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.
semper_catholicus said:
40.png
Wannano:
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.
Click to expand...
Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. He fasted for forty days and forty nights, and afterwards he was hungry. Matt. 4: 1-2
 
If Jesus didn’t have the ability to say no to the Father than he wasn’t human. Being tempted is a fundamental part of being human and you can’t be tempted if there’s no way you could sin.

However, Jesus was completely free in a way unlike you and me. It’s not so much that Jesus was unable to say no as he was able to say yes. Who in his/her right mind wouldn’t choose to be with the all powerful God for all eternity? Well if anyone is presented with the choice and chooses what they don’t want, it must not have been a choice.

Thus as St. Paul says we’re a slave to sin. And we choose not God because we can’t choose God. We haven’t yet alligned ourselves perfectly with his will:

Romans 7:15-20:
15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good.17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
Click to expand...
 
Let me offer another perspective…

Had Christ given into the temptation of the Devil, and had He done what the Devil asked of Him, He would be giving undeniable proof of His divinity. However, as St. Chrysostom writes:

“How does [the Devil] expect to discover by this proposition whether He be the Son of God or not? For to fly through the air is not proper to the Divine nature, for it is not useful to any. If then any were to attempt to fly when challenged to it, he would be acting from ostentation, and would belong rather to the Devil than to God. If it is enough to a wise man to be what he is, and he has no wish to seem what he is not, how much more should the Son of God hold it not necessary to shew what He is; He of whom none can know so much as He is in Himself?”

Because it is not proper to the divine nature for Christ to boldly proclaim His divinity in the ways suggested by the Devil, He was incapable of doing this. Thus, it was not possible for Him to give into the Devil’s temptation, because it would contradict the divine nature. And likewise, being a perfect Man as well, His human will must be fully in accordance with the divine will (as it is with all those in heaven), and as such, He could not sin.

I need to think about this more; I’m open to correction, especially from a priest.
[/quote]

Yes!

I’ve always liked the two very different approaches to this Gospel event: the Eastern and Western.

In the Western approach, the Devil is testing Christ. In the Eastern approach, the Devil is testing his own knowledge.
 
semper_catholicus said:
I’m not saying that He didn’t have a human will.

http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2012/02/if-christ-could-not-sin-how-was-he.html

"But if Jesus could not sin, was he really free?

“Of course Our Lord had free will! After all, the ability to sin does not make us more free, but less free, God cannot sin, and so He is absolutely free - His freedom is essentially greater than our freedom”
Click to expand...
Interesting article, but I think the author, Father Ryan Erlenbush, overlooks the Agony in the Garden where Jesus made perfectly clear that His own personal will differed from the will of the Father. He asked for a way out! However He always put His personal will secondary to that of the will of God. And by always DECIDING to do the will of God He maintain that perfect union.
 
He was hungry, but being God, he wasn’t bothered by hunger, so He easily overcame it.

Therefore, He was never really hungry in the first place.

So, again, that takes us back to “so what does it matter anyway?”
 
I apologize. I misunderstood.

It may have, but these feelings would have been perfectly subordinated.
 
Clearly Christ’s human knowledge and Divine knowledge aren’t exactly the same. Why would he have to have only one will? There’s definitely a sense in which all of us have two wills. The spirit warring against the flesh.
 
I’m not saying Christ had one will. I’m saying that He had two wills which were distinct yet united.
 
semper_catholicus said:
I apologize. I misunderstood.

It may have, but these feelings would have been perfectly subordinated.
Click to expand...
Thank you, I know I am a non-Catholic entering into discussion on a forum I might not belong on but the non-Catholic forum has become very stale!

I just want to add that I believe we are told Christ experienced every temptation that I have ever been faced with and He triumphed and was victorious over each one. I believe these temptations were very real. It gives me strength to remember that in time of testing.
 
That one really does depend on what one means by the question.

Differ as in “conflict with”? Absolutely not. They are always in harmony with each other.

Differ as in “belonging to one Person”? Then yes. Each divine Person has a Divine Will, again always in perfect harmony.
 
To the OP, it should be noted that one of the dogmas of the faith is as follows:

“Christ offered Himself on the Cross as a true and proper sacrifice.”
 
Christ became in all ways like us except sin.
[/quote]

What I mean is “what’s the point of the Temptation Gospel event?”

Obviously, it’s important. We know all kinds of non-important events happened and were never recorded.

So, if it was impossible for Christ to have done what Satan wanted Him to do, what purpose is served in recording it in the Gospel anyway? Indeed, if there’s no possibility of sin, then it’s really not a temptation at all.

It’s hard to convey “tone” in a forum like this. I’m asking the questions seriously, not sarcastically. How can one possibly be tempted to sin if sin itself is impossible?
 
Wesrock said:
that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil represents an awakening from animal-like awareness to human-like awareness, where animals can’t be held responsible because they lack rationality. That is not correct. Adam and Eve were rational animals before the fall with gifts above and beyond what we have, which makes their disobedience all the more tragic.
Click to expand...
I think the whole idea of the “Garden of Eden” makes far more sense if it is taken figuratively rather than literally, and I do view that eating from the tree and disobeying God does represent an awakening from animistic awareness to human awareness. If you look at the detail of the story it is describing an animistic pre-human type of life. A wolf does not care that he is naked. He has no concern about how much work goes into getting a meal. He treats pain and suffering just as something that has to be endured and he gets used to it. He has no thoughts of his future death. His only concern is what he needs or wants right then. He lives in the status quo. A dog who loses a leg does not moan the loss of his leg. He adapts to the new status quo and learn to run and be happy with three legs. The pre-human “Adam” was also living in this dream-like paradise. He had no thoughts of the future and no concept of sin. These were all the things that we refer to as punishments for Adams disobedience, but they were not punishments and nor does the Scripture call them that. They are realizations. I think that is the status of our Adam prior to his receiving a human soul and a conscience to guide him.
 
I think the primary purpose of recording it in the Gospel would be to give an example to us.
 
I think what I’m saying here is:

–While it is impossible that He ever would have sinned…

—it is still possible that He could have sinned.
 
FrDavid96 said:
I think what I’m saying here is:

–While it is impossible that He ever would have sinned…

—it is still possible that He could have sinned.
Click to expand...
Was Christs human nature perfect by more than the fact that He never sinned?
 
semper_catholicus said:
I think the primary purpose of recording it in the Gospel would be to give an example to us.
Click to expand...
As I said earlier though: I don’t see how it can be much of an example.

It isn’t much of an example to refrain from doing the impossible.

To dramatize it a bit (not to be funny):

If, on Judgement Day, God looks at me and asks “What sins did you commit?” and I answer Him “Well, let me put it this way, I can absolutely say that I never committed any sins that were impossible for me to commit.” It’ll be pretty easy to gain entrance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top