Did King David know about imputed righteousness?

A common Reformed doctrine is the view that a man is justified by God imputing (considering by merely declaring) a man righteous. He will not make the wicked man righteous, the man might still not be capable of doing anything good beyond faith, but God will pretend the man is righteousness nonetheless by cloaking the sinner He selected with the righteousness of Christ. Essentially creating a white washed sepulcher of a saint.

To support this concept of imputed righteousness many point to Romans 4:7-8

“Blessed are those whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the one whose sin the Lord will never count against them.”--Romans 4:7-8

It is supposed that because a man's sins are not 'counted against', or 'imputed to him' it means righteousness was imputed instead. This is important since this is quote the Old Testament, which would suggest justification in the Old Testament was similar to, if not the same as, in the New Testament.

Romans 4:7-8 is quoting Psalm 32:1-2:

 Blessed is the one
whose transgressions are forgiven,
    whose sins are covered.
Blessed is the one
    whose sin the Lord does not count against them
    and in whose spirit is no deceit.--Psalm 32:1-2

This was in reference to the sin with Bathsheba

Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” 

Nathan replied, “The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the Lord, the son born to you will die.”-- 2 Samuel 12:13-14

Some Protestants will point to the wording here. David is not directly begging for forgiveness, he does not say "forgive me, Lord" but instead "I have sinned against the LORD," they then claim the grammar implies David was forgiven before he repented which is why Nathan said, "The Lord has taken away your sin." They say 'has' means the LORD did it before the incident (possibly even from the minute he was regenerated). Though, it is much more likely Nathan was saying God forgave David the moment he acknowledged his sin, which was just then in the past by seconds to the time Nathan said God "has taken away your sin."

If this be the case that David had his sin forgiven from the time he was regenerate, long before the affair Bathsheba, and David is told about imputed righteousness, then why does David beg for forgiveness from the LORD much later for the census:

And David said unto the LORD: 'I have sinned greatly in what I have done; but now, O LORD, put away, I beseech You, the iniquity* of Your servant; for I have done very foolishly.'--2 Samuel 24:10 

*Some may object by using translations that read 'guilt' instead of 'iniquity', it is actually עֲוֺן  'avon which is usually translated "iniquity"--a major sin. In fact, the verse the doctrine revolves around Romans 4:8 is quoting Psalm 32:2 which uses the same exact word--עֲוֺן  'avon. Yet, we see in 2 Samuel 24:10, King David has to ask God to remove his 'avon.

Let's compare verses:

And David said to the LORD: 'I have sinned greatly in what I have done; but now, O LORD, put away, I beg You, the iniquity [עֲוֺן 'avon] of Your servant; for I have done very foolishly.' --2 Samuel 24:10

וַיֹּאמֶר דָּוִד אֶל-יְהוָה, חָטָאתִי מְאֹד אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי, וְעַתָּה יְהוָה הַעֲבֶר-נָא אֶת-עֲוֺן עַבְדְּךָ, כִּי נִסְכַּלְתִּי מְאֹד. 

with:

Happy is the man unto whom the LORD counts not iniquity [עָוֺן 'avon], and in whose spirit there is no guile.--Psalm 32:2

 אַשְׁרֵי אָדָם--לֹא יַחְשֹׁב יְהוָה לוֹ עָוֺן;    וְאֵין בְּרוּחוֹ רְמִיָּה

and again,

And David spoke to the LORD when he saw the angel that smote the people, and said: 'Lo, I have sinned, and I have done iniquitously; but these sheep, what have they done? let Your hand, I pray You, be against me, and against my father's house.'--2 Samuel 24:17

also repeated in

 And David said to God, I have sinned greatly, because I have done this thing: but now, I beg You, do away the iniquity of Your servant; for I have done very foolishly.--1 Chronicles 21:8

 "I beg you, take away the guilt"--this does not sound like the words of a man that knew about imputed righteousness. David begged God to only punish him and his family, not the entire nation. Was David asking God to impute sin to him and his own family by the Reformed's reasoning?  The fact that David begged for forgiveness makes it clear he believed God did impute the sin to him for the period of time he was impenitent.

Let us also compare the words used to expression forgiveness used in 2 Samuel 12 vs 2 Samuel 24's episode, we see the word "put away" or "pass" is used in both.

And David said unto Nathan: 'I have sinned against the LORD.'  And Nathan said unto David: 'The LORD also hath put away [הֶעֱבִיר he'evir] thy sin; thou shalt not die. --2 Samuel 12:13 

וַיֹּאמֶר דָּוִד אֶל-נָתָן, חָטָאתִי לַיהוָה;  וַיֹּאמֶר נָתָן אֶל-דָּוִד, גַּם-יְהוָה הֶעֱבִיר חַטָּאתְךָ--לֹא תָמוּת. 

Now see the word used in 2 Samuel 24:10:

And David said unto the LORD: 'I have sinned greatly in what I have done; but now, O LORD, put away [הַעֲבֶר ha'aver], I beseech Thee, the iniquity of Thy servant; for I have done very foolishly.' --2 Samuel 24:10 

וַיֹּאמֶר דָּוִד אֶל-יְהוָה, חָטָאתִי מְאֹד אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי, וְעַתָּה יְהוָה הַעֲבֶר-נָא אֶת-עֲוֺן עַבְדְּךָ, כִּי נִסְכַּלְתִּי מְאֹד.

Both are H5674 in Strong's Concordance (note a concordance is not a lexicon) just used in different forms.

2 Samuel 24 and 2 Samuel 12 both use the same word but in use chapter 12 to inform David he as been forgiven, and chapter 24 to beg God to forgive David. Since 2 Samuel 12 is being commented on by Psalm 32, which is about not imputing iniquity, forgiving sins, etc. it would follow even more so that David did not believe he was permanently justified/forgiven before God irrespective of his conduct.

It is pretty obvious David is saying God did not count his iniquity once David confessed his sin. This is made even more obvious reading the rest of the Psalm:

When I kept silence, my bones wore away through my groaning all the day long. For day and night Your hand was heavy upon me;  my sap was turned as in the droughts of summer. Selah I acknowledged my sin unto You, and my iniquity have I not hid; I said: 'I will make confession concerning my transgressions to the LORD'-- and You, You forgave the iniquity of my sin. Selah--Psalm 32:3-5

He was silent...that David did not confess his sin, so he groaned about his condition.

The hand of the Lord was heavy--God pushing him to repent for his sin against God.

I acknowledged my sin......I will make confession concerning my transgressions...and Thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin"....That is to say--David sinned, David repented, and God took away David's iniquity at this point.

It is clear that David was not "imputed" with his sin as a result of his confession of the sin, not because he was already forgiven a long time in advance. King David who some suppose taught imputed righteousness, sure seemed to lack confidence in his security of salvation due to his moral failings. David certainly was not Luther who believed in a Christian as being simultaneously being a saint and a sinner.

However, when you string together a system based in part on the unbiblical doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement, such hoop jumping becomes routine, necessary, and inevitable.

Desperate Protestant arguments to "prove" Mary is not the Mother of God

The other day I encountered the most desperate arguments by Protestants to explain why Jesus did not have original sin, without having a sinless Mary--God forbid should the woman the Lord chose be sinless! They likewise concocted some screwy reasons why Mary was not really Jesus' mother!

 One of them was arguing that Jesus has blood that was special and did not have sin--as if sin were transmitted in the blood, or that blood in of its self were evil.  The fact is when the bible calls blood righteous or blameless it's an expression for the righteousness of the person being killed. It's not refering at all to "sinful blood." To say that blood itself transfers sins is smacking with gnostic doctrine which believes the physical world to be evil. I was continually question by people if "blood passes to the child"-which it generally does not, however DOES occassionally happen, they were trying to argue that somehow this proves Jesus did not get "Mary's tainted blood", yet what they fail to realize if in the womb they themselves do not get their mother's "tainted" blood, NOR THEIR FATHERS! So why are not all men conceived without original sin or "sin nature" as they prefer to say? (As a side note, they seem to be ignorant that a child's blood is determined by a combination of the mother and fathers, eg. if the mother is AA and the father is OO the child will be AO; also, ignorant of the fact that modern biology says the mother is the one that accepts the seed via chemical signals, though neither of these are really relevant to the discussion).  Now, continuing she pretends Acts 17:26 somehow proves sin is passed in the blood--though it only says (and only in certain manuscripts) that all men were made of "one blood" (ie Adam), yet she conveniently forgets that Christ too is a "man."  So apparently "all does not always mean all" applies here too! Regardless, this verse in no way speaks of sin being passed in the blood. Even Jesus spoke of other people's blood as being "just":

upon you may come all the just blood that hath been shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel the just, even unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom you killed between the temple and the altar.--Matthew 23:35

Dare we interpret this to mean their physical blood was a better quality than the rest of man's "sinful blood'"? After all, they too were of the "one blood" of Adam! This is the some person I addressed in a previous Question and Answer session over this issue.  People continued to argue that Jesus was not of Mary because she was sinful, so He could have "none of her DNA or blood."  In this desperation to discount Mary they make Jesus a false Messiah because He had to be of the tribe of Judah to be King.  Furthermore, he is called the "seed of David"--so he must be of the "blood line" of David.  If He did not have anything from Mary--how was He the "seed" of David at all?

Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?--John 7:42

In fact, this is not the only verse in the Scriptures which call Him the "seed of David."  St Paul even makes it clear He speaks of Christ being a literal descendant of David by also adding that Christ was of the "seed of David ACCORDING to the FLESH."

Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;--Romans 1:3

Another person tried to make an even more desperate against Mary by saying that Jesus' body was prepare in Hebrews means God created a body for Jesus then placed it inside of Mary.

For this reason, when he came into the world, he said: "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; holocausts and sin offerings you took no delight in."--Hebrews 10:5-6

Nothing in this verse at all implies God created a body outside of the Virgin Mary, in fact if it did it would contradict the Scripture when it says:

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.--Isaiah 9:6

Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus.--Luke 1:30-31

Why does the Archangel Gabriel call it conceiving, if according these Protestants God merely relocated an already made body inside of Mary for Jesus?

Furthermore, why is Jesus refered to as the "fruit of the womb" of Mary if Jesus is not the fruit that was produce from Mary via an umbilical cord? Also, how can these people even argue Jesus is the one being spoken of as the "seed of the woman" in Genesis 3:15 if Jesus is not Mary's seed? (This is an argument from a Protestant prespective, since all Christians are actually the "seed of the woman" spoken of in Genesis, not simply Christ, though He fulfills the role first and foremost and without that seed none of the others ones would prosper in overcoming the serpent).

 Why shouldn't we simply believe the Holy Spirit when speaking through Elizabeth the Blessed Virgin Mary is declared to be the "mother of my Lord"?

And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?--Luke 1:43

In summary: Mary is called the "Mother" of the Lord, Jesus is called the "seed of David according to the flesh" by St Paul, Mary is told she will "conceive" in her womb (not be implanted with a preexistent body), and Jesus is called the "fruit of her womb," so there is NO reason to speculate Jesus was not a physical descendant of the Virgin Mary.

Addition: I have also encountered people objecting to calling Mary the Mother of God on the basis that she did not bear the Father and the Holy Spirit.  However, this reasoning is faulty in that it would mean that Jesus is not God since He is not the Father and the Spirit.  If such requirements were needed to make Mary the Mother of God, then Jesus, nor any other member of the Trinity maybe called God on Their own since, no person of the Trinity is Himself all Three!  Thus the Bible would have errored in Hebrews 1 and Psalms when it has the Father addressesing the Son says "Thy throne of God.."