Posted on 05/29/2019 12:37:41 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
May 27, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — Speaking with one of the best-known conservative Jews, Dennis Prager, at the PragerU summit last week, world-famous psychologist Jordan Peterson spoke of God and his views of faith. After speaking about his dislike for the question ‘Do you believe in God?’ Peterson said, “I think that Catholicism — that's as sane as people can get.”
Peterson has often been asked about his faith, if he believes in God, and he said the question has always troubled him. He promised a podcast on the matter since he has given his dislike for the question much thought.
He explained, “Who would have the audacity to claim that they believed in God if they examined the way they lived? Who would dare say that?”
“To believe, in a Christian sense,” he added, “means that you live it out fully and that's an that's an unbearable task in some sense.”
Then in one long drawn-out, rapid-fire thought, the type that has enthralled his millions of fans, he laid out extemporaneously the vision of a believer in God:
“To be able to accept the structure of existence, the suffering that goes along with it and the disappointment and the betrayal, and to nonetheless act properly; to aim at the good with all your heart; to dispense with the malevolence and your desire for destruction and revenge and all of that; and to face things courageously and to tell the truth to speak the truth and to act it out, that's what it means to believe -- that's what it means -- it doesn't mean to state it, it means to act it out. And, unless you act it out you should be very careful about claiming it. And so, I've never been comfortable saying anything other than I try to act as if God exists because God only knows what you'd be if you truly believed.”
See the full exchange of Peterson and Prager here.
Yes.
Is metmom’s real name “Tim”? Who are you talking to?
Post that Sola Scriptura verse, please.
***
Multiple verses have been posted to you at least three times in the last 12 hours about Sola Scriptura.
Ignoring them won’t make them go away.
And tilting at a SS strawman after being corrected on the meaning won’t win you any arguments, just make you look kind of sad.
Stop. Using. The. Sola. Scriptura. Strawman. Definition.
It’s VERY insulting when you keep misrepresenting what we believe, especially after having been corrected upthread.
I respect you enough to use the CCC when talking about what you believe. Will you not return the favor?
“Post that Sola Scriptura verse, please.
It’s been posted repeatedly on this very thread.
As my mom repeatedly told me growing up, “close your mouth and open your eyes.”
http://www.cslewisinstitute.org/Growing_Up_Spiritually
The point is that God loves, and thus woos us; He does not want to abduct and ravish --- that is, rape --- us.
For that reason, our will, and our ability to choose and consent to love God or not to love Him, must remain intact til the end of our lives. And if we choose against God, He will not abduct us to heaven.
Yes, He wants our salvation:
1 Tim 2:4Thus "assurance of salvation is correct" as far as God's will is concerned (He wills to save us --- ALL of us, every person without exception, as Peter and Paul wrote); but it is a false doctrine as far as our will is concerned: any person without exception, including one who once accepted Christ as their Savior, could still choose to reject Him in the end. And the wages of that, is hell.
This is good and pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slow to fulfill His promise as some understand slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish but everyone to come to repentance.
That is why Paul is not wasting his breath when he tells his beloved brothers and sisters in Christ, his beloved fellow-believers who have trusted in the Lord, that they must still be sure to reject grave and habitual sins, such as the ones he listed:
... because "I warn you,[YOU, you brothers and sisters, you believers in Christ] as I did before, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."
The motto engraved on the gate to Hell (right under "Non serviam: I will not serve") is "My Choice." The tagline quote his Hebrews 10:36. Note that the first word is an imperative verb.
There are 506+ responses on this post, and I searched page after page and did not find "Scripture alone" or "Scripture only" or "Scripture all by itself" or "Scripture and hang all the rest" any such other sentence or phrase from the Bible which would be the equivalent of "Sola Scriptura". I do not accuse you of falsehood when you say it's been "posted repeatedly on this very thread." Perhaps it was. However, a diligent investigation requiring a large chunk of my time and FR search technology, did not turn it up.
Since you seem to know where it is, kindly post it.
I'll be much obliged.
I appreciate the mutual respect,and we must both be alert to correct each other-- and accept correction --- kindly.
You almost had me!
It’s been posted to you on multiple threads over many years.
But you almost had me, you sly FRoman
I started to do your work before it hit me.
So here is my loving response:
1. It is posted on many, many, many Religion Forum threads to many, many Catholic posters, including you. Instead of trotting out a canard over and over, I suggest you learn what it means in reality and save us all time of continually raising the issue.
2. I will add that Scripture teaches many things without using a specific word - bible, Trinity, etc.
You surely know this, so I suggest you go to the source and “study to show yourself approved, a workman who rightly divides the word of truth,” as all Christians are commanded to do.
(For extra credit, try to find Sola Ekklesia in Scripture.)
As my blessed mom told me, “AMPU, close your mouth and open your eyes!”
I learned, and can testify it works!
Which argument is as fallacious as arguing that the Lord's frequent invocations of Scripture as the established authoritative word of God and reproving the Scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees by it would be rather difficult based upon the premise that the O.T. canon was was not complied and universally affirmed by Christians until about 390 A.D.
Rather, the fact is that an authoritative body of wholly inspired Scripture had been established by the time of Christ, as manifest by the frequent appeals to Scripture including "He expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself, Luke 24:27) and likewise NT writings such as those of Paul were recognized as Scripture. (2 Pt. 3:16)
However, if you want to make "affirmed by Christians universally" the necessary basis for whether Scripture can be the standard or not, then you will have to wait far long than about 390 A.D. (non-infallible lNorth African Councils).
For the reality is that scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books - including some NT ones - continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon - after the death of Luther.
The earliest WRITTEN account of a Catholic Mass dates back to around 155 A.D., cited by Justin Martyr in his First Apology.
Which is that of the classic and often fatal fallacy of making the uninspired words of men (here, a converted pagan philosopher) definitive of what the NT church believed, rather than the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Acts thru Revelation, in which distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in especially Acts thru Revelation.
Including the Catholic contrivance of the Lord's supper. (Read here by the grace of God .
Moreover, what Justin Martyr describes is not that of a a Catholic priest converting bread and wine into "the very body which he [Christ] gave up for us on the cross," under the appearance of bread and wine, but which have actually ceased to exist, as does Christ under their respective appearances ("accidents") once the non-existent bread or wine manifest decay, and offering this body as a propitiatory sacrifice for sins, in "reparation for the sins of the living and the dead and to obtain spiritual or temporal benefits from God," and to obtain spiritual life.
The furthest Justin states in in his misunderstanding is that,
For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” – (First Apology, 66)
There is nothing about a sacrifice for sins here, and the nourishment is not that of obtaining spiritual life, but "our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished."
By again, support for the Catholic miscontruance of the Lord’s supper largely relies upon reading the gospels in isolation from the rest of the NT, as well as so-called “church Fathers.” However, the uninspired (versus wholly God-inspired Scripture) words of men whose teaching came after the apostles had died, and which to varying degrees testifies to a progressive accretion of traditions not seen in the only inspired record of what the NT church believed, cannot be determinitive of what that NT church believed.
As pertains to the Lord’s supper, in Catholicism it is presented as "the heart and summit of the Christian life” (CCC 1407) “a kind of consummation of the spiritual life, and in a sense the goal of all the sacraments," (Mysterium Fidei, Encyclical of Pope Paul VI, 1965) through which “the work of our redemption is carried out,” (CCC 1364) providing “the medicine of immortality, the antidote for death, and the food that makes us live for ever in Jesus Christ” (CCC #1405) and only conducted by Catholics priests who offer it “in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead,” (CCC 1414) “cleansing us from past sins and preserving us from future sins.” (CCC 1393) ;
But rather than the NT church understanding the Lord’s supper as being the life-giving central hub and focus of the Christian life, what we see in the the only inspired and substantive record of how the NT church understood it is that it only being actually only taught in one epistle (aside from the mere mention of breaking of bread in Acts and the “fest of charity” in Jude 1:12, which is in 1 Corinthians. In which the Lord’s supper is that of remembering His death by sharing a meal with others who were bought by His sinless shed blood, thus showing union with Christ and each other as being "one bread," analogous to how pagans have fellowship in their dedicatory feasts, (metaphorical or metaphysical? 1Cor. 10)
Therefore in the next chapter the Corinthians are rebuked as not actually coming together to eat the Lord’s supper, for while they did come together for that purpose, yet they were not actually having the Lord’s supper due to how they treated the body of Christ, the church.
When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. (1 Corinthians 11:20-22)
The apostle Paul thus reiterates what the Lord said at the institution of the Lord’s supper, an adding the interpretive conclusion, “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 11:26-27)
Catholics actually invoke this section in support of the Catholic interpretation, but the nature of the elements is not the contextual focus, though in v. 26 the bread is still called bread and the cup represents its content, while the purpose of the Lord’s supper is stated, and with the focus continuing to be that of the corporate body of the church (and which focus continues into the next chapter) .
Which is to do “show the Lord’s death till He comes,” which was by sharing a meal with others who were bought by His sinless shed blood, thus showing affirmation of them and themselves in union with Christ, with the church being as "one bread."
Therefore, by selfishly eating independent of other blood-bought faithful believers, ignoring and shaming them, then there not actually having the Lord’s supper, but were acting contrary to the very act that they were supposed to be remembering and showing, and thus in essence were guilty of being contrary to the atoning blood of Christ, by which He purchased the church, (Acts 20:28) and were being chastened for it, some even unto death. For as Paul was very conscious of, to mistreat the church was to mistreat Christ Himself. (Acts 9:4)
This being the offense, not effectually considering/recognizing/discerning the body of Christ by mistreating its members by selfishly eating independent of other blood-bought faithful believers, ignoring and shaming them, then the solution is not some defining of the nature of the bread and wine, but even contrary to requiring fasting before the Lord’s supper, the apostle enjoins:
Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come. (1 Corinthians 11:33-34)
In addition, no where is the Lord’s supper presented as a sacrifice for sins and a means of obtaining spiritual life, nor is the conducting of it a uniquely pastoral function, or their primary unique function, much less that of pseudo RC priests.
Instead the primary work of NT pastors (besides prayer) is preaching. (Act 6:3,4; 2 Tim.4:2) with believing the gospel being the means of obtaining life in oneself, by which one is regenerated, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13; cf. Psalms 19:7) thus desiring the sincere milk (1Pt. 2:2; cf. (1Co. 3:22) and then the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God, and by the preaching of which pastors “feed the flock” (Acts 20:28; 1Pt. 5:2) ) by which they are "nourished." (1 Timothy 4:6 ) Glory be to God.
And I'm not even sure I read them all. There are so many pings on my ping page, you might post something to me and within minutes it's on my page 2, or even page 3.
Over all these years,I have never been told a proper definition of "Sola Scripture". The phrase has only been unholstered to aim at my head when I adverted to ANY other evidence for a truth, like :
These sources have been picked off and flicked away like pieces of lint but some (but not all) dialogue partners with the cry "Sola Scriptura!"
This is often with no attempt to put things in a reasonable framework of truths, or to explore different senses of words, which is often rejected with open contempt as some sort of trickery.
Which led me to conclude that--- to these particular people, anyhow --- "Sola Scriptura" meant "No acknowledgement of any evidentiary material except what is explicit in the Sacred Text."
I'm sure that wouldn't be --- for instance --- Al Mohler's definition, but it is the way 6 FReepers I could name (but won't) use the phrase in order to preemptively disqualify evidence.
So, of your kindness: a working definition, or link to a definition, of Sola Scriptura which is acceptable to you --- if I may ask.
The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura has to do with the sufficiencyof Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.
It is not a claim that all truth of every kind is found in Scripture. The most ardent defender of sola Scriptura will concede, for example, that Scripture has little or nothing to say about DNA structures, microbiology, the rules of Chinese grammar, or rocket science. This or that “scientific truth,” for example, may or may not be actually true, whether or not it can be supported by Scripture—but Scripture is a “more sure Word,” standing above all other truth in its authority and certainty. It is “more sure,” according to the apostle Peter, than the data we gather firsthand through our senses (2 Peter 1:19). Therefore, Scripture is the highest and supreme authority on any matter on which it speaks.
But there are many important questions on which Scripture is silent. Sola Scriptura makes no claim to the contrary.
Nor does sola Scriptura claim that everything Jesus or the apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture. It only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture (2 Peter 1:3).
Furthermore, we are forbidden to add to or take away from Scripture (cf. Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Rev. 22:18-19). To add to it is to lay on people a burden that God Himself does not intend for them to bear (cf. Matt. 23:4).
Scripture is therefore the perfect and only standard of spiritual truth, revealing infallibly all that we must believe in order to be saved and all that we must do in order to glorify God. That—no more, no less—is what sola Scriptura means.
“The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.” —Westminster Confession of Faith
This comes from the Ligonier Ministries website.
..............BONUS MATERIAL.................
Sola Scriptura and the Church Fathers
Question: You strongly hold to the principle of Sola Scriptura. This teaching is relatively new, it cannot be found anywhere in the history of Christendom until the Protestant reformation in the 16th Century. I would deeply appreciate if you could show me why you would believe such an erroneous teaching.
Answer: The principle of Sola Scriptura - the Holy Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith for the church - is neither new nor erroneous. On the contrary, the Church Fathers testify that they too upheld the Scriptures as the sufficient and authoritative font of divine revelation.
The Fathers also held tradition in high esteem, but for them tradition was not a supplementary source of divine doctrines in addition to the teaching of the Scripture. Historian Philip Schaff explains:Copyright Dr Joe Mizzi. Permission to copy and distribute this article without textual changes.The following quotations prove that the Fathers considered the Scriptures as both sufficient and the highest authority in the church.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III.We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.
Athanasius; Against the Heathen, I:3.
The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth.
Athanasius, De Synodis.
Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.
John Chrysostom, Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, p. 118, vol. 96 TFOTC.
Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast.
Gregory of Nyssa, On the Holy Trinity.
For if custom is to avail for proof of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our prevailing custom; and if they reject this, we are surely not bound to follow theirs. Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.
Gregory of Nyssa, On the Soul and the Resurrection.
We are not entitled to such licence, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.
Basil, The Morals, p. 204, vol 9 TFOTC
What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if ‘all that is not of faith is sin’ as the Apostle says, and ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,’ everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.
Basil, On the Holy Spirit, 7.
We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture.
Basil, Moralia, 72:1.
The hearers taught in the Scriptures ought to test what is said by teachers and accept that which agrees with the Scriptures but reject that which is foreign.
Augustine, Contra litteras Petiliani, Bk 3, ch. 6.
If anyone preaches either concerning Christ or concerning His church or concerning any other matter which pertains to our faith and life; I will not say, if we, but what Paul adds, if an angel from heaven should preach to you anything besides what you have received in the Scriptures of the Law and of the Gospels, let him be anathema.
Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, IV:17.
For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.
Augustine, De Unitate Ecclesiae, 10.
Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God.
Augustine, De Unitate Ecclesiae, 3.
Whatever they may adduce, and wherever they may quote from, let us rather, if we are His sheep, hear the voice of our Shepherd. Therefore let us search for the church in the sacred canonical Scriptures.
Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, II, 9.
For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life.
Augustine, De Bono Viduitatis.
What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostles? For Holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare be wiser than we ought. Therefore I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the Teacher.
Hippolytus, Against the Heresy of One Noetus, 9.
There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source… so all of us who wish to practice piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us look; and whatever things they teach, these let us learn.
No, baptism does not regenerate someone, it does not give them spiritual life. The Spirit gives life, as He always does and has.(John 6:63)
Yes, Hell is forever, conscious torment. No soul annihilation.
That's a more difficult question.
IMO, there is no FREE will. There is will and as I read Scripture God gives us the choice. Man cannot come to God unless God draws him (John 6:44) but I don't know that God's grace is irresistible.
Pharaoh hardened his heart many times against God until God gave him over to that hard heart and then God Himself hardened pharoah's heart.
I don't think that man's being able to resist the drawing of God means that God is not sovereign, but I think God in His sovereign will decided to let man make the decision himself.
There are too many passages in Scripture that make mention of choosing God or choosing for Him.
It's not that God couldn't divinely choose to save some over others. I just think that He doesn't and He foreknows who will respond to Him or not.
Bonus Material for you...
From the Baptist Confession of Faith in 1689:
"The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in Holy Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word; and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.
......................
"To summarize sola scriptura:
1. Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith.
2. No other revelation is needed for the Church.
3. There is no other infallible rule of faith outside of Scripture.
4. Scripture reveals those things necessary for salvation.
5. All traditions are subject to the higher authority of Scripture.”
-James R. White, The Roman Catholic Controversy (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 1996), p.62.
“To summarize, sola scriptura is not a
1. claim that the Bible contains all knowledge;
2. claim that the Bible is an exhaustive catalog of all religious knowledge;
3. denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth;
4. denial that God’s Word has, at times, been spoken;
5. rejection of every kind or use of tradition;
6. denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding the Church.”
-James R. White, The Roman Catholic Controversy (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 1996), p.59.
There are some topics that only God knows the answer to and how they all fall out.
For me, if someone has accepted Jesus Christ who is the One presented in Scripture and is trusting Him alone for salvation, I consider that they are likely saved and they are a brother or sister in Christ.
If they disagree on some point of doctrine with me, then it’s not my issue. It’s between them and God because they answer to HIM not me.
In addition, it simply may be that they’ve never thought through the doctrine well enough to know what they think on it.
We are all at different stages of spiritual growth. Some are recently saved and just learning the basics. Some are spiritual veterans who have been in the trenches for decades. I don’t expect the noob to the faith to be at the same stage of spiritual growth and understanding of doctrine as the old timer.
We’re not cookie cutter Christians.
I think *Prots* are far more willing to cut each other slack in the non-essential doctrines than Catholics are. And far more willing to accept that there are areas of disagreement that are not critical to salvation that are not worth dividing over. Stuff like the gifts of the Spirit.
Or Romans 14 kind of stuff. Things Paul calls *disputable matters*.
We don’t all march lockstep to the same denominational drummer.
Heck, even the EO part company with Rome on the immaculate conception.
Mary - Assumption and Immaculate conception of
EO - The Assumption is accepted and it is agreed that Mary experienced physical death, but the Immaculate conception is rejected. Orthodox belief is that the guilt of original sin is not transmitted from one generation to the next, thus obviating the need for Mary to be sinless.
RC - Both are dogmas of the church. The church has not as yet decided whether Mary actually experienced Physical death. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception states that Mary, was at conception 'preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin' and should not be confused with the virgin birth.
Scripture is 1: Infallible, 2: Sufficient in itself for knowledge of God’s plan of salvation, and 3: the supreme authority and rule of faith.
That’s what Sola Scriptura means.
Nice.....
I can see by your usage of all caps
how important this issue is to you,
we may actually be on the same page here.
Your sentiments are all well and good but
tell me one thing
does saying with your mouth, believing or calling...
any of that
give one license to break
any of His commandments,
for instance: committing murder, adultery etc
and without begging for forgiveness with
a sincere and contrite heart and
making reparations, still
warrant one an eternal reward in heaven?
7
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.