This false charge has been made by those who have a propensity to lump together all things that sound similar. Their problem—and it’s a serious one—is that they read and think carelessly. They have little power of discernment; they do not know how to make valid distinctions. “Adams speaks of ‘behavior,’ he talks about ‘reward and punishment.’ Ergo, he is teaching behaviorism.”

But long before Watson or Skinner ever drew a breath God was speaking of behavior, reward and punishment. Dare we call Him a Behaviorist? Hardly. God regularly traces outer behavior to the “heart.” By heart, He means the inner person. Outer action is but a result of the inner thinking, determining, etc. Nowhere is changing the outer person alone a solution to man’s problems. Rather, that is Pharisaism. Since sin is an “inside job,” salvation must be too. Inner regeneration is necessary to produce outer changes that please God. Works (outer behavior) must flow from faith (inner belief); neither is sufficient without the other.

Moreover, in behaviorism, the goal is to reward the desired behavior immediately in order to make it stick. In the Bible, true reward is delayed until eternity (Cf. Hebrews 11:13-16; 24-27). And, God-pleasing behavior is governed not by manipulation and “control,” but by inner desire to please God. Always keep in mind 1 Peter 1:14b-15, 18-19:

Don’t shape your lives by the desires that you used to follow in your ignorance. Instead, as the One Who called you is holy, you yourselves must become holy in all your behavior…knowing that you weren’t set free from the useless behavior patterns that were passed down from your forefathers, by the payment of a corruptible ransom like silver or gold, but with Christ’s valuable blood.

See the difference? The conclusion? “Be deeply concerned about how you behave during your residence as aliens” (1 Peter 1:17). Nouthetic counselors will continue to do so!

– Jay E. Adams

Check out our online courses, including, Introduction to Nouthetic Counseling and  The Use of Scripture in Counseling, taught by Jay Adams!

Books related to counseling others:

1. Competent to Counsel by Jay Adams
2. The Christian Counselor’s Manual by Jay Adams
3. How to Help People Change by Jay Adams
4. The Use of Scripture in Counseling by Jay Adams
5. Sanctification and Counseling by Jay Adams
6. Critical Stages in Biblical Counseling by Jay Adams
7. Check out our Bookstore for all the best counseling books!

The Christian Counselor’s New Testament and Proverbs, translated by Jay Adams

Visit our online bookstore for all your biblical counseling resource needs.
For more biblical counseling training, check out our list of INS Online Courses.

Follow INS on Social Media:
– Facebook: noutheticstudies
– Twitter: @noutheticstud
– Instagram: @noutheticstudies

The post Behaviorism? appeared first on Institute for Nouthetic Studies | Biblical Counseling.

“Nouthetic Counselors Oppose the Use of Medicine, Don’t They?”

Of course not. From the outset of the Nouthetic movement we have worked closely with physicians. We feature them in training programs, publish their books, and refer people to them regularly. That is a totally false charge that is often made against us. Now, we are careful to distinguish between true disease and that which does not have an organic etiology. We are concerned to see that medicine not be used to obtain pain relief while by-passing non-organic causes of some difficulty in living.

Roughly speaking, there are two types of medicine. One is supplementary to bodily output. For instance, if the body is not producing insulin as it should, we think it proper to add insulin from the outside. Or, if one is suffering from atrial fibrillation we believe in taking a beta blocker in order to achieve a normal, steady heart beat. The use of medicine in such cases helps the body to function as it was supposed to function.

The use of psychotropic drugs, on the other hand, inhibits the body from functioning as it should. It is that use of medicine that we deplore. Mood changing drugs affect a person in such a way that the benefits of pain and other unpleasant feelings are not realized. Discomfort was designed to call attention to some underlying problem (organic or non-organic) so that it might be dealt with. One would hardly want to desensitize the nerve endings on his fingers because he has found that touching a hot stove hurts. If he did, the first he would know of the fact that he was resting his fingers there would be when he smells meat cooking! To desensitize these nerves, in the long run, would cause serious damage to the body. As an alerting system and warning device, then, pain is a friend. We do not believe in masking such pain by drugs.

There are, of course, many organically-caused problems. Our counselors regularly refer counselees to physicians whenever they suspect that something organic may be behind their behavior. They do not want to miss a brain tumor, an aneurysm, or anything else that might require medical treatment. While Nouthetic counselors refuse to diagnose, since we are not trained to do medical work, whenever we suspect that something more than heart-motivated behavior is operating, we will send counselees to a physician for a medical checkup.

For some time the problem of when to refer to a physician was a serious difficulty. There were no guidelines. Now, since the recent publication of The Christian Counselor’s Medical Desk Reference, by Bob Smith, MD, we have a helpful guide to enable us to make much better judgments about the matter. This book, written and published under Nouthetic counseling auspices, meets a real need. It alone cannot make the determination as to whether or not to refer a counselee to a physician, but it helps counselors to become aware of the signs and symptoms that may indicate the presence of a physical illness. The very fact that this publication was produced within Nouthetic circles gives the lie to the charge that we do not believe in medicine to treat truly organic problems.

What we do deplore is the use of medicine to deal with problems that have no organic cause. We are averse to masking those difficulties with medicine. For instance, if one’s conscience is troubling him by triggering unpleasant feelings, we think that the solution to the problem is not found in drugs but in dealing with whatever it is that activated the conscience in the first place. In such cases, the counselor deals with sin, not with the feelings. That is the bottom line.

Check out our online courses, including, Introduction to Nouthetic Counseling and  The Use of Scripture in Counseling, taught by Jay Adams!

Books related to counseling others:

1. Competent to Counsel by Jay Adams
2. The Christian Counselor’s Manual by Jay Adams
3. How to Help People Change by Jay Adams
4. Check out our Bookstore for all the best counseling books!

The Christian Counselor’s New Testament and Proverbs, translated by Jay Adams

Visit our online bookstore for all your biblical counseling resource needs.
For more biblical counseling training, check out our list of INS Online Courses.

Follow INS on Social Media:
– Facebook: noutheticstudies
– Twitter: @noutheticstud
– Instagram: @noutheticstudies

The post Nouthetic Counselors Oppose the Use of Medicine, Don’t They? appeared first on Institute for Nouthetic Studies | Biblical Counseling.

Let me say right up front that I don’t mind fair and impartial criticism; I try to learn from it. But one thing I am somewhat sensitive about is this: there are many who do not read carefully what I have written, but simply mouth gossip as if it were profound criticism.[1] Indeed, from some of the criticism that is leveled against Nouthetic Counseling in general, and me in particular, I wonder if many critics even bother to read what I have written. And if they read only Competent to Counsel, and nothing else (when there has been a spate of books following it that fill out the system), that too is evidence of irresponsible criticism.

There is a piece of slanderous gossip that has been noised about: that Nouthetic counselors do little more than hit people over the head with the Bible. In another form, the word is out that we distribute Bible verses like prescriptions, saying in effect, “Take this verse three times a day with prayer.” Thus, the very hard work and hours of labor that have been invested in exegetical and theological work are dismissed out of hand as if there never were any such thing. And what is most appalling is that some of this “criticism” comes from those who claim not to be theologians and who themselves know little or nothing about hermeneutics or exegesis. It is that sort of thing that I certainly want to expose and denounce from the outset.

 Objection:  “You talk about nothing else but sin.”

Now that is an interesting charge. I want to forestall all misunderstanding on the subject. Yes, I speak a lot about sin. So does the Bible. Others locate man’s problem in genetics, in environmental factors, in training, and so on. They limit their understanding of man’s difficulties thereby and truncate the solutions that they might reach. They are like the blind men trying to describe the elephant.

All problems stem from Adam’s sin. Had there been no fall, there would be no remedial counseling. But Adam did sin, and if you were to trace genetic problems, environmental factors, and poor training back far enough, you would discover that it is because of the fall that these problems exist. Sin, then, rather than being a limiting concept, is the broadest of all. It covers the waterfront!

But not all of an individual counselee’s problems may be traced to some specific sin in his life. It may be that he has been injured by others, misled, and so on. While he bears responsibility for how he handles wrongdoing toward himself, nevertheless, he is certainly not responsible for everything that occurs.

In Competent to Counsel, published 50 years ago, I stated clearly that the cases of Job and the man born blind (John 9) are explicit examples of the fact that people do not always bring their problems upon themselves.[2] In the providence of God, who knows how many illnesses, and other untoward circumstances, may accrue from transactions that take place in the unseen world? We are not privy to such information. The only thing that is important for us to say about such matters is that God held Job (and his four counselors) responsible for interpreting and dealing with his condition so far as they were able to do so.

In cases where no causal relationship between one’s behavior and his circumstances is apparent, that usually calls for a similar tact to be taken by Nouthetic counselors. They help their counselees to understand (so far as possible) what is happening, to face it with biblical attitudes and actions, and to learn how to grow more like Christ from doing so. Often, an exposition and application of Romans 8:28, 29 to the counselee’s situation is in order. We certainly would not postulate some hidden sin where there is no evidence of it. Rather, with Christ, we would declare, “Neither did this man nor his parent’s sin (John 9:1, 2).” We would also take our stand with Job against the accusations of the first three counselors.

I hope from this explanation, the calumny that has been leveled against us will be dispelled once and for all. We do not accuse every person of sin when he comes for counseling. In addition to those who have not brought trouble upon themselves, there are those who are neither in trouble nor are seeking to overcome sin in their lives. I speak of those who simply desire counsel about whom to marry, what school to attend, how to deal with life issues biblically, and the like. So, it is just not true that we go searching for sin in every counselee’s life. Nor is it fair or accurate to charge us with doing so.

So far from believing that counseling is little more than a hunt for sin, I want to tell you how shocked I was when I heard a well-known, well-respected Christian counselor say the following: “I simply listen until I hear something sinful, then I jump on that!” I whole-heartedly deplore the sentiment. Had I said it, I guess I would never hear the end of it. But enough of that!

[1] It is simply irresponsible to ignore qualifications like “some, many, often” and the like, and to miss entirely carefully crafted nuances in another’s writing. Yet, these, and other similar faults, abound in evaluations of Nouthetic Counseling.

[2] Yet for over fifty years, the very same gossip has persisted!

The post “Adams, You Talk About Nothing Else But Sin” appeared first on Institute for Nouthetic Studies | Biblical Counseling.

Answer: Quite frankly, none. Do you wonder at that? Let me tell you why you shouldn’t. To compare Christian counseling with other forms of counseling is to compare oranges to apples (no, let’s say, oranges and socks!). Consider the goal of Christian counseling over against that of others. Most counseling seeks to solve a person’s problem in order to bring relief. That is the prime goal. In Christian counseling, however, the goal is to honor and glorify God, whether or not relief is obtained. How, then, do you compare the outcomes?

Moreover, since the object of biblical counseling is to bring about change in the counselee that honors God, how would you test for that empirically? Would you put his soul in a test tube, shake it up and hope it turns blue? How would you test whether God was honored, whether the motives of the counselee were sound (since God looks upon the heart; not merely on outward behavior) or whether he only made changes outwardly? How would you determine the extent of the Holy Spirit’s work in the counselee’s life so as to make the desired spiritual changes? In other words, there is no way to obtain empirical evidence. Since it is biblical attainments that are under consideration, it is impossible to get statistical evidence for the spiritual changes that the biblical counselor seeks to bring about.

Then, further, why would we need any tests anyway? The One Who tries the hearts of men is the Lord. He infallibly knows what is happening within the person. We can look only at his outward behavior and listen to his speech. It is He Who tests; and that is all that counts. Besides, from the counselor’s perspective, success is measured not by the outcome of the counseling sessions but ultimately by whether the counselor did those things that were biblical, thereby honoring his Lord. Success may be measured in many ways; Christians should measure it in terms of how well the counselor followed the Bible in a given case. And once again, there is no way to test this except by comparing what he does with what the Scriptures require of him.

So, what does the Christian counselor have to demonstrate the effectiveness of Nouthetic counseling? Nothing, as I said before. And he is absolutely content to say so. He must do as well as he can to meet biblical requirements in order to please God, and then let the chips fall where they may. He knows that his performance as a counselor will be flawed since he is not perfect. But he also knows that when he asks for forgiveness for failure God measures his success by that as well as by the performance. So, given the goals, given the persons at work (the counselor and the Holy Spirit) and given the kinds of outcomes that are expected and achieved in the sight of God, it would be not only foolish but arrogant to attempt to test Nouthetic counseling by some human apparatus. We do not have to set results of the sort that they might wish before the world, so long as we honor and please God. On Judgment Day, He will reveal the statistics! Any counseling claiming to be “Christian” that makes much of statistics thereby invalidates itself as such by showing that its goals and outcomes are not thought of in biblical terms.

Since the human counselor is not the only one who is at work in Christian counseling, the Christian has an “unfair advantage” over other counselors. With the Holy Spirit enlightening the minds of counselees and enabling them to overcome sinful propensities that hinder growth, producing His fruit through His inerrant Word, what profit would there be in trying to determine how well a human counselor counsels? In effect, he is but a catalyst, ministering the Scriptures in ways that the Spirit utilizes to bring about change in counselees. The Spirit is the ultimate Counselor. The whole concept of empirical evidence, statistics and the like, begs the question. And the thought of attempting to obtain them is repugnant. Sorry, but that is how it is.

The post Empirical Evidence? appeared first on Institute for Nouthetic Studies | Biblical Counseling.

I have spent a lifetime attempting to put difficult matters into easily understood language. My students at two seminaries will vouch for the fact that I always strongly urged simplicity and clarity in preaching. I have taught that the second cousin to truth is clarity and the brother to lying is obscurity! It is my belief that by hard work, anything—once understood—can be made simple and intelligible. It is with that conviction in mind that I always sit down to write.

Because I do not theorize, speculate, or hypothesize, there are those who think what I say is unscholarly. I admit to the charge, if that is what scholarship is all about. But, wait a minute! Ask yourself, “Would Jesus have stood up to the charge?” His clear, simple language was so different from the rabbis that people were amazed at what He had to say. But because what He said was simple, that does not mean that it was simplistic. It was at once simple and profound. I try to be a speaker and writer who is as fully in that tradition of Jesus as possible.

The same concern drove Paul who, in writing to the Colossians, asked for prayer so that “I may proclaim” the truth “clearly, as I ought to.” I consider myself equally obligated to set forth God’s truth clearly. I think that it may be fairly said that though others may not always agree with me, they understand why they don’t because they understand what I have written.

Akin to the charge of simplicity is the companion charge of proof-texting. Apart from the fact that there is a correct way to proof-text, as Jesus and the apostles showed us, I deny the charge as made. What I deny is the claim that I give the Scriptures short shrift, taking passages out of context, making them say what they were never intended to say, and the like. That is what is usually meant by proof-texting.

I ask you, does the charge stand under scrutiny? How many other counselors have translated the entire New Testament, the Book of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Psalm 119? How many others have written commentaries on all of these books? When you look at the shoddy exegesis that is so prevalent among eclectic “Christian counselors,” you will find more than enough proof-texting together with poor exegesis at its worst. I cannot accept this irresponsible charge from those who, themselves, are prime examples of what they decry. Indeed, it is time for those who hurl these missiles to reconsider their own feeble efforts at using Scripture.

When Scripture is so casually handled, when its teaching is equated with the flawed statements of men without any recognition that the two are radically different, when hermeneutics is not only a word hardly understood but a science whose fundamental principles are persistently violated, it is time for the practitioners of such an “art” to cease and desist calling names!

In other words, I challenge those who love to bypass the teachings of Nouthetic counselors on the basis that what we write is too simplistic, to come to grips with the major arguments that we set forth. That is certainly a fairer, and more “scholarly” way to go about things than to ignore these as “too simplistic” to give the time of day. It is amazing how often objectors use the ad hominem approach rather than grappling with the issues. Let’s stop that sort of thing and begin to talk sensibly, simply. One, not so insignificant issue, is how to present truth! Another has to do with the target audience for whom we write. Should we write to impress other “scholars,” or to help those who are ministering to God’s flock? Think about it!

The post Adams, You Are Too Simplistic! appeared first on Institute for Nouthetic Studies | Biblical Counseling.

The charge doesn’t hold water. Just because I refuse to use the jargon of the field, because I write for pastors and elders in language they can easily read, and since I do not hide ignorance behind half-understood or esoteric terminology, there are those who think that what I have to say is simplistic. I claim that my writings are simple, not simplistic.

I have spent a lifetime attempting to put difficult matters into easily understood language. My students at two seminaries will vouch for the fact that I always strongly urged simplicity and clarity in preaching. I have taught that the second cousin to truth is clarity and the brother to lying is obscurity! It is my belief that by hard work, anything—once understood—can be made simple and intelligible. It is with that conviction in mind that I always sit down to write.

Because I do not theorize, speculate, or hypothesize, there are those who think what I say is unscholarly. I admit to the charge, if that is what scholarship is all about. But, wait a minute! Ask yourself, “Would Jesus have stood up to the charge?” His clear, simple language was so different from the rabbis that people were amazed at what He had to say. But because what He said was simple, that does not mean that it was simplistic. It was at once simple and profound. I try to be a speaker and writer who is as fully in that tradition of Jesus as possible.

The same concern drove Paul who, in writing to the Colossians, asked for prayer so that “I may proclaim” the truth “clearly, as I ought to.” I consider myself equally obligated to set forth God’s truth clearly. I think that it may be fairly said that though others may not always agree with me, they understand why they don’t because they understand what I have written.

Akin to the charge of simplicity is the companion charge of proof-texting. Apart from the fact that there is a correct way to proof-text, as Jesus and the apostles showed us, I deny the charge as made. What I deny is the claim that I give the Scriptures short shrift, taking passages out of context, making them say what they were never intended to say, and the like. That is what is usually meant by proof-texting.

I ask you, does the charge stand under scrutiny? How many other counselors have translated the entire New Testament, the Book of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Psalm 119? How many others have written commentaries on all of these books? When you look at the shoddy exegesis that is so prevalent among eclectic “Christian counselors,” you will find more than enough proof-texting together with poor exegesis at its worst. I cannot accept this irresponsible charge from those who, themselves, are prime examples of what they decry. Indeed, it is time for those who hurl these missiles to reconsider their own feeble efforts at using Scripture.

When Scripture is so casually handled, when its teaching is equated with the flawed statements of men without any recognition that the two are radically different, when hermeneutics is not only a word hardly understood but a science whose fundamental principles are persistently violated, it is time for the practitioners of such an “art” to cease and desist calling names!

In other words, I challenge those who love to bypass the teachings of Nouthetic counselors on the basis that what we write is too simplistic, to come to grips with the major arguments that we set forth. That is certainly a fairer, and more “scholarly” way to go about things than to ignore these as “too simplistic” to give the time of day. It is amazing how often objectors use the ad hominem approach rather than grappling with the issues. Let’s stop that sort of thing and begin to talk sensibly, simply. One, not so insignificant issue, is how to present truth! Another has to do with the target audience for whom we write. Should we write to impress other “scholars,” or to help those who are ministering to God’s flock? Think about it!

The post Your Writings and Views are Too Simplistic appeared first on Institute for Nouthetic Studies | Biblical Counseling.

I want you to know that I do not enjoy criticizing others who have gone wrong in their counseling. I believe, however, that this criticism is fair and honest—and needed. But “too critical?” How can one be too critical of those who misrepresent our Lord Jesus Christ? Take for instance the “need” pyramid of Abraham Maslow that has led to much wrong thinking and even serious misinterpretation of Scripture on the part of “Christian” counselors. When the self-actualization, self-esteem movement came along, there were many who hopped on board. In order to justify using this non-Christian, unbiblical belief system, there were those who taught that God had to redeem us because we were so valuable to him. This theology, which bases the saving death of Christ upon our supposed great worth, flatly contradicts the biblical teaching about grace. There was nothing in us to commend us to God; our redemption issued purely out of His undeserved mercy and goodness.

Moreover, in order to square the Bible with Maslow’s thought, many declared that there are three great commandments: to love God, neighbor, and self. Self-love is presupposed in the command to love others as one already loves himself. There is no need to learn self-love; we have too much of it already. Our problem is to learn to love our neighbor in the same way.

Indeed, to posit three commandments (the third non-commandment being more basic than the other two since one supposedly cannot love others until he learns to love himself) directly clashes with Jesus’ words, “On those two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 22: 40). In the context Jesus also distinctly refers to a first and second commandment, but never to a third.

Now the question had to do with being too critical of others. Am I too critical? I don’t think so! When such irresponsible use of the Word of the living God is published and sent into all parts of the church, it is necessary to expose it for what it is—a cover up for the eclectic practices of those who claim to be doing Christian counseling, but are not. Unless the public is made aware of such practices, they may buy into them and go astray. It is important to attempt to counter false teaching and Scripture twisting at every level where it has been proclaimed whenever possible. Those of us who are ordained to the ministry of the Word are called upon to defend God’s flock from false teachers within and without the church environs. This is a duty often neglected. It is time to call on the carpet those who intentionally (or otherwise) misuse Scripture and represent what they are saying as God’s truth (when He said no such thing). Ideally, the denominations to which they belong ought to be knocking on their doors to do this. But since they are not, someone who cares for the flock of God must do it—even if he is raked over the coals for doing so.

The post You Are Too Critical of Others appeared first on Institute for Nouthetic Studies | Biblical Counseling.