Bama Player Says Speaking in Tongues Helped Him Win the Game
Minutes after throwing the game-winning touchdown pass in Monday night's College Football Playoff National Championship game in Atlanta, Alabama Tua Tagovailoa wasn't hesitant to give God the credit.
"I was praying," Tagovailoa says. "I was speaking in tongues. It kept me calm."
He continued: "I would say my poise comes from my faith. I just pray for peace."
Not an uncommon occurrence for some athletes, but Tagovailoa's thankful words caught the attention of evangelist Franklin Graham, who praised the 18-year-old freshman for his boldness on ESPN's national telecast. With a host of liberal broadcasters on its roster, ESPN isn't exactly kingdom-friendly....
I'd like to bring this discussion back to it's point of beginning, at least in my mind.
In recent years there has been a noticeable increase in heated disagreements over doctrinal issues; issues that I personally consider important but secondary to a right standing with God. These disagreements have continued and digressed to the point the opposing parties reject each other as Christians and never seem to have an end. In other instances, those who have no desire to discuss doctrine are singled out and harassed incessantly to the point they fear to even comment. Where is this sort of militant behavior taught in the bible?
I posed the question; "What is the mark of a real Christian?" The reason I posed the question should be obvious. The general consensus of those who replied seems to be the fruit of the Holy Spirit. Of course God's truth isn't established by majority rule but it is the majority consensus of those who spoke up.
John UK wrote: I will try to have a look, Penny. Yes, I well remember my first church, which was based on the pulpit at Westminster Chapel where MLJ was pastor. After travelling down to London every Sunday to hear him, a group of farmers and ex-Methodists decided on forming a church locally, which they did, and after some years the church began to grow quite substantially under the regular exposition of the word. The church embraced the 1689 confession, and I remember when we were invited to join in with a certain crusade, we declined, because of the liberal and Catholic involvement. Wise decisions.
indeed. now I wonder if MS and Ladybug are paying attention. I thought we might earn some brownie points with them.
Dolores, you got me laughing today.
Lurker, thanks for reminding us that Paul's conversion was the work of the Holy Spirit as Christ supernaturally coming to him, not necessarily Paul's "right thinking"! And the fruit of the Spirit being a test of the brethren and others to say our love for one another. Yes Jesus did say that, "you will be known for the love of the brethren".
Unprofitable Servant wrote: snip In all the cases there is no things known and believed before hand by those who by God's grace embraced the gospel.
You've not understood my point. Maybe I didn't do such a good job of explaining it. Sorry.
My point is that the gospel brings certain knowledge - about God, about ourselves, about Christ and what he did. And then the call comes to repent and believe. The call to action comes on the heels of a body of knowledge. Sure that does not require a PhD to understand it. But nevertheless there is a certain amount one needs to know to know what is to be believed and why there is a change of mind required.
Lurker is trying to make out that Paul required no such knowledge.
If that is the case can we just go around telling people to repent and believe and give them no additional information?
Lurker Wrote: "...the simplicity of Christ is actually complicated and takes years to learn(?)"
Everyone knows there is a God. The evidence is all around us. In fact, the Creator designed the universe so that His many invisible attributes would be âclearly seenâ in the things He made, so that we are âwithout excuseâ (Romans 1:20).
Despite his wonders, they did not believe. (Psalm 78:32, ESV)
What should Theophilus say? âWe donât really know what God does with the unevangelizedâ?
Romans 1:18â21 has a more direct answer to modern Epicurus. Those who have never heard are willfully guilty for rejecting God because God has revealed Himself clearly in the wonders of creation.
This seems to confirm the barebones simplicity because it appears to show that without any prior knowledge; no bibles. no missionaries, no repeat after me, and no alter calls, etc., the most remote and undiscovered tribes will be saved or held accountable for believing or not believing in the creator by the wonders and evidence of nature alone.
(TMC) @Lurker Youâre welcome, I wouldnât have known about it except for a sermon we listened to from Dr. Joe Morecraft a ways back!
@Code Breaker Inferences from Scripture never trump plain statements. When Paul, under the inspiration of God, says that he neither recieved, nor was taught the gospel by men, then it is our duty to believe it. Furthermore, this question has direct implications for Paulâs Apostleship:
âOne thing peculiar in the character of an apostle was that he had been called to, and instructed for, this office immediately by Christ himself. And in this he here shows that he was by no means defective, whatever his enemies might suggest to the contrary. Ordinary ministers, as they receive their call to preach the gospel by the mediation of others, so it is by means of the instruction and assistance of others that they are brought to the knowledge of it. But Paul acquaints them that he had his knowledge of the gospel, as well as his authority to preach it, directly from the Lord Jesus: the gospel which he preached was not after man; he neither received it of man, nor was he taught it by man, but by immediate inspiration, or revelation from Christ himself.â ~ Matthew Henry
Lurker wrote: Was Paul a Christian brother the moment he received the Holy Spirit from the hand of Ananias or much later after he had received all revelation from God?
Lurker to CB wrote: My position is Paul became a Christian at the exact moment he received the indwelling Holy Spirit. And that was before he received revelations from God which led to the apostolic teachings and doctrines you spoke of. And, as it relates to my earlier question, the mark of a real Christian is the indwelling Spirit and the fruit which flows thereof.
Acts 9:17-18 KJV (17)Â And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. (18)Â And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.
Acts 22:16 KJV (16) And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
Code Breaker wrote: No one is born again in a doctrinal vacuum. There are certain things to be known and believed before hand.
Both I Cor. 3:1-3 and Heb. 5:11-6:3 demonstrate that doctrine is both something that is taught and learned. It also shows that believers who should have some maturity in their faith have doctrinal errors not doctrinal distinctives.
1Thess 1:9 For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God FROM IDOLS to serve the living and true God;
looks like a pretty big doctrinal vacuum in Thessalonica
Read Acts 14 we have the apostles being called Jupiter and Mercurius and the priests of Jupiter were about to do sacrifice, sounds like a "doctrinal vacuum" to me yet in Acts 16 we have the phrase "the brethren at Lystra" (v2)
Acts 17 in Athens which Paul said people were too superstitious, worshipers of the unknown God, To back this up the residents said of Paul he is a setter forth of strange gods, new things, yet at end of chapter some of these people in a "doctrinal vacuum" are said to be believers.
In all the cases there is no things known and believed before hand by those who by God's grace embraced the gospel.
Code breaker wrote: Feeling smug Lurker? The sweet smell of a shallow victory? Read Acts 6 verse 8 through to 8 verse 1 Here is Paul hearing one of the best best gospel sermons and witnessing a martyrdom even as he consented to Stephen's death. Paul never heard of Jesus or the gospel? Seriously? I doubt Paul would have persecuted a group without knowing their belief system. And as I said in Acts 6 to 8.1 we have him listening as a young man to Stephen's preaching the gospel just before he was murdered.
Oh dear! It was so peaceful and my headache was about gone.
So you're sure Saul heard Stephen's discourse? And you're sure this discourse contained the gospel, Christ crucified, the power of God unto salvation? The way I read it, Saul doesn't come into the picture until after Stephen was cast out of the city where he was stoned in the presence of Saul. No mention of Saul being party to the council.
But beyond that, what say you about Gal 1:11-12? Did Paul have a lapse of memory?
You asked: "How did he acquire such knowledge so quickly from a vacuum of nothing...."
Revelation from God. Perhaps you are afflicted with the false idea that the simplicity of Christ is actually complicated and takes years to learn.
Code breaker wrote: Read Acts 6 verse 8 through to 8 verse 1 Here is Paul hearing one of the best best gospel sermons and witnessing a martyrdom even as he consented to Stephen's death. Paul never heard of Jesus or the gospel? Seriously? I doubt Paul would have persecuted a group without knowing their belief system. And as I said in Acts 6 to 8.1 we have him listening as a young man to Stephen's preaching the gospel just before he was murdered.
Was he listening?
Saul was party to this group at this time.
Acts 7:51 51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
Anon, I don't know if you're still reading this, but I just listened to one of the sermons you linked to concerning the compromise of Billy Graham. As I understand, Pastor Ashbrook is a reformed feller, and I think his evaluation was pretty good,
I never really studied on the Grahams, but Pastor Ashbrook did a good job assessing it, I certainly learned a lot, my only complaint was that the separation seemed to be a bit overkill, ex. I would have no problem to invite a Mormon into my house to discuss the flaws within Mormonism, I'm obviously not going to have the same fellowship that I would have with a brother in Christ.
Besides that, great sermon, I'll try to listen to the other links you gave.
Feeling smug Lurker? The sweet smell of a shallow victory?
Read Acts 6 verse 8 through to 8 verse 1
Here is Paul hearing one of the best best gospel sermons and witnessing a martyrdom even as he consented to Stephen's death.
Paul never heard of Jesus or the gospel? Seriously?
I doubt Paul would have persecuted a group without knowing their belief system. And as I said in Acts 6 to 8.1 we have him listening as a young man to Stephen's preaching the gospel just before he was murdered.
Also consider that immediately after having received his sight and having spent just a few days with the disciples in Damascus he went straight to the synagogue and started preaching that Jesus is the Son of God (Acts 9.20) and confounded the Jews (v22) proving that this is very Christ.
How did he acquire such knowledge so quickly from a vacuum of nothing, especially when he hadn't yet had his 3 years retirement in Arabia?
Code breaker wrote: Defence of last resort? What? Articulating the absurd logical conclusion to which you have been driving at all evening? Or congratulating your genius for inventing errors?
Let's see here. I had to look over you latest comments. You said Paul became a convert on Damascus Road but you didn't say when He became a Christian. Is there a reason why you didn't give a straight answer? Is there a difference between a convert and a Christian?
And as for Paul's conversion being a pattern.... his words, not mine:
1 Tim 1:16 Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.