F.H. Kerfoot's rejection of James P. Boyce's Federal Theology: "The reviser has always felt constrained to differ with the author"

In my last piece, I recorded the dissent F.H. Kerfoot noted concerning James Boyce's "regeneration precedes faith" doctrine almost universally proclaimed now by Southern Baptist Calvinists. Whether it's the young, restless, and reformed community or traditional "Founders" Calvinists, they routinely and almost invariably proclaim what R.C. Sproul famously calls the "cardinal point of Reformed theology." "When speaking of the order of salvation (ordo salutis), Reformed theology always and everywhere insists that regeneration precedes faith."¹ In itself, this particular doctrine oozing from the neo-Calvinism resurgence accounts for a large part of contention between Calvinists and non-Calvinists in Southern Baptist life.

Below is another element of theological dissent Kerfoot noted in his 1899 edited edition of Boyce's Abstract of Theology. In the section rehearsing the fall of Adam and the effects of its fall on all humanity, Kerfoot entered an extended footnote. Below is Kerfoot's full note indicating his theological dissent from the man who chose Kerfoot to replace him as professor of theology at Southern seminary  (I scanned and uploaded the pages for those who like to examine the original for themselves):   

The reviser has always felt constrained to differ with the author as to the supposed federal headship of Adam for the following reasons:

1) It is admitted at the outset that the theory of “natural headship” alone would have sufficed to account for all the effects of Adam's sin” (cf. p. 221).

2) The claim that because “Christ was federal head, therefore Adam must have been federal head also," will hardly stand testing. Christ and Adam were alike in some things and in some relations, but very different in others. Adam could do his work as natural head; Christ could not do his work in that way. There is apparently no more reason for saying that Adam must have been federal head because Christ was federal head, than for saying Christ must have been natural head because Adam was natural head.

3) Some of the author’s claims as to “the principle of representation among men” may well be questioned. But if everything that is claimed on this point be granted, it still would not prove that in this particular case the relation in which Adam acted for the race was that of representative, or federal head.

4) It is strange, if this doctrine is true, that only two passages in all the word of God be cited as giving any sort of proof of it ( Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:22, 45 -49). The Scriptures abound in statements as to the federal headship of Christ, they say absolutely nothing as to a federal headship of Adam, unless it may be inferred from these two passages.

5) These passages do not seem at all to justify such an inference. (1) In the fifteenth chapter of First Corinthians the apostle is discussing the resurrection of the body from the grave. It seems to be a straining of language to interpret these verses as setting forth any teaching concerning federal headship. (2) The passage in the fifth chapter of Romans only narrates the fact that “by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all sinned"; and the further fact that, over against this ruin that came by Adam, Christ wrought a glorious work of redemption. There is not a word in the whole passage as to the method by which Adam did his work, nor a word as to the method by which Christ did his. We know from other passages of Scripture that Christ did his work as federal head. We have no such teaching concerning Adam. None such is claimed. Every allusion to Adam in connection with the fall the rather favors the idea that he did his work of ruin as the natural head of the race. This has mystery enough connected with it, without bringing in the fiction of a federal relationship in sinning.

Dr. J. A. Broadus says concerning this passage in Romans: “This passage teaches that in some way all sinned in Adam. But as to how they sinned in Adam, whether representatively or otherwise, the passage does not say, and I do not believe that any one knows. The idea that the sinning was done representatively, or by representation merely, is only a theory of the theologians which cannot be substantiated by Scripture.” The reviser once said to Dr. Broadus that he could not see that the passage even teaches necessarily that “all sinned in Adam." It simply says that “all sinned.” It does not say where, when, or how they sinned. It does, however, very clearly trace all sin back to Adam. “By one man sin entered the world.” But it is an inference only that this sinning was done in Adam. We need to distinguish sharply between the certain teaching of the Scriptures and the inferences of both the theologians and the exegetes (page 226 and page 227).

What Timothy George dubbed "slightly revised" and a "tentative softening of Boyce’s Calvinism"² the reader can judge as to whether a) reversing Boyce's strict Calvinistic ordo salutis making regeneration conditioned upon conversion which was conditioned upon repentance and faith, and now b) a clear rejection of Boyce's Federal Headship of Adam, can be sufficiently described as either slight or tentative.

For my part, it looks very much like Kerfoot pulled some Calvinistic teeth to me. I have another installment of Kerfoot's annotations dealing with limited atonement.

 

¹R.C. Sproul, Grace Unknown: The Heart of Reformed Theology, electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), 195

²Review and Expositor 82, no. 1 (1985): pages 32 and 35 respectively

Comments

[Jonathan Carter]

Great piece Peter! I have never understood how persons can read into the scripture "in Adam." It's just not there. Great article, I look forward to more!

[Louis]

Peter:

I remember the first time I heard a excited Reformed person say to me that regeneration must precede faith. I found the point interesting and still ponder it from time to time.

Does it really matter? Even in the Reformed world, does it really matter.

God grants faith. God opens people's eyes to see. God regenerates. People exercise the faith that is a gift of God.

What is the necessity of being exercised by the order?

Couldn't a Reformed person acknowledge that God did a work in the person's heart that enabled them to exercise faith?

I am not getting why timing is such a big deal.

[volfan007]

Louis,

It makes all the difference. Now, we both believe that salvation is by the grace of God. We both believe that God has to work salvation into the heart of man. But, the order makes a huge amount of difference.
It means that some people have NO chance of being saved. None. Because, they have no choice....not a real choice. To believe in regeneration before faith is a very fatalistic view. And, while most Calvinists will still witness, and believe in missions, out of obedience; it still effects the zeal and fervency in soul winning and missions. It would have to.

Besides, and the main thing, is that the Bible doesn't teach regeneration before faith. So, to believe such is a distortion of the Bible.

David

[peter lumpkins]

Louis,

Hope you've been well. Adding to David's very good point about the ultimate reason why it's important is to default to what the Bible teaches, note again what R.C. Sproul famously calls the cardinal point of Reformed theology: "When speaking of the order of salvation (ordo salutis), Reformed theology always and everywhere insists that regeneration precedes faith." It's Calvinists themselves who place the high premium on its necessity.

Regeneration preceding faith was birthed amongst Baptists in their early controversies over infant baptism, especially in their debates with Reformed churchmen. The Reformed insisted on separating regeneration sometimes by significant time periods, and argued that as evidence for infant baptism (if I recall correctly). Whatever the case, today's Baptist Calvinists are, in my view, forsaking early Baptist understanding and conceding to the strictly Reformed Church view.

What is more, regeneration precedes faith is actually a logical inference from more foundational Reformed doctrines--namely the U, L, and I of TULIP. If salvation really is based upon God's unconditional election, then it seems to follow something on the order of full Regeneration remains necessary. Neither conviction of sin nor any kind of "synergistic" proposal will suffice. Thus, not even a human response can be a part of it because a human response constitutes a condition. How can unconditional election to salvation be true if the condition of a human response is necessary?

Furthermore, since depravity killed the human spirit, it follows a resurrection from the dead is absolutely necessary. Finally, because depravity is so total, a person cannot not unbelieve unless he or she is effectually--i.e. irresistibly-called.

Why is regeneration preceding faith so crucial, or, as Sproul says "the cardinal point of Reformed theology"? Because Reformed theology, by and large, collapses without it.

Thanks my brother Louis. Lord bless.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Andrew Barker]

There's a helpful series of talks on Abraham by Prof John Lennox on the FOCL web site. http://www.foclonline.org/talk/abrahams-faith

Abraham is the archetypal man of faith and what does scripture say? Abraham believed God ..... No doubt Sproul et al would have us believe God regenerated Abraham before he believed, but that's not what it says ... is it!

[Lydia]

I don't see how the U, L or I can stand without regeneration before faith.

Infant baptism also makes more sense with the idea of Adamic guilt passed down in some sort of sin goo we are supposed to inherit. But it is a mystery that Mary carried our Holy Savior in this passed down sin goo for 9 months. Now the Cals seem to be saying that God automatically elects and regenerates the babies who die even though they are guilty and don't know it.

But then I see most of it as Greek Pagan Philosophy, anyway.