Posted on 01/14/2015 6:01:53 AM PST by Gamecock
Everyone who knows the Bible knows that King David was a great man. And yet everyone familiar with the Bible also recognizes that David did a lot of not-so-great things. Of course, there was the sin with Bathsheba, the murder of her husband Uriah, and the subsequent cover-up. That was not exactly delighting in the law of the Lord (Ps. 1:2). But there was also the ill-advised census motivated by David’s pride, not to mention a series of lessons in how not to manage your household well. For being a man after God’s own heart (Acts 13:22), David managed to follow his own heart quite a bit.
So with all these flaws, what made David great? One could easily mention David’s courage, his loyalty, his faith, and his success as a leader, musician, and warrior. But he was great in other, lesser-known ways as well. In particular, David was a great man because he was willing to overlook others’ sins but unwilling to overlook his own.
David was a gracious man, bearing with the failings of others, eager to give his enemies a second chance. Twice, while his friends advised him to strike down their enemy, David spared Saul’s life (1 Sam. 24; 26). Though Saul opposed him at every turn, David did not rejoice at his death, but he wept for the king and his son Jonathan (2 Sam. 1:17–27). David welcomed Abner when he defected from the phony king Ish-bosheth and mourned for him when distrusting Joab stuck him down (chap. 3). David was unnecessarily kind to Mephibosheth (chap. 9) and uncommonly patient with Shimei’s spiteful cursing (16:5–14). Later, David would pardon those who rebelled against him during Absalom’s insurrection (19:16–23). Time after time, David showed himself to be unlike the sons of Zeruiah who lived to hold grudges and settle scores. David knew how to forgive. More than anyone prior to Jesus, David loved his enemies. Like no other Old Testament king, David was willing to welcome rebels back to the fold and overlook the sins of those who had opposed him.
But amazingly, David’s kindhearted attitude toward his enemies did not translate into a soft attitude toward his own sins. Usually, people who are soft with others are soft with themselves, and those hardest on themselves are even harder on others. But David was different. He was gracious with others and honest with himself. I believe David’s greatness was simply this: as much as he sinned, he never failed to own up to his sin. I can’t find a single instance where David was rightly rebuked for his failings and then failed to heed the rebuke. When Nathan confronted David for his adultery and murder, David, after he saw what Nathan was up to, quickly lamented, “I have sinned against the Lord” (12:13). When Joab sent the woman of Tekoa to change David’s mind about Absalom, he listened (chap. 14). When Joab rebuked David for loving his treacherous son more than his loyal servants, David did what Joab told him to do (19:1–8). Joab was often wrong in his advice to David, but when he was right David saw it and changed course. Likewise, after his foolish census, David’s heart struck him and he confessed, “I have sinned greatly in what I have done” (24:10).
David knew how to forgive, and he knew how to repent, too. He never blamed others for his mistakes. He did not make excuses based on family history, peer pressure, or the demands of leadership. He did not use passive language, referring to his sin as a dysfunction or a growth edge. He did not lament over his sins simply because of the negative effects they could have on his kingdom and his relationships. He saw his transgressions primarily in their vertical dimension, as an offense against almighty God (Ps. 51:4). He never ran from the light when it exposed his darkness. Instead, he squinted hard, admitted his iniquity, and worked to make things right. When we consider how rare it is in our day for athletes, movie stars, and politicians to candidly and clearly take responsibility for their public sins, we should be all the more amazed that the king of Israel, arguably the most famous man in the history of God’s old covenant people, was humble enough to listen to the chastisement of those who were beneath him and change accordingly.
David was a man after God’s own heart because he hated sin but loved to forgive it. What better example of God could there be? God doesn’t just welcome His enemies in, He dies in their stead (Rom. 5:6–11). He is always eager to show mercy, always willing to give traitors a second chance. And yet, God is not soft on sin. He exposes it and calls on us to exterminate it (John 16:8–11; Col. 3:5). But of course, God, unlike David, is never guilty of His own sin. God showed His condescension not by humbling Himself before a needed rebuke, but by humbling Himself to take on human flesh and take up a cross (Phil. 2:5–8). David was great, but not nearly as great as his greater son.
I noticed how many times *schismatics* shows up.
The RCC allows NO dissent.
wow great research. So I think what it means then is that you go to a church that is not divorced from the Catholic Church.
Nice try.
No dice.
The problem Catholics have is that they think that the church one attends actually means something in terms of being saved as if salvation is found in a church or denomination.
In what way? Because he turned against the failures of the Catholic church?
He was a terrible antiSemite.
>>>So, are you a Martin Luther follower? He was an evil person. Or are you a King Henry follower? He too was evil. Better watch your comments lest they make you look ignorant.<<<
Top 10 Most Wicked Popes
http://listverse.com/2007/08/17/top-10-most-wicked-popes/
1. Liberius, reigned 352-66 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
2. Honorius I, reigned 625-638 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
3. Stephen VI, reigned 896-89 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
4. John XII, reigned 955-964 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
5. Benedict IX, reigned 1032-1048 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
6. Boniface VIII, reigned 1294-1303 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
7. Urban VI, reigned 1378-1389 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
8. Alexander VI, reigned 1492-1503 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
9. Leo X, reigned 1513-1521 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
10. Clement VII, reigned 1523-1524 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
Top 10 Worst Popes in History
http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-worst-popes-in-history.php
1. Pope Alexander VI (1431 – 1503)
2. Pope John XII (c. 937 – 964)
3. Pope Benedict IX (c. 1012 – 1065/85)
4. Pope Sergius III (? – 911)
5. Pope Stephen VI (? – 897)
6. Pope Julius III (1487 – 1555)
7. Pope Urban II (ca. 1035 – 1099)
8. Pope Clement VI (1291 – 1352)
9. Pope Leo X (1475 – 1521)
10. Pope Boniface VIII (c. 1235 – 1303)
Hater...
If that's the charge, then he should have attained sainthood from the Catholics. Just like their Pope Pius V from the same era did when he expelled the Jews from the Papal states. Now Luther talked poorly about Jews, your saintly Popes expel them from their homes. If I look, I'm sure I'll see the same level of condemnation for Pius V then, right? Thought not.
Well I don’t know about Pius, but if there is antiSemitism it is wrong. That said, I don’t cotton to the idea that every person who was appointed to Peter’s Chair was perfect or has to be regarded as having been perfect. Is everyone of your pastors or bishops or whatever you have perfect? Peter’s Chair is perfect. The broken humans chosen for it have big shoes to fill. Even Peter wasn’t perfect. Old David sure wasn’t perfect. Imperfect Popes paid for it I am sure when they were finally judged. That said there have been some great ones.
Article doesn't call David 'perfect', just great. He is called 'a man after God's heart'. Since his works obviously weren't perfect, how could this be?
As for Luther, no one calls him perfect. You called him an anti-semite which he was, that qualified him as 'evil person'. Yet the same sin acted upon as the Popes did doesn't qualify as evil with you, just 'imperfect'.
Then why the focus on every alleged little misstatement or possible error from Luther.
RC's demand perfection out of him and castigate him for stuff that they can't even prove, and yet when it's popes or priests.....
This is the kind of answer we get?
They hold Luther to standards that probably Jesus couldn't meet, and RC's blowing off heinous sin with *hey we're all just sinners, and nobody is perfect*.
Could any Catholic demonstrate some integrity and apply the same standard to ALL men instead of giving themselves a pass and condemning everyone not them?
Luther's track record pales in comparison to so many of your popes and priests.
Catholics need to quit being such hypocrites
we’re done metmom. I thought you were more measured than that.
More measured?
That I expect people to be fair in how they measure people?
That I expect Catholics to hold their own leaders to the same standard that they hold others?
Or excuse Luther like they excuse their own leadership?
Is there something wrong with expecting some impartiality?
Luther Derangement Syndrome is worse than I thought.
I think if it were not for double speak the Catholic Church and it's followers would be mute.
Roger that mom. I don't know a whole lot about Luther, but it looks like someone else here, who will remain unnamed, has Luther on the mind. Don't worry if someone thinks you should be more measured, whatever that means. Keep telling the truth, from another ex catholic, as you are too. CynicalB, whether it is called double speak, catholic speak or cult speak, it is all one and the same.
It ain't happened YET!!!
Our oxen NEVER get gored!!!
Yeah...
How DARE she mention the elephant in the room!?
bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.