civic
Well-known member
False dichotomy fallacy
Biblical Facts against PSA !
- Thread starter civic
- Start date
Fellow Traveler
Active member
“Father, if you are willing, please take this cup of suffering away from me” Luke 22:42
In His human state, Jesus did not want to endure a torturous death inflicted by humans. Yet in the same breath, He prayed, “Not my will, but yours be done”
On the cross he laid his life down willingly, God's wrath was not applied to him.
In His human state, Jesus did not want to endure a torturous death inflicted by humans. Yet in the same breath, He prayed, “Not my will, but yours be done”
On the cross he laid his life down willingly, God's wrath was not applied to him.
Diserner
Well-known member
Errr.
Are you rescinding your earlier claim, or are you claiming the cup was actually taken away?
civic
Well-known member
The cup was not Gods wrath but the cup of suffering as a martyr.
Diserner
Well-known member
I already know your view.
Stephen did not shed drops of blood praying for the strength to be a matyr and begging God to take it away.
I think Jesus was just a tiny bit stronger than Stephen, don't you.
Fellow Traveler
Active member
I haven't a clue what you're talking about.
civic
Well-known member
I like to use the Bible as my source for truth.
Jesus bearing God's “cup of wrath” and being despised and forsaken by the Father and Him turning His back on the Son is not found in Scripture.
In Matthew 26:39, Jesus says, "If it be your will, let this cup pass from me." Jesus tells us precisely what the cup was. It was the cup of his suffering, which meant that He would die an agonizing death as a martyr. In the passage below, Jesus told His disciples that they would also drink of the same "cup":
Matthew 20:17-
Now Jesus was going up to Jerusalem. On the way, he took the Twelve aside and said to them, 18 “We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death 19 and will hand him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life!”20 Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him. 21 “What is it you want?” he asked. She said, "Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom."22 “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said to them. “Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?” “We can,” they answered. 23 Jesus said to them, “You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.”
1 Thessalonians 5:9-For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.
As we see above it was not the cup of wrath Jesus was speaking about but it was the suffering He was going to have to endure for our sins. God has not appointed us to wrath and the cup means the suffering of Jesus and that the disciples would also suffer death as martyrs. In fact, many scriptures testify that believers too will suffer persecution for being a follower of Jesus. Suffering persecution is a promise for a believer who follows Jesus, it is something we should expect to happen in our life.
2 Timothy 3:12- Yes, and everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution.
John 15:20
Remember the word that I spoke to you: 'No servant is greater than his master.' If they persecuted Me, they will persecute you as well; if they kept My word, they will keep yours as well.
Matthew 5:10 - Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
2 Corinthians 4:9- persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed.
hope this helps !!!
Diserner
Well-known member
Well, you should.
You clearly said "cup of wrath" then said:
"There are two completely different things that happened to two completely different times."
With no further explanation of what you meant.
It seems your own posts are confusing you, lol.
Fellow Traveler
Active member
There was a further explanation so you must be the one that's confused.
Diserner
Well-known member
My main problem with penal substitutionary atonement is that it is based on a premise, and it is the premise that is faulty. Once this premise is taken care of, penal substitutionary atonement appears as not even wrong. And the premise is this: that sin needs–needs–to be punished. God cannot just sovereignly decide to forgive us, he also has to punish sin.
A faulty premise will lead you down the wrong road every time, like this.
If God wants to forgive sin, he has to pay some cost.
To which I can only answer: um, excuse me, but who made up that rule and told God he had to follow it? Why does he have to follow it?
Jesus wasn't forced to go to the Cross he went willingly. And only he could make atonement, there was no penal substitution about it. That whole concept is man-made. It goes back to Calvin and his predecessors.
A faulty premise will lead you down the wrong road every time, like this.
If God wants to forgive sin, he has to pay some cost.
To which I can only answer: um, excuse me, but who made up that rule and told God he had to follow it? Why does he have to follow it?
Jesus wasn't forced to go to the Cross he went willingly. And only he could make atonement, there was no penal substitution about it. That whole concept is man-made. It goes back to Calvin and his predecessors.
Diserner
Well-known member
If sin doesn't need to be punished, why are babies born with tumors and missing limbs?
Why would a loving God do that, he just can't help cursing creation it's beyond his power?
Indeed—but were God actually holy, wouldn't it be equally faulty to think sin can go without any judgment.
Sin is compared to debt and to wages.
Why do you think God did that?
Nobody says God HAS to follow anything.
It's what God's Word tells us—sin has a price tag.
Atonement is meaningless without the actual substance of having my sins paid for.
It's like someone saying "I love you" by setting themselves on fire and screaming in pain.
It's just weird and unnecessary.
civic
Well-known member
That is not individual punishment and who says a life lived for a few years is better than a life lived 50 years ?
And what makes Joni Eareckson Tada disabilities and liability ?
She would tell you just the opposite that it was a blessing from God not a punishment for sin.
hope this helps !!!
What connection can you possibly see between people sinning and innocent babies being born malformed?
We are the ones that spit on God's Eden paradise. God brought in death to limit the expansion of our sin, until our Savior appeared and saved us.
civic
Well-known member
Amen
Bob Carabbio
Well-known member
Yup, that's common sense. The LAW (God's and other "laws") creates in Humans the desire to violate it. Since the Born Again Christian is DEAD to the law, it can't condemn them any more.
Diserner
Well-known member
And would you say Christ took that wrath for you?
This isn't a trick question, I'm genuinely wondering where you are coming from.
Bob Carabbio
Well-known member
Without bothering with "theological word games", as a Born Again Christian, I'm "In Christ", and HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS is the ONLY righteousness I'll ever have. How that all works spiritually, I'll ask later, if I even have to.
civic
Well-known member
Why would he believe something the Bible never says ?
Diserner
Well-known member
Okay.
Well I think we will never fully know the price Christ paid for us, but seeing more of how much we cost Christ in heaven will deepen our love and appreciation.
Some of us will be very ashamed of how we belittled the price Christ paid for us.
Diserner
Well-known member
Similar threads
