God's Effectual Call?

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by gb93433:
Discuss with us some of the scriptures you claim to support your ideas and how you would interpret them in light of their historical context.

To quote Dr. R. Logan Carson, "That's the point!"

We can discuss what you think others believe but I always thought Baptists claim to believe the Bible and not popes. So lets get down to the real issue of what scripture teaches not what you think someone else believes.

Here, here!

So tell us what you believe giving us scripture interpreted in light of its historical context.

Yes, please.

 

[Bible-boy]

As best as I can tell from the statements he has made in this discussion he believes the following:

1. God calls specific men to specific places and at specific times to be pastors. This seems to the general trend of his posts throughout this thread. However, he has refused repeated requests to provide his own definition of exactly what he means when he uses the terms “call” or “called,” and/or the phrase “God’s effectual call on your life to ministry.”

2. Being a “called” pastor is a profession.

Originally posted by El_Guero:
God fave mankind this worthy profession. He calls men to fulfill the opportunities in our profession of leading His people.

3. One’s personal subjective feelings [emphasis mine] equate to “God’s effectual call on one’s life to ministry.”

Originally posted by El_Guero:
I want this to be clear: there is no way that you without a 'call' from God can understand what I and others have felt [emphasis added here is mine] when 'called' by God Himself.

Ask your self: "How is it that I, "Bible-Boy", no longer have a felt [Emphasis added here is mine] call from God for me, "Bible-Boy", to go into ministry?"

4. Traditional interpretations and/or church traditions out weigh a born again Christian’s literal reading and understanding of the Bible.

Originally posted by El_Guero:
You have shown nothing that changes how God and His Word has been traditionally understood for centuries.

I replied:

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).”

…And he responded with:

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 ...

5. Only “called” pastors and seminary professors can rightly interpret the Bible.

Originally posted by El_Guero:
You are not called, but you want the called to submit to your interpretation of Scripture ...

This has to be a JOKE.

This is a joke.

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

It should be noted that if or when he presented Scripture it was taken out of context and he imported words and meanings onto the biblical texts in an attempt to support his presupposition. A charge he has yet to refute or correct any misunderstanding (if any) on my part.

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.

Funny… since he professes to be one of the “called,” why do I need to go to someone else? Why can’t he just explain his interpretation?

Ordained men of God, that have studied God's Word have come to the same conclusion that I have. Many Ordained men of God have done so.

You claim that you are not sent from God.

As I have continued to do so, I implore you to seek out God, and those men that He has called, for guidance.

6. A literal, historical grammatical reading and understanding of the Bible is some sort of “new hermeneutical” method that leads to some sort of “new exegesis.”

Originally posted by El_Guero:
You have claimed that your basis is what South Eastern has taught you this new logic, new exegesis, and new hermeneutic. Show me that this is what South Eastern is teaching. Give me an article and page number. Give me a dissertation and page number. Surely, Dr. Akin knows the answer if you do not.

7. It is an acceptable hermeneutical method to hold to a presupposition, ignore biblical context in order to find a proof text that you believe supports your presupposition, and use eisegesis (import outside words and meanings onto the biblical text) in order to make your interpretation fit your presupposition. This seems to be his preferred method of addressing the Scripture throughout the pages of this discussion.

El_Guero,

If I have misunderstood (or misrepresented) any of your beliefs above please accept my apology and my invitation to you to correct them and/or further explain your beliefs.

[ December 10, 2005, 03:23 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by gb93433:
One would wonder about the theology of Dr. Akin, a professsor who uses both dispensational books and non-dispensational books in a class on hermeneutics.

I don't see a theological problem with that if you want to be sure to cover those differing points of view from their own sources.

[ December 08, 2005, 06:27 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

[El_Guero]

gb

CITE YOUR SOURCES. And quit hiding behind your popes.

 

[El_Guero]

BB

The Bible is what I cited. When you did not like the Word of God, I gave the words of men called by God to ministry. When you didn't like that, I researched the traditional church's point of view.

I have spent many hours researching this and trying to give you an out.

When I first approached God's Word through His Apostle, I felt that you might be on to a reasonable interpretation.

However, exegesis and the application of hermeneutics leads me to believe that hiring men to serve God in the position of a pastor is WRONG, if they have not been called by God.

You continue to twist what I wrote. And that is sad. I admit that I am a sinner, and I do not deserve to be called by God to serve Him. I tried to take your side, because I really don't want to be called. Being woken up at 2 AM and 3 AM by a Holy God when you are a sinner is NOT FUN. It is a noble work, but it is NOT ATTRACTIVE.

Because of this humility and fear before the Almighty hand of God, I have tried to interpret the Word of God in the manner that you have continued to profess.

I came to the conclussion some time ago, 'a man (or woman) desiring to serve God is noble,' but a 'human desire' does equate to a 'call from God to His ministry.'

You have NEVER provided any scripture that supports the view that someone does not need to be called. The only scripture you point to is 1 Tim 3:1.

You need to revisit why you lost your call from God. The path you have chosen on this interpretation is a slippery slope.

 

[El_Guero]

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

web page

 

[El_Guero]

Originally posted by El_Guero:
Jer 23: 21ff 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,

 

[El_Guero]

I could go back and bring up my posts and your posts.

You would again attribute words to me that I never said.

And it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that you got that fancy education at SEBTS.

 

[El_Guero]

I have studied the topic and the scriptures that I presented in support of God calling men into ministry.

You have allowed me to solidify what I already believed.

 

[gb93433]

El_Guero

You have posted six posts with zero discussion about how you would interpret 1 Timothy 3:1 or any other passage to support your view in light of its historical context, other than to ask questions.

Don't give us page after page of rhetoric but some real substance so we can intellignetly discuss the issue.

You have told us about your knowledge of Greek so take a look at 1 Timohty 3:1 and intelligently tell us how you would interpret the middle voice in that verse. I don't think I am missing something but I might and if I am wrong correct me through an intelligent discussion of the Greek text.

Just show us one verse where God calls a person as a pastor. Out of all the verses which use the word "call" I am unable to find one connected with pastoring.

Am I missing something? Is that too much to ask? If you are here just to voice oyur opinion without proof I am not interested.

When God gave pastor and teachers he gave gifts of grace to the church. But again does he call them or is it the pastors passion and his desire? From what I see in 1 Timothy 3:1 the passion and desire is initiated by the person who desires to be a pastor.

That desire is worthless if not first met by some basic qualifications which are observable. One is that he must be carrying out Mt. 28:19,20 and 4:19. Plus the fact is that all of the qualifications for a pastor are present tense.

What Jesus did to His disciples is to command them to come follow Him. Every believer has a general calling by God to go and make disciples but I see no specific call in scripture from God to a man to pastor. No doubt God can direct a man or preacher.

You have got to know that scripture does not tie together prophets and pastors as equal in the OT or NT. Remember the prophet Paul met in Acts 11:28?

If you tie together prophets in the NT and pastor then how do you handle the verse in 1 Cor 14:29?

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by El_Guero:
I have studied the topic and the scriptures that I presented in support of God calling men into ministry.

You have allowed me to solidify what I already believed.

This sort of argument reminds me of years ago when I had a roommate in college and he told me about an answer to prayer he had. He was convinced of its rightness until I showed him in scripture where he was wrong. All of a sudden he changed his talk. But that still did not last. He told a young Christian girl one day that God wanted him to marry her. She had been taught the man is the leader and God speaks through him, so she agreed. The main problem was that anyone who had an ounce of wisdom did not agree with their decision. Their marriage has not lasted and ended in divorce. The biggest problem is that he was proud and arrogant and did not listen to others. He had the attitude that he was always right.

Isn't it amazing that you try to use such logic? Claerly if you have studied the topic so well then you would eagerly allow your theology to be tested so you could see the flaws if there are some. Your style sets you up as a subjective authority and not scripture.

I believe that many have been misled over the years by men who claim to know what is right and really do not. Those "right" men have not allowed themselves to be corrected within the body of believers.

Have you not given any thought to the idea that Bible-boy and myself have been in the SBC and went to a different SBC seminary? We do not even know each other. We have never met or had any conversation yet we agree on this issue. Why?

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by El_Guero:
You even went so far as to discredit the hermenutic that I was taught in seminary.

Where did you go to seminary?

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by El_Guero:

BB

The Bible is what I cited. When you did not like the Word of God, I gave the words of men called by God to ministry. When you didn't like that, I researched the traditional church's point of view.

It is not that I did not like the Word of God. I love the Bible and hold it in the highest esteem. It is the inerrant, infallible, inspired Word of God. What I objected to (or charged against your use of it) is your interpretation of the Word. When you did quote Scripture it looked to me as if you had:

1. Started with the presupposition that specific men are called by God to specific places at specific times to be pastors today.
2. Went searching for a proof text that you believe supports that presupposition.
3. Ignored the context of the entire passage in Jeremiah.
4. Imported an outside meaning onto the word “sent” so that you could force it to mean “called.”

If in fact this is the case these hermeneutical problems result in eisegesis of the Scriptures and end in a faulty interpretation of what the Bible actually says. Again, if I have misunderstood you please accept my apology and my invitation to correct my misunderstanding and further explain your use of the Scriptures.

Originally posted by El_Guero:
I have spent many hours researching this and trying to give you an out.

When I first approached God's Word through His Apostle, I felt that you might be on to a reasonable interpretation.

However, exegesis and the application of hermeneutics leads me to believe that hiring men to serve God in the position of a pastor is WRONG, if they have not been called by God.

Okay, I accept that you believe that to be correct and true. That being the case please provide a clear definition of what you mean when you say “called by God” and provide Scripture, without eisegesis, to support that definition. Then show from the text of Scripture, without eisegesis, that such a “call” is required of those who serve in ministry today.

Originally posted by El_Guero:
You continue to twist what I wrote. And that is sad.

Again, I have never intentionally set out to distort what you have said. I apologize if I have misunderstood you. Please feel free to correct any misunderstanding on my part and further clarify and explain your position.

Originally posted by El_Guero:
I admit that I am a sinner, and I do not deserve to be called by God to serve Him.

Likewise, I fully admit that I am a sinner and prone to make mistakes and misunderstand things that people say. Please help me to better understand your position by providing a clear written definition of what you mean when you use the terms “call,” “called,” calling,” and/or the phrase “God’s effectual call on your life to ministry” supported by the Scriptures (without resorting to eisegesis). Then provide Scripture, without eisegesis, which teaches that such a “calling” is required of those who serve in ministry today. Likewise, please demonstrate from the Scriptures an objective manner in which one can recognize and know that he has received such a “calling.”

Originally posted by El_Guero:
I tried to take your side, because I really don't want to be called. Being woken up at 2 AM and 3 AM by a Holy God when you are a sinner is NOT FUN. It is a noble work, but it is NOT ATTRACTIVE.

I fully agree with your first two statements. I think I understand what you are getting at in your third statement. However, I would point you back to 1 Tim. 3:1 and note that the Word of God teaches that it is also “a good work” (1 Tim. 3:1, NKJV).

Originally posted by El_Guero:
Because of this humility and fear before the Almighty hand of God, I have tried to interpret the Word of God in the manner that you have continued to profess.

I strongly believe that we must continually recognize our presuppositions and set them aside in order to allow the text of Scripture to speak for itself. Additionally, I believe that the application of a literal, historical grammatical reading and understanding of the Scriptures is the only sound hermeneutical method that provides solid exegesis and the proper interpretation of the Bible. There are a couple of exceptions to this method. One is when you are dealing with certain prophetic passages, when you are dealing with the parables, and/or when the text itself indicates it is speaking metaphorically (e.g. “…the trees of the field shall clap their hands.” Isa. 55:12). Clearly, trees do not have hands to clap.

Originally posted by El_Guero:
I came to the conclussion some time ago, 'a man (or woman) desiring to serve God is noble,' but a 'human desire' does equate to a 'call from God to His ministry.'

Okay, I can accept that you believe that to be true and correct. However, you have not yet demonstrated from the text of Scripture, without eisegesis, that God does indeed “call” (as you are using the term) men into ministry, or that the Scripture, without eisegesis, requires such a “call” for those who serve in ministry today.

Originally posted by El_Guero:
You have NEVER provided any scripture that supports the view that someone does not need to be called. The only scripture you point to is 1 Tim 3:1.

That is not true. I pointed to the full list of requirements for elders found in 1 Tim. 3:1-7. I also pointed to the requirements for elders found in Titus 1:5-9 and 1 Pet. 5. These are the best lists of requirements for elders (pastors) that I can find in Scripture. Please note that the term “call” is not found in any of those passages. Likewise, none of those passages ever even hint at the idea that a “call” (as you appear to be using the term) is required for those who serve in ministry today.

Originally posted by El_Guero:
You need to revisit why you lost your call from God. The path you have chosen on this interpretation is a slippery slope.

You keep insisting that I “lost my call from God.” However, I never said such a thing. I did say that I changed my theological position and understanding of the term “call.” I define and use the term according to the ways that it is defined by and used in the text of Scripture. My position on the term goes much further than what we have discussed here. I have not fully stated to you what I believe about the term(s). I have only asserted that the way you appear to be using the term is not correct and not supported by the text of Scripture. However, we have gotten sidetracked on various topics about hermeneutics, eisegesis, exegesis, interpretive methods, positions of different theologians, etc. I would much rather keep the discussion focused on the Scripture. If we can ever come to an agreement on the proper biblical definition of the term(s) and the Scriptural support for their use and meaning, then I will be free to continue with the full explanation of my beliefs on this issue. I assure you it is solidly grounded in the Word and does not involve any slippery slope.

[ December 09, 2005, 02:15 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by El_Guero:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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

web page </font>[/QUOTE]I'm not sure what you are getting at by reposting a quote from me. However, I stand by it completely. I'll attempt to clarify what I mean. One example would be the fact that some SEBTS professors espouse a pre-trib theology and some espouse a post-trib theology. Dr. Patterson used to crack a joke, quite often, in Chapel that when the rapture occurs we will all be (all pre-tribers) up in the sky with the Lord and Dr. Gary Galeotti and a hand full of other professors (all post-tribers) would still be down here on campus "holding down the fort." Different doctrinal positions yet complete agreement on the Abstract of Principles and the BFM 2000.

Additionally, the final authority on biblical interpretation is the author of Scripture. It was the Holy Spirit who inspired men to write the Word. There is only one correct interpretation of Scripture and that is the interpretation that the Holy Spirit intended when He inspired the writing of the texts.

Now can we please return to the topic and discuss the Scriptures like gb and I have both repeatedly requested?

[ December 10, 2005, 12:11 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by El_Guero:
I could go back and bring up my posts and your posts.

You would again attribute words to me that I never said.

And it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that you got that fancy education at SEBTS.

Not sure what you are trying to imply about SEBTS with that last remark. I have only taken the things that you have said and tried to follow them out to their logical conclusions. If I have misunderstood you I apologize and invite you to correct me and further clarify and explain yourself.

Now can we please return to the topic and discuss the Scriptures like gb and I have both repeatedly requested?

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by El_Guero:
Jer 23: 21ff 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.

Several hermeneutical problems arise here if you intend to use these verses to support the idea that God “calls” specific men at specific times to specific places to be pastors today.

First, you appear to have completely ignored the overall context of this section of Jeremiah. It is dealing with Israel (not the church) and God’s anger with His chosen people for following false prophets into idol worship. It says nothing about pastors and the church today.

Second, there is not a direct one to one correlation between the OT prophet and the NT pastor (i.e. OT prophet does not equal NT pastor). They are clearly two different and distinct offices as shown in Eph. 4:11. Are you willing to say that each of the names of the offices referenced in Eph 4:11 are interchangeable? If so, more hermeneutical problems arise.

Also, it appears that you are equivocating the word “prophet” with word “pastor” and then attempting to use these verses to mean that God “calls” specific men to be pastors in the church today. Would you be willing to follow that line of equivocation to its logical conclusion and substitute the word “prophet” with the word “pastor” every time it is used in the OT? Or the other way around and substitute the word "pastor" (or elder) with the word "prophet" every time it is used in the NT? I don’t think so.

Third, it is correct to say that these verses teach us that God did not send false prophets to Israel and the converse of that means that God did send His true prophets to them. However, it is completely off base to try and force these verses to also mean that God “calls” men to be pastors in the modern church and that such a “call” (as you appear to be using the term) is required by Scripture for those who serve in ministry today.

Forth, it appears that you are equivocating the words “send” and “sent” with words “call” and “called,” and then attempting to use this verse to mean that God “calls” specific men to be pastors in the church today. Would you be willing to follow that line of equivocation to its logical conclusion and substitute the words “send” and “sent” with the words “call” and “called” every time they are used in the OT? I don’t think so.

I invite you to correct any misunderstanding on my part and further explain how these verses support the way you appear to be using the term call to apply to pastors today.

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

This is one of the five general “calls” found in the gospels and Acts (the others are Matt. 28:19-20; Mark 16:15; Luke 24:47; and Acts 1:8). These passages apply to all born again Christians and command us to be involved in the ministry of witnessing and making disciples. These passages do not point to a “call” of God to specific men to be pastors in the church today.

Another hermeneutical problem here is that it appears that you are equivocating the words “sent” and “sending” with words “called” and “calling” and then attempting to use this verse to mean that God “calls” specific men to be pastors in the church today. Would you be willing to follow that line of equivocation to its logical conclusion and substitute the words “sent” and “sending” with the words “called” and “calling” every time they are used in the NT? I don’t think so.

I invite you to correct any misunderstanding on my part and further explain how this verse supports the way you appear to be using the term call to apply to pastors today.

Originally posted by El_Guero:
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,

Again, the hermeneutical problem here is that it appears that you are equivocating the word “gave” with word “called,” and then attempting to use this verse to mean that God “calls” specific men to be pastors in the church today. Would you be willing to follow that line of equivocation to its logical conclusion and substitute the word “gave” with “called” every time it is used in the NT? I don’t think so.

I invite you to correct any misunderstanding on my part and further explain how this verse supports the way you appear to be using the term call to apply to pastors today.

[ December 10, 2005, 12:05 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

[blackbird]

While I was in cemetary----I mean, seminary----in the mid-'80's---a bunch of us "boys" would gather up in the dorm---and we'd discuss who among the NOBTS students were actually "called" into ministry----we'd hear Dr. Leavell say that if you haven't been called go home and do something else!!

And then I started asking myself the same question----what about my "call"---how do I know I've been called by God to preach??!! And I had to be honest with myself---be truthful with myself---and search Scripture I did!! And I would hold my feelings up next to what Scripture said----and then I would ask---"Which one of us is lieing---Me?? or Scripture??? And I didn't wait for Scripture to line up with me----rather---I just honestly and truthfully "lined up" with what Scripture says---and then I knew from the word from the Word about how I can know what Dr. Leavell was asking---"Who in here has been called to preach???"

How did I know God "called" me to preach??? An audible voice??? A "hankerin'" to do it?? No!!

1) There was a God given desire to do it!! Scripture says that one have a "desire" to the office of Bishop!!

I often hear "If you can do anything else---then don't preach!" Friend---I don't have a desire to DO anything BUT preach!!

2) There was a God given "equipping" to do it!!! God gave me a DESIRE to preach----but can I preach??? Do I know how to preach?? Well----after 17 years of doing it---I've learned a little bit about it!!

I heard the late, great Dr. Adrian Rogers say of himself--"You can go out tomorrow morning and hire you a preacher that can preach the gospel BETTER than I can! But you'll never be able to find a preacher that can preach a BETTER gospel than I can!!"

Here's how I know I've been "called"

1) There was a desire to get into the job! More than anything else---my desire is to preach!

2) There was a equipping to get the job done!! Have I been equipped?? You betcha!!!

Bro. David aka Blackbird

Bro. David

 

[Bible-boy]

Hello Brother Blackbird,

I agree with you. I just have not gotten that far along in this debate (to fully explain my position) because we have been stuck going back and forth trying to come to a definition of "calling" that lines up honestly with the text of Scripture. Plus, we've spent many pages side-tracked on related issues including hermeneutics, eisegesis, exegesis, proper interpretation, various theologian's positions etc.

If we could just stick to the topic and the Scripture this thread would likely have already run its course.

 

[gb93433]

blackbird:

Well said.

God calls every believer to make disciples. How is it that so many can be "called" to pastor and yet so few are ever trained to make disciples in seminaries, churches and Christian colleges. are those professors and pastors not called to be obedient first? One who never makes disciples is disobedient to the command Jesus gave. Did God mess up when He "called" so many and yet so few ever make disciples.

Clearly there are more preachers than disciplemakers in the pulpits preaching each Sunday.

No man should ever should be allowed to preach unless he has proof of making disciples. He should never get a phone call from any church unles he has made disciples first. That is the real proof of leadership.

 

[El_Guero]

Kind Brother David,

I love a no brainer. God's call is truly irresistable. If I spelled that correctly.

God bless you.