This is an Online Book provided as a component of a continuing education course offered through the MASTER'S EDUCATIONAL CONSORTIUM.  Downloading of this file without the express permission is forbidden and constitutes a violation of United States Copyright Law.  This file may not be distributed, reproduced, or copied in any form without written permission of MASTER’S EDUCATIONAL CONSORTIUM.  Students enrolled in any of the CONSORTIUM Institutions are considered to have been granted permission.

COMPARING BASIC BIBLICAL THEOLOGY
 WITH HUMANISTIC PHILOSOPHY

Published by:
The Master’s Library Press
520 Kimber Lane
Evansville, IN 47761-5009

Book Author:

Dennis D. Frey, A.B.S., Nazarene Bible College; M.Min., M.Div., D.Min., Th.D., Trinity Theological Seminary; M.B.A., D.B.A., California Coast University.

Initially trained in business, Dr. Frey began serving in Christian ministry in 1972.  A former pastor and founder of a Biblical counseling center, he has been teaching at the college level since 1985.  Dr. Frey is President of Master’s International School of Divinity, Evansville, Indiana, www.mdivs.edu.
_____________________

For a great many centuries, Biblical Theology was known as the “Queen of the sciences.”  However, by the end of the Nineteenth Century, theology had fallen from its long-held position of respect.  Not long after the turn of the century, Chafer noted, “Theology, the greatest of all sciences, has fallen upon evil days.  Between the rejection and ridicule of it by the so-called progressives and the neglect and abridgement of it by the orthodox, it, as a potent influence, is approaching the point of extinction.” Chafer, Volume I., p. v.
Prior to its decline as an almost universally respected science, the study of theology provided man with the answers to the most fundamental and relevant questions of life.  When man sought answers to the questions of creation, evil, and the possibility of life beyond body death, he turned to the Bible, theology’s “Source Book.”
During the past two hundred years, there has been an ever-increasing shift away from that almost universal acceptance of theology as the “Queen of the sciences.”  This shift is now so complete in today’s world that theology is no longer universally regarded as a science at all.  In fact, even at the graduate seminary level, theology is being crowded out of its rightful place in curriculum.  This trend was already well established by the turn of the century.  Not everyone at the seminary level recognized what was happening, but Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, founder and first president of Dallas Theological Seminary was forced to lament, “While the seminary student needs as much theology as ever, the trend, unfortunately, is to substitute philosophy, psychology, and sociology for theology.” Ibid, p. viii.
During the years of theology’s decline, another science was experiencing tremendous change and growth; psychology, in contrast with theology, was moving up to a place of great respect among the scientific disciplines.
Unlike theology, which has a simple and universally accepted definition of purpose - “the science of God and of relations between God and the universe” Bancroft, p. 13. - psychology is a difficult discipline to define.  The following examples reveal something of the difficulty in coming to a generally held consensus.

“Psychology is a disciplined attempt to explain, evaluate, and control behavior.” Beacon Dictionary of Theology, p. 430.

“The science that systematically studies and attempts to explain observable behavior and its relationship to the unseen mental processes that go on inside the organism and to external events in the environment.” Kagan and Haverman, p.595.

“The Science which deals with human behavior, both normal and abnormal.” Thorpe, p. 583.

“Is it possible to provide a simple definition of such a diverse field?  If such a definition must rigorously include everything that is a part of psychology and exclude everything that is not, the answer is no.  Probably the best definition is that psychology is the science of human and animal behavior.” Hill, p. 2.

This apparent difficulty in defining exactly what psychology actually is presents a dilemma to those who would attempt any comparative analysis between psychology and theology.  As Dr. William K. Kilpatrick has noted, “Psychology is a river with many branches and tributaries.” Kilpatrick, p. 9.
Nevertheless, the field of psychology may be divided into at least two major elements.  First, there is that element of psychology which relates to pure science or what may be considered as the biological/material functions.  We may elaborate and suggest this first element of psychology “includes speech, minute muscle movements, glandular secretions - in short, every detectable or potentially detectable action or reaction of the individual.” Hill, Op. Cit., p. 2-3.
The second element could be defined as that area of psychology which seeks to explain the whole of man, including his physical, mental, social, religious, and transcendental relationships to life.
Theology and psychology have no fundamental difficulties as they relate in the area of genuine science.  It is when psychology begins to move out beyond its scientific parameters that it comes into direct conflict with theology.  “Psychology as a science has a legitimate part to play in our society.  It is another matter, however, when it wants to play every part and direct the drama as well.” Kilpatrick, Op. Cit., p. 9. 
That psychology has, in fact, moved far beyond its scientific parameters to become a competing philosophy with theology cannot really be doubted, even by reason of a cursory examination.

Hunt and McMahon have correctly observed:

“Psychology, in contrast to Biblical counseling by very definition, can neither explain nor adequately deal with man as God created him, much less as the redeemed man is intended to be through Christ living in him.  Science can deal with such things as nutritional deficiencies or chemical imbalances in the brain, but it has nothing to say about the mind, which is nonphysical.

Moreover, psychology not only pretends to bring ‘science’ to bear on problems which it cannot even define, much less solve, but it claims to meet needs that the Bible says it alone can provide.  Thus, psychology is in the fullest sense a rival religion that can never be wedded to Christianity.  Furthermore, Psychotherapy involves the danger that is implicit in all false religions.” Hunt and McMahon, p. 191.

It is at the point where theology and psychology clash that we arrive at a definition thatyserves to make clear that theology and psychology are, in fact, opposing philosophies.  However, let it be stated again that where psychology remains within the parameters of true science, there is no fundamental conflict with theology.
In order to delineate that element of psychology that is in diametric opposition to theology, the term “humanistic psychology” will be employed.  For the purpose of this study, “humanistic psychology” refers to that element of psychology that crosses the borders of science and attempts to operate within the exclusive dominion of theology.
For further clarification, let us break down our definition into its two components.  (1) Humanism (humanistic) - the doctrine that rejects supernaturalism and stresses the worth and determinism of man as supreme in the universe.  The term comes from Latin “humanitas” (the human race). Beacon Dictionary of Theology, Op. Cit., p. 266-267 (2) Psychology - the derivation of the word psychology, from the Greek words ‘psyche’ and ‘logia,’ suggest that psychology is the science of the mind. Hill, Op. Cit., p. 2. Succinctly stated, humanistic psychology is that doctrine which holds the mind of man to be supreme and that no transcendental or metaphysical reality exists outside of the human mind.

A Study In Contrasts

At the heart of Biblical Theology, three great doctrines reveal the whole of what man’s relationship to God and God’s relationship to man is really all about.  These three great doctrines deal with sin, salvation from sin, and life beyond the earthly grave.
While within the ranks of orthodox theologians there is room for certain differences of opinion, there can be no difference of opinion regarding sin, salvation, and life beyond the grave if that difference results in a denial of man’s sinful nature, God’s plan for man’s salvation, and the reality of an eternal destiny for all mankind.  For if such a denial existed, those denying would no longer qualify as being orthodox.  Biblical orthodoxy declares the uncompromising truth of these three doctrines.  It is not that other Biblical doctrines are not as important, it is just that if you deny any of these three, you have destroyed the reason for the Christian Faith altogether.
Therefore, any philosophy which denies the Biblical orthodoxy of sin, salvation, and life beyond the earthly grave denies, in effect, the Christian Faith as a whole.  Such denial ought to certainly qualify as a competing antithesis.  Such a competing antithesis is warned of in Scripture.

“See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.”  Colossians 2:8

Hamartiology and Humanistic Psychology

“That branch of theology which deals with the doctrine of sin is called ‘hamartiology.’  It claims a very large share of careful attention, since sin is man’s basic problem... ‘hamartia’ is used as the basic generic term (Greek) for sin in the New Testament.” Beacon Dictionary of Theology, Op. Cit., p. 483-484 The following brief statements is the salient of the Biblical doctrine of sin.

1.	Nature proclaims it (Genesis 3:17).
2.	Men acknowledge it (Psalm 51:5).
3.	Law discovers it (Romans 3:20).
4.	God declares it (Jeremiah 17:9).
5.	Christ reveals it (I Timothy 1:15).
6.	Experience proves it (Ecclesiastes 9:3).
7.	No man can escape its inherited mark (Romans 3:23). Bancroft, Op. Cit., p. 214-217.

The Nature of sin in man is actually two-fold.  First, there is the inherited element of sin often called “depravity.”  It is this depravity which makes man a sinner and causes him to sin.  Depravity is universal with mankind.  The second element of sin is that which is acted out, thought out, or by reason of neglect, left out.  Again, this second element of sin is universal with mankind.
The basic premise of hamartiology is that man is inherently sinful and that, left totally to his own schemes and devices, will exhibit that sinfulness in all areas of life.  As Jeremiah said, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and beyond cure.  Who can understand it?”  (17:9).
Not only is the mind of man inherently sinful, it is naturally disposed to rebellion against God.  As St. Paul declared, “The sinful mind is hostile to God.  It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so.”  (Romans 8:7).
The theological answer to man’s universal wickedness is that of his sinful condition.  The psychological answer to man’s wickedness is altogether different;  in fact, it is diametrically opposed to the Biblical doctrine of sin.
Louis P. Thorpe, in The Psychology of Mental Health, suggested, “One of the major hazards of religious affiliations is that of being expected to live in harmony with certain conservative practices and taboos which, since they increase the likelihood of manifesting behavior which is regarded as being wrong, are likely to result in feelings of guilt (condemnation by the superego). Thorpe, Op. Cit., p. 505.
Thorpe seems to be suggesting that religious restraints actually cause mental illness.  He makes no reference to sin as a contributing cause, nor does he acknowledge it as the source of all wrong-doing.  In fact, a careful search of his work fails to reveal even a hint that there may be something inherently wrong with mankind which is the principle cause of his misery.  What is easy to find is his dislike for the church and its call to conservative moral restraints.  Of the church he wrote:

“It is evident, however, that religious intolerance and conflicts between sectarian dogmas, which in many instances lead people to regard as ‘wrong’ certain patterns of behavior which for the most part are acceptable in the larger society outside of the church, make for personality maladjustment and in some cases a serious degree of mental ill-health.” Ibid, p. 505.

Thorpe, elsewhere in his work, quoted H. A. Overstreet’s five-point suggestion as to why people fail to fit into the normal elements of society and properly mature.  These are:

“(1) unrealistic self-estimates, (2) unrealistic estimates of others, (3) too much self-concern, (4) a false concept of authority, and  (5) a too-meager conception of the potentialities of life.” Ibid, p. 258.

While even the most orthodox theologian might agree to some extent with these five barriers to normal development, where does sin fit into the picture?  It is obvious that, from Thorpe’s viewpoint, sin is a non-reality.
Hunt and McMahon address this rejection of man’s inherent sinfulness by noting:

“The idea that man’s innate goodness - of the innocent child that still resides within us all - is the cornerstone of psychology.  Under that sponsorship, evangelical tradition is being replaced by a new humanistic view of man, which ridicules as ‘worm theology’ the former emphasis upon correction of sin, repentance, and humanity’s unworthiness.” Hunt and McMahon, Op. Cit., p. 192

Both Sigmund Freud and Carl Rogers denied the inherent sinfulness of man.  “Freud’s most fundamental premise was that man is not responsible for what he does; instead, someone else is.  Rogers believed that man doesn’t need divine revelation; he is autonomous.  Rogers stressed human autonomy as essential to successful living.” Adams, The Big Umbrella, p. 50-53.
This rejection of man’s sinfulness is a foundational cornerstone of humanistic psychology.  Thus, humanistic psychology has clearly become a competing religion alongside Christianity.  There is absolutely no congruence between the Biblical doctrine of sin and humanistic psychology’s dogma that man is essentially good.
Regarding this dichotomy, Merne A. Harris has noted:

“This ‘triad of morality’ so described by David Belgum (Guilt, Where Psychology and Religion Meet, 17-34) is jeopardized by psychology’s eagerness to replace God’s immutable values with society’s transient ones.  Karl Menninger perceived this tendency in asking, ‘Whatever became of sin?’ ” Beacon Dictionary of Theology, Op. Cit., p. 430.

William Kirk Kilpatrick was associate professor of educational psychology at Boston College.  His return to conservative Biblical values, along with his bold public stand for Christianity, had a type of loadstone effect upon other Christian mental health professionals.  Dr. Kilpatrick comments on this dichotomy between sin and humanistic psychology’s rejection thereof.

“Christianity doesn’t make much sense without sin.  If we are not sinners, turned away from God, then there was no reason for God to become man, and no reason for Him to die.  Our slavery to sin is the thing that Christ came to free us from.  That is the most fundamental Christian belief.  It follows that if you have no consciousness of sin, you simply won’t be able to see the point of Christianity.  We can state the matter more strongly and say that once you grant the notion that people are sinless, you must admit that Christianity is all wrong.”Kilpatrick, Op. Cit., p. 74.

Hamartiology and humanistic psychology are incompatible ideologies incapable of any sort of peaceful coexistence.

Soteriology and Humanistic Psychology

Soteriology is the second of the three great doctrines of Biblical theology.  “Soteriology (soteria = solution + logos + word) is that branch of Christian theology which treats the doctrines of salvation, including (1) atonement for sin - the provision of salvation through Christ and (2) salvation from sin - the application of salvation by the Spirit.” Beacon Dictionary of Theology, Op. Cit., p. 494.
It reasons out that any concept of salvation requires a foundational belief in whatever it is from which one is to be saved.  Since the foundational belief of soteriology is man’s sinful condition, it follows that the likelihood of soteriology and humanistic psychology having anything in common is remote.
Generic to soteriology is the meritorious death of Christ on Calvary and His substitutionary position between man and God.  Isaiah declared, “and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:6).  In contrast to this, Louis P. Thorpe, former professor of educational psychology at the University of Southern California, wrote:

“Another aspect of the last-named problem (mental ill-health) is that of utilization of religion as a means of escape from reality, or as a dependency mechanism which encourages the individual to ‘cast his burdens on the Lord’ - and cease to do anything about them himself.” Thorpe, Op. Cit., p. 506-507.

However, “casting our burdens upon the Lord” is the whole point of why Christ came as the Saviour of mankind.  Man is simply unable to save himself!  Thorpe certainly never saved us!  Without a Saviour, man, in his sinful condition, would be forever consigned to eternal meaninglessness.  This is precisely why Peter declared, “Cast all your anxiety on Him because He cares for you” (I Peter 5:7).  This does not relieve man of his own personal responsibility.  If Thorpe had been honest with his readers, he would have quoted the passage which immediately follows I Peter 5:7, that is, verses 8 and 9:

“Be self-controlled and alert.  Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.  Resist him, standing firm in the faith. . .”

At the heart of the doctrine of soteriology is the change of thinking that salvation brings into the life of the individual.  Of this change Adams notes:

“Change is possible; that conviction must be maintained as a foundational fact of Christian counseling.  Radical change, the most radical change known to man, is described in the Scriptures as a ‘new birth.’  The use of this figure of speech indicates the radical nature of the change.  Nothing less than an entirely new start toward life is in view.” Adams, The Christian Counselor’s Manual, p. 29.

In sharp contrast to Adam’s statement regarding the new birth is Edward C. Tolman’s concept of “behavior-adjustments.”  Tolman believed that adjustments to behavior (good or bad) were the result of “the mental activity that occurs when an individual is confronted by a problem.   It is a kind of mental running back and forth among various alternatives and options as to how the problem might be dealt with effectively.” Hall and Nordby, p. 173.
While Tolman’s concept is agreeable to matters dealing with everyday decision-making, it fails to account for the dramatic life-change that takes place as a result of the new birth.  Salvation is not a change of mind on the part of man.  Salvation is God, in Christ, reordering man so radically that the mind is directly reshaped as a result of that change.
Both Freud and Jung espoused a humanistic doctrine of inner healing which is diametric to the doctrine of soteriology.  “These two Freudian/Jungian ideas,  ‘psychic determinism’ and the  ‘unconscious’  form the foundation of inner healing.” Hunt and McMahon, Op. Cit., p. 184.  Of course, if there is no real transcendent, no metaphysical, then it reasons out that both the conscious and subconscious mind of man is the supreme instrument of healing and change.  Stated yet another way, we can say that if there is no supernatural, there is no sin; if no sin, no need of a Saviour, and if no need of a Saviour, no such thing as salvation, only “psychic determinism.”
It is clear, then, that soteriology and humanistic psychology have no common ground upon which to build a mutually beneficial structure.  They are, in fact, diametrically opposed.

Eternity and Humanistic Psychology

The great Biblical doctrine of eternity is often confused with that element of theology called “eschatology.”  While the two are directly related, eschatology deals with the broader range of things that are yet to come.  These would include such subjects as the Second Coming of Christ, the coming of the anti-Christ, the millennium, and the events associated with it.  For the purpose of this comparative analysis, eschatology is too broad a subject.
The great doctrine of eternity deals basically with the Biblical teaching involving man’s existence following body death.  This teaching is divided into two equal parts.  First, eternal life will be experienced by all who believe in Jesus Christ for the remission of sin and trust in Him as Saviour and Lord.  Second, eternal life will be experienced by all who refuse to believe in Jesus Christ for the remission of sin and who also refuse to trust in Him as Saviour and Lord.  That is, believer and nonbeliever (all human beings of all space/time relationships) will live forever in an eternal destiny of their own choosing.  Those who have trusted in Christ will experience eternity in the immediate presence of God (heaven).  Those who reject Christ will experience eternity forever banished from the presence of God (hell).
The great Biblical doctrine of eternity affirms man as an everlasting, never-dying entity of personal, conscious life.  It further affirms that the present existence is the space/time period during which man must come to a willing personal decision to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour or to reject Him as such.  This is why, for Christianity, all life has special meaning, purpose, and importance.  It is also why the moral and ethical absolutes of the Bible must be regarded as non-negotiable and universally required.  For the Christian, there are certain parameters, borders, limits, restraints, and, yes, rules and regulations - in short, immutable requisites which cannot be ignored without suffering eternal loss.
That this concept of eternity is unacceptable to humanistic psychology is well-stated by one of their own proponents.

“Conflicts relating to religion seen in certain forms of mental illness include concern over so-called  ‘unpardonable sin,’  the  ‘sins of the flesh as against those of the spirit,’ over scrupulous adherence to orthodox dogmas, confusion of deity with self, and preoccupation with an allegedly impending event such as the end of the world or the Second Coming of Christ.
Religious groups which isolate their members in an ‘in-group’ and severely criticize other’s beliefs, those which demand severe disciplines not characteristic of the general social culture, and those which overemphasize the threat of ‘sin’ and rewards of the supposed ‘life hereafter’ as a substitute for enjoyment of life in the present are likely to foster mental ill-health.” Thorpe, Op. Cit., p. 506.

Sigmund Freud, though criticized severely by some, is still the undisputed guiding light of the science of psychology.  Lionel Trilling said of Freud, “Freud as a person stands before us with an exceptional distinctness and significance, and it is possible to say of him that there is no great figure of modern times who, seen as a developing mind and temperament, is of such singular interest.” Jones, Introduction, p. 1. And yet, Freud had absolutely no faith in any sort of literal eternal existence for man.  In fact, his biographer, Ernest Jones, said of Freud, “There is no reason to think that Freud ever cudgeled his brains about the purpose of the universe - he was always an unrepentant atheist.” Ibid, p. 23.
Carl Jung, along with Sigmund Freud, is considered by many in the field of psychology, to be one of the two great minds of our time.  Jung, a Swiss psychiatrist, was the son of a Lutheran Reformed clergyman.  While Jung’s entire life’s work was deeply involved in the supernatural (a point at which he and Freud experienced sharp disagreement) and though Jung was considered a deeply religious person, it must be understood that for Jung religion was just that - religion.  “Jung did not confine himself to direct practice but let his mind range widely in order to experience the testimony of spiritual-religious experience, the traditional wisdom and practices of Asia, as well as Christian-Gnosticism and the alchemy of the Middle Ages.” Weher, p. 8.
Because Jung had no real theological base, he regarded all religions in nearly the same light.  But what of his belief in the eternal destiny of man?  Whatever his belief really was (which is nearly impossible to pin down to anything specific), one thing is certain - his open rejection of Jesus Christ as God’s Son and Saviour of the world is undeniable.  Jung, himself, said, “All that about Lord Jesus was always suspect to me, and I never really believed it.” Ibid, p. 73.  But the Apostle Paul said of Jesus, “He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached to the nations, was believed on in this world, was taken up to glory” (I Timothy 3:16).
It is an easy thing to find deep religious roots among psychology’s major framers.  Ivan Pavlov and Carl Rogers were both one-time seminary students.  Edward Thorndike, Carl Jung, and Gardner Murphy were sons of Christian clergymen. Hall and Nordby, Op. Cit.  Yet, none of these men advocated the Biblical doctrine of eternal life through Jesus Christ.
Why, then, is there so much tension between the Biblical doctrine of eternity and the psychological establishment’s world-view of man?  The answer  is simply that humanistic psychology denies the very thing for which Christ died.

“We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in Him.”                 I Thessalonians 4:14.

Summary

When the three great doctrines of Biblical Theology are compared with humanistic psychology, it becomes unavoidably clear that both are opposing forces.  They are, in fact, diametrically opposed in every way.  What reason, then, would a Biblical counselor possibly give for adapting the principles and practices of humanistic psychology or lauding its major framers?  Or stated in a Biblical text:

“Do not be yoked together with unbelievers.  For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common?  Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?  What harmony is there between Christ and Belial?  What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?”  II Corinthians 6:14-15.

The Evolutionary Influence

By the term “evolutionary influence,” we mean to suggest that the science of psychology has been heavily influenced by the theory that man (as in the case of all other life forms) is merely the biological product of the modifications taking place in the successive generations of the human animal.  Further, that man is not the completed product of special creation whereby God brought him into existence as biologically mature and complete.  The theory of evolution views man as the present apex of the biological progression of the animal order.

The Darwinian Foundation

British naturalist, Charles Darwin (1809-1882), is the father of modern evolutionary concepts, although the theory of evolution was not original with Darwin.  “Evolutionary philosophy had been increasingly influential in the so-called Christian world for many decades before Charles Darwin, but his famous book ‘The Origin of the Species by Natural Selection’ became the great watershed.  Before 1859, creationism and the Biblical world view still dominated Western thought.  Within one decade after its publication, however, Darwinism was widely accepted...and the world has never been the same since.” Morris, p. 103.
Before the full influence Darwinism, man was largely viewed as the acme of God’s creative purposes and, as such, was the special object of His love.  What Darwinism did was to substitute this theological concept with a so-called scientific one that provided natural explanations in the place of the supernatural.
An interesting fact about Charles Darwin (one not widely published by his proponents) is that he possessed no academic credentials whatever to qualify him as a natural scientist or biologist.  In fact, Darwin’s only academic degree was a degree in theology from Christ College.  Switching from an early and limited study of the field of medicine, Darwin enrolled as a divinity student in the hopes of preparing for the Christian ministry where he came under the influence of evolutionary philosophy and eventually surrendered his faith. Ibid, p. 11, 402. Yet, it was upon this unproved and unscientific hypothesis, designed by an apostate theology student, that an entire scientific discipline has built its monolith.

Huxleian Development

British biologist, Thomas H. Huxley (1825-1895), was a colleague and protagonist of Charles Darwin.  As a widely respected scientist (though lacking a formal education) , Huxley gave to Darwin’s works the credibility they would have otherwise eventually lacked.  Huxley was also better prepared to disseminate their evolutionary philosophy.  As the concept of evolution took on increasing sophistication, it moved with rapidity away from any association with the Bible.
In 1869, Huxley coined the term “agnosticism.”   “He used this term with reference to the existence of the religious object or God.  He took neither an affirmative nor a negative position, but simply said that our judgment must be held in suspension on this question.  We do not have sufficient evidence to conclude whether God exists or not, according to Huxley and other agnostics.” Young, p. 61.

Freudian Application

Austrian psychoanalyst, Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), was powerfully influenced by both Darwin and Huxley.  Huxley’s “Introduction to Science” was a favorite of Freud’s, and a singular honor of his later life was being invited, in 1931, by the University of London to deliver the annual Huxley Lecture.  Though not actually able to accept the invitation, Freud considered it a great honor. Jones, Op. Cit., p. 113, 471.
The influence of Charles Darwin upon Freud was likewise profound.  Freud, himself, once wrote, “The theories of Darwin, which were then of topical interest, strongly attracted me, for they held out hopes of an extraordinary advance in our understanding of the world.” Ibid, p. 22.  Freud eventually came to believe man was totally a biological creature.  He saw man through a Darwinian/Huxleian mind-set.  “Freud’s view of man’s development is in part an evolutionary one.  Man’s biological urges are part of his evolved nature.” Schell, p 38.
As perhaps the major framer of what is today the humanistic school of psychology, it is critically important to note of Sigmund Freud that he was both an evolutionist and an atheist.  It is also critically important to note the two men who influenced him most from the natural sciences were also men devoid of real spiritual roots.  Darwin was an apostate to Christianity;  Huxley was an agnostic.

The Failure of the Evolutionary Influence

To many in the field of psychology, the evolutionary influence has provided a new and enlightened path upon which man has entered into better and brighter days.  But, is it an enlightened path leading us to brighter and better days, or is it simply a primrose path leading ultimately to an already opened Pandora’s box?
To answer that question, it is necessary to look back to what the evolutionary mentality has had to say about yesterday.  In partial answer to this question, Rushdoony had noted, “For the Darwinist, history is the product of impersonal biological forces . . . for the Freudian, psychological and unconscious.” Rushdoony, p. 14.   What this evolutionary influence means in practical terms is that history is de-personalized, and man is de-personalized along with it.” Ibid, p. 14.
If the evolutionary influence cannot tell us where we have been and why, how can it possibly tell us where we are to go and how?  It cannot!  The fact is, the evolutionary influence and its marriage to humanistic psychology has been a disastrous and colossal failure.

Dr. William Kirk Kilpatrick has observed:

“Despite the creation of a virtual army of psychiatrists, psychologists, psychometrists, counselors, and social workers, there has been no let up in the ratio of mental illness, suicide, alcoholism, drug addiction, child abuse, divorce, murder, and general mayhem.  Contrary to what one might expect in a society so carefully analyzed and attended to by mental health experts, there has been an increase in all these categories.” Kilpatrick, Op. Cit., p. 31

The fault lies not in the mental health professions themselves; they are filled with well-meaning, compassionate, and caring people.  Rather, the fault lies in the destructive evolutionary influence within their accepted systems.  It is an influence which has attempted to dethrone God and discard His Word.  This is doomed to failure.  His Word is and always will be the “ratione et via certus.”

“There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.”  Proverbs 14:12.

“Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away.”  Luke 21:33.

________________________________

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, Jay E. The Big Umbrella.  Nutley, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1972.

Adams, Jay E. The Christian Counselor’s Manual.  Phillipsburg, N.J.:  Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing House, 1970.

Bancroft, Emery H. Christian Theology.  Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondrevan Publishing House, 1976.

Chafer, Lewis Sperry.  Chafer Systematic Theology, Eight Volumes.  Dallas, Texas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1983.

Hall, Calvin S. and Nordby, Vernon J.  A Guide To Psychologists And Their Concepts.  San Francisco, California: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1974.

Hill, Winfred.  Psychology: Principles And Problems.  New York: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1970.

Hunt, David and McMahon, T. A.  The Seduction Of Christianity.  Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 1986.

Jones, Ernest.  The Life And Work Of Sigmund Freud.  Garden City, New York:  Anchor Books Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1963.

Kagan, Jerome and Havemann, Ernest.  Psychology: An Introduction.  New York:  Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1972.

Kilpatrick, William Kirk.  Psychological Seduction.  New York: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1983.

Morris, Henry M.  The Biblical Basis For Modern Science.  Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1985.

Rushdoony, Rousas.  The Biblical Philosophy Of History.  Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1979.

Schell, Robert E., Chief Coordinator.  Developmental Psychology Today.  New York: Random House, 1975.

Taylor, Richard S., Editor.  Beacon Dictionary Of Theology.  Kansas City, Mo.: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1983.

Thorpe, Louis P.  The Psychology Of Mental Health.  New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1960.

Weher, Gerhard.  (Translated by W. H. Hargraves).  Portrait Of Jung.  New York:  Herder and Herder, 1971.

Young, Warren C.  A Christian Approach To Philosophy.  Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1982.

---end.