James_Newman
New Member
DHK said:More accurately it was God chastixing him for his sin on this earth, just as a father chastises or disciplines his own child. It has no bearing on his salvation.
But it does have bearing on his sin. It was not a random act of chastening. You said this before:
Answer the question: Why did Jesus die?
He came to save us from our sins, in particular to pay the penalty for our sins. That penalty was paid with price of his own blood. All my sins: past present and future were paid for with the precious blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. That is what the atonement is all about. Christ came to pay a penalty that I could never pay. I can't pay the penalty for my sin: not in a Catholic purgatory or a Baptiat one.
Since we all agree that Christ paid 'the penalty' for our sins, why can't we narrow down what that penalty was? You admit that this payment did not cover chastening in this life. I believe David's sins were covered by the blood just like yours and mine, but nevertheless David reaped what he sowed with Bathsheba in the form of the death of his child. Call it whatever you wan't, that ought to cause a man to fear God and to desire to get the sin out of his life!
The kingdom was Saul's before he lost it. We could have been saying Christ the son of Saul if he had repented of his sins. The foreknowledge of God doesn't change the responsibility of man. But I don't believe Saul is even a picture of an unsaved man. Saul is a picture of a saved man who falls out of fellowship and loses the kingdom.This is how far off ME doctrine is. The Kingdom was David's whether he would have suddenly died of a heart attack or not. It was Christ who take David's throne. Remember: "Christ the son of David" But yet you would say: "Christ the son of a pagan (as is every unsaved man). That is blasphemy and a blasphemous doctrine. Whether or not David repented would have no bearing on him entering into the Kingdom. God had promised it to him, and does not lie.