Questioning the Biblical Counseling Movement Part 1: Greg Koukl's Is Biblical Counseling Biblical?

Proponents of biblical counseling are resolute in their beliefs. After all, they say, biblical counseling is biblical. Everything is taken directly from the bible. Those who question their practices go against men and women who firmly believe they have the inerrant word of God on their side. Questioning them is almost considered heretical. (“Heresy” is a popular word in biblical counseling manuals. It begs the question: are they using the term correctly?)

There are several really intelligent theologians who have issued thoughtful critiques of the biblical counseling movement. The next several posts will take a look at some of these alternative points of view.

The individuals I am showcasing question the legitimacy of the biblical counseling movement. Some critiques are more biting than others; a couple actually point out some of the merit of the biblical counseling movement; however, all acknowledge the fallacies behind the movement and in some cases, show how scripture has been misused and misread.

Is Biblical Counseling Biblical? By Greg Koukl

Greg Koukl is the founder and president of the radio program Stand to Reason. He is also an adjunct professor of apologetics at Biola University.

Koukl argues that the bible does not teach “bible only.” He reviews a statement made by the BCM and carefully scrutinizes the scriptures they use to back up their statement:

“The Word of God has been given to man as the sole source for finding God’s solutions to the real problems that plague him.” (Ps 19:11; 2 Tim 3:16-17; Heb 4:12; 2 Pet 1:2-4)

Koukl states that these verses do make it clear that God’s law and his word are accurate and inspired, but that nowhere in these verses is it implied that outside resources are an illegitimate source of information just because they are not found in the bible.

Koukl closely examines 15 different verses cited by the BCM to refute man’s contributions to the problems of the mind, heart, and soul outside of the context of the bible. Of those 15 verses, he finds that 11 of them have nothing to do with the issue at hand. Three of the verses only indirectly address the issue and the one that does address the issue is misapplied. (Koukl includes a full assessment of all of the verses in an appendix.)

Biblical counselors use 2 Timothy 3:15 as their primary reason for their biblical brand of counseling. Koukl argues that even this verse doesn’t teach that the Scripture is “adequate.” Koukl notes that the verse does not describe scripture as adequate, but rather “the man of God who uses the inspired Scripture in a profitable way.”

Koukl makes the following statement:

“Do these texts teach what the syllabus asserted, that any of man’s contribution to the problems of mind, heart, and spirit are unacceptable to God? No, they don’t. Not only do these texts fail to make the Biblical Counseling Foundation’s point, but a pattern emerges of misuse and misrepresentation of Scripture, a pattern we’ll note in other areas as well. This is unsettling considering the BCF’s own admonition to be “diligent in learning to handle accurately the Word of God.” (Read part 1 and part 2 of my critique of the Biblical Counseling Foundation's Self Confrontation Manual.)

Koukl goes on to argue that man can discern God’s truth even if he lives outside of God and his word. His main, and extremely intriguing, point comes from The Wisdom Literature of the Amenomope, an ancient Egyptian text that pre-dates Proverbs. This is important as it contains sections that are nearly identical to sections found in the inspired book of Proverbs.

How could that be? How could a “pagan” contribute inspired words of wisdom?

Koukl writes that man has the “universal, natural ability to draw certain specific conclusions about God without the aid of special revelation, a capability so powerful that the willful suppression of it brings God’s judgment.”

Koukl goes on to argue that even Calvin would not be offended by contributions of modern psychology by unregenerate contributors. He calls to our attention Calvin’s appreciation of the wisdom in Aristotle’s teaching.

The second part of Koukl’s paper discusses the BCM’s incredible focus on the utter depravity of mankind. He acknowledges that we all “miss the mark.” If the standard is God, of course we all miss the mark. Our love is never as great as his love, our good deeds never as pure in motive as his, etc. We are incapable of EVER hitting the mark. That is why we need a savior.

Koukl makes the distinction between two very important things: a) having inherent worth in the eyes of God and b) earning forgiveness. One does not suddenly “gain value” in the eyes of God through salvation. Koukl argues that the “Self-Confrontation Manual” actually denies these two things and wrongly focuses on the utter depravity and filth of mankind.

This is a very broad review of this paper. Koukl does an excellent job of referring to past Reformer theologians, who acknowledged that “worth and value are different from merit.” His primary point is that we shouldn’t dismiss psychological advances just because they are stumbled upon by non-Christians. He accuses the BCF of taking a sledgehammer approach to dealing with psychology. Koukl instead encourages Christian to focus on using God’s gift of discernment, a natural gift imparted by God, to make decisions regarding specific issues not discussed in the bible.

Read Koukl's article, Is Biblical Counseling Biblical? here.