'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

LifeSiteNews.com ^ | 12/4/2006 | John-Henry Westen

[Pyro7480]

'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

By John-Henry Westen

NEW YORK, December 4, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A review of New Line Cinema's The Nativity story by Fr. Angelo Mary Geiger of the Franciscans of the Immaculate in the United States, points out that the film, which opened December 1, misinterprets scripture from a Catholic perspective.

While Fr. Geiger admits that he found the film is "in general, to be a pious and reverential presentation of the Christmas mystery." He adds however, that "not only does the movie get the Virgin Birth wrong, it thoroughly Protestantizes its portrayal of Our Lady."

In Isaiah 7:14 the Bible predicts the coming of the Messiah saying: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel." Fr. Geiger, in an video blog post, explains that the Catholic Church has taught for over 2000 years that the referenced Scripture showed that Mary would not only conceive the child miraculously, but would give birth to the child miraculously - keeping her physical virginity intact during the birth.

The film, he suggests, in portraying a natural, painful birth of Christ, thus denies the truth of the virginal and miraculous birth of Christ, which, he notes, the Fathers of the Church compared to light passing through glass without breaking it. Fr. Geiger quoted the fourth century St. Augustine on the matter saying. "That same power which brought the body of the young man through closed doors, brought the body of the infant forth from the inviolate womb of the mother."

Fr. Geiger contrasts The Nativity Story with The Passion of the Christ, noting that with the latter, Catholics and Protestants could agree to support it. He suggests, however, that the latter is "a virtual coup against Catholic Mariology".

The characterization of Mary further debases her as Fr. Geiger relates in his review. "Mary in The Nativity lacks depth and stature, and becomes the subject of a treatment on teenage psychology."

Beyond the non-miraculous birth, the biggest let-down for Catholics comes from Director Catherine Hardwicke's own words. Hardwicke explains her rationale in an interview: "We wanted her [Mary] to feel accessible to a young teenager, so she wouldn't seem so far away from their life that it had no meaning for them. I wanted them to see Mary as a girl, as a teenager at first, not perfectly pious from the very first moment. So you see Mary going through stuff with her parents where they say, 'You're going to marry this guy, and these are the rules you have to follow.' Her father is telling her that she's not to have sex with Joseph for a year-and Joseph is standing right there."

Comments Fr. Geiger, "it is rather disconcerting to see Our Blessed Mother portrayed with 'attitude;' asserting herself in a rather anachronistic rebellion against an arranged marriage, choosing her words carefully with her parents, and posing meaningful silences toward those who do not understand her."

Fr. Geiger adds that the film also contains "an overly graphic scene of St. Elizabeth giving birth," which is "just not suitable, in my opinion, for young children to view."

Despite its flaws Fr. Geiger, after viewing the film, also has some good things to say about it. "Today, one must commend any sincere attempt to put Christ back into Christmas, and this film is certainly one of them," he says. "The Nativity Story in no way compares to the masterpiece which is The Passion of the Christ, but it is at least sincere, untainted by cynicism, and a worthy effort by Hollywood to end the prejudice against Christianity in the public square."

And, in addition to a good portrait of St. Joseph, the film offers "at least one cinematic and spiritual triumph" in portraying the Visitation of Mary to St. Elizabeth. "Although the Magnificat is relegated to a kind of epilogue at the movie's end, the meeting between Mary and Elizabeth is otherwise faithful to the scriptures and quite poignant. In a separate scene, the two women experience the concurrent movement of their children in utero and share deeply in each other's joy. I can't think of another piece of celluloid that illustrates the dignity of the unborn child better than this."

See Fr. Geiger's full review here:
http://airmaria.com/

[xzins]

You are missing my point.

Creating is the same as causing.

Once the creation is settled upon and started, then there is no turning back.

There were other creations that could have been made, but this is the one that was decided upon. Then it was created.

There were other interventions in the creation that could have happened, but this foreknown creation is the one that actually got created.

Imagine that there are an infinite number of creations_{a...x that could have been settled upon. This, however, creationx is the one that was the creation actually chosen.}

Jesus said of Tyre and Sidon, of Sodom and Gomorrah, that IF His works had been done there, they would have long ago repented. However, His works were not done there. But Jesus acknowledges that they COULD have been. This would have been an alternate creation with a different set of circumstances.

God did not choose that course. He chose this one.

Therefore, all is settled. It was settled at the time of creation.

That is what the appeal to God's omniscience will get us.

But...it's OK. Just trust the Lord with all your heart and lean not to your own understanding.

With that trust, it might as well be true that God simply decided everything ahead of time.

Either way the answer is simple trust in the Almighty.

[Kolokotronis]

"If it's that complicated that one has to read all the Fathers, understand the Ecumenical Councils, have a full grasp on the scriptures and live it at least a year, it's amazing that the Orthodox converts anyone."

I agree. It never ceases to amaze me because it is so hard. Add to it the ethnic gloss which is usually found in Orthodox parishes and it is nothing short of astonishing. Two groups seem to take to it. First, traditional Episcopalians/Anglicans. My suspicion is that at base Anglicanism really is a sort of pre-Council of Whitby Catholicism. There is of course a whole lot of Protestantism in Anglicanism, but at base and historically, it has great similarities to Orthodoxy. They seem to slide into Orthodoxy without a hitch. They get it very quickly. Interestingly, as I write this I am listening to an internet broadcast of Ancient Faith Radio which is an Orthodox site with chanting and sermons. They are speaking about a conference to be held this month specifically for Anglicans in the US and Canada to discuss Orthodoxy and Orthodox life.

The second group are evangelical Protestants, and they, by the way, make up the overwhelming majority of our converts. They usually arrive with a knowledge of scripture that simply blows us away. One convert (I am the godfather of one of his daughters) we used to call our "walking concordance". he is now at the seminary in Boston. In fact, before he went off to Iraq to the fight, he was sort of active here on FR. Anyway, they have also usually read a good deal of the Fathers. Often their first taste of the Fathers was in Protestant seminary. Their catechesis almost always takes a year or more and that period is spent "living the Faith", experiencing it as I and others have said. Orthodox Christianity is fully a way of life and HD, it is a very countercultural one here in the West. One generally doesn't learn and embrace an entirely different life and worldview overnight.

"I find it's a weak argument to say "We can't explain it, you have to experience it."

Taste and See that the Lord is good, HD! :)

[Forest Keeper]

The point is that men who sin DO turn back to God. Wicked people do not.

And I would say that since we are ALL wicked, that some of us turn to God and some do not, according to God's good, pleasing, and perfect will. While there are plenty of examples of the "wicked" remaining wicked, there is also the possibility for them to be redeemed. For instance:

2 Chron 7:14 : if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.

---------------

Yes, we have all sinned. But the Scripture talks about righteous people, nonetheless. Apparently, we don't have to be absolutely perfect to be righteous.

OK, I agree in full. Solely by my own "figuring", and not from any outside reading, I have always thought that the interpretation of Rom. 3 was in order to protect Mary. (I know you are not admitting to Mary sinning in your comment.) Therefore, it would be new to me if you are saying that "All" means "All", but there is a specific exception for Mary. I thought before that you were saying that the "All" only referred to a subset of all people, and said nothing about "other" people, such as righteous people or non-Jews. Comments?

Who says that all righteous men are sinless? David was called righteous. Does this mean he was sinless?

I was wondering if you did! :) But you nicely clarified that. Thank you. :)

[blue-duncan]

"actually, it says "Johnny Christopoulos"

Well, I just had some of the best mousaka and it was made by an Italian client who runs a Greek pizza restaurant with pictures of these armless Greek gods all over his walls that he said were his Italian ancestors that went to Greece to improve the breed.

[Forest Keeper]

I am vacationing in Mexico as I write this and the Virgin Mary is so much more a part of the culture.

Ah, I hope you are having/did have a great vacation. I've never been to Mexico, but I have heard of what you are talking about.

[Kolokotronis]

"Well, I just had some of the best mousaka and it was made by an Italian client who runs a Greek pizza restaurant..."

Funny, I have several Greek clients who run Italian pizza restaurants, but, you know, "Una Facia Una Racia"!

"with pictures of these armless Greek gods all over his walls that he said were his Italian ancestors that went to Greece to improve the breed."

You know why we keep all those statutes around? Its to remind us what Orthodoxy rescued us from (we also really like the Italians)! :)

[Blogger]

It is true that they left after they received the entire explanation of the Real Presence, and that included the fact the Jesus is the Christ. But their initial objection was to the offer of His flesh in the literal sense; the explanation Jesus gave confirmed the literal sense.
No it wasn't. Their initial concern was that he said he came from Heaven. THen they could not understand his saying about eating his flesh. Then the focus goes back to Jesus having come from heaven and they murmur. It is at THAT POINT, not because they are upset over the bread , that they leave. They don't believe He is sent from God. Peter attests to this interpretation clearly when he says to Jesus' question about leaving "where will we go? You have the words of life. And we know for sure and don't doubt who you are. (Paraphrased).

Read the entire book of Romans, the entire book of Galatians, the entire New Testament and then compare James with that.

I have. The Church has. She wrote all these books. You are left to assert that James did not mean it when he said "by works a man is justified"

No I am not. I know what James meant and he is in harmony with Paul. You are not.

This assertion [that mass is a presentation across time of one sacrifice of Christ] is taught NOWHERE in scripture

"This is my body; do it in memorial of me" is in every synoptic gospel.

Not your teaching of it. Period. Jesus nowhere says that his body must be sacrificed time and time and time again. He said IT IS FINISHED. It was done at the cross. No more sacrifice for sin. NONE. The cross was sufficient.

Then salvation is not a gift. It is a merit.

You do not die on the Cross to make the Eucharist possible. Christ did. To freely do what He asks is not a merit in the sense of commanding God to save you; the sovereignty of God does not suffer because of the salvific character of certain works.

NOT OF WORKS. PERIOD.

Do a Bible gateway search on works and ask this question - is this verse saying that I am not saved by works at all. Many are saying that very thing. Multiple books. James must be harmonized with the others, not the others with James. Rightly understood, there is no conflict. He says show me your faith by your works. He doesn't want people saying a quick prayer or a quick confession and then going there merry way. That is not true Christianity. If I say I am a Christian but do nothing for the Lord, then my Christianity is dead. There is no evidence I was Ever a Christian. However, if I don't say verbally I'm a Christian, but show the love of the Lord in my life then folks know I am likely a Christian.

You're living in Galatia. Paul was not pleased with this kind of gospel which is being preached by the Roman Catholic church.

[Blogger]

Okay. Just ran into that term and was wondering. Thanks for the answer.

[Blogger]

Kolo, I will tell you one thing that troubled me with a Protestant friend at work. For a couple of sessions, he visited our noon Bible study. He was a convert to Orthodoxy and a Chanter in the church. When asked to pray, he didn't seem to know what to do. The next time when asked, he pulled out a written out prayer that was very formal and clearly a part of a liturgical service. Do you all pray informally in your services or in public? Everyone who isn't used to praying out loud stumbles a little. But he didn't seem to know what to do at all.

[Blogger]

You aren't denying eternal preexistence with that statement are you? Using "origin" sounds like beginning. God has no beginning.

[annalex]

Their initial concern was that he said he came from Heaven. THen they could not understand his saying about eating his flesh. Then the focus goes back to Jesus having come from heaven and they murmur.

Very well, however, the only objection they raise is about the Real Presence. If their objection were invalid and there is no Real Presence than it is not cleared in the Gospel. You simply imagine that their obejction was to Jesus being the Christ. The stated objection is different.

I know what James meant and he is in harmony with Paul.

No, you don't know. It is impossible to have the soteriological belief you have and write what James wrote. He was too emphatic. On the other hand, the Church has no difficulty reconciling James with Paul -- see my above post.

Jesus nowhere says that his body must be sacrificed time and time and time again

We do not teach that is must. We teach that the elements of the Eucharist become the Body of that only sacrifice. "This is my Body".

this verse saying that I am not saved by works at all

There is no such verse. Each time it is either works of law, or for reward, or for boast, or some such thing. There is no statement that would say that man is saved by faith alone (excpet in Luther's fraudulent "translation" of Romans). But there is a plain and bold statement that man is NOT saved by works alone.

[Blogger]

Very well, however, the only objection they raise is about the Real Presence. If their objection were invalid and there is no Real Presence than it is not cleared in the Gospel. You simply imagine that their obejction was to Jesus being the Christ. The stated objection is different.
It wasn't an objection. It was a question. They struggled to understand what he was saying. It says they strove with one another over the question. But it doesn't say that they objected to His real presence in the bread and wine. They did object about Jesus being the Christ come from heaven. They do appear to be talking to one another "this is a hard saying. Who can understand what this guy is talking about? " to which Jesus chastizes them for their unbelief. Not in the real presence, but in His Word about who He was period.

[SaintDismas]

Mrs. Don-o I really appreciate your attempt to explain, because it's pretty troubling to me. Not exactly that really, but nonetheless it's something I'm gonna have to roll around in my head to grasp the meaning of it.

Contrast that "spotlessness" and perfection with what was done to Our Lord, you can say His body was abused and compromised brutally in such a way is hard to imagine. It's amazing actually to think about how He kept His mother from any corruption or pain, but saved all of that for Himself

[D-fendr]

Only time now for a brief reply..

"Creating is the same as causing."

But you can create something with free will, yes? Cause something that can make choices?

"Once the creation is settled upon and started, then there is no turning back."

Do you remember what God is quoted as saying about his creation of man - just before the flood?

"God did not choose that course. He chose this one."

Which could just as logically include free will. Even though he foreknew what each will would do. Perhaps this is what a compassionate God who didn't wish to make slaves and victims would do?

I do understand your point. However, if the details end up with caprice and cruelty, I'm gonna look for where the holes MUST be.

And here's where they leap out at me: God can be omniscent and omnipotent and choose to create a world with free will. There is no necessary contradiction. That He knows how it unfolds and still creates it does not prohibit the existence of free will.

So maybe our disconnect is on the existence of free will? If we have no disagreement here, then maybe we should look for how we're not really arguing.

Either way the answer is simple trust in the Almighty.

We certainly agree here. But if we cannot choose otherwise, then why are we all here discussing it?

[blue-duncan]

My ex partner is a proud Italian, now a Federal Judge here in Connecticut and he is from Assisi. He had some of the pictures of Greek statues that were found in the Adriatic Sea. I looked at them and remarked half facetiously that they reminded me of his father and brothers. His chest pumped up and he spent about two hours telling me how proud he was of his Families Greek heritage and how the Greeks settled the area around his home. I could not have given him a better compliment.

[Blogger]

It explains it well. However, this isn't what Predestination teaches. God elects because of His good pleasure. It doesn't mean it is arbitrary or whimsical. Yet it recognizes a full vision of a God who is a God of wrath and yet a God of mercy. It truly is the whole of the revelation of who God is in Scripture. Romans 9 must be a hard chapter for you, for God Himself says the very thing you are calling pre-Torah. Romans 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Following this Paul says: 19Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? Far from whimsical, He is very purposeful in his actions. 22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 24Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? A whimsical God who could be bribed was the god of Reformation period Catholicism. Put a coin in the coffer to get your poor dead grandmother out of purgatory. Put in a couple more and get your cousin Jim too. That is a pre-Torah God. Not the God of the doctrines commonly known as Calvinism. (Calvin was actually not a Calvinist but a biblicist in this doctrine reflecting the writings of Paul)

Back to yourself. I think what is bugging you about this view, even though you probably would at least admit that I have used Scripture which supports my view - is that there is an emotional understanding of God that you don't want to let go of. Your objection really isn't theological - because the very things you cited as pre-Torah are Romans 9 specifics. But you want the God who is so full of love that He just chooses everyone. If he doesn't do this, you would rather He choose nobody but give everyone a blank slate mind that at least has the possibility of choosing God. The problem is, the Bible teaches we don't have a blank slate. We are ruined by sin. We are slaves to it. Sin has killed us and made us dead. Dead to God's truth. Dead to God's call. Dead to God's righteousness. The Holy Spirit makes us alive again. Yet, He doesn't do that for everyone and that bothers you.

I don't believe you want a God who can be bribed, and think your heart is genuine in its belief. But, there is some strong meat here that may seem like it will choke you, but when fully understood is quite satisfying. Job had lots of questions. His heart wanted to question God on some very difficult things that God had done or allowed in his life. Yet, after an encounter with the Almighty, Job's heart was no longer troubled but awed. Though we may not understand the whys or hows, a glimpse of the Almighty will leave us, as Isaiah put it, undone. Nothing we can say. Nothing we can do - but worship.



D-Fendr. Please hear this if you have heard nothing else. I don't say follow John Calvin. Calvin made errors in his life. He had some good aspects and some bad ones. He was a mere man. I don't say follow Martin Luther. Luther too was an imperfect man (who could sometimes be a bit entertaining to watch because of his boldness) I don't say follow me. I too have feet of clay. I say search the Scriptures and pray that the Spirit lead you. That all.

In His search of the Scriptures, on this very topic, a famous Catholic theologian came to similar conclusions about what Scripture teaches. He said...

“Many hear the word of truth; but some believe, while others contradict. Therefore, the former will to believe; the latter do not will.” Who does not know this? Who can deny this? But since in some the will is prepared by the Lord, in othersit is not prepared, we must assuredly be able to distinguish what comes from God’s mercy, and what from His judgment. “What Israel sought for,” says the apostle, “he hath not obtained, but the election hath obtained it; and the rest were blinded, as it is written, God gave to them the spirit of compunction,--eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear, even to this day. And David said, Let their table be made a snare, a retribution, and a stumblingblock to them; let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see; and bow down their back always.” [Rom. xi. 7] Here is mercy and judgment,--mercy towards the election which has obtained the righteousness of God, but judgment to the rest which have been blinded. And yet the former, because they willed, believed; the latter, because they did not will believed not. Therefore mercy and judgment were manifested in the very wills themselves. Certainly such an election is of grace, not at all of merits. For he had before said, “So, therefore, even at this present time, the remnant has been saved by the election of grace. And if by grace, now it is no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace.” [Rom. xi. 5] Therefore the election obtained what it obtained gratuitously; there preceded none of those things which they might first give, and it should be given to them again. He saved them for nothing. But to the rest who were blinded, as is there plainly declared, it was done in recompense. “All the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth.” [Ps. xxv. 10] But His ways are unsearchable. Therefore the mercy by which He freely delivers, and the truth by which He righteously judges, are equally unsearchable....

And he says that a man is justified by faith and not by works, because faith itself is first given, from which may be obtained other things which are specially characterized as works, in which a man may live righteously. For he himself also says, “By grace ye are saved through faith; and this not of yourselves; but it is the gift of God,” [Eph. ii. 8] --that is to say, “And in saying `through faith,’ even faith itself is not of yourselves, but is God’s gift.” “Not of works,” he says, “lest any man should be lifted up.” For it is often said, “He deserved to believe, because he was a good man even before he believed.” Which may be said of Cornelius [Acts x] since his alms were accepted and his prayers heard before he had believed on Christ; and yet without some faith he neither gave alms nor prayed. For how did he call on him on whom he had not believed? But if he could have been saved without the faith of Christ the Apostle Peter would not have been sent as an architect to build him up; although, “Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain who build it.” [Ps. cxxvii. 1] And we are told, Faith is of ourselves; other things which pertain to works of righteousness are of the Lord; as if faith did not belong to the building,--as if, I say, the foundation did not belong to the building. But if this primarily and especially belongs to it, he labours in vain who seeks to build up the faith by preaching, unless the Lord in His mercy builds it up from within. Whatever, therefore, of good works Cornelius performed, as well before he believed in Christ as when he believed and after he had believed, are all to be ascribed to God, lest, perchance any man be lifted up. ...

Chapter 14.--Why the Father Does Not Teach All that They May Come to Christ.

Why, then, does He not teach all that they may come to Christ, except because all whom He teaches, He teaches in mercy, while those whom He teaches not, in judgment He teaches not? Since, “On whom He will He has mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth.” [Rom. ix. 18] But He has mercy when He gives good things. He hardens when He recompenses what is deserved. Or if, as some would prefer to distinguish them, those words also are his to whom the apostle says, “Thou sayest then unto me,” so that he may be regarded as having said, “Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will, and whom He will He hardeneth,” as well as those which follow,--to wit, “What is it that is still complained of? for who resists His will?” does the apostle answer, “O man, what thou hast said is false?” No; but he says, “O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Doth the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay of the same lump?” [Rom. ix. 18, ff.] and what follows, which you very well know. And yet in a certain sense the Father teaches all men to come to His Son. For it was not in vain that it was written in the prophets, “And they shall all be teachable of God.” [John vi. 45] And when He too had premised this testimony, He added, “Every man, therefore, who has heard of the Father, and has learned, cometh to me.” As, therefore, we speak justly when we say concerning any teacher of literature who is alone in a city, He teaches literature here to everybody,--not that all men learn, but that there is none who learns literature there who does not learn from him,--so we justly say, God teaches all men to come to Christ, not because all come, but because none comes in any other way. And why He does not teach all men the apostle explained, as far as he judged that it was to be explained, because, “willing to show His wrath, and to exhibit His power, He endured with much patience the vessels of wrath which were perfected for destruction; and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy which He has prepared for glory.” [Rom. ix. 22] Hence it is that the “word of the cross is foolishness to them that perish; but unto them that are saved it is the power of God.” [1 Cor. i. 18] God teaches all such to come to Christ, for He wills all such to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. And if He had willed to teach even those to whom the word of the cross is foolishness to come to Christ, beyond all doubt these also would have come. For He neither deceives nor is deceived when He says, “Everyone that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to me.” Away, then, with the thought that any one cometh not, who has heard of the Father and has learned....

Chapter 16.--Why the Gift of Faith is Not Given to All.

Faith, then, as well in its beginning as in its completion, is God’s gift; and let no one have any doubt whatever, unless he desires to resist the plainest sacred writings, that this gift is given to some, while to some it is not given. But why it is not given to all ought not to disturb the believer, who believes that from one all have gone into a condemnation, which undoubtedly is most righteous; so that even if none were delivered therefrom, there would be no just cause for finding fault with God. Whence it is plain that it is a great grace for many to be delivered, and to acknowledge in those that are not delivered what would be due to themselves; so that he that glorieth may glory not in his own merits, which he sees to be equalled in those that are condemned, but in the Lord. But why He delivers one rather than another,--”His judgments are unsearchable, and His ways past finding out.” [Rom. xi. 33] For it is better in this case for us to hear or to say, “O man, who art thou that repliest against God?” [Rom. ix. 20] than to dare to speak as if we could know what He has chosen to be kept secret. Since, moreover, He could not will anything unrighteous.
-Saint Augustine
On the Predestination of the Saints

Read the Scripture once again. I hope that in doing so you will find the sweetness in the doctrine of election that I know. It is not hateful. It is humbling. Why? Because of His good pleasure, not because of anything I could ever do for Him, just cause He wished to do so - He saved me.

[xzins]

I was assuming that all had free will.

Let me ask this: Let's say that tomorrow you have to decide to drive the car or get a ride from someone else. You decide to drive the car.

Before it happens does God know what your free will choice will be?

Since He knows it to be "drive the car" will it be "get a ride?"

[kosta50]

No problem. No offense taken.

[Blogger]

My point to D-Fendr about free will is that on man's end, it is but an illusion. He is willfully bound up in his sin. It isn't God stopping Him. He is stopping Himself. He isn't truly free for he hasn't the Son.

It's kinda like the alcoholic who insists on drinking, knowing he can quit any time he wants. He wants his freedom, but doesn't realize he is in chains. He is in chains willingly. He loves his chains. Unless there is intervention, he will never be free. Doesn't mean that someone is keeping him there. He is keeping himself there.

The only true liberty is in Christ Jesus. Whom the Son has MADE FREE is FREE INDEED.

[D-fendr]

I was assuming that all had free will.

Oh. Well..

…then...

…nevermind.  {^_^}

… Since He knows it to be "drive the car" will it be "get a ride?

Nope. And since it contradicts neither free will nor omniscience, that's a perfect example.

I apologize for my confusion, and thank you for your posts..