Paul's Passing Thoughts

To David Powlison et al: Stop Lying About Jay Adams; God Doesn’t Like Lying

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on September 10, 2012

“No Steve. Let me repeat that. ‘No Steve’: the issue isn’t the ‘simplistic’ versus the wider field of knowledge, the issue is which gospel are we going to use to minister to other Christians; progressive justification or progressive sanctification? And who is competent to counsel? Please do not be a part of the big lie in our present day.”


Thanks for the response because I am a busy person and our conversation provides an easy framework to post something that needs to be said. My response is primarily provoked by your comment following and will be the subject of a post on my own blog:

Jay Adams and nouthetic counseling are familiar to me. Jay has contributed much to biblical counseling, but his perspective is only one in a field containing hother highly-reputable Christians such as Larry Crabb and Dan Allender. I have found Jay’s approach simplistic and—when used by someone without proper training or grace—combative and even abusive.

“Nouthetic” means “admonishing,” which, though a biblical term, can often devolve into simply berating someone with a Bible verse and telling them to deal with their sin. While scripture is always the grid to evaluate truth claims in this world, not all truth is found in the Bible. Rather, God has given some truth to the realms of science, engineering, medicine, psychology, and others, for the benefit of all people everywhere. Christians must think critically about any truth claim, compare it with scriptural principles, and then proceed accordingly. I prefer an integrated approach to Christian counseling.

First of all, Jay Adams doesn’t need me to defend him, but your portrayal of contemporary history concerning the biblical counseling movement is very much in vogue and happens to be a lie first propagated by David Powlison, and furthered by the insufferably arrogant likes of Heath Lambert.

People like Lambert who is a prototype of many in our day accept any proposition espoused by the men they mindlessly follow as truth. And the truth is my concern here, not necessarily a defense of Jay Adams. However, though I enjoy defending Jay, he would probably prefer that many of his “friends” in Christian academia would defend him, but unfortunately, most of them are cowards and only pretend to love the truth for monetary gain and notoriety. I despise both, and have way too many Facebook friends (62). Therefore, the following is the true historical/biblical facts of the matter:

In circa 1970, American Christianity was feeling the pain of a skewed attitude and understanding of sanctification. The previous twenty years had been an easy believeism/hyper-grace approach. The focus was getting people saved, and not “making disciples.” There were several reasons for this, but suffice to say that “the gospel” was grossly overemphasized. As I type that, I can now hear the shrill cat-cries: “IT’S IMPOSSIBLE TO OVEREMPHASIZE THE GOSPEL!” Right.

However, in order to fill the void, a variety of biblical generalities were thrown around (along with let go and let God theologies) as damage control, plus pastors farmed sanctification out to psychologists. Deeper problems of life were labeled “sickness,” and the idea of pastors sending their parishioners to mind/spiritual doctors was sanctified with “Christian Psychology.” Your everyday pastor was who you went to if you got bubble gum in your hair, but the really deep problems of life needed a “Christian Psychologist.”

Adams was the first in our day to say “NO” to this assertion. The theme of his sanctification reformation was “Competent to Counsel,” and was based on Romans 15:14. Moreover, this one verse powerfully destroys much of the errant philosophy of our day.

But something else was happening at the same time. Another reformation. This other reformation that was emerging at the same time that Adams began to challenge the church is the dirty little secret that is the foundation of your whole proposition that Adams is a mere contributor to a wider field of counseling wisdom. In fact, in a rare episode of truth-telling by David Powlison while lecturing at John Piper’s “church,” he specifically stated the difference between Adams’ biblical construct and the present-day “wider field of knowledge.” Two gospels. That’s right. A wider field of knowledge is not the issue, which gospel that you are going to use to minister to the saints is the issue—so stated the most prominent one in the “wider field.” Powlison dropped his usual nuanced verbiage as it is no longer necessary among the vast majority of Christians who are utterly unable to think for themselves. He stated the following:

This might be quite a controversy, but I think it’s worth putting in.  Adams had a tendency to make the cross be for conversion. And the Holy Spirit was for sanctification.  And actually even came out and attacked my mentor, Jack Miller, my pastor that I’ve been speaking of through the day, for saying that Christians should preach the gospel to themselves.

I cover this in more detail in chapter 9 of “The Truth About New Calvinism,” but this statement by Powlison while lecturing at Piper’s church is the crux. Even in that rare episode of truth-telling by Powlison, he left out the following detail concerning Adams’ “attack” against his “mentor” for telling people to preach the gospel to themselves every day: the “attack” was in the form of a book and devastating treatise against Sonship Theology. Adams’ thesis was that the power for sanctification comes from regeneration and not justification.

No Steve. Let me repeat that. “No Steve”: the issue isn’t the “simplistic” versus the wider field of knowledge, the issue is which gospel are we going to use to minister to other Christians; progressive justification or progressive sanctification? And, who is competent to counsel? All who are “full of goodness,” or just the Christian experts? Again, I hear the alley cats screaming in the night’s full moon: “Progressive justification? Nonsense! Miller didn’t teach that!” Oh really? Have we become so postmodern that “preaching the gospel to ourselves” as a way to be empowered in sanctification is not progressive sanctification? Have Christians really become that mindless?

What is the source of our power for change, and who can counsel? The answer to those questions is the difference between light and darkness. Here is the reality and the line in the sand: choose which gospel you will follow according to truth or according to what man butters your bread.

The key to discussing what significant movement emerged at the same time as Adams’ biblical construct is Powlison’s mention of Dr. John “Jack” Miller. Miller was a professor at Westminster approximate to the time that the theological journal Present Truth was all the rage. The journal, in magazine form was published by the Australian Forum theological think tank headed by SDA theologian Robert Brinsmead. Much to Adams’ consternation, Brinsmead and company were invited to Westminster to chat with the theological big boys. Brinsmead had rediscovered the authentic Reformation gospel that launched the SDA Awakening movement and led to a concerted effort to get Progressive Adventism recognized as a valid denomination.

The Australian Forum argued that the true Reformation gospel was monergistic substitutionary sanctification, or in essence, progressive justification. From that, Miller contrived his Sonship Theology scheme. Tim Keller and David Powlison were rabid followers of Miller, and Powlison used Miller’s Sonship Theology to develop his Dynamics of Biblical Change counseling program that is the foundation of CCEF’s counseling model. Like the father that gave birth to Sonship Theology and CCEF ( the Australian Forum), Miller, Powlison, and Keller felt called to save America from this present Dark Age that supposedly resulted from the lost Reformation gospel. Powlison was then compelled to take over NANC with said doctrine, which he has effectively done.

Hence, Adams was obviously a threat and had to be neutralized. The failings of the movement that Adams came to fix were pinned on Adams; ie, all of the things that filled the void: living by biblical generalizations; legalism; and, “Take a Bible verse and call me in the morning”; etc. Meanwhile, the new gospel of progressive justification was guilty of the same thing that the previous hyper-grace movement was guilty of: devaluing aggressive sanctification and the new birth. The so called second generation “biblical” counseling construct made sanctification the same thing as justification rather than merely devaluing it.

But again, this necessitated a replacement for the real article, and I think the replacement is well articulated by the Powlison understudy Paul David Tripp in How People Change which is really not about biblical change at all. Progressive justification advocates the manifestation of realms, not real change within the individual Christian. Tripp makes this absolutely clear on pages 64 and 65 of HPC  by describing Christians as still being enslaved to sin and enemies of God.

Therefore, Powlison is guilty of thwarting the real model for real change in our day. He has marketed the contra product well, so many follow and trade the truth that sanctifies for a bowl of soup; ie, invitations to conferences, recognition, book promotions, friends, etc.

While thinking of themselves as on the cutting edge of change, which doesn’t include changing people, but rather making the cross bigger, they do not even realize that God doesn’t approve of lying.

So Steve, I would recommend that you not promote the fictitious storyline concerning first generation biblical counseling. It’s a lie, and God doesn’t approve, even if it somehow supposedly makes the cross bigger—which trust me—it doesn’t.


15 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. said, on September 11, 2012 at 6:53 PM

    I really am reluctant to write this but from my years as an advocate for abused and raped women, I can tell you WORST place they can go is to a “Christian” counselor. The biggest problem the abuse shelter had was pastors coming and telling the women to go back to their husband because he had talked to him, said he was sorry and she should forgive him. (In their minds, forgiveness was going back)

    I am not sure how Nouthetic counseling would help a victim of abuse of rape.


    • paulspassingthoughts said, on September 11, 2012 at 9:15 PM


      I saw first hand what the Nouthetic counseling movement did in the lives of people before David Powlison and company ruined it. It’s not so much about what NANC used to be, but the fact that God’s word has the answers. Totally freaked out people who were in Psych wards and given no hope of recovery returned to normal lives. Depressed people who were told by Psychiatrists that they would be on psychotropic drugs the rest of their lives became happy, drug free people. Also, countless people gave their lives to the Lord through the program because secular organizations were shoveling their “hopeless” cases to NANC counselors. I think Powlison will have a lot to answer for one day. Just my opinion.


  2. Bridget said, on September 11, 2012 at 11:44 PM

    Lydia –

    “I am not sure how Nouthetic counseling would help a victim of abuse of rape.”

    It may help the abused recover but only AFTER the abuser has been turned in to the police and the abused has gone to the hospital. An abuser has broken the law, in most cases, and should be prosecuted. Pastors should never tell a person to go back to an abuser.

    I hope that Powlison, nor any other teaching organizations, have taught that a person should go back to an abuser. Yet I know that some “Pastors” have taught this under the guise of “you must forgive,” because “you are just as bad a sinner as your abuser.” Ugh!


    • paulspassingthoughts said, on September 12, 2012 at 6:32 AM


      Right, that comes directly from Gospel Sanctification theology. I can tell you in the day, that NANC strongly emphasized the immediate calling of authorities in abuse situations.


  3. Joe said, on September 12, 2012 at 2:42 PM


    I agree with Paul on that. My view is that the authorities should be called and the abuser held accountable. Offering forgiveness and possible reconciliation to the person does NOT mean going right back to them. They would have to show genuine signs of repentance before I would even POSSIBLY consider going back. Even then, I would not blame or think less of the woman if she decided to leave the abuser, and depending on the situation, I might even encourage it. A pastor or counselor should NEVER tell a woman to go back to her abuser simply because he had a “chat” with him and the abuser said he was “sorry.” That is an ineffectual and unempathetic pastor or counselor if I ever heard one.


    • paulspassingthoughts said, on September 12, 2012 at 2:49 PM

      Gospel = get out of jail free card.


  4. Bridget said, on September 13, 2012 at 2:19 AM

    paulspassingthoughts on September 12, 2012 at 2:49 pm
    Gospel = get out of jail free card.

    Which is the antithesis of what Jesus Christ “did” to redeem mankind. Salvation is a gift to me, but it was not free. It cost our Lord much.

    Jesus went about healing, teaching, and doing good. True disciples do what the Discipler
    taught them to do and did himself. They don’t say, “We need to do nothing, he did it for us.” No! He redeems us for good works which we now desire to do because we are filled with the same Spirit which raised Christ from the dead.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s