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.
Stop believing in strawmen. It makes you look gullible.
.............................................
Okay, I’ll do my best. Meanwhile, why don’t you give us the “actual definition” of sola scriptura, and while you’re at it give us a source of that definition other than your own personal interpretation of its meaning.
Well I’ve read the good book cover to cover countless times and all versions of it, but I’ve never run across that monumental “truth”. So please help me out and cite the chapter and verse. Since Martin Luther first conjured it, all protestant sects have taken it as THE major teaching of the entire good book, so it must be CLEARLY stated somewhere, BUT WHERE?
Instead --- a word to the wise --- ASK. Ask what is the definition of "this word," what is the definition of "that doctrine."
One can read the documents. If the documents are not clear or are ambiguous that's on Roman Catholicism.
++Or go on giving your best guess, or referencing non-Catholic sources, and you will continue to require correction. Sometimes I have time to do that, and sometimes I don't.
The sources I have cited ARE Roman Catholic.
I've noticed Roman Catholics don't like certain things brought to light about their denomination. I can understand why.
As for Christ on the Catholic Crucifix: it is Christ who makes the crucifix significant. There is always a crucifix on a Catholic altar for Mass, to remind us that this is the sacrifice of Christ, our High Priest, done once and for all on the hill of Calvary, almost 2,000 years ago.
When I see an empty Cross I am reminded of His suffering.
I am glad to see you do recognize it was done was and for all. However, the "Mass" continues to perpetuate it....daily as indicated by Roman Catholic priests.
Your generalizations are, in the main, baseless and tendentious.
My "generalizations" are based on observations of Roman Catholics.
Do not embarrass yourself by making unfounded generalizations about Catholic crosses. You might want to keep actual examples of Catholic crosses firmly in mind:
You might want to get the terminology correct.
A crucifix (from Latin cruci fixus meaning "(one) fixed to a cross") is an image of Jesus on the cross, as distinct from a bare cross. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Or, if you prefer this one from a Roman Catholic source.
The most marked difference between a cross and a crucifix is the corpus or body of Christ on a crucifix.https://diocesan.com/cross-crucifix-similar-different/
My point remains.
The empty cross symbolizes a risen victorious Savior.
The crucifix keeps Jesus on the cross as the "victim"(btw...that's a RC word used to describe Jesus).
Might want to re-read it again.
31but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.
John 20:31 NASB
15and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
2 Timothy 3:15-17 NASB
No other writings or tradition are ever accorded this status in Scripture.
Perhaps a better question might be....why was the canon formed to begin with?
If one is following Christ, one is going to do what He says.
....................................................
I believe that statement is what is commonly referred to in basic logic as a tautology. In any event, statements such as “Jesus is all we need for salvation” are way to simplistic to convey much actual knowledge about the matter of salvation. It’s sort of like the signs one sees along country roads proclaiming “JESUS SAVES”, to which those not washed in the Blood reproach with “What bank?”
A little something called context is your friend in understanding this passage...along with any passage.
5 minutes on a search engine will answer your question.
No, check that. 5 seconds.
Scripture is infallable, Scripture is sufficient to know God’s truth of Salvation, and Scripture (being the Word of God through the pens of the Prophets and Apostles) is the supreme authority of faith.
https://www.crossway.org/articles/what-sola-scriptura-really-means/
Are you such an enemy of truth that you insist on believing falsehoods?
Or are you just angry that I called you out on believing an obvious lie from Rome?
Already cited the chapter and verse upthread, using the ACTUAL definition and not the lie that Catholicism spreads about us.
Don’t whine at me just because we’re not following your Roman ‘how to talk down to Christians’ script.
A little something called context is your friend in understanding this passage...along with any passage.
.............................................
Of course! But that said, one has to then contend with the fact that although many critical passages of scripture are carefully studied “in context” by serious adherents of Christianity, their understanding of the meaning of those passages is often quite different, and in many instances contradictory.
Being a Christian has to do with putting faith in the finished work of Christ for redemption. Faith in Christ and His finished work saves us - not our works, not our rituals, not our church !!! Your behavior will not save you but Christ in you (not you in you) will change your behavior.
Perhaps a better question might be....why was the canon formed to begin with?
.........................................
Yes, because from what I’ve read there had to be a winnowing out of the “inspired” scriptures to be included in the canon since there were many “bogus” scriptures in wide circulation at the time. Notice that there is no mention in the Bible about just who was given the authority to undertake this weighty determination of inclusion and exclusion of scriptures that should comprise the canon.
You'll notice that I gave you illustrations --- there could have been hundreds of them ---of Catholic crosses without the Body of Christ.
Or perhaps they did not appear on your screen?
This grpahically disproves your generalization.
As for the crucifixes --- the ones with tbe Body of Christ still affixed --- this does not imply that we still think He is on the cross, no more than the Nativity scenes imply that we think He is still in his manger cradle.
Virtually all Catholic churches have walls showing the 14 stations of the Cross, which include His being taken down from the cross, and His entombment.
We're just coming toward Ascension and Pentecost on the Liturgical Calendar, which means we have been singing Resurrection songs for 50 straight days. We have been SATURATED with the Resurrection. So you misrepresent us when you say that we portray a belief that Jesus is still dead, dying, or being killed over and over again--- which is you persist in stating even after having being patiently and courteously corrected.
For our basic Christology, consult the Nicene Creed.
You can google it.
Thank you.
Being a Christian has to do with putting faith in the finished work of Christ for redemption. Faith in Christ and His finished work saves us - not our works, not our rituals, not our church !!! Your behavior will not save you but Christ in you (not you in you) will change your behavior.
....................................................
Can one have faith without works? Obviously yes according to James, or else he wouldn’t have emphasized that having such faith without works is dead. And what did he mean by “dead”? I think it’s quite clear that he meant such faith is MEANINGLESS and if MEANINGLESS it is certainly not what some call “saving faith”. You can twist James until the cows come home but it’s perfectly clear that faith “alone” will get you a ticket to hell. And of course so will works “alone”!
Another Roman Catholic lie, this time about what sola fide means.
And a Catholic slander about Christians too, saying that we don’t teach to do good works either.
Protip: Accusing people of things they don’t actually believe just makes you look ridiculous.
Unlike Catholics, Orthodox and other branches of Christianity that teach certain graces are gained by wearing a blessed this or that - I would disagree. The gospel, the NT, tells us that grace comes through our faith in Christ - period.
Now concerning the cross and crucifix. The crucifix is a beautiful image in that it reminds me of the price paid for my salvation. It tells me that my sins and my sickness were put on His body and that while I was yet a sinner, Christ died for me. The story the crucifix tells is a focal point of Christianity.
BTW - Catholics do wear crossed and Catholics do celebrate Easter. It would be unfair to suggest otherwise!
I may be wrong but I believe Protestants reject using a crucifix because it is primarily a symbol used by Catholics.
God forbid Protestants and Catholics agree on anything /s.
Are you such an enemy of truth that you insist on believing falsehoods?
Or are you just angry that I called you out on believing an obvious lie from Rome?
.............................................
I am not an enemy of truth, nor am I angry about anything you’ve posted. That said, I most surely would never rely on anything you say or believe concerning the scriptures to be the “gospel truth”. One reason I say that is because the beliefs you adhere to have been rejected by countless Christian scholars from the apostolic age to the present day. You really don’t know what your talking about, but that’s your problem not mine.
As for your point #2, about blessed objects, we (by this use of "we" I mean Catholics and Orthodox) believe that believe that grace comes through faith in Christ. So we have that in common with you as well.
This does not deny that Jesus has the authority to exercise His power through people and things. For instance, there's this:
Acts 19:12I am sure you would understand that they had faith in Christ, not faith in Paul apart from Christ, and certainly not faith in aprons.
"Even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him [Paul] were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them.
On this you are correct.
It is our faith in Christ that saves us.
I may be wrong but I believe Protestants reject using a crucifix because it is primarily a symbol used by Catholics.
Again, it comes down to how do you view Christ.
Is He still being sacrificed on the cross or is He off the cross?
Riiiight.
So are you willing to debate on the merits of what I actually believe, or are you going to go back to the script full of strawmen?
I’m waiting.
When an ordained, fully trained Roman Catholic priest writes a best selling book that has been given the thumbs up by his Roman Catholic overseers and in said book tells us:
When the priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, BRINGS CHRIST DOWN FROM HIS THRONE, and places Him upon our altar to be OFFERED UP AGAIN AS THE VICTIM for the sins of man. Indeed it is a power greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. For, while the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from Heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man - not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows HIs head in humble obedience to the priest's command.(The Faith of Millions, p.235)
the meaning, though Roman Catholics can't stand to read this, is glaringly clear.
However, O'Brien goes on (p.366)
The Council of Trent thus summarizes the Church's teaching concerning the Mass:
1. There is in the Catholic Church a true Sacrifice, instituted by Jesus Christ-the Sacrifice of His Body and Blood under the appearances of bread and wine.
2. This Sacrifice is identical with the Sacrifice of the Cross, inasmuch as Jesus Christ is Priest and Victim in both; the only difference lies in the manner of offering, which is bloody upon the Cross and bloodless on our altars.
3. It is a propitiatory Sacrifice, atoning for our sins, and the sins of the living and the dead in Christ, for whom it is offered.
*************************************
I have posted numerous times how this is in complete contradiction of Scripture.
22And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
23Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own. 26Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, 28so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.
Hebrews 9:22-28 NASB
If one wants to persist is saying otherwise they are not being honest.
The Mass as practiced by Roman Catholicism is in contradiction of Scripture. It's as clear as day.
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.