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


We cannot believe contrary things. Having divine will means that He could not sin. Having human will means that He could sin.


see the thing is Jesus is the Word Incarnate. Jesus is the second member of the Trinity. Jesus is God.

and as the Incarnation, Jesus was born of a woman, was a jew, had family, ate, drank, laughed, cried, loved , lost, was scorned and made friends. Jesus had radical ideas for a first century palestinian Jew. He was murdered as a zealot, a political insurgent. He challenged the status quo.

As the Incarnation , Jesus has a fully human nature. He was born, was a baby, grew up, learnt to walk talk, eat solid food, run, play, learn. As a man Jesus took up responsibility worked, then started His public ministry. After Jesus was executed, He rose from the dead, God Raised Him up, the first to be resurrected. Jesus has a fully Divine nature too. Glorified as the Son of God, Lord of Lords, Light of the world,

Of course we can believe this, it happened, its God, our Creator, Incarnated as a fully human man. Being fully human , Jesus could have said nah, not doing it, going to do my own thing. But Jesus was obedient to Abba, His Father in Heaven.

Jesus gave up His life, sacrificed His life as the innocent suffering servant. So we , you included, could have salvation, redemption, forgiveness and mercy. We see a very human Jesus in the Garden the night He is arrested. A human Jesus who is sweating blood, knowing whats about to happen to Him.


Learn a little of early church history, how the catholic church developed its doctrine. We had councils. The leaders and minds of the Church got together at these councils and worked out what this all meant, the Incarnation, the Man Jesus, the Resurrected Jesus. They worked out Christology.

Start with the early church heresies, especially Arius and his heresy, and the Council of Nicea, in AD325, go from there

To say Jesus was not fully human with a fully human nature, in all things except sin, and Jesus is fully divine, with a fully Divine nature, is a heresy.


Not if you assume a perfect human will, as Christ did.

To maintain that He didn’t have two wills or that they weren’t united is a heresy.


Actually it is connected to this thread because IF the evolutionary theory is correct in any form (including divine guidance) then the historical nature of the A&E story has to be questioned, and along with it the doctrines based on the story as being historical. As I said I do not see how evolution could be accurate as it presently stands probably for the same reasons as you. If it did occur it had to be directed by a mega-intelligence, and there actually IS scientific evidence of that.

The Icarus article only postulates that the mega-intelligence was another species within the universe and the overlook that the intelligence could be from outside of the universe or divine.

The science point to (does not prove) that the A&E story more likely than not is scientifically incorrect. The deeper meaning of the story which I referred to is enhanced if it is not taken literally.

Likewise if Jesus and the ability to sin, as several Church doctrines do state, even if He would never do so it also bring into question the same doctrines.

As I said to Fr. David it is a can of worms that I really didn’t want to get into on this thread, but the can has been opened. What I would love to see is an unquestionable logical explanation of how these doctrines could preserved as-is while at the same time embracing the modern scientific theories as factual in some way.


You are not making a real argument. You have ability to sin in one hand and disability to sin in another hand. That is contradictory since you cannot have two contrary thing at the same time.

Moreover, if he learnt things including the concept of sin then he could sin without being aware of that.

Is there a sacrifice when you have to do something?


Thanks for explanation. I learnt something.

So, what we know about Jesus is from people understanding?


The Catholic Church has two things called Doctrine and Dogma. The beauty of these is that the laity need not make arguments about them. We follow and subscribe to them.

Jesus is always given a capital H in He.

Jesus did not have to martyr Himself. What makes you think it was a compulsory act?

Can you rephrase that , or add words to understanding


Things has to follow logic otherwise they are not real.

I miss that. Sorry. What about my claim?

He subjected Himself to Divine Will. Divine Will is mandatory when it comes to sin, God cannot sin.

You accept that Jesus was something different from human being or mere God being. This is explained by understanding of people.


[quote=“STT, post:208, topic:509372”]
then He could sin without being aware of that
No one can sin without being aware of it. Sin requires a conscious decision.

Correct, He DID subject Himself to the Divine Will. He did that Himself. Therefore even though He, like all men, had the ability to sin He would not do so because He always allowed the Divine Will to guide Him. If He did not have the ability to say “No” there would have no sacrifice on His part because His actions as a man were pre-programmed.


Kids can do. We define sin to them and they learn it.

There are two points here.
First: He used His human will to decide about being subject to Divine will in order to sacrifice Himself. That is not different from deciding to sacrifice Himself based on human will.

Second: I don’t understand you. You are the one who is claiming that Jesus didn’t make any sacrifice if He was not able to do otherwise.


The simple answer? It’s not going to work.

Please PM me if you’d like to discuss this further. I’m not going to go down this rabbit hole while there is already an excessive amount of threads on evolution in existence.


Did God create us with original sin, or is that something we acquired after the fall?


Still that would be no. Anyone, child or adult, can only sin when they know something is wrong and do it anyways. It is not the action that makes something a sin, it is the intent. I would put it in the same category as if a wolf commits a sin or is he doing evil when he kills a human. He is just being a wolf, he is not doing evil even if something that could be defined as evil is being done.

First: He used His human will to decide to do all things in accord with the Divine Will. And yes, He did have a clear vision of what the Divine will was. Even when His human will protested and asked for His task to be removed from Him. He was in agony about this and was so troubled about what was to come. But then, according to the story, as soon as He made the decision to follow the Divine will He got us and calmly met His persecutors. It is not a question of would He do the Divine will because He always would. But like the guy I mentioned earlier who always took 3 right hand turns instead of taking a left hand turn, the fact that he always did that did not take away his ability to take a left hand turn.

Second: I stand by that. Just as without making a conscious decision to commit sin no sin has been committed so to without a conscious to do good no good has been done. If somehow a person was somehow brainwashed to always do something which was either right or wrong, and had no choice but to do it, would it be that person who was responsible or whoever brainwashed him? If Jesus had no choice but to suffer and die then He made no sacrifice. But because He decided to always do the will of the Father it was His choice and as a result the sacrifice is valid.


What is the difference between using His human will to decide about being subjected to Divine will in order to sacrifice Himself and using human will to decide to sacrifice Himself?


Nothing really. The result is the same and they both involve His decision.


The whole issue you are having is a misunderstanding of the relationship between faith and reason, or faith and science.
And with that, a misunderstanding of the Church’s view of Inspiration and the senses of scripture.
A passage isn’t an either/or proposition. Genesis has historical elements, and at the same time, it has deeper spiritual senses. These two things do not contradict one another.
Faith and reason are integrated and inform one another, and scripture expresses this.

So your assumption that the sciences invalidate spiritual truths because the scriptures are lacking modern scientific discovery does not follow.


So He made a sacrifice.

Although I think that one cannot have both Divine and human will.


You’re responding to @WileyC1949, if I’m not mistaken? The system just tagged me.


Hi @Roseeurekacross,

I understand about the two natures of Jesus, Jesus was the Son of Man and also the Son of God, fully human and fully divine now hear me out. I don’t deny the human nature of Jesus but I also know that Jesus ALWAYS did the will of the Father. I also realize that Jesus was like us in emotions, pain, and could get sick and really the Jesus, the Son of Man, really learned about practically everything including the details on the divine plan He entered into as He grew. He pleaded on His hands and knees for the Father to take this cup away from Him but if it was in the Fathers will it Shall be done. I see that as both an obedient statement and a divine statement. Jesus couldn’t do anything but what He did because He did the will of the Father as a perfect human. Now read the Catechism on what sin is.

CCC1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as “an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.”

Does that sound like something Jesus would be capable of as a perfect ‘human’? That would defy His very nature as a perfect human sent down from heaven to save us from our sins. CCC 480 Jesus Christ is true God and true man, in the unity of his divine person; for this reason he is the one and only mediator between God and men.

Now lets look at the Catechism again especially the parts I’ve bolded.

CCC481 Jesus Christ possesses two natures, one divine and the other human, not confused, but united in the one person of God’s Son.

CCC482 Christ, being true God and true man, has a human intellect and will, perfectly attuned and subject to his divine intellect and divine will, which he has in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

CCC483 The Incarnation is therefore the mystery of the wonderful union of the divine and human natures in the one person of the Word.

Now if Jesus human will was perfectly intuned to His divine will He would not have been able to sin though because He is in agony we see Him (the human nature Jesus) ‘asking’ for the Father to remove the cup from Him.
Luke 22:42 “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”
That is NOT a statement saying Jesus on His own could make such decision. It was a prayer request.

I go back to what I was saying EVERYTHING that Jesus did or said while on earth teaches us something. In this case Jesus teaches us to Ask the Father for help from suffering and death. It’s our job to trust in Jesus in all things. Jesus can’t let us down.
God doesn’t make mistakes and Jesus couldn’t sin. He just wasn’t that way. He was in perfect union with God but that doesn’t mean He wasn’t human with human emotions, needs, etc. So one shouldn’t focus on the specific words Jesus said in relation to this question but who Jesus is.

God bless you all.

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.