God's Effectual Call?

Okay, but we are currently having the Fall Trustee and Board of Visitors meeting so he is quite busy right now. So until I can talk to him I’d like to continue our discussion and comment on these passages of Scripture below.

I note that you have now incorporated “God gives” into your idea (definition) of what “God’s effectual call on your life to ministry” means. Our discussion would go much more smoothly if you would honor my request and provide your own clear definition of what you mean when you use that phrase instead of making me pull it out of you one word at a time.

I’ll be happy to listen to both you and Dr. Akin so long as what either of you says lines up with what the Bible says without anyone having to import words or meanings that are not already present in the text of Scripture.

Context, context, context…?????

How do verses speaking about false prophets and God’s anger against them and his chosen people for listening to them, support the idea of “God’s effectual call on your life to ministry” for those who serve in ministry today?

How does Jer. 35:12, 15, which speaks of the fact that God sent prophets to speak to His chosen people, Israel, and they ignored them support the idea of “God’s effectual call on your life to ministry” for those who serve in ministry today?

God spoke to the prophets in an audible voice or through revelatory visions. This is what enabled them to use the prophetic phrase, “Thus says the LORD.” Are you saying that this is how He “calls” men into ministry today? If so, how many “called” ministers out there today can say that they have heard the audible voice of God (or have had a revelatory vision) telling them that He wants them to be ministers of His gospel?

I agree that this is what the Bible says. However, it again appears that you are attempting to use this verse, which does not contain the word “call” to imply that the apostles being sent equates to “God’s effectual call on your life to ministry.” Please confirm if I understand you correctly. If I am understanding you correctly I have a couple of concerns. I have already mentioned the first concern in that the text never uses the word “call.” Thus, it appears that you are importing a new meaning into the text in order to support your idea of what “God’s effectual call on your life to ministry” means. The second concern has to do with the context of the passage of Scripture where this verse is found. The context is that Jesus has just appeared to His disciples in His resurrected body. He tells them “Peace be with you,” and shows them his hands and side (John 20:19-20). Then He repeats “Peace be with you,” and goes on to tell them that he is sending them just as the Father has sent Him (John 20:21). Then He breathed on them and told them to “Receive the Holy Spirit” (John 20:22). He then goes on to explain to them, “If you forgive the sins of anyone, they are forgiven; if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld (John 20:23, ESV)." So the whole context of the passage is about Jesus appearing to the disciples in His resurrected body, and telling them that He is sending them out with the authority to forgive sins or withhold such forgiveness. How does Jesus’ sending out the disciples translate into “God’s effectual calling on your life to ministry” for those who serve in ministry today? It looks to me as if you are importing a meaning that is not in the original text or the context of this passage of Scripture. Please explain.

Again, I agree this is what the Bible says. Yet here again, I do not see the words “call” or “called” used in the text. So I must ask how does Christ’s giving of grace to believers and giving some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers equate to “God’s effectual call on your life to ministry” for those who serve in ministry today? It looks like you are importing words and meanings into the text that are not found in the original text of Scripture. Please explain.

I agree that Christ commissioned the apostles and that the great commission extends to all believers throughout all time (until He returns as King and Judge). However, I disagree with your above statement that the great commission’s command to “make disciples” means that the apostles were to “commission others.” Christ issued the great commission and its authority rests with Him alone. Once we become disciples of Christ, confess Him as Lord of our lives, we fall under His authority. Hence, His great commission applies to us. Likewise, 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. Please address these concerns with your use of this verse to support your idea of “God’s effectual call on your life to ministry.”

Yes, Paul was called to be an apostle. He heard the audible voice of the exalted Christ. Does his specific individual 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-shepherds? I would venture to guess the answer is none. Please explain.

Yes, Paul did appoint others to the ministry. Please explain how Paul’s appointment of others to ministry equates to “God’s effectual call on their lives to ministry”? Are you saying that Paul equates to God?

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. Please explain.

Please note that this verse never uses the word “called.” I note that you have now inserted the word “gave” which is the word that is actually used in the text of Scripture. However, that passage never uses the word “sent,” and even if it did, does being sent equate to “God’s effectual call on your life to ministry”? Please explain.

[ October 11, 2005, 11:40 PM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

Originally posted by El-Guero

Yes, I do question your hermeneutic when you take passages of Scripture out of context and force words and meanings on them that are clearly not present in the original text in an attempt to defend your presupposition. Yes sir and I would hope that your congregation members do the same just as the people in Berea did to Paul and Silas (Acts 17:11). They checked the Scriptures to make sure what Paul was teaching was correct and in line with God’s word.

No, I did not because I do not know what you were taught about hermeneutics at your seminary. All I did was to ask you to 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. Then I asked you,

Basically all I am asking is if you were taught that eisegesis (adding words and meanings to the text) is not the proper way to interpret Scripture?

Again, I have asserted that 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 today. Additionally, I have asserted that 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. It is precisely the lack of Scriptural support for the traditional view (your view) that forced me to acknowledge that I could no longer hold such a view. Then to back up my position I appealed to a published Bible scholar who happens to hold the same position.

I have addressed the passages of Scripture that you “claim” support your idea of “calling” and shown that one has to eisegete (add words and meanings to) the text in order to arrive at the traditional (your) conclusion.

When I say that there are no texts of Scripture that support your idea of “call” and none that show that such a “call” is required of those who would serve in ministry all I can do is make the assertion and rely on the reading of the word in a literal historical grammatical sense (i.e. letting the word speak for itself without adding words or meanings). If you want to disprove my assertions then it is up to you to provide Scripture that will prove me false/invalid without eisegesis (adding words or meanings to those texts).

I don’t think I have fallen prey to any logical or exegetical fallacies thus far in the discussion. However, if you believe that I have please quote where I have done so, and demonstrate it with sources (like I did for the three times that you have now fallen prey to fallacies in your line of argumentation). Or are you simply stating that you do not like the fact that I have pointed out that you have fallen prey to both logical and exegetical fallacies during our discussion? If that is the case I am sorry, but you have.

Yes, He is sovereign and omnipotent (all-powerful), and by doing so He would not violate His Holiness. Therefore, it is possible for God to “call” someone into ministry. My contention is that His word does not support the idea that He does in fact “call” (in the way that you are using the term) men into ministry today.

[ October 11, 2005, 11:51 PM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

Originally posted by El-Guero

How do you know that? Please explain.

That seems a bit dramatic. We are only having a theological discussion here. Do you think God minds if His people discuss His word and try to determine the best way to understand what He has revealed to us? I hope that you will not throw out the ever popular, “Touch not God’s anointed!” at some point in our future theological discussions.

Nope. You asked me a leading question based upon a premise (your idea of “called”) that you have yet to demonstrate as valid, true, and/or biblical using Scripture without eisegesis to support your argument. Asking me to answer a question that is based upon a premise that you are attempting to prove, but have not as yet proven, is begging the question. You have not demonstrated that God actually does "call" men into ministry today, yet you are asking me to accept your premise that He does and explain why I have not received such a "call." Once you demonstrate that your premise (that God does indeed "effectually call" men into ministry today) is valid, true, and biblical then it would be appropriate for you to ask me your question.

Nope. I stated my position that Scripture does not bear out the idea that God does in fact “call” (in the exact same sense that you are using the term) those who would serve in ministry. I referenced some of the texts that are typically used to support the traditional view (your view), and then demonstrated that a literal historical grammatical reading of those text does not actually support the traditional view (your view). Then I referenced two published Bible scholars who support what I am saying. You know good and well that this is how we defend our positions in papers that we write in seminary. It is the scholarly way to present your positions.

Nope. I agreed that you had accurately quoted what the Bible says in those verses. However, I did not agree with your interpretation of those verses. Then I asked you some questions to clarify some of the implications that you were making by using those verses to support your view (questions that you have yet to answer).

Yes. Any time you are “quoting” Scripture you are not free to just switch words or meanings. Likewise, I asked you to explain how even if the verse did use the word “sent” that it would equate to “God’s effectual call on your life to ministry” for those who would serve in ministry today? You have yet to answer that question.

Sorry you haven’t. Please answer the questions that I asked you following your use of each of those passages of Scripture.

Again, you have yet to demonstrate that God does in fact “call” those who would serve in ministry today is a valid premise. Likewise, you have never even attempted to provide a Scripture reference that would support the idea that such a “call” (as you are using the term) is required of those who would serve in ministry today. I am appealing to the Scripture in two ways. First, by reading it and not finding a text that supports the traditional view (your view). Second, by asking someone who espouses the traditional view (your view) to provide Scripture references supporting that view based on an interpretation that uses sound hermeneutics and solid exegesis (no eisegesis).

There’s the rub! Are you saying that the “call” of God to ministry is based on one’s personal subjective feelings? This is precisely what I am trying to avoid—having a strong inner feeling about serving in ministry and attributing that to “God’s effectual call on my life to ministry.”

Are you telling me that you hold all the exact same doctrinal positions after having gone through seminary that you held prior to going to seminary? Are you saying that nothing you learned in seminary caused you to question and/or change a position that you held prior to going to school? Are you saying that you are so sure of your theological beliefs that you will never have cause to change even a non-essential one? If this is the case man you have arrived!

Nope. You don’t know as much about me and how I came to that decision as you think. Here’s what happened. After coming to Southeastern College at Wake Forest (shares the campus with SEBTS) I was required to take a hermeneutics course. In that course I learned how to read the Bible in a literal historical grammatical sense. I learned that we all have certain presuppositions when we approach the text of Scripture. I learned how to recognize my presuppositions and set them aside in order to allow the Scriptures to speak for themselves. It is a constant challenge that never goes away. Anyway, I started to apply this way of understanding and interpreting the Bible in my personal study time. I started to examine my theological and doctrinal positions under the white hot spotlight that this hermeneutical method provided. I examined the Word in this manner regarding the traditional view of being “called” into ministry. In doing so I could not find Scripture that actually supported the traditional view. I realized that in order to continue to hold to the traditional view that I was having to eisegete (add words and meanings that were not clearly already present in the texts). When I realized that I was doing this I knew that something had to change. I could not go around making the Bible say what it never said in the first place. It is precisely the lack of Scripture that supports the idea of being “called” (in the sense that you are using the term) that caused me to change my thinking on the issue. I took my concerns to my pastor. He informed me that he had gone through the same process. Then he suggested that I read Friesen’s book so that I could see that there were published Bible scholars out there that held that same position.

No, rather I would say that I pointed out to you, using scholarly works, that you had made mistakes in those areas during your presentation of an argument here on the Baptist Board. I hope that you will not just disregard the things I pointed out (because our discussion got heated); but rather, that you will take a long hard look and ask yourself if you could improve in those areas.

I couldn’t ask you to do anything more.

[ October 11, 2005, 06:56 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

I will state that I can find five general calls in the Bible that extend to all Christians. I have them written down in some notes at home. I'll have to go find the references. However, I maintain that these general calls do not equate to the specific "call" (as in the traditional view). More later.

[ October 12, 2005, 11:38 PM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

Hey El-G,

My position is that there is no Scripture that supports the idea of "God's effectual call on your life to ministry" (in the exact sense that you are using the term). Furthermore, there is no Scripture that supports the idea that such a call (as you are using the term) is required of those who would serve in ministry.

When the Scriptures are silent regarding an accepted tradition we should be intellectually honest enough to admit that fact. Then we should not be dogmatic in claiming that our tradition is biblical.

The idea of calling (as you are using the term) is not found in God's word. I can't make it any clearer than that. If you disagree with my position all you have to do is provide Scripture (without eisegesis) that supports your position and proves mine to be invalid. You have yet to provide such Scripture (without eisegesis).

My use and understanding of logic has been in full agreement with scholarly published sources. It is you that has fallen prey to various fallacies in the presentation of your arguments. If you believe that I have fallen into fallacies all you have to do is quote where I allegedly did so, and provide a scholarly published source that supports your claim. You have yet to do so. All you have done is throw out the claim that my logic is faulty.

I have not engaged in eisegesis. All I have done is to allow the text of Scripture to speak for itself in its literal historical grammatical (exegetical) sense. I am sorry if that bothers you. However, I will not import words and meanings into the text that are not already clearly present in the original text just to support a tradition of man.