God's Effectual Call?

[El_Guero]

Then to Timothy

Timothy, my son, I give you this instruction in keeping with the 'prophecies' once made about you,

 

[El_Guero]

Gunther

Question 3 was a waste of oxygen.

4) I take pride only in God ...

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by El_Guero:
Study logic then come back, and I will ask the same question again.

I have studied logic. I did make one mistake. I said that begging the question is a formal fallacy. However, it in fact is an informal fallacy. According to my Logic text book:

Begging the question is an informal fallacy in which the conclusion of an argument is stated or assumed in one of the premisses. Also called a petitio principii, or a circular argument.

Furthermore, the book states that to beg the question is to assume the truth of what one seeks to prove, in the effort to prove it (Introduction to Logic Irving M. Copi & Carl Cohen, 186-87).

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. You are attempting to argue the opposite position. However, you have not demonstrated from Scripture that what I have said is invalid. Thus, when you ask me to explain why "God has not effectually called me" you are assuming that it is true that such a call exists and is required for all who serve in the ministry. Thus, you are assuming the truth of what you seek to prove in an effort to prove it. A circular argument.

Before I (or anyone else) can answer your question you must first demonstrate that your use of the term "call" is correct and that Scripture supports your idea that such a call is required of all who serve in the ministry.

Thus, I ask again please define what you mean by "God's effectual call" to ministry. Please provide Scripture that supports the idea that such a "call" is required for all who serve in ministry. Likewise, please provide Scripture that supports the idea that God does in fact actually "call" all those who serve in the ministry of the gospel. Until someone provides these three things that support the opposing argument (to mine) the discussion cannot proceed in any form of logical debate.

[ October 25, 2005, 06:54 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by El_Guero:
(Titus 1: 5)The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.

Paul clearly 'left' (sent) Titus for the purpose of overseeing the implementation of those in ministry (installing the called)

Eisegesis. You have forced your idea of being "called" on a text that makes not mention of such a "call." All that says is that Titus was to appoint men as elders. Then it is followed by a list of requirements that men to be considered for the position must meet. Nowhere in the list is there a reference to being "called."

[ December 10, 2005, 01:35 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by El_Guero:
Then to Timothy

Timothy, my son, I give you this instruction in keeping with the 'prophecies' once made about you,

What does that passge have to do with (or in support of) the idea that God actually "calls" all who serve in the ministry or that such a "call" is required for all who serve in the ministry?

 

[El_Guero]

Isogesis

Did you mean Eisogesis?

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by El_Guero:
Gunther,

While I really do not have the time to spend on you, I have studied the subject.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Where does Scripture require or even hint at a "call to ministry"?

Men called/ordained/sent by God.

The only one that I can think of that does not explicitly fit this is LUKE.

The ones that I know fit:

Paul, Peter, John, Jesus, all the rest of the Apostles, Isaiah, Jeremiah, David, Saul, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob ...

Oh ... and just in case you did not get God's appointment, Judas did ... </font>[/QUOTE]These specific men were used by God for specific purposes (namely for the progressive revelation of God's Word). Their examples do not support the idea that God continues to interact in such a manner and intrude into the normal flow of daily life to hand select (i.e. call) every man who would serve in the ministry today. You and I are not Pauls, Peters, any of the Apostles, Jesus, or any of the great prophets of the O.T. God is not using us to continue the progressive revelation of His Word. It is complete the and canon is closed. Therefore, why should we expect God to interact with us in the same manner that He did in those specific situations?

[ October 07, 2005, 11:56 PM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by El_Guero:
Isogesis

Did you mean Eisogesis?

Yes, please forgive my being a poor speller. I'm working on it.

 

[El_Guero]

Bible Boy

You stated in your OP that tradition defines the call in the manner that I (& others) interpret it.

You changed the definition that you gave in the OP.

And you needed to pull out your logic books?

Do I believe that everyone in ministry is called? Most certainly not.

But, I do believe in the effectual call of God upon His leaders. How else can we be ordained? The very concept of laying on of hands implies that we men of God are transmitting an ordination upon behalf of God. (1 Tim 5: 22)

 

[Gunther]

El, I am glad to see that you are at least reading the posts.

You left the following off your last post:

I am sorry to everyone in this thread for wasting their time trying to explain truth to me. I prefer sloppy emotionalism and forcefed ideas upon truth. I cannot prove anyone wrong, and have been proven wrong. Please forgive my lapse in thinking.

 

[El_Guero]

Gunther

You are unecessarily being dramatic.

Since, you feel the need to be proven wrong, ask someone else a question.

 

[Bible-boy]

Hello El-G,

I assume you are referring to the following statement that I made in the OP:

Typically, when Evangelicals talk about one’s life-work we default to a traditional view and use the distinctive biblical term—called. The traditional view cites many illustrations from Scripture where God called a specific individual to a specific task and thereby teaches that the call of God is the essential aspect in determining one’s profession (held to be true even if one does not become a pastor or missionary).

Nowhere in that statement is there a definition of what you are referring to as being "called." It does not explain what the "call" is or how one knows when one is "called." It simply says that some Evangelicals default to such as belief.

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by El_Guero:
Bible Boy

You changed the definition that you gave in the OP.

Did I? How so?

And you needed to pull out your logic books?

I don't understand why you are asking me this question. You told me to study logic. I replied that I had and cited a souce for the definition of begging the question so that you would see why I said you committed that informal fallacy.

Do I believe that everyone in ministry is called? Most certainly not.

Okay, but are you saying that some in ministry today are "called." If so, please provide a definition of the term "called" that you are using and Scripture refereneces to support the idea that being "called" is a requirement for those that serve in the ministry.

But, I do believe in the effectual call of God upon His leaders. How else can we be ordained? The very concept of laying on of hands implies that we men of God are transmitting an ordination upon behalf of God. (1 Tim 5: 22)

That is a whole different subject that we should deal with after we have properly established whether or not the idea of being "called" is valid based upon the text of Scripture and whether or not such a "call" is a requirement for those who serve in ministry. You have not demonstrated that to be the case as of yet based upon soild exegesis of the Scriptures.

 

[El_Guero]

Did I? How so?

Let me begin by stating that I do not believe that it is impossible for God (or not within His ability) to “call” someone into ministry. However, I do believe that we (as Evangelicals) use the term “called” way too loosely .... Evangelicals ... default to a traditional view and use the distinctive biblical term—called.

provide a definition of the term "called" that you are using and Scripture refereneces to support the idea

Did that ... so did you

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by El_Guero:
Asking a man that is studying to be in ministry why God has not called him into ministry is not a logical fallacy.

It is a question that you should have already been asked.

As far as the current debate goes it is an informal fallacy because you are asking me to answer a question based upon a premise that you have yet to demonstrate is valid and biblical.

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. The task that I set before you (or anyone else) in this thread is to provide a definition of what you mean by "call," provide Scripture that supports the idea that God uses such a "call" to select those who serve in ministry today, and/or provide Scripture that supports the idea that such a "call" is a requirement for those who serve in ministry today.

 

[El_Guero]

There seems to have been some trouble understanding a question above.

"Begging the question" is not a question, but a premise that matches the conclusion.

Asking a question is not begging the question.

 

[El_Guero]

Your OP (premise) included the traditional definition of 'the call'.

Disproving the traditional definition does not rest upon me. You changed traditional definitions. I am merely continuing to accept the traditianally accepted definition of a biblical call.

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by El_Guero:
There seems to have been some trouble understanding a question above.

"Begging the question" is not a question, but a premise that matches the conclusion.

Asking a question is not begging the question.

By asking me to answer a question that is based upon a premise that you are attampting 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) then it would be appropriate for you to ask me your question.

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by El_Guero:
Your OP (premise) included the traditional definition of 'the call'.

Disproving the traditional definition does not rest upon me. You changed traditional definitions. I am merely continuing to accept the traditianally accepted definition of a biblical call.

Please quote from the OP the traditional definition that you say that I provided. Then quote from a post where I changed that traditional definition (all in one post please).

 

[El_Guero]

We have a conflict in definitions.

You defined the traditional definition.

I am merely using the definition as it is traditionally understood.

If you want change, prove it.

Show me scripture where more than 3 exceptions exist (men of God who were not appointed, called, or sent)?