Skip to main content

More Thoughts on the "call to ministry"

This is the english translation of this post. The thoughts in this short post come out of my studies, over the last couple of years, on the calling of God, ecclesiology, and 1 Timothy. Most of these thoughts have been written in French. Some more thoughts (which I have not yet had the liberty to translate from French into English) concerning the appointing of church elders can be found here, and here. Other observations and reflections (also only in French) on divine calling and election can be found here, here, and here.

          It is not, according to the New Testament, Gods normal procedure to call, in a personal and special way, believers into his service. The Apostles were chosen, individually and exceptionally, by Jesus to accomplish a very important and unique task. According to Ephesians 2: 20 and 4: 11 the Apostles also occupy a very unique role in the church which cannot be occupied by anyone else. Why do I say this?

           First of all, there were more than 500 eyewitnesses of the resurrection of Jesus-Christ (1 Cor 15: 3-8.), but only 12 of them (those which Jesus has chosen at the beginning of his earthly ministry) were appointed as apostles and sent by Jesus with a specific mission. Secondly, Jesus, in his priestly prayer in John 17, prays specifically for the apostles, who have received a special mission, from Jesus himself, to go into the world with the Gospel (John 17: 14-18). In this prayer Jesus makes a distinction between the twelve apostles (which were given to him by God the Father (John 17: 6), selected and trained for this task (John 17: 6-8, 14)) and all other believers (who would believe in him because of the word of the apostles (John 17: 20) and who have a single task - to keep unity among themselves (John 17: 21-23)).

Indeed, God does not choose, in the same way that he chose the apostles, other believers. The New Testament simply does not teach that God chose believers to accomplish specific ministries (as we have already seen, the calling and the election of God have no relation to what he wants us to do as ministry or mission, but, rather, with personal sanctification. Quick note, you would need to look at the French posts concerning what the Bible teaches about God’s calling and election in order to get this point.). Instead, the New Testament teaches that the apostles chose (cf. Acts 15: 36-40, 16: 1-3), and consecrated to the ministry (cf. Acts 16: 1-3, 1 Tim 4: 14), their own disciples; and it is by this same apostolic authority that the elders/pastors were set up in every church (cf. Acts 14: 21-23, Titus 1: 5.). This appointing was based upon three things: (1) that the man who was to be appointed as an elder, desires to be an elder (cf. 1 Tim. 3: 1, 1 Peter 5. 2a), (2) that his reasons for wanting to be an elder are honorable (“not for shameful gain, but of good heart (or eagerly)” 1 Peter 5: 2b), and, (3) that he be qualified (cf. 1 Tim. 3: 1-7, Titus 1: 5-9). The above observations demonstrate that one can say, of a man who is thus appointed (his appointing being based upon the three principles just mentioned, to some ministry (that is to say, a man who is appointed as pastor, missionary, deacon, etc.)), that he was, at the same time, appointed both by apostolic authority and by the Holy Spirit (compare Acts 20: 28 and the Paul’s practice as seen in Acts 14: 23 and in Titus 1: 5). In other words, the Holy Spirit gave us these three principles for the appointing of people to ministry, so, when we adhere to these principles, the people who we appoint to ministry are also established in that ministry by the Holy Spirit. In this way, and only in this way, according to the New Testament, can we say that someone was elected or called for some ministry. It should also be noted that the deacons were also chosen, by the authority of the apostles, based upon qualifications (cf. Acts 6:3-6, 1 Tim 3: 8-13).

What we see, then, is that aside from the setting a part of the apostles (by Christ himself), and the companions of the apostles (cf. Acts 13: 1-3), no other person in the New Testament was chosen by God (or Jesus), called by God (or Jesus), or sent by God (or Jesus), for a particular mission or ministry. What we see in the New Testament, for all other believers (that is, all believers other than the apostles and their immediate companions – even here, only one other person, other than the apostles, was specifically chosen and sent by God to perform some ministry – Barnabas. See Acts 13:1-3.), is that God gave them gifts to use (see Romans 12: 4-8, 1 Cor. 12, Eph. 4:11, etc.), which are to be confirmed, and dedicated to ministry, by the church elders (cf. 1 Tim. 4: 14); and that God expects believers to use those gifts for the good of the church (beginning in the local church and extending to the universal church).

Popular posts from this blog

How Kant’s Synthesis of Empiricism and Rationalism resulted in Agnosticism

Immanuel Kant, presented with the extreme empiricism of Hume and the extreme rationalism of Liebniz, which he discovered through the writings Wolff, sought to take a middle road between these two extreme philosophical positions. I would submit that Kant’s synthesis of these two views leads to an agnosticism about what Kant called “the thing-in-itself”, and ultimately to the philosophical positions known as Atheism, determinism, and nihilism.

Kant’s Sources
First of all, Kant was influenced by Hume’s empiricism and Newton’s physics. He saw that the physical sciences, in contrast to rationalistic metaphysics, were actually making advances. They were making discoveries, and building a system of knowledge that accurately described the world of our sense perceptions. Rationalistic metaphysics, on the other hand, was floundering amidst the combating systems that the philosophers were erecting. It did not provide new knowledge, and only led to unacceptable conclusions, such as the Absolute Mon…

A Short outline of Charles Taylor's: The Malaise of Modernity

            This is simply an outline of Taylor’s basic argument in this short work written by Charles Taylor. The idea of this outline is to help the reader understand the book by providing a simple outline of the basic argument that Taylor is presenting here. The book, which is essentially the manuscript is the fruit of a series of presentations that Taylor made at the Massey Conferences which are hosted by Massey College and Radio-Canada, is divided into 10 chapters. In the first chapter Taylor essentially proposes three causes (recognizing that there may be more) of the Malaise of Modernity: (1) Individualism or the Loss of Sense, (2) The Primacy of Instrumental Reason or the Loss of Ends, and (3) The effect on society and politics in general of the loss of sense to an inauthentic individualism and the domination of instrumental reason, or, the loss of true freedom. Taylor considers the first Malaise in chapters 2 to 8, the second in c…


Leisure: The Basis of Culture & the Philosophical Act. Josef Pieper. Translated by Alexander Dru. 1963. Reprint, Ignatius Press, 2009. 143 pp. $12.99. ISBN 978-1-58617-256-5.
            This book is composed of two articles written by the German philosopher Josef Pieper. Though the two articles are intimately connected, they form two distinct works; as such, this book review will begin by giving a brief introduction to the works in question, followed by and exposition of each of the works individually. The two articles that are included in this book, Leisure: the Basis of Culture and The Philosophical Act, were both published in 1947, and, as such, were written during the cultural crisis in Germany that followed the Second World War. Not only did Pieper have the cultural crisis in mind when he wrote these articles, but he was also writing in light of the works of the most well-known German philosopher of the time – Martin Heidegger. As such, any reader who is familiar with Heidegg…