Cur Deus Homo IX-X: Did The Father Wish Christ To Die? (Cath-Orth caucus)

Internet Medieval Source Book ^ | A.D. 1097-1100 | Saint Anselm of Canterbury

[annalex]

 

CHAPTER IX.

How it was of his own accord that he died, and what this means: "he was made obedient even unto death; " and: "for which cause God has highly exalted him;" and: "I came not to do my own will; " and: "he spared not his own Son;" and: "not as I will, but as you will ."

Anselm.. It seems to me that you do not rightly understand the difference between what he did at the demand of obedience, and what he suffered, not demanded by obedience, but inflicted on him, because he kept his obedience perfect.

Boso. I need to have you explain it more clearly.

Anselm.. Why did the Jews persecute him even unto death?

Boso. For nothing else, but that, in word and in life, he invariably maintained truth and justice.

Anselm.. I believe that God demands this of every rational being, and every being owes this in obedience to God.

Boso. We ought to acknowledge this.

Anselm.. That man, therefore, owed this obedience to God the Father, humanity to Deity; and the Father claimed it from him.

Boso. There is no doubt of this.

Anselin. Now you see what he did, under the demand of obedience.

Boso. Very true, and I see also what infliction he endured, because he stood firm in obedience. For death was inflicted on him for his perseverance in obedience and he endured it; but I do not understand how it is that obedience did not demand this.

Anselm.. Ought man to suffer death, if he had never sinned, or should God demand this of him?

Boso. It is on this account that we believe that man would not have been subject to death, and that God would not have exacted this of him; but I should like to hear the reason of the thing from you.

Anselm.. You acknowledge that the intelligent creature was made holy, and for this purpose, viz., to be happy in the enjoyment of God.

Boso. Yes.

Anselm.. You surely will not think it proper for God to make his creature miserable without fault, when he had created him holy that he might enjoy a state of blessedness. For it would be a miserable thing for man to die against his will.

Boso. It is plain that, if man had not sinned, God ought not to compel him to die.

Anselm.. God did not, therefore, compel Christ to die; but he suffered death of his own will, not yielding up his life as an act of obedience, but on account of his obedience in maintaining holiness; for he held out so firmly in this obedience that he met death on account of it. It may, indeed be said, that the Father commanded him to die, when he enjoined that upon him on account of which he met death. It was in this sense, then, that "as the Father gave him the commandment, so he did, and the cup which He gave to him, he drank; and he was made obedient to the Father, even unto death;" and thus "he learned obedience from the things which he suffered," that is, how far obedience should be maintained. Now the word "didicit," which is used, can be understood in two ways.For either "didicit" is written for this: he caused others to learn; or it is used, because he did learn by experience what he had an understanding of before. Again, when the Apostle had said: "he humbled himself, being made obedient even unto death, and that the death of the cross," be added: "wherefore God also has exalted him and given him a name, which is above every name." And this is similar to what David said: "he drank of the brook in the way, therefore did he lift up the head." For it is not meant that he could not have attained his exaltation in any other way but by obedience unto death; nor is it meant that his exaltation was conferred on him, only as a reward of his obedience (for he himself said before he suffered, that all things had been committed to him by the Father, and that all things belonging to the Father were his); but the expression is used because he had agreed with the Father and the Holy Spirit, that there was no other way to reveal to the world the height of his omnipotence, than by his death. For if a thing do not take place, except on condition of something else, it is not improperly said to occur by reason of that thing. For if we intend to do a thing, but mean to do something else first by means of which it may be done; when the first thing which we wish to do is done, if the result is such as we intended, it is properly said to be on account of the other; since that is now done which caused the delay; for it had been determined that the first thing should not be done without the other. If, for instance, I propose to cross a river only in a boat, though I can cross it in a boat or on horseback, and suppose that I delay crossing because the boat is gone; but if afterwards I cross, when the boat has returned, it may be properly said of me: the boat was ready, and therefore he crossed. And we not only use this form of expression, when it is by means of a thing which we desire should take place first, but also when we intend to do something else, not by means of that thing, but only after it. For if one delays taking food because he has not to-day attended the celebration of mass; when that has been done which he wished to do first, it is not improper to say to him: now take food, for you have now done that for which you delayed taking food. Far less, therefore, is the language strange, when Christ is said to be exalted on this account, because he endured death; for it was through this, and after this, that he determined to accomplish his exaltation. This may be understood also in the same way as that passage in which it is said that our Lord increased in wisdom, and in favor with God; not that this was really the case, but that he deported himself as if it were so. For he was exalted after his death, as if it were really on account of that. Moreover, that saying of his: "I came not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me," is precisely like that other saying: "My doctrine is not mine ;" for what one does not have of himself, but of God, he ought not to call his own, but God's. Now no one has the truth which he teaches, or a holy will, of himself, but of God. Christ, therefore, came not to do his own will, but that of the Father; for his holy will was not derived from his humanity, but from his divinity. For that sentence: "God spared not his own Son, but gave him up for us all," means nothing more than that he did not rescue him. For there are found in the Bible many things like this. Again, when he says: "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless not as I will, but as you will ;" and "If this cup may not pass from me, except I drink it, your will be done;" he signifies by his own will the natural desire of safety, in accordance with which human nature shrank from the anguish of death. But he speaks of the will of the Father, not because the Father preferred the death of the Son to his life; but because the Father was not willing to rescue the human race, unless man were to do even as great a thing as was signified in the death of Christ. Since reason did not demand of another what he could not do, therefore, the Son says that he desires his own death. For he preferred to suffer, rather than that the human race should be lost; as if he were to say to the Father: "Since you do not desire the reconciliation of the world to take place in any other way, in this respect, I see that you desirest my death; let your will, therefore, be done, that is, let my death take place, so that the world may be reconciled to you." For we often say that one desires a thing, because he does not choose something else, the choice of which would preclude the existence of that which he is said to desire; for instance, when we say that he who does not choose to close the window through which the draft is admitted which puts out the light, wishes the light to be extinguished. So the Father desired the death of the Son, because he was not willing that the world should be saved in any other way, except by man's doing so great a thing as that which I have mentioned. And this, since none other could accomplish it, availed as much with the Son, who so earnestly desired the salvation of man, as if the Father had commanded him to die; and, therefore, "as the Father gave him commandment, so he did, and the cup which the Father gave to him he drank, being obedient even unto death."

 

CHAPTER X

Likewise on the same topics; and how otherwise they can be correctly explained.

IT is also a fair interpretation that it was by that same holy will by which the son wished to die for the salvation of the world, that the Father gave him commandment (yet not by compulsion), and the cup of suffering, and spared him not, but gave him up for us and desired his death; and that the Son himself was obedient even unto death, and learned obedience from the things which he suffered. For as with regard to that will which led him to a holy life, he did not have it as a human being of himself, but of the Father; so also that will by which he desired to die for the accomplishment of so great good, he could not have had but from the Father of lights, from whom is every good and perfect gift. And as the Father is said to draw by imparting an inclination, so there is nothing improper in asserting that he moves man. For as the Son says of the Father: "No man cometh to me except the Father draw him," he might as well have said, except he move him. In like manner, also, could he have declared: "No man layeth down his life for my sake, except the Father move or draw him." For since a man is drawn or moved by his will to that which he invariably chooses, it is not improper to say that God draws or moves him when he gives him this will. And in this drawing or impelling it is not to be understood that there is any constraint, but a free and grateful clinging to the holy will which has been given. If then it cannot be denied that the Father drew or moved the Son to death by giving him that will; who does not see that, in the same manner, he gave him commandment to endure death of his own accord and to take the cup, which he freely drank. And if it is right to say that the Son spared not himself, but gave himself for us of his own will, who will deny that it is right to say that the Father, of whom he had this will, did not spare him but gave him up for us, and desired his death? In this way, also, by following the will received from the Father invariably, and of his own accord, the Son became obedient to Him, even unto death; and learned obedience from the things which he suffered; that is, be learned how great was the work to be accomplished by obedience. For this is real and sincere obedience when a rational being, not of compulsion, but freely, follows the will received from God. In other ways, also, we can properly explain the Father's desire that the Son should die, though these would appear sufficient. For as we say that he desires a thing who causes another to desire it; so, also, we say that he desires a thing who approves of the desire of another, though he does not cause that desire. Thus when we see a man who desires to endure pain with fortitude for the accomplishment of some good design; though we acknowledge that we wish to have him endure that pain, yet we do not choose, nor take pleasure in, his suffering, but in his choice. We are, also, accustomed to say that he who can prevent a thing but does not, desires the thing which he does not prevent. Since, therefore, the will of the Son pleased the Father, and be did not prevent him from choosing, or from fulfilling his choice, it is proper to say that he wished the Son to endure death so piously and for so great an object, though he was not pleased with his suffering. Moreover, he said that the cup must not pass from him, except he drank it, not because he could not have escaped death had he chosen to; but because, as has been said, the world could not otherwise be saved; and it was his fixed choice to stiffer death, rather than that the world should not be saved. It was for this reason, also, that he used those words, viz., to teach the human race that there was no other salvation for them but by his death; and not to show that he had no power at all to avoid death. For whatsoever things are said of him, similar to these which have been mentioned, they are all to be explained in accordance with the belief that he died, not by compulsion, but of free choice. For he was omnipotent, and it is said of him, when he was offered up, that he desired it. And he says himself: "I lay down my life that I may take it again; no man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself; I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." A man cannot, therefore, be properly said to have been driven to a thing which he does of his own power and will.

Boso. But this simple fact, that God allows him to be so treated, even if he were willing, does not seem becoming for such a Father in respect to such a Son.

Anselm.. Yes, it is of all things most proper that such a Father should acquiesce with such a Son in his desire, if it be praiseworthy as relates to the honor of God, and useful for man's salvation, which would not otherwise be effected.

Boso. The question which still troubles us is, how the death of the Son can be proved reasonable and necessary. For otherwise, it does not seem that the Son ought to desire it, or the Father compel or permit it. For the question is, why God could not save man in some other way, and if so, why he wished to do it in this way? For it both seems unbecoming for God to have saved man in this way; and it is not clear how the death of the Son avails for the salvation of man. For it is a strange thing if God so delights in, or requires, the blood of the innocent, that he neither chooses, nor is able, to spare the guilty without the sacrifice of the innocent.

Anselm.. Since, in this inquiry, you take the place of those who are unwilling to believe anything not previously proved by reason, I wish to have it understood between us that we do not admit anything in the least unbecoming to be ascribed to the Deity, and that we do not reject the smallest reason if it be not opposed by a greater. For as it is impossible to attribute anything in the least unbecoming to God; so any reason, however small, if not overbalanced by a greater, has the force of necessity.

Boso. In this matter, I accept nothing more willingly than that this agreement should be preserved between us in common.

Anselm.. The question concerns only the incarnation of God, and those things which we believe with regard to his taking human nature.

Boso. It is so.

Anselm.. Let us suppose, then, that the incarnation of God, and the things that we affirm of him as man, had never taken place; and be it agreed between us that man was made for happiness, which cannot be attained in this life, and that no being can ever arrive at happiness, save by freedom from sin, and that no man passes this life without sin. Let us take for granted, also, the other things, the belief of which is necessary for eternal salvation.

Boso. I grant it; for in these there is nothing which seems unbecoming or impossible for God.

Anselm.. Therefore, in order that man may attain happiness, remission of sin is necessary.

Boso. We all hold this.

 

... to be continued

---

Source.

St. Anselm: Proslogium; Monologium: An Appendix In Behalf Of The Fool By Gaunilo; And Cur Deus Homo, Translated From The Latin By Sidney Norton Deane, B. A. With An Introduction, Bibliography, And Reprints Of The Opinions Of Leading Philosophers And Writers On The Ontological Argument, (Chicago, The Open Court Publishing Company,, 1903, reprinted 1926)

[Dr. Eckleburg]

There's no division of wills among the Godhead. Christ's obedience and sacrifice were ordained from before the foundation of the world.

"For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities." -- Isaiah 53:2-11

"For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak." -- John 12:49

[annalex]

I apologize for delay in responding: went to church, then no boat...

Therefore, the will of God the Father was always to have His Son die

and in another post

The will of the Father and the Son was one of the same.

For one thing, Christ does distinguish between His will and the Father's: "not as I will, but as thou wilt" (Matthew 26:39).

The issue is whether the Father wanted Christ to die or whether the Father wanted our salvation and Christ the Man willed to die to make it happen. The central part of the discourse is where St. Anselm gives us the analogy of the crossing of the river, and of eating following church attendance. In the crossing of the river, he says, the will is to cross it and the boat is the fitting way to do it. There might be other ways, for example, on horseback, that for whatever reason are not fitting (perhaps, there is too much baggage, the person doing the crossing is not strong enough to ride, etc.) By choosing to wait for the boat the traveler does not wish the boat, he wishes to cross and the boat is a fitting means. In another example, when we delay the meal till after mass we cannot call the mass a means to have a dinner.

With these distinctions in mind, St. Anselm is able to conclude

Christ, therefore, came not to do his own will, but that of the Father; for his holy will was not derived from his humanity, but from his divinity. For that sentence: "God spared not his own Son, but gave him up for us all," means nothing more than that he did not rescue him. For there are found in the Bible many things like this. Again, when he says: "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless not as I will, but as you will ;" and "If this cup may not pass from me, except I drink it, your will be done;" he signifies by his own will the natural desire of safety, in accordance with which human nature shrank from the anguish of death. But he speaks of the will of the Father, not because the Father preferred the death of the Son to his life; but because the Father was not willing to rescue the human race, unless man were to do even as great a thing as was signified in the death of Christ. Since reason did not demand of another what he could not do, therefore, the Son says that he desires his own death. For he preferred to suffer, rather than that the human race should be lost; as if he were to say to the Father: "Since you do not desire the reconciliation of the world to take place in any other way, in this respect, I see that you desirest my death; let your will, therefore, be done, that is, let my death take place, so that the world may be reconciled to you." For we often say that one desires a thing, because he does not choose something else, the choice of which would preclude the existence of that which he is said to desire; for instance, when we say that he who does not choose to close the window through which the draft is admitted which puts out the light, wishes the light to be extinguished. So the Father desired the death of the Son, because he was not willing that the world should be saved in any other way, except by man's doing so great a thing as that which I have mentioned. And this, since none other could accomplish it, availed as much with the Son, who so earnestly desired the salvation of man, as if the Father had commanded him to die; and, therefore, "as the Father gave him commandment, so he did, and the cup which the Father gave to him he drank, being obedient even unto death."

[Mad Dawg]

I see that you desirest my death;

In kvetch mode here: I'm pretty sure "you desirest" is not English. Maybe it's Elizabethan Ebonics or something? Generally we have to choose between "THOU desirest" or "you DESIRE", since "you" is plural and "desirest" is singular.

Yeah, clearly the Agony in the garden brings the hypostatic union into the consideration. I don't see how one can talk about The economy of the Trinity w/o bringing the two natures/one person stuff into it sooner or later.

I think the reason I brought Elisabeth Seton into it was to help me see that the "personal" language of "doing what you [the Father] want because it's you that want it," rather than because of the equally true statement that it's a good thing to do "which I know because you could never want anything NOT GOOD)

This is SUCH a good thread!

[HarleyD]

For one thing, Christ does distinguish between His will and the Father's: "not as I will, but as thou wilt" (Matthew 26:39). The issue is whether the Father wanted Christ to die or whether the Father wanted our salvation and Christ the Man willed to die to make it happen.

Yes, I would agree with part of your post. I believe that Anselm, correctly, believed the Father's and the Son's will were unique but consistent. In order for the wills to have been consistent, both wills would have to want the Son to die to the exact same degree, although how that would be expressed by the Father and the Son would be different. Moreover, and most importantly, Anselm makes the case that the Father gave the Son His human will with this purpose in mind so that it would remain steadfast to accomplishing the divine will. As Anselm states:

it is not improper to say that God draws or moves him when he gives him this will.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I think when Scripture speaks of Christ saying "Not as I will, but as thou wilt," God is giving us a glimpse into predestination and just what "free will" really consists of. The humanity of Christ might be able to present itself as capable of doing anything He wanted, but in reality, Christ could and would only do what God the Father purposed for Him to do from before creation...lay down His life for His flock.

Our "free will" is like that, too. While it feels like we're acting according to our own reasoning and efforts, we are actually and completely carrying out God's plan for His creation, all ordained by God down to the very hairs on our head.

And because Jesus Christ is God, He knows this full well. Isaiah 53 tells us exactly what God's intentions are in Christ's birth, death and resurrection...

"For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." -- Isaiah 53:2-12

Christ had to doubt and suffer and agonize because He was doing everything we should have done due to our many sins. God's perfect justice requires perfect recompense and as God tells us, we are incapable of giving it to Him. Only God Himself is equal to the task of wiping us clean by the blood of His Son. Christ became man to show man just how short he falls and just how far God will go to redeem His flock.

"He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities" -- Isaiah 53:11

Breathtaking, isn't it?

[HarleyD]

God is giving us a glimpse into predestination ...The humanity of Christ might be able to present itself as capable of doing anything He wanted, but in reality, Christ could and would only do what God the Father purposed for Him to do from before creation...lay down His life for His flock.

I believe that is what Anselm was getting at when he stated:

the Father drew or moved the Son to death by giving him that will

by following the will received from the Father

and it was his fixed choice to stiffer death

But I wasn't gonig to say anything. ;O)

[Dr. Eckleburg]

“...his fixed choice...”

Great phrase.

[Religion Moderator]

This is a Catholic/Orthodox Caucus thread.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Thank you for that reminder. I didn't realize that. I'm posting in a hurry and missed the designation. I don't think we posted anything controversial. Should we not post to caucus threads? If not, I'm happy to oblige.

Thanks again for the correction. And apologies to all if I wasn't supposed to post on this thread.

[Religion Moderator]

Should we not post to caucus threads?

Some caucus hosts object when a poster of another confession shows up, even if (s)he behaves as if in the other's church. Some don't.

[Mad Dawg]

FWIW

IMHO, the point of this thread is to understand Anselm and to do a sort of compare/contrast or "highlight the tricky/controversial bits" NOT to say, "I'm right and he's wrong for this that and the other reason."

According to my increasingly fallible recollection, among the antecedents to this series of posts were earlier conversations/threads where different views of the "Work of Christ" were presented, with considerable heat and not so much light. So at least as far as I'm concerned the value here is to look at an early scholastic apology and to stack it up against other attempts to understand just what it is Christ did and why.

So as long as the posts are along the lines of "Oh, So I guess Anselm thinks this, and I think that, and look at this interesting and possibly important difference," I personally wouldn't object to any poster.

[annalex]

I clarified in my posting comment that I welcome everyone, so long as the posts stay on topic and avoid confrontational tone. I welcome specifically this discussion of free will to be open to non-Caucus members, as it is at the heart of many divisions in the Christian community.

[HarleyD]

My goal is to understand what Anselm is saying. I’m not interested (at least not on this thread) about discussing doctrinal difference. Normally I don’t bother with caucus threads but annelex posting of Anselm’s writings intrigued me. I have been wanting to read his works since they are referenced by a number of authors from various groups of Christians. He is a focus point of many. I'm not interested in pointing out where I might disagree with him but where I want to understand what he is saying.

If the purpose of a caucus thread is simply to read a piece of work without comment then I’m in the wrong place. If the purpose is to explore what is written by theologians, then I would say that I have tried to keep within those parameters.

If you want me to go, I will go.

[annalex]

Elizabethan Ebonics

Wilhelmian? Rufian?

King William II, Rufus
1087 - 1100

It is his death that enabled St. Anselm to wrap up the book we are discussing and attempt to return to England for more practical pursuits. It did not work out for him, as under William II's successor, King Henry I, the investiture controversy raged on. (Wiki)

It is not the first time that I see typos, but I would attribute them to a transcribing error. This one looks like originating form the translator himself, esteemed Sidney Norton Deane, B. A.

[annalex]

In order for the wills to have been consistent, both wills would have to want the Son to die to the exact same degree, although how that would be expressed by the Father and the Son would be different

Anselm would disagree, as he expressly says "God did not, therefore, compel Christ to die; but he suffered death of his own will"; and then he proceeds to explain how "wish to die" means two different things with respect to the Father (who "desired the death of the Son, because he was not willing that the world should be saved in any other way") and the son (who "so earnestly desired the salvation of man, as if the Father had commanded him to die"). The Father's wish for Jesus to die is permissive and not compelling, and Jesus's human will is active and compels Him to undertake steps He knows will lead to the Cross.

[annalex]

all ordained by God

This view does not overcome Boso's objection, "if man had not sinned, God ought not to compel him to die", does it?

[Mad Dawg]

Wilhelmian? Rufian?

Well, yeah, as far as when Anselm wrote is concerned but not for the language the translator is trying to speak in. Deane did the first edition in, what, 1903?

Anyway, I now have Deane at my elbow. That's what we read in collitch back in the 60's. They wrote some right nasty fake Elizabethan at the turn on the last century. I have an Elder Edda that would make me gag if the thing weren't so fascinating.

[Religion Moderator]

annalex is the host and welcomes you to the caucus - so everything is fine.

Just a caution to everyone: participate in a caucus thread as if it were a meeting behind the closed church doors of the caucus confession.

[Forest Keeper]

The question which still troubles us is, how the death of the Son can be proved reasonable and necessary.

Thank you for pinging me to these, Alex. I will be interested to see the answer to this. I'd also like to know what the view is on the operation of the two wills of Christ. In this installment it appears to concentrate on Christ's human will. Probably most Christians say some version of "the wills worked in harmony", but I'm not sure how that actually manifested itself. For example, when Jesus contemplated the cup, did He really defer to His own divine will, or did He wholly and separately defer to the Father's will? Or, if it's all the same, does it still count as an exercise of free will that we can identify with?

[Risky-Riskerdo]

all ordained by God

This view does not overcome Boso's objection, "if man had not sinned, God ought not to compel him to die", does it?

Doing theology from silence and hypotheticals is never good idea.