Did Christ have free will?

[brianbbs67]

Did Jesus/Yeshua/whateverhisname have free will. We see him quote" the son can only do as the father has instructed". Or was he so devoted to the father it never was an issue?

So, was he locked into the doctrine? Or could he act of his will? I can see examples of both. What do you all see?

[imhereforyou]

To me, any time anyone claims to be 'following the father's will' or 'the masters plan', they void their own free will.

Please explain how someone CANNOT choose by their free will to exactly follow the Father's will?? Holy means to be dedicated to GOD. A holy free will is then a free will that is totally dedicated to serving GOD's wishes and being in accord with HIS Nature.

They are not forced to choose to do HIS will, they choose to do so, so their free will is not void at all but realized in every decision.

Please explain how someone CANNOT choose by their free will to exactly follow the Father's will??

Because it's not their will. If you follow someone else's will, it's not your own by definition.

Holy means to be dedicated to GOD.

There are many definitions but if that works for you awesome. Just don't interject your definition into everyone's and claim yourself correct. That seems to be rather dishonest to say the least.

A holy free will is then a free will that is totally dedicated to serving GOD's wishes and being in accord with HIS Nature.

I guess it's semantically debatable but I don't believe anyone is holy as the father is holy (as the saying goes) so I would have to disagree with that statement as well.
Additionally, people claim to have followed God's will with murderous results. Are those actions God's will as well? If so, I'd not only question the God in question but also their interpretation of that God. But that's just me - I wouldn't expect blind followers to do that at all.

They are not forced to choose to do HIS will, they choose to do so, so their free will is not void at all but realized in every decision.

Specifically, I was referring to the person (persons) who did actions that was part of God's will.
If Judas didn't do what he's said to have done, someone would have had to. Rather it be Judas, John, Sam, Myrtle....whomever...that person was DESTINED to do in order to fulfill the plan.
You may call that free will, but I don't.

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 1 by brianbbs67]

It is correct that you can see examples of both. That's indicative of the confusion in the Bible. Had it been authored by God himself there would be no confusion. Evidence that the Bible was written by man and there was no god to direct it.

Consider the doctrine of salvation held by evangelicals. Calvinists make a strong case from scripture that God alone decides who will be saved. Others say that "whoever calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved" (Rom. 9:13). Why the confusion? Bible scholars and sincere students have debated this topic for decades and it isn't settled yet. Why? Because the Bible just doesn't make it clear! Is god trying to play games with us? Or, was the Bible written by men with an agenda to fulfill? You decide.

[brianbbs67]

[quote="amortalman"]
[Replying to post 1 by brianbbs67]

It is correct that you can see examples of both. That's indicative of the confusion in the Bible. Had it been authored by God himself there would be no confusion. Evidence that the Bible was written by man and there was no god to direct it.

Consider the doctrine of salvation held by evangelicals. Calvinists make a strong case from scripture that God alone decides who will be saved. Others say that "whoever calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved" (Rom. 9:13). Why the confusion? Bible scholars and sincere students have debated this topic for decades and it isn't settled yet. Why? Because the Bible just doesn't make it clear! Is god trying to play games with us? Or, was the Bible written by men with an agenda to fulfill? You decide.[/quote

That is the whole reason I posted this. Goes to the heart. The point i am trying to make is...."we don't know for sure". So. i trust God, and make choices. The basic message is be good . do good .

[2timothy316]

Speaking of Satan, God said,

That is your opinion.

Wrong again. It is not my opinion.
Ezekiel 28:11 "This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah says:"

Ezekiel 28:13 "You were in Eʹden, the garden of God."
Who was literally in Eden? Not the King of Tyre, he didn't exist in that time.
Ezekiel 28:14 "I assigned you as the anointed covering cherub."
So we know it was a cherub. What about this cherub?
Ezekiel 28:15 "You were faultless in your ways from the day you were created Until unrighteousness was found in you."
Jehovah was linking the king of Tyre's actions to the only angel we know of that was in Eden and sinned against God. What other cherub (which is an angel BTW) could Jehovah be speaking about? It can only be Satan.

So it's not my opinion. There is no other explanation for these scriptures.

[2timothy316]

[EBA]

[EBA]

[brianbbs67]

A little off topic, but Ha' Satan means high adversary. Not the light bringer. Although the morning star references seem to point that way. But, we do not know. The Adversary was made to do a job, just read Job. Although the other writings describe a sublime Seraphin(feminine ) who started the revolt.

[EBA]

"You were faultless in your ways from the day you were created Until unrighteousness was found in you." Ezekiel 28:15.
"Your heart became haughty because of your beauty. You corrupted your wisdom because of your own glorious splendor." Ezekiel 28:17

Your opinion ADDED to scripture does not make a spiritual truth.

Yet I added nothing. Do you see any added words?

Yes I do. In post 146 you stated:

The Bible says of Satan,"Your heart became haughty because of your beauty. You corrupted your wisdom because of your own glorious splendor."Ezekiel 28:17. Satan's own selfish pride was his 'cause' not God's will.

But the Bible doesn't say that of Satan does it? No it says that of the king of Tyrus right? Right.

So AGAIN, before I answer any of your questions, explain to me please why it's okay for you to take scripture out of context and apply it to your doctrine yet tell me that "context is so important.'"

[2timothy316]

"You were faultless in your ways from the day you were created Until unrighteousness was found in you." Ezekiel 28:15.
"Your heart became haughty because of your beauty. You corrupted your wisdom because of your own glorious splendor." Ezekiel 28:17

Your opinion ADDED to scripture does not make a spiritual truth.

Yet I added nothing. Do you see any added words?

Yes I do. In post 146 you stated:

The Bible says of Satan,"Your heart became haughty because of your beauty. You corrupted your wisdom because of your own glorious splendor."Ezekiel 28:17. Satan's own selfish pride was his 'cause' not God's will.

But the Bible doesn't say that of Satan does it? No it says that of the king of Tyrus right? Right.

So AGAIN, before I answer any of your questions, explain to me please why it's okay for you to take scripture out of context and apply it to your doctrine yet tell me that "context is so important.'"

I think you know what the answer is, why stall unless you know once you answer that you will confirm that your doctrine is on losing side of this debate. There is nothing wrong with being wrong as long as we correct ourselves. It only when we continue to believe and worse, teach what is wrong that it's no longer a mistake but a willful sin.

I will ask again, if the cherub from Eden is not Satan, then who is the cherub that the King of Tyre was being compared to?
Dodging to answer ends this debate.

My hunch is that you will never answer the question and will continue to turn to false accusations as a distraction to make others forget that you refuse to answer the question. Will you correct yourself or will you continue to believe and teach a misleading doctrine...you say I'm out of context yet it is the context that tells me the scripture is comparing that king to Satan. If I am out of context then your answer to my question using only the Bible will prove either I am or I am not. If you can't or refuse to answer than you have proven nothing and forfeited your side of the debate due to the lack of Bible evidence. Your whole doctrine will be vindicated by a Bible based answer or condemned due to a lack of an answer or an unscriptural answer.