Restoring the Antithesis
The principle of the antithesis can be described in two ways. First, it is the fundamental opposition between the believer and unbeliever related to our spiritual state (Gen. 3:15; Matt. 6:24; Rom. 8:5–9).[1] Believers and unbelievers live in the same reality of God’s created world, but every person is either spiritually dead in sin in Adam or united by faith and given new life in Christ (Rom. 5:12–21)[2]. For instance, the sheep and goats are together (Matt. 25:31–46). The wheat and weeds grow together (Matt. 13:24–43). Nevertheless, this temporary togetherness will end when the believer and unbeliever are finally separated at the end of the age. For now, both live in God’s created world but are spiritually at odds with each other. While we share workplaces, live in the same neighborhoods, drive the same streets, and shop at the same grocery stores, the difference between Christians and non-Christians is no less than between light and darkness (1 John 1:5–10).[3]
Second, the antithesis is the fundamental opposition between the believer and unbeliever related to our epistemological commitments (Eph. 4:17–18).[4] As John Frame writes, it is “the opposition between Christian and non-Christian thought.”[5] We observe the same world, but we have drastically different starting points and opposing interpretations. This contrast is between rival worldviews. Every worldview begins with its own set of first principles. It is a frame of reference that orients and directs our thinking. It is directly related to our spiritual state. For example, a humanistic psychologist assumes that man is by nature good, growth-oriented, and will thrive if given the right conditions. These are worldview commitments that directly oppose a biblical view of man as a sinner in need of divine redemption. The fall plunged man into a sea of distortion, folly, and intellectual rebellion (1 Tim. 6:5). Sin has cast a thick darkness over the unbelieving mind. When consistent, the unbeliever will express futility in thinking from a spiritually darkened heart (Rom. 1:21–28). By default, he interprets and responds to the facts around him through the lens of unbelief. In contrast, believers have the mind of Christ and, when consistent, interpret the world according to God’s Word (1 Cor. 2:14–16). In either case, human reason is never spiritually neutral.
This spiritual and epistemological conflict shows up in systems of thought. For this reason, a complete contrast must be maintained between believing and unbelieving systems of thought (Col. 2:6–8).[6] God’s wisdom and ways are categorically opposed to the wisdom and ways of the world (Job 28:12–28; Prov. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:21, 25–31; 2:14; James 3:13–18).[7]
Beginning in the garden of Eden, there have been two opposing counsels—the counsel of God and the counsel of the evil one (Gen. 1–3). The two opposing counsels are presented in Psalm 1:1–2: “Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law he meditates day and night.” Adams comments, “The Psalms, in particular, from the first Psalm on, set up the antithesis between the two ways and the two kinds of people who walk on them. It is not right for Christians, therefore, to become enamored with the ways of the world. From the garden of Eden, it has always been a choice between God’s Word and the devil’s, between the way of life and the way of death.”[8]
Counseling and the Antithesis
What does the principle of the antithesis have to do with counseling? As Adams developed biblical counseling, he accepted Van Til’s claim that all unbelieving systems of thought are opposed to biblical thinking. In his words, he aimed “to expose sharply the antitheses that exist [between Christianity and the major schools of counseling]. For too long biblical presuppositions and methodology either have been ignored or blurred by eclecticism.”[9] For this reason, the antithesis serves as a foundational principle of the biblical counseling movement. Using Van Til’s language, Adams presents, “In God’s world, all men are related to him as covenant breakers or covenant keepers (in Christ). The judgments of unbelievers, therefore, are arrived at and presented from a point of view which attempts to divorce itself from God.”[10]
Powlison, too, acknowledges that man is “either a covenant-breaker bedewed with common grace, or a covenant keeper compromised by indwelling sin and prone to suffer.”[11] In either case, a theorist or counselee’s spiritual state will fundamentally determine his interpretive framework. For this reason, he prioritizes “discerning the antithesis between secularism and biblical truth.”[12] Such discernment must be applied both when evaluating other counseling systems and working with specific counselees. A systematic, biblical approach to counseling will oppose secular counseling systems over issues such as: (1) the epistemological standard for truth and authority, (2) the jurisdictional standard for who has the right to help, and (3) the remedial resources to diagnose and cure souls effectively.[13] Powlison presented at least these three areas of sharp contrast and fundamental disagreement.
On this account, the clash is over basic issues such as the nature of knowledge, what it means to be human, the nature of people’s problems, who is authorized to help troubled people, and what resources can bring true remedy. Powlison believed the modern psychologies launched a self-conscious, intentional attack against Christianity.[14] As such, there can be no peace between biblical Christianity and the modern therapies. Through Word-based ministry, biblical counselors must make it our business to take every system of thought captive to obey Christ by destroying the competing arguments and lofty opinions raised against the knowledge of God (2 Cor. 10:4–6).
[1] Van Til used the term “absolute ethical antithesis.” Cornelius Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology: Prolegomena and the Doctrines of Revelation, Scripture, and God, ed. William Edgar, 2nd ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2007), 64. James Anderson uses the term “spiritual orientation.” James N. Anderson, “Presuppositional Apologetics,” in Understanding Christian Apologetics: Five Methods for Defending the Faith, ed. Timothy Paul Jones (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2025), 95, Kindle. Oliphint proposes the term “covenantal” in place of “ethical.” K. Scott Oliphint, Covenantal Apologetics: Principles and Practice in Defense of Our Faith (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013), 47–67, Kindle. In this sense, then, the antithesis can be described as ethical, spiritual, or covenantal.
[2] Scott Oliphint argues, “An absolute ethical antithesis is one in which there are not two worlds but two kinds of people in one world; two activities—in principle—that are associated with these people. To use the language of Reformed theology, there is a covenantal antithesis between believer and unbeliever. All people are either in Adam or in Christ. These are the two, and only two, covenantal representatives whom God has appointed.”
[3] According to James Anderson, “This is a categorical difference, not merely one of degree.” James N. Anderson, “Evangelizing Fallen People: Apologetics and the Doctrine of Sin,” in Ruined Sinners to Reclaim: Human Corruption in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective, ed. David Gibson and Jonathan Gibson (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2024), 858.
[4] James Anderson explains, “A biblical epistemology should also recognize the fundamental antithesis between Christian thought and non-Christian thought—that is, between believers and unbelievers with respect to their intellectual orientation and outlook.” Anderson, “Presuppositional Apologetics,” 108, Kindle.
[5] John M. Frame, Apologetics: A Justification of Christian Belief, ed. Joseph E. Torres, 2nd ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2015), 289.
[6] Greg Bahnsen clarifies, “Van Til held that there are no main points, systematically basic principles, or central truths in philosophy where the disagreement between the believer and the unbeliever will not be seen.” As such, he argues, “The antithesis between the thinking of the believer and the thinking of the unbeliever must be systemic and total.” Greg L. Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings and Analysis (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1998), 273–74.
[7] James Anderson asserts, “Paul draws a sharp contrast between the ‘wisdom of God’ revealed in Christ and the ‘wisdom of the world’ and correlatively between the ‘spiritual person’ and the ‘natural person.’” Anderson, “Presuppositional Apologetics,” 108.
[8] Jay E. Adams, Teaching to Observe: The Counselor as Teacher (Cordova, TN: Institute for Nouthetic Studies, 2020), 109, Logos Bible Software.
[9] Jay E. Adams, Shepherding God’s Flock: A Handbook on Pastoral Ministry, Counseling, and Leadership (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1974), 166, Kindle.
[10] Jay E. Adams, Competent to Counsel: Introduction to Nouthetic Counseling, The Jay Adams Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1970), 269.
[11] David Powlison, “Frame’s Ethics: Working the Implications for Pastoral Care,” in Speaking the Truth in Love: The Theology of John M. Frame, ed. John J. Hughes (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2009), 760.
[12] Powlison, “Does Biblical Counseling Really Work?,” 64.
[13] David Powlison, “Modern Therapies and the Church’s Faith,” Journal of Biblical Counseling 15, no. 1 (Fall 1996): 34.
[14] Powlison, “Modern Therapies and the Church’s Faith,” 32.