Archive for category: General Apologetics

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

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

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

“In conclusion, James White’s campaign against Mark Seifrid should be seen for what it is–a publicity stunt which serves to get himself attention.” Before God I affirm this statement false, a lie without basis or foundation, refuted by the facts, known not only to God, but to any person with the slightest shred of fairness in their mind who has

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

In the course of seeking to honor God through the accurate handling of His truth and through the defense of the faith, one at times steps on toes you didn’t even know were exposed. Such is the case of late. I began a short series of articles replying to just a few pages of Mark Seifrid’s book, Christ, our Righteousness,

Yeah, he’s done it again. Having never repented of his false prophesying about 1994, and continuing his church-hating, Christ-dishonoring “church age has ended” blather (based upon the same kind of completely ridiculous manhandling of the text of Scripture), Camping has now “seen” in Scripture a new date for the end of it all: 2011. I had heard about this a

I doubt he’d recognize me today. I was barely twenty years of age when I began a series of appearances on KFYI radio in Phoenix on the radio program of one Tom Leykis, one of today’s best known “shock jocks.” I was “debating” in studio with one Dan Barker of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Barker is a genius, inarguably:

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

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

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

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

Al Mohler has commented on an amazing example of the hatred of the world for the “God who is there.” Check it out.

I’m off to the Apologetics Conference in Middletown, PA (click here). Lord willing, back on Monday.

Lots of resources noted in this hour long discussion.

Want to test to see if your friendly neighborhood Arminian (a very common species of Christianus Evangelicus) has the Glasses of Libertarian Tradition firmly glued upon his or her face when reading the Scriptures? John 8:47 provides an excellent detection device: “He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because

OK, I’m getting the message loud and clear: massive confusion over-load in blog land. Perhaps this isn’t even the medium in which to attempt to address these things, I don’t know. In talking with folks in channel and in person I am coming to the conclusion that I am obviously incapable of expressing point #1 on the topic of the

I’ve been hitting a lot of topics quickly this weekend, but one needs to stay “current” through Monday (when a lot of folks catch up on the blog). That is the Phillips, Craig & Dean controversy. If you didn’t see it, here’s the entire article.

It comes up every few years.  Ever since I noted something that had appeared in Charisma magazine regarding the singing group Phillips, Craig, and Dean, namely, that they are ministers in Oneness or non-Trinitarian churches, in the context of writing an article on loving the Trinity, we have received inquiries, and once in a while, disturbingly accusatory correspondence regarding the issue.  It

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

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

Thursday night I spent about 35 to 40 minutes discussing a particular lecture by Tom Wright, bishop of Durham, author extraordinaire. Those who actually listened know that it was sort of a basic introduction, since many are not familiar with Wright and his books. I mean, I sat here and just went through some major titles from the past decade

by Benjamin B. Warfield (1851-1921)   The following short essay was originally published in the The Christian Irishman, Dublin, May 1911, p. 71. The electronic edition of this article was scanned and edited by Shane Rosenthal for Reformation Ink. It is in the public domain and may be freely copied and distributed. Sometimes we are told that Justification by Faith

These “interlopers” Paul roundly condemns as “sham-Christians,” that is, persons who called themselves and were probably regarded by others as Christians but whose conduct in fact falsified their claim to be Christian….It thus emerges that the interlopers were sham-Christians precisely because they had not really grasped the fundamental principle of the gospel—justification by faith apart from works of the law.

  But the LORD is the true God; He is the living God and the everlasting King. At His wrath the earth quakes, And the nations cannot endure His indignation. Thus you shall say to them, “The gods that did not make the heavens and the earth will perish from the earth and from under the heavens.” (Jeremiah 10:10-11)