Daniel Patz: "I gladly affirm the new Northland International University articles of faith -- the New Hampshire Baptist Confession of 1853"

Larger image of Daniel Patz FB post

http://www.highpointeaustin.org/who-we-are/our-faith/the-new-hampshire-…

The copy Jim points to contains a revision to the original NHCoF. The text of Article #15 states:

15. Of the Christian Sabbath. We believe that the first day of the week is the Lord’s Day, or Christian Sabbath[78]; and is to be kept sacred to religious purposes[79] , by abstaining from all secular labor and sinful recreations[80]; by the devout observance of all the means of grace, both private[81] and public[82]; and by preparation for that rest that remaineth for the people of God[83].

78. ↑ Acts 20:7; Gen. 2:3; Col. 2:16–17; Mark 2:27; John 20:19; 1 Cor. 16:1–2
79. Exod. 20:8; Rev. 1:10; Psa. 118:24
80. Isa. 58:13–14; 56:2–8
81. Psa. 119:15
82. Heb. 10:24–25; Acts 11:26; 13:44; Lev. 19:30; Exod. 46:3; Luke 4:16; Acts 17:2, 3; Psa. 26:8; 87:3
83. Heb. 4:3–11

The full text of the actual NHCoF: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_Baptist_Confession_of_Faith_(1833)

On Sabbitarianism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritan_Sabbatarianism

I’m sensitive to this, BTW, because the current Minnesota Baptist Association statement, which builds on the NHCoF, contains similar language which we plan to address in our current revision process. It would be interesting if this was actually the wording (and practice) they intend to adopt- broadening the allowances in some areas (the NHC does not address a specific system of eschatology or a hermenutic principle by which the Bible is interpreted- e.g., it is neither pre-mill, post-mill or amill, nor does it take a position on the ministry of the Holy Spirit- e.g., it is neither continuationist nor cessationist), while tightening observation of the Sabbath. I tend to doubt this is their intent, though (Sabbitarianism, that is- I quite expect that it is their intent to open up the other areas to a diversity of views).

18. Of the World to Come
We believe that the end of the world is approaching (1); that at the last day Christ will
descend from heaven (2), and raise the dead from the grave to final retribution (3); that a
solemn separation will then take place (4); that the wicked will be adjudged to endless
punishment, and the righteous to endless joy (5); and that this judgment will fix forever
the final state of men in heaven or hell, on principles of righteousness (6).

The rapture does not occur on the “last day.” There is no general resurrection of the saved and the lost occuring at the same time taught in Scripture. The “last day” occurs after the millenium. It appears that this Confession makes no distinction between the first and second resurrection, nor from the rapture of the Church and the judgment of the wicked. It appears to advance a “general judgment” position of belief. It is obviously and blatantly non-dispensational.

[jimcarwest]

18. Of the World to Come
We believe that the end of the world is approaching (1); that at the last day Christ will
descend from heaven (2), and raise the dead from the grave to final retribution (3); that a
solemn separation will then take place (4); that the wicked will be adjudged to endless
punishment, and the righteous to endless joy (5); and that this judgment will fix forever
the final state of men in heaven or hell, on principles of righteousness (6).

The rapture does not occur on the “last day.” There is no general resurrection of the saved and the lost occuring at the same time taught in Scripture. The “last day” occurs after the millenium. It appears that this Confession makes no distinction between the first and second resurrection, nor from the rapture of the Church and the judgment of the wicked. It appears to advance a “general judgment” position of belief. It is obviously and blatantly non-dispensational.

Jim, notice the title of the Article “Of the World to Come.” It’s not “Of the Last Days.” Even if you are a pre-tribulational pre-millenial, you could agree with that article understanding it’s just talking about the last day. One of my favorite passages is Job 19:25-26:

For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:

For Job, the “Last Day” or the “Latter Day” is when God stands on the earth. That’s not talking about the rapture of the church in a Pre-millenial way. Job is summarizing his hope (which is amazing in detail for being so early in history).

I like how the confession doesn’t add details over which we don’t have as much light, and sticks to the main points of orthodoxy. My church has this statement as our statement, but we modified it to not be Sunday-sabbatarian and changed this section slightly. I’m sure Northland could change it slightly as well. I hope they do.

Greg, here is how we worded the Lord’s Day section if it helps you guys.

Of The Lord’s Day

We believe that the first day of the week is the Lord’s Day and is to be kept sacred to religious purposes by preparation for the rest that remains for the people of God.

We added a statement on Gender which I think is necessary these days.

XVIII . Of Gender and Marriage

We believe that God created humanity as male and female, equal as persons before God, with distinct yet complementary roles according to the created order, that males alone may serve as an elder as one who governs and teaches in the church; that marriage is a covenant made before God between a man and a woman, that models the relationship between God and His people and the profound mystery of Jesus’ relationship with the church, in which wives should joyfully submit to their husbands as to the Lord and that husbands should lead and love their wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for the church.

Our church also uses the New Hampshire Confession, 1853, slightly modified. In truth, it became the “standard” Baptist confession for much of America. Both the Bible Baptist Fellowship (Springfield) as well as the GARBC adopted modified versions of it, along with most fundamental Baptist institutions. It is an historical link to orthodox Baptist theology in the 19th and early 20th century.

On Affirmation xv, “Of the Lord’s Day,” we adopted the following : “We believe that the first day of the week is the Lord’s Day, the day appointed for the regular assemblies of the church. We believe that Christians should meet with the church on the Lord’s Day for public worship, fellowship, instruction, and observance of the Ordinances, and that it should be utilized to cultivate personal spiritual growth and as a testimony before the world.”

Here is our revised affirmation xvii, “of the World to Come.” “We believe that Christ will return to earth in His glorified body; that the dead will be raised from their graves, that the righteous will be received into endless joy; that the wicked will be assigned to endless punishment, according to principles of righteousness; that the present world will be destroyed and that a new heaven and a new earth will be instituted wherein dwells perfect righteousness.”

Our intent was to affirm what all orthodox Christians believe about these subjects, without adding the details that divide many Bible believers.

http://www.garbc.org/?page_id=31

[jimcarwest]

It is obviously and blatantly non-dispensational.

The New Hampshire Confession was first created in 1833 and received minor revisions in 1853. And taking care to distinguish it from forms of chiliasm like historic millennalism that can be traced at least back to Polycarp, it is very fair to say that premillennial dispensationalism did not exist prior to the Plymouth Brethren movement that began in Ireland in 1827, and that the doctrines were not presented in a systematic fashion until John Nelson Darby did so no earlier than 1831.

Dispensationalism’s becoming even moderately known in America was due to James H. Brooke and Dwight Moody. Brooke did not even become an ordained minister until 1854 and became dispensational some time afterwards. For his part Moody did not start to lean dispensational until 1872.

So when you charge this doctrinal statement with being “obviously and blatantly non-dispensational” please put it into context. It is akin to stating that the research of Thomas Edison and Alexander Graham Bell obviously and blatantly failed to reflect nuclear physics and the general theory of relativity.

So when you charge this doctrinal statement with being “obviously and blatantly non-dispensational” please put it into context. It is akin to stating that the research of Thomas Edison and Alexander Graham Bell obviously and blatantly failed to reflect nuclear physics and the general theory of relativity.

So then, JobK, to run with your illustration, would NIU be, in effect, throwing out modern technology for gas lamps and telegraphs? :)

Interesting note: As much as some of protested that NIU isn’t “BJU North,” this specific move, at least, actually serves to fuel that charge more than it does distance them. The University Creed and Our Biblical Foundation documents make no issue whatsoever about issues like eschatology or continuationism/cessationism.

Here’s the link to the updated articles of faith: http://www.ni.edu/about-us/core-values/articles-of-faith/

There is a PDF available for download as well (attached).

So, they kept it. Interesting. Wonder if it is something they intend to comply with.

It seems to me that adopting the NHCoF is a way to say “we stand in step with historic Christianity”- which is admirable, as far as it goes. At the same time, an issue like the Sabbath statement reveals that there are reasons our immediate forebears didn’t always limit themselves to such statements, but improved upon them at times, and even adjusted the articulations of the past in an effort to reflect a more precise and Biblical understanding.

What we have now is potentially an institution that allows for wide fellowship between dispensationalists and covenant theologians, between cessationists and continuationists, so long as their churches don’t have Superbowl Sunday parties. :)

This is a provisional until their Board and bible department can adapt it to fit who they are now. So I’ll guess it will be broader than the old but several points will be refined ex: Sabbath…

[Greg Linscott]

So when you charge this doctrinal statement with being “obviously and blatantly non-dispensational” please put it into context. It is akin to stating that the research of Thomas Edison and Alexander Graham Bell obviously and blatantly failed to reflect nuclear physics and the general theory of relativity.

So then, JobK, to run with your illustration, would NIU be, in effect, throwing out modern technology for gas lamps and telegraphs? :)

One would have to take the position that people who believe in dispensationalism are 100% right and people who do not believe in dispensationalism are entirely wrong. The person who has that position would then be responsible for explaining why these doctrines were not part of Christianity until 1830. Belief in a literal interpretation of Revelation 20 is one thing … though it has been a decided minority viewpoint in Christianity at least since the time of Eusebius, you can at least trace the doctrinal system back to the early church and point out those who have adhered to it in times since. But the distinctives associated with premillennial dispensationalism go far beyond a literal interpretation of Revelation 20. Before making dispensationalism the equivalent of superior modern technology, someone needs to come up with a good explanation for what it was that made the Plymouth Brethren the theological equivalents of Edison and Bell while all the Christians in ages prior were still stumbling around in the darkness and stricken with muted voices concerning their ability to clearly interpret and proclaim scripture.

And care should be taken while making that case, not least because the Plymouth Brethren countenanced a number of problematic heterodox beliefs. John Nelson Darby had a the most un-Biblical conviction that making distinctions between the clergy and the laity was sin because the Holy Spirit could speak through anyone, a heresy first rejected by God himself when Korah attempted to lead a rebellion against God’s anointed minister Moses while the church was in the wilderness and then specifically repudiated by the Acts account and the Pauline writings. That is one example. There are others.

NIU was always very, very strong on getting students out of the campus and into local churches for extension ministries and corporate worship on Sundays, so that may have been an area that they decided to strengthen by adding it to the articles of faith. I don’t know.

They had a ‘campus church’ that met in the white chapel, but that was almost like a “If you really can’t get to a local church, then here’s a place for you to go” type thing. At least, that’s how I felt about it. It was ‘lead’ by one of the deacons/elders at Faith Pembine, but I don’t know what they do now. As I look back, I’m glad that they treated is as a subsidiary of Faith Pembine and not as a ‘school church’.