Friday, September 30, 2005
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!)
13 Comments:
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.
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
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. ;-)
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.
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.
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. :-D
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!!!!!!!!!!
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.
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.
Catez,
Yeah yeah yeah, you say colour, I say color. :-D :-D :-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!)
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**
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.
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.
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.
Back to Keer "Unplugged"
