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


of course Mary did, Why do you presume being born without sin automatically means you have no free will.

What is your proof that you can connect the dots on both these issues


This is Catholic Answers, you’re in the wrong place for Catholics un-informed about the real beef between Galileo and the Church. :stuck_out_tongue:


happy mom,

Jesus had a perfect human nature and a perfect divine nature. two natures in the one Jesus.

The Perfect human nature is low christology, it deals with the human Jesus, the man who walked talked, had a ministry taught, the pre easter Jesus if you like.
This Jesus did not attribute any miracle to himself. This Jesus attributed every healing, exorcism, miracle to God. And said ‘why do you call me good, the only one who is good is God’
Jesus never sought or accepted any credit for himself.

The Perfect Divine nature is high Christology and can be read about very well in the Gospel of John. John was an Apostle. John concentrates on the post easter Jesus, the resurrected Jesus, the Christ, the Messiah.
IN the beginning was the Word…
John uses names and images of the Divine Jesus, ’ i am the light of the world…

It is a modern day heresy cytomonophysitism , to deny the human nature of Jesus or think that its ok, Jesus was God so no big deal about the Passion as being suffered by a fully human nature.
and certainly took several centuries and a few councils to define this dual Christology.


this is a modern day heresy. cytomonophysitism.

Jesus was fully human. In all things, fully human. except sin.


Thank you, Father. I was about to ask you if the magisterium had said something.

That’s actually what I believed until last week, when I saw that CA article someone linked to. I was hoping the main site wouldn’t have misinformation.


I did not say that Jesus sinned.


I would like to say first that I don’t think you’re saying that Christ actually sinned.

I respectfully say that the capacity to sin isn’t an ability, but it’s a defect in us humans. That isn’t apart of freedom. Christ being perfect had no defects. It was impossible for Him to sin, becuase of the Hypostatic Union also. To say that He could have sinned would be to say that His human will was not fully united to His Divine will.


In the Temptation in the Desert, Satan said to Christ “turn these stones into bread.”

Could He have done that?

I’m not asking “did He want to?” I am asking could He have done it, yes or no?


Christ can turns stones into bread. That in itself isn’t sinful, but He couldn’t have done it in this context, becuase He would have given in to temptation; a defect.

I don’t mean to sound rude or condescending in any way. I apologize if I come across that way.


Shall I take that as a “no” to my question? Yes or no.

Obviously, I’m only asking about this context. Either He could have done it, or He could-not have done it. Which is it?

I don’t think you sound that way. No need to apologize that I can see.


Free will, contrary to what many erroneously (yet understandably) think, is not the ability to choose between good and evil. God created man’s free will as a means of allowing man to choose God—the perfect good—perfectly. To define free will as the ability to choose between good and evil is problematic because it would imply that evil was part of God’s original plan for creation. However, we know that evil—the lack of a good—is not in fact willed by God, who is the perfect good. To say otherwise would lead to a contradiction, and God cannot contradict His very nature.

When man sins, he does not “use” his free will for its intended purpose; rather, he abuses it. As St. Augustine said, “man, by abusing free will, loses both it and himself”. Thus, there is no such thing as the “freedom to sin”; rather, the capacity for man to sin and do evil is due to a state of bondage, from which Christ came to set us free.

Therefore, although Jesus, perfect God and perfect Man, possesses free will, He is absolutely incapable of committing sin. This is not a denial of the reality of His human nature, but rather demonstrates the perfection of human nature. And far from His inability to sin being an indication of a lack of free will, it in fact demonstrates the very perfection of that free will.


Oh wonderful.

Well I’m that context, no, He couldn’t have done it.


All right then.

If he “couldn’t have done it” then what purpose is served by the Gospel event? If He could not have turned the stones into bread anyway, what does it matter that Satan even told Him to do it?

On the other hand, should we not understand the Gospel event as meaning that He decided not to turn the stones into bread?


Well the purpose the passage serves would be to set an example for us when we’re faced with temptation.


But why is it not a sacrifice in that sense? Did Jesus not choose to give up a lot when He came down to suffer horribly?

You seem to be limiting temptation to just some abstract desire. That is not the fullness of it. It’s entirely possible for one individual to tempt another individual to do something by offering it. That is, of course, what Satan did to Jesus. It is not indicative, however, of Jesus’ ability to submit to Satan.

That’s like saying a prisoner who is certainly going to be tortured horribly and has no means of escape can’t possibly agonize over what is to come, which is just ludicrous. Sure, some people will just stoically accept their fate. Not everyone does, and Jesus obviously didn’t. (Not saying Jesus was imprisoned by fate, though, since He chose before anything was created to suffer as He did.)

So do you think that the Church is infallible?

Considering I have never taken the position that we are born good, I’m not sure why you want me to explain that.

With that said: Can you please explain how God has the ability to rebel against God while still remaining consistent with Catholic theology?


That is the way I see it…He had the ability, He could have if He wanted to (and His stomach might have wanted to) but He decided not to give into a suggestion from the Devil.


The problem is that the argument becomes circular. And yes, that does happen in Christology. We ask things like “did He have to die on the cross?” and frankly our answers come out to be something like “well, because He did die on the cross, that means He had to die on the cross” and then “if he had been executed by beheading, we would be saying that He had to be executed by beheading.”

So I hear the argument you’re making there (of course).

When I say that the argument is circular, I’m not saying it’s wrong (circular arguments are usually fallacious). I’m just saying that much of our Christology does indeed involve circular logic.

Why was He born in Bethlehem? Because He had to be born in Bethlehem. What if he had been born in Nazareth? He wasn’t, but if He had been, then we’d be saying that He had to have been.

More on this after I think on it…


As I see it, that’s the main point of the event.


Absolutely not. There is no indication of this in the Gospel at all. This is to suggest that our Lord suffered from some of the effects of original sin.


I guess I have to admit I do not understand your statement. Did Jesus not experience hunger?

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.