Jordan Peterson on Catholicism: ‘That’s as sane as people can get’

LifeSiteNews ^ | May 27, 2019 | John-Henry Westen

[aMorePerfectUnion]

.

[boatbums]

My honest opinion is Trent Horn only cares about defending the Roman Catholic church. Truth is absolute - even if no one accepts or believes it. That truth can be found in God’s divinely revealed word and through the Holy Spirit is received by those who hearts are opened to Him.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I didn't argue that the very words "Sola Scriptura" would have to be found in the Sacred text. I am just asking for a Scriptural definition of the principle, and the first few searches don't turn up anything,

I'll repeat for you my query to aMPU:

...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.

[infool7]

What worthless "reparation" could you possible offer

For instance if I broke the seventh commandment,

(thou shall not steal) and

stole your car (if you have one).

For my reparations, I could give it back,

with a full tank of gas and an oil change,

then, I could promise you that I would

NEVER do it again,

mean it and ask you

to forgive me.

Then I would ask God to forgive me.

Something like that.

If all I have to offer is filthy rags and believe me I have a garage full of them then I offer them. Somehow I don't believe our Lord will be as displeased with my worthlessness. 7

[ealgeone]

An example might be: of the 613 mitzvot found in the Hebrew Scriptures. They're all Biblical. How do we evaluate them? And why do we apply or not apply them?

If we were under the Law we'd need to evaluate them.

But we're not under the Law.

Do we derive a lot of our social/moral laws from them? Yes.

Can we learn lessons from them? Sure.

But, they're not applicable in terms of salvation.

[Mark17]

😁👍

[ealgeone]

Tradition ("big T Tradition," from the Apostles, which Paul insists on repeatedly)

IIRC, tradition is discussed 13 times in the NT.

Jesus spoke only in negative terms of the tradition of the Pharisees. He was not a big fan of things "handed down".

Of the times used by Paul...

1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.

Galatians 1:14 and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions.

Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

2 Thessalonians 2:15, So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.; 3:16 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.

As in all cases, context is the key to properly understanding how these are used.

If you're saying Paul's positive use of tradition in two places is what "Paul insists on repeatedly" then you've got a lot more explaining to do.

If anything, the NT seems to be against the "Traditions" of men. That puts a lot of Roman Catholic dogma in the cross hairs.

Now, what is incumbent upon Roman Catholicism is to explain exactly what these traditions are in 1 Corinthians and 2 Thessalonians 2:15 as 2 TH 3:6 are pretty clear.

You're going to have to offer up some very convincing proof to try and equate all of Roman Catholic dogma with Paul or any of the other disciples.

[Mom MD]

the irony is lost i’m afraid

[infool7]

I thought pride was one of the seven deadly sins.

I am not sure what your are getting at,

perhaps you misunderstood the point of that post.

The perfect score I am referring to is

that I agree with all the listed articles of faith,

not how well my life comports to them.

I am after all an imperfect human being like

everyone else and perhaps even more so than the average.

7

[ealgeone]

Ok, in your example you made your wrong right the person you stole from.

No problem there as that's the right thing to do.

However, that has nothing to do with "reparations" to God.

Then I would ask God to forgive me.

And that's all you can do. Nothing more. No 50 Hail mary's.

No 40 Lord's Prayers, etc.

No anything else.

Either the blood of Christ is sufficient for forgiving our sins or it isn't.

[infool7]

Actually the caps are how the OT is presented when quoted in the OT in the NASB.

That's nice but

could you tell me that one thing I asked you

or does metmom speak for you?

7

[aMorePerfectUnion]

No one knows which traditions Paul meant, but hey, it’s a blank check for anything!!!

[ealgeone]

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,...

Roman Catholics continue to think we only have to keep the 10 Commandments.

Keep in mind the extent of how sin impacts our relationship with God.

Paul made it clear in Romans 3:23 that all of us have sinned....and that includes Mary as he didn't carve out an exception for her nor does any Scripture.

Writing in Ephesians 2 and other places he noted we were dead in our sins and trespasses. The Greek definition indicates there are some sins we commit we're not even aware of.

I know Roman Catholicism has tried to define "mortal sins" and certain acts that constitute these. These are the "biggie" sins and have to be forgiven by a priest....while somehow, the little "venial" sins can be forgiven by an appeal to God.

Do you see the problem here? A fallible man can give forgiveness for the "biggie" sins, but God can only forgive the "little" sins.

All of this ignores that all sin results in death apart from Christ (Romans 6:38).

Roman Catholics continue to labor under the belief that non-Roman Catholics are running around murdering people, committing adultery, and just general mayhem in general. It sounds like the Purge.

Keep in mind Jesus equated our thought life with our physical life. I think that's the area Roman Catholics leave out.

It's easy not to actually murder someone or commit adultery or envy, but mentally, that's a different ballgame as no one can read minds...except God can.

And this is where I think the Roman Catholic errs along with a lot of others.

It's easy to feel good about oneself and their relationship with God if you say, well, I haven't killed anyone or had an affair, etc.

But, have you done so in your mind? Remember, Jesus equated our thought life to be equal to our physical life in terms of sin.

When you think about it, it's pretty difficult to go for a day without committing some type of sin. A person cuts you off in traffic and you wish them ill in a bit of frustration.

You see someone you really don't like and you harbor ill will toward them. You see a very attractive woman (I'm taking it you're a guy) and you have a brief thought of, "wow".

Now, in none of these examples do you actually hurt anyone or have an affair, but, from God's perspective and using His standard....you're guilty.

And apart from the forgiveness offered by Christ, you're consigned to Hell.

That's how impossible it is to "be good enough for Heaven" from His perspective.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You can't just avoid issues with a sweep of the hand.

One of the ones which is emerging just now, for instance, is the whole sexuality, sex and gender debacle. The (self-styled) Christian LGBT advocates will challenge all the OT prohibitions on gender-deviate behavior because it's obsolete Mosaic law: "We are not under the Law."

Then they'll challenge the NT prohibitions because --- they will argue ---they don't refer to ALL homosexuality in general (a word that didn't even exist until the 19th century) but only against certain specific corrupt practices of late-classical antiquity, e.g. the practices of the arsenokoitai and malakoi.

Those are the Greek words used in the Epistles for those who engage in specific kinds of sexual conduct.

These --- they will argue --- specifically refer to temple prostitution and pederasty. (Or some such thing --- they have various explanations.) But not to men with mutual, consenting, and stable life-partnerships, like that sweet darling Mayor Buttigieg and his "husband". And why? Because they--- unlike the arsenokoitai and malakoi --- are "married."

Concluding their interpretation: dear Pete and Chasten are not arsenokoitai or malakoi, and also not whoremongers or adulterers, either. No, indeedy. They are "married," and "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge."(Hebrews 13:4)

You know this is pernicious nonsense, and so do I.

But the point is, that it can't be definitively refuted n the basis of the Bible alone, because if can be plausibly argued that Mosaic law IS inapplicable to us, and that Paul DID condemn only temple prostitution and pederasty, there's no way for Christian moral advocates to argue further except by referring to either Tradition (what the Church has always taught) or Natural Law (what can be known by reason.).

And some people, even here at FR, will reject that out of hand.

OK. So that's just one example.

There are tons of similar examples, but I hope you can see the overall challenge.

"Not applicable in terms of salvation"?

Scripture says that "all those who practice such things deserve death, and not only those who do them, but those who approve of those who do them." Paul says says that none of those who practice such things will inherit the kingdom of God.

I think it has something to do with salvation.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Ealgeone, I consider you a friend, and that's why I can only roll my eyes and groan when you say stuff like this:

"Roman Catholics continue to think we *only* have to keep the 10 Commandments."

And it goes downhill from there.

That statement is false, and it would behoove you not to bear false witness against your neighbors.

It's the daily manifestation of

The Claude Paradigm

“You Catholics are wrong because you believe X.”
“We don’t believe X.”
“Wrong again. Yes you do.”

I urge you yet again, do not make nonfactual pronouncements about what 'Roman Catholics continue to think...'

You don't know. Unwittingly I'm sure, and with the best of intentions you say things about us which are just wrong.

Tell me what YOU believe.

Don't tell me what you think *I* believe.

It would require a mop-up crew consisting of a lot more than just one Mrs. Don-o, to follow you from thread to thread and try to clear up all the multiplex distortions you wrongfully attribute to us.

My dumpster is exceeding capacity and you are still out there distributing rubbish about us. Even with the biggest broom and dustpan in the world, I can't keep up.

Please. Desist.

[boatbums]

2 Corinthians 4:2 But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God.

I suspect that there has been quite a lot of disgraceful, underhanded and cunning tampering of God's word through the ages within the organization that boasts of its elite exclusive status of being THE One, True, Church established by Jesus Christ!

[ealgeone]

Ealgeone, I consider you a friend, and that's why I can only roll my eyes and groan when you say stuff like this:

>> "Roman Catholics continue to think we *only* have to keep the 10 Commandments."<<

The reason I say that is because practically every Roman Catholic emphasizes keeping the 10 Commandments.

I offer as evidence in my defense this quote from infool7:

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,...

Perhaps you can understand the confusion on the issue in light of this post which certainly seems to nullify the so called Claude Paradigm. I can only go with the information presented by Roman Catholics.

This is a case of Roman Catholics telling us what they believe.

Perhaps your admonishments should be directed to your fellow Roman Catholics.

It makes me think of creating my own paradigm.

Roman Catholic says X

Roman Catholic is challenged on X

Non-Roman Catholic is chastised for responding to Roman Catholic statement X.

[infool7]

And that's all you can do. Nothing more. No 50 Hail mary's.

No 40 Lord's Prayers, etc.

No anything else.

I get it that nothing more is required but

would it be alright with you, if for instance

I was actually able to talk directly to Jesus or

His representative here on earth and

tell Him how sorry I was that I stole your car and

then He asked me to think about His mother while

I meditate on the time:

Gabriel announced His arrival or

when His mom visited her cousin Elizabeth or

when He was born in the stable or

when His mom presented Him in the temple or

when His mom and Joseph found him in the temple or

when He suffered agony in the garden or

when He was Scourged at the pillar or

when He was crowned with thorns or

when He carried His cross or

when He was Crucified or

when He rose from the dead or

when He ascended into Heaven or

when He sent the Holy Spirit or

when He assumed his mom into Heaven or

when He crowned her Queen in Heaven or

to pray like he taught us in scripture.

then in my sorrow to hear Him say

the most comforting words

"Go now, your sins are forgiven" 7

[infool7]

I offer as evidence in my defense this quote from infool7:

Bad form my man!

Bad form

7

[boatbums]

The word canon means "rule". The Scriptures are the rule of the Christian faith for all those who want to know it. What Jesus taught, what the Prophets of the Lord were told to speak and write, what the Apostles and disciples of Jesus were inspired by the Holy Spirit to teach, record and disperse throughout the assemblies for the benefit of all believers that were born and who were yet to be born, is preserved for us in Holy Scripture. I simply cannot comprehend how anyone could possibly think that the Scriptures must be subordinate to men or that its authority is subject to their judgement.

"But a most pernicious error widely prevails that Scripture has only so much weight as is conceded to it by the consent of the church. As if the eternal and inviolable truth of God depended upon the decision of men!"- John Calvin

"The Scriptures obtain full authority among believers only when men regard them as having sprung from heaven, as if there the living words of God were heard."- John Calvin

Semper reformanda secundum verbum dei - The church reformed, and always being reformed according to the word of God.