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 3rd. 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.
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
