-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Called for life?
- Thread starter agedman
- Start date
I would say, unequivocally, "yes!" However, those who believe in the cessation of the gifts at Pentecost, might disagree and argue gifts and anointings are for a season.
So, a preacher / teacher is called for life without regard to any circumstances that may impact the credibility of the person or message?
They are called for life. That doesn't mean they are always qualified. Circumstances change, and that would be up to those who follow that person to determine.
My calling didn't end when I was divorced and went prodigal. And the fruits bared witness to God no longer blessing me during that time. But, after I got right before God, He showed me the calling was still there. He opened doors, I didn't. That was good enough for me. I mentioned the prodigal, because the son never ceased being the son.
You asked for an opinion. I gave it. Sorry if it doesn't fit your cookie cutter view. :type:
Re: "calling"
Regarding "calling"... such an undefined term, IMO
Here's my opinion, nothing more...
For some it may be a life calling, for others it may be for a season.
Some of Israel's prophets served for their life... until their often untimely death.
Others served God during a specific time of their life, Jonah for example.
Rob
Regarding "calling"... such an undefined term, IMO
Here's my opinion, nothing more...
For some it may be a life calling, for others it may be for a season.
Some of Israel's prophets served for their life... until their often untimely death.
Others served God during a specific time of their life, Jonah for example.
Rob
As shown on this BB there is very little "cookie cutter" to my views.
Glad you expressed your opinion.
I was looking for specific Scripture support for the opinions expressed.
The prodigal son isn't that good of an example (imo) because he remained a son and upon his return wasn't given any more of the inheritance. So, although a son, the blessings of inheritance were squandered. What did he get? A ring signifying he belonged in the family, and a robe no doubt to replace the tattered clothes in which he walked home.
How does that relate to the believer? Some return to God with nothing of value, but He mercifully makes certain that they know they belong and are clothed in righteousness.
I too believe that a person may be "called for life," but that doesn't necessarily mean that certain things may alter the way(s) in which a person carries out this calling.
I'll give you an example.
There was this one fellow some 40+ years ago who told us that God had "called him" not only to join our church, but also that He had called him to be a deacon in our church.
We thought that the part of him claiming that God had called him to be a deacon in our church was a bit strange because our church already had acquired more than enough deacons over the years that we'd even considered asking some of the really older deacons to voluntarily step down from their offices.
Some of these older deacons were, by now, physically unable to fulfill their office's responsibilities; therefore, it made sense for them to relinquish their offices anyway.
Still, this fellow insisted that God had definitely called him to become a deacon with us.
Given this information, what would you have done?
I'll give you an example.
There was this one fellow some 40+ years ago who told us that God had "called him" not only to join our church, but also that He had called him to be a deacon in our church.
We thought that the part of him claiming that God had called him to be a deacon in our church was a bit strange because our church already had acquired more than enough deacons over the years that we'd even considered asking some of the really older deacons to voluntarily step down from their offices.
Some of these older deacons were, by now, physically unable to fulfill their office's responsibilities; therefore, it made sense for them to relinquish their offices anyway.
Still, this fellow insisted that God had definitely called him to become a deacon with us.
Given this information, what would you have done?
Rom. 11:29--"For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance." Note that "gifts" is a plural word but "calling" is singular. We are given gifts to use in whatever task God has for us, but the "calling" to salvation is singular--we are only saved once.
On the other hand, Paul often spoke of being called to be an apostle. I believe that one can be called to a certain task, as I was clearly called to be a preacher at age 18 and then a missionary at age 20. But one can become a castaway from that call--still gifted but no longer qualified because of sin. Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 9:27, "But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway."
A castaway from his calling may still have the gifts--and thus make an excellent insurance salesman! :smilewinkgrin: And a castaway may still be used by God after repentance, just not in the called ministry he previously had.
There is nothing in Scripture about a call to be a deacon. Rather, the choosing of deacons was done by the local church in Acts 6, as you will readily remember.
Concerning a particular location (your church), there is often what I call a locational call (as opposed to a vocational call) in the NT, when the Holy Spirit leads a servant of God to a particular place. This was true of the Macedonian call in Acts. 16. However, this was never true of a deacon in the NT. Deacons never went from location to location, but were chosen out of the believers already in the local church: "Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men ..." (Acts 6:3).
You are correct, the context of Romans 11, of course, is the relationship of Israel to God. However, it may also be applied as an example to the believer(s).
I agree. Accepting the statements the conclusion would seem that the call to preach / teach may not be a life long appointment.
By the same measure, is there a "call to preach?"
There are most certainly "gifted" teachers. I have met untold number of "preachers" who had no ability to teach. Sadly, most of them thought they were certainly qualified to teach and would ridicule public school teachers.
It is amazing that the typical assembly places great authority upon a few, when Paul (through Christ) records that EVERY member has a specific gift to enhance the assembly.
I believe in a call to any full time endeavor for Christ. I was called to be a preacher at age 18, then a missionary at age 20. My wife was called to be a missionary, then God led us together to serve Him.
I've had to deal with a "missionary" who said he wasn't called, but just went to Japan under the Great Commission. It was not a pretty sight.
A pastor may or may not be a teacher. They are listed separately in the Eph. 4:11 list of gifts to the church.There are most certainly "gifted" teachers. I have met untold number of "preachers" who had no ability to teach. Sadly, most of them thought they were certainly qualified to teach and would ridicule public school teachers.
I believe that Christ the Head of the Church, who has all authority in the local churches, delegates authority to His servants: Heb 13:17--"Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you."
A shepherd has authority over the sheep. Ergo, the pastor does too. Yet as you say, every member also has gifts to serve God with. It is not an "either/or" proposition.
Last edited by a moderator:
According to what my King James Study Bible [(c) by Liberty University] says about Ephesians 4:11 where it lists the various offices that our Lord gave to us, when it comes to the very last one ["....and some, pastors and teachers"] it has this to say about what the Greek had to say about this gift/office:
"The Greek construction for the last mentioned ["pastors and teachers"], this should be rendered pastors-teachers. This indicates that a pastor-teacher has a dual function: he pastors in overseeing his parishioners' spiritual lives, and he teaches by instructing them in the Word." (Note on page 1836).
IOW, the Apostle Paul (being inspired by the HS) is telling us that the office of pastor really ought to be rendered "pastor-teacher," thus saying that there is just one office, but with two functions: "pastoring" and "teaching."
I take this to mean that the HS is telling us that, when it comes to this office, a "pastor" is also a "teacher."
IMHO, I draw from this the assumption that this HS's gift can mean that, if a person is truly a God-called pastor, he must, of necessity, also be a teacher.
This is not to imply that, in our day and age, there cannot be other people serving in a local church as "teachers" such as SS teachers--or maybe as "teachers" who are found in our schools--but, when it comes to someone who is the pastor of that local church, if he's the "pastor" of that local church, he's also that church's "teacher."
So, if a man feels that the HS is calling him to preach, he must, of necessity, also be calling him to be teach.
"The Greek construction for the last mentioned ["pastors and teachers"], this should be rendered pastors-teachers. This indicates that a pastor-teacher has a dual function: he pastors in overseeing his parishioners' spiritual lives, and he teaches by instructing them in the Word." (Note on page 1836).
IOW, the Apostle Paul (being inspired by the HS) is telling us that the office of pastor really ought to be rendered "pastor-teacher," thus saying that there is just one office, but with two functions: "pastoring" and "teaching."
I take this to mean that the HS is telling us that, when it comes to this office, a "pastor" is also a "teacher."
IMHO, I draw from this the assumption that this HS's gift can mean that, if a person is truly a God-called pastor, he must, of necessity, also be a teacher.
This is not to imply that, in our day and age, there cannot be other people serving in a local church as "teachers" such as SS teachers--or maybe as "teachers" who are found in our schools--but, when it comes to someone who is the pastor of that local church, if he's the "pastor" of that local church, he's also that church's "teacher."
So, if a man feels that the HS is calling him to preach, he must, of necessity, also be calling him to be teach.
Not wanting to dispute what you posted--more like some clarification I suppose--but I guess what you're saying is that it's possible for a person to "desire" becoming a "bishop" (i.e., a pastor and/or an elder) when, in fact, that isn't what God really wants him to do something else--maybe even doing something that isn't something that we'd normally rank in the "religious category."
Please correct me if I've misunderstood you here.
God Bless & Hoping you have a blessed set of Worship Services at your church!! :wavey:
I see the pastor and teacher as two separate and distinct people and operations. Two separate words in the Greek with the conjunction not connecting the two together, rather that typical use when finishing a list.
Like I said, I have heard a vast number of pastors who were not teachers.
There are some who are to shepherd and care for the assembly as one who guards, protects, houses, leads, feeds... Peter was told, "Feed my sheep." However, feeding is not teaching and (imo) far too often some have taken the view that it is and therefore the preaching becomes a "cram it down their throats" time.
How often to preachers reflect that the people just don't get it? A lot, if they are honest. Perhaps that type of preaching is really force feeding.
There are some who are educators who have that great gift of recognizing the individual student's level of understanding and delivering education precisely and effectively. The teacher has results that are recognizable understandings of the assembled. The people will reflect, question, and apply the teaching in their living.
I have the habit of scanning the people in the assembly to pick up non-verbal clues of how people are responding.
Over the years, it is impossible to say the number of assemblies that disconnect after about 15 minutes into the "sermon" of the typical Baptist church. Many could not remember what was preached even 5 to 10 minutes after the sermon.
I tried to figure out why, and came up with a couple hypothesis.
One is that the typical attention span can be stretched to about 15 minutes at best. This is one reason that the typical TV programming breaks occur regularly within a show and the shows are built to heighten the interest level about one minute before the commercial break. The modern person is not schooled to sit still and thoughtfully listen for long periods of time. This is particularly evident when students are taking skill based and curriculum based tests that stretch out for hours. One reason (imo) that test scores are lowering.
A wise teacher will account for this time and again in their presentation and cause the listeners to actually respond in some manner: laugh, amen, gasp, startle... This break resets the clock of attention.
The other hypothesis is more physical in nature. When one sits in a certain position, the mind cues up various compensatory things (for lack of a better word at this time). If the body is tipped back slightly (such as one might have in a modern theater seating) then the mind begins to switch off the active thinking mechanisms and cues up rest/relaxation dream state. Again, one merely needs to reflect on their own state of readiness while at a typical modern movie house or at home in the recliner.
If the body is on a hard or semi hard surface as might be found at a restaurant dinning chair, office chair, student desk chair in the classroom,... then the mind becomes preoccupied with comfort - and more so when the ability to change positions is inhibited.
Unfortunately, the typical architects of a church or those who set up seating are also ones who are schooled in designing theaters or are trying to get as many as possible in a certain space, and when the harder seats are spaced closer together, the folks are distracted by the mind demanding one to move with no or extremely limited space.
So, again, the teacher, will provide for that movement in some manner, head shaking, hands raised, actually causing folks to shift in their seats by sitting up, or looking around where the shoulders must be moved, ...
This post is long, but those folks who are in authority may be able to glean something from it to observe, in their own assemblies, on Sunday and draw their own conclusion.
Like I said, I have heard a vast number of pastors who were not teachers.
There are some who are to shepherd and care for the assembly as one who guards, protects, houses, leads, feeds... Peter was told, "Feed my sheep." However, feeding is not teaching and (imo) far too often some have taken the view that it is and therefore the preaching becomes a "cram it down their throats" time.
How often to preachers reflect that the people just don't get it? A lot, if they are honest. Perhaps that type of preaching is really force feeding.
There are some who are educators who have that great gift of recognizing the individual student's level of understanding and delivering education precisely and effectively. The teacher has results that are recognizable understandings of the assembled. The people will reflect, question, and apply the teaching in their living.
I have the habit of scanning the people in the assembly to pick up non-verbal clues of how people are responding.
Over the years, it is impossible to say the number of assemblies that disconnect after about 15 minutes into the "sermon" of the typical Baptist church. Many could not remember what was preached even 5 to 10 minutes after the sermon.
I tried to figure out why, and came up with a couple hypothesis.
One is that the typical attention span can be stretched to about 15 minutes at best. This is one reason that the typical TV programming breaks occur regularly within a show and the shows are built to heighten the interest level about one minute before the commercial break. The modern person is not schooled to sit still and thoughtfully listen for long periods of time. This is particularly evident when students are taking skill based and curriculum based tests that stretch out for hours. One reason (imo) that test scores are lowering.
A wise teacher will account for this time and again in their presentation and cause the listeners to actually respond in some manner: laugh, amen, gasp, startle... This break resets the clock of attention.
The other hypothesis is more physical in nature. When one sits in a certain position, the mind cues up various compensatory things (for lack of a better word at this time). If the body is tipped back slightly (such as one might have in a modern theater seating) then the mind begins to switch off the active thinking mechanisms and cues up rest/relaxation dream state. Again, one merely needs to reflect on their own state of readiness while at a typical modern movie house or at home in the recliner.
If the body is on a hard or semi hard surface as might be found at a restaurant dinning chair, office chair, student desk chair in the classroom,... then the mind becomes preoccupied with comfort - and more so when the ability to change positions is inhibited.
Unfortunately, the typical architects of a church or those who set up seating are also ones who are schooled in designing theaters or are trying to get as many as possible in a certain space, and when the harder seats are spaced closer together, the folks are distracted by the mind demanding one to move with no or extremely limited space.
So, again, the teacher, will provide for that movement in some manner, head shaking, hands raised, actually causing folks to shift in their seats by sitting up, or looking around where the shoulders must be moved, ...
This post is long, but those folks who are in authority may be able to glean something from it to observe, in their own assemblies, on Sunday and draw their own conclusion.
The view expressed in your study Bible stems from a misunderstanding of what is called the Granville Sharp rule in Greek grammar. This rule states that "if a single article links two or more singular substantives, the second and subsequent substantives further describe the first" (It's Still Greek to Me, by David Alan Black, p. 80). True, there are two substantives (nouns: pastor and teacher) linked by a single article ("the") in Eph. 4:11, but they are not singular: "pastors and teachers" not "pastor and teacher." The Granville Sharp rule is never applied to singular nouns, so alas, your study Bible is wrong. Pastor and teacher are separate offices in the verse.
Having said that, a man may be (not have) more than one gift to the church. For example, a pastor may be a good teacher, or an evangelist may be a good pastor. Most evangelists pastor at some time in their ministry. However, the Bible is not teaching in Eph. 4:11 that a pastor is of necessity a teacher.
Actually, this mistaken interpretation (based on a misunderstanding of the Granville Sharp rule) does imply that in any day and age only the pastor can be a teacher. However, note passages such as Acts 13:1 or Heb. 5:12, in which teachers are mentioned who are not necessarily pastors.
Thanks for the info. Didn't know that the Liberty University Greek folks were so totally wrong about this (NOTE: My KJV Study Bible that's copyrighted by Liberty Univ. doesn't specify which person among its contributing scholars wrote this particular note, but I would have thought that whoever it was would have probably known about this particular function ofthe Greek noun poimen [Strong's # 4166].)
Not being versed at all in Greek, I personally would have never caught this error myself.
My pastor from 1969 - 1972, the late David C. Auckland of Faith BC, Sellersville PA, would often invoke Granville Sharp's Rule whenever he tried to explain some of the technicalities of Greek words to us, but never mentioned its fallacy with regard to poimen. Consequently, Bro. Dave also gave us this same interpretation whenever he happened to be covering this particular passage.
Anyway, I appreciate your informing about this glaring error in my KJV Study Bible. Most of its notes seem to be fairly accurate to me, so this error now makes me wonder if it's off in other places. I guess that's one of the problems you get with study Bibles--unless you're a theological whiz, you wind up never knowing where the authors may be wrong.
Not being versed at all in Greek, I personally would have never caught this error myself.
My pastor from 1969 - 1972, the late David C. Auckland of Faith BC, Sellersville PA, would often invoke Granville Sharp's Rule whenever he tried to explain some of the technicalities of Greek words to us, but never mentioned its fallacy with regard to poimen. Consequently, Bro. Dave also gave us this same interpretation whenever he happened to be covering this particular passage.
Anyway, I appreciate your informing about this glaring error in my KJV Study Bible. Most of its notes seem to be fairly accurate to me, so this error now makes me wonder if it's off in other places. I guess that's one of the problems you get with study Bibles--unless you're a theological whiz, you wind up never knowing where the authors may be wrong.
Not just at LU, but pretty much across the spectrum of Baptists the pastor / teacher is held as a single person holding both responsibilities, and I have even seen some suggest that is why the typical Baptist church does not allow "elders" considering that the pastor is the elder.