Long post about Fesko for those still following the topic... Austin and I have been waiting for a long time for a substantial response to our review of Fesko’s recent work that was published in the "Journal of Biblical Soul Care" with @ACBC. Colin is a brother in Christ, and our families have prayed for each other over the past few years. The brief response below is mine (with Austin’s endorsement), and I am not speaking on behalf of Heath. Introduction Colin endorsed the book and is standing by his endorsement. So, if our claims are accurate about Fesko, Colin’s scholarly reputation is also at stake. Colin could have chosen to admit @jvfesko made errors; instead, he doubles down and defends Fesko’s work. Colin believes Austin and I did not engage with the “core thrust” of Fesko’s book. This is absolutely correct. We stated that very clearly in our introduction and thesis. We sought to demonstrate that Fesko misrepresented the counseling material he cited. Fesko’s work falters in two fundamental respects. First, his insufficient familiarity with the fields of biblical counseling and integration weakens his argumentation. Second, his treatment of the authors with whom he does engage is repeatedly inaccurate and falls short of ordinary scholarly standards. These deficiencies are substantial. If the foundation is destroyed, what can Fesko do? Fesko Misrepresents Integrationists Colin fails to demonstrate how Austin and I are incorrect about Fesko’s scholarship. The integrationists Fesko cites say the opposite of what Fesko claims. Colin seeks to defend Fesko by saying he was not representing their arguments but rather giving an evaluation of a poor analogy the integrationists used. The problem is…the integrationists don’t use the analogy the way Fesko says they do. In fact, the integrationists cited by Fesko literally say the opposite of what Fesko says they say. It is stunning! You can look up the quotations yourself or see the charts in our essay. Additionally, there are no markers or signals in Fesko’s work indicating that he is evaluating/critiquing rather than restating. He's either a very subtle writer (which isn't necessarily a strength, especially in an Introductory/Survey work), or... he wasn't providing a critique (which is our claim). Fesko Misrepresents Jay Adams Colin cites Adams saying, “The Christian minister must be willing (and able) to assume the full task to which God has called him: that of ministering to men and women who suffer from the pains and miseries that stem from personal sins.” Colin then says, “Is it not logical to conclude from this that Adams believed that all counseling problems stem from personal sins? In discussing Christian counseling, he described the ‘full task’ of the Christian minister as ‘ministering to men and women who suffer from the pains and miseries that stem from personal sins.’” 1. This statement from Adams does not undo all the other statements made by Adams that blatantly contradict Fesko. See our essay or chart for a clear example. 2. Colin is correct that it could be logical to conclude from that one statement that Adams believed all counseling problems stem from personal sin…except that Adams, in the same book, says they do not: “It is difficult for some to acknowledge personal sin as the root and cause of most of the day-by-day counseling problems that arise.” Adams, Jay E.; Zondervan. The Christian Counselor's Manual: The Practice of Nouthetic Counseling (emphasis mine, p. 136). 3. In the sentence Colin quotes, Adams says we should comfort people who have experienced the “pains and miseries that stem from personal sins.” Adams does not say (as Fesko asserts) that it is personal “unconfessed” sin. A counselee can experience suffering due to another’s personal sin. 4. The practice of counseling ministry demonstrates that the suggestion is fundamentally false. Adams knows there are counseling situations that require wisdom that does not simply identify unconfessed sin as the issue (pp. 259–260). For example, pre-engagement counseling is a ministry. Is helping a couple decide if they should get married a counseling problem that is the result of unconfessed sin? Maybe…but maybe not! Providing biblical wisdom is what counseling is all about, and I have never met a biblical counselor who thought unconfessed sin was the main issue in every counseling problem. 5. Colin wants to defend Fesko by explaining a possible distinction between the word “counseling” and “counselee.” This is creative, but in keeping with the maneuvers Colin makes to justify Fesko’s writings. They are the same kind of movements a press secretary makes when a president has said something truly bizarre or indefensible. It is hermeneutical yoga that makes others uncomfortable and stretches the plain reading of the text to the point of distortion. In summary: Adams is in print repeatedly saying the opposite of what Fesko claims. Additionally, at one point he sat behind his desk and literally shouted repeatedly into the camera, “NOT ALL PROBLEMS ARE THE RESULT OF SIN!” Colin’s quotation of Adams does not disprove this reality. Fesko Misrepresents Heath Lambert and John Frame Austin and I point out that Fesko mischaracterizes John Frame and Heath Lambert. It is a true butchering of what they have written in print. Fesko’s critique addresses a position that Lambert expressly rejects on the very page Fesko cites. Biblical counselors do not claim that the Bible is a technical manual for plumbing, aerospace engineering, medicine, or any other vocation. Plumbing is not a ministry of the Word. Counseling is the private ministry of the Word. Colin writes, “This is beside the point. Fesko’s argument is that Lambert and Frame have made a category error in the way they frame the doctrine of sufficiency.” However, our point is that Fesko has completely misread Lambert and Frame. That was literally our thesis. It isn’t just a misreading that is incidental to Fesko’s argument. Fesko’s argument doesn’t work because he doesn’t understand what Lambert and Frame are saying about sufficiency. How can Fesko evaluate what he doesn’t understand? How can Fesko determine that Lambert and Frame are out of bounds with the Reformed tradition when he thinks they wrote something they did not? Conclusion Colin is outspokenly not committed to Van Til’s presuppositional apologetic. However, an argument for presuppositionalism can be found in Colin’s reading of Fesko. Colin’s response only makes sense if one determines in advance that Fesko must be right. The Fesko scholar-ship is sinking. Now is the time to bail instead of going down with the ship. To sink with it is admirable in one sense, but it is a real loss in the most important sense. The world would be better if the biblical counseling department at Southern Seminary were strong and serious about counseling scholarship. Sadly, this is not the world we are living in. Fesko’s book is an embarrassment to the “academy,” and defending it taints credibility. Epilogue A recent @SBTS graduate (who likes Fesko’s work) did not like our review of Fesko’s book because it wasn’t approved by the “academy” or “peer-reviewed” according to the proper channels that have been approved by man. This is regrettable because, instead of engaging our thesis, he chose to dismiss it in favor of his preferred structure. He chose structure rather than substance. Will he also find the same problems with Colin, who is an @SBTS professor? I want to defend Colin on this point with great enthusiasm. It does not bother us that Colin did not “peer-review” his response. His response wasn’t even in a journal. He did not pursue the “proper academic channels.” But what matters are the arguments. We hope his students will not find fault with him over these inconsequential matters.

Offer: Ill worry about any deleterious effects of “Christian nationalism” in the SBC when pro-CRT/pro-James Cone (a heretic) Dr. Walter Strickland has been fired by Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary & they shut down their anti-White “Kingdom Diversity” scholarship

Quote of the day 🇺🇸

TL/DR: Let me know when my alma mater Covenant College has @NateAFischer speak in chapel instead of Russell Moore, and then I might agree we’ve reached a point where we can worry issues “on the Right” Until then, I’m focusing on the Left

I’ve never been a hardline defender of “no enemies to/on the Right” But what do I know is that every major *institutional* threat to both our country and the church is on the Left, period. And it’s not even close. Don’t hear what I am not saying. I’m not saying there can’t be “threats” on the Right But after watching wokeness, transgenderism, the mutilation of minors, the rise of BLM, Covid tyranny, the insane Left shift in the Democrats to become the party of open borders, institutionalized anti-White and anti-Christian hate, abortion on demand up until birth being legalized, 3x assassination attempts on Trump, the murder of Charlie Kirk, and more…. Not to mention how Christian institutions played footsie with much of what I mentioned above over the last decade, and accepted and gave cover to critical theorists, anti-White racists, radical climate change activists, open borders leftist, etc., AND STILL DO You simply cannot convince me that whatever threats you think exist “on the Right” are anywhere near the size and scope and institutional nature of the threats on the Left Even take “anti-Semitism.” Who was shutting down college campuses and rallying for Palestine and shouting “from the river to sea” after Oct 7? It was radical Leftists, often funded and backed by major donors. And don’t even get me started on the blatant hypocrisy of “conservative evangelicals” going guns blazing against young White men who are listening to naughty podcasts but literally wrote forwards for disgustingly woke books by radical Black actors in the church (Eric Mason ring a bell?) That side gave us Revoice and Jemar Tisby and Aimee Byrd and “vote for Hillary Clinton” Thabiti and Russell Moore and “I used DEI in my committee appointments” JD Greear and never once apologized for it. Sure, some of those podcasts aren’t great. But they aren’t being used in seminary courses or being mandated in corporate HR trainings the same way anti-Christian and anti-White materials are. The word here is “asymmetrical.” There is no symmetry between any threats on the Right versus the dozens of real threats on the Left. So I’m going to keep focusing on those real threats—to me, my family, my church, my denomination, and my nation. And I’ll refuse to accept the scolding and moral framework of the David Frenchs of the world, who voted for Kamala Harris, who would gladly load evangelicals on the trains to the camps for 30 pieces of Regime silver. And I’ll keep righteously scoffing at the worst woke actors in evangelicalism who think they can now try to compare the “Dissident Right” to “Peak Woke” as if that’s a fair thing to do. That’s laughably wrong. If it weren’t for Donald Trump and his presence on the political scene over the last decade—who these self-righteous hypocrites told us not to vote for btw—every single institution, branch of government, university, and major corporation would be under the iron clad control of the cultural Marxists at this point. The Left is the existential threat. Everything else is a distraction.

Hahahhahahaha I just wanted you to expose who’s liking your tweets. Thank you.

Join me in supporting this important work.

Day three: Chest, shoulders, arms. Definitely more of a bro workout today than I usually would do, but got a nice pump. Also, even though I’ve been out of the gym for a bit—my bench hasn’t fallen that far off. If you build up to that 3-plate/315 max and maintain it over the years, even if you’re out for a while, the base doesn’t dip too bad

There are still a few hours left to donate before the fundraising deadline tonight. I need a strong showing on this report, I hope I can count on you, Patriot: secure.winred.com/bo-french-…

Illegal immigrants, her allegiance is to the illegal immigrants. They are more her people than the American citizen. The barbarians are inside the gates.

With all due respect, American jobs should go to American workers.

Excellent rebuttal from @RpwWilliams at @ClaremontInst to that piece of AI-generated gutter garbage from Erick Erickson Everyone who shared that incitement to violence against good men and orgs should be ashamed of themselves and banished from the conservative movement

This was excellent and Erickson (and everyone who lauded him) should be ashamed of himself.

In which I respond to the insinuations and hysteria exhibited in Erick Erickson’s “expose.” Last week, blogger @EWErickson maligned the Claremont Institute, one of our donors, and a few of our fellows and alumni, relying substantially on guilt-by-association smears and innuendo. 1/x

The guy caught buying sermons from Obama’s faith advisor and preaching the Critical Theory they slipped in, announces himself not a Christian Nationalist. We know. Obviously.

This is my least favorite part of the job, but if I don't do it, there won't be a "job" to do! If you appreciate @BaptistLeaders, help us meet our monthly budget by making a gift before September 28: centerforbaptistleadership.o… CBL is scoring real wins and fighting for conservative Southern Baptists in a way that no other organization is. We will not let the SBC fall into the hands of the Left. And we will strengthen it for future generations. Indeed, we already are! To keep doing that, we need support from likeminded conservative Christians across the nation who understand the importance of America's largest Protestant denomination remaining a force for conservative, Bible-believing, Gospel good. And if you appreciate my broader work on culture, politics, and my fight for a Christian nation to give to our children, this is the best way to support my ministry as well!

From: > Stopping the rise of women pastors > Strengthening the SBC by calling for transparency & combating wokeness > Speaking boldy in the public square CBL is YOUR conservative advocate in the SBC. If you appreciate our work, support us here today! centerforbaptistleadership.o…