DBartosiewicz
Email no. 1
From: Robert Boylan
To: Dave Bartosiewicz
Re. Responses to some of your material on "Mormonism"
Date: 16/07/16
Hi Dave,
A mutual friend of ours, Richard Winget, asked me a few weeks ago to check out your youtube channel and, as a result, I wrote a few responses to your videos and other postings. He informed me that he sent you the URLs to some of them, but received no response. I am just sending this email to make sure you are aware of the responses:
http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2016/07/responses-to-dave-bartosiewicz.html
Here is the current listing of the responses to some of your videos and comments relating to Latter-day Saint issues:
Responses to Videos
How is the Book of Mormon, the Word of God, if it was ABRIDGED and Edited?
Why does the Doctrine and Covenants Contradict the Book of Mormon? Should it? (btw: this paper also responds, albeit indirectly as it was written before your posted it, to your lastest video [as of this email] on the nature of God in LDS and Evangelical Protestant theologies, such as the "plurality of the Gods" and divine embodiment).
Dave Bartosiewicz vs. Transformative Justification
Dave Bartosiewicz, the Bible, and the Fullness of the Gospel
Other Responses
How some apologists beg the question on sola scriptura
The Father Sending the Son: Planned before or after the Law of Moses?
Dave Bartosiewicz's binitarian theology and ignorance of the Lectures on Faith
In these responses, I have interacted with both your criticisms of “Mormonism” as well as your (false) a priori assumptions, such as the formal doctrine of Protestantism, sola scriptura. I am hoping that if you do get this message you will read these responses and, at the very least, demonstrate some intellectual honesty and integrity by at least improving your methodology beyond facile “gottcha!”-type arguments and videos. For instance, in my first response I wrote to one of your videos, “How is the Book of Mormon, the Word of God, if it was ABRIDGED and Edited?” you attack the Book of Mormon due to it being, according to its own claims, an abridgment, but what you seem ignorant of (or at least did not disclose to viewers) is that so is much of the Bible as I document, and scholarship (not just liberal, but conservative) agrees with me, as does the biblical texts themselves. Consistency would require that one drop the argument against the Book of Mormon or reject the Bible. Another illustration of this would be you taking umbrage with "Praise to the Man" (evidenced by this facebook post)--you might enjoy pursuing a paper I wrote, "Joseph Smith Worship? Responding to Criticisms of the Role and Status of the Prophet Joseph Smith in Latter-day Saint theology"--the Bible itself allows for reverence of mortal figures, even going beyond the LDS "praise" given to Joseph Smith (e.g., Rev 3:9, 21 where glorified saints will receive "worship" [προσκυνεω] and sit upon the throne of God; 1 Chron 29:20, 23 where the Davidic King receives the same worship Yahweh does and, again, sits on the throne of Yahweh; Isa 45:14 where Yahweh promises future Israel will receive prayer/reverence from Gentile nations, etc).
Our theological differences aside, I do wish you the best,
Email no 2
From: Dave Bartosiewicz
To: Robert Boylan
Date: 17/07/16
Well Robert, I had no idea I had such a fan. The ministry is doing very well and many are coming to a "true relationship with Christ". I am honored having you writing such a description of your extensive and wordy dissertations even though I obviously don't agree with you. God Bless you, fwiw, almost 60,000 views a month and growing stronger daily on my ministry. I hope you "Have Experienced Jesus", He's amazing and so worthy of my praise. Tell Rich I said Hi, he's a great man.
Best Regards,
Dave
Email no 3
From: Dave Bartosiewicz
To: Robert Boylan
Date: 17/07/16
Robert,
I see that you really have no views, not popular yet..I guess not many followers. I could help you with that if you wish. By the way, I think one of the ways to get more likes and views is not to just cut and paste words and make it so long without that much meaning, but get to the point. I really don't like your approach, you really don't get a ton of views and followers with the way you are doing it. If your church is paying you, they should help you understand how to do it better. They certainly hire pretty top-notch marketers. Here's another video I did the other day. See what you can do with this, but don't create a novel, fwiw. Blessings, Dave..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZso76uV5eE
Email no 4
From: Dave Bartosiewicz
To: Robert Boylan
Date: 17/07/16
Now, I understand you better....A FairMormon editor....I see where you are getting your money....http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/board/...You guys must be getting worried. It doesn't seem like you're making a massive difference. Good luck...Dave
Email no 5
From: Dave Bartosiewicz
To: Robert Boylan
Date: 17/07/16
Sorry: http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/board/
Email no 6
From: Dave Bartosiewicz
To: Robert Boylan
Date: 17/07/16
Wow, you have a lot of donors!! No wonder you are going after those who are making a difference. It's all okay. I love Jesus and God is Good but in the end, it's all about Jesus not a Church. A church is a body of Believers who are born again, saved by His Blood, obeying His Word, being disciples of Him...I have it all. Hope some day you may come to know Him. Blessings. The Donors!!! http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/donations/
Email no. 7
From: Robert Boylan
To: Dave Bartosiewicz
Date: 17/07/16
Hi Dave,
There is an old saying, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." Not only have you done this with your videos, where you demonstrate a lack of intellectual integrity and honesty, coupled with lack of exegetical ability, you have done such with your five emails you sent in response. Let me demonstrate the plethora of errors you make:
1. To claim I am a "fan" is a stretch; I was asked by a friend to check out youtube channel just for a "laugh," and I decided to respond to your distorted theology, as well as distorted attacks on "Mormonism." The very fact you did not deal with anything I wrote speaks volumes.
2. To claim that one comes to a "true relationship with Christ" by Evangelical Protestantism (regardless of which of the various soteriologies therein [there are more than one formulation of salvation theology, some more biblical than other--such as those that accept baptismal regeneration over the heresy that it is a mere symbol, for e.g.]) is false. In my article, Why Latter-day Saints cannot believe Evangelical Protestantism is true: A Response to Dave Bartosiewicz, I interact with much of your (false) a priori assumptions about soteriology, such as your false and rather eisegetical understanding of τετελεσται ("it is finished") in John 19:30.
3. I am not being paid by the Church; I do apologetics/blogging mainly for fun (I am the odd type that finds theology and exegesis of the original languages to be a hobby), as well as to educate LDS and non-LDS about the sound support LDS theology has using the historical-grammatical method of exegesis.
4. In a pathetic attempt to dismiss what I wrote, you said that "I think one of the ways to get more likes and views is not to just cut and paste words and make it so long without that much meaning, but get to the point. I really don't like your approach, you really don't get a ton of views and followers with the way you are doing it." Again, you manage to pack a truck load of errors in a short period of time. [a] I am not interested in the number of "views" my blog gets, I am more interested in truth; [b] dismissing what I wrote as being copied and pasted and lacking meaning is projection, Dave. Your videos exemplify not only a lack of original thinking skills but intellectual honesty. What I wrote applies in a careful manner modern scholarship and the historical grammatical method of exegesis. Please, using sound exegesis, demonstrate an error I made. For instance, you link to your (as of writing) most recent video--as stated above, many of your assumptions and eisegetical abuse of biblical texts were answered in the post entitled Why does the Doctrine of Covenants Contradict The Book of Mormon? Should it? Beginning at the section, “The Number of God.” Unfortunately for you, the Bible affirms the ontological existence of plural gods and even that the Father is embodied.
5. While I am a contributing editor for the Interpreter journal (I was approached due to my knowledge of, and academic background in, biblical scholarship/languages and anthropology), I peer review articles for them and sometimes contribute articles for the journal itself. My blogging and the like are independent of Mormon Interpreter. And I can assure you, neither Mormon Interpreter, FairMormon, or any group is "getting worried." Furthermore, just as I have not received a cent from the LDS Church, I have not received any money from the donations to Mormon Interpreter.
6. Your anti-biblical ecclesiology comes out when you attempt to promote the common (and wholly modern) Evangelical Protestant concept of the "church." Firstly, you are wrong about what it takes to be born again--Jesus, Peter, Paul and the rest of the New Testament authors affirmed the doctrine of baptismal regeneration (see the section entitled Jesus, the Apostles, and Baptism in Why Latter-day Saints cannot believe Evangelical Protestantism is True: A Response to Dave Bartosiewicz where I discuss this topic as well as other elements of your anti-biblical soteriology), Latter-day Saints hold, as did Paul, that the Church is the ground and pillar of the truth, not the Bible or any other text (1 Tim 3:15; cf. Matt 16:18-19; 18:18; Eph 4:5-7, etc), and it was the Church and its leadership that explicated the teaching that Gentile converts would not have to be circumcised before entering the New Covenant (discussed below)
If there is more than one denomination, there are too many. If you depart from the one true church (and there can only be one true church) then you are not in the true church. It is as simple as that. As a result of a sub-biblical ecclesiology, coupled with sola scriptura, there are about 10,000 different Protestant denominations, as admitted by Evangelical apologist, Eric Svendsen (see my post, "How many Protestant Denominations are there?”)
On Acts 15, let me quote what I wrote in response to a Reformed Protestant who tried to appeal to this passage as evidence for sola scriptura:
The Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15
Amazingly, Crampton, in a number of places, tries to argue that the Council of Jerusalem, recorded in Acts 15, supports sola scriptura:
And very significant is the Acts 15 passage concerning the Jerusalem council. When the apostles and elders met to discuss and make a judgment regarding the theological matter of circumcision and its necessity with regard to salvation, they did not quote inspired tradition, neither did they turn to a bishop or people for a decision on the matter. And even though the council was made up in part of apostles, the delegates believed themselves compelled to cite scripture (Amos 9:11-12) to settle the matter (Acts 15:15-16). The conclusion reached by the council was based on the fact that "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit [the author of Amos 9:11-12] and to us" (verse 32). Scripture and Scripture alone rendered the decision binding on the local churches (Acts 16:4). (p. 52)
[I]n acts 15 we read about the Jerusalem council. when the apostles and the elders met to discuss and make a judgment concerning the theological matter of circumcision and its necessity with regard to salvation, their appeal was made to Scripture alone (Amos 9:11-12), and not to the tradition of the Church Magisterium. (p. 151)
[W]hen the final decision was made, it was based on the fact that "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us" (Acts 15:28). But the Holy Spirit reference here is to the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture, that is, from Amos 9:11-12 and Leviticus 17:14, found in Acts 15:16-17, 29. That is also why "it seemed good . . . to us." And what is why the decision was binding on the churches (Acts 16:4). (p. 163)
There are many problems with this understanding of Acts 15.
Firstly, even within the Acts of the Apostles, we see that the Apostles did not operate with the belief that Scripture was formally sufficient. Instead, we see that it is the authorised leadership of the Church that makes a doctrinal decision, even if scant or actually no meaningful biblical evidence is available to them (from the historical-grammatical method of exegesis). For instance, in Acts 1:20, we read:
For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein; and his bishoprick (επισκοπη [office]) let another take.
If one examines this verse, Peter is using two texts from the Psalter—Psa 69:25 and 109:8. However, nothing in these two verses says anything about Judas, apostolic succession, or the continuation of the need to have twelve apostles. If one reads these texts in their context, David is talking about people and events in his own day. Psa 69, David is addressing the sinful people of his time who had betrayed him and how he pleads for God to bring about judgement (v.25). Psa 109 is about the court of David where David says that, once an officer in his court has been removed, another will take his place.
Therefore, a text or series of texts that may be seen as “weak” at best, in light of further explicit revelation, be used by the Church to support a doctrine. Another potent example would be the case of the use of Amos 9:11 (LXX) in Acts 15 by James. The text is used as Old Testament support for the belief that Gentiles do not have to be circumcised before entering the New Covenant. However, when one reads this text in its context, nothing is said about the cessation of the requirement of circumcision; furthermore, James is reliant upon the LXX notwithstanding its obvious translation mistakes. In Acts 15:13–17, James appeals to Amos 9:11–12 in an effort to support through scripture the taking of the gospel directly to the Gentiles and the cessation of circumcision. It even seems James’ quotation helps settle the debate. The critical portion of Amos 9 reads
In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this. (Amos 9:11)
This reading comes from LXX Amos, although there is a bit of movement. For instance, “the Lord” is an addition. The LXX actually omits the object, reading, “so that the remnant of the people might seek, and all the nations . . .” There is also a clause missing from Acts’ quotation (“and set it up as the days of old”). The important observation, however, is the Greek translation’s relationship to the Hebrew. The crucial section reads in the Greek, “so that the remnant of the people might seek,” but in the Hebrew, “that they may possess the remnant of Edom.” The confusion with Edom arises likely because of the lack of the mater lectionis which we find in MT in the word אדום. Without it, the word looks an awful lot like אדם , “man,” or “humanity.” The verb “to possess” (יירשׁו), was also misunderstood as “to seek” (ידרשׁו). It is unlikely that MT is secondary. First, there’s no object for the transitive verb εκζητησωσιν, “that they might seek.” Second, the reading in MT makes more sense within the context. David’s fallen house would be restored so that it might reassert its authority, specifically in overtaking the remnant of Edom (see Amos 1:11–12) and “all the nations,” for which Edom functions as a synecdoche (Edom commonly acts as a symbol for all of Israel’s enemies [Ps 137:7; Isa 34:5–15; 63:1–6; Lam 4:21]). The notion that the restoration of the Davidic kingdom would cause the remnant of the people and all the nations to seek the Lord is also a bit of a disconnection within Amos. This quotation shows not only that the early church relied on the Septuagint, but that it rested significant doctrinal decisions on the Greek translation, even when it represented a misreading of the underlying Hebrew. Christians today reject the inspiration of the LXX, but the New Testament firmly accepted it, and if the New Testament is inspired in its reading of LXX Amos 9:11-12, which is itself a misreading of the original reading, then the current Hebrew Old Testament is in error. (See Gary D. Martin, Multiple Originals: New Approaches to Hebrew Bible Textual Criticism [Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010], pp. 255-61 for more information on this issue).
Furthermore, Amos 9:11-12 is silent about the cessation of circumcision, speaking only of the rebuilding of the tabernacle of David which was interpreted to mean that the influx of Gentile converts into the Church fulfilled the text (see Acts 15:16-18). The "hermeneutical lens," if you will, that helped this was not Scripture, but Peter's experiences as recorded in vv.1-11.
Acts 15 opens with the account of various men from Judea who were teaching the brethren that unless a man is circumcised according to the custom of Moses, he cannot be saved, resulting in the council being called Verse 7 tells us that there was much debate among them. Apparently, they could arrive at no firm resolution on the issue of whether a new Gentile convert had to be circumcised.
This was a difficult problem. There was no Scripture they could point to that predicted or allowed a rescinding of circumcision. In fact, since circumcision was first performed with Abraham 700 years before the Mosaic law was instituted, one might think that it had a special place in God's economy outside the Mosaic law. And to the Jews, the Torah was unchangeable. Further, there was no tradition for the apostles and elders to fall back on. The Talmud, the Mishnah, and all oral teaching never even suggested that the act of circumcision could be rescinded.
Notwithstanding, Acts 15:7 records Peter standing up and addressing the apostles and elders. Three times in this speech he invokes the name of God to back up his single authority to speak on this issue and make a decision for the whole Church. In verse 7 he says that God choose him, singularly, to give the gospel to the Gentiles. In Acts 15:10 he ridicules those who are pressing for circumcision by accusing them of affronting God and placing an undue yoke upon new believers. Peter concludes in verse 11 by declaring the doctrine of salvation - that men are saved by grace, not works of law, and only after that, does Jams stand up, as bishop of Jerusalem, and cite Amos 9:11-12. There is nothing in Acts 15 to support the formal sufficiency of Scripture.
Such a view of ecclesiology is inconsistent with your Evangelical view, as well as showing that sola scriptura is anti-biblical.
Hopefully you will reject the false gospel of Evangelical Protestantism that you embraced before it is too late (Gal 1:6-9; cf. Heb 6:4-6; 10:26-29).
Email no. 8
From: Dave Bartosiewicz
To: Robert Boylan
Date: 17/072016
Actually, I along with millions upon millions believe you as a Mormon are the one deceived. Good Day, I have no further desire to go in the direction you would like for me to go. I have much better things to do and that is furthering the spread of the Gospel of Jesus, not Mormonism. It's obvious, you only believe it's through Joseph that one can truly be saved and be with God in His Kingdom. I am with the Bible on the fact that the Body of Christ, His Bride is His Church and it is not your faith through Joseph. Therefore, you can continue to do what you do, I really don't care. Good luck and God Bless You Robert. Have a Guinness for me, it's a great drink there. Cheers!
P.S. It's that I can't discuss, I just know, it has no value for me and my time. Keep watching though...
Dave.
Email no. 9
From: Robert Boylan
To: Dave Bartosiewicz
Date: 17/07/2016
==Actually, I along with millions upon millions believe you as a Mormon are the one deceived.==
That is true; and several hundreds of millions of Roman Catholics also believe we are both wrong; does that mean that Rome is true? Heck, if you want to appeal to numbers, let us become Muslim.
Seemingly, unlike you, I prefer to go by sound exegesis and facts. Then again, considering your intellectual dishonesty, I am not surprised you would use such a lousy tactic.
==Good Day, I have no further desire to go in the direction you would like for me to go.==
I am sorry trying to get you, as a Protestant, to defend your theology in light of exegesis, is not a route you wish to go down, alongside defending your false claims. So much for 1 Pet 3:15, eh?
==I have much better things to do and that is furthering the spread of the Gospel of Jesus, not Mormonism.==
Actually, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is to be found within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not your flavour of Evangelicalism. Here is one quick example; in John 3:1-7, Jesus taught baptismal regeneration. You reject it, right? And yet, when one exegetes this text and examines history, the modern interpretation, which originated with Calvin and Zwingli, is not just anti-biblical, it is opposed to history.
==It's obvious, you only believe it's through Joseph that one can truly be saved and be with God in His Kingdom. I am with the Bible on the fact that the Body of Christ, His Bride is His Church and it is not your faith through Joseph.==
Using exegesis, I showed that Latter-day Saint ecclesiology, not your (very modern [the Reformers, esp. Calvin and his theological followers suchas Francis Turretin held a higher view of the "church" than you do]) is consistent with the Bible. After all, the apostle Paul referred to the Church as the ground and pillar of the truth (1 Tim 3:15) and it was the church and its leadership that made the dogmatic decision about circumcision and Gentile converts in Acts 15, as discussed in my previous email.
You also bring up some arguments against the LDS view about the role of Joseph Smith; a Reformed Baptist friend of mine did the same, and I refuted him on these and other points--Joseph Smith Worship? Responding to Criticisms of the Role and Status of the Prophet Joseph Smith in Latter-day Saint Theology. Let me quote a relevant section:
Furthermore, one has to wonder how Bobby would react to passages where mortal persons are said to have spiritually begotten believers? Would the apostle Paul fall under the same condemnation Bobby places under the Latter-day Saint view of Joseph Smith that is, depreciating the efficacy of the atoning work of Christ?
For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. (1 Cor 4:15)
The underlying Greek of the phrase in bold is ἐν γὰρ Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ἐγὼ ὑμᾶς ἐγέννησα. It is through the human instrumentality of the apostle Paul believers were begotten (εγεννησα the indicative aorist of γενναω, "I [Paul] have begotten [you]") through (δια) the gospel.
In Phlm 1:10, Paul wrote:
I beseech thee [Philemon] for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds.
Paul teaches that he (spiritually) fathered (εγεννησα "I have begotten") the slave Onesimus. Now, if Gilpin were consistent, he would he arguing that Paul was an anti-Christ, as he was clearly teaching "no salvation in Christ without Paul!" Of course, he won't be consistent, but that only shows how fallacious his hermeneutic is, as well as his approach to "Mormonism" is with respect to his own theology (inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument, after all). In reality, God uses human instrumentality, as well as other instruments, even in the meeting out of salvation and the efficacious benefits of the atonement, something that is consistent with both biblical and Latter-day Saint theology (e.g., as seen in the theology of baptism in Acts 2:38 [and all throughout the New Testament], where water baptism is the instrumental means of one having one’s sins remitted). This is entirely consistent with Latter-day Saint and biblical theology (cf. 2 Nephi 1:24; 3:24; Mosiah 23:30; 27:36; Alma 1:8; 2:30; 17:9, 11; 26:3, 15; 29:9; 35:14; 3 Nephi 22:16 D&C 111:2; 112:1 for expressions of this theological concept in uniquely LDS Scriptural texts). It is not a case of Jesus being insufficient; instead, it is following the entirety of biblical teaching on soteriology and related fields. On this score, Latter-day Saints are on firmer exegetical grounds biblically than Reformed Baptists.
Using the same rhetoric you employ, the New Testament doe not teach salvation through Christ, but faith through the apostle Paul 8-)
==Therefore, you can continue to do what you do, I really don't care.==
I will continue to refute your false theology and lies about the LDS Church. The very fact that you don’t care shows you are unregenerate and, alas, under the condemnation, not just of Gal 1:6-9, but, unless you repent, that of Rev 21:8 and like-texts, too.
==P.S. It's that I can't discuss, I just know, it has no value for me and my time. Keep watching though...==
I beg to differ; it is because you can’t. In none of the videos I have watched have you shown any familiarity with the basics of the historical-grammatical method of exegesis, and you assume things I am confident, exegetically, you cannot prove (e.g., the formal sufficiency of the Protestant canon of the Bible [sola scriptura]; forensic justification, etc).