Episode 203

Jordan Peterson collaborated with Jubilee and agreed to debate 20 atheists. He made four claims:

1. Atheists reject God but they don’t know what they are rejecting.
2. Morality and purpose cannot be found within science.
3. Everyone, including atheists, worships something, even if they don’t know it.
4. Atheists accept Christian morality but deny Christianity’s foundational stories.

While some of the atheists engaged in good faith, some were only there for the viral video moment. As a result, many attempts to get to the substance of the arguments fell short. In this episode of Removing Barriers podcast, we go through various moments in the video and discuss them, seeking to understand what biblical claims are being made and whether they are true, especially since Peterson, who is not a Christian, is trying to engage in apologetics for the Christian faith. Was he successful? Can he actually do it? We’d love to hear your opinion on the matter.

[MCG]

Jordan Peterson decides he’s going to go into the fiery furnace, and he had no representation. He has no backup. He has no Holy Ghost working in him. No one like the Son of God. It’s not just an intellectual argument, right? He went into the Lion’s den, but there was no one in there to shut the lion’s mouth.

Mm-hmm.

[Jay]

Thank you for tuning in to the Removing Barriers podcast. I’m Jay and I’m MCG. and we’re attempting to remove barriers so we can all have a clear view of the cross.

[MCG]

This is episode 203 of the Removing Barriers podcast, and in this episode. We will be responding to the viral Jubilee episode titled Jordan Peterson versus Twenty 80S, but more so the backlash and the fallout of the episode.

[Jay]

Hi, this is Jay. MCG and I would like for you to help us remove barriers by going to removingbarriers.net and subscribing to receive all things, removing barriers. If you’d like to take your efforts a bit further and help us keep the mics on, consider donating at removing barriers.net/donate. Removing barriers, a clear view of the cross.

[MCG]

All right, Jay, so we’re going to start with the video or audio of the most viral part of the episode. I’m going to be playing the whole episode, but here is the most viral part of it.

[Viral Clip]

Can you just be very clear about your definition of worship again?

Attend. To. Prioritize and sacrifice for.

[MCG]

So here is a young man, professed atheist, and he is now asking John Peterson some question. John Peter going to give the answer and here the rest of the dialogue.

[Viral Clip]

OK, that’s it. That’s your understanding of worship.

Well, I can flesh it out, but that’ll do for the time.

We have, OK, do Catholics attend to Mary? Yes. OK. So do they get that description of worship?

Yes.

So you would say Catholics and other people that Revere Mary, like the Eastern Orthodox tradition, worship Mary.

Well, they might not put her in the highest planes, no.

But you would put it that way. You just said it, now you’re taking it back now.

There’s still a hierarchy.

OK, there’s a hierarchy, but in within the local alright you can worship things below.

And there’s something at the top. Mary is quite a ways up the hierarchy, but not at the top.

Let’s let’s go over your definition of worship again. What’s your definition of work?

Attend to.

Attend to do prior do Catholics.

Ties and sacrifice for.

What do Catholics attend to? Do they prioritize Mary over all other human beings?

No, I didn’t say overall, did I? I didn’t add that to my definition. I said there was a hierarchy as well. So you can attend to something trivially or you can attend to it deeply. And there’s a.

Well, you understand, you understand. You you you attended. Now you’re adding stuff to the definition, but your original definition.

I added the hierarchy part at. In the beginning just didn’t understand it.

Are you familiar? Are you familiar with the Immaculate?

Conception. Why is that relevant?

Because you go to a Catholic Church, don’t you are you attended recently? You’re interested in Catholicism? Aren’t. You sure? Alright. Are you familiar with their doctrines? OK, you’re you’re familiar. How do they regard? How do they regard?

Somewhat. Or if their doctrines are very deep. Mary, why are you asking me that?

Because you’re a Christian.

You say that I haven’t claimed.

That ohh what is this? Is this Christians versus? Yes.

I don’t know.

You don’t know where you.

Are right now, don’t be a ***** ***. And I mean, because I won’t talk to you if you’re a ***** ***.

Well, either you’re a Christian or you’re not. Ohh, either you’re a Christian or you’re not. Which one is it?

I I could be either of them, but I don’t have to tell you.

You you don’t have to tell me. I was under the impression I was invited to talk to a Christian, am I not?

It’s private.

Talking to a Christian.

No, you were invited to.

I think everyone should look at the title of the YouTube channel. You’re probably in the.

Wrong YouTube video. You’re really quite something you are.

Aren’t I? But you’re really quite nothing, right? You’re not a Christian.

OK, I’m done with him.

[MCG]

Alright, so that’s the most viral portion of that Jubilee episode, and let’s talk a little bit about the background. And for those who have never really seen Jubilee debates, what’s the format and stuff like that? Let’s talk about the. Background and stuff like that.

[Jay]

Typically, Jubilee debates feature people on opposite ends of an issue, and they’ll have one person. Debating 20 or 25 of the opposing view. So for example, if you have a pro-life person, you’ll have 20 abortion activists or pro-choice people. If you have someone that wants to legalize marijuana, they will have to debate 20 people. Who would say that they don’t want marijuana legalized. So it’s a debate. Between one person and 20 and what you have are the 20 people that are opposed to whatever subject they’re debating, sit and encircle the one person that is on the opposite side. They’re two chairs. In the middle and the one that’s debating all twenty of these folks is sitting in the middle and the chair across from this person is empty and whoever can get to the chair first with the 321 countdown. Whoever touches the chair first will be the first one to debate or engage with the opposing. Person and so when they are engaging in dialogue, they typically have somewhere between 13 and 15 minutes to flush out whatever points they’d like to go at. And if during their engagement. The other 20 something people surrounding them raised these white flags. If a majority of the people raised red flags, I’m sorry. Red flags indicating that they are not satisfied with how this person is debating their position. If a majority of people raised their flags, then that person’s time is up regardless if the 13 or 15 minutes. More spent or not, and then a new person has to come to the chair and do. State. And so they’ve done this for Christian versus atheist. They’ve done it for cops versus criminals. They’ve done it for gays versus non gays, pro-life pro-choice, a wide number of debates taking place in that particular format and it proves to be incredibly popular. Every video has well over 12345 million views. And so it’s a very popular format and that’s why they keep bringing it back in this particular case, Jordan Peterson was invited to debate 20 atheist. Because of course, Jordan Peterson, who never professed to be a Christian, we talk all the time on this podcast. How I’m Christians ought to be wary, because even though he talks about the Bible and how important it is, how true he believes it is, he has never professed Christ. He has never professed himself to be a Christian. Christians ought not to be fooled or to be drawn into Jordan. Peterson. Biblical or Christian thinking. But at any rate, he was invited to this Jubilee debate and I think he was told that he would be debating 20 atheists. Jubilee, I don’t think didn’t tell him that he was representing the Christian side. And so the other 20 atheists. However, it looks like they were told something different. It looks like they were told that they were coming to debate a Christian. They were coming to debate Jordan Peterson, who is a Christian. So This is why the engagement between the two and that sound. Clip you played was so contentious because Jordan Peterson thought he was coming to debate Christianity or atheism on a more psychological, philosophical front, sociological front. While the atheists were coming to debate Christianity on its merits on a more spiritual front, if you could even say that because they don’t believe in spiritual things. So when this video was released, it was titled One Christian versus 20 atheists, but within 4 hours the name of the video was changed. To Jordan Peterson versus 20 atheists. Now some people say that Jordan Peterson wanted the name Chad. Some people say that because Jordan Peterson had one understanding and the atheists had another understanding of what the debate was going to be, that the producers of the debate just decided that they were going to change the name of the video. Either way, the name of the video was changed 4 hours after it was released, and so that atheist was able to be smart. Lucky about it because he thought it was. Thing Jordan Peterson was feeling quite defensive and angry about it because he thought it was another. So from what I understand, there’s that miscommunication there, but the video went viral. Everyone was like, ohh, slam dunk. Ohh, Jordan Peterson was railroaded, but I don’t think they recognized or realized all of the back story of what happened there.

[MCG]

What was your initial impression of the viral video? What would you say that maybe come to mind initially when you saw or heard that viral clip?

[Jay]

I was confused. I don’t understand why this clip went viral. Because Jordan Peterson engaging with that atheist, I don’t see how he was railroaded. Or it’s like a gotcha moment, or I don’t see how people are saying that the atheist dunked on Jordan Peterson and that Jordan Peterson lost and this that or the other. Now again, I’m not defending Jordan Peterson. I’ve said many times on this podcast how Jordan Peterson is not a Christian and that Christians. Should really not confuse their conservatism with their Christianity and to be wary of the likes of Jordan Peterson. But he didn’t say anything that he had not said before he was consistent in everything that he said in that engagement, and the atheist came across as a smart. Like to me there didn’t seem to be a desire to engage the ideas, the principles, the argument. It was more like a there was a what is it called when you there was a disdain there, coming from the atheists. I felt that was completely disrespectful. There was no need for that. And so I didn’t like the clip at all. I didn’t understand why everyone was Googoo Gaga. Over it, I don’t get why they feel like Jordan Peterson lost because he hasn’t said anything that he’s never said before, never claimed to be. Christian and when he talks about worship, when he talks about all of these different things, when it comes to venerating something or living or believing or acting out something, he’s always said that you prioritize it. You pursue it. When you say that you believe something, you live as though you believe that you stake your life on it. All of these things he said countless, countless, countless times before. Anyone that had ever listened to Jordan Peterson would know that he always says that. But the only gotcha aha thing there. Happened because of a miscommunication between the producers and the participants, so I don’t see how this is a slam dunk, and it certainly doesn’t help when you’re debating very serious, very heavy, very deep things like Christianity and atheism, and and all of the allergies surrounding those two. I don’t see how debating and trying to get a quick gotcha. Trying to get a quick viral moment is helpful because there are so many people that want to understand these things that want to understand Christianity, that want to understand atheism, and so getting that quick viral moment doesn’t help anyone except a few people on YouTube that are able to make money by responding or read. Acting to a very shallow and very empty engagement. So that was my first impression of it.

[MCG]

Well, I eventually went and watched the entire episode just because I want to get everything in context. I will agree that the atheist guy did come across as a little bit disrespectful of Jordan Peterson, but I also think Jordan Peterson came across a little bit cocky.

[Jay]

Cocky how?

[MCG]

In the terms of the feeling I got was that hey, I am a professor. I have a. Please degrees off my name. I’m Doctor Jordan Peterson, and you should be listening to me. I got the impression from here also. I’m not really a big fan of how Jordan Peterson debates, because I think that we can talk about things without always saying. Define that. Word. Get it in order to have a good, deep debate. You’re gonna have to define your terms. I get it. You know, I have spoken to Mormons, and unless you ask the Mormon to define certain words, everything is going to go way above each other head. Because when you start talking about grace and certain things, the moments use the same word. But they have total. Different meaning than the actual meaning of the words. So I get it. They need to define words and stuff like that, but if every single word. Would you say to Jordan Peterson he going to fire back to you say well defined that it’s a tactic that just delay and it’s not fruitful. You know, I don’t need to define light every time I say light unless I mean light in a sense that is not in the normal term and many times you can pick up meaning of words based upon but Jordan. And have this thing of always acting to do this and do that and whatever kids may be. And I didn’t say that. And whatever the case may be. It can be tiring to talk to someone like that because you get nowhere, and that’s what I saw in the debate a lot. The 80s. Again, I’m not even anymore inside here. But the 80s got nowhere because of Jordan Peterson tactics. And to me, this is what the guy probably was just exhausted. It’s like, OK, the fine. Worship. What do you really believe? Do you worship Mary? It’s a yes or no question, you know, and I think he could have answered the question and stuff like that and whether not he wants to say he’s a Christian or not. We can talk about that a little bit later. But whatever you want to say, Christian or not, that’s fine with me. But I just think that he used a lot of words salad that I just don’t like again. I understand. Asking for definition of words, but again, I will say yes, the guy was disrespectful to Jordan Peyton, especially someone being much older than him. He should have at least showed some respect, but I don’t think John pays us in the innocence here neither. I think he could have done a lot better and quite honestly I’m glad they rename it because he wasn’t. Defending a Christian position. Again, this question I would. Have. Is should he even have said that he was a?

[Jay]

Christian, I don’t think he ever. Did.

[MCG]

I know he didn’t, but should he ever said. He was a Christian.

[Jay]

Should he have said he was a Christian while engaging that one atheist? No, he shouldn’t have for two reasons. Number one, he has always made it very clear that he doesn’t like that question. Do you believe in God? Are you a Christian? Those kinds of questions.

[MCG]

Yeah. Oh.

[Jay]

Because he doesn’t feel like it’s anyone’s business, #1 and #2. When people say believe I know you just talked about how he has to define every word. But when people say believe, they mean vastly different things. And so that’s why I’m disagreeing with you just a little bit here, because when atheists say believe and when Jordan Peterson says believe, they’re saying 2 completely different things. And when the atheist accused him of being a Christian, he said I never said that I was a Christian. I don’t know what you’re talking about because the guy’s like, oh, is this supposed to be like 28 versus a Christian towards, like, Peters is like, what are you talking about? I’m only here to debate in this particular paradigm, and you’re talking about something else. That’s where the breakdown is. When the atheist asked him to define worship, he said attend to prioritize. And he said one other thing. I forget what it is right now. So he did. Find it and the atheists kept pushing and saying ohh well, do Catholics worship Mary? Well, you had already asked him if he’s familiar with Catholic doctrine and his answer is somewhat you can’t press someone on their doctrine if they only know it somewhat. That’s not a person that you would press for doctrine. Jordan Peterson never presented himself as a. You know what I mean? As someone who’s familiar with? Well, first of all, they’re equating Catholicism with Christianity, and that’s out of the that’s not even supposed to be within the conversation. I’m sure I just anger a lot of people. But Catholicism is not Christianity. Biblical Christianity, period. Anyway, that’s a whole nother rabbit trail. Let’s not go down that road. Anyhow. Jordan Peterson already said to him I’m only somewhat familiar with Catholic doctrine. I’m interested in. That I have already said I’m not totally familiar with it. I’m only somewhat familiar with it. So why would you press someone on that issue and then call them a Christian when #1 they’ve never called themselves a Christian and #2 again? Catholicism aside, they’ve never called themselves a Christian, and he clearly said that he’s only somewhat familiar with the doctrine, so it just seemed like a more I gotcha type of thing. And Jordan Peterson, later on in the episode really got into defining. Words because I feel like in many instances they were putting words in his mouth and they were mischaracterizing what he was actually saying. So.

[MCG]

But the problem is, no one knows what he’s saying because he tend to use these words and then he wants to define it again. I get the importance of defining words, but that’s why in many debates, the first thing the debate is do is define the words, certain words that they’re going to be used. But they don’t define every word that comes out of their mouth. I get the impression Jordan Peterson want everybody that he talks to to define every word that comes out of their mouth. That’s what I’m saying. It’s tifu’s conversation because he’s constantly saying yes, he did define worship, and yes, he did define belief, right?

[Jay]

Hmm.

[MCG]

After that, I don’t see what’s the hang up. He should be able to be familiar, somewhat familiar with cut the doctrine. He should know what are not Catholic worship Mary based on your definition and based on what you know about Catholics. Do they worship. Maybe is a yes or no question in my book.

[Jay]

So you’re saying he should have just said yes? They worship Mary.

[MCG]

Give a clear yes or no author. Hey, I am not Catholic. I am not familiar enough with the doctrine to know if based on my definition, worship if they worship Mary or not. But I think he knows that they worship Mary even based on his definition and he just didn’t want to give ground. In this situation.

[Jay]

If he answered and said yes, Catholics worship Mary, how would that have fit in the engagement with that one atheist that you played there? What?

[MCG]

The conversation would have moved on, I assume, but the point is this was trying to make giving him the benefit of the doubt that he had the mix up that he was debating a Christian. I guess whatever direction he wanted to go about, Christian worship Mary or whatever the case may be, or Catholic worship Mary or.

[Jay]

What point was that easiest trying to make? Mm-hmm. Right.

[MCG]

Whatever he wanted to prove, they got nowhere by Jordan Peterson not answering the question. No, I’m not saying that just wasn’t a smart Alec and a lack of a better term. My potty mouth. I’m just simply saying Jordan Peterson didn’t help in it. Neither, but.

[Jay]

Isn’t that making Jordan Peterson engage in something that he doesn’t want to? He does not want a religious discussion, he simply wants a more philosophical, you know, psychological.

[MCG]

Well, he could have said that. But whatever, what? But whatever he wanted. Really. Just discussion. That’s what he got. If he gonna discuss anything with eight years, 8 years, I mean the religion. Well, so they might say no. But that’s absolutely what it is. It is a religion and whatever, Jordan.

[Jay]

But that’s who he is.

[MCG]

Justin is that’s a religion, too. Whatever Jordan. Peter wants to accept. So what I’m saying is, I think Jordan Peterson is pretty much equally at faulty. No, I’m glad he didn’t claim to be Christian again. As you say, I don’t think Catholics are Christian. According to all the Bible. Describe true biblical Christianity, but I’m glad.

[Jay]

Right.

[MCG]

Jordan Peterson didn’t say he was a Christian. I don’t think Jordan Peterson have a relationship with Jesus Christ and I just don’t think he has a personal 1. I don’t not think he exhibit. Anything in his life. And again, I don’t know the man, but I don’t know of anything in his life or any testimony he have given of turning from sin and turning to Christ in repentant faith. So therefore I would say he’s not a Christian, so I’m glad he doesn’t profess to be Christian because there’s so many people out there that would profess to be Christian, but there’s no evidence in their life that will show that they are. However. In a debate like this, there are many ways you could have answered the question without having it gone down that road.

[Jay]

OK, I think I see what you’re saying because. I’m going to go back and realize that the claim that they were debating was that everybody worships something, and so if that’s the claim that Jordan Peterson is making, then that is by definition a religious argument, is it not? Maybe that’s where the atheist was coming from. I’ll perhaps give him the benefit of the doubt there because I don’t think I mentioned this before the way Jubilee. Debates happen is that the person on the opposing end, the one that has to debate all 20, makes a claim and then they will debate that particular. Claim. Whoever gets to the chair first has 15 minutes until they get voted out with red flags, so that was the third claim. Everybody worships something, so perhaps the atheist was trying to make the point that Christians worship Mary when they should be worshipping God, even though they’re both wrong because Catholicism is not Christianity and Jordan Peele is not a Christian. So.

[MCG]

I don’t know what did it was trying to prove because if they.

[Jay]

Yeah, I don’t know. What, what, where he was going with that, but the atheist clearly was saying ohh, you’re a Christian, which he has a faulty understanding of what Christianity is. If he’s pointing to Catholicism, but also. So saying that Jordan Peterson is a Christian, obviously he doesn’t know what a Christian is. So to me, this whole thing was moot because they’re talking past each other and right.

[MCG]

That’s exactly my point, because Jordan Peterson decided, hey, I’m going to be going in the definition define words and not answering your question and it is determined you’re gonna become a. Smart Alec, I think you.

[Jay]

Really have to when you’re talking about these things, I think you really do have to define terms.

[MCG]

I’m not disputing that you need to define words. I’m disputing the fact that you don’t need to define every word. There’s some things that you can take and say, OK, move on again. I use the example of moments many times I talk the moment when I use the term grace or if they use the term grace. To me, I asked them what did they mean? Because the woman has a totally different meaning of grace. Them. Most people, even if you look in the dictionary with different degrees, more my. Definition is different.

[Jay]

Yeah.

[MCG]

So I understand and I do believe that you should define words, but I think he used it constantly as a delay tactic.

[Jay]

Why would he delay? Why do you think? Jordan Pearson would remove.

[MCG]

We either to get time to think or to trip up the person that is asking the question, because if the person comes they say, hey, do you believe XY and Z? And he said, well, what’s your definition of belief?

[Jay]

Yes. This is why I don’t like this. I don’t like debate. OK, I should probably revise that. I don’t like this type of debate. It just seems like when you’re talking to. Someone the objective is to lay a trap for the other person to fall into in order to prove that their point.

[MCG]

That’s what they did, the intellectual discussion that will, at the end of the no one have changed their mind.

[Jay]

Of view is wrong. OK, I would agree with you there. Well, no one’s better off because they haven’t engaged. They haven’t tried to understand one another. It was more of a battle. It’s a duel. Let’s see who can get what. Right, right, right.

[MCG]

That’s that’s basically what it was. So do you think an unsafe person like Jordan Peterson can effectively defend true biblical Christianity?

[Jay]

No, because first Jordan Peterson doesn’t know what true biblical Christianity is, and #2. He’s not a Christian. And #3. There’s a difference between debating the Christian faith and witnessing, or evangelizing, so perhaps I’m coming at it from more and evangelizing point of view. But when you’re trying to explain the faith to people, the goal shouldn’t be to prove that Christianity is true. We should. Engage with.

[MCG]

People. Well, I would have phrased it that way. I think the goal is not to convince the person that’s their job of the Holy Ghost to work within the person to convince and to draw.

[Jay]

Ohh yeah, I see what you’re saying. OK, I agree. Yeah, yeah, yeah. OK, I agree with what you’re saying.

[MCG]

What?

[Jay]

Should present the. No, I don’t want to say the truth. Of the gospel. Because the gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. OK, when it comes to the truth of Christianity, Christianity being true, we can present those things. But that’s not evangelism. That’s more like apologetics. That’s more. So we’re expecting Jordan Peterson to engage in apologetics.

[MCG]

Right, right.

[Jay]

And he’s not a Christian.

[MCG]

Well, yeah. But I would say. No, and I’m probably saying the same thing here, but because it’s not purely an intellectual discussion, it’s not.

[Jay]

This discussion right here.

[MCG]

Or Jordan Peterson trying to defend, quote UN quote the Christian faith, or even whatever case may be, I don’t think an unsafe person like John Peterson can effectively do that because it’s a purely intellectual task.

[Jay]

Uh-huh. Right. Oh, OK.

[MCG]

And that’s exactly what it was in this debate. It’s an intellectual task between them. How right? How can I ask a question that the person maybe can answer or just like we were the same before? It’s not purely intellectual task, you know, and and say person can defend Christianity from the intellectual point of view.

[Jay]

That’s why I fall short.

[MCG]

Too, but he gonna fall short because some portion of it has to come down to faith, and then they just might say, yeah, I got you. But they exhibit faith just as much as anyone else.

[Jay]

They’d argue with you tooth and nail about that, yeah.

[MCG]

I know that, but that doesn’t change the truth, you know, think about it. Jordan Peterson went into the fiery furnace.

[Jay]

Right.

[MCG]

There were no one that appears like the son of God, dear, because he was not safe. Daniel 3, verse 2425 talking about the three Hebrew boys that were thrown into the fire furnace. And Nebuchadnezzar, the king would astonish and rose up in haste, and spake and said unto his councillors, they not weak as three men bound into the midst of the fire. They answered and said unto the king, true, oh, King, he answered and said low. I see four men loose walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no heart. And the four more the Fort is like the son of God. John Peterson decide he’s going to go into the fiery furnace and he had no representation. He has no backup. He has no hope. He goes working in him. No one like the son of God. It’s not just the electoral argument, right? He went into the Lions then, but there was no one in there to shut the Lions mouth. Mm-hmm. And as Christian, when I go out there, I want to go with the powerful, the spirit. So that’s one that I feel like the son of God because it’s not purely intellectual discussion. I think about even this situation in Acts 19. Good. Cyber says then certain of the Vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them, which had even spirit the name of the Lord Jesus, saying we adjure you by Jesus, whom Paul preached and there was seven sons of 1 Seaver, a Jew, and a chief of the priest which did so and evil spirit answer said Jesus I know. And Paul, I know, but who are? He and the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of the house naked and wound, and this was known to all the Jews and Greeks also dwelling at Ephesus, and fear fell on them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus Christ was magnified, and many that believed. Aim and confess and showed these many of them also, which used curious ads, brought their books together and burned them before all men, and they counted the price of them and found it was 50,000 pieces of silver. My point here is who are you, Jordan Peterson? Paul, I know Jesus. I know again. He claimed not to be Christian, but he going in and trying to defend. Quote UN quote a Christian point of view and he had none of these things that we see the disciples had. We see the three Hebrew men had, but he went in there. Who are you? Jordan Peterson. My point is it’s just not an intellectual discussion. It takes the working of the Holy Ghost. Even think about Matthew 1721, albeit this kind goeth not. But but by prayer and fasting, how much prayer and faster do you think your opinion did before you went into this? I think he went in there. Expecting his superior intellect to outshine these young whippersnappers, and I think he got a whipping because he went in there somewhat cocky.

[Jay]

How did he get a whooping? Though I don’t see it.

[MCG]

I listened to the entire episode, Jordan Peterson. I believe in this episode. In this particular episode, I’m saying I’ve listened to other podcasts that he has done, but in this particular episode, I think he was out. Paint big time, not just from this viral clip, but from the many of the other discussions that he had. I think he was outshined. I was on the web before they put it that way. Mm-hmm. Anyways, you’ll listen to the room of embarrassed podcast. We are sitting down and talking about Jordan Peterson viral episode with Jubilee. We’ll be right back.

[Jay]

Hmm. Are you looking for a consistent and reliable place to get all your Christian materials? Try christianbook.com started from humble beginnings in 1978. Christianbook.com now offers a wide range of books, CD’s, DVD’s, home schooling and church supplies, plus more. So whether you are a parent, a homeschooler, a pastor, or a laypersonchristianbook.com can be a one stop shop for all your needs. Click the link in the description section below and check out the vast array of Christian materials christianbook.com has to off.

[MCG]

All right. So I think we can answer this one already. Why did the conversation and the viral video go off the rails? Many of what we have just said before because he went there with his own knowledge rather than the wisdom of God. I will say first Corinthians 2, verse one to four, just to add to what I just added. For the break and I, brethren, when I came to you came not with Excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God, for I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucify. And I was with you in weakness and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the spirit and of power. Think about it. When Ken Ham had the debate with Bill Nye. What they can him do? Can I present the science? He present the apologetics. But then he said we make no bones about it. This is what we preach. He quoted Romans 10, verse 13 that whose official carbon, the name of the Lord shall be saved. He present the fact that we are sinners and in need of a savior. Ken Ham, I think could go in there and say, OK, I’m going to use. Knowledge. I’m gonna use science. I’m gonna use all these things. But what can ham did in his debate with Bill Nye is not trying to out with Bill Nye, but he bring it back. To the word of God. And that’s what missing. Apologetics is not evangelism. No, you can use apologetics when you’re evangelizing. Maybe there might be some barriers that need to remove and that might help be removed to apologetics. But apologetics without evangelism is just empty. There’s nothing. There is a shell of what it should be, because at the end of the day, as I said before, the aspect of faith has to come in, because why do I believe? What do I believe is because of faith?

[Jay]

OK, in that verse Paul is saying I determined to know nothing among you except Christ and him crucified. So basically nothing but the gospel.

[MCG]

What I’m taking a verse as an application, not as the interpretation.

[Jay]

OK, because Jordan Peterson came in, there were three claims #1 atheists reject God, but they don’t understand what they’re rejecting.

[MCG]

The way he did find God According to him, if you listen the entire episode, he said. God is defined in the Old Testament as the conscience.

[Jay]

As. Yeah. So he doesn’t even.

[MCG]

It in. Know right who God is? He said that I think his what he said was it Elijah. Elijah defined it that way and then he said.

[Jay]

Yeah. Elijah, he said Elijah was on par with Moses and that’s how Elijah defined it. That’s how Jonah defined it, yes.

[MCG]

You wanna define it and then he said. That’s how he defined it. Mm-hmm. And then he said that’s how the Old Testament defined it. Then he said that’s how I’m defining it as conscience. So that’s why he was trying to pin the 80s because I think he was trying to go say, OK, do you have a. And if they had said yes, we have a conscience, then he will say yes. Well, you believe in some some sort of date, your God or whatever case may be. And then that goes to his definition of worship because if they have a conscience and they have some kind of moral compass, this watching his argument was then you attend to it, you prioritize it. And what the case may be his different worship but therefore you worship. A God on the fringes, you can say he’s not wrong because I agree with him that everybody worships something. But the conscience is not the definition of God. Not even close.

[Jay]

Mm-hmm. Not even close. Not even close. And the scriptures are very clear that the conscience can be seen. To the point where it doesn’t respond to right or wrong, it doesn’t respond to the prodding, and it doesn’t respond to. So the fact that the conscience can be seared would have to indicate immediately that the conscience is not God. Is he talking about like the collective conscience? What everyone in a particular society, in a particular hierarchy, deems right and wrong, is that what he’s talking about? Well, because then I suppose that would make sense. Everybody’s oriented toward this particular set of this is right, this is wrong, and that’s what they worship, I suppose. See. Jordan Peterson is big on hierarchy and societies being being established by means of hierarchy that it can’t function any other way. He says all the time that the hierarchy. The function of competence and not. What is it? It’s a function of competence, not oppression. Otherwise it won’t work. I mean, they labeled him the lobster King for that same reason. Back in the day when he was still well known for his interview with channel fours. What’s her name again? The. So you’re saying, lady? I forget her name anyway. So for them to not know that about him, that he would always go back to hierarchy. And that’s how he would construct the idea of conscience. That’s on them for not knowing how he see this is the whole talking past each other thing. This is why I didn’t care much for this particular debate, because no one there knows who God is. None of them know who God is. None of them understand each other’s point. What are they debating? What are they debating? They’re not really debating anything. It’s noise. And so the short that went viral has the picture of the girl. Covering her mouth and all surprised because when the young whippersnapper said Ohh, you’re quite nothing. That’s the only reason why this is getting any traction. First of all, what a disrespectful thing to say to anyone for anything. And of course an atheist would say that because they don’t believe in in the image of God and in the human person, and so they could look at someone seriously and say you’re nothing. And like you said earlier, it was just disrespectful. This is why I didn’t see why this particular debate or why this particular thing got as much traction as it did. Because none of them can define the terms, none of them are debating the true biblical position, and they’re speaking past each other. It’s completely fruitless on all. That’s. And like you said, true, you cannot do apologetics without the element of evangelism there, which Jordan Peterson can’t do because he’s not genuinely say it, and he didn’t set out to defend Christianity or God. He was setting out to defend the idea of God. But his definition of God was just as faulty as anyone else. That’s not a Christian. So there you go.

[MCG]

Well, you know, the Bible said in. Hebrews 412, for the Word of God is quick and powerful and sharper than any twitching. His sword, piercing even to the dividing us on the soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is the discern of the thoughts or intent of the heart, going back to the debate with Bill Lyon, Ken Ham, of course. I can’t verify this, but answers in Genesis and Ken have report that. The number of people got saved and the number of people returned to. The. Fate? True, that debate that tells me that, hey, the Holy Spirit was working true. Ken Ham junior debate. But I have spoken to.

[Jay]

If that is indeed the case.

[MCG]

To. I guess I’m going to call it 80s, I think, he said. He was the 80s, but him about a more agnostic and he said he watched the debate and he had a total different view of the debate than I did. He thought that Bill Nye, basically my words, not his, but my description put Ken Ham over his knees on whooping and I think he was probably the other way around, but that portion of it is not import. Important the important part of it is that Ken Ham used the word of God. Of course, again he used science and stuff like that and he show evidence of creation and all that stuff and evidence for Noah Flood and all that stuff and show that they actually scientists out there who believe in creation and who are doing real science. Explain the difference between historical science and.

[Jay]

Observational site.

[MCG]

Of the vision of science, however, he didn’t stop there. He went on and shared the gospel. And there are people who have come out or contact answer the genesis and claim to have turned to biblical Christianity through that debate. And that’s possible because China did present a very clear presentation of the gospel in that debate, talking about the seven seas that they take you through when you go to the Christian Museum and stuff like that. And somewhat go to the room and road. So I’m not surprised that that happened. What was the turn out? What was there an effect here besides a viral video and maybe thousands of dollars made from Jubilee and whoever else clip it up? And I responded to it.

[Jay]

Responded to. Or reacted to it, yeah.

[MCG]

I don’t think anyone mind would change this young man and a young man became somewhat semi famous because they went and pays more on show and all this stuff and. OK, at the end of the day, everybody walk out. If that was the purpose of evangelism, if that was the purpose of me going out, then tell people about Christianity is just to have an intellectual debate. I will stay home on Saturday mornings. I will stay home Thursday evenings. I’m not going to waste my time. You believe what you want to believe? I believe what I want to believe. Live and let live.

[Jay]

Well, you say all the time that someone famous once said that apologetics is not evangelism, but it clears the barriers or it clears the obstacles to seeing the cross clearly so that they can hear the gospel. And in this particular instance, Ken Ham, like you said, didn’t just stop with the apologetics. He actually. Started with the apologetics and then went clear on through to the gospel. So the evangelism was there, and Jordan Peterson’s case, none of it was there.

[MCG]

And he couldn’t be because he wasn’t saved. Ticket spoke a little bit on this, but what do you think the video and jubilee farmers say about the state of conversation and debate in today’s society in our country?

[Jay]

Right. I think that conversation has been reduced to exchanges that seek to position yourself to be better than the person that you’re engaging striving to prove yourself right, not necessarily striving to get at the truth. Makes conversation difficult. It makes engaging with other people difficult. The drive in the social media algorithm is not going to allow for many deep conversations. People are hungry for it. That’s why you see long form podcasts like Rogan and all these others like flagrant. For example, gathering quite the following people are hungry for it, but if you want to promote yourself, if you want to. To have any type of engagement on social media, you have to have those clippable moments that gets millions of views and then subsequently direct traffic to your podcast or to your video. It makes it hard to talk to people because then if you know that the person that you’re talking to is. Listening to you to find holes in what you say, listening to you to find a way to one up you, or to subvert you, you’re going to be on the defensive all the time. You can’t quite open up, you can’t quite share. Your heart with where you are, you’re not allowed to be imperfect. You’re treated as though you’re supposed to have all the answers all the time, ready to go, and no one is like that. Everyone falters and everyone has a bad day, or they don’t show up 100% every single time and there’s no grace. There’s no room for. The pursuit of the truth, and that’s a very, very dangerous and sad place to be. What do you think?

[MCG]

Well, there’s one thing I also hate when we have debates and when engaging in debate. I don’t know if this is the exact definition of this term, but I’m going to call it leading the witness.

[Jay]

What do you mean by that?

[MCG]

So is actually a series of questions. It’s actually similar to what this young man was attempting to do, asking a serious question that appeared to be a yes or no, true or false answer. So you can lead the witness into where you want to go. Defense and prosecution lawyers do it all the time, you know. So you were at the scene of the.

[Jay]

Mm-hmm.

[MCG]

Crime

[Jay]

MHM.

[MCG]

So did you see the defendant with a gun in his hand? Yes. Did the defendant raised his hand to scratch his nose? Yes. So the defender raised the hand with the gun. If you watched the Kyle Rittenhouse child? Mm-hmm. When I think his name is Gage, Gross, Kraut or whatever, I think he has changed his name since. But that’s exactly what the lawyer did for him to admit that. Kyle did not shoot him until he raised his hand with the gun and then Carl shoot him in his hand. Then those attacks of law. He. Might right. It worked good in the courtroom, but it doesn’t necessarily work good all the time in a debate, because then you’re manipulating your opponent.

[Jay]

Just setting them up then.

[MCG]

And and maybe that’s why John Pena was so defensive. So give that to John, Peter. But I think the Jubilee format kind of force you into that because you’re trying to get the viral moment right? That’s all it is. When you come to these things.

[Jay]

But you know how conversation requires truth, right? And so you have to know your position to engage in all of that sort of thing. Do you think that when you’re conversing in that particular way, the argument can be made, that you’re trying to get at the truth? You’re trying to get at the bottom of something you’re trying to get at the bare bones of something so that you can discuss the important things. So is there time in place for that?

[MCG]

That might be true. Yeah, that might be true. I’m not saying every place. I just say I personally don’t necessarily like it. If you’re having a. Question make it be a discussion. I hate having discussion and all of a sudden there’s an example, but instead of example being reason and logic they flipped it to be emotional. I’m like if I want to make an emotional decision or if you want me to make an emotional decision, just tell me to make an emotional decision. But if you want me to use. It’s not logic which is my default way to go. Then don’t try to manipulate me by bringing emotions, and that’s nearly hearing the concerning that I’m just simply saying that’s the tactic I see a lot in terms of you come to these debates.

[Jay]

When someone brings a motion into it. How I see how in some cases that would be manipulation, but if that’s the basis of their logic, which I realize that’s an oxymoron, why wouldn’t that be a proper way to engage? The atheists would probably say the same thing where they’re using logic. Don’t bring your faith in it to the atheist. Faith and emotion are pretty much on the same level.

[MCG]

Well, that’s the way we have to go back to another thing that was happening on about definitions because I personally believe that AGS. Play fate? Actually, it’s impossible to live this life without displaying faith, but I’m not even talking about that. I’m just simply saying I’m going to worry down to two. There’s two ways you can make decisions. You can use reason on logic, and for me, if you want me to change my mind about something, my default is reason or logic. But.

[Jay]

MMM. The mind, right?

[MCG]

Default, but there’s some people that they default his emotions. How do they feel about this thing? How does this thing make them feel? And they will make that decision based upon that. But for me, it’s more reason or logic. So if I’m using reason on logic and then you bring in or what if I’m talking to bring in emotions? To me, it’s like, OK, that to me is not a point. Whatever example you want to use when you want to use my family, when they want to use something else, that’s may be important to me or whatever case may be. That’s not my point. My point is not that is what it’s not logic. Maybe if I’m in that situation, I might use emotions to make my decision, but when I’m not in this situation and I’m calm and cool and whatever case may be. Is reason and logic. All of us have emotion, but I think here is that the situation was that even argued that Jordan Peterson actually went emotions at the end, after the guy insulted him. But.

[Jay]

You mean at the end of the entire? Thing or at the end of that clip.

[MCG]

When he said no at the end of the clip, when he said that I’m done with you kind of thing and the fact that you refused to even claim Christ, which is what he would have done if he claimed he was a Christian again, I’m glad he didn’t. But the fact that he didn’t claim Christ, of course, the Bible make it clear in Matthew 10 verse 33 that if you deny me before man.

[Jay]

All right. Right. Right, right.

[MCG]

I will also deny you before my father, so that kind of showed that, as we said earlier, he’s not a.

[Jay]

Question. Right. OK. Well, let me go back to what you said because the question is, what does this video mean in terms of where we are in communication in our society today and that brings. Up a really good question. So if you have two people that are engaging from different bases, one from logic, one from emotion, is the idea there that they can’t communicate at all?

[MCG]

No, I’m not saying that. And I’m not saying that both Jordan Peterson and the 80s were debating based upon real. On logic at the end, I think it kind of boil down to a little bit of emotion, maybe not a little bit, a lot of bit of emotion, but I think. It started. Off with reason and logic on both, right?

[Jay]

There and right, because the young boy was being snarky and Jordan Peterson was being defensive. So yeah.

[MCG]

Yeah, but that’s neither here anyway. I’m just simply saying that’s what the balls onto viral clip based upon. Some sort of maybe emotional outbursts or whatever the case may be, meaning reason or logic and air went out the window.

[Jay]

We typically look at debates and we come at them. We will evaluate debates based on who made the best points, who was on the offensive and who was on the defensive. The person that was on the. Defense the most can be said to lose the argument, but that’s not how normal face to face. Discussions are supposed to go. Why is being on the defense a bad thing? Why is it that offenses considered winning? Is it because that we’re equating it to physical battle?

[MCG]

Probably not just.

[Jay]

Sports or to sports? You can’t win without good defense, so you need both. Is what I’m getting at. You need offense, you need defense. You need emotion. You need logic. You need because we’re.

[MCG]

Not, I don’t think emotion and logic, that offense, the defense, I think.

[Jay]

OK, maybe I’m just misconstruing it.

[MCG]

I think emotion is a different way. To me, at least, in my opinion, emotion is almost a a cheap shot to win an argument or a debate. I think it’s a cheap shot to win a debate because if it’s not an emotional discussion, again, if it’s emotional discussion, I can understand. If you need to show empathy and not showing empathy, if you need to show love and you not showing love. All these are emotions. Well, of course. Well, either emotional discussion. This is how I feel. This is how I think this is how whatever the case may be, emotional discussion, that’s fine, but if it’s a logic and reason discussion, at least in my book, are you bringing emotions? To me, it’s like a low blow to win a debate or argument, whatever you want to call it, because.

[Jay]

And you said earlier manipulated so you would feel manipulated if someone brought in any type of emotional argument and one that requires only logic.

[MCG]

If that’s the discussion we’re having, maybe malleability might be too strong a word, but I guess what I’m saying is if I’m having a discussion with you and it is a discussion that require reason and logic, I don’t want to hear what happened. If you know, let’s say I’m talking to a woman, if I’m pregnant, and someone step on my toe or whatever.

[Jay]

OK. Right.

[MCG]

Is we just use some silly example and that’s where our laws are written.

[Jay]

Right, right.

[MCG]

As well, but if you notice, regardless of our laws are written, when you get in the courtroom and you get with juries and at the time decisions are made based upon what emotions are not the law go back to Derek Chauvin. Case the jurors had an interview and they make it clear in my opinion that their decision to find him guilty was based more on emotions.

[Jay]

Goldman’s. Right.

[MCG]

And the fact of law. So I’m not saying.

[Jay]

Yeah. He absolutely should not have been tried if they couldn’t.

[MCG]

Well.

[Jay]

If you couldn’t get a fair trial.

[MCG]

Well, reasonable people will say, why are you convicting me based upon emotions and not based upon the law? All of us agree at some point that emotions should not be the driving factor for decisions, at least not certain decisions. When it comes to the law. You may have hated what Truman did, but don’t convict them and based upon emotions, you might hate what, George? Zimmerman did in terms of the fight with him and Siobhan Martin, but if Shevon Martin had the upper hand and was truly beating him, don’t based upon and the same thing with race and Black Lives Matter and all these things is all these things are driven by emotions, our society, to they’re driven by emotion. No wonder, emotional. To go viral. Yeah. So that’s why I’m saying I prefer reason or logic.

[Jay]

Yeah, like you know how they say facts. Don’t care about your feelings, but the same is true, that feelings don’t care about your facts. And so there has to be a connecting bridge between the two. Talking about how we have conversation in our society today. You’re gonna have people that are quite emotional and they make ridiculous arguments or what we would consider to be. Ridiculous arguments and then on the other side, you would have people that make those logical arguments. We gotta find a way to communicate because unfortunately we all occupy the same patch. Land and we have to live together. And so that’s why I’m saying I don’t think it’s suffice to just say all of our argument. I’m not saying you’re saying this, but all of our arguments should be this, that or the other. That’s why I appreciate Jordan Peterson’s attempt to define every word. Because some of the people that he’s engaging with their definition of words change. However, they feel with how they. Feel and then there are people who are quite stringent and their definitions don’t change at all. There’s no nuance. There’s no allowing, there’s no give. Neither of those positions are good like, well, the scriptures talk about how the Lord he came in Grace and truth, both of them together. You need them both. The truth, I would imagine, would be the the logic not totally. You understand? I’m saying the truth. Could represent the logic and the grace could represent the softer side, the emotion side. Again, I’m not saying that’s what grace is. I’m just saying that you need both. You need the hard edge and you do need the soft. What? Piper called it a Steel Magnolia or a velvet. What did? Say no.

[Jay]

A Steel Magnolia and a velvet knife or something along those lines, you need the hard you need the soft, you need the logic, you need the emotion. You need all of these things, otherwise you’re talking past each other. And I don’t think that many of our conversations online are conducive to having that conversation, not just presenting the logic, but also knowing how to engage with the emotion. And it does present itself and it will present itself in conversation because we’re multifaceted people. We’re not just all logic. We’re also feeling too. We’re also all of these different things rolled into one mess. If you would call it that, so yeah.

[MCG]

Well, that’s true, but at some point you have to say, hey, I don’t like it, but.

[Jay]

That’s the way it is. So the bottom line, yeah, yeah.

[MCG]

Yeah. At some point. You’re gonna have to agree to disagree at some point. You’re gonna have to. I’m not simply saying it depends on what your goals are. I don’t know what the goal of this Jubilee debate was. Was it to, I guess, at the end of the day, I guess I know what it was. It was to entertain.

[Jay]

No, they weren’t trying to. Right.

[MCG]

Because.

[Jay]

Ohh, that’s a very good one. There’s a difference between entertainment and like conversing in order to get to the truth or get to a point, or get to an agreement. This was entertainment. That’s a perfect word for it.

[MCG]

I don’t think anybody came. But yeah, because it wasn’t geared so that anyone who changed their minds, you know, John and Peterson didn’t change his mind. And no one of the 2025 so-called atheists. Change your mind either. It was also a discussion. It’s also an exercise for them. It’s just an exercise, electoral exercise. Well, I guess we have been talking about true biblical Christianity.

Right.

[Jay]

Right.

[MCG]

Opposed to Christianity, what is? True, biblical Christianity, we can. And with that.

[Jay]

True, biblical Christianity is what Paul you referenced the verse earlier, the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ is true biblical Christianity. The fact that God created this world perfectly and when he created us, we were sinless. When he put us in the guard and everything was good, he said. But we’re the ones. That violated his law that rebelled against his word rebelled against him. We’re the ones that send against him from our father, Adam, all the way down to where we are today. And because we’re made in the image of God, we cannot be redeemed with the sacrifice of blood and goats or our own efforts, our own sacrifices, which is something that Jordan Peterson actually promotes. He talks about orienting yourself toward this greater good. This God, this conscience and sacrificing and prioritizing and sticking your life on this thing. In other words, worshiping this particular thing. But the problem is we can’t get there from here we can’t get to God with our own sacrifices and our own efforts and our own feeble attempts to understand what God is apart from what he’s revealed in the word and submitting to it. God had to reach down and save us. God had to wrap himself in flesh. And come down to be the sacrifice in order to save us, God had to bridge that gap. Thankfully, praise God he did, because if he didn’t, we would be forever lost forever, doomed to a christless eternity. He died on the cross to pay the penalty for our sin and he has declared a very famous verse that whosoever believes in him will not perish but have everlasting life. That’s him making the promise to us that if we will forsake this silly notion that we can probe and understand God with our. Intellect the silly notion that we can understand God, psychologically, intellectually, socially, whatever. Jordan Peterson was trying to do in that debate, that if we would give up this idea that if we work hard enough, sacrifice enough be enough, do enough to please God, if we will relinquish all of that. And believe what Christ has said about himself, about what he did for us on the cross about salvation and about what he promised to do, if we will simply believe and trust him, he promises that he will save. And for many people, that’s a bridge too far. You could be super intelligent as Jordan Peterson is super accomplished as Jordan Peterson is super articulate as Jordan Peterson is super earnest and wanting to rediscover and reclaim these societal truths that he’s plumbing. You can be all of those things and still be worlds apart from genuine salvation, and that’s who he is, right? You know, again, This is why we would caution anyone paying attention to Jordan Peterson that would somehow think that he brings a sort of revival to the Christian faith or that he’s somehow exposing or explaining the scriptures in such a way that brings Christians back. No, no, no, no, no. He’s not a Christian. He doesn’t know the first thing about salvation. He doesn’t know the first thing about. God, he sounds like he does. He speaks like he does. I think he thinks he does, but he. And so that is what true biblical Christianity is. Jordan Peterson can’t get there from here. He has to, just like everyone else, turn from his sin and put his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ in order to be saved. And God promises that he will. Save anyone who does such.

[MCG]

Yeah, I would say I agree what you’re saying there, I would say, what is biblical Christianity? A true biblical Christianity? Well, what is it not? Well, it’s not going to church. And reading your Bible. Is not living a good and moral life because a lot of people boil it down to that. It’s not being a member of a church or denomination, and it is not our religion. That’s very important. I know again, a lot of folks will say what? But true biblical Christianity is not the literature true biblical Christianity. Is a relationship with Jesus Christ, and that relationship is established when you are born again. Just like all our savior said to Nicodemus in John 3/3 and. Life Jesus said unto him, verily I say unto thee, except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God, and verse 5 Jesus answered, verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of the water and the spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. True, biblical Christianity is a relationship with Jesus Christ. It is a realization. That one is a. Thinner and that they cannot do anything to find favor with God, is a realization that you are thinner and that you cannot do anything to find favor. God, it is a turn into Jesus Christ in repentant fate. It is a trust in what he has done on the cross. For you. It is not based upon works. But is based upon what Christ has done for you. 2nd Corinthians 5, verse 21, for he had made him to be thin for us, who knew no thin. That we might be made the righteousness of God in him. Ephesians 2, verse 8 and 9, for by Grace are he saved through faith and that not of yourself. It is the gift of God not of works, lest any man should boast, for we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto Good Works which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. Of course, Romans 4, verse four and five. What shall we say? That Abraham, her father, as pertaining to the flesh had found. For if Abraham were justified by who? Works, he had whereof to glory, but not before God. For what’s the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that Worketh is a reward, not reckon of grace, but of death. But to him that worketh. Not, but to him that worketh not, but believe it on him that justified the ungodly. His fate is counted for right. So the Bible makes it clear it’s not by works. It’s repentant faith in Jesus Christ. IW will end with just part of what great Comfort had to say about this debate and about eight years on the whole.

[Ray Comfort]

Here are those four essential truths #1. There’s no such thing as a true atheist. The Bible makes it clear that. Every sane person already knows that God exists. Or, since the creation of the world is invisible, attributes are clearly seen being understood by the things that are made, so that they are without excuse. #2 atheists are unreasonable. Those who claim that there is no God reject reason and truth. The Bible describes such people as fools who think themselves. Wise professing to be wise, they became fools. Their rejection is not intellectual, it is moral and spiritual. #3 the root issue is a love for sin. Atheism is often not about intellectual objections, but moral rebellion. Men love to darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil and #4. Don’t argue. If you stay in the realm of intellectual debate, you’ll encounter resistance. The Bible says that the secular mind is hostile toward God. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God for is not subject to the law of God. Neither indeed can be who therefore should imitate Jesus by speaking directly to his or her conscience, using the 10 Commandments. Your goal is not to convince someone that God exists. They already know that your mission is to lovingly confront them. With the truth of sin, righteousness and judgment, and point them to the Savior.

[Jay]

This is the removing barriers podcast. If the podcast or the blog were a blessing to you, leave us a rating and a review on your favorite podcast platform. And don’t forget to share the podcast with your friends, removing barriers, a clear view of the cross.

[MCG]

Thank you for listening. To get a hold of us to support this podcast or to learn more about removing barriers. Go to removingbarriers.net. This has been the removing barriers podcast. We attempted to remove barriers so that we all can have a clear view of the cross.