The backbreaker

[athrock]

I don't think this is the message that is trying to get across. Even if you take the OT literally, which I certainly don't.   

Since the child was innocent of personal sins, we know that he/she would have been received into heaven immediately upon death. And in this way, the child was spared a lifetime of being mocked and scorned by the people of Israel who would have known that the child was the illegitimate son of David resulting from his adultery with Bathsheba.  

Basically, the child was not punished for what David did, as you seem to think. But rather, God showed mercy to the child by taking it to heaven. 

Respectfully, Cath, that's horse-hockey about the "lifetime of mockery". Solomon was the second child born of their liaison, and he ascended to the throne.

Let's be really clear, Rocket: David married Bathsheba after Uriah was killed. Consequently, Solomon was a legitimate son and heir to David's throne.

2 Samuel 11:26-27
26 When Uriah’s wife heard that her husband was dead, she mourned for him. 27 After the time of mourning was over, David had her brought to his house, and she became his wife and bore him a son. But the thing David had done displeased the Lord.

And whether or not that kid "ascended into heaven", it was still a *baby* who was tortured to death (via lingering disease) in order to punish his father. It clearly states that, A->B. 

"Tortured"? You know this for a fact how, Rocket? "Tortured" has all sorts of negative connotations, and you'll have to do more than simply assert that God "tortured" the child in order to make your point. Yes, ch. 12 discusses the matter in detail, and yes, God caused the illness which resulted in his death. But merely causing the child to die is not proof that God is a psychopath. Only people who do not hope for life after death would see things this way. You're in that camp, aren't you?

It's either one of two things: God is real and a psychopath, or else God is imaginary and this stuff about disease being the wrath of a deity is as ignorant as the people who claimed lightning striking someone was the wrath of Thor.

Or that God showed mercy to the child by taking him to heaven quickly where he has been enjoying the Beatific vision ever since. The either-or that you propose does not admit this possibility.

But that is due to YOUR presuppositions, isn't it?

Oh, one more point before I forget...your signature...some Protestant spoke to you about how it's not possible for someone to lose his or her salvation. I realize that you were raised in a Protestant home, but "once saved always saved" is a relatively modern Protestant heresy, and "Bible Christians" ought to know better.

In Romans 11:22, Paul says, "Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off." In Galatians 5:4, Paul says, "You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace." This verse implies that they were united with Christ and in grace before they fell. In 1 Corinthians 9:27, Paul again warns the Christians against being overconfident: "I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified."

This is not the language of "once saved always saved."