# Four temperaments



## Dieter Schneider (Mar 20, 2007)

Can one justify from Scripture the idea that humans can be classified into four categories (choleric, phlegmatic, sanguine and melancholy)? 
Can anyone recommend a book, an article, a website?


----------



## Richard King (Mar 20, 2007)

Isn't that line of thinking from the Tim LaHaye books on Spirit Controlled temperament?


----------



## Kevin (Mar 20, 2007)

Dieter Schneider said:


> Can one justify from Scripture the idea that humans can be classified into four categories (choleric, phlegmatic, sanguine and melancholy)?
> Can anyone recommend a book, an article, a website?



No.


----------



## BobVigneault (Mar 20, 2007)

Back in the mid-seventies I was a psych major and the great trend was the integration of psychology and Bible. What it really amounted to was letting psychology take the lead and hand us their models then we would find bible verses to validate the models. This is bad exegesis and bad hermeneutics.

Beginning with scripture alone there is NO WAY a model could be arrived at that separates human temperament into 4 categories. This model may have some application in describing certain attributes that seem to fall together in certain individuals but this is not biblical. Richard is right, LaHaye pushed this model. LaHaye is not known for practicing good hermeneutics. His 'christian' psychology interprets scripture through Carl Rogers and the other humanist psychologists. His eschatology interprets scripture through the day's headlines.

Nope, I'm not impressed with the man.


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 20, 2007)

Dieter Schneider said:


> (choleric, phlegmatic, sanguine and melancholy)?




I've been accused of falling into all four of those categories, even on the same day.

I think they would apply to King David at various times in his life too. Other than that, no.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 20, 2007)

The four temperaments were categories which arose from the thought of Hippocrates and Galen. 

For a standard Puritan take on melancholy, see Timothy Rogers' _Trouble of Mind and the Disease of Melancholy: Written for the Use of Such As Are or Have Been Exercised by the Same_ (republished by Soli Deo Gloria).


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Mar 20, 2007)

I am intrigued by the following quotation from Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones (from his 'Sermon On The Mount' - see http://gospelpedlar.com/articles/Christian Life/beatitudes.html):
“a man does not determine his natural temperament, though he governs it up to a point. Some of us are born aggressive, others are quiet; some are alert and fiery, others are slow. We find ourselves as we are, and these nice people who are so frequently brought forward as an argument against the evangelical faith are in no sense responsible for being like that. The explanation of their condition is something biological; it has nothing to do with spirituality, and nothing to do with man's relationship to God. It is purely animal and physical. As people differ in their physical appearance, so they differ in temperament”
I find it helpful but I am unsure on the validity of categorising human beings.


----------



## Archlute (Mar 20, 2007)

Andrew is correct that these are ancient categories. They were much in use in Medieval diagnoses/medicine as well. I studied them some in my undergraduate studies on Medieval thought, and was always intrigued by them. I think there is some accuracy in their categorizations, and I also think that even though they are not explicitly given in Scripture there is some validity to the general observations of men throughout the ages regarding temperment.

Dieter,

I've come across several passages in the writing of MLJ where he uses these distinctions. They are rather broad generalizations, but I think somewhat valid nonetheless.


----------



## KMK (Mar 20, 2007)

BobVigneault said:


> LaHaye is not known for practicing good hermeneutics.



That is like say Bob is not known for his 'crew cut'.


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Mar 20, 2007)

Archlute said:


> Andrew is correct that these are ancient categories. They were much in use in Medieval diagnoses/medicine as well. I studied them some in my undergraduate studies on Medieval thought, and was always intrigued by them. I think there is some accuracy in their categorizations, and I also think that even though they are not explicitly given in Scripture there is some validity to the general observations of men throughout the ages regarding temperment.
> 
> Dieter,
> 
> I've come across several passages in the writing of MLJ where he uses these distinctions. They are rather broad generalizations, but I think somewhat valid nonetheless.


Thank you. Can one go further and apply it to the realm of introvert-extrovert? And what about astrology? Well - that is, of course, wrong from the Christian perspective. Lloyd-Jones, ever known as the doctor, is anxious to stress that not all depression is entirely spiritual but may be a matter of temperament (he also makes reference to nationality; no worries, I shan't comment on the typical American stereo-type). I would accept that all truth is God's truth and that even pagans may have wisdom. 'Know thyself' is a well-known Greek axiom. I am beginning to wonder about our LORD's personality. 
But it's late and I am beginning to sound incoherent. I think that 'temperament' is a helpful category but I am not convinced from Scripture.


----------



## Davidius (Mar 20, 2007)

Dieter Schneider said:


> I think that 'temperament' is a helpful category but I am not convinced from Scripture.



There may be a false premise here. Scripture is not a biology/psychology/physiology textbook. I'm not saying I agree with Galen and Hippocrates, just that one need not be convinced from scripture about things falling outside of the realm to which scripture is meant to speak. If I needed to be convinced by scripture about everything, then I would be convinced of very little outside the context of redemption.


----------



## cih1355 (Mar 20, 2007)

Can you think of any Biblical characters that do not fit into any of those catergories?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 20, 2007)

I'm pretty phlegmatic right after I drink coffee.


----------



## KMK (Mar 20, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I'm pretty phlegmatic right after I drink coffee.



You forgot the


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 20, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I'm pretty phlegmatic right after I drink coffee.



Ahem....Ahem. Yup, it happens to me too.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 20, 2007)

*Holiness Has to Do with My Temperment.* Temperment. By temperment I mean the factors that make specific ways of reacting and behaving natural to tme. To use psychologists' jargon, it is my temperment that inclines me to transact with my enviornment (situations, things, and people) in the way I usually do.

Drawing on the full resources of this jargon, psychologist Gordon Allport defines temperament as "the characteristic phenomena of an individual's nature, including his susceptibility to emotional stimulation, his customary strength and speed of response, the quality of his prevailing mood, and all the peculiarities of fluctuation and intensity of mood, these being regarded as dependent on constituational make-up, and therefore largely hereditary in origin." Allport's statement is cumbersome but clear. Temperament, we might say, is marterial out of which character is formed. Character is what we do with our temperament. Personality is the final product, the distinct individuality that results.

Temperaments are classified in various ways: positive and negative, easy and difficult, introverted and extroverted, outgoing and withdrawn, active and passive, giving and taking, sociable and forthcoming as distinct from manipulative and self-absorbed, shy and uninhibited, quick and slow to warm up, stiffly defiant as contrasted with flexibly acquiescent, and so on.

While these classifications are useful in their place, perhaps the most useful of all, certainly to the pastoral leader, is the oldest one which Greek physicians had already worked out before the time of Christ. It distinguishes four human tempermants:
The sanguine (warm, jolly, outgoing, relaxed, optimistic);
The phlegmatic (cool, low-key, detached, unemotional, apathetic);
The choleric (quick active, bustling, impatient, with a relatively short fuse);
The melancholic (somber, pessimistic, inward-looking, inclined to cynicism and depression).

It then acknowledges the reality of mixed types, such as the phlegmatic-melancholic and the sanguine-choleric, when features of two of the temperaments are found in the same person. In this way it covers everybody. The ancient beliefs about body fluids that supported this classification are nowadays dispelled, but the classification itself remains pastorally helpful. People do observably fall into these categories and recognizing them helps one to understand the temper and reactions of the person with whom one is dealing.

The assertion that I now make, and must myself face, is that I am not to become (or remain) a victim of my tempearment. Each temperament has its own strengths and also its weaknesses. Sanguine people tend to live thoughtlessly and at random. Phlegmatic people tend to be remote and unfeeling, sluggish and unsympathetic. Choleric people tend to be quarrelsome, bad tempered, and poor team players. Melancholic people tend to see everything as bad and wrong and to deny that anything is ever really good and right. Yielding to my temperamental weaknesses is, of course, the most natural thing for me to do, and is therefore the hardest sort of sin for me to deal with and detect. But holy humanity, as I see it in Jesus Christ, combines in itself the strengths of all four temperaments without any of the weaknesses. Therefore, I must try to be like Him in this, and not indulge the particular behavioural flaws to which my temperament tempts me.

Holiness for a person of sanguine temperament, then, will involve learning to look before one leaps, to think things through responsiibly, and to speak wisely rather than wildly. (These were among the lessons Peter liearned with the Spirit's help after Pentecost.) Holiness for a person of phlegmatic temperament will involve a willingness to be open with people, to feel with them and for them, to be forthcoming in relationships, and to become vulnerable, in the sense of risking being hurt. Holiness for a choleric person will involve practicing patience and self-control. It will mean redirecting one's anger and hostility toward Satan and sin, rather thatn toward fellow human beings who are obstructing what one regards as the way forward. (These were among the lessons Paul learned from the Lord after his conversion.) Finally, holiness for the melancholic person will involve learning to rejoice in God, to give up self-pity and proud pessimism, and to believe, with the medieval mystic Julian of Norwich, that through sovereign divine grace, "All shall be well and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well." /What are my temperamental weaknesses? If I am to be holy, as I am called to be, I must identify them (that is the hard part) and ask my Lord to enable me to form habits of rising above them.

[Redicovering Holiness by J. I. Packer]pp24-26


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Mar 21, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> There may be a false premise here. Scripture is not a biology/psychology/physiology textbook. I'm not saying I agree with Galen and Hippocrates, just that one need not be convinced from scripture about things falling outside of the realm to which scripture is meant to speak. If I needed to be convinced by scripture about everything, then I would be convinced of very little outside the context of redemption.



All truth is God's truth - of course, but I would have thought that the starting point for anthropology must be Scripture. This, in turn, will impact on counseling people. We must see humanity through the looking glass of Scripture. As far as psychology is concerned – perhaps not a science at all – I would have thought that the Bible is well-ahead (as always). Our view of man will affect our view of the remedy supplied in the Gospel.


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Mar 21, 2007)

cih1355 said:


> Can you think of any Biblical characters that do not fit into any of those catergories?



I believe that our LORD (both in His deity as well as in His humanity if one dare venture to speak thus) had / has a most perfectly-balanced personality (or, if you prefer, temperament; both terms are unscriptural but not necessarily unbiblical). What is holiness after all? It can be summed up in one word: Christ-likeness (cf. Romans 8:29). No need to become ethereal. Our age desperately needs balanced Christians who will display Christ's character traits. One cannot think of Him in terms of strengths and weaknesses.


----------

