David Entwistle’s Integrative Approaches to Psychology and Christianity David Entwistle's (2010) Integrative Approaches to Psychology and Christianity is geared more towards Christians with conservative evangelical views and provides the reader an outline to different worldview disputes and truth-seeking groundwork that surround the connection that underlies psychology and theology. In addition to analyzing the possible connection of psychology and theology, Entwisle discusses the consideration of integrating Christian faith with the practice of psychology. “Christian understandings of person-hood, the purpose of human life, our need for God, and the ethical teachings of Christian faith are integral to psychology, not merely parallel to it” (p. 199). Entwistle’s viewpoint on this matter is stated clearly. He believes that it is necessary for theology and psychology be integrated in order to fully understand human nature.
Perfectly inspired yet imperfectly written (and interpreted,) the biblical account is believed to be true by the religious.... ... middle of paper ... ...ternative Dawkins puts forth is “some kind of liberal consensus of decency and natural justice.” This alternative changes over time, and serves as a substitute for a legitimate source of moral convictions. Dawkins’ opposition to the church with science is draws similarities to Galileo. Galileo in his time did use his scientific reasoning to dismiss scripture. But, he did so by observation and demonstration in order to disprove scripture by providing a counterexample. He did this in order to show his work of the universe.
Some embraced fideism and favored faith even without or over reason. Others engaged and melded their new traditions with older ones. Thomas Aquinas describes and responds to several challenges of Christianity. Aquinas asserts that the study of God as revealed in Christianity, which he calls Sacred Doctrine, is a science which begins with divine revelations as axioms and uses human reason to build a meaningful body of information concerning who God is and how humans should behave. Aquinas goes on to answer that challenge that, if philosophy based on Christianity is a science, it is a lesser science because it is less certain of its conclusions, having accepted them on faith.
A related dispute has involved encounters between religion and psychology” (Entwistle, pp.8). Entwistle goes on to explaining about how “some people see Christianity only as a religious belief and psychology as a profession, with very little overlap between them” (Entwistle, pp.10). Entwistle explained that this argument should be rejected as our opinion and beliefs begin with systems of beliefs. Entwistle gave three examples to simplify what Christianity really means. As he stated the first example is that “Christianity provides a worldview from which to understand the nature of the world and nature of humanity” (Entwistle, pp.11).
Marshall witnessed a need for greater clarity in regards to worship practices, principles, and theology due to the varying opinions among evangelical interpreters. Marshall mentions, “It is especially the duty of evangelical Christians to provide some kind of reasoned, principled approach to the question of the development of doctrine from Scripture” (Marshall 45). Marshall’s third essay, ‘The Search for Bi... ... middle of paper ... ...ques approaches based on the historical-critical method, the speech-act theory, and the approach of Wittgenstein. Porter’s view is that Paul, himself, had his own opinions on Jesus, God, and Christianity overall. Porter suggests using the translation theory when looking to go beyond the bible.
The enemies model take the position on the psychology of human beings verses the theology of human beings, so therefore this model sees Christians and psychology as enemies that should be kept separate from one another. The spies model, unlike the enemies model does not reject religion, but does take only what works for them. Psychology would enter the Christian world and take parts of the religion concepts that they feel would work well them. Just as a person would take part of the bible and read what they believe only applies to them. The colonialist model has a superficial acquaintance with psychological theories, they the colonist does not exert signification effort towards understanding how psychology and Christianity both express truth or how they can both gain a larger picture of how human nature is functioned (p.137-145).From my understanding Entwistle (2010) believes that psychology works well with religion as long as religion obeys or is superior to psychology.
Although my religion is not Christianity, it is good to learn the new thing and know what Christianity is. I believe every religion that wants people do the good things and have good moral and ethical to make a peace and safe world, only the doctrines and the gods are different. No matter what your religion is and what you believe, people should live in this life, to do the good things and make yourself happy. You do not know what happen after death, are there a heaven and a hell? The important thing is now, this life.
Traditional Christianity and Psychology Christianity and psychology are harmonious mainly because the way Biblical Christianity looks at the world is in itself a psychology (Johnson, 2010). The Bible is important in proper interpretation of human nature. Johnson begins his article by comparing the kingdom of God to the world and asserts that God is the creator of everything in heaven and on earth and portrays mankind as rebellious subjects. He cites verses in the Old Testament and New Testament to authenticate this claim. If this is true, then psychology should focus on acknowledging the role of Jesus Christ in counseling.
Considering psychology is such a vast field, a Christian counselor will have to research many varieties of these psychological theories. The purpose of this essay is to examine and decide which psychological theory for counseling coincides with or opposes a Christian worldview. The two theories that will be discussed and examined on how it relates to a Christian worldview are Psychoanalytic Theory and Adlerian Theory. Both of these theories’ founders have different views of human nature and I will not only give my opinion on them, but I will also discuss how they coincide or oppose a Christian worldview. In this essay I have decided that Sigmund Freud’s theory, Psychoanalytic Theory, is the least congruent with a Christian worldview.
In particular the author discusses two kinds of humanism, and that the adjective “Christian” can be pre-fixed to both. According to Paul O. Kristeller, the definition of humanism refers to the cultural program of the classics mainly from the viewpoint of philosophy and rhetoric (p.170). In addition, Christian humanism is fabricated upon Kristeller theory through the interpretation of the classical texts and scriptures. Christian humanism attempts to answer the question, “What exactly did Christ and the Apostles teach and intend Christianity to be like?” Based on both definitions the life and works of the first generation of Calvinist Reformers will be subject to inquiry to prove a direct correlation between the two movements. Robert D. Linder represents the goals of the article through the scrutiny that the life of the first generation reformers provides indication that “measures against both of the definitions of humanism.” (p.169).