Category Archives: Uncategorized

2nd Annual Conference of the Andrew Fuller Center: “The English Baptists of the 17th Century”

On August 25-26, 2008 the Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies will host its second annual conference on the campus of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. This year’s conference focuses on the English Baptists of the 17th century. There will be papers presented on the conference’s theme by both established and up and coming historical scholars. For a complete schedule of the conference click here. Conference speakers include R. Albert Mohler, Jr., Malcolm Yarnell, Tom Nettles, Barry Howson, and Austin Walker. For a conference advertisement listing all the speakers for the conference click here.

Everyone can attend. Registration is $80 or $40 for students (includes conference materials, and meals – 2 breakfasts, 2 lunches, and 1 dinner). To attend, please fill out the Registration Form and mail to:

The Andrew Fuller Center Conference
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
2825 Lexington Road
Louisville, Kentucky 40280

Online registration for the conference will be available soon. Guest room reservations at the Legacy Center at Southern can be made by calling 877-444-7287 or by going online at Please reference Group ID#35728 when making your reservations.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Announcement from an Elephant of Kettering Member

I received the following news from Chris Chun, member of The Elephant of Kettering blog:

He has finally submitted his PhD dissertation (260 pages). The thesis is entitled: “The Greatest Instruction Received from Human Writings: The Legacy of Jonathan Edwards in the Theology of Andrew Fuller.” The only thing left is the oral defense (viva) of his thesis, which is scheduled in June of 2008. To add to this great news, he has been appointed professor of Church History at Golden Gate Theological Seminary in San Francisco, CA.

Many congratulations to this excellent up and coming Church historian and Fuller lover!


Filed under Uncategorized

Building Bridges? Try Andrew Fuller

As most readers of this blog are likely aware, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and Founders Ministry recently teamed up to cosponsor a major conference on the role of Calvinism in SBC life. The persons behind the conference recognize that there has been a resurgence of Calvinism in the SBC in recent years, and that there is evidence this is having a polarizing effect within the convention. They were able to gather over 550 SBC pastors, laymen, and educators in an effort to build bridges between those who hold differing opinions on the value of the Calvinistic resurgence.

One of the many highlights of the Building Bridges Conference was Dr. Daniel Akin’s closing address, “Answering the Call to a Great Commission Resurgence.” Dr. Akin’s final words did a masterful job of summing up the themes which had already been discussed throughout the conference. He let it be known that the Calvinism that was in vogue in Baptist circles when the SBC was formed was an evangelical, missions-minded Calvinism. Far from being a threat to evangelism and missions, it actually acted as an impetus to these important emphases. Dr. Akin reminded his hearers:

“The modern missionary movement was launched by a Baptist. It was also launched by a Calvinist. His name was William Carey. He represents the best and healthiest stream of the Calvinist tradition and one I can enthusiastically embrace. Carey did not receive universal support in his desire to get the gospel to the “heathen” as they were called in his day. There was another tributary of Calvinism that was resolute in its opposition to the aspirations of young William. This type of Calvinism was of no value in Carey’s day. It is of no value in our day. I believe significant headway can be made as we depart from this conference if, in heart and confession, it can be said, I am a “Carey Calvinist.” I am a “Judson Calvinist.” I am a “Spurgeon Calvinist.” I am a Calvinist who embraces with my whole being our Lord’s command to take the gospel across the street and around the world.”

As students of Fuller will recognize, he could also have said, a “Fuller Calvinist.” Each of the men he mentioned would have recognized Fuller’s theology as that which informed their minds, warmed their hearts, and moved them to heroic exertions on behalf of the lost. In fact, Fuller’s name came up quite often in the papers presented at the conference. May God grant that the new-found appreciation for Fuller and his theology sparks a renewal in Southern Baptist life as powerful as that which ensued when he lived and worked among British Particular Baptists.

Paul Brewster

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Andrew Fuller on Natural and Moral Inability

The tenets of both Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism maintain that unregenerate sinners ought not to be required to perform that which they are incapable of doing. Therefore, from the Hyper-Calvinist perspective, preachers must not offer the gospel indiscriminately. They need to first look for those who have the inner warrant to come to Christ for their salvation and then preach to them exclusively, whereas the Arminians maintains that sinners ought not to be required to respond positively to the gospel unless they have the ability to do so.

However, for Fuller this dilemma existed because they did not differentiate the distinctions between natural and moral ability. The natural ability was the basis upon which “heathens” have a duty to respond in faith and repentance. The fact that they have moral inability to do so does not in any way invalidate this duty. If the unregenerate “heathens” rejected the message of the gospel, they would be choosing to do so in accordance with their own desires. Their volition simply reveals who they are, as individuals—whether or not they are reprobate or elect—should they respond positively. In either case, the unregenerate are making choices without outside constraints other than those they themselves impose; that is, their own moral inability. Fuller therefore states, “No man in the world, in his right senses, ever thought of excusing another in unreasonable hatred towards him, merely because his propensities that way were so strong that he could not overcome them. And why should we think of excusing ourselves in our unreasonable and abominable enmity to God”?

Moreover, since God used the preaching of missionaries to the unregenerate as his means of salvation, in Fuller’s thought, he was both logical and coherent in illuminating Carey to thus ensure the obligation of missionaries to offer the gospel to all.

As its secretary, Fuller’s contribution to the formation of the BMS was pre-eminent. The perception of him as “the Rope Holder” of Carey’s ministry in India is also an accurate portrait, but perhaps it was in his capacities as theologian and apologist that Fuller made his most vital contribution to the Protestant missionary movement.

[Excerpt from “A Mainspring of Missionary Thought: Andrew Fuller on Natural and Moral Inability,” American Baptist Quarterly 25, no. 4 (winter, 2006): 348-349.]


Filed under Uncategorized

William Carey, Andrew Fuller, and the SBC’s Foreign Mission Board

I am taking a doctoral seminar this semester in the History of Southern Baptist Foreign Missions, 1845-1945. It is one of the last two I am taking before I finish with my coursework and take comprehensive exams (the other seminar is in Post-Nicene Christian Theology). Lord willing, I will be working on my dissertation “full-time” by June.

For the paper in the missions seminar, I am looking at how the SBC’s Foreign Mission Board (now International Mission Board) used William Carey in it’s periodical literature from 1846-1900. So far, I have identified a number of different uses. Sometimes Carey was used as a role model. This typically entails something along the lines of “and just like Carey left the friendly confines of England to work among the heathen of India, so should you be willing to leave our southern Zion and serve God through foreign missions.”

Sometimes Carey was used for educational/inspirational purposes. At least once every other year or so a basic biography of Carey will be recounted in one of the FMB’s three periodicals.

Sometimes the emphasis was more on Krishna Pal than Carey himself, often in the context of showing what happens when missionaries are successful in their preaching of the gospel. Carey’s other accomplishments are also mentioned in this context, but none carry the “magic” of a first convert who goes on to preach the gospel himself.

Many times Carey is mentioned in conjunction with Andrew Fuller (see–this post is appropriate for the blog!), typically in an article recounting the founding of the Baptist Missionary Society and/or the beginning of a missionary movement among Baptists. In this context, Fuller is naturally put forth as a role model for all the Southern Baptists who remain in the USA “holding the ropes” for missionaries through their giving and their prayers.

American Baptists in general (and Southern Baptists in particular) saw their missionary endeavors as a continuation of what was begun by Carey, Fuller, and company. For Southern Baptists at least, these men (and especially Carey) were used in promotional and inspirational literature even more than Adoniram Judson, the first missionary from America (and himself a Baptist). I will try to keep you updated with where the research and final paper eventually take me.

Oh, and if you are wondering, Andrew Fuller is mentioned at least 22 times in FMB journals between 1846-1900. Carey is mentioned around 180 times. In many ways, they were the “poster boys” for Southern Baptist foreign missions.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Fuller on the Atonement


Fuller, in opposition to the commercial view of the atonement, consistently defines atonement as a substitutionary sacrifice that expressed divine displeasure against sin:

“…displeasure is expressed against transgression…. Thus, in the death of Christ, though he died, ‘the just for the unjust,’ yet God herein expressed his displeasure against sin…” (Works, I:362).

“…if its [atonement] grand object were to express the Divine displeasure against sin, (Rom viii.3), and so to render the exercise of mercy, in all the way wherein sovereign wisdom should determine to apply it.” (Works, II:373–74).

It does that, but it does much more than that. The atonement is essential because it appeases the wrath of God against the guilty sinner by the fact that God’s wrath is directed against his substitute, the perfect sacrifice of Christ. God is not merely expressing his displeasure; his displeasure is being appeased in the atonement. The purpose of the atonement was not to reveal the offense but to remove it. Reconciliation is the grand object, yet Fuller states that the object of the atonement is two-fold: “the great ends designed were to express God’s love of righteousness and his abhorrence of unrighteousness; and these ends are answered by the obedience of sufferings of Christ…. But his obedience unto death, which includes both, gloriously answered every end of moral government, and opened a way by which God could honorably, not only pardon the sinner who should believe in Jesus, but bestow upon him eternal life” (Atonement and Justification, pp. 72–73).

Even as he limits total depravity to the moral faculty of man, Fuller restricts atonement to a moral sense, as a crime. “Sin is a debt only in a metaphorical sense; properly speaking, it is a crime, and satisfaction for it requires to be made, not on pecuniary, but on moral principles” (Atonement and Justification, p. 68). When Christ made atonement for sin, he did not resolve a debt, but satisfied the spirit of the law by a public demonstration of divine displeasure with sin.

“The sufferings of Christ in our stead, therefore, are not a punishment inflicted in the ordinary course of distributive justice, but an extraordinary interposition of infinite wisdom and love; not contrary to, but rather above the law—deviating from the letter, but more than preserving the spirit of it. Such, as well as I am able to explain them, are my views of the substitution of Christ” (Atonement and Justification, p. 71).

Fuller refused to consider the atonement in pecuniary terms, as a literal payment of a debt. An exact payment for an exact number of sinners with varying degrees of guilt would be inconsistent with free forgiveness of sin. Sinners are “directed to apply for mercy as supplicants, rather than claimants” (Works, p. 170).

“If the atonement of Christ proceed not on the principle of commercial, but of moral justice, or justice as it relates to crime—it its grand object were to express the Divine displeasure against sin, (Rom. viii.3,) and so to render the exercise of mercy, in all the ways wherein sovereign wisdom should determine to apply it, consistent with righteousness (Rom iii. 25)—if it be in itself equal to the salvation of the whole world, were the whole world to embrace it—and if the peculiarity which attends it consist not in its insufficiency to save more than are saved, but in the sovereignty of it application—no such inconsistency can justly be ascribed to it” (Works, pp. 170–71).

Fuller seems to be expressing a penal satisfaction, but he uses non-penal language, overcompensating for his opposition to a pecuniary sacrifice. He uses, instead governmental, moral expressions which give the overtone of a Grotian atonement. Fuller is reluctant to talk in terms of legal equivalents, but that is what Christ’s atonement provided for—a voluntary payment of a debt. But, of course, it was much more than that. Rolland McCune writes,
“Penal satisfaction recognizes that Jesus’s sufferings were different from that of an ordinary human being, but they were the legal equivalent to the infinite debt that sinners owed. His suffering for sin was a generic one not a numerical one. Suffering must be equal but not necessarily identical. Identical suffering must actually be by the guilty sinner himself. Dabney speaks of a stick of wood and an ingot of gold being subjected to the same fire. One is consumed and the other is melted. So the sufferings of Christ and their effects on Him differ from what they would do to the sinner himself. ‘The infinite dignity of Christ’s person gives to His temporal sufferings a moral value equal to the weight of all the guilt of the world'” (Systematic Theology Notes, p. 149, citing Dabney, p. 505).

Others may have more insight into Fuller’s view of the atonment which I would be most happy to see.

Gerald Priest


Filed under Uncategorized

Getting to Know Andrew Fuller . . . and Ourselves

An excellent place to begin reading Fuller is with his letters as compiled in The Armies of the Lamb: The Spirituality of Andrew Fuller which were edited by our own Dr. Michael A. G. Haykin. After offering a brief biographical sketch, Haykin then gives the actual text of the letters, along with footnotes to describe particular people and events to which Fuller refers and with which the reader may be unaware. As one might expect, there are a number of recurring themes in Fuller’s letters. I’ve noted at least three such themes. These themes include a recognition of his own inadequacies, a sense of dependence upon the Holy Spirit and prayer, and an emphasis on the preciousness of Christ.
The forty-six letters by Andrew Fuller contained in The Armies of the Lamb are not ordered by Dr. Haykin in the chronological order in which they were written. Instead Dr. Haykin seems to have organized the letters in such a way that their content more or less follows the chronology of Fuller’s life. For example, the first two letters included were written in 1798 and the third in 1815 (the year of Fuller’s death), but all three of these letters describe various details relating to Fuller’s own conversion as a young man years earlier.
In the days ahead I would like to explore the spirituality of Andrew Fuller through looking at some of his personal letters. The reading of these letters has hopefully made an impact upon my own spiritual life. I have been convicted by my failure to recognize my own inadequacies, challenged to depend more upon the Holy Spirit and prayer, and encouraged to look to Christ and Him crucified. In the posts which follow I would like for us to see each of these themes in Fuller’s own words while making personal application of these themes to our own lives.

More to come . . .


Filed under Uncategorized

First Image of the New "Complete Works of Andrew Fuller" From Paternoster Press

If you are a fan of fantasy, you may run out and pre-order the next Harry Potter book. If you are a fan of law, you may run out and pre-order the next John Grisham book. But, if you are a fan of Baptist History, you must run out and get this!

Finally, we have a picture of the first volume in the new series, The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller, that is being put out by Paternoster Press and edited by Michael Haykin. The first volume, The Diary of Andrew Fuller, edited by Michael McMullen, is due to be released sometime in February 2007. Amazon currently has the book listed along with the above picture (you can sign up to be alerted through Amazon when the book is available). You can also see the information about in on Paternoster’s website. Finally, by the looks of it, you can pre-order it from

I hope this sufficiently makes you desire to read more of Fuller now in anticipation of the new standard edition that is soon to come! May we always remember those who have gone before us!


Filed under Uncategorized

Edwardsean and Fullerite Scholarship to Date

October 5, 2003 marked the tercentennial of the birth of Jonathan Edwards. Since the publication of Perry Miller’s intellectual biography in 1949, there has been a rediscovery of Edwards in North America and Britain. Today, exhaustive reading of secondary sources in the field of Edwards is virtually an impossible endeavor. The most significant sources contributing to contemporary Edwardsean scholarship are those from the Yale University Press edition of The Works of Jonathan Edwards. These volumes incorporate previously published and unpublished writing from Edwards’ manuscripts and the editor’s critical introductory essay. Perry Miller served as a general editor until 1963. His successor, John E. Smith, served until 1991, when general editorship then passed to Harry S. Stout. Prior to the Yale edition, scholars and general readers had to rely on nineteenth century editions and reprints, most notably the edition of Edward Hickman reproduced by the Banner of Truth. There are numerous interpretations of Edwards’ writing, oftentimes contradictory in their opinions. In the view of some, Edwards is a saint, and their treatments approach in hagiography while others see him as a dreadful intellectual who preached hell, fire and brimstone. Edwards is perceived as philosopher, theologian, scientist, apologist, revivalist and a leader of a contemporary charismatic movement. Edwards’ theology of the aesthetic has been celebrated, and his views on freedom, sin, and his soteriology has been examined from various perspectives as well as the renowned theocentric lifestyle that derives from his theology.
In comparison to the depth of Edwardsean scholarship, the secondary sources for Andrew Fuller are, however, very much more limited. As a matter of fact, attaining a comprehensive understanding in this field can be accomplished within a relatively short period of time. Michael Haykin, a general editor of forthcoming critical edition of Fuller’s Works observes this scholarly neglect when he says, “C.H. Spurgeon once described Fuller as the ‘greatest theologian’ of his century. Yet, it is amazing that such an important figure in the history of British Evangelicalism has been largely overlooked by historians of this movement since Spurgeon’s day.” Although there are a number of journal articles, chapters in larger books, and unpublished doctoral dissertations, the few published book-length secondary treatments on Fuller exist solely in those from recent decades. Among the monographs, Peter Morden’s Offering Christ to the World (2003) is the most carefully researched work on the life of Fuller. However, insofar as Fuller’s thoughts are concerned, the most thoroughgoing theological treatment was perhaps done in 1963 by E.F. Clipsham, until it was recently superseded by collective essays edited by Haykin in 2004. Nonetheless, there has been a recent resurgence of interest in Fuller by the evangelical Baptists in North America and Britain. In North America, through the Founder Journal and recent initiatives in Calvinistic Baptist life taken by the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary—along with other seminaries in North America interest in Fuller has been revitalized. In Britain, the Paternoster Press, through their new series on Studies in Baptist History and Thought, has published some outstanding scholarly resources covering all facets of Baptist history and theology. In the series thus far, volumes 1, 6, 7, 8 and 11 include material on Fuller. The Reformation Today magazine, which adheres to London Confession of Faith (1689), also contains helpful journal articles on Fuller. However, the most notable evidence of this is the current undertaking to reproduce the modern critical editions of the entire corpus of Andrew Fuller’s work through Paternoster Press. This project, estimated to be completed in 2012, is expected to comprise at least fourteen volumes.


Filed under Uncategorized

Andrew Fuller, Adiel Sherwood, and Georgia Baptist Missions

Adiel Sherwood was one of the major leaders among Georgia Baptists during the period between the War of 1812 and the Civil War. He helped introduce Sunday Schools and temperance societies in Georgia. He was one of the leaders in the formation of the Georgia Baptist Convention in 1822. A tireless advocate of theological education, Sherwood served as the first professor of theology at Mercer University. He was involved in mission work, especially on the frontier that was the 19th century American west. Sherwood was also something of a controversialist, particularly in his arguments for cooperative missions over against Primitive Baptists and his contending for distinctive Baptist principles on the frontier.

Like many 19th century Southern Baptists, Sherwood was also significantly influenced by Andrew Fuller. The following quotes are from Jarrett Burch’s fine biography of Sherwood, Adiel Sherwood: Baptist Antebellum Pioneer in Georgia (Mercer University Press, 2003).

[T]hrough the publication of Fuller’s theological works in America, mission-minded Baptists possessed a theological text that defended a missionary rationale of calling on sinners actively to repent. Many Baptists in America adopted “Fullerism” as it was called and used his theology as a justification for doing mission work in the 1820’s. Sherwood promoted the same theological emphases as Fuller in his promotion of mission causes in Georgia (pp. 11-12).

Influenced by the evangelical thrust of Andrew Fuller, Sherwood’s earliest letters and newspaper articles accentuated the theme of duty faith. Sherwood believed, like Fuller, that faith was a moral duty. Mirroring a similar transition Fuller made in England, Sherwood took the revivalist theology of Jonathan Edwards, which claimed that unconverted people lacked the moral ability to exercise faith. Even though God alone could bestow this moral ability, all sinners had a duty to believe … Sherwood followed Fuller in adopting Edwardsean Calvinism (p. 51).

Sherwood represented the form of evangelical Calvinism filtering into the South that held to this modified view of the atonement–an atonement sufficient for all but efficient for the elect. By embracing Andrew Fuller’s version of limited atonement, Sherwood, like many other Georgia Baptist preachers, could uphold God’s intent to save his own, while assuring their audience that Christ’s atoning work could be offered to all people (p. 243).


Filed under Uncategorized