So Mary's a co-redeemer because she said "Sure, God, I'll have your baby"? Did this really take a ton of faith on her part? And, I don't seem to remember Mary ever actually being asked if she wanted in on this. My version says that the angel pretty much laid out how it was going to be, and then Mary said fine. In her position, what else was she going to say? How would you stack up the faith of Mary shown here to that of Abraham, or Daniel, or many others? I still don't see how this distinguishes her to the level of co-redeemer.
Faith is not "saving" WITHOUT those deeds of love. Remember what James said? "Does that (workless) faith save?" We need both.
I am saying that with true faith, both WILL happen. I gather that you are saying that with true faith both MIGHT happen.
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?
I'm only "crying" because this "high regard" detracts from Christ. Every prayer sent to Mary is one less prayer sent directly to God. It is one less chance to communicate with Him. ... It was Christ Himself who said "Who is my mother?", not me. :)
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.
Yes, and ... God willed lots of people to do lots of good things, and lots of people were dedicated to serving the Lord, even some from birth, like Samuel. Yes, Mary participated in a huge event, of course. But I still don't see why she merits all the veneration given to her. She was a vessel called upon for a task. She said "OK". So did many others.
FK: "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.
I realize that as of your post, Alex isn't back yet to answer this as quickly as he might, but since his earlier post apparently supporting the concept of Limbo, I have read several posts from both Catholics and Orthodox that appear to be pouring a little cold water on the idea as something that is currently accepted today. I'm just trying to figure out if I said to my friend that Catholics believe in Limbo for unbaptized babies, what kind of ground would I be on?
FK: "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?
That's a good way to phrase that question. "Is it effective?" Certainly, God had to come into time to make it happen "in time". But I'm not sure that means that it wasn't already effective for the OT righteous even though it hadn't happened in time from their POV. This kind of reminds me of perseverance. I think that the perseverance of the elect is "effectively" done at salvation, all that is left is for it to happen in real time, but there is no doubt whatsoever that it will. So, it is effective before it happens. I know you disagree with that so it is an interesting parallel.
"I'm only "crying" because this "high regard" detracts from Christ. Every prayer sent to Mary is one less prayer sent directly to God. It is one less chance to communicate with Him. ... It was Christ Himself who said "Who is my mother?", not me. :)"
________________________________________
IMHO, I think Evangelical Christians are concerned about this "lofty" status accorded Mary and special supernatural powers accorded her by Roman Catholics is that it is a product of "Tradition" and not SCRIPTURE. When people fall prey to "Tradition" they are easily led into false doctrine, such as multiple justifications based on works.