In her
poorly researched book, Misguided by
Mormonism, Protestant apologist Christina Darlington wrote the following in
an attempt to critique Latter-day Saint soteriology:
Doctrine and Covenants 82:7 says, “And now
verily I say unto you, I, the Lord, will not lay any sin to your charge; go
your ways and sin no more; but unto that soul who sinneth shall the former sins return, saith the Lord your
God.
So if repeating one sin can bring back the
former sins, how can any Mormon be assured of forgiveness and salvation? (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], 138, emphasis in original)
I have
already discussed D&C 82:7 on this blog, so I will not repeat myself here.
Those interested can read the following:
As
Darlington’s theology (and, often, her misreading, not just of the Bible but even
of LDS texts!) is informed by the blasphemous Protestant soteriology she holds
to, including forensic justification and imputation, she has to engage in such a (misguided) criticism of our theology. For a refutation of this
central teaching of Protestantism, see, for e.g.:
However, in
this blog post, I will show that, using Darlington's approach to Latter-day
Saint theology and Scripture, she must accuse Jesus Himself of teaching a
"mission impossible" gospel. Take the Parable of the Unforgiving
Servant, spoken by Christ in the context of how often we should forgive others:
For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be
compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves. When he had
begun to settle them, one who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him.
But since he did not have the means to repay, his lord commanded him to be
sold, along with his wife and children and all that he had, and repayment to be
made. So the slave fell to the ground and prostrated himself before him,
saying, "Have patience with me and I will repay you everything." And
the lord of that slave felt compassion and released him and forgave him the
debt. But the slave went out and found one of his fellow slaves who owed him a
hundred denarii; and he seized him and began to choke him, saying, "Pay
back what you owe." So his fellow slave fell to the ground and began to
plead with him, saying, "Have patience with me and I will repay you."
But he was unwilling and went and threw him in prison until he should pay back
what was owed. So when his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were
deeply grieved and came and reported to their lord all that had happened. Then
summoning him, his lord said to him, "You wicked slave, I forgave you all
the debt because you pleaded with me. Should you not also have had mercy on
your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you? And his lord, moved
with anger, handed him over to the torturers until (εως ου) he should repay all
that was owed him. My heavenly Father will also do the same (ουτως [alt, per BDAG: in this manner, thus, so]) if each of
you does not forgive his brother from your heart. (Matt 18:23-35, NASB)
In this
parable, one of the servants (representative of a grievous sinner as his debt
was great [one talent was worth 6,000 denarii, with one denarius being the
usual day's wage for a worker; in other words, this servant owed 60,000,000 days’
worth of wages, an astronomical figure! No doubt, hyperbole to stress the multitude of sins forgiven by the master]) had their “debt” (i.e., sins [cf. Matt
6:12 where “debt” is used for “sin” by Jesus]) forgiven. Notwithstanding this
mercy, when he encountered a fellow sinner/servant who owed him a comparatively
minuscule amount (1/600,000 of the debt he owed the master) and then threw him
into prison. Enraged by such, the master (God the Father) was moved with anger
and “handed him over to the torturers (alt. jailers), and this was to last “until”
(the Greek εως ου is the same
phrase used in Matt 1:25, speaking of Joseph not “knowing” Mary “until” the
birth of Jesus) he should
repay “all that was owed to him,” that is, the original debt—in other words, according
to the Lord Jesus, the former sins of the servant returned to him! If
Darlington were to be consistent, she
will have to argue that Jesus, or at least Matthew in his gospel, were
preaching a blasphemous false gospel that cannot offer any true hope of
forgiveness and salvation! Also note that this refutes Darlington’s theology
that a truly justified believer is eternally secure.
Many
Protestant commentaries agree that the unforgiving servant will be the
recipient of some form of eschatological punishment as a result of his sins
that “returned” to him. For instance, John Calvin in his Harmony of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote:
34. Delivered
him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that he owed. The Papists are
very ridiculous in endeavoring to light the fire of purgatory by the word till; for it is certain that Christ here
points out not temporal death, by which the judgment of God may be satisfied,
but eternal death.
For Calvin,
contrary to Catholic apologists who cite this as evidence for Purgatory, he
believes the punishment of the servant to be eternal hell.
John Peter
Lange, in his A Commentary on the Holy
Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical (trans. Philip Schaff)
wrote the following:
Mat 18:34. And
delivered him to the tormentors.—The imprisonment refers in both
cases to temporary confinement, until payment should be made, But, besides
this, the servant whom his master now sent to prison was also delivered τοῖς βασανισταῖς, “to the
tormentors,” to be tormented by them. The punishment of being sold into
slavery, with which he had formerly been threatened, was much lighter than that
which he had now to endure. However, the king was generous, and the wife and
children of the offender were not molested. In its first form, they shared the
guilt of that wicked servant; but the sin which he bad now committed rested
upon himself alone. Still, except in reference to the manner in which payment
is now enforced, the language of the parable continues the same as before. The
imprisonment and the torments are intended to enforce payment; but as, in the
present instance, this is manifestly impossible, they serve in reality as a
punishment. Fritzsche renders the term βασανισταί
by “body-guard of the king” (!); Grotius, by “gaolers” [δεσμοφν́λακες]; Meyer, correctly, by “tormentors.” According to the sentence pronounced,
the imprisonment would necessarily be both never-ending and hopeless
(Chrysostom: τοντέστι
διηνεκῶς, ον͂τε γάρ ἀποδώτει ποτε). Still, we are scarcely
warranted in referring these torments to the sufferings of Gehenna.
The
following comes from a modern Protestant commentator, John Nolland, in his
commentary on Matthew, part of the scholarly New International Greek Testament
Commentary:
18:34 In v. 27 the master was moved by
compassion; now he is moved by anger. Whatever we might be inclined to think
about the reversibility of the release granted in v. 27, the master no longer
feels bound by his earlier decision. The situation has changed, and that deal
is off. But the master does not revert to his first plan, which in retrospect
will look positively generous. The master’s strategy is to go one better than
what this slave has inflicted on his fellow slave: he has been imprisoned until
his debt is paid; this slave is now to be similarly imprisoned with the added
note that his gaolers will make use of torture (ostensibly to motivate him and
any who care for him to raise the money, but here the goal is primarily
punitive).138 Is there an echo of the tormenting (same Greek root) anticipated
in 8:29? The thinking of 7:1–2 comes to mind, where we noted that ‘the very act
of judgment establishes a set of criteria to which the one judging must expect
to answer’. The indebted slave has now found it to be so.
Matthew will make his application to the
present context in v. 35. But what can we make of the parable as a
free-standing story? At some level this is clearly a morality tale: a certain
kind of behaviour is to be avoided; to fail to do so is to court disaster. But
that does not take us far enough. The behaviour of the wicked slave is not so
much identified as wicked in itself but as wicked in the wake of the incredible
gift of mercy that has just been bestowed on him. And though the slave’s
situation as creditor is a miniature of the master’s, the difference of level
is a fundamental feature of the story (master versus slave; large debt versus
small debt). We have noted at several points the likelihood that pointers to
application have been built into the telling of the story. Matthew may have
added to these, but some are intrinsic to the story . . . The compassion that,
in connection with the coming of the kingdom, flows from God through the
ministry of Jesus is the foundation on which this parable builds. It addresses
itself to those who know that they have been released from a huge debt. It is
concerned to illuminate for them a necessary consequence for community
behaviour and even to suggest that under certain circumstances the release may
be revocable. The parable comes from the opposite end to the Lord’s Prayer (6:12
and cf. vv. 14–15) at the intersection between the forgiveness of God and
forgiving one another, but it interlinks the two just as firmly. Inasmuch as
the parable treats the forgiveness of God as creating a new situation that
entails fresh responsibilities, a more fundamental level of insight is
involved. To make a series of direct identifications (the master = God; the
slaves = Christians; the debt = sin; etc.) is too simple, but to do so does
correctly identify the major contours of the parable.
18:35 The application of a parable
will also be introduced with οὕτως καί (‘so also’) in 24:33. ‘My Father in
heaven’ from vv. 10, 14, 19 is resumed here as ‘my heavenly Father’. The verb
‘forgive’ is repeated from v. 21, and ‘my brother or sister’ from the same
verse (and behind that v. 15) is resumed as ‘his brother or sister’. Though the
language is quite different, ‘from your heart’ harks back to the extravagant
language of ‘seventy times seven times’ in v. 22. V. 35 is both the other half
of the frame around the parable and a fitting climax to the whole section. The
main thrust of the section has been the challenge in the ‘royal family’ to
embrace the vision of caring for the ‘little ones’. But divine sanctions
represent a thread throughout the section (see vv. 3, 7, 8–9, 34) and fit the
needs of a concluding statement. Second person plural forms are used, but
Matthew makes use of ἕκαστος (‘each’) to emphasise the need for each individual
to forgive. Matthew does not elsewhere use ἀπό (‘from’) with καρδία (‘heart’),
but he does use ἐκ (‘out of’) in 12:34; 15:18, 19 with a quite similar meaning.
As discussed at 5:8, the ‘heart’ locates the core identity of a person; so this
is where forgiveness that runs deep must come from. (John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the
Greek Text [New International Greek Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005], 760, 761–762.
With respect
to the meaning of εως ου in this text, Eric Svendsen, a Reformed Protestant has argued
that this refers to a temporary, not eternal, eschatological punishment.
Commenting on the topic of εως ου in the New Testament, Svendsen wrote:
It occurs only seventeen times in the NT and
all are temporal. Two of these have the meaning “while” (Matt 14:22; 26:36),
whereas the other fifteen occurrences are instances in which the action of the
main clause is limited by the action of the subordinate clause and require the
meaning “until a specified time (but not after).”Hence, the disciples were not
to tell anyone what they had seen “until
the Son of Man has been raised from the dead” (Matt 17:9), but they surely were
not to keep silent afterwards. The
wicked servant was to be tortured “until
he should pay back all he owed” (Matt 18:34), but the torture (it is implied)
would cease after payment had been rendered. The women who loses the coin
sweeps the house and searches carefully until
she finds it (Luke 15:8), but ceases the search once it is found. Similarly,
Jesus’ promise to abstain from eating and drinking at table will be kept only “until the kingdom of God comes” (Luke
22:18), after which he will inaugurate the Messianic Banquet. (Eric D.
Svendsen, Who is My Mother? The Role and
Status of the Mother of Jesus in the New Testament and Roman Catholicism [Amityville,
N.Y.: Calvary Press, 2001], 52, italics in original, emphasis in bold added)
One critic
of the Protestant doctrine of justification wrote the following about the
relationship between God forgiving us and our obligation to forgive others, as
well as how Protestant theologies are at odds with the Bible itself, wrote:
Protestants
also distort the requirements for forgiveness of sins when they impose the
theory of imputation onto the Sermon on the Mount. While in the parable of the
tax collector the penitent simply goes to the temple admitting that he is a
sinner and is subsequently justified, in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus makes
quite an issue about the contingencies surrounding God’s forgiveness. Jesus
begins by specifying one of the petitions of the Lord’s prayer as “Forgive us
our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us” (Mt 6:12). The comparative
word “as” shows that God’s forgiveness of our sins depends on our forgiveness
of other’s sins. Jesus immediately clarifies that this is indeed his meaning in
Mt 6:14-15, “For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly
Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your
Father will not forgive your sins.”
Jesus
also teaches this principle in the parable of the Unmerciful Servant, Mt
18:21-35, where the master forgives his servant, but the servant does not forgive
his subordinate. Jesus concludes in vrs. 34-35, “In anger his master turned him over to
the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. This is how
my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from
your heart.”
The
message is clear. We obtain forgiveness of our sins not through accepting an
alien righteousness of Christ but by the works of forgiving our neighbors who
sin against us. By forgiving them, God forgives us and views us as righteous in
his sight. The mere fact that Jesus includes the stipulation that God must
forgive our sins shows that Jesus is not speaking of an absolutely perfect
righteousness that God expects from us. He knows we will sin, perhaps in some
cases by not forgiving our brother as we should. But as long as we humbly recognize
and confess of our sins from our heart, and as long as we follow through with
the works of repentance, we are working in the realm of grace and God is
pleased with us and will grant us the kingdom of heaven. This is not a teaching
reserved for some “millennial kingdom,” nor is it a mere hypothetical means to
show us the purpose of the law to reveal sin. Jesus makes his intention clear
in Mt 5:18-19:
I tell
you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not
the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until
everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments
and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven,
but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom
of heaven.
Not
only is Jesus upholding the precepts of the Law, he is reinforcing them by
saying that God will notice our breaking the least commandment. The principle of Law will last until
“everything is accomplished,” or, as Jesus earlier taught, when “heaven and
earth disappear.” We have already seen this principle in Jesus’ use of the word
dikaioo
(“justified”)
in Mt 12:36-37 to teach that God will judge “every idle word.” Although Jesus’ death partially
fulfills the Law (Jn 19:30), it did not completely fulfill it. Jesus teaches in
Mt 5:18 that the progressive fulfillment of the Law does not abolish the Law.
Those who do not place themselves in God’s grace will be subject to the requirements
of the Law till the end of time. In addition, those who are in God’s grace must
obey the Law from their heart to please God as a child seeks to please his
father. (Robert A. Sungenis, Not by Faith
Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification [2d
ed.; Catholic Apologetics International Publishing Inc., 2009], 187-88)
Such goes
hand-in-glove with Latter-day Saint scripture, such as the following text in
the Doctrine and Covenants:
. . . I, the Lord, forgive sins unto those
who confess their sins before me and ask forgiveness, who have not sinned unto
death. My disciples, in days of old, sought occasion against one another and
forgave not one another in their hearts; and for this evil they were afflicted
and sorely chastened. Wherefore, I say unto you, that ye ought to forgive one
another; for he that forgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth
condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin. I, the
Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive
all men. And ye ought to say in your hearts-- let God judge between me and
thee, and reward thee according to thy deeds. And him that repenteth not of his
sins, and confesseth them not, ye shall bring before the church, and do with
him as the scripture saith unto you, either by commandment or by revelation.
And this ye shall do that God may be glorified-- not because ye forgive not,
having not compassion, but that ye may be justified in the eyes of the law,
that ye may not offend him who is your lawgiver--Verily I say, for this cause
ye shall do these things. (D&C 64:7-14)
Regardless
of whether this speaks of temporal or
eternal eschatological punishment, it
does show that (1) one’s former sins can return to them if they do not repent
and/or forgive one’s brother and (2) a person can be truly justified and have
their sins remitted thereby and yet, through commissioning certain sins, can
lose their salvation.
If the text
is speaking of temporal
eschatological punishment, such is further biblical support for LDS teaching in
D&C 76:104-107 and also Paul’s teachings on this topic in 1 Cor 3:15. For
more, see:
Again, we
see a number of things:
(1)
Darlington’s understanding of Latter-day Saint theology and Scripture is poor
at best.
(2) The Bible,
when read in its historical-grammatical context, supports Latter-day Saint
theology.
(3)
Conversely, the Bible, when read in its historical-grammatical context, refutes
Darlington’s theology
For a
listing of previous articles refuting Darlington’s book, Misguided by Mormonism, see: