Luther and Erasmus: The Controversy Concerning the Bondage of the Will

However, on subject, theologians have debated over the place for infants PRECISELY because hell is meant for those who choose to reject God - AND heaven is meant for those who choose to believe in Christ.

That's an interesting way to put it, and I've never thought of it that way before. In the end you're right that the whole thing is left up to God, and our hope is that on this issue our view of what He will do "happens" to be consistent with our sense of "justice". :)

But even martyrs have nothing to do with redemption, so I don't see how Mary's suffering can put her into such a one-woman class.

It's not the suffering itself that makes her a "co-redeemer". It is the fact that she participated and gave of herself to God during the event that untied the knot of disobedience tied by Adam and Eve (if I may paraphrase St. Irenaeus, c. 180 AD). Her participation, like Eve's, was not needed - but God willed for both females to take part in their respective events.

The person with saving faith will want to obey God, and will do so, albeit with mistakes here and there.

Faith is not "saving" WITHOUT those deeds of love. Remember what James said? "Does that (workless) faith save?"

We need both.

Well, the NT doesn't give Eve any "credit" for helping in our destruction, does it?

Paul seems to think so. Perhaps he already thought highly of Mary, since Paul ALSO talks about Jesus as the Second Adam... We'll never know.

"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ" 2 Cor 11:3

Therefore, I don't understand all the fuss to bring Mary into something that really only belongs to Christ.

I don't see all the fuss about crying over the fact that Mary is highly regarded by Catholics and Orthodox. Would Christ be happy about such disparaging talk about His Mother? Do you get upset when other people give compliments about your mother? The fact of the matter is that GOD HIMSELF Willed that Mary be there - from the first miracle at Cana to the end of the Passion. She participate in the fact that she gave her will totally to God - something that Eve did not do. She clearly was the handmaiden of the Lord. We cannot honor Mary ENOUGH! It is the mind of the Spirit revealed in the action of the Church for 2000 years that we DO honor Mary. But none of this replaces what Christ did on the Cross. Mary is nothing without Christ.

So, looping in what Alex has said, is Hades and Limbo the same thing? ...

I would say no. I would say Hades no longer exists, after Christ's Redemptive Work.

Christ's death was absolutely necessary for both the OT righteous, as well as for us. But it appears that you are placing God into time here. If for God every moment is one, then why can't the redemptive work of Christ be also effective "immediately" for those in the OT? You are correct. It is "retroactive". But men are within time, so there must have been some "waiting" period. St. Aquinas talks about time moving differently for those in the afterlife, different then God or our time. I forget the term he uses... But there is some sort of time where the OT righteous "waited", from their point of view.

From God's POV, which is what we're talking about, Christ's death was "complete" before the Incarnation, so to speak.

Sure, but God had to come into time to make it effective, correct?

Regards

I was specifically thinking in the area of discernment. Since I do not agree patently with everything that Calvin and Luther said, I cannot say that their gifts of discernment were better on every issue than "all Protestants". However, I could say that in general terms their gifts of discernment were greater than mine. I mean, I "could" have studied all the languages and read the texts to the degree they did, but I really doubt that I would have come up with writings as profound as theirs. For me, it would be the same with medicine or rocket science. I could try with all my might, but it wouldn't "happen".

I think you are confusing a gift of the Holy Spirit, discernment, with a human ability, say, knowledge and ability to read foreign languages. The two are NOT the same thing. The former is from the Spirit, a supernatural gift, not dependent on the intellectual level of the recipient. The most profound writings have often come from the simplest of people - I believe our Orthodox friends would comply with that. Discernment, while aided by our natural gifts of intellect, is not dependent upon them. It is the Spirit that gives life - and light - to whom He wills. To the Church, He has promised to infallibly guide it. He does this through the Bishops and the Magesterium.

However, since you do agree with many of their other writings, would you not say that, in general, they had a higher level of this gift? Why else would these Saints be held up so high?

One of the "requirements" of being considered a "Church Father" was holiness. Holiness not only from the level of their writings, but in their actions. This made their writings more authoritative. One must experience the Risen Lord to write about Him! Many Bible "scholars" are quite knowledgeable about the Scriptures in the natural sense. But by not praying them daily, they often miss the deeper spiritual meanings that the Church Fathers were able to mine and deliver to the people. It was the gift of the Holy Spirit during prayer (Lectio Divina, esp.) that enabled them to discern the Spirit in the Scriptures.

Regards

Hmmmmm....this is certainly a puzzlement. I might be misinterpreting St. Theophylact’s writings and I certainly don’t wish to make a mountain out of a molehill. But this was the part that bothered me in Theophylact’s writings that you posted:

“By saying, 'Elijah truly shall come,' Christ shows that he has not yet come, but that he will appear as the forerunner of the second coming; and when he appears, he will restore all teachable Jews to faith in Christ, as if restoring them to their paternal inheritance which they had lost. …What Christ is saying is this: when Elijah the Tishbite comes, he will make peace with the unbelieving Jew, and will bring them to faith. thus he will be the forerunner of the second coming.” – St Theophylact

Calvin states that this isn’t true; that John was Elijah:

“The promise,” says he, “that Eliah would come was true, and has been already fulfilled; but the scribes have already rejected Elijah, whose name they idly and falsely plead in opposing me.” – Calvin

As you suggested I read through Chrysostom’s view on this. To be fair, Chrysostom’s Homily tends to be a bit convoluted but I believe Theophylact is misinterpreting what Chrysostom is saying. I would reference the following:

To show therefore that the Tishbite comes before that other advent, which hath the judgment, He said this. And the reason too of his coming He teaches withal. And what is this reason? That when He is come, he may persuade the Jews to believe in Christ, and that they may not all utterly perish at His coming. Wherefore He too, guiding them on to that remembrance, saith, “And he shall restore all things;” that is, shall correct the unbelief of the Jews that are then in being.

…

And whence did the disciples know this? He had already told them, “He is Elias, which was for to come;” but here, that he hath come; and again, that “Elias cometh and will restore all things.” But be not thou troubled, nor imagine that His statement wavers, though at one time He said, “he will come,” at another, “he hath come.” For all these things are true. Since when He saith, “Elias indeed cometh, and will restore all things,” He means Elias himself, and the conversion of the Jews which is then to take place; but when He saith, “Which was for to come,” He calls John, Elias, with regard to the manner of his administration. Yea, and so the prophets used to call every one of their approved kings, David; and the Jews, “rulers of Sodom,” and “sons of Ethiopians;” because of their ways. For as the other shall be forerunner of the second advent, so was this of the first. Chrysostom

I would suggest that Chrysostom isn’t talking about all the Jews being saved at the second coming of Christ as Theophylact suggest. Rather Chrysostom seems to be saying that John the Baptist came in the same “manner of his [Elijah] administration” and the conversion of the Jews (who walk by faith) had converted to Christianity as Calvin suggest.

When I said "always" I meant "at any given time". I know that you believe that God always HAS the power to intervene in anything, but I thought you would say that God would not ever use it "against" man, if man's free will would be quashed. You know how many times I have read on this thread that God loves us so much that He will not force us to do (or not do) anything, so this is where my comment is coming from.

I see the problem that St. Augustine and others had when arguing a point of view. Sometimes, one can argue a side so aggressively that the balance is tilted. We have two apparently contradictory truths here: Man has free will And God desires that all men be saved. By arguing to aggressively "man has free will", it leaves God's divine sovereignty in apparent trouble. This is the problem with arguing such theological issues. We must not argue one too much - in either direction - that the other is excluded or contradicted. This is a difficult thing to do.

Because you hold to only ONE of these truths, I have been arguing free will. Probably more aggressively than need be. The truth of the matter is that we really don't know the interaction of these two TRUTHS. They are BOTH found in Scriptures and must BOTH be held! I see you only holding to one, while paying lip service to the other. This will not do. St. Augustine said that "faith comes first, then reason". Thus, we must have faith that BOTH of God's revelations are true - although we may not have the reasons to explain our particular discussion to our fullest mental satisfaction.

Men have the free will to choose God. Men are empowered, by God, to obey His commandments. Man will be judged based on how he complies. On the other hand, God desires all men to come to Him. He has the power to actually bring ALL men to Him if He desires this as a decree. God has ALWAYS desired men to come to Him and has empowered them with a desire to do so:

"And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD." Gen 4:26

Obviously, it is GOD who placed this desire within mankind! But why does God NOT give ALL men "efficacious grace"? Does He foresee their rejection? We have been arguing this off and on for quite awhile. All I can say for sure is that we must hold to both truths, not fully understanding the HOW.

This is for what I have labored so hard and for so long to hear. :) [Faith is not only something given by God to men, it is a RESPONSE to God's grace. Faith ALSO depends on man] I think this takes away from God's sovereignty, and this difference is one of the main points (tangentially, if not explicitly) of the original article of this thread. You can't really tell me then, that "everything" comes from God. It cannot, if your sense of free will really is true.

I have been reading and studying John's Gospel, the Gospel of Faith, as called by some. I think you may find your answers in there. God calls men to Him. But at the same time, faith is also a response to the message of Christ. Jesus preached to the entire audience, but only some came to follow Christ. Perhaps to help, it might do good to remember the Parable of the Sower and the Seed. The soil is man's response. It is certainly prepared and chosen by the Lord, but the seed, God's Word, falls on this soil. So the Word finds fruit in the faith in which a man responds to God's prompting. Christ is calling for a relationship between us and Him. A relationship requires a response when one makes the initiative. Our response is not our own, certainly. But it is not God alone, either. God has given us the gift to respond - but we must use it. And this is the daily choice we face. To sin or not.

Besides, what good are any of God's promises to those who persevere when none of them (those who persevere) can be known until after their dead?

God is promising that He will not pull the rug out from under those who respond to Him - NOT that God will reward us with heaven no matter what we do after our faith proclamation made 20 years ago. God's promises are for those who persevere. THEY will be the elect after the fact. God doesn't promise that those who enter the Church are the elect. Remember the parable of the wheat and the weeds? We just don't know that I am of the elect. We know that God will keep His promise to reward those who persevere, who obey His commandments, who ask for forgiveness of sins. He doesn't promise heaven to those with dead faith.

And of course the obvious question to you would be: Do you consider your sins to be a burden? Did God relieve you of that burden by dying on the cross, or does man take care of his own burden by doing deeds and sacraments to redeem his own burden of sin? I know you don't believe that. Is this a misunderstanding?

They are a burden until I confess them to our Lord and Savior, admitting my failure and promising to make an effort in the future to do better - with His help. I know many a Christian who ARE burden with sins. Some on this very thread seem to be burden with hatred for things Catholic. Hatred IS a burden that they carry, even though Christ died on the cross 2000 years ago. Christ only releases the burden of sin from those who turn to Him. Completely.

Regards

but the People are the official interpretators of these Scriptures

People throughout the ages have either unintentionally or deliberately misrepresented God's word. People are poor interpretators of the word simply because of our corrupt nature.

1Ki 22:24-25 But Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah went near and struck Micaiah on the cheek, and said, Which way did the Spirit of Jehovah go from me to speak to you? And Micaiah said, Behold, you shall see in that day when you shall go into an inner room to hide yourself.

Interesting. I will say one of the many things I would like to do is to trace eschatology from the early church fathers. I believe I'll find it muddled with various interpretations.

I couldn't find St. John of D reference but I'm in a bit of a hurry. I'll try to look this up later.

People throughout the ages have either unintentionally or deliberately misrepresented God's word. People are poor interpretators of the word simply because of our corrupt nature.

So we can never know the Truth of God's revelation? Or did the Christ leave a Church to be the pillar and foundation of the Truth?

Regards

As you know, I largely disregard the Alexandrian textual tradition as a curiosity that is of academic interest only, since it is very sparse, corrupt, and variable compared to the Orthodox Byzantine textual tradition. It is preferred by modern textual scholars primarily because it is has a number of readings that are less orthodox than those found in the Byzantine textual tradition -- their academic "cover" is that the handful of uncial manuscripts they prefer are quite old.

Actually, they prefer it. It creates controversy and allows mediocre scholars to elevate themselves with daring new theories. The corruption of the texts and their disagreements in key passages are the stuff of which these modern scholars of mediocrity have based their reputations. Naturally, they can keep 'correcting' their previous work and changing their Greek texts and therefore their NIVs and other versions so that they can keep their copyrights intact and profitable. A lot of this nonsense is driven by copyright law and the franchise of Zondervan and other publishers who think you need to buy just one more bible to add to that shelf of bibles you don't read anyway.

Follow the money and the copyrights.

(These are the same people who disregard the LXX readings of the OT -- even though our MSS of it are far older than any Hebrew MS. The KJV translators actually made much more use of the LXX readings to clarify Hebrew texts than do modern translations.)

A key point and one we have not dwelt on previously. It speaks to the tremendous scholarship in the Reformation when many of Europe's finest minds were fully engaged with producing a pure text for the common man.

The most influential textual tradition in which "through his blood" was found is actually consistently found is (drum roll please)... the Latin Vulgate. So I find it hard to find any nefarious Catholic machinations at work here.

Interesting. As I commented earlier, it is sometimes puzzling to determine why certain readings persist over the centuries regardless of which manuscript family the translators use. This is true even of modernist texts which at times conform to the KJV even though their own chosen manuscripts don't seem to support it.

It's not the suffering itself that makes her a "co-redeemer". It is the fact that she participated and gave of herself to God during the event that untied the knot of disobedience tied by Adam and Eve (if I may paraphrase St. Irenaeus, c. 180 AD). Her participation, like Eve's, was not needed - but God willed for both females to take part in their respective events.

It would appear that Mary's refusal would have caused the entire damnation of the human race then. So Mary must have been some sort of Calvinist who succumbed to Irresistable Grace. You suggest that Mary was not entirely a creature fully possessed of free will. In so doing, you rob Christ of His full humanity. Anything that detracts in the slightest from the full humanity of Jesus and His full deity as Christ diminishes our saviour. Historically, this has often been a path to heresy and something the ancient fathers warned of, having fought it so often in the early centuries.

FK, what the Reformed doctrine holds is that when Ananias told St. Paul to "be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord...." -- well, he really didn't mean it literally that way. :-)

Yeah, yeah, yeah ... :) I've never studied Acts 22:16 before, so this was something of a challenge. From what I found, it appears that this is a classic case of dueling scriptures (this scripture that apparently says that baptism washes away sin, versus all the other voluminous scriptures that say the work of Christ on the cross washed away our sins), and an interpretation must be made. It seems the central question to legitimizing the Reformed position is WHEN was Paul actually saved, or when did he become a believer? Was he saved on the road to Damascus, or was he saved when he was baptized at the house with Ananias? I think a decent case can be made for the former.

First, we know that the Gospel he preached he received directly from Christ, not from Ananias:

Gal. 1:11-12 : 11 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

This means that for him to have become a believer at baptism, he would have had to discount what Jesus taught him personally, but then accepted it through Ananias at baptism. I somehow doubt that this is how it occurred. Christ was calling him and instructing him in person. Paul was evidently moved to use the word "Lord", and he apparently was sufficiently impressed to follow the command of Jesus to continue on his way into the city, even though he had just been struck blind.

Now, I know that we have different ideas of what salvation is as contrasted to the remission of sins. But, we have no evidence that Ananias stood in as Paul's proxy because Paul did not have faith at his baptism, so I hope we can agree that he had it by that time. I am assuming that adults must have faith to be baptized. That makes it important when Paul got faith.

One evidence that we have that Paul already believed well before he was baptized (i.e. while still blind) was three verses earlier, in 22:13. Here, Ananias calls Paul "Brother Saul".

1 Cor. 5:11 : But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

This indicates that in Paul's mind, a "brother", in this context, was a believer. Since there was no question of any sibling relationship between Paul and Ananias, it appears reasonable that the term may have been used in a similar way here.

The bottom line is that consistent with the Reformed position, if Paul accepted Christ in His presence, then he already had the Spirit then, and his sins were remitted then (from the human POV). If, OTOH, Paul rejected Christ while in His presence, as Christ was calling Paul to His ministry, UNTIL (or unto? :) Ananias talked him into believing, (because Jesus didn't/couldn't?), then verse 16 could mean that baptism actually washes away sins. I just don't see this as reasonable.

One counter to all of this could be to say: "Who cares when Paul believed? Even as a believer his sins were not remitted until baptism. This brings us into looking into where the greater weight of scripture is. Is it on the side of baptism remitting sins, or is it on the side of Christ remitting our sins?

The Reformed view is consistent with the majority of scriptures such as:

1 Cor. 15:3 : For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, ...

Gal. 1:4 : ... who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, ...

1 Pet. 3:18 : For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, ...

In my view, all of these verses, and many more, go against the interpretation that baptism actually washes away sins. Therefore, I believe the greatest weight of authority, which for me is the Bible, says that it was Christ who washed away the sins of His elect, not anyone's baptism.

Didache (c. 70-100 AD) omits to mention that "breaking of the bread" and drinking wine during Eucharist is sacramental, or that it is Real Presence in Body and Blood of Christ. Perhaps that was just how some Christians "understood" it. Which is why 300 years later the Church had to convene the first Ecumenical Council to clear up some of the seirous misconceptions that evolved.

But it does raise an interesting question. Just as an example, if baptism of infants is a sacrament, then how is it effective when the object of the baptism, the infant, is oblivious? Does following the teachings of the Church (or a church) by any orthodox believer not in the grip of a fatal heresy but who does not fully understand exactly why he is obeying the dictates of his church (or tradition) still constitute a blessing and proper obedience?

When you look at history, whether Catholic or Orthodox or Protestant, it is not such a simple question. I am not proposing I have an answer by any means. I believe sincere belief and being a diligent student of scripture and the ancient church are the best solution for this. In the end, we have to trust in God to judge the heart and know that we can never practice the faith in absolute perfection.

Baptism is for the remission of sins - so says the Scripture. HOW IS IT NOT salvational?

You're just in time! :) Ping to 6991 for some discussion on this.

I have let this go on several occasions, but this is important. Without sins being forgiven, how do Protestants of your ilk consider yourselves as being "saved"? And at what point DO you become saved??? "Lord, Lord" - that's it? "Be gone, I never knew you..." Frightful!

The sins of the elect are forgiven. I am starting to piece together that what you think happens at Baptism, I think took place 2,000 years ago on a cross. So, the forgiveness part was done by Christ. What do you think Christ did on the cross? I "thought" you believed that Christ only took care of the original sin, but when the example of Paul came up as an adult new believer, that forced me to think that in your system, there could be a perfectly good believer who goes to hell because he hasn't gone through the ceremony. I didn't put that together before, since we've never talked about adult new believers.

From the standpoint of my own knowledge, I consider myself saved at the point of belief. From God's POV I was saved at the beginning.

It's not the suffering itself that makes her a "co-redeemer". It is the fact that she participated and gave of herself to God during the event that untied the knot of disobedience tied by Adam and Eve

The Bible doesn't mention Mary as co redeeming anyone from sin.

Romans 5:12
Wherefore, 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:

13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless 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.

15 But 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.

16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

17 For if by *one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

It is the obedience of ONE, Jesus Christ, not Mary.

Also note that Adam is held accountable for the sin, not Eve.

Eve was deceived, Adam knew better and did it anyway.

It would appear that Mary's refusal would have caused the entire damnation of the human race then.

God saw to it that Mary wouldn't refuse by preparing her, even in the womb, for her role in salvation history. God certainly foresaw Mary's "yes".

So Mary must have been some sort of Calvinist who succumbed to Irresistable Grace

Grace can be resisted. But God foresaw that it would not be due to His sight and preparation of the vessel that would hold the Christ.

You suggest that Mary was not entirely a creature fully possessed of free will.

Not at all. That is why Mary is so highly honored - due to her "yes" and God's graces that He singularly had given to Mary.

In so doing, you rob Christ of His full humanity

So Mary must possess complete free will for Christ to be fully human? How so? Not that I am saying Mary did not have free will! But I am intrigued on how you came up with that conclusion.

Regards

From what I found, it appears that this is a classic case of dueling scriptures (this scripture that apparently says that baptism washes away sin, versus all the other voluminous scriptures that say the work of Christ on the cross washed away our sins).

The action of the Church in Baptism is the application of Christ's Salvific work on the cross to the individual. It is a case of Subjective Redemption. Christ died for ALL men, Objective Redemption. But not all men are saved. Thus, Christ's Work must be applied to the individual. Subjective Redemption. The Spirit works through Baptism to bring the Redemption won by Christ to the individual - the remission of sins.

When Scriptures "duel", you can't just ignore one of them...

The bottom line is that consistent with the Reformed position, if Paul accepted Christ in His presence, then he already had the Spirit then, and his sins were remitted then

No, the Spirit can work within a person WITHOUT the remission of sin! Christ's Spirit has been written on the hearts of ALL men, according to Paul in Romans. But does this mean that the Spirit's work "SAVES" that man? Hardly. The Spirit works where He will, but it doesn't mean that this person is saved - sins are remitted. This requires something more. It is by Baptism, when the believer takes on, in faith, the works of Christ into his heart. This is an additional gift of the Spirit. Thus, the Spirit works in different degrees in people. The Spirit worked within Paul, prompting him to believe in Christ and to accept Baptism. It is only with his Baptism does Paul's sins become remitted. Thus, we personally are saved through Baptism, normally.

Regards

The sins of the elect are forgiven.

Are those whose sins forgiven necessarily the elect? Recall the parable of the wheat and weeds. The field, the Church, is full of "saved" people - those who accepted Baptism. But will they persevere? Thus we come to your presumption again. Remember that Paul wrote to CHRISTIANS that they could be DISINHERITED from their inheritance that was set aside in heaven. Disinherited means you receive NOTHING, not a lesser reward...

I am starting to piece together that what you think happens at Baptism, I think took place 2,000 years ago on a cross

I explained this in my last post, so I will give you an opportunity to respond. Know that Christ died for the sin of ALL the world. This is a Scripture that is inerrant and God's Word. So at what point does a person take on the Work of Christ and apply it to his own personal situation? Or do you say all men are saved - since Christ DIED for all men?

in your system, there could be a perfectly good believer who goes to hell because he hasn't gone through the ceremony. I didn't put that together before, since we've never talked about adult new believers. Heavens forbid! NO! A person can also be "baptized by desire" or "Baptized by blood". Catechumens, those who have not been baptized by who are beginning to come to the faith through our RCIA program are bound for heaven if they died before the actual ritual. If a person would have been baptized if they knew about what it entailed, but are prevented by ignorance or death, than God takes that into account. God NORMALLY works through the sacrament, but is not bound by it - so said St. Augustine vs. the Donatists.

From the standpoint of my own knowledge, I consider myself saved at the point of belief. From God's POV I was saved at the beginning.

Considering we don't share the same definition of "saved", I don't see the point in arguing WHEN it happens, given all the possible scenarios that prevent baptism and its relationship to initial faith. One must not only HEAR the voice of the Shepherd, one must also FOLLOW the voice. Naturally, hearing and not following is a good sign that one is not "saved", by my definition.

Regards

The Bible doesn't mention Mary as co redeeming anyone from sin.

It implies that she had just as much to do with co-redeeming as Eve had to do with bringing about mankind into the realm of sin.

Paul already makes half of the connection by calling Jesus the New Adam. Certainly, this would make Mary the New Eve, the woman mentioned in Genesis 3:15, the woman mentioned at Cana and the foot of the cross. As Simeon said, a sword would pierce her heart. TWO people's hearts were pierced at Calvary for the sake of the Father's will in heaven. Mary will be called blessed by all generations...

It is the obedience of ONE, Jesus Christ, not Mary.

Yes, and as Adam's sin condemned man to death, Jesus work on the Cross redeemed men. However, as Eve participated, was present, was more than a bystander to Adam's action, so did Mary. Neither females were necessary in their scenarios, but it was God's will that they participate and were present. They added nothing to the male's respective work, but just the same, God had them both there. Thus, we can say that Mary was a co-redeemer. There is a lot of deeper meaning to Mary, which is why one would be better served meditating on what exactly was her role and her continued role as being the woman of enmity against the "serpent" even today.

Regards