Some Clarification on Adams’ Assertion That the Mind Cannot be Sick
I have received some significant pushback for posting the following quote by Jay Adams:
Correction: The quotation is from Donn Arms, an associate of Jay Adams at the Institute for Nouthetic Studies (INS).
Folks let’s get this straight. The mind is not a physical organ. It cannot have a disease or illness except in a metaphorical sense as in a sick economy or a sick joke.
Typhoid fever — disease
Spring fever — not a disease
Scarlet fever — disease
Bieber fever — not a disease
Most of the pushback pertains to a rejection of the idea that the brain is not an organ, but Adams isn’t saying that the brain isn’t an organ; he is saying that the mind isn’t an organ.
I haven’t done a lot of study in this area, but I have done enough to know that some solid conclusions can be drawn from such a study because the Bible, as well as medical professionals make a distinction between the mind and the brain.
Everyone agrees that the mind, unlike the brain, is not observable; hence, the field of Psychology. This is a whole different matter than brain malfunctions that are physical. The fact that there are at least 200 different Psychology theories should speak to the fact that this enters into the realm of theory. One may also note that the most popular theory, Freudian Depth Psychology, perceives the human conscience in a very negative way. And that is very dangerous.
Here we have yet another area of wisdom where Christians are far too ignorant. It is also another fusion debate; in this case, the fusion of medical science and psychology. In other words, the fusion of science and theory. Psychology is mostly theory; psychologists barely agree on anything.
I am not going to preach out of school here, but Christians need to think carefully in regard to the idea that the mind can be sick. Certainly, the mind can be hindered by the brain, but is the mind susceptible to sickness like physical organs? Can the mind catch a cold? The reason we need to think carefully about this is because the Bible explains the mind as that part of the Christian that is redeemed.
Not only is this an area that is biblically defined with many dots that can be connected, it is a paramount consideration with vast implications for the Christian. Another huge elephant in the sanctuary is whether or not the Christian mind is actually redeemed. Our Protestant fathers said, “no.” 90% of all biblical counseling in our day is predicated on the idea that the mind cannot be renewed. Therefore, actions that please God cannot flow from the inner self to outward action.* Many pastors, while not understanding these trends and issues, attempt to counsel parishioners from a contrary mindset. The pastor speaks, and the parishioner hears something totally different because of indoctrination by parachurch organizations like NANC and CCEF with secular psychology as science to boot. Any pastor who doesn’t deem these issues worthy of focus and understanding is functioning in ineptness.
The Bible in fact states that the “mind” of the Christian is regenerated and is the engine behind new creaturehood. Christians are promised that with proper cooperation with the Holy Spirit, the mind can be “renewed.” This is not only a biblical promise; we are commanded to renew our minds with the study and application of Scripture. If the medical model regarding the mind is true, all bets are off—every vestige of spiritual growth is now ambiguous. And look at the contemporary church if you want to see the results of biblical ambiguity.
Christians error woefully by letting the theories of “experts” inform their lives on this issue. And the church owes Adams an immense debt of gratitude for bringing this issue to the forefront.
paul
*The fundamental thesis is that faith can only look outward to goodness outside of us, resulting in experiencing the obedience of Christ imputed to us while not being a participant in goodness that pleases God. This formula enables the Christian to live by faith alone—the same faith that saved us. So, faith is like an eye, it can only look outward to what isn’t inside of us. Any inward look is the dreaded, “existentialism” that is the unpardonable sin in our day.
And the results? Consider the following quote by “Pastor” James MacDonald:
“Why spend your life doing something neither required by the Lord, nor welcomed by others? Frankly, I gave up the job a while back, but felt constrained to make my decision known to all who read this blog. Don’t be disappointed if you don’t see me at my post, I am really done this time. Yes, for me it’s over. No more fixing people—I resign ” (James MacDonald: My Resignation; April 30, 2013, The Vertical Church blog. Online source, http://jamesmacdonald.com/blog/my-resignation/).
MacDonald then goes on to explain, in essence, that it is his job to primarily show forth more Jesus, and as folks gaze on that, Christ will either change them or not change them according to His sovereign will. Like the vast majority of pastors in our day, MacDonald has merely returned to Luther’s radical construct that often brought the charge of antinomianism from his contemporaries (Martin Luther wrote down the following disturbing sentence in one of his letters to Melancthon in 1521: “Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ more strongly, who triumphed over sin, death, and the world; as long as we live here, we must sin.”).
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Joey,
How about we suppose that the dualism of man is an impossible concept to reconcile. To say that there is a “mind” and there is a “brain”, and one is not a function of the other…this is simply rationally indefensible. A proof-text of Scripture makes us feel better…but the Bible cannot be proof of its own truth without it becoming a rank idol. The only way to make the Bible proof of its own truth is to say that the Bible is God’s equal…which, makes it God. And that? Is idolatry, not epistemology.
So, let’s assume that we don’t have to guess which self, the physical or the “spiritual” in the dualistic construct, the Bible speaks to at any given moment and say that Jesus was actually speaking to the one and only thief on the cross…the one who is was there in the flesh.
How do you define “today” to a dead man? When Lazarus was resurrected, what do you think his sense of time told him? How long did he “feel” he was dead? I am betting he felt like no time had passed at all. To Lazarus, he rose on the same day he died, at likely the same instant. A corpse does not feel the passage of time. “Today” can thus certainly be a relative term.
LikeLike
Sorry for the double post. I didn’t mean to do that.
LikeLike
Howdy Argo,
“To say that there is a “mind” and there is a “brain”, and one is not a function of the other…this is simply rationally indefensible.”
But I don’t say that the one is not a function of the other. I hold that the brain is a function of the mind. The mind, as i see it, is the person his/herself, and the brain is like a computer which she programs/habituates. A person is not her body, but she HAS a body. To say that mind and body are distinct is not to say that one is not a function of the other; it’s simply to say that they are not identical.
“A proof-texting of Scripture makes us feel better…but the Bible cannot be proof of its own truth without it becoming a rank idol.”
Why would it become an idol? Even if one does engage in proof texting (as I just did), it doesn’t follow that the document proof texted from is an idol… (wtf?). Nor does the claim that a text is inerrant mean that one is making the text an idol. I was just looking at an eight grade Algebra textbook. It has a Preface, an Introduction, and standard Algebra equations. I wouldn’t doubt at all if this book was found to contain no errors–which is to say, this particular text might well be inerrant–but it doesn’t follow from this that it has become my idol. I know you didn’t mention inerrancy, but I’ve seen (read) you mention it before, so figured I’d throw that out there. Even on a purely human level, it is sometimes possible to create a document that is free from error…and one can believe it to be free from error without idolizing it.
I might wonder why the Bible can’t “be proof of its own truth without it becoming a rank idol,” but you supply an answer to that question. You are convinced that, “The only way to make the Bible proof of its own truth is to say that the Bible is God’s equal…which, makes it God. And that? Is idolatry, not epistemology.”
But that’s a bare assertion, not a reasoned argument. If the content of the Bible (i.e. the commands and propositions) is the very thoughts of God Himself, thoughts which He has revealled to us in understandable language, then the distinction you make between God and the Bible is a false disjunction. The content of God’s mind is a part of who God is–the same as the content of our mind is part of who we are. “As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.” And, no, I don’t have a problem with “proof texting” persay. Is it an infallible method? Of course not; no method can prevent possible human error. Is it possible to misinterpret the Bible? You bet! It is possible to misinterpret anything. One can misinterpret empirical evidence in a murder case, in a scientifc experiment, in a historical narrative, etc . But I hope you would agree that, from the fact that evidence (whether textual evendence or otherwise) can be misunderstood, it does not follow that the truth is unknowabe. And why cannot one choose to adopt the Bible as his “axiom”, “first principle” (first epistemic principle, not psychological), or “ultimate authority”? Can’t the Bible, if it is indeed divenly revealled information from God, be one’s final court of appeal when judging between truth and error? All systems of thought, all arguments, all chains of reasoning,have their first principles or starting points. And, by definition, these starting points cannot be proven to be true, for the simple reason that there is nothing prior to “the start” upon which proof can rest. The real question is, not “Can you prove your starting point to be true?” (that is impossible for the reason just given), but “Upon the basis of which starting point can you render human experience intelligible?” I think you need propositional revelation to do this.
As for your thoughts about “how do you define ‘today’ to a dead man?” Jesus said that to the the thief while he was still alive, and assumed that he (the thief) would understand his meaning. Also, Moses and Elijah talked theology with Jesus on ther “Mount of Transfiguration”, and this occurred long after their bodies had decomposed in the ground. The persons themselves were still alive and well; their earthly bodies were not. Sorry Argo. I really do like and respect you, but I cannot come to agree with you about dualism in particular At least from my present perspective, there seems to be too much textual evidence that the individual person is distinct from his body–his body being a “tent’ he (i.e. the person) will soon be leaving. Proof texting isn’t always bad you know. 🙂
LikeLike
Aaaarg! Sorry about that flubbed comment, Paul. I’m having trouble with my fingers hitting the right buttons this morning. Please disregard.
Joey…I will respond to you in a sec; as soon as my brain wakes up. LOL
LikeLike