[Jack of all Trades]

Only TWO guesses to choose from?

I'm open to suggestions...

This is a real paradox. How can there be free will when the interests of an eternal, omniscient, omnipresent being are at stake? If she had free will, then the possibility, no matter how remote, that she would say no, had to be considered. If the mother of Jesus gave something to the nature of God, then she must be coeternal with God.

I'm just glad they don't burn heretics any more.

[metmom]

If the mother of Jesus gave something to the nature of God, then she must be coeternal with God.

Considering that Catholics believe that Jesus blood was Mary's blood and Jesus' flesh was Mary's flesh, and that salvation entered the world through Mary, I'd say among that Catholics, that's a given.

[Elsie]

I'm just glad they don't burn heretics any more.

Yeah...

We just have flame wars now...

[Alex Murphy]

I'm open to suggestions...This is a real paradox. How can there be free will when the interests of an eternal, omniscient, omnipresent being are at stake? If she had free will, then the possibility, no matter how remote, that she would say no, had to be considered. If the mother of Jesus gave something to the nature of God, then she must be coeternal with God.

Three suggestions:

First, search the Scriptures enough to make an early call as to which "truth" is more important/unchangeable/etc. Call it a "trump card." For some, it's God's sovereignty. For others, it is man's free will. In your mind, whichever it is, that doctrine trumps the understanding of all others. For example, IF "the interests of an eternal, omniscient, omnipresent being" can/does override a created individual's operation of free will, THEN God's sovereignty is your "trump card". In that example, no matter how you address the question of mankind's ability to make good choices, etc., you would have concluded in advance that God's sovereignty somehow is able to override whatever level of ability God has given to mankind. Or vise-versa if you conclude that free will is inviolable, etc. etc.

Second, decide for yourself what amount of "right doctrine" is required to have a saving faith. For some people, even the slightest doctrinal misstep by others is enough to cast them into hell, or (as one FReeper puts it) makes them into "faux Christians" who deserve nothing but criticism and belittlement. For others, professing a belief in an undefined being named "Jesus Christ" is sufficient to save them, or as Homer Simpson puts it, "I'm normally not a praying man but if you're up there, please save me Superman!" I myself believe there is an "outmost circle" that defines who are my fellow believers in Christ. Whatever that defining standard is, try to remain consistent with how you apply it to those who disagree with you on theological issues.

Third, IF you believe that some doctrines are not neccesary for a "saving faith", try to keep those theological discussions within the academic realm. Acknowledge your sparring partner as a fellow believer at the outset of, and during, those discussions. See if you can ascertain what your opponents's "trump card doctrine" is, and recognize that IF you believed in the same trump card, you PROBABLY would come to the same conclusion as they have. Do your best to reach across the aisles, when possible.

I'm just glad they don't burn heretics any more.

Keep thanking God for that. You never know - given the anger sometimes expressed on the Religion Forum, that may change!

"The church is to be a loving church in a dying culture. How, then, is the dying culture going to consider us? Jesus says, "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." In the midst of the world, in the midst of our present culture, Jesus is giving a right to the world. Upon His authority He gives the world the right to judge whether you and I are born-again Christians on the basis of our observable love toward all Christians."
-- Francis A. Schaeffer, The Mark of The Christian, quoting John 13:34-35

The Mark of the Christian, part 1
The Mark of the Christian, part 2
The Mark of the Christian, part 3
Toward a Theological Ethic for Internet Discourse
Rules of Engagement for Catholics on the Internet

[presently no screen name]

If she had free will, then the possibility, no matter how remote, that she would say no, had to be considered.

She did have free will and she wouldn't have said 'no' because she wasn't asked. But either had to say, I don't accept the Word given to me or say, “Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to Your Word.”

Those who don't serve The Lord - God's Word is NOT their final authority. God's Word was the final authority for Mary as Scripture clearly shows as she saw herself as His servant. There was no 'think about it' from the angel or 'Let me think about it first' from Mary. Her heart had already been committed to The Lord.

If the mother of Jesus gave something to the nature of God, then she must be coeternal with God.

Not good to lean unto your own understanding; it will led to error. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:9

However, following your questioning and comment - since mothers gave birth to the presidents we had - why aren't they called co-presidents? Geez, they don't even make it to VP and never have. And that is in the natural/worldly - where anything goes - and no one considers it to be true. Now we are talking about SUPERNATURAL and you seem OK with it? Rome truly duped catholics, their minds are mush while not having a clue how the SUPERNATURAL works.

Yet Jesus tells us - His mother and brothers are just like anyone who 'hears and obeys' God's will. It's the opposite of how the 'world' views mothers, brothers and sisters. And Catholicism is in the world view.

Worldly man-made teachings vs. God's Holy Spirit inspired WORD - who are you going to BELIEVE? There are two choices, choose one because you can't serve two masters.