Full Question:

 

I have embraced the whole idea of the “open view of GOD” for years and was very pleased when a friend referred me to the sight.

The question I have is whether Jesus was a true free agent (during His earthly time anyway) and thus able to sin or not able to sin at all.

I have read arguments on both sides and still strongly believe Jesus could have chosen to do other than He did. My main premise is that you CANNOT be tempted to do something that is impossible for you to do (e.g. I can’t be tempted to jump to the moon – it’s not possible to do so).

I believe the biblical position would be Jesus was able not to sin as opposed to “not able to sin” because he was the “last Adam”. And Adam obviously had the choice.

If you have time to respond to this message I would be thrilled!

Anonymous

 

Reply to Anonymous:

 

This is a really difficult question, and proponents of the open view will not all give the same answer. It seems to me, however, that the answer to this depends on the answer to another question: Is it possible for God to do evil? Like most Christian theologians, I believe the answer to that is No. Was Jesus, then, not a free agent? I believe he was indeed a free agent. But I would say that, as the co-equal Second Person of the Trinity, the Son of God freely and voluntarily consented to assume human flesh and blood, to become a man and to die for our salvation. And subsequent to that, I think it was not really possible that he would do something that would, so to speak, “abort the mission.” I would amend Brent’s premise (“that you cannot be tempted to do something that is impossible for you to do”) as follows: you cannot be tempted to do something that you *know* is impossible for you to do. And this has the implication, which some may find it difficult to accept, that prior to the resurrection Jesus was not fully aware of the implications of his status as the divine Son. But these are deep theological waters, and the open view of God doesn’t stand or fall on the views I’ve expressed here being correct.

William Hasker