What Does the Scripture Say?

WHAT GOD HAS TO SAY ABOUT HIS WORD

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Matthew 4:4 But Jesus answered and said, “It is written, “Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.’”

Colossians 3:16 Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God.

1 Peter 2:2 Like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation.

John 17:17 “Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.

Romans 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

John 14:26 “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

Luke 10:38-42 Now as they were traveling along, Jesus entered a village; and a woman named Martha welcomed Him into her home. She had a sister called Mary, who was seated at the Lord’s feet, listening to His word. But Martha was distracted with all her preparations; and she came up to Him and said, “Lord, do You not care that my sister has left me to do all the serving alone? Then tell her to help me.” But the Lord answered and said to her, “Martha, Martha, you are worried and bothered about so many things; but only one thing is necessary, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her.”

HINTS TO GET INTO THE BIBLE

1. Pray for hunger, persistence, consistency and conviction to get into God’s Word.
2. Read through the Bible in one year.
3. Go through the Old Testament in one year.
4. Read aloud the Bible to your spouse and/or children.
5. Go through the same book as your spouse and/or children.
6. Dwell on one verse throughout the day.
7. Wake up 5 or 15 minutes early to read your Bible.
8. Read the Bible while eating breakfast, lunch or dinner.
9. No Bible, no breakfast.
10. Listen to your version of the Bible on audio tapes, CD or even MP3.
11. Create individual mini-books of the Bible. This is just the book of Romans, miniaturized, copied, glued, etc masquerading as a DayMinder.  .
12. Use your mini-Bible book at doctor’s offices, in lines, anywhere and everywhere you have a moment.
13. Open your Bible when you feel like it…Open your Bible when you don’t feel like it.
14. Read one chapter of Proverbs a day, and watch as God’s wisdom fills your heart and mind. Since there are 31 chapters, if you miss a day or two, just continue by reading the current date’s chapter. This way you won’t feel guilty if you have to skip days.
15. When starting to sit in front of the TV, leave the room and start to sit at the feet of Jesus, in His Word.
16. Do not read any other Christian materials until you read your daily Bible allotment.
17. Do not read ANY of man’s word (magazines, newspapers, etc.) until you’ve read your portion of God’s Word.

If you utilize one or more of these tips, great. Certainly don’t use them as law. Legalisticly doing these will not bring you closer to God. These are just some ways to practically get some time into God’s Word, that the Holy Spirit may use His Holy Word to make us holy people (sanctify us by faith).

I have been so blessed by this tremendous piece of Bible software. Logos/Libronix is so easy to use, yet so deep and powerful as well. The Lord has blessed me with the Scholar’s Library edition of this software and I have added multiple packages to it as well.

This is how it works. Logos is the company name. Libronix is the software engine/application. Packages like Scholar’s or eBible or MacArthur Lifeworks consist of different books. I highly recommend this Bible software over all the competition. Though some Bible software is free like E-Sword, its functionality cannot match all the features of Logos.

Here’s what I recommend for all Christians who are serious about Bible study. First off, if you can afford it, the Scholar’s Library is the way to go. It’s expensive at about $475, but worth it if you have the money.

For most folks, I would recommend two inexpensive packages, when put together give you a whole lot of good Bible study materials for about $30. First off get the MacArthur Lifeworks for only $14.99 This package comes with a TON of John MacArthur books, Study Bibles, reference works and audio books (MP3s). Just one of these hardback books like “Expository Preaching” would cost you over $15. Make sure you click on “Resources List” to see the more than 50 books included.
Next purchase Ultimate Bible Reference Library for only $14.99 This package comes with another TON of materials that will be very helpful. I particularly like Vine’s Expository Dictionary and Vines Learn NT Greek. With these two packages, you will have a great foundation for real Christian growth.

If you want to see it in action, click here for a Demo of the Logos Bible software and here is a nice tutorial on doing a Word Study If you were just curious to try this package out for free, you can by clicking here Free Logos software Although since the free package comes with just 8 books, it’s not really all that helpful for Bible study.

Another great place to see all that Logos can do (specifically if you buy the Scholar’s Library) is www.Logos.com/videos I hope that some of you who don’t use Bible software yet, will purchase at least the MacArthur package as it is a real deal. It usually goes for $60, but is only $15 on sale (the print books would literally cost you over $1000).

P.S. Notice the new ‘comment’ system. It makes it even easier and quicker to leave a comment. You can also ‘attach’ a 30 second audio comment, which is really neat! Give it a try.

Have you ever pondered this question? “Why does God love me?” Or to put it another way, “What is it about me that caused God to love me?”. To put it succinctly, the answer to the latter question is ‘nothing’. We will see that the answer to this second question can lead us to a proper understanding of the first.

In reference to why I would respond ‘nothing’ to that important question, let’s look at a couple of Bible verses. Notice that in Romans 3

Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;

Paul declares that we are all vile sinners and yet God justifies us (declares us righteous in His sight) as a gift (in the Greek ‘dorean’, also translated: freely, without a cause) by His grace. The same Greek word is used in the following verse

John 15:24-25 If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated Me and My Father as well. But they have done this to fulfill the word that is written in their Law, ‘They hated Me without a cause.’

Let me ask you a question, “What was in Jesus that would cause man to hate Him?” The answer: nothing, absolutely nothing. In the same way that there was nothing in Jesus to cause man to hate Him, there was nothing in us that caused God to love us. Men hated Christ because of something within their depraved soul. In the same way, God loved us because of something within His glorious being.

In other words, the answer to the first question is: God loves us because GOD IS LOVE (see 1 John 4:8-10). He loves us in spite of us being unlovable. The beauty of God’s love is that He loves the unlovable. He loves us because of his character, not because of ours. Praise the Lord! Because therein is security. If God’s love for me depended on my character or anything within me, it might ebb and flow. But because God is love and God is immutable, He changes not. His love for us is never ending (see Romans 8:37-39).

Deuteronomy 7 also gives us some insight into why God chooses or loves His own.

Deut 7:6-10 “For you are a holy people to the Lord your God; the Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. “The Lord did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any of the peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but because the Lord loved you and kept the oath which He swore to your forefathers, the Lord brought you out by a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. “Know therefore that the Lord your God, He is God, the faithful God, who keeps His covenant and His lovingkindness to a thousandth generation with those who love Him and keep His commandments; but repays those who hate Him to their faces, to destroy them; He will not delay with him who hates Him, He will repay him to his face.

So why did “God set His love on you or choose you”? The answer from Scripture is “because the Lord loved you”! Why does God love us? Because God loves us! Man is constantly looking for something within himself to make himself approved to God. To think that God would love us immediately (in our self-centered hearts) conjures up in our mind that there must be something of value in man to cause that love.

But let’s praise the Lord and rejoice (boast) in His love for us. God is love and He chooses to set His love upon us, unworthy, despicable ones because of His grace, because He loves us. Praise God that we can rest in His love. May that motivate us to love Him ever more. Brethren, let me echo the exhortation of 1 John 4:11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.

P.S. I hope you all have enjoyed and been edified by all the psychobabble related posts below. I’m finished with that topic for now. I look forward to a bit more variety in the next few weeks. Perhaps more ‘daily life’ type of content. May the Lord bless you all!

Below is an excerpt from the Bobgans’ book “The End of Christian Psychology” available as a free download below.

We begin by explaining the title of this book. Quotes around Christian psychology indicate that there is really no “Christian psychology.” What is called “Christian psychology” is comprised of the same confusion of contradictory theories and techniques as secular psychology. Professional psychologists and psychiatrists who profess Christianity have simply borrowed the theories and techniques from secular psychology. They practice what they consider a perfect blend of psychology and Christianity. However, they use the same psychology as non-Christian psychologists and psychiatrists. They use theories and techniques contrived by such men as Freud, Jung, Adler, Fromm, Maslow, Rogers, Ellis, Glasser, Harris, Janov, all of whom we critique in this present volume and none of whom embraced Christianity or developed a psychological system from the Word of God.

The Christian Association for Psychological Studies (CAPS) is an organization of psychologists who are professing Christians. The following was admitted at one of their meetings:

We are often asked if we are “Christian psychologists” and find it difficult to answer since we don’t know what the question implies. We are Christians who are psychologists but at the present time there is no acceptable Christian psychology that is markedly different from non-Christian psychology. It is difficult to imply that we function in a manner that is fundamentally distinct from our non-Christian colleagues . . . as yet there is not an acceptable theory, mode of research or treatment methodology that is distinctly Christian. Science or Pseudoscience?

Pseudoscience or pseudoscientism uses the scientific label to protect and promote opinions that are neither provable nor refutable. If psychotherapy had established itself as a science, there would be some consensus in the field regarding mental-emotional-behavioral problems and how to treat them. Instead, the field continues to expand with contradictory theories and techniques, all of which communicate confusion rather than anything approximating scientific order. Psychotherapy continues to proliferate with its growing number of conflicting explanations of human beings and their behavior. Psychologist Roger Mills, in his article “Psychology Goes Insane, Botches Role as Science,” says:

The field of psychology today is literally a mess. There are as many techniques, methods and theories around as there are researchers and therapists. I have personally seen therapists convince their clients that all of their problems come from their mothers, the stars, their bio-chemical make-up, their diet, their life-style and even the “kharma” from their past lives. Instead of knowledge being added to knowledge with more recent discoveries resting on a body of solid information, one system contradicts another, one set of opinions is exchanged for another, and one set of techniques replaces another. Psychotherapy changes along with current cultural trends. An accumulation of over 400 separate systems, each claiming superiority, should discourage anyone from thinking that so many diverse opinions could be scientific or even factual. Psychotherapy and its underlying psychologies are amassed in confusion, with their pseudoknowledge and pseudotheories resulting in pseudoscience.

Pseudoscience?

Psychotherapists claim to provide advantageous behavioral patterns for daily living, new awareness of the possibilities for selfhood, and adjustment to life and circumstances. They address both internal phenomena, such as thoughts, fears, and anxiety, and outward behavior, such as social interaction, withdrawal, and aggression. However, in attempting to assess and change internal and external behavior, psychotherapy is swathed in subjectivity. Nevertheless, its proponents call it scientific and dress it in professional jargon. Then, staged as a science and costumed in professional-sounding vocabulary, psychotherapy unabashedly performs according to personal opinion, influenced by the many, often conflicting theoretical systems.

Is psychotherapy science or superstition? Is it objective or subjective? Is it fact or fabrication? Such questions are important because we have learned to trust almost anything labeled science. Our society has a penchant for science, for it has lifted us out of the ordinary, taken us to the moon, and helped us explore the distant planets and the inner workings of the brain. We have been impressed, surprised, and even awed by the wonders of science. Science and its accompanying technology have propelled us towards a more comfortable way of life, although not necessarily towards a peaceful state of mind. Science has made us feel knowledgeable, for it has enabled us to discover and describe many of the natural, physical laws of the universe. Likewise, we are anxious to have similar laws to describe human nature. Therefore, because psychotherapy has identified itself with science and has been labeled a behavioral science, many consider it scientific in describing, analyzing and treating the human condition. Although many disciplines outside the realm of science may be fascinating and attractive, they do not command confidence the way science does.

People tend to equate the word scientific with such concepts as truthfulness, accuracy, and reliability. If, indeed, psychotherapy and its underlying psychologies are scientific, they may command our respect and attention. However, if they are not, we have reason to question and to doubt their bold assertions and methods. Since psychotherapy is based on psychological theories, it would be reasonable to ask if these psychological theories can be considered science. Attempting to evaluate the status of psychology, the American Psychological Association appointed Dr. Sigmund Koch to plan and direct a study which was subsidized by the National Science Foundation. This study involved eighty eminent scholars assessing the facts, theories, and methods of psychology. The results of this extensive endeavor were published in a seven-volume series entitled Psychology: A Study of a Science.

Examining the results, Koch qualifies his concerns by saying, “I am not saying that no subfields of psychology can be regarded as parts of science.” However, psychotherapy would be one of Koch’s primary targets when he says, “I think it by this time utterly and finally clear that psychology cannot be a coherent science.” (Italics in original, bold added.) Koch suggests, “As the beginning of a therapeutic humility, we might re-christen psychology and speak instead of the psychological studies.” (Italics in original.) Koch would certainly criticize psychotherapy for living under “the delusion that it already is a science” when it is not. And, he would certainly confirm that psychotherapy “cannot be a coherent science.”

One reason why psychotherapy cannot legitimately be called a coherent science is because it attempts to deal with human complexities that cannot be directly observed or consistently predicted. Furthermore, the therapist and client are each individually unique and their interaction lends an additional dimension of variability. When one adds time and changing circumstances, it is no wonder that the therapeutic relationship escapes the rigors of science. In considering the dilemma between science and personal individuality, Dr. Gordon Allport says:

The individual, whatever else he may be, is an internally consistent and unique organization of bodily and mental processes. But since he is unique, science finds him an embarrassment. Science, it is said, deals only with broad, preferably universal, laws. . . . Individuality cannot be studied by science, but only by history, art, or biography. We could add, the individual not only escapes the formulas of science, but also defies the descriptions of literature. Nevertheless, if one must choose between the two, it appears that literature has more ably revealed human beings. Language describes the complexities of individuality far better than formulas. Language and literature, rather than personality theories and psychotherapy, best portray human nature and provide a glimpse into the depths of the soul.

Does Research Make Psychotherapy a Science?

Further confusion about psychotherapy and science concerns the use of scientific research methods to investigate the success or failure of a given theory or treatment procedure. We will be quoting much research that questions the usefulness of professional psychotherapy, in which scientific methods were used, including the use of meta-analysis, which is a statistical technique. Some people assume that, because such scientific methods are used, psychotherapy is a science. While it is true that research employs scientific methods, it does not follow that whatever is being investigated is scientific. Many nonscientific and even questionable practices, such as E.S.P., biorhythms, fingertip reading, and psychic phenomena, have been investigated by scientific research procedures. The scientific method has been used to investigate everything from art to Zen and from prayer to politics. We certainly would not call all of these “science.”

Here’s those sweeties again! Please pray for their souls, that they may love the Lord with everything they’ve got.

You might need to view this in “Internet Explorer” not Firefox.

Video

Check out this full length (1 hr 45min) documentary on the New Age Movement. It was produced in 1983 and features interviews with a younger Dave Hunt (still looks the same though) and the Bobgans. Though this is not explicitly dealing with psychology, a lot of New Age ideas and concepts have come into psychotherapy and thus into the church. It is definitely worth the time to watch. May the Lord bless you all!

The following is an excerpt from the FREE book “Four Temperaments, Astrology & Personality Testing”, attached below.

True and Reliable?

The four temperaments theory also gives an illusion of truth. One can apply all descriptive traits to all humans to a greater or lesser degree. Therefore, when temperament characteristics are placed in categories, people can easily see themselves because of the universal nature of traits, such as friendly, confident, sensitive, dependable, and so on.

Then, when people are told that they may be a combination of the four temperaments, they can easily fit themselves into a classification. That does not mean the four temperaments are in themselves accurate or helpful. It only means they consist of universal traits and that people can identify with them to some degree.

The four temperaments are broad, arbitrarily defined categories of universally applicable descriptive words that apply to large numbers of people. Yet, when people apply categories to themselves and others, they think they have specific information. Actually they may have some broad approximation which might be partly true in a very general sense.This is referred to in research literature as the Barnum Effect, named after the circus showman P. T. Barnum.

In their book Astrology: Do the Heavens Rule Our Destiny? John Ankerberg and John Weldon declare that the “chart of any person is potentially relevant to every other person,”3 Just as in astrology, a particular four temperaments category is potentially relevant to everyone. As we will show later, there are more variation possibilities among the twelve zodiac signs than with the four temperaments. Thus, their statement would be even more applicable to the four temperaments.

Christians and the Four Temperaments

In spite of the lack of scientific evidence or biblical scholarship, books about identifying and transforming temperaments often sound authoritative. They include both plausible information and wild speculation presented as proven fact. Once a person is hooked into such a system of understanding self and others, he will see everything from that perspective. Also, once a person is convinced that he fits a particular category or combination of categories, he will look for and notice confirming evidence. He will look for validation and find it even when it is not there. He will even tend to act according to his new understanding. In other words he will make himself fit that category.

Peter Glick, in his article “Stars In Our Eyes,” says the tendency to look for and notice confirming evidence explains why, “despite the lack of any evidence of their validity . . . millions of people turn daily to horoscopes for clues to leading their lives.” The same is true of the four temperaments. They appear to be true because people want them to be true. They appear to work because people want them to work.

Greater Understanding?

Another reason for their popularity is that knowledge of the four temperaments may also give the illusion of exceptional insight into oneself and others. By using lists of descriptive words and phrases, people assign themselves and others to Sanguine, Choleric, Melancholy, and Phlegmatic categories. The assumption is that once they have placed someone in a category, they can understand and know that person better. However, the whole process of putting a person into a category leads to no substantial additional understanding of anyone.

The process of categorizing self and others relies on previous subjective knowledge. All that happens is that the subjective knowledge one already has about a person is organized according to an artificial arrangement and given a name. For instance, if you “discover” that your child is “Phlegmatic,” you were already familiar with enough of his characteristics to line them up with the adjectives listed under
“Phlegmatic.”

All you have done is to match descriptive characteristics and come up with a name: “Phlegmatic.” But, since the list could not have included everything about your child, the word Phlegmatic may be inaccurate and misleading. You might actually understand your child less for having matched the available adjectives, because you might now focus on those characteristics and ignore others that might be far more important.

Knowing the temperament traits and categories can actually hinder knowing and understanding ourselves and others. For instance, one characteristic may be noticed in a person in a particular situation. Then, as quick as a flash, that person is popped into a category and assigned the other characteristics associated with that temperament, whether or not the other characteristics specifically apply. As soon as a person is placed into a temperament category, there is a tendency to view that person accordingly. Then the temperament user may simply react to the label, rather than respond to him as a real, living person.

Using temperament or personality typologies undermines the complex variety of individual differences expressed within the vast possibility of social interactions and circumstances. People are not exactly the same in different circumstances. One who may appear reserved and quiet in some circumstances may be highly expressive and outgoing in others.

An Excuse for Behavior?

Another reason for the four temperaments’ popularity may be their fleshly appeal. Those who encourage Christians to utilize the four temperaments for spiritual growth consistently warn against using temperament weaknesses as excuses for behavior. Unfortunately, that is a great temptation—to move from “understanding” why I act a certain way to “excusing” sinful behavior because of “my temperament.” Whenever sinful behavior is relabeled “weaknesses,” there is a dwindling sense of responsibility and a gnawing sense of being trapped in helplessness. Once resigned to one’s weakness, one may attempt to “make up” for that “weakness” by developing and focusing on the so-called “strengths” of the particular temperament one thinks he has.

An Appeal to the Flesh and Pride?

While some may be tempted to use their temperament type to excuse behavior, others may be attracted to positive qualities associated with their particular type. Every category has positive characteristics that a person may apply to himself.

It is easy for many people to fit themselves into several categories through lists of positive characteristics. It is when negative characteristics come along that people tend to shy away from certain categories and limit themselves mainly to one category—as long as the positive outweighs the negative. The four temperaments seem to work because of positive illusions people have about themselves.

The further temptation then is to become proud of one’s own temperament and one’s own self. “Oh, yes, I’m a Sanguine. I’m outgoing, friendly, warm, and enthusiastic. However, I’m not inconsistent, so I must be partly Phlegmatic.” Indeed, one can pick and choose among the characteristics and come up with a very enticing, deceptive conception of self simply by applying attractive characteristics to oneself.

Whenever there is a system which encourages people to analyze themselves, the self-focus can lead to pride. Or, it can lead to reverse pride—self-pity or any of the other self-preoccupying activities of mind and heart.

Better Communication?

Other reasons for the four temperaments’ popularity are the direct and implied promises for improving communication. When temperament book authors suggest ways to improve communication through understanding the four temperaments, there is an underlying requirement to figure out the temperament of one’s spouse, children, business associates, and others with whom one might desire better communication. All kinds of people who profess Christianity are analyzing themselves and others according to the four temperaments. Rather than communicating on the basis of love and truth as revealed in Scripture, they are attempting to manipulate the relationships to fit temperament strengths and weaknesses. Indeed, using the temperaments can turn spontaneous interactions into manipulative interchanges.

Self-Improvement or Sanctification?

Best-selling books on the four temperaments and other similar typologies give people the idea they can change themselves for good as long as they have this special knowledge. Some people think that through this particular knowledge they can replace their weaknesses with their strengths and thereby enhance their own identity and improve their behavior. Promises of improvement and change abound in books that offer “transformed temperaments.”

Some books equate the sinful human nature with the four temperaments and the fruit of the Spirit with the so-called new temperament a Christian gets when he is born again. The books offer even more than self-improvement; they offer a brand new temperament to bring out and enhance the strengths of the existing temperament, which has already been identified as the sinful nature. Thus, through the religion of the four temperaments, new birth supposedly gives one a new temperament, which supposedly improves and enhances the old, sinful, natural temperament. Obviously attempting to wed the four temperaments theory with the doctrines of salvation and sanctification leads to a great deal of theological confusion.

Rather than clarifying the biblical doctrines of man—creation, salvation, and sanctification— focusing on the four temperaments muddies the water. Worse yet, the four temperaments theology poisons the pure water of The Word.

When one uses the Bible to promote pet theories and transmogrifies the fruit of the Spirit into temperament traits, one ends up with a religion of works. At best, studying the four temperaments may aid in very superficial self-improvement. But, even that possibility has not been scientifically verified. The crux of the matter is this: should Christians learn and utilize the four temperaments theory of personality or any other psychological theory of personality for purposes of understanding human nature and progressing in their spiritual life?

Compatible with Scripture?

Many Christians are captivated by the popularized four temperaments doctrines, because they have been convinced that the teachings are compatible with Scripture. We are living in a psychologized society.

Many Christians have become counseling psychologists who attempt to integrate their pet psychological theories and therapies with Christianity. Each psychologist or counselor who tries to integrate psychological theories with Christianity believes that his combination is biblical. He may be incorporating personality theories of Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, Alfred Adler, Abraham Maslow, Fritz Perls, Carl Rogers, Albert Ellis, and/or Viktor Frankl. However, there are serious problems with attempts to integrate psychological theories of personality with the Bible.

The primary problem is that such personality and counseling theories offer unbiblical explanations about who man is, how he should live, and how to change him. While there may seem to be points of agreement, such as the importance of love, at base such theories are antithetical to Christianity. Each presents a world view devoid of God. Each gives an unbiblical philosophy of life (who man is, why he is here, and how he should live).And, each offers another means of salvation and sanctification. Therefore psychological theories of personality are actually rival religious systems.

The four temperaments and other personality type systems did not originate from Scripture. They are part of that philosophical/psychological pool of man-made systems and personal opinions which attempt to explain the nature of man and present methods for change. Christian authors promoting the four temperaments and similar typologies base their ideas on unproven psychological theories and subjective observations which are based on neither the rigors of scientific investigation nor the rigors of exegetical Bible study.

Personality theories and temperament typologies are filled with human notions about the nature of man, how he is to live, and how he changes. Temperament tests and personality inventories also are based upon the same flimsy foundation of psychological subjectivity rather than on science or the Bible.