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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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!
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
"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."
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
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."
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?
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?
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
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
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
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
"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
"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
Sincerely in Christ our Savior,