I decided
to reread some of a book I read over a year ago, Paul
Derengowski, Biblical Forgiveness
versus Mormon Forgiveness (Self-published, 2014). Here are some comments:
From the
back page:
“How blessed is he whose transgression is
forgiven, whose sin is covered,” wrote King David. Yet, in the Mormon belief
system, is it even possible for God to forgive?
From the biblical perspective the author argues
that if one should accept the dictates and mandates of Mormonism, that person
will die in his sins, unforgiven by God, and destined to spend eternity in hell
apart from him.
Not exactly
a good start; the text the author quotes from (Psa 32:1 [cf. Rom 4:5-8]) actually refutes, not
supports, the author’s Reformed soteriology, as I discussed here—in
reality, David lost his justification
and had to be rejustified, which is why his being forgiven in Psa 32:1 after being
convicted by Nathan due to his murder of Uriah and adultery of Bathsheba.
In the
preface, we read on p. iv-v:
I have studied . . . Mormonism . . . [and t]housands
of hours have been spent reading and writing about the subject, as well as
discussing Mormonism with former and current Mormons . . . a small fortunate
[has been spent] on firsthand Mormon resources and working my way through them.
So, one
should expect a work of careful scholarship with intellectual
integrity and sound exegesis of the Bible and uniquely LDS texts.
However,
reality is not the author’s friend. Some of my papers which refute a number of
his arguments against “Mormonism” were sent to him, and he refused to read
them:
Here is the
author's "nuh-uh"-like response:
You're right, it won't [convince the author],
because I'm not interested in some blog. Besides, cannot you articulate? (URL)
Remember,
one is limited to 150 characters on twitter, so someone linking to an article
is perfectly kosher. This is called a dodge.
On p. 8,
the author writes the following:
Believing that forgiveness is not simply for
the asking, Mormons insist that forgiveness is conditioned upon the cooperative
efforts of the sinner combined with the gracious act of God to grant it Through
such cooperative participation, not only does the Mormon make himself feel “worthy”
of God’s pardon, in this way of paying God back for something he assumes is of
equal value for the infraction he committed.
I am
unaware of any tenet of LDS theology that states that the person pays back God
equal to the infraction/sin one commits against God; it is only through the
power of the atonement that one can even be forgiven. Note the following from
the Book of Mormon:
And after they had been received unto baptism,
and were wrought upon and cleansed by the power of the Holy Ghost, they were
numbered among the people of the church of Christ; and their names were taken,
that they might be remembered and nourished by the good word of God, to keep
them in the right way, to keep them continually watchful unto prayer, relying
alone upon the merits of Christ, who was the author and the finisher of their
faith. (Moroni 6:4)
Additionally,
that there are “conditions” for forgiveness is part-and-parcel of biblical
soteriology.
In
Matt 3:8, recording the words of John the Baptist to the Pharisees and
Sadducees, the KJV reads:
Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance.
The
Greek of this text reads:
ποιήσατε οὖν καρπὸν ἄξιον τῆς μετανοίας.
Literally,
John is commanding the people “to do” (ποιεω)
works that are “worthy” of repentance. The Greek adjective translated as
“worthy” is αξιος. In New Testament soteriological
contexts, it is always used to describe the reality of someone or something; it is not a
mere legal declaration; in other words, something is counted/considered worthy
because they/it are intrinsically worthy. We can see
this in the Gospel of Matthew itself:
Nor scrip for your
journey, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is
worthy (αξιος) of his meat. And
into whateoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who it is
worthy (αξιος); and there abide
till ye go thence . . .And if the house be worthy (αξιος), let your peace come upon it:
but if it be not worthy, let your peace return
to you. (Matt 10:10-11, 13)
He that loveth father
or mother more than me is not worthy (αξιος)
of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And
he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy (αξιος) of me. (Matt 10:37-38)
Then saith he to his
servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy (αξιος). (Matt 22:8)
We
can also see this in the verb form of this adjective (αξιοω) and its usage in the New
Testament. Speaking of Christ and his worthiness, we read the following:
For this man was
counted worthy (αξιοω)
of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than
the house. (Heb 3:3)
Not
only are there important soteriological implications of this, but also
anthropological, as it calls into question the Reformed/Calvinistic belief of
Total depravity (the “T” of the TULIP).
Of
course, some may pose the question, “What about all those texts that speak of
us being ‘dead in sin’ such as Eph 2:1-5?” In addition, some Reformed
apologists, such as James White, also bring up John 11 and the rising of Lazarus from the dead and
Lazarus’ inability to respond to Jesus as biblical proof of the inability of
man.
Calvinists are guilty
of gross eisegesis in Eph 2:1-5 (and parallel texts in Rom 6:2 and Col 2:13) by
investigating the various ways Scripture uses the metaphor of spiritual death.
For example, the parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15 portrays an image of
spiritual death precisely opposite the Reformed concept. The story’s main
concern is to illustrate the initial spiritual salvation of an individual (as
opposed to the physical resurrection in the story of Lazarus). Hence, we see a
context in which the New Testament author’s meaning of spiritually “dead” can
be gleaned much more appropriately. In the story of the Prodigal Son, the son
leaves the father’s house with his share of the wealth. After squandering the
wealth, the son finally comes to his senses and returns by his own free will to
the father. The father, in turn, greets his son with compassion and invites him
back into the home. This sequence of events becomes very significant in our
present discussion on the meaning of the metaphor “dead” since the father
describes the son’s return specifically in Luke 15:23 as, “For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he
was lost, and is found. And they began to be
merry.” Not without significance, verse 32 repeats verbatim the father’s
description of his son’s return: “. . . for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again;
and was lost, and is found.”
In light of the fact that the son himself came to his senses and subsequently
made his way home, Jesus’ use of the metaphor “dead” to describe the father’s
understanding of the son’s previous spiritual state connotes a state, not of
“total depravity,” but rather of cooperation by the son with the father’s will.
Moreover, since the story of the Prodigal Son is surrounded by other parables
in Luke 15-16 which illustrate the nature of initial salvation (e.g., “The Lost
Sheep” in Luke 15:1-7; “The Lost Coin” in Luke 15:8-10 and “The Shrewd Manager”
in Luke 16:1-3), the medley of parables does far more to help us understand the
extent and limitations of spiritual death in regard to conversion than does the
story of the physical death of Lazarus.
Furthermore,
trying to tie John 11 and the physical raising of Lazarus with man being spiritually raised by God is
to engage in false comparisons, a common exegetical fallacy Calvinists and
others engage in. That certain theologies are forced to go down that
(eisegetical) route should be strong evidence of how exegetically bankrupt
their theological system is.
Seest though how faith wrought
with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
Here, James teaches that Abraham's faith and works,
cooperating with one another (Greek: συνεργεω, whence "synergy" in
English) resulted in his faith being complete/perfected (τελειοω).
Also, one
must ask why, if, as the author assumes, justification is once-for-all and
results in a blanket forgiveness of sins (not just past and then-present, but
future), why texts such as 1
John 2:1-2 and Heb
2:17 refute this concept. Ditto for the biblical teaching on baptismal
regeneration (e.g., Acts
2:38).
Not sure if
I will revisit the book, but I might flick through it and post if there is any
interesting points to interact with. However, this should show that the book is
laced with a number of fallacious arguments and assumptions.
