The Crusifixion: predestination and free will

[slywakka250]

Jesus came to earth to die for our sins. But what if he found no one who was willing to kill him?

perhaps divine Providence guided the events of the time, so that Jesus could show us his love by dying on the cross, but that begs the question, did the accusers, Pilate, and those who crucified Christ, have any choice in the matter?

If we have true libertarian free will, I feel it must have been possible for those pounding the nails on the cross, to have changed their minds and let Jesus go free.

But how then would Jesus’s prophecies he made about having to die and be raised up, be fulfilled then? he had to be killed, it was predetermined that he should die for our sins.

Well let’s say God knew how they would freely choose. ok So imagine this situation. God wants to save mankind by sending his son to die for our sins, but he can’t forsee anyone who will willingly kill the son of God, what is God to do? This situation must be possible if every human has libertarian free will. It might have been the case that Jesus had no one to crucify him.

How is the neccesity of the crucifixion reconciled with true libertarian free will, and moral responsibility??

just precisely what is the Catholic teaching on Providence and Predestination??

 

[MikeDunphy]

I *think *that if 1st century Judea were the sort of place where no one was willing to kill, our Lord would have lived and died in some other time or place.

If we lived in a different sort of world where no one was ever willing to kill at all, then He would have saved us in some other way, and the prophecies of His death and resurrection would not have been made in the first place.

 

[tonyrey]

Jesus came to earth to die for our sins. But what if he found no one who was willing to kill him?

When you consider the bloodstained history of mankind it is quite unrealistic to think no one would be willing to kill him? Even if that were the case a person possessed by an evil spirit could have done so. It is very unlikely that the Son of God would not have inspired hatred >

Perhaps divine Providence guided the events of the time, so that Jesus could show us his love by dying on the cross, but that begs the question, did the accusers, Pilate, and those who crucified Christ, have any choice in the matter?

There is no evidence to suggest they were compelled to do so against their will.

If we have true libertarian free will, I feel it must have been possible for those pounding the nails on the cross, to have changed their minds and let Jesus go free.

But how then would Jesus’s prophecies he made about having to die and be raised up, be fulfilled then? he had to be killed, it was predetermined that he should die for our sins.

It was not predetermined. He chose to die for our sins.

Well let’s say God knew how they would freely choose. ok So imagine this situation. God wants to save mankind by sending his son to die for our sins, but he can’t forsee anyone who will willingly kill the son of God, what is God to do? This situation must be possible if every human has libertarian free will. It might have been the case that Jesus had no one to crucify him.

As I have pointed out your hypothesis is unrealistic but even if it were true God is not compelled to abide by human ideas of what He should or should not do to deliver us from evil.

How is the necessity of the crucifixion reconciled with true libertarian free will, and moral responsibility??

It was not absolutely necessary. God could have redeemed us in other ways.

just precisely what is the Catholic teaching on Providence and Predestination??

Providence is evident in all our blessings and the love of Jesus for us. No one is predestined for hell.

 

[hatsoff]

How is the neccesity of the crucifixion reconciled with true libertarian free will, and moral responsibility??

Those formulations of libertarian free will which I have encountered are either open-ended or else downright incoherent. Perhaps you have a formulation which is meaningful, in which case I would be glad to hear it.

Regarding the crucifixion, what do you mean when you demand that it “must have been possible” for Pilate and his gang to have let Jesus go free? Possibility, as I understand it in everyday English (as opposed to modal logics), refers to our epistemic position. From our perspective, if we do not know if some statement X is true, as opposed to its alternative NOT X, then we say that both X and NOT X are possibly true. For example, without doing the calculations, we might say that the square root of .259 is possibly .511325716. From our perspective, we just don’t know for sure.

Now, consider again Pilate. From the perspective of any human being on earth, what could they say about Pilate’s decisions before Pilate made them? Could any human being have known with any certainty that Pilate would condemn Jesus (or allow him to be condemned, depending on how you interpret the Gospel stories)? I should think not. So, in that sense, it was possible for Pilate to either condemn or not condemn Jesus (or to allow or disallow Jesus to be condemned).

But now let’s consider God’s perspective. In particular, suppose for the sake of argument that God knows everything that’s going to happen. What then? Does that change anything about our human situation? Are we suddenly endowed with knowledge of what some human being will or will not decide, where before we were not sure? Obviously not. If we understand possibility as a matter of perspective, then from a human standpoint everything which was possible before we granted God omniscience remains possible afterward.

Now let us consider moral responsibility. In a social setting, we interact as human beings with human perspectives. So, in that sense, our social interaction remains unaffected by divine omniscience. However, our relationship with God may have a different character depending on whether God is omniscient or not. Let us consider our varying alternatives:

On one hand, we have a Calvinist-like view, whereby God created everything deliberately, knowing all the consequences of that creation, now and ever. This view has God both omnipotent and omniscient. On the other hand, we might say that God created everything deliberately, but without knowing all the consequences of that creation—in other words, God is not omniscient. Finally, we might say that God created everything, but did not create everything deliberately—which is to say that God is not omnipotent. Assuming that God created everything, then these three alternatives are exhaustive, and exactly one of them is true.

Before we can discuss the “moral” ramifications of any of these views, we have to define morality in a larger context than that of simple human relationships and social settings. Rather, we must talk about what morality means in the context of a discussion about the relationship between God and his creation. In short, we must give “morality” a new and distinct definition. How you wish to define it is up to you. I have no interest in that particular matter.

 

[nickybr38]

I’m not sure I should even post because I’m very, VERY new to discussing these things.

But I wanted to say that recently it became clear to me that God does indeed see all things that have been and will be. He knows exactly what is in our hearts and how we will behave in any given moment… and He responds accordingly.

God knew before He sent His son who would kill Him, why and how. He knew the exact moment, the exact circumstances. So He sent His son and Jesus acted according to His will to fulfill His purpose. It’s not that Pilate and the others couldn’t choose differently, it’s just that they wouldn’t and God knew that.

We DO have free will. But even if we are stuck in this moment the reality is that God already knows our future actions and decisions (just because He knows does NOT mean He orchestrated our actions/responses/etc). I know that’s difficult to process being stuck in human minds and existances… but that’s my understanding of the situation.

I apologize if my answer is overly simplistic… or incorrect (someone with more study feel free to correct me!). I just wanted to share my understanding of this particular topic.

 

[Zatzat]

But I wanted to say that recently it became clear to me that God does indeed see all things that have been and will be. He knows exactly what is in our hearts and how we will behave in any given moment… and He responds accordingly.
.

Fascinating then isn’t it, that God, depsite knowing all that he knew, would still go ahead and create such a broken world that would require the sacrifice of himself to save his children!

 

[hatsoff]

We DO have free will. But even if we are stuck in this moment the reality is that God already knows our future actions and decisions (just because He knows does NOT mean He orchestrated our actions/responses/etc). I know that’s difficult to process being stuck in human minds and existances… but that’s my understanding of the situation.

This position essentially denies the omnipotence of God. You’re saying that God did not explicitly design everything, but some of his creation is outside of his intent. Are you sure that’s what you want your position to be? It seems awfully non-Christian.

 

[nickybr38]

He explicitly created us with free will so we could do as we wished and not what HE wished. That does not make Him less omnipotent.

Why does omnipotence = complete control over every action we make and every reaction our actions create? CLEARLY many of our actions are outside of His intent (why would He need laws if He could simply make us do His will???)!!! That doesn’t negate omnipotence, it’s simply a result of our own free will and His willingless to let us practice it.

And now I’m not sure this is the correct position. As I said, I’m new to all this. I’m just learning. This is simply my very new understanding.

PS: Just on a side note. You have to realize that if God knew before He created man what hardship man would create He also knew how this story ends … so I’m quite sure He created us because after all of this something really fantastic is coming at the end of this ‘story’. You know what I mean? Even if you know the piercing is going to hurt like heck you get it anyway because the end result is something beautiful. Simplistic analogy but I think it gets the point across.

 

[Thing]

Jesus came to earth to die for our sins. But what if he found no one who was willing to kill him?

perhaps divine Providence guided the events of the time, so that Jesus could show us his love by dying on the cross, but that begs the question, did the accusers, Pilate, and those who crucified Christ, have any choice in the matter?

If we have true libertarian free will, I feel it must have been possible for those pounding the nails on the cross, to have changed their minds and let Jesus go free.

But how then would Jesus’s prophecies he made about having to die and be raised up, be fulfilled then? he had to be killed, it was predetermined that he should die for our sins.

Well let’s say God knew how they would freely choose. ok So imagine this situation. God wants to save mankind by sending his son to die for our sins, but he can’t forsee anyone who will willingly kill the son of God, what is God to do? This situation must be possible if every human has libertarian free will. It might have been the case that Jesus had no one to crucify him.

How is the neccesity of the crucifixion reconciled with true libertarian free will, and moral responsibility??

just precisely what is the Catholic teaching on Providence and Predestination??

Before God sent His son into the world He sent His messengers, the prophets. They were killed by the people.
The parable Jesus told about the vinyard echoes this. The owner of the vinyard first sent his messengers to those working the vinyard, the messengers were killed. Then the owner said to himself ‘I will send my own son, they will surely listen to him’. He sent his son to the vinyard and the workers said to themselves that if they kill the son they will have the vinyard.
So the death of Christ was prepared long in advance of the event, with many messengers from God being sent to His people only to be rejected and killed. The fate of the son was always to be the same.

 

[Thing]

Fascinating then isn’t it, that God, depsite knowing all that he knew, would still go ahead and create such a broken world that would require the sacrifice of himself to save his children!

Thats the beauty of God. The value of what was created [mankind] far outweighed any risk, even the risk of Gods own life. God gave his own life to save man. Anyone else would have given up continuing if they faced what He was to face.

 

[Thing]

This position essentially denies the omnipotence of God. You’re saying that God did not explicitly design everything, but some of his creation is outside of his intent. Are you sure that’s what you want your position to be? It seems awfully non-Christian.

He created everything, including freewill. Creation could have continued on perfectly or it could continue on imperfectly, the choice would be Adams, and later our own.
At the end of time everything returns to the Creator from whence it came. He has power over everything and is free to act or to stay His hand, as He wishes.

 

[Zatzat]

Thats the beauty of God. The value of what was created [mankind] far outweighed any risk, even the risk of Gods own life. God gave his own life to save man. Anyone else would have given up continuing if they faced what He was to face.

He didn’t exactly give his own life now did he…he’s an immortal God…was all for show, as he willed himself back to life three days later.

 

[hatsoff]

He has power over everything and is free to act or to stay His hand, as He wishes.

What do you mean, “stay His hand”? If God is not in control, then what is? I suspect some might want to say that God is in control excepting only where he gives us some measure of control. However, since God is in control of us, then our control is a means through which God controls.

To illustrate what I mean, consider the following mundane example: Suppose that I freely decide to brew a pot of coffee this morning. Now, if God deliberately created me, and if he is omniscient, then he created me knowing that I would decide to brew that pot of coffee on this pleasant Sunday morning. So, God performed a deliberate action which he knew would lead to a particular decision on my part. In that sense, he is in control of my decision.

If we wish to deny that kind of control, then we have to either say that God did not create us deliberately, or else God is not omniscient in that way.

 

[tonyrey]

What do you mean, “stay His hand”? If God is not in control, then what is? I suspect some might want to say that God is in control excepting only where he gives us some measure of control. However, since God is in control of us, then our control is a means through which God controls.

Even when Antony Flew was an atheist he agreed that foreknowledge does not imply coercion.

 

[tonyrey]

He didn’t exactly give his own life now did he…he’s an immortal God…was all for show, as he willed himself back to life three days later.

Would you let yourself be crucified just for show?

 

[hatsoff]

He explicitly created us with free will so we could do as we wished and not what HE wished. That does not make Him less omnipotent.

You say that God deliberately created us, and he knew everything (i.e. the consequences of his creation). So, referring to the coffee pot example in my previous post, God is in control of our decisions on that view.

 

[hatsoff]

Even when Antony Flew was an atheist he agreed that foreknowledge does not imply coercion.

Perhaps so, but I have not used the term “coercion,” nor am I in agreement with everything Antony Flew wrote as an atheist.

 

[tonyrey]

Perhaps so, but I have not used the term “coercion,” nor am I in agreement with everything Antony Flew wrote as an atheist.

Nor am I - although he is a widely respected philosopher whose books were used in many colleges - but most atheists seem to believe foreknowledge implies control - which is not the case.

 

[hatsoff]

Nor am I - although he is a widely respected philosopher whose books were used in many colleges - but most atheists seem to believe foreknowledge implies control - which is not the case.

I agree that foreknowledge does not imply control. However, foreknowledge on the part of an omnipotent creator of the universe does imply control of that universe, as I have explained previously in this thread. Please note that I distinguish between control and coercion.

 

[Zatzat]

I agree that foreknowledge does not imply control. However, foreknowledge on the part of an omnipotent creator of the universe does imply control of that universe, as I have explained previously in this thread. Please note that I distinguish between control and coercion.

Exactly…God would have had access to an infinite number of earths / universe situations which he could choose to create…yet he chose to create a specific universe and a specific earth which is apparently a broken and sin filled world…instead of a harmonious world that was not in need of saving.

God also chose to create Lucifer, knowing full well that Lucifer would rebel against him and thus necessitating Gods creation of Hell.