God's Effectual Call?

There is no indication to support your eisegetical hermeneutic that Titus was to NOT look for men called by God. I do not believe that Titus, Timothy, or Paul held that God did not call His men to service. I doubt that many early Church Fathers held that men were not called by God to service. </font>[/QUOTE]The text does not use the term "called" and I refuse to add it in there. If that is eisegesis in your book so be it. The point here is not to talk about what you believe about Paul, Timothy, or Titus. The point is to allow the Word of God to speak for itself and see what it (the Bible) actually says about how they went about appointing elders. As best as I can tell from a literal, historical linguistic reading and understanding of the associated texts the terms "call," "called," or "calling" are not used.

[ February 04, 2006, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

Either you can make a cogent conclusion apparent, or you cannot. </font>[/QUOTE]You appear to be a master at taking things that people say (and what the Bible says) out of context, jamming unrelated statements together, and forcing your own predetermined conclusions upon them. When I said:

I was specifically answering your accusation that my position has changed during to course of this discussion. It has not.

When I said:

I was specifically speaking about the definition of the traditional view (that you claim is your position). However, I was making the point that you have not clearly stated that definition in detail and that in this discussion it is your responsibility to define and defend your position. I will not do either one of those things for you.

The two statements that you quoted above from me are not connected as you would try to make it appear. In the first statement I was addressing my own position. In the second statement I was addressing you and your position. However, you have tried to make it look like I was speaking solely about my own position in those two quotes. If this is how you read and interpret your Bible no wonder you can not define and explain your position.

The cheap shot you have taken here leaves me to ask, Who is it that appears to be most confused here? As a moderator on this forum I ask you to exercise greater intellectual honesty in the future.

 

That is 100% false. I have never misquoted you. All of the quotes from you in my posts have come from my clicking the quote icon on each of your posts. Once that button has been pushed the Baptist Board message board software provides the quoted material. Then all I have done is respond to your quoted statements.

Since you make this claim against my character publicly I charge you, as a BB Moderator, to clearly copy and quote a single instance where I have misquoted you, and then copy and quote your original material so that the two can be viewed side by side in the same post.

If you are unable to do so I demand that you retract this accusation against my character or face the judgment of the BB Administrative Council for breaking posting rule number 4.

Yes, I have done this when it appears that you have added outside words or meanings that are not clearly present in the text of Scripture which you are referencing, or when it appears that you have taken Scripture out of context to suit your own ends. I have pointed out in detail where I believe you have done these things. You have never refuted my charges, or further explained your use of the Scriptures to clarify any misunderstanding on my part (if such exists).

If a literal, historical, grammatical reading and understanding of the Bible is an "unusual hermeneutic" in your book so be it. However, I assure you that it is not throughout most of the conservative Baptist world.

I have set out the difference of opinion and interpretation regarding the issue. As the person who started this thread, and as a moderator on this forum, it is my duty to guide the discussion. The approach I have chosen for this thread is to fully examine the traditional view to see if it is as biblical as those who support it claim. Therefore, I ask that someone (you for example) who holds that view define it and provide Scripture that supports the position. Once that position has been fully discussed and a decision has been reached as to whether or not it is soundly biblical, then I will fully define my position and provide Scripture to support it. Then we can examine it until the cows come home (so to speak). If you do not like my chosen method of discussion you are free to withdraw from the thread.

You are free to believe that all you want. However, just because I have not given you the information yet does not mean that I do not possess it. When I say that I fully explained my position to a professor that is exactly what I mean. For you to say that you doubt me regarding this is in effect to call me a liar.

If such an argument was good enough for the writer of Hebrews, and is used elsewhere in the Bible it is good enough and valid enough for me. Additionally, even noted Logic texts acknowledge its validity when used properly. SO just deal with the fact that the Word of God warns us not to go beyond what has been written.

[ February 07, 2006, 07:07 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

I don't think that you really want me to point out all of the errors in thinking in these statements. You would be much better served by simply defining your position and providing Scripture, without eisegesis, to support it.

 

This thread has reached its 20 page limit. Please see God's Effectual Call? Part Two at the following location:

God's Effectual Call? Part Two Link

[ February 07, 2006, 06:35 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]