Dear Dr. Stoll,
Thank you for your continued dialogue in responding to my
concerns.
To be consistent with our previous format, I begin by
quoting you, then responding in red.
Response to your June 9, 2003 Letter.
*****
JOHN STOLL:
As to what you pointed out as to "centered spirituality"
wondering if I got that from Jung, the answer is, no. I
got that as a boy from my Father, a Godly Bible expositor,
who reminded the people to "center their spiritual life on
Christ" rather than on the world. My Father probably never
even heard of Jung. However, various words such as the
word, "centered" are not necessarily the exclusive domain of
Godless Psychologists.
As someone with advanced degrees and 50 years of studying,
teaching, and counseling, you should be the first to know
that cantered spirituality is primarily known for it New Age
connection. It is not taught in the Bible. There should be
no confusion about this. And there should be no mixing of
Godless Psychology with Biblical Christianity in order to
get cantered. So, you are saying there is such a thing a
Godfull Psychology? This is an oxymoron. You even concede
that term is used in Godless Psychology in your last letter
to me.
So
why didn't you completely expose it and renounce its New Age
and normally understood connection? Your father indeed may
not have heard of Jung, so may have used the term innocently
enough, but you should know better than to use the term
today, when most do understand that its most normal usage is
identifying it with the New Age. And this raises another
question, how did your father get along so admirably in the
faith WITHOUT probably ever knowing who Carl Jung was? I
have known the Lord for 50 years and studied the Bible too
and I never once ever heard of the term or even concept of
being spiritual centered as a Christian. I have never even
heard any great Bible scholar teach such a concept.
There is no such Scripture. Go ahead and use your search
engine in the Bible (I tried it in KJV and NIV) and find me
a chapter and verse to support this very unorthodox gnostic
idea of being spiritually centered. You will certainly find
"sanctify", "justify", in a Bible word search, but you won't
find "centered" or "Centered Spirituality". Now you may say
"well you wouldn't find "trinity" either in a Bible search.
True enough. But you will still find a host of Scriptures
that support the very Orthodox Christian concept behind the
Trinity. But there is no Orthodox Christianity behind either
the word(s) "centered spiritual", or the concept. And even
if you really mean centered on Christ, then there is no
other center. Are you suggesting if Christ is the fulcrum
center, that we are then to balance psychology with
Scripture? If we are to worship him with all of our heart,
mind, strength and soul (not just spiritually center
ourselves), there isn't anything else to balance it with to
be centered spiritually.
Now
if you wish to use the term centered in the way you would
use a level which has a little bubble in it, or a
carpenter's plumbline, as the Prophet Amos used the term,
then you would still mean everything must be in plumb with
the Scriptures. But Carl Jung is clearly out of plumb and
clearly NOT centered, so he must be totally rejected. The
New Age uses also uses the term Christ-Centered Spirituality
But it is not the same Christ. Your defense of using the
term centered spiritually because you mean Christ
exclusively (but did not state this) would be like insisting
on using the word gay in talking about people who are
colorfully dressed. Afterall, that is what the word meant in
the King James Bible. When almost everyone hearing you
describe people as gay would almost universally be
understood to mean that they are homosexual. And were you
use of centered spiritually used in isolation or where you
precisely defined it to mean totally obedient to the
Scriptures, being born again, and totally reliant on the
Holy Spirit, I will concede your use of the term. But
because you have unundated it with Psychology and Carl Jung
teaching, this makes it a great stumbling block.
JOHN STOLL:
I was rather surprised that you accused me of "you defend
aspects of humanism.
I am not accusing you of anything you do not state. As with
Carl Jung, you should COMPLETELY denounce it, which your
book does not do. Any hint of value it in gives the
appearance of evil.
You say I have wrongly accused you, which I take very
seriously ever bearing false witness against a brother which
the Lord hates. So here is your quote from Chapter 31 in
your book on Christian Maturity:
Though humanistic psychology has its flaws,
to eliminate it altogether from meeting the needs of
Christians, is like throwing the baby out with the
bathwater. One of the problems with human nature is to
turn to one extreme to avoid another. Balance in life is
both Biblical and desirable, in order to enjoy the fullness
of life.
So, we are to balance the cup of devils with the cup of the
Lord? Can't we just mix the good from the philosophies of
the world with the light of God's revelation, so we can have
an even better drink? What fellowship does light have with
darkness? What does it even have in common? So, the religion
of the Golden Calf of Egypt had its flaws, but let's not
throw the baby out with the bathwater? Why didn't Elijah
tell the Prophets of Baal you know, your religion has plenty
of flaws, but there is obviously many good things in it that
can help meet the needs of us Israelites who worship God.
Certainly we can work something out....some kind of treaty
or compromise. Afterall, it would be just awful to ruin
everything for everyone if we throw out the baby with the
bathwater. Greek Philosophy has its flaws, but Paul said
there is much good in it we should cling to? Is that what he
said? Of course he didn't! You keep using this phrase while
accusing me of using a strawman argument. You are asking us
to accept your premise. But Biblically I can not because
there isn't even a baby in the tub, which you are presuming.
Humanist Psychology and Biblical Christianity are mutually
exclusive. Humanists even know this, how come you don't? You
are surprise I would confront you with this. I am surprised
you would think you could make such a statement
unchallenged!
JOHN STOLL:
As a philosophy, I am totally against it. That does not mean
that Humanists are totally bereft of the image of God in
them, though they do distort it to their own selfish
endeavors. Total Depravity (as per Calvin) which I believe
in, means that people are totally separated from God by
their sin, but it does not mean they are totally
unable to exercise the general revelation to all
mankind.
You have this backwards. It is not the general revelation
they can impart to mankind, but God's general revelation to
all mankind. What general revelation did Carl Jung exercise
to all mankind? But note they are without excuse for this,
so Carl Jung is without excuse if he rejects God (and his
general revelation). In fact, God takes it a step further
and turns them over to be reprobate minds, totally depraved.
And you want to seek counsel from the ungodly totally
depraved Carl Jung via MBTI. And by the way, I just
received confirmation that MBTI is impossible without the
ideas Carl Jung from Brian Jones at:
http://www.DiscoverYourPersonality.com
Once again, you have invoked a Scriptural passage (Romans
1:21-24) which, in fact, teaches the very opposite of your
defense of the alleged baby with the bath water.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the
world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that
are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that
they are without excuse:Because that, when they knew
God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were
thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and
their foolish heart was darkened. Professing
themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed
the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like
to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and
creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to
uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to
dishonour their own bodies between themselves:Who changed
the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the
creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.
Amen Romans 1:20-25
Carl Jung is without excuse. And Christian who promote Carl
Jung's ideas are without excuse. Carl Jung did not glorify
God. Carl Jung became vain in his imaginations and vain
strongholds of imaginations that he should have cast down.
Carl Jung's foolish heart was darkened. Carl Jung professed
himself to be wise. Carl Jung became a fool who has said in
his heart there is no God. And you want to follow his
teachings via MBTI? And you want to promote his teachings?
And you are not concerned about stumbling the least one of
these my children? (I am not saying you intend to stumble
them,) And you are not concerned about making them twice the
sons of Hell for making those you counsel followers of Carl
Jung too? Now you may deem this charge extremely harsh,
unwarranted, "strident and ungracious" for all who practice
or recruit people to use these Personality Profiles.
However, I believe it warranted for the following
Scriputural reason:
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye
compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is
made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than
yourselves." Matthew 23:15
These personality profiles such as MBTI have now been
integrated and matriculated into the Church Growth Movement
by religious leaders such as Rick Warren, via his SHAPE
Program and Covenants you must now sign to become members of
the church and mature in the Church. These profiles are now
being used by Christian Colleges. The Personality Profiles
are being promoted by Bill Hybels to tens of thousands of
churches worldwide. And even when not forced to take these
profiles (these Biblically unwarranted burdens) or go along
with Hybels or Warren teaching, attenders are ostracized,
asked to leave, removed from teaching Sunday School.
Christians are forced to take these tests to get employed in
thousands of corporations with no knowledge that they are
taking tests devised by divination and Greek pagan
mythology. They have now become integral to Corporate
Wellness Programs and strategy. Even missionaries in such
organizations such as Trans World Radio are required to take
a personality profile very similar to your MBTI. So this
what makes the proselytes of personality profiles twice the
son of hell as the adminisrater who inticed the person to
take the test. And Christian therapist? They are even worse.
They are charging clients to take the profile. Now they may
not directly charge them, but the client still ends up
paying for it as part of their overall counselling. Maybe
its a package deal. Then of course they must have a paid
"professional" counselor to interprete the results of these
Personality Profiles such as MBTI, making them dependent on
the Psychologist rather than the Lord! These tests are
called tools of the Kingdom, but they are really tools of
the devil! And paying to use MBTI as a tool for
sanctification? Whatever happened to the Scriptures:
"He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us
all, how shall he not with him also freely give us
all things?" Romans 8:32"
Is Jesus giving us all things including MBTI and other
Personality Profiles, and is it free?
"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the
spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that
are freely given to us of God." I Corinthians 2:12
Is Jesus giving us all things including MBTI and other
Personality Profiles, and is it free?
"And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the
beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst
of the fountain of the water of life freely."
Revelation 21:6
Is Jesus giving us all things including MBTI and other
Personality Profiles, and is it free?
"And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that
heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And
whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely."
Revelation 22:17
Is Jesus giving us all things including MBTIand other
Personality Profiles, and is it free?
Even if you were to invoke this passage of general
revelation, unlike what Hugh Ross teaches, it is not the 67th
Book of the Bible. The very passage simply declares God's
power in his creation, what we see in nature, the moon, sun
and stars. The revelation is general to everyone. Everyone
gets the revelation, we don't need Carl Jung obtain any of
it or interpret it. Furthermore, we don't get redemptive or
sanctification from this general revelation. Carl Jung
certainly did not understand his eternal power and Godhead
from this general revelation. So you can't even use this
Scripture to defend the ideas of Carl Jung.
"For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the
world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and
overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the
beginning." II Peter 2:20
Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a
cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every
weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset [us],
and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,
Hebrews 12:1
Born again Christians have passed from death unto life. The
death they were practicing was the very pagan and Greek
religions and occultic teaching and ideas that Carl Jung
espoused which found its way into MBTI. So now that they are
free indeed, why would you want to again entangled them and
weigh them down with these psychological, humanistic,
philosophies of the world?
JOHN STOLL:
Granted, the Bible is not a philosophical book, per se, and
it is God's direct revelation of His commandments and
principles for us to follow, though Colossians points out
God's worldview vs. man's worldview, which is philosophy.
So if Colossians is correct and the Bible is antithetical to
the worldview, then why do you promote MBTI which is based
on man's worldview?
JOHN STOLL:
Your rather strident ungracious manner comes through
to me as similar to that of Dave Hunt and the Bobgans, with
whom I have had conversations in the past.
Did you ever confront the Bobgans or Dave Hunt for having a
strident ungracious manner. If so, what was their reply? I
have read much of their material and have corresponded with
Martin Bobgan, and never got the impression you describe.
Yes they are direct, but were they ever incorrect? I found
their material most illuminating and well documented and
much needed. I wish there were more brave soldiers like them
willing to stand in the gap and contend for the faith and
expose all false teaching in the Body of Christ.
If you read carefully everything I wrote you, I never once
personally attacked you, only your teaching and publishing
writings. If so, please show me the statements. Instead of
responding to me that I have assailed you personally, in
effect, saying my arguments to you are ad hominim , i.e.
"Your rather strident ungracious manner," why not
respond with "come let us reason from Scripture." Is someone
automatically strident and ungracious, simply because they
oppose your teaching as unbiblical? But you know I can
accept a rebuke. I am even open to discussing whether or not
I was kind enough or not. But why don't you first Biblically
attack my arguments and refutations. Show me one example
where Moses fused other religions with the God-breathed
Scripture. Show me one example where John the Baptist merged
other Greek Philosophies with the Gospel? Show me one
example where Paul merged other Greek Philosophies with the
Gospel? Or Peter, or John, or Jude? There is a saying when
right confronts wrong, and wrong does not repent, wrong
always retaliates. But I am not going to retaliate against
you, I am going to continue to press until you renounce your
false teaching, for I must oppose you because you are
clearly in the wrong. But swear to you, I mean no personal
assault upon you!
It is very difficult to try to prove to someone that their
letter is not "strident ungracious manner ", as it is
so subjective and no doubt very real to the recipient. I
think I would prefer to say that I conveyed the urgency of
my appeal. In any case, there is time to rebuke and a time
to rebuke even "sharply". So rather than the word
"strident", I prefer using an adverb or verb the Scripture
authorizes us to use such as exhort, entreat, appeal,
admonish, correct, oppose, refute, and rebuke. Note I have
opposed you, appealed to you, entreated you, but I had not
yet used the word rebuke or rebuke sharply, so, if anything,
I believe I was restrained. Rebuking would at some point be
necessary were you to not repent, but I feel that I have, in
fact, tried to be gracious to allow you to repent by appeal
to you and entreat you as a fellow elder in the Faith, and
pray for the conviction of the Holy Spirit. Rebuking should
be the last resort, but it still is Biblically justified.
Jesus did commend six of the seven churches, but note there
was a condition for their remaining in any favor, they all
had to repent of the things Christ had against them. Neither
Bill Hybels nor Rick Warren have repented of nor even
acknowledged any of the things I have pointed out.
Furthermore, I should point out that Jesus Christ was
arguably strident and ungracious about the Church of
Laodicea and even said that they too had to repent of the
specific offenses or false teachings. (Note that it was this
Church that I compared Willowcreek to in my article on Bill
Hybels). Was Jesus arguably strident and ungracious about
the Pharisees or Judas? Was Peter arguably strident and
ungracious about Ananias and Saphira? (Acts 5:3) Was Stephen
arguably strident and ungracious about the men of the
Synagogue of Freedmen? (Acts 7:51-53) Was Paul or any
Apostle ever arguably strident and ungracious about any
false teacher or prophet? Was Paul arguably strident and
ungracious when he warned the elders at Ephesus that
grievous wolves would enter the church? In Galatians, was
Paul arguably strident and ungracious about "anybody
preaching another gospel (which is what the Personality
Profiles and Psychology are), let him be eternally damned?"
Galatians 1:9 Was Paul arguably strident and ungracious
about the Judaizers? Was Paul arguably strident and
ungracious about Hymaneus and Philetus, when he calls them
gangrene, was this being strident? (II Timothy 2:17). Was
Paul arguably strident and ungracious about Jannes and
Jambres? (II Timothy 3:8) Was Paul arguably strident and
ungracious about Demas? (II Timothy 4:10) Was Paul arguably
strident and ungracious about Alexander the metalworker (II
Timothy 4:14) Was Paul arguably strident and ungracious
about the philosophers of this Age (that is the Greeks, my
friend), when he writes: "O Timothy, keep that which is
committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain
babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:" I
Timothy 6:20) also I Timothy 1:3-4. Was Paul arguably
strident and ungracious about Hymaneus and Alexander whom he
handed over to Satan? (I Timothy 2:20) Was Peter arguably
strident and ungracious about the false teachers and
prophets among the people in II Peter Chapter 2? Was Jude
arguably strident and ungracious about the godless men and
false shepherds among the people in verses 3-16?
I would maintain that in all of these examples, Jesus and
the Apostles were "strident and ungracious", but the bottom
line is that they were accurate and said what needed to be
said. Also, my articles on Hybels and Warren continue to be
written in light new things that are going on there as well
as on the heels of a number of Christians who have become
dismembered and left in the wake of the Church Growth
Movement, in part, because they oppose the Jung-based
Personality Profiles that you promote.
Now I can tell you for certain that on three different
occasions in my life, three different God-fearing Christians
with backbone confronted me with very tough love and were
distinctly strident and ungracious in manner in their
confronting me. But they were completely right when their
previous gentle appeals went unheeded. But they were right,
and there was nothing I could say. But thank God they were
bold enough to tell me the truth. It completely turned my
life around. My father on several occasions was strident and
ungracious in manner when he did not spare the rod when
disciplining us as children. And thank God he didn't spare
it. The Scriptures even say that he would have hated his own
children, were he to spare the rod. So there is even a time
to be ungracious and strident. But I feel that I restrained
myself from this last resort, as I was hoping all things for
you, that it would not be necessary, if I could simply
persuade you of the folly and great harm being manifested by
Personality Profiling in the Church in the Name of Jesus.
JOHN STOLL:
it appears to me that you are not convinced of the fact that
I place ultimate authority in the Trinity, the Bible, and
the indwelling Holy Spirit.
What convinces me of this are your own words. On the one
hand you do state the Scriptures are our ultimate authority,
but then you parade out idea after idea that totally
collides with Scripture and is even directly forbidden by
Scripture. You can't have it both ways. You seem to want
your cake and eat it. You really need to choose today whom
you will follow. If the Lord be God, serve Him, and Him
ONLY!
JOHN STOLL:
I have preached many times, "The Conflict Through The Ages"
based on John 8:44,45
It is just astounding to me how many times you use the very
Scripture to defend your views, that I would use to refute
them.
The complete concept really should include verse 43. So here
is the entire passage:
Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye
cannot hear my word.
Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your
father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and
abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him.
When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he
is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell [you]
the truth, ye believe me not. John 8:43-45
Jesus made his word clear....there were NO semantics
problems. He was scolding them for not understanding his
speech. He also cursed Jerusalem because they did not
understand the very day of his visitation predicted by
Zechariah and the Prophet Daniel. But they were without
excuse because the clear word of prophesy was given to them,
the issue was not semantics!!
And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children
within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon
another; because thou knewest not the time of thy
visitation. Luke 19:44
When the Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D., they should have
argued well we thought you meant the destruction
figuratively. Or, how could we know the time of your
visitation, those prophesies of your coming are so abstract,
couldn't they semantically mean something else? Or, we
misunderstood what you really meant by your words, so why
are we still accountable? Is this an acceptable excuse? Of
course it is not! knowing meant knowing, time meant time and
visitation meant visitation.
MBTI's father is Carl Jung. And Carl Jung' father is the
devil. And what does Jesus say about him? There is at least
a little truth in him? There is a lot of truth in him? Don't
throw the baby out with the bath water? Of course, not, he
says there is no truth in him. And as Jacob Prasch points
out in his article on Mixture that I sent to you (the URL),
TRUTH + ERROR = ERROR.
JOHN STOLL:
I believe we could go back and forth continually in a
semantic mode without making much headway convincing
each other.
Semantics must obey hermeneutics. Words have meaning and
meanings that the Scriptures intend for us to clearly
follow. Commandments of God are not uncertain. Paul's
instructions were not uncertain. The hearer can not say as
you postulate that it is simply a matter of semantics that
you mean one thing by words you use and I understand them to
have a different semantic. Just like the trumpet must give a
certain sound, so too must our words give certain sounds.
Paul reiterated the same point Jesus made in John 8:43-45
and Luke 19:44,
when Paul stated
For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound,
who shall prepare himself to the battle? I
Corinthians 14:8
In your initial chapter and teaching on sanctification, you
admirably clarify any semantical problems with this word and
ensure in all contexts the range of meaning of the word and
its clear and precise boundaries. There was no uncertain
sound in that chapter and no going back and forth with
semantic mode. So semantics are important, but in your
defense of the definitions of sanctification, your plumbline
was so clear, there was no room for connecting to ideas
outside of the Bible as you later do in your defense of MBTI
connecting them. You and I can't have different private
interpretations of Scripture, i.e., different semantics.
This kind of thinking is what paved the way to Christianity
first heresy of Gnosticism and spiritualizing away sound
doctrine.
Paul reiterates that his instructions to us are written to
be plainly understood...without semantics problems, or
Clinton's parsing in saying it depends on what the word is
is.
Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways;
we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of
God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth
plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience
in the sight of God. II Corinthians 4:2 NIV
JOHN STOLL:
For many years my favorite verse in the Bible has been, 1
Samuel 2:30, "Them that honor me, I will honor, and they
that despise me, shall be lightly esteemed". For over 50
years I have tried to follow that principle of honoring my
Lord & Savior Jesus Christ.
Well that is an excellent Scripture. But it totally baffles
me that you would not then used it to oppose and expose Carl
Jung, as Carl Jung clearly did not honor the Lord and
despised him, so he should be lightly esteemed. It does not
mean lightly esteem his teaching, as there are a host of
Scriptures to command TOTAL rejection of his teaching, But
rather, we are to esteem him as a person in the sense of
esteeming him enough to bring him the Gospel, as the Lord
would that none perish....that is until his death....then it
is too late to even esteem him lightly or even pray for him.
His fate is already sealed.
"Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the
disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the
wisdom of this world?" I
Corinthians 1:20
"But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to
confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things
of the world to confound the things which
are mighty;" I Corinthians 1:27
"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.
For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own
craftiness." I Corinthians 3:19
So the Scriptures clearly teach us that wisdom of this world
is foolishness and the Lord will confound the wisdom of Carl
Jung, Philosopy, Psychology, and ALL Personality Profiles
such as MBTI. It is a good thing that the Prophet Nathan did
not administer a Personality Profile to David's brothers, or
else we would have had someone other than David selected to
be King because the strengths and weaknesses and preferences
of profiles would not have yielded David as the right
selection. Besides this, we would need to "balance" and "center
spiritually" the preferences of David and his brothers to
yield appropriate employment for the shepherd boy David.
While God has chosen to use the wisdom of this world (Carl
Jung) to confound the wise, Christian Leaders, Pastors, and
Christian Psychologists are using the wisdom if this world
(Carl Jung) to confound the Christian.
Therefore, I pray for all Christians and children who have
strayed from the simplicity which is Christ into MBTI or any
other Personality Profile, any psychology, that they would
repent and return to their first love, and that all
counselors who add to this simplicity, would doubly repent
and even make restitution when possible.
"Every word of God [is] pure: he [is] a shield unto them
that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words,
lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." Proverbs
30:5-6
"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve
through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from
the simplicity that is in Christ."
II Corinthians 11:3
********
Finally, thank you for your offer. I would equally amenable
to reciprocally send you a compact disc if my
Sacred Carols for Classical Guitar. I will use the
return address on the tapes you send.
Sincerely in Christ our Savior,
James Sundquist
