Man imputed Jesus with sin on the cross, not God.

[ScooterJackson]

Yes, He believed His mission was to go to the cross. But in the garden, as it was now about to happen in real life, He clearly did not want to believe it, at least for a short time, and wanted to find a way around it

If Jesus ever just once had the attitude that He did not want to do what the Father sent Him to do, that would have been sinful.

So, no Jesus did not do that.

He simply asked the Father if if there be any other way let's do it the other way, but none the less the Father's will be done.

And it also reminded Christians at a later time that it was necessary not to be eager to be tortured and killed for their faith, but rather to be willing to accept it if need be.

Sounds like the lay down and let satan destroy us doctrine.

Christ was imputed with the sins of all sinners, or maybe the sins of the elect only

No, He tasted of death for ALL men, not just the elect as the false teachers claim

Hebrews 2:9 - by the grace of God should taste death for every man

Now they'll claim the "every man" part is talking about just a few but they obviously don't know what EVERY means as they attempt to read in to scripture something it does not say.

Do you think God was not going to forgive those for whom Jesus prayed for mercy?

Forgiveness is available to them as long as they turn from their sin, get born again, and abide in Christ until the end of their lives.

It does not mean people can live after the flesh all their lives and still be forgiven. We have to remember what the rest of God's Word teaches too.

 

[PaulThomson]

If Jesus ever just once had the attitude that He did not want to do what the Father sent Him to do, that would have been sinful.

So, no Jesus did not do that.

He simply asked the Father if if there be any other way let's do it the other way, but none the less the Father's will be done.

No. Wanting something that conflicts with God's will is not sin. It is called temptation. And Jesus was tempted like us in every way, but without sin.

Heb 2:16
For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
Heb 2:17
Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithfulhigh priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
Heb 2:18
For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Heb 4:15
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Jas 1:12
Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.
as 1:13
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither temptethhe any man:
Jas 1:14
But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jas 1:15
Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Temptation can be followed by the blessing of endurance. Jesus was tempted but endured in Gethsemane. Lust did not conceive in Jesus to produce rebellion and evil works.

 

[ATG]

I'm not the one saying your reading is impossible. I am simply saying that your proof texting is fictitious. Your reading is not the only viable reading, so cannot be a proof text for your reading. That something can be read into a text grammatically and semantically, does not prove that it was intended to be a layer of meaning one should take from that text.

Well said: Someone's personal reading without written proof in the Bible, is fictitiously obtained.

i.e. a personal interpretation without Scriptural proof, is not Scriptural doctine.

2Pe 1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

And so, an unproven personal interpretation taught as doctrine is a tradition of men, not a doctrine of God.

Mat 15:9
But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the traditions of men.

God can redeem us from sin without Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) coming into play at all. Justice does not require PSA.

And I'm always suspect of fictitious code-lettered trandtions, that I've never heard of in the Bible, nor seen anything written specifically about it.

The 'trinity' or the 'rapture' are simple words that can be readily explained and seen in the Bible.

But, Penal Substitutionary Atonement, sounds like some title meant to impress enough to be believed. After all, who can doubt Penal Substitutionary Atonement? Who wants to be seen as some lay-rube, saying Penal-whaty?

Rom 16:18
And by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

Which makes it even more dangerous when promoted as personally necessary to repent and be saved by the Lord Jesus Himself.

Who woulda thunk that understanding and believing Penal-Whaty was ever necessary to repent of doing evil, and do good for the Lord's sake...

If God can command us to forgive without us practising PSA and taking the sins of others against us as our own fault, then neither does God need to do so.

Excellent. If we are to practice as the Lord does and commands, then we only need what the Lord has to practice it: Grace through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Power of Peny-Whaty aside: PPSA. Sounds more like a disease, than the power of God to deliver from unrighteousness...

Do you believe in the Power of PSA? Huh?