Protestantism in 15, 20 + years?

[movwater]

I’m not sure where this came from, but Lutherans don’t accept any of the three.

Jon

Then just what do Lutherans accept? If not Transubstantiation; Consubstantiation or Impanation? Where may I find this fact? I am afraid the all evidence points in a different direction. Please show where this Lutheran teaching are incorrect:

Distinctive teachings

In doctrine official Lutheranism is part of what is called orthodox Protestantism, since it agrees with the Catholic and the Greek Churches in accepting the authority of the Scriptures and of the three most ancient creeds (the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed). Besides these formulæ of belief, Lutheranism acknowledges six specific confessions which distinguish it from other churches:

the unaltered Augsburg Confession (1530),
the Apology of the Augsburg Confession (1531),
Luther's Large Catechism (1529),
Luther's Catechism for Children (1529),
the Articles of Smalkald (1537), and
the Form of Concord (1577).

These nine symbolical books (including the three Creeds) constitute what is known as the “Book of Concord”, which was first published at Dresden in 1580 by order of Elector Augustus of Saxony (see PROTESTANT CONFESSIONS OF FAITH). In these confessions the Scriptures are declared to be the only rule of faith. The extent of the Canon is not defined, but the bibles in common use among Lutherans have been generally the same as those of other Protestant denominations (see CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES). The symbols and the other writings not contained in Scripture do not possess decisive authority, but merely show how the Scriptures were understood and explained at particular times by the leading theologians (Form of Concord).

The chief tenet of the Lutheran creed, that which Luther called “the article of the standing and falling Church”, has reference to the justification of sinful man. Original sin is explained as a positive and total depravity of human nature, which renders all the acts of the unjustified, even those of civil righteousness, sinful and displeasing to God. Justification, which is not an internal change, but an external, forensic declaration by which God imputes to the creature the righteousness of Christ, comes only by faith, which is the confidence that one is reconciled to God through Christ. Good works are necessary as an exercise of faith, and are rewarded, not by justification (which they presuppose), but by the fulfilment of the Divine promises (Apology Aug. Conf.).

Other distinctive doctrines of the Lutheran Church are:

consubstantiation (although the symbols do not use this term), i.e. the real, corporeal presence of Christ's Body and Blood during the celebration of the Lord's Supper, in, with, and under the substance of bread and wine, in a union which is not hypostatic, nor of mixture, nor of local inclusion, but entirely transcendent and mysterious;
the omnipresence of the Body of Christ, which is differently explained by the commentators of the Symbolical Books.

Since the official formulæ of faith claim no decisive authority for themselves, and on many points are far from harmonious, the utmost diversity of opinion prevails among Lutherans. Every shade of belief may be found among them, from the orthodox, who hold fast to the confessions, to the semi-infidel theologians, who deny the authority of the Scriptures. From: Lutheranism at: newadvent.org/cathen/09458a.htm

 

[JonNC]

The question is not Consubstantiation (See Consubstantiation at: newadvent.org/cathen/04322a.htm) but Impanation (See Impanation at: newadvent.org/cathen/07694a.htm.) Neither are the truth of Transubstantiation (See: Transubstantiation at: newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section3).

IMMHO, It is not evident, Jon, just what you do believe.

I believe, “Take and eat. This is my body” etc.

The bread and wine are truly and substantially the body and blood of Christ.

Jon

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Note the bolded, if you will. Luther’s translation includes the DC’s.

Jon

:yup:

So did the first edition of the King James Version.

They did forget to put them in the right order I think

 

[Isaiah45_9]

He is also “arguably the most influential living Protestant theologian” - of course, I guess that doesn’t matter to you. You apparently have too much invested in Martin Luther to see the truth.

It’s better to attack the problem and not the individual. It helps to prevent an ad hominem atmosphere.

 

[JonNC]

:yup:

So did the first edition of the King James Version.

They did forget to put them in the right order I think

In that way they may have followed Luther’s example, but I’m not sure. Luther placed the DC’s and Prayer of Manasseh in a section between the OT and NT, which was not in keeping with the history the written scripture, but ironically is in keeping with where the DC’s fit historically.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Then just what do Lutherans accept? If not Transubstantiation; Consubstantiation or Impanation? Where may I find this fact? I am afraid the all evidence points in a different direction. Please show where this Lutheran teaching are incorrect:

Distinctive teachings

In doctrine official Lutheranism is part of what is called orthodox Protestantism, since it agrees with the Catholic and the Greek Churches in accepting the authority of the Scriptures and of the three most ancient creeds (the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed). Besides these formulæ of belief, Lutheranism acknowledges six specific confessions which distinguish it from other churches:

the unaltered Augsburg Confession (1530),
the Apology of the Augsburg Confession (1531),
Luther's Large Catechism (1529),
Luther's Catechism for Children (1529),
the Articles of Smalkald (1537), and
the Form of Concord (1577).

These nine symbolical books (including the three Creeds) constitute what is known as the “Book of Concord”, which was first published at Dresden in 1580 by order of Elector Augustus of Saxony (see PROTESTANT CONFESSIONS OF FAITH). In these confessions the Scriptures are declared to be the only rule of faith. The extent of the Canon is not defined, but the bibles in common use among Lutherans have been generally the same as those of other Protestant denominations (see CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES). The symbols and the other writings not contained in Scripture do not possess decisive authority, but merely show how the Scriptures were understood and explained at particular times by the leading theologians (Form of Concord).

The chief tenet of the Lutheran creed, that which Luther called “the article of the standing and falling Church”, has reference to the justification of sinful man. Original sin is explained as a positive and total depravity of human nature, which renders all the acts of the unjustified, even those of civil righteousness, sinful and displeasing to God. Justification, which is not an internal change, but an external, forensic declaration by which God imputes to the creature the righteousness of Christ, comes only by faith, which is the confidence that one is reconciled to God through Christ. Good works are necessary as an exercise of faith, and are rewarded, not by justification (which they presuppose), but by the fulfilment of the Divine promises (Apology Aug. Conf.).

Other distinctive doctrines of the Lutheran Church are:

consubstantiation (although the symbols do not use this term), i.e. the real, corporeal presence of Christ's Body and Blood during the celebration of the Lord's Supper, in, with, and under the substance of bread and wine, in a union which is not hypostatic, nor of mixture, nor of local inclusion, but entirely transcendent and mysterious;
the omnipresence of the Body of Christ, which is differently explained by the commentators of the Symbolical Books.

Since the official formulæ of faith claim no decisive authority for themselves, and on many points are far from harmonious, the utmost diversity of opinion prevails among Lutherans. Every shade of belief may be found among them, from the orthodox, who hold fast to the confessions, to the semi-infidel theologians, who deny the authority of the Scriptures. From: Lutheranism at: newadvent.org/cathen/09458a.htm

Your evidence is from the Catholic New Advent.

From a Lutheran source, specifically our confessions:

The Seventh Article teaches the real and substantial presence of the true body and blood of Christ; their sacramental union in, with, and under the elements of bread and wine; the oral manducation or eating and drinking of both substances by unbelieving as well as believing communicants. It maintains that this presence of the body and blood of Christ, though real, is neither an impanation nor a companation, neither a local inclusion nor a mixture of the two substances, but illocal and transcendent. It holds that the eating of the body and the drinking of the blood of Christ, though truly done with the mouth of the body, is not Capernaitic, or natural, but supernatural. It affirms that this real presence is effected, not by any human power, but by the omnipotent power of Christ in accordance with the words of the institution of the Sacrament.

Jon

 

[Symphorian]

Really? Then how did they all agree on one “truncated” Bible that leaves out many of Jesus, the Christ’s teaching. King James had no miraculous calling that I am aware of?

The King James Bible used in the Church of England is not truncated. (Neither were the earlier Great Bible or Bishop’s Bible). The Lectionaries of all versions of the Book of Common Prayer contain lessons from the Deuterocanon.
movwater;:

I think it is fascinating the King Henry VIII relied heavily on Martin Luther when he, too, broke with Rome, to establish his Church of England (Anglican) Protestant sect.

Henry was broadly hostile to Lutheran theology. The English formularies of Henry’s reign gave little comfort to those looking for a reform on Lutheran principles. Henry’s Reformation was one of church structure, not doctrine.

 

[movwater]

I believe, “Take and eat. This is my body” etc.

The bread and wine are truly and substantially the body and blood of Christ.

Jon

Than just what is problem with the Church of Rome? Reconciliation? The Pope?

 

[movwater]

The King James Bible used in the Church of England is not truncated. (Neither were the earlier Great Bible or Bishop’s Bible). The Lectionaries of all versions of the Book of Common Prayer contain lessons from the Deuterocanon…

So you accept Maccabees praying for the dead? Than what is your beef with the Church of Rome, other than the Vicar of Christ?

Henry was broadly hostile to Lutheran theology. The English formularies of Henry’s reign gave little comfort to those looking for a reform on Lutheran principles. Henry’s Reformation was one of church structure, not doctrine.

And upon just what doctrine did Henry base his usurpation of the Church’s authority in England? It certainly wasn’t the Magna Carta, nor the Gospel. Possibly the right of kings? Henry used Luther’s rebellion to support his own. BTW, I believe his friend, St.Thomas Moore, couldn’t say the same thing about the comfort that Henry’s extended to him. St. Thomas was a true Martyr who died, rather than renounce his Roman Catholic Faith.

 

[movwater]

Note the bolded, if you will. Luther’s translation includes the DC’s. Jon

And you point is what? That Luther was lost and couldn’t make up his mind? The bottom line is his own words on justification. How do you (he) reconcile his heretic theory of Antinomianism (See: Antinomianism at: newadvent.org/cathen/01564b.htm with the plan words of the Epistle of James?

 

[Peebo]

I wonder where the Catholic Church will be in 15-20 years…in Brazil Catholics are leaving the church in droves and turning to Pentecostal churches…in other Catholic countries throughout the world they are either leaving the church or just not going at all…even here in the US Catholics have left the church for Evangelical/Pentecostal churches…even young Latinos here in the US are not following the faith of their parents…the biggest percentage apparently don’t go at all…others go rarely and around 20% attend weekly…and many Catholics don’t follow church teachings on birth control…abortion…gay marriage…polls show Catholics are no different on social issues…when I became a Catholic back in 1992 I was told by an elderly Catholic that after Vatican 2 a large percentage of Catholics gave up attending mass…this person said it was the best thing that happened to the church as only Catholics who wanted to attend mass now did so…as where before Vatican 2 they were almost forced to go…maybe we (Catholics) will have to go through much purging in the for seeable future to sift the chaff from the wheat…the hope of the Catholic Church is that Christ is the head of our church…so it will still be here when he returns…maybe not as many followers:knight1:…but those who are will be on fire for Christ and his church. :knight1:

 

[movwater]

Your evidence is from the Catholic New Advent.

From a Lutheran source, specifically our confessions:

Jon

No, I will quote yours:“It holds that the eating of the body and the drinking of the blood of Christ, though truly done with the mouth of the body, is not Capernaitic, or natural, but supernatural. It affirms that this real presence is effected, not by any human power, but by the omnipotent power of Christ in accordance with the words of the institution of the Sacrament.”

However, it does not admit “Transubstantiation” - the the bread and wine has been transubstaniated into Jesus, the Christ’s ACTUAL body and blood. This come from Capernaitic describes something characterised by materialistic conceptions like those of the Capernaites. A Capernaite is a native or inhabitant of Capernaum or one who believes in transubstantiation."

Your quote proves that you and Luther rejected the teachings of Jesus, the Christ’s teachings in John 6. This teachings created the Church’s first heretic, Judas, who could not accept Transubstantiation, as taught by Jesus in Capernaum, and cause him to betray Jesus to Priests of the Temple.

Please see John 6, in context!

 

[steido01]

And you point is what? That Luther was lost and couldn’t make up his mind? The bottom line is his own words on justification. How do you (he) reconcile his heretic theory of Antinomianism (See: Antinomianism at: newadvent.org/cathen/01564b.htm with the plan words of the Epistle of James?

Without speaking for Jon, I think the point is rather clear: your accusation that “Luther removed books from the bible” is, frankly, bunk.

So we’re going from Scripture to Justification to accusations of Antinomianism? Pick one accusation at a time, please. It makes debunking much simpler.

Look, there is certainly a difference between our theologies- but you can’t pretend that Lutheranism doesn’t present a logical case for its beliefs. I wish PatriciusRex we’re in on this thread…

 

[movwater]

I wonder where the Catholic Church will be in 15-20 years…in Brazil Catholics are leaving the church in droves and turning to Pentecostal churches…in other Catholic countries throughout the world they are either leaving the church or just not going at all…even here in the US Catholics have left the church for Evangelical/Pentecostal churches…even young Latinos here in the US are not following the faith of their parents…the biggest percentage apparently don’t go at all…others go rarely and around 20% attend weekly…and many Catholics don’t follow church teachings on birth control…abortion…gay marriage…polls show Catholics are no different on social issues…when I became a Catholic back in 1992 I was told by an elderly Catholic that after Vatican 2 a large percentage of Catholics gave up attending mass…this person said it was the best thing that happened to the church as only Catholics who wanted to attend mass now did so…as where before Vatican 2 they were almost forced to go…maybe we (Catholics) will have to go through much purging in the for seeable future to sift the chaff from the wheat…the hope of the Catholic Church is that Christ is the head of our church…so it will still be here when he returns…maybe not as many followers:knight1:…but those who are will be on fire for Christ and his church. :knight1:

Hi, Peebo,

Why did come to the Church in 1992? Perhaps you can answer your own question. I am one of those cradle Catholic who stopped living my faith, and I blamed it on Vatican II instead of my own Slothfulness, and loss of direction. It took a real staring into the “face of Death,” along with a truly terrific Priest to get me back. I have now put my Life (and Death) into Christ’s hands and I can cope with minor problems of my health. I am trying very hard to stay on course, and witness to anyone who is willing to listen. The Church is strong and is growing stronger, Peebo. I believe in 15-20 years it will be even stronger, if all its faithful spread the Word.

God Bless,

Neal

 

[movwater]

Without speaking for Jon, I think the point is rather clear: your accusation that “Luther removed books from the bible” is, frankly, bunk.

So we’re going from Scripture to Justification to accusations of Antinomianism? Pick one accusation at a time, please. It makes debunking much simpler.

Look, there is certainly a difference between our theologies- but you can’t pretend that Lutheranism doesn’t present a logical case for its beliefs. I wish PatriciusRex we’re in on this thread…

Please see: Luther’s Treatment of the ‘Disputed Books’
of the New Testament at: bible-researcher.com/antilegomena.html

 

[movwater]

Without speaking for Jon, I think the point is rather clear: your accusation that “Luther removed books from the bible” is, frankly, bunk.

So we’re going from Scripture to Justification to accusations of Antinomianism? Pick one accusation at a time, please. It makes debunking much simpler.

Look, there is certainly a difference between our theologies- but you can’t pretend that Lutheranism doesn’t present a logical case for its beliefs. I wish PatriciusRex we’re in on this thread…

Unfortunately, Steido, logic is not the answer. If it were the Incarnation, Resurrection and the Ascension would not be dogma. Faith is more necessary than logic. That is is why Judas failed, despite his presence at the feet of Our Lord, his logic led him astray. The human mind can’t even get a good grip on the concept of Infinity, how can it logically deal with the miracles which was birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, the Christ?

 

[Peebo]

Hi, Peebo,

Why did come to the Church in 1992? Perhaps you can answer your own question. I am one of those cradle Catholic who stopped living my faith, and I blamed it on Vatican II instead of my own Slothfulness, and loss of direction. It took a real staring into the “face of Death,” along with a truly terrific Priest to get me back. I have now put my Life (and Death) into Christ’s hands and I can cope with minor problems of my health. I am trying very hard to stay on course, and witness to anyone who is willing to listen. The Church is strong and is growing stronger, Peebo. I believe in 15-20 years it will be even stronger, if all its faithful spread the Word.

God Bless,

Neal

Hi Neal…I was a Pentecostal where there is a strong emphasis on a literal translation of scripture…unless it didn’t fit with what the church believed…I could never get a satisfactory answer to the question of the authority of Peter…or the Eucharist…they were the two that bothered me most…I also felt that there was more to the Christian faith…there was no history…no tradition…churches would split over the interpretation of a verse of scripture…visiting preachers would come with healing ministries…people would declare they were healed…next time a visiting preacer came these same people would be up claiming they were healed again…to much preaching about the more you give the more you will receive…there wasn’t even a cross to show it was a church…mainly I felt God calling me to the Catholic faith…why the Catholic faith…God was way ahead of me… I was asking a Catholic friend about the Eucharist and the meaning…I asked him didn’t Jesus say "this my body do this in MEMORY of me…this is my blood do this in MEMORY of me…my friend quietly replied…Jesus said…THIS is my body do THIS in memory of me…THIS is my blood do THIS in memory of me…just that one little word…THIS…and it was like an epiphany to me on the true meaning of the body and blood of our Lord…that was 1992…I still am in awe of the truth and the fullness and beauty of the Catholic faith.

 

[WaitingForJesus]

Whoa, this exploded over a couple of days, I have not been near a computer and able to check the forum…PS this is going to be a long post …

Now for what I personally think:

Do in think that protestantism will be around in 15-20+ years, yes, however, after my grandparents generation passes, I think that it will look vastly different. Also I think there will be a great deal of liberalization… **I also see a lot more people coming to the Catholic Church due to learning Church history and the general luke-warmness of the protestant churches…of the 50 or so people in my confirmation class, this was something that we all had in common. **

That in a nutshell is my perception of the future of protestantism.

Yes, it has taken on a life of its own…

Great to hear about your confirmation class! I am praying for more conversions. God bless you.

 

[Brandall]

I wonder where the Catholic Church will be in 15-20 years…in Brazil Catholics are leaving the church in droves and turning to Pentecostal churches…in other Catholic countries throughout the world they are either leaving the church or just not going at all…even here in the US Catholics have left the church for Evangelical/Pentecostal churches…even young Latinos here in the US are not following the faith of their parents…the biggest percentage apparently don’t go at all…others go rarely and around 20% attend weekly…and many Catholics don’t follow church teachings on birth control…abortion…gay marriage…polls show Catholics are no different on social issues…when I became a Catholic back in 1992 I was told by an elderly Catholic that after Vatican 2 a large percentage of Catholics gave up attending mass…this person said it was the best thing that happened to the church as only Catholics who wanted to attend mass now did so…as where before Vatican 2 they were almost forced to go…maybe we (Catholics) will have to go through much purging in the for seeable future to sift the chaff from the wheat…the hope of the Catholic Church is that Christ is the head of our church…so it will still be here when he returns…maybe not as many followers:knight1:…but those who are will be on fire for Christ and his church. :knight1:

When the Second Vatican Council ended, I wasn’t Catholic and was in kindergarten. I’ve noticed that some that disagree with what the council proclaimed have blamed the council for the large number that have left the church.

Since the end of Vatican II, many things in this world have changed. In the US, in 1965, it was a different world in many ways. I remember in Kindergarten that year, we prayed before lunch in a public school, the black kids went to a separate school, most of the population went to church, most trusted the government, most tried to save sex for marriage, divorces were few, etc. Skip ahead nearly 50 years and babies are being killed in the name of women’s rights, most don’t attend church, more single parent homes and one of the big topics of the day is whether couples of the same sex can marry. Personally, I lay all of this on the fact that people and the world are ever changing and that can escalate when news travels faster. It was traveling fast in the 1960s and a lot faster now. The speed of these ideas being spread has led to them being accepted much faster, wrongly or rightly. It’s a lot easier to do some things, when you know that it is no longer the exception.

The main reason I chose to respond to your post was:

I was told by an elderly Catholic that after Vatican 2 a large percentage of Catholics gave up attending mass…this person said it was the best thing that happened to the church as only Catholics who wanted to attend mass now did so…as where before Vatican 2 they were almost forced to go…maybe we (Catholics) will have to go through much purging in the for seeable future to sift the chaff from the wheat…the hope of the Catholic Church is that Christ is the head of our church…so it will still be here when he returns…maybe not as many followers:knight1:…but those who are will be on fire for Christ and his church. :knight1:

It is my opinion that it is not a good thing that many no longer attend church services. Having spent time in my life, running from god, being out of church made it that much harder to get back to where I needed to be. Though it isn’t necessary for one to be in church for god to speak to you, you’re more likely to hear him if you’re in his house, listening for his voice.

There is a lot of angst in the Catholic Church that there is more than one body of believers. I’m not Catholic yet and have no such feelings. On the one hand, the amount of difference of beliefs is incredible. On the other, I’ve seen many people of different denominations that truly love god and know that god has used different churches for his purposes.

My mother truly believed that Jesus would come back in her earthly lifetime. Since she died in 2005, that didn’t happen. I saw her share that belief and I’ve read where Christians throughout history believed that end times were near. Realizing these things, I truly don’t think it will happen in my lifetime. If it does, I hope I’m ready for it and will strive to be ready for it. (Hopefully I will be sitting in a church pew when it happens) In the meantime, I will not be spending time trying to decipher end times or counting on it happening (in my lifetime).

Similarly, I don’t think there will be just one, for lack of a better term, Christian church in my lifetime, and probably won’t be when Jesus returns. I agree that different denominations should attempt to iron out their differences and become one. I agree that the RCC should continue to unite the body of Christ. In the meantime, all the bickering that I see among the different parts of the body of Christ seems fruitless, futile and totally unhelpful. Though I will be forever grateful that I realized and saw these things prior to coming into full communion with the RCC.

 

[movwater]

Hi Neal…I was a Pentecostal where there is a strong emphasis on a literal translation of scripture…unless it didn’t fit with what the church believed…I could never get a satisfactory answer to the question of the authority of Peter…or the Eucharist…they were the two that bothered me most…I also felt that there was more to the Christian faith…there was no history…no tradition…churches would split over the interpretation of a verse of scripture…visiting preachers would come with healing ministries…people would declare they were healed…next time a visiting preacer came these same people would be up claiming they were healed again…to much preaching about the more you give the more you will receive…there wasn’t even a cross to show it was a church…mainly I felt God calling me to the Catholic faith…why the Catholic faith…God was way ahead of me… I was asking a Catholic friend about the Eucharist and the meaning…I asked him didn’t Jesus say "this my body do this in MEMORY of me…this is my blood do this in MEMORY of me…my friend quietly replied…Jesus said…THIS is my body do THIS in memory of me…THIS is my blood do THIS in memory of me…just that one little word…THIS…and it was like an epiphany to me on the true meaning of the body and blood of our Lord…that was 1992…I still am in awe of the truth and the fullness and beauty of the Catholic faith.

Hi, Peebo,

Thank you for your sincere, heartfelt witness. Unfortunately, the Church Militant, here on Earth is made up of men. As we know from Scriptures, even God’s most favored men have faults. Even David, who talked with God, and who God raised up from a poor Shepard boy to King of the Jews, showed thi sad trait of man. Pride and ingratitude seem to be the road to sin and falling from grace. Interestingly, most Protestants seem to chide the Roman Catholic Church for its Sacrament of Reconciliation through Confession, saying it is not Biblical. I say they are incorrect, to wit:

2 Samuel 12

1 And the Lord sent Nathan to David: and when he was come to him, he said to him: There were two men in one city, the one rich, and the other poor.

2 The rich man had exceeding many sheep and oxen.

3 But the poor man had nothing at all but one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up, and which had grown up in his house together with his children, eating of his bread, and drinking of his cup, and sleeping in his bosom: and it was unto him as a daughter.

4 And when a certain stranger was come to the rich man, he spared to take of his own sheep and oxen, to make a feast for that stranger, who was come to him, but took the poor man’s ewe, and dressed it for the man that was come to him.

5 And David’s anger being exceedingly kindled against that man, he said to Nathan: As the Lord liveth, the man that hath done this is a child of death.

6 He shall restore the ewe fourfold, because he did this thing, and had no pity.

7 And Nathan said to David: Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord the God of Israel: I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee from the hand of Saul,

8 And gave thee thy master’s house and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and Juda: and if these things be little, I shall add far greater things unto thee.

9 Why therefore hast thou despised the word of the Lord, to do evil in my sight? Thou hast killed Urias the Hethite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.

10 Therefore the sword shall never depart from thy house, because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Urias the Hethite to be thy wife.

11 Thus saith the Lord: Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thy own house, and I will take thy wives before thy eyes I and give them to thy neighhour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.

12 For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing in the sight of all Israel, and in the sight of the sun.

13 And David said to Nathan: I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said to David: The Lord also hath taken away thy sin: thou shalt not die.

14 Nevertheless, because thou hast given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, for this thing, the child that is born to thee, shall surely die.

15 And Nathan returned to his house. The Lord also struck the child which the wife of Urias had borne to David, and his life was despaired of.

16 And David besought the Lord for the child: and David kept a fast, and going in by himself lay upon the ground.

17 And the ancients of his house came, to make him rise from the ground: but he would not, neither did he eat meat with them.

18 And it came to pass on the seventh day that the child died: and the servants of David feared to tell him, that the child was dead. For they said: Behold when the child was yet alive, we spoke to him, and he would not hearken to our voice: how much more will he afflict himself if we tell him that the child is dead?

19 But when David saw his servants whispering, he understood that the child was dead: and he said to his servants: Is the child dead? They answered him: He is dead.

Despite the fact that David conversed directly with the Lord, and the Lord with him, when he was with sin, the Lord turned His face from David, and sent his messenger (the Priest) Nathan to help David recognize his sin and repent. 2 Samuel 12 even shows that it wasn’t until David suffered through his penitence, the death of his illegitimate child with Bethsabee, did he, himself understand that his sins were forgiven and he was once again right with the Lord.

Be strong in faith, Peebo, and share your witness to any who will listen.

God Bless,

Neal