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.[footnoteRef: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. [1: The author heard the following in passing, and so it will be paraphrased and unattributed.]

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 predestination[footnoteRef:2] with monergism[footnoteRef:3], 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,[footnoteRef: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 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. [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.]

The basis for inquiries into childhood experiences lies in the hypothesis that child development impacts who we are as adults. Psychologist Alfred Adler[footnoteRef:5], 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.[footnoteRef: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. [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.]

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 cause[footnoteRef:7] and effect[footnoteRef:8] relationship within temporal circumstances. What this means is that every temporal event is contingent[footnoteRef:9] 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.[footnoteRef:10] Each individuals psyche is shaped solely by the causal contingencies linking him to the rest of temporality. We will now assess this assumption. [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.] [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.]

The first view of causality is that of a closed universe. This is the view espoused by secular science, atheism, and agnosticism.[footnoteRef: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 necessary[footnoteRef:12], 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 non-existence 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. [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.)]

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 where all that is became. This is logically infallible because all of human experience tells us that nothing cannot create something.[footnoteRef:13] If nothing is truly nothing,[footnoteRef: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. [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.]

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.[footnoteRef:15] Monergists cannot accept this on any grounds. [15: Hodge, Theology Volume Two, 280-282.]

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.[footnoteRef: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, in the broad sense, call God. Only if God is uncontingently necessary is God also perfectly free.[footnoteRef:17] [16: Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica Vol. 1-The First Part (Albany: Ages Software, 1997), 28.] [17: Oden, Thomas C. The Living God: Systematic Theology Volume I (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1987) 97.]

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.[footnoteRef:18] God is therefore impersonal. It is for this reason that famous Deists such as Thomas Jefferson[footnoteRef:19] 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. [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).]

This view is heretical to any form of orthodox[footnoteRef:20] 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. [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.]

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 pyramid-style chain of contingencies. Instead, we have something like a mountain range of chain links, with multiple peaks, each successive peak occurring further down than 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.[footnoteRef: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. [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, I do not charge all that have held this doctrine with being Arminians. For whatever may be the consequences of the doctrine really, yet some that hold this doctrine may not own nor see these consequences; and it would be unjust, in many instances, to charge every author with believing and maintaining all the real consequences of his avowed doctrines. (Edwards, Jonathan. The Works of Jonathan Edwards Volume 2. (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.]

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 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.[footnoteRef:22] [22: Finney, Charles G. Systematic Theology, 1878 Edition (Albany: Ages Software, 1997), 25- 26.]

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.[footnoteRef: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.[footnoteRef:24] [23: Oden, God, 94.] [24: Ibid., 94-95.]

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.[footnoteRef: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. [25: Oden, Thomas C. Life in the Spirit, Systematic Theology Volume Three (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992), 132.]

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 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?[footnoteRef: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. [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.]

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.[footnoteRef: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.[footnoteRef:28] Though the doctrine be true, if it is held in isolation, inconsistent with its other doctrine, it will prove indefensible. [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.]

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 experience- If 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.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.[footnoteRef: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.[footnoteRef: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: [29: Berkhof, Theology, 100.] [30: Ibid.]

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.[footnoteRef: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 of the soul, is affected by the corruption of our nature derived from our first parents.[footnoteRef:32] Romans 3:10-18 is a crucial Biblical passage for this concept. [31: Hodge, Theology Volume 2, 192-193.] [32: Ibid., 254-255.]

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 God[footnoteRef:33] 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. [33: Van Til, Defense, 36.]

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 non-Christians 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.[footnoteRef: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.[footnoteRef: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 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. [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.]

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 non-contingent, 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.[footnoteRef: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, [36: Chafer, Theology Vols. 3&4, 282.]

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

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.