Jordan Peterson

[hislegacy]

My post #155 spells it out...

If you are going to use that as a measuring line - you are going to spend thousands of hours decrying many many people.

That doesn't get anyone saved either, so I'll ask again

 

[Carl Emerson]

If you are going to use that as a measuring line - you are going to spend thousands of hours decrying many many people.

Really ???

I don't see a throng of folks with such a public profile promoting a 'Gospelless' Christianity.

 

[hislegacy]

Really ???

I don't see a throng of folks with such a public profile promoting a 'Gospelless' Christianity.

I'm too busy preaching and demonstrating the Gospel - I just don't have the time, want or desire to waste my time complaining about someone I don't know - have no influence over and most likely never meet.

Have a good time going after it - best of luck to you!

Peace

 

[stevevw]

Oh forgive me, you are quite right. While I do know a reasonable amount of Aussie dialect, I am far from being “Fair dinkum” as they used to say (perhaps they still do) and my attempts at using the dialect tend to go all pear shaped. Also contact with Kiwis like @Carl Emerson causes even more confusing because their vowel shift is different from the Aussie vowel shift.

Thats Ok lol yeah I think a lot of Aussie lingo is less used today, maybe in the more rulral areas but no so much the cities. Steve Irwin God rest was famous for his lingo such as "Crikey" meaning being surprised especially when he came face to face with a big croc.

 

[linux.poet]

Peterson has not confessed with His mouth that Jesus is Lord, so he is not saved.

I agree with this, but does he have to confess it to me? Is it not sufficient to confess it to the Lord, who is the authority that he is submitting to?

Perhaps Peterson is asking himself those very questions.

Jordan is presenting a case for the betterment of society by following Judeo Christian principles.

While this may help society, it will not save souls.

Satan does not care what we do as long as souls are not being saved.

What we end up with is a throng of followers that find justification for dismissing the Gospel in favour of principles.

The end result is a sophisticated humanitarianism with a religious cloak.

Meantime no angels rejoice because no one came to repentance.

Humanists have been misappropriating Christian ideas and attempting to use them for human betterment for thousands of years. They have tried to turn the mental advantage these ideas give against God by appropriating those ideas in the service of sinful aims.

The Pharisees took the Law of God, which was true, righteous, and holy, and used it to further their sinful ambitions of power and money. It makes sense that today's intellectual elite would behave as they did, only instead of the law of God, they appropriate the life and teachings of Jesus and use them to their advantage in order to get what they want - attention, clicks, views, and money. We should not be surprised by this.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

I agree with this, but does he have to confess it to me? Is it not sufficient to confess it to the Lord, who is the authority that he is submitting to?

Perhaps Peterson is asking himself those very questions.

Has he been baptized? Why is it that other public figures when they become a Christian seem to want to tell people?

 

[Sketcher]

I agree with this, but does he have to confess it to me? Is it not sufficient to confess it to the Lord, who is the authority that he is submitting to?

Perhaps Peterson is asking himself those very questions.

Not to you personally, but it would be irresponsible for any Christian to assume that he had confessed when he 1) has repeatedly stated in public in a non-persecuted country that he doesn't believe, and 2) he has not publicly confessed that he converted. I know he can be very roundabout in saying certain things which is a product of his intelligence, but it's not hard to say that you believe that God literally exists, and that his Son, Jesus Christ, bodily rose from the dead, and that the New Testament is true, and the Christian tradition is right. Christian intellectuals, both contemporary and historical, have done this. But last I checked, he hasn't. Therefore I cannot consider him to be a Christian.

 

[linux.poet]

Has he been baptized? Why is it that other public figures when they become a Christian seem to want to tell people?

Most public figures are politicians or celebrities who have something to gain by claiming the name of Christ. For politicians, it makes them appear ethical and conceals or excuses transgressions. For celebrities, it makes them look less sinful, like they are trying to change from their evil ways. For musicians, it allows them access to the niche Christian music market.

To my understanding, Peterson has never been baptized.

Not to you personally, but it would be irresponsible for any Christian to assume that he had confessed when he 1) has repeatedly stated in public in a non-persecuted country that he doesn't believe, and 2) he has not publicly confessed that he converted. I know he can be very roundabout in saying certain things which is a product of his intelligence, but it's not hard to say that you believe that God literally exists, and that his Son, Jesus Christ, bodily rose from the dead, and that the New Testament is true, and the Christian tradition is right. Christian intellectuals, both contemporary and historical, have done this. But last I checked, he hasn't. Therefore I cannot consider him to be a Christian.

I think the odds are 98% that Jordan Peterson does not believe the Gospel. Unfortunately, it is my understanding that intellectuals like Peterson conceal their personal beliefs frequently, and even consider them irrelevant to their discourse. They want to inspire people to think for themselves and not indoctrinate them with a belief system. When arguing with his detractors, Peterson has actually said "what I believe is irrelevant" multiple times. If you watch the transgender video above, the transpeople are confronting Peterson with beliefs and Peterson doesn't really have an answer for them.

My point is simply that Peterson has much to lose by publicly confessing faith in the Gospel, so we cannot be 100% certain of his private beliefs.

 

[Carl Emerson]

My point is simply that Peterson has much to lose by confessing faith in the Gospel, so we cannot be 100% certain of his private beliefs.

Romans 10:10
for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

 

[linux.poet]

My point is simply that Peterson has much to lose by confessing faith in the Gospel, so we cannot be 100% certain of his private beliefs.

Romans 10:10
for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

Sorry, I messed up that sentence. What I meant to say was "My point is simply that Peterson has much to lose by publicly confessing faith in the Gospel, so we cannot be 100% certain of his private beliefs. " I forgot to distinguish public and private confessions. My apologies for the confusion, good sir.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Sorry, I messed up that sentence. What I meant to say was "My point is simply that Peterson has much to lose by publicly confessing faith in the Gospel, so we cannot be 100% certain of his private beliefs. " I forgot to distinguish public and private confessions. My apologies for the confusion, good sir.

No problem, however I suggest he has much to gain by confessing faith in Jesus if indeed he has a real personal faith. Scripture makes it clear that confession is required for salvation.

 

[linux.poet]

No problem, however I suggest he has much to gain by confessing faith in Jesus if indeed he has a real personal faith. Scripture makes it clear that confession is required for salvation.

Eternally speaking, he does have much to gain from confessing Jesus as Lord. In terms of his chosen career, not so much to gain there.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Most public figures are politicians or celebrities who have something to gain by claiming the name of Christ. For politicians, it makes them appear ethical and conceals or excuses transgressions. For celebrities, it makes them look less sinful, like they are trying to change from their evil ways. For musicians, it allows them access to the niche Christian music market.

To my understanding, Peterson has never been baptized.

I think the odds are 98% that Jordan Peterson does not believe the Gospel. Unfortunately, it is my understanding that intellectuals like Peterson conceal their personal beliefs frequently, and even consider them irrelevant to their discourse. They want to inspire people to think for themselves and not indoctrinate them with a belief system. When arguing with his detractors, Peterson has actually said "what I believe is irrelevant" multiple times. If you watch the transgender video above, the transpeople are confronting Peterson with beliefs and Peterson doesn't really have an answer for them.

My point is simply that Peterson has much to lose by publicly confessing faith in the Gospel, so we cannot be 100% certain of his private beliefs.

Personally, as an existential philosopher myself who indulges in the social sciences and dabbles in psychology and history, I can understand some of where Peterson is coming by remaining unspecific when addressing his audiences and more loosely encouraging them toward their better selves in general, even in more humanistic terms (but toward Christianity, even?).

However, I'm not a Peterson fan, and while I'm sure Peterson has some interesting things to say, using Carl Jung as he does, where psychology comes into play on a more secular level and interplays with my Christian faith, I much prefer Malcolm Jeeves (a comparatively unheard of figure in psychology, and a Christian) over Jordan Peterson.

Where I part with Peterson on a practical level is that I'm not sure all of his ideas are always coherent. But, then again, I've never read one of his books and I've only heard about 20 minutes of his speech from a podcast or two so maybe I need some further clarification on what he's getting at on some points. Being that I don't feel I know enough about his overall ideas at the moment, and being that he's not against the Christian faith as far as I can tell, I can give him the benefit of the doubt to some extent. Besides, he's just one guru and most of us should know better than to pull all of our ideological alignments from just one public guru.

 

[Gary K]

Hi There,

I notice Dr. Jordan Peterson is getting a lot of air time.

My concern is that he not only has some appeal among the intellectual elite but from many in the body of Christ also.

I am not convinced that he has moved on from his Jungian philosophical base which is subtly deceptive and dismisses the heart of the Gospel.

I would love to be corrected if anyone can give hard facts that he has a living faith in Christ.

A wealth of common sense and a sharp mind is admirable but when 1500 including many believers fly to London to hear him I feel uneasy.

My take is that he is unlikely to embrace the Gospel until he renounces the Jungian atheistic concept of "archetypes" in which God is merely a concept that man needs to believe.

I have listened to Jordan for several years. He's not a Christian and doesn't pretend to be one but I believe he is on his way to becoming one. Why? Because the man is strictly honest and has a genuine love for his fellow man. Both of those attributes are necessary in a Christian and allow the HS to work successfully on his heart. I believe he is the kind of person God wants in heaven and I trust God to do what is best for Jordan.

 

[Gary K]

I would add to Jordan's other Christian attributes, he is a lover of liberty and despises totalitarianism. This is another one of his Christian attributes.

 

[linux.poet]

I would add to Jordan's other Christian attributes, he is a lover of liberty and despises totalitarianism. This is another one of his Christian attributes.

These aren't Christian attributes, they are American attributes. The rule of Jesus Christ is absolute. If you believe in the millennial kingdom on Earth, that will be an absolute monarchy and a totalitarian state. Further, Christians are called to submit to the governing authorities in whatever form they may take (see Romans 13).

The liberty we possess is freedom from sin, which in this case is the freedom to submit to the government and not be controlled by sin nature reactions.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

These aren't Christian attributes, they are American attributes. The rule of Jesus Christ is absolute. If you believe in the millennial kingdom on Earth, that will be an absolute monarchy and a totalitarian state. Further, Christians are called to submit to the governing authorities in whatever form they may take (see Romans 13).

The liberty we possess is freedom from sin, which in this case is the freedom to submit to the government and not be controlled by sin nature reactions.

... look out guys, she's on a roll!

As much as it pains me to say so, being I'm all for the general idea of Freedom and whatsnot, you're probably right.

But anyway, back to discussion about Peterson.

 

[linux.poet]

I feel a bit like I am repeating myself at this point, but it's unreasonable for a college professor and psychologist who is famous for being both of those things to bring his personal beliefs to the table in his content. Both of those disciplines are about inspiring students to develop their own beliefs based on accumulated evidence (in the case of the professor) and swap out useless beliefs for more productive ones (in the case of the psychologist). In both of those contexts, the beliefs of the professor or psychologist are viewed as an unproductive distractions from the practitioners' objectives in those disciplines.

The information we have about Peterson is sitting on the other side of this intellectual filter. As Christians, we primarily care about beliefs, but it is unreasonable to expect a new Christian to immediately renounce all of the tenants of his chosen profession that he has been doing for a very long time to satisfy our particular curiosity.

In some sense, this thread is like the transgender video with them assaulting Peterson trying to find out his beliefs. We're doing the same thing from the other side of the aisle, though I would think that we would have more courtesy and let the man get a word in edgewise if he were here.

 

[Carl Emerson]

If we can get him to dialogue in a private setting - who would want to participate?

What questions would you like to ask him ???

 

[The Liturgist]

Thats Ok lol yeah I think a lot of Aussie lingo is less used today, maybe in the more rulral areas but no so much the cities. Steve Irwin God rest was famous for his lingo such as "Crikey" meaning being surprised especially when he came face to face with a big croc.

Yes, “Aww crikey!” Is well known in the United States. On the other hand very few Americans could translate Waltzing Matilda from its thick Aussie dialect into ordinary English, and most would likely assume it is about dancing with a girl named Matilda, perhaps by a fugitive, perhaps wanted by the police for illegal use of a drug called “billa” owing to the references to a “billa-bong.”

The actual meaning of the song is of course rather shockingly different and does not involve dancing in 3/4 time or a girl by the name of Matilda, and a billabong is in fact a watering hole.

By the way, the 1959 film On The Beach uses the song rather stirringly as it presents its story of Australia as (temporarily) the sole survivor of a nuclear apocalypse, before a cloud of radiation descends on it as well. It’s quite a good film, and a very romantic film also, despite the fact that everyone dies at the end (by which I mean literally everyone).