Should a Christian take anti-depressants or other mental health medicines?

The Lord said, "They that be whole need not a physician," showing that then, as now, the work of such persons was to cure diseases. In the O.T. the word is rapha, 'to heal,' and in Gen. 50:2 Joseph called upon such to embalm the body of his father, a certain amount of chemical knowledge being needed also for that. The Lord promised to the Israelites that if they obeyed Him He would preserve them from the diseases that were common in Egypt. On the other hand, there are many proofs in scripture that diseases were sent as a punishment for the sins of His people. For any remedy for such, their eyes should have been directed to Him who was disciplining them. Of Asa it is said, "he sought not to the Lord, but to the physicians," which probably means those associated with magic. 2 Chr. 16:12.

The Christian should surely be cast upon the Lord in his sicknesses, and be exercised as to why they are sent or allowed, though doubtless he may use the means, without trusting to them apart from the blessing of God upon them. Jehovah Himself was the physician of His people Israel, ready at all times to heal and restore them. Jer. 8:22. Job, in the bitterness of his soul, found his friends to be physicians of no value. They did not understand his case, and only added to his misery. Job 13:4.

In the N.T. ἰατρός signifies 'healer.' The Lord Jesus was the Great Healer not only of the diseases of the body, but of the soul. Luke 4:23. A woman who had spent her all on physicians without relief obtained from Him an immediate cure. Luke 8:43. Luke was called 'the beloved physician,' though there is no information as to his practising this profession. Col. 4:14.

Truly we have no warrant for believing that the Lord has secured to His own a present exemption from the physical and mental disabilities common to mankind. Neither have we warrant for believing that the power He exercised in New Testament times over the sick bodies of men is continued to His present witnesses. In those miracles of healing He demonstrated once for all His power as the First Cause, dispensing with all material remedies as intermediaries, accomplishing His purpose with a word or touch. He was pleased to use a plaister of figs for the recovery of Hezekiah, but the king knew that it was Jehovah who had healed him, as he said, "He has both spoken unto me, and himself has done it" (Isa. 38:15). And we, encouraged by the personal activities of Jesus recorded in the holy Gospels, may use our medicinal remedies in the assurance of His equal activity today both in sympathy and in power to heal.

The bearing of all this upon human sickness and the use of medicines is simple. The connection of sickness with Satan is through sin, and it is a governmental dealing of God with men calculated to turn them to Him in their need. Medicines are creatures of God, acting according to divinely established laws. To call them works of the devil is the opposite of the truth. Faith therefore can use them, as every other creature of God, with thanksgiving.

The Lord, however, did not heal Hezekiah apart from a natural remedy. Isaiah ordered that a lump of figs should be placed on Hezekiah's boil, and he recovered (v.7). God had made the figs and He knew they would be effective in this case. If one would demand that God should heal him, yet refuse a natural remedy, this would not be faith healing, for faith gives God credit for supplying whatever means of healing He sees fit.

Further, it might, or might not, be that the patient would himself have faith to be healed. The faith - healers imperatively require such faith; Scripture does not. The prayer spoken of in James is the prayer of the elders, and in reference to this it is said, "The prayer of faith shall save the sick." It may be easily supposed that the sick one would himself Join in the prayer, and that, with more or less assurance of faith - but it was the " prayer of faith " that carried efficacy.

Finally, nothing could be more outside the scope of the passage in James than the popular notion of faith - healing. The case contemplated in James is clearly one of a very serious nature, where death is imminent; and so also in 1 John 5. The idea of the Scripture being used as a substitute for medicines which God has provided in nature is not only unwarranted, but is contrary to the scriptural and apostolic principle of using remedies for ailments (see both 2 Kings 20:7, and 1 Tim.5:23). It is theological quackery.

Finally, nothing could be more outside the scope of the passage in James than the popular notion of faith-healing. The case contemplated in James is clearly one of a very serious nature, where death is imminent; and so also in 1 John 5. The idea of the scripture being used as a substitute for medicines which God has provided in nature is not only unwarranted, but is contrary to the scriptural and apostolic principle of using remedies for ailments (see both 2 Kings 20:7, and 1 Tim. 5:23). It is theological quackery.

The anointing with oil in the name of the Lord seems to be the claim of an authority which those of whom we are speaking would be the last to assert. No doubt the emphasis is laid here upon the "prayer of faith," to save the sick, and the prayer of faith certainly should not be lacking with us. We need not doubt how much we should gain if there were a more simple and constant reference to the Lord in these matters, and we cannot but remember the example of old of one who sought not to the Lord, but to the physicians, and died. The use of means that are in our hand may easily be perverted to the slighting of this way of faith; and it would certainly be far better to leave out the means in any case rather than to leave out the Lord. The distinct and united acknowledgment of our dependence upon Him in all these cases is due from us, and we suffer loss if God is not acknowledged; but then for this, no elders or anointing can be needed, and the prescription of these things makes it evident that something more is contemplated here than simply the prayer of faith. Even so, there is no prohibition of means, if there be no prescription of them; and in God's ordinary way of working He certainly works by them. He could sustain us at any time without food, but we do not ordinarily expect Him to do this, although the food may profit nothing except the Lord please to use it. We cannot but remember in this way the prescription of a little wine to Timothy, while at the same time he was in the very midst of an assembly which had its regularly appointed elders.

I have had to take my body — a poor and feeble one it has been — under the hand of the Lord, and try to rub along as best I could, As such, S. S. says "a little wine for thy stomach's sake and often infirmity," though I latterly have been afraid of that little, from the effects of it upon the chest. I find it confessedly difficult to be sure as to His mind about simple medicinal remedies; but I am sure that those that cast all upon the Lord, and never touch any such supposed and real aids, are the happiest; their conduct most in the Spirit. The surgical operations are different, though I admit both the length of the scale from the top to bottom of the practice.

If we use means and depend on them, we are not trusting God's power.

"Now, we know perfectly well that this is not and cannot be the invariable outcome of all sickness. The vast majority of mankind--yes, of Christians--has died as the result of some sickness: has this been because 'elders' have not been called? Have they come to the end of that life here because they were not anointed with oil, and the prayer that always goes up from loving hearts was not the prayer of faith, and since not of faith, was sin? Who would not reject such conclusions with abhorrence? Yet are they inevitable, if this Scripture be pressed as being the one divinely given direction in the case of all sickness.