Did Jesus have free will?

I am simply noting how the text reads.

It is not presented in the "I have no ability to do anything but succeed" style.

Wouldn't you agree?

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Jesus had a will to not drink the cup, but He had a stronger will to obey the Father, just as the Father had determined. Can God be divided against Himself?

 

I am simply noting how the text reads.

It is not presented in the "I have no ability to do anything but succeed" style.

Wouldn't you agree?

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Hi Bob

We are here discussing the human will of Jesus Christ, right? The whole purpose of Christ's First Advent, was to do the will of God (Heb.10.7, etc). And, we already know from Scripture, that He "Always did the things that pleased the Father". What I am suggesting is, that, there was no inward struggle in Jesus between His Divine and human wills. one in agreement, and the other questioning His very actions. He knew exactly why He came, and as God had no difficulty in completing His Mission. The problem I have with a "free human will" in Jesus, is the ability to sin aspect. Bearing in mind that we can also sin in our thoughts, and this is the main area where the enemy attacks us. I cannot conceive Jesus' earthly life an on-going battle between His two wills, and any, even remote possibility of Him ever having any "sinful thoughts". He had to be immune in this, whereby His Deity "protected" His earthly life. Sure He felt the "force" of temptation, which also has the idea of "testing and trials". Even though Jesus lived among sinners, yet Scripture says that He was "separate from sinners" (Heb.7:26), in that He alone was without any sin. Further, in 2 Corinthians 5:21, we read of Jesus, "knew not sin", where the Greek, "ginosko", which cannot mean that He did not "understand" , or "know of" sin; but rather, in the sense of "acquainted" with, by personal experience. That He was completely free from contact with sin in His life.

What do you think of this?

In Jesus

 

I think that it is agreed here, that, whether we hold to the view that Jesus was "not able to sin", or, "able not to sin", that the main point here ought no to be missed, that He was completely without sin. I say this, because there are some (I don't know if there are any on this board) who might fall into the error, that the human nature of Jesus, in that it was "like unto ours", was also "fallen". This is heresy, and must be condemned as so.

It is very important to know what Scripture teaches on these vital issues. And I will give but one important passage to give some light on this.

Romans 8:3:

"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh"

The last sentence in the Greek is very important:

"katekrine ten hamartion en tei sarki" = "condemned sin in the flesh"

Had Paul repeated the article, "ten" before "en tei sarki", this would have located "sin" in the "flesh of Jesus Christ", and therefore made Jesus as sinner as we are. However, as it stands in the Greek, the phrase, "en tei sarki" modifies the verb, "katekrine", so that the "condemnation" of sin that was "placed" in Jesus' "flesh", and not "sin itself" The position of the definite article in the Greek is very important. The sinlessness of the flesh (human nature) of Jesus Christ is paramount to what Paul is saying here.

Likewise, in 2 Corinthians 5:21, when Paul wrote, "huper hemon hamartian epoiesen" = "for us sin He made" (lit), it does NOT mean that on the cross Jesus became "our sin", as many in the Word of Faith Movement teach. "hamartian" (sin) here is the substantive, not the verb. Jesus did not "become a sinner" on our behalf, as "sin" here is in the abstract, as "representing" the actual "sin itself". God the Father "poieo" (made), where the use of the Greek is not the common meaning, "to cause, produce"; but, rather as used by Herodotus, with the meaning: "to consider" (see, I.83 and 6.61, etc); that is, "treated Jesus as though He had Himself committed our sins". And, in the great exchange, "considers" us to be "Righteous" because of Jesus' perfect, sinless, life.

 

Can you reconcile your argument here with "slain from the foundation of the world"? </font>[/QUOTE]How does "By appointment" fit? </font>[/QUOTE]What scripture are you citing?

 

Free will has nothing to do with the ability to choose. Everybody has the ability to choose. Free will simply means the will is not in bondage to sin. The opposite of free will is a will bound in sin. Christ knew no sin, so His will was obviously free.

The problem is that our wills, when in our natural state, is not free, but bound in sin. We are still able to choose, but because our will is bound in sin we will always choose against God rather than for Him because the natural man is at enmity with God. </font>[/QUOTE]Amen
Bro. Dallas

 

TCassidy says that:

"Free will has nothing to do with the ability to choose. Everybody has the ability to choose. Free will simply means the will is not in bondage to sin"

For the record, this is what the Encarta English Dictonary says about "free will";

"the ability to act or make choices as a free and autonomous being and not solely as a result of compulsion or predestination"

The Calvinists, like Cassidy, would have us believe that this defination in a standard English dictionary, on the meaning of an English word, is wrong.They take it upon themselves to change the common meanings of words, to ensure that it fits their theological bias.

We are also told, that our wills in ore natural state (which I assume means before we are saved), are "not free, but bound in sin", and, because of this, when we do choose, "we will always choose against God". This is what I call misrepresenting the facts.

Does it not seem rather incredible, that Christ, who knows about the will of man more than any other, would Himself say: "You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life: and they are they which testify of Me. And you are not willing to come to Me, that you might have life" (John 5:39-40). And, likewise He says: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" (Matthew 23:37)

How could Jesus say to these people, that they were "unwilling" to come to Him for salvation, if indeed their wills are not free, but in bondage to do everything against God? He simply would not have said any of this, if He thought that His words were not a possibility. There is no point in telling someone to "believe", if it is impossible for them to do so. If these people's wills were so bound up in sin, as Cassidy would want us to believe, then, to say to them, but "you are unwilling to come to Me for eternal life", is quite meaningless.

I have said this many times now, and will repeat it once again. The Calvinistic position of Salvation is a clear distortion of the Biblical data, and a misrepresentation of what God wills for all mankind. This is nothing short of wickedness, in that they are responsible in turning people away from the Gospel of Jesus Christ, by presenting a Plan of Salvation that does NOT have is basis on sound Scriptual teachigs. What worries me more, is when you get some who read this nonsense as posted by the likes of Cassidy, and then say Amen to it!

May God deliver us from our own distorted views on His Great Plan of Slavation, and let the Truth of the Holy Spirit so shine in our hearts.

 

Question, if a free will is one that is not under the bondage of sin, then, can one possess a free will and be submitted to Christ?

My will is no longer free is I am putting myself under Christ.

 

What do you mean, "my will is no longer free"? If you are "putting yourself under Christ", this is an act of free will, as you are doing the action. God is not making you do this, is He? Also, are you saying that now that you are a Christian, that you ALWAYS do the will of God, 100%? I very much doubt this. Do you still sin? I think that answer is yes, then you are through choice either pleasing or displeasing God. For this your will has to be free.

 

Because of God's Free Grace to me, I no longer have any worries.

I do not worry that God's ultimate plan of salvation may not be 'accepted' by the sinful creature's will which in carnality is Biblically declared to be at enmity with God, not subject to His law, neither indeed can it be so.

What then is it subject to if not the Law of God (Speaking of myself and all others while in their natural condition, not their created condition, but their birth-right through the first Adam).

Simply, I do not worry about things that God has put into his care.

John 6:29

A Debtor to Free Grace,
Bro. Dallas

 

Good for you

 

An autonomous being--with a compulsion to sin--

The human kind is totally depraved since the fall of Adam's race. No one has the ability to choose good without the grace of God imparting the faith to believe that the shed blood of Jesus the Christ redeems and justifies those who are predestined in God's good purpose and pleasure.

These facts predate Calvin and Arminius the space between the Garden of Eden and the 16th century C.E.

Jesus is the Lamb of God slain before the foundation of the world.

If Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, He failed. There are millions who have died without having heard the Gospel. There are millions who have been brought back to the fold--the ones given to Jesus--only one of which was lost--Judas Iscariot.

Praise God, salvation is not based on our "ability to choose wisely".

"For by grace are we saved through faith, and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast."Eph. 2:8,9

If we could choose the good, then we could boast of our own merit of which we have none.

Selah,

Bro. James

P.S. Did Jesus have a free will? Not in the sense of the human kind. Jesus is unique--God in the flesh--God cannot sin--He is also sovereign--he can do as He wills--whether we agree or not. Jesus could not sin--He is God.

 

I assume he's a Calvinist.

 

His point makes no sense either. So, what's the point of the different judgments in the future?

 

I agree. I'm not going to prolong a dead subject. Thanks for the discussion.

 

Bro James, your statement, "If Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, He failed", is indeed blasphemey.

Just because you have opted for the Calvinistic error of Limited Atonement, which no doubt has distorted your thinking on the whole doctrine of the Atonement, you can make such heretical statements that, because, to say that if Jesus died for the whole world, and all will not be saved, this makes Him, and not the person who rejects His salvation, the failure. This sort of nonsense is what I would expect from the Word of Faith Movement

 

"dead subject"?

 

We've kicked this freewill idea around enough. The calvinist part isn't dead.