• 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!

God's Effectual Call?

gb93433

Active Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by El_Guero:
NO SCRIPTURE

If you cannot support your theology from God's Bible, then it is NOT FROM GOD.
Not always. Show a verse on abortion. Show a verse on driving a car. Show a verse on using organ music in worship.


"A person who is not making disciples is disqualified for the pastorate.)"Mt. 28:19,20"

That means that every seminary student should have proof of making disciples before entering the pastorate.
 

Bible-boy

Active Member
Originally posted by El_Guero:
BB

I have learned that normally, the phrase 'effectual call' is considered to be a part of the salvific event in reformed theology.
Right, I agree. So how does God’s effectual call to salvation for all believers point to “God’s effectual call on your life to ministry” for a special select group of people who would serve in ministry today?

You have yet to show scripture to support your position. You continue to use the words of men. And you choose men as experts that are not called of God to lead His people.

You have used your eisegesis to support your disagreement with scripture.
Again, it is my position that the Bible does not contain a single verse that supports the idea of “God’s effectual call on your life to ministry” (in the exact same sense that you are using the phrase). You know full well that the Bible does not contain a list of what is not in it. Therefore, your continued request that I provide Scripture to prove a point that I am saying is not found in Scripture is quite illogical if not down right irrational. On the other hand, you are espousing that the Bible does support the idea of a "call" (according to your definition of the term). Therefore, you should be able to produce Bible verses that do support your position (without eisegesis); however you have failed to do so up to this point in our discussion.

I have stated my position. I have examined the Scriptures typically used to support the traditional view. I have demonstrated why a literal historical grammatical reading of those texts (without eisegesis) does not actually support the claims of the traditional view. Then I referenced respected published Bible scholars who hold the same view as mine. You know that this is how we write our papers in Seminary and that it is the accepted scholarly way to defend our positions.

You are claiming that I have not used Scripture to support my position. Then you turn around and accuse me of employing eisegesis. Hello… if I have not used Scripture it is impossible for me to have employed eisegesis.

Eisegesis is the personal interpretation of a text (especially of the Bible) using your own ideas whereby you import words and/or meanings that are not clearly found in the original text in order to support your own presuppositions and forgone conclusion(s). If I have done this please quote where I allegedly did so and provide a clear exegesis of the text that you claim I have abused. If you cannot or will not honor this request I expect you to stop making the groundless charge.

And you choose men as experts that are not called of God to lead His people.
Again, you have not successfully demonstrated from the text of Scripture (without eisegesis) that God does indeed “call” (in the way you are using the term) men who serve in ministry today. Again, you are making an argument based upon a premise that you have not as yet proven to be valid. Therefore, by demanding that I reference only men who are “called of God to lead His people” you are once again falling prey to the informal fallacy of begging the question (making a circular argument). You must first demonstrate that your use of the term “called” (meaning God’s effectual call on your life to ministry) is a valid premise based upon sound exegesis of the Scriptures before you can hold me or anyone else to such a standard for theological reference sources.

You continue your ambiguity and your usage of fallacy.
Please quote where I have been ambiguous and not attempted to further clarify in a later post once questioned, and/or fallen prey to fallacy. Then, regarding your claims of fallacy on my part, please demonstrate from a published source my alleged fallacy (like I did for the three times that you have fallen prey to informal and exegetical fallacies). If you cannot or will not honor this request I expect you to stop making the groundless charge.

If, on the other hand, you are simply stating that you do not like the fact that I have pointed out the fallacies you have used in your presentation of an argument here on the Baptist Board I am sorry. However, you have fallen prey to such fallacies as I have demonstrated using published scholarly sources. God is a rational and logical being as demonstrated by His intelligent design of creation. He created us in His image. He gave us highly functioning brains and the ability to reason and use logic and He expects us to use these gifts to think deeply about Him and His Word (as demonstrated by the fact that He chose to reveal His moral will for our lives to us through the written word). There is nothing wrong with applying a rational mind and logical thought processes during a theological discussion.

[ October 20, 2005, 06:44 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]
 

El_Guero

New Member
Right, I agree. So how does God’s effectual call to salvation for all believers point to “God’s effectual call on your life to ministry” for a special select group of people who would serve in ministry today?
MOVE ON

YOU ARE ATTACKING GOD'S CALL OF HIS MEN TO LEADERSHIP.

QUIT OBSFUCATING YOUR POSITION TO SOUND LIKE YOU KNOW SOMETHING WHEN YOU DO NOT.
 

El_Guero

New Member
You know full well that the Bible does not contain a list of what is not in it. Therefore, your continued request that I provide Scripture to prove a point that I am saying is not found in Scripture is quite illogical if not down right irrational.
Then you continue to argue from silence ... that is illogical. And since you claim a theology that is opposed to what God HAS revealed in scripture, your claim is down right irrational
 

El_Guero

New Member
You continue to evade why you have chosen to not go to Dr. Akin ... Your choice. And not a very intelligent, educated, wise, nor godly choice.

You should choose godly men to learn from, and you should study God and His calling. God fave mankind this worthy profession. He calls men to fulfill the opportunities in our profession of leading His people.

I cannot believe that you have chosen not to discuss your loss of a calling with your seminary leadership.
 

El_Guero

New Member
I thank the good Lord and master Shepherd that I have not fallen ill with a spiritual cancer that would consume my calling from God. I CANNOT even begin to understand the pain it is causing you. There is not enough morphine in the world to dull such a severe spiritual malaise.

I pray that the good doctors at your institution will help remedy your cancer before it destroys God's ministry through you.
 

Bible-boy

Active Member
Originally posted by El_Guero:
YOU ARE ATTACKING GOD'S CALL OF HIS MEN TO LEADERSHIP.
First, the protocol on Internet message boards is that when you type in all caps it means that you are yelling. There is no need to yell at me.

Second, no one has yet to demonstrate from the text of Scripture that God actually does “call” (in the exact same sense that you are using the term) men to be His leaders in ministry without resorting to eisegesis. I am saying that the Scriptures do not support such a claim. Therefore, I am not “attacking God’s call of His men to leadership;” rather, I am attacking a tradition of men, which some claim to be biblical, but in actuality can not be demonstrated from the Scripture (without eisegesis).

QUIT OBSFUCATING YOUR POSITION TO SOUND LIKE YOU KNOW SOMETHING WHEN YOU DO NOT.
Obfuscating by definition means: To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand. My position all along has been very clear. First, 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. Second, 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. These are two very clear and concise assertions—no obfuscation. Finally, so far in this discussion no one has provided Scripture (without eisegesis) that proves these two assertions to be invalid, false, or untrue.

[ October 21, 2005, 03:32 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]
 

Bible-boy

Active Member
Originally posted by El_Guero:
Then you continue to argue from silence ... that is illogical.
So is it your position that we can make up anything we want, so long as the Bible does not address it, and claim that it is biblical?

The Bible uses the argument from silence in the exact same way that I am using it. The writer of the book of Hebrews clearly says that Jesus could not function as a priest while on earth (Heb. 8:4). So we ask why could Jesus not function as priest while He was here on earth? The answer is because the Lord was from the tribe of Judah, and the law “said nothing” (i.e., was silent) regarding priests from Judah (Heb. 7:14).

Likewise, God has not been silent about His silence. The Bible warns us not to go beyond that which has been written:
“I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may ‘be puffed up in favor of one against another’(1 Cor. 4:6, ESV).”
There are occasions when the argument from silence is appropriate during logical debate. Likewise, there are occasions when it is inappropriate during logical debate. The key is to be able to recognize which type is appropriate and which is inappropriate.

For example: It is an inappropriate use of the argument from silence to claim that because Paul never mentions the virgin birth of Christ that he was ignorant of it. The reason this is an inappropriate use of the argument from silence is that there may well be other reasons why Paul does not mention the event. It is possible that he may have not considered it important to his line of reasoning. Likewise, it is possible that he referred to it in texts that have now been lost (and no I am not arguing for an open canon here). However, the argument from silence is not fallacious if it is used to prove that Paul may have been ignorant of the virgin birth of Christ. We are certain that Paul knew of Christ’s resurrection because he mentions it. However, because he never mentions the virgin birth it is not certain that he knew of it. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that he may have been ignorant of it.

It is not inappropriate to acknowledge that God’s word does not use the term “call” (in the exact same sense that you are using the term), and that there are no Scriptures that support the idea that such a “call” (as you are using the term) is required of those who serve in ministry today.

And since you claim a theology that is opposed to what God HAS revealed in scripture, your claim is down right irrational.
You claim that God has revealed the position you hold in Scripture. However, you have not been able to successfully demonstrate that claim to be valid and true by quoting Scripture (without eisegesis) that supports your assertion.
 

Bible-boy

Active Member
Originally posted by El_Guero:
You continue to evade why you have chosen to not go to Dr. Akin ... Your choice. And not a very intelligent, educated, wise, nor godly choice.
So now I’m ungodly... :( I am not evading any such thing. I told you last week that I would talk to him and present the Scriptures you suggested in support of your definition of “calling.” However, last week was the semi-annual SEBTS Trustees and Board of Visitors meeting. It is a big deal and a very busy time for the administration here. I want to be able to discuss the matter in detail and not just have a 5 min. conversation with him, which means that we both must have the appropriate time to engage in the discussion. I work a full-time third shift security job (11:00 PM to 7:00 AM) and generally I am asleep during the day time when everyone else is awake. I am going out of town in the morning to a family wedding in Northern Virginia. Perhaps I will be able to meet with Dr. Akin next week when I get back, but in the meantime none of this has any bearing on my conversation with you on the Baptist Board.

You should choose godly men to learn from, and you should study God and His calling.
What in the world do you think I am doing as I sit under the teaching of the professors here at SEBTS (like Dr. David Allan Black, Dr. L. Russ Bush, Dr. David Nelson, etc.), and studying the very passages of Scripture that deal with this topic?

God fave mankind this worthy profession. He calls men to fulfill the opportunities in our profession of leading His people.
Have you read John Piper’s book Brothers, We Are Not Professionals: A Plea to Pastors for Radical Ministry ?
We are fools for Christ’s sake. But professionals are wise. We are weak. But professionals are strong. Professionals are held in honor. We are in disrepute. We do not try to secure a professional lifestyle, but we are ready to hunger and thirst and be ill-clad and homeless (John Piper).
I cannot believe that you have chosen not to discuss your loss of a calling with your seminary leadership.
This is a false statement. I have already explained how I arrived at the conclusion that the Bible does not use the term “calling” (in the exact same sense that you are using the term) and that there is no Scripture that supports the idea that such a “calling” (as you are using the term) is required of those who serve in ministry today, and how I talked about it with my pastor (who happens to be a professor here at SEBTS). Likewise, I can not tell you how many times this issue has been discussed during my classes in Systematic Theology, Apologetics, Hermeneutics, Introduction to Missions, Baptist History, and Church History etc.

I thank the good Lord and master Shepherd that I have not fallen ill with a spiritual cancer that would consume my calling from God. I CANNOT even begin to understand the pain it is causing you. There is not enough morphine in the world to dull such a severe spiritual malaise.

I pray that the good doctors at your institution will help remedy your cancer before it destroys God's ministry through you.
There is no “spiritual cancer” here, only an honest reading of the Bible in its literal, historical, grammatical sense. I see by your continued use of the informal fallacy of ad homenim circumstantial (against the person/circumstance) attacks, and your failure to attempt to answer any of the questions that I have asked you regarding your use of the Scriptures that you are unwilling or unable to debate the issue using facts, sources, and Scripture to support your claims. Perhaps it would be best for us to simply agree to disagree on our understanding of the term “call.” However, I do promise to post the outcome of my discussion of your suggested passages of Scripture with Dr. Akin. We are after all is said and done brothers in Christ. Peace be with you brother.

[ October 21, 2005, 03:36 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]
 

gb93433

Active Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by El_Guero:
You continue to evade why you have chosen to not go to Dr. Akin ... Your choice. And not a very intelligent, educated, wise, nor godly choice.
Why go to a man who fits right in with the politics of the SBC when you can study the Bible?
 

gb93433

Active Member
Site Supporter
El_Guero

Sometime do a search on google or yahoo and read about how the good doctors of the SBC supported the BFA and not what the Bible teaches. I wouldn't trust the politicians of the SBC any more than I could throw them.

Sometime when you get the money buy a concordance and do some work to see how call is used. The let us know what you found.
 

El_Guero

New Member
After 10 pages, you are finally answering what I asked you on page 2:

How is it that you are unable to come to a clear and personal, biblical definition of 'calling', yet most in the survey can?
YOUR ANSWER:

First, 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. Second, 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.
 

El_Guero

New Member
My position that you continue to try to obsfucate:

God DID AND DOES call HIS leaders. There is NOT A SINGLE verse that supports God not calling HIS leaders. I have given verses that STATE that God states that those that are NOT HIS leaders - He did not send, nor did He appoint, NOR did HE speak to them. My position is clear: God sends, He appoints, He calls, and HE SPEAKS THROUGH HIS leaders. His leaders are called: pastors, shepherds, and sometimes leaders ... Jesus is the Chief Shepherd, and HE calls (or appoints) undershepherds.

The converse of a fact is truth ... for someone that claims to have studied logic, you are full of fallacy.

The converse of God stating that HE does not send false leaders is that HE DOES SEND TRUE LEADERS.

SHOW ME ONE TIME THAT GOD SAYS HE DID NOT SEND A LEADER?

One time?
 

El_Guero

New Member
JOHN PIPER, since you think he is opposed to God and His calling ...

John Piper is the Pastor for Preaching at Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis,
Minnesota. ... where he first sensed God’s call to enter the ministry.
 

El_Guero

New Member
And I agree, you will need more than 5 minutes to be respectful to Dr. Akin. Men at that level of leadership have many pulls upon their time. And they have no more time than anyone else.
 

El_Guero

New Member
Likewise, I can not tell you how many times this issue has been discussed during my classes in Systematic Theology, Apologetics, Hermeneutics, Introduction to Missions, Baptist History, and Church History etc.
Having had each of those classes in a different seminary, I find it difficult to believe that those classes discussed NOT having a 'call'. I am dialoguing with Professors, and they are not in agreement with your position. The closest that I have heard was, "Well there are some that believe that way."
 

Bible-boy

Active Member
Hello El_G,

I'm back from Virginia. I am going to see about making an appointment with Dr. Akin sometime this week. Anyway, I see you responded to some of my posts. My replies follow:

Originally posted by El_Guero:

After 10 pages, you are finally answering what I asked you on page 2:
How is it that you are unable to come to a clear and personal, biblical definition of 'calling', yet most in the survey can?

YOUR ANSWER:
First, 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. Second, 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.
I guess you must have missed my original answer to your question in a post that followed yours on page 2;

Originally posted by Bible-Boy:
Because the Bible does not contain a single passage that states that such a "calling" is required for all those who would serve as ministers of the gospel. Likewise, I maintain that the people who selected the "God's effectual call" option in the survey have not in fact arrived at that conclusion through a clear understanding of the biblical texts; rather, they selected it based on what they think about the ministry due to a misguided accepting of a tradition.
Or on page 3 where I said;

Originally posted by Bible-Boy:
I have asserted that the Bible does not use the term "call" in the same sense that you are using it to mean that "God effectually calls" all who serve in the ministry, and that there are no passages of Scripture that support the idea that such a "call" is required for those who serve in the ministry.
Or on page 4 where I said;

Originally posted by Bible-Boy:
On the other hand (personally) I have already addressed the question and arrived at the conclusion that the idea of such a "call" to ministry is not found in the text of Scripture and is also not found as a requirement in Scripture for those who serve in the ministry. Thus, my whole argument in this thread.
Or on page 5 where I said;

Originally posted by Bible-Boy:
I have stated that the idea that "God effectually calls" all who would serve in the ministry today is not found in the Bible. Likewise, I have stated that no passage of Scripture provides a requirement of such a "call" for those who would serve in the ministry today. Then I provided quotes and sources from noted Bible Scholars who hold that same position to back up my claim.
Or on page 6 where I said;

Originally posted by Bible-Boy:
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.
Also on page 6 in the same post as above;

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).
Or on page 8 where I said;

Originally posted 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.
Or on page 9 where I said;

Originally posted by Bible-Boy:
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.
10 pages ... slllllllooooooooowwwww

is an UNDER-STATEMENT!
Whatever... :rolleyes: I have attempted to answer every question that you have asked me in a very specific manner by quoting you and then giving my response. However, you have not returned the favor by answering the questions that I have asked you (particularly regarding your use of the Scriptures).
 
Top