I hope you don't mean what it sounds like you mean. You mean that Christ's will was just like ours, but he managed on his own to remain free of sin. And on that basis God made him the savior?
I was looking for something and came across your post. My apologies if I haven't already replied...
In respect of your comment: Firstly we need to be guided by scripture, not human philosophies. In that vain I'll point to Hebrews 2:16-18
"For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto [us] his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted".
Note the two bits I've undelined. Was Jesus in the acqusition of humanity to his "hypostasis" (cp. Heb 1:3) identical to us in every possible way? Or did his "theotes" (cp. Heb 2:9) overwelm his humanity?
These questions were central to the argumentation leading upto Chalcedon. Chalcedon avoided the "ousia" / "homoousios" issue/s by relying on Cyril's writings (affirmed by Leo bishop of Rome) and concluded that the two "physes" (natures) are distinguishable but not the "hypostasis" (contra Nestorius). In short: Jesus did not have MPD! As faithful Son he, by his own will, remained obedient to his Father in both his pre-existence & incarnation.
I'm sure you are familiar with the "kenosis"controversies that preceded Chalcedon. In this theory the Son suppressed the fullness of his "theotes" and let his human nature do the navigating. For instance: in any civil court of law, ancient or modern, Jesus' actions as depicted at Jn 2:15 would have him convicted of aggravated assault, destruction of private property and terrorism.
From a humanist perspective, he had as little justification for his actions as Daesh currently have. (Albeit, even the Talmud accurses Annas & Sons for their commercialisation of the Temple). The point is: did Jesus in his actions "sin"? In the eyes of men, the answer is 100% YES! In the eyes of God, the answer is 100% NO (cp. Ezekiel 18:29-32). Thus Jesus is declared 100% sinless in the "eyes" of God.
Now have a read of Philippians 2:7-9 "...[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.
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name..."
The first bit I've underlined uses the word "kenosis". The phrases "
likeness of men" & "fashion as a man" use the words "
homoiōma" (resemblance, equality of identity)
& "schēma" (everything about a person which strikes the senses). A.Paul is very adament about the reality of Jesus' humanity in all his letters extant to us! The reason for this is summized as his effeort to combat what are called the docetae who advocated Christ's humanity wasn't real!!!
Remember that in traditional theology sin results from the fact that our will is fallen.
According to scripture it is because Adam disobeyed God! Or more particularly, from Genesis 3, prefering the voice of his wife over that of God. In contrast, according to scripture Jesus remained steadfastly obedient to his Father's will!
Apart from disobedience to God's declared will, what is sin?
Abraham prostituted his sister/wife 3 times showing complete distrust in God! Did Abraham sin in God's eyes or just Calvinists? Jacob set conditions on his acceptance of YHWH as his God! Did Jacob sin in God's eyes or just Calvinists? Moses smashed to pieces God's decalogue, personally handed to Moses by God and instituted his own ordinances? Did Moses sin in God's eyes or just Calvinists?
Calvin's analysis was that God gave Christ an unfallen will, and that for that reason he fully submitted to God. Yes, it was free choice, but free choice that resulted from his election.
An idea upon which scripture is 100% silent. Whereas Jesus' personal choice (will) to remain steadfast in his obedience to his Father's will is well testified in scripture (Mk 14:36 comes immediately to mind).
Now, thinking upon your ascertain that "God gave Christ an unfallen will" - it has the aroma of Arianism about it (only creations are given attributes, not the natural "monogenes" of the Father). Imu, Hebrews 1:3 contradicts Calvin's speculation = Jesus was "imprinted" with his Father's "hypostasis". It wasn't gifted but a natural consequence of his begettal.
I don't accept TULIP, but on this point I think Calvin's answer is
reasonable. Here's his comment:
"He is conceived a mortal man of the seed of David; what, I would ask them, are the virtues by which he deserved to become in the very womb, the head of angels the only begotten Son of God, the image and glory of the Father, the light, righteousness, and salvation of the world? It is wisely observed by Augustine, that in the very head of the Church we have a bright mirror of free election, lest it should give any trouble to us the members—viz. that he did not become the Son of God by living righteously, but was freely presented with this great honor, that he might afterwards make others partakers of his gifts."
Imu, the effect of which has Calvin denying the Son as being natural monogenes, and makes him a creature. Possibly you'd end up with tritheism as Calvinism is often accused of asserting by the Unitarians. Imo, you end up denying the ontological tri-unity (The Trinity) and are left with just a bunch of organisms co-operating as a union.
On autotheos, you may find the following review interesting:
Calvin, Classical Trinitarianism, and the Aseity of the Son – Credo Magazine. I don't think it's obvious that Calvin's view is wrong, although personally I think the issue as a whole is a result of the limitations of the traditional way of talking about the Trinity.
Imu, Calvin is supposed to have explained that his use of "autotheos" was to emphasise that the Son's "theotes" is fully contained within himself. Unfortunately, that isn't how anyone understood or understands the term "autotheos"="God of himself" which is the sole domain of the Father. The Son's "theotes" is derivative & a consequence of his being "born of the Father before all ages".