Anti-Mormon author, Tony Poldrugovac, in his Who are the Latter-day Saints? (Xulon, 2004) writes the following:
This is a common claim and purported approach taken by Evangelical Protestant critics of LDS theology; however, when one examines the attempted harmonisations on many topics, we see this is nothing short of smoke and mirrors, coupled with eisegesis. For instance, there are many texts that, with great perspicuity and exegetical strength, teach baptismal regeneration (search on baptism on this blog to see a number of posts exegeting such texts [e.g., Acts 2:38; 1 Pet 3:21]), and yet, many relegate these texts as “difficult” and must be “clarified” based on other texts. The reason? Maintaining the integrity of the Bible and its authority? No, in reality, it is protecting a dogmatic belief in a system of theology, viz. the flavour of Protestantism of the apologist (in this case, the assumption that baptism is a mere symbol and then reading that into all relevant texts--eisegesis, in other words). That is the true hermeneutic many authors take on the topic of baptism and other theological issues--it is nothing short of a question-begging and special-pleading ridden structure. Moreover, this shows us, not just the importance, but necessity of an external body (i.e., the Church) to make authoritative doctrinal decisions that allow us to have the correct hermeneutic when approaching various texts and theological issues (cf. 1 Tim 3:15).
We should rightly divide (discern) the Word of God. Let us not fall into the trap of discarding one scripture to support another. All scriptures must be harmonised since all are inspired. (p. xi)
This is a common claim and purported approach taken by Evangelical Protestant critics of LDS theology; however, when one examines the attempted harmonisations on many topics, we see this is nothing short of smoke and mirrors, coupled with eisegesis. For instance, there are many texts that, with great perspicuity and exegetical strength, teach baptismal regeneration (search on baptism on this blog to see a number of posts exegeting such texts [e.g., Acts 2:38; 1 Pet 3:21]), and yet, many relegate these texts as “difficult” and must be “clarified” based on other texts. The reason? Maintaining the integrity of the Bible and its authority? No, in reality, it is protecting a dogmatic belief in a system of theology, viz. the flavour of Protestantism of the apologist (in this case, the assumption that baptism is a mere symbol and then reading that into all relevant texts--eisegesis, in other words). That is the true hermeneutic many authors take on the topic of baptism and other theological issues--it is nothing short of a question-begging and special-pleading ridden structure. Moreover, this shows us, not just the importance, but necessity of an external body (i.e., the Church) to make authoritative doctrinal decisions that allow us to have the correct hermeneutic when approaching various texts and theological issues (cf. 1 Tim 3:15).
