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

  • Thread starter Thread starter WileyC1949
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
WileyC1949 said:
f 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.
Click to expand...
of course Mary did, Why do you presume being born without sin automatically means you have no free will.

What is your proof that you can connect the dots on both these issues
 
happy mom,

Jesus had a perfect human nature and a perfect divine nature. two natures in the one Jesus.

The Perfect human nature is low christology, it deals with the human Jesus, the man who walked talked, had a ministry taught, the pre easter Jesus if you like.
This Jesus did not attribute any miracle to himself. This Jesus attributed every healing, exorcism, miracle to God. And said ‘why do you call me good, the only one who is good is God’
Jesus never sought or accepted any credit for himself.

The Perfect Divine nature is high Christology and can be read about very well in the Gospel of John. John was an Apostle. John concentrates on the post easter Jesus, the resurrected Jesus, the Christ, the Messiah.
IN the beginning was the Word…
John uses names and images of the Divine Jesus, ’ i am the light of the world…

It is a modern day heresy cytomonophysitism , to deny the human nature of Jesus or think that its ok, Jesus was God so no big deal about the Passion as being suffered by a fully human nature.
and certainly took several centuries and a few councils to define this dual Christology.
 
Last edited:
FrDavid96 said:
Likewise, see the 6th Ecumenical Council.
Click to expand...
Thank you, Father. I was about to ask you if the magisterium had said something.

That’s actually what I believed until last week, when I saw that CA article someone linked to. I was hoping the main site wouldn’t have misinformation.
 
I would like to say first that I don’t think you’re saying that Christ actually sinned.

I respectfully say that the capacity to sin isn’t an ability, but it’s a defect in us humans. That isn’t apart of freedom. Christ being perfect had no defects. It was impossible for Him to sin, becuase of the Hypostatic Union also. To say that He could have sinned would be to say that His human will was not fully united to His Divine will.
 
semper_catholicus said:
I would like to say first that I don’t think you’re saying that Christ actually sinned.

I respectfully say that the capacity to sin isn’t an ability, but it’s a defect in us humans. That isn’t apart of freedom. Christ being perfect had no defects. It was impossible for Him to sin, becuase of the Hypostatic Union also. To say that He could have sinned would be to say that His human will was not fully united to His Divine will.
Click to expand...
In the Temptation in the Desert, Satan said to Christ “turn these stones into bread.”

Could He have done that?

I’m not asking “did He want to?” I am asking could He have done it, yes or no?
 
Christ can turns stones into bread. That in itself isn’t sinful, but He couldn’t have done it in this context, becuase He would have given in to temptation; a defect.

I don’t mean to sound rude or condescending in any way. I apologize if I come across that way.
 
semper_catholicus said:
Christ can turns stones into bread. That in itself isn’t sinful, but He couldn’t have done it in this context, becuase He would have given in to temptation; a defect.
Click to expand...
Shall I take that as a “no” to my question? Yes or no.

Obviously, I’m only asking about this context. Either He could have done it, or He could-not have done it. Which is it?
I don’t mean to sound rude or condescending in any way. I apologize if I come across that way.
Click to expand...
I don’t think you sound that way. No need to apologize that I can see.
 
Oh wonderful.

Well I’m that context, no, He couldn’t have done it.
 
semper_catholicus said:
Oh wonderful.

Well I’m that context, no, He couldn’t have done it.
Click to expand...
All right then.

If he “couldn’t have done it” then what purpose is served by the Gospel event? If He could not have turned the stones into bread anyway, what does it matter that Satan even told Him to do it?

On the other hand, should we not understand the Gospel event as meaning that He decided not to turn the stones into bread?
 
Well the purpose the passage serves would be to set an example for us when we’re faced with temptation.
 
WileyC1949 said:
Again, if Jesus, as a fully human person as well as fully Divine, did not have the ABILITY to say no then there was no sacrifice.
Click to expand...
But why is it not a sacrifice in that sense? Did Jesus not choose to give up a lot when He came down to suffer horribly?
WileyC1949 said:
Look at the temptations in the desert. As I said before we cannot be tempted to do something which we have no ability to do. I am not tempted to fly to the moon because it is totally beyond my ability. I am tempted to drive across the country because I could do that if I wished.
Click to expand...
You seem to be limiting temptation to just some abstract desire. That is not the fullness of it. It’s entirely possible for one individual to tempt another individual to do something by offering it. That is, of course, what Satan did to Jesus. It is not indicative, however, of Jesus’ ability to submit to Satan.
WileyC1949 said:
If He had no choice in the matter He would not have been so tortured by the thought of what was to come. He would have just accepted it.
Click to expand...
That’s like saying a prisoner who is certainly going to be tortured horribly and has no means of escape can’t possibly agonize over what is to come, which is just ludicrous. Sure, some people will just stoically accept their fate. Not everyone does, and Jesus obviously didn’t. (Not saying Jesus was imprisoned by fate, though, since He chose before anything was created to suffer as He did.)
WileyC1949 said:
Obviously I am questioning if they should be doctrines and dogmas of the Church.
Click to expand...
So do you think that the Church is infallible?
WileyC1949 said:
Can you give me an argument, which based on the position we are born good but can be led to evil rather than we are born with evil and in need of salvation, that supports the Immaculate Conception, Jesus having an inability to say no to the Father , infant baptism and other positions as well?
Click to expand...
Considering I have never taken the position that we are born good, I’m not sure why you want me to explain that.

With that said: Can you please explain how God has the ability to rebel against God while still remaining consistent with Catholic theology?
 
FrDavid96 said:
40.png
semper_catholicus:
Oh wonderful.

Well I’m that context, no, He couldn’t have done it.
Click to expand...
All right then.

If he “couldn’t have done it” then what purpose is served by the Gospel event? If He could not have turned the stones into bread anyway, what does it matter that Satan even told Him to do it?

On the other hand, should we not understand the Gospel event as meaning that He decided not to turn the stones into bread?
Click to expand...
That is the way I see it…He had the ability, He could have if He wanted to (and His stomach might have wanted to) but He decided not to give into a suggestion from the Devil.
 
The problem is that the argument becomes circular. And yes, that does happen in Christology. We ask things like “did He have to die on the cross?” and frankly our answers come out to be something like “well, because He did die on the cross, that means He had to die on the cross” and then “if he had been executed by beheading, we would be saying that He had to be executed by beheading.”

So I hear the argument you’re making there (of course).

When I say that the argument is circular, I’m not saying it’s wrong (circular arguments are usually fallacious). I’m just saying that much of our Christology does indeed involve circular logic.

Why was He born in Bethlehem? Because He had to be born in Bethlehem. What if he had been born in Nazareth? He wasn’t, but if He had been, then we’d be saying that He had to have been.

More on this after I think on it…
 
Wannano said:
That is the way I see it…He had the ability, He could have if He wanted to (and His stomach might have wanted to) but He decided not to give into a suggestion from the Devil.
Click to expand...
As I see it, that’s the main point of the event.
 
Wannano said:
and His stomach might have wanted to
Click to expand...
Absolutely not. There is no indication of this in the Gospel at all. This is to suggest that our Lord suffered from some of the effects of original sin.
 
semper_catholicus said:
Well the purpose the passage serves would be to set an example for us when we’re faced with temptation.
Click to expand...
Why?

When I’m tempted to sin, if it’s impossible for me to do it, then such a temptation is rather easy to overcome.

If Christ was unable to turn the stones into bread, then I really don’t see how His actions (or lack of action) sets much of an example for me. I don’t see much point in the event overall. If He could not have turned the stones into bread, then (quite frankly): “so what?”

I’m not tempted to do things I cannot do (not much, anyway) but I am very much tempted to do things which I can do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top