In a video, "Mormons and Christians "How are we made Righteous before God?" Dave Bartosiewicz attacks the LDS (and biblical) view of Justification with his false Protestant theology and faulty presuppositions, many of which have been dealt with in my previous responses to him, including this one, "Why Latter-day Saints cannot believe Evangelical Protestantism is True: A Response to Dave Bartosiewicz." Just as his (false) a priori assumption of sola scriptura severely damages his exegetical abilities, his (equally false) a priori assumption that justification is forensic and by faith alone is false. But don’t take my words for it; take consider the following from a leading scholar of Pauline New Testament texts and theology whose work has refuted the concept Paul taught forensic justification:
I contend that even if on occasion δικαι- terms are forensic, in Paul at least, the terms do not refer to the Last Judgment. Paul does not, in fact, use δικαι- terms (in conjunction with “faith”), however, does not evoke any judgment that determine one’s eternal destiny. The issue does not need to be whether the terms (in conjunction with “faith0 are forensic, but whether they refer specifically to the Last Judgment. Paul’s use of the δικαι- terms to embrace both the notions of (1) forgiveness, cleansing, and purification of past sins and (2) an emancipation from sin as a ruler over humanity. The various δικαι- terms all refer to the same quality or effect of Jesus’ death on the believer. In other words, despite their grammatical distinctions, δικαιοσυνη, δικαιος, δικαωσις, and even δικαιοω all have the same sense; therefore, the best rendering of δικαιοσυνη is “righteousness,” of δικαιος, “righteous,” and of δικαιοω, “make righteous.” (Chris VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2006], 245-46; emphasis added; see the entire chapter, Chapter 4: “Justification by Faith”—A Mistranslated Phrase and Misunderstood Concept [pp. 242-332] for a full-length refutation of the historical Protestant understanding of “justification”).
Commenting on a long-standing “proof-text” for sola fide, Rom 3:21-26, VanLandingham writes that:
The verb δικαιοω can be causative, because aside from the fact that the –οω verbs normally are (as φανερω in 3:21), the verb most often renders the causative hip’il of צדק in the Septuagint. In this case, it would mean “to make δικαιος.” Admittedly, δικαιοω does not often have this sense; however, as previously stated, this rendering fits very well in Ps 72:13 (LXX); Luke 18:14; Rom4:5; 1 Cor 6:11; and Jas 2:21, 24, 25, and with a nearly synonymous meaning in T. Sim. 6:1; Sir 26:29; and Acts 13:38-39. The causative sense also works well; but considering that Paul uses the verb synonymously with the δικαι- terms (δικαιος, δικαιοσυνη) that occur in the proof-texts of Hab 2:4 and Gen 15:6, it makes the most sense that here δικαιοω means “to make δικαιος.” Paul uses the verb as a convenient way to indicate the transferal of believers from a state of unrighteousness to the state of righteousness. This transferal, of course, is precisely what Paul says in Rom 5:19: “By means of obedience of the one, the many will be made righteous” (δίκαιοι κατασταθήσονται) (Ibid., 320-31)
Such a view of the δικαι- word group (and its Hebrew equivalent, the צדק – word group) can be found all throughout the Hebrew OT and the LXX and Greek NT. Consider, for example, Psa 73:13 (LXX 72:13 [referenced above by VanLandingham]):
Verily I have cleansed (δικαιοω) my heart in vain, and washed my hands in innocency.
Similarly, the Hebrew term “to justify” (צדק), which is the word usually translated with δικαιοω in the LXX, can also mean “purify”:
And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed (צדק).
As Derek Flood, in his book, Healing the Gospel: A Radical Vision for Grace, Justice, and the Cross (Eugene, Oreg.: Cascade Books, 2012), pp. 103-104 notes:
Even where dikaioo appears to mean “declare righteous” linguistically in Romans, I would argue that it nevertheless always includes the restorative sense of God making-righteous the unrighteous in Paul’s thought. We can see this connection explicitly drawn out in Romans 5 where Paul juxtaposes two parallel formulations:
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification (dikaoisis) and life for all people. (v.18)
For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. (v. 19)
Here we can see that, whatever Paul understands dikaioo to mean, he directly connotes that meaning with our being “made righteous” in this parallel verse. The NET renders the Greek dikaiosin zoes (literally “the making right of/from life”) as “righteousness leading to life” (v. 18). Justification is an act of God that results in life because it “makes righteous.”
When Paul says that “God justifies the ungodly,” he is not proposing [that] God is a participant in the kind of legal fiction that the Old Testament expressly condemns [Isa 5:23; Exo 23:7]. Indeed, one of Pau’s central points in Romans is to demonstrate that God was not unjust in showing mercy to sinners rather than punishing them. The way that God demonstrates justice is not by acquitting the unrighteous, but by making them good. It is a gospel of God’s act of restorative justice in us. God’s actions are life-giving and transforming.
Reformed Presbyterian Phillip Schaff, author of the impressive 8-vol. History of the Christian Church, while often defending the Reformed understanding of soteriology and other issues, eventually admits the fact that –οω verbs in Greek have a transformative, not only a mere declarative, sense behind them, in vol. 7, p. 104 n. 139, states (italics in original; comment in square brackets my own for clarification):
Modern exegesis has justified this [declarative] view of δικαιόω and δικαίωσις, according to Hellenistic usage, although etymologically the verb may mean to make just, i.e., to sanctify, in accordance with verbs in όω (e.g. δηλόω φανερόω, τυφλόω,(i.to make manifest, etc.)
A study of these verbs Schaff references supports this admission. The word δηλοω appears seven times in the epistles, always denoting a recognition of an actual manifestation (1 Cor 1:11; 3:13; Col 1:18; Heb 9:8; 12:27; 1 Pet 1:11; 2 Pet 1:14); φανεροω appears fifty times in the Greek NT, denoting the same (e.g., 1 Cor 4:5; 1 Tim 3:16); τυφοω appears three times in the NT, always denoting actual blindness (John 14:40; 2 Cor 4:4; 1 John 2:11).
Another verb, among many, one could add to Schaff’s lit that also supports this meaning is the verb τυφοω, meaning “to be puffed up”—it is used three times in the NT, and always refers, not merely to the declared state of a person, but their intrinsic qualities, too (1 Tim 3:15; 6:4; 2 Tim 3:4).
In both soteriological and non-soteriological contexts, -οω verbs do not have a mere declarative sense; only by engaging in special pleading can one claim that such is the case when δικαιοω is used in soteriological contexts. This is just another piece of evidence against various Protestant understandings of Sola Fide and the forensic nature of justification.
In his seminal Theological Lexicon of the New Testament (trans. James D. Ernest; 3 vols.: Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1994), 1:340-42, Ceslas Spicq wrote the following which agrees with what Schaff wrote:
Several times St. Paul uses dikaoō in its forensic OT sense, “declare or acknowledge to be just,” especially when he is quoting the OT, but it would be wrong to extend this meaning to all the texts. In the first place, this would be to forget that “verbs in –oō mean to make whatever the root indicates. Thus dikaoō should properly mean ‘make just.’ This meaning is not found in secular Greek for rather natural reasons.’”[86] In the second place, it would overlook the fact that St. Paul, as a converted Pharisee, perceived as no one else did the opposition between the new covenant and the old covenant, law and grace, circumcision and baptism, and perhaps especially the inefficacy of the old legal dispensation compared to the efficacy and realism of the dispensation of salvation centered on the cross of Jesus. The consequence is a radical change in ideas concerning righteousness/justification, as is seen in the frequent linking of the verb “justify” with faith in Christ and in the explicit contrast between justification and the works of the law; there is a different scheme or process for attributing justice/righteousness in the new covenant than in the old covenant. The apostle gives dikaoō a causative sense, as appears from Rom 3:24—“All have sinned and come short of the glory of God (cf. Rom 8:30; 2 Cor 3:18; 5:21); (henceforth) they are justified (present passive participle, dikaioumenoi) freely by his grace, through the redemption (apolytrōsis) that is in Jesus Christ.” God has shown his mercy, but not by pronouncing acquittal pure and simple; through Christ a price was paid, a ransom (lytron) with expiatory value (cf. verse 25: hilastērion), so that “sinners” have become just, have been made truly righteous.[87] Another clear text is Rom 3:26-“to show his justice/righteousness (his salvific action), so that (it might be established that) he himself is just and that he justifies (present active participle, dikaiounta) the one who has faith in Jesus”: the just God communicates his justice/righteousness and makes just.[88]
Notes for the Above
[86] M.J. LaGrange, La Justification selon saint Paul, Revue Biblique 1914, p. 121
[87] “The sacrifice of Christ has satisfied once and for all the demands for outward justice which God had deposited in the Law, and at the same time it has brought the positive gift of life and inward justice which the latter was unable to give” (P. Benoit, Exégèse et théologie, vol. 2 p. 39 n. 2); c. Rom 5:18—“justification gives life.” The best commentary is the Trinitarian baptismal text on the “bath of regeneration and renewal” (Titus 3:7), “so that having been justified by the grace of this (Jesus Christ) our Savior (ἵνα δικαιωθέντες τῇ ἐκείνου χάριτι), we might become . . . heirs . . . of eternal life”: the aorist passive participle denotes the present state of this new and internal righteousness that permits entry into heaven, where nothing impure may go in. C. H. Rosman, “Iusticicare (δικαιουν) est verbum causalitatis,” in Verbum Domini, 1941, pp. 144-147.
[88] Cf. Rom 4:5—“The one who has no works but who believes in the One who justifies (δικαιουντα) the ungodly, will have his faith counted as righteousness.” M.J. Legrange (on this verse) comments: “δικαιοω in the active cannot mean ‘forgive’: it has to be ‘declare just’ or ‘make just.’ That God should declare the ungodly righteous is a blasphemous proposition. But in addition, when would this declaration be made?” H.W. Heidland (TDNT, vol. 4, pp. 288-292) explains λογιζεσθαι: “Justification is not a fiction alongside the reality. If God counts faith as righteousness, man is wholly righteous in God’s eyes . . . He becomes a new creature through God’s λογιζεσθαι.”
Speaking of Christ and His glorious resurrection, the apostle Paul wrote:
Without any doubt, the mystery of our religion is great: He was revealed in flesh, vindicated in spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among Gentiles, believed in throughout the world, taken up in glory (1 Tim 3:16 NRSV)
The underlining Greek translated as “vindicated” is ἐδικαιώθη, the indicative aorist passive of the verb δικαιοω. While one can (correctly) argue that δικαιοω has the meaning of "vindicated," it also shows that the verb also has a transformative sense too, by the mere fact that Christ in His resurrection was literally transformed from a state of death to a state of life.
To appreciate how pathetically weak the Protestant arguments are, consider Calvin's commentary on 1 Tim 3:16 where he desperately tries to support forensic justification therefrom:
To appreciate how pathetically weak the Protestant arguments are, consider Calvin's commentary on 1 Tim 3:16 where he desperately tries to support forensic justification therefrom:
Justified in the Spirit. As the Son of God "emptied himself," (Php 2:7), by taking upon him our flesh, so there was displayed in him a spiritual power which testified that he is God. This passage has received various interpretations; but, for my own part, satisfied with having explained the Apostle’s real meaning, as far as I understand it, I shall add nothing more. First, justification here denotes an acknowledgment of divine power; as in Ps 19:9 where it is said, that
"the judgments of God are justified,"
that is, are wonderfully and absolutely perfect; and in Ps 51:4, that "God is justified," meaning that the praise of his justice is illustriously displayed. So also, (Mt 11:19, and Lu 7:35,), when Christ says, that
"Wisdom hath been justified by her children,"
he means that they have given honor unto her; and when Luke (Lu 7:29) relates that the publicans "justified God," he means that they acknowledged, with due reverence and gratitude, the grace of God which they beheld in Christ. What we read here has, therefore, the same meaning as if Paul had said, that he who appeared clothed with human flesh was, at the same time, declared to be the Son of God, so that the weakness of the flesh made no diminution of his glory.
Under the word Spirit, he includes everything in Christ that was divine and superior to man; and he does so for two reasons: First, because he had been humbled in "the flesh," the Apostle now, by exhibiting the illustration of his glory, contrasts "the Spirit" with "the flesh." Secondly, that glory, worthy of the only-begotten Son of God, which John affirms to have been seen in Christ, (Joh 1:14), did not consist in outward display, or in earthly splendor, but was almost wholly spiritual. The same form of expression is used by him, (Ro 1:3-4),
"Who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared by the power of the Spirit to be the Son of God;"
but with this difference, that in that passage he mentions one kind of manifestation, namely, the resurrection.
We can see how desperate Calvin is to force forensic justification into (1) this verse and (2) the cognate terms for δικαιοω.
Firstly, texts such as Psa 19:9 are not soteriological in nature.
Secondly, notice that Psa 19:9 and other like-verses actually refute Calvin's soteriology. How? In Reformed theology, justification is a legal declaration wherein one is declared "justified" or "righteous" based, not on an intrinsic or infused righteousness, but an imputed/alien righteousness--that is, the person is not actually righteous/justified, whence Luther's "simul iustus et peccator" (sinful and just at the same moment). However, God's judgments are not merely "declared" righteous, they truly are righteous. Indeed, this leads to a problem that permeates much of Protestantism--an "either-or" fallacy; just as Protestants are "either-or" with respect to faith and works, they are "either-or" with respect to the meaning of δικαι-terms--it is either a legal declaration or something infused or intrinsic within the person (and the latter is always precluded)--it can be both, depending on the context. Indeed, even in contexts in both the OT and NT where the term is used in a legal context, it never means anything near the legal fiction meaning Protestant theology calls for (see this post discussing Lev 17:3-4 and Deut 25:1).
Thirdly, with respect to Matt 11:19 and its parallel in Luke 7:35, it is true that δικαιοω is used in a sense of "vindication." However, it is being used as a metaphor and, furthermore, is not being used in a soteriological context. It is only because the context of these verses does not concern themselves with justification and related issues. Something similar happens in English--if you refer to your wife as "the apple of my eye," such clearly uses "apple" in a metaphorical sense, not the "normative" sense of "apple"--to claim otherwise would result in utter inanity! Obviously, "wisdom" cannot be justified in a soteriological sense, as it is a virtue, so "justified" changes from its "normative" meaning to be accommodated to the metaphorical context it is used in.
As for 1 Tim 3:16 itself, such proves too much, as it shows that δικαιοω has, not just a legal/declarative meaning, but also a transformative meaning. As previously mentioned, the underlining Greek translated as “vindicated” is ἐδικαιώθη, the indicative aorist passive of the verb δικαιοω. While one can (correctly) argue that δικαιοω has the meaning of "vindicated," it also shows that the verb also have a transformative sense too, by the mere fact that Christ in His resurrection was literally transformed from a state of death to a state of life.
While much more could be said, it is rather clear that the interpretation of 1 Tim 3:16 and the nature of justification by Calvin, which is followed by many modern Calvinists and adherants of other flavours of Protestantism, rests on lousy exegetical skills in order to provide biblical support for forensic justification.
Finally, let us consider 1 Cor 6:9-11 and Rom 5:1--
1 Cor 6:9-11 reads:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, male prostitutes, sodmites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers--none of these will inherit the kingdom of god. And this is what some of you used to be. but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of God.
The verbs απολουω, αγιαζω, and δικαιοω are all in the aorist. The term “washed” is clearly a reference to baptism (cf. Acts 22:16; Titus 3:5); indeed, this text shows that both justification and sanctification are effected through baptism, another biblical proof of baptismal regeneration. What is significant, however, is that, not only is δικαιοω in the aorist tense, but so is the verb αγιαζω. Why? In Reformed theology, only justification is a once-for-all event; sanctification is an on-going process. However, Paul speaks of sanctification in the aorist. Absolutising this verse, as many do with Rom 5:1, means that one will have to hold that sanctification, too, is an external, once-for-all event that is static in the life of the believer (unless one wishes to hold to "Hyper-Calvinism").
Equally significant is that Paul treats "sanctification" and "justification" as virtually interchangeable--the context supports such an interchange, since it deals exclusively with the conduct of the Corinthian congregation, not the appropriation of an alien righteousness. The pericope also refutes the Reformed ordo salutis as one would expect "justified" to precede "sanctified," but the opposite occurs in the text (in fact, in the New Testament, the verb form δικαιοω never precedes αγιαζω).
As a final note on 1 Cor 6:9-11, there are many texts in the New Testament where the word "sanctified" or "sanctification" are used when one would expect to see "justified" or justification" (e.g., Acts 26:18; 1 Pet 1:2; 2 Thess 2:13; Heb 10:29).
With respect to Rom 5:1, Protestant apologists are guilty of reading too much into the use of δικαιοω being in the aorist passive participle (δικαιωθέντες).
The purpose of the Greek aorist participle is not to make a definitive statement that the justification only occurs in the past, but to indicate that the justification precedes, not in time but logical order, the distribution of the "peace" that Paul says we attain as a result of this justification. This makes perfectly logical sense as one cannot have peace with God unless one is justified.
In Rom 5:5, we read the following:
And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
Paul here uses the perfect passive tense for the verb εκχεω, which has strong sacrificial connotations in the LXX. The meaning of this tense is that the "pouring" is a completed act that has continuing effects in the future. When v. 1 is read in light of this verse, one can conclude that, just as God can perform an independent act of pouring love into our hearts in the past and continue to do such in the present and future, so God can begin our justification at a specific time in the past but continue to manifest and increase it throughout our lives.''
This chapter in Romans also proves our case about justification being transformative wherein we “become” righteousness, and not merely declared to be righteousness based on an alien righteousness. Consider Rom 5:19:
The verb “to be made” in this verse is καθιστημι, which means “to constitute.” It does not have the meaning of merely legally declaring something to be “x” without it actually being “x.” Compare the following usages of the verb in the New Testament:
Furthermore, no one doubts that one is more than just “declared” to be a sinner; one is actually a sinner and is sinful intrinsically; it would break the parallel between “being a sinner” and “being righteous” in Rom 5:19 to introduce into it such a distinction that Reformed theology reads into this verse (that the former is a real, ontological category, but the latter is only a legal category). Therefore, those who are said to be righteous (δικαιος) are not simply placed into a legal category and labelled “righteous”; they are actually righteous.
This chapter in Romans also proves our case about justification being transformative wherein we “become” righteousness, and not merely declared to be righteousness based on an alien righteousness. Consider Rom 5:19:
For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous (δικαιος).
The verb “to be made” in this verse is καθιστημι, which means “to constitute.” It does not have the meaning of merely legally declaring something to be “x” without it actually being “x.” Compare the following usages of the verb in the New Testament:
Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made (καθιστημι) ruler over this household, to give them meat in due season? . . . Verily I say unto you, That he shall made (καθιστημι) ruler over all his goods. (Matt 24:45, 47)
And delivered [Joseph of Egypt] out of all his afflictions, and gave him favour and wisdom in the sight of Pharaoh king of Egypt; and he made him (καθιστημι) governor over Egypt and all his house . . .But he that did his neighbour wrong trust him away, saying, Who made (καθιστημι) thee a ruler and a judge over us? . . .This Moses whom they refused, saying, Who made (καθιστημι) thee a ruler and a judge? The same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the angel which appeared to him in the bush (Acts 7:10, 27, 35)
For every high priest taken from among men is ordained (καθιστημι) for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins. (Heb 5:1)
For the law maketh (καθιστημι) men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore. (Heb 7:28)
Furthermore, no one doubts that one is more than just “declared” to be a sinner; one is actually a sinner and is sinful intrinsically; it would break the parallel between “being a sinner” and “being righteous” in Rom 5:19 to introduce into it such a distinction that Reformed theology reads into this verse (that the former is a real, ontological category, but the latter is only a legal category). Therefore, those who are said to be righteous (δικαιος) are not simply placed into a legal category and labelled “righteous”; they are actually righteous.
Much more could be said (see one of my responses to Bartosiewicz here where I discuss, in part, water baptism being salvific, not a mere symbol, using John 3:1-7 and Acts 2:38 as exegetical proof for baptismal regeneration), it is it clear that Protestantism in general, and Dave Bartosiewicz, are on an exegetical/theological fishing trip but don't own fishing poles, nor do they even know how to fish in the first place.
"Therefore produce fruit worthy of repentance!" (Matt 3:8 [Lexham English Bible])
Many Evangelicals and David is no exception, takes umbrage with the fact that Latter-day Saints expect potential converts to display godly attitudes before being baptised and confirmed members of the Church. LDS teaching on this point is summed up in the fourth Article of Faith:
"Therefore produce fruit worthy of repentance!" (Matt 3:8 [Lexham English Bible])
Many Evangelicals and David is no exception, takes umbrage with the fact that Latter-day Saints expect potential converts to display godly attitudes before being baptised and confirmed members of the Church. LDS teaching on this point is summed up in the fourth Article of Faith:
We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion of the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
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)
In the Lukan parallel to the Matthean text, John the Baptist tells the crowd what some of these "fruits" are:
(1) Share food and clothing with their neighbour: ". . . He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none: and he that hath meat, let him do likewise" (Luke 3:11)
(2) Not to steal: " . . . Exact no more than that which is appointed you" (Luke 3:13)
(3) Not to steal, like, or complain (spoken to the soldiers, but such is a universal expectation and commandment): " . . . Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages" (Luke 3:14)
If one is to charge Latter-day Saints with a raw works-righteousness gospel, for the sake of consistency, they will have to charge John the Baptist with such, too.
One may object, citing the example of the Philippian jailer who was baptised without much prior preparation. The pertinent text is Acts 16:31-34:
And [Paul and Silas] said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptised, he and all his, straightway. And then he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.
One has to realise that the circumstances surrounding the baptism of the jailer are extraordinary--an earthquake releases Paul and Sila from jail, resulting in the jailer about to commit suicide as he would be held responsible for their escape. Upon pleading with him to stop, the jailer listens to the message of Paul and Silas and accepts the gospel message. Notwithstanding, Paul and Silas are still fugitives and the jailer is still answerable to his superiors, resulting in a paucity of preparation time, but the jailers still receive some preparation, viz. an early morning lesson on the rudiments of the Christian faith which results in his household coming to faith, too, and following such, they are baptised, as Paul knows that, not only is there scant possibility of seeing this jailer again due to his fugitive status, but also the essential/salvific nature of water baptism, Paul administered this ordinance in the middle of the night, but notwithstanding these extraordinary circumstances, we can be sure that Paul (and Silas) expected the jailer to have at least some meaningful knowledge of, and love for, God, as well as a genuine confession of sin before baptism, something Acts 16:32 witnesses to: "And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house" (1995 NASB).
Another potent example is the case of Cornelius, a Roman Centurion and “God-fearer” (a Gentile who associated with the synagogue). Listen to the descriptions of him before his conversion and entrance into the New Covenant:
A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave alms to the people and prayed to God always. He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius. And when he looked on him he was fraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God. (Acts 10:2-4)
In the above pericope, Cornelius’ devotion, alms, and prayers were received by God, not as dirty rags (or “menstrual garments” per the underlying Hebrew of Isa 64:6), but as a “memorial.” The Greek term used is μνημόσυνον. This is a technical term in the LXX, often used in the sense of a memorial sacrifice or a placard used to perpetuate memory of a person or an event (in the Torah alone, see Exo 3:15; 12:14; 13:9; 17;14; 28:12, 29; 30:16; Lev 2:2, 9, 16; 5:12; 6:8; 23:24; Num 5:26; 17:5; 31:54; Deut 32:26).
It is not unusual, however, to hear from some Protestant apologists that Cornelius was converted prior to Acts 10 and that such positive statements reflect the (imputed) righteousness of a saved person and their sanctified state. However, this is a rather desperate attempt to avoid the plain meaning of the episode (which reflects lip-service towards the perspicuity of Scripture).
In a recent volume, Kermit Zarley discusses the difficulty with this claim:
Luke has two decisive texts indicating Cornelius was not saved prior to meeting Peter. First, Luke says that soon after this Cornelius episode, “When peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him, saying, ‘Why did you go to the uncircumcised men and eat with them?’” (Acts 11:2-3). Peter then related that Cornelius “told us how he had seen the angel standing in his house and saying, ‘Send to Joppa and bring Simon, who is called Peter; he will give you a message by which you and your entire household will be saved’” (vv.13-14).
Second, Luke implies that at this time in Jerusalem, Peter spoke to “the apostles and the believers” (Acts 11:1). Then Luke says regarding what Peter said to them, “When they heard this, they were silenced. And they praised God, saying, ‘Then God has given even the Gentiles the repentance that leads to life’” (v.18).
Thus, Cornelius was not regenerated-saved prior to hearing Peter preach. (Kermit Zarley, Solving the Samaritan Riddle: Peter’s Kingdom Keys Explain Early Spirit Baptism [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stock, 2015], 137)
Again, Latter-day Saint theology is reflective of "biblical Christianity" while Evangelical Protestantism is inconsistent with the exegesis of the Bible.
Conclusion
As I have said before, Dave Bartosiewicz is good as producing "gottcha!"-type videos, but when he is held to the bar of sound exegesis, both he and his theology are shown to be both a false teach and a false gospel, neither of which should any true believer in Christ should trust, but instead reject (cf. Gal 1:6-9).
I should note that a mutual acquaintance of ours (myself and Bartosiewicz) has forwarded my replies to Bartosiewicz and has (as of writing), received no response, and for good reason--Bartosiewicz is incapable of mounting any exegetically sound defense of these pernicious, (ironically) anti-biblical doctrines; it is for that reason, I do not believe he would ever engage, at least in a public setting, an informed opponent.