(Omega) wrote:hisway wrote: Again you have missed the point. The "tongues" Paul referred to "not all speak in tongues" was the Gift of Tongues and not the Sign of Spirit baptism. You don't even believe in the name of Jesus how could I expect you to believe in any truth? Why do you even profess Christianity?
hisway wrote:Just as the sign of Spirit baptism is speaking in tongues so is water baptism in Jesus' name the sign of the circumcision made without hands. God has used signs throughout the Scriptures. In my study of the subject of the significance of the sign of "circumcision" in the O.T. and how that sign is applied to the N.T. I found it definitely corresponded to water baptism. Therefore, if the circumcision of the O.T. is a "type" that refers to water baptism in the N.T. then the significance of that "type" as it was in the O.T. must carry over in principle to the N.T. application. The O.T. circumcision served as the enrty point to participate in the Old Covenant as water baptism must also serve as an entry point into the New Covenant.
See the Problem here hisway?
You can rack your brain as much as you like, your only deceiving yourself!
What problem? As I said in my earlier post speaking in tongues is the
SIGN of Spirit baptism which is not the same as the
GIFT of Tongues which is accompanied by Interpretation. Like I said you cannot have the Gift of Tongues without the Interpretation and you cannot have the Gift of the Holy Ghost without the sign of speaking in tongues.
It is you who are deceived. You're so quick to respond to the "tongues" debate but sit back while your bosom buddy blasphemes the name of Jesus.