A Look at the Pearls’ Basic Doctrine
Catez Stevens has done an excellent job of outlining the basic doctrine that the Pearls teach. Although Created To Be His Help Meet isn't a book "about doctrine," their doctrine permeates the book nonetheless.
Also we must ask ourselves if we should be learning how to have a godly marriage from someone who doesn't even teach Biblical essential doctrines (vs. secondary ones such as paedobaptism vs. credobaptism, instruments in worship, etc.). If this were simply a "how-to" or self-help book, it would be different (such as Dr. Laura's The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands). But CTBHHM is supposedly God's plan for marriage, so we must make sure that the author teaches correct essential doctrine. (Wouldn't Phil be proud? LOL!)
Arielle wrote,
I was thinking of Dr. Laura’s book myself and that it is probably a better one to suggest to women having trouble being a good wife. At least it seems to be billed as common sense advice, not G-d’s plan for marriage.
Link | September 30th, 2005 at 8:46 pm
Rene' wrote,
I realize I’m probably wasting my time, but I just had to say that I’ve listened to many many of Mike Pearls teachings, including Romans several times, and Catez is way off. Yes, the Pearls believe that we don’t have a sinful nature. Can you find the doctrine of a sinful nature in the bible? Does it say that we are “guilty” of sin at birth? What we have is flesh with carnal desires.
When Adam sinned God departed from him and all the human race to come. Jesus reconciles us to God. The Pearls teach that no one can come to God apart from Christ.
Anyway, I know you don’t like them and have problems with their doctrine, but this has shown me how someone can listen to their stuff with preconcieved ideas and come away with out the true picture.
Link | September 30th, 2005 at 11:44 pm
Catez wrote,
Hi Rene,
I would ask that you be more careful with your statements here. I listened to those tapes very carefully and went back over some parts more than once. While I didn’t agree with TTUAC in my previous review I did not have preconceived ideas about their doctrine. Some-one on another blog inferred I had preconceived ideas about the Pearls during the week and to be frank, saying that was just being personal without basis. The “preconceived” ideas I had had to do with my own doctrinal beliefs - we all have those. Now that I have examined the Pearl’s basic doctrine I will have preconceived ideas - I will always have in mind that I consider them in error on essential doctrine.
It is not about who “likes” or “doesn’t like” the Pearls personally - or it shouldn’t be if it is. It is about looking scripturally at doctrine. I did not know their teaching on basic doctrine so I spent hours finding out.
What I recommend is that people look at scripture, look at their own or their church’s statement of faith.
I don’t want to get into a verse by verse debate - but Eph 2:3 states clearly that we were by nature children of wrath. I’ve pointe dout a passage in my post which deals with our sin nature from Adam. There are plenty of scriptures.
Having spent so much time on this already I don’t want to now have to give another whole post on it. So look up the scriptures, use different commentaries (it’s good to compare and see what they say on major points), look at your statement of faith and so on.
God bless,
Catez
Link | October 1st, 2005 at 8:05 am
sparrow wrote,
rene
I’m not sure if you realize how serious the issue of not believing we have a sin nature is. This belief has been around since the 400s AD and has been consistently rejected by the Church since that time. The doctrine of Original Sin (we are born with a sin nature) is one of the foundational doctrines of our faith.
Scripture is full of references to our sinful condition. (Dawn posted a long list in the comments of another post below). Here are just a couple:
Ps. 58:3 “The wicked go astray from the womb, they err from their birth, speaking lies.”
Eph. 2:3 “We were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.”
Jer. 17:9 “the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt…”
~ if we are not desperately corrupt, if we are not slaves to sin, then we have the potential to save ourselves…and there is no reason for Christ’s sacrifice.
I pray you will take time to really look at these doctrinal issues.
Link | October 1st, 2005 at 8:08 am
TulipGirl wrote,
I don’t have to agree with someone’s theology to learn from them. For example, there is an author who comes from a solidly Nazarene/Arminian theological leaning who I respect and from whome I’ve learned. However, I read everything from this author through my solidly Reformed and Covenantal theological understanding. Personally, for that particular author and specialty, I can take what it taught and filter it through what I believe is more accurate Biblically, and apply some good ideas.
In the instance of the Pearls, what they teach is so molded by their beliefs, that it is simply a waste of time to try to “filter out” any good ideas from the the foundation of what they believe.
Sola Scriptura. Soli Deo Gloria. Solo Christo. Sola Gratia. Sola Fide. Those solas are pretty exclusive. And yet they sum up the bulk of what has been taught and accepted throughout Church history, across denominations.
That’s a big difference from the exclusivity of Michael Pearl when he brags, “I don’t know any other preachers other than myself that teach this correctly. . .”
That, at the least, should be Red Flag City for those who are listening to him.
Link | October 1st, 2005 at 8:24 am
TulipGirl wrote,
And FWIW, Douglas Wilson has given a mostly-favorable review of TTUAC *eyeball roll* and yet warns against the theological underpinnings of the Pearls’ writings:
“The innate sinfulness of the child is denied, which leads the Pearls to sharply distinguish training from discipline. Training is what the innocent infants and toddlers get, and is identical to what puppies get when they don’t go on the newspapers. Discipline supposedly comes later when sin enters the picture. While this is not a book of theology, a Finney-like Pelagianism runs near the surface. And while there are some similarities between animal training and child-discipline, the distinctions between the two are not adequately maintained in this book. The result of this confusion is not only heretical, but also offensive to any parents who value the dignity of their children.”
Link | October 1st, 2005 at 8:26 am
Corrie wrote,
Hi Keer,
Actually, Debi Pearl claims this is a Titus 2 book. Titus 2 charges the older women to be *teachers* of good things.
Here is the complete verse:
1* ΒΆ But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:
2* That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience.
3* The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;
V. 1 sets the stage and tells both the aged men and the aged women to speak things which become sound DOCTRINE.
The teachings in Debi’s book is based on scripture, is based on Titus 2 and therefore constitutes doctrinal teachings.
You can’t be a Titus 2 woman and teach good things without them being doctrinal according to scripture.
Not trying to be argumentative, of course.
Link | October 1st, 2005 at 1:02 pm
razorbackmama wrote,
Corrie,
You silly thing!
Rene,
I’m not sure where you got the impression that I didn’t like the Pearls to begin with???????
But as others stated, it’s not about whether we “like” or “dislike” them, it’s about whether their doctrine holds true to Scripture, which theirs does not.
Link | October 1st, 2005 at 3:02 pm
Carla wrote,
Rene,
I know that in my case, I did like the Pearls to begin with. I never agreed with everything, but I’ve never been a huge fan of ephemisms and beating around the bush and their blunt style appealed to me. Add that to the fact that I LOVE their focus on building relationships, I was fairly torn at times because there were things I definately didn’t agree with, too.
This doctrine “thing” is HUGE deal to me. If someone is saying that they are offering a Biblical perspective on anything than it must be Biblical.
To be completely and totally honest, it is the wrong doctrine that is the “straw that broke the camel’s back” for me. The misuse of scripture had me doing double takes and relooking at what I thought, but it was taking an honest look at what the belief system behind the materials is that has caused me to feel how I feel.
Link | October 1st, 2005 at 5:26 pm
Threefold Cord wrote,
Oh boy! I take a few vacations and look what I miss!!!!
Well, ladies, I hate to dispel any notions, but I grew up with a holiness background, and we do NOT believe what the Pearls believe.
Holiness circles definitely teach the doctrine of Original Sin.
If anything, the holiness doctrine tends to emphasize salvation and dependence on Jesus Christ and His redemptive work and then utter reliance on the Holy Spirit moment by moment MORE than anything else.
I was raised Wesleyan Arminian and never believed in sinless perfection.
The comparison drawn by Catez to Pelagianism and Holiness Doctrine is wrong. (Sorry, Catez, I think you are wonderful, and you did an EXCELLENT job!…but…you are wrong on this.) The Holiness Doctrine would believe that Pelagius was a heretic.
Soooooo - what I’m guessing has happened here is that the Pearls follow their own unique brand of doctrine (and not without pride! Wow!) They probably subscribe to a type of hyper-Arminianism that would lean toward Pelagianism.
For the record (!) I did not like this book for the same reason as many of Kirstin’s readers. It emphasized all that “I” could do, but did not speak of repentance nor of turning to God for help nor of relying on God’s power to improve one’s marriage.
As I said “way back when” the reviews started…”this probably is a good instruction book to teach someone how to have a “good” marriage. It would not necessarily be a “happy” marriage, because it denies the personhood of the woman.”
Link | October 1st, 2005 at 7:05 pm
Threefold Cord wrote,
Kirstin.
Pink?!?!?!
Who’d a thunk it?
Link | October 1st, 2005 at 7:06 pm
razorbackmama wrote,
Holly,
Well, I would have PREFERRED royal purple with white lettering, but the last time I did something like that I got lots of complaints. Maybe if I can ever figure out how to change the font I might do that.
Royal purple is my favorite color. 
And thanks for reminding about the difference between Pelagian and Arminian. Until you gave me those links way back when honestly I was under the impression that Arminians believed what Pelagians did (but I’d never heard of Pelagianism). Then come to find out that for the most part I believe as HISTORICAL Arminianism teaches. Unfortunately nowadays Arminians get a bad rap because people THINK that they believe the same (or close) as Pelagians, and that’s simply not true.
BUT I’M NOT GETTING INTO THAT DEBATE HERE LOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!
Link | October 1st, 2005 at 7:13 pm
Catez wrote,
Hi,
Just a response to this:
“The comparison drawn by Catez to Pelagianism and Holiness Doctrine is wrong. (Sorry, Catez, I think you are wonderful, and you did an EXCELLENT job!…but…you are wrong on this.) The Holiness Doctrine would believe that Pelagius was a heretic.”
Actually, I didn’t draw a comparison between Pelagianism and the Holiness Doctrine at all. What I said was:
“In the place of forgiveness and grace there will be a legalistic adherence to standards of “holiness”.”
Somehow you read Holiness Doctrine into that but that wasn’t what I was referring to. I meant there will be legalism, and put “holiness” in quotation marks to show it won’t be holiness from the grace and spirit of God. So I’m afraid you read it wrong there - I wasn’t bringing in Holiness doctrine at all - just using the word holiness.
Armininianism is different to Pelagianism. I wouldn’t categorise the Pearls teaching as Arminian. It’s much more Pelagian in origin. And yes, it’s their own version with bits of gnostic thinking in there too. So I disagree with saying they are Arminian.
And thanks for the compliment. You are very kind. God bless.
Link | October 1st, 2005 at 7:29 pm
Catez wrote,
Hmm - just noticed you said “hyper-Arminian” - that’s a new one on me! Still disagree though. Lol.
Keer - Royal purple is my fave colour too. (please note correct spelling of colour).
I cracked up when I read your post on why you made your blog pink.
Ok - well my coffee is getting cold.
Link | October 1st, 2005 at 7:35 pm
razorbackmama wrote,
Catez,
Yeah yeah yeah, you say colour, I say color.
:-D 
Hee hee.
So I won’t get any complaining from you if I change it?
(Actually I didn’t change it on purpose - just thought it was a pretty colo(u)r (LOL), but it sure is appropriate now that sparrow mentioned it!)
Link | October 1st, 2005 at 7:45 pm
Threefold Cord wrote,
I actually like pink, a lot! I was just razzing you.
You choose ANYTHING you want, girl. It’s YOUR blog.
And Catez, thank you for the clarification. I think that many people confuse the two, and wanted to make it clear.
Link | October 2nd, 2005 at 6:18 am
Barbara wrote,
oh my….what a Feminist backdrop…
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!
yikes, PALEEEEES don’t put the Pearls into the Arminian camp…then i’ll have to convert
and i NEVER thought i’d agree with anything that Doug Wilson says **rolling eyes**
Link | October 2nd, 2005 at 9:12 am
Catez wrote,
Hi,
it occurred to me that I said Arminianism is not the same as Pelagianism and then didn’t explain why.
So briefly - Arminianism doesn’t deny original sin.
Pelagianism denies original sin - it says we are not born with a sin nature.
Michael Pearl clearly says that we are not born with a sin nature. In fact he says the “sinful nature is a non-entity, it’s something made up”.
And he says more along that line. That’s Pelagianism. The Pearls are not completely Pelagian in other respects and really fall into Semi-Pelagianism.
Ok - over and out.
Link | October 2nd, 2005 at 10:11 pm
Catez wrote,
For three fold cord - if you see this. I loked back over my post as I added a clarification on Pelagianism not being the same as Arminianism (not because of your comment but because there’s been some confusion elsewhere). And I realised how some of it could look like I was talking about Holiness Doctrine - although that wasn’t in my mind when I wrote it. The Holiness Movement has had different streams or branches. Anyway - no, I wasn’t think in those terms but just showing how the teaching fits together.
Thanks.
Link | October 3rd, 2005 at 9:54 am
Threefold Cord wrote,
The Holiness Movement derived from WESLEYAN Arminianism (John Wesley) and is different than historical Arminianism. The Holiness Movement has taken many of Wesley’s teachings and gone further with them, into potential legalism of sorts, I would say.
For another record, I find myself not in 100 percent agreement with either of these doctrines, so am not defending them. Just trying to explain, because even though Wesleyan Arminian churches make up some substantial denominations, most people don’t seem to know what they believe nor how they are different from Arminianism. Some of the denoms are United Methodist (which has REALLY strayed from it’s roots - UGH!, Wesleyan, Nazarene, Missionary, EUBs, and Free Methodist.)
Hope you enjoy your company, Kirstin!
Link | October 3rd, 2005 at 10:15 am
Catez wrote,
Thanks threefold cord,
The main point I was wanting to make in relation to my post is that Pelagianism is not the same as Arminianism.
Arminius didn’t deny original sin, neither did Wesley.
Interesting info on the Holiness Movement - a different topic to the one in my post so I’ll leave it there.
Link | October 3rd, 2005 at 11:49 pm
Monica wrote,
I realize I’m coming in late to this discussion, but it’s been interesting reading the online reviews of CTBHH. I have especially enjoyed Keer’s, Spunky’s and Catez’s writings. While my husband and I have never agreed on all the Pearls’ teachings, we did feel like some of their child training advice was useful. When I read Debi’s book, I was somewhat dumbfounded at what I was reading and had to read the book a second time, just to be confirm what she was saying.
It made me sad. Throughout the book, Debi took a thread of truth, then bogged it down with extrabiblical opinion along with harsh horror stories about what would happen to you if you didn’t adhere to her teachings. The inclusion of multiple bible verses (sometimes improperly applied) has fooled some readers into thinking Debi’s opinions are directly from God.
Keer and Spunky - thanks for your thoughtfulness and the time you put into all these reviews. Catez - your blog explaining the Pearl’s basic doctrinal beliefs shed a new light on where they are coming from. I know you all have taken a lot of heat for even suggesting that the Pearls are in error in some areas. I don’t intend to become a Pearl basher, but after reading Debi’s book and learning more about their personal doctrine, I have decided not to use anymore of their publications. I’ve gotten some benefit from their materials, but I feel I personally have to move on.
I think one of the most disturbing things Catez pointed out in Michael Pearl’s teaching on Romans is that at one point, he makes a statement like, “I’ve read over 30 commentaries on this and all of them are wrong.” It is dangerous when someone thinks they have knowledge nobody else has - that’s how cults get started. I already see a trend of what I call “Pearl worshipping” in Christian circles. On one website a writer wrote, “To go against the Pearls is to go against the bible.” YIKES! Statements like that scare the bejeebees out of me.
Link | April 15th, 2006 at 5:00 pm