God's Effectual Call?

Originally posted by El_Guero:

Right, I agree. So how does God’s effectual call to salvation for all believers point to “God’s effectual call on your life to ministry” for a special select group of people who would serve in ministry today?

Again, it is my position that the Bible does not contain a single verse that supports the idea of “God’s effectual call on your life to ministry” (in the exact same sense that you are using the phrase). You know full well that the Bible does not contain a list of what is not in it. Therefore, your continued request that I provide Scripture to prove a point that I am saying is not found in Scripture is quite illogical if not down right irrational. On the other hand, you are espousing that the Bible does support the idea of a "call" (according to your definition of the term). Therefore, you should be able to produce Bible verses that do support your position (without eisegesis); however you have failed to do so up to this point in our discussion.

I have stated my position. I have examined the Scriptures typically used to support the traditional view. I have demonstrated why a literal historical grammatical reading of those texts (without eisegesis) does not actually support the claims of the traditional view. Then I referenced respected published Bible scholars who hold the same view as mine. You know that this is how we write our papers in Seminary and that it is the accepted scholarly way to defend our positions.

You are claiming that I have not used Scripture to support my position. Then you turn around and accuse me of employing eisegesis. Hello… if I have not used Scripture it is impossible for me to have employed eisegesis.

Eisegesis is the personal interpretation of a text (especially of the Bible) using your own ideas whereby you import words and/or meanings that are not clearly found in the original text in order to support your own presuppositions and forgone conclusion(s). If I have done this please quote where I allegedly did so and provide a clear exegesis of the text that you claim I have abused. If you cannot or will not honor this request I expect you to stop making the groundless charge.

Again, you have not successfully demonstrated from the text of Scripture (without eisegesis) that God does indeed “call” (in the way you are using the term) men who serve in ministry today. Again, you are making an argument based upon a premise that you have not as yet proven to be valid. Therefore, by demanding that I reference only men who are “called of God to lead His people” you are once again falling prey to the informal fallacy of begging the question (making a circular argument). You must first demonstrate that your use of the term “called” (meaning God’s effectual call on your life to ministry) is a valid premise based upon sound exegesis of the Scriptures before you can hold me or anyone else to such a standard for theological reference sources.

Please quote where I have been ambiguous and not attempted to further clarify in a later post once questioned, and/or fallen prey to fallacy. Then, regarding your claims of fallacy on my part, please demonstrate from a published source my alleged fallacy (like I did for the three times that you have fallen prey to informal and exegetical fallacies). If you cannot or will not honor this request I expect you to stop making the groundless charge.

If, on the other hand, you are simply stating that you do not like the fact that I have pointed out the fallacies you have used in your presentation of an argument here on the Baptist Board I am sorry. However, you have fallen prey to such fallacies as I have demonstrated using published scholarly sources. God is a rational and logical being as demonstrated by His intelligent design of creation. He created us in His image. He gave us highly functioning brains and the ability to reason and use logic and He expects us to use these gifts to think deeply about Him and His Word (as demonstrated by the fact that He chose to reveal His moral will for our lives to us through the written word). There is nothing wrong with applying a rational mind and logical thought processes during a theological discussion.

[ October 20, 2005, 06:44 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

First, the protocol on Internet message boards is that when you type in all caps it means that you are yelling. There is no need to yell at me.

Second, no one has yet to demonstrate from the text of Scripture that God actually does “call” (in the exact same sense that you are using the term) men to be His leaders in ministry without resorting to eisegesis. I am saying that the Scriptures do not support such a claim. Therefore, I am not “attacking God’s call of His men to leadership;” rather, I am attacking a tradition of men, which some claim to be biblical, but in actuality can not be demonstrated from the Scripture (without eisegesis).

Obfuscating by definition means: To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand. My position all along has been very clear. First, I have asserted that 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 today. Second, I have asserted that 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. These are two very clear and concise assertions—no obfuscation. Finally, so far in this discussion no one has provided Scripture (without eisegesis) that proves these two assertions to be invalid, false, or untrue.

[ October 21, 2005, 03:32 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

Originally posted by El_Guero:

So is it your position that we can make up anything we want, so long as the Bible does not address it, and claim that it is biblical?

The Bible uses the argument from silence in the exact same way that I am using it. The writer of the book of Hebrews clearly says that Jesus could not function as a priest while on earth (Heb. 8:4). So we ask why could Jesus not function as priest while He was here on earth? The answer is because the Lord was from the tribe of Judah, and the law “said nothing” (i.e., was silent) regarding priests from Judah (Heb. 7:14).

Likewise, God has not been silent about His silence. The Bible warns us not to go beyond that which has been written:

There are occasions when the argument from silence is appropriate during logical debate. Likewise, there are occasions when it is inappropriate during logical debate. The key is to be able to recognize which type is appropriate and which is inappropriate.

For example: It is an inappropriate use of the argument from silence to claim that because Paul never mentions the virgin birth of Christ that he was ignorant of it. The reason this is an inappropriate use of the argument from silence is that there may well be other reasons why Paul does not mention the event. It is possible that he may have not considered it important to his line of reasoning. Likewise, it is possible that he referred to it in texts that have now been lost (and no I am not arguing for an open canon here). However, the argument from silence is not fallacious if it is used to prove that Paul may have been ignorant of the virgin birth of Christ. We are certain that Paul knew of Christ’s resurrection because he mentions it. However, because he never mentions the virgin birth it is not certain that he knew of it. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that he may have been ignorant of it.

It is not inappropriate to acknowledge that God’s word does not use the term “call” (in the exact same sense that you are using the term), and that there are no Scriptures that support the idea that such a “call” (as you are using the term) is required of those who serve in ministry today.

You claim that God has revealed the position you hold in Scripture. However, you have not been able to successfully demonstrate that claim to be valid and true by quoting Scripture (without eisegesis) that supports your assertion.

 

Originally posted by El_Guero:

So now I’m ungodly... I am not evading any such thing. I told you last week that I would talk to him and present the Scriptures you suggested in support of your definition of “calling.” However, last week was the semi-annual SEBTS Trustees and Board of Visitors meeting. It is a big deal and a very busy time for the administration here. I want to be able to discuss the matter in detail and not just have a 5 min. conversation with him, which means that we both must have the appropriate time to engage in the discussion. I work a full-time third shift security job (11:00 PM to 7:00 AM) and generally I am asleep during the day time when everyone else is awake. I am going out of town in the morning to a family wedding in Northern Virginia. Perhaps I will be able to meet with Dr. Akin next week when I get back, but in the meantime none of this has any bearing on my conversation with you on the Baptist Board.

What in the world do you think I am doing as I sit under the teaching of the professors here at SEBTS (like Dr. David Allan Black, Dr. L. Russ Bush, Dr. David Nelson, etc.), and studying the very passages of Scripture that deal with this topic?

Have you read John Piper’s book Brothers, We Are Not Professionals: A Plea to Pastors for Radical Ministry ?

This is a false statement. I have already explained how I arrived at the conclusion that the Bible does not use the term “calling” (in the exact same sense that you are using the term) and that there is no Scripture that supports the idea that such a “calling” (as you are using the term) is required of those who serve in ministry today, and how I talked about it with my pastor (who happens to be a professor here at SEBTS). Likewise, I can not tell you how many times this issue has been discussed during my classes in Systematic Theology, Apologetics, Hermeneutics, Introduction to Missions, Baptist History, and Church History etc.

There is no “spiritual cancer” here, only an honest reading of the Bible in its literal, historical, grammatical sense. I see by your continued use of the informal fallacy of ad homenim circumstantial (against the person/circumstance) attacks, and your failure to attempt to answer any of the questions that I have asked you regarding your use of the Scriptures that you are unwilling or unable to debate the issue using facts, sources, and Scripture to support your claims. Perhaps it would be best for us to simply agree to disagree on our understanding of the term “call.” However, I do promise to post the outcome of my discussion of your suggested passages of Scripture with Dr. Akin. We are after all is said and done brothers in Christ. Peace be with you brother.

[ October 21, 2005, 03:36 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

Hello El_G,

I'm back from Virginia. I am going to see about making an appointment with Dr. Akin sometime this week. Anyway, I see you responded to some of my posts. My replies follow:

Originally posted by El_Guero:

I guess you must have missed my original answer to your question in a post that followed yours on page 2;

Originally posted by Bible-Boy:

Or on page 3 where I said;

Originally posted by Bible-Boy:

Or on page 4 where I said;

Originally posted by Bible-Boy:

Or on page 5 where I said;

Originally posted by Bible-Boy:

Or on page 6 where I said;

Originally posted by Bible-Boy:

Also on page 6 in the same post as above;

Or on page 8 where I said;

Originally posted by Bible-Boy:

Or on page 9 where I said;

Originally posted by Bible-Boy:

Whatever... I have attempted to answer every question that you have asked me in a very specific manner by quoting you and then giving my response. However, you have not returned the favor by answering the questions that I have asked you (particularly regarding your use of the Scriptures).