Posted on 05/12/2008 8:08:07 PM PDT by annalex
No -- but you did exercise that freedom of choice when you rebelled against the word of God like she did and sinned.
Nevertheless, Original Sin still entered the world. The act of disobedience brought forth death - Mary's act of obedience brought the Lamb who conquered death into the world. God doesn't operate a Heavenly Democracy - He appointed Mary to represent us, and she did her job perfectly.
Sorry but your theology is flawed. Scripture does not say that sin entered the world through Eve but through Adam, and it was the representation of the Second Adam, the Son of Man, that was effectual for us, but only for us who believe it -- not for those who believe He needed a Marian co-redeemer or co-representative.
It's either Jesus as your representative redeemer or Mary -- exercise your freedom -- make your choice .
The article pretty much says your church chose Mary...And we know that to be true...
The woman saw that the tree was good for food, pleasing to the eyes, and desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized that they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves. ~ Gen. 3:6-7
What is the act of sin?
not for those who believe He needed a Marian co-redeemer or co-representative.
"Co-Redeemer" is a Half English, Half Latin bastardization of the theory of Mary as the "Co-Redemptrix". You've got the Redeptrix = Redeemer part down, but you are confused as to the "co-". From the Latin "con," meaning "with" - quite literally, for nine months, Mary was "with" the Redeemer. She co-operated in the Redemption of humanity by saying "yes" and being obedient to God, unlike Eve in the passage above.
You know, RJR_fan, I've been a Catholic since I was baptized at the age of 6 weeks.
I do not recognize myself, or my faith, or any aspect of my spiritual life at present, in your post at all. It's like you are writing about some sort of alternate, warped, backwards, un-real reality.
To the extent that I recognize my spiritual life at any stage of my life in your post (which isn't much), that's because I was poorly catechized. (Which is partly the church's fault but also my parents'.)
Mary is exalted precisely, and exactly, because she said to the angel, "I am the handmaid of the Lord ... Let it be done unto me as you say".
If there was any doubt, in John 2 she points to her Son and says "Do whatever he tells you.".
Does those sound like "escape clauses" to get away from God's authority to you? Autosoteriology? No, it's the complete opposite: "Let it be done unto me as you say." Any attempt to treat Mary as some sort of alternative path to heaven hits a stone wall at that, which is why the idea is not merely impossible, but unrecognizably meaningless.
"12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned ... 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. 15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many." [Romans 5:12-15]
Do you see the word "Eve" in there??? Jesus continually referred to himself as the Son of Man [Adam], but nowhere is Mary referred to as the Daughter of Eve.
But take a hint. Just as Eve was part of the deception of sin that overwhelmed Adam, so your Mariology is part of the deception of sin that is overwhelming those who fall for it.
nowhere is Mary referred to as the Daughter of Eve.
"And the man called his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all the living." Gen 3:20
When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son." ~ John 19:26
Using your interpretation style of Scripture, I would conclude that women are immortal, since what you've quoted from Romans says that death passed upon all men. But you'll say that "men" means humanity in context - ok, fine. But then why can't "by one man" mean one member of humanity - Eve? With your little authority-free system, we'll disagree and both think we are right. But I've got 1.15 Billion people and 2000 years of history and the promise that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church - thank God for that!
She sure was. She was part of the deception because surely, as the serpent reasoned, Adam wouldn't say "No" to her and wouldn't refuse anything that came from her hand. But Paul in Romans still says that sin entered the world through "one man" not "one man and one woman" -- and Jesus is called the second Adam not the second Husband of Eve.
"And the man called his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all the living." Gen 3:20
So then how many "living" were there before Mary???
Sure there is: Apocalypse 12:14 and Luke 1:28. However, the author gives you more than that: he explains how the entire mindset of Protestant textproofing is an error and a misunderstanding of the scripture.
You can exercise your freedom and believe that all you wish but you have to rebel against the word of God that was in the hands of the forefathers of the church in Rome to do:
"12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned ... 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. 15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many." [Romans 5:12-15]
Rev 12 doesn’t mention Mary or any assumption of Mary.....at all. It does mention the child (Jesus) being caught up to the throne of heaven. It does mention the nation going into the wilderness due to persecution.
Luke 1:28 says absolutely nothing about any assumption or immaculate conception. The words don’t come up, the concept doesn’t come up, nothing about it at all comes up.
I’ve read Hahn on this. He is so totally unconvincing that I’m concerned for the viability of his rationality.
So there's your first mistake...You are using man's widsom, not Gods...
You want to follow God thru your HUMANITY...It's a pity they brain-washed you into rejecting what God says about it...
Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
NOT the flesh...Maybe you guys don't understand that...
Your HUMANITY can not follow God...It will not follow God...
Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
Rom 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
Rom 7:16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
Rom 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
Rom 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
The Apostle Paul (and Peter) couldn't follow God in their HUMANITY, how in the world do you thing you guys can do it???
31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. 33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end. [... 48] from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed (Luke 1)His mother saith to the waiters: Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye. [...] This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee; and manifested his glory, and his disciples believed in him. (John 2)
thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that, out of many hearts, thoughts may be revealed. (Luke 2:35)
Woman, behold thy son ... Behold thy mother (John 19)
the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. (Apoc. 12:17)
I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she [some translations say, her seed] shall crush thy head (Gen 3:15)
These verses place Mary in relation to all the Christian Church: all generations of the elect call her blessed; on her urging the Church adopted Christ's first believers; faith of the disciples she continues to adopt is revealed through her maternal suffering; the entire Christian race is called her children, and her seed is predicted to triumph in the end.
if Mary made the choice for the human race, then the human race didn't have freedom of choice, did it?
Correct, human race as a whole had no freedom of choice as far as the Incarnation of Christ is concerned; the only human person consulted about it was Mary.
Why, I just gave a list of places where the Gospel glorifies Mary, in my previous post. It is true, of course, that it is the Church who wrote these same gospels in the first place, so yeah, in that sense, guilty as charged...
Then this article is for you. Also check out Tim Staples on Mary: TIM STAPLES - Catholic Audio CD, Tapes, DVD and Videos
My wife, then Baptist, decided to go to a Tim Staples seminar and got his books. It looked over the top for her: not enough direct "pray thee to Mary for thy salvation or perish" prooftext. But that gave her the knowledge of the scriptural basis of mariology, - the notion that it was all an artifact of the Medieval Church no longer held. Then, I showed her how both the Real Presence and Mary as first Eve were with the Early Church from at least as early as St. Justin Martyr. Finally, I showed her what exactly the Catechism says about Mary and her role in the Redemption and it looked completely reasonable and patristic to her. That was, pretty much how her conversion happened.
She had a problem with the repetitiveness of the Rosary too, also addressed in the article.
Nonsense...There was no adoption...They were Jews...
faith of the disciples she continues to adopt is revealed through her maternal suffering;
More nonsense...Mary has never adopted anyone...And never will...
the entire Christian race is called her children,
You're making that up as well...And, there is no Christian race...
Very much to the core of the issue, thank you. Man's creation as a deathless creature in the image of God, Whose Icon is Christ is one thing to bear in mind that the Protestant mind cannot easily embrace; the concept of intelligent human agency in doing the divine will, despite being the very essence of the Holy Scripture, is also somehow foreign to Protestantism.
Interesting site, thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.