It's entitled, "Who Dares Say He Believes in God?"
He posted it after an interview he did with Dennis Prager. dailywire.com/news/47886/wat…
I hope to wrestle down some of what he says 1/
This cannot be.
Guilt (or conviction for spiritual people) wouldn't exist.
This has been something that's been bothering well educated Christians for a long time. How do we explain the exclusive nature of some of these beliefs and thereby associations?
Let me attempt: Christ's teach is exclusionary and so are some affiliations.
This interpretation is a consequence, I believe, of political liberalism's view of the Abrahamic religions.
He goes onto cite the example of father, grandfather which is quite stunning.
Read the text.
I'm surprised Peterson makes this error. But also not.
Even in political tradition up until just decades ago, nationstate sin was a thing.
Part of the beauty of Christianity and the focus on forgiveness, the tearing of the veil, the gift of the Holy Spirit for believers is that God gives a new covenant.
There is no "Judeo-Christian" Levitical law.
There is no "Judeo-Christian" interpretation for the fall of the Temple or the tearing of the veil. Exclusionary.
Exodus 34:7 ESV
Literally predicting Jesus and a static Spirit.
1) There is no Judeo-Christian tradition on sin. There is man's nature after the Fall and that is not unique to Christianity nor Judaism.
2) Certainly no agreement between the two on group sin.
3) Group sin exist(ed).
He talks about the question at hand, does he believe in God and why he's uncomfortable with the question.
He's unsure. He has 3 guesses.
1) Feeling private
2) What does "believe" mean?
3) He's afraid God exists
He thinks it's the latter.
Faith is not private. Not if you are to believe the God shown in the Old or New Testament. Even if you believed they were different and made up gods. He requires public testimony and shows of strength even in the Jewish texts.
This is a psychological concern
It's made only deep because of the limitations in the English language. The Greek clarifies this pretty well. In fact, most of the New Testament (outside of John 3:16) does too.
Jesus calls on followers to repent and believe. Both.
When you understand the Hebrew or Greek word "belief," it's not like the English. Much like "love" and "all," the meanings are more wholistic in the original texts.
Belief in modern English has been reduced to 'have knowledge of.'
In particular, he seems to have studied Jewish stories.
To believe God exists in any form you can become familiar with him would be to know the stories. To believe, in the mature languages, is to follow.
Peterson is doing neither.
Stories all require metaphysical truths to be so deeply true they defy blind discovery. Probability.
If Peterson is to accept the NT stories, it limits his interpretations of both the Old and New. He cannot piecemeal.
Note: he has guesses. He himself is uncertain about himself so logically, questions God.
The feeling of privacy cannot only be stripped away by God. Questioning minimal requirements is a negotiation. Final step: fear.
Faith is to cast out doubt (fear). Fear is a natural feeling right before faith (commitment) because it forces you to rewrite all definitions.
Many of us have seen this dozens of times. It's not unique.
Peterson, unbeknownst to himself, spells out what belief means.
What he says after that doesn't reconcile with any story he's read though.
He tucks in the word "miraculous" again showing his reliance on Jewish ethos instead of Christian. He doesn't see a difference, however Christians do.
Holy Spirit is that miracle.
I alleged that Peterson knew what belief was when he was asking for it to be defined. I've seen this in so many people before they surrender.
It's only human.
But he knows what belief is.
I cannot emphasize this enough: this is why he struggles with answering the question. The question requires confession.
And consider the question: "Who Dares Say He Believes in God?"
*He is not struggling with the definition but consequence.*
"I don't think I have a — I don't think I have a right to make that proclamation."
Recall, the proclamation isn't 'knowledge of' belief but 'will you follow' belief. It requires the reconciling of the stories he's lectured on.
Are they true or not.
“And since I’m not like that... then when people ask me, I’m not going to say something virtuous like I’m a believer because there’s plenty wrong with me that needs to be fixed before I would dare utter words like that.”
He seems to have an issue, like many do, wanting to be clean before he approaches God and submitting before him. It could also be doubt in the stories.
What is near unique to Peterson is he has forced himself to study characteristics of God (dabbling around God's nature). Seldom do non-hostile non-believers ever encounter this question
This was as much a fascinating psychological study as it was religious.