F.H. Kerfoot says James P. Boyce "mistaken" concerning regeneration preceding faith

I recently ran across an essay Beeson Divinity School dean and professor, Timothy George, wrote in 1985 entitled "Systematic Theology at Southern Seminary." In the essay, George mentioned that perhaps the greatest accomplishment of James P. Boyce's chair of theology successor, F.H. Kerfoot, would be his editorial work on Boyce's magnum opus republished in 1899, Abstract of Systematic Theology. George also indicated some of the editorial comments Kerfoot included distanced himself from Boyce's strict Calvinism. I found George's claim facinating.³

Not having Kerfoot's edition nor any fortune in finding a used copy on the internet, I got one on loan from Mercer. Kerfoot's footnotes reveal a trend in the theology of Baptists in the south. Long before the end of the 19th century, Southern Baptists were apparently already moving away from the strict Calvinism of Boyce, the first generation of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and the Philadelphia Confession of Faith. That assumes, of course, that Calvinism had the theological advantage over non-Calvinism.  Even so, the late W. Wiley Richards was undoubtedly correct in his essay, "Southern Baptist Identity: Moving Away from Calvinism" (Baptist History and Heritage, October 1996)¹ when he wrote:

The divergence from the Calvinistic base was felt among Boyce's colleagues at Southern Seminary. Edwin C. Dargan (1852-1930) defined total depravity meaning that all of one's faculties are more or less twisted out of shape by sin, affecting the whole of one's nature.22 In what some Calvinists might label scandalous, Dargan argued that if people are to be saved, they must have a hand in it in the form of repentance and faith.23 His views prefigured those of the majority of Southern Baptists in succeeding decades (p.31)

Dargan and Kerfoot were at Southern seminary at the same time. And, while according to Richards, Dargan was questioning Boyce's strict Calvinistic understanding of Total Depravity, Kerfoot was questioning Boyce's insistence that regeneration precedes faith. Below is Kerfoot's footnote to Boyce's treatment in the Abstract of Systematic Theology:

The reviser feels little doubt that the author is mistaken in the position that he takes here as to the chronological relation of regeneration and conversion to each other. Regeneration must, indeed, be a logical antecedent to conversion. But it can hardly be a chronological antecedent. Least of all does it seem possible for an “appreciable interval of time” to come between them. If this were true, then one could be a regenerated person without repentance or faith. For repentance and faith are the elements of conversion. But one cannot be a saved person without these. How then can one be regenerated, in point of time, before one has faith or repentance? Can a regenerated person be an unsaved person? The true idea seems to be that regeneration has logical antecedence, but not chronological antecedence. Logical antecedence does not necessarily involve chronological antecedence, as the author seems to think. For example, logically the sun must exist before it can give light. But chronologically the light may be synchronous with the existence of the sun. So with regeneration and conversion. The state of certain souls in the examples cited by the author does not seem to be a state of regeneration at all, but only a state of conviction, which we have seen is a state antecedent to regeneration in adults. (italics original, page 347 and page 348)²

The truth is, Kerfoot sounds much like those Southern Baptists who penned what was called the Traditional Statement, a confession which caused so much of an uproar that Southern seminary's president offered a public response. The response Mohler expressed implicated the authors of the Traditional Statement as near embracing heresy. The irony is, what they were saying remains almost identical to what Al Mohler's early, pre-Liberal, theological predecessors at Southern seminary were saying.³  

 

¹the same issue of Baptist History and Heritage has an essay by Tom Nettles in counterpoint style entitled "Southern Baptist Identity: Influenced by Calvinism."

²In addition, Kerfoot strongly questioned Boyce's committment to Federal Theology. I'll post those footnotes in a later post

³Another irony is, Founders Ministries honors F.H. Kerfoot as a great influence on the SBC who "maintained evangelism as a great priority while recognizing the need for confessional orthodoxy" What is more, no mention I found on Founders Ministries website remotely indicates Kerfoot's clear dissent from the strict Calvinism of James P. Boyce. In fact, almost invariably, the impression one gets reading the information on Kerfoot at Founders Ministries is, he was just as strict a Calvinist as was Boyce. The reader can be the judge. See these articles where Kerfoot is mentioned by Mark Dever, Bill Ascol, C. Ben Mitchell, Tom Nettles, Joe Nesom, Tom Ascol (names are linked to each post respectively).     

Comments

[Ron Hale]

Peter,

One wise man once said, “Perhaps nobody has changed the course of history as much as the historians.” Peter thank you for this great gem! It is a historical marker in SBC life! I appreciate your ability to read the “fine print” in the footnotes.

Blessings!

[peter]

Thanks Ron. What's more interesting is Kerfoot's stunning rejection of Boyce's federal theology, with a personal note about a conversation he had with John Broadus revealing Broadus' rejection of federal theology as well!

With that, I am...
Peter

[Peter Lumpkins]

All,

Just to be clear: in footnote #3 above, I was not implying Founders has not mentioned Kerfoot's 1899 edit. They obviously did at least twice in the links I provided above. Instead my point was while they acknowledge Kerfoot edited Boyce's textbook, no place I could find exists where they so much as hint Kerfoot dissented from much less outright rejected Boyce's strict Calvinism.

With that, I am...
Peter

[volfan007]

Interesting, interesting stuff, Peter. It's always amazing how the facts just kind of blows up the illusions of people; especially those people, who try to rewrite history.

David

[peter]

Thanks David. I thoroughly take pleasure in rummaging through historical documents, especially when those documents have apparently been overlooked by others. I am a geniune southern born and breed American Picker!

With that, I am...
Peter

[Lydia]

Lottie Moon is next? (wink)

[Paul]

It seems David Platt believes repentance and faith at least logically precede regeneration. Here's a quote of his--

So how can a man be born again? Scripture resounds with a clear answer to that question.
Two primary words: repent and believe

I got this from a PDF of the sermon he gave off of radical.net, the link to the PDF said--

—Click here to get the PDF of the full manuscript of pastor David’s sermon at the SBC Pastor’s Conference on June 18, 2012. The sermon is titled, “Spiritual Deception, Biblical Conversion, and Global Mission.”

You can read the quote from him in context there

[John K.]

Paul, at the gospel project breakfast this summer, the panelists discussed this issue. Platt seemed clear that regeneration comes first logically but it all happens at the same time.

[Alasdair Tavernake]

Peter,

Interesting. You are mistaken concerning just about everything.

[peter lumpkins]

Hi 'Alasdair'

Well, if I am mistaken concerning just about everything, were I you, I wouldn't spend another nanosecond on this site. No wait! I'm probably mistaken about that too!

[Alasdair Tavernake]

Not to worry. I will not be back. It is a bunch of garbage. You sir are a foolish boy.

[peter lumpkins]

Hi "Alasdair"

Yes indeedy. It took me going on 62 years to become the "foolish boy" I am. But given my trust is in a marvelously gracious God, there remains hope for me.

Wishing you the best.

With that, I am...
Peter