Our Freewills

[EricH]

EricH, Jesus himself said that if he wanted to he could pray to the Father and he would send his angels to deliver him. According to you, even Jesus himself couldn't change the outcome of the cross, and therefore you are making him out a liar for saying he could.

Lets look at the passage you are using as a proof text:

And behold, one of those who were with Jesus reached and drew out his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest, and cut off his ear. Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the swordo you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels? How then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen this way?

Matthew 26:51-54 NASB

The context of Jesus' statement is Peter's attempt to interfere with God's plan of redemption. Peter as a human attempted to interfer. Jesus responded that as God, He had the authority to call down angels to protect HIm if that would have been that Father's will. However Jesus, being one with the Father understood His will and confirmed that it "must happen this way".

John, Jesus was God. The only way He would have called down those angels would have been if that was the Father's will. Jesus said on another occassion:

I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

John 5:30 NASB

Conderning His death and betrayal Jesus said this:

For indeed, the Son of Man is going as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!"

Luke 22:22 NASB

Jesus statement to Peter was not that He could have called angels down in defiance of God's plan. His statement was that if it had been God's plan for Him to be rescued, Jesus as God had the authority to call angels.

In addition, you are saying Jesus was a robot and incapable of choosing right and wrong when tempted of the devil, so why was he tempted? If he couldn't have chosen wrong, then why is it worth noting that he was tempted in all points like we are? Also, why send an angel to warn Mary and Joseph to flee from Herod? What would have happened had they ignored the warning? Would God have simply struck Herod dead? He could have, but since that would have been a simple solution, why not just do so?

Again none of these really demand free will. There are other equally plasible explanations apart from a totally free will on the part of humans.

God gives us a free will. Jesus came into this world as a man. One of the things we see through his life is how he overcame temptation, that he didn't sin. If he couldn't sin, what was the big deal? You are putting so little empasis on his sovereignty that he is incapable of making his own choices.

Where in the text does it say this specifically and define what free will means? You never respond to my statement. How have you reconciled God's sovereigny and human freedom

[EricH]

In terms of jesus ability to sin or not (I don;t believe He could have) that would be a great second to open

[EricH]

By you saying so, does not make it so.

They're all in Scripture. If you or anyone is

seriously interested in seeing the fullness of

Truth, i'd be glad to explain our Catholic beliefs

in separate threads as per Eric's request.

I would like to see your Scriptural evidence that supports:

Infant baptism

Consubstantiation

Multiple experiences of salvation

Authority of the Pope as head of the Church

You may do in in private if you wish; I know this is off topic and I fear I have offended Eric once too often.

Its not a matter of offending me. We just like to keep topics in line with the intent of the OP. If a separate topic arises, it is best to branch off so as not to dilute the topic at hand. As mods we split them all the time to accomplish this

[st. Worm]

butero says:

In the case of any group that denies the deity of Christ, those people are outside of the faith, and so the issue of sin is irrelevant.

SW says (in amazement)

butero, are you now saying unbelief is not sin?? Yes, you are! Friend, unbelief is the only unforgivable sin!! Where in the world do you get some of this stuff??

[st. Worm]

butero says:

"The sin of blasphemy or speaking against the Holy Ghost is according to Jesus an unpardonable sin."

SW:

butero, that is unbelief dear soul. That is the unpardonable sin of which Jesus speaks.

[st. Worm]

butero says:

"If you honestly believe it is a sin to have any error in your interpretation of the Bible, you should stop sharing your knowledge now. To do so means you are knowingly commiting sin. If I believed it was a sin to have any error in doctrine, I would have to stop simply because I don't want to sin. I realize we all fall short of God's glory even at our best, but I don't believe in committing pre-meditated wilful sins."

SW:

Like I said butero, you have a shallow view of sin. To you sin is only specific acts that you can identify as sins. To you sin = act. That is Pelagianism. I assume you reject the biblical truth of original sin and how that continues to taint us. Misinterpretation of God's Word is sin. We are all guilty of it at one time or another in spite of our best efforts. Its much better to confess your sins rather than deny them.

[Openly Curious]

OC says:

I hope everybody else heard that I certainly did "all doctrinal differences is now a sin" st. worm has spoken

SW says:

That is not exactly what I said and I think you know it. What I said was that all untrue and thereby false doctrine is sin. It bears false witness. All are guilty of this sin unless you can interpret the Bible perfectly. Are you saying you can do that because if you can I would love to ask you many questions?

OC

It was not me that made the ludicrous statement I believe I said "woe is me a sinner" you however are trying to persuade me that your truth is absolute truth and it didn't wash with me nor will it in this regards. referencing post #121 here

[st. Worm]

OC's quote:

"Because he considers us to have bad doctrine. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/emot-questioned.gif) woe is me a sinner"

OC's subsequent quote:

"It was not me that made the ludicrous statement I believe I said "woe is me a sinner" you however are trying to persuade me that your truth is absolute truth and it didn't wash with me nor will it in this regards. referencing post #121 here"

SW says:

OC, your first quote was not really made to confess any sin you might have committed by spreading bad doctrine. It basically was just mocking the idea that you should confess any sin in that regard. Of course, if it was a sincere confession perhaps you are now agreeing that bad doctrine is sin. So, either your confession was a mockery or you are agreeing that bad doctrine is a form of sin.

Further, please show me in any of the 300 plus posts I have made here where I have claimed to have the absolute truth about everything in Scripture.

[EricH]

RESPONSE: I agree with you that Jesus wasn't going to go against the Father's will, and he didn't. That still does not prove that he was incapable of deciding he didn't want to go the cross, and calling down the angels on his own.

The passage seems to indicate that it "must happen". The text does not say Jesus was able to choose to go against the Fathers will, in fact jesus himself said He could not.

RESPONSE: Correct, but that was his choice.

The text does not say that, You have added that to the text

RESPONSE: Jesus willingly did the Father's will. That is the point I am making. He could have chosen not to. Notice what he prayed in Matthew 26:39 "And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless NOT AS I WILL, BUT AS THOU WILT." Notice how he separates his desire from that of the Father's. In the flesh, he did not want to endure the agony of the cross, and the Father wouldn't have made him go to the cross against his will. Jesus put his own desires as a man aside willingly to do the will of the Father.

Again, you have ignored the word "determined" from the text I quoted. Just because jesus prayed to have the cup removed does not mean He could have disobeyed the Father. A more logical explanation is that He could not have disobeyed the Father and therefore asked HIm to remove it.

RESPONSE: It doesn't demand free will to choose to obey God or the devil when being tempted? It doesn't demand free will on the part of Mary and Joesph to flee from Herod? If there are other equally plausible explanations, please feel free to share them.

We know the following:

1. Jesus was fully man.

2. Jesus was fully God.

3. The text says Jesus was truly tempted

4. The text says it is impossible for God to sin or be tempted with evil (James 1:13)

That is as much as scripture explicity says regarding the matter. Where ever a person lands, what they say must agree with every thing scripture teaches regarding the subject above. It seems to me your position fails because it contradicts the 4th statement (that it is impossible for God to sin and be tempted with evil)

So we must look for another explanation that satisfies all four of the above statements, understanding that we are entering conjecture:

Here is my plausible explanation (since you have asked for it) that satisfies all 4 conditions:

1. If Jesus would have been created human without a divine nature (like the rest of us shmoes) He would have been created with a sinless nature like Adam and Eve, but still capable of sin. In other words if Jesus was only human he would have been created without sin, but with the theoretical ability to sin.

2. We know that Jesus human nature never existed apart from His divine nature. From the moment he was conceived he possessed both the human and divine in totality. They were not separate natures, they were united together in one person.

3. The ability to sin would have impacted Jesus divine nature. The ability to sin and the actual carrying out of that sin would have made Jesus less than God, since God cannot sin (it is impossible for Him to sin according to the text).

4. If it was not possible for Jesus (in the totality of His being) to sin, how could His temptations have been real?

Lets look at the temptation of turning stones to bread:

1. Jesus had the ability by virtue of being God to perform the miracle of turning bread to stone.

2. In order to be sympathetic with us, he could not rely on His divine nature to resist the temptation (because we

cannot) He had to resist in His human nature alone.

3. Jesus resisted the temptation based on only His human nature. His divine nature could not have sinned, so the issue

for Jesus was to set aside this perogative to use His divine nature to resist.

4. However, since His divine nature was there, it would have kicked in if His human side failed. This would have made

Jesus incapable of sin. If His human side had weakened, His divine side would have been incapable of carrying it out.

So, Jesus human nature could clearly be tempted. But because it was united with His divine nature, it was never truly capable of sinning(not because it was better humanity, but because it was intertwined with divinity). The issue for Jesus was refusing to invoke His divine nature in His resistance. His human side therefore felt the full brunt of the temptation because Jesus did not use His divine power to resist the sin. His human side could not have sinned though, because His divine nature could not allow it and remain God.

RESPONSE: Explain to me why the text must include a definition of free will. This is a real example of where Jesus was faced with a decision. Every time the devil made him an offer or a challenge in the case of tempting God, Jesus could choose to give in to it or reject it. If that is not free will I don't know what is. If it is not, then Jesus was like a robot with no ability to control his actions. According to your way of thinking, he was programed to do certain things, and his example of overcoming had no meaning.

Because you are operating on a definition of what free will means and I assume you want to be biblical. For you to believe in a biblical concept of free will I assume it must be defined somewhere in the text. You have defined freedom in a partiular way. I would like to see a biblical statement that supports your definition, and the fact that it exists in the form you have defined it.

So I guess I am asking for your definition of free-will and the texts that speak to this directly

[st. Worm]

butero, I am glad you believe in original sin through Adam. However, I think I have explained why bad doctrine and heresy are sins with specific examples. You still have not really addressed those and I am not going to hold my breath waiting.

As far as the unpardonable sin, Scripture interprets Scripture and the only sin that is not forgivable is unbelief and that is the way most reliable commentators interpret the sin that Jesus describes as unforgivable. It is the Holy Spirit that works to change our heart so that we can repent and believe in Jesus. It is through the Spirit that the means of grace work. It is not the water of baptism nor the elements of bread and wine that bring forgiveness. It is the Word working through the Spirit. Physical elements in themselves mean nothing without the Spirit. Repentance and forgiveness go hand in hand. To blaspheme and reject the Spirit means sins cannot be forgiven and salvation cannot be imparted. In effect, we are rejecting the grace given to us through the Spirit and that act is unforgivable if it continues unto death.

blessings,

sw