Truthful Biblical Counselors

The Big Idea 

Of all people, we biblical counselors, who affirm the truthfulness of God’s all-sufficient Word, should maintain truthfulness in our statements about our brothers and sisters in Christ. Are we behaving as truthful biblical counselors, or are we characterized by mischaracterizing fellow biblical counselors? 

An Update (November 18, 2025)

It has been nearly a month since I wrote this original post. And it has been well over a month since I informed Travis McNeely and Scott Aniol that I would be publishing this response. Many people have asked me if I have received any response from either Travis or Scott. No. I have not. Perhaps they are planning some public response to my response? I do not know. But, so far, one month later, I have heard nothing from either Travis or Scott.

Now…back to my original post from October 20, 2025.

“Surprise! You’re It!” 

One month ago, on September 20, 2025, I was reading an article by Travis McNeely entitled, Elements of Truth or Eclecticism: Understanding Common Grace within the Biblical Counseling Framework. It was published in the Gloria Deo Journal of Theology, 4, 2025, which is a publication of G3 Ministries.

As I’m reading along, I read this quote:

“There are some within the biblical counseling movement suggesting that regenerate and unregenerate people might have a shared intellectual foundation when it applies to soul care because of common grace” (38).

My immediate thought was,

“What Christian would ever think that regenerate and unregenerate people share the same intellectual foundation? Any Christian who has ever read their Bible knows about the fallen mind of the unregenerate person. Any Christian who has ever studied theology—especially Reformed theology—knows about total depravity, the noetic effect of sin, and the fallen heart of the unsaved person.”

My second thought was,

“I know of no Christian integrative counselors who believe that the unsaved and the saved shared the same epistemological (intellectual foundation). I know of no one from the Society of Christian Psychologists who denies the teaching of total depravity and the noetic effect of sin. I know of no Clinically-Informed Biblical Counselors who would say that because of common grace the regenerate and unregenerate person share the same presuppositions, beliefs, capacities, and intellectual foundation. I know of no biblical counselors from ABC, CCEF, IABC, IBCD, or ACBC who would believe what McNeely says some within the biblical counseling movement are suggesting.”

My third and final initial thought was,

“Who in the world could Travis McNeely be talking about?”

“It’s Me!”

Then I noticed footnote 47 right after McNeely’s sentence about some in the biblical counseling world believing that regenerate and unregenerate people share the same intellectual foundation. When I read the footnote, I was in for a surprise!

47“Besides the counseling faculty at SEBTS, Bob Kellemen….” (38).

What!?

Then I thought,

“Where in the world would McNeely get the idea that I deny total depravity, deny the noetic effect of sin, deny the biblical difference between the mind of the regenerate and unregenerate person?”

“What quote is he using—and misunderstanding and taking out of context—to come to this significant public mischaracterization of my biblical teaching on the difference between the regenerate and unregenerate mind?”

So then, of course, I looked for the quotes in footnote 47. Except…there were no quotes. Zero.

Which of My Writings? 

Instead, McNeely linked to six of my articles and one of my books. No quote. Just links.

Then I thought,

“Well, McNeely must link to (and mischaracterize) my 44,500-word research document on Common Grace and Biblical Counseling: Wisdom from Reformed Theologians where I collate and interact with how nearly a dozen Reformed theologians teach about the noetic effect of sin and the noetic effect of common grace.”

Nope. No link to that.

“Well, McNeely must link to (and mischaracterize) Gospel-Centered Counseling: How Christ Changes Lives (endorsed by four ACBC Fellows), where I present a biblical anthropology of the creation, fall, redemption, and consummation of humanity—including lengthy chapters on total depravity, the four fallen chambers of the unregenerate heart, the noetic effect of sin, plus foundational chapters on the sufficiency of Scripture.”

Nope. No link to that.

“Well, McNeely must link to (and mischaracterize) my collated blog post: 161 Resources for Counseling the Whole Person: Soul Physicians of Embodied-Souls, which includes eleven of my resources on the sufficiency of Scripture, fifteen of my resources on a biblical theology of potential engagement with extra-biblical information, and twenty-one of my resources on developing a biblical theology of common grace and biblical counseling…”

Nope. No link to that.

Well then, I thought…

“Which of my resources did McNeely actually cite (but not quote)?”

He cited seven. Later, I will address each of those seven point-by-point.

None of those seven resources teach anything vaguely like the regenerate and unregenerate mind share the same intellectual foundation. In fact, six of the seven do not address the topic of regenerate and unregenerate thinking at all. So, then I thought,

“Did Travis McNeely randomly select seven of my writings…using a blind draw? Casting lots? I’ve written so much about the sufficiency of Scripture and about the depravity of the unsaved mind, why would McNeely cite seven sources that don’t address his topic?”

The seventh source (Pondering About Being a “_____-Informed Biblical Counselor”) clearly teaches the opposite of what McNeely is falsely claiming I teach.

One of the seven sources (Consider Your Counsel: Addressing Ten Mistakes in Our Biblical Counseling) is endorsed by seven ACBC Fellows—glowingly endorsed. So, I thought:

“Does McNeely think that Randy Patten, Howard Eyrich, Bob Somerville, Charles Hodges, Jim Newheiser, Ben Marshall, and Brent Aucoin—all ACBC Fellows—glowingly endorsed a book that somehow teaches that regenerate and unregenerate persons share the same intellectual foundation?”

What Does McNeely Mean? 

Before I document, point-by-point, how none of the seven resources cited by McNeely teach what he mischaracterizes me as teaching, let’s discern what McNeely means by his statement:

“There are some within the biblical counseling movement suggesting that regenerate and unregenerate people might have a shared intellectual foundation when it applies to soul care because of common grace” (38, emphasis added).

Given the context of McNeely’s article, given his statement about “shared intellectual foundation,” and given a biblical theology of people (biblical anthropology, biblical hamartiology, and biblical soteriology), here are synonyms or similar categories of what McNeely is accusing “the counseling faculty at SEBTS and Bob Kellemen” of teaching.

• Hell-bound haters of God and heaven-bound worshippers of God share a common rational-spiritual understanding of life.
• God-haters and God-lovers share the same framework for biblical counseling theory and methodology.
• Saved and unsaved have a shared way of thinking about people, problems, and solutions.
• The depraved mind and the redeemed mind share a mutual interpretive lens for understanding human nature, problems, and solutions.
• Unregenerate and regenerate persons maintain a parallel model of understanding human nature, human sin, and human salvation.
• The unsaved and saved mind have the same understanding of spiritual matters.
• The unsaved and saved mind have the same outlook on and interpretation of truth.
• The saved and unsaved share a mutual framework for understanding truth.
• There is a common intellectual starting point between unregenerate and regenerate persons.
• Similar or identical spiritual discernment exists between unregenerate and regenerate persons.
• There are overlapping worldview assumptions between the fallen mind and the redeemed mind.
• There is a spiritual parity of the unregenerate mind and the regenerate mind.
• There exists a common ground of insight apart from regeneration.
• Believers and unbelievers have the same theological and epistemological belief system—a unified “epistemic platform.”

If McNeely does not mean any of this, then I would invite and welcome him to tell us all what he meant when he said, “There are some within the biblical counseling movement suggesting that regenerate and unregenerate people might have a shared intellectual foundation when it applies to soul care because of common grace” (38, emphasis added).

Again, does any Evangelical Christian who has studied their Bible and theology believe any of the bullet points above?

To believe any of those concepts, a Christian would have to deny the Bible’s teaching on:

• The need for salvation—regeneration, redemption, justification, reconciliation. (Note: I address these four results of salvation in Gospel-Centered Counseling and in 4 Amazing Results of Our Salvation in Christ: Sin’s Quadruple Cure).
• Total depravity.
• The noetic effect of sin.
• The fallen nature.
• The fallen structure of the unsaved heart: fallen affections, imagination, thinking, will, and emotions.
• The stark distinction between the unregenerate fool and the regenerate wise person—who fears the Lord.
• The stark difference between the regenerate mind and the unregenerate mind.
• The stark distinction between the old fallen heart and the new heart given at regeneration.
• The stark distinction between the unregenerate person’s suppression of truth and the regenerate person’s enlightenment by the Spirit.
• The spiritual antithesis (more on this later when I discuss a comprehensive biblical understanding of the noetic effect of sin and the noetic effect of common grace).
• And they would have to deny biblical passages about the unregenerate mind/heart versus the regenerate mind/heart, such as: Genesis 6:5; Genesis 8:21; Psalm 14:1-3; Psalm 51:5; Psalm 53:1-3; Proverbs 1:7; Proverbs 9:10; Jeremiah 17:9; Ezekiel 36:26-27; John 3:19-20; Romans 1:21-28; Romans 3:10-23; Romans 8:5-8; Romans 12:1-2; 1 Corinthians 1:18; 1 Corinthians 2:12-16; 2 Corinthians 3:14-16; 2 Corinthians 4:3-4; Ephesians 1:17-18; Ephesians 2:1-3; Ephesians 4:17-18; Colossians 1:21; Colossians 2:8; 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12; Titus 3:3; Hebrews 8:10-11.

My Private Engagement with Travis McNeely and Scott Aniol 

One month ago, when I read how McNeely was publicly mischaracterizing my biblical teaching on theological anthropology and biblical counseling, that same day (September 20, 2025) I reached out to Travis McNeely and to Scott Aniol (Scott is the editor of the journal which published Travis’s article). I documented, point by point for both of them, how none of the sources cited by McNeely say anything at all near to what McNeely publicly falsely accused me of teaching. I documented how I teach the opposite of his (mis)characterization.

I privately asked them both to retract that mischaracterization, appealing to academic ethics and Christian principles of truthfulness. They both declined.

Aniol said I was free to write a public rebuttal. I asked Aniol if he would allow me to publish such a rebuttal in his journal—where the mischaracterization was published. His three-word answer,

“No, thank you.”

I responded to his polite-but-pointed reply, by pointing out that it would be ethically and academically appropriate to have my response published in his journal. His zero-word reply: nothing. No reply—even one month later.

I pointed out to McNeely that ACBC’s Journal of Biblical Soul Care allowed Ed Welch to publish a public rebuttal in their journal when Welch expressed the view that Francine Tan’s article had mischaracterized his writings. I also pointed out that CCEF’s Journal of Biblical Counseling had allowed Jay Adams to publish a public rebuttal years ago when Adams believed that CCEF had mischaracterized his teaching. McNeely, like Aniol, continues to deny my academic request that they print a retraction, or that they allow me to rebut McNeely’s academic mischaracterizations in the G3 journal.

I sat on this issue for one month. I prayed. I pondered. I asked other mature believers their thoughts. I reached out to other biblical counseling leaders asking them to encourage McNeely and Aniol to reconsider. After a month of silence, I decided to write today’s public post.

Why Write Publicly?

I am not writing simply for me.

Increasingly, biblical counselors are posting podcasts and writing articles against other biblical counselors. They are making undocumented, unsubstantiated claims that mischaracterize fellow biblical counselors either by not quoting them, or by quoting them out of context, or by cherry-picking quotes that leave out the person’s comprehensive teachings.

This needs to stop.

Of all people, biblical counselors who are all about truth, should be speaking the truth.

Reason #1: Academic Integrity 

As a retired professor of biblical counseling, I am writing publicly because I want to encourage academic ethics and excellence. For the sake of academic integrity and for the sake of Christian truth, honesty, and ethics, I am writing publicly to rebut McNeely’s false accusations about my theology of biblical counseling.

Reason #2: A Caution 

I am also writing as a caution—to McNeely and others—demonstrating the detrimental result of public mischaracterizations. Mischaracterizing others is detrimental to the one doing the mischaracterizing. If McNeely can’t truthfully address and accurately characterize my views—mis-citing and mischaracterizing seven of my writings—then what else might McNeely have gotten wrong and mischaracterized in the rest of his article where he focused on the SEBTS biblical counseling faculty?

Reason #3: Educational Value 

Additionally, I am writing publicly to address McNeely’s claims because there is educational/pedagogical value in a compare/contrast response. Often in these types of discussions/disagreements, instead of responding and contrasting, we ignore and shift to presenting our own view. In debates, this is known by various labels: evading, dodging, deflection, or pivoting. The debater intentionally diverts attention away from critiques of their position by refusing to engage with the opponent’s criticism, instead continuing to deliver a pre-planned presentation.

In ignoring and shifting, we end up talking past each other. And our audience rarely has the time to sit down and compare our unrelated statement to someone else’s critique. Ignoring and shifting dismisses the other person and never ends up engaging the critique directly.

On the other hand, a compare/contrast response creates a written dialogue that allows readers to easily see the differences between the mischaracterized view and the actual view. In a compare/contrast response, we support and present our position in the specific arena of challenges and critiques of our view.

I am happy to do that now. McNeely made a public claim about my theology of biblical counseling. Rather than ignoring what he said, I will offer a point-by-point direct response that compares and contrasts my actual writings with McNeely’s characterization of my writings.

A Point-by-Point Refutation of McNeely’s Mischaracterization of My Seven Cited Sources 

As I noted, McNeely cited (but never quoted from) seven of my public writings. I cannot explain why he selected these seven resources. I will examine whether or not those cited sources address the accusation that I teach that unsaved and saved persons share the same intellectual foundation.

#1: Consider Your Counsel

McNeely cited Consider Your Counsel. As I noted earlier, seven ACBC Fellows glowingly endorsed this book. Here is part of Howard Eyrich’s endorsement:

“This is one of those books I wish I had written. Having supervised about 300 counselors towards certification, I’ve touched on all of these issues more than once.”

Here’s part of Bob Somerville’s endorsement.

“I have a new, favorite book to give to every biblical counselor who is desiring to sharpen their skills. My friend, Bob Kellemen, who in over thirty years of ministry has counseled thousands of individuals and supervised hundreds of counselors, guides us through ten of the areas where we are the most prone to err. He gives us solid analysis of our areas of weakness and then through practical example and winsome advice he directs us to biblical solutions. This book is such a treasure—so concise and so full of great insight. I want every one of my trainees to read it.”

I could go on and on. I am very thankful, and humbled, by how these ACBC Fellows (with a combined 270 years of nouthetic biblical counseling experience) have affirmed my biblical-theological-practical writings in this book.

Additionally, none of the ten mistakes that I address in Consider Your Counsel discuss the difference between the regenerate and unregenerate mind. Why didn’t I address that? Because conflating the regenerate and unregenerate mind is not a mistake I have ever detected in the modern biblical counseling world. We are quite theologically astute about the sinfulness of sinners.

The only time Consider Your Counsel even mentions common grace is in a section on the sufficiency of Scripture—where I quote directly from the Biblical Counseling Coalition’s Confessional Statement about the limits of common grace (78-79).

#2: 6 Words Describing What Jay Adams and Nouthetic Counseling Do with Secular Psychology

This blog post has few of my words. It is almost all my quoting Jay Adams, John Bettler, and David Powlison from 25 Years of Biblical Counseling: An Interview with Jay Adams and John Bettler Conducted by David Powlison. In this classic article, nouthetic biblical counseling founders, Adams, Bettler, and Powlison ask and answer the question,

“What does a biblical Christian do with secular knowledge?”

The article shows how they subordinate secular insights under biblical authority as they discuss how nouthetic biblical counselors “recycle, reinterpret, reshape, reconcile, redeem, and recast” (their words) “secular knowledge.” I assume that McNeely does not think that Adams, Bettler, and Powlison suggest that unregenerate and regenerate persons shared the same intellectual foundation for biblical counseling. He shouldn’t.

Since I could, of course, be biased about my own views, I asked ChatGPT and Grok3 both to assess, in an unbiased way, McNeely’s claim compared to the seven articles of mine that he cited. It was almost comical reading the AI responses about how thoroughly those citations failed to match the accusation. For example, here’s ChatGPT’s summary for 6 Words Describing What Jay Adams and Nouthetic Counseling Do with Secular Psychology:

• Assessment: ❌ McNeely’s claim is not supported by this post.

In case you are wondering, for Consider Your Counsel, AI said:

• Assessment: ❌ Does not support McNeely’s claim.

#3: Anxiety and Our Physical Bodies: God’s Care for Embodied Souls 

This blog post is based exclusively on my P&R Publishing booklet, Anxiety, which was endorsed by three biblical counseling leaders, including ACBC Fellow, Ernie Baker, SBTS Biblical Counseling Professor, Jeremy Pierre, and Pastor Paul Tautges (another ACBC Fellow). Here’s part of Dr. Baker’s endorsement:

“This booklet has put in one place key biblical principles for addressing these common human issues biblically, realistically, practically, and compassionately. I especially appreciated that the counsel given dealt both with the details of key passages of Scripture, but also the big picture theologically of who our Lord is to us and who we are in relationship to him.”

The blog post itself simply outlines key themes from the booklet. The post is a theological anthropology of the Bible’s teaching on embodied-souls. It does not address common grace or shared noetic mindsets. Like the booklet, it includes an exegetical application of Philippians to dealing with anxiety biblically. It also links to a comprehensive, Genesis-to-Revelation biblical-theological study I did on 560 Biblical Passages on Embodied-Souls.

Once again, ChatGPT, after a lengthy analysis (which was very similar to Grok3’s analysis), wrote:

• Assessment: ❌ Does not support McNeely’s claim.

#4: Comprehensive Biblical Counseling and the Body: Soul Physicians of Embodied-Souls

I say nothing in this post about unsaved and saved sharing an intellectual foundation. Instead, in this post, I teach that God’s all-sufficient Word provides us with the authoritative reason and motivation to focus on the whole person—the embodied-soul. I state it clearly as my premise:

“Premise: Since the Scriptures provide a robust, comprehensive, sufficient, authoritative biblical theology (theological anthropology) of the Creation, Fall, Redemption, Consummation of the embodied-soul, therefore biblical counselors must be soul physicians of embodied-souls.”

And AI says:

• Assessment: ❌ McNeely’s claim is not supported here.

#5: Count the Cost . . . When Wading into Biblical Counseling Controversies 

Please note that in the headers I am providing direct links to every one of my sources cited by McNeely. If you desire, you can do your own biblical counseling homework. I am confident you will find that McNeely is, sadly, mischaracterizing each of the seven sources he cited.

I this blog post, I have zero discussion of common grace or shared intellectual foundations. Instead, I reflect on disagreements within the biblical counseling movement, urging charity and careful engagement.

Interestingly, this post was “prophetic”—not in a biblical sense, but in a wisdom-predictive sense. In two places in the post, I noted that I was cautioned by friends who were concerned that if I challenged how some biblical counselors were mischaracterizing fellow biblical counselors, then I would become a target for being mischaracterized. They were correct.

This post also notes that my books have been endorsed at least 72 times by NANC/ACBC Academy Members, NANC/ACBC Fellows, NANC/ACBC Board of Directors, and NANC/ACBC Certified Members.

AI’ assessment:

• Assessment: ❌ Irrelevant to McNeely’s claim.

#6: Ponderings About Being a “____-Informed Biblical Counselor 

The sixth (seemingly random) source that McNeely cites (but does not quote) summarizes a Twitter/X thread where I highlight our need to be biblically-theologically-informed biblical counselors. In the post, I use a paper I wrote on biblical counseling and hermeneutics as a model for how we can develop biblical counseling approaches to hard cases:

A Theologically-Informed Approach to Sexual Abuse Counseling: Implementing the Hermeneutical Spiral. 

There is nothing here about unregenerate and regenerate persons sharing an intellectual foundation. I argue for the opposite: for regenerate biblical counselors to use God’s all-sufficient Word to build biblical counseling models. I would encourage McNeely, Anoil, or any biblical counselor to engage with the biblical, theological, exegetical, and hermeneutical principles in this post/article.

In this post, I even challenge my Clinically-Informed Biblical Counseling friends. 

“Tweet 6: Here’s where we might want to be a tad self-critical as “______-informed” #BibleCn. Is our focus foremost on the Word’s wisdom or the world’s research? If we don’t have a rich biblical-theological foundation then it’s easy for the world’s information to trump the Word’s wisdom. 6/” 

My Primary Premise (in 2 Tweets):

“Tweet 4: Sexual abuse-informed #BibleCn must start with…the Bible. The Bible offers a robust, relevant, relational, and profound understanding of the damage done by sexual abuse and of a way forward toward Christ-centered healing from sexual abuse…. 4/”

“Tweet 5: As #BibleCn we can and must study the Scriptures cover-to-cover to uncover biblical and theological building blocks that provide a way of viewing and using the Bible to develop a theology and methodology of sexual abuse counseling. 5/”

Again, it confounds me why McNeely would select this resource. It says exactly the opposite of the false accusation he publicly made against my writings. I’m an open book—why not select posts that actually address his topic? Why not quote me where he thinks I am doing what he accuses me of—so we could have a healthy iron-sharpens-iron dialogue? Why not edit his article now that he knows he has mischaracterized me and these seven sources?

AI agrees with my assessment:

• Assessment: ❌ It does not support McNeely ‘s claim.

#7: Priests, Zombies, and Prophets, Oh My!: Engaging Publicly with Heath Lambert’s Public Writings

This post addresses tone in public debates about biblical counseling. It does not address common grace or intellectual foundations. It is irrelevant to McNeely’s claim.

In the post, I do say the following, and perhaps McNeely could heed its call for being fair and balanced and not mischaracterizing fellow biblical counselors;

“Being Fair and Balanced: I am praying that I am fair and balanced in my engagement with Heath. I do not anticipate that I am going to agree with Heath’s overall assessment of other biblical counselors. But I do want to listen well to Heath, not mischaracterize what he says, and represent accurately his positions—even if/when I disagree with them.”

Later in that post and other similar posts, I invited Heath to publicly and/or privately engage with me.

McNeely, in his article, makes a similar statement about being fair and accurate:

“Arguing in this paper for a biblical view of common grace as a preventive for unbiblical integration will require a fair and proper assessment of the claims made by the instructors at SEBTS with an evaluation of the basis of their claim” (24, emphasis added).

This is all I am asking for regarding McNeely’s (mis)characterization of my theology of biblical sufficiency. I am asking him to provide “a fair and proper assessment” of my writings about the stark differences between the unregenerate and regenerate mind/heart.

AI says:

• Content: You defend constructive dialogue.
• Relevance: This is about intra-movement dynamics, not about common grace or shared intellectual foundations.
• Assessment: ❌ Does not support McNeely’s claim.

And AI’s overall assessment of the seven documents:

• 👉 Conclusion: McNeely’s claim is false and a mischaracterization. Your writings in these seven sources, and elsewhere on RPM Ministries, acknowledge common-grace observations, but you never suggest regenerate and unregenerate people share a true intellectual foundation for soul care. The phrase “shared intellectual foundation” contradicts and distorts your actual position in which you strongly argue for the inability of the unregenerate mind to build models of soul care.

Where in My Writings Do I Address the Sufficiency of Scripture, Common Grace, the Unregenerate Mind, Extra-Biblical Information, and Biblical Counseling? 

If McNeely wanted to engage with my thinking about the sufficiency of Scripture, common grace, the unregenerate mind, extra-biblical information, and biblical counseling, there are a host of books, booklets, and blog posts he could have cited (and quoted) that actually address these theological categories. Here are just a few examples…

#1: 161 Resources

As mentioned previously, 161 Resources for Counseling the Whole Person: Soul Physicians of Embodied-Souls links to dozens of sources on sufficiency of Scripture, extra-biblical information, scientific research, and common grace. I invite McNeely to engage with me about any of those 161 resources where they address the unregenerate mind..

#2: Gospel-Centered Counseling

In Gospel-Centered Counseling: How Christ Changes Lives, I clearly and repeatedly teach the opposite of what McNeely claims. I teach on total depravity, the four fallen chambers of the unregenerate heart, and the noetic effect of sin. I won’t repeat them now. Anyone can read any chapter in that book to learn my biblical theology of biblical counseling. I invite McNeely to engage with me about these issues from Gospel-Centered Counseling.

In that book, I also specifically address what auxiliary role, if any, common grace, general revelation, and scientific research might have in biblical counseling. And I highlight the use of God’s all-sufficient Word as the lens or spectacles through which redeemed counselors assess any extra-biblical information.

#3: Common Grace and Biblical Counseling

I also invite McNeely to engage with me about my 44,500-word research document on Common Grace and Biblical Counseling: Wisdom from Reformed Theologians. This is the document that McNeely and others would want to read in order to understand how the Reformed doctrine of common grace and the Reformed doctrine of total depravity work together to teach biblical counselors how to biblically assess extra-biblical information.

If McNeely does read this document, then he will note that I address sin’s impact upon the fallen mind, and that I outline three areas that every biblical counselor must consider when they study common grace:

1. Total Depravity: This doctrine teaches that every aspect of human nature has been corrupted by sin as a result of the Fall. This does not teach that fallen human beings are as evil as they could be, but that sin affects every aspect of a person’s being, leaving them spiritually dead and unable to seek or please God apart from saving grace.
2. The Noetic Effect of Sin: This doctrine refers to the way that sin has corrupted the human mind and its ability to think, reason, and perceive truth rightly. Because of the Fall, human reasoning is not spiritually neutral—our mind (nous/noetic) is darkened and biased against God. This doctrine does not mean that people have lost all ability to think logically or discover truth in ordinary means, but that apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, the unredeemed mind suppresses the truth about God and distorts reality.
3. The Spiritual Antithesis: “Antithesis” conveys the idea of contrast, converse, difference, opposite, or distinction. The spiritual antithesis is used to discuss many categories, including the difference between the mind of fallen human beings and the mind of regenerate human beings. In Reformed conversations about common grace, the spiritual antithesis includes the conflict between the fallen worldview and the redeemed worldview (10).

If McNeely reads this, he will see that I am specifically saying the opposite of what he claims I teach. Rather than teaching the shared intellectual foundation of regenerate and unregenerate mind, I am aligning with Reformed theology on:

“…the difference between the mind of fallen human beings and the mind of regenerate human beings. In Reformed conversations about common grace, the spiritual antithesis includes the conflict between the fallen worldview and the redeemed worldview” (10).

Even earlier in the document, I align with and clearly state the Reformed thinking on the unregenerate mind:

“In Reformed Christian theology, unregenerate persons are totally depraved and all of their thinking is seen as under the noetic (mind) impact of sin and fallenness” (7).

Again, this is the exact opposite of McNeely’s (mis)characterization of my position.

Common Grace and Biblical Counseling: Wisdom from Reformed Theologians teaches that common grace is not regenerative grace; it is not saving grace; it is not salvific grace; it is not special grace. That’s why Reformed theologians call it common grace. In summary:

Common grace does not regenerate the unregenerate.

In Common Grace and Biblical Counseling, I develop this further with this summary of the twin truths of total depravity and common grace:

“In Reformed Christian theology, unregenerate persons are totally depraved and all of their thinking is seen as under the noetic (mind) impact of sin and fallenness.

Yet, also in Reformed thinking, the unregenerate/unsaved person can make contributions to society, culture, the arts, research, science, and more.

How can these two truths be held together at one time?

The Reformed doctrine of common grace explains how we can maintain both these biblical truths. It also explains how to engage with and evaluate common grace resources using the lens/spectacles of God’s all-sufficient Word” (6).

Too often, especially in the biblical counseling world, people will say they are discussing the application of common grace to the question of whether or not Christians should use non-Christian resources. However, if that discussion only quotes Reformed theologians and biblical passages about sin (fallenness, total depravity, the noetic effect of sin, the unregenerate person being spiritually dead, and the darkened mind of the unregenerate person) then they are studying the spiritual antithesis; they have not addressed common grace. They are discussing only part of what the Bible and church history say about how Christians discern what to do with non-Christian resources.

To address the question of whether or not Christians could use non-Christian resources, and how a regenerate person biblically assesses those sources, one would also want to explore what the Bible says, and what Reformed theologians say, about:

• Common grace;
• God’s favor toward all humanity;
• God’s restraint of sin,
• God’s preservation of the cosmos, of humanity, and of culture;
• God’s distribution of talents to all humanity;
• The imago Dei;
• The Creation Mandate/Cultural Mandate;
• The unity of God’s revelation;
• General revelation/the book of nature;
• Special revelation/the book of Scripture;
• God’s revelation to humanity in the conscience/the book of conscience;
• God’s providential control of history/God’s affectionate sovereignty;
• The Christian’s engagement with non-Christian sources;
• The relationship between Scripture and extrabiblical sources; and
• The relationship between nature and grace.

Then what is God’s sovereign, Christ-glorifying common grace? What does common grace do? How does common grace relate to extra-biblical information from the unregenerate? What implications might common grace have for biblical counselors? Common Grace and Biblical Counseling: Wisdom from Reformed Theologians addresses each of those questions through the lens of biblical theology and through the lens of Reformed theologians.

This is why I disagree with Francine Tan’s surprising suggestion that the modern biblical counseling movement should redefine, rework, and minimizing the scope of the historic doctrine of common grace. Tan states,

“Thus, I propose that biblical counselors ought to revisit how we define CG and make a few qualifications to the traditional Reformed view of CG. When CG is defined as God’s non-salvific yet kind posture towards all mankind, displayed in the delay of final judgment, the restraint of sin’s full impact on the earth, and the bestowal of temporal gifts for the providential preservation of the world, the doctrine distinctly remains an expression of God’s communicable attributes of kindness and goodness. CG should not be understood as the positive contributions made by unregenerate men through discoveries, insights, or ‘good deeds’” (Tan, “Common Grace in Debate,” Journal of Biblical Soul Care, Fall 2024, Vol 8 #2, 83).

Instead,

• I propose that biblical counselors follow the Bible and go where the Bible leads—recognizing the extent and the purpose of God’s sovereign, Christ-glorifying common grace.
• I propose that biblical counselors revisit the Bible (being theologically-saturated) and revisit church history (being church history-informed) to understand common grace according to the Bible and with a humble awareness of how our predecessors in the faith understood and applied common grace to life and ministry.
• I propose that we do not redefine common grace insights as glorifying the wisdom of humanity. Instead, I propose that we recognize that common grace glorifies the wisdom of Christ.
• I propose that we do not redefine common grace to suit our modern contentions, or to win “counseling war debates.”

What’s Next? 

I do not know what comes next. I sought to privately encourage Travis McNeely and Scott Aniol to address McNeely’s public mischaracterization of my biblical views on biblical counseling, fallen humanity, the sufficiency of Scripture, and common grace. To date, they have chosen not to do so. Maybe if they read this rebuttal, they will consider retracting McNeely’s false claims about my writings.

If McNeely wanted to engage with any of my writings—quoting them in context, and have an iron-sharpening-iron conversation about the unregenerate mind and the regenerate mind, I would be willing to interact with him about those important biblical counseling topics.

If McNeely and/or Aniol believe that I should change anything in this post—and if they could document why—then I would consider their feedback. I would be open to updating this post to assure that I accurately characterize what McNeely wrote about me.

For me, I have provided documentation that disputes what McNeely claims about my theology of biblical counseling. My conscience is clear.