The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum R.C. Sproul and Psychoheresy

I was browsing the web today and ran across this article concerning R.C. Sproul and psychoheresy.

http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/sproul/respd.htm

I don't know much about psychoheresy or R.C. Sproul's position on this issue, but I've always enjoyed reading Sproul. Does anyone know anymore about this?

Thanks,
John

john

I hesitate to say anything on this matter because I don't want to make light of it. I am not a fan of mixing Freudian psychobabble with Biblical teaching.
That said, I am a big fan of RC Sproul, I have benefited greatly from him and his ministry. Yet, like all of us RC Sproul has feet of clay so he has his faults. Therefore, when I read someone whether it be RC Sproul, Jonathon Edwards, Pilgrim, I try to read them with discernment.
If I disagree with them on an issue, it doesn't mean that stop learning from them. It just means that, I disagree with them on that particular item.

Tom

Tom, your level headed approach is helpful to me and refreshing to read. Thank you.

How current is the charge? I went back to the references cited in the article, and all the Tabletalk articles were back in the late 1980s.

I think that the likes of Dobson, Crabb had a much more universal appeal in the Christian community back then than they do today.

The article was vague about what R.C. Sproul said. I know many people who have benefited greatly from biblical counseling which I believe is very different from what this article is calling psychoheresy. We love to label things don't we?
Any therapy that suggests that man can heal himself is not biblical, but when a trained counselor can point you to Scripture and show you from God's word where your thinking is skewed is very helpful. We are to have Christ-esteem not self-esteem. Amen?

John,

Yes, our beloved brother Sproul cannot be said to be perfect in all knowledge. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> It is true that he has erred in some areas of thought. However, although these errors should be exposed and rejected, because of the enormous mass of sound teaching this man has given the Church, by God's grace, it would be silly if not outright stupid to reject the man himself as being totally unreliable or even saved. Many of us have been privy to his "peculiarities" for years. But we greatly enjoy the vast majority of his teachings on various subjects and have benefited from them immensely.

Let's consider, just for a moment, "Biblical Discernment Ministries" who has provided this accusation against Dr. Sproul. It should be evident that they are providing a valuable service in exposing error in many instances. However, they are not free from being accused of error either. For example, they claim to hold to "biblical Calvinism", yet their Statement of Faith contradicts some of the core tenets of Calvinism. I'll offer but one example and let others research this more for themselves. On the one hand they claim to hold to the doctrine of "Total Depravity", yet they clearly have a misunderstanding of what that doctrine teaches for they write:

What they hold to is not only a contradiction of the historic doctrine of "Total Depravity" but it is practically impossible. IF/SINCE man is dead in trespasses in sins, i.e., there is no spiritual life to the soul whatsoever, then pray tell how can a dead sinner believe on Christ, which their statement says PRECEDES regeneration? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" /> Classic biblical Calvinism clearly affirms that regeneration precedes, must precede and is the origin of faith.

Should I also mention that they hold to classic Dispensationalism as well? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" />

Okay, the point of all this is simply to show that discernment must be used when reading anyone. And, although some error can be found in everyone, even those who are "stalwarts of the faith", this does not necessarily mean that everything that they hold to be true or teach is to be rejected. There is a point, of course, that one is so fraught with error(s) or that a person's core beliefs so influence all other things that are held, that it isn't worth one's time to read them except for the purpose of providing an example of gross error or if in an academic situation for a class requirement (or for one's own study), in contrast to reading someone for personal edification.

In His grace,

Thanks for everyone's comments. This past week or so has been a bit crazy, so I just found some time to respond.

Pilgrim: Thanks for pointing out the problems with their Statement of Faith. I agree with everything you wrote.

However, I still wonder about their original charge against Sproul. Of course, this is the only place I have read about it, so maybe the charge is groundless. Also, it seems it was made a number of years ago and we all (Sproul included) are (hopefully) growing and tossing errors in personal beliefs away as we become aware of them. I can say that I have benefited immensely from several of Sproul's books and would wholeheartedly recommend them to anyone. But, even if the charges were made by an organization with a statement of faith in error, the charges still need to be dealt with on the merits of the case. For now I will give Sproul the benefit of the doubt unless I find some more evidence somewhere <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wow1.gif" alt="" />

John

snip
However, I still wonder about their original charge against Sproul. Of course, this is the only place I have read about it, so maybe the charge is groundless.
snip

I think this is what is called 'straw dogging'. You determine to debate someone. You either miss quote or completely make up a supposed error on their part and then proceed to prove them wrong. Since it isn't a quote with reference to the book, speech, etc. you are forced to take their word about the statement. The poor fellow being 'dogged' is unable to defend himself and they win the debate by default.
This is one of the tactics used by people wanting to prove my Christian fate as a (baptist, methodist, you fill in the blank) in error. they tell me what I believe and then tear it down. The fact is what they say and what my denomination believe are not the same. If I'm not fully aware of my church doctrine I stand with and open mouth as they destroy me. I enjoy sharing my ideas and reading other peoples views but we have to discern the spirit. If a person is being supportive I will accept it quicker that negative comments. I'd look for 2 or 3 witnesses. Lacking that discard the charge.

I enjoy Jr's article in their Tabletalk Magazine. His article in this months magazine is well worth reading. Perhaps his gift and calling is not to a pastorship, but expounding biblical truths. I suspect we all stumble a little in fifnding our place in God's kingdom

I think the accusation is against Sr. and not Jr.

John