Putting the "Baptist" back into BBC: A Plea to Return to Our Calvinistic Roots

I know that a post with such a title might create a number of different responses within the hearts of those who love BBC and enjoy attending the institution. I want people to know that I indeed love BBC, and that I write this post out of a genuine concern that Baptist Bible College is abandoning it's historic Calvinist roots and in doing so, ceasing to be Baptist in process (in the historic sense of the word.) The issue I'd like to raise is this: Was 5 point Calvinsim the hisotorically orthodox position of those group of people called "Baptist's?" Because if it was, and BBC claims to be a historically orthodox Baptist institution, there might be some questions raised as it is obvious that the school's position ON THE ATONEMENT is confused and unclear. It boggles my mind that we can be so dogmatically certain about the eschatalogial doctrines (which we hold so dear!) yet when it comes to a question about the Atonement, questions and ambiguity are embraced. We are absolutley sure about the 7 year tribulation, but not about the nature of Christ's Atonement! Completely sure that the millenium proceeds the second coming yet unsure about God's divne desgin in sending his Son into the world. I'm not trying to be divisive or mean-spirited. This is the line of thought held by many at BBC! What I want to get across is this: Historically Baptist's have existed in two categories: General Baptist's (historically known as Arminian Baptist's whose position was rejected by orthodox theologians as heresy) and Particular Baptist's (that group of Baptist's whose soteriology was Calvinistic and whose theological pre-supositions were viewed as orthodox and biblical.) My question is this... are the General Baptist's the spiritual ancestor's of Baptist Bible College and the GARBC? Let's take a quick look at the theology of the general Baptist's and then ask ourselves the question, "Is this position Biblical? Do we really want the General Baptist's to be our spiritual fore-fathers?" In 17th century England, in reaction to the Calvinistic tendencies of most orthodox theologians, a group of men with Baptistic ecclesiology and Arminian soteriology arose within the church. These theologians (commonly referred to as the General Baptist's) were Arminian in soteriology, holding to a general view of the atonement (thus the name) and other Arminian doctrines (such as the possibility of falling from grace). General Baptist theology slowly began to spread througout England and then into America, waning and pretty much declining in a matter of time. General Baptist theology arose out of an agreeement with the theology of Jacob Arminius and his followers. Does some of BBC's theology arise out of General Baptist Armianism which itself was born through the teachings of theologians historically labeled as heretics and heterox? I say some, because BBC is Calvinistic in most areas of soteriology except for the atonement. My contention is this: Do we hold to the Particular Baptist view of the atonement, or do we hold to an Arminian driven General Baptist view of the Atonement? Let it be known: THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND. To claim some kind of middle ground is both historically and theologically inconsistent. I will talk more about this in my next post. I want people to think..."Where do we land historically and biblically? Where do we derive our theological roots? What view of the atonement do we hold?" It's a sad commentary on our institution, as was clear from chapel today, that our view of the atonement is confused and Arminian in nature. There are indeed a remnant of true Baptist's here, and I hope and pray that the biblical view of the atonement will return and flourish within our walls.