r.c. sproul and psychoheresy

R.C. SPROUL AND PSYCHOHERESY

We have often said that there is some psychoheresy in just about all of the highly visibleindividuals who claim to be biblical. This is certainly true of R. C. Sproul. Evidence of this isfound in a preconference seminar taught by R. C. Sproul and Bill White. The title of thisseminar, which continues to be available on audio-tape from Ligonier Ministries, is"Psychology: Psychoheresy or Psychohealing?" Psychoheresy is a term that we coined andused as the title of a book. Psychohealing obviously represents the opposing view, which issupportive of psychotherapy and its underlying psychologies. In this seminar both Sproul andWhite make it clear that they support psychohealing.

R. C. Sproul is president of Ligonier Ministries and professor of systematic theology atReformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida. In addition, he has an extensiveaudio/video teaching ministry and has authored numerous books.

Bill White is listed on the conference announcement as a "Counselor and EducationalConsultant with Pathways Educational Network" (PEN). PEN is a fee-for-service counselingand referral service located in Pennsylvania. A brief review of their services reveals that theyare involved with psychoheresy (the unbiblical psychologizing of the faith).

The Sproul and White talks were announced in the conference brochure with the followingquestions:

[1] Is the practice of psychology an aid to greater obedience or a distortion of thebiblical view of man?[2] Do psychological theories and methods have a place in the ministry of the church?

After hearing and carefully analyzing the Sproul and White talks, we concluded that thefollowing would be their answers to the above questions:

1. The practice of psychology can be an aid to greater biblical obedience and need notbe a distortion of the biblical view of man.2. Some psychological theories and methods have a place in the ministry of the church.

Our position, for which we provide both biblical and scientific evidence, is opposed to thesepositions espoused by Sproul and White.

We are not presenting White’s view or an analysis of it in this article. We have chosen,instead, to analyze Sproul’s view, because he has a considerably larger audience of followersand individuals whom he influences. However, White makes some of the same errors inreasoning and logic and leaps to many of the same erroneous conclusions as Sproul.

In his talk, Sproul reveals the logical and theological underpinnings of his support forpsychology. It is difficult to trace who influenced his thinking in the area of psychology.However, White should have some of the "credit," since he has written for LigonierMinistries’ Table Talk Magazine as far back as the seventies. John Coe, a faculty member ofthe Graduate School of Psychology at Biola University, and especially Larry Crabb share thesame views.

R.C. Sproul and PsychoHeresy http://www.psychoheresy-aware.org/sproul11_6.html

1 de 8 29/04/2012 18:54

http://www.psychoheresy-aware.org/sproul11_6.html

Before analyzing Sproul’s talk and accusing him of psychoheresy, we wish to make the targetof our concerns clear. Our concerns are directed at psychoheresy. What is psychoheresy?Psychoheresy is the integration of secular psychological counseling theories and therapieswith the Bible. Psychoheresy is also the intrusion of such theories into the preaching andpractice of Christianity, especially when they contradict or compromise biblical Christianityin terms of the nature of man, how he is to live, and how he changes.

And, what is our purpose in exposing psychoheresy? We desire to encourage Christians tolook to the Lord and His Word as sufficient for life and godliness, rather than to thepsychological opinions of men. We expose the unbiblical nature of such theories andmethods, because mixing psychological counseling theories with the Bible distractsbelievers, dilutes Scripture, dishonors God, develops the flesh, and debilitates spiritualgrowth.

Sproul’s Position

Sproul begins his talk by referring to the German philosopher Immanuel Kant. In his chiefwork, Critique of Pure Reason, Kant discussed the nature and limits of human knowledge.Sproul says:

What Kant did—he made this division between two worlds. . . . He said there’s twospheres, or realms or worlds, what he called the numenal world and the phenomenalworld.

Simply stated, the numenal realm is the realm of God and the phenomenal realm is the realmof man and his world. Sproul says:

The world of phenomena is the world that is visible or audible or tactile; that is, it is aworld that can be perceived by the senses.

But God is not in the phenomenal world. He is in the invisible and intangible-to-man world.Sproul explains a significant point from Kant’s work as follows:

Kant said that if there is a God in the numenal world, you can’t know anything aboutHim from the phenomenal world. You cannot move from the phenomenal to thenumenal.

Because of this, Kant concluded that you cannot know the essence of anything, whether itexists in the numenal or phenomenal world. This means you cannot know the essence of Godor the essence of man. One can know man or self in its outward physical manifestation, butone cannot know the essence of self. Sproul says, "And really what Kant called the self iswhat we call the soul." Sproul goes on to say that the word for soul is psyche and that "awhole science was developed to inquire about this portion of human experience" (emphasisadded). Sproul spends some time speaking of this type of psychology (the study of the soul)as if it is science and equating it with biology. He equates the two fields of study by their rootending -ology.

Sproul is a theologian, but he is neither a scientist nor a philosopher of science. Sproul refersto the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, whose specialty was metaphysics, but he ignoresor knows nothing about Sir Karl Popper, probably the greatest philosopher of science of the


2 de 8 29/04/2012 18:54


twentieth century. Popper considered that the psychological theories formulated by Freud,Adler, and others, "though posing as science, had in fact more in common with primitivemyths than with science, that they resembled astrology rather than astronomy." Incidentally,astrology also has -ology as a root ending like biology.

Sproul’s next statement is particularly revealing:

I can learn something about you by observing your outward behavior. Your outwardbehavior, the phenomena of what you do is what is open to my eyes and to my ears. Ican listen to the words that you speak, watch the actions that you perform. I can readthe things you write—all of which things remain in the phenomenal world. But, I cantry to make deductions about you from the phenomenal that I hope will give me someinformation about your soul [essence, numena].

Sproul adds:

Kant said, remember, you can’t do that. You can’t move from the phenomenal to thenumenal. You can’t reason from the creation back to the creator, which of course putKant on a collision course with the Apostle Paul.

Was Kant on a collision course with the Apostle Paul? Or, a more important question, hasSproul collided with both Scripture and science in giving his support to the pseudoscience ofpsychology and psycho-healing?

Science or Pseudoscience?

Sproul refers to "the relationship of the Bible to the secular science" (bold added). Heclarifies to what he is referring when he says, "secular science," by asking: "Why areChristians concerned about harmonizing what the Bible says with what the AmericanPsychiatric Society says or what physicists say?" It is obvious from what preceded thisquestion in his talk that Sproul is speaking of the psychological aspects of psychiatry andthus he is asking the question of psychology and physics. Popper, as well as many otherswould contradict Sproul’s statement and his position on science. Dr. Sigmund Koch, Directorof the National Science Foundation study resulting in a seven-volume series titledPsychology: A Study of a Science, said, "I think it [is] by this time utterly and finally clearthat psychology cannot be a coherent science" (italics his).

Notice that Sproul is comparing psychology and physics. Physics is a science. Thepsychology he refers to as "psychohealing" is not science. This type of psychology is thevery wisdom of men about which God warns (1 Cor. 2:5). It is made up of "profane and vainbabblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called" (1 Tim. 6:20).

General and Special Revelation

Sproul then talks about general revelation and special revelation. The Bible is God’s specialrevelation, and God’s general revelation is seen in the world. Sproul then says:

The Bible itself tells us that it is not the only source of divine revelation. The Bibleteaches that the heavens declare the glory of God. And Paul labors the point in Romans1, that God, who is invisible, manifests Himself clearly through the things that aremade.


3 de 8 29/04/2012 18:54


Following this, Sproul says something that is most important to understand if one is tounderstand one of the ways he became entangled with psychoheresy. He says:

What Paul is saying in Romans 1 is that God, who indeed lives in the numenal realm,reveals Himself in, through, and by the phenomenal realm; and that not only can wemove from the phenomenal to the numenal with respect to God, we do; and becausewe do, it is the ground basis for the universal indictment of the human race, becauseeverybody in this world knows that there is a God, not only because they can peer intothe numenal world, but because the phenomenal world plainly manifests it.

What Sproul is obviously referring to is what Paul said in Romans 1:20:

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, beingunderstood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so thatthey are without excuse.

Following this, Sproul makes the point that:

General revelation differs in many respects . . . from special revelation. . . but it comesfrom the same source. And, that source is just as infallible when He reveals Himselfthrough nature as when He reveals Himself through Scripture.

Sproul and Coe (Graduate School of Psychology at Biola University) essentially share thesame position on general and special revelation. Pastor Doug Bookman has written a critiqueof this position, which he regards as flawed. Bookman says:

I have suggested that this proposition is flawed in that it commits the basic error ofnatural theology, assuming that there is a world of metaphysical truth outside ofScripture which can be discovered by the unaided efforts of men.

In another place, Bookman makes the case that the rationale employed by Coe and others indefense of such an epistemology is dangerously flawed. Very briefly, that rationale isaccomplished by an arbitrary and unbiblical broadening of the definition of generalrevelation.

General revelation is an important theological concept. Conservative theologians have usedthe term general revelation to identify a very narrow category of truth that God has madepowerfully evident (thus the word revelation) to every rational human being (thus the wordgeneral), according to the way He fashioned the moral and physical universe. Romans 1 and2, the most important New Testament discussion of general revelation, states unequivocallythat the revelation God has set before all men, through the infinitely mysterious, complicatedphysical universe and through the moral consciousness of all human beings, renders allhumans without excuse when they reject that truth.

Lately, however, the important theological category of general revelation has been broadenedto consider all truth-claims made as a result of human efforts to understand the many aspectsof the created order. Those who have broadened the category argue that the Scriptures areindeed the "special" revelation that God has left to us and that, because God is the Author ofthe entire created order, whenever men discover "truth" in that order, we can refer to thathumanly discovered "truth" as "general revelation."


4 de 8 29/04/2012 18:54


Bookman refutes the notion that human discoveries can be regarded as God’s revelation. Hesays:

The issue, then, is not whether it is possible that truth might be discovered by humaninvestigation of the natural and moral universe; rather, the issue is whether truth thusdiscovered can be assigned to the category of general revelation, and to prove that suchmaterial discovery can effect spiritual change.

My contention is that by reason of the proper definition of the theological category"general revelation" and by reason of the intrinsic and divine integrity and authoritythat must be granted to any truth-claim that is placed under that category, it iserroneous and misleading to assign to that category humanly deduced or discoveredfacts and theories. The issue is larger than appropriate taxonomy. In fact, to assign suchhumanly determined truths to the category of general revelation introduces a twofoldfallacy into the argument when it is used as a rationale for the integrationist position.

First, there is the fallacy that might be termed falsely perceived validity. Revelation isfrom God; thus it is by definition true and authoritative. To assign human discoveriesto the category of general revelation is to imbue them with an aura of validity andconsequent authority that they do not, indeed, they cannot merit. Thus, to assign aconcept to the category of general revelation when that concept is in fact a theoryconcocted by a person is, in effect, to lend God’s name to a person’s ideas. That isfallacious, no matter the intrinsic truth or falsehood of the theory under consideration.

The second fallacy might be called crippled accountability. That is, once it isacknowledged that these theories are revelatory in nature, the issue of challengingthem becomes moot. Much may be said about testing the ideas thus derived beforeacknowledging them as part of that august body of truth that God has communicated inthe natural order of things, or about honoring the distinction in intrinsic authoritybetween general and special revelations, but to craft an argument for integration basedupon the equal merits and authority of general revelation and special revelation isfunctionally to short-circuit such efforts and to deny such distinctions. Very simply, ifit is revelation, then God said it; if God said it, then it is true; when God speaks truth,mankind’s responsibility is not to test that truth but to obey it. It is self-contradictory toinsist that general revelation can include truths that must be "studied and examined fortheir trustworthiness."

In summary, then, the integrationist rationale that arises from the claim that perceivedtruths established by human research constitute a subset of the category generalrevelation, and thus possess the authority and dependability native to revelation, isflawed first of all in its misdefinition of the term revelation. Inherent to the biblicalconcept of revelation is the idea of nondiscoverability.***

All Truth Is God’s Truth

Sproul declares that "all truth is God’s truth." He then follows this by saying:

If what you’re learning in psychology conflicts with what you’re learning in the Bible,then that tells you one of two things. Either the psychiatrist has misinterpreted general


5 de 8 29/04/2012 18:54


revelation and he has been a faulty student in his own field. He’s done bad science. Oryour understanding of the Bible is wrong.

Sproul further states that both general revelation and special revelation are infallible, bothhaving come from God, but fallible humans attempt to understand both. In addition to thefact that this type of psychology, which is supported by Sproul, Coe, and Crabb, is notscience, there are additional problems with this statement.

A lot of what Christians think Scripture teaches is simply not true. Thus they have no truebasis for comparison, which is probably why there are so many Christian psychotherapistspracticing so many different psychotherapies that are contradictory to one another. Sproul’sstandard of conflicts between psychology and the Bible is his sole basis for rejecting any ofthe learning from psychology. Apparently the psychologist who meets Sproul’s criteria onlyneeds to make sure that the psychology used does not conflict with Scripture. The intent andpurpose of Scripture is not to be either a support or framework for worldly wisdom in thearea of who man is and how he should live. Of course all must be evaluated in terms ofScripture, but that does not mean that a theory or opinion that is not in Scripture does notconflict with it simply because it is not mentioned. And, one Christian psychiatristerroneously claims that all of the Freudian defense mechanisms are found in Scripture andthereby uses Scripture to support his scientifically insupportable psychological views.

How about using another criteria, such as "only if it is not at odds with other psychologicalsystems"? (Of course that would eliminate all of them.) Or, "only if it is not addressingproblems already addressed in Scripture"? The does-not-conflict-with-Scripture criteria isopen to individual interpretation and this is why so many Christian psychologists have somany different, often-contradictory systems that they use. In addition, does this criteria forpsychology not open Pandora’s box? For example, graphology, use of Hindu chakras,hypnosis, and levitation could all be rationalized to be "not in conflict with the Bible" bysome Christians (not us!). But, should a Christian use them? We have challenged individualslike Sproul for years to name one Christian psychologist who will admit that what he usesfrom psychology conflicts with his learning from the Bible, even though it obviouslyconflicts with what other Christians glean from psychology and use in their practices.

Straw Man Fallacy

Another key to Sproul’s leap into psychoheresy is the following:

If you think you can learn all that God wants you to know simply by reading the Bible,you haven’t been reading your Bible, because the idea that the only truth is the truththat was revealed in the Bible is not a truth revealed in the Bible. That is a falsehood.That is a falsehood rejected by the Bible.

Sproul has committed a straw man logical fallacy. This fallacy is described in a logic text asfollows:

The straw man fallacy occurs when an arguer responds to an opponent’s argument bymisrepresenting it in a manner that makes it appear more vulnerable than it really is,proceeds to attack that argument, and implies that he or she has defeated the opponent.It is called the straw man fallacy because, rather than attacking the "real man," theopponent sets up and knocks over a "straw man."


6 de 8 29/04/2012 18:54


We have challenged for years those individuals like Sproul who use the straw man logicalfallacy to name one Christian of any degree of intelligence who would say that "the onlytruth is the truth that [is] revealed in the Bible." If Sproul can name one intelligent Christianwho meets this criteria, we will print a retraction.

Someone once said that there is nothing so uncommon as common sense. Common senseshould have ruled out this statement by Sproul, because who would say that flying anairplane, repairing an automobile engine, or transplanting a heart is in Scripture? However,when it comes to the essence of man and how he is to live, "all things which pertain unto lifeand godliness" have been given to us in Christ (2 Peter 1:3-4). Paul says that throughScripture man is "thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Tim. 3:17). John says that theHoly spirit guides believers "into all truth" (John 16:13). John also says, "Ye shall know thetruth and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32).

We are told in Jeremiah 17:9, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperatelywicked: who can know it?" And yet we are told in Hebrews 4:12: "For the word of God isquick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividingasunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts andintents of the heart." We challenge Sproul, Coe, Crabb, and others to come up with onepsychological wisdom of man that can promise and produce that!

After stating that "the Bible is not a textbook on economics" and that "the Bible is not atextbook on biology," Sproul says: "The Bible is a textbook about God and man." In referringto the Bible, Sproul also says: "It is the supreme psychological textbook."

In summary of both his own talk and White’s talk, Sproul again raises the psychologicalwisdom of men to the level of science. He says:

Now what you heard from him [White] this morning and what you’re hearing from meis that the Christian who cuts himself off from natural science or from secular sciencehas cut himself off from divine revelation (bold added).

While on the one hand Sproul refers to psychology as an "inexact science"; on the other handhe says:

The care of the human soul is one of the top priorities that God has given to you inyour ministry. So, if there’s anybody that should be searching the depths of Scripture tounderstand the human soul, it’s the pastor. And, if there’s anybody who should besupplementing his search of sacred Scripture concerning the nature of humansouls by studying secular psychology, it’s the pastor, because of what is at stake, thesouls of your people. And, if there’s anything we dare not handle roughly or crudely orin an abusive manner, it is the soul of a human being.

Note: Man looks at Scripture and may conclude inaccurately from the Truth, but taking theconclusions of ungodly men (often antagonistic to God) and using them "concerning thenature of human souls" is unbiblical. The natural man cannot know the things of God (1 Cor.2:14).

Just because one can know some generalities about God through general revelation does notmean that one can know the depths of man through general revelation. One can gain


7 de 8 29/04/2012 18:54


knowledge of man’s physical, organic, biological functioning and external behavior; butnowhere is there evidence that one can accurately know the mind or soul of man apart fromScripture.

Psychohealing or Psychoheresy?

One of the critical problems with Sproul’s talk is that he assumes that psychotherapy isscience and gives his own say so as the authority. As we demonstrated earlier, when you openthe door of science and expand your definition to include psychohealing, you must beconsistent and include other fields and areas as well.

By implying that our position is opposed to science, Sproul has distorted what psychoheresyis really all about. We give both biblical and scientific reasons why Christians should rejectthe pseudoscientific theories and therapies of counseling psychology. We use scientificresearch to demonstrate the failures and fallacies of psychotherapy and other forms ofcounseling psychology and talk therapy. We are not opposed to science, but we are opposedto pseudoscience. Sproul presents pseudo-science as science and implies that those who areopposed to psychohealing are opposed to science. Sproul’s position on psycho-healing isboth theologically and scientifically dangerously flawed and should be avoided by allbelievers.

Like Coe, Crabb, and other integrationists, Sproul gives no specific examples of what frompsychotherapy is science. One time when we were speaking at a graduate school ofpsychology at a seminary we challenged a room full of professors and graduate students togive us one specific "truth" from psychotherapy and its underlying psychologies that is"God’s truth." They had no answer. Coe has no specific answer in his work, Crabb has nospecific answer in his work, and Sproul has no specific answer in his work. As it turns out,the answer to the seminar title "Psychology: Psychoheresy or Psychohealing" should lead oneto conclude that both Sproul and White are guilty of psychoheresy!

PAL V11N6 (Nov-Dec 2003)_________________

***Douglas Bookman. "The Scriptures and Biblical Counseling" in Introduction to BiblicalCounseling, John F. MacArthur, Jr. and Wayne A. Mack, eds. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1994,pp. 74. 75.

Article Topics | Titles | Top

PsychoHeresy Awareness Ministries4137 Primavera Road

Santa Barbara, CA 93110www.pamweb.org


8 de 8 29/04/2012 18:54

http://www.pamweb.org


r.c. sproul and psychoheresy

Documents