@Charlesiii @PaulThomson
For the record PaulThomson's claim that you so readily replied to was false. I clarified his misrepresentation of what I actually stated in the following posts: 325, 342, and 343. Even so, many who make false accusations are rarely willing to acknowledge their misrepresentations.
PaulThomson said: (POST 339)
You made a claim about 100% of New testament texts on being filled with the Spirit. I gave two that do not say the spoke in tongues. You seem to be suggesting that unless the Bible says somewhere, "So-and-so was/were filled with the Spirit but did not speak in tongues" then we should logically conclude that where it says they were filled with the Spirit, they did speak in tongues. That is the logical fallacy of begging the question.
Your response: "Logic (i.e. lack of understanding thereof). Another commonality amongst those advocating the widespread use of tongues in the church."
...
Logic (i.e. lack of understanding thereof). Another commonality amongst those advocating the widespread use of tongues in the church.
For the record PaulThomson's claim that you so readily replied to was false. I clarified his misrepresentation of what I actually stated in the following posts: 325, 342, and 343. Even so, many who make false accusations are rarely willing to acknowledge their misrepresentations.
PaulThomson said: (POST 339)
You made a claim about 100% of New testament texts on being filled with the Spirit. I gave two that do not say the spoke in tongues. You seem to be suggesting that unless the Bible says somewhere, "So-and-so was/were filled with the Spirit but did not speak in tongues" then we should logically conclude that where it says they were filled with the Spirit, they did speak in tongues. That is the logical fallacy of begging the question.
Your response: "Logic (i.e. lack of understanding thereof). Another commonality amongst those advocating the widespread use of tongues in the church."