Defend your Faith

[Praxeas]

I had a friend once years ago on the internet that was eastern orthodox....He told me that they never ask such questions or speculate. Can a person be saved and not have been baptized? He said yes, but again they do not speculate one way or the other. It's a biblical command and a true believer just does it, not fights over it

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I had a friend once years ago on the internet that was eastern orthodox....He told me that they never ask such questions or speculate. Can a person be saved and not have been baptized? He said yes, but again they do not speculate one way or the other. It's a biblical command and a true believer just does it, not fights over it

Right. If someone wants to come into the church but still reject baptism - then we have a real problem.

[Kutless]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

Right. If someone wants to come into the church but still reject baptism - then we have a real problem.

I appreciate your response. This thread has taken a couple different turns.

One, that there aren't very many preachers and saints alike that have the courage to tell someone they are hell bound.

Two, that proving tongues are essential isn't the easiest thing to do.


Currently we are discussing the insinuation that tongues that are mentioned in Corinthians was actually Hebrew.

I wanted to ask if anyone thought there was credit to anything the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers said or recorded?

Originally Posted by Kutless

I appreciate your response. This thread has taken a couple different turns.

One, that there aren't very many preachers and saints alike that have the courage to tell someone they are hell bound.

Two, that proving tongues are essential isn't the easiest thing to do.


Currently we are discussing the insinuation that tongues that are mentioned in Corinthians was actually Hebrew.

I wanted to ask if anyone thought there was credit to anything the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers said or recorded?

There is no Biblical evidence that the tongues Paul was referring to in 1 Corinthians was Hebrew. While I agree that, for the most part, the tongues are human languages that the person has never learned, it is utter speculation to say that it was specifically Hebrew.

As for the Nicene or Post-Nicene fathers, I haven't come across writings where any of them have said anything about the tongues in 1 Corinthians.

Originally Posted by Kutless

Paul was making a point. He was speaking rhetorically. He couldn't make the point if he said "I speak Hebrew therefore I understand the Torah readings. He makes the point with a hypothetical when he says, "If I don't speak Hebrew how will it edify me to hear the Torah read in Hebrew."

He wanted them to discontinue the traditional use of Hebrew unless there was an interpreter present to make sense of the reading to everyone so they would be edified.

Can you counter the fact that it seems Paul was against the use of tongues in the synagogue?

I don't know where you get this stuff from but it is definitely not what Paul was saying.

First of all, Paul was writing to a Gentile church - one where Greek was the language commonly spoken. When they read the scriptures, they read from what we call the Septuagint (a Greek translation of what we call the Old Testament). This Gentile church didn't have synagogues and I seriously doubt it was allowed to meet in the Jewish synagogue.

[Kutless]

Originally Posted by Chan

There is no Biblical evidence that the tongues Paul was referring to in 1 Corinthians was Hebrew. While I agree that, for the most part, the tongues are human languages that the person has never learned, it is utter speculation to say that it was specifically Hebrew.

As for the Nicene or Post-Nicene fathers, I haven't come across writings where any of them have said anything about the tongues in 1 Corinthians.

thankyou for responding.


Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol. 1 pg 232

"And he became aside himself, and being suddenly ina sort of frenzy and ecstasy, he raved, and began to babble and utter strange things, prophesying in a manner contrary to the constant custom of the church handed down by tradition from the beginning."

Originally Posted by Kutless

thankyou for responding.


Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol. 1 pg 232

"And he became aside himself, and being suddenly ina sort of frenzy and ecstasy, he raved, and began to babble and utter strange things, prophesying in a manner contrary to the constant custom of the church handed down by tradition from the beginning."

Who said this and about whom did he say it?

[Kutless]

Originally Posted by Chan

Who said this and about whom did he say it?

the book lists it as a quote from church history and the siting above.



another one is The Epistle of Saint John NIcene and post Nicene Fathers vol 7, pgs 497-498

***speaking about tongues****

"....These signs were adapted to the time. For there behooved to be that betokening of the Holy Spirit in all tongues, to show that the gospel of God was to run through all tongues over the whole earth. That thing was done for a betokening, and it passed."

***earlier in the same quote***

"...and they spake with tongues, which they had not learned..."

[Kutless]

Originally Posted by Chan

I don't know where you get this stuff from but it is definitely not what Paul was saying.

First of all, Paul was writing to a Gentile church - one where Greek was the language commonly spoken. When they read the scriptures, they read from what we call the Septuagint (a Greek translation of what we call the Old Testament). This Gentile church didn't have synagogues and I seriously doubt it was allowed to meet in the Jewish synagogue.

were there not Jewish Christians?

Didn't Paul deal with other Judaic customs like circumcision and the Jewish form of baptism?

Originally Posted by Kutless

were there not Jewish Christians?

Didn't Paul deal with other Judaic customs like circumcision and the Jewish form of baptism?

Yes to both questions but that still doesn't mean they met in Jewish synagogues or spoke Hebrew. Gentiles would certainly have not been welcome in a Jewish synagogue.