The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Extremely sad to hear this!!!!

http://www.aomin.org/

James White's blog today talks about how Dr. Mark Seifrid, a Southern Seminary professor, has denied the fundamental Protestant doctrine of imputed righteousness.

I've noted several things about this:

1. I'd read about Seifrid's views about a couple of weeks ago when I was searching for Dr. Tom Schreiner's (another SBTS professor) views on justification. Schreiner's views are confusing, and he goes back and forth on them. I had been oblivious to these facts beforehand.

2. Why is it taking so long for this to be commented on? Why, for four years, was this tolerated? Maybe it's because the theological books, articles, and sound-bytes are so abundant.

3. President Mohler says imputed righteousness is incredibly important to our faith as Protestants and Christians. He's preached this to his Sunday School class. I am praying that this was a major oversight on the part of Dr. Mohler, and that Dr. Seifrid should be brought before the appropriate people in his church (not sure which one it is- the one he used to go to has been split horribly ov3er something I can't seem to find out) as well as the appropriate people at the seminary.

4. Apparently he was supposed to have written an article in 2001 in the Southern Baptist Journal of Theology that DEFENDED justification by faith. I will go back to the library tomorrow to look at the article.

White's http://aomin.org/dividingline.html broadcast explains it.

I'm preparing for a possible firestorm here at the Seminary. Of course, if there isn't a big firestorm over this, I don't know what I'll do.

Its seems we live in very confusing times. Another Seminary, (I read on another board) has fired (another) professor because he attends a church that has elders.

Makes one wonder--the doctrine of elders in a church is nothing when compared to the importance of the doctrine of justification.

AMEN!

For all of James White's comments on Seifrid's book, click here.

For the SBTS/Seifrid response to White, see this page.

For White's wonderful response to the SBTS statement, go here.

This entire affair brings back vivid but painful memories of what I saw at WTS (Philadelphia) back in the late '70s in regard to Norman Shepherd and how the Board and Faculty of that seminary handled the situation. From reading all the material you have provided in those links, it would appear to me that there should be a real concern for those in authority of Southern. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" /> And perhaps even more so, there should be a real concern for the students who might have the misfortune to sit under the teaching of Mark Seifrid and/or read his books and consequently find themselves questioning the biblical, confessional, traditional teaching on the doctrine of justification.

As of late, it seems that obscurity, vagueness and contradiction are seen as hallmarks of scholarship and acceptable. Although these things may be expected from those who are uneducated, rank novices, etc., and when they are pointed out, corrected with clarifications. But to see this type of communication, both written and verbal coming from those esteemed as "scholars, academicians, professors, etc.", it is disheartening and should send forth a warning to all that a black cloud is approaching on the horizon and it will possibly cover the earth and obscure the truth of God in Christ as it has been known and delivered once for all unto the saints.

In His Grace,

Funny you should post this; it is what I was thinking. It has happened before and can happen again! All the more reason to guard the gospel once delivered to the saints and teach it to our children! Sadly, most kids today from Christian families are not being catechised and do not know much, if anything, about the historical context of the Protestant Reformation and it's incredible impact upon the world.

James White had a wonderful Dividing Line today on this issue.

http://aomin.org/dividingline.html

I truly hope and pray that Southern responds to this in a way that deals with White's actual concerns. I pray along with White that it is not politics but a concern for the clarity of the Gospel that is the seminary's motive.

On today's blog, Dr. White posted that he'd received a 3.5 page response from Seifrid. Also, Seifrid somehow saw it fit to make use of the comments of Paul Owen, a "reformed Catholic" notorious for making rash remarks.

White is being attacked personally, when all he did was to comment on a book and bring up concerns that need to be dealt with if we are going to strive for doctrinal purity.

I also say a comment by the moderator of the Baptists Discussing Reformation board that this may cause Founder's Ministries to become less involved in Southern, since Founder's supports White.

Praise God!

I grew up in the Church of the Brethren where for some reason, we were not taught the history of the reformation prior to the founding of the Dunkard movement. I left the Church of the Brethren, but if I had a soapbox there, I would proclaim the doctrine of imputed righteousness from the rooftops.
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />
The fact that righteousness cannot be earned or bought by price and our puny deeds should be a very foundational issue; a foundation stone that cannot be lightly moved and triffled with.

Oh, the blessing of knowing that we can be blessed along with righteous Abraham, who simply believed God at face value and received the deposit of righteousness into his empty "bank account".

Rom 4:22,23 Rom 4:3 Gal 3:6 and even James (2:23) attest to this basic, immutable truth.

Praise our wonderful, great and gracious heavenly Father!

Would be nice if all Liberals would leave and form their own denomination.