Did Jesus have the ability to say "No" to the Father?


#182

Not so much gave up His will but made His personal human will subject to the will of God. I am not arguing that He did something wrong or even ever would have done something wrong. I am only saying He could have, and that fact of a free will decision was absolutely necessary for His sacrifice to be valid.


#183

No. He could not have sinned, and it was not necessary for him to have the possibility of doing so in order that the Sacrifice of himself be valid.

As someone pointed out earlier, please stop spreading false doctrine.


#184

But where is the logical error?

I am stating that in light of the fact that the Church allows the believe in evolution, and in fact a number of the Popes have accepted evolution as a scientific fact then it places the story of Adam & Eve category of a teaching story rather than a historical one. If it is not historical then that fact logically brings into question a number of Church teachings including the Immaculate Conception and Original Sin which I feel should therefore be reexamined and perhaps adjusted.

It would be illogical reasoning to reject the scientific concept of evolution because of the desire to cling historical accuracy of the Adam and Eve story, because true science is another source of God’s revelation to man concerning the physical universe. If you hold that God created the universe in which ever way HE chose then it logically follows that He created the science by which it runs. True science then can only tell us HOW God did what He did. One of the priests can correct me if I am wrong but I believe that this was actually the opening argument in Thomas Aquinas’ “Summa Theologica” and he stated that there can be no conflict between true science and Sacred Tradition.

I think this is especially true one you get away from viewing it historically because of the incredible profoundness of the story which can be seen once it is not viewed that way. Through deductive reasoning you can I believe uncover the entire purpose of life, the reason why pain and suffering exist, and why direct knowledge of God’s existence is denied to us. I think I may have found the answers to those questions deeply underneath the words that are there, but you will not find it treating the story as word-for-word accurate history.


#185

I was not referring to evolution. I was referring to your earlier (and now removed) post in which you said that God directly created evil, Satan isn’t evil and is in fact is doing God’s will, and that the reason why God created Satan was because God Himself cannot tempt man.


#187

Vade retro, satana!

Such conjecture is complete out of accordance with orthodox Catholic theology. It is even blasphemous.

Kyrie, eleison.


#188

Doctrinal error.

So science supersedes the teaching of the Church?

The idea of macro evolution has no solid scientific evidence to support it either.

More doctrinal error.


#189

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1001.htm

" On the contrary, Other sciences are called the handmaidens of this one: “Wisdom sent her maids to invite to the tower” (Proverbs 9:3).
I answer that, Since this science [doctrine] is partly speculative and partly practical, it transcends all others speculative and practical. Now one speculative science is said to be nobler than another, either by reason of its greater certitude, or by reason of the higher worth of its subject-matter. In both these respects this science surpasses other speculative sciences; in point of greater certitude, because other sciences derive their certitude from the natural light of human reason, which can err; whereas this derives its certitude from the light of divineknowledge, which cannot be misled: in point of the higher worth of its subject-matter because this science treats chiefly of those things which by their sublimity transcend human reason; while other sciences consider only those things which are within reason’s grasp. Of the practical sciences, that one is nobler which is ordained to a further purpose, as political science is nobler than military science; for the good of the army is directed to the good of the State. But the purpose of this science, in so far as it is practical, is eternal bliss; to which as to an ultimate end the purposes of every practical science are directed. Hence it is clear that from every standpoint, it is nobler than other sciences."


#190

It may be doctrinal error. But I asked a question earlier which you avoided as to whether or not it is logical error in light of the general acceptance even by various Popes of the scientific concept of evolution. Science has already proved that the Earth is a sphere and not a circle, it does not have four corners, the universe did not come into being in six days nor does the sun travel around the Earth as is stated on implied in the Bible. The Church has accepted all of these even though at one time they were opposed to these concepts. So the Bible DOES contain scientific errors. Certainly the theory of evolution has not been absolutely proven but there is tons of evidence to support it. Are you waiting until it does get absolutely proven to even consider the possibility?


#191

It has been a while since I tried to conquer the Summa, and I admit I didn’t get through it. But a more recent document expresses what I said:

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth. … Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God.”


#192

How do you do what you’re doing here? How are you quoting from that website? How do you get it to appear in a light grey ‘text box’?


#193

You referenced the Summa, I provided the relevant section from the Summa concerning the most divine of sciences, sacred doctrine.

I literally just copied the text and pasted it here, for some reason NewAdvent allows me to bring their formatting over too. :laughing: As for the grey box, put a “>” in front of the text you want to be a block. It stops at an empty line, so it won’t include enter spaces. So " > Test" looks like:

Test


#194

You might want to research the 3rd Council of Constantinople, the 6th Ecumenical Council, before you post such a comment.

Just a suggestion. :wink:


#195

Again, 3rd Constantinople.


#196

I’m not answering your questions on evolution in this thread, because that is simply not the topic of this thread. However, if you’d like to discuss this issue, feel free to send a PM, and brace yourself for several philosophical arguments. There are reasons why I categorically reject the notion of macro evolution. :wink:


#197

we are fully human. we are created by God, His human creatures. I am not sure what you mean or where you are getting that we are not fully human?


#198

You are not Catholic, therefore you do not believe in Jesus. So you do not believe that any of it was possible. And that is part of your journey :slight_smile:


#199

Oh cool. Thanks for the info.


#200

There is a tension between Divine and human will since in one you cannot sin but in another you can.


#201

So His human will was not free.

You are correct. But His decision was not a sacrifice if His human will was subjected to His divine will.


#202

What is that?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.