Rose's Reasonings

A Car Bike

noreply@blogger.com (Rose~) — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 17:16:00 +0000

Wow, isn't this wierd? I saw this at the bike shop when shopping for a bike for my daughter the other day.
I also saw this note below, hanging by the register inside the store, what a hoot.

I miss all the nicer bloggers out there so I thought I would share this very non-controversial curiosity with you. Hope everyone is doing well.

The Doctrine of Faith « Wisdom and Knowledge

noreply@blogger.com (Rose~) — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 20:01:00 +0000

The Doctrine of Faith « Wisdom and Knowledge

Glenn W. has dedicated a post to me on his blog. How nice!

My Simple Gospel

noreply@blogger.com (Rose~) — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:49:00 +0000

I have written out, in several other places on ths blog, my understanding of the gospel. I just wrote the condensed version in a paragraph below for a "mock-up" I am doing for a publication... although I think it will probably be replaced :(
But I wanted to post it here!

This is Good News!

Most of us wonder, at some point in our lives, "How can I be accepted by God?” Well, let us tell you: Jesus made a way! He took all our sins upon Himself on the cross, died with them, and removed the barrier between ourselves and God. He rose from the dead, proving his victory over those sins and the death they bring. All that remains is for us to receive Him as our savoiur, trusting Him in faith, that He has accomplished this on our behalf. Through this faith, we become God’s children, having eternal life which is the very life of God within us. This enables us to escape the torments of hell and live with God forever. We don’t have to perform any goodness to obtain this life, we simply must trust that what He has done is enough. He has done it all. Won’t you receive Him today and begin a relationship that will meet the most basic human need: being accepted by our Creator, God. Then, let’s talk about serving Him with our lives!

A Head Scratcher

noreply@blogger.com (Rose~) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:32:00 +0000

This is such an interesting quote. Do you think Dabney speaks for most Reformed folks? If so, I am a little but flummoxed because most that I talk to insist that they have assurance of salvation... but Dabney is calling that an error of Calvin that has since been corrected by Reformed leadership (Westminster mentioned specifically). Hmmmm? What to make of this?

The cause of this error [the teaching of assurance of salvation] is no doubt that doctrine concerning faith which the first Reformers, as Luther and Calvin, were led to adopt from their opposition to the hateful and tyrannical teachings of Rome. These noble Reformers... asserted that the assurance of hope is of the essence of saving faith. Thus says Calvin in his Commentary on Romans, "My faith is a divine and scriptural belief that God has pardoned me and accepted me."

Calvin requires everyone to say, in substance, I believe fully that Christ has saved me. Amidst all Calvin's verbal variations, this is always his meaning; for he is consistent in his error... for as sure as truth is in history, Luther and Calvin did fall into this error, which the Reformed churches, led by the Westminster Confession of Faith, have since corrected. - (Discussions of Robert L. Dabney, Vol. I, pp. 215-16)

Can Someobody Please Tell Me Who This Is?

noreply@blogger.com (Rose~) — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:25:00 +0000

Is blogging a healthy Christian activity? Every time I make the rounds and read blogs lately, the answer seems more obvious.

noreply@blogger.com (Rose~) — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 23:27:00 +0000

Shades of Meaning?

noreply@blogger.com (Rose~) — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 12:27:00 +0000

Does anyone still click on this blog? :) Obviously, I have been taking a break. It has been nice.

I was looking at this passage Wednesday and by default it came up in the NIV. It seemed to say something - to give me an idea or a 'sense' of something that surprised me. I thought I would check it in the KJV. I don't get the same "sense" from the KJV as I do from the NIV with this passage. I checked other versions too, but I think the contrast was clearest between these two. I know I am being vague, but I just windered if anyone else reading these would see what I saw. Do you see a difference in the 'impression' of the meaning between these two versions? Just curious.

1 Thessalonians 1:4-10 (New King James Version)

4 knowing, beloved brethren, your election by God. 5 For our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit and in much assurance, as you know what kind of men we were among you for your sake.
6 And you became followers of us and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Spirit, 7 so that you became examples to all in Macedonia and Achaia who believe. 8 For from you the word of the Lord has sounded forth, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place. Your faith toward God has gone out, so that we do not need to say anything. 9 For they themselves declare concerning us what manner of entry we had to you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, 10 and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.

1 Thessalonians 1:4-10 (New International Version)

4For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, 5because our gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction. You know how we lived among you for your sake. 6You became imitators of us and of the Lord; in spite of severe suffering, you welcomed the message with the joy given by the Holy Spirit. 7And so you became a model to all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia. 8The Lord's message rang out from you not only in Macedonia and Achaia—your faith in God has become known everywhere. Therefore we do not need to say anything about it, 9for they themselves report what kind of reception you gave us. They tell how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, 10and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.

Not Closed

noreply@blogger.com (Rose~) — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 12:34:00 +0000

I am having much to do this summer and just can't find the time to blog. Maybe when school starts again...

Blue Lake Road

noreply@blogger.com (Rose~) — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:48:00 +0000

The place we were staying was a cottage on "Starvation Lake" in Mancelona, Michigan. It was a place you might refer to with three letters... or just as "the boondocks." In the middle of nowhere. Snowmobile/four-wheeler trails all around the area. It is hard to find, and not close to any highway exit. Just our kind of get-away place. We went on a couple of "day trips" during the week we were there.

We had decided to go to Mackinac Island the "back way" so that we could go up through the Petoskey area. It took us over 2 hours to get to the Ferry launch in St. Ignace from where we were staying at the lake cottage. Had we gone the direct way, up 75 North, the trip would have been a little over an hour. We planned to take that direct route back home when we were done on the island, since we wouldn't want to do any sightseeing in the dark. Yes, that's right. No sightseeing. We had no idea that the trip back would take so much longer than we imagined...

So when we got off the ferry at 9:30pm, we figured we would easily be tucking in our two year old (and the other three kids) by 11:00pm. We followed 75 South for about 55 minutes. The trip was going swimmingly. We exited where we thought we ought to and then things got confusing - the road signs weren't plentiful. (in Michigan? I never...) Looking at the Mapquest directions, I could see that the road we were looking for (to take us back to Starvation Lake) was Blue Lake Road. The county road we needed to sonnect to Blue Lake Road was not on the map of Michigan that we posessed. Shucks - we needed a closer view of that map. This could be a little tricky. We took a few odd turns as we looked for a rare gas station open on a Sunday night at 11 pm. Yeah, my husband was going to ask directions. :)

Then we saw it. Blue Lake Road. Wow, we may be home soon after all. As we turned South, we saw an unusual sign. What is a "seasonal road"? Right away we knew something was wrong. The road was a dirt road, but not a hard dirt road. It was like a beach, all sandy with big ruts, as though a tractor had been skidding around on it. How do you turn around on this road? What if you try to back up and go forward, back and forth, and then get stuck in the sand? The best course of action seemed to be to keep moving ahead, and not allow ourselves to get stuck. Good thing it wasn't raining. It HAD to connect back to a paved road soon. 10 minutes later, going about 15 MPH (on and off) we realize that we have seen no driveways. I want to get out and ask someone where in the blazes we are. But there are no driveways, no houses, no lights. No intersections. Nothing but thick foilage and forest on both sides of the sandy dirt road. No, our cell phones have no signal.

30 minutes later, the situation is the same. My gut is in a tight twist. Thank you, God, that the 2 year old is sleeping through mom and dad's panic as we come upon one big sand bowl after another, wondering each time if this is going to be passable by our Dodge Caravan, or if we are going to walk all night to 'who knows where' with our four children. While Daddy forges ahead, Mom begins gaspy cries and the 11 year old daughter sobs, "I hope I am going to see my friends again."

An intersection!!! I get out to look around before we do anything more. The road we are crossing has no marking and looks to be of the same nature. There would be no point in turning. Keep going South, Daddy repeats, and it makes sense. Sooner or later it should run across some pavement. Before I get back in the car, I see a sign off in the brush. "Deward Mangement Area" ... "Protecting Our Natural Resources and the Manistee River". What? We are in some sort of preserve? Or are we on a dune buggy trail?

Blue Lake Road? I don't think so.

My husband tries to keep all our spirits up, although I know he is panicked just like I am. (Later he tells me he was aware of bears in the area. Thank God he did not mention that.) "God, please help us." I cry, back in the car, as I wonder just what lesson God may want to teach me this night. I know He doesn't always have it in His will to resolve our situations just as WE would want...

10 miles. 10 miles of a road with no driveway and only one intersection - that of a road just like it. 10 miles which took 1 hour and 48 minutes to travel. No kidding. Then we saw a stop sign in the distance. It was pavement. As we turned left onto the paved road, I was so happy. We were going to make it to a bed this night! Our KIDS were going to get to bed this night!!!! Our two year old was still asleep. God is merciful.

When we finally went to bed at 2:30am, I told my husband how thankful I was. I just couldn't get over the joy I felt at being off Blue Lake Road . We had a fun day on Mackinac Island and it had been a great privilege to go there, but I wouldn't be nearly as thankful if the trip home had been uneventful.

Guest Post: What's Faith Got to Do With It?

noreply@blogger.com (Rose~) — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:13:00 +0000

Another person's take on the book of James, 'guaranteed works' of believers, and the danger of marginalization of FG via the current "conversation" within.

by Jim Reitman, aka "Agent4Him"

In reply to the question “What if faith does not guarantee works?” I would say that this in fact is the starting premise of the whole book of James! Faith was not at all producing the works that should have been evident among people of faith, and that is precisely our problem today among people of faith.

The thematic verses, 1:2-4, make it clear that the immediate objective of trials is to challenge our faith to produce works might make us “whole” and “perfect.” But “whole” and “perfect” in what measure? It is the “commodity” of the righteousness of God. The larger objective of works of faith in James is that as children of God we might vindicate our birth as His “firstfruits” (1:18)—”friends of God” who display His righteousness to the world (1:19-20, cf. 2:23).

To this end, the most exemplary works of righteousness are those that are rooted in God’s heart of compassion and longsuffering for His people (Ex 34:6). And what are the main “trials” we face that are meant to elicit these works of compassion and longsuffering? Invariably (look at the entire NT epistolary corpus), this entails the grueling challenge of loving those who are “hard-to-love” within the body of Christ. This is epitomized by the teaching on manifested righteousness in Matt 5 and 1 John 2:29-3:18, as well as Christ’s repeated injunction that others will know who we are by our love for one another (cf. John 13:35).

I contend that the “goal” of works in 2:14-26 as it relates to faith is no different than in 1:2-4: It is that “faith is perfected [or brought to completion] by works” (2:22) as we face trials. While God was among “the twelve tribes scattered” intent on purifying His people in the “commodity” of righteousness for His name’s sake, the most important works—those that display the righteousness of God—were sorely lacking, just as they were lacking among the Israelites for most of their prior history.

Thus, the message of 2:14-26 is addressed to a people who were not demonstrating the mercy and compassion to others that should be manifested among the people of God who were birthed by Him by grace through faith (1:17-18). If they claimed to have faith, they should be demonstrating their faith by “doing” the righteousness of God in their interaction with one another (1:19-20). If, as you claim “I don’t think practically we can look at anyone’s works and tell anything about their own eternal destiny,” how in the world could you see that “a man is justified by works” (2:24)??? How else could Abraham be “called a friend of God” by those who observed his works (2:23)???

Consequently, however we view the controversial 2:18, it is incongruent with James’ argument to claim that he was not advocating a disposition of “I will show you my faith by my works.” While it is ridiculous to claim from 2:14-26 that “faith guarantees works” (in fact the passage argues the converse—”works make faith visible and bring faith to completion”), I think it is a mistake to shrink from the obvious communicative intent of the passage out of fear that Lordship people will abuse it: James is clearly seeking to humiliate people who are assumed to be “family” and claim to have faith but have little or nothing to show for it! They should precisely be showing their faith by works!

Along these lines, IMO, one all-too-evident problem within the FG movement at the present time is that we, of all people in the Body, are so stuck on “protecting” faith alone in Christ alone from any “contamination” by works (lest we “facilitate” incursions by errant Reformed and Lordship theologies) that we are shooting each other over “the right formula for salvation” rather than “provoking one another to love and good works” (Heb 10:24). So, we in FG—who argue most vociferously against works as a “marker” of salvation—are the very ones to whom James’ message is most appropriately addressed.

In response to Christ’s work of atonement, we are called to be ambassadors of reconciliation precisely by becoming the (visible) righteousness of God (2 Cor 5:17-21). If we don’t make more progress in taking seriously James’ injunctions in the way we treat each other, being reconciled to one another, our only “completing” or “perfecting” will be our total marginalization from the larger Body of Christ.

And He said Unto THEM...

noreply@blogger.com (Rose~) — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:22:00 +0000

Unashamed of Grace

I posted on the UoG group blog (of which I am a member). The verses that Wingfooted brought up about Judas got me to thinking.

Some questions about Suffering and Evil by Colin Maxwell

noreply@blogger.com (Rose~) — Tue, 26 May 2009 16:05:00 +0000

A searching GUEST POST by my Irish Calvinist frined, Colin Maxwell:

I am currently reading a very disturbing (secular) book on the Soviet Gulags by Anne Applebaum. Page after page is full of human suffering as millions of people (including many Christians) starved, slaved and were beaten and/or tortured in the Soviet camps, as they endured 12+ hour working days in sub zero temperatures with inadequate clothing. It ain’t happy reading. Tonight’s reading brought me face to face with the children of the prisoners, some of whom were “arrested” with their parents or had the misfortune to be born in the camps and left to the “mercy” of a system which routinely left them to scream unfed, unnourished and unwanted in crude cots in unheated rooms. If I have nightmares tonight, then I will not be in the least surprised.

I haven’t finished that particular chapter. I took a break to write this post and ask a question which must haunt every Christian. Why is there such cruel suffering in the world? We know the stock (Biblical) answer that such cruelty is in the world because of sin. Had Adam not have fallen, then sin, misery and death would not have entered into the world. Christians differ somewhat as to why Adam did fall. However, we but differ in the details and we cannot miss the fact that God easily could have prevented the circumstances that led to the Fall and therefore prevented it from happening and the subsequent effects.

This cannot be seriously doubted.

Although the Gulags are gone, yet tonight there is much cruelty in the world. God could end it all in a single moment of time. We know that there is coming a day when such things will be ended by His power. But He could intervene this very night and end it now. Some people are providentially delivered from such places. Perhaps they are unexpectedly excused from going in the first place, or they are released early or escape. Others go through the full rigour and are only released because the torturer went too far or the untended to sickness ushered in death.

Here are a few uncomfortable questions for Christians from all schools. If God could end it all today (as He will indeed some day) why then does He not do so? What is He seeking to prove by consciously and deliberately letting it all run? Has any point that He wished to make not already been made? We already know that man left unrestrained is a cruel beast. The Bible tells us this and human history bears it out. We already have many contemporary examples (freely available on YouTube in less than half a dozen computer actions) and therefore if it all was ended tonight, we would not lack source material.

Apart from another stock (though Biblcial) answer, that God’s purposes are somehow being worked out in all these things, I don’t think I can go much further. Can you?

-Colin Maxwell

Did Jesus Love Judas? Did Jesus Chose Judas for Good and Holy Purposes?

noreply@blogger.com (Rose~) — Fri, 15 May 2009 11:38:00 +0000

I received these scriptures and the thoughts following them from Wingfooted, a commenter here. I thought it would be fun to post them and see if anyone has any thoughts on this Judas fellow. It seems Christ chose Him, not for destruction, but for a ministry and he went wayward. On the other hand, we can imagine and infer from certain interpretations of scripture (and some do and teach) that he was chosen to be reprobate and that it was decided beforehand, by God, that Judas would betray Christ and that he would be damned. What say you?

1 And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease. 2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; 3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. (Matthew 10:1-4)

Judas was a disciple, called to be an Apostle. He was given power, like the others, to cast out demons, and heal sickness and disease.

7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. 8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. (Matthew 10:7-8)

Judas was commanded to preach the gospel of the kingdom of heaven. He was given power to heal the sick, raise the dead, and cast out devils.

Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Matthew 19:28)

12 Tribes, 12 Thrones, 12 Apostles. A Throne was provided for Judas, just like the other apostles.

And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, 15 And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils: 16 And Simon he surnamed Peter; 17 And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder: 18 And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Canaanite, 19 And Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him: and they went into an house. (Mark 3:14-19)

Judas was an ordained preacher, just like the others.

And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable. 11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: 12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them. (Mark 4:10-12)

It was given unto Judas, just like the others, to know the mystery of the kingdom of God.

And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits... (Mark 6:7)

Again we see that Judas was called and given power, just like the rest.

12 And they went out, and preached that men should repent. 13 And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them. (Mark 6:12-13)

Judas preached that men should repent and cast out devils and healed the sick, just like the others.

And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles; 14 Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, 15 Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes, 16 And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor. (Luke 6:13-16)

Again, scriptural proof that Judas was a disciple of Christ, chosen to be an apostle.

1 And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and showing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with him,…..9 And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be? 10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand. (Luke 8:1; 9-10)

Again, Judas, as the others, was given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God.

Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases. 2 And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick. (Luke 9:1-2)

Again, Judas was given power and authority over all devils and to cure diseases.

14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. 15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: 16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. 17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: 18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. 19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. 21 But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. 22 And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed! (Luke 22:14-22)

When Jesus said ‘this is my body which is given for you” and “the cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you”, he was speaking to the twelve apostles, which Judas was one. Jesus never singled Judas out, nor exempt him from the atonements. (note from Rose: true! and so how could limited atonement be a valid teaching, I ask??!)

And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. 70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? (John 6:69-70)

Again we see that Judas was chosen to be one of the twelve, but this time he was singled out as being a devil.

Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. (John 15:16)

Though not currently present, this is more proof that Judas and the other apostles were chosen and ordained by Christ to bring forth fruit.

It was just before the Passover Feast. Jesus knew that the time had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he now showed them the full extent of his love. (John 13:1)

The feet of Judas, just like the other Apostles, were washed by the hands of Jesus. Jesus showed Judas, just like the other Apostles, the full extent of his love. Jesus loved Judas to the end, just like the other Apostles.

Quotable Quotes

noreply@blogger.com (Rose~) — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:41:00 +0000

I had the pleasure of going to an employee banquet last night at my church. Our new pastor (who begins preaching this Sunday) gave a short message. I just want to lift this one quote from it because I thought it was great:

"If we are not humble, then we are delusional."

How true! When we are blown up with our own self-importance, it is truly sad. The ironic thing is that those around us can see it, but in our delusion, we can't. It is like someone with a giant red X on his back wondering why everyone keeps pointing at him.

34 Surely He scorns the scornful, But gives grace to the humble. (Proverbs 3)

A Hymn Every Believer Should Sing

noreply@blogger.com (Rose~) — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:07:00 +0000

I can't seem to get this hymn out of my head for the last week.
I think it is such a purposeful and godly prayer.

Make Me a Blessing
Words by Ira B. Wilson
Music by George S. Schuler

Out on the highways and byways of life,
Many are the weary and sad;
Carry the sunshine where darkness is rife,
Making the sorrowing glad.

Chorus
Make me a blessing, make me a blessing;
Out of my life may Jesus shine.
Make me a blessing, O Saviour I pray,
Make me a blessing to someone today.

Tell the sweet story of Christ and His love,
Tell of His pow'r to forgive;
Others will trust Him if only you prove
True every moment you live.

Chorus
Make me a blessing, make me a blessing;
Out of my life may Jesus shine.
Make me a blessing, O Saviour I pray,
Make me a blessing to someone today.

Give as 'twas given to you in your need,
Love as the Master loved you;
Be to the helpless a helper indeed,
Unto your mission be true.

Chorus
Make me a blessing, make me a blessing;
Out of my life may Jesus shine.
Make me a blessing, O Saviour I pray,
Make me a blessing to someone today.

Genesis 12:2 "And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing."

A Comment that Resonated with Me

noreply@blogger.com (Rose~) — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:25:00 +0000

Do the words "resonated" and "reasonable" have similar roots? hmm...

A gentleman named Stan Nelson left this in the comments of the previous post and I want to highlight it for further discussion if anyone wants to discuss. So in a way, Stan Nelson has become the author of a new Guest Post. :~) It is well worth the read!!!

Hello Rose,

I haven't posted on your blog for quite a while. But, if I may, I'd like to share something that I've written on the subject of intellectual assent and trust in saving faith. I hold that trust as well as intellectual assent is required for saving faith.

It seems to me that if saving faith is defined only as intellectual assent to the truth of the Gospel message without the element of trust in Christ as ones own Savior for eternal salvation, then unsaved people who have such intellectual assent would become saved whether they want to be or not.

This relates to the additionally important matter of deliberateness in getting saved. Can a person intentionally receive (or reject) the gift of eternal salvation? I think so ( Rev. 22:17; John 12:48). It might even be argued that intentionally is the only way to receive it.

If the Bible presents the Gospel message as an invitation to believe in Christ for the purpose of getting saved, then both desire and volition on the part of the recipient would seem to be necessary. And if people are held accountable for their response to the offer it would also be reasonable to conclude that we have been given the ability to make a choice in the matter. For, unintentionally believing in Christ for the purpose of receiving the gift and getting saved doesn't make sense.

Requiring trust or reliance as part of saving faith is naturally compatible with the idea of salvation being an actual offer. Whereas, intellectual assent to the truth of the Gospel message doesn't, by itself, involve either wanting or acceptance of salvation.

I'm of the opinion that, although they may occur at the same time, intellectual assent and trust aren't identical. Believing that Christ saves versus believing in Him for salvation are separate things. Those who have trusted in Christ for eternal salvation, obviously, have also assented to the truth of the Gospel message. But people who have intellectually assented to the truth of the message have not necessarily trusted in Christ for eternal salvation.

Requiring trust or reliance as a part of saving faith is not ammunition for Lordship Salvation because trust is not a work. It's simply accepting the invitation to be saved by deliberately relying on Christ alone as ones Savior.

Agreement with the truth of the mechanics of how salvation is supplied and obtained isn't the same as actually accepting that salvation through faith in Christ as ones own Savior. The system of solitary intellectual assent also rings of cold academics. Requiring trust or reliance in not only the Gospel message but also in Him to Whom the message points is not only logical, it's also personal and satisfying. Deliberate trust in Christ for eternal salvation has the wonderful effect of cementing assurance of ones salvation, even in the face of trials or troubling and unanswered questions about Christianity.

If there is a circumstance under which intellectual assent, by itself, could be shown to be insufficient to save, then it would seem that requiring trust as a part of saving faith would be demonstrated as being necessary.

An article appeared some years ago in a GES newsletter (http://faithalone.org/news/y1989/89july2.html) describing a woman who believed herself to be unsaved because she believed she was not one of the elect. If such a person believed herself to be unsavable because of belief that Christ died and paid the penalty only for the sins of the elect but not for her, and if she also believed the Gospel message of Christ being the Savior, wouldn't this then be a case of someone having intellectual assent to the truth of how people are saved (that is, the Gospel message), and yet remain unsaved?

People with such a belief system couldn't accept the gift of salvation through faith in Christ as their own Savior because they don't believe He is their Savior; and yet, they do believe He is the Savior of believers in Him. In other words, they believe the Gospel message about how people (some people, in their thinking) obtain salvation but, thinking salvation is unavailable to themselves, they don't trust in Christ as their own Savior and, therefore, remain unsaved.

I suppose it could be argued that, since she didn't believe it applied to her that, therefore, she didn't really believe the Gospel at all. But, does the intellectual assent only position require beilef in the truth of the universal availability of salvation? It doesn't seem so. And, if not, wouldn't this be an example of having intellectual assent without receiving salvation? And wouldn't it therefore prove that intellectual assent to the truth of the Gospel message is not, by itself, saving faith? Again, acknowledgement of the truth of how people are saved is not equivalent to the acceptance of the salvation that's offered.

Another important point should be made. If people are saved only through intellectual assent to the truth of the Gospel message that Christ, because of Who He is and what He's done, saves sinners who believe in Him, then saving faith would carry the impossible idea that people are saved solely by believing that those who believe in Him are saved. Using the word "believe" (or its equivalent) twice within the sentence is what makes this riddle impossible.

Trying to define what it means to believe in Christ by saying that it means to "believe that" those who "believe in" doesn't define what "believe in" actually means. For if "believe in" is said to mean "to believe that those who believe in" it's then being used to attempt to define itself. It's doubletalk to say that believing in Christ is the same thing as "believing that those who believe in Him …" They aren't the same. Arguing that saving faith is sole intellectual assent to the truth of the Gospel message does this very thing.

This problem with the intellectual assent only viewpoint is compounded because, even though it claims that belief in the truth of the Gospel proposition is the same as direct belief in Christ Himself, as shown above, it's really not. Therefore, that viewpoint wrongfully allows for the belief in the truth of a statement as a substitute or alternate object of saving faith. It would be like saying that group number one gets saved by believing in Christ; but group number two gets saved by believing the mechanics of how group number one got saved.

Believing the truth of a statement that promises a benefit for believing in an object described in the statement is not the same as believing in the described object. People aren't saved by merely believing that the Gospel message is true. They are saved the way the message says to be saved; by believing in Christ (Acts 16:29-31).

-by Stan Nelson

Declared Righteous By Faith

noreply@blogger.com (Rose~) — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 15:13:00 +0000

Another Guest Post. This time by "Wingfooted" (the secret identity of a regular visitor here). "Wingfooted" emailed me these thoughts and I consider them worthy of a post for your pondering. I have another one from "Wingfooted" that I will post in the coming weeks.

by Wingfooted:

We know as Christians that sinners are declared righteous by God when they believe.

Genesis 15:6.....
“And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.”

However, these verses could be puzzling....

Exodus 4:31...
“And the people BELIEVED: and when they heard that the LORD had visited the children of Israel, and that he had looked upon their affliction, then they bowed their heads and worshipped.”

Exodus 14:31.....
“And Israel saw that great work which the LORD did upon the Egyptians: AND THE PEOPLE FEARED THE LORD, AND BELIEVED THE LORD, and his servant Moses.”

Now my question is....why weren’t the Israelites, “my people”, “mine elect”, declared righteous? Not only were the vast majority NOT declared righteous, but most were not even saved, at least eternally. Paul makes this clear in 1 Corinthians 10:1-13.....

“Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that ALL our fathers were under the cloud, and ALL passed through the sea; And were ALL baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did ALL eat the same spiritual meat; And did ALL drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. BUT WITH MANY OF THEM GOD WAS NOT WELL PLEASED: FOR THEY WERE OVERTHROWN IN THE WILDERNESS. Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, AND FELL IN ONE DAY THREE AND TWENTY THOUSAND. Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, AND WERE DESTROYED OF SERPENTS. Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, AND WERE DESTROYED OF THE DESTROYER. Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.”
Jude 1:5.....
“I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward DESTROYED THEM THAT BELIEVED NOT.”

We are told that the Lord destroyed those who didn’t believe, but we see early on, that the people of ISRAEL BELIEVED and FEARED THE LORD. So why weren't they declared righteous?

Now, according to Calvinism, the Reprobate, the non-elect, can’t believe. In fact, the reprobate have NO desire for God. But notice those Israelites who perished, did believe, at least for awhile. This is even spoken of in the parable of the seed...

Luke 8:13.....
“Those on the rock are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have no root. They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away.”

Now the Calvinist will say “well...they didn’t truly believe”. But Moses, led by the Spirit, said they did believe and even feared the Lord. They even worshipped God. Something a reprobate can’t do. And why would a reprobate sing the Song of Moses in Exodus 15:1-18? Again, awfully strange behavior for someone unregenerate or “spiritually dead like a corpse”?

-by Wingfooted

Reasonable Question

noreply@blogger.com (Rose~) — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 03:08:00 +0000

Dogs or Children?

Hatred, Murder, and Scripture

noreply@blogger.com (Rose~) — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:38:00 +0000

Another Guest Post ...but this time by a frequent visitor who wishes to remain anonymous. This post is about repentance (in the 'forsaking sin' sense) for the believer and doesn't get into the question of whether or not 'repentance' is necessary to come to Christ, so let's not get into that this time. :~) -Rose

Hatred, Murder, and Scripture by Anonymous (a regular visitor at RR)

²¹"You have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.' ²² But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell." - Matthew 5:21-22 [NASB]

¹⁵Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. - 1 John 3:15 [NASB]

Christ, in the sermon on the mount makes clear the thought that murder goes deeper than just the act itself. The Apostle John however makes it even more clear. John does not say that the sin of hatred is similar to the sin of murder, he says that the one who hates is a murderer.

Given this premise, what should we as a congregation do for a brother or a sister who grew up in our congregation and one day confessed that they although they have never acted upon it, they have had a compelling, "uncontrollable" desire to murder half the congregation - a desire that began at puberty.

Would we regard this homicidal compulsion as "okay" as long as the individual didn't act upon it? Or would we regard the hatred, just as John regards it? Would we call it murder, and bid that soul repent of their murderous desire?

What if the individual was personally convinced that he or she had no control over his or her murderous desire, and therefore refused to even entertain the possibility of repentance? What if he or she was willing to abstain from killing people, agreeing that murder was sinful, but being at the same time unwilling to address murderous desire as a sin to be repented of? Would we accommodate that? Would we reason that as long as they were abstaining from murder, and as long as they continued to regard murder as sinful, they wouldn't have to repent of their murderous desire, because, hey - its just a feeling right, and you can't help your feelings, right?
What of the unmarried man who burns in his lust for the pretty young ladies. Do we say to this man, that as long as he doesn't rape anyone, or commit fornication he can lust all he wants. Is that what Paul taught? No, we tell this young man that lust is a sin, and he must repent of it. If he believes he cannot, his problem is not merely lust, but unbelief.

I expect that some churches couldn't care less. Show up on Sunday, tithe, come to prayer meeting, and try to live clean so you don't make us all look like hypocrites or worse. If you do something really bad, we will kick you out, but as long as you keep your sin private, no one is going to care, because they are so busy nursing their own private sins, that they wouldn't dare talk to you about yours, lest someone drag their own skeletons out of the closet.

But not every church is worldly, deceived, and powerless. Not every congregation in bondage and weak. Some are actually Spirit filled, and Spirit led, and some more than others. Some exchange the Spirit for cheap imitations, but that is another post altogether. What is germane to this post is that some churches actually expect Christ to save you from your sin, and not just save you in spite of it. They expect you to repent, and if tell yourself you cannot repent they lovingly teach you that scripture says you can - but they don't stop there - they go on to teach you that unless you are willing to repent, you cannot be allowed to fellowship with them. They regard their congregation as an unleavened lump, and your sin as unwelcome leaven, and rather than coddle you in your sin, they would deliver you to Satan until you learn to get real with God, and stop nursing your sin.

That kind of expectation will no doubt seem over the top to some, or even many, but it quite biblical.

Now we speak about these things, not because any of us would actually be clueless in such situations. I think most of us would clearly see that hatred or lust are things that must be repented of, and not coddled. We wouldn't instruct anyone to simply repress/suppress their sinful desires, for even the heathen do that. Christians have much better tools than repression for tearing down strongholds! Grace and repentance. If the brother who hates is a murderer, and the brother who lusts an adulterer - then the one who hates, or the one who lusts must repent of their wicked desires - just as a "real" murderer must repent of the same hate, and a "real" adulterer must repent of his lust.

I say again, we ask these things not because we are concerned with murder, hatred, lust or adultery - but we ask such things in order to see clearly how we are to deal with them. We first look at what ought to be cut and dry, then move onto the more nuanced, more clouded, more debated, and more difficult.

Let's consider then the homosexual Christian.
Do we accept a homosexual into our congregation who, while willing to abstain from expressing outwardly his or her homosexual desires, is never the less convinced that he or she is in bondage to such desire, and therefore doesn't have to repent of it?
What are your thoughts, and ... be reasonable.

-Anonymous Regular Vistor at RR

The Inspiration and Endurance of the Old Testament

noreply@blogger.com (Rose~) — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:11:00 +0000

(Chris has a blog called Bible Thoughts that you can find by clicking on the link in his name, below. He calls himself an Arminian, but he doesn't believe one can lose their salvation. I have found a lot of things on his blog to be very helpful. He has a lot of great verse studies in his sidebar. Thanks for letting me post this brief thought, Chris.)

Guest Post
The Inspiration and Endurance of the Old Testament by Chris Skinner

The words of the Lord Jesus in Matthew 5:17-20:

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

This verse is often used by many to prove that the Mosaic Law is still in effect. Understood this way, it poses a problem for all believers. Covenant theologians maintain that the civil and ceremonial law has passed away and argue that the Lord was referring here exclusively to “the moral law”. This view is untenable because, as discussed earlier, there is no basis for this distinction. Furthermore, if this was the case, Jesus would have explained this clearly to his audience as it would have been a foreign concept to them. Jesus was a Rabbi and first century Judaism never made these distinctions.

Jesus lived under the dispensation of the Mosaic law which did not end until his death. What did he mean when he stated that no jot or tittle shall pass from the law? A jot is the smallest letter in the Hebrew language. He is referring to the Law in it's broader usage, the entire Old Testament. Jesus is not saying that Law of Moses is operational for all time, but affirming the inspiration, infallibility, inerrancy and preservation of the Hebrew Scriptures.

The word “fulfil” according to Strong's Dictionary means “to make replete...satisfy, execute (an office), finish (a period or task), verify (or coincide with a prediction), etc.: - accomplish, X after, (be)complete, end, expire, fill (up), fulfil, (be, make) full (come), fully preach, perfect, supply”1.

All things in the Old Testament will be fulfilled. This is in contrast to “destroying the Law” which would meaning failing to fulfil the Scripture. Yeshua was saying that all the things in the Tanakh shall be fulfilled and his words in the Tanakh shall be preserved until eternity.

1 Strong's Hebrew-Greek Dictionary, emphasis added.

-Chris Skinner

A quick thought from the host, but please check out the new GUEST POST above this

noreply@blogger.com (Rose~) — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 08:35:00 +0000

I have been upset this week. Some things are going on that have really got me distracted and burdened. I just want to share something that happened today that lifted my spirits for a moment, hoping that maybe the same thought could comfort you some day. Warning: it isn't a biblical thought (that I can think of) or very spiritual, but it speaks to the human state.

I have been consumed with a feeling of humiliation and frustration over an "incident" and a miscarriage of justice regarding it. There seems to be no good way to find relief from the result. I think through it and try to find a way that I can remedy my frustration and there is none. People just fail. People are no good. People dissapoint. I can't change it. That is the same thing I have been learning all my life. Why does it surprise me now?

I was standing in a Rite-Aid thinking again about the situation and feeling the frustration of it and this old old lady in front of me says to the clerk very feebly, "The sunshine is just lovely."
It struck me: the comfort. I always find this bit of human comfort when I am reminded of it: (tell me if you see this too)

I will be old some day and none of this will matter. I will just be thankful and consumed with the understated joy over little things like "sunshine."

Is that weird?

Another Deserted Island Scenario

noreply@blogger.com (Rose~) — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:54:00 +0000

Guest Post by Colin Maxwell (aka "goodnightsafehome"). Colin lives in Ireland and does a lot of street witnessing.
Note from Rose: I don't often agree with Colin's views when we discuss Reformed/Calvinistic topics or when I see his comments that are influenced by the same (which influence he readily admits), but I find much to appreciate from this brother: what he proclaims to the lost people of Ireland, for starters. Also, he is a very nice man and gracious in the blogosphere. That holds a lot of importance for me in this venue!!

He sent me this question for a guest post and at first I was hesitant to post it because I thought it sort of represented a "still open" kind of wound on a lot of FG believers. BUT - I decided it would be a good discussion and I am genuinely interested in what people will say to his question. Please be civil in your responses: please, please, NOTE that Colin has not mentioned the name of the person who came up with the original deserted Island scenario. I just don't think there is a need to be overly defensive. Let's just discuss this interesting idea of this bit of scripture washing ashore. THANKS!! BE NICE!!

Colin Maxwell's Deserted Island Scenario:
Here is an adaptation of a recently proposed scenario where a man stranded on a desert island discovers a piece of paper with one sole verse of Scripture written on it. Without any indication that it is Scripture, the original verse is John 6:47 where someone (we know Who! But there is no indication that our forlorn islander has any clue) said: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. The argument is advanced that, with no other information than what is contained in this verse, this man can believe the (relatively) unknown speaker and obtain everlasting life.

Let’s change the text. Instead of John 6:47, let us assume that the tide carried verse was from John 8:24 where we read: “I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. Simple questions: Is there enough here to convert the soul as some believe there is in the previous scenario text and why/why not?

-Colin Maxwell

What’s Grace Got to Do with It?

noreply@blogger.com (Rose~) — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:19:00 +0000

Guest Post by Jim Reitman (aka “agent4him”) Jim is an advocate of Free Grace Theology.

But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 5:20b-21 nkjv)

For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. (2 Corinthians 5:21 nkjv)

I guess I’ve been a Free Grace kind of person since I first believed (circa 1978). Three years later Zane Hodges came out with Gospel Under Siege, while I was an MA student at Dallas Seminary, and I readily embraced Zane’s argument: Grace is truly free; I had freely accepted it for my own “salvation.” But since then (for the most part) I have been a pretty miserable person to live with - just ask Peggy, or any of my co-workers before I retired - that is, until I began taking Prozac® in 2005. What’s up with that? If Jesus couldn’t make me more like him in 28 years, how could a chemical do it now? Do I actually reveal God’s righteousness in Christ or is it just a drug-induced “high”? What, if anything, does grace have to do with it?

Now that I’ve bated you with intriguing questions - which I will not answer :-) would like to explore how two familiar verses may have huge implications for the future of FG. Do FG advocates generally look or sound all that “gracious”? (That’s rhetorical for all of us, who plead the 5th). While none of us denies the essential role of grace in justification, what role should it play in our further development as a theological “system”? Do we sell FG short in our theology of sanctification?

The gospel was meant to reveal the righteousness of God (Rom 1:17) and I would submit that God intended for those who are “saved” to then participate with Him in “revealing” it to the world. How do we do that? The word “grace” occurs only five times in Romans 1-4 (the “justification” section) but then five times in chapter 5 - four in 5:15-21 alone—the so-called “sanctification” section. Were we meant to receive grace freely - after being justified (5:17), so that his abundant grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life, revealing it in us now (5:21)? And a bonus question for the Calvinists in our “mixed multitude”: Can we “resist” his free grace after we have been regenerated and justified?

In 2 Cor 5:21 the verb is “become” (ginomai) though it can certainly be read as “be,” depending on context. Why am I getting in our faces about this? Because a vast majority of evangelicals have just assumed, along with Luther, that this transaction refers only to justification and not to sanctification. Then I asked myself why the key verses for my blog handle “agent4him” (“agent” of reconciliation, 2 Cor 5:18-20) occur after 5:17 but before 5:21? (see the entire passage posted at bottom of this post). Are we in FG really in the business of reconciliation? Was I “saved” to then be formed into a really righteous agent—not just declared—that I might reconcile others to Christ? Do I really appropriate free grace now to make that happen in me (Rom 5:17)? Could it be that is how I “reign through righteousness to eternal life”?

…Nah, I think I’ll just stick with Prozac®. :-) (see how happy I am?)

- Jim Reitman

2 Corinthians 5:17-21 (nkjv)
17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. 18 Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. 21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

I am tired of blogging.

noreply@blogger.com (Rose~) — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 15:54:00 +0000

I don't know when I will recover - maybe tomorrow or maybe next week.

Maybe next month. I don't know.

The Many Purposes of God in the Work of Christ

noreply@blogger.com (Rose~) — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:23:00 +0000

When a person comes into a relationship with Christ, it is an amazing, wonderful and important event. Some people may find it more dramatic than others. My own experience of coming to Christ was realizing that God created me and actually loved me and had good plans for me that I not go to hell which I surely deserved. This in itself was revolutionary, I, having been inundated with the irrelevance of my life as presented by the evolutionary philosophy dancing around in my head. Looking at others around me, they all became more “precious” in my eyes... as I realized they had significance to our Creator as well.

Reading the Scriptures, we see so much about this subject of individual salvation. I do recognize it is front-and-center in a lot of the writings of the Scripture. I think it is easy to start to imagine this as the subject of almost every scripture. However, to do this is a mistake. The Bible is about a lot of things, not just the salvation of individual sinners. The Bible is about the Glory of God. God may glorify Himself in many ways. The creation of the world brought glory to God... and this was before man was on the scene. The worldwide flood glorified God… and it brought condemnation to man, not salvation. We need to find what the authors of the Scripture (and the Lord who moved their hands) were saying in each instance that we read God’s Word... and not jump to our own perception of how it might relate to us or other individuals. It could relate specifically to other purposes of God besides those regarding the salvation of "the elect" (to use my Reformed friends' phraseology). What is the author talking about, what is he trying to say? I believe this is called looking for the authorial intent.

Let's jar ourselves out of our limited view of God’s purposes.

Christ’s death on the cross and what it accomplished is so much more vast in significance than what we imagine.

50And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit. 51And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split. (Matthew 27)

I can think of at least four things that Christ’s death did. If you continue to read this post, you will want to refer back to this numbered list:

1. Made the way for the whole creation to be redeemed and eventually restored.
2. Made the way for Israel, as a nation, to receive the promises that God had made to them. Christ’s death removed their corporate sin and fulfilled God’s justice.
3. Made the way for all people to be able to come to Him by faith and receive the life of God within them, by removing sin as a barrier between God and man. This life makes it so we can be compatible with God and not burn up in His presence. It would not be possible to receive eternal life if sin were still an issue.
4. Made the way for those who receive that life to become conformed to the image of Him who died and was raised in a) sanctification and b) glorification.

Let's hone in on #2 for the rest of this post.

I have been camping on Isaiah 53 for a few days and I think that the main point of that passage has to do with this particular aspect of the work of Christ. He laid down his life and made Himself an offering for the corporate sins of the people of Israel. His death is part of His covenantal promise to this nation. He will make a New Covenant with them, based on His shed blood.

Isaiah 53 says of Israel: 3He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

The bolded portions of that scripture are obviously about Israel, the nation, and I believe the non-bolded areas where the plural pronoun is used are also speaking of the nation Israel. He was despised by the nation of Israel; they said He was crazy (smitten of God), yet He took the penalty that made it OK for God to be at peace with them, eventually (the chastisement of our peace). As a nation, the people of Israel rejected the Messiah, but He removed this sin from their account. The nation has been reaping the consequences of the sin of rejecting their Messiah, but that sin will not prohibit God from doing what He says by bringing them to their land and setting up His earthly Kingdom there with them. He is able to do this because “he was stricken for the transgression of my people…” Isaiah 53:8. the Messaih fulfilled the justice of God for the nation as the high priest said (and didn't even realize it) in John 11:50.

Have a look at Isaiah 52-54 and see for yourselves if God is not specifically talking about the nation of Israel and the provision that He is making for them. Some say that ‘my people’ in Isaiah 53:8 is talking about the elect of all time, all the redeemed. They proffer that when the passage says that He was smitten for the transgression of “my people” that somehow this means he wasn’t smitten for the transgression of any other people. Therefore, for this view, “my people” has to be a larger group than just the nation of Israel, because they know that He, at least, also died for the Gentiles who are saved.

I propose that when the passage says He was smitten for the transgression of “my people” that He is talking about #2 above.
(God refers to the nation of Israel as His people in many places. Here are just two samples: Joel 2:18 and John 1:11.)

God will be just in opening the floodgates of His mercy and the fountain spoken of in Zech 12:9- 13:1. This is just one aspect of what Christ did on the cross, dying for the nation of Israel (not every individual in the nation, but as a corporate nation. In order to be individually saved, each Isarelite has to receive eternal life, and we know this is only done by individual faith in the Messiah.)

Lest I be misunderstood, I am not trying to take Isaiah 53 away from the Gentiles who love the Messiah. We are beneficiaries of what Christ has done as well. Isaiah 53 describes the Suffering Servant. As He suffered, He did many things. What He did for us, is similar to what He did for the corporate nation of Israel – he took away our sins!!! He was bruised for our iniquities as individuals as well. He took away of the sin of the world, and made available the gift of eternal life!!

Christ's death for purpose #2, I believe, is the main emphasis of Isaiah 53. However, He died for purpose #3 as well, which I, as a person, am a beneficiary of, and so are you. I pray that you are also a beneficiary of #4, having received the free gift of eternal life that the Messiah, Jesus, the only Savior, offers.

(upcoming posts will be about #3) :~)