Professor F.H. Kerfoot: A New Day for Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Dr. Franklin Howard Kerfoot (1847-1901) though not a name widely recognized in Baptist circles today was, during the late 19th century, a formidable leader among Southern Baptists.  He served as pastor, denominational leader and seminary professor  >>>

Dr. Kerfoot was born a Virginian but died a Georgian.  After serving in the Confederate Army for a short period, he enrolled in Columbian College in Washington D.C. and excelled in his studies such that, in only three years,  he received his M.S. and  L.L.B. which normally took six.

Afterward, Kerfoot spent a year in Greenville, SC studying theology under the legendary James P. Boyce.  Dr. Boyce immediately saw the impressive intellect of this young man and developed a relationship that lasted the rest of their lives.

Unfortunately, due to failing health, Kerfoot's studies came to a premature halt, having to take an entire year off for recuperation.  For reasons unknown, Kerfoot later enrolled in Crozer Seminary in 1871 and graduated at the end of one session. 

All this time, Dr. Kerfoot kept up his relationship with Dr. Boyce and spent the next few years traveling in the Southwest urging young aspiring Pastors to consider Southern Baptist Theological Seminary to further their training for ministry.

In 1874, Kerfoot studied overseas at the prestigious University of Leipzig, one of the oldest universities in Germany, issuing degrees in advanced studies for over seven hundred years.  Upon returning to the states, perhaps to the surprise to many, Dr. Kerfoot entered the pastorate rather than the professorship.

Ordained to Gospel ministry in Midland, KY,  Dr. Kerfoot pastored several churches, one of which was the Strong Place Baptist Church in Brooklyn, NY (1883-1886).  Once again, in God’s providence, Dr. Kerfoot prematurely had to resign a position:  a platform fell upon which Dr. Kerfoot was seated and, due to injury, he had to say good-bye to his Church as Pastor.

During his healing, Dr. Kerfoot decided to head south to Kentucky and study at Southern Seminary.  After one session, Dr. Boyce immediately saw Kerfoot did not need to be taught, he needed to teach.  Therefore, Dr. Kerfoot was asked to consider a co-professorship along side President Boyce. 

This proved once again to see God’s hand moving in it all.  Professor Boyce died only a few years later and Dr. Kerfoot succeeded him in the Chair of Systematic Theology, an honor he would hold as the threshold of the new century was dawning upon them.  In 1899, Dr. Kerfoot retired from the Professorship and spent the remaining few years serving the Home Mission Board in Atlanta, GA.

This man surely stands as a little-known giant among Southern Baptists today.  Though not writing as actively as we would have hoped, he did pen a work on parliamentary procedures entitled “Parliamentary Law” (1897) and also revised his friend and mentor‘s, James P. Boyce,  “Abstracts of Systematic Theology” (1899). 

One theological characteristic that appeared to distinguish Dr. Kerfoot’s theology from Dr. Boyce's was his apparent commitment to a softer version of historic Calvinism whose waning influence Southern Baptist Theological Seminary was already experiencing with the passing of Dr. Boyce. 

One bit of evidence that appears demonstrative of the milder Calvinism Dr. Kerfoot seemed to embrace stems back from his days as local Church pastor.  As mentioned earlier, Dr. Kerfoot served as Pastor at Strong Place Baptist Church in Brooklyn, NY, 1883 to 1886. 

While his tenure there was not considered long, especially by today's standards, Dr. Kerfoot left indelible marks on that fellowship, not the least of which was assisting them to publish a Confession of Faith in 1884.

Historically, at a time when the rigorously, Calvinistic 1742 Philadelphia Confession of Faith seemed still very influential, the more recent New Hampshire Confession of Faith (1833) had replaced the earlier Philadelphia Confession in popularity and influence.  Distinct to The New Hampshire Confession was, in the words of renowned Baptist historian, William Lumpkin, a Confession "[seeking] to restate its Calvinism in very moderate tones." (p.360). 

Nevertheless, Dr. Kerfoot overlooked both Philadelphia and New Hampshire to lead the Strong Place Baptist Church in writing their own Confession of Faith.  Published in 1884, the Strong Place Baptist Church left us a peek into both the belief and practice of Dr. Kerfoot as he "teased out" academic theology in the local Church setting.

Unlike either the shorter New Hampshire Confession and surely the Philadelphia Confession, with its scholastic version of rigid Calvinism,  The Decalration of Faith for Strong Place Church is a mere ten articles in number and a highly condensed model of Church Confession. 

The articles deal with God, salvation, church, ordinances and eschatology.  Most interesting for purposes here, is Article IV which is reproduced (with proof-texts) below.  It's subject is Election.  It reads:

That all who truly obey the Gospel "were chosen in CHRIST before the foundation of the world," by Him who sees "the end from the beginning;"  that in consequence not of their own merit, but of God's own purpose and grace, they are regenerated by the Holy Spirit, without whose influence none would ever repent and believe, as it is the duty of every one immediately to do."  (all emphasis original, See Ephesians 1.4; Isaiah 46.10; John 3.6-8; 1.12-13; 1 Peter 1.2; John 16.9; 3.18-19; Acts 17.30; Revelation 22.17).

What's fascinating about this article on Election that, surely without doubt, Dr. Kerfoot either penned himself or had a major influence in writing, is the obviously less than rigid Calvinistic flavor it seems to possess.  And lest someone thinks I'm slanting the interpretation toward my nonCalvinist assumptions, I actually asked two self-identifying Arminian theologians to comment on this article of faith, one of which I asked (and received) permission to quote. 

Below is the email I sent to Dr. Roger Olson whom I have interviewed before:

Dr. Olson,

Hope you are well. I have a question for you as an Arminian believer. I am putting together a post on early American Baptist theologian, F.H. Kerfoot. As you are aware, he succeeded Boyce as [sic] SBTS as Professor of Theology.

Prior to being Professor, he was Pastor at Strong Place Baptist Church in Brooklyn for 3 years (1883-1886). The Articles for the Church are interesting, one of which is listed below along with the proof texts...Here is the simple question, Dr. Olson: as an Arminian, would you possess reservations in embracing this statement?

 

To Which Professor Olson replied and of which I received written permission from Dr. Olson to use:

"Any good Arminian could heartily affirm that statement.
Roger"

Dr. Kerfoot was indeed a Calvinist.  But he surely was not the type of Calvinist we find in many Southern Baptist Churches today.  Nor does he seem to fit the Calvinism of our Founders' brothers in particular. In fact, indicative from the Declaration of Faith he influenced at Strong Place Church, the popular "doctrines of grace" so prominent today in Southern Baptist Calvinist circles apparently were not even on the radar.

In addition, nonCalvinists such as myself can fully embrace every word of the confession from Dr. Kerfoot's church.  Even those who identify as Arminian believers can embrace it without reservation!   

Kerfoot demanded no commitment to confessional five point Calvinism and, fortunately for Southern Baptists, he slowly steered our theology toward a warmer, less pronounced but more evangelical Calvinism, leaving the old, rigid Philadelphia Confession to an era of our historic past. 

Understand:  Philadelphia-Charleston Calvinism was what many Southern Baptists embraced in our history.  That we must not and cannot deny.  But, at least in some significant ways, we must attribute to the theological vision of Professor F.H. Kerfoot, Chair of Systematic Theology, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY (1889-1899), that rigid, staunch Calvinism is not what Southern Baptists became.

With that, I am...

Peter

Sources:
"Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists"
"Church Manual, Articles of Faith & Church Covenant of the Strong Place Baptist Church", Brooklyn, 1884
"Baptist Confessions of Faith," William Lumpkin

Comments

[Michael Westmoreland-White]

It was thanks to Kerfoot's modifications of Boyce's Abstract that E. Y. Mullins was able to use the latter in his classes until he wrote his own work, _Christian Religion in its Doctrinal Expression_. Kerfoot, along with other moderating voices like Alvah Hovey of Newton Theological Institute, were transitional voices from scholastic Calvinism to a more experiential-pragmatic form of theology.

BTW, one reason Kerfoot may have switched to Crozer was that it was one of the first Baptist schools that didn't require students to memorize and regurgitate professors' lectures and/or class texts. It used more of an Oxford tutorial method that encouraged individual thought--something Boyce adamantly opposed.

[peter]

Michael,

Thanks for the reflection. In Mueller's history of SBTS, he seems to indicate that Kerfoot and others may have, at least for a short time, cautiously continued Boyce's educational method with reservations. He writes:

"Dr. Kerfoot continued this recitation method as did Dr. Mullins and Dr. Tribble, though in modified form. Those who knew Dr. Carver, perhaps the most original thinker on the faculty of Southern at any time, need no assurance that he thought little of this
method. It reflected an older educational theory of learning which, in Dr. Boyce’s opinion, made for logical accuracy and arrangement of thought."
(History of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1859-1959, p.47).

Thus, surely after Boyce's death a revolutionary new approach took hold.

That's also interesting about Crozer. Do you recall who would have been Chair of Theology there during Kerfoot's studies?

Grace, Michael. With that, I am...

Peter

[Jim]

Thanks for the article, Peter.

I too can affirm Kerfoot's statement above.

You said, "he surely was not the type of Calvinist we find in many Southern Baptist Churches today."

Many? Really? That's news to Lifeway and their research wing.

It does seem that calvinistic views are spreading, but those who hold such views are still a small minority (though perhaps more vocal and greater in # in blogworld).

I think both calvinists and non-calvinists should moderate their tones. Though I disagree with you on some points, I am appreciative of you friendly attitude in discussing these issues.

[peter]

Jim,

Thanks for your comment Jim. Though not all of them are SBC, Founders lists 750+ churches that are "Founders' Friendly," covering every state, if I recall correctly. In addition, if I again recall at least closely, between 8-10% of SBC's 44,000(-)(+)churches, Lifeway estimated were Calvinistic. You may recall more accurately.

Anyways, though I did not make it so clear obviously, I meant my point to be qualitative not quantitative. That is, I believe that of the Calvinists in the SBC, not many of them are LIKE Kerfoot in spirit. One just doesn't meet a Calvinist today that's not EXCITED about his Calvinism :)

Today's Calvinists may even call Kerfoot a Four Point Arminian!

Thanks also for the encouragement, Jim. I agree that we so need more irenic tones and a bit of a sense of humor. I attempt to do so but like others, I possess my share of failures as well.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[volfan007]

peter,

have you read much of john piper? on another blog someone said that he was a seven point calvinist in jest. is he a hyper calvinist?

david

[Michael Westmoreland-White]

I'm not Peter, but I'll have a go at David's Q. It depends on the definition of "hyper-Calvinist." Founders-types want to restrict this term to mean only those Calvinists who were SOOO into double predestination that they refused to evangelize or do mission work. By that def. it's hard to find a real hyper-Calvinist.
Centrist Baptists, Arminians and some others would define hyper-Calvinism more broadly to include those who were scholastic in their approach--the Boyces and Mohlers, etc. This approach sees any human action or human initiative as sinful and it so narrows election to almost deny the universal and radical love of God. Piper would definitely fit there.
I tend to class Calvinists as "hyper" when they cannot echo the prayer of Spurgeon, "O God bring all of your elect to Glory--and then elect some more!"

[volfan007]

amen

[Rella]

Where are all the Calvinist to cry foul over these "Hold on a second but Baptist weren't all Calvinist way back when."

You really, really need to write a book Peter.

[peter]

All,

Sorry i have been away from the desk all day almost. David, Michael's answer is significant, from my perspective. Too many times we allow our Founders brothers to define terms in the dialogue.

"HyperCalvinism" can be used in a sense less than a technical term for a theological position argued against by Spurgeon & Fuller. And, I think Michael's characterization is dead on.

Have a gracious evening. With that, I am...

Peter

[peter]

Rella,

Thank you for your kindness. What needs to be stated over and over again is that while our Founders' family is indeed correct that the SBC in the 19th C had plenty of rigid, strong Calvinists in her ranks, as the years slowly melted away toward the 20th century, Calvinism's influence melted away with them.

In addition, there's a nice plump portion of nonCalvinist influence ripe for the pickin--influence, of course, which finally won the day.

Ultimately, I hope to stockpile a hefty cache of resources that sorta "even things out" a little.

Grace, Rella. With that, I am...

Peter

[Jim]

Friends,

Does calling people "hyper-calvinists" really help... esp. it's non-technical usage? If anyone can use the term for anyone who is more "calvinist" than himself, what purpose does it serve?

Like a "1 pointer" calling a "2 pointer" a hyper-calvinist.

Peter, I think it would be helpful if we could find out the origin of the word... why it came about... to what it referred. That sounds like a good project doesn't it?

[peter]

Jim,

Actually I think it would be. I've thought about it several times, Jim. Perhaps in the not too distant future.

With that, I am...

Peter

[selahV]

Michael: I wondered about your comment: "This approach sees any human action or human initiative as sinful and it so narrows election to almost deny the universal and radical love of God." If that is the way Calvinists see "any human action or human initiative as sinful", wouldn't any action anyone made in any way at any time be sinful? For instance, would a person simply preaching be sinful since a human is doing it?

I really liked the Spurgeon quote: "O God bring all of your elect to Glory--and then elect some more!" I'm with Spurgeon, sorta. selahV

[Bob]

RE: Piper as hyper-calvinist. The comments above seem to throw Piper into a category which is unfair and inaccurate. Though on occasion I do find him overboard, I have read many of his sermons and books, and heard and seen many recorded sermons. He is evangelistic and fervent in his preaching. His participation in the Passion conferences indicates his broader views. He also is very strong supporter of and recruiter for foreign missions.

After hearing the presentations of Paige Patterson and Al Mohler in their "debate" at the SBC Pastors Conference, it is hard to understand why the above comment ["This approach sees any human action or human initiative as sinful"] is linked to Dr. Mohler.

[peter]

Bob,

Thanks for dropping by. I confess I do not know that much about Piper, having read "at" him and not deeply read him. I think perhaps it was Edwards on steroids that may have turned me off :) But what you say about him, others say as well.

I usually remain reluctant to even speak in terms of the "hyperness" of Calvinism for the very reason that has been here demonstrated. It provokes too many objections.

Yet again, being fair to Michael, his words possess more than a hollow sound. I think I may take Jim's advice and do some research on it.

Lord's grace, Bob. With that, I am...

Peter

[Benji Ramsaur]

Michael said "Centrist Baptists, Arminians and some others would define hyper-Calvinism more broadly to include those who were scholastic in their approach--the Boyces and Mohlers, etc."

Now that's interesting.

Well, I wonder what we should now call those "hyper-calvinistic" folk who subscribe to these articles?:

XXIV We believe that the invitations of the Gospel, being spirit and life,* are intended only for those who have been made by the blessed Spirit to feel their lost state as sinners and their need of Christ as their Saviour, and to repent of and forsake their sins.

XXVI We deny duty faith and duty repentance - these terms signifying that it is every man's duty spiritually and savingly to repent and believe (Gen. 6:5, Gen 8:21, Matt. 15:19, Jer. 17:9, John 6:44, John 6:65.) We deny also that there is any capability in man by nature to any spiritual good whatever. So that we reject the doctrine that men in a state of nature should be exhorted to believe in or turn to God"

You have to admit, when the name calling is opened up like this, the creative possibilities are endless.

Peter once spoke of "vanilla" calvinism.

I like it, but I prefer chocolate much better.

:)

[Benji Ramsaur]

Can you say "A R B I T R A R Y" boys and girls?

[peter]

My Brother Benji

Thanks for stopping by. So, you like being a chocalate Calvinist, ah? Super!

On a more serious note, I think you have a point about the two articles from obviously a "hyper" confession. However, it is historically accurate to employ the term "hyperCalvinism" is multiple ways and usages, not just confessionally.

The problem becomes, it seems next to impossible to employ a term universally acceptable to Calvinists themselves. Heck, from what I gather, many Founders Calvinists do not even desire to be called Calvinists! What's a person to do????

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[Benji Ramsaur]

Peter,

You said "However, it is historically accurate to employ the term "hyperCalvinism" is multiple ways and usages, not just confessionally."

Maybe so, but does that mean that we are to throw that name around "exclusive" of what folk confess as well (whether that be formally or informally)?

Peter, don't worry when it comes to me.

Just call me sasquatch.

[Michael Westmoreland-White]

Sorry, I haven't dropped by recently. I'll try to find time to answer these questions addressed to me.

[Benji Ramsaur]

Peter,

You said "What needs to be stated over and over again is that while our Founders' family is indeed correct that the SBC in the 19th C had plenty of rigid, strong Calvinists in her ranks, as the years slowly melted away toward the 20th century, Calvinism's influence melted away with them."

I think maybe the only basic difference between what you are saying and what Founders are saying is that, I think, the Founders would say Calvinism's influence continued on into the 1920's whereas you would say it waned earlier than that.

However, even if I granted you your premise, then that still does not change the idea that the SBC moved away from her theological "roots". And when looked at in that light, it is the Founders types who can claim to be "traditional" (i.e., that which is past) Southern Baptists.

I myself know that I am not a traditional Southern Baptist when it comes to the Lord's Day.

So, in a sense, I am somewhat of an "evolved" Southern Baptist.

Now, since you acknowledge your adherence to noncalvinism, would you care to join me in acknowledging your evolved status as well?

[peter]

Benji,

Thanks for your reflections, my Brother Benji. I had a few moments to muse them over while travellign home.

First, of course, I hope that we are careful how we use terms such as hyperCalvinism. Nevertheless, one cannot demand the term be used in a way that only we approve. If I am to understand the other person, I must see how that person employs a term and then judge him/her on the merit of the arguments, etc. and the way way he/she utilizes the terms.

Second, you obviously are correct that Founders would diasgree with my assertion that Calvinism began to wane in the 19th Century. That is why I'm assembling the evidences I presently am--to demonstrate Calvinism's gradual fading hold on Baptists beginning in the 19th C.

Yet, I am not so sure, Benji, that Founders argues Calvinism maintained its grip as late as 1920's. If so, my goal will be less substantial than ever I realized.

If Calvinism maintained its grip over Baptists in general and SB in particular into the twenties, I am unsure how they can explain away the most forminable reason old school Calvinism was buried: E.Y. Mullins. His influence more than all others perhaps nailed the coffin shut on Calvinism's great influence among Baptists.

When he chaired the Committee that wrote the Fraternal Letter published 1919 that went to Baptists the world over, the "Baptist Fundamentals" as they called them possessed no trace of Philadelphia Calvinism--NONE.

In addition, when the 1925 BF&M was penned--again, chiefly by Mullins--Philadelphia was long forgotten.

Rather he turned to New Hampshire and the 1833 Confession that had, according to almost all historians, bleed out the rigid, staunch Calvinism of the Particulars.

That's not to say Mullins was the first. Indeed the present post shows Kerfoot--the Boyce successor to the theology chair--was less calvinist than his mentor.

Z.T. Cody, who served with Mullins on the committee in 1919 could write a decade earlier in the BAPTIST COURIER that there wasn't a five point calvinist church to be found in South Carolina, and that the some of the calvinist doctrines were "repulsive to our people." Even if he overstated it, surely the statement at least bears witness to Calvinism's lackluster.

Problems for Calvinists in the Baptist community goes all the way back to the beginning of the 19th C and the Anti-missions' movement. It seems endless for anyone who'll read a little.

For me, it's just historically inaccurate to hold Calvinism began to wane in the 20th century. Too much evidence exists against it.

Finally, Benji, you write: "even if I granted you your premise, then that still does not change the idea that the SBC moved away from her theological "roots". And when looked at in that light, it is the Founders types who can claim to be "traditional"...Southern Baptists."

To the contrary, Benji, that is the very assumption I am challenging. That is, that somehow SBs have been singularly "rooted" in one theological position--in this case, Calvinism. That is historically disputable.

There was more than one tradition with varying roots. Nor Baptists did not confessionally forge a SBC in 1845. Indeed they consciously avoided a confession saying the Bible was their confession. And when the SBC did get around to drawing a Confession over a half century later, the confession was anything BUT Philadelphia Calvinism.

For too long, Founders has, for some reason, received a free pass on their assertion that histroy is on their side. From my view, I think Southern Baptist history argues against them.

Thanks again, Benji. I trust your evening filled with peace. With that, I am...

Peter

p.s. of course, I'm an evolving believer--Holy Ghost sanctified!

[Benji Ramsaur]

Peter,

You said "Nevertheless, one cannot demand the term be used in a way that only we approve."

Not exactly what I asked about, but interesting nevertheless.

One can "demand" anything. However, one cannot "justifiably" demand anything. If you don't think the Founders definition of Hyper-calvinism is justifiable, could you explain why?

You said "Nor Baptists did not confessionally forge a SBC in 1845."

This does not disprove that there was not a theological consensus regarding Calvinism.

I'd encourage you to think about Boyce's words regarding the guiding principles in relation to the Abstract:

The abstract of principles must be: 1. A complete exhibition of the fundamental doctrines of grace, so that in no essential particular should they speak dubiously; 2. They should speak out clearly and distinctly as to the practices universally prevalent among us; 3. Upon no point, upon which the denomination is divided, should the Convention, and through it, the Seminary, take any position. (http://www.founders.org/stand.html)

And with that, I am...

Anything you want to call me.

I make no demands.

:)

[volfan007]

a hyper calvinist is someone who is a five pointer to the degree that they dont believe in soul winning nor in missions anymore. thats the definition i have always been told. now, dr. akins has coined a new term for those five pointers that are obsessed with reformed theology and promoting reformed theology. he has called them extreme calvinists. i agree with that term. they are not really hyper since they do witness and they do beleive in missions, but they are extreme. they are off the deep end on the five points.

david

[peter]

Benji,

Good morning, my brother.

As for the "hyperCalvinism" thing, I think we may as well skip it. You do not appear to appreaciate that a term may legitimately be employed in various ways.

I suggest you take a trip to a good dictionary and notice the various usages of "hyperCalvinism,' one usage which, by the way, has little to do with theological content. Nor do I desire to take issue with the "Founders' definition" unless they insist their definition stands as the only definition and/or usage.

Finally, after quoting me on Baptists not being confessionally forged in 1845, you confidently assert, Benji: "This does not disprove that there was not a theological consensus regarding Calvinism." I like the strategy you employ, Benji. If a confession did exist, you no doubt would argue ,"see, SBs are a confessional people." But since a confession does not exist, you convieniently suggest "possessing no confession does not mean SBs were not confessional." I'm afraid you've got me right where you want me, Benji:)

Unhappily for your position, evidence suggest Baptists were diverse at the time of the SBC (evidences which you, Benji, have curiously not once mentioned or challenged in this thread). Historians agree with diversity. The ones who disagree are Founders Calvinists.

Consequently, the burden of proof is Founders to explain the evidences of diversity away. To date, they have not been so successful.

And for me, if the best Founders can propagate is that because Boyce argued for an abstract of principles to utilize in securing SBTS professors, I think nonCalvinists need not fear that history stands against them.

Thanks for the dialog, Benji. I trust your weekend well. With that, I am...

Peter

[peter]

David,

Thanks for the input. HyperCalvinism as you indicate has been used to designate a the "no missions/evangelism" breed, etc.

And, Dr. Akin employs "extreme" to distinguish between Calvinists further. I think this is a good approach.

The only thing I think needs to be kept in mind is, from my view, as long as one is clear how one is using a term that carries many nuances, there is no real problem.

Later, my brother. With that, I am...

Peter

[Michael Westmoreland-White]

Mullins was a huge influence all right--one year he was president of the SBC, the Baptist World Alliance, and SBTS all at once! But outside of the SBC other forces predating Mullins (and Kerfoot, etc.) were at least as influential in the decline of Calvinism--at least of the 5 point variety: 1)The formation of the Northern Baptist Convention (now American Baptist Churches, USA) formalized a merger between Regular (Calvinist) Baptists in the North and Free Will Baptists and some General Baptists in the North. This meant that both Arminianism and Calvinism would be part of one denomination--a denomination that had already long moved from the Philadelphia Confession (basically the 2nd London Confession) to New Hampshire. It's worth noting that the NBC/ABC never adopted a confession of faith--even refusing to follow Mullins and the SBC lead in doing so to try to end the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy of 1925. (A motion to do this was blocked by a substitute motion which said that the New Testament was the sufficient and supreme authority for all saving faith and doctrine.)

2)In Great Britain the same thing happened: At the end of the 19th/beg. of 20th C., the Baptist Union (formed from Andrew Fuller's modified Calvinism) merged with the New Connexion of General Baptists. That ended confessions of faith among mainstream Baptists in the UK--confining them to marginal groups like the Strict and Particular Baptists.
3) In Canada and the Northern U.S., massive immigration from Europe brought Baptists from Germany, Scandinavia and elsewhere. Such Baptists had been formed far more by Pietism than by Calvinism. (Immigration from Europe was much slower in the South.)

4) African-American Baptists made far more of an impact on American Baptist circles than on Southern Baptists until quite recently. Calvinism has never been strong in such circles.

All these forces wore down Calvinism in Baptist life. Then the rise of biblical criticism and newer approaches to theology also wore down Baptist Calvinism (until recently--there are probably more robust Calvinist Baptists now than in 1979!).

This Arminian Baptist is not much impressed by the revival of such in the SBC. In British circles it is a more dynamic Reformed thought that is on the resurgence and it gives me much to interact with creatively.

[Benji Ramsaur]

Peter,

You said "You do not appear to appreciate that a term may legitimately be employed in various ways."

Ouch, my brother. Not sure where that came from.

A. I ask a question (...does that mean that we are to throw that name around "exclusive" of what folk confess...)--and please note that I asked about "exclusion, not that which is "little"
B. You don't answer it.
C. I get charged with the appearance of not appreciating "nuanced" meanings.

Makes sense.

Anyway

You said "But since a confession does not exist, you convieniently suggest "possessing no confession does not mean SBs were not confessional."

Mmmmm. Let's take a look back at what I said: "This does not disprove that there was not a theological consensus regarding Calvinism."

Not sure where "confession" is supposed to be found in that statement. Although, since you brought it up, I would like to point out that I think one of the Founders arguments is that all of the messengers of the 1st Southern Baptist Convention came from churches which had the Philadelphia Confession as their confession (and that at a time when confessions were taken more seriously).

Hence, it seems to me that:

Boyce's #3 principle

+

The original messengers coming from churches which had the Philadelphia confession for their confession (if my memory is correct)

+

The Original Southern Baptist Convention being held at a time when confessions were taken more seriously

=

Peter possibly kicking against the goads.

[Benji Ramsaur]

Hey, if we can call people "Hyper-calvinists" to the exclusion of what people believe, then if some conservative Weslyen folk ever start getting anti-missionary, they better watch out.

:)

[volfan007]

a duck is a duck if he quacks and waddles and swims and does duckish things......correct?

david

[Benji Ramsaur]

Peter,

CLARIFICATION

I just checked what Tom Ascol said.

He said that when the Southern Baptist Convention was founded in Augusta, Georgia, there were 293 messengers present. And each one of these messengers came from churches OR associations which held to the Second London Confession (which was also known as the Philadelphia Confession and the Charleston confession).

You can hear him on this here:

http://www.callingfortruth.org/cft/content/view/142/10/

[Benji Ramsaur]

David,

You said "a duck is a duck if he quacks and waddles and swims and does duckish things......correct?"

And your point is...

I hope it is not what I think it is.

Grace

Benji

[Cornelius Lover of DOG]

Hey I thought of a new game we could play. It's really cool. It's called "Swing the Calvinist." First, you decide whether or not your friends are Calvinists. If you have a bunch of friends like that, then you all get together to play. It's awesome. You sit in a circle, and spin a bottle. Whoever it lands on has to quote the Westminster Confession by heart. If he can't do it, then the group ropes him up and swings him around. Boy, the hours of fun we've had doing this!!! It's great!!! You guys should try it.

[peter]

Benji,

Thanks for responding. As I said, my Brother, we may as well skip this "hyperCalvinist" point. From my vantage point, Benji, the comments about "hypercalvinism" are making less sense as we continue. But that is only my opinion. And as for "throwing" the term around, happily there is no problem with that here.

Again, Benji, you appear to avoid the evidences available to the contrary that Calvinism was waning in the 19th C--evidences which are available for anyone to examine-- and instead argue from circumstances you feel would make a difference--Churches possessing more respect for confessions (offering no evidence), Boyce's personal views (only for Seminary purposes), etc. These are interesting observations, but remain totally inconclusive about whether Calvinism was waning. And if I am kicking the goads, I shall continue to do so. I kinda like it, ya know.

Finally, as for what Tom Ascol said, I did not know that we were speaking of Tom Ascol. Was I supposed to have quoted Dr. Ascol?

Grace to you, Benji. With that, I am...

Peter

[peter]

Dear Cornelius,

Glad you dropped by. I like a good sense of humor which you seem to possess. I must confess though: I did not get it. My medicine and all...

Peace to you. With that, I am...

Peter

[Benji Ramsaur]

Cornelius Lover of Dog,

Sounds neat.

Wish I could play it, but since I can't affirm the Westminster or the Second London, I guess I'm left out.

Grace

An NCTer (New Covenant Theology)

[Benji Ramsaur]

Peter,

You said "you appear to avoid the evidences available to the contrary that Calvinism was waning in the 19th C--evidences which are available for anyone to examine"

Maybe I am avoiding them becaue I might not have a problem with them.

Ever think about that:)?

IF you are talking LATE 19th century, then I am not opposed to that possibility (surprise, surprise).

You said "Boyce's personal views (only for Seminary purposes)"

(Cough, cough) he said "Upon NO point, UPON WHICH THE DENOMINATION IS DIVIDED, should the Convention, and through it, the Seminary, take ANY position."

So, am I supposed to take your word over his?

You said "I kinda like it, ya know."

I believe you brother, I really do. And it is good for me because I LOVE primary resources and you have much "pathos" in doing research on this matter.

I just fear for your mental health:).

You said "as for what Tom Ascol said, I did not know that we were speaking of Tom Ascol."

Now, brother, brother, brother...

Tom is commenting on something in history that I don't think can be interpreted in too many ways (even for "nonrigid", "nonstaunch" thinkers as yourself).

I mean, I know we can play the "Just because Ascol said it does not mean it is the truth" game.

But Either Ascol is accurate or he is not.

Curious, with as much pathos as you have for research on this historical SBC/Calvinist issue, could I assume that you will look into this matter to check the facts?

Maybe even e-mail brother Ascol to see where he got his info.?

Hey, if he's wrong, then that makes your case look great!

But if he's right...

[peter]

Dear Benji,

As far as my word goes, my Brother, I did not realize I've ever asked any one to believe me. I'm only turning a few spades of dirt over. Others may view as they so wish.

And for those assertions I do make from what I learn, I attempt to deal accurately with the sources. If I've misinterpreted them, it is others' duties to point this out.

As for checking with Tom Ascol, Benji, I haven't the faintest clue to that about which you refer.

Peace. With that, I am...

Peter

[Benji Ramsaur]

Peter,

You said "I did not realize I've ever asked any one to believe me."

I did not realize that I ever said anything about your word. What I am asking about is, based on your passion for research on this SBC/Noncalvinist/Calvinist matter, could I assume that you would look into the evidence for what Ascol said as well.

In other words, will your future actions/passion look consistent with your past actions/passion?

You said "As for checking with Tom Ascol, Benji, I haven't the faintest clue to that about which you refer."

I am referring to Tom's assertion on the original SBC messengers and 2nd London connection.

[Rella]

Cornelius I laughed so hard at what you posted at Founder's that my side hurts. We need some snakes at our church too. It's too bad that Dr. Ascol doesn't have much of a sense of humor. It's certainly ok to mock nonCalvinist (see his NetFinney post), but don't you dare poke fun at them!

Peter, are you sure your name's really not Ergun Caner? He doesn't agree with The Great Dr. Tom Ascol either on this history stuff. That Ergun Caner he's a history professer with a doctorate too I think. Little does he know if he can't even agree with the inerrant infalliable Tom Ascol! Why the Founder's blog and Tom Ascol are the only ones who get to determine what SBC history really is. That's why they're the Founders! Get it???

[Benji Ramsaur]

Peter,

You said "Churches possessing more respect for confessions (offering no evidence)"

Valid point.

Yes, I followed Tom on this point and if he is wrong then so am I (but again, what a great opportunity to find out what he is basing this assertion on).

However, I do have one little snippet of something that is related to what Tom said.

"...Bro. D’s. sermon was a relentless onslaught on the doctrine of Predestination, DEAR TO MANY WHO HEARD HIM, and ONE OF THE BEST ESTABLISHED DOCTRINES OF THE BAPTIST CHURCH. This being the case, I desire here to enter my protest against the general teaching of the sermon, and to deny, in toto, some of the conclusions he reached, and the soundness of the arguments by which he reached them.
A formal restatement of his main points, and a formal defense of the doctrine he assailed, would, of course, consume too much space for an ordinary newspaper article. Had I his MS. Before me, and if I thought such reply was desired by your readers, I hope it will not be construed as any evidence of vanity on my part for me to say, that I should no hesitate to reply to a sermon which all must admit was an unexpected attack on a DOCTRINE DEAR TO MY CHURCH, and plainly embodied in their WRITTEN and UNWRITTEN CONFESSIONS of Faith..."

Title: Rev. Thos. Dixon’s Sermon Before the Convention

By: C.A. Woodson

In: The Biblical Recorder

Date: January 18, 1888.

[Benji Ramsaur]

Peter,

I wish I would have included brother Woodson's ending to his write up.

Here it is:

"Toward our dear brother Dixon I have the kindest personal feelings, but that does not prevent me from adding that his sermon was a strong argument for a course at out EXCELLENT SEMINARY AT LOUISVILLE, KY. Let our dear brother attend that school three years and much of his ARMINIANISM WILL EVAPORATE. It cannot stand the searching glare of the Gospel Sun." (emphasis mine here and emphasis mine on the other part I quoted above).

[peter]

Benji

Pertaining to my words, you wrote: "So, am I supposed to take your word over his?" but then curiously responded when I mentioned this: "I did not realize that I ever said anything about your word." The more you write, Benji, unfortunately, the less sense I am beginning to make from it. Sorry:(

And, the answer is "no" on any assurances that I will look into anything Dr. Ascol has said unless it is germane to the discussion on a piece I post. This site is definitively not about Dr. Ascol.

As for whether or not I am "consistent" with past, present or future posts, I will leave that for others to judge.

Quite frankly, Benji, I read thru your long quotes twice but once again, I've not a clue what you mean to suggest by them. I do see the obvious difference between them and what evidences I usually post here. But that is no surprise since quotes similar to the ones you offer can be found at any number of Calvinist sites. Essentially, they demonstrate my point further, I'd say--theological diversity in the 19 century.

Peace to you, my Brother. With that, I am...

Peter

[peter]

Rella

Thanks for dropping by today. Unfortunately, I could never class myself into the same category as Dr. Caner. He really is a scholar; I just dig under a few rocks.

As for agreeing/disagreeing with Dr. Ascol, sometimes his community does get somewhat "touchy" when one disagrees with him. I think Sbs may have been silent a little too long in allowing Founders to frame the questions when dealing with our history.

And, it is to that end that I am posting some substance from "the other side." I doubt most anything posted here will ever show up at Founders.

Over time, as the resources build up here and elsewhere, I think the average SB may not feel "bullied" quite as easily by our aggressive Calvinist Brothers who claim our roots are singularly and thus, legitimately, Calvinist.

Have a great weekend, Rella. With that, I am...

Peter

[Benji Ramsaur]

Peter,

You said "Pertaining to my words, you wrote: "So, am I supposed to take your word over his?" but then curiously responded when I mentioned this: "I did not realize that I ever said anything about your word."

Point taken. My bust (80's slang)

I misunderstood what you were referring to. Sorry.

You said "Essentially, they demonstrate my point further, I'd say--theological diversity in the 19 century."

I'm not arguing that there was NO diversity in the SBC. No, I don't think if one interviewed every single SB in the pew in the 1900's they would all agree with Calvinism.

However, I do think that Calvinism was "standard" SB soteriology at the founding of the SBC.

You said "And, the answer is "no" on any assurances that I will look into anything Dr. Ascol has said unless it is germane to the discussion on a piece I post. This site is definitively not about Dr. Ascol."

That's funny, it seems like I find quite a few statements by you on this blog that argue against Founders (which Tom represents).

I do find it interesting that you have as much passion as you do for this Noncalvinism/Calvinism/SBC issue and yet you do not find it important enough to search out the evidence(s) for Tom's assertions about the "founding" of the SBC.

Well, my brother, this probably will be the last time I comment today.

Take care and may God bless you in the preaching of His word.

BCR

[peter]

Benji,

Not a problem. We all misjudge words from time to time.

As for your "not arguing that there was NO diversity in the SBC [in the 1900's]," Benji, I find it amazing you have carried this thread along so far. It is making more sense to me why the points you were attempting to make lacked teeth.

The fact is, that is one of two points I continue to make here: diversity of theology pertaining to Calvinism/nonCalvinism and decline of the former.

Nevertheless, confuse then surfaces, at least for me, by your stating: "However, I do think that Calvinism was "standard" SB soteriology at the founding of the SBC." "Diversity" on the one hand and "standard" on the other appear much too strained from my view. I understand less about your point in dialog on this issue the further we proceed, Benji. Sorry.

As for the SBs being all Calvinistically inclined in 1845 not only goes against what we know but also is impossible to prove since they did not write a Confession for the new convention and even indicated their disapproval of one.

In addition, that blatant aversion to Confessions is decidedly a Separatist trait, not a Philadelphia one, who, from what we know of them, would have composed a Confession in a heartbeat if they could.

Finally, I restate, Benji, that this site is not about Dr. Ascol. But, if Dr. Ascol proposes a paper in say, The Founders Journal, which I feel needs addressing, perhaps we can do so as we did with Sandy Creek Revisited. I'm unsure how to make that any clearer, my Brother.

May your day be filled with God's grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[volfan007]

benji,

it seems that you try to overthink everything. a lot of what you are telling peter is hard to understand....what point you're trying to make. and, as for my duck analogy.

well, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and looks like a duck...guess what it is? a duck. thats pretty simple.

what was my point? if it talks like a hyper calvinist, and walks like a hyper calvinist, and thinks like a hyper calvinist....then guess what it is? you got it.

david

[Benji Ramsaur]

Peter,

Ah, you got me back.

I think I clarified what I meant by "diversity" when I further stated "No, I don't think if one interviewed every single SB in the pew in the 1900's they would all agree with Calvinism."

Allow me to approach it fom this angle. I do not believe in the Puritan perspective of the Sabbath moving from Saturday to Sunday. And I have a nice Biblical Recorder write up, from the "1900's", that argues against that Puritan position. Now, am I to take that piece of evidence for "diversity" and then say that there actually was evidence of diversity on this position by the denomination as a whole despite what principle #3 from Boyce states and what the Abstract states on the Lord's Day?

I'm not saying you argue your case like this by the way.

However, you cannot justifiably take your "different traditions" approach and claim there was diversity on Calvinism (in the sense that you claim) when principle #3 states what it does.

There was NO division on the Calvinism of the Abstract.

Principle #3 has more than teeth.

It has fangs.

[Benji Ramsaur]

Peter,

Ah correction.

The Bibliical Recorder write up on the Sabbath was from the "1800's", not 1900's.

[peter]

Benji,

I am afraid you appear to place your confidence in the statement of one man, James Boyce, who simply did not speak for all Baptists. Nor would his one statement, at least for me, negate the evidences that Calvinism was waning in influence beginnig well before 1845. Michael addressed some of the other evidences in his comment above.

Even Boyce's successor, Professor Kerfoot--who is the substance of this post, but curiously never once has piqued your interest--appears unpersuaded by Boyce's stronger Calvinism, surely enough to draw a blush from those who propose Dr. Boyce ruled the Southern Baptist roost.

Thus, if you choose to believe, in the face of several indicators to the contrary, that Calvinism held its grip into the 20th C (or later 19th; I can't honestly tell from your posts), my good Benji, be my guest, my Brother. You have my express permission. For me, I'll continue to look at broader historical factors.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter