• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

How can unregenerate people worship God?

Discussion in 'Salvation (Soteriology)' started by FreeGrace2, Feb 20, 2014.

  1. Hammster

    Hammster Melanin Level - Low Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +16,867
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Well, since the point of the post was to show FG's contradiction, then I don't see how it's a red herring.

    You do realize that the quote was FG's, right?
     
  2. OzSpen

    OzSpen Regular Member

    +622
    Australia
    Baptist
    Private
    That's because you did not address the content of FG's post and thus committed a red herring logical fallacy.

    In case you have forgotten what you do, here it is again:

    Also Known as: Smoke Screen, Wild Goose Chase.
    Description of Red Herring

    A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

    1. Topic A is under discussion.
    2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
    3. Topic A is abandoned.
    This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
    You do it over and over to various posters - including myself - on this forum. When will you quit it so that we can continue to have logical discussions on the topic raised.

    Your use of a red herring fallacy is illogic in action.

    NB: Of course I know that the quote was from FG2 to which you replied and to which I responded. You participate often, based on what others say, when it has not been addressed to you. Therefore, why are you making this an issue? I'm as free as anyone else on CF to show your practice of a red herring logical fallacy - even when you address your comment to FG2

    Oz

     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2014
  3. Hammster

    Hammster Melanin Level - Low Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +16,867
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Bye. :wave:
     
  4. FreeGrace2

    FreeGrace2 Senior Veteran

    +1,275
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Constitution
    By paying attention to what I say, of course. :)
     
  5. FreeGrace2

    FreeGrace2 Senior Veteran

    +1,275
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Constitution
    Hi Oz,
    Thanks for the excellent resource! Very helpful. I think these approaches are done in order to try to keep the focus off one's weakness of their view.
     
  6. OzSpen

    OzSpen Regular Member

    +622
    Australia
    Baptist
    Private
    With a non-answer that is avoiding answering the question I posed to you. You've given another red herring logical fallacy.
     
  7. FreeGrace2

    FreeGrace2 Senior Veteran

    +1,275
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Constitution
    Rather than just face the issues.
     
  8. OzSpen

    OzSpen Regular Member

    +622
    Australia
    Baptist
    Private
    Yes, but the person will not acknowledge what he is doing. It is used to divert attention away from the content of your post, mine or anyone else's.

    I do wish that more people would become conversant on this forum with how others use logical fallacies that prevent us from having reasonable and responsible discussions.

    Oz
     
  9. Hammster

    Hammster Melanin Level - Low Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +16,867
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    I did. I showed your contradiction. Your only response was "No, I don't mean that at all". No explanation of what you really meant.
     
  10. Hammster

    Hammster Melanin Level - Low Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +16,867
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    I'm not the one who made the contradicting statements. That would be you.
     
  11. FreeGrace2

    FreeGrace2 Senior Veteran

    +1,275
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Constitution
    No contradiction was shown. Only your "take" on my post, so I disagreed with your conclusion of my view.

    btw, I always mean what I say.

    Instead of trying to put words into my mouth, next time just ask for clarification. Then I will. If you persist in trying to paraphrase and misunderstanding me, I will just deny that is my position.
     
  12. FreeGrace2

    FreeGrace2 Senior Veteran

    +1,275
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Constitution
    All I saw was a quote. No explanation, no nothing. Please be specific if there is a contradiction that I have made.
     
  13. Hammster

    Hammster Melanin Level - Low Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +16,867
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    FG "Scripture provides two examples of
    unregenerate unbelievers who worshiped God."

    FG "In spiritual death, a dead human spirit cannot worship God (we are separated from Him)."

    FG "No, I don't mean that at all."

    FG "btw, I always mean what I say."
     
  14. Hammster

    Hammster Melanin Level - Low Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +16,867
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    The majority of folks will find the above post self-explanatory.
     
  15. FreeGrace2

    FreeGrace2 Senior Veteran

    +1,275
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Constitution
    Apparently, you forgot to include the key to understanding this so-called contradiction.

    John 4:24
    “God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

    Though both Cornelius and Lydia were described as worshipers of God, they still didn't have the Truth. That was lacking. Until Peter and Paul showed up, respectively.

    Even Saul worshiped God as a Pharisee. But he lacked the Truth until he met Jesus.

    btw, since you've previously agreed with me that regeneration and faith occur at the same time, though we disagree on the "logical sequence", how do you handle the fact that Saul, Cornelius and Lydia worshiped God before they came to faith in Jesus Christ? Some Calvinists would say that regeneration can occur way before they come to faith, but you don't believe that.

    So, how do you explain them worshiping God before faith in Christ?
     
  16. Hammster

    Hammster Melanin Level - Low Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +16,867
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    I said the same thing, basically, on page one.
     
  17. shturt678s

    shturt678s Regular Member

    +70
    Lutheran
    Single
    Only a head's up. Saul worshipped "another God" before Acts9:17, etc. where Cornelius and Lydia where 'hearing' the gospel and law thus worshipping the true God only awaiting for the Pearl of Great Price.

    Old Jack
     
  18. Shocker

    Shocker Well-Known Member

    +26
    Christian
    Married
    Saul was a Jew who had head knowledge of God, and honored him with his lips and by works.

    It was definitely the same God, but Saul was acquainted with Jesus Christ personally and therefore came to understand the God in which he thought he was serving.

    In case people get the wrong idea about Saul worshipping a different God.
     
  19. shturt678s

    shturt678s Regular Member

    +70
    Lutheran
    Single
    Saul: Remove IICor.11:4, "another Jesus," and then I may begin to agree with you ;)

    Definitely a 'different God' :amen:

    Old 'same' Jack

    btw Saul had a head knowledge of a 'different' gospel ;)
     
Loading...