Mary, mother of Jesus

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Perhaps
What is your definition of choice?

Not necessarily. God very specifically chose Mary to be the mother of Jesus. Does that mean someone else was ruled out of contention for having been too evil?

 

[Albion]

Perhaps
What is your definition of choice?

Selecting between two or more possibilities.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

That's true. I misspoke. I should have said alternatives. For example, choosing between icecream and cake is not a choice between good and evil.
But doesn't this imply that God is still shifting somehow? That's my concern.

No it does not. A choice does not have to be between opposites at all. God could’ve just as easily chosen Elizabeth or any other Jewish woman to bring Jesus into the world as long as they were a descendant of David.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Thank you! Good definition. Lol. Does God choose between possibilities or is he the originator of those possibilities? Or am I making a false distinction?

Selecting between two or more possibilities.

 

[Albion]

Thank you! Good definition. Lol. Does God choose between possibilities or is he the originator of those possibilities? Or am I making a false distinction?

Well, you simply asked me for a definition of choice. But God has indeed selected different people at times for particular purposes when it appears that he had alternatives. And that's the testimony of Scripture.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

[QUOTE="Albion, post: 76267211, member: 93831”]N decided Mary wasn't chosen, so forget the words of the angel who was sent to her and said that she was. How about God having a "Chosen race?"[/QUOTE]
Debatable, the chosen lady of 2 John may have been Christ’s flesh and blood mother who Disciple John was caring for.

 

[BeyondET]

and when you die she, herself will condemn you to hell for such blasphemy.

hmm Mary can condemn someone to hell? haven't heard that one before.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Oh, cool.
Perhaps I assumed too much.
Explain your position on regeneration please (if you don't mind).

I like how Iranaeus explains it best.

1. Man has received the knowledge of good and evil. It is good to obey God, and to believe in Him, and to keep His commandment, and this is the life of man; as not to obey God is evil, and this is his death. Since God, therefore, gave [to man] such mental power (magnanimitatem) man knew both the good of obedience and the evil of disobedience, that the eye of the mind, receiving experience of both, may with judgment make choice of the better things; and that he may never become indolent or neglectful of God's command; and learning by experience that it is an evil thing which deprives him of life, that is, disobedience to God, may never attempt it at all, but that, knowing that what preserves his life, namely, obedience to God, is good, he may diligently keep it with all earnestness. Wherefore he has also had a twofold experience, possessing knowledge of both kinds, that with discipline he may make choice of the better things. But how, if he had no knowledge of the contrary, could he have had instruction in that which is good? For there is thus a surer and an undoubted comprehension of matters submitted to us than the mere surmise arising from an opinion regarding them. For just as the tongue receives experience of sweet and bitter by means of tasting, and the eye discriminates between black and white by means of vision, and the ear recognises the distinctions of sounds by hearing; so also does the mind, receiving through the experience of both the knowledgeof what is good, become more tenacious of its preservation, by acting in obedience to God: in the first place, casting away, by means of repentance, disobedience, as being something disagreeable and nauseous; and afterwards coming to understand what it really is, that it is contrary to goodness and sweetness, so that the mind may never even attempt to taste disobedience to God. But if any one do shun the knowledge of both these kinds of things, and the twofold perception of knowledge, he unawares divests himself of the character of a human being.


2. How, then, shall he be a God, who has not as yet been made a man? Or how can he be perfect who was but lately created? How, again, can he be immortal, who in his mortal nature did not obey his Maker? For it must be that you, at the outset, should hold the rank of a man, and then afterwards partake of the glory of God. For you did not make God, but God you. If, then, you are God's workmanship, await the hand of your Maker which creates everything in due time; in due time as far as you are concerned, whose creation is being carried out. Offer to Him your heart in a soft and tractable state, and preserve the form in which the Creator has fashioned you, having moisture in yourself, lest, by becoming hardened, you lose the impressions of His fingers. But by preserving the framework you shall ascend to that which is perfect, for the moist clay which is in you is hidden [there] by the workmanship of God. His hand fashioned your substance; He will cover you over [too] within and without with pure gold and silver, and He will adorn you to such a degree, that even the King Himself shall have pleasure in your beauty. But if you, being obstinately hardened, reject the operation of His skill, and show yourself ungrateful towards Him, because you were created a [mere] man, by becoming thus ungrateful to God, you have at once lost both His workmanship and life. For creation is an attribute of the goodness of God but to be created is that of human nature. If then, you shall deliver up to Him what is yours, that is, faith towards Him and subjection, you shall receive His handiwork, and shall be a perfect work of God.


3. If, however, you will not believe in Him, and will flee from His hands, the cause of imperfection shall be in you who did not obey, but not in Him who called [you]. For He commissioned [messengers] to call people to the marriage, but they who did not obey Him deprived themselves of the royal supper. Matthew 22:3, etc. The skill of God, therefore, is not defective, for He has power of the stones to raise up children to Abraham; Matthew 3:9but the man who does not obtain it is the causeto himself of his own imperfection. Nor, [in like manner], does the light fail because of those who have blinded themselves; but while it remains the same as ever, those who are [thus] blinded are involved in darkness through their own fault. The light does never enslave any one by necessity; nor, again, does God exercise compulsion upon any one unwilling to accept the exercise of His skill. Those persons, therefore, who have apostatized from the light given by the Father, and transgressed the law of liberty, have done so through their own fault, since they have been created free agents, and possessed of power over themselves.


4. But God, foreknowing all things, prepared fit habitations for both, kindly conferring that light which they desire on those who seek after the light of incorruption, and resort to it; but for the despisers and mockers who avoid and turn themselves away from this light, and who do, as it were, blind themselves, He has prepared darkness suitable to personswho oppose the light, and He has inflicted an appropriate punishment upon those who try to avoid being subject to Him. Submission to God is eternal rest, so that they who shun the light have a place worthy of their flight; and those who fly from eternal rest, have a habitation in accordance with their fleeing. Now, since all good things are with God, they who by their own determination fly from God, do defraud themselves of all good things; and having been [thus] defrauded of all good things with respect to God, they shall consequently fall under the just judgment of God. For those persons who shun rest shall justly incur punishment, and those who avoid the light shall justly dwell in darkness. For as in the case of this temporal light, those who shun it do deliver themselves over to darkness, so that they do themselves become the cause to themselves that they are destitute of light, and do inhabit darkness; and, as I have already observed, the light is not the cause of such an [unhappy] condition of existence to them; so those who fly from the eternal light of God, which contains in itself all good things, are themselves the cause to themselves of their inhabiting eternal darkness, destitute of all goodthings, having become to themselves the cause of [their consignment to] an abode of that nature.

St Iranaeus 170AD Adversus Haereses Book 4 Chapter 39

 

[BNR32FAN]

Choice implies decision between 2 opposites, like good and evil, does it not?

I like that you call me sister. I do the same but in my theological circles (Lutheran and Catholic) I receive odd glances lol.

Different theological issues shouldn’t separate children of God. I haven’t always held the same doctrines since I came to Christ as I do now. Naturally we’re going to learn and grow the more we study His word so differences in understanding shouldn’t divide us as we are all still brothers & sisters in Christ.

 

[BNR32FAN]

That's true. I misspoke. I should have said alternatives. For example, choosing between icecream and cake is not a choice between good and evil.
But doesn't this imply that God is still shifting somehow? That's my concern.

Not if He was choosing someone different from the get go. I didn’t mean that He could’ve changed His mind and chose someone else if Mary wasn’t going to cooperate. He is omniscient and omnipresent. He doesn’t pick people who won’t carry out the task exactly as He intended them to.

 

[DamianWarS]

Rome didn’t control the Church. The Church had been persecuted for centuries for refusing to conform to paganism. It was Constantine who finally gave in to the Catholic Church not the church who gave in to Constantine.

Sure, but what's that have to do with my post?