Hidden Assumptions

I’ve been thinking for the past couple of days about what makes discussing religion with people of other faiths so difficult.  And I say this coming from a former Latter Day Saint perspective (which, really, is the sum of my religious knowledge and experience thus far).   I imagine that the same problem can be found in many/some/all faiths, but I don’t know about those, so I can’t really speak of them.  One of the troubles I’ve had when trying to explain why I no longer attend the Mormon church to a Mormon is the hidden assumptions in the premises of the Church.

I don’t say that to imply that the Church is being sinister; I don’t think that it is.  But when you hear a Mormon describe the Church, it sounds completely logical.  And the Mormon will think that it really is.  But embedded in the logic are hidden assumptions that, should you take them away, make the logic a little less solid, make the footing a little less sure.

For example, talking about the Trinity.  The LDS Church believes that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct people, with three distinct physical bodies.  So, when talking about the Trinity, a Mormon may not understand why someone could believe in anything else because, after all, it doesn’t make sense that Jesus could talk to and about his Father but still be the same person.

The hidden assumption there is that the Godhead each has a physical body.  And the human understanding of what that physical body must entail.  (The LDS Church teaches that they each have a perfect, exalted body)  But if you don’t realize that you need to discuss the attributes of what makes up the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, two parties to a conversation may walk away thinking that the other is bonkers… but neither is–each is just working with different assumptions.

Advertisements

35 responses to “Hidden Assumptions

  1. I’m not sure anyone truly understand the trinity or the Godhead or whatever you want to call it, because we’re talking about the very nature of God…..which is completely beyond our comprehension. We can get a closer understanding the more we study, but to completely understand God seems like…..too much.

  2. Dear Katy Jane,
    It’s a privilege to be able to discuss/ post a comment on your blog. I have reviewed your post and you have made some very interesting claims. The principle of which is obviously referring to the never-ending existence of the trinity, and the LDS’s Godhead.
    Let me just clarify a few things. 1. The Mormon church’s view of the Godhead consist of the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost–> the Father has a body that is perfected, and the son as well. However, the spirit dose not. Now, thanks to the niece creed we as Christians share the idea, almost universally, that God-Son-Spirit= 1 God. This is a very difficult and almost illogical statement.
    This is proved as follows: – Christ was born to his mother (Mary) and then died when he was on the cross in the book of john, Luke, Matthew he said, “Father into thy hands I commend my spirit,” and when he was resurrected in the garden, “Touch me not for I have not yet ascended to my father and your father which art in heaven.” These account along with the baptism of Christ in Matthew 3:10-16 shows a distinct separation between the trinity. Now, we wont only use the old testament to examine such ideas, but rather the book of genesis 1:26 “let us make men” I would like to focus on the word “US” this is referring to a entity or co personage that is evolved in the creation of men, which to have such title those other personages must be Gods or have the same goal–> the creation of men.
    Now, the LDS church states that they are separate but they all have the same goal and purpose in the progress of men. Now this would seem logical. I don’t believe that it isn’t logical or that there are some suppressed premises…which I cannot seem to find. If there are suppressed premises or contradictive statements they are held by all who believe in the classical trinity. If we can’t accept that then Stephen in the book of acts was seeing things “And he looked up into the heavens and saw Jesus standing on the right HAND OF GOD”

    Thank you
    John

  3. I think John unintentionally makes your point. John, you present a logical argument for the LDS concept of the Godhead by contrasting it to your own misunderstanding of the Classic Christian view of the Trinity (an unintentional strawman).

    I’ve found that if I want to understand another faith, that I need to leave my worldview and try to understand what is convincing to those other people. I am already convinced by my faith, I don’t need to prop it up while reading other points of view. AFTER I understand some one else’s point of view, THEN I can compare it to my own.

  4. Dando,
    Thank you for that insight. I am not supporting any religious view; I am merely providing what I feel, by logic, seems to exhibit more validity. I can see why this would appear as a straw man fallacy or “red herring.” It seems to oversimplify the argument into a simple analogy, which can then be attacked. Yet, this alone is not sufficient to justify the argument being a complete “unintentional straw man.” I personally believe I used, with some intention, “Ignoratio Elenchi,” to provide a quick refutation and a strong convincing claim. However, let me rephrase and eliminate the fallacy.
    To begin, lets get strait on what the doctrine of the trinity is. I do this so that I can assure you I have no misunderstanding…Here is an excerpt from an article that I published. (It is available on Philo.com if you subscribe)
    –In Christianity, the doctrine of the Trinity states that God is one being who exists, simultaneously and eternally, as a mutual indwelling of three persons: the Father, the Son (incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth), and the Holy Spirit. The doctrine of the Trinity is the result of continuous exploration by the church of the biblical data, thrashed out in debate and treatises, eventually formulated at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD.-(Philosophia ab Theos pg 89) —
    Now lets list some of the common refutations of the trinity:
    -1.That it is an invention of early Christian church fathers, such as Tertullian.
    -2.That the scriptural support for the doctrine is implicit at best. For example, the New Testament refers to the Father and the Son together much more often than to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and the word “trinity” doesn’t appear in the Bible.
    -3.That it is paradoxical.
    -4. Self-contradicting
    -5. The idea of the trinity is under supported, and only fueled by an illogical web of supporting and non-supporting scriptures.

    Now that we have listed the disagreements, lets attempt to see if the existence of the trinity is actually logical. Then latter we can explore the obvious biblical paradoxes that exist.

    1. The Son can do nothing by himself
    2. He can only do what he has seen the father do.
    3. Therefore, if the son is the father, then the son must do what he has already done.
    4. A event that is the result of a cause that has not occurred cannot exist.
    5. Therefore, Son as the father and the father as the son cannot exist as one entity.

    1. The Father loves the Son, then the father loves himself?
    2. If that is true, then the son, the father also love the spirit
    3. If the antecedent is true then God loves himself.
    4. Self love is proportional to pride and self-admiration.
    5. Therefore, God is not all good.

    1.the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son
    2. The previous commits an obvious contradiction
    3. All logical contradictions are false (definition)
    4. “A kingdom divided against itself can not stand”
    5. Thus, God cannot exist according to (1-4)

    1.the Father has granted the Son to have life in him
    2. Thus, God has granted himself life.
    3. If 2 is true then the son has granted himself life (resurrection)
    — If life comes from God, and the son then 1 is not a necessary statement and commits the fallacy of contradiction and Ambiguity.

    1. I seek not to please myself but him who sent me
    2. If 1 is true, then God, and the spirit are obeying their self
    3. 1 is not true according to 1 because god dose not seek to please himself.
    –Syllogistic Fallacy

    Here are the biblical supports of the previous argument-
    Why do you call me good? No one is good–except God alone. [Mk 10:18, Lk 18:17, Mt 19:17]
    No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. [Mk 13:32]
    And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. [Lk 12:10]
    Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done. [Lk 22:42-43]
    Father, into your hands I commit my spirit. [Lk 23:46]
    the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son [Jn 5:22]
    By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me. [Jn 5:30]
    I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. [Jn 8:28]
    I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. [Jn 8:42]
    If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing; it is my Father who is glorifying me, of whom ye say that He is your God. [Jn 8:54]
    I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it. [Jn 12:49]
    The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work [Jn 14:10]
    If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. [Jn 14:28]
    I love the Father and do exactly what my Father has commanded me. [Jn 14:31]
    Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father. [Jn 16:25]
    I am not saying that I will ask the Father on your behalf. No, the Father himself loves you [Jn 16:26-27]
    I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God. [Jn 20:17]
    As the Father has sent me, I am sending you. [Jn 20:21]

    Thus, to conclude, I assert that from logic the trinity is paradox and commits Syllogistic Fallacy, Ambiguity, and Contradiction. If God is full of truth-which must affirm logic, then the trinity cannot exist.
    Thank you
    John
    You will also notice the logical method (Modus operandi) for the existence of the trinity cannot work, it is as follows
    ( G∧ x,y,z)
    → X,Y,Z⊆ G = X
    (x∧y)⊄z
    ∉ G
    As you can see we this cannot work because it causes a Syllogistic error. (from G→XYZ?)

  5. In the bible it says “God is not a man to lie” If God causes confusuion , and contridiction, then he causes deception…Thus he lies. (assuming all the above is true)

  6. John, I will say that I disagree with your reasoning of what I’ve read from your last long post. I don’t plan on taking the time to respond to all of it tonight(or at all). I’ll just give my beliefs. I do believe in the trinity(or the Godhead). I think some of it can be hard to understand, but that’s because we’re dealing with the nature of God. God can manifest Himself however He pleases, though. A lot of things don’t make sense, the fact that God has no beginning or end is mindblowing, but that’s because as humans, everything seems finite.

    The way I see the trinity, is that the three are somewhat seperate, they have seperate consciousenesses, but are still united in spirit and purpose, and….actually united. They’re sort of like a family(remember, God said man and wife were “one”), but more….together than that. Eh. It’s hard to explain. I’m probably over reasoning as it is.

    Anyways….here’s some of the scripture I see to work with…

    I’d say one place to look is John 1:1, and John 1:14
    1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
    2He was in the beginning with God.
    3All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
    ….
    14And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

    Here’s one that’s a little mind boggling, to me:
    Colossians 1:15-20
    15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
    16For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things have been created through Him and for Him.
    17He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
    18He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.
    19For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him,
    20and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.

    John 10:30
    “I and the Father are one.”

    John 14:9
    Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

    Matthew 3:16-17
    16After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him,
    17and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.”

    Matthew 28:19
    19″Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,

    John 20:28
    28Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”

    2 Corinthians 13:14
    14The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.

    Philippians 2:6
    6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
    (I believe this is talking of the humility of God)

    Philippians 2:10-11
    10so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
    11and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father
    .
    1 John 5:7

  7. Bryan,
    Thank you, yet i must say that I am confused. You see your argument supports this idea…
    I really think that we could even further the argument
    1. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, then God would be able to use his omniscient and omnipotent abilities to achieve a state of absolute perfection. (premise)
    2. If God is absolutely perfect, then he must be omni-benevolent. (premise)
    3. If God is Omni-benevolent, then confusions and deceptions cannot occur.(premise)
    4. If God cannot cause deception, then situations of conflict, fallacy, contradiction and misinterpretations cannot occur according to his truths. (premise)
    5. Thus, if God is omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent, then only truths that lack conflict, fallacy, contradiction and misinterpretations are truth (1-4)
    6. The trinity is a supposed truth that exhibits conflict, fallacy, contradiction and misinterpretations. (premise)
    7. Thus, the trinity cannot be true. (4,5)
    And the argument above is supported by my previous post..
    thank you
    john

  8. 1. God is infinitely wise, I believe that, and He is perfect, yest.
    2. Omni-Benevolent = fancy word, meaning….absolutely good? Yes, God is good and just.
    3. No, I don’t follow your reasoning between 2 and 3. Confusions can obviously occur, as well as deceptions.
    4. Again, I don’t agree with your reasoning, I think you’re over complicating this though.
    5. There are definitely misinterpretations of truth. That would fall partly under confusion(3)
    6. I disagree with there being conflict with the trinity, but I didn’t want to respond to your entire long post about that. There could be apparant contradictions, but I think that comes from the human misunderstanding of trying to communicate the perfect nature of God through imperfect human language.
    7. I disagree with your reasoning.

  9. I could provide that same argument..and say..that humman understanding has caused the existince of a trinity..So lets not walk down that road.

  10. No, let’s. The human concept of the trinity could be wrong. In fact, there are multiple views on the trinity, so at least some of them would logically be wrong, right? We can’t really put God in a box, all we can do is try to understand the best we can. We are using imperfect human language to try to express divine concepts, and we’re living in a world where a great deceiver is trying to mess things up. Yet, if we study the Bible and pray for the Spirit to help lead us in all understanding, we can begin to understand these truths. It takes time, though, and we will continue to learn well after this life.

  11. Ok,
    So let me ask. Even though I am off subject. You said on can pray and be led to all understanding. So if i pray and the spirit leads me to X . And then you pray and the spirit leads you to Y. Becuase that happens. So if that happens and the justifycation is God. Then we can say that we can truly never depend on any teachings that have claimed to be divine. Becuas one truth (belif) says X and people claim that the spirit leads them to X, yet there are truths that profess Y and people claim they are led by the spirit to Y. And all that done in the name of divinity? there is obviously a problem…

  12. Ooh, one more thing. God is rational, I do think He appeals to our understanding, but that doesn’t mean He reveals everything to us, that doesn’t mean that He removes all mystery. I shared 1 Timothy 3:16 and Job 11:7 in another convo, but I will also add Deuteronomy 29:29, which is partially about the law, but there is another message in there as well.

  13. Ok, another response to your last post, John, about the “x” and the “y” thing. Yes, many people are led to believe different things. I heard someone describe that with a babel type analogy, but that’s not totally the way I see it. Basically, we’ll continue to learn well past this life, but we’re all heading in the same direction, even if we’re going from different starting points. We might be lead to different beliefs in certain things, and that comes from different places(human misunderstanding, as well as deception). Human misunderstanding can be corrected over time, but it takes time….again, the true Spirit leads us all to the same place, but we might be learning well after this place, and some things are learned more quickly than others. As far as “X” and “Y,” they are just stepping stones before we get to “Z”

  14. I think I should clarify–I know that the LDS Church teaches that the Holy Spirit does not have a body… but, that is, does not have a body YET.

    John,

    I appreciate your thoughts and comments. I think I agree with Dando here though (but then… I find that I often agree with Dando lol), that you are unintentionally proving my point about hidden assumptions. My original post was about how we make these assumptions and take them as a given.

    A lot of the premises that you have laid forth… I don’t know that I would take them as a given.

    Bryan, thank you also for your comments and insights. 🙂

  15. Katyjane,
    thank you for your insight. I rephrased my argument to eliminate any possible “indirect soldification of your conclusion” but if you cant address that then I completly understand. It is hard to prove truth by false means isnt it.. so mearly to agree and dismiss the argument commits a fallacy (ignoring the counter evidence)
    thank you
    john

  16. And..bryan..Again I think that your scriptures you use, which can be countered, should not be used in an argument of logic any debate class teaches you that..I could use chapter 7 of hebrews and show that the scripture of deut. has no validity..
    But lets not get so far off subject; I am still looking for a response on my post about the trinity.
    thany you
    john

  17. John.
    Saying that Katyjane commited a “fallacy” for ignoring one of your arguments is itself a fallacy. No, she didn’t commit a “fallacy,” there’s a million reasons why she might not have responded to your argument, including, simply, not wanting to get into an argument(which, with all do respect, you do sort of seem argumentive, in a slightly hostile way…..this is the internet though, so it is hard to tell)

    As far as hebrews goes, I’m not sure where you pulled that from, I didn’t use hebrews, but no, you can’t disprove the validity of deuteronomy. You can try, but there will most likely be an error in your reasoning. I’m thinking that’s getting into a completely different convo, though, so I do agree with you on not getting that far off subject.

    I could try to respond to your trinity post, but I really, really don’t want to spend the time. I’ve scanned it, and I do see gaps in reasoning, for example:

    1.the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son
    2. The previous commits an obvious contradiction

    I see no contradiction there. It’s not that the Father entrusts all judgement to the son, it’s that the son is our(inter..ses…um, spelling? He’s representing us, and paid the price for our sins).

    Personally, I think from that much of what I read, your idea of the trinity is different than mine, and it’s defintely different than the mormon version of the Godhead, so It’s almost a pointless debate, since we’re talking about different things.

  18. WOW! I really enjoyed reading all of your comments. It was one of the arguments! I just wanted to ask if any of you are LDS? (or Mormon?)

  19. hummm….bryan. I dont think that I will speak of fallecy again. You dont seem to understand what a fallecy is. Go to http://www.fallacyfiles.org.
    And about the following
    1.the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son
    2. The previous commits an obvious contradiction
    –isnt the son the father??
    It is pointless to debate. especially when you refuse to reason with logic….your emotion has to much controll.. even if my resoning were right. You would never be able to agree.

  20. Again, the only fallacies I see are coming from you. “you don’t seem to understand what a fallacy is……it’s pointless to debate, especially when you refuse to reason with logic…..your emotion has to much controll…..”

    You’re spending a lot of time talking about my character, instead of takling about the actual arguments. Same thing with what you said to katy.

    But, since apparantly we don’t agree on fallacies either, I’m happy to not talk about them.

    “1.the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son
    2. The previous commits an obvious contradiction
    –isnt the son the father??”

    Like I said earlier, they are seperate, they have seperate consciousnesses, seperate “personalities,” if that helps you.

    They are one, also. Is that confusing? Well, remember that Moses said man and wife would be one. (I think that the Father and Son are more united than that, but yeah….they’re united in spirit and truth).

    I think that some of the OT hebrew referring to God as one is similar to how you would refer to a flock as one

  21. Bryan,
    I agree with one as purpose or as a team…but my arguments are built aginst the trinity..the tradition 3–>in 1 trinity. Now if you beleve that they are a team and are individual then i agree with you. If that is what you have thought the whole time then i apologize that this is the road that we walked. You never stated your outlook… thus, if individualisum you claim. then I agree.. but the trinity 3 -> 1 in person and spirit. I disagree.
    thank you
    john
    Ps. advising a person of a error in emotional reasoning is not a fallacy… unless you believe your charcter is emotional…which if it is then i apologize

  22. John,
    Unless I’m mistaken, and I don’t think I am, the Mormon version of the trinity is that there are three seperate entities(in fact, they usually call it the “Godhead” instead of the trinity, to avoid the confusion which comes anyways)

    I do believe in the trinity, however I still think my idea of the trinity is different than the one you are arguing against, which is why I said this debate is almost pointless, becasue we’re talking about different things.

    I guess I could say they’re a “team,” but I do believe they are one at the same time. United, yet seperate. It’s really hard to describe, because we’re used to distinct physical bodies that follow certain rules.

    Meh.

    P.S. I wasn’t getting emotional. It’s easy to make that mistake, though, seeing as this is the internet, and you can’t hear “tone of voice.” Trying to discredit my arguments do to “emotion” is edging an fallacy, though. It doesn’t matter, though, my original point in bringing it up is that you can’t accuse katyjane of being fallaceous by not engaging in debate with you. A fallacy is basically an illogical argument(without getting to specific). Dismissing an argument, or just staying out of it, isn’t committing a fallacy.

  23. Bryan,
    So let me ask you this. What is the trinity from your doctrinal point of view? And if it is to hard to describe then just give it your best shot, and perhaps instead of trying in obvious unavailing attempts to thwart my argument with speculation, prove the trinity as you believe it. Would that be possible?

    And Christ has a distinct physical body–> so the spirit, and God should have one too…or is that not true. Please describe if you will…
    I still think that you need to study up on logical fallacy. I never discredited I simply commented on the fact that one shouldn’t become as such, and you seemed to take that personally. Actually, to dismiss an argument as invalid by ignoring the counter evidence is… (Fallacy of ignoring the counter) a fallacy.
    Thank you.
    John

  24. Dismissing an argument is not a fallacy. I get into debates often enough (mostly on myspace :P), but there’s a few peope who I don’t even bother arguing with most of the time. One person in particular….I don’t agree with there blithering logic, but, to me, it’s too out there to even bother arguing with. I could argue every time he presented something, which is often sometimes, but I would really be wasting my time.

    Fallacies are illogical arguments. If you choose not to argue, your chances of using a fallcy are pretty slim, I’d say.

    Anyways…..maybe I might make a blog about the trinity at a later time. Basically, I believe that the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are seperate persons, but still united in spirit and purpose(and sort of united in person). I’ll leave it at that. I’m an adventist, though, so if you want to know what my church teaches, I’m sure it’s on our website.

  25. Ok, lets get something clear. I was talking about dismissal because one chooses to ignore a statement on grounds of the argument. So now that’s clear. I will now retire, relinquish, and utterly abandon this completely unavailing argument that is almost exclusively being ventured by a bemused situation that is absolutely outside the demarcation of our original argument.
    Thank you for your posts Bryan, I enjoyed it.
    John

  26. What’s funny is that this blog entry wasn’t about the Trinity at all. It was about how when talking to other people, if you don’t know the underlying assumptions that they are using, you can talk in circles and never come to a conclusion.

  27. Katy,
    You’re right, that’s why I wrote that final proof which proved that if such discrepancies and contradictions exist according to a truth of God then we have reason to believe that that truth has possible errors or falsehoods. IF that true then one would have to set back and think “is this logical, is this true, is it concurrent 100% with what Christ said, and is it something that can support itself?
    -Well I agree with you on the bounds that people talk circles over things, its cause they do it by their emotions and all the underlying things that they have been taught, no matter how erroneous, convince their simple minds into believing that something is true even if it is under supported, contradicting, and utterly confusing.
    That is what is referred to as “the mob” and that is what is dangerous.
    Respectively,
    John

  28. Hi John,

    First of all, I really don’t appreciate your saying that people who don’t agree with you have ‘simple minds’. Just because people don’t follow your logic (which can be difficult to follow, in all honesty) doesn’t mean that they don’t have good reasons for their beliefs.

    Second of all, sometimes the things that Christ said in different situations seemed to contradict itself, if you read the Bible. But, like many things, I think that different situations call for different direction. I don’t think that right and wrong are black and white. And I don’t think that limiting God and religion to what you can deduce through logic is very effective.

    Also, I think you meant ‘respectfully’ and not ‘respectively’. 🙂

    Best, Katy

  29. By the way, logic alone can definitely talk you in circles. Logic tells you nothing- it’s just a set of rules. If your premises are flawed, you’re lost from the beginning, even with no fallacies.

    This is especially prevalent when trying to apply logical reasoning to very complex subjects- invariably there’s a factor you fail to take into consideration, possibly without even realizing it.

  30. Katy, I hope you don’t mind me popping in here for the first time. I guess there are a lot of people talking about the Trinity.

    It is good to circle around such a crucial topic. That is good.

    Have a good day.

  31. I have had the same problem talking to my Baptist friend. He insists that Mormons believe works will save them. I try to explain to him that is not completely true (even Mormons know that their own works alone can’t save them, only Christ can). When it comes down to it, I really think we believe the same thing, but because of preconceived prejudices the point never gets across.

  32. Jay, I think you’re right.

    In terms of the works/faith issue, I’ve found that it comes down to a difference of chicken or the egg, almost. Like, do you perform works to get faith? Or does having faith make you do good works? Of course, both are true, and I’ve found in my life that it’s a cycle where when I’m low on one, if I do the other, it helps to increase.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s