Brett Anderson

Brett Anderson@Isaiah45_7·6m

I’m not stepping into your framework, Joseph. You quoted my post, meaning the topic of discussion starts there not in your “whataboutism.” I’ve tried ti redirect you but instead of seeking clarity you reduce what is given to a further absurdity. Joseph, application cannot arbitrate first principles. Scripture alone establishes the principles that govern faithful application. The topic has always been on defining first principles. You have failed to understand this.

English

3

Joseph Leavell@LowerLeavell·19m

What's interesting here is that I haven't once advocated for a psychological answer. I'm not an integrationist, nor am I clinically informed. I'm simply asking for your approach so it might give answer to your accusation that I've built a strawman argument. You've told me a lot of what you wouldn't do and what not to do in regards to psychology, but you've been very light on what one should do as a biblical counselor. You've made the claim that you are not saying "solo Scriptura" but also haven't shared what these extra-biblical frameworks look like, in to make your position clear. Your strongest point was that you would direct them to a good theology of suffering...which is important, but then you went back to attacking psychology as NOT the answer without answering what you would do to alleviate that suffering as a biblical counselor. Any thoughts? Frankly, you've done nothing but proven my point with each subsequent response. I'm seeking hard to give you the ability to bring clarity. Thank you for the interaction!

English

Brett Anderson@Isaiah45_7

0

10

Joseph Leavell@LowerLeavell·6h

As respectfully and discreetly as I can speak to this, many truly suffer sexually because of heart issues, but there is room for those who serve each other well from a healthy, loving heart and perspective, but still have significant struggles for varied reasons. Whether a young couple starting out, post childbirth, non medically related PE or ED, various levels of desire, coming from purity culture from ignorance and developing a bad framework and understanding, or a myriad of other reasons, sexuality can be rather complex and defeating for many Christian couples. If you are counseling a married couple through their sexual dyfunction exclusively from what the Bible says about sex...I'm really sorry for your counselees. Even "Intended for Pleasure" by Dr. Wheat included quite a few modest graphics and techniques that aren't found in Song of Solomon. Also, if they struggle but never bring it up, they are either suffering in silence, relying on the internet (not really a great plan), or going to a therapist because they have gleaned through your sessions that you aren't the right person to talk to about it. Biblical counselors should 100% be equipped to help both with the heart issues around sex as well as utilize healthy tools and resources to support what God has blessed and designed in marriage. I would love to see more who are committed to a biblical framework of counsel enter into this needed space.

I could never trust this mindset. In one breath it elevates psychology as the needed authority to frame physiological historical and relational dynamics and embodied complexities that Scripture alone supposedly cannot address. It builds a framework to justify its own necessity while shifting focus away from heart level beliefs, choices, moral responsibility, and Gods sovereignty (Prov 4:23; Mark 7:21 23). In the next breath it claims Scripture should “ideally” shape care. Yet the qualifier exposes the true position: Scripture is not sufficient; clinical skilled expertise is required as a complement. This denies the sufficiency of Gods Word for all soul care including trauma and sexual struggles (2 Tim 3:16 17; 2 Pet 1:3). Trying to unite a fallen modern / postmodern pseudo science with Christianity is ridiculous. It is a dangerous hybrid that undermines the gospels power for heart change in the local church. Folks, scripture is sufficient to explain the “complexities” and no soul care is ever accomplished by a hybrid approach that replaces the Holy Spirit. Jason’s rhetoric in these replies read as a marketing strategy more so than anything else. It’s as though he tried to fit as many categorical terms from a brochure to elevate himself and psychology. He definitely isn’t pointing to God’s authority, ability, and standard as the greatest good in this field.

English

1

16

1.2K

Brett Anderson@Isaiah45_7·26m

@LucyAnnMoll @LowerLeavell Lucy, I’m just now seeing your post. I believe my full conversation with Joseph answers your scenario.

English

10

Lucy Ann Moll@LucyAnnMoll·1h

@LowerLeavell Reducing sexual pain to “just heart issues” misses reality. God made us embodied souls. Faithful counseling applies Scripture and uses wise, appropriate tools to care well for the whole person.

English

0

6

54

Brett Anderson@Isaiah45_7·1h

Joseph, I’m moving on. I’ve given you more than enough. To anyone else reading this conversation: Folks, circumstances do not negate moral responsibility. The stewardship of suffering remains a moral responsibility before Christ for both the sufferer and the church body called to bear burdens with them. To direct the suffering Christian to psychology does not relieve that burden; it risks misdirecting care rather than carrying it in a way that honors Christ. It can also, in practice, diminish the role of the body of Christ as the ordinary means God uses to bear burdens in the life of the church. There are a couple ways integrationists often raise concerns about the ACBC framework here. First, they argue that if Scripture has been applied and struggle continues, this indicates a limitation in the model or in sufficiency itself. They may describe this in terms of “blind spots,” locating the issue in the counseling framework rather than in the counselor’s depth, wisdom, or faithfulness in application. In contrast, ACBC affirms that Scripture itself is sufficient, while recognizing that counselors can fail to apply it fully, wisely, or patiently. Second, they appeal to difficult or persistent cases and conclude that the counselee requires “specialized” care that goes beyond what Scripture provides. This effectively introduces a functional limitation on sufficiency, even while affirming it in principle. In doing so, they affirm the sufficiency of Scripture in theory while narrowing its scope in practice. Persistent difficulty, however, does not indicate a deficiency in Scripture. It more often reveals the need for more careful, thorough, and persevering ministry of the Word within the body of Christ. How one defines the sufficiency of Scripture, the nature of the heart, and the practice of biblical counseling must be governed by Scripture itself. Scripture alone has authority to define these concepts. Some dismiss this as “doctrinal parsing” and attempt to move quickly from doctrine to practical application. But this separation is artificial. Doctrine inevitably shapes practice, especially in counseling.

English

18

Brett Anderson@Isaiah45_7·2h

As directly as I can put it, and at this point unconcerned with preserving your respect, your latest replies reveal far more about your own approach to the topic and to me than they do about any supposed “doctrinal parsing” on my part. To caricature my framework as “go see a doctor for your sexual dysfunction; I only deal with matters of the heart” is not only a gross distortion; it is insulting. That is the main reason I tried to give you an opportunity to try again. Do you habitually reduce your opponents’ positions to absurd strawmen in order to control the narrative? It certainly appears that way, even if passively. So no, you do not have the right to assign me a position I have not taken. And, no, you do not have my framework right. When a pastor and his wife come with bowed hearts yet continue to struggle with sexual dysfunction, I do not abandon them to extra-biblical systems. And, I especially do not turn them to psychological systems. I hold the Scripture before them as the mirror of God’s design for them in their specific context. It exposes any heart idolatry, unbelief, or sinful patterns; it calls them to repentance and faith in Christ; and it directs them to walk in obedience by the power of the Holy Spirit in the context of the local church. It also encourages and validates where they are walking after the Holy Spirit in faith. The stewardship of their suffering is purposeful, not only in their lives but also in edifying the church body. They have an opportunity to be a light in their weakness. The church has the opportunity to be a light in carrying their burden. The goal is the glory of Christ, and psychology is not needed. I hold psychology actually subverts this. We agree that the body is fallen and can suffer real physiological brokenness, which is why I said that a competent medical evaluation aligns with common grace. But once organic causes are excluded, psychology offers no legitimate competing framework for the soul. It is not a neutral tool that falls under the category of common grace. To reduce the rejection of psychology here to a “solo Scriptura” label is truly revealing. It’s honestly reads more like a passive aggressive ad hominem. Again, you seem to reduce your opponent to categories and not actually address the content that leads you to believe such a claim. The Word of God, applied by the Spirit through the ministry of the local church, is sufficient to address the whole person in this context, in this specific scenario. So, back to my original reply to your reduction: Scripture is sufficient to address the “complexity” in this scenario. No biblical counselor is so limited in their foundation as to use “only” the sexual contact points (the topic of sex) found in Scripture. You’ve only doubled down on a reductio ad absurdum and added a straw-man argument in doing so.

English

0

51

Brett Anderson@Isaiah45_7·4h

I’m thankful @jasonkovacs shared your post. Even though he does not think the medium of X is conducive to fruitful dialog, his sharing provides an opportunity to not only see your reductionist argument but my full explanation on why I distrust his counseling framework. Thank you both for sharing so this can be read by others.

English

42

Brett Anderson@Isaiah45_7·5h

Joseph, I’m going to give you an opportunity to rethink your reply in light of what I wrote above. You’re free to delete it, reframe it, and address the content of my framework differently. Your reduction reveals you have not thought through my content and your scenario seems to fail in understanding how I’ve already addressed this.

English

0

69

Brett Anderson@Isaiah45_7·4h

@baptist_news This is really just an article that hates Calvinism, in that it conflates Wilson and Mohler on that distinction. One can reject Wilson (as I do) AND praise God for using Mohler in the SBC (which I do).

English

29

Baptist News Global@baptist_news·1d

"Don’t underestimate uber-Calvinist/Christian nationalist Doug Wilson. Recent Southern Baptist Convention history demonstrates how someone who seems far outside the mainstream eventually can wield exorbitant strength." bit.ly/4ecQwht

English

0

1

129

Brett Anderson@Isaiah45_7·4h

@ReallyOldLife It is really just an article that hates Calvinism, in that it conflates Wilson and Mohler on that distinction. One can reject Wilson (as I do) AND praise God for using Mohler in the SBC (which I do).

English

14

D G Hart@ReallyOldLife·7h

maths? 16 million vs. 345 million? "In other words, if Al Mohler can become the most powerful person in the SBC, Wilson could significantly influence American politics." baptistnews.com/article/if-you…

English

0

2

160

Brett Anderson@Isaiah45_7·4h

So good!! pulledporkperfection.com

English

32

Brett Anderson@Isaiah45_7·5h

Biblical counseling must remain anchored exclusively in the sufficiency of Scripture. The Bible is fully capable for issues of the heart because it reveals the triune God in His glory, defines man as creature made in God’s image yet fallen in Adam, exposes sin in its various manifestations, offers genuine hope in the person and work of Christ, and provides concrete direction for change in righteousness. The Bible is sufficient precisely because its Author is sufficient. The Holy Spirit does not bypass Scripture or supplement it with psychological constructs or mystical impressions. He uses the Word as His appointed instrument to convict, correct, instruct, and transform. The counselor’s task is to hold Scripture up as a mirror before a person’s life in a manner that exposes the heart, calls for repentance and faith, and directs the soul toward the glory and grace revealed in the triune God’s nature and cruciform love. This mirror reveals our nature and capacity as creatures wholly dependent on the Creator. The counselor’s responsibility is not to import or integrate foreign systems but to apply Scripture faithfully to the particulars of a person’s life within the context of the body of Christ. Only that which aligns with the narrow road of Scripture can rightly aid a person professing to walk that road. And this remains the greatest need of those not on the narrow road. The Holy Spirit counsels the heart through the ordinary means of grace, chiefly the Word of God rightly understood in the individual’s context and rightly responded to in keeping with the Creator-creature distinction. Faith knows and treasures God through active obedience. Therefore, the counselor’s work is to hold forth the Word of God so that truth is revealed and moral responsibility is clearly seen. Anything that displaces Scripture as sufficient for counseling is not biblical counseling, no matter how sincere, compassionate, or apparently effective it may seem.

English

1

36

Brett Anderson@Isaiah45_7·5h

Biblical counseling stands on the first principle of the sufficiency of Scripture for all matters of the heart, life, and godliness. The Bible is not one voice among many but the authoritative Word of the Creator who alone defines reality, diagnoses the human condition, and prescribes the path of repentance, faith, and transformation. Any counseling model that deviates from this foundation introduces a competing authority and departs from the narrow road of dependence on God’s revealed truth. I have sat under clinically trained professors. I have also sat under the tutelage of a hyper-spiritual mystic church elder. Both may claim allegiance to the sufficiency of Scripture, yet their practices reveal otherwise. Both models err fundamentally as frameworks for counseling because each displaces the Bible from its rightful place as the sufficient authority. The clinical model errs by placing psychological theory alongside Scripture or, in practice, above it. Even when biblical language appears, an external diagnostic framework governs interpretation and treatment. Over time, Scripture functions merely as supportive material rather than the governing authority. This approach treats the complexities of the human heart as problems best addressed through specialized psychological categories and techniques rather than through deeper engagement with God’s Word. It assumes that human-derived systems can provide categories, explanations, and solutions that Scripture lacks or cannot adequately supply on its own. The mystic model errs by replacing objective divine revelation with subjective impressions, inner voices, or alleged spiritual messages. This may appear as direct extra-biblical communication or as a claimed gnostic layer of insight applied to biblical texts. In practice, personal experience or perceived spiritual promptings become the lens that interprets reality, including Scripture itself. What begins as an appeal to the Spirit’s leading ends by elevating private revelation or mystical encounter over the public, written Word of God. Both models function as competing authorities that undermine the sufficiency of Scripture. Both shift counseling away from the careful, contextual application of the Word of God to the human heart in the midst of real-life circumstances. When multifaceted difficulties arise, the solution is not found in specialized psychological expertise or mystical practitioners but in a more faithful and thorough understanding of what God has already spoken in His Word. A crucial distinction must be made regarding the body’s physiological fallen state. The fact that the physical body suffers the effects of the fall does not place the discipline of psychology under the category of common grace in the same way medicine is rightly understood. Medical doctors study and treat the physical body according to God’s observable design in creation. They examine anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, and pathology as aspects of the material world that operate according to consistent, God-ordained laws. Their work aligns with the investigation of creation itself and can therefore function within common grace, even when practiced by unbelievers. Psychology, by contrast, is not the study of God’s design in the same objective sense. It asserts a false framework for understanding the soul, the mind, motivation, behavior, and the causes of human suffering. It constructs explanatory systems rooted in autonomous human reason rather than in the Creator’s revelation. As such, it functions as a pseudo-science that imposes categories and solutions alien to biblical truth, not as a neutral or complementary tool under common grace. 1/2

English

0

6

185

Brett Anderson@Isaiah45_7·5h

Biblical counseling must remain anchored exclusively in the sufficiency of Scripture. The Bible is fully capable for issues of the heart because it reveals the triune God in His glory, defines man as creature made in God’s image yet fallen in Adam, exposes sin in its various manifestations, offers genuine hope in the person and work of Christ, and provides concrete direction for change in righteousness. The Bible is sufficient precisely because its Author is sufficient. The Holy Spirit does not bypass Scripture or supplement it with psychological constructs or mystical impressions. He uses the Word as His appointed instrument to convict, correct, instruct, and transform. The counselor’s task is to hold Scripture up as a mirror before a person’s life in a manner that exposes the heart, calls for repentance and faith, and directs the soul toward the glory and grace revealed in the triune God’s nature and cruciform love. This mirror reveals our nature and capacity as creatures wholly dependent on the Creator. The counselor’s responsibility is not to import or integrate foreign systems but to apply Scripture faithfully to the particulars of a person’s life within the context of the body of Christ. Only that which aligns with the narrow road of Scripture can rightly aid a person professing to walk that road. And this remains the greatest need of those not on the narrow road. The Holy Spirit counsels the heart through the ordinary means of grace, chiefly the Word of God rightly understood in the individual’s context and rightly responded to in keeping with the Creator-creature distinction. Faith knows and treasures God through active obedience. Therefore, the counselor’s work is to hold forth the Word of God so that truth is revealed and moral responsibility is clearly seen. Anything that displaces Scripture as sufficient for counseling is not biblical counseling, no matter how sincere, compassionate, or apparently effective it may seem.

English

0

65

Brett Anderson@Isaiah45_7·5h

But to be more specific, considering your attempt to seek clarity reveals your faulty presupposition. I was working on this last night. I might as well share it here. Biblical counseling stands on the first principle of the sufficiency of Scripture for all matters of the heart, life, and godliness. The Bible is not one voice among many but the authoritative Word of the Creator who alone defines reality, diagnoses the human condition, and prescribes the path of repentance, faith, and transformation. Any counseling model that deviates from this foundation introduces a competing authority and departs from the narrow road of dependence on God’s revealed truth. I have sat under clinically trained professors. I have also sat under the tutelage of a hyper-spiritual mystic church elder. Both may claim allegiance to the sufficiency of Scripture, yet their practices reveal otherwise. Both models err fundamentally as frameworks for counseling because each displaces the Bible from its rightful place as the sufficient authority. The clinical model errs by placing psychological theory alongside Scripture or, in practice, above it. Even when biblical language appears, an external diagnostic framework governs interpretation and treatment. Over time, Scripture functions merely as supportive material rather than the governing authority. This approach treats the complexities of the human heart as problems best addressed through specialized psychological categories and techniques rather than through deeper engagement with God’s Word. It assumes that human-derived systems can provide categories, explanations, and solutions that Scripture lacks or cannot adequately supply on its own. The mystic model errs by replacing objective divine revelation with subjective impressions, inner voices, or alleged spiritual messages. This may appear as direct extra-biblical communication or as a claimed gnostic layer of insight applied to biblical texts. In practice, personal experience or perceived spiritual promptings become the lens that interprets reality, including Scripture itself. What begins as an appeal to the Spirit’s leading ends by elevating private revelation or mystical encounter over the public, written Word of God. Both models function as competing authorities that undermine the sufficiency of Scripture. Both shift counseling away from the careful, contextual application of the Word of God to the human heart in the midst of real-life circumstances. When multifaceted difficulties arise, the solution is not found in specialized psychological expertise or mystical practitioners but in a more faithful and thorough understanding of what God has already spoken in His Word. A crucial distinction must be made regarding the body’s physiological fallen state. The fact that the physical body suffers the effects of the fall does not place the discipline of psychology under the category of common grace in the same way medicine is rightly understood. Medical doctors study and treat the physical body according to God’s observable design in creation. They examine anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, and pathology as aspects of the material world that operate according to consistent, God-ordained laws. Their work aligns with the investigation of creation itself and can therefore function within common grace, even when practiced by unbelievers. Psychology, by contrast, is not the study of God’s design in the same objective sense. It asserts a false framework for understanding the soul, the mind, motivation, behavior, and the causes of human suffering. It constructs explanatory systems rooted in autonomous human reason rather than in the Creator’s revelation. As such, it functions as a pseudo-science that imposes categories and solutions alien to biblical truth, not as a neutral or complementary tool under common grace. 1/2

English

Joseph Leavell@LowerLeavell

0

66

Brett Anderson@Isaiah45_7·5h

This starts from 2 faulty presuppositions, false premises. See here, “… Whether a young couple starting out, post childbirth, non medically related PE or ED, various levels of desire, coming from purity culture from ignorance and developing a bad framework and understanding, or a myriad of other reasons, sexuality can be rather complex and defeating for many Christian couples. If you are counseling a married couple through their sexual dyfunction exclusively from what the Bible says about sex...I'm really sorry for your counselees.” 1. Scripture is sufficient to address these “complexities.” 2. No biblical counselor is so limited in their foundation to use “only” sexual contact points found in scripture. Nothing after this statement should be taken seriously as this foundation is a ridiculous reduction.

As respectfully and discreetly as I can speak to this, many truly suffer sexually because of heart issues, but there is room for those who serve each other well from a healthy, loving heart and perspective, but still have significant struggles for varied reasons. Whether a young couple starting out, post childbirth, non medically related PE or ED, various levels of desire, coming from purity culture from ignorance and developing a bad framework and understanding, or a myriad of other reasons, sexuality can be rather complex and defeating for many Christian couples. If you are counseling a married couple through their sexual dyfunction exclusively from what the Bible says about sex...I'm really sorry for your counselees. Even "Intended for Pleasure" by Dr. Wheat included quite a few modest graphics and techniques that aren't found in Song of Solomon. Also, if they struggle but never bring it up, they are either suffering in silence, relying on the internet (not really a great plan), or going to a therapist because they have gleaned through your sessions that you aren't the right person to talk to about it. Biblical counselors should 100% be equipped to help both with the heart issues around sex as well as utilize healthy tools and resources to support what God has blessed and designed in marriage. I would love to see more who are committed to a biblical framework of counsel enter into this needed space.

English

60

Brett Anderson@Isaiah45_7·13h

I literally knew he was going to respond this way. It is why I stated, “This is not a presupposition you can just gaslight in stating “you misunderstand.” Yet that’s what he did. He literally does this all the time. He graciously side steps, deflects, and says there is a misunderstanding in order to regain control of the framework. Here he tries to add a more defensive approach in stating I am holding to assumptions and false interpretations. Yet, I use his own words and his own logic. It’s his words and logic that I’m building my argument on. I show him how he contradicts himself. Jason, holds to a completely different counseling framework, one that creates to a formation hybrid of modern / postmodern atheism and Christianity, but he wants to unify biblical counseling on what is agreed upon. But here’s the thing, the ACBC model rejects that very starting point (the hybrid) and cannot unify with it on principle alone. It literally is an opposing trajectory of thought and practice. It’s like talking to the LDS. Because language is shared one can unify in the shallows, but once we go into the details we see unity cannot exist. And he knows this. He’s wanting agreement in shallows to be enough when it just isn’t.

Jason Kovacs@jasonkovacs

Thanks for sharing Brett. I believe we likely share more in common than not. Obviously, you have some strongly formed opinions and views about my approach and rhetoric. It is difficult in this venue to have a conversation that is fruitful with the amount of assumptions and interpretations you are making. Would be glad to chat in another format sometime. Godspeed!

English

91

Brett Anderson@Isaiah45_7·14h

This doesn’t address my post. Pointing to the difficulty of this medium is not an argument but only an excuse to escape. This will be evident when you continue using this format to discuss this very topic with others. I have already stated we agree on much, shared terms and concepts, but I also stated that we do not agree on the meat of what those mean. To state my charges are assumptions and false interpretations is again just reframing and deflection. Jason, I made explicit and concise and specific charges using your own words and logic. You’re contradicting yourself.

English

1

73

Jason Kovacs@jasonkovacs·14h

Thanks for sharing Brett. I believe we likely share more in common than not. Obviously, you have some strongly formed opinions and views about my approach and rhetoric. It is difficult in this venue to have a conversation that is fruitful with the amount of assumptions and interpretations you are making. Would be glad to chat in another format sometime. Godspeed!

English

0

3

183

Brett Anderson@Isaiah45_7·17h

I could never trust this mindset. In one breath it elevates psychology as the needed authority to frame physiological historical and relational dynamics and embodied complexities that Scripture alone supposedly cannot address. It builds a framework to justify its own necessity while shifting focus away from heart level beliefs, choices, moral responsibility, and Gods sovereignty (Prov 4:23; Mark 7:21 23). In the next breath it claims Scripture should “ideally” shape care. Yet the qualifier exposes the true position: Scripture is not sufficient; clinical skilled expertise is required as a complement. This denies the sufficiency of Gods Word for all soul care including trauma and sexual struggles (2 Tim 3:16 17; 2 Pet 1:3). Trying to unite a fallen modern / postmodern pseudo science with Christianity is ridiculous. It is a dangerous hybrid that undermines the gospels power for heart change in the local church. Folks, scripture is sufficient to explain the “complexities” and no soul care is ever accomplished by a hybrid approach that replaces the Holy Spirit. Jason’s rhetoric in these replies read as a marketing strategy more so than anything else. It’s as though he tried to fit as many categorical terms from a brochure to elevate himself and psychology. He definitely isn’t pointing to God’s authority, ability, and standard as the greatest good in this field.

Jason Kovacs@jasonkovacs

100% respectfully disagree brother! I don’t think it’s accurate to label gospel-centered, clinically-informed sex therapy as a "perverse practice" or that it is an "abject failure of the churches shepherding ministry." Those are serious assumptions and insinuations you are making. A trained professional sex therapist can be a valuable partner to good pastoral care by addressing aspects of sexuality that pastors are not always equipped to handle in depth or have the time to give - particularly the physiological, historical, and relational dynamics involved. Many struggles in this area are shaped by trauma, abuse, bodily responses, not just beliefs or choices. A skilled counselor can help untangle the embodied complexities people face. Ideally, when rightly ordered under the authority of God’s Word, this partnership offers wise, whole-person care.

English

0

2

1.9K

Brett Anderson@Isaiah45_7·14h

Jason, when you state, “Working with someone who is specially trained in this particular area of complexity can be valuable and helpful,” you introduce an extra-biblical category of expertise, almost a degree of pushing a “secret knowledge.” This subtly undermines your own claim: “Nowhere did I state that psychology is the needed authority or that Scripture is insufficient.” It because you use shared terms, such as “complexity,” “sufficient,” “pastoral care,” but assign them different meanings. You then talk past the person who disagrees with you, even if you try to frame it in positive tones. The ACBC recognizes the multifaceted nature or dynamic of human struggles yet firmly rejects the bio-psychosocial framework as necessary to understand them and address the complexity. This is not a presupposition you can just gaslight in stating “you misunderstand. “ True sufficiency means Scripture thoroughly equips the man of God for every good work in soul care, including trauma and sexual sin (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:3; Ps. 19:7-11). This is not just the spiritual formation in becoming more like Christ, it is allowing God’s Word the authority to address the heart of a person in need of care. So if any expertise need to be brought in, it is not a secular bio psychosocially trained “expert,” it is a person more deeply studied in scripture that is needed. Your “clinically-informed” approach imports secular diagnostic categories and explanatory frameworks. Because you hold this you hold there are extra-biblical experts of the heart. In this you recast problems primarily as a multi-dynamic of the spiritual AND the physiological, relational, or embodied “complexities” rather than heart-level idolatry, rebellion against God, and sinful desires flowing from within (Prov. 4:23; Jer. 17:9; Mark 7:21-23). Highlighting what pastors are “not always equipped” for, while calling clinical input merely “valuable,” creates a functional hybrid and only further proves my point. It’s also a passive way to subvert the sufficiency of scripture as defined by the ACBC. It subtly qualifies the sufficiency you claim to affirm and erodes confidence in the ordinary means of grace: the ministry of the Word, the Holy Spirit, and the local church. Shared language does not mean shared meaning. So pointing me back to the thread changes nothing. As in our prior exchange, you continue to reframe and deflect rather than engage the substance of my charge. I stand by my post: the amount of rhetoric you use is ridiculous. Bringing in psychologically “trained helpers” is absolutely counterproductive. In many cases it is this “partnership” that grieves the Holy Spirit, as in doing so adds confusion and undermines what Scripture’s sufficiency truly requires, the local church and biblical counselors equipped by the Word and Spirit alone. So, yeah, I don’t trust your mindset on counseling at all.

English

0

1

126

Jason Kovacs@jasonkovacs·15h

Brother - your response is filled with an impressive number of assumptions that simply are not true. I said in a subsequent response that "scripture should absolutely shape how we think about care." No where did I state that psychology is the needed authority or that Scripture is insufficient and something other than good pastoral care is *required.* Working with someone who is specially trained in this particular area of complexity can be valuable and helpful and I shared the reasons. I encourage you to re-read the full thread.

English