Dale Johnson: I have with me Dr. Greg Gifford, he’s an assistant professor a biblical counseling at the Masters University. He earned his PhD in biblical counseling from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Master of Arts in biblical counseling from the Masters University, and a BA and pastoral Ministries from Baptist Bible College. He has worked as both full-time biblical counselor and associate pastor, before joining The TMU faculty. Greg also served as a captain in the United States Army from 2008 to 2012, after which he transitioned to counseling Ministry. And he’s published two books, Heart and Habits and Helping Your Family Through PTSD. He is a certified fellow and counselor with the Association of Certified Biblical Counselors, and he’s an ordained pastor. When he is not teaching, Greg enjoys counseling for 180 Ministries, serving as local church as an elder, working on his Harley-Davidson, wrestling with his three boys, and eating good food with his wife. Greg it is good to have you back, brother.
Greg Gifford: Thank you for having me back. Good to be here.
Dale Johnson: Yeah, looking forward to our topic today. This has been a common thing that we’ve talked about a lot in the Counseling World. Especially the things that we can know as human beings, what our minds can do, and especially how we think about unbelievers; This relates to all sorts of topics. So, I want us to get into this, as we think about what unbelievers can know. I think this is something good for us to wrestle with and think about the Christian perspective. Post Genesis 3: how our minds have been affected by sin, the noetic effect of sin, and then what that means relative to knowledge– the things that we can know. So maybe we’ll just start here, Greg. What are some helpful categories to use when considering knowledge and what an unbeliever can actually know?
Greg Gifford: That’s a good question to start with because I think we have to begin to frame: First of all, is this anthropology or epistemology? And I’m using big words to impress you guys, first of all. But then, secondarily, when we say epistemology, that’s not a term that we use in most of our everyday vocabulary. But we’re talking about how you know what you know? And how do you justify truth claims? What can you know, in that way? So, I’ll start with anthropology vs. epistemology. Think of anthropology as like a capacity to know and epistemology is being a type of knowledge, in that that way. I think maybe you’ll invite me back in the future, and we’ll do some anthropology conversations. But for now, let’s talk about some epistemology stuff. Let’s just start with what the Scripture says in 1 Corinthians 2:14, It says “the natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, they are folly to him, and he’s not able to understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. When you use that term natural man, man of this earth, or earthly person, this is where the carnal Christian terminology came in, if you remember some of that. So, you’re able to understand natural things, but not spiritual things. You can understand the natural world. You can understand the physical world. But you can’t understand the spiritual realities that govern the world. You can’t understand certain fields, like a teleology. So easy example, and then I’ll give you a kind of some strict categories: I’d try not to annoy all of the medical doctors that I go visit, but I have a feeling I do that with most of them. And I was going to see a hand doctor recently, and I had asked him: “What is the purpose of hands?” And he’s like, “Oh, here we go.”
Dale Johnson: He’s like, “Who let this guy in?”
Greg Gifford: He was like, “you got 10 minutes, this is how you want to spend it?” But he couldn’t answer the question. I was like, “Man, you study hands all of your days, and the functioning of hands, and you don’t know the purpose of hands?” It is because the natural man doesn’t understand the things of God, they’re spiritually discerned, they don’t have God’s Spirit. So, at the end of the chapter in 1 Corinthians 2, we have the mind of Christ. So, the believer is a person who has been capacitated with a new mind (anthropology) to spiritual things (epistemology). So, what can an unbeliever know? Well, in natural sciences and physical sciences, unbelievers, going to thrive. Then moving from there, you’re going to move to less reliable observations, because now you’re starting to intermingle anthropology. Ed Wilde wrote an article a few years ago, and he called an ATM: anthropology, teleology, methodology. So, you don’t understand anthropology as an unbeliever, because there are immaterial components to it. That’s the spiritual. You don’t understand teleology, because there’s a purpose for the physical world. There’s a purpose for your hands; they are to Glorify God, that’s why He made them. And so, that’s the spiritual stuff. So, just big picture, let’s create the natural versus spiritual, in terms of epistemology.
Dale Johnson: All right, so you introduce us to some bigger words, as we think about epistemology and anthropology. But these are categories in the way we think about man, and how we think about knowledge, and the things that we can know. You mentioned 1 Corinthians 2:14, specifically. I think that whole chapter in 1 Corinthians 2 is actually really helpful when we think about what unbelievers can know, or what they are limited in their knowledge. Especially, in the ways in which their knowledge is limited. But I want you to help us to think about other passages, because you just talked about a lot of things, with several different categories of promoting some of the things that unbelievers can know, perceive, and observe. But they are also limited. And, you know, our authority is the Scripture. So, give us some of those specific relevant passages, in addition to 1 Corinthians 2:14.
Greg Gifford: Oh yeah, so if you’re a Biblical counselor listening to this, first of all, I would assume that for your counselee, it doesn’t make sense. Like, “what are we talking about?” It is kind of intramural. So, the counselee, he’s like, “yeah, I’m not sure,” you know, how does this affect the counseling process? And that’s maybe the end result. Think about some of the realities in the Scripture, where you are commanded to think on things: Philippians 4: 8-9, 2 Corinthians 10:3-5, “to take thoughts captive to the Lordship of Christ.” Which is in the context that is really about apostate doctrine and heresies. When you are given the command to think, that is an immaterial reality. And I think that those passages are speaking to your immateriality. So, to think on certain things, we are talking about epistemology and what you are thinking on in terms of the spiritual realities. So, start with Colossians 3 and “set your mind on things above.” Philippians 2:5, “to think the way that Christ thought.” Can an unbeliever do those things? The answer is, no, you cannot. You cannot do those things. You have a mind, it exists, but according to the Scripture is defiled, it’s corrupt. And the Scripture doesn’t use really pleasant words in all fairness. It comes across kind of like a very communicative way, or a very overt way of saying, “it ain’t good.” So, your mind, apart from the renewal of the Holy Spirit, is not good. So, you want to look at some of those passages for what are you thinking about. And then, as a Biblical counselor, ask yourself, this question: “Can an unbeliever do that?” And I think what you’ll see is apart from the work of the Holy Spirit and regeneration, the answer is no. An unbeliever can’t set their mind on things that are above, or think on these things, or take thoughts captive to the Lordship of Christ because of the state of their mind. So, there are certain pockets of epistemology, that are just simply inaccessible to the unbelieving mind.
Dale Johnson: And we’re certainly not saying that the unbelieving mind cannot understand things, that they cannot think. The Bible makes very clear that they’re making an appraisal of the natural world. And that they’re describing things categorically. They would categorize what God Says is good as evil and vice versa. So, they are appraising certain things, but they can never grasp the fullness of the reality of the reason for which the Gad has made the world, and why the world exists, or what our purpose is, the way we’re supposed to see life, and that sort of thing. So, they’re missing those aspects. So, I think, that’s helpful for us to understand. Okay, what can they see? What can they not? I think, even the way you summarize that when you were saying, “I think about what the Bible says they can and can’t do,” that is really simple for us to think about it in those terms. Now, let’s think in terms of doctrine: What are some key doctrines that pertain to some of this discussion about knowledge? Key doctrines that are important for us to think about?
Greg Gifford: Good. Yeah, well, the discussions of revelation come up necessarily: General vs. special revelation. And that’s part of your bibliology, if you want to include it there. But we’re talking about how you know what you know, and really you move from epistemology to Revelation to bibliology, to a certain degree, because we believe that the Bible is a form of special revelation. And it is the most authoritative form. So, what key doctrines do you kind of have to work through in regard to this topic? Well, I mean, according to the Scripture, the unbelieving mind is going to suppress the truth of God: Romans 1:28, which leads to having a calloused mind. So, you’re suppressing the truth of God in unrighteousness. You’re not accepting revelation from God, according to verses 19-20. So, then what are you doing? Well, you’re rejecting the doctrine of general revelation, and then moving to special revelation: When we talk about the Bible, as being a form of special revelation, we are seeing that God specially reveals to us the grudemism– Well, Dr. Grudem will say something like, “God specially reveals, or specifically, reveals Himself”. So, the doctrine of special revelation, really, it really weighs in on this conversation because the unbeliever rejects special revelation, which is how we know the spiritual things. So it’s, it feels like to a certain degree, what we’re having to say is, yes, the unbeliever has capacities, but the unbeliever lacks faculties. They lack the ability to know certain things, in part because there are certain things that they’re rejecting: special revelation, the general revelation– that speaks of a God, that leads to special revelation, which obviously would lead to your bibliology. Think of all the doctrines of bibliography that the unbeliever simply does not affirm inspiration: Inspiration, authority, sufficiency, inerrancy. Those key doctrines are an important part of how you know what you know. They are the lens through which you see the world. The Scripture is the lens through which you see the world. Remember the old powlisicism? He says that he “doesn’t want to just see the Bible as another marble in the bag, but rather the lens through which we see all of the marbles,” and that is the doctrine of Scripture. So, the unbeliever is emphatically rejecting a worldview by rejecting bibliology. So now, you have a capacity that is darkened, which is your mind. It’s “corrupt and defiled” according to Titus 1:15. So then, what’s happening is, you are rejecting the way you can know, which is through the Bible. So, it becomes kind of this downward spiral that takes place.
I’ll add just maybe a couple more, and I don’t want to dominate the conversation, but I think that common grace comes up in this. It’s kind of murky because I think us, as biblical counselors, are still trying to get our arms around it, which is a fair thing. You know, doctrines do need to be worked through. But when it comes to epistemology, common grace is not making accessible spiritual realities. Common grace is speaking more to the physical realities, that are an unsaved medical doctor, who is a hand surgeon, can know how to operate on the physical realities of my hand, but he still doesn’t know the purpose of my hand, which are the spiritual realities. So, I don’t think common grace actually changes the conversation when it comes to spiritual realities. It speaks more to that of the natural realities, and that’s an epistemological distinction.
Dale Johnson: I want to jump in here, because I want to add one more doctrine. But then I want to revisit what you just said about common grace, because I think that is sort of a point of tension right now, even in the conversation as we think about the practice of counseling and what we think, unbelievers can contribute even for our benefit in some way. So, hamartiology– just thinking about, you know it’s important that we understand the doctrine of hamartiology, for all the reasons you said that an unbeliever can’t grasp these things. Think about how the Bible describes an unbeliever, right? He’s hardened in heart. What does that mean? That means that he can’t see through the lens of his heart to interpret things from a Godward perspective, right? He’s blinded, the Bible says, right? He’s dead, and the Scripture describes him as so. This is all very vivid language that’s helping us to understand that there are limitations. Now, you’ve gone into great detail about some of the limitations. And what I want to do now is: Okay, we bump up against this idea of some of the positive things that we think unbelievers can do. And you’ve even said, like there are things in the natural world that they can observe and see, certainly. Do we call things like that common grace? You sort of alluded to this by trying to make a distinction and epistemology. I want you to help us to understand that part. And if not common grace, is there something else we should be describing this as?
Greg Gifford: I don’t think the term common grace is the most helpful of terms. I’ll just lay all my cards on the table, because if you’re using the term grace consistently in a theological way, we’re talking about favor. And you got to be careful, starting to say that God is giving favor. Mercy may be better, common mercy. I could be okay with that. Or, talking through this idea of what can an unbeliever contribute to the overall good of a culture and society, but is that God’s common grace? So maybe a term that I would propose is common mercies. So that God causes His rain to fall and His sun to shine: Matthew 5, when talking about loving your enemies. It’s all right.
Well, we got common mercy, and do we talk about epistemology in regard to God’s mercy? If by that, you mean that we are affirming that an unbeliever can know things, and that is part of God’s mercy, then yes. But that does not mean that the spiritual knowledge that is imparted only according to the Holy Spirit of God, is now in some way being redeemed by an unbeliever, to impart spiritual knowledge, which they in and of themselves cannot have. So that’s where it’s a little murky right now with biblical counselors, because it feels like we’re trying to redeem the knowledge of unbelievers regarding spiritual matters. And I would say, hey, you don’t have to make it so murky when it’s a natural issue. 1 Corinthians 2:14: Yes, go to the chiropractor. He doesn’t love Jesus, and he’s going to pop your back. You’re going to give them a side hug and walk out and say, “thank you,” but he doesn’t know the purpose of vertebrae, or she doesn’t know the purpose of vertebrae. So, I’m not going to ask my chiropractor, “What is the purpose of my back? And how should I use my back?” I’m going to say, “Can you pop it and make it feel better?” The Natural world. So, the further you move from the physical sciences, I think you’re actually starting to move into special knowledge, special revelation. Which necessitates that you have had your mind renewed to understand, appreciate, grow in and so forth. So, is that common Grace? No, I think, if you start to envelop spiritual truths with the term common grace, your epistemology is going to get pretty wacky, pretty quickly.
Dale Johnson: Greg, this is really helpful. Then even to distinguish some of the aspects of this here. I tend to agree with you. This idea of common grace. It’s really not telling us much about man, specifically. When we use that language, we’re trying to describe something that comes from God, his kindness toward man; it is demonstrating more of his character. And with you adding the idea of mercy, I would like to think about that a little bit more. Because mercy, it really demonstrates that it’s not about man. It’s something that God is doing toward man in a helpful way. And I think if you guys are following Greg’s discussion here— When we use the term grace in this way, epistemologically, it does get us to a place where we say, “This is grace, where people are receiving some form of revelation,” especially if we’re thinking, it’s contributing to spiritual good, in some way.”
Greg Gifford: Yeah, yeah.
Dale Johnson: So that’s where, you know, we get to a hang-up. And I like the way you’re describing this, you know, the further away and then the physically closer you get that. This is why we sort of have some knee-jerks when we talk about psychological theories and psychological thoughts. Because we’re getting closer to the domain of man and how we think about inner man. And that’s God’s domain. That’s what he’s talked about in special revelation, in terms of salvation, justification, sanctification glorification.
Greg Gifford: And, I would add too, all right, if you create some of these epistemological categories, it does reserve a space for the natural man. And I do think there are natural man observations. But when you move to Sociology, it’s increasingly more spiritual imparted knowledge. And then when you move to psychology, you’re almost exclusively in motivational theory, knowledge of the soul, emotions, thoughts, and all of those are immaterial things. So, what can the unbeliever know about those immaterial things? The answer is not a lot. And common grace does not redeem that in some way. When people use that term to say, “yes, but the unbeliever can make a right observation.” Of the physical world, yes. Of the spiritual world, no.
Dale Johnson: Right, and I think that’s helpful. You mentioned. 2 Corinthians 10:3-6, or you think of Ephesians 6:10 and following: we don’t wrestle against flesh and blood. Paul says, in 2 Corinthians 10, “though we walk in the flesh,” right? The physical– we don’t war according to the flesh. And so, we have to be careful how we’re thinking about warring; that natural knowledge is not intended to help us war, where the battle line is truly drawn. That’s really critical. Now, we said a lot. You said a lot. This has been really good, in helping us to think through this and distinguish. I want us to let’s bring this down the level and put some practical, implications here, practical ramifications for counselors. Why does this matter to them on the ground?
Greg Gifford: Do you start your day by reading the Scientific American, or do you start it by reading the Bible, in all honesty? When you’re getting ready for your counseling session: Are you peeking at sleep studies? Are you picking at nutritional facts? Or are you renewing your mind with the truth of Scripture to be able to help your counselee to be able to think about how their life problem change through the truth of Scripture. Think of it this way, if your epistemology means that the Scripture, as special revelation, informs the world as it is, then what are you consulting? Numero uno, numero dos, or whatever is Spanish for third. What are you consulting in those? I think what you’re actually going to do as a Biblical counselor downstream, getting ready for your counseling session, is you’re going to spend time in the Word, and with resources that are about the Word. So, your epistemology, your loyalties, to what you believe is true will come up when you’re getting ready for your counseling session. Who are you reading? Where do you start? There are some counselors, it feels like I’m talking to the Scientific American, and they have a proverb they want to add to that. I’m like “Hey buddy, it feels like you know the Scientific American better than you know your Bible” in all fairness. So, the implications and ramifications are significant downstream, because what do you see as the authority?
And if you start to get a little wonky on seeing the unbeliever as being an authority on spiritual matters, where will you go when you’re preparing for your session? That’s where you’ll go: you’ll go to Psychology today. You’ll go to Scientific American. You’ll go to the latest Wall Street Journal. You’ll go to some type of article to support, instead of grounding yourself back in the special revelation of God’s word, to inform you of the spiritual realities. Second, is cultivating that expectation that God’s word is the boss. It is the authority. And maybe you will have something that you’ve learned somewhere else— We’re still going to subordinate that truth to the truth of Scripture. And we’re going to get stuck as biblical counselors, if we have a counselee who is clinging to secular psychological labels and methodology, as being just as authoritative as the Bible— We’re stuck. Because our authority is the Bible, and we’re trying to help communicate that to you as a counselee. Whatever you’ve heard, we subordinate that to the truth of the Scripture. Those are the two starting points. The first is homework; What are you getting them into? Where are you nudging them to go for church? What passages of Scripture are you having them renew their mind with? The Bible, then, becomes not an addendum or a part of the homework assignment, but the Bible is the homework assignments. All of it— it’s framing everything about what you’re doing in your counseling process. So, I would love that you’re almost ignorant of the Scientific American studies, so that you are so saturated with the truth of Scripture, that you’re just thinking about the problem. You’re thinking about your homework. You’re thinking about your instruction. You’re thinking about giving hope. You’re thinking about all of those methodological things, through the lens of the Scripture, with your ultimate authority being the Scripture.
Dale Johnson: That is a really helpful final assessment. I think that helps us to see, which direction are we really leaning? You know, I want to mention something that you said earlier, Greg, that I think is really important is— That this is a continuing conversation, right? We’re not settling, you know, the laws of the Medes and the Persians today. However, what you have done for us, is you set some anchors that are really important. That the things, we have talked about are non-negotiable, if we want to think through a Christian lens. They’re anchored in the Scriptures. And we have to allow ourselves to think through those things first. And then we put these ideas of common grace, common mercy— However, you want to think about that. Our epistemology: How can we know what we know? How unbelievers can know the things that they know? We have to fit that within what the Scripture says as a proper framework. And so, this is a really great place for us to start the conversation and continue it as we start refining how we as biblical counselors think about this topic of knowledge, epistemology, and common grace moving forward. Very helpful, bro. Thanks for leading this.
Greg Gifford: Thanks for having me.
Helpful Resources:
Click here to read through the Journal of Biblical Soul Care!
