Featured Called for life?

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.

 

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

 

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?

 

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).

 

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.

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.

 

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.

 

There is no call to an office, and the pastorate and deaconate are offices. We are all called to serve, and that calling the gifts bestowed are without repentance.

Scripture says, if any man "desire" the office of bishop, then goes on to list the qualifications.

 

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:

 

No, I'm saying the office of bishop is open to one who desires it and is qualified.

The calling is to serve. And all are called to serve, even those who may not serve in the office of bishop.

 

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.