One more reason why I can't be Southern Baptist

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Could you explain what you meant by your last sentence?

Sure ... there are 0 SBC churches in my area of New Jersey

 

[thatbrian]

This was what would be called an "altar call." Think of the Billy Graham Crusade with people streaming forward to accept Christ while "How Great Thou Art" is sung. This used to be standard for Baptist churches but in many churches today the Pastor would say something like "If you have made a decision in you heart to follow Jesus, come to the front after the service or at another time and speak to me or one of the Deacons." Personally, I believe that either approach is valid but there is a definite need to talk to the person and examine whether they understand what they are doing (especially for young children) and understand what their confession means. Most of those here would probably say an altar call is still standard practice in their church.
Actually, I believe that the best way to share the gospel is one-on-one. It's not either or, however, but rather all of the above.

Thanks for the explanation. I'm surprised at this method as I don't see anything like it prescribed or demonstrated in the NT. Do you have some biblical backing for this practice?

 

[Rebel1]

Sure ... there are 0 SBC churches in my area of New Jersey

Okay, thanks.

 

[Jerome]

Yes, the Northern New Jersey Southern Baptist association has just fifty churches!

www.njersey.net/page/our_churches

There is no New Jersey state convention, the northern half (above) was assigned to the New York convention, while the south remains pegged onto Pennsylvania:

 

[Salty]

Yes, the Northern New Jersey Southern Baptist association has just fifty churches!

www.njersey.net/page/our_churches

There is no New Jersey state convention, the northern half (above) was assigned to the New York convention, while the south remains pegged onto Pennsylvania:

Northern NJ, used to be part of the Metropolitan (NY City) Baptist Association, however eight years ago, they became their own association
They currently have 50 affiliated churches and is in fellowship with the (Southern) Baptist Convention of New York

 

[Yeshua1]

I was raised Southern Baptist and baptized in a Southern Baptist church. Back then, the SBC believed in soul liberty.

This recent resolution says that I hold to false teaching on the atonement: Southern Baptist Convention > On The Necessity Of Penal Substitutionary Atonement

That would be the best atonement view, as per the scriptures though!

 

[Rebel1]

That would be the best atonement view, as per the scriptures though!

I disagree. And I'll go with the early church over the Magisterial Reformers.

 

[agedman]

That would be the best atonement view, as per the scriptures though!

I don’t think a PSA that includes the wrath of God poured out upon the Son, and abandonment of the Son, and the Limit of atonement being a limit of blood so there was only enough for the elect is “the best per Scriptures.”

Particularly when the Scriptures do not support that thinking.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Yes, the Northern New Jersey Southern Baptist association has just fifty churches!

www.njersey.net/page/our_churches

There is no New Jersey state convention, the northern half (above) was assigned to the New York convention, while the south remains pegged onto Pennsylvania:

It’s in sad, sad....did I say, sad shape.

 

[JonC]

I was raised Southern Baptist and baptized in a Southern Baptist church. Back then, the SBC believed in soul liberty.

This recent resolution says that I hold to false teaching on the atonement: Southern Baptist Convention > On The Necessity Of Penal Substitutionary Atonement

I've been reading the SBC position here, and I think you have less to be concerned about than you may initially think. Having not defined Penal Substitution except by what is affirmed in the statement (all which are correct) it looks like they are addressing the movement towards non-violent atonement (the contemporary Mennonite theories of men like Weaver). For an example, compare the Penal Substitution Theory of R.C. Sproul to that of N.T. Wright. Both affirm Penal Substitution but they are worlds apart.

 

[Yeshua1]

I disagree. And I'll go with the early church over the Magisterial Reformers.

I prefer to go with jesus and paul!

 

[Yeshua1]

I've been reading the SBC position here, and I think you have less to be concerned about than you may initially think. Having not defined Penal Substitution except by what is affirmed in the statement (all which are correct) it looks like they are addressing the movement towards non-violent atonement (the contemporary Mennonite theories of men like Weaver). For an example, compare the Penal Substitution Theory of R.C. Sproul to that of N.T. Wright. Both affirm Penal Substitution but they are worlds apart.

That is due to Sproul affirming it, while Wright does not!

 

[Salty]

I prefer to go with jesus and paul!

Paul was a Southern Baptist - At least 26 times he said: You All

 

[Yeshua1]

Paul was a Southern Baptist - At least 26 times he said: You All

He knew Ronald Reagan!

 

[JonC]

That is due to Sproul affirming it, while Wright does not!

Uh....no, they both hold a very different PSA theory but both affirm a PSA theory. So did Karl Barth and by your definition Justin Martyr.

For your edification: Don't Tell Me N.T. Wright Denies "Penal Substitution"

Now, don't get me wrong, this doesn't mean that I agree with N.T. Wright, or Karl Barth, or Sproul. It just means your understanding doesn't corner the market. Some can actually defend their PSA via Scripture.

 

[Yeshua1]

Uh....no, they both hold a very different PSA theory but both affirm a PSA theory. So did Karl Barth and by your definition Justin Martyr.

For your edification: Don't Tell Me N.T. Wright Denies "Penal Substitution"

he denies the way that it has been theological defined since time of the Reformation, correct?

 

[JonC]

he denies the way that it has been theological defined since time of the Reformation, correct?

No, actually he doesn't. He does depart in terms of Justification, but not in terms of theories of the Atonement. Looking at a few articles, it seems he does hold mostly to Christus Victor, which is and has been the most popular view. But he is closer to your view than is Justin Martyr (who you claim held to PSA), so you have no room to argue against him on this point (that he holds a version of PSA).That would be like arguing Calvin didn't hold to PSA because he believed in baptizing infants.

I prefer to go with jesus and paul!

I'm still waiting for the passage where you claim Isaiah said Jesus was stricken by God and Paul said God cursed Jesus. So you'll have to forgive me if "I prefer to go with Jesus and Paul" holds very little weight.

 

[Reynolds]

Paul was a Southern Baptist - At least 26 times he said: You All

You all ain't southern. Y'all is Southern. Historically, you all is more border state thing. A little further North gets you to youins.
But, I get the joke. Funny.

 

[thatbrian]

You all ain't southern. Y'all is Southern. Historically, you all is more border state thing. A little further North gets you to youins.
But, I get the joke. Funny.

And they say that Calvinists have no sense of humor. . . You've ruined a good joke. Why???

 

[Reynolds]

And they say that Calvinists have no sense of humor. . . You've ruined a good joke. Why???

You all ain't southern.