"...(I)t has become apparent to both institutions that, for the time being, Central and Faith should minister collaboratively rather than as a single, merged institution."

“Therefore, the two schools will continue to enhance their already existing shared ministries.”

Especially if the above statement is truly implemented, I think that this will be the best course for both schools.
The prospect of one “mega-seminary” surely drew some attention, and it would be nice to have a seminary of significant size with two campuses and enhanced offerings.
However, there is also a real danger in that approach from a spiritual perspective (witness what happened at “mega-seminaries” DTS and GTS).
There is safety in having a number of smaller seminaries which have differing strengths and, to some extent, hold one another in balance.
Also, clicking on the related links and chasing after a few more pages on both schools’ websites, it becomes apparent to the trained eye that these schools have differing histories, philosophies and flavors. In order to accomplish a complete merger, one or both would have had to compromise on some level. This could lead to any number of problems in the future.
I am sure that the prospect of this proposed merger hanging unresolved brought a certain measure of uncertainty on both campuses — especially to prospective students. It is very wise to bring it to some sort of conclusion sooner rather than later.
Personally, it is my hope and prayer that the alumni of both seminaries would become more active in supporting and promoting both of these schools, and that each may flourish. Being especially partial to Faith, I am glad that talk of this merger gave the school some well-deserved publicity, and hope that they can find a way to continue to capitalize on that momentum.
My own testimony is that with all due respect to Central and the other fine fundamental Baptist seminaries that are available, I would have to be convinced that any of them can offer more competent teaching, a better education or more fulfulling opportunities (per the size of the campus, if you will) than FBTS.

(I am offering purely my own views here as an FBTS alumnus.)

[Greg Linscott] Specifically, in the http://www.centralseminary.edu/about-central/position-a-philosophy] three areas addressed in the ethos statements from Central, Faith is not willing to allow the degree of latitude amongst their faculty that Central is willing to. It seems to me that Faith views themselves (at least in these areas) as more of a guardian and defender of specific viewpoints and perspectives, while Central is comfortable with a faculty they would consider to be representative of the various positions represented in Baptist Fundamentalism on these topics.

Greg,
I think you are exactly correct. I admit that I had not taken the time to read some of these statements from Central before, or perhaps was not aware of them. As I read them, I definitely think that there are other seminaries which are probably much closer to FBTS on these points (which are considered significant at Faith). I won’t try to name any, as that may not be helpful right now. But the same is probably also true with regard to Central — there are probably other seminaries to which it is more closely related.
Which makes me wonder — could it be that this proposal was first considered more because of geography than theology??

[Greg Linscott] I don’t think that Central’s position is as much contrary to FBTS as FBTS’s is more specific.

Greg,

Everything you say about the similarities between FBTS and CBTS is absolutely correct, and by no means am I trying to create a wedge between them at this late stage in the game. However, it is inadequate to say that FBTS’s position is simply more specific than CBTS’s.
Central’s http://www.centralseminary.edu/about-central/position-a-philosophy] position statements contain allowance for theological positions which are counter to the teaching for which Faith is well-known.
As you said earlier, there is not a lock-step mentality at Faith by any means. Rather, Faith views itself positively as the theological heir of “old-Dallas” and “old-Grace” dispensationalism — “A Charge to Keep,” if you will; a treasure to preserve.
If you want to go to a school where you can learn an inaugurated kingdom, multiple fulfillments of prophecy, the primacy of regeneration, etc., there are many of them. If you want the theology that Faith presents, your choices are already limited.
Interestingly, I believe that Faith also has a somewhat wider circle of fellowship than Central (although, perhaps not by much).
Doubtless some of these points factored into the decision not to proceed with the merger.

[Greg Linscott] As far a “wider circle”- I’m not sure what the frame of comparison you have in mind would be. The Faith campus serves as a meeting location for several mission field councils and such. Central, sharing a campus with a church and Christian school, doesn’t have the same advantages and opportunities.

By wider circle, I refer to the fact that Faith has presented speakers such as John Walvoord, Renald Showers, Charles Ryrie, Ken Ham and Terry Mortenson. The school also has a friendly relationship with CEF and other groups one might not always relate to a fundamental Baptist setting.
Additionally, I found at least in my time there that it was common for seminary modules to draw pastors from IFCA, EFCA, Brethren and other types of non-Baptist churches, and those pastors were always made to feel entirely welcome and part of the group.
I cannot speak for Central in these regards, but my hunch is that Faith’s circle of fellowship is wider than theirs.