Dave Bartosiewicz just released a new video, “The 1983 BOM Claims The Bible Is "The Fullness Of The Everlasting Gospel" But Not Now!” True to form, he shows his lack of intellectual integrity. Here is the video:
As usual, he packs many false claims and presuppositions into a short presentation.
This is not the first time Bartosiewicz has attempted to use the Book of Mormon in his critique of the LDS Faith; see my response to his paper, "How is the Book of Mormon the Word of God, if it was ABRIDGED and Edited?" to see how, to put things nicely, utterly facile his exegetical abilities and research skills are.
He harps on the fact that the introduction to the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon (he uses a 1983 printing of the text, thus the title of the video) reads, in part, as follows (emphasis added):
[The Book of Mormon] is a record of God's dealing with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel.
In the current (November 2013 printing) of the Book of Mormon, the introduction reads:
[The Book of Mormon] contains the fullness of the everlasting gospel.
The statement, in italics, is what Bartosiewicz focuses upon. He raises a number of objections, which one will deal with momentarily. However, it perhaps should be enough to note that the footnotes and introduction to both the Book of Mormon itself, as well as the introductions to the chapters were never presented as being authoritative by the committee (headed by Bruce McConkie) who produced them. Here is what Bruce McConkie himself wrote on the nature of the chapter headings to the LDS Scriptures:
[As for the] Joseph Smith Translation items, the chapter headings, Topical Guide, Bible Dictionary, footnotes, the Gazeteer, and the maps. None of these are perfect; they do not of themselves determine doctrine; there have been and undoubtedly now are mistakes in them. Cross-references, for instance, do not establish and never were intended to prove that parallel passages so much as pertain to the same subject. They are aids and helps only. (Mark McConkie, ed. Doctrines of the Restoration: Sermons and Writings of Bruce R. McConkie [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1989], 289-90 emphasis added)
Of course, in the video vis-à-vis the Bible and the “fullness of the gospel,” begs a number of important questions, including the definition of “gospel.” Bartosiewicz assumes (falsely) it means an explicit discussion of all things (he is reading his acceptance of formal sufficiency of the Bible back into terms—classical eisegesis!) In reality, scripture defines the gospel more narrowly.
The Book of Mormon itself is explicit that it contains only the lesser things (i.e., basic teachings) in 3 Nephi 26:1-12.
Many Latter-day Saints have also (correctly) pointed out that the term “gospel” simply means “good news,” and that the Book of Mormon defines the “gospel” in 3 Nephi 27:13-21 which records the very words of the resurrected Jesus Christ when He appeared in Mesoamerica after His resurrection:
Behold, I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me. And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works. And it shall come to pass, that whoso repent and is baptised in my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him will I hold guiltless before my Father at that day when I shall stand to judge the world. And he that endureth not unto the end, the same is he that is also hewn down and cast unto the fire, from whence they can no more return, because of the justice of the Father. And this is the word which he hath given unto the children of men. And for this cause he fulfilleth the words which he hath given, and he lieth not, but fulfilleth all his words. And no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; therefore nothing entereth into this rest save it be those who have washed their garments in my blood, because of their faith, and the repentance of all their sins, and their faithfulness unto the end. Now this is the commandment: Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me and be baptised in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day. Verily, verily, I say unto you, this is my gospel; and ye know the things that ye must do in my church; for the works which ye have seen me do that shall ye also do; for that which ye have seen me do even that shall ye do.
In the above pericope, the “gospel” is defined as being the good news about the life, divine mission, atoning sacrifice, triumphant resurrection, and further glorious final coming of Jesus Christ. As the Book of Mormon contains the most lucid explanations of the atonement of Jesus Christ (e.g. 2 Nephi 2; 9; Mosiah 15; Alma 34; 42), it qualifies as containing the fullness of the gospel.
In a number of revelations, the Lord commands the preaching of “the fullness of the gospel.” For instance, note these two texts from the Doctrine and Covenants, dating from 1836:
And cause that the remnant of Jacob, who have been cursed and smitten because of their transgression be converted from their wild and savage condition to the fullness of the everlasting gospel. (D&C 109:65)
And next spring let them depart to go over the great waters, and there promulgate my gospel, the fullness thereof, and bear record of my name. (D&C 118:4)
I find these two verses to be significant as they were revealed to Joseph Smith during a period of inscripturation, even according to opponents of the LDS Church. Obviously, during this time, various practices and doctrines were developing and were being revealed, and yet, Joseph Smith could command the preaching of the “fullness of the gospel” in 1836. One could argue that this is further evidence that the term does not mean “totality of doctrine and practices,” but a simpler concept, as outlined above.
Some opponents charge that D&C 42:12 teaches the Bible contains the fullness of the gospel and therefore the Book of Mormon is superfluous, even according to LDS teachings. The verse reads as follows:
And again, the elders, priests, teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fullness of the gospel.
This is a rather superficial reading of the verse. The Bible is coupled with the Book of Mormon (note the use of the coordinating conjunction “and”), so the “fullness of the gospel” is either being said of the Book of Mormon alone or the Book of Mormon coupled with the Bible.
Even the New Testament defines the "gospel" more narrowly than Bartosiewicz does:
Now I would remind you, brothers and sisters, of the good news that I proclaimed to you, which you in turn received, in which also you stand, through which also you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message that I proclaimed you--unless you have come to believe in vain. For I handed on to you as of first importance what I turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures. (1 Cor 15:1-4 NRSV)
Another example would be how, in the gospels, Jesus and his followers are said to preach the gospel of the kingdom (e.g., Matt 4:23; 9:35), but it is only after this gospel preaching is inaugurated that Jesus reveals that He would have to die (Matt 16:21)!
Bartosiewicz makes a number of comments that are not based on sound exegesis, but his false a priori assumption of sola scriptura. For instance, even allowing for the Bible to contain the fullness of the gospel (more on the meaning of this phrase momentarily) doesn’t necessitate a cessation of special revelation/more inscripturated revelation. Even if the Bible contains the fullness of the gospel, to claim that there is no need for additional scripture is errant on many counts; firstly, sola scriptura is not in the Bible. I challenge Bartosiewicz to show me where the Bible teaches that the Bible is formally sufficient. To understand the impossibility of this simple request, consider the following:
Evangelical James White admits: “Protestants do not assert that Sola Scriptura is a valid concept during times of revelation. How could it be, since the rule of faith to which it points was at the very time coming into being?” (“A Review and Rebuttal of Steve Ray's Article Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura,” 1997, on web site of Alpha and Omega Ministries). By this admission, White has unwittingly proven that Scripture does not teach Sola Scriptura, for if it cannot be a “valid concept during times of revelation,” how can Scripture teach such a doctrine since Scripture was written precisely when divine oral revelation was being produced? Scripture cannot contradict itself. Since both the 1st century Christian and the 21st century Christian cannot extract differing interpretations from the same verse, thus, whatever was true about Scripture then also be true today. If the first Christians did not, and could not extract sola scriptura from Scripture because oral revelation was still existent, then obviously those verses could not, in principle, be teaching Sola Scriptura, and thus we cannot interpret them as teaching it either. (“Does Scripture teach Sola Scriptura?” in Robert A. Sungenis, ed. Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura [2d ed: Catholic Apologetics International: 2009], pp. 101-53, here p. 118 n. 24]
Additionally, using his “logic,” this is a disproof of the hypostatic union, as Jesus cannot be 100% God and 100% man, as one cannot have two “fullnesses,” as he claims.
Furthermore, he asks this question:
What's the purpose of [the LDS Church] claiming to be the only true Church? Doesn't make sense to me
The reason such does not make sense is not due to any problems with the Book of Mormon or the LDS Church; instead, it is due to his deficient ecclesiology, an issue that plagues much of modern Evangelicalism (the Reformers and their followers [e.g., Calvin; Beza; Turretin; the Westminster and London Confessions of Faith] held a higher view of ecclesiology unlike their modern spiritual descendants).
We 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 (Paul’s letters were not inscripturated at the time, so Romans and Galatians cannot be logically used to nullify this [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 James 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.
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 James 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.
Bartosiewicz harps on about the message of salvation in the Bible. However, the Bible, when exegeted, refutes, not supports, his Protestant soteriology. See, for instance, Dave Bartosiewicz vs. Transformative Justification and Why Latter-day Saints cannot believe Evangelical Protestantism is True: A Response to Dave Bartosiewicz which examines his theology in light of the historical-grammatical method of exegesis and finds it both wanting and under the anathema of Gal 1:6-9, being a false gospel.
While much more could be said, it is again clear that Dave Bartosiewicz is not only lacking in intellectual integrity, but is lacking in exegetical and theological skills. As I said before, he is good at making "gottcha"-type videos, but his arguments cannot hold water when examined critically by an informed opponent.
