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