The Father did not "choose" His Son to die

[friardchips]

I read recently by an apologist that our Creator “chose” the death of His Son.

'Can’t help feeling that this was badly worded. I am sure this is inaccurate.

It is not true that although the Father has perfect knowledge, He “chose” to put His Son to death. If there were another way then surely it would have happened another way.

We believe it was those who crucified the Son that put the Father’s Son to death!

We understand that the Father has perfect knowledge but rather than it being the Father who put the Son to death, it is that the Father knew, if the Son were to be born a man, that the Son would be put to death, because of our sinfulness - He knows everything as the Beginning and the End, so it is more correct to say that the Father knew the Son would die and no doubt we can reason that the Second Person of the Holy Trinity agreed to this. In the most perfect way - His hands stretched wide for all to come to Him - His death was completed. Because it had to be.

I think it would have been better worded to say that there was no choice as to whether the Son would die and no choice that the perfect death as symbolic of our Salvation would be the Holy Cross. Reason being, that our Creator does not choose, because He IS. He cannot choose between perfect and imperfect because He IS Perfection.

St. Augustine reasoned a conversation between the Father and the Son before Christ was born a man. And the Father asks the Son if He would like to be born in order that the world would come to to love Him, and the Son says “yes”, because He wishes for the Father to be loved by His children. And the Father says to the Son all that will happen but the Son agrees to it, nevertheless. Because this was the only perfect way we could be brought back from Original Sin. And so this was the only perfect way, that we could have the Father’s Son as our Brother and King and it was the only perfect way that the Son could make known His Father. Because there can only be one perfect way.

Words are important because The Word is Everything. It is that the Son being perfect in an imperfect world, and living in His Perfect Truth, would deliver us via His eventual death caused by our sins.

Thank you.

 

[Elizium23]

Link to original comment?

 

[friardchips]

Link to original comment?

I’m not out to embarrass someone, so no. I just think it’s important to make that distinction, for clarity’s sake. Thanks.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I would argue that the statement is accurate in so far as God the Father and God the Son are two parts in the same whole. Christ chose to die, and since Christ’s will is aligned with the Father’s, this would imply that God also chose for Christ to die, as did the Holy Spirit.

I agree that it probably wasn’t what God wanted from His creations, but that doesn’t remove the fact that it took an act of His will to allow himself to die, which does imply a choice. He could have chosen not to sacrifice himself… just think of where we’d be if that had been the case…

 

[Elizium23]

I’m not out to embarrass someone, so no. I just think it’s important to make that distinction, for clarity’s sake. Thanks.

Then how are we to know the context and actual words that were written?

 

[friardchips]

Then how are we to know the context and actual words that were written?

The site is there for you to search. I don’t wish to give the link. All is there in this thread for you to respond to if you wish. As another poster has managed to do. Thanks.

 

[friardchips]

I would argue that the statement is accurate in so far as God the Father and God the Son are two parts in the same whole. Christ chose to die, and since Christ’s will is aligned with the Father’s, this would imply that God also chose for Christ to die, as did the Holy Spirit.

I agree that it probably wasn’t what God wanted from His creations, but that doesn’t remove the fact that it took an act of His will to allow himself to die, which does imply a choice. He could have chosen not to sacrifice himself… just think of where we’d be if that had been the case…

Hi. Thank you for this thoughtful response.

Did Christ choose to die or did He sacrifice Himself for us and consent to death.

The word ‘choose’ or ‘chose’ is still not specific enough, IMO. He consented unto death means something different to “He chose to die”.

And saying that the Father gave His Son the choice to live (for reasons given) but with it the consequence of living in an imperfect world and thus requiring Him to consent unto death for our salvation, is very different, from the statement that the Father “chose” for the Son to die.

Our Lord did say:“Let your Will be done, not mine”. But this should be read, IMO, as meaning that although He knew He was to die, He was consenting to the Father’s Will that He consent to death, by those who, because they were sinners, the Father already knew would put Him to death.

I don’t think there was any ever doubt that He would choose not to consent unto death by those who were choosing to put Him to death.

“Chose” is a very active but almost aggressive word in this context.

To resign oneself to the situation and rest in what had to be done is different.

And to then be spurred on and encouraged with love and mission in the form of an angel is different to choosing to die. He chose to sacrifice Himself but the one’s doing the killing were those who directly crucified Him.

?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Hi. Thank you for this thoughtful response.

Did Christ choose to die or did He sacrifice Himself for us and consent to death.

I believe he actively chose to die and an act of His will

The word ‘choose’ or ‘chose’ is still not specific enough, IMO. He consented unto death means something different to “He chose to die”.

Christ is omniscient, and as such knew the outcome of His decision to enter into humanity. As such, the decision to enter into humanity was as much an active decision as it was a consent to the outcome that faced him. The two are not mutually exclusive.

And saying that the Father gave His Son the choice to live (for reasons given) but with it the consequence of living in an imperfect world and thus requiring Him to consent unto death for our salvation, is very different, from the statement that the Father “chose” for the Son to die.

I didn’t say that first part, and I don’t think you did either… could you elaborate?

Our Lord did say:“Let your Will be done, not mine”. But this should be read, IMO, as meaning that although He knew He was to die, He was consenting to the Father’s Will that He consent to death, by those who, because they were sinners, the Father already knew would put Him to death.

Christ’s will and teh father’s are one. He did not want to suffer. As a human, he understood the pain that awaited him, and did not wish to undergo it. Despite that, he made the decision to accept the father’s will, and so chose to sacrifice himself. Again, since their will are the same, this would imply that god the Father chose it as well.

I don’t think there was any ever doubt that He would choose not to consent unto death by those who were choosing to put Him to death.

“Chose” is a very active but almost aggressive word in this context.

To resign oneself to the situation and rest in what had to be done is different.

And to then be spurred on and encouraged with love and mission in the form of an angel is different to choosing to die. He chose to sacrifice Himself but the one’s doing the killing were those who directly crucified Him.

?

The ones killing Him were the people, not God; but keep in mind that it was Christ’s will which allowed them to, not his Passive Will, but rather His Active Will, which wills all of our reality into being constantly. It was His Will, along with the Father’s and the Holy Spirits which allowed his killers to take breath, to raise their hammers, to drive the nails, to lift him up… As they killed him, Christ had to have been actively willing their very existence, otherwise they would not have existed to do as they did. I think this fact makes the reality of his choice very evident.

 

[JM3]

I think it would have been better worded to say that there was no choice as to whether the Son would die and no choice that the perfect death as symbolic of our Salvation would be the Holy Cross. Reason being, that our Creator does not choose, because He IS. He cannot choose between perfect and imperfect because He IS Perfection.

I, also, think ‘choose’ would be the wrong word to use. More precisely, it would be He ‘allowed’ it to happen. In the Douay-Rheims, 2 Thessalonians 2:10 says that God will “send them the operation of error, to believe lying” and notes the correct interpretation of this ([10] God shall send: That is God shall suffer them to be deceived by lying wonders, and false miracles, in punishment of their not entertaining the love of truth.). God does not ‘make’ them believe lying, but allows them to believe lying.

I like Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI’s view that I posted here.

 

[friardchips]

I, also, think ‘choose’ would be the wrong word to use. More precisely, it would be He ‘allowed’ it to happen. In the Douay-Rheims, 2 Thessalonians 2:10 says that God will “send them the operation of error, to believe lying” and notes the correct interpretation of this ([10] God shall send: That is God shall suffer them to be deceived by lying wonders, and false miracles, in punishment of their not entertaining the love of truth.). God does not ‘make’ them believe lying, but allows them to believe lying.

I like Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI’s view that I posted here.

Great post. Thank you muchly for this. Words are important and “allowing” is an important one. And we could even go further and say that He didn’t “allow” them to kill Him because they were committing an act of murder. To be specific, we could say that He allowed for this injustice to happen. He had accounted for it. He had accounted for sinners. As you implied succinctly, if the Father “chose” Him to die, then this would also mean He forced by His Will, the murderers to kill His Son. So “chose” is incorrect. You used a Scripture reference so I will cite Scripture too, and say: “You have been bought and paid for.” This means we have been “accounted” for, “allowed” or “allowed for”. Will check the link!

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I would argue that the statement is accurate in so far as God the Father and God the Son are two parts in the same whole. Christ chose to die, and since Christ’s will is aligned with the Father’s, this would imply that God also chose for Christ to die, as did the Holy Spirit.

I agree that it probably wasn’t what God wanted from His creations, but that doesn’t remove the fact that it took an act of His will to allow himself to die, which does imply a choice. He could have chosen not to sacrifice himself… just think of where we’d be if that had been the case…

God doesn’t have “parts.” I think you meant two “persons.” God is utterly simply, not complex. However, there are three persons in the Trinity. I’m not arguing against that! And I think that’s what you meant.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

God doesn’t have “parts.” I think you meant two “persons.” God is utterly simply, not complex. However, there are three persons in the Trinity. I’m not arguing against that! And I think that’s what you meant.

Indeed, it is. I was having trouble remembering the proper phrasing. Thank you for the correction!

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Indeed, it is. I was having trouble remembering the proper phrasing. Thank you for the correction!

You’re welcome. On a casual DB, when I don’t proofread everything, I sometimes get my phrasing mixed up too. Feel free to correct mine anytime. I’ll be glad for the help.

 

[Graceful_Lamb]

Hi. Thank you for this thoughtful response.

Did Christ choose to die or did He sacrifice Himself for us and consent to death.

The word ‘choose’ or ‘chose’ is still not specific enough, IMO. He consented unto death means something different to “He chose to die”.

And saying that the Father gave His Son the choice to live (for reasons given) but with it the consequence of living in an imperfect world and thus requiring Him to consent unto death for our salvation, is very different, from the statement that the Father “chose” for the Son to die.

Our Lord did say:“Let your Will be done, not mine”. But this should be read, IMO, as meaning that although He knew He was to die, He was consenting to the Father’s Will that He consent to death, by those who, because they were sinners, the Father already knew would put Him to death.

I don’t think there was any ever doubt that He would choose not to consent unto death by those who were choosing to put Him to death.

“Chose” is a very active but almost aggressive word in this context.

To resign oneself to the situation and rest in what had to be done is different.

And to then be spurred on and encouraged with love and mission in the form of an angel is different to choosing to die. He chose to sacrifice Himself but the one’s doing the killing were those who directly crucified Him.

?

I completely agree. Of course, this could have not been accomplished without the Father. The Father created His Son, Jesus, fully knowing that He was being created to live and spread the Word to others, as well as die for all of our sins.

Luke 24:42 “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”

 

[hazcompat]

From “The Life of Christ” by Fulton J Sheen
…
A third fact separating Him from all the others is this: every other person who came into this life came to live. He came into it to die. Death was a stumbling block to Socrates—it interrupted his teaching. But to Christ, death was the goal and fulfillment of His life, the gold that he was seeking. Few of His words or actions are intelligible without reference to His Cross. He presented Himself as a Savior rather than merely a Teacher. It meant nothing to teach men to be good unless He also gave them the power to be good, after rescuing them from the frustration of guilt.

The story of every human life begins with life and ends with death. In the Person of Christ, however it was His death that was first and His life that was last. The scripture describes Him as “the lamb slain as it were, from the beginning of the world.” He was slain in intention from the first sin and rebellion against God. It was not so much that His birth cast a shadow on His life and thus led to his death; it was rather that the cross was first ,and cast its shadow back to His birth. His has been the only life in the world that was ever lived backward. As the flower in the crannied wall tells the poet of nature, and as the atom is the miniature of the solar system, so too, His birth tells the mystery of the gibbet. He went from the known to the known, from the reason of His coming manifested in the name “Jesus” or “Savior” , to the fulfillment of His coming, namely, His death on the cross.

Peace

 

[friardchips]

I completely agree. Of course, this could have not been accomplished without the Father. The Father created His Son, Jesus, fully knowing that He was being created to live and spread the Word to others, as well as die for all of our sins.

Luke 24:42 “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”

Thank you for your participation! Yup, but GL, point being though, that despite the fact that this was the Father’ Will, the Father was still not responsible for “choosing” the Son’s death; rather, it was the consequence of the Fall, that we had to be brought back by the Creator who shows so much humility, so much forgiveness, so much mercy and so much total self-giving, that He was ‘willing’ to die for us. But this death was at the hands, not of the Father, but of sinners. So it was the Father in whose Will the Son shared, in which He consented to being killed by those who “chose” to kill Him. He allowed for this. For us.

If we had not killed Him then He would not have died for our sins. WE nailed Him to the Cross. We continue to do so throughout salvation history. We continue to need His forgiveness.

You see this nuance of understanding between “choose”, and “consent” or “allow to happen”?

Plus, and maybe a better explanation, might be to say that the Will of the Father is perfect, and there cannot be two perfect Wills - there can be more of one ‘good’ thing but not two perfect things - and so what happened was not a choice as such but a **perfect fulfillment of what had to happen. **

 

[hazcompat]

Isaiah 53: 10
But it was the LORD’s will to crush him with pain.

By making his life as a reparation offering,*

he shall see his offspring, shall lengthen his days,

and the LORD’s will shall be accomplished through him.

Peace

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

“For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. *No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father.” John 10:17-18

 

[friardchips]

Isaiah 53: 10
But it was the LORD’s will to crush him with pain.

By making his life as a reparation offering,*

he shall see his offspring, shall lengthen his days,

and the LORD’s will shall be accomplished through him.

Peace

Oh, no ‘sola scriptura’ references…aaargh!

Seriously though, this doesn’t answer the thread debate but I do appreciate your efforts anyhow, and for reminding us of this beautiful and prophetic and very relevant verse.

 

[friardchips]

+JMJ+

“For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. *No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father.” John 10:17-18

This post could be the turn around in the thread. Right on the mark. Are there any interpretations of this passage…

I would say that this answers the thread, except for one thing, that no one could take our Lord’s LIFE because He was not only human, but Divine. IOW, His Divine authority Wills in Him, the POWER to lay down His life for others, in sacrifice. He could not be killed for eternity. Surely this passage has to be understood in this context because He also says: “I have the power to take it up again.” Well, being human and Divine, this POWER allows HIS Spirit to take up His life again. If He were just human, then this could not happen because He would not be who HE IS, therefore it could (should?) be interpreted as no one kills because as the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, He has already engaged with the Father and ACCEPTED His fate that the Father’s Will be consented to. So as fully human -He consents, as fully Divine He authors. He could not make the claim which He does unless He is also Divine and speaking with Divine Authority, because He says this: “No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord.” No person who is not also the Second Person could make that claim.

What say thee?!