Theological Inconsistency in the Biblical Counseling Use of Research?

The Discussion (“Debate”) 

In our modern biblical counseling world, there has always been a lot of discussion about the proper use of extra-biblical material, including psychological research.

For one historical example, read about how Jay Adams, John Bettler, and David Powlison discussed this in 6 Words Describing What Jay Adams and Nouthetic Counseling Do with Secular Psychology. 

My Ponderings…

I’ve been pondering this in light of two phrases often used in the biblical counseling world:

• “All truth is God’s truth.”
• All error is the devil’s error.”

Some Brief Reflections 

1. All Truth: Some biblical counselors who see a role/place for using extra-biblical resources (interpreted and evaluated by Scripture) say, “All truth is God’s truth wherever it is found.” They support this using biblical concepts such as common grace, the Creation/Cultural Mandate, general revelation, a biblical theology of science, etc.

2. All Lies: Other biblical counselors who tend to reject the use of extra-biblical resources say, “All lies are the devil’s lies.” They support this using biblical concepts such as the sufficiency of Scripture and the noetic effect of sin. 

3. The Question: Do some biblical counselors use common grace and the noetic effect of sin inconsistently when it comes to the acceptance or rejection of neuroscience research, descriptive research, and scientific research?

4. Example 1: When neuroscience research agrees with our preconceived ideas, then we use it gladly (the “co-belligerent” use of research), basing this on “all truth is God’s truth wherever it is found” and on common grace. For more on this, see my post”

Biblical Counseling and the Co-Belligerent Use of Research.

5. Example 2: However, if neuroscience research disagrees with our preconceived ideas, then we say, “All error is the devil’s error!” “Don’t forget the noetic effect of sin!” “Neuroscience is in a constant state of flux!” “That’s just popular neuroscience; real neuroscientists don’t believe that stuff.”

6. Theological Consistency: All biblical counselors seek to evaluate research under the lens of Scripture. All biblical counselors seek to assess the research credibility of the researchers.

7. Theological Inconsistency: On the one hand, some biblical counselors make the non-use of secular material the demarcation point between “faithful biblical counselors” and “so-called biblical counselors” who are actually “new integrationists.” On the other hand, when these same biblical counselors use co-belligerent research from secular researchers, they deem themselves “faithfully biblical.” 

For Further Reading 

If this post tweaks your interest, then here are some additional posts that you may find helpful.

• Biblical Counseling and Scientific Research.
• Biblical Counseling and the Co-Belligerent Use of Research.
• 10 Biblical Counseling Concerns About “Bad Therapy.”
• Biblical Counseling, Neuroscience, and Descriptive Research Psychology.
• What Does Biblical Counseling Believe About Extra-Biblical Information?
• 6 Words Describing What Jay Adams and Nouthetic Counseling Do with Secular Psychology.
• 55 Resources for Counseling the Whole Person: The Bible, the Body, the Embodied-Soul, Research, Science, and Neuroscience. 

Join the Conversation 

Your thoughts?

Is there theological inconsistency here?

Is there consistency where I am perceiving inconsistency?