Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Outreach
Outreach
Exploring Christianity
Did Jesus Have Free Will?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ViaCrucis" data-source="post: 68695018" data-attributes="member: 293637"><p>If we imagine that Christ, the man, is merely a puppet and God the puppeteer, then we certainly run into all sorts of problems. This is actually quite similar to an ancient heresy known as Cerinthianism, named for a proto-Gnostic teacher named Cerinthus who is said to have lived near the end of the 1st century. According to Cerinthianism the spirit of Christ or the Logos descended upon the man Jesus and possessed or otherwise occupied his body from his baptism until his crucifixion--in other words leaven a very confused man dying on a cross. This was, as one might expect, rejected for all sorts of reasons. </p><p></p><p>Christological discussion and debate, specifically the interrelationship of divinity and humanity in the person of Jesus, was a major theological driving force in the early centuries of Christianity. The biggest controversy centered over Arius, a presbyter from Alexandria, Egypt. Arius taught that Jesus was the incarnation of a secondary, lesser God created by the Father--this controversy ultimately led to the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople in 325 and 381 respectively. But Christological discussion and debate continued, with the Nestorian controversy resulting in the Council of Ephesus in 431, and the Eutychian controversy resulting in the Council of Chalcedon in 451. At the Council of Chalcedon a solid affirmation of Christology was put forward, primarily to reject the errors of Nestorianism and Eutychianism (which were, effectively, at opposite ends of the spectrum). And here is what they wrote:</p><p></p><p>"<em>Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.</em>"</p><p></p><p>This is why, by the way, historically Christians call the Virgin Mary "mother of God" and "God-bearer" (Greek: <em>Theotokos</em>), because Jesus being truly God, and the child of Mary, makes Mary the mother of God (Jesus).</p><p></p><p>This basic confession is what Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholic Christians believe. The Oriental Orthodox do not accept Chalcedon explicitly, but getting into that would be a far more complicated discussion. It is sufficient to say that the Oriental Orthodox use language different than Chalcedon, but both Chalcedonian Christians and non-Chalcedonian Christians are trying to say the same thing, just in different words: Jesus is both fully God and fully human without a confusion or separation of either.</p><p></p><p>It is also worth noting that this controversy continued for sometime resulting in the second and third councils of Constantinople, this sixth ecumenical council (Constantinople III) specifically dealt with what was known as the Monothelite controversy, Monothelitism (literally "one-will-ism") said that Christ only had a divine will, not a human will. Monothelitism was rejected in favor for Diathelitism, Christ has two wills, one Divine and one human--but Christ is not confused, the two wills are never out of concert. </p><p></p><p>All of this to really answer the meat of your question: Jesus indeed had--and has--free will; it is out of His will that He freely submitted Himself in obedience to the Father, even to the point of death. He is never like a puppet, but is always fully engaging and willfully accepting the will of the Father. This is what St. Paul is trying to get at in this passage in his letter to the Philippian church:</p><p></p><p>"<em>Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who though He was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death--even death on a cross.</em>" - Philippians 2:5-8</p><p></p><p>-CryptoLutheran</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ViaCrucis, post: 68695018, member: 293637"] If we imagine that Christ, the man, is merely a puppet and God the puppeteer, then we certainly run into all sorts of problems. This is actually quite similar to an ancient heresy known as Cerinthianism, named for a proto-Gnostic teacher named Cerinthus who is said to have lived near the end of the 1st century. According to Cerinthianism the spirit of Christ or the Logos descended upon the man Jesus and possessed or otherwise occupied his body from his baptism until his crucifixion--in other words leaven a very confused man dying on a cross. This was, as one might expect, rejected for all sorts of reasons. Christological discussion and debate, specifically the interrelationship of divinity and humanity in the person of Jesus, was a major theological driving force in the early centuries of Christianity. The biggest controversy centered over Arius, a presbyter from Alexandria, Egypt. Arius taught that Jesus was the incarnation of a secondary, lesser God created by the Father--this controversy ultimately led to the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople in 325 and 381 respectively. But Christological discussion and debate continued, with the Nestorian controversy resulting in the Council of Ephesus in 431, and the Eutychian controversy resulting in the Council of Chalcedon in 451. At the Council of Chalcedon a solid affirmation of Christology was put forward, primarily to reject the errors of Nestorianism and Eutychianism (which were, effectively, at opposite ends of the spectrum). And here is what they wrote: "[I]Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.[/I]" This is why, by the way, historically Christians call the Virgin Mary "mother of God" and "God-bearer" (Greek: [I]Theotokos[/I]), because Jesus being truly God, and the child of Mary, makes Mary the mother of God (Jesus). This basic confession is what Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholic Christians believe. The Oriental Orthodox do not accept Chalcedon explicitly, but getting into that would be a far more complicated discussion. It is sufficient to say that the Oriental Orthodox use language different than Chalcedon, but both Chalcedonian Christians and non-Chalcedonian Christians are trying to say the same thing, just in different words: Jesus is both fully God and fully human without a confusion or separation of either. It is also worth noting that this controversy continued for sometime resulting in the second and third councils of Constantinople, this sixth ecumenical council (Constantinople III) specifically dealt with what was known as the Monothelite controversy, Monothelitism (literally "one-will-ism") said that Christ only had a divine will, not a human will. Monothelitism was rejected in favor for Diathelitism, Christ has two wills, one Divine and one human--but Christ is not confused, the two wills are never out of concert. All of this to really answer the meat of your question: Jesus indeed had--and has--free will; it is out of His will that He freely submitted Himself in obedience to the Father, even to the point of death. He is never like a puppet, but is always fully engaging and willfully accepting the will of the Father. This is what St. Paul is trying to get at in this passage in his letter to the Philippian church: "[I]Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who though He was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death--even death on a cross.[/I]" - Philippians 2:5-8 -CryptoLutheran [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Outreach
Outreach
Exploring Christianity
Did Jesus Have Free Will?
Top
Bottom