After a recent discussion with someone both on my show and afterward via email and blogs, I found myself thinking about the issues a lot. Now, in my life, I’ve found that playing and replaying imaginary discussions is a great way to develop my thinking on a subject. And the more energetic an encounter is, the more I tend to do this afterward, much as I expect athletes replay at-bats so they can become better hitters.
But even though this is valuable, it was starting to annoy me how much I was doing so in this case. It almost felt like an obsession. And I suddenly realized that I was paying more attention to this person and our argument than I was paying to Jesus. So I immediately switched to praying instead, especially for the other guy, which instantly brought a sense of peace.
And that’s when I realized what a colossal error I had been making. Instead of trusting God to have His way in this situation, I had been trusting in my ability to persuade this man with superior arguments. It’s just so easy to forget Who’s really in charge.
9 comments:
Just a quick thought, not on the doctrine of the whole baptism question, but on your handling of the situation... and I don't mean to sound judgmental in any way. From the perspective of what I do for a living (probation officer) and as an average listener, the statement, "...especially for the other guy" leads me to believe that you are so sure of your position that no amount of debate would lead you to believe the other side, and that you are possibly not praying as the Lord would want us (see 1 Cor 8:2-3). I could be wrong of course, as I don't know your heart. At any rate, to emphasize this fact to such a public audience when your personal time with the Lord should be just that (Matthew 6:5-6) seems like not the smartest choice regardless of your motives, simply because of how it can be perceived. In my line of work, we have a term: "Appearance of impropriety". Therefore as an officer of the court, if an action or attitude is PERCEIVED to be improper, even if it is truly ok, I can't be a party to it. I think that term reflects what Paul was talking about in 1 Cor 8:13. Well, hopefully this made sense; I just want to correct in love according to 2 Tim 3:16... and I could be completely wrong, but just wanted to share.
When I prayed, I prayed for him to have a tender heart toward Christ, for him to see Scriptures accurately, and for him to be effective in teaching me my error if I am in the wrong. I also prayed the same exact things for myself.
Given that I seem to be in agreement with Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Lutherans, and Methodists, but out of agreement with Presbyterians, Baptists (ironically), and most Evangelicals on this issue, I certainly would find it easier to change my view and would gladly do so if I thought it was no longer the best view to adopt.
I'm sorry if this post gave the impression that I was adamantly certain of my own position and thought that the great need in it was for God to reach this other man and change his mind. I assume absolutely no such thing.
All I meant by "praying for him" was in contrast with "imaginging how our arguments might go and how I might respond to his various points so as to persuade him." Again, the contrast meant to be reinforced by the end concept of distinguishing reliance on my own explanations (or even my own ability to see the Scritpures properly) versus reliance on God's Will and His power to reveal Himself accurately to both of us.
Mr. Tallman, I am sorry to see you attacked by these Apologia members. I will pray for you.
We can all use as much prayer for each other as we can get. Thank you for praying for me. I always appreciate that! =)
Thanks for the clarification... (I'm the one who posted first)... Like I said, hopefully it wasn't taken as an attack (not sure if the last post was directed at mine at all; I don't know who apologolia is) but just wanted to share what I personally perceived from your thought of the day, and to give an additional perspective. I gotta admit too, (something I didn't think about before) is it must be hard being involved in ministry while holding true to Matthew 6 and still trying explain your thoughts to the people you listen too concerning prayer life. Prayin for ya man, and you do good work regardless of your "evil veiw on baptism", haha.
Yeah, the thing about not getting credit twice (either it's here or it's later, but not both--from Matthew 6) is a tough one. I try to talk about stuff that I think will help people see an encouraging version of Christian life, both in its flaws and in its virtues. And I always appreciate the prayer. =)
Hi Andrew....
I know that you have invited Jeff to blog with you further on the baptism topic. I also know that he has requested to come on your show and discuss this live . Have you given any serious thought to inviting him to come on your show?
Also, I appreciate your transparency about how you were feeling after this discussion. And the fact that you prayed "for him to be effective in teaching you your error if you are in the wrong" shows humility and teachability...character qualities we all should possess as Christ followers.
This is an interesting article by Hank Hanegraaff:
IS BAPTISM NECESSARY FOR SALVATION?
The most critical mistake one can make with regard to baptism is to believe that it is necessary for salvation. Several aberrant or cultic movements, such as the International Churches of Christ (Boston movement), teach that belief is not sufficient for salvation — baptism is also required. In concert with other cultic groups, they distort passages such as Acts 2:38 to defend this deadly doctrine.
Acts 2:38 climaxes Peter’s powerful proclamation of the gospel on the day of Pentecost. Those impacted by his message cried out, “What shall we do?” Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
Groups that believe baptism is necessary for salvation mistakenly regard Peter’s words, “Repent and be baptized” as evidence that belief plus baptism results in salvation. Scripture, however, does not support this view.
First, the Book of Acts itself demonstrates that baptism is the sign of conversion, not the means of conversion. Acts 10:47, for example, describes believers who were indwelt by the Holy Spirit (and therefore saved — see Rom. 8:9) prior to being baptized.
Furthermore, the Bible as a whole clearly communicates that we are saved by faith and not by works (Eph. 2:8-9). As Paul pointed out in Romans, our righteous standing before God is “by faith from first to last” (Rom. 1:17). When the jailer asked the apostle Paul, “What must I do to be saved?” Paul responded, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:30-31).
Although baptism is not the means by which we are saved, it is the means by which we are set apart. By baptism, we testify that we are no longer our own — we have been bought by Christ’s blood and have been brought into the community of faith. This is the significance of Peters command in Acts 2:38. He was not telling them that they could not be saved without baptism. He was telling them that their genuine repentance, which by the grace of God accompanies salvation, would be evidenced by their baptism.
Just an FYI. I have disabled anonymnous comments on my blogs. They are still open to anyone to post, but you have to identify yourself with a Google account or some other form of online ID. I didn't think I would need to do this, but I strongly prefer to know with whom I am speaking. I'm sorry for the inconvenience this may cause any of you.
Post a Comment