Honorius may not has generated that teaching,but he was the pope,he was incharge and the head,hence,he was expected to act accordingly wth his power and authority. but failed,rather he endorses it,i believe that's why many theologians called him a herectic.
I am no theologian but I always thought that as a Divine Person Jesus couldn’t sin, for He cannot deny his own self. This doesn’t mean that the temptations the devil put before his humanity were not real but just that there was no way He would consent. The devil was aiming a pea shooter at a howitzer so to speak. Am I a heretic?
There is no way He would ever consent and we can be sure of that, but one question would be whether it is proper to speak of His human will as being "incapable" of sinning. That is how I would put it and your position is not heretical - indeed it is the mainstream position now that the perfection of free will is to have the will irrevocably fixed on the good so that one can no longer choose anything else. However Jim is addressing things in the terms of the debate of the time, not later developments in the debate over free will.
Honorius may not has generated that teaching,but he was the pope,he was incharge and the head,hence,he was expected to act accordingly wth his power and authority. but failed,rather he endorses it,i believe that's why many theologians called him a herectic.
I am no theologian but I always thought that as a Divine Person Jesus couldn’t sin, for He cannot deny his own self. This doesn’t mean that the temptations the devil put before his humanity were not real but just that there was no way He would consent. The devil was aiming a pea shooter at a howitzer so to speak. Am I a heretic?
There is no way He would ever consent and we can be sure of that, but one question would be whether it is proper to speak of His human will as being "incapable" of sinning. That is how I would put it and your position is not heretical - indeed it is the mainstream position now that the perfection of free will is to have the will irrevocably fixed on the good so that one can no longer choose anything else. However Jim is addressing things in the terms of the debate of the time, not later developments in the debate over free will.
@@CatholicCulturePod Thank you!
Doesn't William Lane Craig defend a neoApollinarian Christology these days? I've certainly seen him deny the idea of two wills.
This was always one of the more confusing ones to me, lol
Smash the like button
I like the smash button! 😀