[HeavenlyOne]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Well I see Dr V has dropped off the face of the planet.

Anyways, as much as I think he gave me a bum rap I hope he does not stay away. But I will say that I disagree with him and I will continue to refute his doctrine, his accusations against Oneness Pentecostals and point out that his posting styles are often no different than the ones he complains about (oh can you feel the love you voodoo wanna be Pentecostals?)

But I have to say this upon reading his words that he is NOT Oneness, not even Modalist. His view of the godhead is closer to Arianism or Unitarianism. Jesus is NOT Divine but divine. He is not Fully God but god it seems.

Nor is he Pentecostal, which historically is a group that taught and practiced that tongues in Acts is evidence of the initial baptism of the Spirit and not merely one of several gifts one can have. Simply saying "I speak in tongues" does not mean anything.

Charismatics spoke in tongues too, but they had a different doctrinal position on what and why and how etc etc.

Dr V also claims every service in the bible lacked worship and other Pentecostal features....he claims there were many such instances yet he only points to one instance. Can he find more? I doubt it. Then he claims by an argument from silence that since Luke does not record anything else happening that nothing else happened. If you were to use the same sort of logic Dr V would have pointed it out to you so I am wondering why he does. IN fact several times I pointed this out and without any personal attack he ignored each post. That is fine too since my post stands unrefuted.

What Dr V is doing is a circular argument. He starts with his assertion that church services lack these other things we do and uses that unproven assertion as the basis of making his argument that when the church gathered to pray or do other things that those were in fact NOT "Church services"....according to HIS defintion.

This is a form of logical fallacy called Circular reasoning
1. Begging the Question ( petitio principii ) / Circular Reasoning
DEFINITION: The truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises. Often, the conclusion is simply restated in the premises in a slightly different form. In more difficult cases, the premise is a consequence of the conclusion. Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.
1. Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
2. Claim C (the conclusion) is true.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."
Some cases of question begging are fairly blatant, while others can be extremely subtle.
EXAMPLE: "Since Picard is a better captain than Kirk, Kirk is not the superior captain."
PROOF: Show that in order to believe that the premises are true we must already agree that the conclusion is true.

most of the time Dr V starts off with his assertion stated as a fact that we all agree on. This is fallacious

Great points. Now I understand better why I shouldn't spar with you...LOL!