Jordan Peterson

[Carl Emerson]

Pay very close attention, Carl. Peterson says he is "religious" but he does not say he believes in God. He says it is "evidence" for God while also saying that belief in God is not just a set of propositions.

There is only one way to be indwelled by the Logos which is Christ's Holy Spirit... By repentance.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I think also that Jordan has likely had some personal epiphanies that have impacted him very personally and he is wise not to be forced to make these public.

The matter that still concerns me is that his influence is limited to personal betterment and social health when our great commission is to preach the gospel. However give it time and this will likely come.

 

[All Becomes New]

There is only one way to be indwelled by the Logos which is Christ's Holy Spirit... By repentance.

I agree. So tell me where Peterson repented?

 

[Carl Emerson]

I agree. So tell me where Peterson repented?

Repentance is not a one time event it is a constant humble awareness of ones shortcomings and the depth of depravity in ones soul.

This attitude is clearly seen in the way Jordan communicates.

 

[All Becomes New]

Repentance is not a one time event it is a constant humble awareness of ones shortcomings and the depth of depravity in ones soul.

This attitude is clearly seen in the way Jordan communicates.

No, it's not. People regret what they do all the time and it does not mean they are saved. Humility alone does not save either. Placing your trust in Christ saves. That is what is meant by repentance. Intellectual humility and realizing you don't have all the answers does not save a person either. Only faith in Christ.

Was Plato saved? Or is every philosopher worth their weight saved when they say they know nothing? Of course not!

IMO, Peterson does not have saving faith. He has not confessed. That's also necessary for salvation (Romans 10:9). He has not done that. Not even close.

I remind you of what I said at the beginning: Esau also wept when he thought about God, but it was NOT because he was saved, but it was because he could not repent.

You are taken in by Peterson's sophistry. He is eloquent with his words. He knows a large portion of his audience are Christians. But he does NOT say he believes in God. He does not even say he is a theist let alone a born-again Christian. Is his daughter and wife saved? It looks that way, but I don't think we can just lump Peterson in with them.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Repentance is not regret. Humility is a fruit of repentance. Jordan has faith in the 'indwelling Logos' - he prefers not to use 'church language' I have no issue with that.

However I believe his understanding is incomplete - but so is yours and mine.

 

[All Becomes New]

Repentance is not regret. Humility is a fruit of repentance. Jordan has faith in the 'indwelling Logos' - he prefers not to use 'church language' I have no issue with that.

However I believe his understanding is incomplete - but so is yours and mine.

You have not answered what I have said. Intellectual humility does not save. Do you think it does? So are all the philosophers who admit they don't know much saved as well? If you consider that Peterson is just a popular philosopher in today's age, it can illuminate your eyes as to what Peterson is actually like. Take note of what Peterson says. He says he has been religiously inclined for a long time. What's his reason for this? Not the Bible, not Christ, but Jung. Like I said before, his savior is Jung, not Christ. When you understand what Jung said about Christianity, it makes perfect sense where Peterson is coming from.

 

[Carl Emerson]

You have not answered what I have said. Intellectual humility does not save. Do you think it does?

No of course not - but I don't see Jordan's testimony expressing only intellectual humility. I think there is more than that.

 

[Carl Emerson]

So are all the philosophers who admit they don't know much saved as well?

Who said that ???

 

[Carl Emerson]

his savior is Jung, not Christ. When you understand what Jung said about Christianity, it makes perfect sense where Peterson is coming from.

He specifically stated receiving the indwelling Logos into his heart - that is Christ - not Jung.

 

[All Becomes New]

He specifically stated receiving the indwelling Logos into his heart - that is Christ - not Jung.

No, he didn't. He said it is a "religious practice." What religion? Islam? Judaism? Hinduism? Further, he does not say it happened to him. And if you pay attention, even when his daughter was asked if she knows whether he believes in God, she does not say, "Yes, my father believes in God," she says, "I think so. I think he behaves as though God exists." What's her reason for that? He avoids hell. Well, what is hell to Peterson? The Gulag.

 

[Carl Emerson]

No, he didn't. He said it is a "religious practice." What religion? Islam? Judaism? Hinduism? Further, he does not say it happened to him. And if you pay attention, even when his daughter was asked if she knows whether he believes in God, she does not say, "Yes, my father believes in God," she says, "I think so. I think he behaves as though God exists." What's her reason for that? He avoids hell. Well, what is hell to Peterson? The Gulag.

I don't think you are right on this - lets see what others think...

 

[All Becomes New]

I don't think you are right on this - lets see what others think...

That's fine. You are entitled to your opinion. But everything I said in the post you quoted of me is a fact. I know it is. I've heard Peterson talk about Christianity lots of times. And I watched the video you linked and the part you pointed out multiple times.

Let me ask you just one more set of questions. Do you think a person can be saved without affirming the resurrection of Christ? Has Peterson affirmed the resurrection of Christ?

 

[Carl Emerson]

That's fine. You are entitled to your opinion. But everything I said in the post you quoted of me is a fact. I know it is. I've heard Peterson talk about Christianity lots of times. And I watched the video you linked and the part you pointed out multiple times.

Let me ask you just one more set of questions. Do you think a person can be saved without affirming the resurrection of Christ? Has Peterson affirmed the resurrection of Christ?

Yes, the testimony of the resurrected Christ is totally essential.

As I pray about it I would like to invite him to dialogue with say 4 or so folk from CF with questions ready.

I have been on here for about 10 years and there are a handful of voices I would hope might be willing to participate.

Jesse I appreciate your kind tenacity regarding accountability to Truth and pray the matter resolved soon.

As to if he has affirmed the resurrection of Christ the matter of the language he uses is important in that reality as a concept doesn't cut it - and the subtle deception of Jung in this regard is well understood.

He speaks of the still small voice as the spirit brings conviction to the world of sin, righteousness and judgement.

I am also aware that the Agape of God sustains all life in common Grace.

But at some point we must have a collision with Jesus (like Paul) and this demarcates the elect.

For me this has happened several times and makes it impossible to deny the risen Christ.

Jordan avoids church language and seeks to present wisdom outside of the frame of traditional church terminology.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Pay very close attention, Carl. Peterson says he is "religious" but he does not say he believes in God. He says it is "evidence" for God while also saying that belief in God is not just a set of propositions.

He does not say he doesn't believe. The only way you can know someone is not a Christian is if they point blank say they don't believe. He has not done that. The only way you can be sure someone IS a Christian is if you see them on the other side. i.e. I suspect plenty of people who say they are Christian really are not, but everyone who says they are not a Christian are not, unless they are suffering from the same thing Peter was before the rooster crowed.

 

[Lost Witness]

He does not say he doesn't believe. The only way you can know someone is not a Christian is if they point blank say they don't believe. He has not done that. The only way you can be sure someone IS a Christian is if you see them on the other side. i.e. I suspect plenty of people who say they are Christian really are not,

One cannot profess Christ is LORD unless the spirit of God indwells them...
As to someone's personal walk with the LORD..
Only GOD knows to whom we belong to in truth.
Just my opinion

 

[linux.poet]

Peterson has no obligation to us to confess the name of Christ in an intellectual environment where that subject is not at issue.

I see that he is beside himself with how much he believes the Gospel, and he is getting over the fact that he does believe.

 

[seeking.IAM]

The matter that still concerns me is that his influence is limited to personal betterment and social health when our great commission is to preach the gospel. However give it time and this will likely come.

Personal betterment and social health are what psychologists do. Let the preachers preach; others have different gifts. I don't much care for psychologists trying to be preachers any more than I care for preachers trying to be psychologists.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Personal betterment and social health are what psychologists do. Let the preachers preach; others have different gifts. I don't much care for psychologists trying to be preachers any more than I care for preachers trying to be psychologists.

So you dont think Freud and Jung captured the minds of the age and led a diversion away from the invitation of Jesus?

 

[All Becomes New]

Yes, the testimony of the resurrected Christ is totally essential.

As I pray about it I would like to invite him to dialogue with say 4 or so folk from CF with questions ready.

I have been on here for about 10 years and there are a handful of voices I would hope might be willing to participate.

Jesse I appreciate your kind tenacity regarding accountability to Truth and pray the matter resolved soon.

As to if he has affirmed the resurrection of Christ the matter of the language he uses is important in that reality as a concept doesn't cut it - and the subtle deception of Jung in this regard is well understood.

He speaks of the still small voice as the spirit brings conviction to the world of sin, righteousness and judgement.

I am also aware that the Agape of God sustains all life in common Grace.

But at some point we must have a collision with Jesus (like Paul) and this demarcates the elect.

For me this has happened several times and makes it impossible to deny the risen Christ.

Jordan avoids church language and seeks to present wisdom outside of the frame of traditional church terminology.

Just one last comment, but it is out of a legitimate concern, so I do not say this lightly but what if Peterson is a figure to which a synonymous statement could be made of him, "To deceive, if possible, even the elect."

That might just be me being paranoid, but I do feel I could be right about that. And if I could be right does that change your perception at all?