psychology

I am not sure we are discussing the same thing Brian.

Look, humor is good and in its proper place creates a friendly environment. This is biblical.

An aching back might be due to various bone and muscle problems. This can be diagnosed by a doctor though.

David played the harp for Saul to ease his troubled mind.

That is all taken from Scripture.

___


Let me try to illustrate something now:

A person's spouse has died. It is biblical to grieve for the loss of that person. We are commanded to weep with those who weep. However, we are not to grieve as those without hope . If a person has no hope, he needs to embrace the life-giving God. That is the biblical perspective of grieving for a spouse.

If a psychologists agrees with this, it isn't psychology but Bible. If he disagrees with this, he is wrong.

 

My friend it seems you are the one hung up on this issue, I have not read anyone claiming that scripture is anything less. And I would appreciate it if you would discontinue the use of loaded questions that have little value other than picking fights or claiming superiority over other posters. Please!!!!!
Murph

 

I do not see what some of you are talking about going to a doc. for? 2Tim.3 does say the Bible is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instuction in righteousness, and that it is to complete us for every good work! It does not say for perfect health, colds, and outward pain killing!!!!!!!!!!!

 

hrhema, we are healed by the strips that Jesus took for believers on the way to the cross. The healing here is healing from sin, that can only be from Jesus' work on the cross! This has nothing to do with outward pain that we are healed from!!!!!!!!

 

According to who? I agree with what Jesus told the pharisees when they murmered at his forgiving sins of the man let down thru the roof. He said is it easier to say your sins are forgiven or stand up and walk. I believe that Jesus is able.
Murph
Murph

 

Murph, I believe she is referring to the Isaiah 53 passage that Peter quoted that "by His stripes we are healed." That is not a promise that all believers will be physically healed. It is a promise that your spiritual healing will take place and thus forgiveness.

People that say that this passage refers to physical healing are usually the word-of-faith folks like Benny Hinn.

 

PTW; It is also NOT a promise that all believers will be "mentally or emotionally healed". That is also a Benny Hinn thought!

Listening to the harp may 'calm' you for a time; but it will not 'cure' you! Jesus is not a "quick-fix" for everything. God heals whom He will. He is in control....not us.


That applies to physical, mental, emotional, and nervous conditions. Who are YOU to say 'If Jesus cures one ailment, you have faith and if he doesn't, you don't have faith'?

Sue

 

I think 2 Tim 3:16-17 does talk of exclusivity. I don't see how "every good work" can be anything less. I can't see how we need to bring something else in if we have what equips us for "every good work." Are you saying it doesn't do a good enough job?? I think your analogy is a bad one. It just doesn't fit.

They "tell us of him" in general revelation. That is a far different issue. There is no saving or transforming knowledge in the creation, as you will see from Romans 1. This is not relevant to the subject.

With all due respect my friend, this is the most dangerous thing you have said. To suggest that theology is of no value to those without experience is simply wrong. To suggest that we must subject theology to experience is simply. I have been in a similar situation to where you were as you described. I did not seek drugs or any such thing. I am not interested in disproving what happened to you. I do not deny that drugs helped you. I question whether you dealt with it biblically. And again, I say that to you as my friend. The biblical basis for dealing with problems is far different than "experience is better than theology." We must interpret our experience in light of theology, not the other way around.

In using the hammer, you ruined the bolt. But even that is a bad analogy. When Scripture says we should do it a certain way, we do not have the option to do it another, no matter what our experience tells us. Remember our experience is the result of sin in our lives. Our experience will always be tainted with that. The Bible is not.

 

Yes, unless those things have been medically diagnosed as medical problems.

No because this does not involve the chemical alteration of the mind and body, as a way of treating problems that should be treated differently. If you are doing this in refusal to apply biblical principles, then it is a sin, however. A merry heart does good like a medicine. Part of marriage is sharing the griefs and joys and pains of life. So here you are comparing apples and oranges.

 

Perhaps you could quote the place where PTW said this. It would be helpful.

 

Yes, unless those things have been medically diagnosed as medical problems. </font>[/QUOTE]There is one thing I don't think anyone has mentioned. A psychologist is not licensed to presribe medicine. A medical doctor has to do this...he would not put his license on the line ,(because most of these drugs are controlled),unless he believed he was dealing with a medical problem.

Sue

 

I am not suggesting that.

If you did not need to employ psychology and/or drugs, you simply were not in a similar situation.

I am not suggesting that.

I am withdrawing from further participation. Instead, I will simply pray for those who might be harmed by some of the comments in this thread.

 

The reason I object to this thread is that individuals are declaring by their words that everyone who had add or bi-polarism or other problems such as this have these problems due to sin in their lives. This is exactly the comparison I made earlier with faith healers. They tell people when no healing takes place or no miracle happens it must be because of some hidden sin and this is playing God because no one and I repeat no one knows what is in a persons heart and mind. Those who say these things are playing God.

Isaiah 53 does not say exactly we are healed of sin. It states by his stripes we are healed. To say that means sins alone is a personal interpretation and does not hold water. This is in conjunction with what Jesus himself said in Mark 16. They shall lay hands on the sick and they shall be healed and with conjuction to James 5 that tells us that if there are any sick among you call for the elders of the church and let them anoint you with oil and the prayer of faith will heal them. I know there are those that wish these scriptures were not in the Bible but they are and they have just as much truth and meaning today as they did then.

Jesus himself made it very clear to his disciples that not every affliction is caused by sin when they asked him who had sinned in a blinds man life. Jesus said no one had sinned.

I want someone to give me a verse in the Bible that tells us to go to a doctor for physical ailments. Don't quote where Jesus said the sick seek a doctor because he was not telling us to go to a doctor. He was giving a comparison to the Pharisees of why he was dealing with sinners.
Also don't use the fact that Luke was a doctor because that is not sufficient proof. (I don't have anything against people using doctors I am doing a comparison myself.)

 

In reference to the Isaiah 53 passage I do believe that it can mean spiritual as well as mental and physical, now PTW is right God doesn't heal everyone but in my mind those he takes home get the ultimate healing. I will close by saying as usual that this is another issue which has been blown out of proportion by some well meaning folks who prefer to call names( maybe I could learn to blow the congregation down like Benny)I have said my peace and have passed my participation in the thread over to Pastor Bob who I trust will cover my rear as I make my retreat.

Murph

 

I am not suggesting that.</font>[/QUOTE]That is exactly what you said. Perhaps you need to change what you said.

How in the world can you make this statement with a straight face??? Perhaps you are not but I think the fallacy of it is obvious. Even if you are right that you could only solve it one way, that means nothing with respect to me. I do not deny that the drugs/psychology helped you. What i deny is that it is the biblically appropriate response for an issue that is not medical in nature. You yourself admitted the possibility of controlling your thoughts by saying that you had to "shut down" the thoughts presented to you in the thread. That is in direct opposition to Scripture which says to "prove all things." That means to consider carefully.

I was just talking to a friend in my office who, without knowledge of this conversation, brought up the words of Christ himself in Matthew 6 who specifically and unequivocally addressed anxiety by calling it an issue of faith. Yet we are so sophisticated we address anxiety with medicine. Who do you think is right on this issue? I had a guy in my church who went to the doctor and got a shot for anxiety. I addressed it with him and led him through a series of questions which resulted in his unprompted admission that he had made a wrong choice in addressing his problems that way.

[quiote]

I am not suggesting that.[/quote]But that is what you said. You need to change your statement if this is not what you are suggesting. You said unless someone has experienced something like I and many others have, the theoretical arguments don't carry much weight. The means that the "theoretical arguments" from Scripture carry no weight with you because you found another "solution." You said, " you are not going to be able to disprove what happened to me." I don't need to. My need is to hold Scripture as the supreme authority and do what it says to do and say what it says to say.

The reason I stay to speak is the fear that some might be harmed by the comments in this thread.

I still consider you a friend and I challenge you to examine this closer.

 

Perhaps you would be better off objecting to it for real reasons. No one here has said that "everyone" who has these problems have sin in their lives. What we have said is that vast majority of these cases are never diagnosed medically. We have discussed the direct affects of sin on the mind and have shown some of these things to be the result of that.

I object to the fact that very few here seem willing to really address this issue Scripturally. That is a huge problem, especially for those who are supposed to be believers who hold to the absolute authority of Scripture.

I agree. All sickness and mental problems are the result of sin ultimately, but not individually. There is healing in teh atonement for the atonement is the only way in which a holy God can deal with sinful man.

This is what we have said from the beginning.

Paul told Timothy to seek a medical solution for his "stomach's sake" (1 Tim 5).

But this is a total straw man. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

 

I sure hope that those of you who say that mental/emotional problems are not medical and therefore should not be treated medically, don't take any drugs for headaches. After all, Dr's totally rely on information from the patient to diagnose most headaches, as there is no definitive test that can be performed to verify most types of headaches.

So, next time you get a good old tension headache, better not reach for the tylenol or advil. After all, it can't be proven medically, so it must be a spiritual problem.

 

I will echo Brian and Murph. I am withdrawing from this thread. I keep posting new threads on other topics; but every time I look...it's right back to this one.

I can see no value in repeating the same scriptures and the same logic over and over again just to try to get someone to agree with you when that's not going to happen.

I know of some precious posters who have already been dreadfully hurt and made to feel unGodly, faithless and a few other things by some of the far from compassionate remarks made on this thread. They were looking for help, not condemnation. The uncharitable remarks put forth in this thread were not even subtle. They certainly did not help anyone.

When we get onto a topic where two sides will never agree; why can't we just drop it?

See ya'll on a more productive thread...


Sue

 

History of Christian Pyschology:

The Pre-1900 Era.

Long before psychology developed as a separate discipline from philosophy, Christianity was actively involved in the study, development, and understanding of psychology. Such work is to be found in the theological study of the soul, an important topic in theology since earliest times. Tertullian's third century De anima is one good example of this. The works of Gregory of Nyssa in the fourth century continued this early emphasis. Since the word "soul" stems from the Greek psyche, from which we also get the word "psychology," this tradition of the study of the soul must be understood as evidence of Christianity's concern with the topics of psychology long before the emergence of psychology as a unique discipline.

This concern continued within Christian theology. The abundant Puritan writings on the soul added much of value to an understanding of psychological topics. The works of John Flavel in the seventeenth century and of Jonathan Edwards in the eighteenth made particularly strong contributions, worthy of the careful study of any modern Christian interested in psychology.

Franz Delitzsch's A System of Biblical Psychology might represent the capstone of this tradition. Written in 1855, this work presented a summary and systemization of all the theological works on psychology written to that point. In many ways, however, it represented the last major theological work on psychology. This is reflected even in the treatment given to pschological topics in Bible dictionaries are encyclopedias. Prior to 1920 such works characteristically contained large and sometimes extensive entries on psychology and related topics. James Orr's International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1915) and The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopaedia of Religious Knowledge (1911) are good examples of this. In contrast to this, many modern works such as The New Bible Dictionary (1962) and the Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia (1975) do not contain such articles.

1900 to the Present. The end of the first era was not as abrupt as the somewhat artificial designation of these eras suggests. It was, however, clearly tied to the emergence of psychology as a separate discipline and, in particular, its scientific emphasis. Empiricism, determinism, relativism, and reductionism became the major characteristics of modern psychology, and Christians felt immediately alienated from the discipline. Freud's reductionistic views of religion were particularly offensive and threatening. Added to this was the rise of radical behaviorism as led by John B. Watson and later B. F. Skinner. Psychology seemed less and less relevant to theology, and the fruitful interaction of Christians with psychological topics that characterized previous centuries came to a rather abrupt halt.

The reasons that the Christian community gave up its pursuit of a biblically informed psychology are complex. One component was certainly an overreaction to psychology, particularly to Freud. Such a reaction failed to discriminate between Freud's personal religious views (agnostic but not amoral) and his significant clinical discoveries. However, this overreaction was influenced by the reaction of conservative Christians to theological liberalism. Liberal theology tended to accept the findings of modern science, including psychology. In reaction to this, conservative Christians turned away from their previous openness to psychological matters to a defensive posture.

Modern psychology's critique of religion did not end with Freud. In fact it quickly became rather commonplace for psychologists to view religion with at best suspicion and at worst overt hostility. Albert Ellis is a contemporary psychologist who gives prominent voice to such a position. Ellis states clearly and forcefully that orthodox or devout religion is usually a cause and always a symptom of psychological disturbance. His proposed solution to psychological problems is to aid people and society in abandoning such irrational and harmful beliefs.

It has been hard for Christians not to respond to such challenges defensively. To many, psychology has seemed the enemy of the faith. Similarly, religion has looked to many psychologist as enemies of personal well-being. Psychology and Christianity are thus related, to these people, as enemies. One Christian who has prominently identified himself with such a view is Jay Adams.

But other forms of relationship between psychology and Christianity have also emerged in this century. One has been associated with the subfield of psychology of religion. Rather than viewing psychology as the enemy, with irreconcilable differences between the two realms, proponents of this position maintain that there is much common ground between the two. Working from humanistic and often mystical assumptions, they see humans as spiritual-moral beings who cannot be reduced to a collection of naturalistic forces. Psychological insights can aid in spiritual development, and similarly spiritual insights can aid in developing psychological understandings and in promoting psychological growth. Christians whose writings have often reflected this position include Seward Hiltner and John Sanford. Proponents of such a view have been influential in breaking down much of the mistrust of Christians toward psychology. However, because they have tended to come from theologically liberal religious traditions, many conservative Christians have remained unconvinced.

The impact of Christians within this group has been impressive. Hiltner coined the concept of pastoral counseling in 1948, and he and other clergy (including Wayne Oates, Paul Johnson, and Granger Westberg) have continued to give this movement leadership. With the founding of the American Association of Pastoral Counselors and the American Association of Clinical Pastoral Education, clinical training of pastors and chaplains moved ahead aggressively. More and more clergy found themselves serving in hospitals and mental health facilities. One final evidence of this fertile rapprochement of Christians and psychology was the development of a number of scholarly journals devoted to the relationship between the two, including The Journal of Religion and Health and The Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.

Closely associated with these developments has been a movement within conservative Protestant Christianity identified by the catch phrase "the integration of psychology and theology." The integrationists have begun with an assumption of the unity of truth. They expect that all knowledge can be interrelated into a single body of truth that will represent a harmonizing of biblical relevation and psychology. In searching for this integrated truth these Christians have held strongly to the ultimate authority of the Scriptures but have not been afraid to face directly the points of tension and apparent conflict. Paul Tournier and Gary Collins are two well-known writers in this tradition. The Journal of Psychology and Theology and The Journal of Psychology and Christianity contain the writings of many more. Also associated with this position are several organizations.
The Christian Association for Psychological Studies is an international group of over a thousand Christian mental health professionals committed to the integration of psychology and theology. Similarly a number of graduate training programs have developed since 1960 with the explicit goal of providing training within the context of the integration of psychology and Christian theology.

Current Status. The last two decades have seen an enormous thawing in the climate of mistrust between Christianity and psychology. Christian pastors, often having received some training in pastoral counseling during seminary, are now much more open to use the services of psychologists (particularly Christian psychologists) and to see that psychological insights can be beneficial to their ministry. Young Christian psychologists now have the option of training in a Christian context that explicitly addresses the integration of psychology and theology and usually includes some formal study of theology. All of this has resulted in an upsurge of publications on the relationship between Christianity and psychology.

This new form of relationship has not been without tension. It is still often easy to forget the differences in meaning attributed to the same words by theologians and psychologists (e.g., guilt) and to see the two positions as contradictory and perhaps mutually incompatible. Nor should all tension be eliminated. Christians should be prepared to speak forcibly against some of the things non-Christian psychologists are advocating. Similarly, psychologists have some critical things that need to be said about aspects of our Christian traditions. Trust will allow this to happen even in tension in the relationship is not eliminated.

rufus

 

Maybe you are unaware of the fact that a headache is something that is real and can be experienced, that it is most often a sympton of another issue (such as tension, sinus, infection, flu, etc), that can actually be tested. It would be wise for you to participate in the conversation by not addressing things that we are not talking about. Symptons, both physically and spiritually, serve important roles and we all acknowledge that. You should know that by now. After 10 pages, this is not exactly new.

I for one get a little bit tired of this specious argument that has absolutely no ground in this discussion. It is an argument ad absurdum.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by I Am Blessed 16:
I can see no value in repeating the same scriptures and the same logic over and over again just to try to get someone to agree with you when that's not going to happen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sometimes we feel the same way. We are greatly distressed by those who choose pseudo intellectualism and treatment over the statements of Scripture that directly address this issue. We have attempted to get you to address the biblical passagse that speak directly to these matters but to no avail. Your latest post provides not even a faint reference to Scripture.

We continue to believe that Scripture does all address all things pertaining to life and godliness. And until we are proven wrong, we will hold Scripture in high esteem.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know of some precious posters who have already been dreadfully hurt and made to feel unGodly, faithless and a few other things by some of the far from compassionate remarks made on this thread. They were looking for help, not condemnation. The uncharitable remarks put forth in this thread were not even subtle. They certainly did not help anyone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps you would be willing to direct us to these hurtful, uncompassionate comments. The most hurtful things I have seen have been those who have squashed the hope of many by tellign them they are consigned to solving their problems only through drugs and expensive counseling. There are better, more able, and more permanent helps to be found.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When we get onto a topic where two sides will never agree; why can't we just drop it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree to a large extent. However, every time I come back I see someone posting something that misrepresents what we have said. Just above your post is one who, again, tries to tell us that we are saying you should not use medical solutions for medical problems. That is a serious misreading of our words and it deserves correction.

The hope Scripture offers is not come by easily but it is permanent because it is godly. That is the hope that we preach ... that people do not have to live a life of anxiety and hopelessness, that they do not have to live a life of addiction/enslavement and misery. There is hope (it does not have to be that way), there always has been (it is not limited to modern advances that may or may not improve), and it is found in the timeless truths of God's word.

Let me ask you: When Paul says that we are to "cast down evil imaginations and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God and to bring every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ" (2 Cor 10:5), do you not think that that speaks directly to the way that we address issues of hte mind/heart? When life circumstances tell us that God is not good, that our knowledge of God as good is faulty, does that not fit directly into this verse?? Does this verse prescribe for us a series of pills or series of spiritual exercises? Do you believe that this verse is wrong??

Let me ask you this: When Christ said that anxiety was an issue of faithlessness (Matt 6:25-34), was he kidding? Was his "simplistic answer" the result of his unfamiliarity with the real truth about the human soul? Was his answer simply a naive spiritual answer to a real problem?

[ February 13, 2003, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Bob 63 ]