I. An Attempt at Theological Engagement
J.V. Fesko of Reformed Theological Seminary has written Theological Foundations for Counseling. In the book, he says he believes, “Christian counselors should always counsel from a foundation of Scripture.”1 He is clear that he wants to ground the practice of counseling in something he believes has been lacking in the counseling conversations, namely, in his understanding of “historic Reformed theology.”2 He offers readers the qualification that his book is “Not primarily about counseling but about the foundations for counseling.”3
Those in the biblical counseling movement certainly share in Fesko’s desires. As people of the book, biblical counselors have called those in the field of counseling to cherish faithful theology. Those same members of that movement are happy to learn from our forefathers in church history. So, Fesko’s desires will resonate with biblical counselors.
II. Positive Accomplishments
As Fesko seeks to share his understanding of the theological foundations of counseling ministry, he does a number of things well. First, Fesko goes to great lengths to explain the sinful self-centeredness of our secular age.4 This is doubtless true and is not at risk of receiving too much attention from believers. Second, he sees clearly the monergistic elements of soteriology. He repeatedly makes clear that it is God who changes the human heart, who brings sinners to himself, and who is the sole source of ultimate change. This is true, and his clarity is a blessing. Finally, Fesko clearly sees the counseling implications of his covenantal model. I find this to be a qualified blessing because, as a Baptist, I do not share his commitment to Covenant Theology and so believe there is a better way to understand the unity of Scripture. Still, Fesko is certainly correct that God deals with people covenantally. I think the implications of his position are helpful for biblical counseling.5 Unbelievers do not have the Holy Spirit and cannot change in a way that honors God. Believers do and can.
III. Significant Problems
In spite of these blessings, Fesko’s work is littered with much trouble throughout the book. Even though I am not familiar with Fesko’s ministry, I came to his work with a sense of anticipation, knowing him to be a scholar, and eager to discover his contributions to a field that interests me. As I read the book, I quickly became alarmed by the vast number of problems that plague his work. A response to all of the problems in Fesko’s work would take a much longer document than the one I have time to write. In the interest of advancing the conversation and correcting crucial errors, I will identify seven very serious problems with Fesko’s work.
1. Fesko Treats Movement Labels in Confusing and Unhelpful Ways
Every discipline has jargon and labels they use to communicate effectively. In most disciplines this language is imperfect and a source of frustration to those who use them requiring careful explanation for how terms are used. It is also true that in most disciplines these categories and labels are as necessary as they are frustrating. Such terms form the channels we use to frame issues in ways that advance understanding.
From the very first pages of his book, Fesko seeks to tinker with labels used for decades in the movement he seeks to address. He says, “I suspect most will want to categorize this work as integrationist, rather than biblical, counseling. But I object to this classification on two grounds. First, the positions laid out in this book are decidedly biblical. I understand that people may disagree with my biblical reasoning, but I strive to be biblical in all my claims. Second, I object to the integrationist label because I am not seeking to integrate two things that do not otherwise belong together. Rather, God has written both the books of creation and Scripture . . .”6
Fesko’s aims in such a statement are obvious. In a debate where Scripture is king, he does not wish to concede the “biblical” label since he believes his position is the most faithful to Scripture. Nevertheless, Fesko’s approach is confusing and unhelpful for several reasons.
Response 1. The labels “biblical” and “integrationist” have been in use for something like a half century now. Surely it is not only confusing but also discourteous to seek to reformulate this language in one’s very first book speaking into a very old debate. With his emphasis on church history, Fesko, of all people, should be sensitive to historic uses of terms in theological and ministry discussions. In fact, we know he is sensitive to this since he chides John Frame and me for using theological language that, in his judgment, is not historical.7 So, in his use of movement labels, it would be more helpful if Fesko would avoid any attempt to redraw established lines and, instead, do unto others as he would have them do unto him (Matthew 7:12).
Response 2. Fesko also misunderstands what the “biblical” and “integration” labels convey. Fesko’s position is a classic integrationist position, but he dislikes the label because he thinks his position is biblical. But the labels in the biblical counseling debates are not meant to identify who has the position that is biblical and who has the position that is unbiblical. Both believe their positions are biblical. The labels communicate how the different positions seek to be biblical. Biblical counselors seek to be biblical by avoiding the use of the resources of secular psychology in their counseling ministry. Integrationist counselors seek to be biblical by integrating the resource of Scripture together with the resources of psychology.
One reason that Fesko does not like the integrationist label is because, he argues, he is not seeking to integrate two things that do not otherwise belong together.8 But integrationists do not believe they are integrating things that naturally do not go together. The whole point of the integration project is to demonstrate that the resources of Scripture and psychology do belong together in the discipline of counseling.
Fesko says, “If people want to place this book in a category, I believe it is mere classic, Reformed, confessional theology.”9 This statement is unhelpful, unserious, and unclear. It is a mere rhetorical flourish that is no substitute for substantive engagement with important issues. Half of ACBC practice the kind of counseling that Fesko condemns but would characterize themselves as committed to “classic, Reformed, confessional theology.” Conversely, many integrationists would characterize themselves in the exact same way. The debate in the counseling world is not over who is confessional, but over how we use Scripture and outside resources in counseling. These are the issues. We should focus on them and avoid language games.
2. Fesko Has a Deficient Understanding of General Revelation
One of the hallmarks of Fesko’s book is his repeated confusion regarding the doctrine of general revelation. This confusion manifests in three categories of statements about general revelation that Fesko makes throughout his book.
The first category of statements are the ones affirming that general revelation is knowledge about God disclosed in the created order. Some of Fesko’s statements in this regard come in his own words, including his definition that “The general gift of knowledge of God to all people in and through the created order.”10 Other statements in this category regard Fesko’s references to historic confessions of faith like the Westminster Confession and the Belgic Confession, which affirm general revelation communicates knowledge of God.11 He correctly summarizes these documents, saying, “God reveals knowledge about himself in the creation.”12
The second category of statements are quite different from the first category. Statements in this category claim that general revelation is knowledge about God as well as information about general facts in the created order.13
The final category of statements are ones where Fesko critiques those who claim that general revelation is information about God and not general information in the created order.14
Response 1. Clearly there is a serious disagreement between Fesko and those he critiques. Either the content of general revelation is information the created order reveals about God, or general revelation is information the created order reveals about God as well as other general kinds of information. In this debate, one side is correct, and another side is incorrect.
The spectrum of approaches in the world of Christian counseling have experienced broad agreement on this matter over the years. Of course, there is a consensus among biblical counselors that general revelation concerns information about God and is not the theological justification for the truthfulness of information out there in the world. But even contemporary integrationists have abandoned the effort to ground their work in general revelation, believing that effort to be theologically incorrect.15
Response 2. If Fesko is correct in his position that general revelation reveals more than information about God himself, he bears the burden of proof to establish this from Scripture. He never does this. When he references the classic passages on the doctrine of general revelation (e.g., Psalm 19, Romans 1), he does not demonstrate that those passages teach anything other than what biblical counselors say they mean.
Response 3. If Fesko is correct, then, in order to accomplish his project, he must show how his position is validated by the faithful creeds and confessions of the church. Fesko also never does this. In other words, Fesko asks his readers to believe a novel definition of general revelation without evidence from Scripture or church history. I’m afraid that those who desire to be faithful in counseling will need to do more than take Fesko’s word for it.
Response 4. What Fesko has actually done is conflate general revelation with common grace. These two terms are not synonymous. General revelation is divine self-disclosure in the created order. As revelation, it is fully authoritative. Common grace is God’s good gift to his creation where he lavishes them with good gifts regardless of their possession of saving grace. These two doctrines are related, but distinct. Conflating and confusing them as Fesko does leads to many problems, only some of which I will discuss below.
Response 5. Fesko’s treatment of general revelation actually undermines the doctrine. Given that Fesko takes biblical counselors to task for their alleged misunderstandings of the doctrine, this reality is as ironic as it is true. The issue that causes the trouble is when Fesko says, “We can use general revelation in counseling so long as we filter what we find through Scripture, reading the book of nature with the corrective lenses of Scripture.”16 Later, he says, “General revelation does not function independently from Scripture; it is always under Scripture’s authority.”17 Fesko must make statements like this because he expands the content of general revelation outside of its biblical and historic bounds, filling it with general information as well as truth about God. The addition of extra information, together with his conflation of general revelation with common grace, requires Fesko to account for all the errors that exist in the information reported out there in the world.
Fesko’s efforts create a problem far larger than the one he sought to fix. In biblical terms, neither general nor special revelation is superior to the other. They each are divine revelation and so come with equal authority. The difference between them is not the weight of their authority, but their content. When Fesko places general revelation underneath special revelation, he devalues the revelation of God in the world and makes himself guilty of the error he diagnoses in biblical counselors.
3. Fesko Has a Deficient Understanding of Common Grace
A key issue in contemporary biblical counseling debates is common grace. That makes Fesko’s treatment of this doctrine crucial. Fesko gets off on the right foot. He identifies common grace as God’s “General favor to the whole creation.”18 He rightly distinguishes it from saving grace, making clear that common grace is “non-saving,” and that it “ensures that the world can function reasonably well despite the presence of sin.”19 He also rightly affirms that “All good in creation, whether inanimate or animate, comes from the triune God.”20 Fesko points out that because of sin, Christians still must, “Filter all gathered information through Scripture.”21 Regarding these matters most Christians in the world of counseling should be able to reach agreement.
Where there is strenuous disagreement regards whether it is appropriate for Christians to use the insights of common grace as part of the content of counseling. Fesko critiques the biblical counseling movement for acknowledging the existence of common grace, but failing to use its insights in actual counseling practice.22 He responds to biblical counselors by stating repeatedly, “By common grace, God preserves the creation and gives people—both believers and nonbelievers—the ability to know truth. Thus, counselors can make use of common-grace insights in their counseling.”23
Response 1. That last statement that Fesko uses repeatedly throughout his book is framed in the form of a premise and conclusion. Fesko’s premise is that, “By common grace, God preserves the creation and gives people—both believers and non believers—the ability to know truth.” His conclusion is, “Thus, counselors can make use of common-grace insights in counseling in their counseling.” The problem is that Fesko’s conclusion does not logically follow from his premise. Fesko labels this statement as his thesis.24 This statement, so important to Fesko’s work, is a non sequitur, and, therefore, a logical fallacy.
Response 2. In order to clean up the problem, Fesko would need to take the noetic effects of sin much more seriously than he does. Fesko often mentions but never really reckons with the dramatic impact of sin on the thinking of unbelievers. This is interesting because he addresses the impact of sin in his early chapter on “Our Present Context” but then routinely forgets about it when insisting that we must use the findings developed in this present context in counseling ministry. Fesko rebukes biblical counselors for refusing to use these insights but never praises them for their discernment in filtering sinful and worldly content from their ministry. He cites examples of secular thinkers saying things that are obviously helpful.25 But I do not recall his citation of many possible examples of secularists saying things that are obviously harmful. Unfortunately, Fesko does not demonstrate to Christians that he understands the dangers of our present sinful context when it comes to counseling ministry.
Response 3. In order to clean up his logical problem with his thesis on common grace, Fesko would also need to provide guidance for which secular findings are characterized by common grace and which ones are not. Fesko repeatedly makes clear that these findings need to be filtered. But he leaves Christians clueless as to how this filtering works. Before we can follow Fesko’s admonitions to use common grace insights, we need some guidance about how to separate the common grace wheat from the sinful chaff in a world that is a mixture of correct and incorrect information.
Response 4. Even if Fesko could show that he appreciates the noetic effects of sin, and if he could demonstrate how we discern which pieces of unbelieving information are characterized by common grace and which ones are characterized by the noetic effects of sin, his conclusion would still not follow from his premise. This is true because of a problem regarding Fesko’s analysis of Scripture. In order to clean up his non sequitur, Fesko would need to demonstrate that God does not intend his resources in Scripture to be the sufficient resource for counseling. Fesko repeatedly claims that God’s resources in Scripture are not sufficient for counseling. But his case is always based on assumption and never proof from Scripture.
4. Fesko Has a Deficient Understanding of the Sufficiency of Scripture
The doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture for counseling is the soul of the biblical counseling movement, they eye of the tornado in contemporary debates about biblical counseling, and crucial in Fesko’s argument.
Fesko takes strong exception to the biblical counseling movement believing that, “The sufficiency of Scripture does not mean that counselors should use only Scripture in counseling.”26 He objects to the biblical counseling approach to Scripture because he adopts a salvific-doctrinal view of the Bible’s sufficiency.27 He also believes the biblical counseling explanation of sufficiency is not historical and thinks, “We need to revisit historic explanations of the doctrine of sufficiency so that we will have a proper understanding of it as we deploy it in counseling.”28
In particular, he accuses biblical counselors of biblicism. For Fesko, this is a pejorative term that he uses to indicate that biblical counselors conceive of the Bible as our only source of information. Fesko accuses me of biblicism for saying, “We have more than enough scriptural resources to assist any troubled person whom the Lord would send our way.”29 He accuses David Powlison of biblicism for affirming that biblical counselors have the resources in Scripture to create a “systematic biblical counseling.”30
Response 1. The conversation about biblical counseling and history is complicated. I will start by denying that the biblical counseling position is out of step with the historic creeds of faithful Christianity. In fact, though you would not know it when reading Fesko’s engagement with me, I used The Second Helvetic Confession and the Westminster Confession of Faith to help establish the biblical counseling understanding of sufficiency.31 There is a clear misunderstanding between Fesko and the biblical counseling movement which I will seek to explain below, but he never demonstrates the biblical counseling movement is out of step with historic Christianity.
Having said that, I also grant that the biblical counseling movement, in confronting the new threat of secular psychology, has had to marshal fresh arguments about biblical sufficiency. In my view, these arguments have avoided rote repetition of the Church’s historic beliefs on the one hand and reckless theological novelty on the other hand.32
A final word about Fesko’s critique of biblical counseling along the lines of church history. Fesko’s criticisms of biblical counseling are exclusively along the lines of dogmatic or systematic theology. That is to say that he is engaging formal and official statements of the church about doctrines like the sufficiency of Scripture. Fesko never engages the history of the church regarding pastoral and practical theology. If he did, he would discover that the practice of the ancient church was much closer to biblical counseling than the approach he commends. Our fathers in the faith were prolific in the development of resources on pastoral care. They did not use the resources of secular therapy because those resources did not exist. They believed it was their job to mine the resources of Scripture to help hurting people. The vast library of resources they created demonstrates they did not have trouble finding sufficient help from God’s Word.33 (And my view of sufficiency does not preclude me from reading those books and learning from them!)
Response 2. The charge of biblicism is an old one that has often been leveled at biblical counselors. Fesko levels the charge at Powlison, who introduced me to the term while sharing his frustration at being accused of it. Now that charge is leveled at me. But, unlike my mentor, I do not mind the term. The fact that I am not upset by the label does not mean it is correct. I have made my positions on these matters clear in print and in countless other places for over two decades. I am happy to repeat here that I deny that the Bible is the only source of information for people. I deny that there is no use for extrabiblical information. I insist that living life and doing ministry is utterly impossible without consuming fleets of extrabiblical information. I deny that it is possible to live life without common grace, even though I also deny that this common grace should be used to fashion the methods we use to help people change in counseling.
Fesko’s bibliography indicates a fairly light engagement with those he critiques so strongly. But even the few books he lists make clear that he had access to the strongest biblical counseling arguments and should know better. That is Fesko’s problem. As for me, I do not mind that he will not give me credit for what I believe. His reduction of my careful position down to the simplistic epithet of biblicistic is one I consider a compliment. I have spent my entire adult life praying and working to be one who is known as a man of the Word. Even though Fesko doesn’t use the label for praise, I am happy to receive it as a compliment and leave the matter with Jesus Christ.
Response 3. Fesko’s chapter on sufficiency includes surveys of a few church confessions and several mischaracterizations of his brothers in Christ who hold different positions than he does. But his treatment misses one important reality. Fesko does not engage in an investigation of Scripture. He does not pay attention to any passage of Scripture to see what God claims for himself about the discipline of counseling. He does not pay attention to the treatment of biblical counselors on how the teaching of Scripture is directly relevant for the counseling task. This is one of the worst and most regretful realities of Fesko’s work.
5. Fesko Has a Deficient Understanding of Soteriology
Earlier, I described the view of biblical sufficiency that Fesko adopts as salvific-doctrinal. This is the view of sufficiency articulated by Eric Johnson.34 According to this view of sufficiency, the Scriptures are sufficient for issues of salvation and doctrine.
It is repeatedly clear that this is Fesko’s view of sufficiency: “The Scriptures contain everything necessary for a person to be saved—they are sufficient for this purpose.”35 “Scripture is unquestionably sufficient for the salvation of sinners.”36 “The doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture teaches that the Bible is sufficient for believing in God and for teaching Christians what their duties are to him.”37 “In short, Scripture is sufficient for communicating salvation in Christ.”38 He seeks to “Draw the scope of Scripture’s sufficiency around things necessary to believe about God and the duties of the Christian life.”39 “Scripture is a rule for the end to which it was given—salvation.”40 “The doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture maintains that the Bible is wholly sufficient for salvation and for teaching the duties that God requires of people.”41
Response 1. Such statements are far too narrow and limit the doctrine of Scripture’s sufficiency far beyond anything we find in the Word of God. I do not think this because I am a biblical counselor, but because I am a Christian. As I observed in my book on A Theology of Biblical Counseling, The Second Helvetic Confession does not limit Scripture to the salvific-doctrinal variety, but says the Bible, “Teaches fully all godliness . . . wisdom . . . duties of piety.” The Westminster Confession states expansively that the Bible contains, “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life . . .”42 A more contemporary statement, The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy says Scripture, “Is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches.”43 These words mean that Christians have a responsibility to pay attention to Scripture, allowing it full authority over every matter of our life that it addresses. It is wrong to limit Scripture’s content before we have completed an examination of that content.
Response 2. At the end of the day, however, this debate is not about what confessions and creeds say, but about what the Bible teaches. There is a sense in which the content of Scripture is, as Fesko says, for “the salvation of sinners,” “for believing in God and for teaching Christians what their duties are to him,” “for communicating salvation in Christ,” and the other things Fesko says in this regard. But the issue is whether this category of salvation is understood to be narrow or expansive in the text of Scripture. When you read the New Testament and discover how the salvation that Jesus offers is intended to transform our sexual lives, our financial priorities, our business dealings, how we structure our marriages, what we say in conflict, whether we are anxious or not, how we approach alcohol, prayer, forgiveness, and countless other realities. The burden of proof is on those who want to find an area of life not touched by the doctrine of salvation and not addressed in the pages of God’s Word. The Bible teaches us to avoid thinking of salvation as a small category and encourages us rather to see it as how we live all of our lives by faith in Jesus for his glory.
Response 3. These observations require me to go back to the beginning of this document when I praised Fesko for his teaching on the monergistic elements of salvation. But that strength points to another weakness. His strength on the doctrine of salvation as it relates to the monergistic beginnings of the Christian life is balanced by a terrible weakness on the synergistic continuation of the Christian life. Fesko is crystal clear on what the Bible teaches regarding how God begins new life for the Christian. Conversely, he demonstrates little grasp of all the Bible says about how God intends Christians to live life walking with the Lord and pursuing sanctification. That omission would be unfortunate in any context. In a book purporting to provide the theological foundations for counseling, it is inexcusable.
6. Fesko Has a Deficient Understanding of the Practice of Counseling
There are plenty of books out there that address theology in general terms. Fesko did not attempt to write such a general book. His intention was to write about theology in a way that provides the foundation for the discipline of counseling. Accomplishing his task requires him to have a thorough understanding of the nature of counseling. Fesko provides something like a definition of counseling when he says, “Christian counseling—namely, seeking to advise, direct, and point people to truth and ultimately to Christ so that their lives come into greater conformity to him.”44
What is odd about these expressions is that they sound like something the biblical counselors Fesko criticizes would say. How does Fesko begin with a definition of counseling that biblical counselors could embrace only to turn and advocate for an approach to counseling at the opposite end of the continuum from them? There are many potential answers to this, but the one I will address here is that Fesko does not seem to understand the issues on the table in the actual practice of counseling.
Response 1. Fesko demonstrates his misunderstanding of the practice of counseling with repeated category mistakes. Fesko correctly represents the concern of biblical counseling in integrating secular psychology, saying, “Any version of counseling that rests on the insights of secular psychology compromises the integrity of Christian counseling.”45 He uses this statement to critique biblical counseling, saying, “Advocates of a Bible-only approach fail to apply this same logic to other vocations.”46 He then goes on to suggest that, though all Christians have a responsibility to tell others about Jesus, it does not mean that medical doctors, car salesmen, and plumbers fail when they do their work without telling others about Christ.
He asks two questions about this reality. The first question is whether people in these different vocations look outside of Scripture to carry out their work?47 The answer to that question is “Of course!” I cannot imagine anyone saying anything else. We could say more strongly that these professions are required to look outside their professions to do their work. A medical doctor, to use one of Fesko’s examples, would find it impossible to set a broken bone based solely on the instructions of Scripture.
That is the answer to the first question. Fesko poses another.
He wonders why people place unique requirements on the vocation of counseling?48 To begin a response, we need to be clear that every job has requirements that differ from other ones, whether medicine, sales, or plumbing. Biblical counselors place unique requirements onto counseling because counseling possesses different requirements. Fesko ought to know this since his own definition puts counseling in a different category than, say, car sales. His own definition delineating the bounds of counseling makes it unfair for him to criticize biblical counselors for treating counseling like the specialized discipline it is with unique requirements. For half a century, biblical counselors have argued that, unlike medicine, sales, plumbing, and most other disciplines, the discipline of counseling is all about the categories of love, fear, trust, honor of God, obedience, etc., which saturate Scripture. If biblical counselors are wrong in this assertion, they will not be rescued from their error by Fesko, who never responds to their arguments or even demonstrates he understands they exist.
Fesko appeals to Christians to treat counseling like they would any other discipline. He intends this to be a powerful argument against the inconsistency of biblical counselors. What it actually does is make Fesko obviously guilty of a very straightforward category error. This error is an example of Fesko’s misunderstanding of the discipline of counseling.
Response 2. Another example of Fesko’s misunderstanding of the discipline of counseling is the way he emphasizes the difference between ultimate and proximate goals for counseling.49 He makes clear that the ultimate goal of counseling is conformity to Christ, and this can only be attained through our union with Christ.50 He also insists that, “Christian counselors can help people with their proximate aims, such as dealing with fear or anxiety, overcoming anger, or helping a married couple that is continually fighting.”51
What Fesko refers to as proximate problems, those goals that counselors “can” accomplish, actually constitutes the content of counseling from beginning to end. It is the sum of the work that counselors do. As biblical counselors do that work, they employ the grace of God, the Word of God, and the Spirit of God as their tools to address those problems. But Fesko makes it sound like his proximate goals are somehow separate from more spiritual things like praying and looking “For opportunities to share the gospel of Christ and thus seek the ultimate goal of pointing people to Jesus.”52 For counselors who know what they are doing, ultimate goals of conformity to Christ always trace back to proximate goals of life lived. Those proximate goals of the practical details of life always stretch out to ultimate goals. The Apostle Paul knew this, which is why he said, “Whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all for the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31). When Fesko makes it sound like such inseparable realities can be ripped apart, he comes off as someone without much experience, or, perhaps, as someone with a great deal of the wrong kind of experience.
Response 3. Fesko does not sound like someone who understands the crucial connection in counseling between goals and methods. The methods one uses in counseling are inextricably linked to the goals you believe you are pursuing. To say it another way, a counselor will never be able to achieve his counseling goals with methods that do not press toward that goal. Fesko argues correctly that our goal in counseling must be conformity to Christ. In order to achieve the goal of conformity to Christ, counselors must use methods that work toward that goal. Fesko knows that secular resources will not help Christians work toward the goal of conformity to Christ, because of the practical strengths of his covenant model that I highlighted earlier. It is odd that Fesko, who believes the goal of counseling is conformity to Christ, would then write a book that argues so strenuously that Christians should employ methods in this work that have no hope of achieving his goal. One possible explanation for the breakdown is Fesko’s misunderstanding of the relationship between goals and methods, which grows from his misunderstanding of the discipline of counseling.
Response 4. Fesko speaks like Christians have biblical permission to select our methods and goals at will. We do not. Of course, lost people try to get people to calm down from their anxiety, cool off from their anger, and perk up from the depression using many different approaches that have nothing to do with Jesus. But God addresses our problems, always connects the details of life and the specifics of change to our new life in Christ. The Bible does not give practical imperatives apart from theological indicatives. Any suggestion that a Christian can separate their practical advice from their theological commitments fails to understand the most basic instruction in the New Testament.
All of this demonstrates Fesko is out of his depth when he seeks to instruct Christians about counseling. During my years as a counseling professor in a theological seminary, I grew to expect such simplistic misunderstandings of the discipline of counseling from new students. To read the same misunderstandings from a published author seeking to instruct Christians is stunning.
7. Fesko Repeatedly Misrepresents those with whom he Disagrees
It is a rule in scholarship that you should not seek to understand someone’s position by only listening to the opponents of that position. The reason they made that rule is to avoid works like the one Fesko has produced. When you read Theological Foundations for Counseling, you will be crystal clear about Fesko’s biases and prejudices. You will not have similar clarity about the position of biblical counseling, which he repeatedly caricatures and misrepresents. This is too bad.
As teachers of the truth, we should be committed to telling the truth about others even when we disagree with them. Such a commitment is good for our opponents and is good for us. When we tell the truth about an opposing position, it helps our readers trust us as reliable instructors. Also, when we tell the truth about an opposing position, it helps those with whom we disagree to see their position as it really is and have an opportunity to change. Such commitment to the truth is the only way for the church to really grow in its understanding.
But this is not the kind of book Fesko gives us. I have been involved in the biblical counseling movement for my entire adult life. I have known personally every person that Fesko critiques. My work was the primary source of his critique. Despite my close personal knowledge of these realities, throughout the book I kept wondering who in the world he was talking about. In a book full of serious weaknesses, this is one of the worst. In all candor, the misrepresentations are so bad that Fesko’s book is one example after another of violations of the ninth commandment.
Let me briefly list a few of Fesko’s many, many misrepresentations of his opponents.
Example 1. Fesko accuses his opponents of “Ignoring general revelation” and casting “an unintended but nevertheless real shadow on God’s truth in creation.”53 But no one in the debate is guilty of ignoring general revelation but of using it differently than Fesko. Instead of casting aspersions, he should work to explain that his view of general revelation is the correct one.
Example 2. Fesko claims that the approach to counseling founded by Jay Adams is, “A method that argues that all counseling problems lie in unconfessed sin.”54 This statement is utterly inaccurate. It would be true to say that Adams’s model emphasized sin, that he believed unconfessed sin was one source of counseling problems, and that a model of suffering, while present in his system, did not receive as much attention as some other elements. But to describe the Adams model as a method that understands all counseling problems as connected to unconfessed sin is a culpable and inexcusable misrepresentation.
Example 3. Fesko comments on the statement of general revelation in the Standards of Doctrine of the Association of Certified Biblical Counselors and says, “The ACBC statement fails to see much, if any positive role for general revelation, especially as it relates to counseling.”55 This is an inaccurate portrayal. The position of ACBC is to find as much good in general revelation as the Bible allows. They share this in common with many historic confessions of faith. But because the approach of ACBC does not agree with Fesko’s undefended view that general revelation justifies the counseling interventions of secular people, he dismisses all they do believe.
Example 4. Fesko claims that I “pit common grace against special grace.”56 He accuses me of this with his quotation of me that, “there are things more important than common grace.” I stand by my statement and deny that I pit common grace against special grace. I do not believe common grace and special grace are opposed to one another at all. My view is a classic position of the Reformers that common grace is the servant of special grace and so both are God’s gifts to the church.57 But of course I also believe the infinite glory that God intends to give to his people will be better than anything common grace has to offer in this world. I hope all of us can agree with Paul that in this world full of the manifold gifts of God’s common grace it is still true that, “No eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of many imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him” (1 Corinthians 2:9).
Example 5. Fesko directs his summary of some statements of Van Til against those in the biblical counseling movement, saying that Van Til does not, “Deem the insights of non-Christian practitioners of psychology as irrelevant.”58 In one dismissive statement, Fesko flicks away a half century of careful arguments from biblical counselors about the value of secular psychology. The biblical counseling position is nuanced but not difficult to understand. We believe that there is much value in secular psychology, but that value is not found in contributions to the methods of a uniquely biblical approach to counseling. This view is clear, consistent, and worthy of engagement. Such engagement never comes from Fesko, however, who instead opted to dismiss a view that his opponents do not hold.
Example 6. Fesko turns my coherent position on psychosomatic unity into complete chaos, saying, “Lambert presents spiritual problems as if they are “non-physical,” which bifurcates human existence into two separate realms and ignores the fact that the spiritual is physical and the physical is spiritual.”59 Fesko is wrong on two counts. First, I do not bifurcate body and soul but go to great lengths to discuss a view of dichotomy that is biblically faithful.60 Second, Fesko’s statement that the “spiritual is physical and the physical is spiritual” turns the biblical teaching into nonsense. The truth is that God unites the physical and spiritual in a way that is ultimately inseparable. But the ultimate impossibility of separation does not mean that we equate these realities and fail to distinguish them as the Bible does time and again.
Example 7. Fesko repeatedly rebukes biblical counselors for things they do not believe: “Sufficiency does not rule out extrabiblical resources,”61 “[Sufficiency] does not preclude the use of extrabiblical creeds and confessions,”62 The necessary work of the Holy Spirit, “Does not eliminate general revelation or render it useless or superfluous,”63 “Just because Scripture does not address everything exhaustively in the Christian life does not mean it is insufficient,”64 “The historic doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture has always left room for the use of extrabiblical knowledge so long as it rests under the authority of Scripture,”65 “In principle there is no conflict between appealing to and employing extrabiblical knowledge in the counseling process,”66 “When Christians use the doctrine of sufficiency to ignore or bypass general revelation and God’s truth in creation, they have misunderstood the doctrine.”67 Such statements do not demonstrate any desire even to attempt an understanding of the careful statements of those in the biblical counseling movement about Scripture, extrabiblical information, and the discipline of counseling.
Example 8. Fesko claims that I reject the idea of two books, creation and Scripture.68 As a matter of fact, I never reject the two-book approach. Fesko’s error is owing in part to a mistake in his research. The work he cites in his critique is not mine, but another biblical counseling author, Doug Bookman.69 This error is actually only one of very many errors in Fesko’s interaction with the literature. I have chosen to overlook the vast majority of these problems, in spite of how difficult they make it in following Fesko’s arguments and establishing his claims. I mention this one is not only because I did not reject the two-book approach, but because Bookman did not either. In reading Bookman’s chapter, it is clear that he embraces the two books of nature and Scripture. What he rejects is using the book of nature to justify the syncretism of secular resources with biblical truth.
Example 9. Fesko accuses me of an erroneous definition. He quotes me correctly regarding the concept of accommodation, which I explained as, “The way God preserves the inerrant quality of the Scriptures without losing the individual personality of the human authors who compose the text.”70 He takes me to task, saying accommodation “Is rather how God condescends to finite human ways in order to reveal himself.”71 Let me make a few comments by way of response.
First, one of the challenges of doing theology well is the difficulty of defining terms. In order to communicate clearly, it is crucial to define our terms and understand their meaning. One of the realities that makes this difficult is that the Bible rarely, if ever, provides the kind of definition for terms that we value in Western higher education. This means that theologians often deal with the situation of talking past one another because of differences in the way we define terms. If we are not careful to understand how someone is using a term, we will misunderstand one another and fail to advance the conversation. This reality alone should make us quick to seek carefully to understand how those with whom we interact use their terms. It should, further, make us slow to accuse a brother in Christ of error because of a potential disagreement about terms.
Second, when Fesko cites the Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms to provide his definition of accommodationism as God’s condescension to finite humanity for the purpose of revelation, I offer no objection. In fact, I grant that this is a very common way for faithful theologians to talk about the doctrine of accommodation. But it is not the only way. Another very different way that theologians talk about the doctrine of accommodation is used by those who oppose the inerrancy of Scripture. They argue that, “The biblical writers accommodated their messages in minor details to the false ideas current in their day, and affirmed or taught those ideas in an incidental way.”72
We have then two extreme uses of the same theological term. On one end are unfaithful uses of accommodation—uses I reject—which seek to explain perceived errors in the text of Scripture. On the other end are the faithful uses of accommodation which seek to explain God’s condescension in revealing himself to humanity. I not only affirm this use of the term, my use of it was consistent with this faithful use of accommodation. The only way to get an inerrant Bible that is a combination of weak human authors whose weaknesses God accommodates in his work of inspiration is to preserve their work from error. In other words, “God’s intent is to speak to ordinary people. He ‘accommodates,’ as Calvin put it; he ‘lisps’ to us. So, he speaks both in the elevated language of Luke the physician and in the simpler language of the fisherman Peter.”73 God’s accommodation to sinful humans is not just a general idea having to do with the overall process of communication but is also a particular task having to do with his use of specific communicators who possess a combination of weakness and wickedness.
Example 10. Fesko describes the biblical counseling understanding of psychology as “Just sinful human beings sinfully thinking about sinful human beings.”74 This is a problem because it is not a fair reflection of the biblical counseling view. Adams, Powlison, and Lambert are the representatives of biblical counseling that Fesko interacts with the most and all three have repeated and lengthy sections in their work that seek to avoid reducing the biblical counseling view of psychology as nothing other than sinful people thinking sinfully about other sinful people. This is also a problem because it reveals Fesko’s attitudes towards his opponents. He makes clear that he takes the quote from an integrationist who is critical of the biblical counseling position.75 When I was doing my doctoral work, I had a fairly fussy doctoral committee that refused to let me critique someone until I was able to express their position in terms with which my opponent could agree. Fesko clearly operates under less restrictive guidelines. From the standpoint of Christian scholarship, I find it appalling that Fesko would critique his brothers in Christ after framing their position, not in their own words, but in the words of their intellectual opponents.
IV. Conclusion
Before the Lord of heaven and earth, I want to be correct in my doctrine of Scripture and in my approach to ministry with people. If I am mistaken in any area, I want to be corrected. That is my heart when I come to a book like Fesko’s. It is a source of pain to me that, instead of reading a careful discussion of issues that shine the light of truth on a crucial issue, we read a catalogue of misapprehensions, misrepresentations, and misinterpretations. Though I am unfamiliar with Fesko’s ministry, I understand his reputation is one of a very gifted intellect. After the publication of Theological Foundations for Counseling, the biblical counseling movement will unfortunately need to keep waiting to see the evidence of this intellect in our discipline.76
- J.V. Fesko, Theological Foundations for Counseling (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2026), xxii. ↩︎
- Fesko, Foundations, xi. He says he desires to, “Allow the fresh breeze of centuries past to infuse new life into the present discussion.” xii. It is interesting that he wants to do this but generally only allows the past to speak to what we would call dogmatic or systematic theology. His book largely ignores the practical or pastoral theology from church history. No book can be about everything, but Fesko’s interest in fresh breezes from church history makes it puzzling that he would emphasize the church’s thought to the neglect of its practice.
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, xi. Emphasis original.
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, 1-11
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, 45, “As long as a counselee remains in Adam and does not profess faith in Christ, the counselor will be able to help the persona only with temporal problems.”
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, xii.
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, 68 n. 7, 77.
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, xii.
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, xiii.
↩︎ - Fesko makes clear that the creation speaks “revelatory realities about God” and that it divulges “theological knowledge.” Fesko, Foundations, 14, 69-70.
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, 15.
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, 16.
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, 22, 24, 47, 57, 75, 77, 107
↩︎ - Fesko claims that I am mistaken in my statement that, “general revelation does not refer to ‘all the truthful things in the world but what God reveals about himself in all those true things . . .” Fesko, Foundations, 22, n. 22, 58.
↩︎ - Eric L. Johnson, Foundations for Soul Care: A Christian Psychology Proposal (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2007), 98.
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, 25. He makes the same assertion on page 26.
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, 75. This statement is correct when it affirms that Scripture does not function independently of general revelation and horribly incorrect when it says it functions under Scripture’s authority. As divine revelation, general and special revelation exist on the same level of authority.
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, 52
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, 52
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, 57
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, 52, 62
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, 59, 64.
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, xxiii, 51, 52, 64
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, 51.
↩︎ - Fesko talks about cell phone research that identifies childhood anxiety. Christians can be thankful for such a study, but is Fesko’s argument that Christians did not know to be concerned about cell phones until they read this secular research? If that is what he thinks, then I know a few hundred Christian parents at my church know the same things as the experts he cites who have never read that report nor spent a penny on such research. Fesko, Foundations, 63.
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, xxxiii, 68, the statement in his thesis that, “The sufficiency of Scripture does not mean that counselors should use only Scripture in counseling” is imprecise and uncareful not reflecting careful nuance in the statements of biblical counselors.
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, 69.
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, 69.
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, 68, note 7.
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, 68-69.
↩︎ - Lambert, A Theology of Biblical Counseling: The Doctrinal Foundations of Counseling Ministry (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016), 41-43.
↩︎ - Lambert, Theology, 43-44.
↩︎ - For a very brief discussion of this see Heath Lambert, The Biblical Counseling Movement After Adams (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012), 25-26.
↩︎ - Eric L. Johnson, Foundations for Soul Care: A Christian Psychology Proposal (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2007), 182.
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, 69.
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, 69
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, 69
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, 70.
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, 72.
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, 72.
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, 79
↩︎ - For a brief discussion see Lambert, Theology, 42.
↩︎ - International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978)
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, xix.
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, xx.
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, xx.
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, xx.
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, xx.
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, xx, 87-89.
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, xxiv.
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, xx.
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, xx-xxi.
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, 24.
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, 57.
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, 58.
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, 61.
↩︎ - Heath Lambert, Biblical Counseling and Common Grace (Wapwallopen, PA: Shepherd Press, 2023), 22-25.
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, 64.
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, 78, n. 25.
↩︎ - Lambert, Theology, 191-204
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, 71.
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, 74.
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, 75.
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, 75.
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, 76.
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, 78.
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, 78.
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, 68, n. 7
↩︎ - Doug Bookman, “The Word of God and Counseling” in Sufficiency: Historic Essays on the Sufficiency of Scripture (ACBC, 2016), 49.
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, 68, citing Lambert, “Counsel the Sufficient Word” in Sufficiency, 138.
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, 68, n. 7.
↩︎ - Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 97.
↩︎ - Frame, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief (Philipsburg: P&R, 2013), 601.
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, 58.
↩︎ - Fesko, Foundations, 58 note 19.
↩︎ - This document is an internal document written for the ministry of First Counseling at First Baptist Church of Jacksonville, FL (www.firstcounseling.com). Permission is granted to reproduce and distribute this document without prior approval, provided that the content remains unaltered.
↩︎
