The "Used of God"

by Perry 19 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Perry
    Perry

    reprobate, rep·ro·bat·ed,rep·ro·bat·ing,rep·ro·bates

    1. To disapprove of; condemn.
    2. To abandon to eternal damnation. Used of God.
    3. One who is predestined to damnation.

    While many people understand the concept of predestination and the doctrine of the elect, of more interest to me as of late is the doctrine of reprobation. At some point in Satan's battle and theivery against God he will understand that he was simply a useful instrument to God and that he was predestined to provide the setting (rebellion) in which God's grace could be fully exercised through election - adoption.

    He and the sons of Adam were in a sense the ransom (substitute) price of those adopted by God because the injury they naturally wished upon God by virture of their ruinous course became their own destiny. Hence justice comes around full circle and the emergence of a real family of God is a necessary fall out of that process where none can claim that they are owed anything by reason of their own natures or actually by reason of God's nature either.

    Interesting isn't it?

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    And the children of Auschwitz are supposed to applaud at the end of the show?

    God is a lousy playwright.

  • Perry
    Perry

    Nark,

    Is the playwright only good if pretty things happen all the time?

  • kid-A
    kid-A

    Interesting isn't it?

    No, not really. More like a ridiculous fairy tale, and a poorly written one at that.

  • PrimateDave
    PrimateDave

    With respect, Perry, I don't think I follow your line of reasoning very well. Are you saying that apparently the vast majority of those alive as well as those who have ever lived, assuming Creation of a Biblical nature and time frame, are and have been predestined to rebel against God along with Satan in order that an elect few, proportionately so, can be adopted as Sons of God? If my interpretation of your post is a reasonable facsimile of what you meant, then may I ask: Why? To what end?

    Again, respectfully, Dave

  • Woodsman
    Woodsman

    The problem is one could use the same book, the Bible, to both support and contest your comments. The problem is the book and not your genuine efforts to understand it.

  • Perry
    Perry

    Perhaps I should explore Nark's and Kid-A 's analogy of a written script a little more.

    Three young men, all very good friends decide to pull up to a movie theater after cruising around for a while. One happens to be an athiest, another is a christian and the other is agnostic. Only two movies are about to start. The rest are already playing. One movie is "The Return of Walton Mountain", the other is "Braveheart". Since they have seen neither, they read the captions.

    One reads, "A heart warming story of family values. John Boy fights recurrent acne and Mary Ellen learns Grandma's secret cookie recipie. Features the longest "good night" scene in Walton family history."

    The other reads, "In a world dominated by an evil, waring and invading King - Edward 'Longshanks' I of England, a new wind is about to blow.... William Wallace, a commoner and true patriot of Scotland. His desire for peace and freedom united the clans, gained the loyalty of the people, struck fear into his enemies and defied the cruel hand of the King. - a true story"

    Which movie will all the young men choose to see? Which movie reflects actual reality more, Mary Ellen endlessly whipping up cookie dough with a perma-smile or William Wallace experiencing injustice and deciding to confront it rather than doing nothing? Now, there is a place and a useful purpose for the Walton-style script, it's for children because they aren't capable of handling real life yet. Real life is punctuated with many hard choices with real dangers and real consequences. I believe that God has somehow imprinted the ultimate story of confronting evil into our psyches. Something mythic just seems to click inside as we watch or read similar stories of conflict involving these familiar archetypes.

    Hollywood, the world's greatest story-teller knows this, and churns out movie after movie on this basic theme. The typical story of good vs. evil goes something like this:

    The Hero was simply minding his own business, usually busy loving and providing for his family when the Villian shows up , unprovoked and steals or destroys the object of his greatest love .... a wife, a parent or if you really want a tear jerker, have the children murdered. The Hero thens begins his long struggle against the powerful enemy. Other commoners are at first scared but when they observe some of the Hero's actions, prowess, confidence and minor victories they are encouraged and eventually are convinced to struggle with him, usually without pay but for honor and for freedom. The point is they have a choice.

    Recall how Morpheus gave Neil the choice of the red pill or the blue pill in the Matrix? Take the red pill and you can never go back to the illusion of reality program fed to you by the mechines. Take the blue pill and you go back to your routine and "believe whatever you want".

    Recall how William Wallace confronted his army when they had all but decided to go home when faced with Longshank's army? He told them that they could go home if they wanted to and go back to their lives and die old men. No one could blame them. Or, they could stay there with him, on the battlefield of honor. He said its true that many of you will die today. But know this, that you will die as free men and not slaves to tyranny. Their battle cry was "For Freedom"

    Longshanks was truly surprised at this turn of events. The Enemy always tries to avoid a battle through fear and intimidation because he is a coward at heart.

    By Contrast, The Villian's supporters usually are paid or the Villain holds something over them that they desperately want or need like a bully. They are in a slavery to him of sorts.

    During the overall struggle something happens to our perception of the Hero that we didn't expect. Our sypmathy for him is transformed a little by his new found power and by his commanding others into battle where some do not come home. We are still in agremment with the overall necessity of the conflict but somehow there is a feeling that the hero should experience what he has asked others to do. Also, somehow he is tainted by all the blood shed.

    And so, William Wallace dies a slow, torturous death for refusing to "recant". Neil, locked in mortal combat with Mr. Smith seems to explode at the end, and God dies on a cross.

    "Listen carefully: Unless a grain of wheat is buried in the ground, dead to the world, it is never any more than a grain of wheat. But if it is buried, it sprouts and reproduces itself many times over.
  • Perry
    Perry
    Why? To what end?

    Again, respectfully, Dave

    Primate Dave,

    I believe that it was for the same results that William Wallace narrowly acheived... unity, loyalty, peace and more freedom for the Scottish people.

    The fact that God knew that the inevitability of evil would exist the moment he created others in his image doesn't make him responsible for those who chose to indulge it does it? Neither is he responsible if all the players of the enemy were predestined to destruction since evil itself was/is an inevitability and especially since all who come to Jesus are absolutely guaranteed to be saved. Do all come? No. Why? None can come unless they are called. This isn't being exclusionary. God's view is... come if you can. Since none can come on their own, they must be called.

    God chose to allow the emergence of the opposite of Himself so that he could engage it in battle, convince others to join him in this worthy struggle, ultimately defeat it and produce unity, loyalty, peace and freedom for untold millions of creatures.

  • DannyBloem
    DannyBloem
    While many people understand the concept of predestination and the doctrine of the elect

    well, I am not one of those... never understand why and how people could believe it

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    Perry,

    Deliberately or not you missed my point.

    I don't deny that history is (mostly) awful. That was exactly my point. Sh*t happens.

    I can understand the "God/Satan" story (fiction) as an attempt to make sense of it. (A rather poor one imo, but never mind.)

    In that case it can make sense for its rough correspondence with the autonomous, factual reality it tries to represent.

    But what you seem to be saying is that the story, as made up by a real God (and "using" a real devil as villain), is the actual cause for real history, and that the history was worth going through because it is a great story.

    Sorry, I'm not into snuff movies so far.

    I notice btw that you are not entirely consistent with this view. For instance, you write: "The fact that God knew that the inevitability of evil would exist the moment he created others in his image doesn't make him responsible for those who chose to indulge it does it?" Why inevitable? Who made it inevitable? Did God make it inevitable or did he have to deal with some exterior (if not superior) reality?

    I suppose Stendhal had a similar notion of God as sovereign playwright for history when he wrote: "God's only excuse is that he doesn't exist."

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit