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

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.

Why? I don’t believe all paedobaptists are 100% entirely wrong. I’m not going to encourage my church to change our statement to allow for latitude in that area in our membership, though.

I’m not intending to make dispensationalism necessarily the equivalent of superior technology. It did seem the logical (if unintended) conclusion of your illustration.

Arguing from church history and that kind of thing is not entirely irrelevant- but I don’t think it necessarily is a convincing reason to discard the position. Otherwise, there would be plenty of things we could point to that we could either abandon or embrace- like the Sabbitarian issue I’ve mentioned in the NHCoF, or paedobaptism, or sacramentalism…

[Greg Linscott]

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.

While it may not be in the Creed or other documents, those two things—particularly strongly so with respect to eschatology—are very much requirements to teach on the Bible faculty.

This leads to some (in my opinion) great ironies—like the fact that you can be very strongly confident that from day to day in chapel you’ll always hear the same eschatology, but you can (literally, I’ve seen it happen) go from a strongly Calvinistic message on Monday to a flamingly Arminian (flaming meaning the Calvinists get ridiculed etc.) message on Tuesday.

Is that in writing anywhere? Not doubting you… Just curious.

But for all we know, NIU has stronger requirements for faculty than students, too. Everything’s up in the air, now…

When I mentioned that NIU wasn’t “BJU North” a couple days ago in a different thread, I never meant to denigrate either school or to argue that one was inferior to the other. What I mean is that there is a culture to each school that is it’s own and that they are very different in some major ways. BJU is very buttoned down, formal and precise. NIU is more easygoing, relaxed, and isn’t quite as dogmatic on the way things must be done. That’s not a knock on either school, and I think BJU is actually loosening up in some areas. The DS at Northland when I was a student there could be signed by BJU faculty and vice versa when I was at BJU. It probably still could be that way - but the cultures of the school and the practices at each are night and day.

I’ve told people - and believe this strongly - that if I’d gone to BJU for undergrad first and then NIU for grad school, I would be a radically different person today, and for that I rejoice that God sent me to NIU first. I needed the ‘heart focus’ and ‘discipleship’ that NIU was able to provide as a fairly new Christian.

Understood, Jay- but I will say that distinction wasn’t always apparent to those, say, sending their kids. Some hadn’t probably paid enough attention to BJU’s history of a broader constituency (hence the lament of some at one point in time that they sent them to BJU Baptists and they came out Presbyterian). I think there is some merit to the idea that music was a sort of common bond (like, for example, the songs of Joe Zichterman, for one now awkward example, or the recruiting between Northland and BJU to comprise groups that traveled with Steve Pettit and Will Galkin). There was overlap, too, in camps like the Wilds that ended up serving as kind of a de facto denominational structure, creating ties at least as strong an anything I ever saw in formally organized associations like the GARBC.

Greg- Totally agree with you there. It’s also why I think that it is totally legitimate to refer to ‘cultural Fundamentalism’ without it being derogatory (although it could be taken as such).

NIU has just released a new statement, noting that the articles of faith are templates for reworking their position statements and that Dan Patz is praying about and consulting with friends, elders and family before accepting the Chairman role.

http://www.ni.edu/news-events/an-update-from-northlands-board

[Greg Linscott]

Is that in writing anywhere? Not doubting you… Just curious.

Not that I’ve seen. But it is more than just my own observation (though I did observe it.) The same thing has been said by those I’ve known that have worked on the Bible faculty…so I’d consider that to be a bit more than hearsay.

[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.

This is just a general statement. There is nothing in this that would prevent a premill understanding of eschatology.

Not that it matters what I think, I hope to lead the people God has placed under my leadership closer in exulting in the greatness of the one true God, and have little desire to get super involved in other ministries, But I do believe that colleges ought to be more general and less narrow in their doctrinal statements. It is supposed to be a place of education. Therefore, narrowing the focus so finely that puts students in an awkward position of having to agree with something prior to being taught it is one of frustrations I have had with fundamental Bible schools. But maybe that is a reaction to pressure by supporting churches. I believe that in the church, Holy Spirit filled and lead leadership and assemblies can and should refine doctrine further as it is taught, but in an educational environment, make the statements general enough to place them in orthodoxy, mainline denomination they claim to be, (ie baptists school can expect general agreement to historical baptist polity and theology, the same for presbyterian, charismatic, etc.) and the philosophical emphasis they are teaching toward (pastoral, missions, liberal arts, etc.).

Confessions are wonderful things. They have a robust tradition in the Christian church and ought to be used regularly and intentionally.

1.) Confessions are like fences. They mark boundaries and define things—like sheep and wolves. Sheep are in, wolves are kept out. And they serve as useful ways to teach children the difference between sheep and wolves. I heartily recommend the use of confessions for such a reason as this.

2.) Confessions testify to the theological views of the people who draft them and they tell us what was important at the time of their composition. For example 1689, 2nd London, which was actually written in 1677, set the English Baptists alongside their Presbyterian neighbors as being in essential agreement on some things and essential disagreement on others. The very purpose of 1689 was to say to their Presbyterian neighbors that they were not “together for the Gospel” when it came to ecclesiology, or they would not have been separatists, leaving the C of E, and refusing to join with their Presbyterian friends. They did not plant churches together and they did not do missions together. Their Baptist identity was important to them.

3.) Confessions are thoughtful documents designed to be a positive statement of what one believes. They are not ordinarily used to affirm what one does not believe. The NHCF has no statement on the Pentecostal movement not because this was a matter of indifference. The movement was still more than 50 years away from its early origins, unless one considers the rather small English Irvingite movement that had little if any influence in America. Also, there was little debate in 1833 on eschatology, so the statement NHCF affirms is rather generic. It was not an issue because they wanted to be “all things to all men” but because eschatology had not risen to be an issue of prominence anywhere in 1833. The Millerite movement was in its infancy.

Moreover, confessions are intended to be thoughtful things, not merely “provisional” in nature, meant to be a stop-gap until something better comes along. Men labored long over particular wording so as to express clearly what was affirmed. I personally like what NHCF says in article VI and VII re: regeneration proceeding faith! Great affirmation. But I could not affirm article 15 on Sunday as the Christian Sabbath. Note that those who sign this document pledge to abstain “from all secular labor and sinful recreations, by the devout observance of all the means of grace, both private and public; and by preparation for the rest that remaineth for the people of God.” This is far too legalistic for me and I would guess for most thoughtful Christians today, though I do wish Christians today took the Lord’s Day with greater sobriety. But perhaps those who can sign this are serious about no longer cancelling the evening service on Sunday night in favor of a Super Bowl party. If this is the result, I applaud the ends, if not the means.

For this reason, NHCF, which has been used by many churches since 1833, has often been amended before its adoption to reflect the theological sensibilities of those who affirm it. As I said, I know of no other case where a doctrinal statement was used “provisionally” and adopted because of what it did not say, rather than adopted for its clear presentation of one’s personal beliefs in Christian theology.

Isn’t that what we are supposed to be doing?

But making a point about something you said elsewhere.

So why did they choose a statement of faith that is doctrinally out-of-date with their current position?

[jimcarwest]

So why did they choose a statement of faith that is doctrinally out-of-date with their current position?

Bixby wrote on his blog that he suggested the old confession.

“Since I was in on the discussion and actually suggested the NHBC 1833 before it was set aside for the 1853 revision I know some of the thinking that was behind this decision. While there are plenty of Baptists and historians who would disagree, it is fair to say that enough people understand a confession to be an affirmation of what we are while a doctrinal statement which is far more extensive in detail details what we must believe to work together.”

http://bobbixby.wordpress.com/2013/05/11/on-northlands-confession/

I realize that Northland is putting up a “confession of faith”, and currently it is a provisional, and Master’s advertises a “doctrinal statement” http://www.masters.edu/abouttmc/doctrine.aspx , But it appears that Mac and Masters (as well as Cedarville-http://www.cedarville.edu/About/Doctrinal-Statement.aspx) currently right flank Northland. Why is this important the average lay person in our churches will not make a distinction between a “Confession of Faith” and “Doctrinal Statement”, rather they will look for a statement on Charismatics, end times, election, and so forth….