Tim Challies:
As I read the book, I found it a fascinating illustration of the reality that what we believe will necessarily impact what we do and how we do it. In this case, it shows that what we believe to be true about children will inevitably shape the way we “train them up.” It concerned me to see that many people follow Michael Pearl’s technique even though they believe very different things from what he believes. It is for these people in particular that I write my review. I write it not to condemn you, but to provoke you to consider what Pearl really believes about children and how this has shaped his book and your children.
…
Pearl’s training is not moral or spiritual, which means he believes that the mandate of Proverbs 22:6 is not fulfilled by instructing your children in Biblical truths. In the book’s opening pages he writes, “we are not talking about producing godly children, just happy and obedient children. The principles for training young children to instantly obey can be applied by non-Christians as well as Christians.” Training in godliness will come later in a child’s life and is outside the scope of the training he teaches here. This training is applied to children between birth and approximately twelve years of age and can be done by Christians and non-Christians alike.
This is not a Godly approach to child training. I don’t care whether you are Baptist or Presbyterian like me (would that all were covenantal Presbyterians, but I stray from topic), this is so wrong on so many levels.
Challies continues his review in a second article:
Pearl denies the doctrine of original sin and thus believes that children have no need to be justified and, further, until they are older cannot be justified.
This is straight up heresy.
He believes that children are born sinless and unformed just as Adam and Eve were. Their younger years are a context for spiritual development that allows the parents to train them for when they become personally accountable to God somewhere around their early teens.
The doctrine of the age of accountability is in full play here, but taken to extreme. Much as with the Arminian vs. Calvinism debate (and the age of accountability is actually related), the doctrine of the age of accountability is not heretical when held as most hold it just as what we often call Arminianism is not heretical when held in view as most hold it in the Church today. But when taken to the extreme that children are born without sin, denying original sin and the fallen state of humanity, it is indeed heresy. It is the heresy of Pelagianism
Understand this: If you heed Pearl’s counsel, you are following a technique that denies the sinfulness of your children and their need to be justified by the work of Christ. It passes by their hearts in order to condition their behavior.
…
Do you see what he has done here? He has taken all the language of the gospel and applied it to a parent’s spanking. A parent who strikes his child with a rod removes the child’s guilt, cleanses his soul, instructs and strengthens him, and gives him assurance that his debt has been paid. Here is where Pearl’s child-rearing technique comes home to roost. Now we see whipping as something that takes the place of the cross. Now we demand that a child satisfies for his own sin. Instead of teaching a child that he is a sinner in desperate need of God’s grace, we are to teach the child that by inflicting a measure of pain on his backside we have cleansed him of his sin and absolved him from all guilt.
This is dangerous heresy and I’m sorry to say at one point in my life a while back I believed there was some good in Pearl’s book. How blind and foolish I was. I recommend at this point that this book be thrown in the trash.