I have said (many times of late) that I hate politics. The truth of the gospel is not a football to be used in political maneuvering. Unlike what many seem to wish to assume, I address what I address on this blog (outside of the rare humorous articles) for the betterment of the church of Jesus Christ, to the glory of God. Sound hokey? Corny? Well, it may, but that is our motivation. It never crossed my mind, for example, in reviewing a few pages in a published work in reference to the imputation of the righteousness of Christ that people would view my action as having the slightest bit of political motivation or relevance.
Today I saw an e-mail, forwarded to A&O, that troubled me greatly. It was from what I will call the “firebrand” side of things. It seems on one side you have those who wish to just “circle the wagons” and tell that mean apologist guy in Arizona to stop talking about important things regarding the gospel (Robert Gundry does say belief in the imputed righteousness of Christ is “pass” anyway, right?) but on the other side you have the “firebrands” who are just as political but who are out for blood. I am just as amazed at the one side as I am the other. I see people on the firebrand side misrepresenting me just as badly as the other side, even while professing to agree with what I’ve had to say. If someone has a personal beef with someone at Southern, leave me out of it. Don’t use my writings as a bat with which to flail away at the “other side.” Let me be perfectly clear: I would have addressed Dr. Seifrid’s assertions in the context I did whether he taught at Southern, Golden Gate, Westminster, or Trinity. In other words, the other stuff is extraneous and was not, and is not, a matter of concern to me. I did not look at Christ, our Righteousness and go, “Oh, cool, an issue I can raise with Southern.” Such was the farthest thought from my mind. Instead, I saw a book identifying my faith as unbiblical, my doctrinal understanding as deficient, the belief I have defended in debate as an unnecessary addition—understandable—but misleading. And I replied, nothing more.
So, if you are rubbing your hands in glee over some “controversy” erupting, stop it. Please do not promulgate, falsely, the idea of some inter-personal controversy that simply does not exist (at least on my part!). I intend to stand firmly on the issue of the published statements of Mark Seifrid, not on the personality of James White, Mark Seifrid, or anyone else. I repeat, the persons involved are irrelevant, the truth under discussion is vital.
Update 12/30/2014: This review eventually became a major series of posts. For those interested in reading the entire series in order I post the links below. RP
Dr. Seifrid on Imputation July 9, 2004
More in Response to Southern Seminary Professor’s Denial of Imputed Righteousness July 9, 2004
Continuing Review of Mark Seifrid’s Views on the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness July 11, 2004
An Interesting Expansion in the LBCF, 1689 July 27, 2004
The Abstract of Principles on Justification July 30, 2004
The Imputation Controversy August 25, 2004
Imputation Controversy #2 August 26, 2004
Why I Care About “Christ, our Righteousness” August 28, 2004
Imputation Controversy #3 August 30, 2004
Southern Seminary and Dr. Mark Seifrid September 4, 2004
A Response to Southern Seminary and Dr. Mark Seifrid September 4, 2004
Listen to Today’s DL for a Full Discussion of the SBTS/Seifrid/Imputation Issue September 7, 2004
From the 1994 WTJ September 7, 2004
A Word of Rebuke to the Firebrands September 8, 2004
And Verily It Got Nuttier September 11, 2004
Yes, I Have a Copy, Thank You September 13, 2004
An Open Letter to Dr. Mark Seifrid (Part 1) September 14, 2004
Seifrid Response, Part II September 15, 2004
Seifrid Response, Part III September 18, 2004
Open Letter to Mark Seifrid, Part IV September 21, 2004
Open Letter to Mark Seifrid, Part V October 2, 2004
If I Misrepresented Dr. Seifrid, then…. December 3, 2004
