Is the Blessed Virgin's title of "Co-Redemptrix" definable as dogma? Can she be called a co-redeemer with Christ?

In some Reformed/Calvinist circles, a theological framework called the [Federal Vision](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Vision) (FV) has led to significant internal debate over the true nature of the covenant between God and man, and, by extension, the role of faith and works in justification and salvation more generally. I'm currently reading a book by an FV opponent, David J. Engelsma, called [*Federal Vision: Heresy at the Root*](https://books.google.com/books?id=SqTGMQEACAAJ) . In chapter 6 he seems ready to address the following challenge: > Some of the proponents of the federal vision are decisional regenerationists; others hold to presupposed regeneration. How can you say that both hold to the same view of the covenant? But Engelsma's response does not shed much light on the difference between these views – he simply continues to group them together and critiques FV more generally. That's less than satisfying, so my question here is: **according to FV proponents, what are the perceived differences between decisional regeneration and presupposed regeneration views?** What impact do these differences have on the doctrine of the covenant held by different FV proponents?

**Unique Catholic Blessings of local Churches?** Just as I asked this question concerning Catholic feasts of local Churches, I would like to know if some readers here know of any local blessings attached to a local church, diocese or region which have been approved by the Catholic Church? I am interested in more historical blessings, even if they are no longer in vogue or usage.

Possible ways to understand "***virginity***" : - Some people may define it as no sexual event whatsoever. - Some may define as not having intercourse with a male. - Some may define it as not participating in any intimate acts with a male. - Some may define it as an intact hymen. I have a problem with the last one, since a lot of girls are not born with a hymen, or the hymen can be damaged in sports activities. I can't see a logical reason to think that the Blessed mother was definitely born with one or didn't damage it with non sexual physical activity. **So, what exactly does the Catholic Church mean by the "Virginity" of Mary?**

[Luke 1:26-26](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%201-2&version=NIV) : > **26** In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, **27** to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. Many other Bible verses talk about Mary's virginity, even to the point that the Catholic church teaches she was a virgin her entire life*. What evidence exists (either Biblical or extra-Biblical) to support the claim that she was indeed a virgin at the time of Jesus' conception? *This question is _not_ asking whether Mary was a perpetual virgin; only for evidence that she was a virgin at the time Jesus was conceived.

There is a Catholic Church near where I lived called "**Mary Queen of the Universe**" (Link) . It seems from their website it's a shrine for Mary. The name of this does not make much sense to me if it is a Christian church. How is she the Queen of the Universe? I have never seen this in the Bible (any translation). All I can think of is the marriage supper of the Lamb for all the believers in the end, not just Mary. Where did they come up with this title? Is the title "Queen of the Universe" something found in established Catholic teaching? Also, if it is an established title, what does it mean?

In Revelation 7:4–8, John mentions 144,000 people sealed from the twelve tribes of Israel. Jehovah’s Witnesses interpret this number literally as the total number of anointed Christians who will go to heaven and rule with Christ. Immediately afterward, Revelation 7:9–10 describes “a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb.” How do Jehovah’s Witnesses reconcile the idea of a fixed number of 144,000 heavenly Christians with the depiction of innumerable “multitudes” standing before God’s throne? Do official Watch Tower publications clarify the relationship between the 144,000 and the great crowd?

The JW book "*What Does the Bible Really Teach *" asserts that (the blood of the) "covenant, or contract, makes it possible for 144,000 faithful Christians to go to heaven (p207). and "These 144,000 Christians, including Jesus’ faithful apostles, are raised to life in heaven" (p74). This question seeks the Biblical basis for this (apparent) "144,000" limitation on how many Christians can go to heaven, particularly given Rev 7:9, > "After this (the sealing of the 144,000), I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from-out-of every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, having-been-previously-clothed in white robes, and palm branches in their hands. (Rev 7:9) Notice that the subsequent context suggests this event occurs in heaven: >...all the angels had-been-standing around the throne and the elders and the four living creatures; and they fell before the throne upon the faces of them, and they worshiped the God. (Rev 7:11) > > ... these (the ones in white robes) are the [ones] coming from-out-of the great tribulation, and they have washed the robes of them and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Because-of this, they are before the throne of the God; and they serve Him day and night in the temple of Him... (Rev 7:14-15) Apparently, an uncountable number are observed holding palm branches... in white, washed-in-the blood robes... from out of the great tribulation... standing before the throne of Jehovah (in heaven)... serving Him night and day in His temple. This report seems to conflict with only 144,000 believers going to heaven. In answering this question, please do not address why 144,000 is considered literal, or that "144,000" are sealed on their foreheads during the 6th seal (Rev 7:4), or a similar "144,000" are subsequently observed in heaven during the 7th seal (Rev 14:1). These have been addressed elsewhere on this site. This question seeks the Biblical basis for the specific (~144,000) **limitation**, when Rev 5:7-15 suggests the number is uncountable. An acceptable answer needs to harmonize this (apparent) conflict, without introducing non-scriptural information, ignoring anything relevant or contradicting other scriptures.

# Problem description # A protestant made the following two arguments about the assumption of Mary: 1. A catholic that doesn't accept the assumption of Mary will be excommunicated from the Catholic church 2. A catholic must believe in the assumption of Mary ---------- # Questions # - Are these arguments correct? - Is the assumption of Mary a salvific issue for Catholics? - If it's not a salvific issue why is it "good" to believe in it as a Catholic? The last question was asked from a Catholic perspective.

I'm not sure how to express the relationship that Catholics have with the Virgin Mary, so please excuse the word "faith" in the question title. **Giving Mary praise** I understand that Mary gave birth to Jesus. But, isn't Jesus God in human form? He is the Alpha and the Omega. He chose Mary to give birth to his human body, right? So if Mary was chosen by God, and we know that Mary is incapable of doing anything on her own, why give her so much praise? Is she not just another servant like the rest of us? **Intercession** When one asks the virgin Mary to intercede for us, I'm confused. Isn't that the role of Jesus, that the curtain to the Holy room was torn because Jesus is now our intercessor between us and God? We may now go directly to Jesus, so why have Mary do this for you? I am seeking the Catholic viewpoint on this.

Lots of questions on this site are asking how some text from the old testament fits to a contradictory one from the new testament or a passage of one book to the other. Why do people expect to find this kind of coherence in the bible? Clearly the different text passages are written several hundred years apart, by different people with different interpretations of the exisiting scriptures in mind and with a varying set of personal beliefs and values.

In Exodus 3, God speaks to Moses from the burning bush and says, “*I AM WHO I AM”* (Exodus 3:14). According to Trinitarian theology, which Person of the Trinity is understood to be speaking here—the Father, the Son (as a pre-incarnate appearance), or the Holy Spirit? What biblical or theological arguments support this interpretation?

After the death of Solomon the nation of Israel divided into two: the northern kingdom ruled by Jeroboam, which was called Israel, and the southern kingdom ruled by Rehoboam, which was called Judah. The reign lengths and regnal data in I and II Kings seemed and seem entirely confused. No Bible student could arrive at a credible explanation of the data until the 20th century. The first one was Valerius Coucke: in the 1920s he came up with a solution to the problems of what appeared conflicting data in the reign lengths of the kings. Unfortunately, because he published in French, his work went largely unnoticed in the English speaking world. In the 1950s Dr Edwin Thiele published the fruits of his doctorate, "Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings". Later, Rodger Young slightly modified Edwin Thiele's results, in consequence of which the work of Valerius Coucke and ET/RY are in agreement, and both now place the Exodus from Egypt in 1446 BC. It is this consensus chronology which is used in Andrew Steinmann's "From Abraham to Paul - a Biblical Chronology". Both systems rely on interpretting some of the data so that reign-lengths are measured using years starting in Tishri, while other reign-lengths are measured from Nisan. My question is, what is the evidence that the recorders of the reigns in I and II Kings are sometimes using years beginning in Tishri? Does this evidence exist, or can the data be interpretted without needing to use years starting in Tishri?

I understand that the Jehovah's Witnesses believe that there are few of their members today who are part of the 144,000 mentioned in the book of Revelations. This implies that most of their members are *not* included in that number. What, then, is the status of these people? Are they just believers who will go to heaven when Christ returns? Will they live on earth at that time? What are they called, and what will happen to them according to the teaching of the Jehovah's Witnesses?

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the number of the 144,000 (those who will rule with Christ from heaven) is a literal number. >14 Interestingly, Charles T. Russell recognized the 144,000 to be a literal number of individuals making up a spiritual Israel. In The New Creation, Volume VI of his Studies in the Scriptures, published in 1904, he wrote: “We have every reason to believe that the definite, fixed number of the elect [chosen anointed ones] is that several times stated in Revelation (7:4; 14:1); namely, 144,000 ‘redeemed from amongst men.’” In Light, Book One, published in 1930 by the Bible Students, it was likewise stated: “The 144,000 members of the body of Christ are thus in the assembly shown as selected and anointed, or sealed.” Jehovah’s Witnesses have consistently held to the view that literally 144,000 anointed Christians make up spiritual Israel. Source: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/pc/r1/lp-e/1200274226/11/0 In 1935 the number of Jehovah’s Witnesses who believed they were part of the anointed 144,000 was 52,465. Then, in 1938 they were told that the number of the 144,000 had been sealed and from that point, the number of Witnesses partaking of the bread and wine decreased rapidly. I had relatives who became Witnesses in the mid 1930's and they were told they could not be part of the heavenly anointed class. Instead, they were led to believe they would be part of the earthly class. The lowest number of partakers this century was 8,524 (in 2005) but that number went up to 19,521 (in 2018). However the 2019 Yearbook is not available on the official JW.org website. Has the number of Witnesses gone up this year? Has the Governing Body received increased light to suggest that the number of the 144,000 is now perceived as being symbolic rather than literal? If that is not the case, and the number is still literal, why is that number increasing rather than decreasing?

According to orthodox trinitarian doctrine, the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Jesus is co-eqaul, eternally begotten, not made. With that in mind, how could Jesus have a God? For instance, how do Trinitarians explain verses such as the following verses in a way which is consistent with their doctrine? John 20:17 (KJV) > Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my > Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my > Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. John 17:3 (KJV) > "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true > God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

The Jews (Israelites) were God's chosen people for nearly all of Biblical history. But, they reject Christ as the Messiah. If the only path to the Father is through the Son, and Jews reject the Son, how do they still reach the Father? If they never accept Christ as their savior, how are they saved? Are they "grandfathered" in because they were chosen before the arrival of Christ? Lets say from the protestant denominations. It's really just a general question and I'd be interested in reading several perspectives

My research has thus far turned up only one (seemingly small) detail: The Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Eastern Catholic Churches believe that **Mary died a regular, albeit peaceful earthly death** and shortly thereafter her body was glorified and taken up into heaven. This is the Dormition of Mary; she died and was taken up. Roman Catholicism emphasizes that Mary was taken bodily into heaven **without definitively saying whether she died first** and Roman Catholics are free to believe either that she died or did not. This is the Assumption of Mary; she may or may not have died prior to being taken up. Both traditions are based upon extra biblical writings and tradition with no direct basis in Scripture, both traditions held to the Dormition view until late in the middle ages, and both still ultimately affirm that Mary was taken bodily into heaven. Is this really the only difference between the two; that the East insists that Mary died and that the West is unsure whether she died? What are the theological and (if any) practical implications of this difference?

Satan and God have a conversation in which Satan says he wants to bring harm to Job’s family and then God provides Satan with permission to do so. And then Satan kills Job’s children. That appears to be a clear example of conspiracy to commit murder. Is God conspiring to commit murder with Satan the correct interpretation?

Many Jews claim that if God wanted them to stop observing the Old Law He would have made it more obvious that this was the case, in fact they assume that He would have to give them some kind of deductive knowledge that this was the case because otherwise they would allegedly be left in grave uncertainty as to how to obey God. As you can see, they are not just being skeptics, for example, they might admit that the argument for the resurrection is pretty substantial, but they would refuse to accept it because it is merely inductive, saying maybe it would be a good reason to reject Deism but not Judaism. How do Christian apologists respond to this argument? For example, could they point out that arguably there is progressive revelation even within the Old Covenant?