Nature of sin (re: Nouthetic Counseling)

[darinhouston]

I've seen some potentially damaging effects with a friend of mine involving a practitioner of so-called "Nouthetic counseling" recently. I am only superficially familiar with that "movement," and (though I expect there is a spectrum of practice) from my understanding they generally seek to resolve ALL social, relational, or behavioral issues by identifying the person's "besetting sins." As I understand it, this is largely a Calvinistic movement, which is consistent with my perception of their view of original sin and election/determinism.

I understand that they view sin not so much as a thing you "do," but a thing you "have" that causes you to do the things you do. I think this can be dangerous, particularly with children if it leads one to "brand" or "label" the child based on what you perceive as their particular "sin" or what they call an "idol of the heart."

My question really isn't to engage a debate on nouthetic counseling, but I'd like to engage a dialogue concerning the nature of sin. I see verses which do suggest sin is something we're "infected with" (e.g., having the law of sin in our members); but, generally I understand sin to define our attitude/intentions/behavior instead of being some sort of "power" that leads to the same. Certainly, any sinful behavior can be linked to an underlying sinful thought or motivation; but, even if we tend to struggle with a particular sin, that seems vastly different from identifying a "core sin" or what they call "idol of the heart" that underlies all or most of a given individual's problems.

Thoughts?

[dizerner]

I'd like to discuss this but I'm concerned that you brought in this "Nouthetic Counseling." I don't want you to equate my ideas with theirs, since I don't know exactly what they teach or practice.

I will just say, from what you described, it does not really sound like a Biblical doctrine of original sin. We may very well have idols in our hearts, but only God can show us that. As for the power of besetting sins, they can come from many sources. We don't want to label each of us a specific "flavor" of sinner, and thus exalt sin. We are just all pain old sinners, who display that fact in a variety of ways. However sin has so many varied sources, it's impossible to deal with this in a one-size-fits-all systematic fashion. One person may have a besetting sin because they were abused as a child, another person may have a besetting sin because they given into pride. It's so completely varied that only discernment will get you anywhere.

I think there is a lot of Scriptural evidence for what you call "a power" or force that leads to sin. However, I don't think all sins are exactly the same, there is nuance to it. What I see in Scripture is two main ideas: one kind of sin is "in the likeness of Adam." That is, Adam literally had the grace to say "No, I won't disobey God, not even if you, Eve, did." Adam was not overpowered from the inside nor flooded with feelings he could not possibly control. I believe the reason the effects of sin were so severe from Adam and Eve was because they sinned in the light of full knowledge with no outside or inside compelling forces. In our fallen state, I think that is hard to imagine, so we backtrack our feelings of weakness and sin into Adam and Eve and basically think "aw, they couldn't help it, sin is just so hard to overcome and we are so weak." But after their sin, which I see as a significant spiritual transaction concerning the human race, things are very different. Now I believe that, in the light of knowledge and empowering grace, we can make free will sins against God that have far more significant consequences than sins without that light and without that grace. This leads to the heavier warning passages, such as Hebrews "impossible to be renewed," Paul's "woe is me if I don't!" or the "it will be better off in judgment for Sodom than for you," or the most severe "it would have been better if you had not been born."

Then there are sins that come from a sinful nature and demonic bondage, the Romans 7 sins, "the good I want to do, I do not practice, but that which I don't want to do, I do." I do believe that was written not to a lost person, but a born again person struggling with living "according to the flesh" as Paul said. However, Paul described this kind of sin as affecting both believers and unbelievers. Paul taught that believers no longer had to succumb to this kind of sin, which kind of sin I don't see as the above (full knowledge, full grace, free will sin). Here we have passages describing slavery and bearing fruit, two powerful imageries. "No longer present yourselves to sin," says Paul, "so that you give in to its desires." "If you walk after the flesh," says Paul, "you will produce the works of the flesh" and "the end of those things is death." And conversely we are told to "present yourselves to God as a living sacrifice" because now we are "alive from the dead" so that "sin will no longer have dominion over you." And in the other epistles Paul describes the fruit of the Spirit as opposed to the works of the flesh, a metaphor for something gradually grown as a life force. Christ also vividly used this imagery when he said "abide in me, and I in you, and you will bear much fruit," which, if we do the opposite, is described as withering off the vine and being thrown into fire. Christ said that if we abide in his Word, then we will know the truth that will set us free; and in that same passage he describes a discipleship unto sonship; that is, in God's Word, is the power of the knowledge of Christ's work against original sin, and thusly our new birth.

[willowtree]

I'd like to engage a dialogue concerning the nature of sin. I see verses which do suggest sin is something we're "infected with" (e.g., having the law of sin in our members); but, generally I understand sin to define our attitude/intentions/behavior instead of being some sort of "power" that leads to the same. Certainly, any sinful behavior can be linked to an underlying sinful thought or motivation; but, even if we tend to struggle with a particular sin, that seems vastly different from identifying a "core sin" or what they call "idol of the heart" that underlies all or most of a given individual's problems.

.

I have an interest in the topic of original sin as well, but have no knowledge of Nouthetic counseling. My entire church life has been with a holiness denomination, in which teaching about original sin and its remedy feature importantly. Perhaps less so now than it used to, but this is may be due to the widespread acceptance of the concepts of the doctrine in many denominations.

What I have been considering recently is that much of our confusion may arise from trying to define something that we have that is a problem, when we should be considering this as something that we don't have that would more clearly portray our condition.

Jesus spent much of his time preaching the good news of the kingdom. His conversations, teaching and parables abound with references to 'life'. Nicodemus needed to be born again, the woman at the well needed living water. Jesus declared that he was the way, the truth and the life, that the prodigal son was lost and dead, but now is found and alive. The point is that Adam ate of the fruit for which he would 'surely die'. Jesus came to give us life, and that more abundantly. Between Adam and Jesus, something went missing. The couple that were escorted out of Eden suddenly found themselves without constant fellowship with God, without his guidance, his power, and without a sense of destiny.

Paul breaks out the good news in Romans 8:1-2, saying that the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus set him free from the law of sin and death. I can see where the concepts of sin and death come from. That he calls it a law gives it an inescapable quality. That he allows for a new more powerful law to render the old ineffective opens the door for us to live victoriously over sin.

The idea that the problem lies in something that we are missing rather than some thing that we have that needs to be extracted, is new in my thinking. Any ideas?

Graeme

[dizerner]

Willowtree how do you view the law arousing sin and making it come alive? I really see sin as, not just an absence of something, but a replacement altogether... a life people find in another vine.

[willowtree]

Willowtree how do you view the law arousing sin and making it come alive? I really see sin as, not just an absence of something, but a replacement altogether... a life people find in another vine.

The law that arouses sin, I have always viewed as the law of Moses. So in my thinking, there are several laws in operation. The law of sin and death originated at the gate of the Garden of Eden and its purpose was to keep man separated from God. Sounds ugly, but in effect that's what it did. It deprived Adam of knowing the power of God, the knowledge of his will, the passion of his love and the destiny of his glory. (These correspond to the ways in which we are commanded to love God - with all our strength, mind, heart and soul). The law that arouses sin (really the awareness of sin), that Paul refers to in Romans 7:7-8 is Moses' law. Its purpose is to highlight transgressions against God and in doing so point the transgressor (sinner) towards atonement. The frustration that Paul expresses later in the chapter is that the law of Moses highlights the sin, but does not have the power to redeem. Not only that, but while the law shows what is wrong, it does not address why we cannot help but do the wrong. The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus comes from his atonement and provides not only forgiveness for the transgressions (as highlighted by Moses' law), but a new law of power and victory in Christ that provides all the elements that Adam was deprived of, and sets us free from the law of sin and death. So Paul writes to the Philippians. "I want to know Christ (mind) and the power of his resurrection (strength) and the fellowship of sharing in his suffering, becoming like him in his death (heart), and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection of the dead (destiny or soul)." And "I can do all things through him who gives me strength".

I think as far as the 'something that replaces' this is concerned, the vacuum created by the law of sin and death is filled with whatever man has access to now that God is not active in his life. In the carnal state (let me use that term in reference to the unredeemed man) of our lives, God is replaced by our own self - we are our own boss and act as if we are accountable to none other. Our carnal strength is limited to our own muscle and resources, our carnal minds are limited to our own extent of knowledge, our carnal hearts are limited to our own passions, and our destiny is void of any assurance. I agree that all of this (not having) adds to a very big 'something'. We were not created for this.

And I agree that the Bible does support the 'something' in using terminology like cleansing, purifying, purging, etc. It seems much easier to me to picture the 'something' in a negative fashion as that which we are lacking. We do the same thing, though it is masked in English, when we understand that sin is 'missing the mark'. This too, is a negative definition.

Graeme

[dizerner]

The frustration that Paul expresses later in the chapter is that the law of Moses highlights the sin, but does not have the power to redeem. The law that arouses sin (really the awareness of sin)...

You make some awesome points. But I think Paul expresses an idea a bit more than "frustration" or "awareness" about sin. He depicts something akin to actual slavery. Conversely he depicts Christians as capable of being enslaved to righteousness. The trespass of Adam is just like the free gift of Christ. The law of sin and death is just like the law of spirit and life. The slavery of sin is replaced by a slavery to righteousness. Sin comes freely to us (we don't need to work at it). So in grace, righteousness can come freely to us (by the Spirit's power).

as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness

This is why I think sin is not just a mistake we make here and there, showing we are not perfect, but some force independently at work within us, as it says "sin came alive again." Sin is consistently almost personified.

Practically, original sin has a very pragmatic application for my own life. The harder I try to save myself, like a drowning man, the less I'm trusting someone else to carry me, and the more I will sink. Satan uses the very idea of religious works to get us to try to do right without trusting Christ, and thereby we've lost the game before we've even started—because he's gotten us to try to do the right thing but the wrong way.

For not knowing about God's righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.

[willowtree]

This is why I think sin is not just a mistake we make here and there, showing we are not perfect, but some force independently at work within us, as it says "sin came alive again." Sin is consistently almost personified.

You have written much that I want to respond to, and have no serious disagreement with any of it. I will take a little time to formulate my responses. My earlier statement that original sin is more about what we do not have than what we do have, is not as developed as I would like, and I want to see if it fits with what I have previously understood.

What needs to be stated loud and clear, to me, is that the problem with sin is not clearly understood, much less that the atonement provides a full and complete remedy. It does not help that in any passage in the Bible where Satan is portrayed in an unfavourable light, he spreads as much confusion as he can.

Graeme

[darinhouston]

Here's a blurb I ran across which addresses the connection with a perverted view of election and depravity common to many in today's Reformed circles.

The Nouthetic model thus sits comfortably with a type of Calvinist mentality which rests confident in the knowledge that since God is going to make sure the elect get saved and the wicked get punished, all we have to do is maintain the integrity of the body by putting sinners out of it, and God will bring the sinner back if he wishes. Since God is in charge, we don’t have to concern ourselves with doing everything we can on our end to help the struggling sinner. The speed with which the Nouthetic model moves to church discipline, its lack of concern for finding creative ways to help a sinner who is unrepentant, and its opposition to trying to help a person who does not explicitly desire such help, all fit comfortably within this hyper-Calvinist framework.

Pastors whose thinking has been tinctured by this paradigm, suddenly find themselves in a win-win situation. If a struggling sinner is put under church discipline or excommunicated, the sinner is either part of the elect or not. If he is not, then the discipline will inevitably drive the sinner further away and the church will be purified (that is, the visible church will be brought more into alignment with the invisible). But if the sinner is not part of the elect, then the discipline will cause him to come back as surely as the prodigal son came back. In both cases, struggling to understand any psychological issues the sinner may be struggling with so as to better help him, is at best irrelevant and at worst a dangerous distraction.

At its worst the Nouthetic model allows counselors to claim the moral high ground in not working with those whose problems are complex and whose troubles evade simple explanations. As such Nouthetic counseling strikes at the very heart of the gospel. It creates a class of spiritual outcasts by denying that help can be offered to those whose problems are so complex that they cannot be addressed simply and briefly. (I forget the timeline Jay Adams gave for helping a person, but it is very brief. If the person can’t be helped by then, then there is nothing the counselor can do.)

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Paidion]

This Wikipedia article may give us a better understanding of nouthetic counseling:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouthetic_counseling