1. Entwistle distinguishes between scriptural authority and theological interpretation. Do you agree? Why might this distinction be important? Support your view with an example.

The distinguishes between scriptural authority and theological interpretation “According to Entwistle (2015), scripture is very authorative in nature. People who do this place their own beliefs with the same degree of authority vested in scripture itself (Entwistle, 2015 p. 225). With theological interpretation it overrides psychological interpretive which a person may view and understanding of things need to be reconsidered. Which can lead to wrong conclusions. Meaning when findings wrong information or conclusions surface it can be a good opportunity to reevaluate the data behind both psychological and theological conclusions. With the colonist they run the risk is of having emotional feelings of discomfort and have to work harder in dealing with the discrepancies that have come up and working through them. The distinction is important because then the information found could possibly be not factual. An example, I think of someone who has a troubled upbringing or maybe grew up in a dysfunctional home. They are now labeled either within the home or even by society. There belief system becomes that label that was placed on them regardless if it was intentional or not. Psychology labels based on behaviors and previous studies versus how theology looks into scriptural background. “My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge. “Because you have rejected knowledge, I also reject you as my priests; because you have ignored the law of your God, I also will ignore your children (Hosea 4:6, New International Version). Theology looks into the foundation in which God created that person to be regardless of what life has thrown at an individual. Without truly studying theology one can never know the foundation of what and how God created this word and his people. Yet with Psychology one can tell you where one has been throughout their life.

Entwistle (2015) stated, Carter and Narramore referred to such models as parallel models. They are both on a railroad track and run alongside one another but they never merge (Entwsitle, 2015 p. 231). Within the neutral parties model they believe psychology and theology are distinct. For example, being a person who is viewing the railroad track and sees two separate rails and versions. These two versions are disciplinary isolationism and correlation. The disciplinary isolationism versions compartmentalize their commitments and religious faith and see it being in their own domain and have little interaction between the two. The correlation version is ones that see the railroad ties and connects the rails and is similar. They see areas that overlap with psychology and theology but allow only limited interaction between both disciplines. Within the neutral parties model they see that both disciplines can have no conflict with one another because they occupy different spaces and do not interact spheres. One of the distinct becomes primary and the other secondary. The neutral parties model can be carried out through psychological neutrality or Christian neutrality. They become committed to the profession but hold religious but not necessarily Christian beliefs. Psychology is a like a foreign land. With Psychology and Theology one is superior, while the other has valuable resources.

Entwistle, D. (2015). Integrative approaches to psychology and Christianity: An introduction to worldview issues, philosophical foundations, and models of integration (3rd ed.). Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers. ISBN: 9781498223485.