Salvation, Faith, Baptism

[st. Worm]

"The fallacy of

[st. Worm]

"Why wasn't David treated like a true son, then?"

Nebula,

You have chosen this smoke and mirrors response and refused to address the question which was about original sin and David's confession regarding his status as a sinner even at the time of his conception. If you read this Psalm and come away with anything other than the idea that we are born as sinners and in need of forgiveness even at conception then you are really missing the point of the Psalm. His anguish is what ours should be as we confess our sins and ask for God's mercy. This is also the attitude we should bring when we come to partake at the Lord's Supper.

Edited January 1, 2006 by st. Worm

[susansduval]

"The fallacy of

[kittylover0991]

I seem to recall these verses, I added the few in between teh two for context

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come

[st. Worm]

"Anyone foolish enough to use Psalm 51:5 to justify the doctrine that sin is inherited from one

[st. Worm]

horizeneast quote:

Regardless of the importance one puts in the traditions of men, i.e., Aquinas. Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, etc, etc, etc - "...Let God be true and every man a liar". ...

The doctrine of

[nebula]

Hey st. Worm -

Please, I'm not trying to be argumentative in this way.

But there is something I need to ask of you:

You seem to have an aversion to the "Quote" feature. How come?

There's nothing wrong with not using it, per se, but as far as reading goes, it is easier for readers to follow when the "Quote" feature is used.

Think of it as one of those Board courtesy things.

(Note, this is a request and a reason for the request, not a mandate, and not meant to have anything whatsoever to do with the debate at hand, OK?)

**

Now back to the discussion.

"Why wasn't David treated like a true son, then?"

Nebula,

You have chosen this smoke and mirrors response and refused to address the question which was about original sin and David's confession regarding his status as a sinner even at the time of his conception.

Remember when I said this was a "bunny trail"? I wasn't bringing this point up to argue about "original sin" and all that jazz. "Bunny trail" is an expression I picked up somewhere meaning that the subject wwas going off-topic from the debate.

So to say I have chosen this "smoke and mirrors response" isn't what I was intending. I wasn't even intending on engaging in the "original sin" debate.

I was mearly looking at this portion of the Psalm you mentioned and seeing if it was applied as it was meant or not.

If it means anything to you, the concept about David I brought up is not one I made up. I learned of it from others. Obviously, these men who actually researched the topic had more evidence to offer to present their case with than I fumbled out. Mind you, the presentation given wasn't about "original sin" or anything like that. The passage in Psalms was part of a chain of Scripturea used to show a feature of David that people haven't tended to see - that he was a product of disfunctional family relations. Putting a more human face to David this way made me apreciate more the work the Lord did in him and how the Lord used him. The Lord used a young man rejected of his father (why else would he not have presented David before Samuel with the others?) to be the greatest of kings. Looking at David this way also helped make sense of the family problems David had himself with his own children (you recall the troubles he had to endure with tsomeof them?). Such understanding has meaning to those of us raised in broken homes dealing with the after-affects. Just because we don't have perfect family relations and are unable to be perfect parents or model employees or whatever, it doesn't negate the Lord's favor over us nor His ability to use us.

That's why this topic is so dear to my heart and why I dared venture into it. Don't you see that?

If you read this Psalm and come away with anything other than the idea that we are born as sinners and in need of forgiveness even at conception then you are really missing the point of the Psalm. His anguish is what ours should be as we confess our sins and ask for God's mercy. This is also the attitude we should bring when we come to partake at the Lord's Supper.

Psalm 51:5 -

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me. (NKJV)

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. (KJV)

To read this verse as is, I see David saying his mother conceived him in sin. I agree with the theologians that have made claims of david having been an illigitimate child, for that stigmatism would have burned deeplyin his heart. Recall the stigmatism that illigitiate children are given. Considering the sin he committed, producing an illigitimate child, why would this have not burdened his heart in his prayer?

In Psalm 51, David wasn't beseaching the Lord about general sin, but the specific sins of adultary and murder, sins for which he should have been punished by death according to the Law. Yet the Lord tokk the life of his son, conceived in sin (illigitimately), instead.

I agree with this interpretation for another reason as well. Remember the reason for Martin Luther rejecting the teaching of the catholic Church? Luther was incredibly sin-conscious, wasn't he? Always berrating himself for sin upon sin? Yet he read in Romans about justification by faith, correct?

So, why continue to berate yourself for sin nature, when by faith you have been justified and made clean?

David's anguish was over specific sin, not "woe is me, I'm an evil being."

There is no need to eat yourself over and over when the Lord has already declared you clean.

***

Since you are pushing the matter of the Lord's supper with this, I might as well comment here, too.

I have to disagree with you on the focus.

When Jesus gave the bread and wine to His disciples, did He say, "Remember your sin?"

No, He said, "Remember Me."

When you take the Lord's supper, is your focus on yourself and what the Lord can do for you, or is your focus on Him?

The Lord has made you clean through your faith in His death-sacrifice on the cross, so why berate yourself as a sinner over and over when you approach the Lord's table?

Edited January 1, 2006 by nebula

[st. Worm]

horizen,

My humble advice to you is go find a decent seminary near your home if you can and take a good course in church history. Also try and find a course on Luther's theology that hopefully will include a comprehensive study on his views regarding the Sacraments so then you will see how different his views are than the RCC. If you can't find one let me know and I will recommend some good writings you can read. Then, take a course in systematic theology and then one on the Old Testament and one on the New Testament. Then come back when you are done and we will discuss baptism on hopefully the same level.

Blessings,

Saint Worm

[ted]

Well, this thread is certainly a bright spot, isn't it?

How about everyone that is tossing little snide remarks around take the matter up in PM to each other?

That way, maybe the thread can continue with some sort of civility.

t.

Edited January 1, 2006 by ted

[st. Worm]

With regard to the Psalm, Nebula you are refusing to read the verse you point out in context to the verses around it. David is clearly confessing not only his sinful actions but the fact he was a sinner from the time of his conception. There is simply no other way to interpret this if you read all of the verses together. Just saying it has to do with his mother does not make it so. Why in the world would David confess sin for being an illegitimate child? Even if true, it certainly was not his sin.

As far as Luther goes, he knew that even though he was declared just in the sight of God for Christ's sake, that he was also still a sinner. Same goes for you and me and David. Paul lamented that in spite of his salvation that he was still the chief of sinners. The Bible tells us to confess our sins and God will faithfully forgive us.

The Lord's Supper is not something we do for God. It is something God does for us. It is a means of grace. We come to the Table sorry for our sins and sad that we are not more obedient and better Christians. We do come to remember what Jesus did for us but that is not the main purpose of the Sacrament. It is God's good service to us.

At the cross Christ did not make us clean as you say, but suffered our punishment and drank the cup of wrath that should be ours. We are then counted as righteous and receive the benefits of the cross by faith. However we continue to sin in thought word and deed. Does your church not have a time of corporate confession during the service?

I recommend reading something from a Lutheran perspective about what Luther really believed because you seem to have a very skewed view so I assume you are receiving biased information about that. I was where you are now several years ago. I had no idea of things like original sin and the Sacraments. I was told those were just old Roman Catholic terms and not relevant today. How wrong I was.