"Co-anything" doesn't mean that this person was NECESSARY for anything. We go back to the cookie analogy again. Was the daughter necessary?
No, the daughter wasn't necessary, but this seems a unique way to use "Co-". I've always thought that in normal usage, that "Co-" did imply something necessary. Coeducational would not be so without both males and females. Co-pilots are necessary or else the airline would not pay for them. Co-authors share credit for a reason. Presumably Co-founders of a company all contributed to its creation. Where else does "Co-" mean something unnecessary?
Your wife is a co-creator, you are a co-redeemer when you bring others to Christ, and Mary is a co-mediatrix of grace - all because God loves us to participate in the divine nature (says Peter)
But haven't you argued that my wife was necessary to actually have the baby? That one appears to fit in with my other examples, although I do not happen to believe that either my wife or me were co-creators at all with the birth of our children. I believe that God is the exclusive creator, as I interpret from your favorite Psalm (139). :)
[You later say on "co-redemptive":] Think of yourself as the trusty sidekick going along for the ride. God is gracing you by sharing His life with us. He doesn't need us. You are confusing "necessity" with "sharing".
I sure do think of myself as going along for the ride, and I am so thankful to God for inviting me. But I am only an observer, I do nothing of myself, God is the only redeemer. What power or authority have I to co-redeem?
But let me throw it back to you. Are you saying then, that Mary is just going along for the ride? Is Mary totally unnecessary and just like the cookie daughter? Is God just blessing Mary by letting her participate as co-mediatrix, even though she really doesn't add anything of real value? The set-up is for Mary's benefit, just as it was for the cookie daughter?
However, for GOD, there is no "in advance"! All is NOW. God doesn't "elect" us without seeing already our response to His love. This is because it all occurs simultaneously.
How can you use "seeing already" with "simultaneously"? Does God pick the elect because they picked Him first, or do the elect pick God because He chose them first? To say that both happen simultaneously either implies a phenomenal stoke of luck, or I don't understand at all what that means. "Simultaneously" is a time-related word!
Clearly you would agree that there was a physical time when God existed and man did not, right? I think we can use real time for this. After all, for purposes of human understanding, don't you rely on "time" just as much as I do? You say that God exists in all time, and I am fine with that. What I'm asking is: What is the dependent variable? Who makes the first move? To say that it happens simultaneously throws the whole issue beyond human comprehension. If you agree to that, then it appears that your real answer is that you don't know.
FK: "(A man with free will can reject any "guidance", right?)"
You got it. Thus, there are very poor Catholics who think that abortion is OK, despite the constant teaching to the contrary...
Then how do you have any confidence that the Bible is infallible? How do you know that none of the writers ever strayed even once from the guidance they received? Do you know because the Church tells you so? Did the writers of the Bible have free will, and just chose to act perfectly?
(the Church had LONG before believed that Mary assumed into heaven - their was a Church celebration of it in the liturgy back to the 400's at least - but it wasn't officially defined until 1950. The Spirit had already instilled within the Church's Holy Tradition the belief).
Is that now an infallible teaching? If so, then if I had said in 1949 that "Catholics believe that Mary was assumed", I would be on solid ground, even though it was not, in 1949, an infallible teaching?
[On Gen. 3:15 and whether "the woman" refers to Eve or Mary] FK: "Why can't Eve have enmity for satan, after all this she had a pretty good reason to, didn't she?"
If only referring to Eve, why didn't God include Adam, since it was HIS sin that separated mankind from God??? Why would God refer to EVE, but not ADAM?
I think it may have been because God also refers to her progeny. IOW, the rest of mankind for all time. To use my favorite word, it is easier to think of Eve as having "begotten" the rest of the human race. :) Besides, Adam was still standing in line and certainly did get his, when it was his turn. :)
The Jews and the Catholic Church see it referring to someone else.
The Jews of then or now? Why would the Jews care about Mary?
FK: "In a literary sense, one big thing that bothers me with all of these many examples is that meanings are changed within one clearly defined thought."
Brother, ALL prophesy works that way! Let's look at one we agree on. Isaiah 7:14. Who does the Prophet speak to? Can we agree that he is speaking to TWO groups of people simultaneously, in the same sentence? One for the immediate hearer and one for the future that points to the Messiah's and His mother?
Want to hear something hilarious? The footnote in my Bible actually disagrees with you and says that the virgin referred to in 14 is actually another woman whom Isaiah would later take as his second wife! However, the Spirit does speak to me and leads me to agree with your interpretation that the virgin is actually Mary. :)
Double however, this does not get you off the hook. :) In your Isaiah example, the only change is in AUDIENCE. The audience may switch from present believers to future believers and then back again. I'm sure lots of prophecy does this. But, that is a world of difference from what your position is in Gen. 3. There, you are saying the SUBJECT magically changes in mid-thought.
At first, "the woman" meant Eve. Then God starts speaking to satan, and mentions "the woman" again. He is always speaking to satan here, but you make a switch with the SUBJECT of conversation. Now "woman" switches to Mary. Then, God begins speaking to "the woman" and it is back to Eve again. I think that's very different. And, Agrarian, I do remember your argument that 15 refers to both Eve and Mary. At least that's a little better. :)
"co-". with. together. jointly. One that is associated in an action with another: fellow. partner. helper
The God of thy father shall be thy helper, and the Almighty shall bless thee with the blessings of heaven above, with the blessings of the deep that lieth be- neath, with the blessings of the breasts and of the womb. Gen 49:25
And the other Eliezer: For the God of my father, said he, is my helper, and hath delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh. Ex 18:4
This is the blessing of Juda. Hear, O Lord, the voice of Juda, and bring him in unto his people : his hands shall fight for him, and he shall be his helper against his enemies Deut 33:7
And the Lord is become a refuge for the poor: a helper in due time in tribulation Ps 9:9
Thou seest it, for thou considerest labour and sorrow: that thou mayst deliver them into thy hands. To thee is the poor man left: thou wilt be a helper to the orphan Ps 10:14
So that we may confidently say: The Lord is my helper: I will not fear what man shall do to me. Heb 13:6
There are dozens of verses that speak of the Lord as our helper. I see Scripture clearly showing how we cooperate with God's graces.
But haven't you argued that my wife was necessary to actually have the baby?
Your wife wasn't absolutely necessary to have a child. Adam and Eve were created without mothers. God chooses to propagate His creation THROUGH the action of men and women. Is that wrong to believe that God has given us the grace to cooperate in His continuing of creation?
I believe that God is the exclusive creator, as I interpret from your favorite Psalm 139
He is the primary creator of all things. But it should appear quite obvious that your wife was involved in the birth of your child - and without her actions, your child wouldn't have been born. This conversation seems to be bordering on the ridiculous. Your effort to "protect" God's sovereignty by denying that we do anything is not necessary. It should be clear that God ALLOWS us to participate in His work - HIS OWN WILL is that we do.
What power or authority have I to co-redeem?
??? By closing your mouth, rather than spread the Gospel to co-workers who are not Christians, you DO have the power and authority to NOT be a co-redeemer. By acting as a Christian, you are a light to the world of Christ's work.
Is God just blessing Mary by letting her participate as co-mediatrix, even though she really doesn't add anything of real value? The set-up is for Mary's benefit, just as it was for the cookie daughter?
Mary is for our benefit and God's graces are for her benefit. Doesn't she say that in Luke 1:47-48 "My soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed."?
St. Basil once said that if anyone said that Mary was merely like a pipe through which water ran in regards to our Savior, then that person is impious person. God was not a parasite...
Does God pick the elect because they picked Him first, or do the elect pick God because He chose them first?
How is there a "first" and "last" outside of time? Everything occurs at once. Think outside the box. God sees as if a bird's eye view looking down onto a mountain, seeing all of the representatives of time standing around the mountain. He sees them all in one view.
Simultaneously" is a time-related word!
If all time occurs in one moment, that means it is simultaneous. Time = change. When two events occur during the same point in time, these two events are not changing - at that moment. Now, imagine God sees everything during the same moment.
Clearly you would agree that there was a physical time when God existed and man did not, right?
For us, yes. Within time, that is true. But God is beyond time.
Who makes the first move?
All such questions are considered from the point of view of mankind. God makes the first move in respect to us. Our point of reference is within time. God acts upon time but is not bound by it.
To say that it happens simultaneously throws the whole issue beyond human comprehension. If you agree to that, then it appears that your real answer is that you don't know
More properly, we call it a mystery. We don't know EVERYTHING about God and how He works upon time. But we know something based upon revelation - that God created time and is thus transcendant above it. Thus, theologians explore the total revelation He has given us - Scripture and Tradition.
Then how do you have any confidence that the Bible is infallible? How do you know that none of the writers ever strayed even once from the guidance they received? Do you know because the Church tells you so? Did the writers of the Bible have free will, and just chose to act perfectly?
There is a convergence of evidence that points to the Church and the idea that she is trustworthy and guided by God's Spirit. The community recognized particular writings as inspired from God. Do we believe them? Yes. We can believe the message of the Church because we believe that it was led by a person who resurrected from the dead - clear evidence that His message was from God, who alone can raise the dead. Our belief hinges on the resurrection, as Paul says in 1 Cor 15. As to the inspired writers, it should seem apparent that the writers used different modes of writing, different styles. God did not overwhelm THEIR manner of writing - AND HIS message is found within these human words.
Is that now an infallible teaching? If so, then if I had said in 1949 that "Catholics believe that Mary was assumed", I would be on solid ground, even though it was not, in 1949, an infallible teaching?
It is now an infallible teaching officially defined by the Magesterium. You would be on solid ground saying that "Mary was assumed into heaven" in 1949, but it was not officially defined yet. The community was already celebrating liturgically this as fact. A person could have legitimately questioned that concept - WITH GOOD REASON after exploring the issue, privately. We do not publically dissent (we are not given authority) from the Church's teachings. A theologian who has properly considered all of the knowledge available would be in his right to disagree with the pre-defined belief of Mary's Assumption. We don't usually have such knowledge - most have not examined all of the evidence, so we couldn't legitimately privately dissent. But once it is solemnly declared as such, we assent and obey God's Will (since it is God speaking through the Magesterium).
I think it may have been because God also refers to her progeny. (why Adam was not included in Gen 3:15)
The Old Testament spoke of the MALE as being the bearer of the seed and it was HE whose progeny was considered, not the mother. Rarely does the Scripture speak of the mother's progeny. We are born "dead" to God because of ADAM'S sin, not Eve's.
The Jews of then or now? Why would the Jews care about Mary?
Not Mary, but the mother of the Messiah.
Want to hear something hilarious? The footnote in my Bible actually disagrees with you and says that the virgin referred to in 14 is actually another woman whom Isaiah would later take as his second wife! However, the Spirit does speak to me and leads me to agree with your interpretation that the virgin is actually Mary. :)
First, I don't know if your bible version says the word "virgin" or "young woman" in this verse. If the former, you are using the Septaugint version, the latter is the Hebrew version. As I said, ALL prophesy has multiple meanings. The prophet is speaking directly to someone present during HIS time. The footnote is correct. BUT, prophesy also applies to men of the future. Did the prophet realize he was prophesizing? Who knows. But the Community widely recognized this prophesy as pointing to Mary the ever-virgin.
In your Isaiah example, the only change is in AUDIENCE. The audience may switch from present believers to future believers and then back again. I'm sure lots of prophecy does this. But, that is a world of difference from what your position is in Gen. 3. There, you are saying the SUBJECT magically changes in mid-thought.
The AUDIENCE changed? So you think that Isaiah was talking about a virgin to Ahaz? Oh, no, the meaning changed, too! Do you think that Isaiah was telling Ahaz that a virgin would give birth - a literal woman who did not have sex would give birth?
Sure, if you desire, we can have God speaking to Eve and about Mary. He did it in Is 7:14, as well - speaking to Ahaz and about Mary.
Regards