Reformed Causality and Psychotherapeutic Methodology

By Michael Senders
Childhood analysis is almost synonymous with psychology in popular culture
today. One does not have too look much farther than Veggietales Silly Songs with
Larry to find Archibald Asparagus inquiring about Larrys childhood to determine
the reason for Larrys infatuation with his own lips. Crime-based television programs,
whether fictional or real, make constant use of childhood in diagnosing why the
subject came to whatever point in life they did. The author so recently heard on a very
popular nationally syndicated Christian radio program from one of the most widely
respected national Christian radio stations lauding childhood analysis.1 The person
being interviewed, a Christian psychologist, first chided the idea that, in counseling
practice, regeneration separates us from our previous life, and then went on to say that
if you reject childhood inquiries you are not aligning yourself with truth, and that
Jesus said that the truth will set you free. The evidence, for the psychologist, is that
it works. This is nothing more than bare pragmatism, and the language used is the
same slick language used by televangelists to con viewers into supporting whatever
moneymaking scheme they are pushing.
Nearly every person can point to his or her childhood as an explanation for issues in
later life. The point of this paper is that to prove that a consistent Reformed theology
deems this not only unnecessary, but counter-intuitive methodologically, and
inconsistent theologically. Reformed theology alone binds together a personal
predestination2 with monergism3, resulting in the denial of autonomous free will.
Because of this, Reformed theology stands alone as being able to counsel individuals
based solely on spiritual dysfunction,4 relying on the Holy Spirit as the source of
change in opposition to a reliance upon an inquisition into the carnal life lived prior to
salvation. This paper will contrast Reformed epistemology and methodology with
secularist and synergistic systems to show that in practice, only a Reformed
1 The author heard the following in passing, and so it will be paraphrased and unattributed.
2 The author says personal predestination to underline the issue of personal interaction between God
and man, as opposed to bare atheistic philosophical determinism or the impersonal, theistic,
deterministic predestination of Islam. The word predestination (Greek: proorizo) certainly appears
in the Bible, so its existence within Christianity as a whole cannot be argued, though its definition
certainly is. Synergists argue that predestination is an act of God resultant upon free choices, which
begs the question of its definition. Synergists have been unable to produce a sufficient definition of
predestination according to its lexical meaning in contrast to its subjection to autonomous freedom in
their theology.
3 Due to the modern popularity of denying the applications of terms like Calvinist or Arminian,
this paper will use the terms monergism or monergistic and synergism or synergistic to refer to
those of the Reformed tradition as opposed to all others respectively. The terms are formed from the
Greek words monos, alone, syn-, together, and ergon, work. Monergism, then, refers to salvation
that is Gods work alone, and synergism refers to salvation in which God works together with the
autonomous free will of humans.
4 This paper focuses on normative counseling of Reformed Christians, not the counseling of
individuals with diagnosed psychological issues that require medical assistance. However, if stability is
maintained after chemical imbalances have been addressed, the author once again only supports a
consistently Reformed psychological methodology. Nonetheless, the author in no way condones the
treatment of chemically imbalanced individuals solely from a standpoint of spiritual dysfunction. Such
counseling practices should be in cooperation with professional medical assistance.

methodology and epistemology takes seriously the matter of regeneration and the
born again dialectic. This paper should be considered a work on theology that has
implications for counseling and psychology and not vice versa. The authors intent is
simply to show that an inconsistency exists between popular counseling practices and
Reformed methodology, not to suggest a practical means of counseling.
The basis for inquiries into childhood experiences lies in the hypothesis that child
development impacts who we are as adults. Psychologist Alfred Adler5, a colleague of
Sigmund Freud and fellow pragmatist, popularized the idea of using early
remembrances as part of his psychological method. Adler says, By looking back
through childhood memories we are able to uncover the prototype- the core of the
style of life- better than by any other method.6 In this method, the counselee
randomly recalls several memories from childhood. These memories are recalled in
no order, and should not be premeditated. The memories are then interpreted or
processed, where the counselor tells the counselee what his memories mean and
what they may have to say about who he or she is at the moment. What this procedure
does is to show how an individuals memory of their childhood has impacted their life
as adults. Other means of inquiry may be appropriated; simple inquiry about
relationships with family, friends, and so on may be used to show how the counselee
has allowed certain developmental factors to impact their current situation or
personality in negative ways.
The problem with this method of research is that it assumes a certain
philosophy of causality that is native to atheists and agnostics, is consistent with
deism and synergism, but is inconsistent with and contrary to monergism. Childhood
evaluation assumes a naturalistic cause7 and effect8 relationship within temporal
circumstances. What this means is that every temporal event is contingent9 upon prior
temporal contingency, and therefore no new chains of causal relationships can be
created. There are no outside, non-contingent, causal influences. If we were to draw a
picture of this it would look like a pyramid made of chain links; each link would be
linked to other links and therefore interrelated, going all the way back to the
beginning of time.10 Each individuals psyche is shaped solely by the causal

5 The author straightway dismisses Adlers views as contrary to Reformed theology. Adler was
impressed by German philosopher Hans Vaihinger, who taught that humans cannot ascertain truth.
Vaihingers idea that people act as if the unknown is actually known is fundamentally pragmatic.
This is contrary to Reformed epistemology, which teaches that man, as the imago dei, holds true truth,
but necessarily suppresses it, as well as the idea that God reveals true truth to the regenerate through his
Word. Adler also believed in the oneness of the individual (holism), which is contrary to Pauls
dichotomy of the flesh warring against the spirit in the life of the Christian.
6 Adler, Alfred. The Science of Living. (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd) 1929.
7 Hodge defines cause thusly: (1) A cause is something. It has a real existence. It is not merely a
name for a certain relation. It is a real entity, a substance. This is plain because a nonentity cannot act.
If that which does not exist can be a cause, then nothing can produce something, which is a
contradiction. (2.) A cause must not only be something real, but it must have power or efficiency. There
must be something in its nature to account for the effects which it produces. (3.) This efficiency must
be adequate; that is, sufficient and appropriate to the effect. (Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology,
Volume One, Part I: Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1986), 209.)
8 Hodge defines effect as, an event, or product, not due to anything in itself, but produced by
something out of itself (Ibid., 208.)
9 In this paper, contingent will mean that an events existence is dependent upon a preceding causal
relationship. This is in contrast to spontaneity, which means that an event is not dependent upon any
antecedent. Contingency will be defined this way because the authors point is not to argue certainty vs.
contingency as per Hodge, but to contrast causality in monergism vs. causality in synergism.

contingencies linking him to the rest of temporality. We will now assess this
assumption.
The first view of causality is that of a closed universe. This is the view espoused by
secular science, atheism, and agnosticism.11 A closed universe is one where nothing
outside the universe exists. The entirety of existence is that which is included in
temporality. This means the universe is necessary12, not contingent. It is not the result
of some outside influence, but exists in itself independent of a non-contingent causal
agent. The universe looks to itself as the reason for its own existence, and its nonexistence is impossible. The universe must exist, because it is necessary. Even within
the theory that the universe is continually collapsing and expanding, existence does
not end; the universe is still in existence. It simply moves to a different state of being.
If that state of being is defined as nothing, then that nothing immediately becomes
something, because it is that nothingness that becomes the source of the next creation
event, which makes it a cause. Therefore, nothing has being, and that being is simply
the universe in a different form.
However, if there is no beginning to the universe, then there is no cause for all
that is. Because the universe does not have a beginning, i.e., has existed ad infinitum,
there is no cause for existence. The universe is a series of contingencies with no initial
cause. This presents a logical conundrum; if there is no first cause to begin the cause
and effect sequence, there can be no cause and effect sequence at all. There exists
only circumstance, a series of seemingly interconnected occurrences that appear to be
contingencies on the surface, but cannot be rightly referred to as contingencies
because there is no initial cause. If there is no initial cause, this means that causality is
a charade; the law of cause and effect does not exist. It merely exists in the human
mind and is a coping mechanism employed by moral agents to successfully deal with
their lives. Without this coping mechanism called cause and effect, our minds
would exist in a constant flux, unable to interpret temporality. We could not
understand chronology without cause and effect.
If the universe did have a beginning, but that beginning can be truly said to be
ex nihilo, then we can affirm cause and effect. Nothing was the cause of the universe.
However, this again is a logical fallacy and actually works against cause and effect.
First, the universe is still necessary, and yet is at the same time contingent. It is
necessary because nothing preceded it and therefore its existence is self-imposed. On
the other hand, it is contingent because it required spontaneity for its existence. The
existence of existence itself is contingent upon a singular, unprecedented moment
10 This is an oversimplification. In fact, many effects are caused by things that took place long before;
not simply in the life of the counselee, but in history itself. Framing of government and laws, culture,
etc. happening hundreds of years prior can all be said to be causal factors for present reality.
11 Technically, agnosticism denies all theologies, including atheism. However, agnostics in practice
act along the lines of atheism more so than any theistic system. Berkhof writes that there are three
kinds of theoretical atheism, namely, (1) dogmatic atheism, which flatly denies that there is a Divine
Being; (2) sceptical [sic.] atheism, which doubts the ability of the human mind to determine, whether
or not there is a God; and (3) critical atheism, which maintains that there is no valid proof for the
existence of God. These often go hand in hand, but even the most modest of them really pronounces all
belief in God a delusion. In this division, it will be noticed, agnosticism also appears as a sort of
atheism, a classification which many agnostics resent. But it should be borne in mind that agnosticism
respecting the existence of God, while allowing the possibility of His reality, leaves us without an
object of worship and adoration just as much as dogmatic atheism does. (Berkhof, L. Systematic
Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1953), 23.)
12 Necessary is a philosophical term that means, Things are as they are, and must be as they are, and
are to be, without any rational cause. (Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology, Volume Two:
Anthropology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1986), 280.)

where all that is became. This is logically infallible because all of human experience
tells us that nothing cannot create something.13 If nothing is truly nothing,14 then the
universe cannot be its product. This works against the law of cause and effect in that it
requires the aforementioned spontaneity. If spontaneity is the cause of all that is, then
we cannot be assured that other seeming contingencies within existence are not also
the product of spontaneity. If the universe is an effect yet is uncaused, there can be no
cause and effect relationships because effects can be uncaused. Spontaneous actions
can occur that are not contingent but are both uncaused and unnecessary. Once again,
the law of cause and effect is merely a coping tool used by humanity to exist in
relative peace of mind with temporality.
Assuming the universe to be closed, and the cause and effect relationship to be
solely the product of the human mind, causal relationships are entirely subjective.
What one person sees as the cause of another contingency, another person may deny
and have equal ground for rejecting what the other affirmed. This is inconsistent with
Adlers teachings on childhood development because his beliefs require a consistency
in cause and effect. If contingencies can be spontaneous, there can be no psychology,
let alone a linking of the present lifestyle with child development. Adult lifestyle may
be the product of spontaneity. However, given Adlers adherence to the beliefs of
Vaihinger, this may actually be consistent. This seems to fit with the as if mentality.
Mankind exists as if cause and effect were true because this is the easiest
explanation of existence to cope with. It is severely pragmatic. That said, within the
human mind at least, causality is a singular mesh, unbroken, since the time of the first
effect. Also, All actions within the mutable universe are contingencies relating back to
the first effect and therefore interrelated. While this may be subjective, it is allowable
within the as if mentality. Suffice to say, this line of reasoning is entirely
contradictory with Christianity, let alone Reformed thinking, and is outright rejected.
Even if it is pragmatic in its value for counseling, a Reformed thinker cannot accept a
conclusion based on a logical fallibility, especially one that rejects the existence of
truth. Also, it naturally follows that if the universe and time itself are necessary, then
all moral agents, their actions, and their wills are necessary. This means that people
are not free agents, and therefore not responsible for actions. This yields either
fatalism, or pantheism, or that man is the efficient cause of his own acts.15 Monergists
cannot accept this on any grounds.
The second area to explore is the open universe. Unlike the closed universe,
the open model allows for an existence outside of our natural universe and the laws
that govern it. From this comes Aristotles theory of a prime mover, which is
paralleled by Thomas Aquinas First Cause.16 In order for cause and effect to be
established, there must be a First Cause. This Cause must be the reason for the first
effect, and at least indirectly responsible for all consequent contingencies. This cause
must also be uncaused; the first cause must be a se, or self-sustaining. It cannot be the
result of anything, even itself. If not, then this begs the question. The First Cause
cannot itself be contingent. It also follows that in order to effect the first contingency,
it must possess the potential. It must possess a will; a desire to carry out the desired
effect. All these attributes speak to a personality. This personality is what Christians,
13 Chafer argues this well, (a) that every effect must have a cause; (b) that the effect is dependent
upon its cause for its existence; and (c) that nature cannot produce itself. (Chafer, Lewis Sperry.
Systematic Theology, Volume One (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1976), 143.)
14 Some scientists assert that nothing is defined as matter and energy, which begs the question.
15 Hodge, Theology Volume Two, 280-282.
16 Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica Vol. 1-The First Part (Albany: Ages Software, 1997), 28.

in the broad sense, call God. Only if God is uncontingently necessary is God
also perfectly free.17
In the theology of the Deists, God is merely the First Cause and does not
interact with creation hereafter. The best explanation of Deism is that God wound up
the clock and set it down. It is founded on the assumption that the Supreme Being is
too exalted to concern Himself with the trifling concerns of his creatures here on
earth. He made the world and impressed upon it certain laws; endowing matter with
its properties, and rational beings with the powers of free agency, and having done
this, he leaves the world to the guidance of these general laws.18 God is therefore
impersonal. It is for this reason that famous Deists such as Thomas Jefferson19
rejected the miracles of the Bible, though they accepted the moral principles. God
does not interact with his creation, therefore the world is limited to naturalistic
phenomena. In this theological scheme, the naturalistic law of cause and effect is
established in its most consistent form. Cause and effect has a basis in a Prime Mover
who is unmoved, and thereafter causality is a singular mesh, unbroken, since the time
of the first effect. All actions within the mutable universe are contingencies relating
back to the first effect and therefore interrelated. In the example of the chain, this idea
mirrors the previous example of a pyramid with the links interconnected. The links go
back to a singular source, and are interdependent on the causal flow.
This view is heretical to any form of orthodox20 Christianity. It is Biblical and
historical fact that Christians (and the Jews before them) have always viewed God as
supremely personal, and therefore interactive in the lives of humanity, let alone the
flow of impersonal history. However, this does agree with Adlers counseling
approach. If all contingencies are interrelated, then the now is dependent upon what
precedes it. Childhood development would certainly have an impact upon the present
life, because the contingencies experienced in the present are always dependent upon
the contingencies which preceded it, and in the case of childhood development, and
our memories of it, would be the cause of why adults experience troubles in their
lives.
Within orthodox Christianity, the First Cause continues to interact with
creation. This is readily seen in the Bible. In order for this view to be rejected,
Jeffersons example of cutting apart the Bible, at least metaphorically, must be
undertaken. The Bible is full of examples of God working both within the bounds of
natural law and against. This is especially true in the case of miracles, events in the
Bible that cannot be explained by natural means. So, the First Cause continues to
cause effects within the natural world. The First Cause affects the natural world in
ways that are both consistent and inconsistent with natural laws. Here we see the first
break in worldview between Christians and naturalists. If God can cause new
contingencies at times following the first effect, then we no longer have the pyramidstyle chain of contingencies. Instead, we have something like a mountain range of
chain links, with multiple peaks, each successive peak occurring further down than
17 Oden, Thomas C. The Living God: Systematic Theology Volume I (San Francisco:
HarperSanFrancisco, 1987) 97.
18 Hodge, Theology. I, 591.
19 Thomas Jeffersons personal Bible is nothing more than a collage of English, Greek, French, and
Latin fragments reordered in piecemeal fashion to his own personal liking. See Jefferson, Thomas. The
Jefferson Bible: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted Textually from the Gospels in
Greek, Latin, French & English, Smithsonian Edition (Smithsonian Books: Washington, 2011).
20 Orthodox here simply refers to those forms of Christianity that have been generally accepted as
non-heretical historically and should not be confused with the various Eastern Orthodox churches.

the first peak. All of history remains inter-related, but new causal relationships are
forming that are separate from anything preceding it. A great example of this is the
example of Balaam and his donkey at Exodus 22:28. The donkeys ability and desire
to speak did not come as a result of Balaam hitting him with a stick. If a random
donkey today were to be hit with a stick, it would not begin to speak. The text instead
says that the reason the donkey spoke was because, the Lord opened the mouth of
the donkey Here we have an example where a new causal relationship was formed
that was apart from any other temporal causal relationship. Had the Lord not opened
the mouth of the donkey, it would not have spoken, whether it was beaten or not.
This means that a new view of causality must be assessed to see if it is compatible
with Adlers claims that the assessment of childhood development is necessary for the
treatment of adult problems. If God is able to cause new contingencies, then it is at
least possible that problems experienced later in life are not directly related to
experiences in childhood.
The first group within orthodoxy is the synergists. Synergism is the belief that
God and man work together in salvation. This takes many forms. Pelagius held that
man was not in need of grace because he was able to work toward salvation on his
own merit. Roman Catholics believe that man, through good works, primarily through
participation in the sacraments, works out his salvation continually by Gods grace.
Classical Arminianism teaches that man, by the prevenient grace of God, comes to
Christ by his own libertine autonomy and accepts the free offer of salvation.21 There
are many, many, other views. The single point that binds them all together is the
doctrine of the freedom of the will. Since man is given a will, they agree, then it must
be free of all constraint in order to truly be a will. God may act freely with regards to
nature; but when interacting with humanity, God must let man make decisions and act
on those decisions apart from any action on his part. Any act of God within the life of
man must be consistent with what the person decides for himself.
For the synergists, the First Cause causes effects within humanity so long as
the effects are in accordance with the free and autonomous wills of said contingent
moral beings. This means that The First Cause is personal, so long as interactions with
contingent moral beings are in accordance with their free and autonomous wills. God
is not the distant God of the deists, but is constantly involved in the lives of his
creation. However, Gods love is such that he must let man choose his own path. If the
will of God is in any way irresistible, or the choices of man certain, God would not be
loving, but instead would be a tyrant, a despot, constantly forcing man down a path of
his own choosing. Charles Finney says,
Moral agency implies the possession of free will. By free will is
21 Modern day non-reformed evangelicalism generally eschews the term Arminian. In some regards
this is accurate, as modern Arminianism rejects many of the teachings of Arminius and the Dutch
Remonstrants. However, they hold to the basic tenet of free will that separated Arminius from the
larger Reformed movement during his life and the life of his followers. To the Reformers, this was a
step backwards towards the teachings of Rome. Edwards says, Idonotchargeallthathaveheld
thisdoctrinewithbeingArminians.Forwhatevermaybetheconsequencesofthedoctrinereally,yet
somethatholdthisdoctrinemaynotownnorseetheseconsequences;anditwouldbeunjust,inmany
instances,tochargeeveryauthorwithbelievingandmaintainingalltherealconsequencesofhis
avoweddoctrines.(Edwards,Jonathan.TheWorksofJonathanEdwardsVolume2.(Albany: Ages
Software, 1997), 6.) However, many quotes in the following sections will use the term Arminian, and
it should be understood that the term has historically been used in a general sense referring to those
Protestants that hold to a doctrine of free will.

intended the power of choosing, or refusing to choose, in every

instance, in compliance with moral obligation. Free will implies the
power of originating and deciding our own choices, and of exercising
our own sovereignty, in every instance of choice upon moral questions
of deciding or choosing in conformity with duty or otherwise in all
cases of moral obligation. That man cannot be under a moral
obligation to perform an absolute impossibility, is a first truth of
reason. But mans causality, his whole power of causality to perform or
do anything, lies in his will. If he cannot will, he can do nothing. His
whole liberty or freedom must consist in his power to will. His
outward actions and his mental states are connected with the actions of
his will by a law of necessity. If I will to move my muscles, they must
move, unless there be a paralysis of the nerves of voluntary motion, or
unless some resistance be opposed that overcomes the power of my
volitions. The sequences of choice or volition are always under the law
of necessity, and unless the will is free, man has no freedom; and if he
has no freedom he is not a moral agent, that is, he is incapable of moral
action and also of moral character. Free will then, in the above defined
sense, must be a condition of moral agency, and of course, of moral
obligation.22
In regards to how Gods will interacts with mans free will, Thomas Oden comments,
God allows and invites the personal freedom and self-determination of other wills
within the history that God has enabled and created, and to which God is responsive
within the framework of time.23 Speaking on Matthew 23:37-39 he says, That
means: God antecedently wills to save Jerusalem- and all humanity by extension of
the metaphor- but Jerusalem has the power of will, divinely granted, momentarily to
delay, or temporarily to not let God complete the antecedent divine intention except
at the high cost of Gods having to destroy or override the gift of human freedom.
Thus human willing at that point of historical development is able to resist the will of
God temporarily, though never ultimately.24
In the area of salvation, it is not a personal, specific saving grace applied to the
unbeliever that enables acceptance, but only a prevenient or common grace that is
available to all men equally. The power to believe is supplied not by the fallen
nature, not by the alienated will acting autonomously, but by grace enabling freedom.
Were it not preveniently enabled, then there could be no meaningful call to faith or
guilt due to unbelief. Though faith is not the first grace, since justifying is preceded
by preparing grace, it is the beginning and necessary foundation of that life which is
being justified.25 Therefore, salvation is synergistic because man must accept God as
a free act being enabled by a common grace, God only responding with saving grace
in a secondary sense. God and man work together in salvation.
The question we are concerned with is what is the nature of causality within
Christianity? From this standpoint, the standpoint of the freedom of the will, it must
be concluded that there is no apparent difference between synergistic causality,
Christian heretical causality, and secularist causality. Even though synergism holds
22 Finney, Charles G. Systematic Theology, 1878 Edition (Albany: Ages Software, 1997), 25- 26.
23 Oden, God, 94.
24 Ibid., 94-95.
25 Oden, Thomas C. Life in the Spirit, Systematic Theology Volume Three (San Francisco:
HarperSanFrancisco, 1992), 132.

that God is operational within temporality, if said operation is dependent on, primarily
in accordance with, or in response to the will of man, then Gods interaction with man
is dependent upon the causal structure of temporality. This means, to the detriment of
the synergistic systems, that even salvation itself can be psychoanalyzed, and can
even be psychoanalyzed from a secular viewpoint. If God merely operates within the
boundaries of mans will, then the question of Why are you saved?26 may be
answered from purely naturalistic means. If the decisions of mans will are not
spontaneous, but the product of experiences, rationality, culture, and so on, i.e., a
product of human autonomy, then it can be said that the reason a person gets saved at
all is due to all the same factors. In some way, the offer of salvation was accepted
based on who the person was at that moment, which is open to analysis. God merely
responds to mans choices, which are contingent.
In the opening paragraph of this paper, the author pointed to a radio program
that discussed the benefit of analyzing a persons past to treat problems in the present.
During that discussion, the psychologist being interviewed stated that it was common
for Christians to dismiss the method of childhood analysis as unnecessary because of
the changing power of salvation- because they were born again. The author highly
doubts even the majority of these individuals were Reformed. Most likely, this is the
natural response of most Christians, regardless of background, when faced with the
deep analysis of past experience. For synergists, the author believes it has been proven
that this is nothing more than an excuse to not participate in something painful.
However, the author, being Reformed, believes this is the correct response. What this
means then is that there is an inconsistency endemic to synergism that does not allow
it to properly defend the born again dialectic. A synergist, based on the above
analysis of the freedom of the will, has no consistent argument against the
psychological methodology because even salvation, the born again state, is open to
psychological analysis. All the forms of religion that men cherish are, with one
exception, in the class which is identified by the obligation resting upon man to save
himself; and in this group, because of its insistence that the element of human merit
must be recognized, the Arminian system is classed.27 Therefore, a synergist can,
according to his beliefs, be treated by a secular psychologist with no conflict between
beliefs and methodology. Using the born again state as a reason for denial of
treatment is nothing more than an excuse, and amounts to religiosity.28 Though the
doctrine be true, if it is held in isolation, inconsistent with its other doctrine, it will
prove indefensible.
The authors view is one of sympathy for his synergistic brethren. The reaction
to such psychological methods is a natural one because it is a correct one. It is the
correct reaction because it is consistent with a Reformed methodology, which allows
for God to interact with time and with moral agents freely. Reformed theology takes
the born again dialectic most seriously; it is a departure from previous experienceIf anyone is in Christ he is a new creature; the old has passed away, behold! new
things have come. (2 Cor 5:17) This is in part due to the Reformed persons
understanding of causality, which we will finally discuss.
26 The reader should note that this question is different than the question of By what means? The
vast majority of non-Reformed, evangelical Christians, along with Catholics, would say that we are
saved by the grace of God, not by an act of the will.
27 Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology Vols. 3&4 (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1976), 282.
28 Religiosity in psychological analysis is the use of religion to deny treatment. It is the belief of
most treatment providers that they offer a neutral solution to personal problems in regards to religious
beliefs.

Reformed theology begins and ends with God. It is rightly called theocentric,
in comparison with the anthropocentric views of other theological systems. Reformed
views of creation, including Anthropology, come only after a treatment of Theology
proper. A theological discussion of the works of God should take its startingpoint
[sic.] in God, both in the work of creation and in that of redemption or recreation. It is
only as issuing from, and as related to, God that the works of God come into
consideration as a part of theology.29 Without first understanding God, as he exists
apart from his creation, one cannot understand the nature of the universe. The starting
point then, is that God exists. God exists, and the universe is contingent upon his free
act of creation. Free must be stressed; God was under no compulsion to create. He
created simply of his own desire. It was thus that he created man also. We were
created apart from any constraint on God as necessary. Therefore, our existence, our
being, and our wills are subject to a Creator-creature relationship. If God was free in
the creation of the individual, he is free in recreating them and is under no compulsion
to affect or not affect the person. This he has chosen to do from eternity, apart from
time itself. Reformed theology stresses the sovereignty of God in virtue of which He
has sovereignly determined from all eternity whatsoever will come to pass, and works
His sovereign will in His entire creation, both natural and spiritual, according to His
pre-determined plan.30 God, being wholly separate and above his creation, is wholly
free to carry out whatsoever purpose he designs. Isaiah 46:9-11 is an oft-quoted
passage demonstrating this:
Remember the former things long past,
For I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is no one like Me,
Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things which have not been done,
Saying, My purpose will be established,
And I will accomplish all My good pleasure;
Calling a bird of prey from the east,
The man of My purpose from a far country.
Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass.
I have planned it, surely I will do it.
Reformed people also believe in a literal Adam and Eve, and this point is
quintessential to the whole of Reformed Anthropology. They believe in a doctrine
called Federal Headship. What this means is that Adam acts as the representative
head of the whole of humanity. While Adam was originally created good, he fell from
that position and his sin is thereby imputed to all of his progeny. in virtue of the
union, federal and natural, between Adam and his posterity, his sin, although not their
act, is so imputed to them that it is the judicial ground of the penalty threatened
against him coming also upon them.31 So, in the question of Is man good, neutral, or
evil? the Reformed believe that man is evil. His constitution has become so polluted
with sin that he is unable to approach God with any worthy act. Augustinianism,
as held by the Lutheran and Reformed Churches, teaches that the whole man, soul and
body, the higher as well as the lower, the intellectual as well as the emotional faculties
29 Berkhof, Theology, 100.
30 Ibid.
31 Hodge, Theology Volume 2, 192-193.

of the soul, is affected by the corruption of our nature derived from our first
parents.32 Romans 3:10-18 is a crucial Biblical passage for this concept.
There is none righteous, not even one;
there is none who understands,
there is none who seeks for God;
all have turned aside, together they have become useless;
there is none who does good,
there is not even one.
Their throat is an open grave,
with their tongues they keep deceiving,
the poison of asps is under their lips;
whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness;
their feet are swift to shed blood,
destruction and misery are in their paths,
and the path of peace they have not known.
There is no fear of God before their eyes.
According to Reformed theology, then, man is in a state of sin. A person is not a
sinner because he sins; a person sins because he is a sinner. We then see a singular
binding law upon all of humanity called sin. This is the source of all misery and
suffering in the world. Being in a state of sin, a person does not want to do good. He
cannot do good, as stated above. When man fell it was therefore his attempt to do
without God in every respect. Man sought his ideals of truth, goodness, and beauty
somewhere beyond God, either directly within himself or in the universe about him.
God had interpreted the universe for him, or we may say man had interpreted the
universe under the direction of God, but now he sought to interpret the universe
without reference to God33 The heart is set on selfish desires constantly. Therefore,
a mans will is not free; he cannot choose good before God, let alone choosing God at
all.
This view, however differs from the idea of civic goodness. Monergists do not
believe that man is as evil has he can be, but only as evil as he needs to be to separate
him from God. That means that man, obviously and experientially, is able to do good
that is good from the standpoint of society. The first objection that suggests itself
may be expressed in the rhetorical question Do you mean to assert that nonChristians do not discover truth by the methods they employ? The reply is that we
mean nothing so absurd as that. The implication of the method here advocated is
simply that non-Christians are never able and therefore never do employ their own
methods consistently.34 This is the first separation between Reformed thought and
secular psychology. Secular psychology is able to impact civic goodness, but is unable
to impact soteriological goodness. Straightway this means that there is a difference in
method as to how one counsels a non-Christian versus a Christian.35 A non-Christian,
being in a state of rebelliousness, can only be counselled on how to more properly
interact with other human beings. They cannot go any deeper than this level apart
32 Ibid., 254-255.
33 Van Til, Defense, 36.
34 Ibid., 125.
35 The author states this in this way because it is presumed that synergistic theology is fundamentally
flawed and therefore incorrect. Being that synergists have an incorrect view of themselves, they should
be treated as if they were Reformed, though they deny Reformed theology.

from saving Grace. For a true Christian, this will seem shallow, only addressing the
surface level presenting problems without addressing the core issue of sin. Essentially,
counselors dealing with non-Christians do as much as they can with what they have to
work with, and secularism will never address the core issues because the unsaved
counselor is also in the same state of rebelliousness, and the method of treatment is
Godless. Man cannot change his evil constitution, though his actions may change.
Man requires condescension on the part of his creator for change to be impacted.
Since man is in a state of rebelliousness and sin, salvation must therefore be
monergistic. God must change man apart from the will of man, because mans will is
bent on rejecting God. In opposition to the doctrine of the synergists, man is saved by
a particular, personal act of salvation. Man is not saved by a common grace that is
bestowed on all, but is irresistibly regenerated by the Holy Spirit, personally and
individually, which enables acceptance. So, in the ordo saludis of the Reformed,
regeneration comes before acceptance of Christ. Here the issue of causality in the
Reformed mindset is evidenced as being wholly different than other systems. God,
apart from the will of free agents, impacts causality apart from any prior
contingencies. Salvation is therefore not due to any other cause except God, who is
himself uncaused. This means that a wholly new causal relationship is formed every
time a person is saved. The cause for the new relationship, being God alone, is noncontingent, and therefore not a part of the rest of temporal causality. This means that
God, because of his relationship with the human, is supremely personal, able to
impact man in a way that impacts mans whole constitution. He becomes a new
creation. At this point we may now say that the Reformed mentality rejects the
naturalistic law of cause and effect and is at odds with all other worldviews. This view
takes seriously the issue of being born again, because it is quite literally a new
beginning for the individual; his life post-regeneration is not dependent upon prior
experiences.
Reformed theology is therefore consistently at odds with psychological
inquiries into the life prior to salvation. Reformed theology stands alone as the only
theological system that affirms that salvation comes by God alone apart from any
other influence. Standing alone and isolated by its doctrine of pure uncompromising
grace, the true Christian faith as set forth by the great Apostle and later defended by
Calvin and uncounted theologians before and since his day, is a system of Soteriology
characterized by its fundamental feature that God, unaided and to his own unshared
and unchangeable glory, originates, executes, and consummates the salvation of
man.36 This paper must stop short of providing a means of counseling the afflicted
however, as that is not its purpose. The purpose of this paper was to demonstrate that
there is a fundamental difference between the causality of monergistic Reformed
theology and that of other worldviews. It is the hallmark of Reformed scholarship to
show a consistent break in epistemology between itself and all other methodologies,
which it regards as fundamentally secular. Reformed apologist Cornelius Van Til sums
up the disagreements well,
The Calvinist holds to the essential perspicuity of natural as
well as biblical revelation. This does not imply that a non-Christian
and nontheistic interpretation of reality cannot be made to appear
plausible. But it does mean that no non-Christian position can be made
to appear more than merely plausible.
36 Chafer,TheologyVols.3&4,282.

Roman Catholic apologists can, therefore, to the extent that

their own theology does not teach the perspicuity of natural revelation,
with consistency use the method of the natural man. Just as Rome,
having a semi-pagan conception of the nature of man, can agree with
the natural mans conception of the starting point in knowledge, so
also, having a semi-pagan concept of the nature of the objects man
must know, Rome can, to a large extent, agree with the natural mans
conception of the method of knowledge.
Arminian apologists also, to the extent that their theology is
faulty, can consistently agree with the nonbeliever on the question of
methodology. Believing to some extent in the autonomy and ultimacy
of human personality, Arminianism can, in a measure, agree on the
question of starting point with those who make men the final reference
point in all human predication. So also, believing to some extent in the
existence of facts that are not wholly under the control and direction of
the counsel of God, Arminianism can agree on the question of method
with those for whom the object of knowledge has nothing at all to do
with the plan of God.
In contradistinction from both Roman Catholics and
Arminians, however, the Reformed apologist cannot agree at all with
the methodology of the natural man. Disagreeing with the natural
mans interpretation of himself as the ultimate reference-point, the
Reformed apologist must seek his point of contact with the natural
man in that which is beneath the threshold of his working
consciousness, in the sense of deity which he seeks to suppress. And to
do this the Reformed apologist must also seek a point of contact with
the systems constructed by the natural man. But this point of contact
must be in the nature of a head-on collision. If there is no head-on
collision with the systems of the natural man there will be no point of
contact with the sense of deity in the natural man.37
Psychology is not exempt from that. Whatever the counseling method, the
author, as a Reformed Christian, believes it should rest upon theology and therefore
be consistent with it. Any Christian counseling practice that does not stand upon
theology can rightly be said to be disregarding theology and acting independent of it.
This amounts to a cavalier dismissal of Christianity altogether in deference to
pragmatism. If the counselor is Christian, it would be wise to recognize the
insufficiency of such methods due to the congruency of said methodology with that of
the fallen world. If the counselor is not Christian, it is an affront to the beliefs of the
counselee to present the methodology as if it were neutral, and disrespectful to the
counselee personally to not suggest another treatment provider.

37 Van Til, Cornelius. The Defense of the Faith (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2008), 120-21. Italics original.