For the Last Time, Jay Adams is NOT a 'Behaviorist'!

Since beginning my formal course of training in biblical counseling about a year and a half ago, I have come to understand much better the process of what counselors call "total restructuring", the practice of "putting off" sinful behavior and thought processes (Eph. 4:22), and being enabled by the Holy Spirit to "put on" the new self - thoughts and practices which are pleasing to God (Eph. 4:24). It should go without saying that walking in obedience is not a one-time event as salvation is, but the way of life Christ expects and demands from His followers. (John Piper wrote an excellent book, "What Jesus Demands from the World", exegeting each one of His imperatives to believers.) Of course, there are those who would distinguish between what they term a "Pauline Christianity" and the Gospel, but this is a false dichotomy. Paul consistently preached Christ crucified (1 Cor. 2:2).

Jay Adams, the founder of the modern biblical counseling movement, does the same thing.

During my course of study with INS, the subject of so-called "Keswick sanctification" was covered and Dr. Adams explained what was wrong with it (he also terms it "quietism"). This philosophy is similar to the "let go and let God" bumper-sticker mentality that if we are simply "empty vessels" fully "yielded" to God, the Holy Spirit will achieve progressive sanctification on our behalf. In this pseudo-pietist formula, it is NOT considered spiritual, or even correct, to strive for our own holiness and sanctification. We are to remain completely passive. This erroneous view of Scripture struck a chord with me, as I had been exposed to it years earlier in a charismatic church. In fact, when reviewing my book manuscript, Martha Peace urged me to remove the words "yield" and "surrender" from the chapters on repentance - NOT because the terms don't occur in the Bible (they do;) but because of how they have become mis-used in the modern Church to promote a passive, almost mystical view of sanctification.

I have spent hours on the phone with Martha, scrutinizing the precision of my terminology when discussing heart change and love of God, the believer's responsibility to repent, and how to walk in obedience. I have spent many MORE hours viewing lectures of Dr. Adams and studying the requisite texts for a certificate in nouthetic counseling (from noutheteo,translated "admonish, correct or instruct;" see Romans 15:14). If I have learned nothing else from Dr. Adams, it is that we are to (and help our counselees learn to) honor and glorify God, whether we feel like it or not. Our motivation is NOT to please ourselves, but to please God. This is the only appropriate response to the One Who first condescended to love us sinners, and gave Himself up for us (Gal. 2:20).

True, inner heart change (conversion) is a work of God. We can do nothing to save ourselves (Eph. 3:23); it is entirely His doing - hence the term "monergism". However, the Bible is clear from Genesis to Revelation that God expects His people to obey Him. This is a synergistic effort (the Holy Spirit enables blood-bought disciples, and we are to "will and to work for His good pleasure"; Phil. 2:13). Justification (being declared righteous before God because of faith in His Son) will always result in increasing holiness and sanctification. Unfortunately, even within the biblical counseling movement, there is a school of thought which considers sanctification entirely a work of God (as if the believer need not practice discipline or "work" towards taking his or her own thoughts captive; put on self-control; etc.)

It is from this misunderstanding of the Scriptural teaching on sanctification that Dr. Adams has wrongly been called a "behaviorist". The term may more accurately be applied to secular psychiatrists who follow the Skinner theories of behavior modification - known more simply as "conditioning". Nowhere, in any of his more than 50 books, has Adams ever promoted the view that by changing one's outward behavior, one becomes acceptable to God. Nor is it accurate to say that a more disciplined lifestyle results in true holiness. In fact, Adams cautions against counseling non-Christians for this very reason: an unregenerate person may only move from one lifestyle that is displeasing to God to another, equally displeasing lifestyle (Heb. 11:6).

Part of the tendency on the part of his critics to misrepresent Adams' teaching comes, I believe, from taking citations out of context. Jay Adams is a man who has been teaching, preaching and writing for quite a few decades on more subjects than I could mention in a blog post. Three of the required texts for students of biblical counseling are "Competent to Counsel", "The Christian Counselor's Manual", and "More than Redemption" (the last one is a systematic theology text). These three books are around 400 pages EACH. In addition to these, there are many of his shorter, "summary" type books on specific subjects (forgiveness; hermaneutics; divorce and re-marriage) we are to read. It is both inaccurate and unfair to take (for example) a paragraph on what specific behaviors a counselee might take to overcome lust from page 402 of one of his books and treat it as if it were the only and final word Adams has written on the subject. By the time the reader arrives at Chapter 35 of CCM, Adams presumably takes it for granted the reader has read the first 34 chapters, AND perhaps CTC (which is a precursor to CCM). It should not be necessary for him to re-lay the groundwork of God's great love, conviction, confession of sin, heart-felt repentance and what may be going on in the counselee's heart that causes him to rebel against God each time he gives a counseling scenario.

Yesterday, in an entry by Dr. Adams called "Gospel Sanctification" on the Institutes's blog, a conversation ensued in which the usual arguments about "behaviorism" were dragged out. I had been planning to write about this issue anyway, since learning that some in the biblical counseling movement have been leaning towards a passive, "resting and feeding" faith* while omitting our responsibility to be co-laborers in our own spiritual growth. One nay-sayer wrote:

"Marie, from what I have read of Dr. Adams, he is a behaviorist/moralist. He teaches that changing the behavior is the way to change the heart. At least that’s what I read on the pages of Competent to Counsel. I was so shocked at what I read that I withdrew my application to a seminary that uses Dr Adams as its text. Check it for yourself."

Of course, I HAVE read CTC for myself, as well as the books mentioned above and a great many more. What this straw-man argument fails to acknowledge is that Adams himself has written specifically and succinctly on the subject of progressive sanctification in a small, highly readable book, "Growing by Grace". At less than 100 pages, (I read it at McDonalds' PlayPlace last summer), it is a useful overview of what the Christian life should look like for anyone desiring to follow God. He discusses the New Birth and why it is necessary for any true, inner change; then goes on to describe how God enables His children to live lives "worthy of the calling" they have received (Eph. 4:1). This is a basic, fundamental calling of every believer throughout his/her entire life; it is not limited to those in the counseling room. Adams writes,

"When counselors help counselees to develop new biblical habits to replace old ones, for instance, they encourage them to ask God to change not only externals but also to change their hearts. Peter speaks of "hearts trained in greed" (II Peter 2:14). The heart is where the habit is.....The heart must be changed as the habit is; the habit will be changed as the heart is. The one cannot be divorced from the other. Holiness is first and foremost an inside job! To encourage counselees merely to change their outer behavior is to create hypocritical counselees and to make God out to be nothing more than a decorative God who superficially paints over the rotten wood beneath! The biblical counselor must stress prayer, the work of the Spirit, and the Word in enabling him to obey. God is an Interior Decorator."

Big, fat 'Amen'! The insight that working on changing the behavior right alongside the heart is one that rings especially true for former addicts. More than once, I have received the question from young women with eating disorders, "When will God change my heart? Did you stop [bulimic behavior] after God changed your heart, or did it all happen at the same time?"

Teaching that deep reflection on the Cross and meditating on the sufferings of Christ is all that is needed to 'change our hearts' confuses and frustrates people stuck in life-dominating sin. YES, it is necessary. It is, after all, God's kindness which leads us to repentance (Romans 2:4). Without being broken over one's sin and staying in fellowship with the compassionate, gracious Savior Who loves us, no real change can occur in our hearts - nor, consequently, in our behavior. BUT, and this is the key difference, "preaching the Gospel to ourselves" doesn't stop with recognizing Christ's great love and our redemption. It continues - by recalling His command to "follow Me" (die to self-centered desires) and "go and sin no more".

A simple, common-sense application of this heart+disciplined action = change is as follows: I used to smoke cigarettes. Somewhere around 2002, as God was pricking my conscience over several long-standing sins, I began to feel convicted that God wanted me to stop smoking. I realized that when under stress or angry, I would "stuff" my angry thoughts and feelings by using this habit; that it was unhealthy and therefore in violation of 1 Cor. 6:19; and that since cigarettes had now hit $5.00/pack in Massachusetts, it was poor stewardship. I decided to quit.

I prayed about it. I "shared my feelings" with the Lord. I re-affirmed His love for me from the pages of Scripture. I recognized that Christ had died on the Cross for me. But you know what else? I stopped going to the mini-market for Marlboros. I quit hanging around the designated smoke area out back at work, with my homegirls from the temp agency. I threw away my ashtray and lighter, and then....most significantly of all, I told my husband I wasn't going to smoke anymore. Ah...the accountability factor. Once you tell your husband or wife, it's written in stone.

I never lit another cigarette again.

Now, smoking may be a fairly benign example of this principle, but anyone can see how making changes in one's habitual behavior concurrently with the heart change God brings about will lead to victory over a particular sin (or bad habit). So, is this 'behaviorism'? Let's let Dr. Adams himself answer that charge:

"Not if what he does is done out of love for God! One must have the inner desire to please God when out of duty he obeys a commandment that is not pleasant to obey. A housewife cleans the toilets not because she enjoys the chore but because she loves her family. A counselee may be called on to obey a command out of love for God and his neighbor, even when he does not look forward to the task itself. That is what must be stressed. The counselee must understand that in his inner person, he must not do anything God commands for brownie points; he must obey out of love."

(Emphasis mine)

I truly hope that these illustrations and Dr. Adams' own words help any would-be critics understand progressive sanctification. This critically-important doctrine is one which biblical counselors strive to present from the pages of Scripture; not from feel-good, needs-based psychology. Insisting on obedience (as Christ Himself did repeatedly) by means of the Spirit is neither legalism nor 'behaviorism'. As one grows in his/her relationship with Christ, he/she naturally becomes increasingly conformed to His likeness (Romans 8:29). This is true "Gospel Sanctification", and is what Dr. Adams has preached from day one.

* See "The Journal of Modern Ministry", Vol. 8, Issue I.
Excerpts taken from "Growing by Grace", Dr. Jay Adams, published by Timeless Texts, 2003. Pgs. 92-93,

"Godliness Through Discipline"

One of the great little booklets I have in my arsenal of nouthetic counseling resources is entitled "Godliness Through Discipline", written by Jay Adams in 1972. A consolidated treatise taken largely from his more complete work, "The Christian Counselor's Manual", Adams exegetes the underlying meaning of Christ's command in Luke 9:23 ("Take up your Cross and follow me"), as well as the deliberate, ongoing practice of "Putting off" the old self and "putting on" godliness discussed by Paul.

One unfair criticism leveled against biblical counseling is that it is essentially behaviorist in practice. This is not true. If I truly want to change a behavior that is displeasing to God (read: sin), I will also want to change the heart attitude behind it. To truly put it to death, I need to begin to see my sin the way God does - and thus to hate it. You cannot isolate the heart attitude from the habitual behavior - you need to work on changing both in tandem (in the power of the Holy Spirit). To give an example, suppose you have a drinking problem. You may hate it, and memorize all the verses in the Bible about the dangers of drunkenness. You may confess it as sin and have everyone on your prayer chain praying for you. However, until you stop going to the liquor store and buying it, you will still struggle with drinking. You need to "cut off" the source of your temptation as well as seek God to renew your mind regarding the sin.


This sounds so obvious as to be common sense. And yet....nowadays we have so many more distractions vying for our time and attention than existed back in 1972 that discipline in our prayer life (not to mention Scripture study) is something we all need to practice. Many of these diversions, while not exactly sin in and of themselves, can actually serve as stumbling blocks to well-meaning Christians. Probably one of the biggest in our day is the Internet - I can't tell you how many young ladies I have counseled who are "too depressed" to do their homework, open their Bibles, or listen to particular sermons I send them - yet I see them playing Farmville on Facebook all day. Facebook can be a great way to evangelize unsaved friends and relatives (as well as network with other Christian writers, if you're like me); but if you are not highly disciplined it can become a huge time-suck.

Another seemingly-innocent source of distraction are the ubiquitous "Christian message boards". These forums promote themselves as a means of "fellowship" and "growth", but more often than not they give rise to endless, foolish debates and arguments. They are, by and large, breeding grounds for really, really bad theology. Finally, true spiritual growth and fellowship can only take place within a local, Bible-believing church in the company of other saints. (Read: in real life).

One of my counselees, a young lady with no church home and virtually no discipleship, recently took it upon herself to start an online "support" community and now spends all her time interacting with strangers online. The best thing she (and others who have developed the same bad habit) could do would be to get off the internet and start reading the Bible. Some of the best, most edifying sermons I have heard have been online; likewise, we are blessed to live in a day and age where Bible commentaries by Matthew Henry and transcripts by Spurgeon are just a few clicks away. Still, a mature believer knows when to say "when". No sanctified screen-sucking will replace devotional time with Christ.

A final and obvious way in which we 21st-century believers need to "put on" discipline might be the hours spent in front of the TV. As British pastor Kevin Williams has said, "Where you spend most of your time reveals where your heart is". I admit this one has not been a struggle for me, as I do not watch TV (or even have cable), but with hundreds of television stations available to most people, it can be a genuine temptation. Do we spend a fraction of the time in God's Word as we do in front of the screen?

See a suberb, fictional story that drives home the points I've made above, Marsha West's "The Serpent and the Slacker".

The key to changing habits (including those of poor time management) is consistency. The "cross" referred to in Luke 9:23 is the daily practice of dying to self - saying "no" to self-centered desires and whims (in favor of God's desires). Adams writes:

"Discipline...is something that the Christian church lacks in our time. It is high time that we all recognize that God requires us to discipline ourselves by constant practice in obeying His revealed will and thus exercise (train) ourselves toward godliness. Practically speaking, what does this involve? In Luke 9:23, Jesus commands His disciples: "Take up your cross daily," denying the self. He does not mean denying yourself something. There is no idea of doing penance in this. "For Lent I'll stop chewing gum," says the penitent. That is exactly not what is in view. Rather, Jesus insisted that Christians must deny the self within them. By the self, He meant the old desires, the old ways, the old practices, the old habit patterns that were acquired before conversion. They became so much a part of day-by-day practice that they became second nature. We were born sinners, but it took practice to develop our particular styles of sinning, the old life was disciplined toward ungodliness. That is why Paul says that the believer must daily deny (literally say "no" to) the self. Daily denial of the self indicates the presence of a day-by-day battle inside of the Christian." -- Jay Adams, "Godliness Through Discipline", P&R Publishing,
1972. P. 7.

************************************

On a different note, yesterday I signed, sealed and delivered a publishing contract with a top publisher of books for the biblical counseling market! (They also have many theology and devotional titles). More updates on this exciting news later....I am still overwhelmed by this recent development (especially as I was able to attract a traditional publisher without the help of an agent). I was very nearly ready to go the self-publishing route, but thankfully, now will not have to. Pre-publication work on my manuscript, "Redeemed from the Pit: Biblical Repentance and Restoration from the Bondage of Eating Disorders" (title may very likely be changed) will begin after the summer. Needless to say, I am very pleased and grateful that God will allow me to use my studies and writing ability to serve Him in this way.

Is "Idol of the Heart" a Biblical Construct?

Earlier today, NANC fellow and Counseling Solutions founder Rick Thomas met with Pastor Donn Arms, director of the Institute for Nouthetic Studies, and asked him a question that came out of a discussion on Rick's Facebook group. (The Institute, or INS, is the organization under whose auspices I am studying nouthetic counseling, so Pastor Donn and I have been in contact before. It was a comment he made to me a year ago that prompted the question).

In Christian counseling circles, sermons, and books, it is not unusual to hear "pet sins" or driving ambitions described as "idols", in that they figuratively displace God at the center of one's life. In my own book, a major thesis I developed was that eating disorders, like other addictions, are fueled in part by the sin of idolatry. I quoted Martha Peace, who defines an idol as "anything you want badly enough that you are willing to sin in order to obtain it." By this definition, wanting to be thin so badly that you are willing to self-destruct reveals an idolatrous heart.

Since there is not complete agreement among biblical counselors and writers in this camp on every single non-essential topic, it seemed like a good topic of discussion. Arms, like his colleague Jay Adams, falls at the more conservative end of the biblical counseling spectrum and is a stickler for exegesis. "If you can't find it in a Strong's Concordance, you shouldn't use it [in counseling]," he quoted Adams as saying. If you've been reading this blog for any time, you know how strongly I feel about good hermeneutics.

The term "idols of the heart" does in fact occur in Scripture, as Arms noted, but only once: in Ezekiel 14:3-4. The context was, of course, the wood-and-stone icons that the Israelites continued to hold dear - idolatry is pretty straight-forward in the Old Testament. The problem comes in when we attempt to make a New Testament construct out of the literal/historical meaning of the text. Although Christian counselors are fond of identifying "idols" in the counselee's "heart", a less confusing term according to Arms is to simply label them "sin". (The charismatic equivalent, he said, is labeling demons - the "demon" of lust; the "demon" of bulimia, and "casting them out").

The original writer (David Powlinson) who coined the term "idols" to describe inordinate or sinful priority placed on things other than God did so metaphorically. Since we must be very precise in our terminology when discussing doctrinal matters, Arms said he does not feel using the term "idols of the heart" is a helpful construct in counseling.

I can see his point. It's usually not too hard to get someone to see that her priorities are out of whack if she is engaged in a life-dominating sin. If we are careful to note that we are using the term "idolatry" euphemistically or metaphorically, (ie., "This obsession with ___ has taken over your thoughts and impacted your life in all of these ways. It appears to be like an 'idol' in your life,") I don't see that any harm would be done. However, idolatry is usually seen as the "root" or causal factor behind the sin itself - NOT a Scriptural concept, but rather a Fruedian one - so taking the blunt approach ("This is sin. God's Word says repent. Here's how...") is ultimately more effective.

Although Colossians 3:5 does equate greed with idolatry, we need to be careful not to push the analogy too far. Arms put it this way, "I do not see Paul, Peter, James, or any of the writers of the New Testament confronting people about the "idols in their hearts." I cannot imagine the Lord Jesus approaching Zacchaeus about his 'idol' of wealth, or saying to the woman at the well, "Woman at the Well, you need to deal with this idol of immorality in your heart!"

Sometimes the reality of sin is simpler, starker, and blunter than we care to realize. No need to pretty it up with euphemisms.

To hear the full transcript of the interview and for more great biblical counseling resources, including webinars, subscribe to Counseling Solutions through Rick's blog: http://www.competentcounseling.com/

Trichotomous Man or Dichotomous Man?

Now here's a subject of interest for all you theo-geeks: are we a three-part being (body, soul, spirit); or a two-part (soul and spirit used interchangeably to describe the eternal, intangible part of man)?

I was only vaguely aware that there are conflicting views on this philosophical puzzle until earlier this month. While I have been taught that the soul is made up of the mind, will and emotions (while the spirit is the core of one's being, which is enlivened upon regeneration), I confess that I have never given it much thought - until I began studying the theology of biblical counseling. (I was accepted into the Institute for Nouthetic Studies yesterday, by the way.) In preparation for the coursework, I am currently reading John Macarthur and Wayne Mack's "Counseling" and Jay Adams' "The Christian Counselor's Handbook" - neithor one of which are light reading. As it happens, both address the two-part vs. three-part understanding of man in early chapters.

Funky chart - but is it biblical??

In my own book, I had taken the trichotomous position; even maintaining that because one's spirit is regenerated at conversion, if the soul and the spirit were one and the same, the Christian would never again show a proclivity to sin after the new birth. Going back and re-examining that stance in light of Scripture (especially Paul's discussion of the ongoing conflict between the "old man" and the "new man" in Romans,) it doesn't hold up.

Jay Adams traces the trichotomous view of man to Greek philosophy and maintains that it is not biblical . Furthermore, its reemergence in contemporary thought is partly due to Freud's theory of the ego, the super-ego and the id. Uh-oh. He writes:

"Trichotomy is not supported by a superficial appeal to 1 Thessalonians 5:23, where Paul is not distinguishing the parts of man, but simply heaping word upon word to emphasize entirety. Jesus Christ did the same thing when He spoke of loving God with all of one's "heart, soul, mind and strength" (Mark 12:30). The Scriptures use the term soul (pseuche) and spirit (pneuma) interchangeably. Cf. Luke 1:46, 47, where the two are used in parallelism."

John Street goes into an even more detailed explanation:

" The typical bifurcation between the soul and the spirit made by some Christian psychologists cannot be biblically sustained. One Christian psychiatrist offered this explanation: "The soul is the psychological aspect of man, whereas the spirit is spiritual...The mind alone lies in the psychological aspect of man and not the spiritual." Such an artificial distinctions grows from reading psychological meaning into biblical terms. Both "soul" and "spirit" speak of the same intangible aspect of the inner man, the part of man that only God sees. A concordance study of psyche shows that when Scripture uses the term "soul" in relation to man, it refers to that aspect of the innner man in connection with his body. When it uses the term "spirit", it is that aspect of the inner man out of connection with his body. No distinction exists in Scripture between the psychologically oriented and the spiritually oriented man."

Not to be outdone, Ken L. Sarles offers a comprehensive look at the usage of spirit/soul both in Hebrew and Greek (whenever a theologian starts a sentence with "If we go back to the original Greek...", I'm inclined to say, "You win! I'll take your word for it!") From "How to Counsel Biblically":

"The body represents everything material, while the soul represents everything immaterial. In this case, the terms soul and spirit are understood as viewing the immaterial aspect of human nature from different vantage points. That is, the numerical essence of soul and spirit is one. Evidence for dichotomy can be found in Scripture's interchangeable usage of the terms soul (nephesh in the Old Testament and psyche in the New Testament) and spirit (ruah in the Old Testament and pneuma in the New Testament)....In evaluating dichotomy, the strongest defense is the argument from creation. Genesis 2:7 records that man became a living soul. The term is inclusive of everything that has a living, breathing being. It would be more accurate then, to say that man has a spirit, but is a soul. Furthermore, the interchangibility of the terms argues for dichotomy."

There are very well-thought-out defenses of the trichotomous position, too, which seem to make a strong case from Scripture (including this one). However, as interesting as examning the question may be, I personally do not think that it matters too much whether our soul is distinct from our spirit or they are "two sides of the same coin". In fact, I was rather surprised to realize that this is a poiunt of heated dissention among theologians - somewhat on par with the pre-millenial/post-millenial debate! I want to have this spiritual reality straight in my mind for the sake of doctrinal accuracy in my book, but if it were such a crucial matter I'm sure Paul or the Lord Jesus Himself would have spelled it out a bit more precisely.

Taking the Bible alone, the main point is this: if you have been re-born, you are a new creation in Christ. The old has gone; the new has come. You are no longer a slave to sin. Your inner man has changed - no matter how you wish to call it. Your spirit thirsts for God and He Who began a good work in you will carry it on to the day of completion. I don't see any indication of a trichotomous man, but nor do I think it's any big woop - certainly not one worth debating much.

If you go back and read the words in red, (not to mention the Epistles), you don't see much hair-splitting philosophical debate - even with the Greek dudes in John 12:19-21 who were eager to talk to Jesus. What we DO see is a lot of common-sense, get-out-there-and-do-it commands, coupled with a call to constant devotion and commitment to inner holiness. This should always be our main concern, first and foremost.

But you've got to admit, the nit-picking theological questions can be great fun to study out.

Jay Adams - More Debunking Transubstantiation

Yesterday's blog post over at The Institute for Nouthetic Studies dealt with, ironically enough, the aberrant doctrine of transubstantiation. Recently, I posted a two-part series examining how the early Church saw the ordinance of the Lord's Supper - as a memorial to the crucified and risen Lord.

Dr. Jay Adams, in typical concise fashion, sums it up nicely in yesterday's post (I even fixed his spelling typos):

"What about transubstantiation? Were the bread and wine actually changed into the body and blood of Christ? Millions of people claim to believe they were. If it were true, it would be a continuous miracle—totally unlike any other in the Bible.

But consider the facts.

First, notice that Jesus said to eat and drink in remembrance of Him. What goes on at the supper has mnemonic value.

Secondly, He said that eating was a means of declaring (literally, “preaching”) His death until returns. There is not a whisper about the cannibalistic act of actually eating Him.

“Ah. But He said ‘this is My body’ and ‘this is My blood.’ How do you get around that fact?”

We don’t have to get around it, as you put it. We simply do regular exegesis. When Jesus said I am the Bread of life, the Water of life or the Door to the sheepfold, for instance, we don’t say He is a fluid, or a board hanging on hinges, or a loaf of bread. Thank God that there is a meaningful and important purpose of proclaiming the Lord’s death for sinners that comports with rather than contradicts, the way of salvation. The once-for-all death of Christ (Hebrews 9:28; 10:1,2; 11-14) must be maintained rather than the opposing doctrine of Jesus dying in un-bloody sacrifices again and again on Roman Catholic altars, as is presupposed in transubstantiation.

How foolish to think that the apostles understood something more than what Jesus said—that the supper was an act of remembrance and proclamation. After all, there He was sitting before them in His living flesh and blood. If I hold up a picture of myself and say, “See, this is me,” what do you suppose–that the picture is somehow morphed into me? Of course not! Friend, if you are caught up in this sophistry of the scholastics, think again."

(There's an SAT word of the day for you - 'sophistry'. I'm going to figure out a way to use that in a sentence this weekend.)