What Does Gospel Sanctification “Look Like” in Counseling?
So, in regard to those who propagate Gospel Sanctification, how do they counsel? Well, I don’t think anything presents a better “word picture” (quotations hereafter not necessarily from Baldwin’s article) than Bill Baldwin’s piece written in 1996. By the way, I have begun this post with some illustrative Gospel Sanctification lingo which replaces as many verbs with nouns as possible for fear that counselees will get the idea that they should actually do something about their problem. “How,” or “do” is always replaced with what we see Jesus doing instead of us. Hence, “what does that look like?” And, we don’t instruct, we “make word pictures.” I have received feedback from one counselee who informed me that he was counseled by “visual diagrams” of his life drawn by the counselor. And the counselor wasn’t a New Age fruit ball, he is a certified biblical counselor and on the staff of a training center.
In the following article written by Baldwin, look for the following Gospel Sanctification tenets:
1. Sanctification is Justification (salvation / gospel) continually reapplied to life. Instruction is out, “preaching the gospel to ourselves everyday” is in.
2. The role of the Law is exactly the same in sanctification as it is in justification. Hence, GS counselors don’t use the Law (God’s word) for instruction, but rather use it as a school master to continually lead the counselee back to Christ because we are unable to keep the Law, Christ must obey for us. Therefore, the sole purpose of Scripture is to “show forth more Jesus,” not anything Jesus would instruct us to do.
3. Look for the dissing of enablement, or the idea that God enables us to obey. Gospel Sanctification rejects this idea.
4. Note the use of the Law to supposedly drive the counselee (Christian) to the conclusion that he/she can’t keep the Law. This is a favorite technique used by GS counselors, especially in church discipline situations (which Baldwin does not address, but is applicable to points I would like to make). GS church discipline (“redemptive church discipline”) combines church discipline with counseling and primarily seeks to teach the subject to be “gospel driven,” seeing the actual purpose for the church discipline as being beside the point. The counseling will move closer and closer to excommunication as the counselee continues to supposedly “cling to the Law.” What the counselor will do is demand that the counselee obey a long list of stringent imperatives, and as the counselee fails, he/she is moved to the next step of church discipline (and closer to excommunication). This is designed to drive the counselee to “despair,” especially as he/she sees excommunication looming on the horizon. The counselor will then show them the “new way” of living by the gospel. I have seen this mode of operation practiced by counselors firsthand.
5. Note that biblical imperatives are not for us to obey, but rather a “fruit catalog” to show us whether it is Jesus performing the works or us trying to do it in our “own efforts.”
6. Notice John Piper’s Christian Hedonism; when Jesus is obeying for us, we will always obey without hesitation and full of joy. When our obedience is joyless and grudging, we are obeying by “our own efforts.”
One last note before I present the article. GS proponents hate this article because Baldwin is completely forthright regarding how GS applies to counseling. Without further ado, here is the article:
Sanctification, Counseling, and the Gospel
by Bill Baldwin 8-2-96
Counselling must stimulate faith so that behavior flows from a redeemed heart by the power of the Holy Spirit. Often enough, people make this reply to that statement: “We’re presupposing faith, and a regenerate heart and the presence of the Holy Spirit. Of course it is impossible for the counselee to benefit from counselling without these things.” And we end up frustrated. They are frustrated because they think I’m accusing them of not doing everything at once. After all, there are good books already available on faith and the heart (the Puritans rambled on forever on that one) and the Holy Spirit. Now we need a book on counseling and if we repeat all the previous work we’ll be duplicating the efforts of others and getting nowhere. And I’m frustrated because I don’t believe my point has been understood.
Let me make that point briefly and then expound on it. It is possible to have a regenerate heart of faith and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and to produce actions that do not proceed therefrom. We do it every day. It is called sin. It is therefore essential that the counselor evoke the faith, stimulate the heart, and teach the counselee thereby to desire and receive the power of the Holy Spirit. Counselling cannot be about anything if it is not about faith and the heart and the Spirit of God.
Here is that same response in a longer form:
When I tell a man to change his behavior — and he realizes he must — it is the most natural thing in the world that he should do so by relying on his natural strength and the force of his will. It is therefore essential that the counselor solemnly warn him against such a course. He has heard the law and glibly said “I will do what it says.” He must know of the holiness of that law and the condemnation declared against all who try to commend themselves to God by lawkeeping. The law must drive him to the gospel of Christ.
And that gospel must long be dwelt upon that it may evoke faith — whether for the first time or as a stirring up and a repeated application of a faith already present. Only works that spring out of such a faith constitute the gospel obedience held out in Scripture.
The human mind, observed Calvin, is an idol factory. And our favorite idol stares back at us from the mirror each morning. When we are told to change our behavior, that idol is our first, most natural, and often unconscious recourse. The way of the gospel is strange, uncertain, and involved. Just tell me what to do and I’ll do it.
If an act does not spring from a conscious exercise of faith stirred up by gospel truth, we can be almost certain the act does not spring unconsciously therefrom. And whatever is not of faith is sin. The majority of my life is spent in self-idolatry. Again and again I find myself feeling and acting as though I am my own, as though I have the power to do what I choose to, as though I live and move and have my being within myself rather than in God through Christ. I say, “Tomorrow, I will do such and such” without a hint of “Lord willing” in my mind. Unconsciously I have stopped relying on another for everything I do. I have left the way of faith and any other way is sin.
Am I so sinful then? Indeed, in my flesh — utterly sinful. But I have been called to walk not in the flesh but in the Spirit. Not by works but by faith. Have I then made so little progress in walking in the Spirit that, every time I relax my vigilance I begin to walk in the flesh? Every time my renewed mind falls asleep it wakes to find me in sin? Wretched man that I am! Who will free me from this body of death? I praise God and cling to Christ for in Christ even now I have no condemnation, and in that sweet assurance I look forward to the resurrection of this body, gloriously transformed at last to Christlike perfection.
Meanwhile I wrestle with temptation; I fall into sin but am not overcome. He who died for me now restores me and sets me on the path of life — Christ, the Way — again.
What do I learn about counselling from these truths? Simply this: When a counselee comes to me with a problem of sin, he has been catering to his flesh and — if he has tried to combat the sin at all — has been combatting the sin in the strength of his flesh. Hence his failure and his need. If I counsel such a man by giving him “practical” steps to change his behavior, he will certainly attempt those steps in the strength of his own flesh. He has already demonstrated that this is the usual way he deals with this area of his life — at least lately. Will he change now?
We cannot, we must not, “presuppose” the presence of faith and a regenerate heart and the Holy Spirit. What if you were a farmer contemplating a tree that bears little fruit, and much of it bad? Would you say, “I assume the roots are fine and I assume the soil’s good and I assume it’s getting enough water” and look for the problem elsewhere? The condition of the fruit tells you you must examine the roots and the soil. So here. A counselee bearing bad fruit in a certain area must be brought back to the root of Christ and the soil of the gospel and the rain of grace. We do not assume the presence of Christ, we drive the counselee to Christ by the law. We do not assume the presence of faith (for faith is either absent of weak); we stimulate faith by the gospel. We do not assume the presence of love for God and neighbor, we evoke that love by telling him of God’s love for him — not to guilt trip him into obedience but that his heart may burst with joy and a desire to be conformed to the image of Christ and to love with the love of Christ.
But what if the gospel doesn’t work? We expound the gospel but it fails to motivate and empower the counselee to love and good deeds? The question seems despairing if not outright blasphemous. For when we speak of the gospel, we speak of the redeeming work of Christ in his incarnation, perfect life, atoning death, burial, resurrection, and ascension to the right hand of power whence he sends forth the Holy Spirit to equip us for every good work. If that “doesn’t work” we have no hope.
But the question is legitimate. What if the gospel does not reignite a spark of faith in the counselee so that he forsakes his sin, clings to Christ, stands in awe of his salvation, and goes forth to love and serve the Lord? What if the gospel doesn’t work? Then take him to the law.
Let me be completely clear. I do not say “take him to the law” so that the law may motivate him to do what is right. The law cannot. It was not created for that purpose and cannot be used for that purpose without producing pharisees and Judaizers. We must not cause the counselee to say, “The gospel wholly failed to motivate me to good works; but now that I see that God commands good works, I know that I must do them. And if I have no desire for good works, I will do them out of sheer, teeth-gritting obedience because God requires it of me.” Such obedience is wholly unacceptable to God. We must actively discourage the counselee from such thinking.
The counselor errs grossly if he uses the commands of God to motivate his counselee to an obedience born of the sheer force of his will.
A second error is like it but more subtle. The counselor may reason that the proper purpose of the law is to drive a man to Christ, but he turns Christ into a gimmick, a means by which the counselee may be enabled better to keep the law. The counselor has not fully understood the law and its demands and so the counselee misunderstands as well. The counselee hears the law and says “Yes, I want to do those things and I am sorry I haven’t been. Who will enable me to do them properly?” Such a man does not yet understand his own depravity. He desires merely to be enabled to keep the law rather than begging that the law might be kept and forgiveness obtained on his behalf. He asks “Where will I find the strength to keep the law?” rather than “Wretched man that I am! Who will free me from this body of death!” This man must be pried from the false Christ to which he clings and held closer to the fires of the law until he cries out, “I cannot keep it! Someone else must do it for me!”
This is as true in sanctification as in justification. We are justified by grace through faith in Christ. So are we sanctified. The law that first drove us to Christ again and again drives us back to him for repeated applications of his forgiveness and his righteousness.
The law must never drive us to desire to keep the law but that we should be freed from its shackles of condemnation. When we have been driven to Christ, when we have drunk deep of his salvation, our freedom from the law’s loud thunder, the glories that are laid up for us in heaven and in which we even now participate by faith. . . then we shall walk forth in newness of life. If we abide in Christ we will bear much fruit. We labor with counselees long and hard that they should walk by the Spirit. For we know that when they walk by the Spirit they will not carry out the desires of the flesh.
The law, stripped of its condemnation, will then describe the content of our behavior. And when we have questions in that regard as we walk by the Spirit, we may consult God’s standards to make sure that the new obedience we are gratefully bringing forth is not of our own devising.
But this is not the hardest or the most necessary part of counseling. Driving them to Christ by the law and teaching them to cling to Christ by faith must occupy most of our time. The nitty gritty “practical” concerns will largely take care of themselves if only we stick to this method.
Don’t misunderstand. I’m not saying the law isn’t useful as a pattern of the good works that flow from sanctification. It is. But that is not the use that Paul or the rest of Scripture harps on over and over. Give me a man who preaches the law with its terror and Christ with his sweetness and forgets to preach the law as a pattern of the fruit of sanctification and what will result? In two months his parishioners will be breaking down his door begging to be told what behavior their renewed, bursting with joy, hearts may best produce. And when he tells them, they will be surprised (and he will not) to discover that by and large they have produced exactly that. And where they haven’t, take them back to Christ again that they may contemplate him in all his glorious perfection so that they may better understand what sort of God and man he was and is.
What if a man preaches the law as a pattern of the fruit of sanctification and reduces Christ as a means to producing that pattern? What will result? Nothing or worse than nothing.
Hold fast the head and the body will move. Abide in Christ and the fruit will come.

Paul, sorry to keep jumping on your posts, but you are just so very, very interesting all the time.
I might not be as interesting, but I certainly have a lot to say:
Baldwin would do better to explain exactly what he means by walking in the Spirit, because he has really identified that as the mechanism by which his counselees are to turn from not desiring to obey to desiring to obey just — because they are better people, people with the gratitude, love and joy that simply exudes from their heart, in what just so happens to be words and actions consistent with what God commands. This vagueness about his mechanism for change cripples his ability to show internal consistency or coherency in his theory. You’ve told me before that these GS guys are vague because there is nothng more to their theory. It truly is incoherent.
Also, he acts like there are only 2 options:
(1) Try to obey using the human mind and body via human willpower, and
(2) Exuding behavior that just so happens to be consistent with the requirements of the law out of the overflow of a person’s gratitude and love for their savior.
First of all, this is a false dilemma, because there is at least one other option, but most likely 2-3.
Second, there is a seriously missing link in all of this. How does one get to the point of desiring to obey at all, whether the means be (1) human effort or (2) overflowing gratitude, love and joy? Isn’t the whole problem that we don’t obey Christ and love God and our neighbor because we don’t WANT to?
Isn’t the reason we don’t want to obey (in love or otherwise) because (a) we are not regenerate and/or (b) we are ignorant of His commands and/or (c) we don’t trust God and/or (d) we love the world more than we love God and/or (e) we have failed to discipline ourselves and exert self-control?
So, how is Baldwin’s theory of how to motivate us going to overcome all of that? (a) Getting folks saved would help, yes. (b) Getting folk into the Word would help, yes. But how does contemplating that which caused us to accept Christ as Savior cause us to overcome (c) our lack of trust, (d) our love of the world and (e) our lack of disciplined self-control? Baldwin keeps pointing at this re-focus upon the Gospel to get that done. He thinks if we come to realize we can’t obey (1) in our own strength, we’ll (2) be grateful to God for loving us and not sending us to Hell anyway, and then just start to exude this gratitude, love and joy in doing things with the character of Christ. But how is it that repeatedly revisiting our condition prior to being born again and regenerated, meditating and memorizing and all that, will suddenly produce this exuding overflow of virtue?
Well, don’t you know that is where the Spirit comes in? He is saying that as we mediate on the Gospel in all its elements of sin, righteousness, judgment, grace, propitiation and faith, and then the Spirit will meet us there and change the contents of our heart. Lane &Tripp, in How People Change, like to talk about God meeting us in the “heat” of the ordinary trials of life, where the Spirit will do the same thing as we contemplate the Gospel’s elements, applying them to ourselves. Either way, the mechanism of change in the heart iis mysterious, vague and completely unexplained. We just do this meditation and maybe some confession of sin and we will be changed, either right then or when we are in the heat of battle.
But then Baldwin throws this random term, walking in the Spirit, into the mix, along with abiding in Christ. He completely fails to define them or explain how a counselee is supposed to do them. My guess is that he equates the two terms, and I further guess that there is nothing more to his understanding of them than this meditation on the Gospel and possibly waiting for God to meet us in the heat of the moment as we contemplate the Gospel. Being charitable, I presume he wants a deep repentance over our inability to ever live up to the requirements of God’s commands, as L&T do.
Again, the mechanism of change is not altogether clear here. What is clear is that, as you say, the last thing Baldwin and his ilk want us to do is seek to obey. Even if we attain to this walking in the Spirit where goodness just exudes from us, we must not SEEK to obey. Rather, we must just wait and see how we just happen to act, glancing at Scripture just long enough to see if our behavior at all resembles that prescribed by God by happenstance. Baldwin’s bold prediction is that, yes, by God, our behavior will start to match up. Why? Because we have allowed God to change our heart so that we are the kind of people who do obey, so long as we are still meditating on the Gospel. For, if we happen to obey while not meditating on the Gospel, that would indicate we are obeying in our human mind, body and will. Can’t have that!
In the end, the serious flows appear to be:
(1) Assuming the Gospel is the only principles we are permitted to apply in our lives
(2) Assuming that all action by the mind, body and willpower is (a) futile and (b) sinful
attempts to earn our righteousness apart from His grace. As to the latter, no one with half a brain thinks that after they are born again they have to earn righteousness in order to be saved. Second, God clearly set it up for us to EARN rewards after we are saved Hebrews 11:6; 2 Corinthians 5, etc, etc., etc. It is no surprise Baldwin is unaware of these things, since he limits himself to meditating on the Gospel alone. I could go on demonstrating this point for quite a spell.
(3) Patently calling Jesus a liar when He promises that if we will SEEK His kingdom and righteousness, all these things will be added to us. By saying we should not seek obedience Baldwin is saying we should not seek His righteousness. This is just plain heresy out in the open.
(4) Assuming that the only alternative to using merely human mental and bodily effort is to stop using those things altogether and to instead meditate on the Gospel and wait for God to unilaterally change our Heart into the likeness of Jesus’ Heart, so we will automatically exude the kind of fruit He did. Not only is this an amazingly narrow and simplistic theory for how to get it done, but this ceding our mental and bodily power to the enemy is (a) blasphemous heresy and (b) a recipe for failure, despite any gains that mediating on the Gospel might bring. For I am not saying it is bad to meditate on the Gospel. I am agreeing with you that that won’t get your sanctified very far.
(5) This account fails to explain how our initial meditation on the Gospel that got us born again and regenerate is insufficient to sanctify us, if all we need to get sanctified is meditate on that Gospel. It fails to explain why born again, regenerate people should require we repeatedly reenact our acceptance of the Gospel in order to live thereafter, since getting saved means the sin penalty is paid, propitiated. We are counted positionally righteous, so how can we get saved, regenerated and born again AGAIN?
(6) Not only does the mechanism of sanctification make no sense, but it is not explained. Key terms like abiding in Christ and walking in the Spirit aren’t things you can just vaguely mention, as if they speak for themselves. That’s especially true if you are relying on those terms to explain the mechanism for sanctification itself.
(7) Finally, and anyone who has half a brain could go on all day about this, this theory is annoying, because it purports to (I) rescue us from sinful heresy in trying to obey God, (II) tell us how to get by without obeying God, (III) pretends to tell us how to become sanctified, (IV) fails to teach us about abiding in Christ or walking in the Spirit, and (V) CANNOT WORK. PERIOD.
Whatever proponents of such methods do in their own lives, if it is successful, they are failing to describe it clearly whenever you read them. My guess they are secretly using human effort to obey, for no human is alive who does not conform their conduct to expectations via human effrort, and that includes conforming it to God’s expectations.
Moreover, anyone who tries to grow using such methods may gain a little advantage from all their Scripture mediation and application of the Gospel to their life, and the Spirit might convict them of some things in the process. But that won’t be because these guys have figured out how to maximize and exhaust our progress in sanctification. It will be because they are skimming off a little self-awareness of our spiritual state and making the counselee believe that in itself constitutes being sanctified. It just isn’t so.
Best wishes, Tw
LikeLike