differance between calling and genuine heart desire?

[Rando]

On 10/17/2022 at 11:11 PM, Jerry said:

Many religious people get emotional when they hear emotional music - that in itself is neither a sign of salvation or an indication of being called by God. That being said, He calls all of us through the Gospel.

I know....it was just a way of sharing something I like.  Not everything is a debate.

On 10/18/2022 at 11:03 AM, BrotherTony said:

None of that was even implied in what I posted. 

But it means that Paul had a specific "calling".  That "calling" cannot be assumed to be the same as anything we experience.  It could be argued that his "calling" was unique even amongst the other Apostles.  God had a very specific role in mind for Paul.

 

Edited October 19, 2022 by Rando

[BrotherTony]

27 minutes ago, Rando said:

I know....it was just a way of sharing something I like.  Not everything is a debate.

But it means that Paul had a specific "calling".  That "calling" cannot be assumed to be the same as anything we experience.  It could be argued that his "calling" was unique even amongst the other Apostles.  God had a very specific role in mind for Paul.

 

And God has very specific roles for each of us. He also has a general command...Go ye therefore....

[Jerry]

Well, my CALL to preach is definitely a calling. God has given me the spiritual gifts of teaching and exhortation. Two primary ways I have used that is through writing and through preaching, of which God called me in 2003. Bible still says this, whether you agree with it or not:

Romans 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

[Jim_Alaska]

Many different kinds of calls are addressed here. But the way I read the OP, I read it as a call to preach. Addressing it as a call to preach and having experienced it myself, I will say this:

God's call to a man to preach is very specific, unmistakable, understood as a burden, terrifying to some, and does not "just go away" with time. 

1 Corinthians 9:16-17 (KJV) For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel! For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.

[BrotherTony]

When I was called to preach in 1983, I diligently searched the Scriptures, fasted, and prayed for several months to make sure that the "calling" wasn't of my own accord. To be honest, I didn't relish the idea of preaching. I wasn't against it, and I had already been involved in a lot of public speaking. After I finally accepted that the call was genuine, I had no problem with preaching. Whom God calls, he equips. 

[Rando]

10 hours ago, BrotherTony said:

When I was called to preach in 1983, I diligently searched the Scriptures, fasted, and prayed for several months to make sure that the "calling" wasn't of my own accord. To be honest, I didn't relish the idea of preaching. I wasn't against it, and I had already been involved in a lot of public speaking. After I finally accepted that the call was genuine, I had no problem with preaching. Whom God calls, he equips. 

That's good, I also heartily agree with your last sentence.  I would argue the converse is true.  Whom God has equipped, that is whom he also called.  My major concern is that we don't make subjective experiences no matter how well-intentioned or heart-felt the focus of the "calling to preach."  (a phrase, not really used in the New Testament).  

Subjective experiences cannot be challenged by anyone.  A wolf in sheep's clothing can have the most tear-jerking and captivating story about his "calling to preach".  One can no more deny another's calling than they could argue with someone's claim to have a headache.  

This is, after all, why some teach that personal testimony is an excellent evangelistic tool.  No one can debate it.

The Scriptures are quite specific, however, about the qualifications (which are generally verifiable) of a bishop.  

By way of example:  I briefly attended a nice charming country church where the pastor could no more exegete the text, nor preach or teach his way out of a paper bag.  He was a perfectly nice, kindly gentleman, and his congregation rather adored him.  

They learned very little.

I would have wished that when this man expressed his desire to function as a Bishop that his status as a novice to the pulpit, who was particularly unlearned, and not "apt to teach" would have excluded his consideration.

Qualifications matter.  Qualifications are verifiable.  Qualifications are Biblically mandated.

I see little evidence in the Scriptures that that is true of a "calling to preach".  

The O.P. asked about Scriptural evidences.  That is my larger concern.  I wouldn't argue that one can't derive from various Biblical texts with some Spiritual wisdom that it is completely improper to speak of such a thing as a "calling to preach".  But, I would argue that we over-emphasize it often, and under-emphasize the Biblical qualifications. 

I am often concerned that it creates, or can be used to create, a nicolaitane practice in various congregations where dictator clergy Lord over their congregations while using/citing their "calling" (unique to themselves and their allies of course) as a cudgel against concerned church members and other believers.

How, after all, can anyone argue with the special claim of a "calling?"  They can't.  They can no more do so than argue with the experiences of charismatics.  Whatever they are, the phenomena they experience are "real" in that they exist. But, they are not a good guide Christian praxis.  Similarly; quite often their phenomena are experienced after much prayer and fasting.

[Rando]

16 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Many different kinds of calls are addressed here. But the way I read the OP, I read it as a call to preach. Addressing it as a call to preach and having experienced it myself, I will say this:

God's call to a man to preach is very specific, unmistakable, understood as a burden, terrifying to some, and does not "just go away" with time. 

1 Corinthians 9:16-17 (KJV) For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel! For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.

I agree with this.

I also agree that the intense "burden" felt is quite real and I appreciate your bringing it up.  One can as you seem to suggest consider that burden as part of what we could reasonably call a "calling to preach".  I would consider it as much to be a man "desiring" the office of Bishop.  Intense burden will express itself in a desire to preach as well.  The Scripture certainly speaks of such a desire.

These two things are not in an adversarial relationship with each other.

It's not either/or as such.

I also think it is often over-emphasized while the Biblical qualifications are under-emphasized.

 

Edited October 20, 2022 by Rando

[BrotherTony]

12 hours ago, Rando said:

That's good, I also heartily agree with your last sentence.  I would argue the converse is true.  Whom God has equipped, that is whom he also called.

I would agree to a point, but would disagree in part as well.....

2 Corinthians 8:12 KJV

For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not.

 

  My major concern is that we don't make subjective experiences no matter how well-intentioned or heart-felt the focus of the "calling to preach."  (a phrase, not really used in the New Testament). 

It doesn't have to be used in the NT, OT or anywhere else. As long as the implication of such is in the Scriptures, it's a valid possibility.  

 

Subjective experiences cannot be challenged by anyone.  A wolf in sheep's clothing can have the most tear-jerking and captivating story about his "calling to preach".  One can no more deny another's calling than they could argue with someone's claim to have a headache.

 

Yet, we find in Scripture that there is indeed a way to know....

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

  

This is, after all, why some teach that personal testimony is an excellent evangelistic tool.  No one can debate it.

Why can't they? Personal testimony is of little value if life actions are contrary to Scripture.

The Scriptures are quite specific, however, about the qualifications (which are generally verifiable) of a bishop.  

By way of example:  I briefly attended a nice charming country church where the pastor could no more exegete the text, nor preach or teach his way out of a paper bag.  He was a perfectly nice, kindly gentleman, and his congregation rather adored him.  

They learned very little.

I would have wished that when this man expressed his desire to function as a Bishop that his status as a novice to the pulpit, who was particularly unlearned, and not "apt to teach" would have excluded his consideration.

If the congregants in this church allowed this man to be their preacher, the responsibility falls on them for not following the Scriptural guidelines for a man to be a pastor. It should have become apparent that he had no business being pastor if what you stated was true. 

 

12 hours ago, Rando said:

Qualifications matter.  Qualifications are verifiable.  Qualifications are Biblically mandated.

I see little evidence in the Scriptures that that is true of a "calling to preach". 

How can you state this. Whether "call to preach" is mentioned in the Bible or not is of little concern when there are definite guidelines for a pastor/bishop to be installed. 

12 hours ago, Rando said:

 

The O.P. asked about Scriptural evidences.  That is my larger concern.  I wouldn't argue that one can't derive from various Biblical texts with some Spiritual wisdom that it is completely improper to speak of such a thing as a "calling to preach".  But, I would argue that we over-emphasize it often, and under-emphasize the Biblical qualifications. 

I am often concerned that it creates, or can be used to create, a nicolaitane practice in various congregations where dictator clergy Lord over their congregations while using/citing their "calling" (unique to themselves and their allies of course) as a cudgel against concerned church members and other believers.

This would come back to the command to look at their fruits. People who are installed as pastors/bishops by each autonomous church can also be removed for being a dictator, whether they claim a call to preach or not. I've seen it done many times over my 50+ years in both IFB and SBC churches. 

How, after all, can anyone argue with the special claim of a "calling?"  They can't.  They can no more do so than argue with the experiences of charismatics.  Whatever they are, the phenomena they experience are "real" in that they exist. But, they are not a good guide Christian praxis.  Similarly; quite often their phenomena are experienced after much prayer and fasting.

Again, I would say that they can...by their fruits ye shall know them. This isn't only pointed towards individual church members, but should be applied to pastors/bishops as well. 

 

[Jerry]

Though this verse does not use the term calling, it is obvious that preaching is a calling:

1 Corinthians 9:16 For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!

Edited October 24, 2022 by Jerry

[BrotherTony]

15 minutes ago, Jerry said:

Though this verse does not use the term calling, it is obvious that preaching is a calling:

1 Corinthians 9:16 For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!

I heartily concur! 

[Rando]

On 10/21/2022 at 5:49 AM, BrotherTony said:

 

How can you state this. Whether "call to preach" is mentioned in the Bible or not is of little concern when there are definite guidelines for a pastor/bishop to be installed. 

 

Um.....That's my point:

"Call to preach" isn't Biblical terminology. Definite guidelines for pastor/bishop are....

I appreciate your agreement.

[Rando]

On 10/24/2022 at 3:53 PM, Jerry said:

Though this verse does not use the term calling, it is obvious that preaching is a calling:

It doesn't...

But, upon what basis do you insist that it's a "calling"?

In order for your position to have merit, you must define what you mean by a "calling"...

You must find it in the Biblical text, and you must demonstrate why it is critical for us to understand.

You have failed on all accounts.

I know you have, and I know you will because "calling" is simply NOT Biblical verbiage.

I realize that is irrelevant to you, and your traditional manners of speaking take precedence.  But "calling" is not the Biblical injunction.

It's a tradition you are in love with.  

But, I love the Bible text, and "calling" isn't the over-arching Biblical emphasis used,.

I'm an Independent Baptist...

I love the Bible, NOT the traditions of men.

 

Edited November 6, 2022 by Rando

[Jim_Alaska]

There are many nits to pick in this subject I guess. It is bordering on the ridiculous.

"Bible""  is not in the Bible either, nor is local church, so I guess they just don't exist. 

[BrotherTony]

15 hours ago, Rando said:

Um.....That's my point:

"Call to preach" isn't Biblical terminology. Definite guidelines for pastor/bishop are....

I appreciate your agreement.

I don't necessarily agree with your point of view, and I've made this clear. It's sort of disengenuous for you to imply I do. I believe that, even though the terminology you want isn't specifically mentioned in the way you want, it is clearly implied. Implication is just as good as the "right words." 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

Wow, what a confusing mess this thread discussion has become.  The original question appears (to me at least) to be a question about the "calling" and/or "desire" for pastoral ministry (for the responsibility to pastor a flock of believers).  Yet quickly the discussion was clouded and confused by a multitude of passages concerning: (1) God's call of lost sinners unto faith in Christ for eternal salvation; (2) God's call upon all believers to be His children with all of the benefits thereof; (3) God's call of all believers to witness/preach the gospel unto the lost world; and (4) God's call of certain individuals to serve in the ministry of apostleship.  

Now, it appears to me that #1, #2, and #3 of my listing above have no bearing upon the subject of the original question.  However, it also appears to me that the phrase "called to preach" allows for a great deal of confusion in relation the original question and #3 of my listing above, because the same phrase "called to preach" could apply for two different contexts of subject.  On the one hand, "called to preach" might refer to God's call of all believers TO PREACH the gospel unto the lost world.  On the other hand, "called to preach" might refer to God's (supposed) call of certain individual believers to pastor a flock of believers.  This is where Biblical confusion becomes possible.  When an individual asks for Scripture concerning the call of certain individual believers "to preach" (to pastor a flock of believers), and Scripture concerning the call of all believers "to preach" the gospel unto the lost world is provided -- this is Biblical confusion.  ALL believers are indeed called of God "to preach" the gospel unto the lost world, and the Scriptural passages which speak to this matter make such clear.  However, NOT all believers are called to pastor a flock of believers; and pressing Scriptural passages from the wrong context upon this matter only confuses the Biblical doctrine of pastoral ministry.

Thus I would contend that in discussions such as this thread presents, we should quit using the phrase "called to preach," and should rather use the phrase "called to be an apostle, prophet, evangelist, or pastor/teacher" (using the list from Ephesians 4:11).

Now, in relation to this subject, Brother Rando has called for a definition -- What is a "calling"?  Generally, a calling can either be an invitation to partake of some experience or an appointment to experience some privilege or to engage in some responsibility.  In relation to the specific subject of the divine "call" to pastor a flock of believers, I would contend that this "calling" should be defined as a divine appointment to engage in the responsibility of pastoring.  With such a definition before us, I believe that New Testament passages can indeed be provided to support the Biblical existence for such a "calling," as follows:

Acts 20:28 -- "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."

1 Corinthians 12:18 -- "But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him."

1 Corinthians 12:28 -- "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues."

Ephesians 4:11 -- "And he [Christ] gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers."

Now, from these passages it is worthy to note that all three members of the Godhead are specifically referenced as being involved in the "calling"/appointment process.  In addition, it is worthy to note that some of the passages reference the "calling"/appointment of apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors/teachers in the same context.  Thus it would seem that the "calling"/appointment of the New Testament apostles would have at least some bearing on the subject (as per #4 from my lising above).  Indeed, I would contend that the matter of divine "calling"/appointment is indeed a Biblically valid doctrine.  However, the question might then be raised -- By what means is this "calling"/appointment revealed? 

Edited November 7, 2022 by Pastor Scott Markle
grammar