Comments on: Biblical Counseling and a Theology of Scripture (3)

By: David Murray

David Murray — Fri, 17 Jun 2016 13:41:00 +0000

Good point Andy. I suppose if I had more space than a blog post I would be able to say “necessary” and flesh it out in a way that would avoid people drawing the wrong conclusions and misrepresenting my position. But it would take quite a few paragraphs to define “necessary,” “extra-biblical materials,” the kinds of cases this applies to and how we go about it.

By: Andy Barlow

Andy Barlow — Thu, 26 May 2016 20:46:00 +0000

Dr. Murray, regarding #3 above, I actually think we make a fundamental mistake to suggest that extra-biblical knowledge is just helpful but not necessary. I think the only reason we would say such a thing is because the rhetoric of sufficiency has dug its roots too deeply into our minds. This is where the language of scripture’s “primacy” or “normative” nature is such a vital clarification to the idea of sufficiency. The scripture is never sufficient in the sense that extra-biblical knowledge is unnecessary. In my opinion, this simply plays into the epistemological mistake biblical counselors make in the first place.

As Frame argues in DKG, “Human knowledge can be understood in three ways: as knowledge of God’s norm, as knowledge of our situation, and as knowledge of ourselves. None can be achieved adequately without the others. Each includes the others. Each, therefore, is a ‘perspective’ on the whole of human knowledge” (75).

Viewed in this way, then, any piece of information (theological, medical, psycho-social, etc) that relates to understanding a person and helping him/her flourish, isn’t just helpful. In fact, it is necessary if we want our knowledge of and care for people to most closely approximate God’s.

Thoughts?

By: David Murray

David Murray — Fri, 08 Apr 2016 21:20:00 +0000

Jealous that you’ve been taught by Dr. Johnson, Mike. I’ve met him a couple of times and greatly benefited from his company. I agree with you that there does not seem to be that great a difference. That’s why I get so frustrated by language that suggests the differences are not only greater than they actually are, but even at the level of “the greatest threat to the church’s doctrine of sufficiency.”

By: David Murray

David Murray — Fri, 08 Apr 2016 21:15:00 +0000

Joshua, I share your interest and excitement about what the neurosciences are discovering of God’s truth about the brain. And yes, we would definitely prefer if it was expressed in a biblical framework. I suppose that’s one of the fruitful areas for biblical counselors to work in – to take what scientists are discovering and frame it (and correct it) in God-honoring ways. Grateful for your interaction this week and also for our shared passion to bring Christians closer together as we labor for the good of souls and the glory of Christ. Hope we get to meet up some day.

By: Mike Leake

Mike Leake — Fri, 08 Apr 2016 16:23:00 +0000

I’ve had Dr. Johnson in a few my classes at SBTS. I’m also going through ACBC certification right now. Having listened to both pretty extensively I really don’t see a huge difference. I am happy that you are interacting with this because when I read the way Dr. Lambert described Dr. Johnson’s position I was absolutely shocked. I don’t believe Dr. Johnson has been fairly represented. He bends over backwards in class to argue for the supremacy and the sufficiency of Scripture but he also argues (as you do) that we are making a mistake to reject truth just because it comes from a secular source. I don’t see this as denying the sufficiency of Scripture.

By: Joshua Waulk

Joshua Waulk — Fri, 08 Apr 2016 11:14:00 +0000

Dr. Murray: Thanks again for this morning’s post. Regarding your mini-case study, I don’t think any present-day biblical counselor would object to the facts of the case as presented (I say present day only because we do understand that BC as a movement has evolved over the years). In fact, I would likely take same/similar courses of action. And again, that is in keeping with my training and education as a certified biblical counselor.

One point I would make is that at least one part of your case study treatment plan, breathing exercises, is a very basic physiological help for the physical effects of stress/anxiety that when successfully applied has a calming effect on the soul. The subject of the case study seems to be experiencing a very circumstantially rooted anxiety, which I’m guessing was your intent, and so that influences the direction of care. I appreciate your emphasis in seeking to understand the heart issues involved in this person’s case.

I think it’s a wonderful example of the connection between body and soul, which, if we’re all honest, isn’t well understood by anyone, but folks in the neurosciences are beginning to uncover in their own work (although they probably wouldn’t express it in biblical terms, of course; I’m thinking for example of the physical changes to the brain that occur over some period of time in exposure to pornography).

I agree w/your assessment that there is much common ground for us (the BC and integrationist) to focus on. I do hope that this would be the trajectory of things over time.