God's Effectual Call?

Before you can level such a charge you must first demonstrate from the Scriptures using sound hermeneutics and solid exegesis that God does indeed "call" those who would serve in ministry. You have not done that up to this point in the discussion. All you have done is to dogmatically insist that God does "call" all those who would serve in ministry. Please back that claim up from the Scriptures using sound hermeneutics and solid exegesis.

[ October 09, 2005, 12:31 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

All I am asking you to do is present a passage of Scripture that supports your claims without you having to add words to the text or import a meaning that is not found in the text itself. Isn't that how they taught you to interpret Scripture at your seminary? Just read the text and let it speak for itself. By they way, why do you keep wanting to drag Dr. Akin into this discussion?

[ December 10, 2005, 02:10 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

I can repost my previous posts also. Please note that I have responded to each of your claims point by point. You on the other hand rarely even attempt to address my assertions (or refutations of your claims).

Perhaps I may not be communicating my point very well (or maybe you are willfully misunderstanding what I am saying). Either way, I’ll try again. The point that I am making is that the Bible does use the term “call” (kaleo). It is used 148 times (with an additional 70 variations based on the same root word). It has three basic theological uses. However, the Bible never uses the term “called” in the same exact sense that you are using it to mean that God “effectually calls” all who serve in ministry. Additionally, there is no passage of Scripture that supports the idea that such a “call” (as you are using the term) is required of those who serve in ministry.

I said that the term “call” is found in the Bible. Then I went on to demonstrate that the basic theological uses of the term “call” found in the Bible do not equate to the exact same way that you are using the term “call” (to mean that God “effectually calls” all who serve in ministry today).

And I argued that those examples are the exception rather than the rule and that they are not indicative of the normal way in which God has dealt with believers in any age. Just as argued by Charles R. Smith:

This is an assertion that has so far in the discussion not been refuted.

My seminary is not the final authority on biblical interpretation. The leadership at SEBTS understands that concept and has employed professors that hold various doctrinal positions on numerous topics. Likewise, I am not “fishing” I am plainly asking you to simply and clearly state in detail what you mean when you use the term(s} “call,” “called,” and/or the phrase “God’s effectual call on your life to ministry.” Then I am asking you to provide Scripture that supports your definition of those terms/phrase. Finally, I am asking you to provide Scripture that shows that such a “call” (as you are using the term) is required of those who serve in ministry. If you cannot or will not honor this simple request our discussion can go no further.

I have discussed this issue with the most direct biblical authority in my life (my pastor) who also happens to be a professor here at SEBTS. He holds the same view that I am expressing and is the one who suggested Friesen’s book, Decision Making and the Will of God: A Biblical Alternative to the Traditional View, where this view is supported.

I am sorry that you do not like the fact that I used my logic book to show that you had indeed committed an informal fallacy in your line of argumentation. Likewise, you do not have to agree with the definitions that I have used (another reason why I have repeatedly asked you to supply your own definition and Scripture to support that definition). My understanding of the Scriptures is based on sound hermeneutics and solid exegesis. However, I have asserted that you employed eisogesis when you attempted to use the Scripture to support your argument. This is an assertion that you have yet to refute. I am not so proud as to assume that I cannot be instructed in my understanding of the Bible and would welcome the chance to discuss this issue with Dr. Akin (President of SEBTS).

Agreed. However, does the great commission mean that God has “effectually called” all who would serve in ministry? If so, where do the Scriptures support the idea that such a “call” is required of those who serve in ministry? Does being commissioned and sent equate to “God’s effectual call on your life to ministry”? I really do not think that you want to go down this path of argumentation. It is often used by liberals to support their claim that women can be pastors.

Yes, Paul was called to be an apostle. He heard the audible voice of the exalted Christ. Does his specific call to be an apostle equate to “God’s effectual call on your life to ministry” for all who would serve in ministry today? If so, how many “called” pastors out there have likewise heard the audible voice of Christ tell them that He wants them to be His under-shepheards? I would venture to guess the answer is none. We are not to expect the same kind of supernatural revelation that the great prophets and apostles of the Bible received. God’s word is complete and the canon is closed. God is not continuing to progressively reveal His word through us today.

That is correct. However, does Paul’s appointment of others to ministry equate to “God’s effectual call on their lives to ministry”? Are you saying that Paul equates to God? Does the laying on of hands equate to “God’s effectual call on one’s life to ministry”? If so please support that idea with a corresponding passage of Scripture.

Yes. However, does Paul’s commissioning of Timothy and Titus equate to “God’s effectual call on their lives to ministry”? Is Paul now equal with God? The same questions also apply to the men appointed by Timothy and Titus. Do their appointments of others equate to “God’s effectual call on the other’s lives to ministry”? Are Timothy and Titus now to be equated to God? Does the laying on of hands equate to “God’s effectual call on one’s life to ministry”? If so please support that idea with a corresponding passage of Scripture. It looks like you are espousing the very Roman Catholic doctrine of Apostolic Succession here if I understand you correctly.

No, that passage never uses the word “sent.” It says,

You have once again applied eisogesis by importing your own presupposition into the text of the Scripture. That passage never uses the word sent (or more importantly "called") and even if it did, does being sent equate to “God’s effectual call on your life to ministry”?

So from this quote it does in fact appear that when you use the word “call” that you actually mean “appointment.” Then in support of your holding to the traditional view you are equating the “appointment” of (or by) men with “God’s effectual call on your life to ministry.” This is a fallacy of ambiguity, namely Equivocation. According to Copi and Cohen, Introduction to Logic:

D.A. Carson in his book entitled, Exegetical Fallacies, refers to this as “Unwarranted Associative Jumps.” According to Carson,

</font>[/QUOTE]

[ October 09, 2005, 01:07 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

I have asserted that there is no passage of Scripture that supports the way that you are using the term "call." Likewise, I have asserted that there is no passage of Scripture that requires such a "call" (in the way you are using the term) for those who would serve in ministry. I have gone on to demonstrate how the passages typically used by those who support the traditional view (your view) have been misinterperted and do not actually prove the traditional premise (your premise). When you have responded with Scripture in an attempt to support your view I have asserted that you have engaged in eisegesis by importing words and meanings that are not found in the actual text. You have not shown that assertion to be false or invalid. You have simply either ignored the posts or replied with an ad hominem circumstantial argument against me claimimg that my arguments are invalid because I have not been "called." Here you fall prey to another informal fallacy of relevance. You are making a fallacious attack in which the thrust is directed, not at the conclusion, but at the person who asserts or defends it (Copi & Cohen, Introduction to Logic, 166). In effect you are saying that only "called" pastors can rightly interpret God's Word. I think that our Baptist forefathers would wholeheartedly disagree with you on that point.

[ December 10, 2005, 02:13 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

How did you re-read God? Anyway, the point is that in order for you to arrive at the conclusion that God "calls" His servents to ministry you use texts of Scripture that make no use or mention of the word "call." Instead you import your understanding and interpretation of the word "call" into the text and force words like sent and commission to mean "call." Then you forced the idea of "call" and make it fit your understanding of "God's effectual call on your life to ministry."

You can't use the traditional understanding argument to justify importing and adding meaning to a text of Scripture where such meaning is not contained in the actual words of the Scripture. That is exactly how the Roman Catholics justify the baptism of infants. When pushed to demonstrate that position from the Scripture they default to the "It is the Church's Tradition and as such is beyond question." We are having the very same type of argument that Luther had with the Pope in 1517. One (Luther)wanted only to let the Scriptures speak for themselves, and one (the Pope) wanted to rest on the Church's tradition.

Let me give up one last quote from D.A. Carson on this matter:

Please think about that quote. For now I am going to bed.

[ December 10, 2005, 02:16 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

Sorry one last post. I have not been excited at any point in our discussion. If I have made an exagerated claim please quote it for me and we can discuss it later.

Again, you have yet to demonstrate that your idea of one being "called" into ministry is valid, true, and biblical based on sound hermeneutics and solid exegesis of the Scriptures (without importing words and meanings that are not found in the text itself).

 

No I don't desevre any cheap shots and I would expect a minister to not even make such a statement.

The point of the Carson quote was not about what you refer to as the "call." It was about your hermenutical position whereby you were attempting to argue that I must be wrong and you must be right because you are espousing the traditional view and I am not.

I'm not afraid of Dr. Akin. He has an open door policy. Likewise, Dr. Bob and Dr. Cassidy are free to join in this discussion at any time they like.

I am not drawing any allusions. I simply pointed out that making an argument solely based on the fact that its is tradition is invalid because traditions can end up far away from what the Bible actually has to say.