Dr. Franklin Howard Kerfoot (1847-1901) though not a name widely recognized in Baptist circles today was, during the latter quarter of the 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 Declaration 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 non-Calvinist 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.
When I first prepared this little essay some time back, I sent an email to Dr. Roger Olson, one of few Baptist theologians who are also boldly confessing Arminian theologians::
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, non-Calvinists 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.
We moved on.
And, I would be less than honest if I did not say, I'm glad we did.
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
Peter,
I enjoyed reading about Dr. Kerfoot, thanks for the interesting read.
Do you know where we could find a copy [online] of Dr. Kerfoot's revised "Abstracts"?
Since Dr. Kerfoot was with the Home Mission Board toward the end of his life, I'm wondering if he had influence on the Corresponding Secretary of our Sunday School Board, J.M. Frost. Dr. Frost wrote [1900] the book: Baptist, Why and Why Not. He shares a Declaration of Faith at the end of the book and defines "Election".
"IX. Of God's Purpose of Grace
We believe the Election is the eternal purpose of God, according to which he graciously regenerates, sanctifies, and saves sinners; that being consistent with the free agency of man, it comprehends all the means in connection with the end; that it is a most glorious display of God's sovereign goodness, being infinitely free, wise, holy, and unchangeable; that it utterly excludes boasting, and promotes humility, love, prayer, praise, trust in God, and active imitation of his free mercy; that it encourages the use of means in the highest degree; that it may be ascertained by its effects in all who believe the gospel; that it is the foundation of Christian assurance; and that to ascertain it with regard to ourselves demands and deserves the utmost diligence."
Peter ... it indeed looks like Southern Baptists were "moving on"!
Blessings!
Posted by: Ron Hale | 2010.11.04 at 07:15 PM
Ron,
Thanks. Unless I am mistaken, the version available today of Boyce's work is the version Founders offers and the one edited by Kerfoot.But "editing' does not mean changing in this particular case. I don't think Kerfoot changed Boyce's theological assertions so far as I know.
What Kerfoot did go on to do was work diligently with E.Y. Mullins who did put in place an almost non-existent Calvinism in his systematic theology which was used well into the 20th century as the theological textbook for SB seminaries.
Kerfoot also worked closely with Z.T. Cody another vocal non-Calvinist who studied under Boyce. Cody wrote an essay at the turn of the century entitled "Are Baptists Calvinists?" and answered with an unequivocal "NO!" going so far as to suggest that he knew of no church which could be called "Calvinistic" and stated that many of the Calvinistic doctrines are "repugnant to our people."
Hence, well before the 19th century ended, the Calvinism of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary was in big trouble. Unfortunatley, we have some who'd like to "take us back to the 50s"...the 1850s!
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2010.11.04 at 07:45 PM
Brother Peter,
Was the Abstracts changed at SBTS during Dr. Kerfoot's tenure? Also, do you see anyplace where Dr. Kerfoot influenced Dr. Mullins away from the Philadelphia confession?
Blessings,
Tim
Posted by: Tim Rogers | 2010.11.04 at 07:48 PM
Tim,
So far as I know, I don't think the AP were ever changed. The reality is, the all thru the 19th century Calvinism kept taking one beating after another. From the Anti-missions controversy in the early 1800's to F. Wayland in the mid-century who spoke of Calvinism's waning influence especially on Limited Atonement to A.Fuller's impact when it finally reached us here, strict Calvinism scratched and clawed for survival. Boyce's own students (e'g. Cody) could not swallow the rigid Princeton Calvinism.
Founders generally and T. Nettles particularly credit Mullins for the demise of Calvinism. Such cannot stand under historical scrutiny. While it's true Mullins did put the squeeze on rigid Calvinism; however Calvinism was on the way out before Mullins was in at SBTS.
Also, I'm not so sure 19th century Baptists were as confessionally obliged as we may sometime like to think. The fact is, they cared no more for church confessions than the average church cares for theirs today, and in some cases decidedly less. Hence, changing the AP was probably not even a passing thought. Remember, Mullins didn't want to do a BFM in 1925. He said, "we don't need one" and in doing so, he was saying exactly what they said in 1845--"we don't need a confession."
I understand where we are today. I realize we must have one now. On the other hand, the Separate Baptist aversion to confessions is undoubtedly in my blood. Anyways...I better hush...
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2010.11.04 at 08:26 PM
Here's a good little taste of Calvinistic compromise as early as the turning of the 18th century!
In 1801, the Elkhorn and South Kentucky Associations (Separate Baptists and Regular (Calvinistic) Baptists) unanimously agreed to unite on the following plan (paraphrased):
1. Bible is infallible rule of faith and practice
2. One Triune God
3. Human depravity
4. Salvation by Christ alone
5. saints will finally persevere
6. Believer's baptism by immersion and prerequiste to the Lord's Supper
7. Heaven and Hell are eternal
8. duty to love one another
9. the preaching (that) Christ tasted death for every man, shall be no bar to communion
Along with a couple of other "associational" matters, that's it. Is there any Calvinism in this document of 1801? Not one thin line. It's all "generic" except the last item in bold which is decidedly non-Calvinist in nature!
This was the beginning of the 19th century. Hence, my asserting strict Calvinism scratched and clawed its way through the 19th century, hanging on until Kerfoot, Cody, Mullins and others nailed the coffin shut, so far as it being a "dominating" influence. Sandy Creek Separate Baptists simply swallowed up Charleston.
Now, we have some who want ot take us back to Charleston. Hopefully, it is only a passing fad.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2010.11.04 at 08:45 PM
Actually, Peter, it seems that #9 in the resolution above disproves your point that Calvinism was not the "dominating" influence in 1801, but "scratched and clawed its way through the 19th Century." Read #9 again.
9. the preaching (that) Christ tasted death for every man, shall be no bar to communion.
Only the majority can "bar" the minority from communion.
If #9 had read:
9. the preaching (that) Christ tasted death for only the elect shall be no bar to communion
...then I would see the rational logic and support for your assertion.
Posted by: Wade Burleson | 2010.11.05 at 10:16 AM
Wade,
Unfortunately, Wade it's you who should read the article again, along with my statement about Calvinism's "dominating" influence.
You write, "...#9...disproves your point that Calvinism was not the "dominating" influence in 1801..." Now is that my point?
Nope. I wrote, "Here's a good little taste of Calvinistic compromise as early as the turning of the 18th century...strict Calvinism scratched and clawed its way through the 19th century, hanging on until Kerfoot, Cody, Mullins and others nailed the coffin shut, so far as it being a "dominating" influence.
Hence, Wade, unhappily for you, I did not assert as you suggest, "Calvinism was not the "dominating" influence in 1801." What I do think the historical record definitively indicates is, strict Calvinism took a massive beating the entire 19th century ultimately being swallowed up in milder forms of Calvinistic-nonCalvinistic Baptist expressions.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2010.11.05 at 11:20 AM
"they are regenerated by the Holy Spirit, without whose influence none would ever repent and believe,"
In that the Spirit is God, it would follow that those who God doesnt "influence" will not be saved.
Why would God influence some to eternal life and influence others to eternal death. Surly God could influence all.
Would you say that God Influences every man, without exception? Is that what the next statement means when he writes: "as it is the duty of every one immediately to do" ?
Eric
Posted by: Eric Opsahl | 2010.11.06 at 06:10 AM
Excellent article, Peter. You taught me some things I didn' know. Would you understand "chosen in CHRIST 'before the foundation of the world,' by Him who sees 'the end from the beginning'" to be an affirmation of election/predestination of those whose faith response God foresees with His exhaustive foreknowledge?
Posted by: Steve Lemke | 2010.11.06 at 02:14 PM