Did Jesus have the ability to say "No" to the Father?

[FrDavid96]

goout:

Immaculate conception is the dogma the Mary was conceived without original sin. The fact that God willed to keep Mary pure from original sin does not deprive Mary of her free will.

If she did not have Original Sin then she did not have concupiscence in the sense of the ability to freely choose to commit sin, which came as a result of the Original Sin. If she (or Christ) did not have the ability to sin then in as far as sin is concerned they were like programmed robots. If that were the case then Jesus made no sacrifice in His suffering and death… it was something He was programmed to do. If Christ did not make a true sacrifice then we would still be in our sins.+

If He had the ability to choose then He could have chosen to disobey God. If He could do that then so could Mary had done so, which means the concept of the Immaculate Conception is questionable.

No.

Completely wrong.

Original Sin did NOT bring about “the ability to commit sin” which is the premise of everything you’re writing here. It’s a false premise, which makes everything following that just as false.

 

[FrDavid96]

Again, my question is not about whether or not Christ sinned. He did not. It is about if He had the ability to sin… to say “No” to the Father. If He did not have that ability then He did not enter into His suffering and death willingly and that negates the sacrifice He made which HAD to be a free choice. We cannot do good unless we have the free choice to do evil.

Yes. That part is completely right.

 

[Hodos]

To your point, I agree that Jesus prayer in Gethsemane means that he in his human nature has the capability of being disobedient to the Father. Otherwise, Jesus was not fully human. The author of Hebrews seems to agree in several places:

“Since therefore the children share in the flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery…Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For because he himself suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.”

“For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.”

Paul seems to indicate as much as well: “And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”

Honestly, I think this part of your conclusion is perfectly in line with the gospel. I would disagree with your assessment of free will and whether man, as a creature has free will at all, but your conclusion that Jesus had the ability to disobey I think is right on. I think Philippians shows us the purposeful choice that Christ made in being obedient to the father, not just in his death, but in his very incarnation, and Hebrews demonstrates that Christ was made fully man in all respects, and suffered temptation yet without sin that he could be the perfect sacrifice and high priest for us.

 

[FrDavid96]

Your argument is lacking in nuance and is overly simplistic. As stated
(1) The obedience of Jesus’ human will to the Divine Will was voluntary, and
(2) God would not have assumed a human nature which would have sinned.

As you wrote it, yes.

However, in his human nature, he could have sinned (not would have), while of course He did not sin.

 

[FrDavid96]

However as a story the focus changes from their supposed disobedience to the concept of man being given a conscience (or a human soul) which gave him “the knowledge of good and evil” as the tree was aptly named. I firmly believe that the conscience … the human soul rather than the animistic one is what completely separates us from all other animals and is responsible for all of the achievements of man.

You keep repeating the same false premise over and over again.

The human soul or conscience did not somehow begin to exist only after Adam ate from the tree.

 

[FrDavid96]

There is nothing in the story that indicates that the supposed Adam knew beforehand that disobeying God was wrong. The story clearly states that “his eyes were opened” AFTER he ate.

There most certainly is such a thing.

God commanded him not to eat from the tree. Therefore, Adam knew that he wasn’t supposed to do it (ie that it was wrong) or to say it another way, that eating from the tree would be disobedience. Plain and simple.

 

[Hodos]

The human soul or conscience did not somehow begin to exist only after Adam ate from the tree.

I like your statement here. I think based on the fact that God will raise us from the dead in our flesh, and restore the world (Romans 8), the argument could be made that after the fall we actually lost our humanity (our willingness to be sustained by God’s grace as creatures of our creator). It is only through Christ that we get that fully back.

 

[Wesrock]

Thank you, Father. I will adjust my language. My main emphasis is on the voluntariness of the cooperation.

 

[WileyC1949]

What you believe is not the Catholic faith.

Pius XII stated this in Humani Generis:
" …the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God."

So if human evolution is true, which belief in is NOT forbidden by the Church, and indeed there have been a number of Popes who have accepted evolution as true, then while certainly the first human’s soul could have been a special creation of God, but his body was not. This means that there was no instantaneous creation of Adam’s body, there was no “Garden of Eden”, there was no serpent to tempt Eve, there was no sin of disobedience to God, ergo there was no “Original Sin” and as a result no stain of sin or black mark on the soul. However with the human soul the first human also received a conscience then what we inherited is, as the story states, “knowledge of good and evil”. The story is definitely one which teaches a moral lesson, but I do not see it as about disobedience to God but rather one of defining what makes a true human being… the conscience. And as a result of that we became aware of what the story infers are “punishments” but were in fact awareness of toil, pain, suffering, and death. When you think about what these teach us I think you will come to the same conclusion as I, that they teach us how to love selflessly. It is then that the who purpose of our physical existence becomes plain.

You really cannot treat the A & E story literally.

 

[FrDavid96]

I think you are missing my point. It is not a question whether He sinned or whether or not He would have sinned. It is COULD He have sinned? If He did not have at least the ability to walk away from the suffering and death awaiting Him then He was programmed to do what He did. If that were the case there was no sacrifice involved at all.

Again, this part is correct.

 

[FrDavid96]

Likewise, see the 6th Ecumenical Council.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

What you believe is not the Catholic faith.

Pius XII stated this in Humani Generis:
" …the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God."

So if human evolution is true, which belief in is NOT forbidden by the Church, and indeed there have been a number of Popes who have accepted evolution as true, then while certainly the first human’s soul could have been a special creation of God, but his body was not. This means that there was no instantaneous creation of Adam’s body, there was no “Garden of Eden”, there was no serpent to tempt Eve, there was no sin of disobedience to God, ergo there was no “Original Sin” and as a result no stain of sin or black mark on the soul. However with the human soul the first human also received a conscience then what we inherited is, as the story states, “knowledge of good and evil”. The story is definitely one which teaches a moral lesson, but I do not see it as about disobedience to God but rather one of defining what makes a true human being… the conscience. And as a result of that we became aware of what the story infers are “punishments” but were in fact awareness of toil, pain, suffering, and death. When you think about what these teach us I think you will come to the same conclusion as I, that they teach us how to love selflessly. It is then that the who purpose of our physical existence becomes plain.

You really cannot treat the A & E story literally.

And you are just making up your own theology incompatible with Church teaching. And I say this as someone who frequently argues against some of the misconceptions young earth creationists have with evolution and what Church doctrine is on what ways the creation narrative is literal. But none of the consequences you state about accepting evolution actually necessarily follow from accepting evolution.

 

[WileyC1949]

His human will was subject to temptation, but He was unable to sin or otherwise oppose His divine Will. His human nature wasn’t corrupted like ours is.

Can you see how, if He did not have the ability to refuse, that His actions were one of programming rather than free will? As a human Jesus had to freely choose to do the will of God. If He were programmed to accept suffering and death then His sacrifice would have been meaningless.

 

[FrDavid96]

People in heaven who see God, don’t have the ability (or any desire) to say no to God. It is not a matter of being forced to be so.

Lucifer and the Fallen Angels were in heaven. Did they not sin?

 

[Roseeurekacross]

My point is that EVERYONE is born without sin

WE are ALL BORN WITH SIN. EVERYONE

the only two born without sin were Mary and Jesus

This is teaching of the Catholic Church,

Nor was his disobedience to God a sin at all

this was adam’s sin, disobedience,

It was disobedience to God very simply because God said DONT EAT FROM THAT TREE

Adam ate, adam disobeyed. very simple. Adam had very exact knowledge that God said Don’t touch that tree

Are you disagreeing with church doctrine and dogma or are you not understanding it?

 

[WileyC1949]

Yeah… I was hoping that no one would catch me on that…

 

[WileyC1949]

People in heaven who see God, don’t have the ability (or any desire) to say no to God. It is not a matter of being forced to be so.

I am talking about Jesus and His human will as a physical being.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

If Mary and Jesus had the ability to say no to God then you are in fact agreeing with me.

I do not agree with you on what you are saying. I agree with church doctrine and dogma. you do not.
we were born with a conscience

sin entered the world with Adam’s disobedient act.
If you read Catechism it explains it quite well. there are no words in the catechism that we inherited Adams sin . The words are about how sin entered the world because Adam, as an example of Man, was disobedient,
wanted to be equal to God , wanted to be the master of his own destiny, wanted to not be a servant to God.

thus we either reject God, become servants to ourselves and our culture, and allow the corruption of our good to evil, or we move to God, accept God and become His servants.

 

[FrDavid96]

Fr, I’m having a difficult time of making sense of what you’re saying.

How is it possible that Christ could have sinned?

Because He was fully human.

If He completely lacked the ability to sin, then He would not be fully human.

Again, I must stress that this does not, in any way whatsoever, say that He did sin. He did not.

 

[FrDavid96]

It’s hard for me to explain this mystery I am seeing except for I know that God doesn’t make mistakes.

Study the Ecumenical Councils.

There are plenty of good books out there that go through the history, Council by Council, to explain the development of the Christological doctrines.