Is Dr Peterson an atheist?
Dr. Peterson, with respect, "apart from faith, it is impossible to please the Lord."
There's no credit for 'living as if.'
> ...yet [if] they never truly come unto Christ, [then they] cannot be saved: much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the laws of that religion they do profess. And, to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested.
[WCF XX.4](https://opc.org/wcf.html#Chapter_10)
Discussion
Dr. Peterson is doing to special revelation what Darwin did to natural revelation
...that's a very interesting point. I think you're right.
Scripture is primarily 'the history of redemption' -- what great legths God has gone to to recover his lost and rebellious people back to himself. Whenever people try to abstract out 'the general moral principles' that are common to all religions, and which may be 'acceptable to all cultures' the actual message is deeply obscured.
After all, one of the chief purposes of the moral law is show us how far short we fall, and drive us to seek salvation in Christ alone by grace alone through faith alone.
It's not _primarily_ a rule book, but news--'good news of great joy for all the peoples.' As the fellows at the White Horse Inn like to say it, the law says DO! and the gospel says DONE!
..it's almost as if Peterson is still following the modernist program. Reject the supernatural element and extract out the 'helpful ways of living.'
I haven't kept up with him in the past couple of years, so all I would have to go on is this latest "debate" video where doesn't say yes or no to the question.
Last I knew, he'd come pretty close to an actual conversion to Christianity, I think, especially in some of his conversations with Jonathan Pageau. But since I've been following him (since before he was fired from his professorship) he's been a sort of "appreciative agnostic" -- saying things like Jung did: ~ 'it may or may not be true but look at the alternatives, we should all live "as if" it is true.'
All that said, an agnostic is a functional anti-theist. I say that because the God who actually does exist actually has revealed himself in a way that we actually CAN know. The agnostic says that either that God does not exist or that, if he does, he has not revealed himself and therefore we CANNOT know. That latter point is a denial of the actual God-who-is.
...of course, all we know of Dr. Peterson is what he's chosen to reveal about himself publicly. I remember when he went through that very dark season, and seeing his struggle, really hoping that he would embrace the gospel of Christ and find a true and lasting soul-deep comfort. Only God (and Dr. Peterson himself) knows the true state of his heart. One can hope, though.
Thanks, that's pretty clear then.
It's pretty obvious and logical that God exists imo and I do find Atheists usually some of the most intellectually lazy and most arrogant too.