Christians' addicted need our help

Yes I to was involved in AA but did not take me long to leave when I realized that the name of Jesus Christ would raise the very devil himself.

Brother sm.

Article I found.

How Alcoholics Anonymous Doctrines Compare with Scripture

by Debbie Dewart, M.A.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AA ~ The Broad Road of AA

"To us, the Realm of the Spirit is broad, roomy, all inclusive; never exclusive, or forbidding...." Alcoholics Anonymous, p. 46.

Bible ~ The Narrow Road of Christ

"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it" (Matt 7:13-14).

<snipped due to length of post - see article at source>


Source:

http://www.psychoheresy-aware.org/aa&bib82.html

[ January 06, 2005, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

(no words necessary to express my opinion) </font>[/QUOTE]Is this an opinion (i.e. rational though process) or an emotion (i.e. how you feel). Perhaps you ought to take a bromo-seltzer. (laughter--expression of a feeling)

 

Just where do you find the concepts of dependency and codependency in the Scriptures? I would like to know? </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, I hadn't been following this thread.

Not to sound crass, just because it isn't labeled that way in the Bible doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I do not believe the Bible teaches us the kind of dependancy that co-dependency supports.

 

From the questions from Mr. P--

Can you please help me with the following questions in regard to this program?
1. What is addiction? How is addiction different from what the Bible calls sin?

Addiction is sin. Addiction is allowing a substance or a person to be in control in our lives. And it is sin.

2. Where does Scripture address this concept?

In Romans 3:23--For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

But God commendeth his love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

3. What is the Biblical basis of this program?

It is based on the Beatitudes.

4. Other than quoting Bible verses out of context for motivational purposes, what is the program’s claim to being called Christian?

It teaches that without Christ, we cannot change.

5. How is this program different from secular 12-step programs?

Worship of God and the need for Christ for change.

 

And where do you find the Biblical basis for this nonsense? Despite the pious terms, you are speaking straight Jungian heresy that tries to connect with the god within. It is very sad day when professing Christians have no discernment. </font>[/QUOTE]Not that saying this is any thing that is life saving, it is admitting that we have problems and that we are willing to face them.

Why do you bear such an anger to these recovery programs?

 

And I will say this, unless you have been there, done that, you really don't have a clue.

 

And where do you find the Biblical basis for this nonsense? Despite the pious terms, you are speaking straight Jungian heresy that tries to connect with the god within. It is very sad day when professing Christians have no discernment. </font>[/QUOTE]Not that saying this is any thing that is life saving, it is admitting that we have problems and that we are willing to face them.

Why do you bear such an anger to these recovery programs? </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, I’m not angry—just assertive. Of course, I probably should be angry because it is a good thing to be angry with falsehood. Christ was angry with those who profaned His Father’s house. I am thoroughly opposed to falsehood and error that leads poor people astray from God. The recovery movement is based on secular psychological premises that are antithetical to Scriptural teaching. It gives the wrong view of man. Whereas it may not keep a person from believing in Christ and being saved, it does not commend itself to Biblical truth. Although the Bible contains the Gospel that brings us to faith in Christ, it also contains what we need to know about living for Him and serving Him in this life.

Whereas the proponents of these recovery programs, many who are professed Christians, aver that they are needed because they work, this is patently false. Like most programs, there is what we call the “halo effect.” This means that they seem to be working at the onset. However, the long-term effect is usually no better than the spontaneous remission rate. The workers who buy into the theory have a personal interest because this is how they get their altruistic perks.

The bottom line is that the recovery philosophy is wrong and misdirected. It is opposed to sound Biblical principles and leads people astray from a genuine source of help. However, that is difficult to tell a person who is emotionally involved with the fad. It’s not a rational decision but an emotional issue with them.

Read my other posts for specific arguments.

 

Blatant nonsense! Such a statement is like saying you can't condemn homosexuality unless you've been one! Well, I've never been homosexual but I can definitely condemn it as sin based on God's Word!

 

Just where do you find the concepts of dependency and codependency in the Scriptures? I would like to know? </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, I hadn't been following this thread.

Not to sound crass, just because it isn't labeled that way in the Bible doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I do not believe the Bible teaches us the kind of dependancy that co-dependency supports. </font>[/QUOTE]Dependency and co-dependency fly in the face of clear Biblical principles of individual choice, accountability, and responsibility. The argument is not that the Scripture is silent but that the Scriptures in principle run counter to them.

 

Blatant nonsense! Such a statement is like saying you can't condemn homosexuality unless you've been one! Well, I've never been homosexual but I can definitely condemn it as sin based on God's Word! </font>[/QUOTE]Well, recovery programs aren't blatantly sin.

Have you ever been addicted to drugs or alcohol? Have you ever been a codependant? Have you ever been sexually or emotionally abused?

 

I did not say that scripture was silent to these issues, but the terminology itself was developed in the 20th century. I think the Bible deals with all the issues, and we need to be in the word.

 

Blatant nonsense! Such a statement is like saying you can't condemn homosexuality unless you've been one! Well, I've never been homosexual but I can definitely condemn it as sin based on God's Word! </font>[/QUOTE]Well, recovery programs aren't blatantly sin.

Have you ever been addicted to drugs or alcohol? Have you ever been a codependant? Have you ever been sexually or emotionally abused? </font>[/QUOTE]In a word, no. But, this is immaterial and irrelevant to the question. As I clearly expressed, one does not need to experience a behavior in order to know and understand it. Presuppositional to your whole argument is the view that emotions and feelings are the most important thing. WRONG! Your purview is entirely a human perspective. This is known as humanism where things human are of the highest importance. The most important thing is what God has said. Glorifying and obeying God is more important than the adversities we face. Sometimes things are hard and tough. However, there are other situations much tougher to bear than drug habits or alcohol habits. I am thinking of a kid who was born with spina bifida. The craving or desire for a chemical substance is not a greater burden than a physical affliction. Furthermore, this girl did nothing to bring this affliction upon her whereas the so-called addictions were initiated and acquired through sinful behavior.

The idea behind the recovery movement is the notion of the chemical addiction component. Most people think this is a scientific view when in fact the scientific data is the opposite. We cannot find a provable addiction theory, whether genetic or biochemical. The research keeps coming up short. The answer keeps coming back to habitual behavior. Regardless what your feelings tell you, for those who have experienced it, the facts simply point to habitual behavior. Now, I have experienced the agony of breaking habitual behaviors. It’s tough to handle but it’s not genetic or biochemical. The genetic or biochemical addiction theories merely give us an excuse when we fail.

Research, for example, has been done with both supposedly non-addicted and addicted drinkers. The amount of alcohol was varied in the drinks that were served. The drinkers did not know whether they were drinking alcoholic drinks or not. The study showed no difference in consumption between alcoholic and non-alcoholic placebos. The addicted drinkers drank the non-alcoholic in the same proportion as if the drinks had been alcoholic. In other words, they drank on the basis of what they believed the drinks to contain, not the actual alcoholic content. Therefore, this study indicates that it is the drinker’s belief and desire to achieve a specific effect as the controlling factor, not the actual chemical content.

Addiction theory based on genetic or biochemical factors is akin to tolerating homosexuality on the basis of genetic predisposition. Again, homosexual behavior is a choice—a sinful one. There is no real scientific evidence that genes have anything to do with homosexuality. However, let’s suppose that we did find a gene that predisposes people to homosexual characteristics. This does not excuse the sinfulness of homosexual behavior any more than it is innate for a man to lust after a woman. Hormones and so-call body chemistry make it easy and natural for a man to know sexual lust and commit adultery with a woman. It is the flesh crying out to be satisfied. However, it is still wickedness and sin before a righteous and holy God. It is not excusable. Therefore, the whole chemical argument excuse for addiction or homosexuality is flushed down the drain!

Perhaps you should think more and feel less. Righteousness is not found by what feels right. It is based on the reasoning of God’s revealed wisdom from His Word.

 

I did not say that scripture was silent to these issues, but the terminology itself was developed in the 20th century. I think the Bible deals with all the issues, and we need to be in the word. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Okay, show me where the Bible deals with these issues from the recovery viewpoint!

 

Okay. Would you also agree that addiction is a sin whose temptation or compulsion is strong and the result of habitual practice? This rules out the idea of genetic and biochemical causes. BTW, habitual behavior does change brain chemistry so addiction may be viewed as causing the production of biochemical compounds rather than the chemicals causing the addiction.

Absolutely! On the other hand, God doesn’t expect or allow us to continue living in our sin. See Romans 6, 1 John 3:2-10, 5:18-20. Also, the second part of that wonderful verse on forgiveness in ! John 1:9 speaks of more than forgiveness. The cleansing refers to the fact that we do not have to live under the dominion of sin any longer.

However, you are only addressing possibly one point of the 12-step program. Where are the other concepts found in Scripture? What if they are in conflict with Scripture?

How so? Evidently someone doesn’t know how to exegete and understand the Beatitudes. What specifically in the Beatitudes relate to the bondage of sinful habits? One can’t just use the Beatitudes for a mantra.

Well, this is a kind of truism but it really doesn’t say very much—it’s a generalization of Christian belief. Just how does one appropriate Christ?

Again, this is a kind of generalization that is a truism but it doesn’t really say anything. BTW, this is entirely consistent with Jung’s view of religion (religion is a myth but it is useful) and the 12-step view of a higher power. The idea is not necessarily Christian and it is not made Christian by using the Christian words. You have done nothing except add a fine Christian-sounding terminology to a pagan system (Literally--Jung, the theoretical brains behind 12-step programs, followed neopaganism and volkisch philosophies).

In fact, this is no different. It just uses different words by substituting God and Christ for a higher power. If we replaced all the references to Allah with Christ in the Koran, would it be true? Would it be Christian? This is exactly what has been done in this 12-step program. It’s no more Christian than any other pagan 12-step program.

 

Hey Ya'll....Keep praying with and for me...I'm really struggling with my ongoing effort to give up tobacco.Some successes but some failures as well.What a curse this is.I really do need the Lord to give me some strength in the inner man and some help to give up this desire I have to smoke.I want to be rid of it but the flesh is weak.

PRAY HARD PEOPLE....I'm having a struggle just praying about it.

Greg Sr.

 

It's not hard to quit smoking! I have friends who have quite dozens of time!

Sorry. Do not mean to trivialze your struggle. Will pray for you.

 

Gregory;
I, too, set a date to quit smoking. Ups and downs. Right now, I am down. But there is victory in Jesus! Hang in there. Let's trade prayers, Ok?

For the rest of you;

About A.A. and ALL other 12 step programs. What many of you on the "pro" side seem to have missed is that this 12 Step program of recovery is flawed in a number of ways. First, I refer you to my post on page 4 of this discussion. The men who founded A.A. outright denied the Deity of Christ. That in itself should tell you to have nothing to do with it.
Secondly, it is based on humanism. What is humanism? Basically it is the philosophy that man's well being is the highest goal/purpose of existence. This also flies in the face of Scirpture. God did not offer salvation to man for man's highest good. God offers salvation to man for GOD'S GLORY.
Therefore, on two accounts, A.A. and its "daughters" is unbiblical, in spite of how much one tries to redeem it by giving it "Bible sounding" names/theories. It is these TWO primary points that totally destroys any hope of using this philosophy in a Christian setting to help the suffering sinners. I refer you to what Paul had to say about the worlds philosophies.
Col 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Now what are you going to do with that?

In HIS service;
Jim

(edited for clarity)

 

Have you ever hear of nouthetic counseling? This is a Biblical approach based on the premise that the Word of God has the answer to our problems. (see II Peter 1:3) Look up Jay Adams on the Internet and read about the Biblical counseling approach that starts from a different premise than the recovery programs. Get Jay's books beginning with Competent to Counsel.

 

So is Reformer's Unanimous...