Saturday, December 12, 2020

The Christian Counselor's New Testament & Proverbs: A Review

 The Christian Counselor’s New Testament and Proverbs, 4th Rev. Ed. Translated by Jay E. Adams. Cordova, TN: Institute of Nouthetic Studies, 2019.

By Michael R. Burgos

Jay Edward Adams (1929-2020) is best known for his work in biblical counseling.[1] Drawing upon his Reformed and presuppositional commitments, Adams wrote the first thoroughgoing polemic against clinical psychology and psychiatry and the integrationist movement. Simultaneously, Adams sought to establish reformation among evangelicals calling them back to a robust biblical psychology and the sufficiency of Scripture for the cure of souls. By any account, the movement and institutions started by Adams are both successful and thriving.

Adams was a prodigious author, writing mainly on issues related to practical theology but also homiletics, eschatology, ecclesiology, and the like. His formal training, however, focused mainly on theology, biblical studies, and homiletics. In 1969, Adams completed his Ph.D. at the University of Missouri in speech having produced a dissertation entitled The Homiletical Innovations of Andrew W. Blackwood. Earlier, he had earned two undergraduate degrees, namely, a Bachelor of Divinity from Reformed Episcopal Seminary and a Bachelor of Arts in biblical Greek from Johns Hopkins University. Training in biblical Greek afforded Adams a love of the language and appreciation for the ancient commonality of New Testament Greek. The latter of which motivated Adams to produce his essentially literal translation of the New Testament into accessible English.

The Christian Counselor’s New Testament and Proverbs (CCNTP) is a unique and worthwhile contribution to an already crowded market. It features an excellent verse by verse format with healthy margins and handsome font with quotations of the Old Testament rendered in caps. Dotting the margins are short notations that identify the general topic of the pericope. These marginal notations are indexed in the back of the volume and serve as a useful topical guide. Adams has also provided his footnoted commentary throughout the translation. While not as extensive as a full-on study Bible, his comments are to the point and generally very helpful to both the biblical counselor and the student of Scripture. They contain both textual information, Scripture commentary, and occasional cross-references.

The translation work in the CCNTP is thoughtful and accurate. For example, Adams intuitively renders דּוֹר in Proverbs 30;11-14 as “one age.” Whereas “generation” or perhaps “period” would render the noun most literally, “age” makes better sense in modern English and communicates the transient nature of those who transgress the commandments of God. When we think of “generations” we tend to think of individuals who were born around the same period and live contemporaneously, whereas “age” goes a step further not merely connoting contemporaneous existence but mutuality in the relevant sin.

The modern translations render μονογενὴς at John 1:18; 3:16; 3:18; and 1 John 4:9 “only” (ESV; NRSV), “one and only” (CSB; NIV), and “only begotten” (NASB; NKJV). The CCNTP stands out, rendering μονογενὴς “unique.”[2]  This is perhaps the best translation of the term in print since it is evident that throughout the canon that God has other sons (e.g., Gen. 6:2; Luke 3:38), albeit quite unlike the Μονογενὴς Θεὸς.

The adage “No translation is perfect” is true of the CCNTP. Whereas Adams translates Jesus’ ἐγὼ εἰμί statement in John 8:58 as “I AM” he neglects to employ that rendering consistently. For example, he supplied the predicate in John 18:6: “He said to them, ‘I am He…’” On rare occasions, Adams’ translation is unnecessarily wordy. One example is found in 1 Corinthians 8:6. Adams renders the phrase ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν as “from Whom all things have come, including us who ourselves have been made for Him.” The introduction of the reflexive pronoun is redundant and when joined with the relative pronoun, it makes for a clumsy clause. A more succinct translation would render ἡμεῖς conventionally: “from whom all things come, including we for him.”

On the whole, the CCNTP is a very good translation that ought to find traction among Bible students of all backgrounds. His commentary, particularly in Proverbs, is worth the price of the volume alone. Adams has brought fresh consideration to both translational and textual issues and his insights are both valuable and faithful.



[1] Originally called “nouthetic counseling” drawing upon the verb νουθετέω (to admonish; exhort; counsel), biblical counseling and nouthetic counseling now refer to the same general theological commitments (e.g., the sufficiency of Scripture; the supremacy of the local church; the utilization of the Scriptures for soul care) and are essentially synonymous. Although, it has been argued that the phrase “nouthetic counseling” refers to those whose sympathies lie with the distinctives of Adams and the first generation of the biblical counseling movement.

[2] Notably, only the NET renders μονογενὴς as a substantive (i.e., “only one”) as in John 1:14.

Monday, November 30, 2020

How Ought We View Roman Catholics? A Protestant Perspective

Michael R. Burgos

"It is easily seen what sort of Christians we were under the Papacy, namely, that we went from mere compulsion and fear of human commandments, without inclination and love, and never regarded the commandment of Christ." ~Martin Luther

I’m an evangelical. By that I mean I identify with the movement heralded by men like Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Knox, Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley, George Whitefield, Carl F. H. Henry, and Billy Graham. These men held the gospel of Jesus Christ (i.e., the euangelion) to be paramount in the Christian life. Inherent within evangelicalism are several commitments, namely, a belief in the primacy, sufficiency, and inerrancy of Scripture, an identification with the theology of the Protestant Reformation including an affirmation of the five solas and the tenets of credal orthodoxy, and a recognition of the importance of the local church. To these commitments, I eagerly subscribe as a minister of a church within the Southern Baptist Convention. 

One question every evangelical must ask is “How are we to understand and relate to the Roman Catholic communion?” An imagined survey of results might boil down to this: “The Roman Catholic Church is an idiosyncratic and pagan expression of apostate Christianity,”[1] Indeed, I’ve heard some iteration of that statement more times than I can count. For many years I too adopted that rather bleak viewpoint. After all, as an evangelical, I believe the Bible to be perspicuous about what Christians are to believe and, by implication, what we are to reject. I recognize the warnings given by the apostles of those who would seek to pervert the faith once delivered (e.g., 2 Pet. 2). I know about the Mass, Marian dogmas, purgatory, and about the magisterium. However, over time I have found my understanding of the RCC refined and shaped by a number of influences.

In 2009, Dr. R. Albert Mohler, a personal hero of mine and president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, signed the Manhattan Declaration; a statement made by both Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians in favor of life, marriage, and religious liberty. This document spoke of the common Christian duty to “proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness.” Mohler’s contribution to the defense and proclamation of orthodox Protestantism is unquestionable. His loyalty to the evangelical faith is inscrutable. I wondered, how then could he sign this document? Don’t we have a different gospel than the RCC or Orthodoxy? I wondered how a man with such sterling evangelical credentials could make such a statement.

In 2015, my wife Marion, and I lead a group of teenage youth from my fellowship to a Christian music festival in another state. The attendees were mainly evangelicals but there was a significant Catholic presence. I had learned that one of the headliners of the festival, Matt Maher, was a Roman Catholic. When Maher took to the stage I began to leave. My wife pleaded with me to stay. At the time, my refusal to participate was an expression of my loyalty to Christ and his gospel of grace and I walked away. I wondered, “How could we worship with Catholics?” From afar I listened to the voices of evangelicals and Catholics signing praise to the Triune God. That day, I realized that we do, in a certain sense, share a common faith—a catholic faith.

Sapere Aude: How Should Evangelical Protestants View Rome?

The RCC affirms as de fide dogma[2] a litany of grossly unbiblical teachings. The papacy, ever-virginity of Mary, her immaculate conception and bodily assumption, and the sacramental system including the Mass are merely a few. Admittedly, the notion that we might “merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life”[3] is so completely contrary to the New Testament one wonders how anyone might come to that conclusion after having read it. From a Protestant perspective, many of the teachings of the Roman communion are severely out of step with that of sacred Scripture. However, there is also a catalog of dogmas within the church that reflect a sound understanding of the Word. Chief among these is the Church’s resolute trinitarianism. The RCC affirms the great creeds and views the work of Christ as the only hope for fallen humanity. The Church clings to his cross and resurrection.

How then should we view Rome? For many of my Protestant brethren, relegating the Church to apostasy is the clear choice. However, there is a more evenhanded route that recognizes the considerable theological good within the Church while not overlooking the error.

One of my very favorite works of literature is The Pilgrim’s Progress by John Bunyan. Not only have I read it half a dozen times, but I’ve also seen all of the various cinematic efforts to portray Bunyan’s epic allegory.[4] Even after nearly three hundred years, no one has been able to portray the Christian life in such masterful fiction. Bunyan covered the gamut of Christian experience, even detailing the pernicious threat of projecting an outward faith without true devotion to Christ.

I mention The Pilgrim’s Progress because there is a particular scene wherein Christian, the main character, walks the treacherous path through the Valley of the Shadow of Death. Seeing the various dangers by means of the light given to him by God, Christian spotted the dwelling of two figures amidst the tortured remains of many pilgrims. One figure lay dead, a giant named “Pagan” who deceived the hearts of many. Undoubtedly, Pagan had been slain by the Lord of lords long ago. Bunyan described another giant who had previously had much power to destroy pilgrims—there he sat gritting his teeth and coveting the lives of pilgrims. This giant, named “Pope,” had been incapacitated and could no longer pose a significant threat to passersby.

This vignette in Bunyan’s allegory divulges several aspects of his view of the RCC. First, Bunyan viewed the papacy as the spiritual equivalent of a deadly monster. Second, Bunyan viewed the leadership of the RCC as a threat to the spiritual wellbeing of God’s people. Third, Bunyan believed that the teaching of the RCC was a lethal distraction to those on the road to the celestial city. Fourth, Bunyan made a tacit distinction between those pilgrims who had either been threatened or killed by Pope, and thus Bunyan recognized a difference between the papacy and those under its authority.

In Bunyan’s account, I see a distinction made by the apostle Paul in the Epistle to the Galatians. However, we’ll need to do a little work to see it. In that letter, Paul wrote to those churches he had planted in the region of Galatia. In his absence, this church entertained the teaching of a group of “agitators”[5] who were shilling a distorted gospel (1:6), even “another gospel.”[6] To this threat, Paul didn’t mince words: “Even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed” (v. 8).[7] For Paul, there is only one gospel and no one, not even an apostle, can alter it.

What kind of alteration to the gospel did these “agitators” propose? Given Paul’s response, one might imagine that they promoted a form of cross-less Christianity, or perhaps they denied the virgin birth or the deity of Christ. Instead, these false teachers sought to persuade the Galatians to circumcise themselves in keeping with the Mosaic law code. Even then, only half of the congregation would have to participate. Admittedly, Paul’s remark in 4:10 (i.e., “You observe days and months and seasons and years”) implies that the Galatian Christians were also keeping certain Jewish feast days. However, we’re not told that these feast days were also considered a legalistic requirement for peace with God. It is noteworthy then, that even one alteration to the gospel whereby sinners must complete a single work of obedience confounds the gospel even rendering it “another gospel.”

Note Paul’s phrase in v.8: “Even if we or an angel from heaven should preach…” Paul leveled the anathema upon anyone who preached or taught an unbiblical gospel. He did not issue the anathema to the Galatians themselves, but instead called them “brothers” in v. 11. For Paul, these were Christians who were deceived by false teachers. It was those who set themselves up as teachers of the church to whom he leveled the anathema.

This distinction is the same one made by Bunyan in The Pilgrim’s Progress. Teachers and church officers are held to a different standard than pilgrims (Jas. 3:1) and thus whereas we might, as Protestants, be tempted to abominate the entire RCC as apostate, we must instead, as Bunyan and Paul, discriminate between those that teach false and partially false doctrine and those that are under the authority of those teachers.[8] Hence, we must recognize that the RCC is a church, albeit a heterodox church comprised of many Christians.[9]

In necessariis unitas: Recognizing the Roman Catholic Church as Catholic

Over the course of years, I’ve come to embrace the doctrine of catholicity, or what the Apostle’s Creed calls “the holy catholic church.” The shape of this catholicity takes into account the classical distinctions implied by Hebrews 12:18-29. In that passage, the author of Hebrews compared the Mosaic Covenant to the New Covenant in Christ while describing the church upon the earth as “the church of the firstborn registered in heaven” (i.e., the church militant) and the church in the presence of God as “the spirits of the righteous made perfect” (i.e., the church triumphant). This church is comprised of every believer who has ever lived and is the holy catholic church.

Intrinsic to the concept of the “catholic (Grk. katholikos as in “universal” or “general”) faith” is the notion that the church is diverse in geography, ethnicity, tradition, and even theology. The church has historically distinguished catholic orthodoxy in terms of primary or essential Christian doctrine (hence the adage “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity”). That is, whereas Christians may differ on secondary or tertiary theological matters, there is a boundary line that defines the essential teachings of the faith. The question, then, is what are the essentials?

By God’s sovereign providence, the ancient church dealt with this question in detail as they faced various heretical movements. Their findings are well summarized in the last of the great ecumenical creeds, namely, the Athanasian Creed. The Athanasian Creed, or what is sometimes called Quicunque Vult (i.e., “Whosoever will” as in the first two words of the creed), combines the teaching of the three most important and vital creeds of the Christian faith, namely the Nicene, Chalcedonian, and Apostle’s creeds. For this reason, the Athanasian Creed is a powerful teaching tool for Christian discipleship. It is also a helpful means of distinguishing essential biblical teaching from the pretenders. Martin Luther, the great magisterial reformer, called the Athanasian Creed, “The most important and glorious composition since the days of the apostles.” In the Gallic Confession, Calvin described the creed as “In accordance with the Word of God.”

The Athanasian Creed defines catholic orthodoxy as trinitarianism:  

Whoever will be saved: above all, it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except everyone shall keep whole and without violation: without doubt, he shall eternally perish. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in unity.

As the Creed continues it includes the incarnation of the Son of God, his authentic humanity, true deity, and consubstantiality with the Father, and concludes with the broad strokes of the gospel. Thus, if we were to define the catholic orthodoxy according to the Athanasian Creed, we would recognize the essentials of the faith as trinitarianism and trinitarian Christology, the life, death, burial, resurrection, and second coming of Christ, body-soul dualism,[10] and his return in judgment according to works, resulting in either eternal life or eternal fire. Of course, inherent in the Creed is the recognition that there is a catholic faith and, therefore, the recognition of the catholic faith is included in this list of essentials. Out of necessity, we might also add the recognition that the Bible (i.e., the sixty-six books of the authentic canon) as the inspired Word of God is assumed in this Creed.

            As a summary statement of essential teachings, the Athanasian Creed barely gives the gist and is by no means comprehensive. Ironically, one area wherein the Athanasian Creed falls short is in its failure to reflect how one is saved. As Mohler noted, “Central to the Christian message is the kerygma—the most basic declaration of how sinners are saved by the atonement achieved by Christ and applied to the believer through faith.”[11] Surely, one cannot reject the doctrines contained within the Creed and be a Christian. But one can heartily affirm these doctrines and be a heretic. For example, one could affirm the Athanasian Creed while simultaneously affirming that circumcision is a requirement for salvation. If Paul’s letter to the Galatians tells us anything, it is that faith in the work of Christ alone merits Christians peace with God, the forgiveness of sins, and the righteousness of Christ. This too must be in our list of essential doctrines of the Christian faith. And, it is this last doctrine that serves as one of the primary means of division between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism.

            In light of the above, whereas the RCC has evidently erred in its theology of salvation, it does recognize the necessity of grace. Whereas the RCC has effectively mangled the atonement by means of its sacramentalism, it does believe that the forgiveness of sins is found in Christ and him alone. Add into the mix the reality of the theological diversity within the RCC. Such diversity is writ large in the two living popes, Francis and Benedict. Could they be any different? Moreover, there are Catholics who, like Gustavo Gutiérrez, feel more comfortable with Marx than they do with Paul. There are Catholics who, like Peter D. Williams, communicate their faith with biblical and historical rigor and who are willing to be critical about the ungodly ideologies within their church. Hence, evangelicals are faced with the intractable task of recognizing that there is a way to communicate the Roman Catholic faith that is plausibly Christian and thus catholic. Even so, we must also recognize the distinction between those who teach falsely and those who have a simple and sincere faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.



[1] For a similar statement see Larry Ball, Escape From Paganism: How a Roman Catholic Can Be Saved (Victoria, CA: Trafford, 2008), 328.

[2] The Latin expression de fide, which is translated “of the faith,” refers to those teachings which are considered absolutely true and essential tenets of the RCC. Thus, de fide dogmas are binding upon the church and must be affirmed.

[3] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2010.

[4] The best of these is the 2019 animated edition directed by Robert Fernandez.

[5] The present active participle tarassontes (“harrassers,” “troublers, or “agitators”) often bore the sense of political and social upheaval in the ancient world and it implies that these false teachers were presently working to upend the Galatian churches with their message, even as Paul wrote his letter. Cf. Acts 16:8, v. 13; 19:23.

[6] In most places, the NT terms for “another,” allos and heteros, are essentially synonymous. However, in the phrase “a different gospel” (Grk. heteron euangellion), heteros indicates that this gospel isn’t merely another of a similar kind but that this gospel is altogether different.

[7] The English Standard Version translates the active imperative anathema estō (“go make yourself accursed”) as passive (“let him be accursed”). Paul’s language, both here and in his other uses of anathema, reflects the way this term appears in the Septuagint (i.e., the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament). The Septuagint, just as the NT, uses anathema to refer to something that is devoted to a purpose, whether to God, or to some other authority. For example, in Acts 23:14, those who plotted to murder Paul said, “We have strictly bound ourselves by an oath (anathemati anethematisamen) to taste no food till we have killed Paul.” A similar double occurrence of anathema occurs in Deuteronomy 13:15 LXX: “You shall do away with all those living in the city by slaughter by the sword; with a curse (anathemati), you shall devote it to destruction (anathematiete).” The term is often, although not exclusively, used with reference of destroying something or someone who has devoted themselves to another god. Paul always uses this term in its negative sense, referring to someone who, by virtue of their own action, has devoted himself to complete destruction by the judgment of God (1 Cor. 12:3; 16:22; cf. Rom. 9:3).

[8] Bunyan, as most Protestants of his day, associated the biblical antichrist with that of the papacy. See “Of Antichrist, and His Ruin and the Slaying of the Witnesses” in George Offor ed., The Works of John Bunyan, Vol. 2 (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust,  1991), 41-82. Notably, despite such an acerbic assessment, Bunyan believed the RCC to contain many Christians. See ibid., 80.

[9] This statement echoes the position of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. See 2020, “Frequently Asked Questions—Denominations,” The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, https://www.lcms.org/about/beliefs/faqs/denominations#catholic.

[10] Body-soul dualism refers to the belief that human beings are comprised of two elements, namely, a physical body and immaterial soul.

[11] R. Albert Mohler, July/August 2003, “Standing Together, Standing Apart,” Touchstone, http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-06-070-f.

Monday, August 17, 2020

On the Validity of Mask Mandates, Obedience to the State, & Christian Liberty

 by Michael R. Burgos

By means of several executive orders, my state (Connecticut) has required its citizens to wear masks whenever they are closer than six feet from someone who is not in their family. The latest order (7NNN) requires those who have medical conditions that preclude mask-wearing to produce documentation of such from a medical professional. The state justified this order upon the basis of “the effectiveness of using masks or face coverings in preventing the transmission of COVID-19.”

Several phenomena have arisen simultaneously: Most retailers claim that all who enter must wear a mask due to the government’s requirement and most have posted employees at entryways in order to ensure compliance. Such a claim is, in fact, completely erroneous since the government’s order does not require masks at all times in retailers but instead only when one is within six feet of a non-family member. Admittedly, if a private business requires masks from its customers, that is their prerogative. Any that desire to do business there ought to abide by the owner’s stipulation or find another business to patronize. However, to pin the blame for masks-at-all-times on the state is a deceitful—as that is simply not what the state has required.

Additionally, many Christians have argued at length upon the basis of a variety of biblical passages, that compliance with this requirement is our Christian duty. The typical trope argues that 1.) the Bible states that we are to obey the governing authorities upon the basis of Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17 and 2.) in keeping with the apostle Paul’s teaching on Christian liberty in 1 Corinthians 8:1-13, we ought to wear masks since we might offend a weaker brother. Both of these claims suffer from an invalid application of the relevant biblical texts. However, prior to addressing these, let us consider the state’s justification for it's order.

Masks & Facts

Do masks prevent the transmission of COVID-19? One might assume as much given the constant barrage of mask exhortations from virtually every media outlet, politician, and even many churchmen. The evidence tells another story. A 2009 study that evaluated mask use with regard to H1N1 influenza concluded, “There is little evidence to support the effectiveness of face masks to reduce the risk of infection.”[1] Another 2009 study concluded, “Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds.”[2] A 2015 study concluded that the “penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%.”[3] Further, researchers found that the use of cloth masks may increase one’s risk of infection: “Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection.”[4] A 2016 study determined that there is “insufficient data” to show that even N95 respirators prevent respiratory infections.[5] A 2019 study showed that “N95 respirators vs medical masks…resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”[6] A study completed in February of 2020 concluded “The use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”[7]

But wait! Wasn’t there a study just published in July that claimed the opposite, namely, that universal masking leads to a lower infection rate?[8] The Wall Street Journal and other news sources pounced on this study in order to demonstrate the legitimacy of mask mandates. The study, which focused upon front line health care workers, attributes masks to a lower infection rate but then notes that this “could be confounded by other interventions inside and outside of the health care system.” That is, the lower infection rate may be due to other factors (e.g., interventions such as hand washing, social distancing, etc.). The point here is that there is no evidence that masks preclude the transmission of COVID-19. Rather, the best the state and others can point to is research that observes correlation and not causation. Add to this sordid state of affairs the statistical probability of healthy people suffering from a debilitating case of COVID-19: People under 65 years of age make up only 2.6 % of COVID-19 fatalities.[9] As one immunologist put it, “Those young and healthy people who currently walk around with a mask on their faces would be better off wearing a helmet instead, because the risk of something falling on their head is greater than that of getting a serious case of Covid-19.”[10]

Masks & Obedience to Authority

Does Romans 13 or 1 Peter 2 require Christians to obey the government at all times? Clearly, that isn’t the case since Peter and John demonstrate that there are times when obedience to the state is immoral (Acts 4:19-20). Imagine for a moment that the state mandated that the entire citizenry wear masks in their homes at all times. Would we object to such a requirement? Rather, ought we object to such a requirement? Of course. On what grounds? The state does not have the authority to mandate what we do in our homes.

I hear many voices cry out, “Wait, aren’t we supposed to abide by Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2?” Certainly, as the highest authority in our land is the constitution and it is that document that precludes the state from infringing on our personal liberty. Mandating that we wear masks in our homes or in our churches is an infringement upon liberty as the state does not have the authority to do so. For that reason, our Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 duty is to uphold the authority of our land (i.e., the constitution) and to reject the tyranny of the state. Furthermore, Romans 13, despite the assumption of many to the contrary, is a prescription of what the state ought to do and not a description of what the state was in Paul’s day or our own.

Lest you think that I’ve gone off the rails and into some libertarian quagmire, consider an analogous situation in the church. Say your local board of elders begins to mandate that everyone believe that Jesus wasn’t really born of a virgin and that the celebration of Christmas is wrong. Meanwhile, the Bible explicitly states that Christians ought to obey their elders and submit to their authority. Ought we believe wrong things merely because the elders told us to? Certainly not. Rather, a higher authority prohibits our obedience to the elders in this specific area. Moreover, the elders derive their authority from the Scriptures. Similarly, when a governor is elected into office, he places his hand upon a Bible and swears to uphold and defend the constitution. Like elders, his authority is derivative and dependent upon a higher authority. Whereas we ought to disobey our elders when they go against the Bible, we also ought to disobey the governor when he acts like a tyrant and treats the constitution as if it doesn't exist. This ethos is what our nation is built upon.

Masks & Christian Liberty

In 1 Corinthians 8, the apostle taught that Christians may exercise their liberty to engage in non-sinful activity so as long as this exercise does not confound the conscience of a brother. The example provided in that passage is that of meat offered to idols. While new believers, having come out of paganism, may associate that meat with what they left behind for Christ, other Christians viewed idols and paganism as illegitimate and essentially fake (i.e., “An idol has no real existence” in v. 4) and thus looked at this meat as a mere meal. Paul concluded this scenario by asserting that we ought to curtail our liberty if it may lead to wounding the conscience of a weaker brother (v. 12).

Are masks a legitimate application of this principle? Note first that the meat in question was associated with idolatry. Masks are not associated with idolatry nor any sin in particular. Second, the weak conscience of the immature brother in 1 Corinthians 8 was due to his new faith and background in paganism. Those who might be offended at resistance to mask mandates don’t have a background that associates non-mask-wearing with sinful behavior and their offense is not due to a recent conversion. Rather, the likely reason for people to become offended at non-mask-wearers is fear. These folks fear that if everyone doesn’t wear a mask, they too will become sick and possibly die. Not only is that fear misguided, it is predicated upon a worldview that places life and death in the hands of men. Christian liberty isn’t the issue and thus the application of 1 Corinthians 8 to masks is unwise at best.

How then ought we deal with our brother who is offended at our lack of masks? We ought to inform him that there is no evidence that masks are effective in preventing the spread of COVID-19 and that it is unreasonable to expect everyone around us to do something merely because we want them to. There is no law against a difference of opinion in the church. Further, we ought to point him to a sovereign God who holds life and death in his grasp. 


[1] B. J. Chowling, Y. Zhou et al, 12/16/2009, “Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: a systematic review,” Epidemiology and Infection.

[2] Jacobs JL, Ohde S, Takahashi O, et al, 02/12/2009, “Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: a randomized controlled trial,” Am J Infect Control.

[3] C Raina MacIntyre, Holly Seale et al, 04/22/2015, “A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers,” BMJ Open.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Jeffrey D. Smith, Colin C. MacDougall et al, 05/17/2016, “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” CMAJ.

[6] Lewis J. Radonovich Jr, Michael S. Simberkoff et al, 09/03/2019, “N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial,” JAMA.

[7] Youlin Long, Tengyue Hu et al, 02/03/2020, “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks againstinfluenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis,” Wiley.

[8] Xiaowen Wang, Enrico G. Ferro, Guohai Zhou et al, 07/14/2020, “Association Between Universal Masking in a Health Care System and SARS-CoV-2 Positivity Among Health Care Workers,” JAMA.

[9] 08/12/2020, Weekly Updates by Select Demographic and Geographic Characteristics, CDC.

[10] Beda M Stadler, 07/01/2020, “Coronavirus: Why everyone was wrong,” Medium.

Tuesday, June 9, 2020

An Assessment of Creation Therapy



Within ancient Greece, Hippocrates[1] speculated that creation was comprised of four elements, namely, earth, air, fire, and water. He further conjectured that the human constitution mirrors the earth’s composition such that the human body functions upon the basis of four “humors:” blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile. Hippocrates attributed good health to a proper balance of the humors. Conversely, bad health or a bad state of mind was attributed to a humoral imbalance.
Hippocrates’ theory would go on to dominate medicine for several millennia until the scientific age would dismiss it as a fanciful and dangerous myth.[2] However, long prior to being dispelled, Hippocrates’ theory would be developed into a primitive personality theory. Galen, a second-century physician, extrapolated humoral theory and determined that there were four personality types or “temperaments:” sanguine, choleric, melancholic, and phlegmatic.

The sanguine type was even-dispositioned, warmhearted, optimistic, and energetic. The choleric was quick to action, assertive, and prone to hostility and anger. Depression, sadness, and anxiety characterized the melancholic. The phlegmatic type was listless and lethargic.[3]

Several twentieth-century psychologists would build upon temperament theory, having long since jettisoned its humoral aspects. Today, however, most of the major schools of psychology prefer other explanations for human personality (e.g., social-cognitive and psychodynamic theories).

Temperament Theory Finds a Place in the Church

In 1996, Tim LaHaye published Spirit Controlled Temperament, introducing temperament theory to a Christian audience. His book resonated with evangelicals, eventually selling over one million copies. To summarize, LaHaye’s presentation asserts several key principles of contemporary temperament theory: “Temperament is the combination of traits we were born with; character is our ‘civilized’ temperament; and personality is the ‘face’ we show to others.”[4] According to LaHaye, it is impossible for temperaments to change, but the Holy Spirit can “modify” our temperaments such that they appear to be changed.[5] Further, “We are all a blend of at least two temperaments: One predominates; the other is secondary.”[6] Lastly, LaHaye introduced the “LaHaye Temperament Analysis,” such that people may discover their inborn temperament blend.
LaHaye never attempted to find biblical justification for the four temperaments except to assert:  “In Proverbs 30:11-14 the wise man saw four kinds of people. About five hundred years later, the four were given names by Hippocrates.”[7] What LaHaye didn’t tell his readers was that a contextual reading of Proverbs 30 reveals that the four kinds of people cited by the proverbist refer to four varieties of wicked people:

There are those who curse their fathers and do not bless their mothers.
There are those who are clean in their own eyes but are not washed of their filth.
There are those—how lofty are their eyes, how high their eyelids lift!
There are those whose teeth are swords, whose fangs are knives, to devour the poor from off the earth, the needy from among mankind. (Proverbs 30:11-14, ESV)

The term translated “There are those” (Heb. dôr) is literally translated “generation,” and refers not to four temperaments, but of four varieties of people who break God’s commandments. The first group violates the fifth commandment; “Honor your father and mother” (Exod. 20:12). The second group is guilty of hypocrisy, believing that they are “ritually clean” (Heb. ṭāhôr, cf. Deut. 23:12–14), but are instead covered in their own “excrement.” The third group is guilty of arrogance and pride, and the fourth group is guilty of using speech to destroy others, especially the poor (cf. Prov. 25:18).
Despite his attempt, LaHaye’s iteration of temperament theory has absolutely no biblical (or scientific) basis—not one shred. The Bible never states that our “temperament” is determined by our heredity and it never teaches us that our sin is ultimately a result of weakness brought about by our temperament.[8] The Bible doesn’t even acknowledge the category of “temperament.” Adams well observed:

[LaHaye’s] categories came from paganism, not from Scripture…Surely the framework for a system of counseling ought to arise from biblical exegesis, not from pagan Greek philosophy…[9]

LaHaye’s theory is little more than a pseudo-scientific form of biological determinism baptized in Christianese; the resurrection of ancient pagan folk-psychology dressed in church clothes.

Creation Therapy

Richard Arno and his wife Phyllis are credited with designing their own Christian alternative to secular psychology. This method, entitled “Creation Therapy,” is essentially a therapeutic adaptation of LaHaye’s temperament theory. It includes a fifth temperament, the supine, which is alleged to refer to a conscientious and servile person.
Like LaHaye, the Arnos claim that mankind has an inborn temperament that  “determines how he reacts to people, places, and things.”[10] This “inborn” and immutable temperament is cited in distinction with the belief that “people are born as blank slates,” a viewpoint the Arnos claim was originated by Thomas Aquinas. This is a completely spurious claim since Aquinas’ anthropology was thoroughly in line with Christian orthodoxy. Aquinas wrote, “Christ alone excepted, all men descended from Adam contract original sin from him.”[11] Aquinas did not believe humans are born “blank slates,”  and instead, he affirmed a conventional doctrine of original sin.
The Arnos claim Creation Therapy is “the mechanism by which man is given the ability to find balance between body, soul, and spirit, allowing him to be the best that God created him to be.”[12] The Arnos allege that their system identifies one’s “temperament needs” such that those needs can be met in order that “all areas of the inner man” may be in “perfect balance.”[13] Character defects and sinful predilections are recast by the Arnos as “temperament weaknesses.” Indeed, the language of sin and grace is nearly absent from Creation Therapy. Once a counselee’s “temperament blend” is identified, counsel is issued upon that basis.
Following the example of LaHaye, the Arnos developed the “Arno Profile System” (APS)[14] in order to help people identify their inborn temperament. The APS is essentially a coopted version of the FIRO-B test produced by psychologist, William Schutz. Schutz introduced a theory of interpersonal relations entitled  “Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation” or FIRO. He argued that every person has three interpersonal needs: inclusion, control, and affection.[15] Schutz then developed a fifty-four question test (i.e., FIRO-B) in order to measure persons according to their three interpersonal needs. The Arnos adapted the FIRO-B in order to fit their iteration of temperament theory calling it the “Arno Profile System.”
Having obtained a copy of the APS, I examined the questions in order to determine if this test was a legitimate means of gathering data such that meaningful and relevant counsel could be provided. What I found was a series of surface-level questions that are largely irrelevant to the problems faced by those seeking godly counsel. The test consists of fifty-four questions which may be answered with one of six choices ranging from “never” to “usually.” The questions in this test are designed to divulge what a counselee thinks about himself as it pertains to his temperament (e.g., “I let other people control my actions,” and “I like people to invite me to things”).
  The APS is alleged to disclose what “temperament blend” the counselee has as it relates to Schutz’s three categories of inclusion, control, and affection. Once one’s temperament analysis is conducted via the APS, a creation therapist then attempts to issue counsel upon the basis of the set of preconceived attributes that are associated with the counselee’s temperament. As one National Christian Counselors Association (NCCA)[16] certified counselor put it, “Temperament holds the answers to every relationship problem.”[17]
The trouble with this methodology is obvious: NCCA counselors are not actually counseling people, but are instead counseling temperaments. Instead of gathering data in order to truly understand who a counselee is and what he or she is facing, creation therapists merely find out which temperament boxes their counselee fits in so that canned responses can be offered to address the counselee’s problems. Such a methodology has more in common with astrology than biblical Christianity.
At times, it is hard to distinguish the Arnos counseling methodology from bald manipulation. For example, when counseling “the Melancholy,” the Arnos insist that the counselor approach the counselee with “intellectual superiority,” since people who have a melancholy temperament are “rebels.”[18] They further instruct their counselors that “It is imperative that you establish your superior intelligence to this person.”[19] The Arnos suggest letting melancholy counselees “see your credentials” and that “If they have a higher educational degree than you do, let them know that you have 25 years of experience.”[20] Additionally, the Arnos require that their counselors “never confront a Melancholy counselee with their mistakes.”[21] Not only is this approach evidently manipulative, it is utterly unbiblical. Jesus and his apostles taught that it is right to confront a brother with his sin in order to establish reconciliation, repentance, and righteousness (Matt. 18:15-20; 1 Tim. 5:20).
From the perspective of secular psychology, the APS/FIRO-B test fails to live up to the hype. In 2003, the Buros Center for Testing, the reputable testing organization of the The University of Nebraska, evaluated the FIRO-B. The evaluation revealed significant deficiencies. The FIRO-B “appears to fall short of the mark due to flaws in conceptualization and implementation.”[22]
In his text, Case Studies: Epistlemological [sic] Validation of the Arno Profile System: Temperament Studies, Alex Appiah, a Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist, has attempted to mount a defense of temperament theory and the APS by demonstrating their efficacy via case studies. What this book demonstrates is precisely the opposite. In one case, Appiah writes of a woman named “Daniella” who sought counseling because of depression and anger. After having run her through the APS, Appiah then reviewed Daniella’s “inborn” temperament traits with her. Appiah then counseled her to adjust her life to fit these traits. For example,  according to the APS, Daniella isMelancholy-Compulsive in the area of Control.” Appiah then concluded that Daniella “Has a compulsive need to ‘appear’ competent and in control.” He then counseled her to “learn to submit to authorities while maintaining control of her own personal life.”[23] Not once did Appiah appeal to the gospel and its implications to for this woman’s life. Never was the rich treasury of biblical wisdom applied to her anger and depression. Daniella was never confronted with her sin and her need for grace. Daniella’s counselor was focused upon the results of the APS and not the reality of her life.

Is the Arnos’ System Biblical?

Whereas the Arnos have asserted that their theory is rooted in the Bible and is completely in harmony with the Christian faith, Creation Therapy, like that of LaHaye’s temperament theory, is completely absent of biblical support. The only text the Arnos have attempted to marshal to demonstrate the biblical nature of their theory is, unsurprisingly, Proverbs 30:11-14. As noted above, this passage says nothing about temperaments but instead characterizes those who break the commandments of God within the context of the writer’s life. So too, the Arnos have engaged in proof-texting in order to demonstrate that the human temperament is comprised of inclusion, control, and affection. They have cited a handful of texts (e.g., 1 Cor. 2:10; Luke 1:46-47; Eze. 18:31), all of which say nothing about temperament nor inclusion, control, or affection—psychological categories that are completely foreign to the biblical text.
To put it plainly, there is absolutely no biblical justification for any part of temperament theory or the Arnos’ system. Whereas the Arnos make much of the fact that they reject modern psychotherapies,[24] their system is rooted in the backward thinking of an unbelieving worldview (i.e., that of Galen and those who would build on his theory), and it is thoroughly influenced by secular psychology. For example, the Arnos have appropriated the introvert/extrovert paradigm popularized by the occultist and psychologist C. G. Jung.[25] Much the same can be said regarding the Arnos appropriation of the language of “self-esteem.” By implication, the Arnos’ counseling methodology implies that the Bible is insufficient to equip the church for the good work of counseling (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Specifically, creation therapy presupposes that the Bible insufficiently teaches the doctrine of anthropology and counseling methodology.[26] Instead of the genuinely godly counsel given by, say, the apostle Paul, the Arnos and the NCCA, give counsel from a baptized version of an ancient and long-discredited personality theory.
The Bible does not teach that each human being has an unchanging and innate temperament. Rather, the expectation of Scripture is that Christians would change comprehensively according to the Spirit’s ministry of sanctification. Instead of seeking to identify our inborn temperament in order to understand ourselves and our needs, the Bible directs us to live a God-focused life wherein Jesus is our greatest treasure. The Triune God calls forth, “listen to me” (Isa. 51:1), “turn to me” (Isa. 45:22). The Scripture never directs those who are afflicted to look to themselves in order to understand or solve their problems.
The ad-hock attributes associated with the various temperaments are completely baseless and recast human identity in a two-dimensional framework that is neither realistic or pragmatic. Whereas the Arnos believe that their theory is the key to giving godly counsel, they depart from the biblical text in order to derive its content. Like psychology and psychiatry, temperament theory originates from the unbelieving world and is fundamentally man-centered.
The Arnos’ have asserted that sin is essentially brought about as a result of unmet temperament needs.[27] Subsequently, recognizing these needs, fulfilling them, and maintaining a balance will result in individuals refraining from falling “into an area of temperament weakness.” This paradigm, however, is also completely unbiblical. The command of the New Testament is not to get our “temperament needs” met, but to deny ourselves and follow Christ (Matt. 16:24). Man’s sin is brought about most fundamentally by the idolatry of self and is only corrected by trust in the true God and a denial of self. Christianity then is an exercise in delayed gratification: Putting to death our selfish desires (Gal. 5:24), setting our minds “on things above, not on things that are on earth” (Col. 3:1), and patiently awaiting our glorious reward, namely, Christ himself.

The way of the cross is for the present; glory and reward will come only in the future, when Jesus comes to reign. Discipleship means certain death.[28]

Unlike Creation Therapy, the Christian faith calls us to conformity to the image of Christ, and that conformity requires comprehensive change. Our desires, needs, character, personality, minds—indeed everything that we are must change and be conformed to Christ. Thus, whereas Creation Therapy aims to teach counselees to ‘know thyself,’ the Christian faith teaches counselees to set aside themselves and to know God.  
Creation Therapy is predicated upon a trichotomist anthropology which asserts that mankind is a “triune being…made up of body, soul, and spirit.”[29] According to the Arnos, the soul includes the human’s intellect, will, and emotions (cf. Schutz), and it is “in the soul” that the Arnos have located temperament.[30] Simply put, the Arnos’ trichotomist anthropology is wrong. When God created man, he created him from two components: breath and dust (Gen. 2:7).
When we examine the manner in which the terms “soul and “spirit” are used in Scripture, it is clear that these are synonymous and refer to the same immaterial component. For instance, Mary's famous song, the Magnificat, states, “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior” (Luke 1:46-47). Mary’s statement is a classic example of synonymous parallelism indicating that the terms “soul” and “spirit” are interchangeable. John 12:27, records Jesus as saying, “Now my soul is troubled.” In an entirely similar context, John 13:21 states, “Jesus was troubled in his spirit.” Jesus uses soul and spirit synonymously when he says that we are body and soul (Matt. 10:28) and body and spirit (Matt. 26:41). Both the soul and spirit are characterized within Scripture as the immaterial component of man (Luke 24:29; 1 Cor. 2:11). While there are many more examples we could appeal to, suffice it to say that these terms are used synonymously. So too, the interchangeability of “soul” and “spirit” is confirmed in the lexicons. Taking these terms as they are found in the New Testament, the term psuchē (i.e., “soul”) is defined as “life on earth in its animating aspect making bodily functions possible—life, life-principle, soul.”[31] The term pneuma (i.e., “spirit”) is defined as “that which animates or gives life to the body.”[32]
Given the above, when we analyze the two principle texts marshaled in defense of trichotomy (i.e., 1 Thess. 5:23, Heb. 4:12), there exists little reason to interpret these two verses as teaching an anthropology otherwise unknown in the New Testament. When Paul wrote, “Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thess. 5:23), we ought to recognize that he “accumulates terms to express completeness, a common idiom.”[33]
Hebrews 4:12 states, “For the Word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” While virtually all trichotomists point to this text as evidence for their view, the term translated “division” (Grk. merismos) and its New Testament cognates always refer to the dividing up or distribution of the same thing.[34] For instance, Hebrews 2:14 speaks of “gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed (merismos) according to his will.” Matthew 27:35 states, “And when they had crucified him, they divided (dimerizo) his garments among them by casting lots.” Here, as in every occurrence of this verb, it is a single object that is being divided or better, distributed (cf. Luke 11:17-18; John 19:24).
           

Academic Chicanery

In researching the Arnos, I attempted to examine their claims to considerable doctoral-level education credentials. Richard Arno claims to possess a “D.Psy.” from Faith Theological Seminary, a Ph.D. from Andrew Jackson University, and a D.D. from Jacksonville Theological Seminary.[35] Mrs. Arno also claims to possess a Ph.D. from Andrew Jackson University.
My curiosity was piqued since “D.Psy” is not a recognized abbreviation for the degree of Doctor of Psychology. To no avail, I attempted to locate the institution which issued this degree. I then attempted to verify the Arnos’ Ph.D.s from Andrew Jackson University (AJU). This institution underwent a name change and is now New Charter University (NCU). NCU/AJU is a nationally accredited business college, offering only degrees in business and communications via distance education. Noticing that the school does not currently offer doctoral degrees, I inquired of NCU and asked the registrar if the school ever had a doctoral program. I was told that neither NCU nor AJU has ever had a doctoral degree program. Given that “Doctor of Divinity” is universally considered to be an honorary degree within the U.S., I’ve concluded that there is little reason to countenance the Arnos claims to doctoral-level education.
After developing creation therapy, the Arnos established the NCCA. This group provides training, credentials, and even degrees for those who desire to practice creation therapy. One can earn a “Bachelor of Arts in Christian Counseling” from NCCA by completing a mere fourteen courses![36] In the U.S., baccalaureate degrees require approximately one hundred and twenty credit-hours of study or roughly the equivalent of four years of full-time study. I contacted a school that is authorized to administer NCCA programs to inquire how long it would take for someone to earn a Bachelor of Arts from NCCA. I was told that one could earn this degree in as little as one year in full-time study. Needless to say, NCCA academic requirements are exceptionally deficient when compared to conventional standards.

Conclusion

Like LaHaye, the Arnos have done the church a fantastic disservice in purveying a completely unbiblical approach to helping hurting people. While the Arnos have sought to uphold the value of their modality by touting Creation Therapy’s effectiveness, their counseling method is antithetical to Scripture. Creation Therapy was not founded upon a thoroughgoing exegesis of the Bible, but the pagan presuppositions of Galen and those who would build upon his theory. While the Arnos claim that Creation Therapy is “A Biblically Based Model for Christian Counseling,” its tenets (e.g., the category of “temperament”) are entirely foreign to the biblical text.  
Functionally, the Arnos’ system is detrimental to those that receive its counsel since it does not accord with the Bible’s teaching. As shown above, NCCA counselors do not counsel people, but temperaments. The Arnos’ system commodifies people and their problems, recasting them in a two-dimensional temperament framework.





[1] There is some uncertainty as to whether these theories may be properly attributed to Hippocrates. Jouanna has noted that the theory of the four humors first occurs in the writings of Polybus, a student of Hippocrates. See Jacques Jouanna’s “The Legacy of the Hippocratic Treatise the Nature of Man: The Theory of the Four Humors,” in Philip Van Der Eijk ed., In Greek Medicine from Hippocrates to Galen: Selected Papers (Leiden, NL: Brill, 2012), 335-6.
[2] Hunt notes that bloodletting, a popular means unto balancing the humors, had caused “incalculable” harm. Morton Hunt, The Story of Psychology (New York: Anchor Books, 2007), 18.
[3] D. G. Benner, P. C. Hill eds., Baker Encyclopedia of Psychology and Counseling, 2nd Ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1999), 1233.
[4] Tim LaHaye, Spirit Controlled Temperament (Tyndale House Pub., 1994), 16.
[5] Ibid., 19.
[6] Ibid., 51.
[7] Ibid., viii.
[8] I am not suggesting that people are not born with certain tendencies, both in character and disposition. These creational differences, however, are not to be confused with immutable temperaments born of heredity.
[9] Jay E. Adams, The Practical Encyclopedia of Christian Counseling (Stanley, NC: Timeless Texts, 2003), 175.
[10] Richard G. Arno, Phyllis J. Arno, Creation Therapy, 7th Ed. (n.p., 1983), 1.
[11] Thomas Aquinas, The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, Vol. 1 (Notre Dame, IN: Christian Classics, 1948), 501, cf. 415: “The sin in which a man is conceived is original sin,” and “original sin infects every part of the soul.”
[12] Arno, Creation Therapy, 19.
[13] Ibid., 18.
[14] Prior to the year 2000, the Arnos called their test the Temperament Analysis Profile or TAP.
[15] J.E. Roeckelein ed., Elsevier's Dictionary of Psychological Theories (Amsterdam, NL: Elsevier, 2006), 218.
[16] The NCCA is a degree and licensure granting organization founded by the Arnos. See intra.
[17] Rick Martin, God Created You: A Guide to Temperament Therapy (Charlotte, MI: Jesus is Lord Ministries, 2004), 5.
[18] Arno, Creation Therapy, 73.
[19] Ibid., 75.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid.
[22] D. Oswald, 2003, “Test review of FIRO-B(tm),” in B. S. Plake, J. C. Impara, R. A. Spies eds., The Fifteenth Mental Measurements Yearbook, http://marketplace.unl.edu/buros/.
[23] Alex Appiah, Case Studies: Epistlemological [sic] Validation of the Arno Profile System: Temperament Studies (n.p., 2018),  Kindle Edition, loc. 1296.
[24] Arno, Creation Therapy, v.
[25] While it is claimed by certain Jungian psychologists that Jung was not a “believer” in the occult [e.g., Calvin S. Hall, Vernon J. Nordby, A Primer on Jungian Psychology (New York: Meridian, 1999), 25.], Jung’s own writings easily betray such a claim. Jung believed in the full gamut of occultism: clairvoyance, prophecy, animal magnetism, visions, divination, ghosts, human levitation, etc. See C. G. Jung, Psychology and the Occult (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 1977).
[26] C.f., the comments made by Sewell: “The Pastor who wants to facilitate healing in the Body of Christ will seek to have a better understanding of temperament…the Word of God has to be applied in different ways according to the temperament…” Selvyn Sewell, Pastoring the Temperament: A Guide for Pastoral Counseling (Bloomington, IN: Xlibris, 2008), 11.
[27] Arno, Creation Therapy, 241.
[28] David L. Turner, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 412.
[29] Arno, Creation Therapy, 10.
[30] Ibid., 12.
[31] W. F. W Bauer, W. F. Danker, F. W. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd Ed. (Chicago, IL: Univ. of Chicago Press, 2000), 1098.
[32] Ibid., 832.
[33] Robert Letham, Systematic Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), 340.
[34] John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray, Vol. 2 (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1982), 30.
[35] National Christian Counselors Association: Licensing Program for Christian Counselors, 52.
[36] National Christian Counselors Association: Licensing Program for Christian Counselors, 22-5.