Religious

[boxcar]

Mr. JAG, I have another question to you regarding the above text. But so that there are no misunderstanding, let's have the text before us:

Mark 14:25
25 "Truly I say to you, I shall never AGAIN drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God."
NASB

My question pertains to the future aspect of Jesus' statement, i.e. "when I drink it new in the kingdom of God". Obviously, Jesus is talking about an external, visible physical kingdom, as opposed to the internal, invisible spiritual kingdom which exists in all believers during this age by the Holy Spirit. My question is this: In the kingdom that is to come (upon the Lord's return), will the Bridegroom (the King) and the Bride (the Church, a/k/a New Jerusalem) be eating His literal, physical body and drinking His literal, physical blood?

Please get back to me on this. And please don't forget my question about when the New Covenant was ratified.

Thanks,
Boxcar

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

God is the ultimate cause but man is the immediate cause. Even the Psalmist prayed to God that He not incline his heart to sin! I do not shrink back from what scripture teaches -- even the tough, hard-to-understand sayings.

Also, go back and read my series on the "Greater Good". What God predestined for his Son was for the GOOD of mankind. But what the Jews' intentions and motives toward Jesus were evil. God can take man's evil deeds and turn it for good, as He did with Joseph in the O.T.

Again, God's decrees do not absolve men from their sins. And His decrees do not equate with injunctions! You have a really tough time grasping these two concepts, it seems. God hardened Pharaoh's heart so that the king would not let the ancient Israelites leave Egypt; yet, God punished Pharaoh for not letting his chosen people go.

Boxcar

Hey P.A. all that verbosity to say yes God is the planner of murders per Calvin's institutes. God uses man as his instrument, which is per Scripture. In the deterministic theology of predestination God uses man to carry out his plans of murder of innocent Christians too.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Hey P.A. all that verbosity to say yes God is the planner of murders per Calvin's institutes. God uses man as his instrument, which is per Scripture. In the deterministic theology of predestination God uses man to carry out his plans of murder of innocent Christians too.

Hmm...sounds like God did the same thing with the men who murdered Jesus.
So, who is responsible: God or the actual murderers?

Acts 4:27-28
27 "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Thy holy servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur.
NASB

Wow! So, what sayest thou? Are Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel innocent of Jesus' death and God guilty thereof?

Boxcar

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

I"ll play the hand, Boxcar.
Obviously, Show Me is not going to give me a simple "yes" or "no".
Did you really write that?

Of course he did. Boxcar, has no clue to what you are explaining to him, just like he didn't have a clue about Jesus' Glorified Body not being able to transcend time and space.

Boxcar, as you know, says I didn't answer his question because I did not give the answer he desired. Per boxcar the way to prove a point is to get a person to agree to a false premise and have the person agree or deny the false statement. Either way his point is proven. If you deny the false premise, he says you agree with him, of course, as you recognize the falsehood. If you affirm the false premise he gets to tell you the error's of your ways as you are embracing a falsehood.

In the instant case, the false premise is the catechism is the authority for Catholics. I corrected his false premise about the catechism's authority, an answer he didn't like. Correcting boxcar's false premises is something boxcar doesn't like, because his sole strategy goes out the window of leading one into a box with no way out.

As a result, of my correction of his false premise, boxcar is only left with accusations that I did not answer, so he could launch into his tirade. Which he did with predictability.

As all can see boxcar has a hatred against Roman Catholic teachings. After being informed that other Liturgical Denominations believe the same mystery of the Lord's body, boxcar still launched into a tirade about the Latin Church's term to describe the mystery, while the Lutheran term, consubstantiation, remained unscathed, and the Liturgical Anglican Church, which either uses the same term Transubstantiation as Roman Catholics or the Lutheran term, consubstantiation, also, escaped the scathing. According to boxcar, it is only the Roman Catholics who believe the mystery of the Lord's body and are in error in assigning a term to explain the mystery.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Hmm...sounds like God did the same thing with the men who murdered Jesus.
So, who is responsible: God or the actual murderers?

Acts 4:27-28
27 "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Thy holy servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur.
NASB

Wow! So, what sayest thou? Are Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel innocent of Jesus' death and God guilty thereof?

Boxcar

Another false premise, God's guilt. Can you ask any question without a false premise? Since salvation comes from God who is seated on the throne and the lamb, I would say God is responsible for salvation, as Scripture states. Scripture does not assign guilt to God, so why would you, being so knowledgeable about Scripture, ever ask such a question?

As for the human beings' guilt or innocence is in the sole providence of the sovereign God and not for me to determine.

Scripture seems to indicate that Pilate is innocent of any guilt symbolized by Pilate washing his hands. What do you think?

[Show Me the Wire]

Since in post #14313 you were talking about man's guilt, I ask you again?

What should man deserve in this fallen world,? Does man deserve all the pain, suffering, and agony God can pile upon man?

[Show Me the Wire]

You are saying that it was at once real, genuine blood and at the same time it was still wine since it retained the likeness and quality of wine. Pure, unadulterated doublespeak! You should listen to yourself! You're saying that Jesus changed the wine into his blood, yet the wine didn't really change at all since it still retained the likeness and quality of what it what it really was before it was changed!

That is why the Western Liturgical churches and the Eastern Orthodoxy declare the act as a mystery. It is a mystery under the species of bread and wine.

on January 6, 1994, the bishops assembled affirmed "that Christ in the eucharist makes himself present sacramentally and truly when under the species of bread and wine these earthy realities are changed into the reality of his body and blood. In English the terms substance, substantial, and substantially have such physical and material overtones that we, adhering to The Final Report, have substituted the word truly for the word substantially

Anglican-Roman Catholic Dialogue in the United States of America

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Another false premise, God's guilt. Can you ask any question without a false premise? Since salvation comes from God who is seated on the throne and the lamb, I would say God is responsible for salvation, as Scripture states. Scripture does not assign guilt to God, so why would you, being so knowledgeable about Scripture, ever ask such a question?

As for the human beings' guilt or innocence is in the sole providence of the sovereign God and not for me to determine.

First of all, I didn't assign guilt to God. I asked you a question. You see, PA, Thask and others here have assigned guilt to God. And since you're so worldly-minded, I wanted to know if you believe as they do. Very reasonable question given your state of mind.

So, you don't believe the first "pope" when he said:

Acts 3:14-16
14 You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. 15 You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.
NIV

Seems like "papa1" is flat out accusing his brethren, according to flesh, of putting Christ to death. Don't you agree? So, what we have here are guilty people carrying out God's decree. How do you reconcile that in your mind, since you say that God is not morally culpable? I mean...someone is! And did those who carried out God's predetermined plan to the letter do so of their own "free will"? Or did God's predestination force them to sin by carrying out his eternal plan?

Or let's take this a little further. God allowed Satan to possess Judas! (Now talk about someone being "controlled" by another entity!) So, is Judas guilty of betraying Christ or did the devil make him do it, since God granted Satan that power? Can Judas really be accountable since it appears he wasn't in control of his faculties?

Scripture seems to indicate that Pilate is innocent of any guilt symbolized by Pilate washing his hands. What do you think?

I think you're wetter than Pilate's hands were. Jesus never told Pilate that he was innocent. Quite the contrary!

John 19:11
11 Jesus answered, "You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me up to you has the greater sin."
NASB

"Greater sin" does not equate to no sin for Pilate! Jesus never absolved Pilate of any sin or guilt. Pilate knew in his heart that Jesus was innocent, but he was a coward and feared political fallout from Rome based on the Jews' threats. So, he defiled his own conscience, I'm sure, by acquiescing to the persistent demands of the Jews.

Get back to me on these questions. We could have a very interesting discussion, providing you have no fear of being hog-tied in short order.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

That is why the Western Liturgical churches and the Eastern Orthodoxy declare the act as a mystery. It is a mystery under the species of bread and wine.



Anglican-Roman Catholic Dialogue in the United States of America

Yeah, it's a mystery alright. A very convenient excuse. So, there was no miracle -- just a mystery. Cute.

But there was nothing mysterious about Jesus' words in MK 14:25. Unlike the "infallible" popes who are always changing their stories, Jesus (the truly infallible One) spoke plainly. In His mind, he drank wine and told his disciples that he wouldn't drink AGAIN of the "fruit of the vine" until the kingdom comes.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Since in post #14313 you were talking about man's guilt, I ask you again?

What should man deserve in this fallen world,? Does man deserve all the pain, suffering, and agony God can pile upon man?

This is like asking, how often do I beat my wife?

But what did "blameless" Job say about suffering, pain and agony?

Job 2:10
10 But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.
KJV

Surely, you agree with Job, do you not?

And don't you know that both good and evil come forth from God's mouth?

Isa 45:7
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
KJV

Surely, you don't question God's sovereign prerogative in these things, do you? Nor do you question his righteous justice, do you?

Boxcar

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Yeah, it's a mystery alright. A very convenient excuse. So, there was no miracle -- just a mystery. Cute.

But there was nothing mysterious about Jesus' words in MK 14:25. Unlike the "infallible" popes who are always changing their stories, Jesus (the truly infallible One) spoke plainly. In His mind, he drank wine and told his disciples that he wouldn't drink AGAIN of the "fruit of the vine" until the kingdom comes.

Boxcar

Keep showing your bias. Do Lutherans follow the Pope, how about Anglicans, or the Eastern Orthodox Churches? Do you not understand they believe in the Real Presence in the species of bread and wine too? Do any of these other Catholic or Protestant denominations listen to the Pope? No.

So what is the relevance of bringing up the Pope when you are talking about the majority of the Christian world believing in the Real Presence? Absolutely none, except to further your agenda of hate toward Rome.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

This is like asking, how often do I beat my wife?

Boxcar

Not at all. I don't follow your method of false premise. There is no false premise in my question. Piper admittedly believes man deserves all the pain, suffering, and misery God can pile on man. This is a theological position of some of your ilk.

My question only asks the same of you. Do you believe man in his fallen condition deserves all the pain, suffering and misery God can pile on?

Surely, you don't question God's sovereign prerogative in these things, do you? Nor do you question his righteous justice, do you?

Not even in the ballpark regarding my question about your belief what man deserves. However, in your belief do you believe God in His righteousness heaps pain, suffering,and misery as a condition of man's fallen state?

[Show Me the Wire]

John 19:11
11 Jesus answered, "You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me up to you has the greater sin."
NASB

Sin can be forgiven. So, you are asking about culpability. What was Pilate's sin, saying he had authority over Jesus, because Pilate's authority came from God?

Culpability is not necessarily sin. Culpability is being responsible for the act, guilt. Innocence is not being responsible for the act, usually due to mitigating circumstances.

cul·pa·bil·i·ty
ˌkəlpəˈbilitē/Submit
noun
responsibility for a fault or wrong; blame.

When you are caught speeding, while driving, you are culpable, you do not sin. If circumstances dictate speeding to save a life you are not culpable, in other words you are not responsible. Even homicide is justifiable, meaning without culpability.

So the passage you cite does not address Pilate's culpability, guilt or innocence as to his part in history.

Just another penchant of yours assigning equal meanings to unequally defined words.

[Show Me the Wire]

Get back to me on these questions. We could have a very interesting discussion, providing you have no fear of being hog-tied in short order.

Now that is humorous.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Not at all. I don't follow your method of false premise. There is no false premise in my question. Piper admittedly believes man deserves all the pain, suffering, and misery God can pile on man. This is a theological position of some of your ilk.

My question only asks the same of you. Do you believe man in his fallen condition deserves all the pain, suffering and misery God can pile on?

My answer is this: Whatever God sovereignly "piles on" would be just. Do you agree with that? Do you agree that both good and evil come from God's mouth? Do you believe, like Job, that we should be willing to accept both the good and evil that comes from God?

Ultimately, all the evil that was "piled on" Job came from whom: God or Satan?

Not even in the ballpark regarding my question about your belief what man deserves. However, in your belief do you believe God in His righteousness heaps pain, suffering,and misery as a condition of man's fallen state?

What does man "deserve"? Certainly not heaven; for the wages of sin is death. And all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Do you think eternal suffering in hell is unjust punishment for sin?

Boxcar