Staphlobob
Puritan Board Sophomore
I've never seen "Debbie Does Dallas" or "Deep Throat" but I know they're ****.
Psychology and the Church
- Thread starter ServantofGod
- Start date
- Status
I've never seen "Debbie Does Dallas" or "Deep Throat" but I know they're ****.
Wannabee
Obi Wan Kenobi
Pergy, that's an accusation, brother.
clever technique
distorting common definitions
I asked a valid question in regard to the missionaries. It wasn't a denial. I simply don't know what they're doing. And, honestly, you're not grasping what's at stake here.
You continue to make assertions that are not backed up by evidence. Those who oppose your perspective here have provided multiple quotes to back up their assertions. You make a statement about "most people" labeling Adams and Powlison as Christian psychologists, but I have never heard such an assertion by anyone but you. I read their work regularly, along with Lou Priolo, Wayne Mack, Stuart Scott and others. Even the CCEF, which some within the NANC crowd consider too integrated would not label them as such.
Have you read a single quote I supplied? You said that Adams and Powlison would call themselves Christian psychologists. I showed that you were mistaken. You made the assertion that the burden of proof was ours. I showed historically and, from my perspective, irrefutably that you were mistaken and that the burden of proof lies firmly at the feet of those who attempt to marry psychology with Christianity. The history of psychology was shown clearly to have usurped the role of the pastor. It was a highjacking, and the church joined in the crime in an unholy marriage between Christianity and psychology. The work of observation and helping people to grow in regard to their behavior is what pastors have been doing since there have been pastors. That's one of the blessings of having God's Word. Along come "experts" and take those same techniques, add some mumbo jumbo to it, call it medical science and all of a sudden the pastor becomes irrelevant and is admonished to send his congregants to trained professionals if they need counseling. Look at post 110 again. Even the psychologists indict themselves.
Why are you threatened by this Pergy? I can tell you why I am. The very nature of psychology undermines the sufficiency of Scripture (2 Tim 3:16). It denies that God has given us all we need for faith and practice. It denies that all sin can be overcome through Scripture illuminated by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 10:13). Simply put, psychology is no more biblical counseling than the RCC is Christianity. There are some similarities. They get some things right. There are even some things we can learn from them. But they are not the same thing, nor in the same camp.
Blessings to you brother. May God grant you a rich Lord's Day.
clever technique
distorting common definitions
I asked a valid question in regard to the missionaries. It wasn't a denial. I simply don't know what they're doing. And, honestly, you're not grasping what's at stake here.
You continue to make assertions that are not backed up by evidence. Those who oppose your perspective here have provided multiple quotes to back up their assertions. You make a statement about "most people" labeling Adams and Powlison as Christian psychologists, but I have never heard such an assertion by anyone but you. I read their work regularly, along with Lou Priolo, Wayne Mack, Stuart Scott and others. Even the CCEF, which some within the NANC crowd consider too integrated would not label them as such.
Have you read a single quote I supplied? You said that Adams and Powlison would call themselves Christian psychologists. I showed that you were mistaken. You made the assertion that the burden of proof was ours. I showed historically and, from my perspective, irrefutably that you were mistaken and that the burden of proof lies firmly at the feet of those who attempt to marry psychology with Christianity. The history of psychology was shown clearly to have usurped the role of the pastor. It was a highjacking, and the church joined in the crime in an unholy marriage between Christianity and psychology. The work of observation and helping people to grow in regard to their behavior is what pastors have been doing since there have been pastors. That's one of the blessings of having God's Word. Along come "experts" and take those same techniques, add some mumbo jumbo to it, call it medical science and all of a sudden the pastor becomes irrelevant and is admonished to send his congregants to trained professionals if they need counseling. Look at post 110 again. Even the psychologists indict themselves.
Why are you threatened by this Pergy? I can tell you why I am. The very nature of psychology undermines the sufficiency of Scripture (2 Tim 3:16). It denies that God has given us all we need for faith and practice. It denies that all sin can be overcome through Scripture illuminated by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 10:13). Simply put, psychology is no more biblical counseling than the RCC is Christianity. There are some similarities. They get some things right. There are even some things we can learn from them. But they are not the same thing, nor in the same camp.
Blessings to you brother. May God grant you a rich Lord's Day.
sgtdabney
Puritan Board Freshman
Our church has dealt with more than one case which involved mental disorders. I, for one, do believe that a great deal of the emotional problems people struggle with are the result of sin. But, having seen very ugly examples up close, I do believe some are different.
1) Some are due to trauma. PTSD is a prime example. Having deployed several times and seeing combat personally, I can tell you that PTSD is very real. I myself don't suffer from it (though disturbing memories come from time to time), but I know plenty of people who do, who experienced far worse things than I did. I think most of these folks could benefit from just the Gospel and talking about what they experienced. Though drugs could be used to calm them down enough to think clearly as long as they drug is not viewed as the 'final solution' but raher a step in the process.
2) There are chemical imbalances. I think these are probably much fewer than what is reported, and I agree that secular psychiatrists run to drugs far too quickly. Nor do I think that these are the only problem. Plus, I think certain diagnoses are way too broad (i.e. ADHD). But I do think that there are real, actual conditions where the body simply produces too much or not enough of certain hormones, neurotransmitters, etc... which effect behavior and emotions. I think even a passing knowledge of human biochemistry bears this out. In those few cases which I believe this could be the case, I still think the individual needs the Gospel. Where I get uncomfortable is when a diagnosis is made without ay real, measurable scientific basis. "Oh. You have trouble paying attention? You have ADHD, take this pill."
3) Some are due to sin. In fact, I think sin plays a part in all of them. But some 'disorders' are simply due to sin. On a personal note, I have suffered from crushing depression in the past where I simultaneously had insomnia. I would go two to three weeks sleeping maybe an hour a night. The cause? I believe a big part was sin. I do not view all depression in this way but leave it open as a distinct possibility.
Well, my 2 cents. My personal problem with much psychology and psychiatry is that since it operates on an atheistic/physicalist basis, it treats people like a complex of atoms bumping into each other and sees behavior as resulting purely from chemical reaction in the brain. There is some truth to this, but human beings are much more complex than the sum of their physical parts. Therefore, I don't believe any problem is purely from chemical imbalances nor trauma, but a complex associated with spiritual issues as well.
1) Some are due to trauma. PTSD is a prime example. Having deployed several times and seeing combat personally, I can tell you that PTSD is very real. I myself don't suffer from it (though disturbing memories come from time to time), but I know plenty of people who do, who experienced far worse things than I did. I think most of these folks could benefit from just the Gospel and talking about what they experienced. Though drugs could be used to calm them down enough to think clearly as long as they drug is not viewed as the 'final solution' but raher a step in the process.
2) There are chemical imbalances. I think these are probably much fewer than what is reported, and I agree that secular psychiatrists run to drugs far too quickly. Nor do I think that these are the only problem. Plus, I think certain diagnoses are way too broad (i.e. ADHD). But I do think that there are real, actual conditions where the body simply produces too much or not enough of certain hormones, neurotransmitters, etc... which effect behavior and emotions. I think even a passing knowledge of human biochemistry bears this out. In those few cases which I believe this could be the case, I still think the individual needs the Gospel. Where I get uncomfortable is when a diagnosis is made without ay real, measurable scientific basis. "Oh. You have trouble paying attention? You have ADHD, take this pill."
3) Some are due to sin. In fact, I think sin plays a part in all of them. But some 'disorders' are simply due to sin. On a personal note, I have suffered from crushing depression in the past where I simultaneously had insomnia. I would go two to three weeks sleeping maybe an hour a night. The cause? I believe a big part was sin. I do not view all depression in this way but leave it open as a distinct possibility.
Well, my 2 cents. My personal problem with much psychology and psychiatry is that since it operates on an atheistic/physicalist basis, it treats people like a complex of atoms bumping into each other and sees behavior as resulting purely from chemical reaction in the brain. There is some truth to this, but human beings are much more complex than the sum of their physical parts. Therefore, I don't believe any problem is purely from chemical imbalances nor trauma, but a complex associated with spiritual issues as well.
Wannabee
Obi Wan Kenobi
You made this assertion.
I then, in post 79, showed how Adams and Powlison refute your claim. Furthermore, I left the footnote numbers in place in case there is any need for further research reference checking. I'll be more than pleased to provide any specific footnotes, if necessary. Interestingly, you are wedding some NANC and CCEF guys here. CCEF does use some psycholgy, where NANC does not. That might be lending to some confusion.
I then, in post 79, showed how Adams and Powlison refute your claim. Furthermore, I left the footnote numbers in place in case there is any need for further research reference checking. I'll be more than pleased to provide any specific footnotes, if necessary. Interestingly, you are wedding some NANC and CCEF guys here. CCEF does use some psycholgy, where NANC does not. That might be lending to some confusion.
I read Powlison, Wayne Mack and Welch. What they do is "christian psychology" and most classify them as such. The field of knowledge that the world at large classify them into is "Christian Psychology" and so I am taking the use of the term "Christian Psychology" to encompass those such as Powlison and Welch. Perhaps Adams does not classify himself in this field of knowlege, but most everybody else does. Powlison publishes articles in the Journal of Psychology and Theology; therefore, it seems widely acknowledged that what he does is closely related or is itself to be subsumed under the label "psychology" and if I use the term "Christian Psychology" in reference to folks like Powlison, I cannot be blamed.
I was trained as a counselor by the army and I reject 95% of the philosophies of secular psychology, but some of their techniques and practices are wise. I took more than 10 credit hours on a master's level in psychology. I was deployed to the middle east as head of a combat stress control team during the advance. PTSD IS real and YES medications can provide a short term solution until better adaptive coping mechanisms can be developed.
I agree with Powlison almost totally. I think Adams is reductionistic and overly negative and does not give empirical science enough credit.
In addition to the small realm of counseling there are other areas of Christian psychology, such as studying behaviors, such as cross-cultural stress upon missionaries and reasons for missionary attrition.
Some of the best psychology regarding culture shock and culture stress has been done by Christians who are studying missionaries and missionary kids. These studies are useful and legitimate. I have already provided the links for you to check out personally, but some here have already resigned such works to be "pagan" and he says he does not even need to read them... I would fear for any parishioner who comes to him with mental problems.
Also, before missionaries go to the field, most orgs give candidates a simple psychological test, which gauges tendencies that may be a problem on the field. If a man is hallucinating and hearing the voice of God telling him to kill himself, I am glad that such psychological tests weed out candidates such as that. This, too, is a legitimate realm of psychology.
Also, profiling and finding patterns of behavior in folks such as serial killers, etc, is a legitimate realm of psychology, whether done by Christians or not.
Studies of crowd behavior are also interesting and we have psychology (and also anthropology....another field for many here to resign to hell, too, maybe) to thank for these advances.
Right now, PTSD, combat stress control and warfighting behaviors are being studied by psychologists. I recommend this fine book for a look into another legitimate field of study for psychology, whether Christian or not (though Lt Col David Grossman is a Christian he says when I met him): Amazon.com: On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society: Lt. Col. Dave Grossman: Books
I have been called a pragmatist and a syncretist virtually by others on here. I know what is at stake. I still hold my "accusation" that you are playing with semantics here. Don't act like I am a total novice on this subject - I have already given you my credentials.
My main assertions here are as follows:
1. Mental illnesses are real, and many have hereditary, genetic and biological/chemical casues. One's own persoanl sin is not the primary reason for many patients.
2. Counseling, studying behaviors, medication are all options that should be on the table.
3. Pastors who dismiss 1 and 2 are dangerous when faced with hurting people in their churches if they make it hard for hurting people in their midst to take advantage of all legitimate options. Stigmas become barriars which keep people from getting help.
4. There are many schools of thought in psychology just as there is in Christianity. Not all evidences are objective, just as in pastoral ministry. But, we need not resign ALL of psychology to the scrap heap. And this is my MAIN assertion.
Again, my view of Christian psychology (into which I am including Powlison and Welch...like the majority of other writers on the subject) is that we should be cautious but open and weigh all things, but that we should not throw it all out.
-----Added 5/16/2009 at 10:57:56 EST-----
P.s. I also think that we are probably in very close agreement and we are arguing about the 5% about which we disagree.
God bless you brother. Thank you for your comments. I am open to learning and I am open to admitting if I am wrong (IF I am wrong).
Last edited:
On page 261 of Religious thought and the modern psychologies By Don S. Browning, Terry D. Cooper, Powlison contrasts secular psychologies with his "psychology" which is Christian. Although, it is correct that Adams and Powlison deny what they do is "psychology".....however, most outsiders acknowledge them - though they deny it - as part of the realm called "psychology." Most say that they are doing psychology because they are studying human emotions and the human psyche.
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, but calls itself a goose, many are still going to call it a duck. So, I see no harm in calling the field "Christian Psychology" rather than merely Biblical Counseling, because counseling is NOT the only activity that is legitimate...studies and testing are also legitimate activities for a Christian psychologist.
-----Added 5/16/2009 at 11:14:00 EST-----
Read the book and tell me if you think that the book was influenced by paganism, or if this sort of book could be a legitimate investigation by a Christian. It is a book on psychology, after all.
-----Added 5/16/2009 at 11:17:34 EST-----
Here is another book I would recommend that falls in the category of "Christian psychology": Amazon.com: When People Are Big and God Is Small: Overcoming Peer Pressure, Codependency, and the Fear of Man (Resources for Changing Lives): Edward T. Welch: Books
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, but calls itself a goose, many are still going to call it a duck. So, I see no harm in calling the field "Christian Psychology" rather than merely Biblical Counseling, because counseling is NOT the only activity that is legitimate...studies and testing are also legitimate activities for a Christian psychologist.
-----Added 5/16/2009 at 11:14:00 EST-----
Read the book and tell me if you think that the book was influenced by paganism, or if this sort of book could be a legitimate investigation by a Christian. It is a book on psychology, after all.
-----Added 5/16/2009 at 11:17:34 EST-----
Here is another book I would recommend that falls in the category of "Christian psychology": Amazon.com: When People Are Big and God Is Small: Overcoming Peer Pressure, Codependency, and the Fear of Man (Resources for Changing Lives): Edward T. Welch: Books
sgtdabney
Puritan Board Freshman
Pergamum
I don't think psychology should be automatically labeled as 'pagan'. As with any other field of study, I think what people need to do is examine the underlying worldview first and judge what is written in light of that worldview. Though I think it is undeniable that that the field is dominated by those holding to an atheistic, materialistic or physicalistic view of human nature, I still think they 1) discover true things despite their worldview (just as the biologist does) and 2) someone approaching the field from a Christian perspective could make even greater contributions.
I've deployed too many times and personally encountered too many 'out there' situations to believe that every single mental disorder is simply the result of personal sin. There is much more to it than that.
I'll read the book with a critical eye. Not judging his conclusions before they are stated, but trying to see where he is coming from and trying to sift through what he says from that perspective. I look forward to it.
I don't think psychology should be automatically labeled as 'pagan'. As with any other field of study, I think what people need to do is examine the underlying worldview first and judge what is written in light of that worldview. Though I think it is undeniable that that the field is dominated by those holding to an atheistic, materialistic or physicalistic view of human nature, I still think they 1) discover true things despite their worldview (just as the biologist does) and 2) someone approaching the field from a Christian perspective could make even greater contributions.
I've deployed too many times and personally encountered too many 'out there' situations to believe that every single mental disorder is simply the result of personal sin. There is much more to it than that.
I'll read the book with a critical eye. Not judging his conclusions before they are stated, but trying to see where he is coming from and trying to sift through what he says from that perspective. I look forward to it.
What you just wrote is exactly what I have ben trying to get across now for about 2 days on this thread.
Psychology is not monolithic and there are many schools. Many of the schools do have an underlying humanistic assumption....but some do not. Though the field is dominated by atheists, is the whole field corrupt due to the 80%-90% that are wrong?
I am maintaining here that there is a way to do psychology from a Biblical worldview, and this "CHristian psychology" is not mere pastoral counseling, but also invovles the study of behaviors (like the missionary attrition book, and the missionary stress books above that I linked), testing for unhealthy tendencies (such as missionary agencies do during candidate school), and even the giving of medications.
-----Added 5/16/2009 at 11:46:57 EST-----
RECOMMENDED READING:
The 1984 Powlison article: "Which Presuppositions? Secular Psychology and the Categories of Biblical Thought"
This was published in the Journal of Psychology and Theology, Vol. 12, No. 4 [1984]: 270-278).
Powlison states that psychology is a true science, and that there is considerable value in looking for truth and "insights" in psychological systems of thought, and that psychology is worthy of "creative integration" with theology. He is mostly suspicious of psychology and its assumptions, however, and to this I agree. However, he does seem to admit that insights may be gained.
NOTE: We need not be "integrationist" in order to say that psychology might make valid insights into the human condition. We can weigh all things by Scripture, even while accepting empirical data which backs up what is in Scripture.
-----Added 5/16/2009 at 11:50:27 EST-----
MORE POWLISON....
Powlison on page 76 of "Crucial Issues in Contemporary Biblical Counseling" (Journal of Pastoral Practice, Vol. 9, No. 3 [1988]: 53-78),
"... we, of all people, are the ones who successfully will 'integrate' secular psychology ... reframe everything that psychologists see and hold dear into biblical categories."
Staphlobob
Puritan Board Sophomore
Proverbs 1:7
OPC'n
Puritan Board Doctor
Really couldn't have said it better!
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
I have that book, and I had to read for a class (taught by a disciple of David Powlison). It's been a while, but where exactly does Welch reference psychology, medication, secular treatments, etc? I remember it being very biblically-based, but I don't remember it saying anything about "psychology."
Almost everybody labels this book as a work of "Christian Psychology." Thus, I also use the phrase "Christian Psychology" as it is commonly used, for instance, when referencing this book.
What'd'ya think about "On Killing" or the above books that I linked on the subjects of war, on missionary attrition, and on missionary psychological stress?
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
I haven't read any of those specific books, which is why I did not comment.
Exactly who labels the Welch book as a work of "Christian Psychology"? And exactly what portions of the book deal with the subject of psychology?
Part of my concern is this rather broad use of the term "psychology" in order to lend credence to a position. For example, Jay Adams would not refer to himself as a psychologist; a secular psychologist would not refer to him that way either. Giving the word the broad meaning you've presented tends to rob it of any significant meaning. By this standard, would this mean if I were to preach a sermon on Proverbs 29:25 (which deals with the same subject matter as Welch's book) it would have to be termed a sermon on "psychology"? Would I then suddenly become a "psychologist"?
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
LF, this might be the heart of the matter. But it should be demonstrable that one is using the "methods of psychology" in the first place. I don't remember anyplace where Welch uses such methodology in the book Pergy referenced, for instance. If I recall correctly, Welch simply goes through the process of showing how the Bible condemns fear of man issues and points us to the fear of God. If it is so easy to label someone as a psychologist, then one should be able be able to point to that person and say, see, he is following XYZ of psychology. But if the person rejects the title of psychologist, if actual psychologists refuse to give him the title, and if his practice is decidedly different from the practices of psychologists, then how can he be considered such? The proof is in the pudding, though -- if it weren't different we wouldn't be having his discussion in the first place.
On the contrary, a Nouthetic Counselor like Adams would contend that his "methodology" is a Biblical one and as such precedes any secular methodology (see here for instance, to see the distinction). Now Pergy is right in saying that there is such as thing as "Christian psychology"; I think we just disagree as this point who the practitioners are.
LadyFlynt
Inactive User
One can use psychology without being a psychologist. Most people do in one manner or another with and without realising it. Most degrees require a semester or two in the discipline for good reason. Some more, given the relation to their job and need to try to read people.
There might be certain parts that one of you (you and Pergy) are seeing in the book that the other isn't recognising.
(just pointing out the possibility...I haven't read any of those books)
There might be certain parts that one of you (you and Pergy) are seeing in the book that the other isn't recognising.
(just pointing out the possibility...I haven't read any of those books)
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
Absolutely. But we usually don't call people psychologists, either.
How much should one's presuppositions factor into this? If the house is built on a faulty foundation (e.g., naturalistic presuppositions, which would include an unbiblical anthropology), should Christians really be adopting it? Of course, psychology isn't 100% wrong in every situation (as I alluded to in a previous post). But when it "gets it right", how much of they is based on capital borrowed from a biblical worldview? And when psychology rejects the biblical worldview, should we not rightly reject it?
To use an example: alcoholism (and other addictions) are sometimes classified as a "disease" (even though they do not have a demonstrably organic origin). Part of the reason for this designation (so I've been told) is that such a classification is necessary in order for insurance to pay for treatment programs. But Ed Welch (in a different book) points out (rightly so, in my opinion) that a major reason that addictions are classified in such a way is because to someone who rejects a biblical doctrine of sin, they appear to be a disease. In other words, apart from a biblical doctrine of sin, there is no other convenient way to explain the nature of addictions.
Those that are truly addicted build up "tolerance" and their body undergoes real and physical "withdrawal" symptoms. Addiction is also very chemical and I have known several nonbelievers who were very effective in treating addictions. Of course, they could not addresss the needs of the soul, but they helped with the other components of addiction.
I am thankful for programs like AA, even though some may use them as a substitute for true faith and they may be healed of alcoholism without being saved. AA is good, but incomplete...and I am thankful that they can provide at least some physical help to those who fall into addiction.
I am thankful for programs like AA, even though some may use them as a substitute for true faith and they may be healed of alcoholism without being saved. AA is good, but incomplete...and I am thankful that they can provide at least some physical help to those who fall into addiction.
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
Yes, I would agree with this, and I apologize if I didn't express it well in the previous post. What Welch, et al, would point out is that the origin of the addiction was not "organic" (i.e., a physical "disease" that can be tested in the lab). But I do not know of anyone who would argue that these sorts of addictions do not produce physiological changes in the body.
As an example, I have a friend I have known from college who had a food addiction that goes outside of the normal addiction paradigm. That is to say, she was not ingesting a substance that altered her body, but actually expelling the food from her body was causing physiological changes. In fact, she was told by an MD that if she had not stopped when she did, she would have died within two or three years. She would admit today that everything in her case derived from self-esteem issues. She had a problem with her appearance (vanity issues -- she was and still is a very beautiful woman), but purging was an "easy" way to stay thin.
Last edited:
JBaldwin
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
While I believe that ultimately all mental health problems are sin issues (face it, we are fallen creatures and all the problems we have ARE directly or indirectly related to sin or a result of the curse), I think Christian counselors are often too quick to dismiss serious mental health issues as sin and assume that the person needs to do nothing but "get right with God". This bothers me.
The fact is, a bad medication, exposure to certain toxins in the environment, genetic problems and similar factors can cause mental health issues, especially if a person's health is already weakened. I believe that one problem can often feed off the other.
Groups like AA, though they are not Christian have figured this out. There are Christians doctors (I know one personally) who now treat mental illness by doing a complete physical workup to look for health problems as well as putting the individual into christian counseling focused on finding the sin source and dealing with the problem on a personal spiritual level. These doctors also look for spiritual problems in the family, environmental issues that might affect health and diet/exercise. My doctor friend who treats people in this holistic fashion has almost a 100% recovery rate for her patients.
The fact is, a bad medication, exposure to certain toxins in the environment, genetic problems and similar factors can cause mental health issues, especially if a person's health is already weakened. I believe that one problem can often feed off the other.
Groups like AA, though they are not Christian have figured this out. There are Christians doctors (I know one personally) who now treat mental illness by doing a complete physical workup to look for health problems as well as putting the individual into christian counseling focused on finding the sin source and dealing with the problem on a personal spiritual level. These doctors also look for spiritual problems in the family, environmental issues that might affect health and diet/exercise. My doctor friend who treats people in this holistic fashion has almost a 100% recovery rate for her patients.
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
I would agree. And some people are able to shed the chains of their addiction completely through the power of the gospel. Others might be deceived through "bad counseling" (whatever form that might be) and wind up replacing one addiction with another, effectively only swapping the chains. That is terrible, as I hope you would also agree.
Pastor,
In all due respect, I believe you have missed the point Ruben was trying to make.
tdowns
Puritan Board Junior
Wired
I've been too busy to chime in on this thread, but, it sometimes feels like Christians, are so resistant to the science of psychology, that they blind themselves to truths. They'd rather have the "dark box" of the brain a mystery, and are threatened by the complexity of it all.
Bottom line, if my hand needs rehabilitation we have no problem using the knowledge we have today to work ligaments, rebuild bones, attach arteries, etc. Whereas, 2000 years ago somebody with the same damaged hand might be prayed for, have the hand blamed on sin, and live the rest of their lives with it.
The brain, although at a microscopic level, is being understood at just as practical level, as muscles and ligament...most call it wiring.
Yes, the wiring is faulty due to sin just as my aching back is, but that doesn't mean I don't fix my back, and go to an expert that understands it. Why would we not want somebody, studying the "wiring" so that while we recognize sin we also recognize how the sin of others, or genetics, may have wired us in a way, that CAN BE REWIRED.
This article, is not about psychology, but, it's just an example, of the complexity of the brain. And these same wires can affect "behavior", and that's what psychologists study.
Neurobiological Advancements
In a perfect world, the Adams (who I love the biblical angle) would also embrace the hard science of the study of the brain, without fear.
I just don't see why people are so afraid of it. We can recognize the faulty theories of some, and embrace the biblical theories for those that study the most intricate and fascinating part of the human creation, the brain.
I've been too busy to chime in on this thread, but, it sometimes feels like Christians, are so resistant to the science of psychology, that they blind themselves to truths. They'd rather have the "dark box" of the brain a mystery, and are threatened by the complexity of it all.
Bottom line, if my hand needs rehabilitation we have no problem using the knowledge we have today to work ligaments, rebuild bones, attach arteries, etc. Whereas, 2000 years ago somebody with the same damaged hand might be prayed for, have the hand blamed on sin, and live the rest of their lives with it.
The brain, although at a microscopic level, is being understood at just as practical level, as muscles and ligament...most call it wiring.
Yes, the wiring is faulty due to sin just as my aching back is, but that doesn't mean I don't fix my back, and go to an expert that understands it. Why would we not want somebody, studying the "wiring" so that while we recognize sin we also recognize how the sin of others, or genetics, may have wired us in a way, that CAN BE REWIRED.
This article, is not about psychology, but, it's just an example, of the complexity of the brain. And these same wires can affect "behavior", and that's what psychologists study.
Neurobiological Advancements
In a perfect world, the Adams (who I love the biblical angle) would also embrace the hard science of the study of the brain, without fear.
I just don't see why people are so afraid of it. We can recognize the faulty theories of some, and embrace the biblical theories for those that study the most intricate and fascinating part of the human creation, the brain.
Pastor Phillips,
I believe you keep missing Pergy's point.
There are some results in the fall that we are just recipients of. It all stems from Adam and Eve breaking Covenant with God and losing their first estate. We have inherited it. Our minds, the neurological system, and the chemical make up and functions have all suffered. Temperaments are affected by the fall. Not everyone has the same connectivity neurologically. We are at best unsound in how we operate and how the mind works. Some of these symptoms carry over into our Christian life. It is physical in nature as well as spiritual. We all have inherited this brokenness.
Yes, the Word of God is completely sufficient in matters of salvation. But I would propose that it isn't a medical journal in saving our natural physical being. We are constantly in a mortal state of perishing until we will be resurrected. Of course, from what I understand, there is no way to measure the chemical reactions in the mind by just drawing blood. As an example of what I am trying to say.... I was a type 2 diabetic for many years. My body was producing insulin. My physical and chemical problem was that my cells had developed a resistance to my own bodies insulin. If they had measured for my own insulin production in my blood stream it would have been there. But my insulin production wasn't the problem. My built up resistance to my own insulin was. So I had to take synthetic insulin so that my cells could function in their proper capacity. I believe the mind can physically also have these kinds of problems.
Just FYI.. Here are a few threads we have discussed NANC, Depression, and the Mind.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f19/nanc-certified-counselors-8293/index2.html
http://www.puritanboard.com/f82/depression-medication-26513/
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
Randy, I believe your concerns were address in post # 95 above. I also believe this thread is possibly becoming too long, as folks (who had not commented earlier) are posting here at the end and are referencing things that have already been stated earlier in the thread. Two examples: 1) I've already stated (multiple times) earlier why the example of insulin was a weak analogy; 2) you linked an old thread where you accuse NANC counselors of being like Job's friends. Adams, however, says this (linked above):
In addition, you say:
However, I was the one who posted this from Adams (also back in # 95):
On this point, I believe Pergy and I are agreed. I've also already stated -- numerous times -- that there may be physiological reasons for some counseling problems. This too is old ground being retread.
At this point, it would probably be wise of me to simply leave the thread. No new information is being posted, and old information is being ignored (or rejected). It is not profitably to continue to go over the same old ground. If anyone has a specific concern or question (beyond what has already been stated), feel free to PM me.
In addition, you say:
However, I was the one who posted this from Adams (also back in # 95):
On this point, I believe Pergy and I are agreed. I've also already stated -- numerous times -- that there may be physiological reasons for some counseling problems. This too is old ground being retread.
At this point, it would probably be wise of me to simply leave the thread. No new information is being posted, and old information is being ignored (or rejected). It is not profitably to continue to go over the same old ground. If anyone has a specific concern or question (beyond what has already been stated), feel free to PM me.
Staphlobob
Puritan Board Sophomore
Perhaps. But I do not think so.
However, I will allow for the fact that I am a knuckle-dragger and am not one for subtlety. If I misunderstood then I would be open to correction.
-----Added 5/18/2009 at 01:25:02 EST-----
At least we can agree on that.
ColdSilverMoon
Puritan Board Senior
Pergy, I agree 100% with your assertions. There are very real psychologic and psychiatric disorders, and many of them lead to sin; many of these people can be treated successfully with therapy and medication. Of course there are some people who are just sinners and need the grace of God like we all do, and psychology would never admit this is the case. But we as Christians should not dismiss all psychology simply because the field is dominated by non-Christians who don't share our world view.
The Bible clearly distinguishes between those with medical problems and those with spiritual problems. We should have both in view when we minister to people with problems of all sorts:
Last edited:
- Status
