Repost: Donn R. Arms on NANC Name Change “What’s In a Name?
One hundred years ago our forefathers in the faith were finally waking up to the fact that the machinery of their denominations and conventions had been taken over by theological liberals or “modernists” as they were called then. The denominational seminaries, funded by the Rockefeller fortune, had also fallen—due in large part to the inattention given them by the conservatives or “fundamentalists.” Under the leadership of men like W. B. Riley, T. T. Shields, and A.C. Dixon the conservatives began to organize pastors in the Northern Baptist Convention with mixed results. Finally, in 1922 they came together with a plan to smoke out the liberals and defeat them on the floor of the convention which was to be held in Indianapolis. They concluded that the adoption of a well-defined doctrinal statement which spelled out exactly what the convention believed would paint the liberals into a corner and require them to declare publicly what they believed about the “fundamentals” of the faith.
At the convention W. B. Riley made a motion that the Northern Baptist Convention pledge itself to the New Hampshire Confession of Faith (1833). The conservatives were lined up to vote in favor and they believed they were finally poised to have their victory over the liberals. The liberals were not to be out maneuvered, however. Cornelius Woelfkin, liberal pastor of the Park Avenue Baptist Church in New York City, stood and offered a substitute motion “that the New Testament is the all sufficient ground of our faith and practice, and that we need no other statement.” His clever defense of his motion convinced a number of conservatives that a vote against his motion would amount to a vote against the New Testament itself! Conservatives were not going to vote against the Bible so Woelfkin’s motion passed 1264 to 637.
The deflated conservatives never again came even that close to success in making the liberals clearly declare what it meant for them to be “Biblical” and subsequently began their exodus from the convention to form new associations and schools.
This thin slice of church history came to mind when I learned that the powers that be at NANC (The National Association of Nouthetic Counselors) would be asking the membership to vote to remove the word “nouthetic” from the name of the organization. No, I don’t mean to insinuate that those who propose this name change are theologically like those liberal Baptists a century ago, and while it was probably not their intention to use the word in the same way our liberal ancestors did, that fact remains that “biblical” is a much broader term than the word “nouthetic” and allows for a far greater number of counselors to camp under its banner.
Now, of course, we all want to be biblical in our counseling, our theology, and our practice. Being biblical is noble—it is Berean! But while we all want to be biblical, the term itself is nebulous. It gives no precise indication as to what exactly we believe the Bible teaches on any given subject. It only communicates that we agree with it—whatever it is.
As we look over the Christian counseling landscape today we see that almost everyone who is a Christian and does counseling claims to be biblical in what they are doing. Integrationists like Larry Crabb, Gary Collins, Eric Johnson, Tim Clinton, Archibald Hart, and Paul Meier all say that what they are doing is “biblical.” Neil Anderson, who finds demons under every rock, claims to be “biblical.” Charles Solomon avows that hisExchanged Life approach is “biblical.” Gary Chapman claims his Love Languages are “biblical.” Tim LaHaye has pronounced his temperament analysis to be “biblical.” Kevin Leman believes his birth order nonsense is “biblical.” James Dobson is confident his pronouncements about self-esteem are “biblical.” Openly and aggressively integrationist institutions such as Liberty University and Dallas Seminary shamelessly label their degree programs “Biblical Counseling.”
There is no such ambiguity about the word “nouthetic.” It is a term that has fences around it—well defined by the foundational books written by Dr. Adams. It is confused only by those who are too lazy to read Competent to Counsel, those who would willingly be confused, or those who desire to confuse others.
This is not to say that the term “nouthetic” encompasses everything Dr. Adams teaches or practices. No Lutheran believes everything Luther believed. The term “Calvinist” applies to a system of doctrine, not everything Calvin believed. Methodists do not follow in lockstep behind all that John Wesley believed. I have worked closely with Dr. Adams for over 15 years and after countless long conversations I still can’t land where he has landed on eschatology, church polity, and infant baptism. Upon glorification one of us (or perhaps both) will learn we had misunderstood what the Scriptures teach on each of these issues. Still, when NANC was founded in 1975, the term “nouthetic” was almost unanimously adopted by the founding board in order to clearly identify what they meant when they claimed to be “biblical” counselors. The only dissenter was Dr. Adams himself who was concerned that the use of his term would make the movement more about him than it would the Scriptures.
The move away from the specific term “nouthetic” to the more general term “biblical” does not clarify, it obfuscates. It allows for greater inclusiveness. It reduces to a lowest common denominator. It enables NANC to identify with, and perhaps even attract, those who cannot or would not embrace Adams’ “nouthetic” view of sanctification, what he means by the “sufficiency” of the Scriptures, his exegetical precision, or his insistence upon orthodoxy on the important theological issues that intersect with biblical counseling such as the sovereignty of God, the cessation of supernatural gifts, and a rejection of all things mystical.
For all of these reasons we at the Institute for Nouthetic Studies are in favor of this proposed name change. Does this surprise you? It shouldn’t if you are familiar with NANC these days. We favor this change because it is honest. The current NANC board has led the organization away from its well-defined nouthetic roots and has remolded it into a wider, more inclusive organization that is better described by the broader and less definitive term “biblical.”
Again, my conclusion may come as a surprise to many reading these words so let me make my case with just a few brief bullet points:
The orthodox doctrine of progressive sanctification, a cornerstone of nouthetic counseling, is no longer essential. Many NANC members have replaced it with a doctrine commonly labeled as Gospel Sanctification which teaches that loving Christ and contemplating all that He has done for us on the cross is sufficient for our sanctification.
NANC membership now includes counselors who are members of churches in charismatic and liberal denominations.
NANC has held “On the Road” training conferences in charismatic churches.
The training requirement for NANC certification has become insignificant. Several years ago John Street, the NANC president speaking at a Shepherd’s Conference, taught that pastors should require a minimumof 115 hours of training before allowing people to counsel in their churches. Yet all NANC now requires is attendance at three weekends of classes or a one week conference.
The NANC board gave $30,000 to help establish a coalition of biblical counselors whose stated goal is to “foster collaborative relationships” among all who call themselves biblical counselors.
We are told that this name change is not an indication that NANC itself is going to change. We have no way of knowing what will happen in the future but the fact remains that NANC has already changed.
We love NANC. We are thankful for what has been accomplished through NANC to introduce and promote biblical counseling to thousands. We have high hopes for the leadership of our new Executive Director, Heath Lambert. We wish, however, we were not being asked this question. Instead, we wish we were being asked if NANC should be nouthetic—that would be an interesting vote. Since that is not the question being put to us, we believe it is best to make this name change so as to preserve the integrity of the term. You see, at the Institute for Nouthetic Studies we want to preserve the word “nouthetic” as an accurate description of what it means to be truly biblical in our counseling.
Meanwhile, to our friends on the NANC board, we would do well to concern ourselves less with what our critics think of us, less with the growth and prosperity of our organization, and more with the well-being of the counselees we are commending to the counselors we certify.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
“No Lutheran believes everything Luther believed. The term “Calvinist” applies to a system of doctrine, not everything Calvin believed.” Has anyone else you know said that?
LikeLike
Look Randy, I don’t blame the INS crowd for missing the fact that Calvin clearly, c-l-e-a-r-l-y believed what they call Gospel Sanctification, a name that was actually coined by this ministry in 2004 because no one knew what New Calvinism was. And it had been around since 1970. That’s how covert the doctrine is. The Reformers were the masters of nuance, most are going to read their stuff and assume they are merely speaking of justification rather than sanctification in a justification way. Yes, the thought, “Gee, these guys sure talk about justification a lot” is going to be answered by, “Well, that was the hot topic of the day.” The FACT remains that the Reformers believed in “mortifcation and vivification,” or the “living out of our baptism”; ie, a perpetual death and resurrection in the Christian life (Horton CC p.62 and CFST p.661). Fact is, INS is not in agreement with Calvin’s soteriology, and I don’t think they are in a position to admit that. While the NANC crowd disavows Tripp for not being nuanced enough, he is on just about all of their committees. Like Calvin, he believes that the interpretation of the Bible grammatically is works salvation (HPC 27). Read and do in justification is synonymous with read and do in sanctification. That’s why Calvin believed the Sabbath was replaced by sanctification.
Though I fault them for not throwing out the filthy baby with the bathwater and associating with the evil empires of NANC and CCEF embodied by Darth Powlison, they are the only formal counseling organization in existence today that can help people. Susan, who has her MEd, plans on entering there post graduate program and shooting for a PHd in counseling, and I am behind her 100%.
LikeLike
I don´t have Horton. Would you mind giving quotes instead of simply citations? I could tell you whether I agree with the ideas or not.
LikeLike
No
LikeLike
There is no sanctification that is not gospel sanctification. You may invest that term with ideas I don´t accept, but the reality is sanctification occurs as we continue to look to the one who loved us an gave himself for us. The writer to the Hebrews instructs those who were in deep trouble about their lives subsequent to their conversion to look to Jesus the author and finisher of our faith, not to merely read and do.
LikeLike
Right, that is why you are a false teacher with an uncertain eternal destiny.
LikeLike
My etermal destiny is at least as certain as yours my friend.
Your other post is the reason I said you may invest the term with ideas other than I would hold to. Of course, that text teaches us we must obey and adorn the doctrine of God by our lives. Certainly you know by now that salvation concerns more than justification don´t you?
LikeLike
We are done here Randy. I am a busy person and you want to play the Calvin shell game with Justification and sanctification. I am on to that game because I read a lot of Calvin. Please play your game elsewhere, I mean, you might as well because I am done posting your stuff today. Good day Randy.
PS: Keeping yourself saved by faith alone in sanctification is works salvation.
LikeLike
I don´t care whether you post it or not but can you please tell me what in the world you are talking about when you say ¨keeping yourself saved by faith alone in sanctification? That statement does not and never has made any sense to me.
LikeLike
Randy, this is a simple thing: Everything man does is a work; thinking, breathing, etc., etc. For instance, Paul speaks of those who, “labor in the word.” That’s thinking. That’s why justification and sanctification have to be totally separate. That’s why the Bible states all over the place that justification is apart from works. That’s why we were justified before we were even born, to keep works separate. The second you fuse justification together with sanctification–it’s works because everything we do when we are alive is a work. CJ Mahaney taught a lesson on, “How to Keep Yourself in the Love of God.” That’s works. Piper taught a series on how to use the gospel to keep yourself saved. That’s Calvinism, and it’s clearly works salvation. What is so difficult about this Westminster boy?
LikeLike
I understand that justification and sanctification must be kept separate in their application. Works contribute in no way to our standing before God and we must do nothing to maintain that standing. My question concerns your phrasing. What do you mean by living by faith alone for justification in sanctification or whatever it was. That does not make any sense. Please explain. And by the way, we were not justified before we were born. Justification is always said to be through faith.
LikeLike
Good night Randy. While you are trying to figure it out, think of two stick men walking together Randy. They are t-o-g-e-t-h-e-r Randy. Then Randy, one of the stick men go home and didn’t bring the other stick man with him. Oh my! Randy, that means the other stick man was, a-l-o-n-e Randy. This is because the other stick man was no longer with him. He became very afraid because he was a-l-o-n-e Randy.
Hope that helps
LikeLike
My point above is that it is the saving grace of God that has appeared, teaching us to deny ungodliness and and worldly desires and live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world.
LikeLike
Randy,
This is the kind of twisting of Scripture that is imperiling your soul. That text is not saying that all sanctification comes from contemplating our justification, it is saying that the gospel message in general teaches ALL people to turn from evil and live godly lives. Therefore, in this case slaves, should life lives that “adorn” the gospel because the unregenerate (whether they admit it or not) know that salvation is synonymous with godliness. That is why the world expects certain things from Christians. Hence, one reason people aren’t getting saved is because that very text is used to teach Christians that we shouldn’t try to “be the gospel” but merely “show forth Jesus.”
LikeLike
I don’t suppose you would like to try to explain that stick man story?
LikeLike
I would if I thought you could understand it.
LikeLike
You are such a mean and bitter man. I suppose you think that is produced by the Holy Spirit.
LikeLike
Very well Randy, thou has spoken, now please go away. At least James Jordon is honest about where he stands–you, like your heretic father, John Calvin the mystic murdering despot, spin words to deceive like the master cultist/Gnostic that you are. You have stated your opinion, very well, I am completely at peace with letting the Lord judge between you and I.
LikeLike
That would be “between you and ME.” and I am confident he will.
I could not be more honest about where I stand. I have told you time after time where I stand and you refuse to accept my plain statements as fact. I am not spinning words but you insist on twisting my statements to mean what you would like to think I believe. The simple truth is that neither I nor any true soteriological Calvinist believes we must do anything to keep our justification. That is just a fact.
LikeLike
Randy,
I know most Calvinists are stalkers, but why do you have to flaunt it? I let you back on here because I was talked into it. Others of different stripes are still allowed here because they are not stalkers. I have heard from many other bloggers who also consider you to be such. I also feel sorry for women who are married to narcissists like you who won’t take no for an answer. Well Randy, I am not married to you, and I have a really bad headache. I think you know what that means.
LikeLike
You know the conditions for me to leave you alone. Just tell the truth.
LikeLike
Sorry Randy, I am not one of your parishioners that you have brainwashed. You don’t have an option as to whether you leave me alone or don’t leave me alone. But I wanted to post this to show how your depraved narcissistic mind works. Notice that there are “conditions” for you not stalking me. I must agree to your “truth.” This is the mindset of every murdering tyrant that has ever walked the earth. But pal, you stalk me, and I will make you pay–that’s a promise.
LikeLike
“You know the conditions for me to leave you alone. Just tell the truth.”
Sheesh! Sounds like Comrade Stalin!
LikeLike