But isn’t God in control?

This is my last statement concerning the non-debate I had with a Reformed Constitutionalist.   I don’t want to become bitter and focusing on these points will feed bitterness.

“But I’m just glad God, not I, is in control of my destiny.”

This was the final statement in my (non) debate with a Reformed Constitutionalist.  After I had thoroughly dismantled all of his use of Patristic texts, this is what he came up with.    As an argument, there’ snot much to be said for it.   I think the point was that he (or I, or you) as a human is weak and if his eternal destiny depended on himself, he would be lost forever.

Of course, there is an important truth here:  God is in control and we should never believe we are autonomous and that we don’t need God’s life-giving communion every second of the day.   Thta is a glorious truth–but like all heresies, it is not the whole truth.  God calls us to work with him (Philippians) and Paul didn’t think that his conversion experience in Acts 9 mean that he need not bother worrying because it’s all in God’s hands (1 Corinthians 9, “I pommel myself…lest having started the race I find myself disqualified).   The false teachers in 2 Peter 2:1 were explicitly identified as those who were bought with the precious (and presumably securing) blood of Christ–yet even then it says they had fallen away (see also Hebrews 10)

But what about John 6, 10, and Romans 8?  Doesn’t that mean anything? It does and I would be lying if I said I knew the whole answer or how to synthesize both sets of texts.   That, though, illustrates the problem with reading the bible through a lens foreign to the early life of the church and outside of the liturgical experience of the church.


3 comments on “But isn’t God in control?

  1. vjhogan says:

    …Or even just reading the Bible without the whole of the Bible in view. Some people are intellectually consistant (if perhaps dishonest) enough to try to say that one text trumps another because…because it is easier to make it read like their interpretation, dammit.

    • tesla1389 says:

      Indeed. I’ll take it a step further. It’s reading the “whole bible” in view of the Church. For instance, saying Scripture interprets Scripture is worse than useless. That implies an objective starting point in interpreting Scripture, but one can’t say this on the text of Scripture alone. Why can’t I say Hebrews 10:28-29 and 2 Peter 2:1 are the starting points for interpreting the atonement? Scripture alone can’t answer these questions.

  2. Bobby Grow says:

    Or how about we read Scripture as intended, to bear witness to Jesus? And just admit that everyone reads Scripture theologically? 😉

Comments are closed.