God's Effectual Call?

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

Here, here!

Yes, please.

 

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.

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

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

I replied:

…And he responded with:

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

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.

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?

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.”

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 ]

 

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 ]

 

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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).

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.

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.

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.

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 ]

 

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 ]

 

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?

 

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.

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.

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 ]

 

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.