Doctrine of devils- yes, psychology

 

Psychology and the Doctrines of Devils

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils.” —1 Timothy:4:1

 The greater part of the church no longer believes what the Scriptures proclaim: that God, in His Word, has given us “all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue” (2 Peter:1:3). The results, sadly, are what one might expect: there is often little statistical difference between those who profess to be Christians and those who do not, regarding the number of divorces, the reliance upon psychological counseling theories and methods, living together outside of marriage, illegitimate childbirths, pornography, sexual and physical abuse, and so forth.

Although such consequences are shocking, they shouldn’t be surprising to anyone who believes the Bible. Twice in the Book of Proverbs we are told, “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death” (Proverbs:14:12; 16:25). Death throughout Scripture implies separation, whether of the soul and spirit from the body in physical death or, in another sense, the separation of light from darkness and truth from error—and ultimately, from God eternally. Just as the body without life corrupts, so do one’s life choices result in corruption when they are separated from God’s truth.

Psychology, with its psychotherapeutic counseling, has been embraced by evangelicals more than almost any other unbiblical endeavor that has entered the church in the last half-century. “Christian psychologists” are generally more popular and influential than preachers and teachers of the Word. What evangelical in America doesn’t know of psychologist Dr. James Dobson? The psychologically oriented American Association of Christian Counselors boasts 50,000 members. The evangelical church is one of the leading referral services for secular counselors (whether they claim to be Christians or not!). Like their secular counterparts, the second-most popular career choice for students at Christian colleges is psychology. What makes this information truly shocking is the fact that the roots, concepts, and many of the psychological counseling practices come from “seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils.”

First Timothy 4:1 is a prophetic verse. It foretells that “in the latter times,” that is, the time near the return of our Lord, “some will depart from the faith.” This is supported by other verses such as Luke:18:8: Jesus asked, “...when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” The implied answer is no. Paul, in 2 Thessalonians:2:3, declares under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that a “falling away” from the faith will characterize the Last Days. But haven’t many professing Christians departed from the faith since the time of the Apostles? Yes. The rest of the verse, however, indicates a condition that is unique to our present day. Those who profess to be Christians will give “heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils.”

Doctrines of devils are designed to undermine what is taught in the Scriptures. They reflect the strategy that Satan instituted in the Garden of Eden when he seduced Eve into disobeying God. The chief of the seducing spirits began his direct communication with Eve by raising doubts in her mind as to what God had commanded: “Yea, hath God said...?” (Genesis:3:1). The serpent’s dialogue with her led her to believe that God had lied to her: “And the serpent said unto the woman, ye shall not surely die.” Although God instructed Adam and Eve that the punishment for disobeying Him by eating the fruit of a certain tree in the Garden would be death (Genesis:2:17), Satan twisted that around, making God not only a liar but also the one who was withholding what they needed for their self-improvement and for realizing a supposed higher potential.

Genesis:3:1-5 contains Satan’s basic strategy for the seduction and destruction of mankind. His deception began by questioning God’s Word, and offering tempting alternatives. Eve responded by believing Satan, rejectingGod’s Word, and turning to her own self-interests. The enticements were so desirable to the flesh, including immortality, enlightenment, godhood, and knowledge (Genesis:3:5), that she eagerly embraced the lie. At that tragic moment in the history of mankind, self became a god, an autonomous rebel bent on doing its own thing. What Satan offered to Eve, he likewise has presented to all of her descendants, with similar success. His deadly allurements—immortality, enlightenment, godhood, and knowledge-—comprise the foundational teachings of “doctrines of devils.”

Even in a cursory review of psychotherapeutic concepts, Satan’s primary lies are clearly revealed. Teachings (i.e., doctrines) such as the following are found in nearly all psychotherapeutic theories. Immortality: There is no death in the sense that it should be feared. Materialist psychotherapists teach a judgment-free mortality; spiritually oriented counselors claim that we either evolve to a higher consciousness or reincarnate to improve our next temporal state of being. Enlightenment: Knowing the self, who we are, why we do what we do, and how we change, all open the critical gate to establishing our mental wellbeing. Some systems teach that our problems of living are determined by traumas related to our past (including past lives), our parental upbringing, our environment, or our having been oppressed by religious dogmas. Godhood: The solution to humanity’s problems is found within the self. Self is deified, whether directly or indirectly. For instance, psychology’s “self-actualization” is a process that leads to self-deification, which ultimately replaces any need for salvation outside humanity. Knowledge: The deification process for humanity involves methods of plumbing the depths of the unconscious, which is alleged to be the infinite reservoir that holds all mysteries of life.

Sadly, these doctrines of devils now permeate “Christian psychology.” Few evangelicals realize that these demonic teachings were introduced to the “founding fathers of psychological counseling” literally by “seducing spirits.”

It was Sigmund Freud who declared that “religion is the universal obsessional neurosis of humanity.” Furthermore, there is evidence that Freud hated Christianity, which he erroneously regarded as anti-Semitic. How then would this atheistic rejecter of organized religion advance doctrines of devils? By founding the “religion” of psychoanalysis. None of Freud’s theories, whether psychic determinism or psychosexual development or belief in the unconscious, have any scientific validity; moreover, they are religious beliefs that are antithetical to the doctrines of the Bible. Research psychiatrist Thomas Szasz had Freud primarily in mind when he declared, “...modern psychotherapy...is not merely a religion that pretends to be a science, it is actually a fake religion that seeks to destroy true religion.”¹

Given the fact that psychoanalysis and its associated concepts are so diametrically opposed to biblical Christianity, there’s no doubt that Freud’s “fake religion” is the product of “doctrines of devils.” Furthermore, a strong case could be made that Freud’s theories came both directly and indirectly from “seducing spirits” through the techniques he employed in analyzing his patients. He put them into altered states of consciousness through hypnosis and the highly suggestible technique of “free association.” Early on, when he was formulating some of his theories, Freud was a regular user of the mind-altering drug cocaine for his bouts with depression.² Calling it his magical drug, “he pressed it on his friends and colleagues, both for themselves and their patients.”³

Psychiatrist and historian Henri F. Ellenberger’s classic work, The Discovery of the Unconscious, reveals, “Historically, modern dynamic psychotherapy derives from primitive medicine, and an uninterrupted continuity...through the exorcists, magnetists, and hypnotists that led to the fruition of dynamic psychiatry in the systems of Janet, Freud, Adler, and Jung.”⁴ Psychotherapy is a modern form of shamanism, which explains why psychiatrist E. Fuller Torrey rightly observes, “The techniques used by Western psychiatrists are, with few exceptions, on exactly the same scientific plane as the techniques used by witchdoctors [medicine men and shamans].”⁵

Shamanism is all about contacting spirit entities to gain their help, wisdom, insights, and so forth. In an interview with a former Yanamamo shaman who resides in the Amazonian rain forest of Venezuela, I was told rather bluntly that his spirit guides were liars and deceivers, from his first contact with them through ingesting hallucinogenic drugs until they left him when he turned to Christ. Their lies reinforced what he wanted to hear. It seems the same for Freud, whose concepts were a reflection not of science but rather removing his own guilt and satisfying his flesh. Freud’s theories were based mainly upon his own personal problems, most of which were sexual perversions.

In Freudian thought, the “unconscious” is a God-replacement realm without laws and judgment; morality is an oppressive neurosis-generating structure imposed by society and organized religion; sexual freedom (including adultery, homosexuality, incest, etc.) is paramount for normal mental health; dreams are symbolic messages from the unconscious and can be scientifically interpreted through psychoanalysis. These beliefs represent doctrines of devils. Although a materialist, Freud acknowledged the existence of spirit entities. He was influenced from that source, either indirectly, through his patients, or directly, through his own drug use, the ancient statuettes he used to help him write,6 and other techniques he used to explore the unconscious.

The life and works of psychiatrist Carl Gustav Jung clearly reveal that his psychological theories came directly from the “seducing spirits” Paul warns about in 1 Timothy:4:1. Jung is far more popular today among professing Christians than Freud (the atheist) because of his perceived affinity for religion and things spiritual. However, though his father was a Protestant pastor (who seriously doubted his professed faith!), Jung was anti-biblical and resentful of organized Christianity from his youth. His early symbolic visions revealed Jesus as a Dark Lord and God defecating on a cathedral. His mother’s side of the family was heavily involved in spiritualism. His grandfather, pastor Samuel Preiswerk, conducted ongoing séances to commune with his deceased first wife, with his second wife and daughter (Jung’s mother) participating. The latter, who had bouts of insanity, reserved two beds in the Jung home for visiting ghosts. Jung’s doctoral thesis (published in 1902) was based upon séances conducted by his 13-year-old cousin, whom he placed in an altered state of consciousness through hypnosis in order to contact his and her dead ancestors.

In 1916, Jung’s household experienced an assault by demonic beings who claimed to be dead Christian Crusaders from Jerusalem. They were seeking counsel on redemption and were greatly distressed that their Christianity had left them in a hopeless condition. They would not leave Jung’s home until he began writing advice to them, which he received from one of his many spirit guides, his mentor Philemon, the “old man with horns of a bull.”⁷

Richard Noll, a lecturer in the History of Science at Harvard University and a clinical psychologist (who declares that he “is not a Christian of any sort”), makes some stunning observations in his book on Jung titled The Jung Cult. He argues that Jung’s “psychological theories of the collective unconscious and archetypes are essentially masks, a pseudoscientific cover to hide the practices of what was essentially a new religious movement in which Jung taught people to have trance visions and to contact the ‘gods’ directly.”8

Jung’s teachings are doctrines of demons, gleaned directly from seducing spirits: the unconscious and the collective unconscious represent an impersonal form of God; archetypes are viewed as psychological rationalizations for demons, the animaand animus are terms for the female and male entities within each person; psychological “types” are determined characteristics within our make up. Jung promoted all things occult, including astrology, alchemy, the I-Ching, mysticism, necromancy, visualization, dream interpretation, the active imagination, yoga, meditation, etc. Incredibly, his theories and recommended practices are endorsed in the teachings of some of the most influential people in evangelical Christianity. In many cases, ignorance is the principle reason, yet the demonic lies are nevertheless readily promoted and accepted among the sheep.

Rick Warren’s 30 million copies of The Purpose-Driven Life include Jungian concepts, such as psychological “types.” Saddleback Church’s “Celebrate Recovery” program (see TBC Oct ’05), which has been exported to 4,500 churches and Prison Fellowship Ministries, is based on A.A.’s 12-Step principles. A.A. co-founder Bill Wilson received the 12 Steps during the time he was in contact with spirit entities. He later wrote a personal letter to Carl Jung thanking him for his influence:

...[A.A.] actually started long ago in your consulting room, and it was directly founded upon your own humility and deep perception....You will also be interested to learn that in addition to the “spiritual experience,” many A.A.s report a great variety of psychic phenomena, the cumulative weight of which is very considerable. Other members have—following their recovery in A.A.—been much helped by [Jungian analysts]. A few have been intrigued by the “I Ching” and your remarkable introduction to that work.

Warren is not the only witting or unwitting promoter among evangelicals of what Jung learned from demons. He is just the most successful and the best known. Others include Christian psychologists, inner healers, and pastors. Jung’s occult methodologies, especially his demonically inspired techniques of visualization, guided imagery, meditation, and working with spiritual directors, are foundational to the Emerging Church interests of evangelical youth and the contemplative movement supported by Richard Foster, Eugene Peterson, and a multitude of others.

This astonishing development in the evangelical church is symptomatic of the abandonment of God’s Word. The result will be the advancement of the apostate “Christian” church. The antidote is found in Isaiah:8:20: “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” TBC

Endnotes

1. Thomas Szasz, The Myth of Psychotherapy (Doubleday, 1978), 27-28.
2. Martin Gross, The Psychological Society (Random House, 1978), 234-36.
3. Ernest Jones, The Life and Work of Sigmund Freud, Volume I (1856-1900) (New York: Basic Books, 1953), 81.
4. Henri F. Ellenberger, The Discovery of the Unconscious(Basic Books, 1970), 48; back cover.
5. E. Fuller Torrey, The Mind Games: Witchdoctors and Psychiatrists(Emerson Hall, 1972), 8.
6. Shirley Nicholson, Shamanism(The Theosophical Publishing House), 58, as cited in Martin and Deidre Bobgan, The End of “Christian Psychology” (East Gate Publishers, 1997), 105.
7. C.G. Jung, Memories, Dreams, Reflections (Pantheon Books, 1963), 190-92; 182-83.
8. Richard Noll, The Jung Cult: Origins of a Charismatic Movement (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994), xi-xii.

Psychology vs. Christianity

Psychology has its roots in ancient philosophers like Socrates, Aristotle, and Plato. None of these men were worshipers of the true and living God. At best, they believed in a god that was not involved in the affairs of men, and at worse they worshiped multiple pagan gods.

Modern psychology was brought to the forefront by Sigmund Freud in the late nineteenth century. Freud certainly wasn’t a godly man. He was obsessed with sex and linked every problem of man to the sexual drive. This man had serious problems, even his most devoted followers admitted that.

Here is the point: If the root is bad, then the tree has to be bad. Jesus said this very plainly in Matthew 7:17-18:

“Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.”

The root of psychology is bad, and therefore, the fruit cannot be good. I’m amazed at the acceptance of psychology in our society and especially in the church. Many churches and ministries have resident psychiatrists on staff. This isn’t the approach Jesus took. He met the needs, all the needs of the people through the power of the Holy Spirit, and I believe He intends His church to do the same. They don’t have to depart and go to the world to get their emotional needs met. They should bring them to Jesus (Matt. 14:16-18).

I know many Christians are appalled at these statements. Aren’t there Christian psychologists? Certainly there are. I have some friends who are very successful psychologists. But they will be the first to admit that psychology and Christianity do not offer the same answers to our problems. They use their position to bring the truths of the Gospel to people who would never come to the church for help. If the people will receive the truths of God’s Word, they don’t need any other help. If they won’t receive the Gospel, then in some cases, psychology is better than what they have.

Christianity and psychology have some things in common: They both state that our actions are the product of inner processes. But in describing what those processes are and how to change them, Christianity and psychology take the opposite approach. For one thing, the very word “psychology” reveals an anti-god approach.

The word “psychology” comes from the Greek word “psycho”, which is a derivative of the Greek word “psyche” meaning “soul.” Psychology looks no deeper than the soul of man for answers. It totally ignores the spirit realm: our spirits, God’s Holy Spirit, and demonic spirits. The Word of God is replete with teachings and examples of the influence of God, demons, and our spirits on our actions. Any “answer” that doesn’t take the spirit realm into account isn’t going to the root of the problem. The Greek word “psyche” was also the name of the Greek god of the soul. “eros” and “psyche” were lovers in Greek mythology. Who wants that?

Here are four major tenants of psychology that I believe are incompatible with biblical Christianity:

1) We are products of our environment.

2) Therefore, we are not responsible or accountable for our actions.

3) This leads to placing blame for our actions on anything else but on us, making us victims.

4) Self-esteem is paramount.

Let’s look at these areas in the light of Scripture.

First, environment is not the determining factor in who we are and what we do. Proverbs 23:7 says,

“For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he.”

The Word of God shows us that OUR thoughts are what make us the way we are. Environment has some influence on your thoughts, but it is totally wrong to say you’re the way you are because of what has happened to you. If that were true, then everyone who has been through the same negative experiences would have the same problems. That’s not so. You can find siblings with the same genetic make-up and environment who respond totally different to the same situation. We always have the choice of becoming bitter or better. God gave us that choice. Deuteronomy 30:19 says,

“I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.”

God said the choice is ours, and what a simple one: life or death. A “no-brainer.” But just in case anyone isn’t sure which to choose, the Lord gave the answer to this quiz. “Choose life,” He said.

We are not doomed to be victims because of past experiences. We can be born again and become brand-new people through the power of Christ. Psychology doesn’t offer that.

Second, since our conditions are a product of how we chose to react to our environment, we can’t blame others for our problems. Taking responsibility for our actions is the big difference between true Christianity and psychology. Psychology has influenced our society to such a degree that no one is held accountable for their actions. Even murderers are being acquitted because it’s “not their fault”; they were abused as children or whatever. That’s stupid. Some of us have had problems that others haven’t, but God still holds us accountable for our own actions, regardless of what has happened to us.

The night before Jesus was crucified, He told His disciples not to let their hearts be troubled but to be of good cheer (John 14:1 and 16:33). Those who hold to the belief that our environment is the determining factor in our emotions and actions would criticize Jesus for telling His disciples to do something they were incapable of doing. But they had a choice. The Lord told us to rejoice in the Lord always (Phil. 4:4). We can choose to go against the pressures of our environment. In John 16:33, Jesus told His disciples,

“These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.”

In this passage, Jesus told His disciples that they would have tribulation. What an understatement! They would see Jesus crucified in just a matter of hours. Their hopes would be dashed. Sadness and confusion would overwhelm them. Fear would cause them to live behind locked doors for the next three days. Yet, Jesus told them to be of good cheer. That wasn’t unreasonable; it was doable. And we can do it too if we don’t listen to the psychobabble of today.

There is much, much more to Harnessing Your Emotions. I simply ran out of room to share it all in this article. I drew some illustrations of these truths and made an outline of some of the major differences between Christianity and psychology. I firmly believe that psychology undermines true Christianity, and these differences need to be pointed out. Psychology has crept into nearly every aspect of our lives, and most of us don’t know it.

1. Is there a psychology contained in the Bible? Understanding our original question in this sense, the answer is clearly yes. Theologians for centuries have talked about Old Testament anthropology or psychology, New Testament psychology, Pauline psychology, etc. The biblical authors, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, provided numerous observations and reflections on the nature of the human soul (Gn 2:7; Lv 24:17), spirit (Is 29:24), body (Is 31:3), mind (Php 2:3), heart (Ps 90:12), dysfunction (Jms 1:8), flourishing (Eph 3:16-19), process of change (Rm 12:1-2), and wisdom for living (Pr). Clearly God, as Creator of mankind, has an exhaustive and systematic psychology of persons and has communicated many of these crucial insights through the reflections of the inspired biblical authors.

2. Are psychologies formed apart from the Bible biblical? Obviously the psychological reflections of Sigmund Freud and Carl Rogers are unbiblical in the sense that their musings are not included in the Bible. However, whether their views are biblical in the sense of being consistent with or reflected in the Bible is a more complex matter. For example, we can find correlation between Freud’s view of the “unconscious” and “repression” and the biblical understanding of the “hidden heart” that insists there is always more going on deep within a person than on the surface (Pr 14:13), often due to the heart’s deceptive nature (Jr 17:9; Rm 1:18). Though Freud had some true and wise things to say about the nature of the hidden motives of the heart, his worldly view of the “unconscious” and his causally deterministic explanation of mental functioning are clearly unbiblical. Thus psychologies based on observations and reflections from outside the Bible are a mixed bag that must be critiqued idea by idea.

The benefit of investigating these extrabiblical psychologies is twofold. (1) They may provide concrete examples that exemplify biblical truths. (2) They may further elucidate elements that the biblical writers only touch upon (e.g., addictions and anger).

3. Is it biblical to engage in the task of psychology that involves not only the Bible but also extrabiblical observation and reflection?Contemporary Christians disagree on this point. Some adherents of the biblical counseling position deny any biblical warrant for this, while some integrationists maintain that there is biblical precedent for this task of doing psychology.

The writers of Proverbs were Old Testament wise men who had the unique role of instructing Israel to live well in all areas of life under God on the basis of their wisdom and experience (Pr 1:1-6,8-9; 4:1; 6:20). The essence of this wisdom involves having a right relationship with God (Pr 1:7), who is the ultimate source of all wisdom (Pr 2:6) and revelation, which is central to the mental health of a people (Pr 29:18). However, the wise men also insisted that there is an important extrabiblical source of wisdom for living, discernible by observing and reflecting upon the natural world (Pr 6:6, 30:24-28) and especially persons and their complex situations (Pr 24:30-34). God created the world by wisdom (Pr 3:19-20) such that his wisdom is imprinted onto creation as the natural order of things (Pr 8:22-31). By observing these wisdom laws in nature and human life, one can discover a set of wise principles of sowing and reaping to avoid folly and live a good life under God in accordance with the created way of human nature (Pr 8:32-36).

Consequently, the Old Testament wise men provide biblical precedent and justification for the science of psychology. In the case of biblical proverbs, God worked through the wise men’s experiences to produce inspired observations and principles for living. While the wisdom collected in Scripture has a divine sanction and authority, the church’s ongoing work in psychology is subject to scrutiny from the Scriptures, reason, and observation. Though unbelievers can discover wisdom for living through psychology, only the believer can know and live out these principles as one ought in relation to God.

4. Is psychotherapy biblical?Certainly the intervention of psychotherapy is biblical in the sense that Scripture encourages empathy, truthful understanding, and caring relationships between persons. This is evident in the admonition regarding “speaking the truth in love” (Eph 4:15), in the “one another” injunctions (Eph 4:32; Col 3:12-14; 1Th 5:11,14), in the gifts of the church (Rm 12:4-8), and in the reflections and counsel for wise living found in Proverbs (4:1-5). However, the content of what psychotherapy passes on as wisdom is to be judged by Scripture (Pr 21:30), truth (Pr 8:7), and its appropriateness to the situation (Pr 25:11).

In Psalms 1:1-3 the Word of God has promised us prosperity and blessings if we delight in His word and avoid the council of the ungodly. Yet the Church today has turned to Psychology for it’s council. Is Psychology compatible with Christianity? To answer this question we, must first define “psychology” and identify it’s most influential voices. Gary Collins, who believes in integrating psychology and Christianity states:

Psychology is a science attempting to use precisely defined scientific terms. The Bible on the other hand, is not a scientific volume and uses terms which are much more difficult to define with precision. Words like “ego,” “emotion,” and “depression” are psychological terms which do not have clear parallels in scriptural language. On the other hand, words like “mind,” “soul,” or “spirit” are Biblical terms which are psychologically meaningless.¹⁾

If the biblical term “soul” being translated from the Greek word “psyche” is meaningless in psychology then the whole system of psychology is meaningless since it is derived from that very word. Furthermore, it cannot be “a science” since the “psyche” is not something physical that can be dissected or observed; the same can be said about “ego,” “emotion,” and “depression.” Ed Bulky pointed out: “Dealing with the human mind and soul, however, is an entirely different matter. No one has yet observed a mind or dissected an emotion. No X-ray scan has ever detected the soul. Psychologists are not even sure how to define the mind.”²⁾ Bulky further asserted, “The point is that human thinking and behavior cannot be categorized scientifically because each human is unique and one’s reaction to events, circumstances, and other stimuli cannot be predicted or tested using the scientific method…. Psychology rarely deals with established facts or truths but with subjective opinions and interpretations of uncontrolled observations. Psychology is not dealing with the consistent interactions between chemicals that can be carefully controlled in the laboratory, but with analyses that are tainted by the unique free wills of the subjects and the mindset of the researchers.”³⁾
Phil Arms accurately identifies that psychology is nothing but theories.

More then 250 psychological counseling techniques of theoretic approaches to counseling exist in the field of psychology. Each include contradictory theories and teachings and each claims to present “truth”…. In fact, of the multitude of ideological interpretations of psychological truth, what chance is there that any of them are correct?⁴⁾

Here is the first danger of integrating psychology and Christianity – a denial of Biblical inerrancy. Norman Geisler explanation of inerrancy “is that the Bible teaches truth about both spiritual and scientific/historical matters.”⁵⁾When Christian psychologist Gary Collins says the Bible “is not a scientific volume,” he denies the science of the Bible is accurate in exchange for the multiplicity of contradicting theories that make up psychology. Charles C. Ryrie said “If inerrancy falls, other doctrines will too.”⁶⁾ He noted, “Some lifestyle errors that may follow a denial of inerrancy include… A tendency to view the Bible through a modern psychological grid.”⁷⁾

Ed Bulky’s commented: “The integrationist position is scientifically invalid, theologically confused, and biblically inconsistent.”⁸⁾ He adds, “diluted theology is the inevitable result of integration.”⁹⁾ The apostle Paul warned: “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.” (Colossians 2:8) Paul Tautges criticized, “Therefore, it is to be expected that, when a church or seminary departs from the doctrine of inerrancy, a rejection of the Bible’s authority and sufficiency will follow not long afterward. And once the authority and sufficiency of the Bible are undermined, it soon follows that belief in the total depravity of man and his desperate need of redemption through Jesus Christ is replaced by the psychological gospel of self-improvement.”¹⁰⁾ The Bible proclaims its authority and sufficiency in “all things” and to integrate psychological theories with Scriptures is to diminish its sufficiency. “According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.” (2 Peter 1:3-4) “Every word of God is pure” (Proverbs 30:5; Psalms 12:6; 19:8; 119:40), and we are warned not to add to it which would dilute its truth and purity (Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Proverbs 30:6; Revelation 22:18-19).
Christian psychologist Gary Collins warns “Most would agree that even well-meaning and sincere Christian psychologists can be contaminated by secular assumptions and practices that pervade much of modern psychology.”¹¹⁾ Relying on secular psychological theories over and above ministering from the Word of God is “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away” (2 Timothy 3:5).This is why it cannot be integrated. “Will ye speak wickedly for God? and talk deceitfully for him? Will ye accept his person? will ye contend for God?” (Job 13:7-8). We can either accept God at His word as it is or handle it deceitfully and diminish the sufficiency of it. This should be obvious considering what John Ankerberg and John Weldon wrote, “The presuppositions that provide the general framework within which most psychology is practiced include the following: 1) naturalism, 2) materialism, 3) reductionism, 4) determinism, 5) evolution, 6) empiricism, 7) relativism, 8) humanism, and 9) increasingly, occultism.”¹²⁾ Notice that the overwhelming majority of this list exclude the possibility of the soul‘s (psyche) existence, so how can it thence be studied? The answer is it cannot be studied scientifically. “In essence, psychology cannot be a coherent science because it does not deal in the realm of the observable, testable, and predictable, but rather in the realm of complex human behavior and motivation and in subjective perception and evaluations.”¹³⁾ This is why it is increasingly moving towards occult spirituality and the metaphysical as humanism is bound to do (Romans 1:18-25).

In reality, modern psychology is a bankrupt “religion” with no real capacity for helping people. Under the guise of psychology, occult concepts have gained acceptance as being legitimate scientific principles. Hence, occultism is increasingly moving forward in the name of psychology and the human sciences.¹⁴⁾

Occultism runs deep in the heart of all the major psychological theorists. “Jung mythologized Scripture and reduced the basic doctrines of the Christian faith into esoteric gnosticism…. Freud was also involved in idolatry and the occult.”¹⁵⁾ “One of its [psychology‘s] leaders, Carl Rogers, renounced Christianity while in seminary and turned to the study of psychology.”¹⁶⁾ “Erich Fromm, an atheist, popularized the idea of self-love. He got it from Nietzsche. One of Fromm’s books was Ye Shall Be as Gods. He took the lie of the serpent for its title.”¹⁷⁾ Caryl Matrisciana acknowledged, “Psychology and psychotherapy’s most influential thinkers, such as Freud, Jung, Pavlov, Skinner, and Maslow, were atheists, drug-users, occultists, and avowed humanists. Yet their techniques and psychological remedies are popular in Christian circles.”¹⁸⁾ Secular historian have also referenced this fact frequently. “The dissemination of Jungian thought in America has occult as well as clinical bearings.”¹⁹⁾
Sigmund Freud admitted, “It no longer seems possible to brush aside the study of so-called occult facts; of things which seem to vouchsafe the real existence of psychic forces… or which reveal mental faculties in which, until now, we did not believe.”²⁰⁾ Carl Jung is a clear example.

He [Jung] Delved deeply into the occult, practiced necromancy, and had daily contact with disembodied spirits, which he called archetypes. Jung described his whole house “crammed full of spirits” crying out to him.²¹⁾

Jung confessed: “These conversations with the dead formed a kind of prelude to what I had to communicate to the world about the unconscious: a kind of pattern of order and interpretation of its general content.”²²⁾ Hence, Jungian psychology is a demonic deception that has deceived the whole world (Revelation 12:9; 2 Corinthians 4:4). One of these demonic entities he called Philemon. “Psychologically, Philemon represented superior insight. He was a mysterious figure to me. At times he seemed to me quite real, as if he were a living personality. I went walking up and down the garden with him, and to me he was what the Indians call a guru.”²³⁾Jung engaged in what the Bible calls an abomination (Deuteronomy 18:10-14), yet most, if not all of his theories was a product of necromancy. “In 1916, after experiencing some bizarre paranormal events, Jung wrote in three nights a mystical tract called The Seven Sermons to the Dead. He ascribed this writing to Basilides, a Gnostic teacher of the second century in Alexandria.”²⁴⁾Spiritism opens the door to demonic possession which Jung also admitted. “There was a daimon in me, and in the end its presence proved decisive. It overpowered me, and if I was at times ruthless it was because I was in the grip of the daimon.”²⁵⁾ Scriptures admonish “he that is spiritual judgeth all things” (1 Corinthians 2:15), and “try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1), but Jungian psychology has been embraced by Christian psychologists.
Freud and Jung have the farthest reach influence on psychology. “For a period of about six years, Jung worked closely with Sigmund Freud.”²⁶⁾ Freud wrote of himself, “I regard myself as one of the most dangerous enemies of religion.”²⁷⁾Psychiatrist Thomas Szasz stated, “One of Freud’s most powerful motives in life was the desire to inflict vengeance on Christianity for its traditional anti-Semitism.”²⁸⁾ This fact caused Jay Adams to conclude: “In my opinion, advocating, allowing and practicing psychiatric an psychoanalytical dogmas within the church is every bit as pagan and heretical (and therefore perilous) as propagating the teachings of some of the most bizarre cults. The only vital difference is that the cults are less dangerous because their errors are more identifiable.”²⁹⁾
Consider the general attitude of the National Education Association (NEA) of children who are raised by religious parents as presented by Mel and Norma Gabler in their book What Are They Teaching Our Children? “Although they [children of religious upbringing] appear to behave appropriately and seem normal by most cultural standards, they may actually be in need of mental health care, in order to help them change, adapt, and conform to the planned society in which there will be no conflict of attitudes of beliefs.”³⁰⁾This attitude was also propagated by M. Scott Peck, who wrote, “psychiatrists must spend enormous amounts of time and effort in the struggle to liberate their patients’ minds from outmoded religious ideas and concepts that are clearly destructive.”³¹⁾ This is taken for granted the assumption the psychiatrist knows what religious ideas are destructive. Take M. Scott Peck for example. “The god of Peck is but an idol invented by his mind. He combines his personal experience in Eastern religion with the teaching of liberal theologians such as Teilhard de Chardin, Paul Tillich and Erich Fromm.”³²⁾
Peck played a major part in popularizing the synthesis of secular psychology and spirituality.

This “marriage” of therapy for both mind and soul is perhaps best exemplified in the works of Harvard-educated psychiatrist M. Scott Peck, whose 1978 book The Road Less Traveled initiated the entire psychology-spirituality movement. As of April 26, 1994, his landmark volume was still on the New York Times bestseller list – a full 600 weeks after first appearing there. For this accomplishment, Peck has won himself a place in Guinness Book of World Records. He is arguably the most famous and influential of all the counseling gurus promising spiritual and emotional wholeness.³³⁾

Peck did not “initiate the entire psychology-spirituality movement,” but he definitely made it more popular. Ram Dass preceded Peck by a decade and William James by almost a century. What distinguishes Peck from others is that his influence infiltrated the church.

Even before the release of People of the Lie [1983], Peck had announced his “conversion” and, as a result, was beginning to garner support from Christians…. Peck’s greatest popularity soon shifted from New York and Los Angeles to the Bible belt…. This relationship between Peck and the Christian community remains strong to this day.³⁴⁾

Concerning his alleged conversion in 1980, Peck wrote in his second book, “My commitment to Christianity is the most important thing in my life and is, I hope, persuasive and total.”³⁵⁾ It persuaded many, but from his own writings his conversion proves to be a farce. Peck spoke of Erich Fromm saying, “I applaud his view” about people becoming evil not being born sinful,³⁶⁾ and espoused Freud’ s “Oedipal dilemma” theory which is pure incestuous perversion.³⁷⁾ “Unveiling Freud’s theories exposes lust, incest, castration anxiety, and for a woman, penis envy. And Freud was convinced that all of these are psychologically determined by age five or six. Can you think of a more macabre, twisted and even demonic explanation for human sexuality and mental disorders than Freud’s central theory of infantile sexuality?”³⁸⁾ Oddly, victims of sexual predators seek psychological healing from those that propagate the very dogmas that create sexual predators. Carl Jung reported that Freud once said to him, “My dear Jung, promise me never to abandon the sexual theory, that is the most essential thing of all. You see, we must make a dogma of it, an unshakable bulwark.”³⁹⁾ His dogma assured freedom from a guilty consciences permitting man‘s “instinctual wishes” and most perverse lusts. Freud wrote: “Among these instinctual wishes are those of incest, cannibalism, and lust for killing.”⁴⁰⁾

Wicca priestess Miriam Starhawk identified her Freudian influence when she said, “We become whole through knowing our strength and creativity, our aggression, our sexuality, by affirming the self, not by denying it.”⁴¹⁾ This is so adverse from biblical Christianity which teaches to deny self (Matthew 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23), “flee fornication” (1 Corinthians 6:18), “avoid fornication“ (1 Corinthians 7:2), “abstain from fornication” (1 Thessalonians 4:3). Jesus defined Freudianism when He said “For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man” (Matthew 15:19-20).

Freud’s impact as “the father of psychoanalytic theory” has rippled through psychological thinking and into the general population, leaving bizarre thoughts and actions in its wake.⁴²⁾

Freud’s goal was to clear his own conscience by making his diabolical perversions the social norm.
Freud was strongly influenced by Friedrich Nietzsche. Walter Kaufmann, a translator of Nietzsche’s writings, stated: “But if we reflect on the three things which, according to Nietzsche, had been maligned most, under the influence of Christianity, and which he sought to rehabilitate or revaluate – were they not selfishness, the will to power, and sex? Nietzsche’s early impact was in some ways comparable to that of Freud or Havelock Ellis.”⁴³⁾Nietzsche himself wrote “He that taught to bless also taught to curse; what are the three best cursed things in the world? I shall put them on the scales. Sex, the lust to rule, selfishness; these three have so far been best cursed and worst reputed and lied about; these three I will weigh humanly well.”⁴⁴⁾ These three things are also defined in the Bible (1 John 2:16). Nietzsche blasphemously asserted, “He whom they call Redeemer has put them in fetters: in fetters of false values and delusive words. Would that someone would yet redeem them from their redeemer.”⁴⁵⁾ Freud’s influence from Nietzsche thus sparked his goal to redeem the world from Christianity. Os Guiness revealed, “It is well known that Freud dismissed religion as an ‘illusion’ and saw himself as a ‘new Moses’ with [Carl] Jung as his ‘Joshua.’ He advocated psychotherapy as ‘a reeducation’ for a new human civilization through a complete reversal of Mosaic morality and God-grounded objective guilt. Psychological liberty to Freud was a mater of messianic liberation.”⁴⁶⁾ Paul Tautges confirmed, “Adding the teaching of Sigmund Freud to the teachings of Jesus Christ could result in nothing less than a departure from biblical truth, since Freud considered himself a savior whose purpose was to rescue people from the bondage of faith in God.”⁴⁷⁾
Exactly when did such heresy infiltrate the Church?

Peale confessed that as a youth he had “the worst inferiority complex of all,” and developed his positive thinking/positive confession philosophy just to help himself. In 1937, Peale established a clinic with Freudian psychiatrist Dr. Smiley Blanton in the basement of the Marble Collegiate Church. (Blanton brought with him the “extensive experience” of having undergone psychoanalysis by Freud himself in Vienna in 1929, 1935, 1936, and 1937.) The clinic was described as having “a theoretical base that was Jungian, with a strong evidence of neo- and post-Freudianism” (Carol V.R. George, God’s Salesman: Norman Vincent Peale and the Power of Positive Thinking , p. 90). It subsequently grew to an operation with more than 20 psychiatric doctors and psychologically- trained “ministers,” and in 1951 became known as the American Foundation for Religion and Psychiatry. In 1972, it merged with the Academy of Religion and Mental Health to form the Institutes of Religion and Health (IRH). To his death, Peale remained affiliated with the IRH as president of the board and chief fund raiser. Indeed, Peale pioneered the merger of theology and psychology which became known as Christian Psychology.⁴⁸⁾

Biographer George Mair recorded: “Reverend Norman Vincent Peale is, to many, the most prophetic and moving New Age preacher of the twentieth century. He is also the father of the self-help movement that formed the groundwork for the Church Growth Movement. Peale formed perhaps the most dramatic and meaningful link between religion and psychology of any religious leader in history. It is this same approachable, therapeutic brand of religion that many mega churches, including Saddleback, put forward today. It is this kind of religion that is so appealing to the masses of unchurched men and women that Rick Warren hopes to reach.”⁴⁹⁾ David Cloud explained, “Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961), the founder of analytical psychology, has been influential, not only in society at large, but also in the New Age movement and within almost all aspects of Christianity. Jung has influenced both modernists and evangelicals. His writings are influential within the contemplative movement….Jung’s psychology typing provides the underpinning for the Personality Profiling part of Rick Warren’ SHAPE program, which is used by countless churches and institutions.”⁵⁰⁾ Churches today abound with unbiblical, New Age, pop-psychological theories that have no transformative power. Consider Rick Warren who lost his 27 year old son to suicide after a life time of battling depression. “In spite of America’s best doctors, meds, counselors, and prayers for healing, the torture of mental illness never subsided,” Warren wrote in a letter to church members. “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace…” (Galatians 5:22), which cannot be received through humanistic psychology. “Vain, man-centered philosophies or psychology cannot save.”⁵¹⁾ A born again Christian is transformed by the renewing of the mind (Romans 12:2), and “old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new” (2 Corinthians 5:17).

Depression from unsatisfied lust is the results of ignoring biblically admonitions to “let each esteem other better than themselves” (Philippians 2:3). Psychology teaches to esteem self, to love self, it is mere narcissistic selfishness. “Perhaps no man has popularized this man-centered approach to Christianity more than radio psychologist James Dobson. Setting aside any question of his sincerity or personal integrity, it must be recognized, however, that his media ministry has been more responsible for spreading the Christ-diminishing gospel of self-esteem, self-love, self-respect, and self-acceptance than many others. For over three decades, Focus on the Family has been beating the self-esteem drum with a passion. Unfortunately, as much as Dr. Dobson‘s enduring fight for morality and the preservation of traditional family values is deeply appreciated by all who love and serve Christ, his fundamental view of man‘s need is erroneous and, therefore, subtly undermines biblical foundations.”⁵²⁾ All our works for the Lord should be as He commanded (Exodus 39:43) – “that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 15:58).

Psychology is incompatible with Christianity in several ways:

1. Christianity teaches a truth that sets people free; psychology teaches a lie that keeps people in bondage to their sins.
2. Christanity teaches Christ alone through faith alone. Psychology teaches humans are their own saviors and that psychology holds the true answers to absolve man of sin.
3. Christianity has its roots in the God of the Bible. Psychology has as its roots Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud – 2 very disturbed men who were spiritists and sexual deviants. All psychology traces its roots back to these 2 men.
4. Christianity teaches the sacrifice of ourselves for the needs of others; psychology teaches the sacrifice of others for my needs – a selfish, secular humanist worldview.
5. Christianity has a long record of spiritually and physically healed people (thousands of years); psychology never cures anyone and most people end up on medications beacuse of the mental decline they experience during psychological therapies.
6. Christianity stands on the truth of the Bible; psychology must teach people to avoid the Bible or twist its meaning to support their mental sicknesses.

When people fail to live up to proper standards, psychologists have a number of scapegoats clients can blame. 

Society

Wayne Oates writes that mental illness is the result of "the rejection and exploitation of the individual by the community" (Adams, p 6). In other words, "It is society's fault." 

"Fromm emphasized society as the major determinant of human personality. In particular, Fromm describes man as intrinsically and naturally good and attributes anything bad - evil - to society, especially when society causes the self to deny its own potential for growth and expression" (Vitz, p. 18). But society is people. If people are basically good, how then can society (people) be the source of everything bad?

A TV commercial advertised an article in Time Magazine that attempted to explain riots in Los Angeles by saying, "The enemy is us. All of us." See? When people riot, loot, burn, and murder - even people thousands of miles away, whom you and I have never met or contacted in any way - it is nevertheless our responsibility!

Spouse

Another favorite scapegoat is ones spouse: "My spouse drives me to act the way I do. If he/she would only change, then I would do better." Psychologists often encourage and defend such thinking.

Parents

Sylling wrote: "Most unwed mothers are victims of their parent's problems" (Adams, p. 8). So, blame it on the parents. 

Many of us know of psychologists who have excused some criminal or grossly immoral person because his parents or society somehow deprived him of something years ago. 

A folk song by Anna Russell states it very well:

I went to my psychiatrist to be psychoanalyzed

To find out why I killed the cat and blacked my husband's eyes.

He laid me on a downy couch to see what he could find,

And here is what he dredged up from my subconscious mind:

When I was one, my mommie hid my dolly in a trunk,

And so it follows naturally that I am always drunk.

When I was two, I saw my father kiss the maid one day,

And that is why I suffer now from kleptomania.

At three, I had the feeling of ambivalence toward my brothers,

And so it follows naturally I poison all my lovers.

But I am happy; now I've learned the lesson this has taught;

That everything I do that's wrong is someone else's fault.

- Via Adams, p. 8

Somehow, by hook or crook, the psychologist makes his client out to be, not the perpetrator of evil, but the victim of someone else's evil. This is the idea that leads people to think every misbehavior is caused by people's environment, so if you just clean up their environment they will act good. 

B. The Teachings of the Bible

Yes, other people can contribute to our errors by tempting us, mistreating us, etc. Such people will be held accountable by God. But are we released from responsibility for our conduct just because someone else contributed to it?

Genesis 3:9-13 - Adam blamed Eve for sin because she tempted him, and Eve blamed the serpent because he tempted her. Yet God punished all three. It may not have been Eve's fault she was tempted, but she was punished because she did not resist it properly. From the first sin till now, sinners have tried to excuse sin by blaming others. Today, sinners find professional help in their blame shifting at the psychologist's office, for a substantial fee!

1 Samuel 15:3,9,15,22,23 - God told Saul and Israel to destroy all the Amalekites and their animals, but instead they spared the king and the best of the animals. Saul blamed the people; but God said Saul had committed stubborn rebellion, so He rejected him as king. The people contributed to the wrong, but that did not excuse Saul. 

Romans 12:17-21 - Do not seek vengeance, but overcome evil with good. Mistreatment by others does not justify us in doing wrong. It is not even an excuse to do nothing. It obligates us to do good.

1 Peter 3:1,2; Colossians 3:9 - Specifically, what about the person whose husband or wife does not obey the Bible? Does this excuse our sins? "Poor me. Look how bad my husband or wife acts. How can anyone expect me to do right under these difficulties?" No, God says we must do right no matter how our spouse acts.

Matthew 10:34-37 - If our parents do wrong - in fact, if every member of our family and loved ones does wrong - that is no excuse for our wrongs. We must love Jesus enough to do what He says regardless of how others treat us.

Perhaps you cannot control your parents, society, or anyone else around you does. But you can still control yourself. No matter how other people act, you can still do right. And that is exactly what God expects you to do.

---

II. Psychology Often Views Guilt as a Disease for Which the Sinner Is Not Accountable

---

A. Quotations from Psychology

Harry Milt, Director of Public Information for the National Association of Mental Health is quoted as saying people who are mentally ill deserve "Sympathetic understanding, the kind you give to a person when he is sick with a physical illness ... You make allowances because you know he's sick, that he can't help his sickness, that he needs your sympathy and understanding. The person with a mental problem is also sick and most of the time he can't help it either." (via Adams, pp 4,5)

A chaplain from a state mental hospital gave the following advice to preachers: 

"First of all, there is little you can do as ministers for people in a mental hospital. Secondly, what you can do is support the patient's right to feel injured by others. Thirdly, it is important to understand that in a mental institution people with guilt no longer are subjected to rebuke from others outside, the pressure is off, and in this way they quietly lose their guilt and get well. Fourthly, we must consider people in mental hospitals not as violators of conscience but as victims of their conscience. Finally, when we look at their erratic behavior, it seems to be sin, but it isn't; the patient is not really responsible for his actions. He can't help what he's doing; he's sick. Often he blames himself for what he can't help, for what isn't his fault, and this is a cause of his problems. Consequently bad behavior as blameworthy is taboo in a mental hospital. The usual religious approach of responsibility, guilt, confession and forgiveness is no good here. The patients' consciences are already too severe. There people are morally neutral persons, and all we can do is be ventilators for them" (summarized by Adams, p. 9).

Other psychologists urge preachers to "help both the family and the community at large to accept mental illness as sickness and not as a disgrace" (Adams, p. 28).

Dr. William Radar specifically applies this principle to alcohol and drug abuse, shop-lifting, and sexual perversion [obviously including homosexuality]. He says the problem of all such people "is a disease, not a sin" (Berkley, p. 147).

The consequence of explaining such conduct as disease is that it makes the person not accountable. He can't help it, just like he can't help having a brain tumor or a heart attack. It's not his fault. He is not a sinner who should have a guilty conscience; rather, is a victim of his conscience and mistreatment by others. 

It also follows that there is nothing he can do about his problem. He didn't cause it; therefore he can't cure it. He has to call on the experts (the psychologists) and let them solve the problem. If they can't solve it, his case is hopeless because there is nothing he can do.

B. The Bible Teaching

It is true that some emotional or mental problems are the result of physical malfunction of the brain or glands. Physical illness can cause emotional problems. However, such illness is caused by some physical impairment or malfunction, such as a good physical doctor could find. There should be some physical evidence or test that demonstrates a physical malfunction of some organ of the body. 

While sin may in some ways be like disease, the claims of psychologists contradict the Bible in the following ways:

The Bible says that sin, unlike disease, is something we can avoid and overcome.

Sin is not a force outside ourselves that is beyond our ability to cope with.

1 Corinthians 10:13 - No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it. 

Philippians 4:13 - I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. 

James 4:7 - Therefore submit to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. 

1 Peter 5:8,9 - Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. Resist him, steadfast in the faith.

Ephesians 6:10-18 - By using the armor God provides, we can resist the devil. We have the power to stand against all his wiles and quench every fiery dart (temptation). If we fail to stand, it is because we are not using the armor he provides.

The Bible claims that God provides everything we need to overcome sin. Resisting temptation is always within our power, if we use the means God provides. If we fail to do so, it is because we failed to use God's power. Therefore, sin is without excuse.

[John 8:31-34]

So God holds people accountable for their sins.

When we participate in sinful behavior, we cannot excuse ourselves by saying or thinking that we should not be held accountable because we could not help ourselves.

Matthew 13:20,21 - In the parable of the sower, the rocky soil represents people who stumble because they faced tribulation and persecution. Despite their problems, God did not excuse them for sin. He concluded they were not good soil.

Proverbs 24:10 - If you faint in the day of adversity, your strength is small. When we give in to sin, even when facing serious difficulties, it is not because we could not help it, but because our strength is small. We are still responsible for the sin.

Luke 6:27,28 - No matter how much other people mistreat us, we are not justified in doing wrong. Rather, we are expected to do good even to the people who did us wrong [cf. Romans 12:14,17-21]

Unlike with disease, people sin because it is pleasurable and appeals to their desires.

James 1:14,15 - Each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full grown, brings forth death. People sin because something about it allures, attracts, or appeals to them. Is that why people get diseases?

1 John 2:15-17 - Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world - the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life - is not of the Father but is of the world. Human lusts lead us to love the world and displease God. People sin because they find sin more attractive than doing right.

Titus 3:3 - For we ourselves were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another. People sin because they give in to their lusts and pleasures, not because they are overwhelmed by some irresistible disease.

Hebrews 11:24-26 - Moses chose to suffer affliction with the people of God rather than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, because he looked to the reward. Moses had the power to choose to sin or not sin. This is an example for us to imitate. If we appreciate the reward God offers us, we too will resist the allurement of sin.

1 Corinthians 10:6 - Israel was an example, showing that we should not lust after evil things. They sinned because of their lusts. We can resist sin, and God expects us to do so.

Ephesians 2:3 - When we lived in sin we conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were children of wrath. People sin because they fulfill their lusts and desires.

Do people get cancer, heart attacks, arthritis, and stomach flu because those diseases are so pleasurable that people just love to participate in them? People contract diseases, not because they want them, but because they are overcome by germs, etc. People in sin often seek ways to justify continuing in the conduct. But no one tries to justify continuing a disease; they want to be cured!

It is true that, after sinning awhile, people often find it is not as pleasurable as they anticipated; yet they may continue because the habit has captured them - they are "hooked" and find it very difficult to quit (as in alcoholism, drug abuse). Nevertheless, they began the sin because they chose a pattern of life that led to the habit. For that reason God continues to hold them accountable, even after they are hooked and might wish they could quit (2 Timothy 2:24-26; John 8:31-34; Romans 6:12-23).

[2 Timothy 3:1,4; Luke 8:14]

Unlike diseases, people often encourage other people to participate in sin.

Do people encourage friends, whom they really care about, to get a heart attack or brain tumor? No, but people often encourage others to sin.

Genesis 39:7-12 - Potiphar's wife wanted to commit fornication with Joseph and repeatedly asked him to do so. Would a person tempt someone like this to get appendicitis?

Genesis 3:1ff - After Eve sinned, she urged Adam to sin likewise.

Acts 5:1ff - Ananias and Sapphira agreed together to lie about their gift to the church.

Why do people sometimes encourage other people to sin? It is because of the pleasure of sin. They think it will be enjoyable, sociable, or have other advantages. But why would anyone encourage someone else to get a physical disease? 

Unlike disease, God says that people in sin will be eternally punished.

God does not punish people for physical diseases which are truly beyond their control. But He will punish people for sin, including the sins psychologists often say people are not accountable for.

Matthew 25:46 - Those who are wicked will go into everlasting punishment.

Romans 2:5-10 - Those who do not repent but continue in disobedience will receive tribulation and anguish. 

Galatians 5:19-21; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 - Those who are guilty of the works of the flesh will not inherit the kingdom of God. This includes fornication, drunkenness, stealing, homosexuality, etc. 

Revelation 21:8 - The cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. 

The fact that God will condemn sinners to eternal punishment proves that He knows they are accountable for their sins. 

Unlike disease, the Bible says people can choose to repent of sin and cease the practice.

In fact this is the Bible solution to the problem of sin. The fact God tells people to quit proves that they can quit and that they are accountable to do so. Yet who has the power to quit a disease simply because they are sorry they have it and make up their minds to quit?

Proverbs 28:13 - He who covers his sins will not prosper, but whoever confesses and forsakes them will have mercy. People get emotionally disturbed when they are guilty of sin because they try to cover it up. This will not prosper them, but leads to a guilty conscience which shows itself in emotional problems. The solution is confession and forsaking the sin so God can forgive it.

Psalms 51:2,3,8-10 - Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, And cleanse me from my sin. For I acknowledge my transgressions, And my sin is ever before me. Hide Your face from my sins, And blot out all my iniquities. The real solution to sin requires godly sorrow, repentance, confession, and forgiveness. 

Psalms 32:5 - I acknowledged my sin to You, And my iniquity I have not hidden. I said, "I will confess my transgressions to the Lord," And You forgave the iniquity of my sin. 

Psalms 38:18 - For I will declare my iniquity; I will be in anguish over my sin. 

Acts 8:22 - Repent therefore of this your wickedness, and pray God if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you. 

James 5:16 - Confess your trespasses to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. 

The bizarre, erratic behavior of people with emotional problems, even very extreme cases, often begins and continues as cover up to divert attention from their sinful conduct. Consciously or subconsciously they seek to convince people they are mentally unbalanced and therefore not accountable. 

Yet even in extreme cases, the real problem with these people is that they know, at least subconsciously, that they are guilty of evil. They are capable of understanding the message of the gospel, repenting, and seeking God's forgiveness. This is the real solution to the problem, and most are capable of doing it. 

When psychologists claim these people are not accountable, they contribute, not to the solution of the problem, but to its continuation! There is hope for the mentally and emotionally troubled person when he becomes willing to admit and turn from his sin. (See Adams, p. 14, xvii, 30,31,33.)

[2 Corinthians 7:10; 2 Peter 3:9]

---

III. Psychology Often Urges People to Accept Themselves as They Are Without Changing Their Sinful Conduct.

---

A. Teachings of Psychology

Quotations from psychologists:

Carl Rogers describes encounter groups saying, "Each member moves toward greater acceptance of his total being - emotional, intellectual and physical - as it is ..." (Vitz, p. 29). He further says therapy requires the client to feel "unconditional positive self regard," meaning that the client "perceives himself in such a way that no self-experience can be discriminated as more or less worthy of positive regard than any other" (Vitz p. 45,79).

So everything you do, no matter what it is, should be accepted as just as good as anything else you do. In other words, there is no such thing as right and wrong! Whatever you do and however you act, you must accept yourself as you are.

Kilpatrick describes a psychology training film that discusses a divorced woman who is having an adulterous affair. She is ashamed to have her daughter find out about it, so she tells her therapist, "I want to have you help me get rid of my guilt." He does [though she obviously continues the affair], and he then explains that he helped the woman change "from not accepting herself to accepting herself" - p. 75,76.

Kilpatrick (who opposes all this) explains that this is typical of current psychological thinking. When people do not live according to what they believe is right, they have an internal conflict. So:

"The new psychological idea seems to be that we should have harmony at any price. If our actions aren't in line with our beliefs, then we ought to change the beliefs (beliefs being considerably easier to change than behavior).

"This, upon examination, is what a lot of the talk about 'improving your self-concept' amounts to. It means that if your self-concept won't let you feel good about having casual sex, and yet you still want casual sex, then you ought to adjust your self-concept accordingly. The alternative is feeling bad about yourself, and that seems an almost unacceptable alternative these days" - p. 75.

Some of the arguments used by psychologists to get people to accept themselves as they are include the following: 

"Don't be afraid to be yourself." 

People want to be themselves, so psychologists use this to rationalize doing whatever they want, even if it's evil and immoral. If it's really you, do it! People infected by this thinking continually talk about "being my own person." But the psychologist does not mention the possibility that the person you are is sinful and really needs to change.

"Be honest about yourself. If this is the kind of person you are, just accept yourself." 

Honesty is good, so be honest! If you really want to do this, then it would be dishonest not to do it. So be honest and do it, even if it is immoral, etc.

"What you want to do is only natural. Animals in nature follow their impulses and it isn't wrong for them to do it." 

Psychologists typically believe that whatever is natural is good. So just "do what comes naturally," just like animals. This amounts to, "If it feels right, do it," regardless of the moral consequences. Of course, this ignores that fact that people are supposed to be better than animals. Doing whatever feels natural lowers us to the level of brute beasts.

"This can be a growthful experience, a learning experience." 

Growing and learning are supposed to be good, so evil is rationalized because you are growing, learning something new, and expanding your personality. But this assumes all learning and all progress is good. As Kilpatrick says, whether it's good or bad, anything can fit the definition of a "learning experience." 

"You need to improve your self-image." 

As described earlier, the reason people don't think highly of themselves is often guilt. They feel bad about themselves because they have sinned. Instead of encouraging repentance, psychologists encourage people to just overlook the sin so they can feel better about themselves. The important thing is not being good, but just feeling good.

What is overlooked is the fact that all these arguments can be used to justify any kind of evil from stealing to murder to sexual molestation. If I have never experienced committing murder, then doing it would be a learning experience. If I really want to do it, should I just be "honest" and "be myself," and "do what comes naturally"? Animals do it. 

It is exactly such reasoning that leads homosexuals, polygamists, pedophiles, prostitutes, and people involved in all other kinds of evil to militantly demand that people "accept them as they are." If we don't accept them, they say they don't "feel good about themselves." So its our fault they have guilt feelings. If we would just accept them, they could get rid of their guilt feelings.

The idea is summed up in the popular psychological expression, "I'm ok, you're ok." Nobody is wrong. Nobody is any more right than anybody else. Just accept yourself as you are and accept everybody else as they are.

B. The Teaching of the Bible

Many people truly have physical circumstances or natural limitations for which they are really not responsible and which do not matter in their relationship to God - appearance, height, race, deformities, etc. Such characteristics truly should just be accepted, but none of these are defined as sinful in Scripture. Cf. 2 Corinthians 12:7-10. But this is not true of sin.

No matter how a person acts, we ought to love the person.

But we must "love" them in the Biblical sense, which does not mean that we just accept whatever people do and oppose nothing. It means we should seek the well being of all people.

John 3:16; Romans 5:6-9 - God loved the world and sent Jesus to die for us while we were sinners. God loves sinners and we should too. But does God not care how we act? Does He not oppose evil conduct?

Matthew 22:37-39 - The second greatest command is to love your neighbor as yourself, no matter who your neighbor is. We must love everyone, regardless of how they act.

Romans 12:17-21; Luke 6:27,28 - We should do good to others no matter how they treat us. We should love even our enemies, but does that mean we think whatever they do is just fine? [2 Thessalonians 3:14,15]

God says that some conduct is just not acceptable.

It simply is not true that all conduct is equally acceptable. Some conduct God has decreed to be sinful, and He requires that we not accept it in ourselves or in others.

Jeremiah 14:10 - God said regarding Judah: "Thus they have loved to wander; they have not restrained their feet. Therefore the Lord does not accept them; He will remember their iniquity now, and punish their sins." God does not accept everyone as they are, but expects them to restrain themselves. If they sin, He holds them accountable and will punish them unless they repent. [Cf. v12]

2 Samuel 11:27 - King David committed adultery with Bathsheeba. When she conceived, he had her husband killed to cover up. What if he had gone to a psychologist? He would have been told that, if this is how he honestly felt, then he should be himself and do it. After all, animals do it. He should not feel guilty, but just accept himself as he is. But the Bible says that the thing that David had done displeased the Lord. 

Hebrews 11:6 - But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. Psychology would say, if you don't believe, be honest about it. Just accept yourself as you are. You can't say one view is any better than the other (though, of course, they prefer unbelief). The Bible says such people cannot please God.

Romans 8:8 - So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. Psychologists say to do whatever comes natural. But God says if you do, you can't please Him.

Acts 10:34,35 - God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him. God does not accept you simply if you are yourself or you do what comes natural or accept yourself as you are. If you want Him to accept you, you must respect His will and obey Him. 

[1 Corinthians 10:5,6; Romans 12:1; 1 Thessalonians 2:14,15; 2 Corinthians 5:9; Proverbs 10:32; Ephesians 5:10,11]

God hates evil conduct and requires us to hate it.

We must love all people, but we must not love everything they do. This is the concept of "hate the sin, but love the sinner."

Proverbs 15:9 - The way of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord, but He loves him who follows righteousness. 

Psalms 97:10 - You who love the Lord, hate evil! 

Proverbs 8:13 - The fear of the Lord is to hate evil; pride and arrogance and the evil way and the perverse mouth I hate. 

Psalms 119:104 - Through Your precepts I get understanding; therefore I hate every false way. 

Psalms 36:1,4 - One reason God condemns evil people is that they do not abhor evil. Not only does God Himself hate evil, he expects us to do the same. If we do not hate evil, then He considers us to be evil. 

The problem with psychology's concept of acceptable conduct is that it is entirely based on human ideas, human feelings, and human standards. We cannot determine what is acceptable conduct simply on the basis of nature or feeling good or even simply a matter of honesty. Those are all human standards.

If there is an all-wise, all-powerful God who made us for the purpose of serving Him, then He alone, as the absolute monarch of the universe, has the right to say what is and is not acceptable. His word is the absolute standard. Our duty is to accept what He says and abide by it. If we don't, then we ought to feel guilty until we repent and do what is right.

[1 John 2:15; Psalm 119:163]

If no conduct is better than any other, this means we cannot praise good conduct either.

If we should not view any deeds as worse than any other, then it follows that we cannot accept any conduct as better than any other. We can feel no sense of accomplishment or achievement in having done good. We cannot reward or praise anything as being good. In fact all distinction between good and bad must be eliminated.

Amos 5:15; Romans 12:9 - Hate evil, love good. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good. How can we do this if nothing is any worse than anything else?

Hebrews 1:9 - Jesus loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God blessed and honored Him. But how could He love righteousness if no deeds are better than any others? Psychologists say there is no virtue in hating evil or loving good, and in fact there is no way to say anything is good or evil.

Psalms 119:127,128 - I love Your commandments more than gold, yes, than fine gold! Therefore all Your precepts concerning all things I consider to be right; I hate every false way. According to psychology this is all impossible nonsense.

Hebrews 5:14 - God expects people to mature spiritually so that, by reason of use, they have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. People are expected by God to distinguish good from evil, but psychologists say it can't be done.

Man is not an animal. He was created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-28) and is required to live above animals. When people teach that there is no distinction between right and wrong, they degrade man to the level of animals and destroy the meaning in life (Ecclesiastes 12:13).

Isaiah 5:20 - Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! This is exactly what psychologists do. They say you can't distinguish good from evil, then they pretend that people who do evil are no worse off than people who do good. Woe to them.

[1 Thessalonians 5:21,22; Proverbs 17:15; 2 Corinthians 13:5; Psalm 26:3-5]

If people should just accept themselves as they are, then the gospel is worthless and Christ died in vain.

The gospel teaches that Jesus was crucified to save men from the consequences of sin. But if all conduct is as good as any other, then there is no such thing as sin, no such thing as consequences for sin, and therefore no need for Jesus to die!

Ephesians 1:7 - In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace. But if no deeds are any worse than any other, why do we need grace, forgiveness, or Jesus' blood?

Matthew 26:28 - "For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." But according to psychology no one needs remission. Just accept yourself as you are.

Titus 2:14 - Jesus gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works. But the consequence of psychology is that there are no lawless deeds to be redeemed from and no good works to be zealous for. No wonder most psychologists do not accept the gospel of Jesus!

1 Corinthians 15:3 - For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures. The crucifixion of Christ for our sins is the essence of the gospel. But psychology denies the need and the value of this most basic gospel truth. It so doing it denies the truth of "the Scriptures."

Romans 6:23 - For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. But psychology says there is no sin and therefore no wages (except that if we mistakenly listen to our consciences we unnecessarily feel guilty). Therefore, Jesus has no gift to give us, the gospel is worthless, and Jesus died in vain.

[Revelation 1:5; Isaiah 53:5-12; Romans 5:6-10; 1 Peter 2:21-24; 3:18; Hebrews 9:22; 10:18; 1 John 1:7,9]

Psychology cannot meet the real needs of people when it teaches them to just be satisfied with the way they are. Yet in their real inner hearts, people often know this is not enough. They still feel guilty, not because they have overactive consciences, but because they really are guilty!

The gospel of Jesus Christ meets the real needs of mankind, because it provides the only real solution to the problem of guilt. It provides forgiveness by the blood of Jesus Christ.

IV. Psychology Often Justifies Sin in the Name of Freedom And Ventilating Feelings.

---

A. The Teachings of Psychology

Psychologists often express such ideas.

Vitz says, regarding psychologists who emphasize the self: "For selfists there seem to be no acceptable duties, denials, inhibitions, or restraints. Instead there are only rights and opportunities for change" (p. 38).

Donald Campbell, president of the American Psychological Association, criticized psychology as follows: "There is in psychology today a general background assumption ... that repressive or inhibitory moral traditions are wrong" (Vitz, p. 49).

He also said: "It is certainly my impression, after 40 years of reading psychology, that psychologists almost invariably side with self-gratification over traditional restraint" (Berkley, p. 105).

Many psychologists advocate that clients should freely express what they think and feel, with little or no restraint, on the theory that this "ventilates" the emotion, so it doesn't stay "bottled up inside" and lead to some more extreme evil. Pornography, for example, is justified as an outlet for sexual desires that might otherwise express themselves in violent assaults. This may be compared to shaking pop and letting out the fizz - this "gets it out of its system," so after that it doesn't fizz any more.

The mental hospital chaplain (cited earlier) advised that there is little preachers can do for people in mental institutions except to just "be ventilators for them" (Adams, p. 9). That means we just let them say whatever they feel like saying, no matter what it is.

News on the radio once reported that a group of psychologists viewed the 1992 Los Angeles riot as serving a beneficial purpose, because it gave people an outlet for their frustrations which would otherwise have been kept bottled up. Never mind that dozens of people were mugged, millions of dollars of goods were stolen, millions more destroyed by arson, and 65 people murdered, all of which was entirely illegal. It's all justified because people could ventilate their frustrations!

These ideas are especially common in dealing with children. 

Kilpatrick explains (pp. 198-200) that psychologists view children as seedlings that will naturally bloom into beautiful flowers if only adults don't inhibit them and thwart their growth. Parents should not "warp their children's personalities" by requiring them to obey rules and act respectfully.

They think little children are happy because they are uninhibited. If adults would also be uninhibited, we too could be happy. Our emotional hang-ups are the result of trying to follow so many rules and restraints. 

In a parent training manual entitled Caring for Children Draper and Draper advocate "allowing children the right to have all kinds of feelings and wishes and to express them freely" (p. 281). So we should just let them express whatever they feel, no matter how rebellious, disrespectful, profane, or hateful their language or thoughts may be. This is the psychological concept of "ventilation."

So again psychologists prove to be experts in rationalizing and justifying sin and immorality. It's all justified in the name of freedom and ventilating our feelings.

B. The Teaching of the Bible

People ought to control and discipline themselves to do God's will.

Galatians 5:22,23 - Self-control is a fruit Christians develop by obeying the Holy Spirit. We are not free to do as we choose but should restrain ourselves to submit to God's rules. [2 Timothy 1:7]

2 Timothy 3:1-4 - Perilous times come when people, among other things, are "without self control." When society believes people need not restrain themselves but may freely "express themselves" in any manner they choose, perilous times have come.

2 Peter 1:5-11 - God expects Christians to add to their lives qualities including self control. These qualities make us not barren nor unfruitful, make our calling and election sure, and lead to an abundant entrance into the eternal kingdom. Those who lack these things have forgotten the purpose for which God saved them. Psychology advocates the very opposite of this passage. 

Proverbs 29:11 - A fool vents all his feelings, but a wise man holds them back. Psychology encourages people to vent their feelings, get it out of their system, etc. The Bible calls people who do such things "fools." Wise people know they must control their feelings and how they express them. [29:20]

Proverbs 16:32; 25:28 - He who rules his spirit is better than he who takes a city. Whoever has no rule over his spirit is like a city without walls. Those who control their emotions are greater than men who conquer and rule a city. Many famous conquerors could not control their own desires, and will be lost eternally. The person who can control his conduct will be saved eternally. 

Further, a city without a wall was defenseless, easily captured by enemies. A person who, following psychology, indulges his desires without restraint, is likewise defenseless. Evil can easily enter his life and destroy him. Psychology, instead of helping us deal with problems of life, leaves us wide open to problems.

2 Corinthians 10:4,5 - God provides us with the weapons we need to bring every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ. We are not free to do as we please. Even our thoughts are to be controlled by the will of God.

Lack of self-restraint is not in the best interest of anyone. God knows what is best and He says we must restrain ourselves to follow His moral standards. A society that exercises the kind of "freedom" advocated by psychology is a society doomed to sink deeper and deeper into moral degradation and eternal condemnation.

[Matthew 12:50; Acts 24:25]

"Ventilating" sin does not keep us from greater sins. Instead it leads us into them.

Psychologists argue that, by indulging their desires in relatively mild ways, people will eliminate their desire to commit more severe evils - like the fizz in the pop bottle. But restraining these desires causes frustration to build up and break out in more extreme forms of evil. What does God say?

James 1:19,20 - Be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath; for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God. God says we should not express wrath freely, because unrestrained wrath leads to worse forms of unrighteousness. God says the opposite of psychology. 

Proverbs 29:22; 15:1 - An angry man stirs up strife, and a furious man abounds in transgression. A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger. Again, ventilating our emotions and desires is what leads to greater evils, so we abound in evil.

Proverbs 4:23 - Keep your heart with all diligence, for out of it spring the issues of life. The purpose of restraint is to protect the heart from evil. Conduct comes from the heart. The heart that feeds on evil, will allow evil thoughts to grow and express themselves in greater evil.

Contrary to psychology, practicing "mild" evil does not hinder further evil. Instead it makes evil a habit, ingraining it in our lives and making it more likely, not less likely, that we will move on to greater evils. Meantime we stand guilty before God because of the evils we have committed. To decrease evil, we must do the opposite of psychological theory and restrain our emotions.

Studies have repeatedly shown, for example, that feeding on pornography does not result in fewer violent assaults on women, but rather more. Pornography does not satisfy men's sexual desires but arouses them! Often men act out the forms of sexual perversion they just read or saw. Many have pornography with them as they perform their sexual assaults.

[Proverbs 14:17; Ephesians 4:26,31]

Children specifically need restraint and control. 

Psychology says, if you restrain children, they build up frustrations and become more rebellious. Some parents even in the church think the same. They tell others: "Don't be too strict. Don't compel your kids to go to church. Let them experience some of the world's temptations. Otherwise they will rebel and do really bad things." So parents hesitate to stand up to their own children for fear they will really rebel.

1 Samuel 3:13 - God said he would judge Eli's house, because his sons made themselves vile and Eli did not restrain them. Eli's lack of restraint did not prevent his sons from committing more extreme evils but led them to abuse the priests' office, commit fornication, take what did not belong to them, and threaten violence to those who tried to stop them (2:12-17,22-25). God expects parents to restrain their children, not let them ventilate all their desires.

Restraint must be given with love for the child, guided by God's law. But properly given it leads the child to obey and respect God and his parents. God says the unrestrained child is the one that rebels. The lenient approach of the psychologists has produced what we see all around us in society: a generation of immoral rebels. 

Yes, children are in some ways like flowers that bloom. But growing a good garden or flowerbed requires exercising control. Seeds must be planted only when the weather is right. They must receive enough water, but not too much. Weeds must be pulled. Good does not grow naturally. It must be nurtured with control and restraint.

Evil desires are not like fizz in pop but like fire. Psychology's approach is like giving kids matches and gasoline with no restraints, then hoping they will only start small fires. But fire that is not restrained leads to an inferno. To stop a fire, you must contain it, suffocate it, and take away the fuel that feeds it. But the best course is to teach children not to play with matches to begin with. That is the approach God's word takes to evil. 

Bible freedom is not freedom from restraint, but freedom from sin and its consequences.

2 Peter 2:19 - False teachers promise liberty, but are themselves slaves of corruption; for by whom a person is overcome, by him also he is brought into bondage. [cf. v18-22] This is the kind of liberty psychologists recommend - liberty to do as one pleases. God says this leads to slavery and corruption. A person is in bondage to whatever force he obeys. People who practice sin are slaves of sin. [2 Timothy 2:25,26]

John 8:31-34 - Jesus' taught people to know the truth and abide in His word. Then they will be freed from slavery to sin. Bible freedom is not freedom to do as we please or give free rein to our emotions and desires. Bible liberty is freedom from sin and guilt, but to have that we must know and obey the truth.

Romans 6:12-23 - All people are slaves, but we have different masters. And all people are free, but we are free from different things. Those who live free from restraints, as psychologists urge, will become slaves of sin but will be freed from righteousness. Those who obey God's word will be slaves to righteousness, but will be free from sin and eternal death. This is Biblical freedom, but to obtain it we must not let sin reign in our bodies, but present our members as instruments of righteousness to God. 

Galatians 5:13 - We must not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh. Freedom in Christ is not license to do as we please. 

Most people can find plenty of excuses to rationalize their sins, but often our excuses may not convince others or even ourselves. Excuses that come from psychologists are more convincing, because they are professionals. They have been trained in college and have degrees in excuse making, so they can do it scientifically. They are paid extravagant fees. So when they offer an excuse, people are more likely to believe it! 

Psychology offers a false and perverted freedom: freedom from God, freedom from righteousness, and freedom from eternal life. True freedom is freedom from sin and is found only in Jesus Christ.

[Matthew 11:28-30; 1 Peter 2:16; 2 Peter 1:4; Acts 8:22,23]

---

VI. Psychology Often Says Sin Should Not be Condemned or Rebuked. 

---

A. The Teachings of Psychology

Psychologists often say sinful practices should be handled in a "non-directive, non-judgmental" way. 

We are told to listen sympathetically, but never tell people their conduct was wrong or sinful, never rebuke them, never tell them they must repent, never even give them advice. Instead we should just let them express themselves figure things out themselves.

Stanley Anderson is quoted as saying: "The counselor should listen, show no authority, give no advice, not argue, talk only to aid or relieve or praise or guide the client and to clarify the problem" (Adams, p. 78).

Julian Hart is quoted as saying: 

"The good pastor in this office is not judgmental, he is not directive ... he is not moralistic. So when someone puts this kind of question to him, 'What ought I to do?' he knows that he must not answer it, whatever else he does or does not do. He is permitted to ask, 'Well, what do you think you ought to do?'" (Adams. p. 78).

Rollo May, in his book, The Art of Counseling is quoted as saying: 

"This is a crucial point. The counselee asks for advice. If the counselor succumbs to the temptation ... and gives advice or even specific instructions, he short-circuits the process and thwarts the real personality readjustment of the counselee ...; true counseling and the giving of advice are distinctly different functions ... Advice-giving is not an adequate counseling function because it violates the autonomy of personality. It has been agreed that personality must be free and autonomous; how, then, can one person justifiably pass ready-made decisions down to another. Ethically one cannot do it; and practically one cannot - for advice from above can never effect any real change in the other's personality" (Adams, p. 79,80).

So religious teachers cannot give "advice from above" nor even "specific instructions," even if someone asks for them. To do so won't work and is unethical, because people must be left "free" and independent (autonomous). Here is a practical application of the freedom and liberty psychology advocates.

Rollo May is quoted further as follows: 

"This brings us to the matter of moral judgments in counseling. It is clear, first from a Christian point of view, that no one has a right to judge another human being; the command, judge not, is an incontrovertible, particularly since it was given a dynamic by Jesus' own life. And psychotherapeutically in the second place, judging is unpermissible; 'and above all,' as Adler says, 'let us never allow ourselves to make any moraljudgments, judgments concerning the moral worth of a human being'" (Adams, p. 87,85).

So psychologists claim that Jesus practiced what they preach, though in fact His life totally contradicted their views. They don't know beans about His life and can't tell Genesis from Revelation, but they know somewhere He once said, "Judge not"!

We earlier quoted the Mental Health Institute chaplain who advised preachers not to rebuke patients in mental hospitals but to just listen sympathetically to their problems. 

Carroll Wise is quoted: "We can say frankly that we see no place in pastoral care for the passing of judgment in terms of condemnation or name calling, or of moralistic preachments" (Adams, p. 85). 

And remember that these approaches are used for such conduct as homosexuality, adultery, abortion, stealing, etc.

So Adams describes a typical counseling session: 

"The client begins the interview: 'I'm really upset.' The counselor focuses upon that word and reflects it back in different words: 'I see that you're torn two ways.' 'That's right,' says the client, 'I'm very distressed.' 'I see,' the counselor replies, 'that you are quite troubled.' 'My difficulty is that I don't know what to do about a certain problem,' says the client. 'You are trying to find a solution,' says the counselor. 'Yes, that's right. I've had problems with homosexuality. Do you think homosexuality is wrong?' asks the client. And his counselor replies, 'I see you are asking me whether homosexuality is ethically or religiously proper'" (Adams, p. 91,92). 

You may as well talk to a tape recorder! 

So the psychologists forcefully advise us never to give people advice! They tell us we are wrong, if we ever tell other people they are wrong! They rebuke us saying we should never rebuke or condemn sin! 

Apparently the only act that is really wrong is the act of telling someone they did wrong! The only act that may be rebuked is the act of rebuking sin! The only advice we can give is to advise people not to give advice! 

In short, psychologists do not practice what they preach. What they really mean is we must never rebuke people who do evil. But apparently it is fine to rebuke the good people who are trying to get the sinners to straighten up! And again the psychologists are found protecting evil and taking the side of sin against righteousness and morality.

B. The Teaching of the Bible

The Bible requires us to rebuke sin.

The Biblical approach to sinful conduct is just the opposite of what psychologists advocate. Instead of excusing sin, God holds people accountable for sin. Instead of withholding rebuke and instruction, the Bible repeatedly teaches that sinners must be rebuked and instructed to correct their lives.

Proverbs 19:20 - Listen to counsel and receive instruction, that you may be wise in your latter days. Whereas psychologists say we should not give people advice, God says the opposite. It is often through the counsel of others that we learn what we most need to hear.

Proverbs 28:4 - Those who forsake the law praise the wicked, but such as keep the law contend with them. If we excuse and justify sinful conduct, like many psychologists do, we forsake God's law. But those who keep God's law will speak out against sin.

Luke 17:3 - If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. Forgiveness is a fundamental Bible teaching. We must not hold grudges or seek vengeance. But the same Bible clearly teaches that people who sin should be told they are wrong.

Acts 8:22 - By inspiration the apostle Peter told an erring Christian to repent of his wickedness and pray for forgiveness. We must imitate such examples (Phil. 3:17; 4:9). The essence of the gospel is a call to repentance. If we fail to convey that message to those who disobey God, we are false teachers!

2 Timothy 4:2-4 - Preach the word, reproving and rebuking sin. Faithful preaching requires us to rebuke error. Furthermore, the reason we must rebuke sin is that many people will turn from the truth but will want preachers to justify their sin. This is exactly what most psychologists do. They are the kind of false teachers who tickle people's ears, telling them what they want to hear, instead of rebuking their sins. 

Passages like this not only tell us we should rebuke sin, but they also tell us to be on guard against who refuse to rebuke sin but excuse and rationalize it, just like many psychologists do!

[Ephesians 5:11]

Jesus' life repeatedly demonstrated the need for rebuking sin.

John 7:7 - Jesus said: "The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it that its works are evil." The idea that Jesus practiced the non-judgmental, non-directive approach of psychology is nonsense. When people suggest such an idea, you can be sure they know nothing of the real life Jesus lived.

John 7:24 - Jesus further said: "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment." About the only thing some people know about the Bible is that somewhere it says, "Judge not." Here Jesus explains about judging. But rather than forbidding all judging, He commanded us to judge! 

The judgment that is forbidden is judging by human standards simply because people do something we don't like or because we think but cannot prove they may have done wrong. The Bible nowhere encourages selfish, hateful arguing and bickering. But when people are clearly wrong according to the Word of God, if we love them, we must tell them they are wrong so they can repent and be forgiven. 

Revelation 3:19 - Jesus said: "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent." Note that the reason for rebuking sin is so guilty people can repent and be saved.

Jesus' life was really the opposite of what psychologists claim. No one was more directive, more authoritative, or more outspoken against sin. Bible accounts of His life are filled with examples in which He told people they were wrong and needed to repent. Read the Bible and see for yourself!

Conclusion

Once again, we recognize that not all psychologists hold all the views we have discussed. Nevertheless, these views are commonly held and advocated in modern psychology and psychiatry.

Most psychologists stand in direct conflict with Bible teaching about how to deal with sin. As a result they must be numbered among the false teachers who comfort and encourage people in sin, instead of leading them out of it. 

As a result psychologists hide from people the only way they can really correct their lives. The only real hope for sinners is to learn they have sinned and then to turn to Jesus for forgiveness. People who really love sinners, like Jesus did, will speak in love to show them their error so they can turn from it, be forgiven, and receive true hope for the future.

For more information about forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ, we urge the reader to see the links at the end of this study.

Bibliography

Competent to Counsel, Jay Adams; Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., 1978.

Psychological Seduction, William Kirk Kilpatrick; Thomas Nelson Pub., 1983.

�Psychology and the Bible,� Warren E. Berkley; Gospel Anchor, Dec., 1986-Feb., 1987.

Psychology As Religion: The Cult of Self-Worship, Paul C. Vitz; William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1977.

�Some Things Can�t Be Done,� Warren E. Berkley; Gospel Anchor, ?/?.