"Jesus didn't need a shrink": a critique of anti-psychological biblical sufficiency.

Contrary to the view of psychology as either subordinate to (hierarchical view; Oliveira, 2004, 2005) or on a par with biblical authority (symmetrical view; Lawson & Wilcox, 2005), some evangelicals have argued for the rejection of either psychology or psychiatry altogether, based on the claim that the Bible is sufficient. For example, Adams (1973) renounces the concept of mental disorder and concludes: "Biblically, there is no warrant for acknowledging the existence of a separate and distinct discipline called psychiatry" (p. 9). And writing on the sufficiency of the Bible, he states:

   The Bible contains all that is necessary
   for a life of godliness. That
   axiom of the church's confessions
   was one of the Reformers' key
   points of departure from Rome. One
   would expect, therefore, that
   Bible-believing counselors, who already
   embrace such a doctrine, would for
   the same reason consider the Bible
   sufficient to bring about godly
   change in men. But things are not
   always as one would expect. Therefore,
   we must argue for the sufficiency
   of the Scriptures in counseling
   (from the Scriptures themselves, of
   course). (1986, p. 29).

   The Lord Jesus Christ, from the Old
   Testament alone, was able to handle
   every counseling case successfully.
   He was the world's only perfect
   Counselor, yet He had none of the
   "benefits" of modern counselors who
   now possess, in addition to the Scriptures,
   the writings of Freud, Rogers,
   and others! No, the church did not
   have to wait for over nineteen hundred
   years until Freud's day to perform
   its counseling task adequately. It
   had all it needed for that work from
   its inception--it had the Scriptures.
   That's what Paul said. (1986, p. 32).

Likewise, well-known Bible expositor MacArthur, Jr. (1991) calls psychology "pseudoscience" and condemns it based on his understanding of the sufficiency of Scripture: "The most dangerously effective assault on God's Word, however, may be a subtle one that has been fostered primarily by those who think of themselves as Bible believers--but who doubt the perfect sufficiency of Scripture" (p. 117). Bobgan and Bobgan (1987) state, "To even hint that the often-confusing discoveries of such unredeemed men as Freud, Jung, Rogers, etc. are God's truth is to undermine the very Word of God. The revealed Word of God does not need the support or help of psychological pronouncements. The Word alone stands as the truth of God" (p. 34). Again and again, the reverberating message is clear: Secular psychologists have nothing to offer to Christian counselors, with the corollary that Christians must avoid secular psychological research or techniques, whose very existence is unjustified. A disdain toward psychology (derogatorily called "psychoheresy," "psychological leaven," or "psycho-quackery" by these authors) is prescribed on the grounds of accepting the sufficiency of the Bible.

To be sure, this anti-psychology movement has sometimes taken milder forms, after moving beyond biblical proof-texting and recognizing that the field of psychology is more diverse than originally assumed (e.g., Welch & Powlison, 1997b). More temperate reactions to the psychologization of the church have stressed biblical sufficiency for explaining human nature in moral terms and dealing with the problem of sin, while at least trying not to disavow God's common grace (Welch & Powlison, 1997a). Our critique may apply less to these writers. But even though we do not deny the existence of poor science, we still disagree with their overall assessment that psychological science "rests more on a swamp than a rock" (Welch & Powlison, 1997b, p. 348) and with their use of biblical sufficiency as a pretext to reject psychological science's legitimate role in either explaining personal problems or generating effective intervention (Welch & Powlison, 1997a). The national association that represents this movement today seeks "to promote the cause of biblical counseling and the doctrine of the sufficiency of the Scriptures," with a history of trying "to tear down the slums of psychology and level the ground" (NANC, n.d.).

Although much healthy debate (e.g., Johnson & Jones, 2000) has sprung from this rejection of psychology, to the best of our knowledge not much has been written to specifically challenge these authors' biblical sufficiency argument. Earlier writings (e.g., Beck, 1997; Crabb, 1981; Ellens, 1981; Hathaway, 2005; Hill, 2005; Hurley & Berry, 1997; Lawson & Wilcox, 2005; Oliveira, 2004, 2005) have focused primarily on the question of how biblical authority relates to psychology, often by re-visiting the Reformers' sola scriptura. In the present study, however, we challenge the notion of sufficiency as self-containment of Scripture. We start with a careful exegetical analysis of key biblical passages that we think have been misused by psychology detractors in support of their biblical sufficiency view. Next, attention will shift to the theology of biblical sufficiency. Finally, the study will dig into formal logic and test the validity of the claim in question. It is hoped that these analyses will lead to the conclusion that biblical sufficiency as a pretext to repudiate psychology fails exegetical, theological, and logical scrutiny.

Paul and Peter on the Sufficiency of the Bible

Two New Testament passages are often used by opponents of psychology to support their view of biblical sufficiency: 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and 2 Peter 1:3. But is the original intent of the inspired authors really what some claim it to be? In this section we briefly consider both the historical and the literary contexts of these two passages to answer this question.

2 Timothy 3:16-17

When Paul writes his second letter to Timothy, he is a prisoner in Rome (1:8, 16; 2:9). Contrary to his earlier imprisonment (Acts 28:30), he seems to be in a more restrained condition at this time. Friends have forsaken him (1:15), probably because they feared Emperor Nero (Hiebert, 1979). He expects nothing from the Roman government but to be put to death (4:68). It is therefore in an adverse context that he corresponds with his "dear son" (literally, "beloved child," [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], 1:2).

This imaginary kinship is customary of Paul when referring to those he brought to faith (Gal. 4:19). It also denotes "approval, affirmation, and intimacy" (Towner, 2006, p. 443). Aware that his race is about finished, through this letter Paul is passing on the baton, or transferring the responsibility of his mission, to Timothy. Lest the Emperor's hostility toward Christianity overwhelm Timothy, Paul encourages him like a father would his own son (Hiebert, 1979). The letter serves this purpose.

Our focal verses (3:16-17) appear in the letter after words of thanksgiving to God for Timothy's faith and exhortations to boldness and commitment to the ministry. They are part of Paul's continued exhortations to doctrinal soundness (2:14-4:8). Both the inspired nature and the role of the Holy Scripture in ministry are stated here. The intended meaning of the singular form [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (Scripture) in connection with [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (every, all) in the opening of 3:16 has been debated because it is not found anywhere else in the New Testament (Towner, 2006). Paul seems to use the singular "Scripture" in Gal. 3:22 in the broad sense of the word, and the immediate context of 2 Tim. 3:16 contains Old Testament references (e.g., 2:19; 3:8-9, 11), thus making it unlikely that he has one particular passage in mind. Combined with the qualifier [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], the reference seems to be to all of the Old Testament, although some suggest that it might also include sacred apostolic writings already in circulation among the churches (see Towner). In the tradition of rabbinic Judaism, Paul takes the Old Testament as God-breathed ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]). (1) This high view of Scripture is consistent with his frequent quoting of the Old Testament (ninety-three times!), his reference to Scripture as the "oracles of God" (Rom. 3:1-2), and his use of the formula, "the Lord says" (1 Cor. 14:21; 2 Cor. 6:17; Rom. 12:19; 14:11; see Ladd, 1991).

For Paul, the Scripture is also "profitable," or "useful" ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) for: (a) teaching ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), (b) rebuking or reproof ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]; used only here in the New Testament, and also in the Septuagint in the sense of bringing a sinner to conviction; cf. Earle, 1979), (c) correcting ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), and (d) instructing in righteousness ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]). Notice that the usefulness of the Scripture in these functions is not a consequence of inspiration; it is an additional attribute ("and," [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]). This is important because for Paul inspiration is not a prerequisite for usefulness for teaching, rebuking, correcting, or instructing in righteousness.

In Eph. 4:29 Paul encourages Christians to speak only words that edify others, are suitable to the occasion, and communicate grace. It is understood that wholesome talk that edifies and sensibly conveys grace most often is not going to be the very "breath of God," for the only person to have always spoken the word of God and nothing else is Jesus Christ. Consider the apostles. At times they guide others on complex issues such as divorce and celibacy admitting that this is not the direct teaching of the Lord but is consistent with it (e.g., Paul in 1 Cor. 7:12, 25). At other times they use truth from pagan thinkers. For example, in Acts 17 Paul is found quoting Greek poets and elegantly engaging the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers of his day in a debate that filled the Areopagus, thereby leading a few people to become his followers and to embrace the Christian faith. Social psychologists would say that Paul is a gifted user of the "foot-in-the-door phenomenon." By getting first the consent of his opponents to be listened, he tactfully borrows their own thoughts to get to his goal: a call to repentance and faith. Finally, there are times when even the apostles deviate from truth. For example, Paul has to confront Peter because his demeanor has become "not according to the truth of the gospel" (Gal. 2:11-21). Therefore, those who minister through social interactions owe no apology to psychology detractors for using their own personal insights consistent with biblical teaching, truth borrowed from pagans, or even instances of falsehood for edifying others.

Regardless of whether one takes 2 Tim. 3:16 as applying to the Old Testament alone or also to New Testament writings, what is the ultimate purpose of biblical inspiration and usefulness in ministry, according to Paul? His answer in verse 17 is clear: "in order that" ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) "the man of God may be perfect" (or, completely fitted, [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), "having been furnished, equipped" ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], cf. Acts 21:5) "unto every good work" (The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, 1976). Some (e.g., Demares, 1984) see this verse as applying to all God's people, given that the Greek expression for "man of God" is not restricted to Christian leaders, and neither is the practical goal of Scripture, the promotion of "every good work" (cf. Towner, 2006). However, in the immediate context of the passage, it seems more likely that Paul uses "man of God" in reference to the minister, represented by the very recipient of his letter, Timothy (Gealy & Noyles, 1955). This is further supported by the fact that in 2:19 and 3:8-9 Paul associates Moses' ministry with his own, and in the Old Testament the "man of God" is used over thirty times only of Moses and the prophets that came after him (see also 1 Tim 6:11; Towner, 2006). Therefore, the purpose seems to be one of equipping Timothy for taking over the apostolic ministry, with potential application to other ministers.

Of interest to our focal discussion of biblical sufficiency, the two attributes of the Scripture stated in 3:16 (namely, inspiration and usefulness in several ministries) have the purpose of making a minister completely fitted for his or her job, equipped to every good work, in verse 17. Nowhere in the two verses is the notion of exclusivity communicated, though. Paul is not arguing that the Scripture is self-contained, having everything needed for the production of every good work and dispensing with any other tools of ministry. Rather, his point is simply that without the Scripture, one cannot be completely proficient to carry out every good work of ministry, as specified in the passage. The Bible perfects and equips the minister, but Paul never prohibits, or calls others to forsake, good resources on the flawed grounds that the Scripture alone is sufficient. Good concordances, commentaries, lexicons, secular history and philosophy writings, pedagogical principles and techniques, high technology, and scientifically grounded psychological techniques are some examples of contemporary tools, many unavailable to Paul, yet consistent with his teaching and practice. Provided that one uses such resources in ways conforming to the inspired Word of God, he or she will not be "running aimlessly" or "beating the air" (1 Cor. 9:26); rather, he or she will be following the apostle's own example of seeking to save some "by all possible means," doing "all things for the sake of the gospel," in order to "share in its blessings" (cf. 1 Cor. 9:22-23).

2 Peter 1:3

To argue from inside Scripture itself against an anti-psychological version of biblical sufficiency, we now turn to 2 Peter 1:3. The reader is referred to Exell (1954) for questions concerning the authorship of this letter raised by several prominent writers, including Eusebius, Erasmus, Luther, and Calvin. For reasons unnecessary to espouse here, we side with the Petrine authorship and endorse Ladd's (1991) statement that this letter comes shortly after I Peter and is intended to warn Christians against false teachers (cf. 2:1-2), most likely gnostics who claim to have a privileged grasp of divine truth. Peter has had a durable relationship with his addressees (1:12-15), to whom he has previously written (3:15). As indicated by Blum (1981), it is not clear whether or not the earlier writing was what we call I Peter today. If so, the recipients are the same as those specified clearly in I Pe 1:1; if not, then we know nothing definite about them.

Our focal verse is introduced right after the initial greeting, and the English translation hides the use of a genitive absolute ("has given," [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) as the main verb (Blum, 1981). It is possible that this either ties the action of giving to v. 2, as how the multiplication of God's knowledge happens [KJV, RV, ASV, and NASB], or opens a new paragraph [NIV, RSV, and NEB; cf. Blum]. If the former is accepted, verses 3 and 4 explain what is conveyed in the full knowledge of God and Christ.

In verse 3, the "full knowledge of him who has called us to glory and virtue" is said to be the means for life and godliness. Knowledge is not mystical, as in gnosticism, but a personal relationship with God through Christ (Ladd, 1991). As Barnett and Homrighausen (1957) state, "By means of a saving knowledge of Christ, his divine power endows them [the author and the recipients of the letter] with moral and spiritual effectiveness. Qualities of newness and eternity characterize the lives of all who enjoy inward fellowship with him who called us to his own glory and excellence (cf. John 17:3)" (pp. 172-173).

More relevant to the biblical sufficiency question is the initial part of the verse: "As his divine power has given unto us all things ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) that pertain to life and godliness." As in Rom. 15:17, the preposition [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] is used in conjunction with the accusative, so that the NKJV and NASB's "pertain" (or, "belong") is a better translation than the NIV, "we need." Peter's point is that God's power provides all that has to do with our spiritual life and piousness (Exell, 1954). Peter's focus on prophecy of Scripture in this chapter suggests that "all things" must include the word spoken from God, which contrasts with false teaching (Chapter 2) and promotes the knowledge of Christ. But is Scripture alone sufficient for life and godliness? Is it the only thing pertaining to life and godliness that the apostle has in mind in 1:3? Some (e.g., Cedar, 1984; Blum, 1981) suggest that the work or gifts of the Holy Spirit must also be in view, considering their role in the Christian virtues following verse 3. And if "all things" in verse 3 really reflect the abundance of supply by divine power, then not only the Scripture, but all else associated with the knowledge of Christ that promotes life and godliness should also be included. To be sure, there is no direct reference to the sacraments or to prayer as means of grace in this or in the earlier epistle by Peter; nevertheless, one cannot argue from silence to exclude them from 1:3 without conflicting with the rest of the New Testament teaching. Likewise, one cannot argue from silence that other truths, even popular adages may be implied here, as Peter himself makes use of them in 2:22. And if so, how can someone deny that psychological science and technique pertain to life and godliness, unless he or she fails to recognize that it is God's power that provides them for our personal growth? As I Peter 1:15 exhorts us, "Be holy in all [your] conduct ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII])" (emphasis added, The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, 1976).

Therefore, both Paul and Peter seem to have a comprehensive view of God's supply for Christian ministry and living. Both authors place the inspired Word of God at the center of ministry and in the pursuit of godliness. Salvation and sanctification come through the inspired Word of God. But those who seek "spiritual wisdom and understanding" for a "life worthy of the Lord," "pleasing him in every way" (Col. 1:9-10) should not take Scripture as self-contained, independent from potential other resources that God in his providence has made available to us. Neither Paul nor Peter teaches sufficiency of Scripture in that way. Why should we?

The Theology of Biblical Sufficiency

Having challenged the biblical grounds for an anti-psychological view of biblical sufficiency, we briefly discuss now only a few selected theological trends in church history. As Shields and Bredfeldt (2001) indicate, already in the first few centuries A.D., the idea that human reason corrupts faith conflicted with the notion that reason upholds faith. The former was championed by Tertullian (160-230 A.D.), and the latter was espoused by Augustine (354-430 A.D. (Shields & Bredfeldt).

In his Prescriptions against the Heretics, Tertullian equates philosophy with demonic doctrine and foolishness; "it is philosophy that supplies the heresies with their equipment," he states (cited in Helm, 1999, p. 61). Aristotle's dialectic is regarded as "stubborn argument," and no good is to be found in Plato. He asks, "What has Jerusalem to do with Athens, the Church with the Academy, the Christian with the heretic? ... After Jesus Christ we have no need of speculation, after the Gospel no need of research. When we come to believe, we have no desire to believe anything else; for we begin by believing that there is nothing else which we have to believe" (Helm, p. 62). This utter rejection of Greek philosophy is the natural consequence of two basic assumptions. First, human wisdom is necessarily antithetical with divine truth; knowledge derived from nature is fragmented and vain. Second, only the Scripture is truthful; only the Scripture is the acceptable means to discover truth (Shields & Bredfeldt, 2001). Needless to say, the view of biblical sufficiency as a pretext to reject psychology echoes Tertullian's way of thinking.

In sharp contrast, Augustine proposes that "all truth is God's truth," whether found in nature or in Scripture (Shields & Bredfeldt, 2001). In his early De magistro, he argues that our minds are capable of direct access to truth as we interact with the world and label things, for example (i.e., "ostensive learning," Cf. Matthews, 2005, p. 173). And in De libero arbitrio, he states: "At times our minds see more of it [truth], at other times less, thereby acknowledging that they are subject to change.... But the mind's understanding should be in proportion to its ability to be drawn more closely and to cling to the unchangeable truth" (cited in Helm, 1999, pp. 67-68). In his City of God, he welcomes Platonists and Pythagoreans for their recognition of God as "the origin of existence, the truth of doctrine and the blessedness of life" (cited in Helm, p. 69). But he also affirms that the astute Christian understands that the apostolic warning in Col. 2:8 against "philosophy and vain deceit" applies to a certain class of thinkers that depart from truth (Helm). Clearly, then, for Augustine, human reasoning may act in support of biblical truth and is not necessarily in conflict with it. Even though saving faith can only be attained through the truth especially revealed in the Bible (biblical sufficiency for salvation), Christians are encouraged to pursue truth in all spheres of learning, including philosophy (Shields & Bredfeldt).

By the time of the Reformation, some theologians align their view of biblical sufficiency with either that of Tertullian or Augustine. Spitz (1985) contrasts Zwingli's (1484-1531) church practice with that of Luther (1483-1546) in that the former only endorses what he feels is sanctioned by the Scripture, whereas Luther approves anything beautiful, decent, and in order, from organs to stained glass windows, as long as the Scripture does not unmistakably forbid them. Much like Tertullian, Zwingli believes that if something is not explicitly prescribed in the Bible it is prohibited; one can therefore argue from silence to reject everything that is not directly taught in the Bible. This view is furthered by the Anabaptist movement that follows Zwingli in northern Switzerland, as they reject infant baptism on the allegation that the Scripture does not explicitly prescribe it (Cairns, 1996). It is noteworthy that this belief in the all-sufficiency of Christ's teaching contrasts with that of the Calvinistic Westminster Confession of Faith, which affirms sufficiency as completion "in principles rather than details (leaving it to men to apply general principles according to their image function in particular instances)" (Williamson, 1964, p. 10).

Another contrast between Zwingli and the Anabaptists with either Luther or Calvin concerns the relationship of Scripture with the secular fields of study. Zwingli, followed by the Anabaptists, dismisses non-biblical writers with contempt (Shields & Bredfeldt, 2001; Spitz, 1985; Stephens, 1994), very much like some holders of anti-psychological biblical sufficiency do today. By contrast, Luther and even more Calvin (1509-1564) reflect Augustine's appreciation of culture through the pure science of nature, the humanities, and the arts (Cairns, 1996; Spitz), although not like Melanchton (1497-1560), who according to Knudsen (1982) succumbs to secularism at times.

Zwingli favors education and is trained in the humanities, but because he sees God's word in conflict with man's word, like truth is opposed to error, he sees biblical study as conflicting with studies in secular fields, so that the former is to be preferred to the latter (Shields & Bredfeldt, 2001; Stephens, 1994). Some Anabaptists go a step further and reject formal training of the clergy in academia in favor of learning in the community (Shields & Bredfeldt). Calvin, however, having studied the humanities and law, sets up in Geneva a three-step system of education, at the top of which is what today is called the University of Geneva (Cairns, 1996; Knudsen, 1982). It is under his influence that the Puritans found the first colleges in America later.

The thought that religion should be free from the arts and sciences is completely foreign to Calvin--non debere distrahi a religione scientiam (Knudsen, 1982). In a sense, there are no "secular" arts or sciences. Acknowledging that God approves everything expressed in nature according to His sovereign will, Christians should enthusiastically welcome cultural expressions through the arts and the scientific enterprise to discover the secrets of God's universe (Knudsen). In this process, non-Christian channels may also be involved through God's common grace. Everyone should freely embrace the products of human intelligence that facilitate self-knowledge and understanding of human nature, in order to optimize human functioning as God's image bearers. But this is done most meaningfully, Calvin suggests, with the Christian faith, as epitomized in the introduction of his Institutes of the Christian Religion: "True and substantial wisdom principally consists of two parts, the knowledge of God, and the knowledge of ourselves. But, while these two branches of knowledge are so intimately connected, which of them precedes and produces the other, is not easy to discover" (Calvin, n.d., p. 46; see Knudsen).

Anticipating what later becomes the heart of psychology, Calvin holds a deep understanding of humanity. He does so not following the universal, autonomous humanity of the Renaissance, as if humans were the creators of their own values and destiny. Rather, he adopts on a biblical worldview that puts at the forefront God's purpose in creation, the impact of sin on all human capacities, and God's provision for redeeming the whole person (Knudsen, 1982). For Calvin, humans have their being in their relationship to God; humans become themselves truly humans as they meet the end for which they were created (Knudsen). Whatever scientific knowledge or artistic skills may be applied to this end, in conformity to the Word of God, are to be celebrated.

It is therefore evident that some evangelicals' disdain for psychology on the grounds of biblical sufficiency is flawed and has no roots in Augustine, Luther, Calvin, or the Westminster Confession of Faith. It is a reflection of an ancient assumption that human wisdom always leads to error and is invariably in conflict with Scripture. It is an oversight of what God's common grace is capable of producing through the arts and sciences, even through non-Christian channels, to ultimately glorify God. It is a failure to recognize that Scripture's comprehensive scope and completion does not make it into a manual with prescriptions for every situation of life.

Testing the Logic of the Biblical Sufficiency Argument

The biblical sufficiency argument against psychology is not only unbiblical and theologically unsound; it also fails formal logic. In this section, we first apply formal logic to the key passage of 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Next, we examine the argument from silence against psychology, followed by the practicality of psychology opponents' teaching.

Second Timothy 3:16 is a conjunction of two universal, affirmative propositions: All A is B, and all A is C. Specifically, "All Scripture (A) is inspired by God (B) and [all Scripture (A) is] profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness (C)." But is the conclusion, "All B and C are A" logically acceptable from the two Pauline premises? Can we conclude from Paul's universal, affirmative propositions that all that is inspired by God (B) and profitable for teaching, etc. (C) is the Scripture (A), as the anti-psychological argument seems to propose? The obvious response is, "No, because for this to be true, two exclusive propositions would be required of the type: Only A is B, and only A is C;" or, only the Scripture (A) is inspired by God (B), and only the Scripture (A) is profitable for teaching, etc. (C). Because the initial propositions in the biblical verse are not exclusive, it is logically possible that some B and some C are not A (see Bonevac & Solomon, 1999). Figure 1 shows a Venn diagram of Paul's statement in 2 Tim. 3:16.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

The propositions, "Only the Scripture (A) is inspired by God (B)" and, "only the Scripture (A) is profitable for teaching, etc. (C)" would require that the three circles in Figure 1 be concentric and overlapping 100%. One instantiation of B and C that is not A would render these exclusive propositions untrue. We refer to John 20:30-31 and 21:25 to suggest that Jesus did and said many things not registered in the Scripture (non-A), which yet were certainly inspired by God (B) and profitable for teaching, etc. (C). The same could arguably be said of lost apostolic writings (cf. Colossians 4:16) and God-inspired messages of the Old Testament prophets not included in the holy canon.

Figure 1 also shows that some C is neither B nor A, such as is the case with some psychological science and technique. We propose that all psychological science and technique in its contemporary, strict sense is neither inspired by God (non-B) nor Scripture (non-A), but some of it is profitable for teaching, etc. (C). For example, a preacher's use of hierarchical organization of a message (a cognitive psychological technique) can facilitate memorization. Again, the rejection of this proposition would be deductively flawed, given that Paul's two universal, affirmative propositions are not exclusive.

Verse 17 relates to verse 16 as a truth function symbolized by p [equivalent to] q, which denotes a bi-conditional (Bonevac & Solomon, 1999). Verse 17 (q) is a consequence if, and only if, what is stated in verse 16 (p) is true. Because as we have demonstrated, some psychological research and practice may logically be incorporated into p as an element of C without contradicting Paul's two premises (see Figure 1), q still holds. So, what is stated in q concerning the perfection of a minister and his or her complete equipment for the service of ministry does not logically preclude any role for psychology or other disciplines of study in ministry. However, to deny the presence of psychological science and practice in C (that is non-A and non-B) in p, as a requirement for q, is an invalid argument involving a deductively flawed reasoning in p, as previously demonstrated. In short, 2 Tim. 3:16-17 cannot be logically used to support the anti-psychological view of biblical sufficiency.

The flaw in the argument from biblical silence against psychology is even easier to establish. As shown in the introduction and refuted in the previous exegetical and theological sections, some evangelicals claim that the use of psychology in counseling is unjustifiable because there is no evidence in the Scripture that Jesus, the apostles, or anyone in the role of a counselor in Israel or in the church relied on psychological theories, research findings, or techniques. This assertion itself may be questionable because even though psychology as a science did not emerge until the 18th century, the informal use of psychological principles is as old as human beings. However, for the sake of argument, let us take the proposition of biblical silence as true. Wright (1982) suggests that the dismissal of an argument as unwarranted based on the lack of an explicit record of evidence may actually be a fallacy. The mention of unrecorded evidence for tools used by some psychology detractors in their ministry would render their argument from silence against psychology invalid. Well, the list of things never recorded as used in ministry in the Bible, which nevertheless psychology enemies use in their counseling practice, is too long to include here. Psychology opponents have been prolific book writers and creators of materials that they claim to be essential counseling tools, but which go far beyond Scripture itself. If they receive these resources that are absent in the Scripture as blessings, their repudiation of psychology as unbiblical is logically invalid.

This brings us to our final point: How practical is the anti-psychological view of biblical sufficiency? Because in normal conditions human beings tend to act in ways that they can understand, logic and practicality tend to go hand in hand. Because the anti-psychological view of biblical sufficiency defies logic, it cannot be applied even by its proponents. The result is that one can easily find behavior modification (e.g., behavior analysis, punishment of undesirable behavior combined with role modeling of incompatible behavior, guided rehearsal, etc.), recognition of ego defense mechanisms (e.g., denial or rationalization of sin), consideration of developmental changes, and similar psychological principles in their writings and practice, although usually in disguise. In short, their practice fails their professed belief and teaching that psychology cannot help us explain or deal with our personal problems.

Conclusion

This article challenged the biblical, theological, and logical basis of some evangelicals' argument of biblical sufficiency as a pretext to repudiate psychology. While our goal was to specifically point to flaws in this argument, we do acknowledge the good motives that prompt psychology detractors to their position. They are reacting to what others (e.g., Zilbergeld, cited in Collins, 1988) have called the overpromotion, overuse, and overvalue of psychology in our days. Like them, we resist the uncritical glorification of psychology. Additionally, they have played an important prophetic role in pointing to flagrant metatheoretical and theoretical conflicts between some types of psychology and the inspired, authoritative, and inerrant Word of God. Finally, they have built awareness among ministers of important principles from Scripture that are relevant to every life situation and can make one competent for counseling. However, in our opinion, their view of biblical sufficiency as a pretext to repudiate psychology has led them to a radical negative response to the question: Should psychology be used in Bible-committed counseling or not? We think that their rejection of psychology on the grounds of biblical sufficiency reflects poor exegesis, theology, and logic.

The writing of this article was in part supported by a summer research grant and a sabbatical leave to the first author from Malone University. We thank Kay Ray and Stephen Moroney for their helpful feedback on an earlier version of this article. Correspondence regarding this article may be addressed to Ebenezer A. de Oliveira, Department of Psychology, Malone University, 2600 Cleveland Ave., N.W., Canton, OH 44709. E-mail: [e-mail].

References

Adams, J. (1973). The Christian counselor's manual. Grand Rapids, MI: Ministry Resources Library/Zondervan.

Adams, J. (1986). How to help people change. Grand Rapids, MI: Ministry Resources Library/Zondervan.

Barnett, A. E., & Homrighausen, E. G. (1957). 2 Peter. In G. A. Buttrick (General Ed.), The interpreter's Bible (Vol. 12). New York: Abingdon.

Beck, J. R. (1997). Sola Scriptura: Then and now. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 16, 293-302.

Blum, E. A. (1981). 2 Peter. In F. E. Gaebelein (Ed.), The expositor's Bible commentary (Vol. 12). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.

Bobgan, M., & Bobgan, D. (1987). Psychoheresy: The psychological seduction of Christianity. Santa Barbara, CA: EastGate.

Bonevac, D., & Solomon, R. C. (1999). Simple logic. (Solomon, R. C., Ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Cairns, E. E. (1996). Christianity through the centuries: A history of the Christian church. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Calvin, J. (n.d.) Institutes of Christian religion (6th ed., Vol. 1) (J. Allen, Trans.). Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication.

Cedar, P. A. (1984). 2 Peter. In L. J. Ogilvie (General Ed.), The communicator's commentary. (Vol. 11). Waco, TX: Word Books.

Collins, G. (1988). Can you trust psychology? Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.

Crabb, L. J. (1981). Biblical authority and Christian psychology. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 9, 305-311.

Demares, G. W. (1984). 2 Timothy. In L. J. Ogilvie (General Ed.), The communicator's commentary (Vol. 9). Waco, TX: Word Books.

Earle, R. (1979). 2 Timothy. In F. E. Gaebelein (Ed.), The expositor's Bible commentary (Vol. 11). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Ellens, H. (1981). Biblical authority and Christian psychology: II. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 9, 318-325.

Exell, J. S. (1954). The Biblical illustrator (I and II Peter). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker BookHouse.

Gealy, F. D., & Noyles, M. P. (1955). 2 Timothy. In G. A. Buttrick (Ed.), The interpreter's Bible (Vol. 11). Nashville, TN: Abington.

Hathaway, W. L. (2005). Scripture and psychological science: Integrative challenges & callings. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 33, 89-97.

Helm, P. (Ed.). (1999). Faith & reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hiebert, D. E. (1979). An introduction to the New Testament (revised ed., Vol 2). Chicago: Moody Press.

Hill, P. C. (2005). Living on the boundary: Scriptural authority and psychology. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 33, 98-112.

Hurley, J. B., & Berry, J. T. (1997). The relation of scripture and psychology in counseling from a prointegration position. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 16, 323-345.

Johnson, E. L., & Jones, S. L. (2000). Psychology and Christianity: Four views. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity.

Knudsen, R. D. (1982). Calvinism as a cultural force. In W. S. Reid (Ed.), John Calvin: His influence in the western world (pp. 11-29). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Ladd, G. E. (1991). A theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

Lawson, D. A., & Wilcox, D. A. (2005). Philosophical foundations for integration: A response to de Oliveira. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 24, 240-246.

MacArthur, J., Jr. (1991). Our sufficiency in Christ. Dallas: Word.

Matthews, G. B. (2005). Knowledge and illumination. In E. Stump, & N. Kretzmann, (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Augustine (pp. 171-185). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

NANC (n.d.). Welcome to NANC - The National Association of Nouthetic Counselors. About Us: History. Retrieved February, 2007, from https://www.nanc.org/page.asp?contentid=1.

Oliveira, E. A. de (2004). A Reformed Evangelical approach to developmental psychology and the Bible. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 23, 12-21.

Oliveira, E. A. de (2005). Hierarchy of media, but not of sources, truths, or academic disciplines: A rejoinder to Lawson and Wilcox. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 24, 247-253.

Shields, H., & Bredfeldt, G. (2001). Caring for souls: Counseling under the authority of Scripture. Chicago: Moody.

Spitz, L. W. (1985). The Protestant reformation: 1517-1559. New York: Harper & Row.

Stephens, W. P. (1994). Zwingli: An introduction to his thought. New York: Clarendon/Oxford.

The Holy Bible (1984). New International Version. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament (1976). A. Marshall (Trans.). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Towner, P. H. (2006). The Letters to Timothy and Titus. In N. B. Stonehouse, F. F. Bruce, & G. D. Fee (General Eds.), The New international commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Welch, E., & Powlison, D. (1997a). "Every common bush afire with God": The Scripture's constitutive role for counseling. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 16, 303-322.

Welch, E., & Powlison, D. (1997b). Response to Hurley and Berry. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 16, 346-349.

Williamson, G. I. (1964). The Westminster Confession of Faith for study classes. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company.

Wright, L. (1982). Better reasoning: Techniques for handling argument, evidence, and abstraction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Ebenezer A. de Oliveira

Jennifer L. Braun

Malone University

Note

(1.) For discussions on the placement of the English verb "is," absent in the Greek text, the reader is referred to Earle, 1979.

Authors

Ebenezer A. de Oliveira (M.A.R., Westminster Theological Seminary; M.A. and Ph.D., University of Delaware) is an Associate Professor in the Psychology Department of Malone University. His primary research interest has been in social ecological systems of child and adolescent development, and recently he has also written on the relationship of psychological research and practice with the Bible from a Reformed standpoint. Jennifer L. Braun (B.A. in Psychology, Malone University, 2008) is currently working in a library as she prepares to enter graduate school in the near future. Her interests include general psychological research and the integration of psychology and Christianity.