God's Effectual Call?

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by El_Guero:
You have got to be kidding.

After all of these years of traditional definition, you want me to believe that God is redefining what He has said, through men that are NOT called.

I really do not think you understand the irony in that statement.

You are not called, but you want the called to submit to your interpretation of Scripture ...

This has to be a JOKE.

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 ]

 

[El_Guero]

This is a joke.

A man that is NOT CALLED OF GOD, continues to deny any and all scripture presented to him.

That is a joke. If it is not, then go to your president and tell him that "using sound hermeneutics and solid exegesis" proves that God could not have called him to be president of southeastern.

That is your premise, that is not my premise.

 

[El_Guero]

BB

Either you are joking, or you are really into a wierd new theology.

I just have to believe His Word. If you want to disprove that He calls His servants, you have to prove that.

 

[El_Guero]

Originally posted by El_Guero:
To be clear on my side, and so that I don't send you to your president without a clear background:

Christ commissioned (sent) the Apostles to commission others (make disciples). (Matt 28: 19)

Paul was called (appointed) to be an apostle. (Rom 1: 1 & other letters)

Paul appointed (commissioned) others to the ministry. And Paul expected this process to continue. (Acts 14: 23; Eph 4: 11; 2 Tim 2: 2)

Paul commissioned Timothy and Titus to carry on the succession and outlined the process. He also warned against laying on hands too quickly. (1 Tim 5: 21 & 22; 2 Tim 4: 1 - 5; Titus 1: 5 - 9; 2 Pet 1: 10)

Paul said that God sent [gave] His ministers, to build up the Church. (Eph 4:11)

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by El_Guero:
This is a joke.

A man that is NOT CALLED OF GOD, continues to deny any and all scripture presented to him.

That is a joke. If it is not, then go to your president and tell him that "using sound hermeneutics and solid exegesis" proves that God could not have called him to be president of southeastern.

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 ]

 

[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).

Originally posted by Bible-boy:
Originally Posted by El-Guero

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />There is no logic in what you are asking. The biblical call is clear.

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.

You called it the biblical call.

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).

I listed dozens of examples.

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:

One of the most frequent causes of confusion with regard to God’s will is the common failure to recognize the distinctiveness of God’s dealings with those to whom and by whom He chose to reveal Himself in the sacred Scriptures. You are not a Moses! Nor are you a Joshua, an Abraham, Ezekiel, Daniel, Matthew, John or Paul! You are not to expect the kind of revelation they received. God’s methods in dealing with them have not been His normal methods of dealing with believers in any age.

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

If you cannot agree with the definitions that are used at your seminary, how can you expect anyone to understand what you are fishing for?

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 suggest that you seek out a biblical authority to whom you must answer and ask him.

I would suggest the president of your seminary.

I pray that you will not pull out a logic book, faulty definitions, and a less than ideal understanding of logic and scriptures when you chat with him.

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).

To be clear on my side, and so that I don't send you to your president without a clear background:

Christ commissioned (sent) the Apostles to commission others (make disciples). (Matt 28: 19)

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.

Paul was called (appointed) to be an apostle. (Rom 1: 1 & other letters)

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.

Paul appointed (commissioned) others to the ministry. And Paul expected this process to continue. (Acts 14: 23; Eph 4: 11; 2 Tim 2: 2)

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.

Paul commissioned Timothy and Titus to carry on the succession and outlined the process. He also warned against laying on hands too quickly. (1 Tim 5: 21 & 22; 2 Tim 4: 1 - 5; Titus 1: 5 - 9; 2 Pet 1: 10)

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.

Paul said that God sent His ministers, to build up the Church. (Eph 4:11)

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

And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, (Eph. 4:11, NASB).

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”?

We have lowered the standard for pastors over the last 50 years, & now we want to remove the calling (appointment) from God pertaining to pastors.

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:

When we confuse the several meanings of a word or phrase—accidentally or deliberately—we are using the word equivocally. If we do that in the context of an argument, we commit the fallacy of equivocation.

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

It occurs when a word or phrase triggers off an associated idea, concept, or experience that bears no close relation to the text at hand, yet is used to interpret the text. …Or consider this statement: “The authority of the ordained minister is rooted in Jesus Christ, who has received it from the Father (Matt. 28:18), and who confers it by the Holy Spirit through the act of ordination.” The impression given is that Matthew 28:18 serves as biblical support for the entire proposition about the origins of the authority of the ordained minister. In fact, the chief connection with the text is the word authority, all of which the resurrected Christ claims has been given him. But the text says nothing about transmitting that authority, or some part of it, to a select subset of Christian disciples whom we label “ordained.” Unfortunately, the document from which the example was taken is riddled with parallel uses of Scripture, making it hard to believe this item was an exceptional exegetical lapse.

</font>[/QUOTE]

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

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

Good luck bible boy. Pietists are hard to convince when their authority is their own experiences--you can't take that away from them with your bible arguments and logic. I love Friesen's book but most people aren't very interested in it. Experiencing God has far exceeded Friesen in sales, but superior sales obviously does not equal superior theology.

You're up against an air-tight position that none may penetrate. It's impossible to denounce it because it is supposedly reinforced by saying that people who stick to the ministry were really called while those who fall away (or have poor results?) never were to begin with. How can you lose when that's your position?

BJ

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by El_Guero:
BB

Either you are joking, or you are really into a wierd new theology.

I just have to believe His Word. If you want to disprove that He calls His servants, you have to prove that.

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 ]

 

[El_Guero]

Brother

I clearly showed the text(s). I re-read God and His Word and found that God calls/appoints/sends/gives His servants to ministry.

You have shown nothing that changes how God and His Word has been traditionally understood for centuries.

 

[El_Guero]

I really think you should go to Dr. Akin. Make certain of your calling. If you have no calling, now is the time to find out. Don't do like so many others and become a statistic.

I know, I know, I hear it all the time. The difference? I actually study.

Whitney urges students to have private worship

You will find the reference to 95% (1 in 20) at the end of the first page going into the second page.

 

[El_Guero]

I spent (or wasted) several hours of my time in the attempt to help you make your calling certain.

If you do not have a calling now is the time to find out.

Don't listen to people that do not have a calling.

Do listen to God, and His Word, and His leaders.

Don't listen to me, BUT do listen to Dr. Akin.

 

[El_Guero]

PS

You have a 'bad' habit of getting excited and making exagerated claims as you attack another's position. And then you attack the person.

Brother, that could be a dangerous habit.

Your calling or lack of it, has a definite bearing upon the topic.

Would you go to a car mechanic to have your heart valves worked on? Or, would you go there to have your engine valves worked on?

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by El_Guero:
Brother

I clearly showed the text(s). I re-read God and His Word and found that God calls/appoints/sends/gives His servants to ministry.

You have shown nothing that changes how God and His Word has been traditionally understood for centuries.

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:

Careful handling of the Bible will enable us to "hear" it a little better. It is all too easy to read the traditional interpretations we have received from others into the text of Scripture. Then we may unwittingly transfer the authority of the Scripture to our traditional interpretations and invest them with a false, even an idolatrous, degree of certainty. Because traditions are reshaped as they are passed on, after a while we may drift far from God's Word while still insisting all our theological opinions are "biblical" and therefore true. If when we are in such a state we study the Bible uncritically, more than likely it will simply reinforce our errors (D.A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 17).

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

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

 

[El_Guero]

Print this off, and ask Dr Akin if a southeastern student should tell a minister that his exegetical method and hermeneutic were faulty because the minister used these texts to support a theology of a biblical calling of God's ministers.

This minister claimed that God calls/appoints/sends/gives His servants to ministry.

Do listen to God, and His Word, and His leaders.

Don't listen to me, BUT do listen to Dr. Akin.

Jer 23: 21 I did not send these prophets, yet they have run with their message; I did not speak to them, yet they have prophesied.

22 But if they had stood in my council, they would have proclaimed my words to my people and would have turned them from their evil ways and from their evil deeds.

31 Yes," declares the LORD, "I am against the prophets who wag their own tongues and yet declare, 'The LORD declares.'

Jer 35: 12, 15 Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, saying: .... Again and again I sent ALL my servants the prophets to you

John 20: 21 Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you."

Eph 4: 7, 11 But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it.....It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers,

Christ commissioned (sent) the Apostles to commission others (make disciples). (Matt 28: 19)

Paul was called (appointed) to be an apostle. (Rom 1: 1 & other letters)

Paul appointed (commissioned) others to the ministry. And Paul expected this process to continue. (Acts 14: 23; Eph 4: 11; 2 Tim 2: 2)

Paul commissioned Timothy and Titus to carry on the succession and outlined the process. He also warned against laying on hands too quickly. (1 Tim 5: 21 & 22; 2 Tim 4: 1 - 5; Titus 1: 5 - 9; 2 Pet 1: 10)

Paul said that God sent [gave] His ministers, to build up the Church. (Eph 4:11)

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by El_Guero:
PS

You have a 'bad' habit of getting excited and making exagerated claims as you attack another's position. And then you attack the person.

Brother, that could be a dangerous habit.

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.

Your calling or lack of it, has a definite bearing upon the topic.

Would you go to a car mechanic to have your heart valves worked on? Or, would you go there to have your engine valves worked on?

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).

 

[El_Guero]

BB

In the context of the book, that might have been ok. But, in the context of this discussion you implicate the tradtional view of the 'call' as an idolotrous tradition ...

You really need to talk to Dr. Akin.

Or if you are afraid of Dr. Akin, then talk with Dr. Bob, Or Dr. Cassidy.

But, you are drawing dangerous allusions.

Next you will allude to being Dr. Luther ... too late, you already did that. That is a cheap shot, but you deserve a few cheap shots.

 

[Bible-boy]

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.

 

[Gunther]

El, please demonstrate from I Tim. 3 (the qualifications of an elder) where a calling (whatever you mean by that) is required?

I have asked you for scriptural support awhile ago and all you have managed to do was go on attack like a cornered animal.

Your view lacks biblical support, theological support, and is just plain stupid. It is the product of emotionalism.

Why am I in the ministry? Because I want to be and I fit the qualifications. That is all I need if we use the Bible as the standard for truth.

Since you are your own standard, I will bow out of this discussion, because trying to reason with the insane is insane.

 

[El_Guero]

Gunther

 

[El_Guero]

BB

I have supported my scriptural view of calling. I have supported it with scripture. You met scripture with an attack upon my hermenutic. You even went so far as to discredit the hermenutic that I was taught in seminary.

You have provided no scriptural support for you lack of a call. You have provided anecdotal support from a book by Friesen (sp). You have used fallacy to attack a scriptural position.