Michael Pearl on Original Sin: An Analysis
Note 13-OCT-05: I've made a few minor alterations and some clarifications in the post.
There's been a lot of discussion on my previous post A Look at the Basics, which was on the teaching of Michael and Debi Pearl's No Greater Joy Ministries. Here I'll look in more detail at Michael Pearl's teaching in relation to the doctrine of Original Sin, and also address some points which I know some people have wanted clarification on. I'll also look at the application of the Pearls doctrine to children and people with intellectual disabilities.
Previously I explained that one of the bases of the Pearl's teaching comes from Pelagianism, and that the Pearl's doctrine is in some respects Semi-Pelagian. To understand why I have said that I'll briefly show the difference between the orthodox doctrine of original sin and the Semi-Pelagian view, and then look at what Michael Pearl teaches. Here is a brief definition of the orthodox meaning of Original Sin:
As I've explained in my previous post, Pelagianism denies the doctrine of original sin, and infers the total ability of man apart from God. Semi-Pelagianism differs from full Pelagianism:
When looking at the Pearl's teaching on original sin and their belief that we do not have a sinful nature, it becomes evident that the Pearl's view fits into Semi-Pelagianism. I'll go through the relevant parts from their Statement of Faith here and look at what Michael Pearl teaches. From their Statement of Faith:
"In the eating of the tree, the willful and direct disobedience to God resulted in legal estrangement from God and precipitated the curse of death on Adam and all his descendants. All men are born under the curse and totally estranged from God."
What do the Pearls mean when they say men are born under the curse and estranged from God? I know that some people have thought that the Pearls are referring to original sin here. But that's not what the Pearls are saying. One of the key biblical passages for the doctrine of Original Sin is Romans 5:12-21. In his teaching tape on Romans 5:12-21 Michael Pearl explains what he means by the curse - that when Adam was "kicked out of the garden" he no longer had access to the tree of life. He states that eating the fruit of the tree of life had a physical effect - it prevented physical disease and aging. He says, "Death passed upon all men, and that's talking about one thing and one thing only - physical death. It says nothing about sinfulness passing upon all men." He adds that "a sinful nature is a non-entity, that's something made up". He also makes it clear that when he says death passed upon all men he means it is not something we inherit from Adam, but it's because we do not have physical access to the tree with the fruit which prevents aging. So the curse referred to in the Pearl's statement of faith does not mean sin or a fallen sinful nature - but that we cannot access the literal fruit from a literal tree.
Michael Pearl combines this belief with his teaching on estrangement from God - we are separated from him. However he does not teach that we are born with a sinful nature, and so is not saying that original sin is what causes our estrangement from God. In his Romans 5 message Michael Pearl says, "Every aspect of our being is separated from God in result of Adam's sin". He says this to emphasise his view that Romans 5 is not saying that sin passed from Adam to all men and separated them spiritually from God, but that physical death results from not having the literal fruit of the tree of life. His context here is that Adam had to leave the garden and the tree of life, and that our whole being is also not in the garden, so we are physically mortal and our spirits are not in fellowship with God. (He says that we are under penalty of death by the law after we commit sins, but here I'm looking at Original Sin and what he teaches about the result of Adam's sin). Michael Pearl is repeatedly clear that he does not believe Adam's sin was passed on to us or that we have a sinful nature. He believes that as a result of Adam's sin we are born estranged from God's spirit, and do not have God's spirit the way Adam did in the Garden of Eden, but neither do we have a sinful nature or sin imputed to us. When Michael Pearl explains it further it is clear that he takes a Semi-Pelagian position, in that he asserts that we are born neutral in spiritual terms. He says:
This is a Semi-Pelagian position - born without a sinful nature but "disadvantaged" by not having the resources to overcome bodily drives. Firstly I think we need to remember that God is always present, as Psalm 139 reminds us, including when we are unborn. However we are also born with a sinful nature, as Ephesians 2:3 reminds us. (Note: Michael Pearl would not accept Ephesians 2:3 as the KJV has a different translation - one of the problems arising from KJV-onlyism. Other translations differ from the KJV, and the meaning of Eph. 2:3 is commonly accepted as referring to our human nature). Referring back to what I quoted on Semi-Pelagianism, "Semi-Pelagianism represented human nature as itself unimpaired by the fall, though not free from creaturely weakness and in need of divine assistance." In looking at Michael Pearl's teaching he is saying we come into the world in a sort of spiritual limbo state - a neutral place where we are neither in God or in sin, but just have bodily drives. This is contrary to the orthodox doctrine of original sin, which holds that Adam's sinfulness passed to all men - we have a sinful nature. As I look at the next part from the Pearl's Statement of Faith I think it will become clear why this is important:
When a descendent of Adam reaches a level of moral understanding (sometime in his youth) he becomes fully, personally accountable to God and has sin imputed to him, resulting in the peril of eternal damnation. No man is capable of rectifying this state of estrangement from God. Apart from the free gift of God through the substitutionary work of Christ there is no hope of salvation.
As I've said in my previous discussion, "How God communicates with babies and infants is a mystery that I do not understand (and not one I want to debate) - but I believe he is sufficient to forgive sin, impute righteousness and bring salvation to the elect regardless of age." Although Michael Pearl says, "99% of the Christian world profess to believe that babies come into the world guilty of sin and worthy of the fires of hell", he is I think not truly representing what many Christians believe. Scripturally we know that we do have a sinful nature, are in need of justification to remove the penalty of sin, and we need the work of the cross - but this does not mean we can pass judgment on babies that die. God is able to save, and as I said, how he communicates with babies is a mystery to me. It is God who has determined the timing of our salvation. Disagreeing with Michael Pearl, and holding to the doctrine of Original Sin, does not automatically mean that a person consigns babies who die to hell. It means that one believes that we have a sinful nature, and that God is sufficient to forgive sin, justify, impute righteousness and save through the work of the cross. He is omniscient (all-knowing), not us - and he knows who he saves.
Some people have said that they believe in an age of moral accountability. What I'd like to point out here is that the Pearls are not just saying there's an age when one is morally accountable - but that until a certain (and unspecified) age sin is not imputed, and that human nature itself is not sinful. If that were the case, there would be a whole group of people who did not need the work of the cross to be justified and reconciled to God. I see this as a matter of where one is focusing from. When the cross and atonement of Christ is the central focus, and it is understood that no-one has access to God the Father except through the death and resurrection of the Son, then the Pearls teaching creates a problem. It places human ability above the atoning work of the cross by creating a group of people who do not need the cross - they are able to be reconciled to God without the cross. In spiritual terms these people are acceptable without the sacrifice - for the sacrifice was made for sin, and the Pearl's hold that certain people do not have sin imputed to them.
As well as denying Original Sin and a sinful nature, Michael Pearl also teaches that children up to an unspecified age and people with intellectual disabilities cannot glory in God. In his teaching on Romans 1:21 he says:
This brings out an emphasis that is evident in the Pearl's teaching, that while on the one hand Michael Pearl teaches that we commit sins, are unable to save ourselves, and are justified by faith, on the other hand he places children and people with intellectual disabilities (which would include children and adults) both outside of the need of the cross and outside of being able to know and glory in God. In fact although he teaches that we commit sins and are unable to work toward our own salvation, his doctrine is also saying that "intellectual maturity" is required before we can receive it. On a personal note, I have known a number of Christians with intellectual disabilities. When I say intellectual disabilites I mean they were legally considered intellectually handicapped and in need of extra assistance and support in their day-to-day living. I've sat and sung worship songs with Christians who have intellectual disabilities - at their request - and have seen firsthand their joy in worshipping God. To put it simply - it was glorious.
By removing the doctrine of Original Sin and replacing it with a Semi-Pelagian position, Michael Pearl's teaching not only places a group of people outside of the saving work of the cross of Christ, but also holds that certain people cannot know and glory in God. In my asessment this is an error on an essential doctrine. I think we need to remember that although we are made in God's image, that image is marred by our sinful nature. To be reconciled to God we need remission of sin, and to be made perfect before him - we must be transformed so that the image is restored. While we do not understand how God communicates with infants or with people who have intellectual disabilities, it is important not to either elevate them above Christ's sacrifice or put them below God's effectual calling and pleasure. We all have a sinful nature, and God has provided for our salvation, justification, and reconciliation through the death and resurrection of Jesus. The bible places no level of intellectual maturity as a provision for glorying in God. Christians with intellectual disabilities are a part of the body of Christ and family of God.
My recommendation is to look at the scriptures, particularly Romans 5:12-21, look at your church's or your own Statement of Faith, and you may want to discuss this doctrine with your pastor or minister. In Part 1 of this series I show how Michael Pearl's position on Original Sin and a sinful nature connects and leads into his other teaching on basic doctrine - particularly when it is held that we do not have a sinful nature, and the emphasis is on "sins" and excludes original sin. The starting point of a doctrine will create an emphasis that runs throughout a system of belief. See the link below.
Continued from:
Part 1: Michael and Debi Pearl's No Greater Joy Ministries: A Look at the Basics
There's been a lot of discussion on my previous post A Look at the Basics, which was on the teaching of Michael and Debi Pearl's No Greater Joy Ministries. Here I'll look in more detail at Michael Pearl's teaching in relation to the doctrine of Original Sin, and also address some points which I know some people have wanted clarification on. I'll also look at the application of the Pearls doctrine to children and people with intellectual disabilities.
Previously I explained that one of the bases of the Pearl's teaching comes from Pelagianism, and that the Pearl's doctrine is in some respects Semi-Pelagian. To understand why I have said that I'll briefly show the difference between the orthodox doctrine of original sin and the Semi-Pelagian view, and then look at what Michael Pearl teaches. Here is a brief definition of the orthodox meaning of Original Sin:
"This is a term used to describe the effect of Adam's sin on his descendants (Rom. 5:12-23). Specifically, it is our inheritance of a sinful nature from Adam. The sinful nature originated with Adam and is passed down from parent to child. We are by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3)."
As I've explained in my previous post, Pelagianism denies the doctrine of original sin, and infers the total ability of man apart from God. Semi-Pelagianism differs from full Pelagianism:
"Semi-Pelagianism represented human nature as itself unimpaired by the fall, though not free from creaturely weakness and in need of divine assistance. The original sin was held to have brought about the loss of original righteousness, which was regarded as a supernatural gift added to man's nature, with the result that the loss left man in a purely natural state - that is to say in a state in which his nature was invitiated, a state of neutrality as it were, poised between good and evil, and not therefore a state of incapacitation."
- Philip Edgecumbe Hughes, The True Image
When looking at the Pearl's teaching on original sin and their belief that we do not have a sinful nature, it becomes evident that the Pearl's view fits into Semi-Pelagianism. I'll go through the relevant parts from their Statement of Faith here and look at what Michael Pearl teaches. From their Statement of Faith:
"In the eating of the tree, the willful and direct disobedience to God resulted in legal estrangement from God and precipitated the curse of death on Adam and all his descendants. All men are born under the curse and totally estranged from God."
What do the Pearls mean when they say men are born under the curse and estranged from God? I know that some people have thought that the Pearls are referring to original sin here. But that's not what the Pearls are saying. One of the key biblical passages for the doctrine of Original Sin is Romans 5:12-21. In his teaching tape on Romans 5:12-21 Michael Pearl explains what he means by the curse - that when Adam was "kicked out of the garden" he no longer had access to the tree of life. He states that eating the fruit of the tree of life had a physical effect - it prevented physical disease and aging. He says, "Death passed upon all men, and that's talking about one thing and one thing only - physical death. It says nothing about sinfulness passing upon all men." He adds that "a sinful nature is a non-entity, that's something made up". He also makes it clear that when he says death passed upon all men he means it is not something we inherit from Adam, but it's because we do not have physical access to the tree with the fruit which prevents aging. So the curse referred to in the Pearl's statement of faith does not mean sin or a fallen sinful nature - but that we cannot access the literal fruit from a literal tree.
Michael Pearl combines this belief with his teaching on estrangement from God - we are separated from him. However he does not teach that we are born with a sinful nature, and so is not saying that original sin is what causes our estrangement from God. In his Romans 5 message Michael Pearl says, "Every aspect of our being is separated from God in result of Adam's sin". He says this to emphasise his view that Romans 5 is not saying that sin passed from Adam to all men and separated them spiritually from God, but that physical death results from not having the literal fruit of the tree of life. His context here is that Adam had to leave the garden and the tree of life, and that our whole being is also not in the garden, so we are physically mortal and our spirits are not in fellowship with God. (He says that we are under penalty of death by the law after we commit sins, but here I'm looking at Original Sin and what he teaches about the result of Adam's sin). Michael Pearl is repeatedly clear that he does not believe Adam's sin was passed on to us or that we have a sinful nature. He believes that as a result of Adam's sin we are born estranged from God's spirit, and do not have God's spirit the way Adam did in the Garden of Eden, but neither do we have a sinful nature or sin imputed to us. When Michael Pearl explains it further it is clear that he takes a Semi-Pelagian position, in that he asserts that we are born neutral in spiritual terms. He says:
"When a baby comes into the world the baby is separated from God, without the presence of God, without the Spirit of God, without the divine life of God inside the baby. It is disadvantaged in that it does not have the resources of spirit that comes from God to overcome these bodily drives."
This is a Semi-Pelagian position - born without a sinful nature but "disadvantaged" by not having the resources to overcome bodily drives. Firstly I think we need to remember that God is always present, as Psalm 139 reminds us, including when we are unborn. However we are also born with a sinful nature, as Ephesians 2:3 reminds us. (Note: Michael Pearl would not accept Ephesians 2:3 as the KJV has a different translation - one of the problems arising from KJV-onlyism. Other translations differ from the KJV, and the meaning of Eph. 2:3 is commonly accepted as referring to our human nature). Referring back to what I quoted on Semi-Pelagianism, "Semi-Pelagianism represented human nature as itself unimpaired by the fall, though not free from creaturely weakness and in need of divine assistance." In looking at Michael Pearl's teaching he is saying we come into the world in a sort of spiritual limbo state - a neutral place where we are neither in God or in sin, but just have bodily drives. This is contrary to the orthodox doctrine of original sin, which holds that Adam's sinfulness passed to all men - we have a sinful nature. As I look at the next part from the Pearl's Statement of Faith I think it will become clear why this is important:
When a descendent of Adam reaches a level of moral understanding (sometime in his youth) he becomes fully, personally accountable to God and has sin imputed to him, resulting in the peril of eternal damnation. No man is capable of rectifying this state of estrangement from God. Apart from the free gift of God through the substitutionary work of Christ there is no hope of salvation.
As I've said in my previous discussion, "How God communicates with babies and infants is a mystery that I do not understand (and not one I want to debate) - but I believe he is sufficient to forgive sin, impute righteousness and bring salvation to the elect regardless of age." Although Michael Pearl says, "99% of the Christian world profess to believe that babies come into the world guilty of sin and worthy of the fires of hell", he is I think not truly representing what many Christians believe. Scripturally we know that we do have a sinful nature, are in need of justification to remove the penalty of sin, and we need the work of the cross - but this does not mean we can pass judgment on babies that die. God is able to save, and as I said, how he communicates with babies is a mystery to me. It is God who has determined the timing of our salvation. Disagreeing with Michael Pearl, and holding to the doctrine of Original Sin, does not automatically mean that a person consigns babies who die to hell. It means that one believes that we have a sinful nature, and that God is sufficient to forgive sin, justify, impute righteousness and save through the work of the cross. He is omniscient (all-knowing), not us - and he knows who he saves.
Some people have said that they believe in an age of moral accountability. What I'd like to point out here is that the Pearls are not just saying there's an age when one is morally accountable - but that until a certain (and unspecified) age sin is not imputed, and that human nature itself is not sinful. If that were the case, there would be a whole group of people who did not need the work of the cross to be justified and reconciled to God. I see this as a matter of where one is focusing from. When the cross and atonement of Christ is the central focus, and it is understood that no-one has access to God the Father except through the death and resurrection of the Son, then the Pearls teaching creates a problem. It places human ability above the atoning work of the cross by creating a group of people who do not need the cross - they are able to be reconciled to God without the cross. In spiritual terms these people are acceptable without the sacrifice - for the sacrifice was made for sin, and the Pearl's hold that certain people do not have sin imputed to them.
As well as denying Original Sin and a sinful nature, Michael Pearl also teaches that children up to an unspecified age and people with intellectual disabilities cannot glory in God. In his teaching on Romans 1:21 he says:
"Obviously the 2 year old can't glory, the 1 year old, the idiot and the retard can't glory in anything. But those who have reached a place of intellectual maturity will glory and are expected to glory in God."
This brings out an emphasis that is evident in the Pearl's teaching, that while on the one hand Michael Pearl teaches that we commit sins, are unable to save ourselves, and are justified by faith, on the other hand he places children and people with intellectual disabilities (which would include children and adults) both outside of the need of the cross and outside of being able to know and glory in God. In fact although he teaches that we commit sins and are unable to work toward our own salvation, his doctrine is also saying that "intellectual maturity" is required before we can receive it. On a personal note, I have known a number of Christians with intellectual disabilities. When I say intellectual disabilites I mean they were legally considered intellectually handicapped and in need of extra assistance and support in their day-to-day living. I've sat and sung worship songs with Christians who have intellectual disabilities - at their request - and have seen firsthand their joy in worshipping God. To put it simply - it was glorious.
By removing the doctrine of Original Sin and replacing it with a Semi-Pelagian position, Michael Pearl's teaching not only places a group of people outside of the saving work of the cross of Christ, but also holds that certain people cannot know and glory in God. In my asessment this is an error on an essential doctrine. I think we need to remember that although we are made in God's image, that image is marred by our sinful nature. To be reconciled to God we need remission of sin, and to be made perfect before him - we must be transformed so that the image is restored. While we do not understand how God communicates with infants or with people who have intellectual disabilities, it is important not to either elevate them above Christ's sacrifice or put them below God's effectual calling and pleasure. We all have a sinful nature, and God has provided for our salvation, justification, and reconciliation through the death and resurrection of Jesus. The bible places no level of intellectual maturity as a provision for glorying in God. Christians with intellectual disabilities are a part of the body of Christ and family of God.
"For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty, and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in his presence".
- 1 Corinthians 1:26-29
"No, much rather, those members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary. And those members of the body which we think to be less honourable, on these we bestow greater honour; and our unpresentable parts have greater modesty".
- 1 Corinthians 12:22-23
My recommendation is to look at the scriptures, particularly Romans 5:12-21, look at your church's or your own Statement of Faith, and you may want to discuss this doctrine with your pastor or minister. In Part 1 of this series I show how Michael Pearl's position on Original Sin and a sinful nature connects and leads into his other teaching on basic doctrine - particularly when it is held that we do not have a sinful nature, and the emphasis is on "sins" and excludes original sin. The starting point of a doctrine will create an emphasis that runs throughout a system of belief. See the link below.
Continued from:
Part 1: Michael and Debi Pearl's No Greater Joy Ministries: A Look at the Basics
Labels: Examining Teaching
posted by Catez at 10/11/2005
|
© Copyright Catez Stevens. << Home