What Does the Scripture Say?

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.”

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.

I found the following on a website a few years ago. Good, concise commentary on a plethora of verses. Make sure you hover over the Bible verses so you can read them, then get the commentary:

The attached Bible verse explanations (New Testament and Old Testament) detail how God views us and how we should view ourselves. Taken in proper context, the attached Biblical references clearly indicate that there is no biblical basis for self-esteem, self-love, self-acceptance, self-confidence, self-forgiveness, self-assertion, “proper” self-image, self-actualization, or any of the other selfisms advocated by the worldly system of psychology. The Bible’s answer for our emotional “problems”: turn from self to Christ (and His all-sufficient Word).

NEW TESTAMENT VERSES
Matthew 22:36-40- Jesus gives two great commandments: (1) Love God with all your heart, soul, and mind; (2) Love our neighbor as yourself — there is no third command to love yourself. Jesus is saying, “as you already love yourself” — “as” is used in the same way in Eph 5:25,28,33 indicating a state of current existence, not a command. Jesus knows we already love ourselves and thereby commands us to love others with this same commitment.

Lk 10:25-37- Example given by Jesus to illustrate the “love neighbor as yourself” command, presents a story of self-sacrifice (not self-love) towards an object of hate (a Samaritan)!

Matthew 16:24,25- Deny self, i.e., say no to self; not told to self-affirm, self-gratify, or self-actualize.

Lk 9:23- Deny self, i.e., put self to death, daily; not told to self-affirm, self-gratify, or self-actualize.

Matthew 20:26,27- The great are the servants, not the ones served.

Matthew 23:11,12- The great are the servants; the humble will be exalted.

Lk 22:24-27- The servant is the greatest, not the proud.

Lk 14:26- Cannot be a disciple of Jesus, unless deny even yourself.

2 Tim 3:2-5- “Lovers of Self” listed with other “detestable” sins such as slanderers, the treacherous, abusive, proud, conceited; therefore, high self-esteem/pride is a sin!

Jn 12:25- Lover of one’s own life (self) will lose eternal life.

Jn 13:16,17- Humble service is a command.

Jn 15:5- Apart from God, i.e., lover of self vs. lover of God, you can do nothing.

1 Cor 1:18,19- Message of the cross (denial of self) is foolishness to those perishing (i.e., to the psychological self-worshipers).

1 Cor 4:3-5- Objective judgments are ours to make, but those regarding overall worth or esteem belong to the Lord.

1 Cor 13:2- Self-esteem advocates teach we must be of value to ourselves in order to be able to love others, but God tells us that we are nothing, unless and until we love others.

1 Cor 13:4,5- Definitions of what love is not — not envy, not boasting, not proud, and not self-seeking.

2 Cor 3:5- No competence in ourselves (no pride), but only from God.

2 Cor 5:15- Live for Christ, via humble service, not for yourself.

2 Cor 10:12,18- Look to Christ for comparison, not to yourself; i.e., no self-esteem gospel.

Eph 3:8; 1 Tim 1:15; Rom 7:24- Sounds as if Paul has a terrible self-esteem problem! Paul recognizes his rotten condition, to be resolved only through the gospel of the cross, which is a “humble servant” attitude.

Rom 12:3b — Don’t think of yourself too highly, but with sober judgment — notice that Paul makes no mention of the possibility of one under-valuing himself.

Gal 6:3,4- Sober evaluation should be made not on the basis of how one is doing in comparison with others, but by comparing oneself with Scriptural standards, and of course, Scriptural standards stress humility and putting self
to death (denial of self), not boosting one’s self-esteem.

1 Cor 10:24- Nobody should ever seek his own good, but the good of others.

Eph 5:21- Submit to others for Christ’s sake: i.e., humble submission, not pride.

2 Cor 11:30- If boast in anything, boast in weakness!

Phil 2:3- Do not act out of self-concerns, but for others, and then in humility.

Heb 13:17- Submit to your spiritual leaders, not your self-desires.

1 Pet 5:5-7- Be humble toward others because God opposes the proud.

Col 3:12- Christians should clothe themselves in humility.

Eph 4:2- We are commanded to be completely humble and gentle.

James 4:10- Humility leads to esteem — esteem from the Lord.

Lk 6:31- The golden rule: Jesus could confidently make this statement because He knew we already loved ourselves; i.e., if hating ourselves was our natural condition (as the “self-esteemers” tell us), then it would make us happy to be treated badly (as it would confirm our hateful feelings of ourselves), and Jesus would, thereby, be telling us to treat others with the same contempt and loathing that we desire for ourselves.

Lk 6:32- The fact that Jesus refers to “sinners” (i.e., enemies of God) as practicing the, “I’ll love you if you love me first,” philosophy, the self-esteem teaching that, “You have to love yourself before you are able to love others,” must, thereby, also be rejected as being ungodly.

1 Jn 2:16,17- Man’s “boasting of what he has and does” (i.e., self-esteem/pride) is not the will of God, but is “of the world.”

Phil 2:5-8- One’s “attitude should be the same as Christ Jesus” — i.e., “made Himself nothing,” “taking the form of a servant,” “humbled Himself,” “became obedient to death.” In general, one should have an attitude of a humble
servant-loving, self-sacrificing, compassionate, submissive, obedient, courageous, and holy — i.e., no “selfisms” at all, only “otherisms”!

2 Cor 12:6,7- Even though Paul would have possibly been warranted in having a so-called “healthy” self-esteem, he refused to boast; God, also, didn’t want Paul to have high self-esteem — i.e., conceit.

OLD TESTAMENT VERSES
Gen 18:27- Abraham, a believer at this time, has a proper view of self before God — “I am nothing but dust and ashes.”

Exo 3:11,12- God didn’t build up Moses’ self-esteem, but only promised to be with him.

Jdg 6:14-16- God didn’t build up Gideon’s self-esteem, but only promised to be with him.

Jdg 7:2- God reduced Gideon’s forces to such a ridiculously low level that they would have to exalt God, not self, when victory came.

Job 1:8b — Job’s true status, in which he could “rightfully” boast (”a man who fears God and shuns evil”).

Job 25:5,6- God views man as a maggot and worm — hardly a “high self-esteem” teaching.

Job 42:6- Proper attitude toward sin is self-despising and repentance.

Prov 22:4- Humility and fear of the Lord bring honor and life.

Prov 16:5,18,19- Pride leads to destruction; better to be lowly in spirit.

Prov 18:12- Downfall of man is pride; humility required for esteem and honor.

Deut 10:12- God requires a humble walk, and love and service to Him.

Deut 8:17,18- Everything comes from the Lord; therefore, have no pride.

Deut 6:4-9- Have a God-centered orientation, not self-centered.

Mic 6:8- God requires a humble walk.

Psa 62:9- On God’s balance scale, man weighs less than nothing, i.e., negative weight or worth.

Ezekiel 6:9 Ezekiel 20:43 Ezekiel 36:31- Sin brings self-loathing in one’s “own sight” (KJV) (i.e., self-image); therefore, a “proper” self-image in response to sin is a low one (i.e., low self-esteem), not self-acceptance or self-love.

Isa 41:24 Isa 2:22- What is man’s truth worth — “less than nothing;” “of no account.”

Isa 47:8,10,11- Pride/high self-esteem leads to disaster and calamity.

Jer 1:6-9- God didn’t build up Jeremiah’s self-esteem, but promised to be with him and put words in his mouth.

Psa 115:1- Don’t seek glory for self, but for the glory of the Lord.

Psa 36:2- The man who flatters himself, i.e., high self-esteem, is unable to even detect his own sin, let alone hate it.

Psa 34:18- The Lord works in the lives of the humble, not those with high self-esteem.

Psa 51:17- True worship is with humility, not good self-image.

Psa 101:5b — God will not tolerate the proud; i.e., those with high self-esteem.

Isa 6:5- Faced with God’s holiness, Isaiah debases self, not exalts self.

Prov 15:33- Humility before honor.

Prov 29:23- Pride, i.e., self-esteem, only lowers man, while humility gains honor.

Prov 6:16-19- Haughty eyes, i.e., a proud look, listed along with seven other sins that are detestable to the Lord.

Prov 8:13b — The Lord hates pride.

Prov 11:2- With pride comes disgrace, while wisdom comes with humility.

Prov 13:10- Pride breeds quarrels.

Prov 21:4- Pride is a trait of the wicked, and is sin.

Prov 25:27- Not honorable to seek one’s own honor.

1 Kings 3:5-9- Solomon’s humble request was for discernment and wisdom (not high self-esteem), which God honored with wisdom and riches and God-esteem.

Prov 26:12- More hope for a fool than a man with high self-esteem, i.e., a man
wise in his own eyes.

Prov 27:2- Don’t praise yourself, i.e., high self-esteem, let others instead.

Prov 28:26- Those with good self-esteem are trusting in themselves, and therefore, are fools.

Psa 31:23- The Lord will pay back the proud, in full.

Psa 18:27- The Lord saves the humble, but brings low the proud.

Psa 138:6- The Lord looks favorably on the humble, and unfavorably on the proud.

Job 40:4- Job recognizes he has no self-worth in God’s sight.

Jer 9:23,24- Don’t let your attributes be the source of your glorifying, or you have chosen the wrong object for your boasting — the object should be God! Whatever we have is from God, not of our own doing, so our boasts should be
towards Him; praise the Lord, not self.

Jer 17:7,8- A happy and worry-free man is one who places his confidence in the Lord, not in himself; i.e., no self-confidence teaching, but God-confidence instead!

Isa 66:2- God-esteem (the only kind that counts) goes to the meek, humble, and God-fearing.

Psa 139:13-15- The Psalmist uses God’s wonderful creation (man) to exalt God (the Creator), not self (the creation).