Will the Creation Museum Add a Wing Dedicated to Geerhardus Vos?
“The theological differences between Reformed theology born of traditional hermeneutics, verses Reformed theology born of redemptive historical hermeneutics, are significant, and those who claim to be Reformed should know the difference.”
As my grandmother used to say: “nothing is sacred anymore.” Likewise, proponents of the “new Calvinism,” or “neo reformed movement,” or “the gospel driven life,” or “gospel sanctification,” or whatever other nomenclature you would like to attach, are busily writing articles that supposedly puts the beloved Creation Museum (just outside of Cincinnati, Ohio) into “proper perspective.” In their endeavor to save the church from the false gospel of exegetical interpretation of the Scriptures, they boldly proclaim that the age (how long ago they existed) of dinosaurs and how they became extinct is not the point; those dinosaurs were preaching the gospel, that’s the point. Therefore, attempts to arm our youth with creation science (what I thought the museum was doing, until being recently “corrected“) instead of redemptive historical hermeneutics is supposedly misguided, and many of these pundits have said as much. Granted, our children’s contentions in a public school setting that evolution is not the point, but the fact that all of creation is the gospel, may initially get the attention of opponents; that is, until they start asking how the creation of birds is a gospel presentation.
One article even insinuated that the founders of the museum installed the “Last Adam” film presentation at the end of the scientific gallery to emphasize that the Genesis, chapters 1 and 2 account is really a gospel presentation, and specifically speaks of Christ and Him only. However, though I doubt the Creation Museum folks reprinted the article because they really understood where the author was coming from; never the less, does this mean they will soon be installing a new wing dedicated to Geerhardus Vos?
“Black’s evaluation gives testimony to how extremely complex the Vos hermeneutic is, relegating the followers of those who pontificate its supposed revelatory results to a Pope-like reliance.”
Some of you may be asking: “Who is Geerhardus Vos?” Well, he is known as the father of Reformed Biblical Theology. You say: “Oh, that’s the biblical theology of the second phase of the Protestant Reformation (begun by Luther) by the likes of Calvin and Zwingli.” No. Biblical Theology originated in Germany under the liberal teaching and writing of Johann Philipp Gabler (1753-1826), who emphasized the historical nature of the Bible over against a “dogmatic” interpretation thereof. Nearly a century later, Vos (1862-1949) was instrumental in taking the discipline of biblical theology in a, supposedly, more conservative direction. Also known as redemptive historical hermeneutics, the debate that came out of the Reformed churches in the Netherlands (in 1940) is helpful in defining the difference between biblical theology and more orthodox forms of interpretation. The following quote is a helpful description:
“Redemptive-historical preaching is a method of preaching that was forged in the fires of debate in the Reformed churches of the Netherlands in the early 1940s. The debate concerned itself with the question: “How are we to preach the historical narratives of the Bible?” On one side of the question were the proponents of “exemplaristic” preaching. This method of preaching taught that the biblical narratives in general, and the Old Testament stories in particular, were to be preached as examples of how Christians today should (or should not) live their lives. Old Testament believers were held up as examples (or anti-examples, as the case may be) of how we should conduct ourselves.
On the other side of the debate were the advocates of preaching that was “redemptive-historical” (the term used to translate the Dutch heilshistorisch). They argued that Old Testament narratives are not given to us by God primarily to be moral examples, but as revelations of the coming Messiah. The narratives of the Old Testament served as types and shadows pointing forward in history to the time when Israel’s Messiah [however, more contemporary versions include superessionism] would be revealed in the person and work of Jesus Christ. In support of this view, the advocates of redemptive-historical preaching drew heavily upon the text of Luke 24:27, where Jesus is teaching the disciples on the road to Emmaus: “And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself” (English Standard Version). Further support was taken from verse 44 of the same chapter, where Jesus says, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”
I might mention three things before continuing:
1. This hermeneutic is, by all accounts, very new in church history. Catch my drift?
2. It’s contention against orthodox hermeneutics is strange when one considers 1Corinthians 10:6; “Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did.” And 1 Corinthians 10:11; “These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come.”
3. Furthermore, Luke 24:27,44 doesn’t say that every narrative and verse in the OT is about Christ, but rather that He fulfilled prophesies about Himself contained in the OT. There are no adjectives in these verses that suggest a plenary, OT soteriolgy.
Today, the RHH is primarily carried forward and propagated by Northwest Theological Seminary, Westminster Theological Seminary, and Westminster Seminary California. The theological differences between Reformed theology born of traditional hermeneutics, verses Reformed theology born of redemptive historical hermeneutics, are significant, and those who claim to be Reformed should know the difference.
However, “The Biblical Hermeneutics of Geerhardus Vos: an Analysis, Critique, and Reconstruction,” by Tim Black, is probably the most extensive and technical work ever done on Vos hermeneutics. It is a massive work that cannot even be summarized here, but I would like to glean some relevant observations by Black that cast additional information on RHH that falls under the category of ominous. But before I do, let me interject that Black’s evaluation gives testimony to how extremely complex the Vos hermeneutic is, relegating the followers of those who pontificate its supposed revelatory results to a Pope-like reliance.
“But in my estimation, Black’s contribution concerning the likelihood of Historicism and Nature Freedom philosophies (Aristotle, Hagel, Compte, Marx) being a significant influence in regard to Vos’s biblical theology, is more worthy of mention:”
Vos believed that the Bible is a historical revelation of one person and one thing only; Christ and his redemption (Don’t worry, I am not going to park here long. You will soon see the relevance of this promise in the following). He also believed that the Bible’s revelation is organic, like in the following example: It is a living organism like a large plant. All that the plant will be is contained in the seed, but as the plant grows, it gives continuing revelation (in regard to Christ and redemption only) as to what was originally contained in the seed. Therefore, the continued growth of the plant reveals the former. The Bible is a progressive revelation in regard to redemption, so everything from the beginning to the end is a evolving revelation in regard to Christ and his redemption. So, the New Testament interprets the Old; the new is a more exact representation of the full revelation to come. So then, the Old Testament is a limited revealing of redemptions fullness. This is also accomplished on two different plains, the earthly and the heavenly. Black explains it this way on page 38:
“Everything which falls between these two ends of both history and Vos’s system is a gradual process of synthesis whereby the definitive antithesis between the age to come and this present evil age is “organically” synthesized through the progressive motion from “earth” to “heaven.” The earlier and lower moves to the later and higher.”
In other words, earth’s history is redemptive, and is growing toward its heavenly fullness in an organic synthesis. I would then add that creation must also be in the act of progressive sanctification as we also are, though Black never makes this point in his thesis. Hopefully then, you can at least see why proponents of RHH would say the creation account in Genesis is, in fact, a gospel narrative. But we now move on to the point that is easier to grasp: Biblical revelation (according to Voss) is by historical narrative rather than “textually presented ideas.” Black presents this Vos concept in the following ways:
1. “Rather, Vos emphasizes that the historical events (redemptive deeds/acts of God) which are described in Scripture are revelatory in themselves, and even form the central and foundational core to all other revelation”(page 23).
2. “As a result, despite his recognition [Vos] of the existence of a distinction between word and deed, he [Vos] focused on the deeds of God [historical deeds] as if they were more central than God’s words to Biblical revelation” (page 25).
3. “For the present let it suffice to say that the intuition arises again that for Voss, it is more important for the interpreter of Scripture to follow the organization of the historical events than to follow the organization of the text of Scripture” (page 26).
4. “Thus Vos finds it better to focus in Scripture first and foremost on the events rather than on the textually-presented ideas” (page 28).
Black also eludes to one of my own primary concerns with RHH, an overemphasis on any one member of the Trinity always leads to trouble:
“Further, it appears that Scripture is not only primarily centered around Christ but rather around the Triune God, including Christ” (page 57).
Furthermore, Black also contends that interpreting Scripture through covenants would find much more biblical cause than redemptive history:
“As argued above, the particular purpose of Genesis 1-2 is not redemptive, but covenantal–its purpose is the presentation of the covenant” (page59).
“I propose, therefore, that we do not refer to our method of interpreting Scripture as “Redemptive Historical” but rather “Covenantal Historical” or even “Covenantal” under the assumption that the covenant has an historically-progressive aspect built into its structure. This is more true to the actual history to which Scripture refers, and concomitantly is more true to Scripture itself” (page61).
For sure. From a “plain sense of Scripture” viewpoint, as well as a pure biblical data perspective, a much stronger argument could be made for a “Covenantal Historical” hermeneutic if one was inclined to do so.
But in my estimation, Black’s contribution concerning the likelihood of Historicism and Nature Freedom philosophies (Aristotle, Hagel, Compte, Marx) being a significant influence in regard to Vos’s biblical theology, is more worthy of mention:
“It is the critical thesis of this SIP that Vos’s two main emphases were shaped in part by
the philosophical context within which he worked. It appears that his emphasis on the historical progress of redemption and revelation is influenced by Historicism, and that his view of the 2 ages is influenced by the modern Nature-Freedom scheme. Both Historicism and the Nature-Freedom scheme must be explained at this point. I do not know how to keep Vos’s two emphases separate in this critique, and so I will allow them to run together to some extent. Just as the 2-age construction seems to be found as the flower of the historical progression, the Nature-Freedom scheme appears to be built out of Historicism. I will begin with a discussion of Historicism, move to an analysis of the Nature-Freedom scheme, and then attempt to demonstrate the presence of both in Vos’s thought.
i) Historicistic
In order to understand Vos’s hermeneutics in context, it is necessary to understand the
nature of Historicism. It should become apparent in the following that Vos’s view of history and of the study of history follows the central structures of the basic ideas of Historicism.
The best understanding of the nature of Historicism to which I have been able to come is
summarized by Maurice Mandelbaum in his book History, Man, & Reason. Mandelbaum gives a helpful general definition of Historicism. His definition is that “Historicism is the belief that an adequate understanding of the nature of any phenomenon and an adequate assessment of its value are to be gained through considering it in terms of the place which it occupied and the role which it played within a process of development.” Mandelbaum fleshes this definition out throughout his book but the best summary of what he means is given in four points concerning the historicistic construction which is characteristic of Hegel’s thought as well as Compte’s and Marxism.
First, there is a unified historical process which involves all historical entities in its movement and which must be studied by the historian.
Second, beneath all historicistic thought “was presupposed an underlying substance or subject which changes. Thus, a pattern of change conceived in the terms made familiar by Aristotle and by Hegel is not to be construed simply as a sequence of related forms; these successive forms are regarded as having an inherent connection with one another because each of them is viewed as a phase in a single, unified process, and because each expresses some necessary feature of that process.”
Third, Mandelbaum notes that the the substance which changes has an organic nature. He states that ‘both Compte and the Marxists shared Hegel’s view that, during any phase of this developmental process, the various attributes of society were organically related to one another, forming a coherent whole.’
Fourth,
‘The second basic presupposition connected with treating history in terms consonant with the Aristotelian and the Hegelian views of developmental processes is the fact that the later stages of these processes were
considered as being higher realizations, or fulfillments, of what was only implicit in the earlier stages. To be sure, significant differences existed between the Aristotelian doctrine of the relation of act to potency and Hegel’s dialectical emphasis on the role of negation in change. Nevertheless in both cases the end was
conceived as representing a higher and more perfect level than had been attained in any of the developmental stages preceding it. This did not entail that, according to Hegel (or even according to Aristotelianism), the value of each of the earlier stages was wholly relative to the value of the end. Since the end could not be attained in one leap, but only through transformations from one stage to the next, each stage had its own value. That value, however, could only be adequately appreciated through understanding how each stage in the development was related to the goal-directed process of which it was a part….it is only in terms of the later stages of development, when latent powers have become fully explicit, that we are in a position fully to understand the nature of a developmental process and adequately interpret the earlier stages of that process. This familiar teleological theme is, of course, most manifest in Hegel’:
‘The living substance…is that which is truly subject, or what is the same thing, is truly
realized and actual (wirklich) solely in the process of positing itself, or in mediating with its own self its transitions from one state or position to the opposite….It is the process of its own becoming, the circle which presupposes its end as its purpose, and has its end for its beginning; it becomes concrete and actual only by being carried out, and by the end it involves.’’
Note here that although Mandelbaum calls this his second point elsewhere he considers it his fourth point. Mandelbaum’s summary of the essential features of Historicism, then, are 1) that it posits a unified historical process, 2) it posits a substance which changes according to the laws of that process, 3) it posits the organic nature of the substance, and 4) it posits that the not only the process as a whole but also each stage of the process and the organic substance which changes within that process all aim toward a goal and are all properly understood only in terms of the way in which they are progressing toward the attainment of that goal. Further, this goal-orientation assumes that the fulfillment of the goal is the best situation possible, and each stage along the way, although of some value in itself is yet not to be considered perfect. I must mention that every description of Historicism I have found has described it in similar terms to the terms used by Vos, but more importantly those descriptions have followed the general outlines which Mandelbaum has laid out.
While I do not think I understand Historicism as well as some other people, nevertheless it is undeniable that Mandelbaum’s general definition of Historicism fits Vos’s system to a ‘T,’ especially in regard to his focus on the progress of redemptive history toward the goal of heaven, and the fuller-meaning method of interpreting that progress which he roots in Paul’s eschatological interpretation of the Old Testament.’’”
Black continues on, in several pages filled with mind-numbing data and references to show the irrefutable correlations between Vos’s hermeneutic and pagan philosophies.
The bottom line is this: the gospel driven life, New Covenant Theology, gospel sanctification, and most other things that come out of Westminster Seminary, stand or fall on Vos’s hermeneutic, and it ain’t lookin’ good for the standin’ part. Vos’s hermeneutic is new, disregards the plain sense of textual content, contains pagan philosophy, and in reality, is just plain goofy. Furthermore, Reformed folks need to determine what type of Reformed they are: Calvin, or Vos? Secondly, editors should get some discernment before they print silly articles that make “cool, green grass” that squishes “between our toes,” synonymous with the gospel. And these guys built the Creation Museum?!
Lastly, in Proverbs 8, wisdom is personified as a women. She’s not a story, neither is she a narrative; she is, understanding (v.1), truth (v.7), justice (v.8), knowledge (v.9), instruction (v.10), wisdom (v.12) fear of the Lord (v.13), counsel (v.13), righteousness (v.20), the first fruits of God’s works (v.22). And guess what?: before creation, she was with God:
“23 I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began.
24 When there were no oceans, I was given birth, when there were no springs abounding with water;
25 before the mountains were settled in place, before the hills, I was given birth,
26 before he made the earth or its fields or any of the dust of the world.
27 I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,
28 when he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,
29 when he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.
30 Then I was the craftsman at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence,
31 rejoicing in his whole world and delighting in mankind.”
I conclude with a pleading for Christians not to be led away from Lady Wisdom, but I think I will let her do the talking:
32 “Now then, my sons, listen to me; blessed are those who keep my ways.
33 Listen to my instruction and be wise; do not ignore it.
34 Blessed is the man who listens to me, watching daily at my doors, waiting at my doorway.
35 For whoever finds me finds life and receives favor from the LORD.
36 But whoever fails to find me harms himself; all who hate me love death.”
Carol K. Tharp, M.D.: [Paul] Tripp Proffers a False and Misleading Gospel
“But the crux of Tharp’s contention in regard to the gospel staggers the imagination for the following reason: the contradictions between ‘Broken-Down House’ and ‘How People Change’ are so extreme that there are no words that could begin to describe them.”
“What is this guy’s deal? Is he teaching two different dimensional truths (eschatological and something else) to be all things to all people for the purpose of selling books? Or is he just confused?”
Imagine my shock when I opened the newest newsletter from PsychoHeresy Awareness Ministries; and lo, an expose on Paul David Tripp’s latest book: “Broken-Down House.” If somebody writes an evaluation of your book in a newsletter called “PsychoHeresy Awareness Ministries,” you usually don’t expect a good review, and the review of his book by Carol Tharp is certainly no exception. The reason for my shock is due to the fact that Tripp, until now, has enjoyed a significant degree of freedom from criticism by mainline evangelicals.
In her introduction of part one, in this review, as she is giving a lay of the land in regard to Tripp’s book, she notes some of Tripp’s weird word-craft in quotations as a sort of Huh? commentary. Welcome to my world. She notes how Tripp describes the book as, “drawing a ‘word picture’ of our life.’” Huh? Still in disbelief that the theological Alice in Wonderland work of “How People Change,” also written by Tripp, did not end up on anyone’s radar screen, and regardless of bazaar concepts like asking ourselves “x-ray questions” in order to analyze desires of the heart; I was indeed thankful for this book and the fact that I don’t have to read it. But what an education it was in regard to another major dimension of Paul Tripp’s theology, who is sort of a behind the scenes minion of the Christian Counseling and Education Foundation (CCEF).
The primary doctrine of this book that Tharp concentrates on is the belief that creation is in progressive renewal and that we as believers have a part in that renewal. Put another way: an eschatological, progressive renewal of creation. Tharp notes well that this is blatant error:
**Concerning the future, Tripp claims that the world is “in the process of being restored” (18), but offers no Scriptural support for this optimistic eschatology. He ignores Scripture’s clear message that “the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition” (II Peter 3:5-7). Tripp assures his readers that “evil is in the process of being defeated” (105) and that “the enemies of God and good are being progressively defeated” (106). He ignores Scriptures such as 1 John 5:19 stating clearly that “the whole world lieth in wickedness,- in the power of the evil one. After 222 pages of how to be Living Productively in a World Gone Bad, he claims that -you can, beyond any question. be one of God’s tools of rescue and restoration … with the sure expectation” that God will “put a tender hand on— your tired shoulder and say, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You can do these things” (222, bold added).**
Tharp also notes:
**In contrast to all of this, Scripture presents the world as guilty and groaning under the curse and waiting for the redemption of our bodies. The biblical promise lies in “him who hath subjected” it, not in us. Believers have hope but not in their redeeming creation.**
……and also:
**When Scripture speaks of the restoration of the fallen creation, it speaks of a future restoration which is solely the work of God. Nowhere does Scripture support a notion of “restoration” as being “in process” and something accomplished by man…..There is nothing in Scripture to indicate that we are helping God restore the creation.**
An eschatology that teaches a progressive renewal of creation stands as a blatant and stark contradiction to biblical truth, especially when a supposed role by us is included. Furthermore, Tharp also notes how this eschatology echoes the same beliefs as the emergent church:
**In these assertions, Tripp reveals his kinship with the emergent church. A belief held in common by emergent church leaders is their “eschatology of hope.” For example, Tony Jones says, “God’s promised future is good, and it awaits us, beckoning us forward … in a tractor beam of redemption and recreation … so we might as well cooperate.”6 Emergents Stanley Grenz and John R. Franke declare, “As God’s image bearers, we have a divinely given mandate to participate in God’s work of constructing a world in the present that reflects God’s own eschatological will for creation.”‘ Elsewhere, emergent church advocate Doug Pagitt claims, “When we employ creativity to make this world better, we participate with God in the re-creation of the world.”‘**
But the crux of Tharp’s contention in regard to the gospel staggers the imagination for the following reason: the contradictions between ‘Broken-Down House’ and ‘How People Change’ are so extreme that there are no words that could begin to describe them. Anyone who has studied Tripp’s teachings and actually paid attention in a thoughtful way, would initially find Tharp’s assertions extremely hard to believe. However, she makes her case that Tripp propagates; get this, “environmental determinism.”:
**Foundational to Tripp’s message [in Broke-Down House] is the psychological doctrine of environmental determinism. Most counselors, secular or Christian, counsel as if people’s problems are caused by their environment. For Tripp, this environment is the “broken- down house” in “a world gone bad.”**
Tharp continues to make her case:
**As he asserts, “It conditions what you face … shapes what you experience … structures the struggles … creates the stresses … determines the issues … molds the work of the church … shapes the struggles of your heart … and even determines the things you deal with in your body” (19). According to Tripp, the reader has been chosen “to embrace the promise and possibility of a restoration lifestyle” (20). He is called “away from self-focused survival to the hard work of restoration” (21). He says that the broken-down house is “the only environment you have” (19), but by “the hard work of restoration,” you can achieve freedom from these environmentally determined problems and lead a “life that can truly be called successful” (209). In other words people have become broken down through external circumstances, but have the ability not only to fix themselves but to fix the world.**
This is in stark contradiction to HPC, which teaches that environment has absolutely nothing to do with heart issues, other than to reveal what the sinful desires of our heart are by asking “x-ray” questions like “what did you want?“ In BDH, he says creation [or environment] “shapes the struggles of your heart.” At the very least, he is teaching (in BDH) that the renewal of creation can facilitate inward change. Is Paul Tripp really that confused? Or, does he just want to sell books? Furthermore, according to Tharp, he says the following in regard to righteous anger:
**Tripp informs his readers, “In a fallen world, people of character and conscience will always be angry” (129) and asks, “What will be the legacy of this week’s anger for you?” (134). He declares, “God is not satisfied with the state of this house, and he calls us to share in his holy dissatisfaction” (20). He says that “the ongoing dissatisfaction of our Redeemer is a theme of this whole book” (196). In seeming denial of Christ’s last words on the cross, “It is finished,” Tripp says that “God cannot and will not be satisfied with His work of redemption as long as the physical world suffers the effects of sin” (197). No explanation is offered as to how God, who creates and destroys by the Word of His mouth, who knows the end from the beginning, and whose ways are beyond our understanding could ever be “a Dissatisfied Redeemer” (196).**
A continuing theme of Tripp’s teachings has always been that anger is almost always the result of sinful desires, and usually treats the whole idea of righteous indignation with a knowing smirk. Also, in HPC, he spills gallons of ink dissing practical application, methods, and “living by list’s.” But yet, according to Tharp, he says the following in BDH:
**Having established this doctrinal base, Tripp, like most psychotherapists, proceeds to offer a number of methods by which a troubled person can supposedly restore his own broken-down house. Describing the Bible as “a copy of [God’s] repair manual” (85), Tripp offers “five ways to pursue the character qualities to which God calls us” (30), forty-four ways to be “an instrument of cross-shaped love” (172-174), five ways to “Celebrate Grace” (188), three approaches to “daily living” (201), and five “principles that help create the sort of legacy each one of God’s children should want to leave for those who follow” (209-222)…..Tripp’s talk of becoming “more authentically human”(91) “in a step-by-step way” (188), **
I’m I here right now? The antithesis of HPC is using the Bible as a “repair manual.” In HPC, he presents the Bible as a gospel narrative and nothing else. What is this guy’s deal? Is he teaching two different dimensional truths (eschatological and something else) to be all things to all people for the purpose of selling books? Or is he just confused?
Never the less, Tharp’s focus is on BDH, and concludes the following:
**As such, Tripp proffers a false and misleading gospel, one that is all too familiar among psychotherapists, both secular and Christian. His gospel is false because it presents an unbiblical view of the problem of man and offers an unbiblical solution.**
1 Kings 8:39: Heart Theology Is Not The Real Reformation
“Nobody ever said we change ourselves through obedience, ……..We are to learn, apply, pray, obey inwardly (thinking), obey outwardly, seek wise counsel, love, encourage, instruct, rebuke, disciple, confess, and leave the changing and knowing of the heart to God.”
It happened in the early 90’s. I was in the process of absorbing and applying truth from what I think was in fact a contemporary reformation. There is no doubt, Christianity had relinquished its faith and confidence in God’s word; specifically, in regard to solving the weightier issues of life and godliness, deferring to the so-called “experts” of our day. Jay Adams, a reformed Presbyterian, introduced a structured biblical counseling system that radically changed lives through the power and instruction of God’s word. His thesis, after it was all said and done, and in a manner of speaking, begged this question by children: “Daddy, what did Christians do about serious problems before Sigmund Freud came along?” Surprisingly, and before evangelicals barely had a chance to catch their breath, something else came along, Heart Theology. Picking up again where my opening sentence left off, the following is how I was first introduced to Heart Theology. I was an elder in a church that was a training center for what was dubbed “biblical counseling.” The elder that was primarily leading this program was also in the process of obtaining his doctorate degree from another counseling center attached to a reformed seminary. This is where he was introduced to this new counseling theology. It was added as a level 2 program, or addendum to what was already considered radical among evangelicals; namely, the concept that God’s word is sufficient for all matters of life and godliness. I was skeptical in regard to this new twist. Let me explain the basic differences in the two approaches that fueled my skepticism.
First, in regard to the original biblical counseling movement, there are two basic characteristics of biblical counseling as originally introduced by Adams. First, it changed preaching, which was predominately, and still is to a large degree, “about” the Bible. For instance, there may have been many sermons “about” the importance of communication from the Bible. For example, instances where men misunderstood God and gee whiz, bad things happened after that, so don’t do what they did. Biblical counseling went beyond that to a deeper and technical understanding that was applied to real life situations. An example would be biblical precepts of communication that could readily be brought to mind in everyday life and applied accordingly. It was and is, technical wisdom from the word of God and specific instruction on how to apply it to real life. Once pastors learned to do this in the privacy of their office, it transferred to the pulpit where it became preventative medicine for God’s people. Yet another example. Say a young couple in your church decides to marry. What usually happens? We rejoice and marry them! Right? The Jay Adams approach would ask three questions: are these two young people experts on marriage? Probably not. Does God’s word have any wisdom that will prepare them for successful marriage that honors God? Of course. So should we just let them figure it out on their own? Probably not. This introduced Premarital Counseling in the church, with many pastors making it a prerequisite to that church’s participation in the wedding.
The other characteristic was an equal emphasis on justification and sanctification. Let’s be honest, the primary focus of evangelicals is getting people saved. Once there saved, we teach them the importance of church attendance, tithing, and learning about the Bible. Christ never told us to primarily get people saved; his mandate for the church is to “make disciples.” This is done by counseling with God’s word. Premarital Counseling, like many other aspects of biblical application, is “making disciples.” Preaching from the pulpit should also keep parishioners out of the counseling office as well as divorce court. The contention by Adams that pastors are to primarily counsel and not preach was indeed a shocker to many. Preaching should always contain counsel in regard to the technical application of God’s word to real life.
But in addition to these characteristics, one of the primary elements of this biblical counseling was its emphasis on objectivity. Jay Adams was, and I assume still is, a stickler for objective instruction rather than what was referred to as “fuzzy land.” However, I must concede this one weakness in the contemporary (about 37 years old) biblical counseling movement; there was a lack of emphasis on the monergistic resources that give us the strength to apply God’s wisdom to everyday life. But this is understandable, for Evangelicals were preaching about the forest in habitual fashion. The gargantuan task of showing the importance of the individual trees and their proper application was bound to distract. So, in regard to the biblical counseling movement, I have explained two characteristics, one element, and one fault.
Strange, In the midst of this revolution that was pouring out hope, seemingly without measure, there was another movement afoot that had a compliant against the former and the new; namely, biblical counseling wasn’t vertical enough, Adams had simply refined the emphasis on the outward and made Baptist Pharisees into super Pharisees. Yes, the new reformation (Adams) was bringing about lots of change, but it wasn’t “lasting change.” Their answer?; they contended that Christians must abandon all emphasis on outward behavior and partake in emphasizing change at the “heart level.” That would be the two elements of the Heart Theology movement: change at the heart level, and real, lasting change (theoretically).
So, what does that look like (not “how,” which might imply some kind of verb to follow)? Well, the key is deciphering the “desires of the heart.” Desires reveal the idols in our heart, or anything that we love more than God (supposedly, according to advocates). So, what does that look like? Well, we analyze desires of the heart three ways. First, by how we respond to circumstances. Second, by asking God to reveal the Idols through prayer. Thirdly, by imagining future scenarios and taking note of how it makes us feel. The second means is direct, God simply reveals it to us directly through prayer. The first and third means require the use of interpretive questions. So for instance, you are watching a football game and your wife demands that you take the trash out “right now!” And this in fact makes you angry. The most common interpretive question is “what did you want?” The answer is the following: you wanted to be left alone to enjoy the game and you wanted to be shown more respect by your wife. There you have it; football and being respected are idols in your heart. If you now repent of these idols, they are emptied from your heart and God then fills that void in your heart with himself. To the extent that your heart has idols, God is not present. Depending on the presence and filling of God verses idols, obedience is a “mere natural flow” that doesn’t require effort (works) on our part.
This now brings me to the major characteristic of Heart Theology, it’s nebulous and subjective. It also brings me to the fault of Heart Theology which is fatal. Unlike the understandable (lack of emphasis on God’s promised resources) and easily adjusted error of biblical counseling, The fatal error of Heart theology is its conflict with 1 Kings 8:39;
“then hear in heaven your dwelling place and forgive and act and render to each whose heart you know, according to all his ways (for you, you only, know the hearts of all the children of mankind),
This verse emphatically states that only God can know the heart. The Holy Spirit makes it a point to use the subject (God [“you”] ) twice with no words in between (modifiers ect.). This is clearly for the purpose of strong emphasis. We cannot evaluate the heart in regard to idols. Besides, scripture often identifies sinful desires as being located in the “flesh” to begin with.
Though we depend on God’s strength, He would have us to focus on the objective and plain sense of Scripture. Following God’s wisdom and instruction is our role. Knowing and changing the heart is God’s business. Nobody ever said we change ourselves through obedience, Adams certainly never said that. We are to learn, apply, pray, obey inwardly (thinking), obey outwardly, seek wise counsel, love, encourage, instruct, rebuke, disciple, confess, and leave the changing and knowing of the heart to God. Adams said it best in a counseling conference: “The commands in the bible are not to the Holy Spirit, they are to us” and, “Quietism will ruin peoples lives.” There is no new reformation that narrows God’s precepts and wisdom for living to “deep repentance” that requires us to know our hearts. We cannot know our hearts, only God can. If there has been any reformation in the past 30 years, it has been the ability to apply the word of God to every issue of life and godliness.
paul
The Role Of Counseling In The Church
This is a sermon I preached at Clearcreek Chapel in Dayton, Ohio in or about 1996. I was sorting through old files and actually threw it away, but decided to read it again out of curiosity. Much to my surprise, I still agree with most of it and think it is a message that a lot of Churches need to hear. My apologies, the manuscript is in caps because I read all of my sermons straight from the script and caps are easier for me to read.
This message is about the fact that the word of God, among other things, is a counseling book. As a matter of fact, it is “thee” counseling book. As Chuck and I go out visiting tonight, I am encouraged that we go with God’s wisdom and the opportunity that proceeds because of this fact.
If you are thinking about implementing a structured counseling (really, I prefer ” in-depth discipleship”) program in your church, I highly recommend the Biblical Counseling Foundation’s “Self Confrontation” program. I like the sub title of the program better: “A Manual for In-Depth Biblical Discipleship.” I DO NOT recommend NANC or CCEF. NANC has an over emphasis on professionalism and CCEF integrates other disciplines that are clearly not biblical.
THE ROLE OF COUNSELING IN THE CHURCH
I WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN TONIGHT BY SHARING WITH YOU ABOUT A GUY WHO WE WILL CALL JAKE. HIS NAME HAS BEEN CHANGED TO PROTECT THE GUILTY. BEFORE I START, I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT JAKE HAS GIVEN FULL PERMISSION TO USE HIS LIFE AS AN ILLUSTRATION FOR TONIGHT’S MESSAGE AS IT WILL BE PRESENTED.
JAKE IS IN HIS CAR ON THE WAY TO A COUNSELING APPOINTMENT. NOT WITH A PSYCHOLOGIST. NO, NO, PERISH THE THOUGHT. JAKE IS OF REFORMED THEOLOGY AND HAS READ ALMOST ALL OF DAVE HUNTS BOOKS. JAKE IS ON THE WAY TO SEE A BIBLICAL COUNSELOR.
WHILE JAKE IS ON THE WAY, LET ME TELL YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HIM. JAKE IS WELL STUDIED IN THE SCRIPTURES. NOT ONLY DOES HE SPEND A LOT OF PERSONAL TIME IN THE WORD, HE HAS ROUGHLY 3 YEARS OF SEMINARY AND BIBLE COLLEGE COMBINED. ANOTHER THING I WILL TELL YOU IS JAKE’S LIFE IS IN A LOT OF TROUBLE. JAKE IS IN TROUBLE AT WORK. JAKE IS IN TROUBLE AT HOME. JAKE IS IN TROUBLE AT CHURCH. JAKE IS IN WHAT SOME CALL “CLINICAL DEPRESSION” AND CAN BARELY FUNCTION DAY TO DAY. ANY QUESTIONS? JAKE IS IN TROUBLE.
NOW BACK TO JAKE. ORDINARILY JAKE WOULD BE SCARED TO DEATH TO GET IN HIS CAR AND DRIVE ANYWHERE BECAUSE OF HIS EXCESSIVE PHOBIAS, BUT THE REASON JAKE IS ENTHUSIASTICALLY DRIVING TO THIS APPOINTMENT IS BECAUSE HE IS SURE THIS COUNSELOR CAN SHOW HIM THE SECRET BIBLE VERSE THAT WILL END ALL OF HIS TROUBLES IN 15 MINUTES. HOPE BUILDS STRONGER AND STRONGER AS HE DRAWS CLOSER TO HIS APPOINTMENT.
JAKE FINALLY ENTERS THE ROOM. HI!, THE COUNSELOR SAYS CHEERFULLY. THE COUNSELORS CHEERFUL DEMEANOR BUILDS EVEN MORE HOPE IN JAKE. AFTER SOME RELEVANT CONVERSATION, THE COUNSELOR TELLS JAKE WHERE THEY ARE GOING TO START. THIS IS THE MOMENT JAKE HAS BEEN WAITING FOR! “I HAVE A NEW GOAL FOR YOU JAKE,” SAID THE COUNSELOR. “YOUR NEW GOAL IS TO PLEASE GOD”. JAKE IS SO SHOCKED HE CANNOT SPEAK, BUT SCREAMS OUT THESE THOUGHTS IN HIS MIND: “PLEASE GOD! WHAT GOOD IS THAT GOING TO DO ME”!!!!!
AFTER THE COUNSELOR ASSIGNED SOME HOMEWORK, JAKE SCRAPES HIMSELF OFF THE FLOOR AND LEAVES. NOW JAKE IS DRIVING HOME AFTER THE APPOINTMENT, TALKING TO HIMSELF ON THE WAY. “HOW COULD HE GIVE ME SUCH A SIMPLISTIC SOLUTION TO MY PROBLEMS? THERE IS NO WAY THIS GUY UNDERSTANDS WHAT I AM GOING THROUGH. NOW WHAT AM I GOING TO DO?, GO TO A PSYCHOLOGIST? NO WAY. MY MOM WENT TO THEM FOR YEARS, THEY NEVER DID HER ANY GOOD. BESIDES, THE LAST ONE I WENT TO SEE BEFORE I WAS A CHRISTIAN CHARGED ME 85 DOLLARS AN HOUR AND ASK ME WHAT I THOUGHT THE ANSWERS TO MY PROBLEMS WHERE. IF I KNEW THAT, WHAT DID I NEED HER FOR? HOW ABOUT ANOTHER PASTOR OR COUNSELOR? THEY WILL JUST SEND ME TO A PSYCHOLOGIST. SUICIDE? HMMM, BETTER NOT. I’M NOT FOR SURE THAT I’M A CHRISTIAN. GEE GADS, I’M STUCK WITH THIS GUY!!!”
LITTLE DID JAKE KNOW, WHEN WORD GOT TO HEAVEN THAT THE COUNSELOR WAS STUCK WITH HIM THE FLAGS OF HEAVEN FLEW AT HALF STAFF AND ELIJAH WEPT. JAKE CONTINUES DOWN THE ROAD AND LOOKS DOWN AT THE HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT LAYING BESIDE HIM ON THE CAR SEAT “WHATS THIS HOMEWORK STUFF? I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF SUCH A THING IN CHURCH. HEY I KNOW, HE KNOWS MORE THAN HE’S LETTING ON. I BET THERE’S SOME ANSWERS IN THAT HOMEWORK.”
WELL, JAKE GOES HOME AND DOES HIS HOMEWORK AND HE’S RIGHT, THERE ARE ANSWERS IN THE HOMEWORK. JAKE LEARNS THAT THE BIBLE IS NOT A BOOK THAT TELLS US HOW TO GET RID OF OUR PROBLEMS BUT RATHER TELLS US HOW TO BE GOD’S KIND OF PERSON IN THE MIDST OF THE PROBLEMS. THIS ACTUALLY SOMEWHAT ENCOURAGES JAKE SINCE HE HASN’T HAD ANY SUCCESS GETTING RID OF HIS PROBLEMS ANYWAY.
JAKE ALSO LEARNS THAT GOD IS IN COMPLETE CONTROL OVER HIS PROBLEMS. HE WANTS TO USE THE PROBLEMS JAKE BROUGHT ON HIMSELF TO LEAD HIM TO REPENTANCE AND TEACH HIM HOW TO BE MORE LIKE CHRIST. THE OTHER PROBLEMS WHERE GOD’S SOVEREIGN WILL FOR HIS LIFE AND DECREED FOR THE SAME PURPOSE.
” OHHHHHHHHHH, JAKE SAYS TO HIMSELF, GOD IS NOT ONLY SOVEREIGN OVER SALVATION, HE’S ALSO SOVEREIGN OVER EVERY DETAIL OF OUR LIFE!”
THE HOMEWORK SMASHED JAKE’S FALSE HOPES LIKE A DIXIE CUP, BUT REAL HOPE FROM THE WORD OF GOD THAT THE COUNSELOR IS POINTING TO IS NOW BEGINNING TO SPROUT IN JAKE’S MIND.
AT HIS NEXT APPOINTMENT, JAKE UTTERS THESE PROFOUND WORDS: “WELL, I GUESS IT’S JUST NOT GOD’S WILL THAT EVERYTHING TURNS OUT THE WAY WE THINK IT SHOULD”. “OH, THAT’S GOOD JAKE”, REPLIES THE COUNSELOR. “I’M GLAD YOU SAID THAT, IN A MATTER OF FACT, I’M GOING TO WRITE IT DOWN IN YOUR FILE. LET’S SEE, JAKE SAID…….
TILL THIS DAY JAKE ISN’T SURE WHETHER THE COUNSELOR WAS INCREDIBLY PATIENT OR FINALLY SEIZED THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE SOME FUN. NEVERTHELESS, JAKE WAS FLATTERED BY THE COUNSELOR’S RESPONSE AND ASSUMED HE FINALLY HIT ON SOME OF THAT BIBLICAL THINKING THE COUNSELOR KEPT TALKING ABOUT.
WELL, JAKE KEPT LEARNING AND TODAY SEES HIS LIFE AS RADICALLY CHANGED. WHAT I JUST SHARED IS OF COURSE A CONDENSED VERSION OF ACTUAL EVENTS. YOU CAN ADD MUCH INFORMAL ENCOURAGEMENT AND PHONE CALLS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT. THAT’S NOT SIMPLISTIC.
I SHARED JAKE’S STORY TO HELP US DEVELOP OUR FIRST POINT TONIGHT. WHAT IS THE CONTEMPORARY PICTURE OF COUNSELING IN TODAY’S CHURCH?
I KNOW YOU PROBABLY THINK JAKE WAS A SPIRITUAL AIR HEAD. BUT I WILL HASTEN TO ADD THAT EVEN IN HIS WORST STATE HE WAS FAR AHEAD OF A LOT OF CHRISTIANS. WHY? BECAUSE HE BELIEVED THE BIBLE ALONE HAD THE ANSWERS TO HIS PROBLEMS. MOST CHRISTIANS TODAY DO NOT EVEN BELIEVE THAT. YES, THE TRUTH JAKE DISCOVERED ABOUT HIS OWN SIN AND GOD’S WAY OF DEALING WITH IT WAS LIKE SWALLOWING A BIG HORSE PILL, BUT LIKE PETER HE SAID, “NEVERTHELESS LORD,AT YOUR WORD”.
UNDER OUR FIRST POINT IN YOUR NOTES, PLEASE DRAW A PIE AND SPLIT IT UP INTO TWO LARGE PIECES, TWO SMALL PIECES, AND A SLIVER. OF THE TWO SMALL PIECES, ONE SHOULD BE HALF THE SIZE OF THE OTHER. NOW LETS LABEL THE PIECES. YOUR LABELS CAN BE OUTSIDE BY WAY OF ARROWS. LABEL ONE OF THE BIG PIECES “WORD OF GOD NOT SUFFICIENT FOR COUNSELING, OTHER SOURCES NEEDED.” I DON’T THINK THIS NEEDS MUCH EXPLANATION.
LABEL THE SECOND BIG PIECE “WORD OF GOD NOT FULLY SUFFICIENT.” THIS REPRESENTS THOSE WHO THINK THE BIBLE IS SUFFICIENT FOR THE EVERYDAY MINOR PROBLEMS OF LIFE BUT SOMETHING MORE IS NEEDED FOR THE SERIOUS OR “DEEP” PROBLEMS OF LIFE.
I THINK THESE TWO PIECES OF THE PIE REPRESENTS THE THINKING OF MOST PEOPLE IN THE CHURCH TODAY.
NOW LETS LABEL ONE OF THE SMALL PIECES, THE LARGER OF THE TWO. JAKE IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THIS PIECE. LABEL IT “ABSTRACT THEOLOGY”. SIMPLY PUT, ABSTRACT THEOLOGY IS A KNOWLEDGE OF THEOLOGICAL FACTS WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF HOW TO APPLY IT TO THE SPECIFICS OF LIFE. JAKE KNEW OF GOD’S SOVEREIGN GRACE, THAT’S GOOD THEOLOGY. BUT HE WAS OBLIVIOUS TO THE FACT THAT GOD WAS IN COMPLETE CONTROL OF THE PROBLEMS IN HIS LIFE AS WELL. THAT’S WHEN PANIC BEGAN TO START. JAKE THOUGHT HIS LIFE WAS SPINNING OUT OF CONTROL.
NOW LET’S LABEL THE OTHER SMALL PIECE. THESE ARE CHRISTIANS WHO UNDERSTAND THE CONNECTION OF THEOLOGY TO LIFE TO SOME POINT, BUT THEY LACK EXPERIENCE IN HELPING OTHERS TO DO IT. THIS ALSO HINDERS A FURTHER ABILITY TO DO IT IN THEIR OWN LIFE, WHICH THEY DO WELL TO A POINT. SOME WOULD SAY THEY ARE NOT “CASE WISE”. IF YOU HANDED THEM A BOOK OF ACTUAL CASE STUDIES WITHOUT THE BIBLICAL ANSWERS, THEY WOULD BE SURPRISED AT THEIR TRUE INABILITY TO HELP OTHERS WITH THE WORD OF GOD.
NOW LET’S LABEL THE SLIVER. THESE ARE CHRISTIANS WHO HAVE A GOOD WORKING KNOWLEDGE OF THEOLOGY AND HOW TO APPLY IT TO THEIR OWN LIFE AND THE LIVES OF OTHERS, AND ACTIVELY DO SO. THEY ARE TOO FEW IN THE BODY OF CHRIST. THE BIBLE CALLS THEM “MATURE” IN HEB 5;14 AND “SPIRITUAL” IN GAL 6:1.
THE TWO LARGE PIECES REPRESENT CONFUSION. THE TWO SMALL PIECES REPRESENT FAILURE OR LIMITED GLORY FOR GOD. THE SLIVER NEEDS TO BE A MUCH BIGGER PIECE OF THE PIE. SUCH IS THE PICTURE OF COUNSELING IN TODAY’S CHURCH. WHICH PIECE OF THE PIE DO YOU PRESENTLY RESIDE IN?
NOW IMAGINE FOR A MOMENT THAT ALL THE PIECES OF THE PIE EXCEPT FOR THE SLIVER ARE ONE PIECE. THOUGH THEY DIFFER, THEY COMMONLY BELIEVE THREE THINGS ABOUT BIBLICAL COUNSELING:
FIRST, COUNSELING IS ONLY FOR THOSE CHRISTIANS WHO HAVE A LOT OF PROBLEMS FROM A HUMAN PERSPECTIVE.
SECONDLY, THE TROUBLED CHRISTIAN ALWAYS INITIATES THE COUNSELING.
THIRDLY, IT MUST BE DONE BY THE SENIOR PASTOR OR A “TRAINED PROFESSIONAL”
THATS A PICTURE OF THE CONDITION AND SCOPE OF COUNSELING IN TODAY’S TYPICAL CHURCH. BUT IT’S NOT THE SAME PICTURE THE BIBLE PRESENTS.
FIRST OF ALL, OUR GOD IS NOT A GOD OF CONFUSION. THERE ARE NOT MULTIPLE SOURCES FOR GOD’S GUIDANCE AND COUNSEL. THE WORD OF GOD IS TOTALLY SUFFICIENT.
PSALM 1:1 AND 119:105 SAY THAT GOD’S WORD GIVES US DIRECTION. 2PETER 1:3 SAYS THAT THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD SUPPLIES US WITH EVERYTHING WE NEED FOR LIFE AND GODLINESS. THEN PETER SAYS IN VERSES 16-21 THAT THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD IN HIS WORD IS EVEN BETTER AND MORE CERTAIN THAN THE EVENTS AND MIRACLES THE APOSTLES WITNESSED WITH THEIR OWN EYES. HEBREWS 4:12,13 SAYS THE WORD OF GOD IS LIVING AND ACTIVE AND CAN LAY OPEN THE SOUL AND SPIRIT LIKE A DOUBLE EDGE SWORD CAN LAY OPEN A BODY ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE BONE MARROW. IT DISCERNS AND JUDGES THE ATTITUDES AND THOUGHTS OF THE MIND AND PREPARES MAN TO GIVE AN ACCOUNT TO GOD.
I ASK ANYONE WHO SAYS THE WORD IS NOT SUFFICIENT: CAN YOUR TRUTH DO THAT?
LASTLY ON THIS POINT, BUT NOT LEAST, PSALM 138:2 SAYS GOD HAS EXALTED HIS WORD EVEN ABOVE HIS OWN NAME!
THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEED FOR CONFUSION AMONG GOD’S PEOPLE, AS JESUS SAID, “THY WORD IS TRUTH.” ALL COUNSEL CONCERNING THE ISSUES OF LIFE MUST BE FROM THE WORD OF GOD. THERE IS NO OTHER VIABLE SOURCE.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE NEED FOR COUNSELING ACTIVITY? SURELY COUNSELING TAKES A BACK SEAT IN A BIG WAY TO TEACHING AND PREACHING, RIGHT? LETS TAKE A WALK THROUGH THE SCRIPTURES AND FIND OUT.
FIRST OF ALL, WE FIND OUT A VERY IMPORTANT TRUTH ABOUT COUNSELING IN THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE BIBLE. IN GENESIS 1:27-2:25, WE FIND OUT MAN WAS CREATED TO BE COUNSELED. GOD BUILT IN THE NEED. IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CREATION, MOST OF CHAPTER 1 AND ALL OF CHAPTER 2 DESCRIBES GOD’S COUNSEL TO ADAM AND EVE.
IMMEDIATELYAFTER THE FALL, WE FIND ADAM, EVE AND SATAN IN A COUNSELING SESSION WITH GOD. LATER, WE FIND GOD COUNSELING CAIN AFTER HE MURDERED HIS BROTHER ABLE. WE ALSO FIND SEVERAL COUNSELING SESSIONS BETWEEN GOD, ABRAHAM AND LOT. HAGAR IS COUNSELED IN THE WILDERNESS AND JOSEPH COUNSELS HIS BROTHERS. IN EXODUS THROUGH DEUTERONOMY, GOD AND MOSES COUNSEL THE ISRAELITES. IN NUMBERS 18, JETHRO AND MOSES SET UP A COUNSELING SYSTEM WHERE MOSES TOOK THE MOST DIFFICULT CASES AND THE REST WHERE SPLIT UP AMONG OTHER COUNSELORS. IN THE HISTORICAL AND PROPHETIC BOOKS, GOD COUNSELS HIS PEOPLE THROUGH THE PROPHETS. NATHAN COUNSELS DAVID. THE BOOK OF JOB IS ONE WHOLE COUNSELING CASE ALTHOUGH JOB’S THREE FRIENDS ARE A STUDY ON HOW NOT TO COUNSEL. THE BOOK OF PROVERBS IS A COUNSELING MANUAL. THE BOOK OF JONAH IS YET ANOTHER COUNSELING CASE. IN A MATTER OF FACT, THE BOOK OF JONAH GIVES GREAT INSIGHT INTO THE PROBLEM OF DEPRESSION.
SO FAR, THERE IS BARELY MORE THAN TWO NOTABLE SERMONS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, BUT MANY MORE COUNSELING EXAMPLES COULD BE CITED IF TIME PERMITTED.
IN THE GOSPELS, ONE SERMON BY JESUS IS RECORDED, THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT, BUT HIS COUNSEL TO OTHERS CONSUMES THE BOOKS. NICODEMUS, THE WOMAN AT THE WELL, THE RICH YOUNG RULER, THE APOSTLES AND OF COURSE PETER. THE EPISTLES ARE ALMOST ALL CORRECTIVE. EPHESIANS SIMULATES PROVERBS AS A COUNSELING MANUAL. PRISCILLA AND AQUILA COUNSEL APOLLOS AND JESUS COUNSELS THE SEVEN CHURCHES IN REVELATION. BUT YET, ONLY A FEW NOTABLE SERMONS BY PETER AND PAUL ARE RECORDED.
ONE MORE POINT NEEDS TO BE MADE HERE. NOT ONLY DOES COUNSELING CONSUME A VERY LARGE PORTION OF SCRIPTURE, BUT MOST OF IT IS PROACTIVE ON THE PART OF THE COUNSELORS. IN A MATTER OF FACT, HEB 10:24-25 SAYS ONE OF THE PRIMARY REASONS WE MEET TOGETHER IS FOR PROACTIVE COUNSEL.
WE SEE THAT COUNSELING IS VERY PREVALENT IN THE SCRIPTURES, BUT WHO COUNSELS AND WHO IS SUPPOSED TO DO COUNSELING?
WELL, WE HAVE SEEN THAT GOD HAS DONE COUNSELING FACE TO FACE WITH MAN. CHRIST IS CALLED THE “MIGHTY COUNSELOR.” THE HOLY SPIRIT IS WITHOUT A DOUBT THE MOST ACTIVE COUNSELOR EVER AND IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT ANGELS HAVE ALSO BEEN VERY ACTIVE COUNSELORS. AN ANGEL COUNSELED MARTHA AND MARY AT THE TOMB. AN ANGEL COUNSELED THE APOSTLES AT CHRIST’ ASCENSION. AN ANGEL COUNSELED JOSEPH AND THERE ARE MANY MORE EXAMPLES.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THOSE OF US IN THE CHURCH ON EARTH?
FIRST OF ALL, PASTORS ARE TO COUNSEL. IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT A PASTOR CAN TAKE THE WORD OF GOD AND GUIDE THE SAINTS IN EXEGETING HEARTS, MOTIVES AND ATTITUDES. UNDER THE INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, PETER COMMANDS ALL ELDERS TO”SHEPHERD THE FLOCK OF GOD THAT IS AMONG YOU”. SHEPHERDS GUIDE, TEACH AND PROTECT AND MUST GIVE ACCOUNT OF YOUR LIFE FACE TO FACE WITH THE LORD JESUS CHRIST ACCORDING TO HEB 13:17. NOTICE THAT THIS VERSE ASSUMES THAT ELDERS “KEEP WATCH” OVER YOU.
ALSO, THE SCRIPTURES MAKE IT CLEAR WHAT THE PASTORS TOOLS ARE FOR DOING THIS, PRAYER AND THE WORD OF GOD.
IN ACTS 6:2-4. NOTICE THE TERM “MINISTRY OF THE WORD” IN THESE VERSES. THE MINISTRY OF THE WORD IS MORE THAN PREACHING. IT IS TEACHING, REBUKING, CORRECTING AND TRAINING IN RIGHTEOUSNESS ACCORDING TO 2TIM 3:16. PREACHING AND TEACHING ALONE CANNOT NOT ACCOMPLISH THIS, THAT IS OBVIOUS. VERSE 17 ADDS THAT THE WORD OF GOD FULLY EQUIPS THE MAN OF GOD FOR THIS TASK.
BEFORE WE MOVE ON, LET ME SAY THIS; THERE IS BARELY ANYTHING MORE SHAMEFUL THAN MEN WHO CALL THEMSELVES PASTORS THAT SEND HURTING PEOPLE OUTSIDE THE CHURCH TO THOSE WHO REJECT GOD’S WORD AS THE FINAL AUTHORITY FOR ALL COUNSELING.
OTHER THAN PASTORS, PARENTS ARE TO COUNSEL THEIR CHILDREN [ DUE 11;19, EPH 6:4]. GRANDPARENTS ARE TO COUNSEL THEIR GRANDCHILDREN [ DUE 6:9]. OLDER WOMEN ARE TO COUNSEL YOUNGER WOMEN [TITUS 2;1-5] HUSBANDS ARE TO COUNSEL THEIR WIVES [EPH 5;25,26]. THOSE WHO HAVE ENDURED TRIALS GOD’S WAY ARE TO COUNSEL
[2COR 1;3,4].
AND FINALLY,COUNSELING IS TO BE ONGOING BETWEEN CHRISTIANS. ALL CHRISTIANS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR COUNSELING EACH OTHER AND BEING SKILLED AT DOING SO THROUGH TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE [COL 3:16 ROM 15:14 AND ITHESS 514]. ALSO, APPARENTLY COUNSELING WILL CONTINUE AFTER THE COMING OF CHRIST. PAUL SAYS IN ICOR 6:3 THAT WE WILL COUNSEL ANGELS.
BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE NEXT POINT, LET’S DRAW ANOTHER PIE. MAKE ONE BIG PIECE THAT CIRCLES ALMOST ALL THE WAY AROUND. LABEL IT COUNSELING. NOW MAKE A SMALL PIECE. LABEL IT PREACHING,SACRAMENTS,WORSHIP SERVICES. I HOPE THAT DOESN’T OFFEND YOU. BUT I THINK IT IS A FAIR BIBLICAL PICTURE OF THE MAGNITUDE OF THE ROLE COUNSELING SHOULD PLAY IN THE CHURCH. OBVIOUSLY, COUNSELING DOES NOT PLAY THIS LARGE OF A ROLE IN TODAY’S CHURCH, BUT AT ONE TIME IT DID.
AT SOME POINT IN AMERICAN CHURCH HISTORY, THE CHURCH BEGAN TO FOCUS ON AND EMPHASIZE WHOLESALE, ONE TIME PROFESSIONS OF FAITH AT THE END OF FORMAL PREACHING AND FOCUSED AWAY FROM THE EVERYDAY SANCTIFICATION PROCESS.
TO MAKE THIS POINT QUICKLY, LET’S DRAW TWO PICTURES IN OUR MIND. ON THE ONE HAND YOU HAVE CHRISTIANS EXHORTING EACH OTHER, ADMONISHING EACH OTHER, COMFORTING EACH OTHER, TRAINING EACH OTHER,TEACHING EACH OTHER, ENCOURAGING EACH OTHER, PRAYING FOR EACH OTHER, ALL IN THE MILIEU OF LIFE. THEY SEE THEIR REMAINING MORTALITY AS A POWERFUL TYRANT THAT MUST BE BEATEN DOWN AND BROUGHT UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE WORD OF GOD WITH THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, STRINGENT DISCIPLINE AND THE AID OF OTHER BELIEVERS. THEN ON THE OTHER HAND, JUST THINK OF A BILLY GRAHAM CRUSADE. OR BETTER YET, A STADIUM FULL OF 350,000 TOUCHY FEELY MEN.
I’M NOT SAYING THAT NOTHING GOOD COMES OUT OF THOSE EVENTS. WHAT I’M SAYING IS THAT IT’S THE TRADE OFF IN FOCUS AND EMPHASIS THAT THE CHURCH HAS MADE AND PRECIOUS FEW PEOPLE WOULD DENY THAT.
THE CHURCHES FOCUS AWAY FROM THE RIGORS OF EVERYDAY SANCTIFICATION NATURALLY LED IT’S PASTORS AND LAITY AWAY FROM COUNSELING BECAUSE COUNSELING PLAYS A MAJOR ROLE IN THE SANCTIFICATION PROCESS. THIS LED TO A PROBLEM THAT MOSTLY EFFECTED THE PASTOR’S ABILITY TO MINISTER TO PEOPLE. KNOWING WHO PEOPLE ARE AND WHAT MAKES THEM TIC IS ESSENTIAL TO OUR ABILITY TO HELP THEM. PASTORS DO NOT LEARN ABOUT PEOPLE BY PREACHING THEOLOGY FROM THE PULPIT. THEY LEARN ABOUT PEOPLE BY INTERACTING WITH THEM AND THEIR PROBLEMS ON A CONTINUAL BASIS. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED FOR WHATEVER REASON: PASTORS TURNED THEIR BACKS ON COUNSELING PEOPLE AND BEGAN TO FOCUS SOLELY ON PREACHING AND THE EFFECT ON THE CHURCH HAS BEEN PROFOUND.
FIRST, IN REGARD TO PREACHING, AS WE DISCUSSED EARLIER, PREACHING BECAME SERMONS OF ABSTRACT THEOLOGY. WHEN PASTORS STOPPED LEARNING ABOUT PEOPLE BY COUNSELING EXPERIENCE AND THE WORD OF GOD, THEY LOST THEIR ABILITY TO ENJECT PRACTICAL APPLICATION INTO THEIR SERMONS AND PREACHING BECAME REDUCED TO THEOLOGICAL FACTS. JAKE SAT UNDER A LOT OF THIS KIND OF PREACHING / TEACHING AND WHEN THE TRIALS OF LIFE CAME, HIS HOUSE CAME CRASHING DOWN!
SECONDLY, THE CHURCHES TESTIMONY TO THE WORLD HAS BEEN PROFOUNDLY EFFECTED. THE INABILITY TO APPLY THEOLOGY TO LIFE HAS GREATLY HINDERED SANCTIFICATION IN THE CHURCH AND THEREFORE HAS CRIPPLED OUR IMPACT ON SOCIETY AND THE WORLD.
THIRDLY, ABSTRACT THEOLOGY HAS CAUSED A MAJORITY OF CHRISTIANS IN TODAY’S CHURCH TO DOUBT THAT GOD’S WORD IS TOTALLY SUFFICIENT BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT BEEN TAUGHT, NOR HAVE WITNESSED IT’S TRANSFORMING POWER THAT RESULTS FROM IT’S PRACTICAL APPLICATION.
FOURTHLY, THIS HAS ALSO LED TO A GREAT DECLINE IN EVANGELISM. IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO GET CHRISTIANS EXCITED ABOUT EVANGELISM WHEN THEY DO NOT SEE THE AWESOME POWER OF GOD BEING DEMONSTRATED IN THEIR OWN LIVES AND THE LIVES OF OTHERS. HAVE YOU NOTICED HOW DIFFICULT IT IS TO GET CHRISTIANS EXCITED ABOUT EVANGELISM? ANYMORE, TO GET CHRISTIANS TO EVANGELIZE YOU HAVE TD PACKAGE IT WITH A TRIP OR A VACATION. BUT EVEN THEN EVANGELISM HAS LOST IT’S EFFECTIVENESS BECAUSE WHEN PASTORS STOPPED LEARNING ABOUT PEOPLE AND CHRISTIANS STOPPED LEARNING ABOUT EACH OTHER, GOSPEL PRESENTATIONS BECAME CANNED. THE ROMANS ROAD, THE FOUR SPIRITUAL LAWS, TRACKS, EVANGELISM EXPLOSION, PEOPLE RUNNING UP AND DOWN ISLES, ENDLESS RE-DEDICATION AND ENDLESS CLICHES.
THE APOSTLE PAUL KNEW PEOPLE AND THAT’S WHY HIS GOSPEL PRESENTATIONS WERE FITTED TO THE PERSON AND THE SITUATION WITHOUT COMPROMISE. DID NOT CHRIST PRESENT THE GOSPEL TO THE WOMAN AT THE WELL IN A DIFFERENT WAY THAN NICODEMUS AND THE RICH YOUNG RULER? NOT TO MENTION MANY OTHERS.
LET ME READ PHILEMON 4-7 BECAUSE I THINK IT TIES ALL OF MY POINTS TOGETHER [READ]. BY ACTIVELY REFRESHING THE HEARTS OF THE SAINTS, PAUL SAID PHILEMON WOULD GAIN A FULL UNDERSTANDING OF EVERY GOOD THING WE HAVE IN CHRIST, AND SO IT IS WITH US ALSO.
UNDER POINT FOUR, LET’S NOW DISCUSS THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE CHURCH NEEDS A COUNSELING SYSTEM. IN OTHER WORDS, DOES THE CHURCH NEED METHODOLOGY IN ORDER TO COUNSEL EFFECTIVELY?
MANY PASTORS WOULD SAY NO, AND HERE’S HOW THE ARGUMENT GOES: THIS IS ALMOST A WORD FOR WORD QUOTE FROM A PASTOR FRIEND OF MINE; “PAUL, IF THE PEOPLE WOULD JUST COME TO THE SERMONS AND STUDY THE WORD OF GOD ON THEIR OWN, THEY WOULDN’T NEED COUNSELING. I CAN’T TELL YOU HOW MANY TIMES SOMEBODY HAS CALLED ME FOR COUNSEL ON AN ISSUE THAT I PREACHED ON JUST THE WEEK BEFORE”
THERE ARE MANY PROBLEMS WITH THIS REASONING BUT I WILL ONLY COVER THE MAJOR ONES. THIS REASONING ASSUMES PEOPLE ALWAYS KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEIR PROBLEM IS AND CAN THEREFORE ALWAYS APPLY THE RIGHT SERMON. NOT SO. JERE 17:9 SAYS WE CANNOT KNOW OUR OWN HEARTS APART FROM THE WORD OF GOD
PROVERBS 20:5 SAYS THAT IT TAKES A WISE MAN TO DRAW OUT THE ISSUES OF THE HEART. GAL 6:1 DOES NOT SAY TO SEND A FALLEN BROTHER OR SISTER TO A PREACHING SERVICE, IT SAYS TO SEND “THOSE WHO ARE SPIRITUAL”. ALSO, THIS LINE OF REASONING ASSUMES GOD GAUGES THE TRIALS OF LIFE ACCORDING TO SERMON SCHEDULES. CERTAINLY WE SHOULD ALL KNOW BETTER THAN THAT.
ANOTHER ARGUMENT IS THAT THE PRESENT DAY BIBLICAL COUNSELING
MOVEMENT MAKES A STRONG DISTINCTION BETWEEN WHAT IS CALLED COUNSELORS AND COUNSELEES, CREATING A SORT OF HAVE AND HAVE NOT ENVIRONMENT THAT SMACKS OF PROFESSIONALISM. ACTUALLY, THE BIBLE MAKES THAT DISTINCTION BUT IT’S NOT PROFESSIONALISM. IT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE WHO DILIGENTLY STUDY THE SCRIPTURES AND APPLY THEM TO THERE OWN LIFE AND HAVE EXPERIENCE HELPING OTHERS TO DO THE SAME. THE BIBLE CALLS THEM “MATURE” [HEB 5:14], AND “SPIRITUAL” [GAL 6:1] AND PEOPLE OF “FAITH AND LOVE” [PHILEMON 4-6].
HERE IS ANOTHER THOUGHT: WHEN YOUR A NEW CHRISTIAN, YOUR PURELY A COUNSELEE FOR THE MOST PART. AS YOU GROW, YOU LEARN HOW TO COUNSEL YOURSELF AND OTHERS AND BECOME MORE OF A COUNSELOR AND LESS OF A COUNSELEE. ONCE YOU START TO GROW AND MATURE, THERE IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE SOMEBODY WHO KNOWS LESS THAN YOU DO. THEY ARE CANDIDATES TO BE HELPED BY YOU.
BUT IT SHOULD BE OUR GOAL TO BEAR OUR OWN BURDENS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE SO WE ARE FREE TO HELP OTHERS THAT MUCH MORE. WELL THEN, YOU ASK, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN MOST OF YOUR PEOPLE ARE MATURE AND COUNSELEES GET SCARCE. YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENS THEN? THE WALLS OF THE CHURCH CAN’T CONTAIN IT. THE PEOPLE GOTTA COUNSEL SOMEWHERE EVEN IF IT’S THE PRE-COUNSELING OF EVANGELISM. YOUR PEOPLE MOVE OUT AND BECOME AN AWESOME LIGHT IN THEIR COMMUNITY FOR THE GLORY OF GOD!
I THINK AS THE PEOPLE DILIGENTLY APPLY THE WORD OF GOD TO THEIR OWN LIVES AND HELP OTHERS TO DO THE SAME, THEY BEGIN TO SEE GOD’S TRANSFORMING POWER AND CANNOT RESTRAIN THEMSELVES FROM SHARING IT WITH OTHERS.
OUR FINAL POINT TONIGHT IS ARGUMENTS FOR A COUNSELING SYSTEM.
1. BECAUSE GOD HIMSELF IS A GOD OF SYSTEMS AND METHODS. THIS IS CLEAR FROM CREATION. THE SOLAR SYSTEM. THE NATURAL SYSTEM OF HYDROLOGY ECT. GOD USED METHODS AND SYSTEMS TO WRITE HIS WORD. WHEN GOD COUNSELED ADAM AND EVE AFTER THE FALL, HE BEGAN WITH ADAM FIRST. THEN EVE. THEN THE SERPENT. AFTER HEARING THEIR EXPLANATIONS, HE DEALT WITH THEM IN THE SAME ORDER CONCERNING THE CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT THEY HAD DONE. GOD ALWAYS USES SYSTEMS AND METHODS.
2. IF WE SEE A NEED FOR SYSTEMATIZED THEOLOGY, SYSTEMATIC BIBLE STUDY AND A CHRISTIAN SCHOOL SYSTEM, WHY WOULD WE NOT WANT A SYSTEM FOR TARGETED DISCIPLESHIP? THAT’S REALLY WHAT COUNSELING IS, TARGETED DISCIPLESHIP. THOSE WHO APPOSE A SYSTEM OF COUNSELING WOULD NOT DENY THE NEED FOR SYSTEMS IN THESE OTHER AREAS.
3. IF THE ISSUES AND PURPOSES OF MAN ARE DEEP AND COMPLICATED AS PROVERBS 20:5 SAYS, THEN WE NEED A SYSTEM TO HELP US IN OUR UNDERSTANDING JUST AS SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY HELPS US UNDERSTAND THEOLOGY.
4. HISTORY TEACHES US THAT THE CHURCH TENDS TO LOOSE WHAT IT DOES NOT PUT INTO A SYSTEM. FUTURE GENERATIONS SHOULD ALWAYS CONTINUE TO BUILD UPON WHAT HAS BEEN LEARNED IN THE PAST AND IMPROVE IT’S EFFECTIVENESS. SYSTEMS AND METHODS GIVE US A WAY TO CAN WHAT. WE HAVE LEARNED AND PASS IT ON TO THE NEXT GENERATION.
5. SYSTEMS AND METHODS ARE CRITICAL TO HOLDING COUNSELORS ACCOUNTABLE AND CONSISTENT.
6. IT OBVIOUSLY TAKES TRAINING TO BE PREPARED TO COUNSEL PEOPLE WITH SERIOUS PROBLEMS. SYSTEMS AND METHODS ARE ESSENTIAL TO GOOD TRAINING.
TODAY’S CHURCH NEEDS A NEW SELF-IMAGE. WE NEED TO SEE OURSELVES AS AN INTIMATE FAMILY HELPING EACH OTHER DOWN THE ROAD OF SANCTIFICATION TOWARD THE PERFECT DAY. WE NEED TO SEE THE TRIP TOGETHER DOWN THAT ROAD AS A STRUGGLE AGAINST THE FLESH THAT WILL REQUIRE US TO BE SOLDIERS AND OLYMPIANS. ANY LESSER VIEW OF THE SIN THAT IS IN US IS TO GREATLY UNDER-ESTIMATE THE ENEMY.
WE MUST ESTEEM OTHERS BETTER THAN OURSELVES, ADMONISH EACH OTHER, EXHORT EACH OTHER, TEACH EACH OTHER, CORRECT EACH OTHER, TRAIN EACH OTHER, ENCOURAGE EACH OTHER, WARN EACH OTHER, PROTECT EACH OTHER, GREET EACH OTHER, BE KIND TO EACHO1HER, SUBMIT TO EACH OTHER, PRAY FOR EACH OTHER AND KNOW EACH OTHER.
THERE IS NO TIME FOR GOSSIP SLANDER, COMPETITION AND A HOST OF OTHER THINGS THAT DO NOT EDIFY AND STRENGHTEN THE FAMILY.
THE CHURCH NEEDS TEACHING AND PREACHING THAT CAN IDENTIFY THE REAL ISSUES OF LIFE, THE TOOLS NEEDED TO DEAL WITH THEM AND HOW TO USE THOSE TOOLS. THEY MUST BE MEN WHO ARE IN THE PROCESS OF KNOWING GOD’S WORD, KNOWING GOD’S WORLD AND KNOWING GOD’S PEOPLE THROUGH DILIGENT INTERACTION. THESE MEN WILL BE KNOWN BY THE AMOUNT OF PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF THEOLOGY TO LIFE THAT ACCOMPANIES THEIR MESSAGES.
IF WE ARE TO BE A HEALING COMMUNITY THAI GLORIFIES GOD, COUNSELING FROM THE SCRIPTURES MUST BE RETURNED TO IT’S LOFTY POSITION IN THE CHURCH FOR IT PLAYS A MAJOR ROLE IN SANCTIFICATION AND DISCIPLESHIP
Will The Poo Pooing Of Scripture’s Plain Sense Ever Cease?
I stumbled onto a pretty good post today. It was a commentary on the Bob Newhart skit where his counsel to a young lady is to “JUST STOP IT!” The YouTube link is the following: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYLMTvxOaeE
I think Tim Challies had a good scriptural observation in regard to the skit:
“Some time ago I spoke to a friend about an ongoing sin in his life and tried to show him that the essence of his problem was this: he hates his sin just a little bit less than he loves it. Sure he wants to stop sinning, but even more he wants to keep sinning. And I think he came to agree. My advice was pretty well what Newhart offered the woman in this video: “Stop it!” Are you fighting sin? I’ll pray for you—really, I will. And I’ll recommend that you memorize some Scriptures, some fighter verses, that will help you battle that sin by bringing to mind the promises of God. But I’ll also challenge you to just stop it and to stop it now. You stop sinning by turning your back on it. You do not sit back and wait for God to change you while you remain in your sin. Rather, you join him in the fight, joining your will with His strength. And together you go to war.”
The post can be viewed in it’s entirety here: http://www.challies.com/archives/articles/just-stop-it.php
Let me emphasis a segment of the above quote: “You stop sinning by turning your back on it. You do not sit back and wait for God to change you while you remain in your sin. Rather, you join him in the fight, joining your will with His strength. And together you go to war.”
Truly, the sanctification process is somewhat of a mystery with it’s share of paradoxes. However, there is plenty of certainty to go around and one thing we can be certain of is sanctification is impossible without God’s power in us. With that said, neither are we merely potted plants in the process either. As a matter of fact, I find the word’s of Christ spoken to the servant who hid his talent in the ground a bit chilling, if not terrifying. Christ straight up called the servant “lazy.” That’s why I like the above quote by TC. I think it captures the biblical application to real life as stated in Scripture.
But in this day when proponents of a purely monergistic view of sanctification are launching a full court press and claiming to be new reformers, someone was bound to object in the comment section armed with the profound wisdom of the father of modern day “let go and let God” theology, David Powlison. In the comment, a link is supplied to an interview where Powlison comments on the Newhart skit and objects to the idea of biblical abstinence. Here is his comment: “Our Father never simply says ‘Stop it!’ to the Katherine Bigmans or anyone else.”
This is what drives me absolutely nuts in regard to these guy’s at CCEF. They continually contradict the plain sense of scripture and continually get a pass on it. Tim Challies is making the point that abstinence is a viable faucet in the scheme of sanctification that is often looked over in our overly analytic, book infested, counseling infested culture. If you understand Powlisons theology, he can’t give into this one little fact without pulling the rug out from under his overly passive psychoanalytic approach to sanctification. Our Father “never” tells anybody to simply stop it? Consider the following scriptures:
“Later Jesus found him at the temple and said to him, ‘See, you are well again. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you'” (John 5:14).
By the way, suggest to many these day’s that God would threaten punishment as an incentive to right behavior and watch the blood vessels start popping out in their necks. It’s as if these guy’s don’t think Christians even read their Bibles anymore, and perhaps that is the case.
“You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell” (Acts 15:29).
“As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality” (Acts 21:25).
Let me make a point here with this verse:
“Dear friends, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul” (1Peter 2:11).
Why is “Just stop it” an important element of sanctification? It’s not rocket science. Look at the above verse. Sinful desires war against our soul. If we abstain, the desire cannot even get on the battlefield. That should be pretty evident. However, let’s stop a moment and consider another excerpt from TC’s post:
“Some time ago I spoke to a friend about an ongoing sin in his life and tried to show him that the essence of his problem was this: he hates his sin just a little bit less than he loves it. Sure he wants to stop sinning, but even more he wants to keep sinning. And I think he came to agree. “
Let me show you how profound that counsel is from Romans 12:9;
“Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.”
What would one do to stop loving his wife? IGNORE HER, then focus on all of her negative attributes. Sin has no positive attributes except temporary good feelings. One aspect of our role in sanctification is to abstain from sinful relationships and cling to Godly relationships and the affections (sincere love) will follow. It’s a matter of investment. It’s a matter of choosing what are treasure is. Is it my contention that Paul teaches the biblical prescription for sincere love in this one little verse with 13 words? Yes it is. Do I also believe that it takes the power of the Holy Spirit to effect the prescription? Yes I do.
Again, let me emphasis that this is only one aspect of what sanctification looks like on ground level. In another one of the comments in regard to this post, the following was said:
“That video IS awesome. It always reminds me of two things:
A. Al Mohler’s three step “counseling technique” that he (jokingly) talked about at Shepherd’s Conference 2006:
1. What is your problem?
2. What would God have you do about it?
3. Why are we having this conversation?”
Al Mohler makes an extreme comment to make a good point, but we all know what the real answer is to question 3: Another aspect of sanctification is the need for encouragement, accountability and discipleship by others. CCEF waxes eloquent about many other elements of sanctification while leaving out the one that the Bible talks about most, obedience. The argument that obedience is a human sucking it up while picking ourselves up by our boot straps is a pathetic straw man. Biblical obedience is depriving the enemy of our souls in regard to provisions while loving our Lord (Romans 13:14 John 14:15).
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
1 comment