The modern word on the street is that “addiction” can only be cured via expert intervention. In more than a few cases, it can only be alleviated and not completely eradicated. *Psychologists, psychiatrists and promoters of psycho-babble imply that a person’s dependency on a drug, pornography and other assorted vices is beyond that person’s ability to walk away from them. In other words, man has no free will.
I ask the reader to consider the consequences of such a belief for a moment. If man is the result of his decisions, why then is it different once he begins to engage in evils that are destructive to him and others? Does this mean that when a man engages in vices, that those vices have a will of their own and overpower the will of the person consuming them?
Not only is this claim silly, it’s downright ridiculous. Pornography and narcotics do not control an individual. Just as a person first chooses to consume these things, the same individual can choose to stop consuming them cold-turkey.
Some readers will automatically reject this idea from the onset, being that they’ve been indoctrinated to believe that man, in certain instances, isn’t the result of his actions and choices. Freud first taught and his disciples then popularized this concept. In fact, Freud postulated that the entirety of man’s existence wasn’t attributable to his own decisions but to his upbringing, his “environment”.
If this is true, then why do many adults who were raised in abusive conditions behave differently than their parents did? Why have many abandoned drunkenness and lasciviousness without intervention? How have many turned away from their sin and called on the Lord for salvation?
It’s called a choice, a decision. The main reason Freud’s concepts have become popular is because his teachings give the impression that man can be liberated from the responsibility of his own actions. Again, under Sigmund’s dogma man cannot be held responsible for his activity because he is the product of his upbringing and environment.
The mass adoption of such a doctrine is the very reason true justice isn’t often fulfilled in our time. Since everyone from parents, teachers, lawmakers and judges have accepted Freudian psychology’s falsehood, children are spoilt and criminals are left unpunished. Furthermore, the victims of said people are left desiring justice.
The concept spawned the modern understanding of so-called “addiction”. Under the auspices we’ve just mentioned, man has no control over his own actions because something has taken control of him. Since something or someone else lead him to drinking, adultery and the like, he cannot be held responsible for cheating on his wife, killing a pedestrian while driving under the influence, etc.
Sadly, many Christians have come to believe this specious narrative called “addiction”. Songs have been written about it, sermons preached on the matter and even evangelism centered on the idea. Again, think upon it: if we’re asking a sinner to turn away from his sin and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for redemption, such a request couldn’t be fulfilled because what he’s addicted to has taken hold of him – including sin. On the other hand, the reason we ask sinners to turn away from their sin is because we recognize that they have free will and can choose.
I ask the reader to ponder on the following verses, found in Genesis (4:6-7), and to ask himself if the secularist idea of “addiction” agrees with them:
“So the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.”
*This idea is beneficial for the psycho-therapy and psychiatry industry, as it creates an ambiance where their services are constantly needed by the “mentally ill”, “addicts” and even criminal elements. Why the does the reader think that Alcoholics Anonymous’ motto is “once an alcoholic always an alcoholic”?