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 97 by marco]

People can accept under coercion.

They can also reject the coercion.

The point being, they have free will which allows for these choices to happen.


The circumstance might limit the choices, but while there is the opportunity to choose, free will is involved.

[EBA]

The scriptures you have shown here do not mean Jesus didn't have a choice though.

And I never argued that point.

Choosing to do his Father's will didn't mean that Jesus was a robot running on a program.

No one said anything about a robot.

When Peter chopped off an ear of one of the guards Jesus said to Peter that he should return his sword to it's place and added, "Or do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father to supply me at this moment more than 12 legions of angels?" Mat 26:53.

Well, why does he need to appeal to his Father for the supply of 12 legions of angels, when he has the free will to supply them himself?

Jesus at anytime had freedom to change whatever he wanted. He even had the choice not to follow his Father.

I disagree with your opinion.

Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. (John 5:19)

Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. (John 12:27)

Satan tempted Jesus to do an act of worship to him. Satan is not so stupid as to tempt a person that can't choose. To tempt someone that doesn't have freedom of choice would be like trying to tempt a stop sign to say 'go'.

The ability to choose and freedom of choice are not the same thing. Again, we can make choices but they certainly are not free.

There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it. (1 Cor 10:13)

However, Jehovah doesn't have to take away freedom of choice from Jesus to accomplish His will. If Jesus chose not to die for mankind then most certainly "relief and deliverance" would have come from another source.

But he did die for mankind and do you know why:

The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.
For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. (Acts 4:26-28)

Indeed Jehovah's will must be done yet not at the expense of a person's freedom of choice and the Bible is full of examples of putting the right person in the right place even if the first person doesn't follow His will.

And who puts that "right person" in that "right place?"

Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. (1Jn 4:10)

Are you telling me that if his son "chose not to die for mankind then most certainly" God would have had to send another son?

Saul, the first king of Israel is a good example. He was replaced by David because Saul failed at following God's will.

Saul was the "right person" at the "right time" and is a great example, but not of free will:

And it was so, that when he had turned his back to go from Samuel, God gave him another heart: and all those signs came to pass that day. (1Sa 10:9)

Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples (types): and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. (1Co 10:11)

Peace

[EBA]

You seem to be implying that we have no free will. The question asked is whether Jesus had free will. Different subject, as far as I can tell.

I don’t think it is since I believe that man does not posess free will.

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; (1Ti 2:5)

Your post doesn't really show in that part of the story that Jesus had no free will.
Indeed, I used one example of the overall story, but there are of course many other examples which show Jesus as a person using free will. I cannot myself think of any which show him not using free will.

I can:

Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do NOTHING of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. (John 5:19)

Even if someone were to argue that Jesus was GOD, (which many believe he was) then Jesus still had free will.

I could, and would, certainly argue that Jesus Christ is GOD however he:

-made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. (Php 2:7-8)

One simply cannot have free will and be a free-thinking individual unit of consciousness, all wrapped up in a body.

I agree.

Not to say that the free will is without its limitations, but as long as there is choice...

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.

And this statement is a contradiction: "Not to say that the free will is without its limitations"

God Bless.

[marco]

Yes. If one accepts then one has used free will to do so.

This is obviously wrong. I'm surprised you say this. People can accept under coercion.

You point this out but have argued against obedience by a free will decision to obey...people can accept under their own will without coercion also.

The difficulty here is that what we conclude about ordinary employment of free will in ordinary people does not or may not apply to Christ. The statement:
"If one accepts then one has used free will to do so" is not correct in that acceptance does not indicate freedom to accept. It might.

Christ's acceptance of his cross does not indicate he had the freedom to accept. It can be supposed he had but his unusual birth and the course of his life suggest he was merely a twig carried down a stream, placed here to give a message. Fear made him beg for the flow to stop. His compliance was forced.


We do not know, of course, and we are expressing views here not facts. We are making deductions and they may be right or wrong. It depends how we interpret the passages about Christ. I would be happy to argue the other way, since my own free will allows me to do so.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 102 by EBA]

Repeating the same scriptures while ignoring other scriptures doesn't prove your point. Making a statement and then going into the Bible and cherry picking text to give the appearance of proof is not a good way to use the Bible. John 5:19 is not prove that Jesus didn't have freedom of choice, but that he chooses to follow his Father.

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. 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.

Cause: make happen.

Choice: an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities.

One cannot force a choice. If their is only one course of action that is not a choice according to the English definition.

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.

[William]

[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 statement in quotes is an oxymoron. Caused to make a choice is not a choice. No matter how you spin it, it makes no sense.

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

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

[2timothy316]

[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 statement in quotes is an oxymoron. Caused to make a choice is not a choice. No matter how you spin it, it makes no sense.

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

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

Right, so if a person decided to make an enemy of God, which in turn leads to their death, like King Saul. That is their choice. God causing a choice or making His own enemies is even more unbelievable. Saul chose to make himself an enemy. It certainly wasn't God Almighty forcing Saul to become an enemy. That would mean Jehovah makes His own enemies. Why would a loving God do such a thing? It doesn't prove He is the best choice for universal ruler. In fact, it would be saying the opposite. It would be like saying, mankind's justice is better than God's. At least in mankind's justice a person has a choice.

No freedom of choice is the type of unjust doctrine that pushs people away from God because they would rather believe God to have never existed or dead than accept no freedom of choice.

[marco]

No freedom of choice is the type of unjust doctrine that pushs people away from God because they would rather believe God to have never existed or dead than accept no freedom of choice.

We are not arguing here about whether people have free will; we are debating whether Jesus was free to act. Sidestepping into showing humans in general or taking specific examples of other people exercising free will is not relevant.

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.

[2timothy316]

No freedom of choice is the type of unjust doctrine that pushs people away from God because they would rather believe God to have never existed or dead than accept no freedom of choice.

We are not arguing here about whether people have free will; we are debating whether Jesus was free to act. Sidestepping into showing humans in general or taking specific examples of other people exercising free will is not relevant.

Yes it is relevant. Isn't what is good for the gander good for the goose?

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.

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

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.

Yet that is not what the Bible supports.

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

Is obedience a choice or not?

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

Hebrews 5:8 says of Jesus, "he learned obedience from what he suffered" and not because it was inevitable because of a lack of choice. If there was ever a time for the Bible to be clear Hebrews 5:8 would have been the perfect time to clarify that Jesus is not like the rest of mankind in not able to choose.

[William]

[Replying to post 107 by 2timothy316]

Right, so if a person decided to make an enemy of God, which in turn leads to their death, like King Saul. That is their choice. God causing a choice or making His own enemies is even more unbelievable. Saul chose to make himself an enemy. It certainly wasn't God Almighty forcing Saul to become an enemy. That would mean Jehovah makes His own enemies. Why would a loving God do such a thing? It doesn't prove He is the best choice for universal ruler. In fact, it would be saying the opposite. It would be like saying, mankind's justice is better than God's. At least in mankind's justice a person has a choice.

No freedom of choice is the type of unjust doctrine that pushs people away from God because they would rather believe God to have never existed or dead than accept no freedom of choice.

While this is might be true in relation to the generic question of GOD, it is not necessarily why people might choose to believe GOD doesn't exist or has died rather than accept 'no freedom of choice' because that doesn't really add up anyway.

There is the question of whether the particular idea of GOD presented is something an individual could, in all good conscience, accept as a good idea to support.

If people think the idea of the GOD presented is unethical, and that the same GOD will punish people by placing them into hell (or even annihilating them) for not supporting [him] then while they might consider this akin to having no choice at all in the matter, they certainly still do. They decide that the right choice for them to make is not to support such an idea of GOD even if this means that IF the GOD turns out to exist and is like they were told, THEN they will stand by their choice as having been the correct one to make.

That is of course, a very big IF.