... 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.
Thank you for all of the verses in between these statements. But as you implicitly admit, none of them have anything to do with the concept of "Co-". For "Co-" to apply, BOTH parties would have to help each other. Then it would fit. But as you say, all of your verses only say that God is the only helper, and the person is only the one being helped. There is no "Co-". You give no verses that say we help God.
Is that wrong to believe that God has given us the grace to cooperate in His continuing of creation?
It is only incorrect to take credit for it, just like it would be incorrect for the cookie daughter to take credit for the cookies.
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.
Well, I have to admit that I am one to protect God's sovereignty. :) But, I do not say that we do not participate. Of course we do, and as you said, it is God's will that we do. Otherwise, we would all just sit here and do nothing until we died. :) My "protection" is all about who gets the credit and who makes what happen.
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.
??? What does this have to do with whether I have the power and authority to be a co-redeemer? In certain cases, I suppose I do have the power to not be a light unto Christ. But even if I did everything right, and I witnessed my little heart out, and then the person came to Jesus, I would not consider myself a co-redeemer at all. I would consider myself a very blessed witness to the sole work of Christ. Here I am, doing the protection thing again. :)
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...
Although it's funny, I don't know what is meant by the parasite comment. God uses us as vessels all the time to accomplish His will. Those who love Him are willing. Mary was such. I would even go so far as to say that I don't see Mary as equivalent to the pipe above, because after the water has left the pipe, the pipe is meaningless concerning the water. I think if one could have done a DNA sample on the man Jesus back then, it would have shown that Mary was His mother. Nothing wrong with that, and of course she loved Him and raised Him, etc.
FK: "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.
OK, that's all I really could have hoped for. :) So, how it is possible that God chooses His elect simultaneously with His elect choosing Him is a mystery. Of course our side would say that from either God's or our POV, He chose His elect first. I can know that because God existed before man, and scripture says He chose us first.
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.(emphasis added)
Acts 9:36-37, 40-41 : "36 In Joppa there was a disciple named Tabitha (which, when translated, is Dorcas), who was always doing good and helping the poor. 37 About that time she became sick and died, and her body was washed and placed in an upstairs room. ... 40 Peter sent them all out of the room; then he got down on his knees and prayed. Turning toward the dead woman, he said, "Tabitha, get up." She opened her eyes, and seeing Peter she sat up. 41 He took her by the hand and helped her to her feet. Then he called the believers and the widows and presented her to them alive."
[Whispering...] Joe, ... come over to the dark side, with me. Believe that this was really the work of Jesus and not Peter. Just like with all the other things we have been talking about. No one has to know, I won't tell. You're right, Joe, no one can raise the dead except God. I can feel the conflict within you. Let go, Joe. With the word, use the force... :)
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.
What is the difference between you and a theologian? Before asking this stupid question, I looked it up in the dictionary and all it said was "one learned in theology". (Thank you Mr. dictionary :) You fit that. Is it an official "office" within the Church?
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.
[On Is. 7:14 :] Well, then thanks for sticking up for my Bible :) In this case, I'm just not sure I buy it. :) As you know it is NIV. The footnotes are by Charles Ryrie. Here's what the verse says:
Is. 7:14 : 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
How can ALL prophecy have multiple meanings? When Jesus said the temple would be destroyed and then rebuilt in three days, what was the double meaning? What is the double meaning of the person referred to in Is. 53? And this:
Ps. 22:16 : Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet.
How do you explain the double meaning of this, seeing as how crucifixion had not been invented yet?
Not merely a pipe indeed! A great and early sait, +Ephrem the Syrian, noted for his profound prayers and poetry, wrote this about her as one of his 18 poems collected in a book called "The Harp of the Spirit":
"Come, let us wonder at the virgin most pure, wondrous in herself, unique in creation, she gave birth, yet knew no man; her pure soul with wonder was filled, daily her mind gave praise in joy at the twofold wonder: her virginity preserved, her child most dear. Blessed is He who shone forth from her!"
The dictionary doesn't make that claim. Even in the human world, one can help another in a one-way exchange. There is nothing in the definition of "co-" that demands a two-way exchange of aid. That is ridiculous, furthermore, when discussing God. Which CHRISTIAN would even make that claim? Do you really think Catholics believe that WE help God do anything, as if He couldn't do it without us?
You then later show me that you DO understand what I am talking about:
But, I do not say that we do not participate. Of course we do, and as you said, it is God's will that we do. Otherwise, we would all just sit here and do nothing until we died. :) My "protection" is all about who gets the credit and who makes what happen
Yes, we participate. And God gets the credit. However, where there is free will involved, God grants us a reward for our participation. Thus, we do receive credit from God. God rewards us when He commands us to REPENT - and we repent...
It is only incorrect to take credit for it, just like it would be incorrect for the cookie daughter to take credit for the cookies.
Does the loving mother scold her child when she proudly tells her father "Daddy, look what me and mommy did"... In your view of God, the mother would yell at the top of her lungs "HOW DARE YOU TAKE CREDIT FOR MAKING THE COOKIES! I AM THE COOKIE MAKER. YOU MUST NOW BE PUNISHED!!! ARRGGHHH!" This is utterly ridiculous in the real world. What makes you think God is below us on such matters? Doesn't He love to share with His loved ones His glory? God highly exalts us - see Mary's Magnificat when she speaks with Elizabeth in Luke 1.
??? What does this have to do with whether I have the power and authority to be a co-redeemer?
If you are prompted by the Spirit to speak about Christ to an unbeliever, but you refuse out of some shyness or whatever, your power of speech has been inhibited, and the Word of God does not go out to that person. Is this a trick question?
Although it's funny, I don't know what is meant by the parasite comment. God uses us as vessels all the time to accomplish His will.
A parasite uses the host without any care of the host, solely for its own purpose. God does not act that way, but chooses to involve us in His loving work. God doesn't have to come through man's actions to spread His Word!!! When you witness to someone and they seem to heed what you say, don't you feel a sense of joy? That you were part of the equation of God coming to that person? Doesn't the daughter making the cookies also feel this joy, of being part of the equation of doing something with her mother?
I think if one could have done a DNA sample on the man Jesus back then, it would have shown that Mary was His mother. Nothing wrong with that...
Whew! Wonderful... Doesn't Scripture tell us this also?
Of course our side would say that from either God's or our POV, He chose His elect first. I can know that because God existed before man, and scripture says He chose us first.
God acts WITHIN time by keeping it in existence, but He is not subject to it. If he foresaw EVERYTHING during the first day of creation, doesn't it follow that He "chose" us then - but at the same time, He also foresaw our actions in time? The Scripture speaks from man's point of view - God chose us first. And He did. But from God's point of view, His choosing and our choosing happen simultaneously - there is no passage of time that intervenes between His view of His choice and our choice (which is based on His grace that He gives us).
Believe that this was really the work of Jesus and not Peter (the raising of Tabbatha). Just like with all the other things we have been talking about. No one has to know, I won't tell.
Of course - and yet, God chose to raise this girl THROUGH Peter. Wow. Peter baked some delicious cookies, Daddy would say...
What is the difference between you and a theologian? Before asking this stupid question, I looked it up in the dictionary and all it said was "one learned in theology". (Thank you Mr. dictionary :) You fit that. Is it an official "office" within the Church?
Uh, I think it is someone more properly in an official, paid vocation. Such as a college professor, or a Catholic writer (for pay). Theologians used to be mostly clergy (they were the only educated ones), but now, everyone has an opinion! Theologians do not have the same "ranking" in the Church as they once had, because of so many views that seem to border on heresy.
How can ALL prophecy have multiple meanings? When Jesus said the temple would be destroyed and then rebuilt in three days, what was the double meaning?
The hearers of this thought Jesus was speaking about the actual Temple - while Jesus was speaking of His own Body. Thus, multiple meanings.
What is the double meaning of the person referred to in Is. 53?
The nation Israel is the suffering servant of the Lord - while Christians interpret it as Jesus Christ. See, multiple meanings to different people.
Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet.
Crucifixion had not been invented yet? When was it "invented"? From my studies of military history BEFORE becoming a practicing Christian, I remember it going back quite some time - the Greeks practiced it before Alexander the Great. Again, I would imagine Jews would refer this to mean something other than crucifixion, but I don't have their interpretation on it. To them, it probably is just a form of describing persecution, like when the Psalms talk about eathing one's flesh. Or do you believe the Psalmist was refering to cannibals?
Regards