One more reason why I can't be Southern Baptist

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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'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.