John 17: Why did Jesus pray for the Elect only? Part II

Possible reason #2 - Christ was praying for specific blessings upon those who were His; obviously He wouldn't do X-and-such spiritually blessing to those who don't believe.

This actually seems pretty plausible. There any many blessings (and salvation!) that are offered only to believers. Paul, in fact, here in Ephesians, prays specifically for blessings upon believers only:

“For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man, that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the width and length and depth and height— to know the love of Christ which passes knowledge; that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.” (Eph. 3:14-19)

Yet, this does not mean or imply that Paul did not also care about and pray for non-believers at other times:

“Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior...” (1 Tim. 2:1-3)

In His prayer for the blessings of joy and sanctification, Jesus specifically says that He is praying for His disciples and not for the world. Later, though, He prays that the world might believe that He is from the Father; He did pray for the whole world, then, just not in the context of those specific blessings. How could a non-believer be sanctified, or experience unity with God? Those blessings are reserved for believers.

Possible reason #3 - The Lamb of God has an extra special love for those who are His, and still cares about those who He was not praying for at the time.

Given that the church is the bride of Christ, it is certain that He has a special love for them. All others will be cast into hell, but those who believe in Christ are one with Him, and He blesses them richly in this life and the next, working together all things for good for them. Special love:

“I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.” (John 17:23)

But one can have a specific love for one, while still caring for others. I have a special love for my husband, but I still agape-love all other men, and would rescue one if I saw him dying and was able to save Him. As my little brother said, on this topic, “Just because I send a letter to my family (special love) does not mean I don't care about everyone else.”

Paul pronounced and prayed for many special blessings solely on believers, and yet also cared and prayed for everyone. Does God also care for everyone? According to the Bible, yes.

“For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (1 Timothy 2:3-4)

So reason number #3 is also Scripturally plausible. Christ not only reserves specific blessings for those who believe, but also has a special love for His own.

Possible reason #4 - Jesus was about to die, and was looking forward to the joy set before Him: His own glorification and the salvation, oneness with, and blessing upon those who would benefit from the cross: the elect, the bride of Christ.

Now, most of the other possible reasons don't look specifically at the timing of this prayer. Jesus was sweating drops of blood that night. The next day, He would experience an excruciating death, the weight of the sin of the world, and separation from His beloved Father. How did He get through this time? This mystery is revealed for us in Hebrews:

“...looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.” (Hebrews 12:2)

Now, if Jesus died to provide salvation for all, and only to procure salvation for the elect (just like the serpent in the wilderness which provided healing for all who were bitten, but only enacted healing toward those who looked at all, see John 3), in which part is the joy found?

Is the joy the glorification and the unity, joy, and sanctification of those who would benefit from the cross? Or is the joy found in those who would reject the provision and wind up justly in hell?

I would say, without a doubt, that the joy would be found (in addition to His glorification) in His bride, in the ones who would benefit and be saved. The joy would not be found in those who reject the work and die eternally – there is justice there, but not joy. Jesus prayed for the world to believe, but that was one statement. The majority of the chapter was focused on Christ's glorification in general, and on blessings for and unity with His elect. That was His focus.

Therefore, it makes perfect sense that as Jesus approached His death, He focused on and looked forward to the JOY set before Him, which was not found in those who would never believe, but would be found in His multi-fold glorification, in the joy and sanctification of His disciples, and of the love and unity between Him and the Father and all future believers – the bride of Christ.

There is the joy that He looked forward to, as He approached the cross. This reason is more than plausible, it is confirmed by Hebrews, which explains Christ's focus on that difficult night.

And if two reasons are found to be plausible, and one is found to be confirmed, then the claim that the first reason is the “only possible” reason must be entirely false.

.

The Devil Went To Georgia (What Really Happened)

The time when the Devil went down to Georgia - it's a famous story in the form of a song. I think that most of you have probably heard of it, I've even seen it played by the Hill Billies at Disneyland, and played it on Guitar Hero. Of course, if you don't know the tune, you'll have a chance to familiar yourself with it, since I've included a link to another rendition of the song below.

It's a beautiful piece, but there's just one thing wrong with it: that's not how it really ended. So, I've taken it upon myself to set the record straight, so that y'all will know what actually happened that day in Georgia. And it started like this:

The devil went down to Georgia,
he was looking for a soul to steal.
He was in a bind 'cos he was way behind
and he was willin' to make a deal.

When he came across this young man
sawin' on a fiddle and playin' it hot.
And the devil jumped upon a hickory stump
and said: "Boy let me tell you what:

"I guess you didn't know it,
but I'm a fiddle player too.
"And if you'd care to take a dare,
I'll make a bet with you.

"Now you play a pretty good fiddle,
boy, but give the devil his due:
"I bet a fiddle of gold against your soul,
'cos I think I'm better than you."

The boy said: "My name's Johnny and it might be a sin,
"But I'll take your bet, your gonna regret, 'cos I'm the best that's ever been."

Johnny you rosin up your bow and play your fiddle hard.
'Cos hells broke loose in Georgia and the devil deals the cards.
And if you win you get this shiny fiddle made of gold.
But if you lose, the devil gets your soul.

The devil opened up his case and he said: "I'll start this show."
And fire flew from his fingertips as he rosined up his bow.
And he pulled the bow across his strings and it made an evil hiss.
Then a band of demons joined in and it sounded something like this:

[Click Here to Hear The Original Song] (1:23)


When the devil finished, Johnny said: "Well you're pretty good ol' son.

"But sit down in that chair, right there, and let me show you how its done."

Fire on the mountain, run boys, run.
The devil avoids the risin' sun.
Chicken in the bread pan, now there's less
"Granny, does your dog bite?" "Yes, child, yes."


The devil smiled and chuckled though he knew that he'd been beat.
And then he said: “I'm Satan, and I'm known for my deceit-
"See, win or lose, you'll pay your dues, while I achieve my goal.
"Cause it's a sin to deal with me, so I still get your soul.
"You take that golden fiddle, boy, and you come on down with me,
"But you will only play it here, for all eternity.”

And there's fire on the mountain, run boys, run.
The devil avoids the risin' sun.
Chicken in the bread pan, now there's less
"Granny, does your dog bite?" "Yes, child, yes."

P.S. If the devil asks you to dance, you'd better say "Never"
for a dance with the devil might just last forever.


.

A Triangle of Opposites

I've thought to myself, at times, that opposites aren't fully understood. They seem pretty straightforward, but they can be more complex than they are given credit for. Many of you readers, I'm sure, are familiar with the “Either/or” logical fallacy (also known as a False Dilemma). In this fallacy, there are more than three options, but person A presents the dilemma to person B as if there were two, and only two, choices.

Example:

Child: “Mamma, can I have a cookie now or later?”

The child presents only two options as an either/or choice, and tries to get the mother to not notice any additional option. You see, the child paints the question as if it's just a one dimensional choice - and that dimension is the dimension of time:

Cookies soon -------------------------------- Cookies later

Near time frame and far time frame. Two opposites, yes, but it ignores a third dimension: The dimension of how many cookies are given.

In the diagram above (I'm sure you will all be impressed at the creative artwork that went into that one), you can see both dimensions: Time, and amount of cookies. With this more comprehensive view of the situation, the mother also can see the option of not giving the child a cookie at all.

That specific example is easy and childish, but I think that we usually think of opposites as always coming in a pair, and many of them come in groups of three. For instance, what's the opposite of taking action to something good? Taking action to do something evil!

Doing evil ---------------------------------- Doing good

Perfect: We have our opposites. But could there be a third option which is the opposite of both? I say yes. This shows opposite sides of the dimension of morality here, but both involve action. The opposite of action is inaction, and therefore there is another dimension:

It may seem inconceivable that anything could have two opposites, because we are so used to used to thinking of opposites on opposite sides of a one-dimensional line. However, the pattern shows up again and again throughout life. For instance, the speaker in my class about christian principles in government tonight pointed out another triangle of opposites:

Often, we hear about being politically “to the left” or “to the right.” The far left might be communism or socialism; interested in large centralized government being used to create change and to redistribute wealth and take care of the society. One the far right is said to be fascism; the right perhaps encourages centralized government to keep things at the status quo, or to enforce moral boundaries (like no abortion). Many people can't explain exactly explain what dimension this measures – the best explanation I've heard looks like this:

More gov in economics --------------------- More gov in moral issues

So, if you buy into that scheme, whether you think of yourself being more “to the left” or more “to the right,” you are always in favor of more government. More, and more, and more government. But of course there is the other dimension as well:

Then I thought to myself about other opposites. There's hot and cold. Surely, there couldn't be an opposite to both of those! But then I thought to myself, spiritual beings may not have a physical temperature, and may not be either physically hot nor physically cold.

Finally, there's love. I've been a firm believer in the triangle opposites of love for a long time. If I ask people “what is the opposite of love?” most would say “hatred.” Love is passion for someone's betterment, and hatred is passion for someone's pain or destruction. We see hatred painted very clearly in stories where a person hates someone else, and then dedicates a lot of time and effort to damaging that person, even to their own detriment sometimes.

Desire for their betterment ------------------------ Desire for their harm

But both of these options involve passion. In both cases, the person is very emotionally involved. In either case, it can be self-sacrificing: Whether self-sacrificing love, or seeking vengeance even to the point of destroying one's own life. What is the opposite of both? Apathy. No passion for or against the other person; an apathetic person couldn't be bothered to take revenge, since they have their own life to lead.

Pathos versus non-pathos. (Passion versus apathy) On one dimension, we have desire for the other person's betterment or desire for their harm. On the other dimension, are you even having desire about their life at all?

When a Girl Says "I'm Fine"

At long last - A blog exposing the secret inner workings of the female brain, and answering that age-old question: Why do women say that they are “fine” when they aren't?

I'm sure that most of us have run into this phenomenon at some point or another: a female, either obviously distressed, or else refusing to talk about whatever is going on, is asked some question like this: “How are you doing?” “How is your day going?” “Are you okay?” The woman answers, “I'm fine.”

Then, sometimes, one of two things will happen. Either the guy thinks, “Oh, she's doing good then. Doesn't need any comfort or support” and wanders off to do something else, and finds out later that she was really sad – Or else the guy thinks to himself “Well that's an odd thing to say, because all my powers of observation point to the conclusion that she isn't fine.” We all know that this happens, but do you know why? As a female myself, I will divulge the two basic reasons for using that wording.

1 – We try to phrase things as positively as possible

If asked how I'm doing, I try to find the most positive adjective that could apply, and use that. If I'm at a content average, (which is usually what guys call “doing fine,”) I see that I am “good.” If I'm having a slightly above-average day, then it's “great.” On a very exceptional day, it might be “awesome!”

But suppose I'm not feeling as positive or content as I normally do... I hear “How are you doing?” I go through my list of words: Awesome? Nope. Excellent? Nope. Great? Nope. Good? Nope. Fine? Hmm.. . Yes, I'm not in tears yet; I am fine! And therefore I might respond “I'm fine,” since that's the most positive word I can think of to apply to the situation. If I'm doing even worse, and I feel that my world is falling apart around me, and someone asks, “How are you?” I might say, “Oh I'm alive,” or “I'm surviving,” or else “Oh, you know – this and that.”

You see, any of those responses should send up a red flag for the following reason: “If she is trying to phrase things as positively as possible, and the best she can say is 'alive,' then something is very, very wrong.” So, guys say “fine” when they feel “good.” Girls say “fine” when they can't even claim to be feeling good or okay.

2 – We are trying to convince ourselves that we are alright.

Sometimes, self-talk can be calming. “It's okay, everything is going to be fine, I'm going to get through this.” Therefore, if a girl feels absolutely dreadful, she may try to use self-talk to calm herself: “It's okay, I'm fine. I'm alright.” So someone asks, “How are you feeling?” She responds consistently with her self-talk: “I'm fine.”

As this point, of course, if the guy points out, “Well, um, you certainly don't look fine” then it will remind her of her feeling (the one she's trying to talk herself out of) that she's not fine, she's not okay, and will call back to her attention everything that's wrong.

And those are the two usual reasons. Either ends up with the same situation, in which the girl says that she is fine, and the guy sees that she is not fine under his understanding of the word “fine.”

Thoughts on Conditional Election

Conditional election: God chooses some people for salvation, and intentionally chooses those who meet some condition that He sets. Some christians hold to unconditional election, which I respect. I don't hold to it, myself, though. Like John Piper says, in his book “Future Grace,” conditional does not mean deserved. Grace in the life of a believer is spelled out to be conditional (God gives grace to the humble), but it's certainly not earned or deserved. And that's what I believe. I think that conditional Grace is unearned grace that God only gives out to some.

I would not say that God chose on His own, apart from any foreknowledge He has, because for me, God's knowledge, along with His power and Sovereignty, are all part of who God is – it's all unified. God is not apart from His knowledge, and therefore I don't think that God chooses apart from His knowledge anymore than He chooses apart from His Sovereignty. Rather, He chooses according to His knowledge, according to His Sovereignty, and according to His good pleasure.

“God chooses on His own.” I would agree with that sentiment. I also think that God choose conditionally, but since it is God who chooses the condition, God Himself is the foundation of all that He does. Some people think that if something is conditional, then the BASIS of salvation would be the person and not God. I see the merit of the idea, but I ultimately disagree with it. You see, if God had a compulsion to save everyone who had red hair, and if you had red hair, then He just couldn't help Himself and then saved you – then the basis of your salvation would be your hair, and not God. Or if God couldn't help Himself but to elect those who “pray a prayer,” then the basis of the salvation would be the prayer, and it would just kinda drag God into it, though His compulsion.

However, as we all know, it doesn't happen that way. If the condition of salvation was red hair, it wouldn't be because God is compelled, it would be because God, in His wisdom and according to His good pleasure decided that He prefers to only save those with red hair, and that it would give Him more glory that way. He would be picking the condition of salvation, but the BASIS of salvation would be in God's good pleasure – for God choose to save, He choose who to save, and He choose on which condition He would choose to save people.

That's how I see election. I do believe in conditional election, and I believe that the BASIS of salvation is God. It is not of man who wills (or else all Catholics would be saved, for they will to be saved) or man who runs (or else all the Mormons and Jews would be saved too, for they work hard), but of God who determines who to save.

And I don't believe that election is conditional just because I think it sounds nice. I believe it because every time I see salvation mentioned in the Bible, it is listed with a condition. Even in many non-salvation matters, God chooses to use conditions to deal with people. For instance:

Genesis 4:6

“So the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.”

Jeremiah 18:5-10

“Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying: 'O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?' says the LORD. 'Look, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel!

The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.'”

[Side note: God's actions are not determined by the people doing this or that, rather, Jonah correctly speaks in regard to God's conditional mercy upon Ninevah by pointing to God's character and saying: “Ah, LORD, was not this what I said when I was still in my country? Therefore I fled previously to Tarshish; for I know that You are a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, One who relents from doing harm.”]

Numbers 21:9
“So Moses made a bronze serpent, and put it on a pole; and so it was, if a serpent had bitten anyone, when he looked at the bronze serpent, he lived.”

It is not uncommon for God to deal with people according to conditions that He Himself, in His wisdom and good pleasure, sets. Jesus Himself, in fact, compared the salvation that He offered to the healing offered conditionally in the wilderness, to those who would look at it.

And then there's the commentary of Jacob and Esau, and how one was elect and the other was not – without regard to their works, whether good or bad. And that's exactly the point that Paul was making, he said: “nor having done any good or evil... [election is] not of works.” Paul says specifically that salvation is NOT conditional based on works, and that's exactly what the Jews there didn't want to hear, but they needed to hear it. He ends the chapter by saying that the condition God DID choose was faith: “Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. ”

And it all does come back to God's character too. We are told to imitate God's character through loving our neighbor as ourselves. If we see two men in a burning building, we are to try to rescue both if possible – not to save one unconditionally and leave the other. Even so, I do not see throughout the Bible that God's character is consistent with choosing to save some unconditionally, and not lifting a finger to even make salvation possible for the others. Now of course, I realize that for election to be conditional upon faith, people need to be able to have faith; or for election to be conditional upon ceasing to resist the grace of God, people need to be given by God the ability to cease to resist. We see this through Scripture as well, but that is another topic for another blog.

Three Responses To The Newborn King

The story of Christmas: an old message, but still not stale. After all, Jesus came once, and we are still looking forward to when He comes again.

The wise men, the ones always mentioned in the Christmas story, arrived at least a year after Jesus Christ was born, and here's an excerpt from the part of the tale when they arrived on the scene:

Matthew 2:1-11

Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, saying, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him.”

When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born.

So they said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written by the prophet:

‘ But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,

Are not the least among the rulers of Judah;

For out of you shall come a Ruler

Who will shepherd My people Israel.’”

Then Herod, when he had secretly called the wise men, determined from them what time the star appeared. And he sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the young Child, and when you have found Him, bring back word to me, that I may come and worship Him also.”

When they heard the king, they departed; and behold, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceedingly great joy. And when they had come into the house, they saw the young Child with Mary His mother, and fell down and worshiped Him. And when they had opened their treasures, they presented gifts to Him: gold, frankincense, and myrrh.

This was in the past, but even today, each person makes a decision of how to react to Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all. Notice the three different reactions to the revelation that Jesus is the Christ, and the coming King:

1) The chief priests and scribes knew all the facts, but didn't put two and two together that Jesus, the one who the wise men were seeking, was the promised Christ, who Herod was asking about. They told Herod where the Messiah would be born, without hesitation, and yet Bethlehem was less than a day's walk away and they never took the journey to see who all these leaders were making a fuss about or whether he was the Promised One. They had the facts, and didn't put them together – maybe they didn't want to put the facts together: Faced with inescapable evidence of His deity later, they still lived in blatant denial. They refused to understand that Jesus was King.

2) King Herod did put the facts together. After hearing about this newborn King, he researched this new King through the scribes and tried to tracked Him down through the wise men, because he took the Christ Child seriously. But he was not looking for a Savior; he wanted to be boss and king of his life and of his earthly kingdom, and didn't want anyone to threaten that reign. So when the wise men did not return, he simply ordered that all boys under the age of 2 in Bethlehem should be killed. He understood that Jesus was the King, but sought to end Him.

3) The wise men, on the other hand, they came, they asked, and they found. They put the facts together as much as they could, and asked for further facts and directions when they got to Israel. Upon finding the King, they worshiped Him, even before presenting their gifts to Him. They understood, and they worshiped Him.

So that's the story. And that's the choice.

It's not just a choice for those who are not yet Christ-followers, it's also a choice that we face every day. Do we live in denial of God's truths because we don't want to see? Do we see God's will, but try to rule our own lives instead? Or do we actively seek God's truth and His will for us, and then worship Christ as King through submitting to Him?

[Thanks to Charlie Eldred for the inspiration behind this post.]

Parody of "White Christmas"

I'm dreaming of a nice household

Just like the one I used to know

Where the counter-tops glisten

And children listen

To every-thing they're told to do

I'm dreaming of a nice household

With every order that I give:

“May your day be merry and bright!

And may all your chores be done right.”

.