs between justification and obedience.” These are not small assertions, no matter how "nuanced" they may be.  They have far-reaching implications. What is this “nerve” and what is its function?  How does this relate to “works of covenant faithfulness”?  How is it any different for Paul’s opponents to say his doctrine of grace led to licentiousness?
     We had gotten to the following section on page 175:

It is not so much wrong to use the expression ‘the imputed righteousness of Christ’ as it is deficient. Paul, after all, speaks of the forgiveness of sins, of reconciliation to God, the gift of the Spirit, ‘salvation’ and so on. But his teaching on justification is more comprehensive than any of these, and provides the framework in which they are to be understood. Even where he speaks of ‘salvation’ and not justification, the essential elements of the latter appear alongside the former. If we fail to capture the sense of the whole, the pieces themselves lose their significance. It is better to say with Paul that our righteousness is found, not in us, but in Christ crucified and risen. The Westminster Confession (and that of my own institution) puts the matter nicely when it speaks of ‘receiving and resting on [Christ] and his righteousness by faith’.  (Christ, Our Righteousness, 175). 

Given the controversy that has erupted by merely seeking to bring clarity to this issue, I now feel it is necessary to expand our response to cover other issues in passing.  Specifically, to point out the apologetic impact of attempting to make such a fine distinction as saying it is not really “wrong” to speak of imputation but is instead “deficient.”  Apologetically, what is a “deficient” statement of truth?  Should we not avoid such deficient statements of truth?  Does it not follow that we should not speak of imputation when responding to Rome’s teachings, for example?  Does Dr. Seifrid understand the usefulness of such a statement to one who promotes a denial of the position of the Westminster Confession of Faith or the London Baptist Confession?
     Why is it “deficient” to speak as Reformed theologians have spoken for so long?  Was Machen’s dying hope, as expressed, we are told, in a telegram to John Murray, in the active obedience of Christ, a “deficient” hope?  Seifrid says it is deficient to speak of the imputed righteousness of Christ, seemingly, because “It is better to say with Paul that our righteousness is found, not in us, but in Christ crucified and risen.”  This assumes, it seems, some kind of almost “spatial separation” in the Reformed doctrine of imputation, as if by imputing Christ’s righteousness to us as our present, precious possession and the very ground of our peace with God forensically, that it is no longer really Christ’s righteousness, and that it somehow exists outside of Christ.  But this would require us to believe the Westminster divines and all who have likewise confessed the imputed righteousness of Christ thought you could separate Christ from His righteousness, and that union with Christ is somehow not to be connected with the rest of the perfect work of salvation accomplished in Him.  As we have noted before this is an element of Seifrid’s presentation that we find baseless.  Are there some who have focused so much upon one element of divine revelation as to lose focus on other elements?  Of course.  Does this mean we then must abandon the very differentiation that makes sense of the entire revelation of the gospel in Scripture?  Surely not.
     We have already had opportunity to note that the phrase Dr. Seifrid quotes, “receiving and resting on [Christ] and his righteousness by faith” is actually representative of a fuller statement in the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, in the London Baptist Confession, and in the writings of James P. Boyce.  It is very, very hard to avoid the conclusion that this work is indeed asserting that the profession of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ as found in those documents is without biblical warrant, even if understandable in certain contexts. 
     This continued, we believe, erroneous representation of historic Reformed theology’s presentation of the truth of justification and especially the reality of the imputation of the “alien righteousness” of Christ to the believer continues on page 176, where we read:

In raising the foregoing criticism, we are touching upon problems which attend Protestant placement of justification within in an ‘order of salvation’ (ordo salutis). According to Paul, ‘justification’ has to do with Christ’s cross and resurrection for us — the whole of salvation —and therefore cannot be reduced to an event which takes place for the individual at the beginning of the Christian life. The problem deepens when ‘justification’ is made to follow ‘regeneration’, a sequence which was constructed in order to allow for the response of faith prior to the justification of the individual. In this case, the limitation of the justifying event to the act of faith threatens to diminish the significance of the cross.  If justification’ occurs only upon my believing (or being regenerated), we must conclude that the cross creates the precondition for justification, but not its reality. Indeed, when faith (or regeneration) is given this independent role, the cross appears as an arbitrary means by which God has chosen to justify humanity. Paul, in contrast, locates justification wholly in Christ — and yet makes justification contingent upon faith (see 2 Cor. 5:21; cf. Rom. 3:22, 25). Christ’s cross and resurrection are the whole of justification, but that justification must be ‘distributed’ through preaching and faith: God reconciled the world to himself through Christ, and yet has committed the ‘word of reconciliation’ to the apostles (2 Cor. 5:19). As we have seen, faith for Paul is nothing more than ‘hearing’ the good news, the reception of that already accomplished and given, a mirror-reflection of the word of promise (Gal. 3:1—5; Rom. 10:14—17). Consequently, if we reduce the dimensions of justification’ to an ‘order of salvation’ constructed around the human being we distort Paul’s message.

It will take some work to “unpack” all of this, but as an over-all comment it should be stated that again we find the foundational assumption that the ordo salutis (which is under attack from all angles in our day) is somehow an improper, external, artificial contrivance that leads to a “distortion” of the biblical message, to be in error.  It functions upon the assumption that the revelation of God in Scripture is insufficient to allow us to know the truth with enough clarity to identify the constant errors men intrude into the gospel so as to “borrow” some element of God’s glory for themselves (the constant penchant of men, and the necessary action of false teachers seeking to draw disciples away for themselves).  But for those who think that all we need to do when examining such theological writings as this is allow for the proper “nuances” so that any and all statements can be made to “fit” within confessional boundaries, it should be noted that the language of the final sentence should be clear enough for everyone.  Obviously, I do not believe the men of Westminster or the London Confession (“later Protestant divines”) were “reducing” the dimensions of justification at all by speaking of imputation, active and passive obedience, or the like: indeed, we are seeking to defend the fullness of the truths they so clearly propounded from the text of Scripture.  But no matter how scholarly the context, when we speak of distorting Paul’s message, we are touching upon the very core of gospel truth itself. 
     Tomorrow we will work through the above paragraph.  Is it wrong to speak of having been justified?  Are we wrong to look back upon our justification and to distinguish it, in our experience, and in its meaning and application, from sanctification, or other aspects of Christ’s work of salvation?  Does a statement like “Christ’s cross and resurrection are the whole of justification, but that justification must be ‘distributed’ through preaching and faith” truly represent the Pauline argument, especially in the context under discussion?
     Finally, one further comment on our motivations.  We have been deeply disturbed by reports from various locations that simply reviewing and disagreeing with an openly published book is being construed by some as an “attack.”  We realize that in the political climate of our day anyone who speaks the truth is liable to be accused of “attacking” others, whether what they say is true or not.  But the doctrine of justification is not a political issue.  And it is just here that we see one of the main problems that arises when the world’s view of scholarship invades the church: the great truths of the gospel itself become mere “theological paradigms” to be discussed in the classically academic fashion, but never to be passionately defended, never to be discussed in such a way that it might just be said that someone is wrong in what they are saying.  What is worse, it seems that in that all-too-common context, one can hold almost any position, and then “nuance” it enough to make it “fit” into any confessional mold, even if it is self-evidently not what the original writers of confessional statements intended.  Such a framework is death to meaningful apologetics, and, we would further add, to the clear proclamation of the truth in the church.  We do not need less specificity and more confusion concerning the nature of God’s work in Christ in the church today.  We address this issue out of the conviction that God’s Word is significantly clearer than the vast majority of scholarly writing and that the truths it presents are the precious possession of God’s people.  We lay our case before the Lord himself to examine our motivations and our hearts, and pray that God will be pleased to place in the hearts of all of His servants a burning desire to have as our first priority "the truth of the gospel," the love of which prompted Paul to speak boldly in public in rebuke of Peter himself. 

8/26/04: Imputation Controversy #2
     Before we continue with our examination of Dr. Seifrid’s published views on imputation, I thought it would be wise to note the presence of a rather short chapter in the new book, Justification: What’s at Stake in the Current Debates (Husbands & Treier, 2004) by Dr. Seifrid.  The majority of the text is a discussion of a dialogue between Luther and Melanchthon.  But toward the end Seifrid makes application to the modern situation.  I was most interested to examine this work, since it would give insight into whether the material found in the 2000 work, Christ, our Righteousness, is fully representational or if there has been a “drawing back” in response to criticism in the intervening period.  In his concluding remarks Seifrid confesses his “preference for Luther’s way of understanding justification.”  He states that:

…one of the benefits of this dynamic and comprehensive understanding of justification is that it is accompanied by the recognition that ‘sanctification’ is not a second stage, but simply another perspective on God’s work in Christ.  That is to say that growth is growth in faith and in the repentance inherent to faith.  Numerous biblical passages, which do not fit into the usual Protestant scheme, thereby become comprehensible. (pp. 150-151)

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the “usual Protestant scheme” is eisegetical and artificial in nature, preferring its traditions to a robust biblical nature.  And what passages become “comprehensible”?  We are only offered a few examples.  We are asked, “How else are we to understand that we have been justified by the Spirit (1 Cor 6:11), and justified from sin (Rom 6:7), and that the Corinthian church is made up of “sanctified ones” (1 Cor 1:2)?  The list could go on.”  Let’s look at these three passages and see if the “usual Protestant scheme,” whatever that exactly is, fails the test.

Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor 6:11)

As one immediately sees, the passage does not simply say we are “justified by the Spirit” but that the Corinthian believers, who had exhibited every kind of unrighteousness (1 Cor 6:9-10) have passed from that life into something new. There are three verbs in the phrase, “washed,” “sanctified,” and “justified.”  Ironically, does this not distinguish, in some fashion, between sanctification and justification, a point being blurred by Seifrid?  Or are these all merely synonyms, resulting in a triple tautology?  Further, there are two agents, not one, listed, the Son and the Spirit.  So no matter what we say, the mere phrasing of “justified by the Spirit” does not find a solid basis in a fair reading of the text.  But beyond this fairly obvious fact, why would the “usual Protestant scheme” stumble at the recognition that each and every aspect of the work of salvation is Trinitarian in nature?  Does Seifrid really imagine Protestant theologians hold to a particular ordo salutis in such a wooden fashion as to have to constantly read a particular order into every passage?  There is no reason to believe Paul is promoting any order outside of the reality of God’s radical invasion into their sin-drenched lives resulting in the change they themselves could see and understand.  I am at a loss as to how this passage is at all relevant.

For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin. (Rom 6:5-7)

Here the verb is dedikai,wtai, and hence can literally be translated “justified.”  But there is a reason why the vast majority of translations do not do so: part of the semantic range of the verb dikaio,w is “to set free,” as in Acts 13:38, “and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses.”  Here “freed” is from the same verb.  Is it part of the “usual Protestant scheme” to force every use of dikaio,w into the same narrow meaning, never allowing for a wider usage of the term dependent upon context?  If it is, I missed that part!  Hence, so far, two of the three suggested passages just don’t seem to support Seifrid’s position.  So lets move to the third.

To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours:

I am once again left just a tad bit confused: is it seriously being suggested that the “usual Protestant scheme” does not recognize the stative use of  a`gia,zw  (especially when used in the context of the  a`gi,oij “saints”)?  That all uses of “sanctify” are to refer to the process of sanctification (the experience of being conformed to the image of Christ throughout life, involving repentance and growth in grace) and never to the fact that Christians have been set apart with finality in Christ?  Again, I am uncertain where Dr. Seifrid learned the “usual Protestant scheme,” but I certainly did not learn it that way.

Seifrid continues:

The Protestant definition of justification in terms of imputation is no mere description of biblical teaching for which terminology is lacking in Scripture, as is the case, for example, with the doctrine of the Trinity.  Here we are dealing in some measure with the replacement of the biblical categories with other ways of speaking.  This development need not be regarded as deleterious, and certainly has to be appreciated in his (sic, its) historical significance, but it is not without its dangers and shortcomings. 

It is truly a reason for concern when we are told that the precious doctrine of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to the believer is in “some measure” “the replacement of the biblical categories with other ways of speaking.”  For the sake of the clarity of the gospel and its defense, may we ask for a clear answer?  Is it, or isn’t it?  “David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits (imputes, logi,zomai) righteousness apart from works” (Romans 4:6).  This sounds like the “usual Protestant definition of justification in terms of imputation” to me.  We are assured (and does this phrase represent some kind of “nuancing” of the material in his 2000 work?) that this “development” (i.e., an unwarranted one, according to his previous work: “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”) “need not be regarded as deleterious.”  In scholarly circles I suppose such is a possibility, but when we are speaking of the very heart of the gospel, how could such a “development” not be deleterious if it in any way obscures biblical truth?  Lest the reader be losing focus, here we have the heart of the Reformed response to Rome’s “infused righteousness,” the material of the teaching of Reformed theologians for generations, and we are assured not that it is true, or vital, but it isn’t “deleterious.”  Instead, we can breath much easier knowing that it “certainly has to be appreciated in its historical significance….”  The doctrine of imputation is to be appreciated for its historical significance.  I am reminded of those in some circles today who are all caught up in “rediscovering Mary” as if all of the unbiblical notions about Mary that came into vogue in the early centuries of the church in some way cast light upon the real Mary and the real example she is of a faithful, redeemed woman.  We are told we should “appreciate” such things as prayers to Mary or the concept of her perpetual virginity.  Did not great men of old believe such things?  So they should be appreciated for their historical significance.  Is this how the imputation of Christ’s righteousness as central to justification should be understood?  Is something that is to be “appreciated in its historical significance” to be preached from the pulpit with passion by the power of the Holy Spirit, and branded upon the conscience of the believer so that it is central to how he or she understands his or her very relationship to the Almighty God? 
     Evidently not, for the sentence concludes, “…but it is not without its dangers and shortcomings.”  Obviously, when I stood before an audience in December, 1990, while debating former Protestant Gerry Matatics (graduate of Gordon Conwell and doctoral student at that time at Westminster Seminary), and replied to his man-centered soteriology by proclaiming the perfection of the righteousness of Christ, that seamless robe of righteousness which alone will avail before the throne of the thrice-holy God (to the gasps and consternation of Roman Catholics seated only a few feet away from me), I was in fact presenting to them a problematic belief, not a biblical one; a development of Protestant theology over time, a teaching with “dangers and shortcomings.”  Hopefully, the reader can see why I find this kind of rumination so problematic, for such statements provide no foundation for offering a defense of the faith, and as such strike me as being far removed from the apostolic viewpoint.
     Finally, Seifrid concludes his chapter by insisting that:

Luther’s dynamic conception of justification much more effectively conveys the way in which God’s mercy is granted only in judgment.  The justification of the sinner takes place only in and through the justification of God in the event of the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  “Justification” is no mere transaction to be applied to my account.  God’s “yes” is given only in and with his “no,” a “no” and “yes” which are mine only in so far as faith echoes them in my heart….All growth in the Christian life, both individually and corporately, is found not in the triumph of progress and ascent (as one might suppose from the usual scheme of “sanctification”), but in that daily repentance and self-judgment by which God “makes out of unhappy and proud gods, true human beings, that is, wretches and sinners.”…By construing divine justice within the framework of bare legal conceptions, Protestant thought separated love from justice and, quite contrary to its own intent, arguably prepared the way for the totalization of love in modern theology.

One should always notice the repeated use of terms like “mere” and “bare.”  I have become accustomed, over the years, to hearing Roman Catholics say that the Protestant doctrine of justification is a “legal fiction” that “merely” involves a transaction that leaves us without holiness.  We have documented a number of times where Seifrid uses the same language.  In this one section we have “no mere transaction to be applied to my account” and “the framework of bare legal conceptions.”  In neither instance does this promote a sound representation of the historic Protestant position. 
     It is quite true that justification cannot be separated from the cross.  It is quite true that justification involves union with Christ and cannot be defined apart from Him.  Who has ever suggested doing so?  Holding to the ordo salutis as defined by someone like John Murray in Redemption Accomplished and Applied does not, by any stretch of the imagination, demand such a result.  It is quite true that justification is not a “mere transaction to be applied to my account.”  Who has ever suggested it was?  This is a straw-man.  The truth is the substitutionary work of Christ in behalf of His people breaks definitively into my life as one of His people when God raises me to spiritual life, changes my heart, grants living and saving faith, and upon the exercise of that faith, I am justified in perfection: I look back upon that forensic declaration on the part of God the Father based upon the perfect work of Jesus Christ in my behalf on Calvary’s tree.  This is when that timeless act breaks into my temporal experience and I am justified (Romans 5:1, which we will expand upon at a later point).  Justification is not merely the transaction indicated by imputation, but justification as revealed in Scripture does not exist without it.  And this is the danger of this kind of “theologizing.”
     The odd representation of historic Protestant formulations continues with the statement that the work of the Spirit in conforming us to the image of Christ, often referred to as the experience of sanctification, involves “the triumph of progress and ascent” so as to contrast this with daily repentance and self-judgment.  But once again I am at a loss to know who has ever promoted such a view of “triumph and ascent” that did not include repentance and self-judgment leading to a hatred of sin and a love for Christ.  And the same is true with the statement that “By construing divine justice within the framework of bare legal conceptions, Protestant thought separated love from justice and, quite contrary to its own intent, arguably prepared the way for the totalization of love in modern theology.”  I reject, outright, this misrepresentation.  It is simply false to launch this accusation (made without providing examples!) when there is such a mountain of evidence of the careful balance of godly men who have written so fully on these divine truths in preceding generations. 

Why I Care About Christ, our Righteousness
     I was scheduled to be at the church at 7PM, but the pastor asked if I might come an hour earlier.  Upon arriving, the pastor explained why he had asked me to come early.  He mentioned that he truly does make a concerted effort to keep up with current trends and developments in theology (a fact I had known and appreciated since getting to know him in previous years).  But he also said it is very difficult to do so when you are a busy pastor, visiting hospitals, doing marriages, funerals, counseling---all the myriad of things that fall upon the shepherd’s shoulders.  And so the busy pastor is often forced to rely upon the recommendations of others so as to read summaries of the issues, not the entire spectrum of published works. 
     At this point he took down Mark Seifrid’s Christ, our Righteousness from his shelf.  He explained that the book was recommended by D.A. Carson as being relevant to the issue of New Perspectivism, hence, he obtained it.  But, the reason he had asked me to come in an hour early was to chat with me about the final sections of the book, which he had marked thoroughly.  I did not have the book with me (I do not transport my library across the nation when traveling) and so he had kindly photocopied the relevant section.  We worked through the same material I have discussed on my blog, and, of course, I expressed the same thoughts in that context, disagreeing strongly with the assertion on Seifrid’s part that to speak of imputation in the way Reformed theologians have presented it for centuries is to go beyond the biblical warrant.  The hour passed quickly, and toward the end the pastor seemed thankful that he was not the only one who had found the discussion in Christ, our Righteousness troubling and disturbing, and that someone else agreed with him in the initial reaction he had to the book’s presentation.
     When I got back from Long Island I began thinking about the situation.  If this pastor, who honors the Lord and His Word by seeking to remain “fresh” and challenged even in the midst of the pressures of the pastorate itself, could encounter Christ, our Righteousness out of a pure desire to remain faithful to the proclamation of the divine truth of justification, view it as presenting a conservative, even Reformed perspective, and then experience fully understandable consternation and concern upon encountering such sentences as “…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”, then perhaps this pastor is not alone? Perhaps I can aid some others through my small little blog to see that they are not alone in finding such language objectionable?
     And so I began writing. It has always been the concern of Alpha and Omega Ministries to aid, encourage, and support the men God calls into service in the eldership of the local church. And so the primary motivation of my review of Christ, our Righteousness is transparent and simple. The doctrine under discussion is vital, central, and precious. Serious pastoral practice cannot pass over the debate in silence, for it speaks to the very ground of our peace with God. It impacts the proclamation of the gospel, the message of salvation to be preached by the church. Many have commented that my replies have greatly clarified the issues for them, and for that I am grateful.
     At the same time we have heard, through various channels, that for some inexplicable reason, my action in reviewing a book that has been in print for four years---an action taken in defense of the great doctrine of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ as our sole hope and ground of peace---is being considered a personal attack upon Dr. Seifrid by some in academic circles. When we first heard this, we were left dumbfounded, for many, many reasons. First, we were told this on the basis of just the first few articles (those in July), which were relatively short, indicated they were just the beginning of the review, and were, we believe, to any unbiased reader, exceptionally fair and far removed from anything that could be called an “attack.” There was nothing personal in them whatsoever. And so at first I was very hesitant to even believe what we were being told, but as the streams of information have multiplied and come to us from numerous independent sources, we have had to conclude that there is some kind of substance to the issue.
     I do hope that no one would deny to me the right to defend my faith when it is said to be unbiblical. As I have documented, the London Baptist Confession of Faith explicitly and clearly teaches the imputation of the righteousness of Christ as central to our understanding of justification. Logically, if my responding to a published book that identifies my faith as being biblically inaccurate is to be construed as an “attack” then would it not follow that the book itself is an “attack” as well? But why should this kind of language have to be in play in the first place?
     I do not know Mark Seifrid. I know a few folks at Southern Seminary and Boyce. But I do not consider this a “personal” issue to begin with. Dr. Seifrid published his book. He put his views out in the open for all to examine. My reply has not been personal, it has been theological. This is not a personal issue. I am irrelevant. In the same vein, so is Dr. Seifrid, or anyone else, for that matter.  The issue goes beyond every single one of us. It goes beyond institutions. So please, to anyone in any context who thinks I have some personal problem with Dr. Seifrid,  you err. My concern is indeed deeply personal, for the issue goes to that which is central to my faith and life, the doctrine of justification itself. I confess I do not seek to be dispassionate about the gospel, and I cannot begin to comprehend how any redeemed soul that clings to Christ alone and pleads His righteousness can do so. But my passion for the gospel does not mean I am seeking to attack Dr. Seifrid as a person: in fact, it proves just the opposite. The service of the gospel is not furthered by inserting such personal issues into it. Dr. Seifrid and I will not long be upon this earth: the truth of the gospel will remain, the church will go on, and the importance of the current discussion is whether the church in a wider, or narrower, fashion will continue to honor and treasure the truth of the imputation of the righteousness of Jesus Christ.
     So to make sure it has been plainly and clearly stated: we are not discussing the issue of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ as an “attack” upon anyone, but out of a deeply held conviction that has prompted us to defend that same truth against Roman Catholic apologists for many, many years. How can we be consistent in proclaiming that truth in the context of debate against Rome when we close our eyes and give a “pass” to the same kind of presentation when it appears in non-Roman Catholic publications? Our desire to honor God by our consistency should not be misinterpreted as some kind of “attack.” Let’s keep the issue clearly before us.

8/30/04 Imputation Controversy #3

We return to our review of Mark A. Seifrid’s Christ: our Righteousness.  We had cited the following from page 176:

In raising the foregoing criticism, we are touching upon problems which attend Protestant placement of justification within in an ‘order of salvation’ (ordo salutis). According to Paul, ‘justification’ has to do with Christ’s cross and resurrection for us — the whole of salvation —and therefore cannot be reduced to an event which takes place for the individual at the beginning of the Christian life. The problem deepens when ‘justification’ is made to follow ‘regeneration’, a sequence which was constructed in order to allow for the response of faith prior to the justification of the individual. In this case, the limitation of the justifying event to the act of faith threatens to diminish the significance of the cross. If justification occurs only upon my believing (or being regenerated), we must conclude that the cross creates the precondition for justification, but not its reality. Indeed, when faith (or regeneration) is given this independent role, the cross appears as an arbitrary means by which God has chosen to justify humanity. Paul, in contrast, locates justification wholly in Christ — and yet makes justification contingent upon faith (see 2 Cor. 5:21; cf. Rom. 3:22, 25). Christ’s cross and resurrection are the whole of justification, but that justification must be ‘distributed’ through preaching and faith: God reconciled the world to himself through Christ, and yet has committed the ‘word of reconciliation’ to the apostles (2 Cor. 5:19). As we have seen, faith for Paul is nothing more than ‘hearing’ the good news, the reception of that already accomplished and given, a mirror-reflection of the word of promise (Gal. 3:1—5; Rom. 10:14—17). Consequently, if we reduce the dimensions of justification’ to an ‘order of salvation’ constructed around the human being we distort Paul’s message.

We have already noted Seifrid’s dislike of the ordo salutis.  But can one truly escape from some form of order without destroying the application of the work of Christ to the individual?  We are time-bound beings, and while that does not mean God is limited by our creatureliness, redemption is, in fact, something that is applied to creatures.  We experience it.  As such, we can properly speak of at the very least a logical order, can we not?  But we should also consider the result of abandoning any ordo at all.  Seifrid writes, “According to Paul, ‘justification’ has to do with Christ’s cross and resurrection for us — the whole of salvation —and therefore cannot be reduced to an event which takes place for the individual at the beginning of the Christian life.”  It is quite true that all parts of God’s salvific work are related.  It is quite true that the cross and the resurrection are the touchstone of every aspect of salvation.  It is true that justification does not exist apart from, in isolation from, all the rest of salvation.  But, all of these things do not mean that justification, or the verb, “to justify,” is a synonym for “the whole of salvation.”  It is self-evident that in many key passages the dikaio- family refers not to sanctification, not to some over-arching salvific concept, but to a specific, forensic act of God whereby He brings peace into existence between Himself and the one who has faith in the God who justifies.  It is true justification as an entire concept cannot be reduced to a singular event at the beginning of the Christian life.  However, it is just as true (and this is a vital point) that the Bible teaches us that one is justified by faith in Christ by faith; that we can look back upon this justification, so that we are “justified,” and that because of this past-tense justification we have, as a present possession, peace with God. 
     Seifrid’s rejection of the historic Protestant “scheme” leads him to say, “The problem deepens when ‘justification’ is made to follow ‘regeneration’, a sequence which was constructed in order to allow for the response of faith prior to the justification of the individual.”  Of course, I find the terminology “a sequence which was constructed” rather offensive, actually, as if theology is “constructed” to meet a particular goal or end.  Surely, at the very least, it must be admitted that past generations of Protestant theologians believed their faith to be derived very much from the biblical text.  There is a very unfortunate tendency on the part of many modern academics to lump past generations of theologians (especially if they were conservative in their views) into overly general piles and dismiss them as if only modern scholars really “engage” the text in a “fresh” way.  This simply isn’t the case.  There are plenty of very good reasons to recognize the biblical teaching concerning regeneration; the nature of saving faith; the reality of God’s electing grace; and how all of this relates to justification by faith and its place in the ordo salutis.  I do not see Seifrid offering a lot of useful insight into why we should embrace his position.
     We continue, “In this case, the limitation of the justifying event to the act of faith threatens to diminish the significance of the cross. If justification occurs only upon my believing (or being regenerated), we must conclude that the cross creates the precondition for justification, but not its reality.”  Who “limits” the “justifying event to the act of faith”?  We are not told.  I am unaware of a single theologian who has such a narrow view.  But it is just here that there is so much room for confusion in Seifrid’s writing.  Who is he referring to?  The context forces us to think he is referring to the standard “Protestant scheme” that emphasizes the fact that we have been justified by faith and that our experience of sanctification does not change the reality of the forensic declaration which is made by faith.  But why would that belief in any way, shape, or form, “threaten to diminish the significance of the cross”?  We are not told.  As one of those firmly convinced of the “old school,” I will note Paul’s words: “being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 3:24).  Justification is something God does; it is a divine action.  It is a gracious, free action.  And it is a divine action based upon, accomplished through, the “redemption which is in Christ Jesus.”  I again know of no “old school” theologian who would ever accept the idea of a separation of the atoning work of Christ from the forensic declaration of God based upon that sacrificial act.  I reject, without qualification, the assertion that the “Protestant scheme” reflected in a John Murray or a B.B. Warfield “threatens to diminish the significance of the cross.”  Seifrid is simply confusing categories on a very basic level when he argues that “if justification occurs only upon my believing…we must conclude that the cross creates the precondition for justification, but not its reality.”  It creates both.  But Christ’s substitutionary death transcends our temporal experience, and as such, its reality must enter into time as we encounter God’s saving grace.  Just as Paul can speak of the golden chain (Rom. 8:28-30) in the past-tense, yet we experience it temporally, so too the reality of the ground of the sacrificial death of Christ is not in any way “threatened” by the fact that what is accomplished there in divine perfection is applied in the course of time itself.
     This basic confusion of categories continues to be reflected in the rest of the discussion: “Indeed, when faith (or regeneration) is given this independent role, the cross appears as an arbitrary means by which God has chosen to justify humanity. Paul, in contrast, locates justification wholly in Christ — and yet makes justification contingent upon faith (see 2 Cor. 5:21; cf. Rom. 3:22, 25).”  Independent role?  Independent of what?  Of the work of Christ in the elect?  Of the Holy Spirit’s enablement?  Again, who has ever promoted a “Protestant scheme” that makes faith an independent role, at least within Reformed theology?  I could see how such words would have application to non-Reformed soteriologies where an autonomous faith-response is the deciding factor in salvation, but the ordo salutis in that context is quite different from what has been discussed so far, and in fact often lacks any form of imputation at all (note the rejection of that belief in the writings of Church of Christ ministers, for example).  Surely Paul locates justification wholly in Christ: and he likewise locates the elect wholly in Christ as well, so what does this observation tell us?  All of salvation is Christocentric.  Our faith is the gift of God.  It is focused solely on Christ.  But that does not change the reality that we are not justified until we believe (Eph. 2:1-4), and that an implicit order of salvation is clearly found in the text.  This does not make the cross an “arbitrary means by which God has chosen to justify humanity,” but the specific, eternally chosen means God has chosen to justify the elect through union with Christ and the application of the benefits of His death at the decreed time in each believer’s life. 
     Could Seifrid be referring only to a man-centered, anthropocentric “Protestantism” utterly other than that represented in our Reformed heritage?  One would certainly like to think so, though the preceding discussion of imputation, the active and passive obedience of Christ, and the ordo salutis, would never lead one to that conclusion.  But surely when Seifrid says “Christ’s cross and resurrection are the whole of justification, but that justification must be ‘distributed’ through preaching and faith” a Reformed person could find a way to read these words in concert with their faith.   But we are again left wondering just where this discussion is going when this is followed by, “Consequently, if we reduce the dimensions of justification to an ‘order of salvation’ constructed around the human being we distort Paul’s message.”  Again, surely this is true, but who has ever done such a thing?  The preceding paragraphs have spoken of the “Protestant scheme” of justification, including a denial of the truly biblical nature of imputation, etc., so unless there has been a completely unannounced change in topic, we are once again left befuddled.  Who has ever reduced the dimensions of justification to the ordo salutis?  Why is it that because the ordo salutis speaks of the experience of salvation by the elect that this somehow is construed to mean that salvation itself is “constructed around the human being”?  How can we discuss the eternal salvific decree of God as it is played out in time itself without speaking of its temporal and logical application?  Is Seifrid saying the Westminster Confession, which clearly shows the impact of an ordo salutis has “seriously distorted Paul’s message”?  One of the main problems here is that we just can’t tell due to a serious lack of clarity on the part of the material under consideration.  Finally, this section concludes,

It is not the ‘order’ itself which is objectionable. Paul himself places justification’ in an order of saving events: ‘And whom he predestined, these also he called. And whom he called, these also he justified. And whom he justified, these also he glorified’ (Rom. 8:30). Here, however, we find a sequence of divine acts rather than operations within the individual. Paul’s ‘order of salvation’ retains a call to faith and hope lacking in the usual Protestant schemes, because it proceeds from God and his work.

The same confusion reigns here as well.  We agree Paul used a divinely-ordered ordo salutis in the golden chain.  Surely, however, that golden chain is not exhaustive and has a particular purpose in its context to emphasize the divine certainty of the work of salvation.  And while these are indeed divine acts, each involves the elect as persons.  To generalize the elect into a nameless, faceless group (as so many schemes attempt today to avoid the particularity of the doctrines of grace) removes the very essence of God’s freedom.  Calling, justification, and glorification, are intensely and definitionally personal (as is being conformed to the image of Christ), and that is true even when we rightly confess that all of the elect are thusly graced by God.  So once again we are left wondering how the “usual Protestant schemes,” which earlier had been identified as containing human accretions like the active and passive obedience of Christ and the entire concept of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, lack a “call to faith and hope” that is somehow found in Paul and in Seifrid’s reproduction thereof.  Reformed men would agree that in sub-biblical, man-centered systems, which do not proceed from God and His work, there are numerous inconsistencies and problems, but the imputation of Christ’s righteousness would not be one of them.  And so we are once again left wondering at the identity of these “Protestant schemes.”

In our final installment we will offer some brief concluding remarks concerning the vital importance of the doctrine of imputation.
 

At this point the Southern Seminary released a statement in defense of Seifrid (9/1/04), to which I replied (see the beginning of this file).  This touched off a number of blog entries.  For the sake of completeness, I include them below.

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.

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.

9/14/04:  An Open Letter in Response 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. 
     Next, I did not contact you.  You have not contacted me.  These are facts.  I was reviewing published scholarly material.  Despite the frequent accusations of “misconstruing” what has been said, so far, these accusations have not been able to withstand the mere re-citation of my original comments (a number of examples will follow as I review your statement, some appearing on a truly basic level).  If you were to disagree with my expressed views in published works, and were to respond to them, I would not begin my response by stating, “Dr. Seifrid never called me on the phone to chat about these things!”  However, you have chosen to direct people to slanderous attacks upon me personally, and in your response you likewise lodged personal attacks by calling me “self-willed and obstinate” (without addressing anything I said in the article to which you are referring) and “lovingly” suggesting I am a factious man.  Truly, sir, if I had written, “I would like to lovingly suggest Dr. Seifrid is a false teacher” would you have considered that a personal attack?  Most probably.  I doubt the assertion of loving concern would have mitigated the personal nature of the comments.  May I ask if you feel this personal kind of response is warranted by the comments I made regarding your published works?  And do you not see a vast difference between your response to me and how I approached your work? 
     Finally, you refer to Southern Seminary’s reputation.  I confess that in mentioning your credentials in writing a response to your views in opposition to Protestant orthodoxy (to use your own words) it never crossed my mind that you and Southern were so united in essence that to disagree with you was to even bring Southern into the picture.  Until the seminary released a statement that did not helpfully clarify the issues at hand I did not consider it a party in the discussion.  If nothing had been done regarding the statements in Christ our Righteousness in the four years since it had been published, I surely did not expect anything would be done because someone who holds firmly to the form of “Protestant orthodoxy” you seem to wish to differentiate yourself from in this area offered a discussion and defense of their views.  But please consider for a moment what your comments seem to suggest.  Though it has been very difficult to believe, I have come to understand over the past few weeks that there is an unwritten law, a “rule” so to speak, that seems to suggest that “within the academy” you are not allowed to engage in criticism outside the “I have a different view though I would not suggest for a moment that there is any real issue of truth at stake here and my view is not superior to or closer to the truth than that of Dr. X but is just different and, I hope, worthy of being published in a journal” kind of criticism.  Your very own statements seem to suggest that the only track open to me when that pastor asked me about your comments would have been, “I cannot comment, since I have not called Dr. Seifrid, and I would not want to in any way involve Southern Seminary’s reputation, therefore, I cannot discuss the imputation of Christ’s righteousness with you.  It would just be wrong.”  Is that really how we are to handle such issues today?
     Perhaps this illustrates one other difference between us, sir.  You have spoken of placing “charges” against you.  I am a churchman.  If I felt charges were necessary, I would not place them in an academic setting.  The church is the locus of truth, not the academy (despite the academy’s frequent confusion on that issue).  I addressed your position because it impacted the preaching of the gospel in the church.  This situation has put in stark relief the disjunction that can often develop between church and the academy.  There is no question in my mind that the Baptist Faith and Message lacks the clarity to in any way raise a question about your position and your statements.  We can disagree over what the authors intended in the Abstract, and all I’ve said about that is that Boyce’s view and your view are not the same, and if it were not for the “politics” of the current situation, I would imagine you would not have any problem agreeing (more on that later).  But might we agree on at least one thing?  Would you agree that the distinctives you maintain over against “Protestant orthodoxy” would preclude you from being an elder in a Reformed Baptist Church that uses the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689?  Does not that confession embody the very same “Protestant orthodoxy” that you seek to differentiate your own views from in Christ, our Righteousness?  You seemed to say otherwise in the second part of your response, which reads,

I was not at all surprised that the trustees and administration of Southern Seminary affirmed the orthodoxy of my writings and teaching. In their judgment, I stand firmly within the ground circumscribed by our Abstract of Principles, particularly Article XI. In fact, as I have indicated in writing (COR, p. 175), I value very highly the language which the founders of Southern Seminary extracted from the Second London Confession in composing this article.

Of course, as I have pointed out, the Second London Confession went even farther than the Westminster Confession:

…not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing Christ's active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in His death for their whole and sole righteousness, they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith, which faith they have not of themselves; it is the gift of God.

And what has caused many people to wonder, Dr. Seifrid, is your statement that such language results in the loss of a proper Christ-centeredness in “subsequent Protestant thought, where justification came to be defined in terms of the believer and not in terms of Christ”; and that while this “common Protestant formulation of justification as the ‘non­imputation of sin and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness’ is understandable as a way of setting forth justification as a forensic reality” that it “nevertheless treats the justifying verdict of God as an immediate and isolated gift. The justification of the believer is thereby separated from the justification of God in his wrath against us. Salvation is then portioned out, so that one possesses it piecemeal”; and that “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.”  Indeed, you likewise said “Protestant confessions sometimes take on the appearance of unreality at this point because they speak of believers in themselves.”  You reference the Heidelberg Catechism, question 60 at this point, and I wonder what there is in the answer given and what the London Confession states here?  Does the LBCF likewise take on “the appearance of unreality at this point” as well given the similarity of language?  As I pointed out in my responses to you, it is quite fine to emphasize strongly the singularity of the righteousness of Christ and its focus solely in Him; but it is just as biblical to recognize that we experience union with Christ and when God is said to be the one who justifies we are the recipients of that divine action.  Paul rooted our peace with God in the reality of our having been justified by faith (Romans 5:1). 
     I will continue responding to your response, sadly, to the parts where you choose to attack me personally, in the next installment.

9/15/04: Seifrid Reponse, 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.
     Next, I am a bit confused at what seems to be a complaint about the speed with which I replied to the SBTS statement.  It is not a long piece of literature, and given that it contains almost nothing on the level of argumentation (i.e., no interaction with the words you penned that have raised all of these questions), why would it take a great deal of time to respond to?  My response was properly documented, was it not, and the many, many questions it asked you have, for your own reasons, chosen to leave unanswered.  Once again, if someone wrote a parallel critique to my works on justification, wherein they asked questions of my words as I have of yours, I would find it very “natural” and, in fact, enjoyable (given that the questions are contextually relevant, a rare enough thing in my experience!), to reply.  I, and many others, are wondering why you and others simply refuse to engage the quotations directly, almost as if “we” do not have the right to expect such direct answers to such mundane questions derived directly from the text.  I hate to have to point it out, but in essence we are being told, “We do not have to answer those questions.  Leading scholars have looked at the relevant materials, they say all is well, hence, all is well.”  Since it is possible other factors that should not, properly, enter into the discussion, are at work, we’d like a bit more than a statement that assures us that there are answers to all the questions your words have raised while not deigning it necessary to provide those answers.  I’m really hoping that since you are at least fully aware of what is now being said “out here” that an avenue of communication exists, albeit an odd one, that might just result in something more than the repetition of assurances that your words are “orthodox.”
     You wrote, “With all good will, it is still hard to see this response as anything other than self-willed and obstinate.”  With all good will, how can you even suggest this on any logical or rational basis?  The only possible way to understand this is to grant some kind of magisterial authority to unlinked internet statements from educational institutions---statements that do not deign it necessary to provide answers to honest, fair, contextually-based questions raised by your own writings.  Is it a Baptist trait to accept in the place of biblical response the conclusions of educational institutions so that one who repeats the questions in the face of such a statement is “self-willed and obstinate”? 
     Further, at this point, we clearly have personal charges being made, but they are being made by you against me.  Oddly, you are sending these charges to others, but not to me, or to my church.  Hence, you are charging an elder in a long-constituted church with being unfit for the eldership (Titus 1:7 is in that context, which speaks of one who is “self-willed,” your own terminology, see below) based solely upon 1) your own misrepresentation of his written words and 2) my daring to respond to a written statement from an educational institution that did not address the questions that have been raised.  Do you truly believe you have basis for this kind of accusation?  It surely strikes me as odd that while you feel free to publish views that you characterize as being in contrast with those of “Protestant orthodoxy” (while strenuously maintaining your own orthodoxy) I am self-willed, obstinate, and factious for maintaining the viewpoints expressly laid out in plain words by James Boyce!  I am surely not the only one who finds this situation very, very odd.
     The first element of your charge is that I am auvqa,dhj (arrogant, self-willed).  This term appears in two passages in the New Testament.  Paul uses it as something that precludes one from the office of elder:

Titus 1:7 For the overseer must be above reproach as God's steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain,

Have you read any of my books, Dr. Seifrid?  Do you know anything about my life?  See, sir, that is why I never raised accusations like this when I reviewed your writings.  You see, this kind of accusation requires personal knowledge of the person against whom you are speaking.  If one wishes to deal with theological issues, you do not intrude personal matters.  I wanted to discuss imputation, you want to accuse me of sin.  The contrast is very strong indeed.  I do not know about your service in the church, your life in your home, your ministry, etc., which is why I did not attack you personally.  You, however, know nothing about any of those things with reference to me, yet, for some reason, you do not allow that to stop you from making groundless accusations.  If you truly believe this to be the case, then you should forward your accusation and its grounds to the elders of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.  Surely, including such accusations in a pdf file you are sending to correspondents (but not to me) without forwarding it to the church in which I serve is wrong on every level. 
     Now, the only basis I can find in your writing for this accusation is not based upon doctrine, theology, teaching, or practice.  It is based upon my refusal to accept a vague, short, non-specific statement from an educational institution as the final word in all things.  The irony is that the statement does not seek to answer the issues I raised, it seeks only to affirm your orthodoxy in reference to the doctrinal norms of SBTS.  And if I respond by pointing out its misrepresentation of me and re-stating the many questions that still need answers, not regarding SBTS, but regarding biblical theology itself, I expose myself to the accusation of being auvqa,dhj?  What a strange, strange concept. The second place the term is used is 2 Peter 2:10:

and especially those who indulge the flesh in [its] corrupt desires and despise authority. Daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties,

Here, however, the term is used of false teachers, which is the same context as your citation of Titus 3:10:

But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.

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.”

Since I can’t find what you are citing, I can only go back to the fact that I not only cited your own words accurately when I first raised this issue on July 10^th, 2004.  And I wrote,

But more problematic is the assertion that, in essence, the theology of the Westminster Confession, the London Baptist Confession, etc., is guilty of “multiply(ing) entities within justification,” with specific reference to “adding” the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the forgiveness of sins.  One could wish these words were not being written “within the camp,” but such is the situation we face today.  It is important to clearly understand what is being said here.  The belief that justification is a full, rich term that, due to the truth of the union of the elect with Christ in His death includes the imputation of the very righteousness of Christ (positively and negatively, as we will see later) to the believer as the grounds of their relationship through life to God, the grounds of the peace we have with Him by faith (Romans 5:1), is here styled an addition to the biblical truth, which seemingly is that justification is the forgiveness of sins alone and not the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.  It is hard to know how to read this without understanding it to be clearly saying that the concept of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is an unbiblical addition without support in the text of Scripture.

Note that I included “to the forgiveness of sins” in each instance, and summarized the statement, “which seemingly is that justification is the forgiveness of sins alone and not the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.”  Now obviously, you purposefully utilize many of these terms in non-standard ways, insisting that justification is a much wider term than is normally used in “Protestant orthodoxy,” but the fact remains that your words have to mean something.  You insist, as I noted in my blog entries, that “the forgiveness of sins given to us in Christ’s cross and resurrection constitutes the whole of salvation.”  If by that it is meant that there is nothing that is not directly connected to this central work of God, of course.  But it does not follow that we can compress into the term “forgiveness of sins” the full richness of the New Testament terminology and revelation, anymore than Wright can successfully turn the rich apostolic teaching on the multi-faceted jewel that is “righteousness” into the monochrome, almost unidimensional “covenant faithfulness of God.”  You write, “Paul certainly speaks of justification and forgiveness as equivalent (Rom 4:5-6).”  I disagree.  There is no justification without forgiveness, but it is far too simplistic to create an equivalence on the basis of the text in Romans 4:5-6.  The logical grouping is 4-5/6-9; and surely there is more going on in the definition of the imputation of righteousness cwri.j e;rgwn (4:6) in 7-8 than solely and only forgiveness (indeed, the ouv mh. logi,shtai ku,rioj a`marti,an of v. 8 takes us forward in time and opens up the vista of the non-imputation of sin).  Be that as it may, is it your position that what “Protestant orthodoxy” meant by speaking of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness goes beyond mere forgiveness, and hence, is unbiblical, unwarranted, and in fact, dangerous, leading to the “bruising of the nerve” which runs from justification to obedience?  That seems to be what you were saying, Dr. Seifrid, and you can only “nuance” such an assertion so far.
     The Lord Jesus did indeed connect faith and forgiveness.  But he also connected faith and eternal life (John 5:24).  Does this make forgiveness and eternal life equivalent things?
     Now, I think most of our readers will find it interesting that at this very point, where you are speaking of your belief that justification is equivalent to (and seemingly exhaustively defined by) the forgiveness of sins, and where you say that the view of Protestant orthodoxy regarding “adding” the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to that forgiveness is something about which you have “complained,” that in speaking of these distinctions you say “But it is hardly central to the doctrine of justification.”  Isn’t that what this has been about all along, sir?  It seems you are here affirming that the biblical view is that justification = forgiveness of sins, and that while understandable in the context of the battle with Rome, the idea of a positive imputation of the righteousness of Christ is not “central to the doctrine of justification.”  Is that what you really mean, sir?  You go on (as we will note in our next section) to try to differentiate yourself from Gundry’s denial of imputation, but you do so by first faulting Gundry for adopting the Protestant position to begin with!  In each of these passages you have carefully, repeatedly, and very purposefully, distinguished your position from that of “later Protestant orthodoxy.”  And yet, for some reason, I am a factious man for pointing out that Southern Seminary was founded by men who taught, invariably, that very form of Protestant orthodoxy?  Should anyone wonder what I mean, here are the words of James Petrigu Boyce once again on justification:

Justification is a judicial act of God, by which, on account of the meritorious work of Christ, imputed to a sinner and received by him through that faith which vitally unites him to his substitute and Saviour, God declares that sinner to be free from the demands of the law, and entitled to the rewards due to the obedience of that substitute.  (James Petrigu Boyce, Joseph-Emerson-Brown Professor of Systematic Theology in The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Abstract of Systematic Theology, p. 395.)

This meritorious work of Christ, called in the Scriptures “the righteousness of God,” is imputed by God to those whom he justifies, as the ground or cause of their justification.  It is reckoned to their account.  They are treated as though they had themselves done that which Christ has done for them.

This imputation is in accordance with the action of God throughout the economy of human affairs.  Adam as the representative of man sinned, and his sin has been imputed to all of his descendants, and they are treated as though personally sinners.  Christ stood also as the representative of his people and their sins were imputed to him and he was treated as though personally a sinner.  Likewise his righteousness is imputed to them, and they are treated as though personally righteous.  (Ibid., pp. 399-400).

Is this not the very “Protestant orthodoxy” against which you have “complained” Dr. Seifrid?  And is that not what I was trying to point out from the beginning?

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?
     Continuing with your reply, you wrote,

In case there should be any misunderstanding: I regard Robert Gundry’s complaints about the positive imputation of Christ’s righteousness as confused and misleading as well. He essentially adopts the Protestant distinction, but then lops off the positive imputation of Christ’s righteousness to make some sort of room for Christian obedience. At best, I suppose his view might be regarded as a mixture of Johannes Piscator and John Wesley. At worst, it comes dangerously close to being outside Reformational thought.

Dr. Seifrid, again noting the assertion that you are a very nuanced scholar, I note the phrase “as well.”  As well as…the view of Protestant orthodoxy against which you have complained in the previous paragraph?  If so, does that mean you are saying the Protestant position against which you complain is “confused and misleading,” or do you have a closer referent in mind, say, the views of Osiander?  I have to say that in my opinion you often leave yourself open to such questions simply because your writing is not overly clear.  It seems what you are saying that both Protestant orthodoxy (against which you have lodged your complaint about “adding” the positive righteousness of Christ to the forgiveness of sins) and the view of Robert Gundry are in error, are you not?  (I cannot help but ask, with a true sense of humor,  if you contacted Dr. Gundry before writing this paragraph and warned him of the impending “attack”?).  It sounds like you are putting Protestant orthodoxy and Gundry in the same camp of error, and simply differentiating between them, with Gundry and Protestant orthodoxy both making the error of missing the equivalency between justification and forgiveness of sins, Gundry just going farther by lopping off the “positive imputation of Christ’s righteousness to make some sort of room for Christian obedience.”  But I am also reminded of your statement that adopting the orthodox Protestant view of the imputation of a positive righteousness of Christ “bruises the nerve” which runs from justification to obedience.  Is Gundry sensing the problem you believe exists with the view of Protestant orthodoxy and simply reacting wrongly to it? 

In the same paragraph of this blog, Dr. White claims that “all theological discourse must come to a screeching halt” if I can affirm that it is proper to speak of Christ’s righteousness being imputed to us and yet complain of the “deficiency” of this way of speaking. In other words, I have contradicted myself. Really? Is there anything illogical about a statement being true, and yet failing to speak to all the issues surrounding the matter which it addresses? I assume that along with me Dr. White can affirm the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed as admirable summaries of biblical truth. Yet we both regard them as deficient: they inadequately define Christ’s saving work. The confessions which sprang from the Reformation addressed this deficiency. If it is illogical to think this way, then we are all guilty.

First, the only appearance of the word “screeching” in my responses to you are not in a blog article, but in my response to the SBTS statement.  If this is what you are responding to, why only respond to small, selective bits of it, and not answer the literally dozens of direct questions asked of you?
     Next, Dr. Seifrid, the term “nuance” simply cannot be stretched to cover this apparent contradiction in your statements.  I do not regard the Apostles Creed as deficient.  I simply do not consider it comprehensive.  Are we seriously to believe that immediately upon the heels of writing “Protestant divines inadvertently bruised the nerve which runs between justification and obedience” when they “added the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the forgiveness of sins” (COR, p. 175) that the sentence “It is not so much wrong to use the expression ‘the imputed righteousness of Christ’ as it is deficient” is meant to actually convey “the phrase is accurate, perspicuous, clear, and I confess its truthfulness with my whole heart and teach it and make it part of my regular profession, but it is not a comprehensive statement of the entire Christian faith”?  Do you not say, in the same paragraph, “It is better to say with Paul that our righteousness is found, not in us, but in Christ crucified and risen”?  Does not the phrase “our righteousness is found, not in us” refer to the idea of imputation, which you identified as an addition and as a deficient means of expressing the work of God in Christ?  Aren’t these the plain meanings of your words? If you are not referring to an imputed righteousness, in the very language of Calvin or Boyce, then what are you talking about?  And if you are, then are you not saying there is a better way to speak?  And doesn’t that tell us what “deficient” means here? 
     Of course, I would disagree with the false dichotomy you introduce here anyway.  Just because it is Christ’s righteousness that is imputed to me does not mean that as a result it ceases to be His, it ceases to be related to my union with Him, or it becomes somehow spatially or logically “centered” in the sinner rather than in the Savior to whom the sinner is savingly united as his or her Substitute.  I simply see no reason to embrace your reading of “later Protestant orthodoxy.”
     You continued,

We must go a step further: all our confessional statements are deficient in one way or another, we simply do not see all these deficiencies here and now. “We know in part and prophesy in part, when the perfect comes the partial will pass away” (1 Cor 13:9-10). Those who read this verse differently may turn to 1 Cor 8:2, “If someone supposes that he knows something, that one has not yet known as it is necessary to know.” Only at the eschaton shall we know God fully. I do not know what it means to submit to the authority of Scripture, unless we affirm the provisional and partial nature of our confessions. They are “norms which are normed.” The Scripture alone is “the norm which norms all things.” Note well: I am not at all suggesting that we jettison our confessions and naively attempt to use “the Bible alone” as a summary of our faith. But I am insisting that the Bible stands above all confessions in the purity and fullness of the truth it teaches. It speaks to human questions, difficulties, errors and unbelief in a way that a confession never could. It imparts life. Our times and places require us to continuing theological reflection, which can properly take place only as we listen to the Scriptures.

One of the advantages, Dr. Seifrid, that I seem to have in this situation is that I have read your work, but you have not read mine.  I have defended sola scriptura and the supremacy of biblical authority in debate many times and in many of my books.  My most recent book, Scripture Alone (Bethany House, 2004), is focused on this very issue.  So I find it odd that you would include this paragraph in your response unless it is your suggestion that the confessions produced by “later Protestant orthodoxy,” and in particular, those that speak directly to the imputed righteousness of Christ, His active and passive obedience being included in that perfect righteousness upon which the elect rest and trust should be “reflected upon” in some fashion, perhaps, to remove the deficiency in their phraseology?  Are you saying that while you confessionally believe in the imputed righteousness of Christ, that it is part of that which we really can’t be sure of now, that it is “partial” and “provisional”? 

Both Robert Gundry and John Piper have recognized that Piper’s association of my name with Tom Wright and others was a misleading mistake. Gundry, I believe, has corrected this mistake in print. I’m sure Piper would be willing to correct his rather innocuous association of me with the various names in his single footnote. Neither one of them charges me with doctrinal error.

So, is it your assertion that it is incorrect to quote you as Gundry quoted the very same page I have cited (COR 175) in the Husbands/Treier work?  Was not the context of the Gundry citations, repeated in Piper, regarding the very matter of imputation, not the matter of New Perspectivism?  I have seen Piper criticized along those lines, but I have felt it was unfair given the fact that the context was imputation, not New Perspectivism.  Everyone knows you criticize the basic, foundational assumptions that define NPism, and that rather well on particular issues.  That has not ever been an issue.  The fact of the matter is, however, that many who have reviewed COR have likewise hit chapter seven, and especially pages 173-175, and come to a screeching halt and said, “Wait a minute, didn’t he just give away the store on one of the key issues evangelicals react to in Wright, specifically, imputation?” 
     You wrote,

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.

That is self-evidently true, of course.  No one has suggested Boyce was infallible, and no one has suggested that every teacher at Southern is to be a clone of Boyce.  However, it is rather obvious that you do not agree with Boyce on this issue; at the very least (nuancing this as much as possible) your set of emphases differs substantially from his, and your vocabulary is likewise different; and it is Boyce’s hand that lies behind the meaning of the Abstract when it speaks of justification, is it not?  Is that not all I have ever suggested?  No one has once suggested they would dare take up the defense of the idea that what James Boyce meant in his Abstract of Systematic Theology regarding justification and especially imputation (cited previously) is what Mark Seifrid is teaching in his classes today.  As I said, Boyce’s view was “significantly fuller” than your own (since he did not make justification and forgiveness equivalent phrases).  But in reference to your disagreements with him, would they not include his definition of, and explanation of, the imputed righteousness of Christ, as cited above? 

Dr White notes that he is the only person in the four years since my little book, Christ, Our Righteousness has been published who has found serious theological fault with it. He might reflect on the significance of his own observation.

Of course, I have never suggested any such thing, nor ever written any such thing.  Now that I have been able to locate the material you are responding to (which did not appear on my blog, but is, in fact, my response to the SBTS statement), I am left simply shocked at not only how shallow this response is, but its utter inaccuracy as well, and that in light of my own effort to accurately handle your own writings, Dr. Seifrid!  I think the reader will find the source of your statement most interesting:

So I am a “late comer.”  Has Southern produced statements correcting Robert Gundry or John Piper?  If not, why not?  Such seems a relevant question.  It would seem significantly more relevant when Dr. Gundry or Dr. Piper put these statements in nationally published works than when I comment upon these passages in brief articles on an apologetics blog on the Internet.  Is it possible the staff and leadership of Southern Seminary were unaware of the citations in Gundry and Piper?  Has Dr. Seifrid repudiated Gundry's identification of him as joining with Wright, Dunn, and others, in lacking a belief in imputation, especially in light of his assertions found in this statement from Southern Seminary? 

Dr. Seifrid, how can anyone possibly read that paragraph and come up with your statement?  I honestly confess I cannot begin to figure it out.  You take a perfectly meaningful paragraph, filled with relevant questions, and manage to avoid the entirety of what is said only to produce a back-handed slap at me personally?  Please, sir, at least make an attempt at providing a scholarly, fair response! 

Regarding the remaining questions which Dr White raises: I stand by what I have written. I will be happy to reconsider any or all of my statements if “convinced by reason and Scripture,” but I have not found cause for doing so up to this moment. I cannot here reproduce everything I have said in print, or discuss it in detail. For the sake of clarity, however, let me underscore a few basic points.

I have found your repeated reference to Luther before the Diet of Worms rather ironic, Dr. Seifrid.  Do you truly believe yourself standing against the “power of the Empire” and the modern equivalent of Charles, goaded on by the representatives of the Papal court?  So far, I have simply sought to bring about an honest evaluation of your published statements regarding a key element of Christian theology.  Your responses have been personal, have avoided the key issues, and have failed any meaningful standard of accuracy in even handling the small portion of written material I have provided.  The great irony is that from the start I have simply sought to safeguard the truth of the imputed righteousness of Christ as it was so clearly proclaimed not only by Calvin, but by the founders of Southern Seminary.  I personally find it hard to find the parallel to Luther’s confession before Charles at Worms.
     Over the course of the next week I will be traveling, so I will not be able to complete my open letter until I return. 

10/02/04: Open Letter to Mark Seifrid, Part V

Dear Dr. Seifrid:
     I hasten to finish this open letter as I have so many pressing duties, and I’m sure you do as well.  Unless events call for more, I intend this to be my final installment in this “saga,” one that has taught me many lessons, most of which have been surprising, disappointing, to be sure, but in the long run, worthwhile.
     The next section of your response illustrates, rather fully, the problems inherent in being overly “nuanced” in your statements.  If we were to read 4.5.1 by itself, it would seem to set all minds at ease…until we read what comes immediately thereafter.  I quote at length:

4.5.1. I have never rejected the truthfulness of the affirmation that Christ’s righteousness is imputed by God to those who believe. If someone insists on the distinction between forgiveness and positive imputation, or that between Christ’s active and passive obedience, I will happily affirm the imputation of the whole of Christ’s righteousness in all its distinctions to the believer.

4.5.2. 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 have other ways of speaking about justification. The apostle Paul in particular speaks about salvation first in terms of Christ and God’s work in him, not in the first instance in terms of the individual believer and how salvation comes to that one. Many Protestant schemes of salvation are inadvertently anthropocentric.

     This observation should not lead us to reject an affirmation of “imputation” outright, as Robert Gundry has done. But it certainly should lead us back into the Scriptures, to hear them again. It is not irrelevant to mention that long before current debates others have complained about the way in which Protestant formulations of justification confuse the laity as they turn to the Scriptures. To my thinking, the founders of Southern Seminary exercised great wisdom in summarizing the doctrine of justification in terms which are understandable to the average Baptist in the pew, while losing nothing of what is meant by speaking of “Christ’s righteousness being imputed to us.”

4.5.3. It is also necessary to recognize that the language of “the imputation of Christ’s righteousness” came into prominence only in the 1550’s as Protestants debated with Andreas Osiander, who argued that is the indwelling divine presence of Christ which justifies. Naturally, the formula of “imputation” served equally well in defining Protestant views over against Roman Catholicism. It represents a partial summary of what the Scriptures teach from a certain perspective, and has its primary function in these debates. It is less able to bridge the gap to Christian living.

In some ways, Dr. Seifrid, I think you went farther in your reply on the key issues between us than you did in COR in 2000.  In a sense we can at least understand more fully what you stated in the SBTS statement.  You write,

If someone insists on the distinction between forgiveness and positive imputation, or that between Christ’s active and passive obedience, I will happily affirm the imputation of the whole of Christ’s righteousness in all its distinctions to the believer.

Given all you’ve said, obviously, you believe the distinction “insisted upon” here is unbiblical and the product of a later Protestant orthodoxy, resulting, you believe, in the bruising of the “nerve” that leads from justification to obedience (reflected above in the phrase “It is less able to bridge the gap to Christian living”).  Likewise, this would seemingly indicate that you did, in fact, mean to say that the distinction between the active and passive obedience of Christ was “unnecessary and misleading” for you place it in the same category here of what someone other than yourself would “insist” upon.  But when you say you will “happily” affirm imputation in this fashion, are you truly speaking in the same language as, say, the LBCF or WCF or Boyce or Warfield?  The two paragraphs of nuanced qualifications you add to this single sentence confession would seem to indicate otherwise.  You begin,

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.”

These are self-evidently true statements.  Of course, when one is defending one’s confession of the Trinity it is somewhat odd to include as part of one’s confession “While this formulation represents significant aspects of biblical truth, it is a synthesis.  Nowhere in Scripture does one find the explicit statement of the doctrine of the Trinity.”  I point this out simply because for those of us who are less nuanced, saying “I believe in the imputation of the righteousness of Christ” means something considerably more than “I believe that in a very limited context this sub-biblical terminology developed by later Protestant orthodoxy had a place in the historical dialogue, but it is dangerous and misleading.” 

The Scriptures have other ways of speaking about justification. The apostle Paul in particular speaks about salvation first in terms of Christ and God’s work in him, not in the first instance in terms of the individual believer and how salvation comes to that one. Many Protestant schemes of salvation are inadvertently anthropocentric.

And once again we are brought back to the original reason why your writings prompted this situation: it is one thing to say “This is a biblical and true means of speaking, and there are other ways in which these truths are expressed.”  It is quite another to say, “This is what the confessions of later Protestants say, but the Bible never speaks like this, and in fact, speaks otherwise.”  The two statements are not equivalent.  I believe you introduce a false dichotomy when you seem to imply that the views of Protestant orthodoxy (to which you regularly contrast your own views) speak “first” in terms of the individual believer and how salvation comes to that one over against first speaking of Christ.  The fact that some Protestants might inconsistently lose their bearings because of the constant push of the sinful nature seen in denials of justification (i.e., in response to Rome, for example) does not mean that the centrality of Christ is denied or lost.  But the very examples of Protestant orthodoxy to which you have made repeated reference in contrasting your views are anything but anthropocentric, inadvertently or otherwise.
     You continued,

This observation should not lead us to reject an affirmation of “imputation” outright, as Robert Gundry has done. But it certainly should lead us back into the Scriptures, to hear them again.

Again, I cannot help but point out that if I said, “I believe firmly that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son,” and then wrote a paragraph of qualifications that then led to, “This observation should not lead us to reject the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son outright, as some have done,” the “normal” reader would be forgiven to wonder just a little bit about just how firmly one’s initial profession of faith in that belief should be taken.  Let’s take it at face value that we should not “reject an affirmation of ‘imputation’ outright.”  Is that the same thing as saying “We should confess the imputation of the righteousness of Christ as central to the doctrine of justification and representative of a vital aspect of its truth”?  Or might it be better to take it as, “We should not be enslaved to Protestant orthodoxy’s language, should go back to the Scriptures and understand the topic in a different way than they did immediately after the Reformation, and be willing to correct that which is misleading, unnecessary, and may well lead to the bruising of the nerve that runs from justification to obedience”?  You continued,

It is not irrelevant to mention that long before current debates others have complained about the way in which Protestant formulations of justification confuse the laity as they turn to the Scriptures. To my thinking, the founders of Southern Seminary exercised great wisdom in summarizing the doctrine of justification in terms which are understandable to the average Baptist in the pew, while losing nothing of what is meant by speaking of “Christ’s righteousness being imputed to us.”

I do not know who you are referring to when you speak of these “others.”  I honestly cannot think of any aspect of theology that could not be plugged into the sentence, “Long before current debates others have complained about the way in which Protestant formulations of doctrine X confuse the laity as they turn to the Scriptures.”  Surely that can be said of any aspect of Trinitarian theology, for example; and I hear that kind of complaint constantly about every aspect of soteriology, especially Reformed soteriology and its emphasis upon transcendent truths, eternal verities that challenge the mind to go far beyond what may be “comfortable” for most.  But in this context it would seem to be your point that “Protestant formulations” would include the concept of imputation, and hence that this concept may be difficult for the laity to understand.  There are two aspects of your last sentence that must be observed.  First, how do we know what is “meant” by the phrase “Christ’s righteousness being imputed to us” outside of examining the beliefs of those who wrote the confessions to which we make reference?  And is it not clear what Boyce and the other founders of Southern Seminary meant, and that what they meant is the very “Protestant formulations” that you here indicate may well be confusing to the “average Baptist in the pew”?  Secondly, are you seriously suggesting that the formulation found in The Abstract of Principles is to be seen as a purposefully simplified and less explicit statement of the theology found in Boyce’s fuller writings, so that the assertion being made is that there was a purposeful non-inclusion of the very theology Boyce propounded as definitional of justification so as to avoid confusing laypeople and provide a wider latitude of belief?  Is there any historical basis for such a conclusion?  Or would one be much better off concluding that the proper context for interpreting the meaning of the Abstract is the fuller expression in Boyce and the other founding professors?
     You continued,

It is also necessary to recognize that the language of “the imputation of Christ’s righteousness” came into prominence only in the 1550’s as Protestants debated with Andreas Osiander, who argued that is the indwelling divine presence of Christ which justifies.

And yet we saw Calvin (quoted earlier) using the term just as we are using it today.  So why make reference to this, outside of making room for a less robust view of imputation as confessionally proper within “Reformed” theology?

Naturally, the formula of “imputation” served equally well in defining Protestant views over against Roman Catholicism. It represents a partial summary of what the Scriptures teach from a certain perspective, and has its primary function in these debates. It is less able to bridge the gap to Christian living.

Yes, the “formula” of “imputation” served well, and given the continuing presence of Roman Catholic teachings on justification, it continues to serve well for the simple fact that it is true.  It is hard to avoid hearing the implication that this was a “formula” that derived its existence and utility from a pragmatic application, however, especially in light of the preceding statement that one can still “get” what was “meant” by that phrase, evidently by following your own suggested understanding rather than that of Protestant orthodoxy. 
     But few lines cited at all in this entire discussion more fully explain, and vindicate, my concern, than what follows.  I apologize to all who think and write with far more nuance than I, but it is very, very difficult for me to see how one can say “I believe in the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to believers” and then turn around and within a matter of sentences say that this belief represents merely “a partial summary” of the Scriptural teaching and that only from a “certain perspective” (evidently, in context, the perspective of conflict with Rome or Osiander) and then having its “primary function” only within the context of “these debates.”  Again, if I were to say “I confess, wholeheartedly, the doctrine of the Trinity” but I then went on to make this kind of qualification, saying the Trinity is but a “partial summary” of the actual biblical teaching, and that it represents truth “from a certain perspective,” and is useful only within the context of particular “debates,” and that it can be “misleading,” etc., would not the average reader have perfectly solid ground upon which to question the validity of my initial confession?  There are some situations, I truly believe, where “nuance” when it comes to confession is simply not allowable.  Let your yes be yes and your no be no.  I stand with Boyce in confessing:

Christ stood also as the representative of his people and their sins were imputed to him and he was treated as though personally a sinner.  Likewise his righteousness is imputed to them, and they are treated as though personally righteous.

Without emendation, qualification, and nuance, what say you, sir?
     Finally, in response to this section, I “hear” your concern for the ability of the views of Protestant orthodoxy to “bridge the gap to Christian living.”  But I strongly insist that the very foundation of proper Christian living is first and foremost recognizing the reality of the truth this doctrine embodies.  We have peace with God as a present possession, having been justified by faith.  He became sin in our place that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.  We cannot add to that perfect work, and because of that, our actions can never be tinged with self-righteousness.  I truly do not believe that we are benefited by calling into question the imputation of Christ’s righteousness in the area of Christian living.

Excursus: At least if we follow the analysis of Albrecht Ritschl (McGrath in his survey does not touch on it), it was also Osiander who was the first to assign differing roles to Christ’s active and passive righteousness. Those who interacted with Osiander, took up these distinctions while rejecting his central thesis. Both Luther and Calvin speak of the active and passive of obedience of Christ, but they treat them (rightly, I think) as two sides of the same coin, rather than assigning them different functions.

This paragraph seems to provide the proper context for your statement on page 175 of COR where you refer to “the further distinction which some Protestants made between the imputation of Christ’s active righteousness…and his passive obedience” as “unnecessary and misleading.”  While I embrace the terminology, I do not see why the recognition of the distinctions means they cannot be seen as two sides of the same coin.  But since no elaboration is provided, one cannot pursue the discussion.

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.

I hasten toward the conclusion of your statement, as I have raised more than sufficient issues above to justify the initial response to your comments in COR.  Might I suggest with all due respect that holding a Lutheran view of justification while claiming fidelity to a Southern Baptist statement of faith may explain some of the problem here?  It seems you wish to remove from the Abstract its historical context and clarity of definition so as to make it allow for a Lutheran view (as you interpret it) of justification.  Might this be a rather simple way of viewing what has taken place here?  Secondly, I am not the only person who has found your second cited sentence difficult to understand.  If he does not speak of it, then he could not do so very rarely.  If I say to my wife, “I will never cheat on you, dear, but if I do, it will only be very rarely!” should I expect her to take much heart in my statement?  I would normally pass over such a statement, but those who caught it would never forgive me for so doing.

He speaks instead of God imputing righteousness to us because Christ is present in our hearts by faith. He speaks, too, of God’s declaration that we are righteous as an effective word, which makes us new creatures. The 1535 Galatians commentary is full of such language. Luther rightly borrows the imagery of Eph 5 (the marriage of the soul to Christ by faith) or of John 15 (the vine and the branches) to speak about how the righteousness which properly belongs to Christ and remains his nevertheless is made ours by faith. Our righteousness remains outside us, our works, our piety, our wisdom--it remains in him and is ours only as we cling to him.

All of this is fine, but I can hear the chorus of many of us “Protestant orthodox” who say, “And how is it that what we believe denies any of the truth that Christ’s righteousness is always His and not, by nature, ours?  Isn’t that what an alien righteousness is all about?

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.

And may I be the first to say that to represent the view of Boyce or Protestant orthodoxy or the LBCF or Westminster, etc., as if it supported and promoted “cheap grace” by presenting the imputation of Christ’s righteousness as “a sort of immeasurable bank account at our disposal at which we may draw at will” is a gross, unfair, untenable, indefensible caricature?  I have heard the accusation before, on the part of Roman Catholic apologists.  I could understand how those in that context could so completely misunderstand the wondrous truth of imputation so as to create such an unrecognizable caricature of it, but I must confess, Dr. Seifrid, I see no reason why you would fall into the same trap. 

Faith is not some latent power within us.  As God’s work in us, it is always in action: our justification is found in our grasping Christ here and now, in whatever state we find ourselves. That means here and now confessing the justness of God in his pronouncement that we are sinners, whether we feel it at the moment or not. It also means gladly and freely grasping God as our justifier in Jesus Christ and his work alone.

And it likewise includes the self-righteousness killing, works-salvation destroying truth that God is just in not bringing His wrath upon us because our substitute has borne our sins, imputed to Him, and we have peace with God because His righteousness is imputed to us.  And all this conversation has been about whether that truth is merely a later “addition” or if it is, in fact, part and parcel of the biblical message itself.  And I believe your response has clarified that to a great degree, for those who have worked to follow the discussion.

Is this understanding, which I have undergirded biblically elsewhere, a great theological error?  Do we really want to say that Martin Luther (and with him in considerable measure Calvin) were not Reformational because they did not speak in the way that later Protestants did? I find it hard  to think so.

I.e., you admit that in fact you do not speak as “later Protestants,” including Boyce?  Is that not exactly the conclusion we are driven to after all?  Is it not your belief that the practice of “biblical theology” (as you put it above, “hearing” the Scriptures again) would remove this “addition” so as to give greater clarity in the current context?

Whatever our differences in the particulars, Dr White and I ought to rejoice in our common faith in Christ and embrace one another, just as we shall do one day before Christ’s throne.

In closing, Dr. Seifrid, I repeat what I have said from the start.  This is not about you.  It is not about me.  It is far more important than either of us, and will remain that way long after both of us have passed from the scene.  And despite the personal statements you have directed my way, I want you to know that though you do not seem to believe it possible, my intentions and purposes have been utterly non-personal from the start.  I do not wish you ill in any fashion, and though you have directed people to men who do wish me ill in the strongest way, I do not hold it against you (you could not possibly know their true intentions or character).  I submit this issue not to our readers, but to the Lord who knows the thoughts and intentions of every heart.  May He grant to His people a clear knowledge of His truth in this most troubling time.