Showing that
she is living proof of “Novak’s Rule” ("When you become an anti-Mormon,
expect your IQ to drop 85 points. To put it another way, God strikes you
stupid"), Christina Darlington wrote:
This essay admits that Mormonism rejects the
foundational creeds that have historically defined the “Christian” faith. As
such, a Mormon claiming to be a “Christian” while rejecting the foundational
beliefs that make Christians who they are, is no different than a Christian
claiming to be “Mormon” while rejecting the Book of Mormon and the teachings of
Joseph Smith that are foundational to Mormonism.
If we allow the Mormon Church to redefine
Christianity to whatever new set of belies they decide to accept while
rejecting the historic teachings of the Christian church, that word can be
applied to nearly all religions because at least most religions of today claim
some sort of “belief in Jesus,” that he was a “good teacher,” or a “prophet” of
God. Obviously, there is more to being a Christian than merely claiming belief
in Jesus Christ. (Christina R. Darlington, Misguided
by Mormonism But Redeemed by God’s Grace: Leaving the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints for Biblical Christianity [2d ed.; 2019], 43; the essay
Darlington refers to is Are
Mormons Christian?)
Just because
something has been believed for a long period of time (and is “historic” in
that sense) does not mean that it is true—the Jews of Jesus’ day had a “historic”
belief in the Korban rule which turned out to be a false tradition (Matt
15//Mark 7). If Darlington was, heaven forbid, consistent, she would have to claim Jesus was wrong in rejecting
this historic belief. For a discussion of the Korban rule, see my discussion of
Matt 15//Mark 7 in Not
By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura.
The belief
that Mary was a perpetual virgin is actually very early (and I say this as a critic of Roman Catholic Mariology), and can be seen in the
late first/early second century, and has a very good pedigree of belief (e.g.,
Augustine; Amrose; Jerome; First Lateran Council), even among Protestant
Reformers (Luther and Zwingli held to it; Calvin was inconsistent in holding to
it) and their followers (e.g., Francis Turretin [1623-1687] defended it in his Institutes of Elenctic Theology]). I am
sure, however, that Darlington rejects belief in such (and she is correct in
doing such; see Chapter 4: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary in my book, Behold
the Mother of My Lord: Towards a Mormon Mariology, pp. 83-138; I bring
this up to show that Darlington is being disingenuous and inconsistent in her
arguments and appeals to “historical” beliefs within Christianity).
But LDS can
turn the tables on Darlington, a Protestant who holds to a symbolic
understanding of water baptism. The unanimous consent of early Christians and
Christian theologians up to Calvin held to baptismal regeneration. For a
discussion (as well as an exegesis of John 3:1-7), see:
In case
Darlington argues that texts such as 1 Cor 1:17 refute this doctrine, as she
does elsewhere in her book, see:
Refuting
Douglas Wilson on Water Baptism and Salvation (provides an exegesis of 1
Cor 1:17, Acts 2:38, and 1 Pet 3:21)
Also, on
Luke 23:43, see The
Good Thief on the Cross
As with so
many “counter-cultists,” Darlington’s “arguments” against the Latter-day Saint
faith is clearly not aimed at informed Latter-day Saints; instead, she is
simply engaging in “boundary maintenance.”
