From Summit to Plummet

Posted: January 22, 2016 | Author: | Filed under: Just for Fun | Tags: , , | 2 Comments
I cannot speak for the others, but I cannot get over the continual failure and falling of the once fighting fundamental classical dispensational school know as Baptists Bible College, currently named Summit Univeristy (of Pennsylvania), and to be named differently at a later date. Some have argued that it might show the better part of wisdom to refrain from making any type of comments on a public medium such as the blogosphere, Facebook and or Twitter. In this case, it might show the better part of wisdom to judge a school’s decision making; especially its constant wasteful spending. Sarah Hall covering the story writes,

Before Baptist Bible became Summit University last April, school officials knew of the Summit University in Montana, but thought the new official name — Summit University of Pennsylvania — was a big enough distinction.

How do you not check with the other school beforehand? The facts on Summit Univeristy’s part are not being given. But here is what is known to be true: One, SU knew the name was trademarked prior to changing it from BBC to SU, hence the additional “of PA” they included on the end of their name change. Two, SU was informed weeks after having made the name change that it was trademarked, and they could not keep it. Three, instead of changing it, to save face they hired lawyers to defend their name change. Four, After not having a case, here they are with 30-60 days to settle or else. One who might say “Didn’t Paul have something to say about things like this… aka, lawsuits” but consider a trademark is a trademark. The name Summit University was already trademarked, and taking that is nothing short of stealing. It is a shame the decision makers did not do basic due diligence while choosing a name. An alumni recently commented on SU’s issue;

Regardless of the facts of this particular situation, it says something about BBC/SU when you see the overwhelming response of alumni to such news. Most schools engender a certain amount of pride that cause their alumni to tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. The jokes, face palming, and head shaking is telling about what the legacy of the school is beyond the particular details of this case.

As an alumni, I cannot imagine the tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars, spent on branding and re-marketing the school. In my opinion, everyone who was a part of the re-branding should be fired, including the CEO, but perhaps in this instance, it is probably not possible to find another CEO willing to take the job? If they ask alumnus opinions for re-naming, I recommend, The Classical Dispensational and Fighting Fundamental General Regular Baptist College of Pennsylvania. One, no one else will have trademarked it, and two, it will help quicken Summit’s rather painful to watch plummet to exist. Mel Walker, Vice President of SU comments on the issue, “We want to do the right thing… We’re committed to doing the right thing.” If such were true, then he’d own up for making such a pricy mistake. I’d rather see my alma mater continue forward, and not cease within the coming years. Maybe if they cared enough of their alumnus opinion’s they would not continue to make the same ill decisions over and over again.
Advertisement

The Doctrinal and Practical Standards for Local Church Membership According to the Bible and the Second London Confession of Faith

Posted: September 4, 2013 | Author: | Filed under: Reform Theology, Reformed Confessions | Tags: , , | Leave a comment

James M. Renihan writes,

The first standard for membership must be a living faith in Jesus Christ, evidenced in the baptismal commitment. As we shall see, this does not mean or imply a full-blown theological understanding of the Christian faith. It simply means that every individual must be able to express his or her conviction that God has saved them through Christ… Here is a second standard; in the case of Saul, it was ethical. A man who was notorious for his hatred of Christ and his church, even to the point of persecution, was held away from membership. Evidence of genuine submission to the Lordship of Christ is essential prior to acceptance into his church.

Those that know of, or run in the Reformed Baptist (Confessional) circles know there are commonly two sides of RB’s in America today. Some have generalize by classifying them as heavy eldership (Al Martin) and those that see the primary role of the elder as a servant (Walter Chantry). While trying to engage myself with Reform Baptists Churches in the past (two for the record), I came away with the same concern from both – their theology of church membership, or the lack there of. While some became members within weeks, others became members after jumping through hoops, then occasionally there is the seminary graduate that was rung through the mill, theologically examined, and given a checklist of do’s and don’ts in order to become a member of God’s church. There was no standard, no consistency, and no understanding (or very little) of the confessional stance on permitting members into a RB church. I had not, till this morning read James M. Renihan’s very helpful article from the 2005 ARBCA General Assembly on “The Doctrinal and Practical Standards for Local Church Membership According to the Bible and the Second London Confession of Faith.” I imagine the world a much better place if ARBCA churches actually held to this understanding of membership in the 1689.

You can read the full article via PDF here.

HT: The Confessing Baptist

Calvinism and the London Baptist Confession of 1644

Posted: July 31, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Baptist, Calvinism | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Baptist Roots
Where did Baptists come from and, historically, what are their beliefs?  The majority of historians agree that today’s Baptists were derived from three major sixteenth-century streams: Particular Baptists, General Baptists, and Seventh-day Baptists. By the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, these denominations birthed a multitude. Separate Baptist, Primitive Baptist, American Baptist and Southern Baptist are just a few of today’s 100-plus Baptist denominations. Each of the three major Baptist groups claims a different line of descent. The Particular Baptists claim a heritage going back to the Protestant Reformers and Puritans of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The General Baptists trace their roots from the earlier Anabaptists of the fifteenth century, and the Seventh-Day Baptists came later, in the sixteenth century. All three major Baptist denominations started in England.

Other Seventeenth-Century Baptists
The Seventh-Day Baptists, known to follow the Judeo-Christian tradition of worshipping on the seventh day of the week, were never large in number, nor are they today. They number less than 50,000 worldwide. The General Baptists were named for their theological stance of having a general, and thoroughly Arminian, view of the atonement.  Lead by John Smyth, they were a noncreedal denomination. By the eighteenth century, English General Baptists had mostly moved into Unitarianism, while most of America’s General Baptists were overtaken by the diverse strands within the Regular Baptist denominations.

The Particular Baptists
Particular Baptists were also commonly called Strict Baptists because of their practice of closed communion, their theological stance on Christ’s definite atonement for His elect, and their two-office congregational polity. It was the Protestant forerunners, like the Reformers & Puritans, that brought about a strong confessional emphasis among Particular Baptists’ theology. The Particular Baptists first appeared in a London church organized by Henry Jacob following his exile from Holland. This church was founded on a basis of confession of individual faith and of a covenant, and it contained both Independent Puritans and radical Separatists. In 1633, the issue of who would administer baptism splintered the two camps. In 1638, the first Particular Baptist Church was established in London under the leadership of John Spilsbery.

The theology of these Baptists appealed to the nation’s prevalent Calvinism and offered no obstacle to the mass of Englishmen. With the rapid growth of the Particular Baptist came serious accusations, such as Pelagianism and Anarchy. This is important to note because both groups were part of the radical wing of Anabaptism; thus, Anabaptism cannot trace its historical roots to the Particular Baptist denomination.

By 1644, the seven Particular Baptist churches in London were quick to follow their Protestant forerunners’ confessional examples. To document their doctrinal differences from the General Baptists and Anabaptists, the seven closely associated and London-based Particular Baptist churches prepared to published their own confessional statement of theology.

The London Confession of 1644 served as an apologetic theology, defending Particular Baptist views against the Arminian General Baptists and other radical groups like the Anabaptists. Henry C. Vedder called it “one of the chief landmarks of Baptist history.” There were five key futures that made it different from the multitude of Protestant Reformed Confessions of its time:

  1. Two representatives from each of the six Particular churches and three from Spilsbery’s church were included in the signatories of the confession.
  2. It had a strong Christological focus.
  3. It was building a confessional theology that gave structure to the New Testament’s administration of the Covenants of Grace—not attempting to reform the National Church.
  4. It charged that the act of baptism was to be a complete immersion of the individual and gave an outline for conduct in case of civil persecution.

It gave the Particular Baptists of its time a distinctive Baptist theology of the church, all while affirming the Reformed view of salvation

The Particular Baptists and Calvinism
1644 brought a year of growth for the Particular Baptists as they more clearly defined the doctrinal standards in their confessional statement. 1645 brought a year of trouble. . Arminian General Baptists charged the Particular Baptists with not addressing free will, communalism, and falling from grace enough, especially within the L0ndon Confession of 1644’s first edition.The General Baptists’ response to the London Confession of 1644 was documented in a pamphlet titled “The Foundation of Free Grace Opened,” which gave their dictional stance against limited atonement, clearly siding with Arminian theology.

The differences and disagreements between 1645’s General and Particular Baptists gave rise to a second edition of the 1644 London Confession and of the First London Baptist confession of 1644. Third and fourth editions would be made later in 1651 and 1652. As William L. Lumpkin commented, about the Particular Baptists,

“In the Army of Cromwell, Baptists had distinguished themselves and had risen to positions of leadership . . . (Calvinist) Baptists were everywhere in prominent positions, and no longer lived in fear of the King and Parliament. The Westminster Confession has appeared in 1646, and by comparing the London Baptist Confession with it men could see that Baptists indeed belonged to the mainstream of Reformed life.”

Calvinistic theology can be seen in a number of areas within the Particular Baptist’s confessional documents. Here are just a few examples taken from the second-edition London Baptist Confession of 1646.

Total Depravity
Article VI: first Eve, then Adam being seduced did wittingly and willingly fall into disobedience and transgression of the Commandment of their great Creator, for the which death came upon all, and reigned over all, so that all since the Fall are conceived in sin, and brought forth in iniquity, and so by nature children of wrath, and servants of sin, subjects of death, and all other calamities due to sin in this world and for ever, being considered in the state of nature, without relation to Christ.

[See also Article V.]

Unconditional Election
Article V: Subject to the eternal wrath of the great God by transgression; yet the elect, which God has loved with an everlasting love, are redeemed, quickened, and saved, not by themselves, neither by their own works, lest any man should boast himself, but wholly and only by God of His free grace and mercy through Jesus Christ.

[See also Article XVII and Article XIX.]

Limited Atonement
Article XXI: That Christ Jesus by His death did bring forth salvation and reconciliation only for the elect, which were those which God the Father gave Him; and that the Gospel which is to be preached to all men as the ground of faith, is, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the ever blessed God, filled with the perfection of all heavenly and spiritual excellencies, and that salvation is only and alone to be had through the believing in His name.

[See also Article XXX.]

Irresistible Grace
Article XXII: That faith is the gift of God wrought in the hearts of the elect by the Spirit of God, whereby they come to see, know, and believe the truth of the Scriptures, and not only so, but the excellency of them above all other writing and things in the world, as they hold forth the glory of God in His attributes, the excellency of Christ in His nature and offices, and the power of the fullness of the Spirit in His workings and operations; and thereupon are enabled to cast the weight of their souls upon this truth thus believed.

[Se alsoArticle V and Article XII].

Perseverance of the Saints
Article XXXVI: To this Church He has made His promises, and given the signs of His Covenant, presence, love, blessing, and protection: here are the fountains and springs of His heavenly grace continually flowing forth; thither ought all men to come, of all estates, that acknowledge Him to be their Prophet, Priest, and King, to be enrolled amongst His household servants, to under His heavenly conduct and government, to lead their lives in His walled sheepfold, and watered garden, to have communion here with the saints, that they may be made to be partakers of their inheritance in the Kingdom of God.

[See also Article XXVII.]

Connections to Today’s Current Situation
Where do Baptists come from, and what are their historical beliefs? The question lives on, surfacing again in the twenty-first century within America’s largest Baptist denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention. As Rev. Dr. Tom Ascol stated, (during the Southern Baptist Convention of 1995), “Never in our history have we stood in greater need of reexamining our roots.” The issue is the same today as it was in 1995.

With regards to today’s current situation involving soteriology within the Southern Baptist denomination, members must look past the “traditional” views of the twentieth century and back to their historical fathers of the seventeenth century. We must not forget the theology that the Baptist church is founded upon. Southern Baptists need to clearly see the historical value of their Protestant Faith and its theological stances. As Baptist historian W. T. Whitley once stated (on Baptists’ redress of their own history), “. . . if a later generation finds that it does not agree with its predecessors, whether in content or in emphasis, it has openly revised and re-stated what it does believe or it has discarded the old confession and framed another.”

Additional Reading Information on Calvinism and Baptist Church