Did Christ have free will?

[brianbbs67]

Did Jesus/Yeshua/whateverhisname have free will. We see him quote" the son can only do as the father has instructed". Or was he so devoted to the father it never was an issue?

So, was he locked into the doctrine? Or could he act of his will? I can see examples of both. What do you all see?

[William]

[Replying to post 108 by marco]

If we go by Christian doctrine, Christ was sent by God to be a sacrifice. Before his birth, who knows, he may have agreed to this mission. That's another story. The baby born in Bethlehem grew up as a sacrificial victim. His realisation of what was to happen caused him fear but he knew he had no choice. Since the end was already written in the beginning, his incarnation, there is no choice involved. Just God's will.

There may be other ways of looking at the scenario: this is a plausible one

The problem with 'going by Christian doctrine' is that these are too variable to be specific.
The best one can do is specify a particular Christian doctrine and go by that.
Even so, going by the story one would have to include that Jesus agreed to the mission prior to his incarnation.

Otherwise one would therefore have the option of claiming that Jesus was unaware of any agreement to the mission and was forced to do so (as related to his incarnation) and thus the argument shifts to that prior time in relation to the OP question "Did Christ have free will" which opens up another nest of snakes and because it can be argued that he wasn't 'Christ' until he incarnated - which in turn leads to the argument of exactly WHEN he became Christ - as in - was it before he was born or when he was born, or not until he had completed his mission...so the answer is based upon how the individual interprets the OP question...because the OP only implies the question relates to the period between the birth and death of Jesus, with of course the addition of the resurrection and in that - also things Jesus said alluding to his existence prior to being human.

In all of that, where can it be found that all Christians agree?

So at least the individual has a specific scope in which to give an answer to the question, based upon what the story says - and in that it is clear enough to the reader, Jesus understood he had free will.

[marco]

Seems to me it's the same story. You just introduced a choice which isn't that what this is all about?

It is another story because we then go into the question of Christ's pre-existence. If we are looking at the man who rose from the Bethlehem baby then it seems his course was designed FOR him.

If there is no choice for Jesus then why...
... did Satan tempt Jesus to abandon his Father? (Matthew 4:1-11)

You are aware, of course, that we can explain this unwitnessed scene by appealing to metaphor. It did not happen literally: who saw it?

... did Jesus say that he could ask his Father to rescue him? Do you think that Jesus didn't have the option to call on his Father to rescue him? (Matthew 26:53)

You are introducing a conditional here: IF he had asked, would X have happened. The conditional did not take place.

Is obedience a choice or not?

Obedience MAY involve choice of obeying or there may be no choice. Dogs obey. Do they have free will?

The definition of obedience is, compliance with an order, request, or law or submission to another's authority.

I know what obedience is. If one winds up a puppet the puppet does what it is told. Jesus was similar. He acted in accordance with the string-pulling of God.

[2timothy316]

Obedience MAY involve choice of obeying or there may be no choice. Dogs obey. Do they have free will?

Yes. I have told a dog to do something and watched as the acted like I was not even there...cats even more so.

Perhaps give an example where obedience is not a choice?

During WWII there were Jews and Jehovah's Witnesses among others that refused to fight for the Nazis or face death. Sounds like there was no choice...but there was a choice. Is Jesus lesser than these people? Is there something that we can do that Jesus can't, that being make a choice?

You are introducing a conditional here: IF he had asked, would X have happened. The conditional did not take place.

It's not my 'conditional'. Pretend Jesus asked you what he asked his disciples.

Matthew 26:33 says, "Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?"

How would you answer Jesus? Do you think Jesus didn't have the freedom to call on his Father?

[ttruscott]

Since the end was already written in the beginning, his incarnation, there is no choice involved. Just God's will.

Since I am a Trinitarian, GOD's will IS His will... from birth to death.

[William]

[Replying to post 112 by marco]

If one winds up a puppet the puppet does what it is told. Jesus was similar. He acted in accordance with the string-pulling of God.

The problem with this reasoning is the same as your reasoning regarding computer programs and robots. It does not fit with the story as presented.

A program simply does what it does without question, as does a robot as does a puppet. None are self aware conscious entities. You are attempting to conflate Jesus with a non self aware conscious thing, but that does not fit with the story.

Sophia is 'similar' to a human being, but that does not make Sophia a human being.

[tam]

Peace to you!

Did Jesus/Yeshua/whateverhisname have free will.

His name is Jaheshua (meaning JAH saves/savior of JAH), the One who came in the name of Jah.

Many prophets had the name of God (JAH) and/or His title (EL - meaning God) in their name. A few examples:

ELiJAH (my God is JAH).
IsraEL.
EzekiEL.
JerimIAH (where the 'i' used to be a 'j', but regardless, the pronunciation is the same).

How much more so would the Son of God - who came in the Name of His Father - have the Name of God in HIS name?



And yes, my Lord had free will. How could He have given His life for us if He did not have free will? And why would the Adversary have bothered trying to tempt Him if He did not have free will to begin with?

We even have an example of at least one time where His will was not the same as His Father's will. Before He was going to be arrested and judged and executed. In His prayer to the Father, He asked, if possible, for that cup be taken from Him. Even though He knew that He came to give His life, at that moment, He asked that the cup be taken from Him. Then He goes on to say, but not as I will... but as YOU will.

How can someone make that statement if they do not have a will of their own?

So my Lord put His father's will before His own will. Not because He had no choice; but out of love for (and faith in) His Father.

We see him quote" the son can only do as the father has instructed".

Yes, because He did not take credit for himself, for anything that He learned from His Father; He always - always - gave credit and glory to His Father, from whom He spoke and from whom He learned.

This was not a statement against His free will.

Or was he so devoted to the father it never was an issue?

That makes sense, doesn't it? As stated, His will was at least one time not the same as His father's will, but He put His Father's will first.




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[brianbbs67]

Peace to you!

Did Jesus/Yeshua/whateverhisname have free will.

His name is Jaheshua (meaning JAH saves/savior of JAH), the One who came in the name of Jah.

Many prophets had the name of God (JAH) and/or His title (EL - meaning God) in their name. A few examples:

ELiJAH (my God is JAH).
IsraEL.
EzekiEL.
JerimIAH (where the 'i' used to be a 'j', but regardless, the pronunciation is the same).

How much more so would the Son of God - who came in the Name of His Father - have the Name of God in HIS name?



And yes, my Lord had free will. How could He have given His life for us if He did not have free will? And why would the Adversary have bothered trying to tempt Him if He did not have free will to begin with?

We even have an example of at least one time where His will was not the same as His Father's will. Before He was going to be arrested and judged and executed. In His prayer to the Father, He asked, if possible, for that cup be taken from Him. Even though He knew that He came to give His life, at that moment, He asked that the cup be taken from Him. Then He goes on to say, but not as I will... but as YOU will.

How can someone make that statement if they do not have a will of their own?

So my Lord put His father's will before His own will. Not because He had no choice; but out of love for (and faith in) His Father.

We see him quote" the son can only do as the father has instructed".

Yes, because He did not take credit for himself, for anything that He learned from His Father; He always - always - gave credit and glory to His Father, from whom He spoke and from whom He learned.

This was not a statement against His free will.

Or was he so devoted to the father it never was an issue?

That makes sense, doesn't it? As stated, His will was at least one time not the same as His father's will, but He put His Father's will first.




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

I personally do believe Christ had free will, but have had many argue the opposite. So I posed a provocative question which I hoped would give lively debate. Which it has. And these discussions always lead to learning, which is always good.

I too believe Christ's most likely name was Yeshua(Joshua ) or Yehoshau. Same as you. Joshua means he delivers. I have not looked up what the "ho" adds to the name. That all fits with the fortelling of another Joshua even greater in the future. But, I don't think anyone knows his name for 100% certainty.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 108 by marco]

s to that prior time in relation to the OP question "Did Christ have free will" which opens up another nest of snakes and because it can be argued that he wasn't 'Christ' until he incarnated - which in turn leads to the argument of exactly WHEN he became Christ - as in - was it before he was born or when he was born, or not until he had completed his mission...so the answer is based upon how the individual interprets the OP question...because the OP only implies the question relates to the period between the birth and death of Jesus, with of course the addition of the resurrection and in that - also things Jesus said alluding to his existence prior to being human.

l.

Yes, just the Birth to resurrection. That's big enough. The other rabbit holes can be explored in another thread.

[EBA]

As long as there is choice, then there is free will.

Really, so if a fundamentalist says accept God or go to hell and a JW says accept God or be annihilated and I say both options are ridiculous, which option are you going to choose and why?

Being placed in a position where ones choices are limited - even if the choice is life or death, one still has free will.

Yeah, again, that statement is just contradictory.

[EBA]

[Replying to post 102 by EBA]

That’s the point as long as there is a choice, you cannot have free will. You make choices because you are CAUSED to make a choices.

The above is an oxymoron.

Every single choice you make is caused.

Caused to make a choice is not a choice. No matter how you spin it, you're making an unacceptable paradox.
Caused choice is an impossibility as they are complete opposites.

No, you have it backwards; it is impossible to make a choice without there being a cause. What you’re claiming is illogical and impossible.

If I were to ask you whether you believe Christ is God or not, you are caused to make a choice and even if you choose to ignore the question you have still been caused to make a choice regarding that question; there is simply no way around it

One cannot force a choice.

That’s just not true; the church alone has been doing that for centuries.

A person is not born a thief. He chooses to be a thief. If God is causing a person to be a thief then that person is not liable for his actions, therefore can't be punished for them. That is injustice.

Let's exchange a few words and phrases and see how your logic holds up:

A person is not born to follow God. He chooses to follow God. If God is causing a person to be following him then that person is not liable for his actions, therefore can't be rewarded for them. That is injustice.

Do you think we choose to follow God? If so, you may wish to re-think that logic:

Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. (John 15:16)