In this video, Dave Bartosiewicz argues that that "Jesus paid for your sins." However, true to form, there are no biblical texts nor exegesis thereof offered--NONE--to support this concept of the atonement (penal substitution). There is a reason for that—it is anti-biblical. You can watch the video here:
The closest it comes to any such notion is 1 Cor 6:20’s “you have been bought with a price.” But 1 Cor 6:20 doesn’t state what the price is or that Christ paid for our sins in full. It is a metaphor for what Christ did. The question is: what did Christ do? Did he pay the full price for sin? If so, then no one should be going to hell, since the full price for sin has been paid, forcing a Protestant to (1) teach limited atonement or (2) hold to a double-jeopardy view of God's justice (Jesus legally paid the price that the condemned sinner themselves will have to pay in an eternity in hell).
For a full discussion of common "proof-texts" for this theory of atonement, see a previous response I wrote to Bartosiewicz, Why Latter-day Saints cannot believe Evangelical Protestantism is True: A Response to Dave Bartosiewicz, beginning at the section entitled "John 19:30." See also Dave Bartosiewicz vs. Transformative Justification where it is shown the Bible teaches that justification, not just sanctification, is transformative and not forensic)
In the soteriology of the Bible, one's works will play a role in salvation. Take, for instance, the various final judgment scenes in the New Testament that stress that one's works, not faith (let alone "faith alone" [regardless of the variations of that view--there are multitudinous variations within both historical and modern Protestantism]) will decide, not simply one's rewards in the hereafter, but one's eternal destiny (e.g., 1 Cor 3:11-16; 2 Cor 5:10; Rev 20:12-13).
For instance, take the words of Jesus as recorded in John 5:24-29 (Protestants tend to cite only v. 24 as the rest disproves their thesis):
Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself. And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of Man. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice. And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. (John 5:24-29)
The believer’s basis for being saved in this eschatological judgement is not based on an appropriation of an imputed, external righteousness appropriated by faith alone but by one’s “good deeds” (Greek: οἱ τὰ ἀγαθὰ ποιήσαντες), just the “evil deeds” (Greek: τὰ φαῦλα πράξαντες [alt. the worthless deeds/performances]) with the outcome being eternal life vs. eternal death. Such is part-and-parcel of New Testament soteriology, such as 2 Cor 5:10:
For we must all reappear before the judgement seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things everyone may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
Such texts, which could be multiplied, proof that good works are not merely the fruits of one being in a “saved” state, but decide one’s eternal destiny. For a detailed discussion of this and other key themes in Pauline soteriology, see Chris VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul (Hendrickson, 2006). Sola Fide is not in view in John 5:24-29 and other similar texts when read in their context.
For instance, commenting on 2 Cor 5:10, VanLandingham (ibid., pp. 202, 203) writes:
[T]he context of 2 Cor 5:10 hints that this judgment involves more than just rewards or the lack of rewards. Paul bases his paraenesis in verse 9, "we make it our aim to please him," on the threat of judgment in verse 10. This appeal appears nonsensical if no real threat of punishment exists. Of course, it is difficult to say how one would be punished in the resurrected state (i.e., apart from damnation); but that difficulty does not preclude Paul from conceiving punishment. All the available contemporary Jewish texts that discuss punishment in the afterlife consider damnation as that punishment. Likewise, every Pauline text that bases paraenesis for proper behavoior on the prospect of judgment involves the threat of damnation. Paul may have had a change of mind on many issues as a result of his faith in Jesus as the messiah, but there is no evidence that his conception of the Last Judgment is fundamentally different from that of other Jews.
Finally, verse 11 also points in this direction: "Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we try to persuade others." Though not all agree, it is most likely that ουν points back to the prospect of judgment mentioned in verse 10. The familiar biblical phrase "the fear of the Lord" highlights the judgment's possible negative outcome. Several other texts from the New Testament help provide the conceptual background here:
Fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matt 10:28)
Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. (Phil 2:12; cf. 2 Cor 7:1)
"The Lord will judge his people." it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (Heb 10:28)
Fear God and give him glory, for the hour of his judgment has come. (Rev 14:7)
. . .
A few other passages in 2 Corinthians support this line of interpretation:
As we work together with him, we urge you also not to accept the grace of God in vain. (6:1)
Examine yourselves to see whether you are living in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not realize that Jesus Christ is in you?--unless, indeed, you fail to meet the test! (13:5)
So it is not strange if his [Satan's] ministers also disguise themselves as ministers of righteousness. Their end will match their deeds. (11:15, but admittedly this passage is about non-Christians) . . .
Paul struggles with the Corinthians' resisting his leadership; and from the context of 6:1 and from what can be gleaned elsewhere (especially 11:1-6, 13-15; 13:3), it appears Paul equates this resistance with apostasy. The proximity of this passage to 5:10 suggests that Paul may regard this attitude as τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος πρὸς ἃ ἔπραξεν, for which each one will receive recompense at the Last Judgment. This consequence, nevertheless, goes beyond the argument that ethical failure leads to condemnation at the Last Judgment-few would disagree that apostasy meets with God's rejection.
On 1 Cor 3:15 and the overwhelming problems it poses to Evangelical soteriology, see my article, 1 Corinthians 3:15: A very un-Protestant Biblical Verse.
In the video, he (again, assumes with no exegesis offered) that we are imputed with Christ's righteousness, appealing to the clothing metaphor in Scripture. Firstly, the clothing metaphor refutes, not supports, such blasphemous legal fiction. Why? Well, if if being clothed in righteousness means that the righteousness one possesses is not their own (whether intrinsically or through infusion), but an imputed one from an alien source, that means that Yahweh's qualities of honour, strength, and majesty are not actually His intrinsically but are merely imputed to him from an external source(!) Notice the following texts:
The Lord reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the Lord is clothed with strength, wherewith he had girded himself; the world also is stablished, that is cannot be moved. (Psa 93:1)
Bless the Lord, O my soul. O Lord my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. (Psa 104:1)
In reality, Yahweh is said to be "clothed" with majesty, strength, and honour as such an image is a potent outward sign of an inward reality; the same is said when the concept is used of believers. There is nothing in support of imputed righteousness in this concept.
In reality, when one examines the alleged biblical "proofs" for this concept, we find that the opposite is true. For instance, when one examines the verb λογιζομαι (to reckon/credit/account), we find that it refers to a mental representation of the reality one is commenting on (see my 7-part series examining this verb in light of Koine Greek literature contemporary with the New Testament); the same applies for Gen 15:6 and the justification of Abraham.
When one examines Rom 4, one of the “go-to” passages, we find that it refutes Protestant theology on this matter. Why? According to Protestant theology, what is “credited” to a person is an alien (i.e., Christ’s) righteousness; however, in the teaching of Paul in the text itself, it is not an alien righteousness that is reckoned to the believer. In Rom 4:9 we read (emphasis added):
Ο μακαρισμὸς οὖν οὗτος ἐπὶ τὴν περιτομὴν ἢ καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν ἀκροβυστίαν; λέγομεν γάρ· ἐλογίσθη τῷ Ἀβραὰμ ἡ πίστις εἰς δικαιοσύνην
Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? For we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
The “blessedness” of Abraham (his “justification”), who is one of two proto-types Paul is using of a justified individual (the other is David [discussed below]) is not based on imputed righteousness, but Abraham’s faith. Indeed, based on the strict grammar of the Greek of this verse and Rom 4:5, 22 refute Reformed soteriology and its understanding of the “ground” of justification.
On Rom 4:5, as one leading Koine Greek lexicographer wrote:
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.” (Celsius Spicq, Theological Lexicon of the New Testament [trans. James D. Ernest; 3 vols.: Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1994], 1:342 n. 88)
As previously mentioned, Paul, in Rom 4, uses two Old Testament figures as examples of an individual justified by God--Abraham (through his use of Gen 15:6) and Kind David (through his use of Psa 32). We have discussed Abraham's justification, and how such refutes, not supports, the Reformed view of justification (cf. this discussion on Rom 4:9 and this study on λογιζομαι).
In Rom 4:5-8, we read the following:
But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness. So also David speaks of the blessedness of those to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works: "Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the one against whom the Lord will not reckon sin." (NRSV)
In the above pericope, Paul quotes from Psa 32:1 (cf. Psa 52:1); the entire psalm reads as follows:
Happy are those whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Happy are those to whom the Lord imputes no iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit. While I kept silence, my body wasted away through my groaning all day long. For day and night your hand was heavy upon me; my strength was dried up as by the heat of summer. Selah. Then I acknowledged my sin to you, and I did not hide my iniquity; I said, "I will confess my transgressions to the Lord," and you forgave the guilt of my sin. Selah. Therefore let all who are faithful offer prayer to you at a time of distress, the rush of mighty waters shall not reach them. You are a hiding place for me; you preserve me from trouble; you surround me with glad cries of deliverance. Selah. I will instruct you and teach you the way you should go; I will counsel you with my eye upon you. Do not be like a horse or mule without understanding, whose temper must be curbed with bit and bridle, else it will not stay near you. Many are the torments of the wicked but steadfast love surrounds those who trust in the Lord. Be glad in the Lord and rejoice, O righteous, and shout for joy, all you upright in heart. (NRSV)
In this psalm, David is proclaiming God's forgiveness of his sins of adultery with Bathsheba and murder of her husband, Uriah the Hittite (2 Sam 11-12). God sent Nathan the prophet to convict David of his heinous sins, with Nathan's parable of the little ewe lamb resulting in David being brought to his knees in repentance.
Paul in Rom 4, alongside the example of Abraham, uses this as an example of an individual who was justified by God, linking the justification of Abraham previously discussed with that of David's through the use of the conjunction καθάπερ ("even/just as") in v. 6.
The crucial question is "Was Psa 32 the first time David was forgiven of his sins and justified?" The biblical answer, which refutes Reformed soteriology, is "no."
The Bible clearly shows us that David, prior to committing those heinous sins, was a justified person. In his youth, David called on the Lord to defeat Goliath (1 Sam 17). David was so close to God that in 1 Sam 13:14 (cf. Acts 13:22) is described as a man after God's own heart, hardly something said of an unsaved person! Indeed, David was truly a justified child of God many years prior to the Bathsheba incident. If David was not justified, he was not a man of God, but a pagan idolater feigning belief in God in how he had lived his life prior to Psa 32 and had written earlier psalms before his encounter with Bathsheba in such a spiritually dead state with no true relationship with God.
As one writer put it:
We cannot escape the fact that Paul, in using the example of David in the context of justification, is saying not merely that David's sins were forgiven, but also that David was actually justified at this point. Paul, in Rm 4:5, underscores this fact both by speaking of "crediting righteousness" to David when he confessed his sin in Psalm 32, and by calling him a "wicked" person whom God must justify in order to return him to righteousness. We must understand, then, that a "crediting of righteousness" occurs at each point that one confesses his sins. Since this was not the first time David confessed sin before the Lord (which other Psalms verify, cf. Ps 25:7, 18; 51:5), he must have been "credited with righteousness" on each occasion of repentance. Since he was credited with righteousness upon repentance in Psalm 32, and since it is an established fact that he was not a man of God prior to his sin with Bathsheba, we must therefore consider all previous acts of repentance a "crediting of righteousness." (Robert A. Sungenis, Not by Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification [2d ed.; Catholic Apologetics International, 2009], 253)
Unless one wishes to accuse the apostle Paul of the grossest form of eisegesis (wrenching select passages of the psalter out of context), it is hard to escape that, based on sound exegesis, David lost his justification due to murder and adultery, and Psa 32 represents another justification (“re-justification” if you will) of David, per Paul’s soteriology. It also refutes the many variations on the doctrine of eternal security than many (not all) Protestants holds to. Such is utterly devastating to the anti-biblical theology of Dave Bartosiewicz.
Further biblical evidence against eternal security and its variations (e.g., Perseverance of the Saints [the “P” in TULIP]) comes from the following pericope:
For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, since on their own they are crucifying again the Son of God and are holding him up to contempt. Ground that drinks up the rain falling on it repeatedly, and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it produces thorns and thistles, it is worthless and on the verse of being cursed; its end is to be burned over. Even though we speak in this way, beloved, we are confident of better things in your case, things that belong to salvation. (Heb 6:4-9 NRSV)
This pericope is one of the most commonly cited texts against various theologies of “eternal security,” which states that no truly justified believer will ever lose their salvation. This text has caused no end of headaches for those who hold to “once saved, always saved” or other theories of eternal security (e.g. Perseverance of the Saints [the “P” of TULIP]), which has led to a lot of scripture-wrenching to defend this false doctrine that is alien to the teachings of the New Testament church and text.
According to v.6, the apostates described, prior to their falling away, are said to:
1. Have once been enlightened.
2. Have tasted the heavenly gift.
3. Have been partakers of the Holy Spirit.
4. Have tasted the good word of God.
5. (Tasted) the powers of the age to come.
Their sin is not merely being a backslider, but the sin against the Holy Spirit (cf. Matt 12:31; Mark 3:29; Luke 12:10), which in Latter-day Saint theology is also a grievous sin (D&C 132:26-27). Clearly, from the description above, we are talking about people who were truly "saved" or justified. For instance, in v.4, the word translated as "partakers” is the Greek μετοχος. This Greek term can be understood in the sense of a partner or a partaker, or even an associate, as can be seen in its other usages in this epistle:
Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore, God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows (μετοχος). (1:9)
Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers (μετοχος) of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus . . . For we are made partakers (μετοχος) of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence firm to the end. (3:1, 14)
But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers (μετοχος), then are ye bastards, and not sons. (12:8)
In addition to the perspicuity of this phrase, we also see the same people were once enlightened (Greek: φωτιζω) and again, in Hebrews, refers to true Christians:
But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated (φωτιζω), ye endured a great fight of afflictions. (10:32)
This of course raises an interesting question one has to answer--when does a person become enlightened or illuminated? According to John 1:4, we read:
In him [Christ] was life, and the life was the light of men.
Notice, spiritual life is the light, which a true believer, not one who has a false confession of faith (cf. 1 John 2:19).
Beyond this examination, we also see that the people described in vv.4-6 had also tasted the good word of God. The Greek word translated as "tasted" is γευομαι. According to various lexicons, it also carries the meaning of "to experience" (e.g. Louw-Nida). Notice how this term is used in Heb 2:9:
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory, and honour, that he by the grace of God should taste (γευομαι) death for every man.
From an analysis of the terms used to describe the apostates in view in this pericope, it is obvious from any meaningful exegetically-sound analysis, that they were true believers who were regenerated by the Spirit of God. To claim otherwise necessitates a purely eisegetical approach to the pericope.
Verse 8, which reads, "But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned," is another verse to be considered. The verse, describing the spiritual condition of these apostates, are said to be "near" (εγγυς) unto cursing, which is "to be burned." The Greek underlying the phrase, "to be burned" is καυσις which can mean "to be consumed [by fire]" and "being on fire," clearly showing that they are in danger of damnation at the final judgement.
There have been many attempts to downplay the soteriological significance of this text. The first would be to cite Heb 6:6 as it appears in the KJV (emphasis added):
If they shall fall away, to renew again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to open shame.
Some apologists for some theology of eternal security latch onto the use of the use of "if," claiming that this is clearly hypothetical, not a real-life situation. However, as discussed in this post, this is a KJV mistranslation--the Greek is not conditional; instead, it uses the aorist active participle of the verb παραπιτω (παραπεσοντας), correctly rendered by NIV, "who have fallen away."
It is not unusual for Calvinists and others to state that vv.4-6 were clearly hypothetical in light of v. 19, where Jesus is said to be our anchor. The verse reads as follows:
We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain. (NIV)
Firstly, it should be noted that it is the height of eisegesis to ignore the clear teachings of vv.4-6 in light and relegate it, without any exegetical basis, as merely hypothetical in light of this verse (examined below). Such only shows the Evangelical claim to teach and accept the “perspicuity of Scripture” to be a shell game.
Furthermore, the context shows that one's salvation is not "eternally secure," but a believer must persevere:
People swear by someone greater than themselves, and the oath confirms what is said and puts an end to all argument. Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath. God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope set before us may be greatly encouraged. (Heb 6:16-18 NIV)
The text highlights the fidelity of God to His covenant and His own self (cf. Tit 1:2). This would tie into all the texts in Hebrews that emphasise the perfection of Christ’s sacrifice, one that can completely remit past and then-present sins, unlike the iterative sacrifice of the Old Covenant (cf. Heb 9:9). In Heb 7:24-25, for instance, we read:
But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore h is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
However, just because God is faithful does not mean we will not cease being faithful, which is why there are admonitions permeating all of the Bible to true believers to remain faithful, warning of the great sin of true believers falling from their salvation. Note Heb 10:26:
For if we sin wilfully (αμαρτανοντων) after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for our sins.
The author of Hebrews includes himself in this warning, and those who fall under this condemnation are said to have no more sacrifice (θυσια) for their sins, indicating that a sacrifice for sins was, at one time, applied to them (i.e. Christ's sacrifice).
As for v. 19, this is another example of trying to formulate a systematic theology from a metaphor (cf. the use of "dead" in Eph 2:1 and elsewhere to "prove" Total Depravity by some Calvinists). Many lexical sources, when defining αγκυρα admit that it is used metaphorically in Heb 6:19. Note, for instance, Friberg's Lexicon (emphasis added):
ἄγκυρα, ας, ἡ literally anchor for a boat or ship, a heavy weight, usually of stone or metal, attached to a rope or chain and dropped overboard to keep a ship or boat from moving; metaphorically, of what provides security or support (HE 6.19)
In conclusion, the only sound exegetical reading of this pericope is that the author is describing real people who were truly regenerated, and who, due to committing grievous sins, lost their salvation. Furthermore, one can appreciate why this is often touted as being the definitive “proof” from Scripture of the falsity of many popular theologies of salvation within much of Evangelical Protestantism today, as it soundly refutes eternal security and its various formulations. It also shows the biblical basis for the Prophet Joseph Smith’s words in D&C 20:30-32 (emphasis added):
And we know that justification through the grace of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is just and true; And we know also that sanctification through the grace of our Lord and Savour Jesus Christ is just and true to all those who love and serve God, with all their mights, minds, and strength. But there is a possibility that man may fall from grace and depart from the living God.
Again, as with so many theological issues, “Mormonism” and “Biblical Christianity” are one and the same, with Dave Bartosiewicz’s flavour of Protestantism being proven to be the damnable false gospel that it truly is.
While much more could be said (much of which is covered in Why Latter-day Saints cannot believe Evangelical Protestantism is True: A Response to Dave Bartosiewicz as well as Dave Bartosiewicz vs. Transformative Justification), let us end with Jas 2 and “good works.”
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God and it was imputed to him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. (Jas 2:21-26)
This pericope clearly proves that good works, when done under the auspices of God’s grace, can be meritorious. However, Protestants claim that James in v.24 is merely speaking of Abraham “proving” or “vindicating” his once-for-all justification from Gen 15:6. However, this is fallacious:
(1) If James were teaching a concept of vindication, he could have chosen a word that solely and clearly refers to a vindication or exoneration, rather than a word that is commonly used and understood in Scripture to refer to salvific justification. Such words are commonplace in Koine Greek. For example, James could have used such words as δοκιμαζο, δεικνυμι, παριστημι, περιαζω, συμβιβαζω, φανερος.
(2) The addition of “and not by faith [alone]” in Jas 2:24 introduces a specific element and direction to James’ argument, for it clearly shows that his primary concern is to show that faith alone cannot justify a man, not merely to suggest that Abraham was vindicated by works. If his concern were to teach that works are added to faith only as a demonstration of a previous justification, there would be no reason to add “not by faith only,” for “faith [alone]” is not demonstrating anything in order to be negated, and thus it would be unnecessary to eliminate it from the works that are demonstrating
(3) If James were arguing for Abraham’s vindication, this line of argumentation would only make sense if in the context of Jas 2 one of James’ opponents had claimed that Abraham was “vindicated by his faith only.” If so, James would have easily refuted the argument by saying something to the effect of “you see, a person is vindicated by his works and not by faith alone.” But this phraseology would have required James to use the notion of “vindicated” in the early part of his argument (vv. 14-23) in order for him to use it in the latter part (v. 24); otherwise, the concept of vindication would have no referent in the context. Moreover, the syntactical structure of Jas 2:24 would require that the phrase “not by faith only” have its referent in “is vindicated,” and thus the text would have to mean: “you see, a man is vindicated by works and not vindicated by faith only.” It would assert that one is vindicated not only by faith but also by works. Consequently, by injecting the concept of vindication into Jas 2:24, the Protestant argument has actually done more damage to its case than would have otherwise occurred, for the concept of vindication must then apply to both faith and works, which then destroys faith itself as being salvific.
(4) The Protestant argument must assume that Paul and James are using two entirely different definitions of justification, the former referring to a forensic and salvific justification, the latter referring to a demonstrative vindication of a prior justification. But two definitions are unsupported by the context. This is noted as James quotes from Gen 15:6 (“And [Abraham] believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him for righteousness”) in Jas 2:23. Gen 15:6 is the same passage from which Paul quotes in Rom 4:3. The Greek word for “righteousness” in both passages is δικαιοσυνη. Since both James and Paul quote from Gen 15:6, both must have the same definition and understanding of the word δικαιοσυνη. That being the case, it would be totally incongruous for James to suddenly inject a different meaning of δικαιοσυνη’s verbal form, δικαιοω (“justified”), which appears in both Jas 2:21 and 2:24, and surrounds the reference to δικαιοσυνη in Jas 2:23. To support its thesis, the Protestant argument is forced to conclude that James begins with a definition of the δικαιοω word group which means vindication (Jas 2:21), switches to another meaning which refers to salvific justification (Jas 2:23), and then switches back to the meaning of vindication (Jas 2:24).
(5) That vindication cannot be James’ meaning of the word δικαιοω is proven further by his addition of Rahab to the discussion of justification. As James opens up the review of Rahab, he introduces her account by the phrase, “Likewise” or, alternatively, “in the same way” (Jas 2:25). By this wording, James is equating the justification of Abraham to the justification of Rahab and declaring that they are the same. We must conclude then, that there is no theological difference in the way these two people were justified in the eyes of God. If there were a difference, then God would have two systems of justification, one for the Jews and one for the Gentiles, but this cannot be, for God shows no favouritism between Jew and Gentile, and there is only one name under heaven by which men and women are saved. The importance of understanding the correspondence between Abraham and Rahab’s respective justifications becomes clear when we consider that James certainly does not view Rahab’s justification as a vindication. Using Protestant terminology, we cannot say that Rahab was given a forensic imputation of justification prior to the hiding of the Israelite spies. Rahab was a prostitute who lived an immoral life until she encountered God through the Israelites. Her justification comes on the heels of her acceptance of the God of Israel and his laws, which would necessitate that she immediately repent of her evil ways and decided to live righteously. An active event took place in Rahab’s relationship with God, not a demonstration of a previous justification. Hence, if Rahab is not vindicated but is salvifically justified during her encounter with the Israelite spies, and since James insists that Abraham was justified “in the same way,” then we can only conclude that both Abraham in Gen 22 and Rahab in Josh 2 was salvifically justified before God, not vindicated.
In the video description, Dave wrote:
The Curse is broken. We are Free.
While no biblical texts are given, such is often derived from two texts:
I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now life in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me. (Gal 2:20 NIV)
Having cancelled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. (Col 2:14 NIV)
It is common for Protestants to cite these two passages from the Pauline corpus to support their understanding of the nature of justification. These passages are used to “prove” that (1) justification is purely forensic and (2) our past, present, and even then-future sins are forgiven at justification. However, both these conclusions are based on eisegesis.
Gal 2:20
As for Gal 2:20, one should firstly read the entire pericope (vv.16-20) to understand the entire context:
Here is the NRSV translation:
Yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law. But if, in our effort to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have been found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! But if I build up again the very things that I once tore down, then I demonstrate that I am a transgressor. For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. (Gal 2:16-20)
The entire pericope is centred on the concept of the believer's participation in Christ's atoning sacrifice (cf. Col 1:24) and how it is by faith (not "faith alone"[!]) in Him that justifies; not the Law of Moses. As for v.20 (v.19 in some translations), many Protestants beg the question as to when a believer is "crucified with Christ" (Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι). For them, one has been (salvifically) united with Christ either in the eternal past and/or at the cross. However, this is to wrench the entire phrase out of its own immediate context; notice what follows, "nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God." This cannot be said of any person, elect or reprobate, prior to their being justified.
Furthermore, when does a believer become united with Christ? When one examines the entirety of Paul's own epistles, we learn that it is by water baptism:
For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus For as many of you as have been baptised into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Gal 3:26-30)
In Gal 3:27, one is said to be “baptised into Christ” (εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε) and speaks of one “putting on” or “being clothed in” Christ (Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε), all language of a salvific union of a believer with Christ through the instrumentality of water baptism. Such flies in the face of much of modern (and historical) Protestantism.
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not that so many of us as were baptised into Jesus Christ were baptised into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Again, water baptism is the instrumental means of this salvific union with Christ, not faith alone.
Indeed, Gal 3:1 seems to offer further support for this exegesis:
O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
The term translated as "set forth" in the KJV (ESV: "publicly portrayed"; NRSV: "publicly exhibited"; NIV: "clearly portrayed") is the verb προεγράφη and means "to write before." Of course, one has to ask when was Christ publicly portrayed as crucified to the Galatians, or, "set forth in a public proclamation" (per BDAG)? Applying baptism as the relevant event (per Gal 3:27 and Rom 6:1-4) that allowed the Galatians to see Christ crucified with their own eyes makes perfect sense, as it is a sacramental re-enactment of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, per Paul's theology thereof. The salvific efficacy of baptism answers Gal 2:20 and how and when the believer is indeed crucified with Christ in great potency.
Col 2:14
Firstly, we should note that, in his epistle to the Colossians, like his epistles to the Romans and Galatians, Paul teaches the salvific necessity of baptism; notice Col 2:12-13, which precede v.14(!):
Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith and operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses. (see this blog post on the relationship between Col 2:12-13 and Eph 2:8-10; also see Another note on Ephesians 2:8-9 and baptismal regeneration)
This pericope, mirroring Rom 6:1-4, teaches that a believer is united and "buried with" Christ in baptism, and that is the instrumental means through which God the Father raises a believer, in the same manner, He raised His Son. This is paralleled in Col 3:10:
And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him.
The verb "to put on" is ενδουω, the same verb used by Paul in Gal 3:27 in the context of water baptism. Again, what is in view here is that one becomes a new creature through the instrumentality of water baptism, not faith alone a la historical and modern Protestantism.
Another important text to consider would be Col 1:23-24 (discussed here):
If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister; who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church.
As with a number of soteriological texts, the NIV obscures things due to the sola fide bias of its translators (see some of N.T. Wright's criticisms of the NIV here). The underlying Greek of the text reads:
ἐξαλείψας τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμῶν χειρόγραφον τοῖς δόγμασιν ὃ ἦν ὑπεναντίον ἡμῖν, καὶ αὐτὸ ἦρκεν ἐκ τοῦ μέσου προσηλώσας αὐτὸ τῷ σταυρῷ
The KJV rendering is:
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.
What is in view here is not the nailing of our sins (past, present, and even then-future) on the cross, á la many models of forensic atonement (read: Penal Substitution), but instead, the "ordinances" of the Law of Moses. The Greek term τοις δογμασιν means "the ordinances" and is coupled with χειρογραφων, referring to a written record of one's debts/sins under this division of the Law of Moses.
One has to realise that there were three divisions of the Law of Moses—the commandments, the statutes/ordinances, and judgments, and Christ’s redemptive sacrifice and resurrection abrogated the latter two divisions (which is in view in Col 2:14). As LDS scholar, John A. Tvedtnes notes:
To the Galatians, the apostle Paul wrote, "Wherefore then serveth the law [of Moses] it was added because of transgressions, till the seed [Christ] should come to whom the promise was made" (Galatians 3:19; cf. Mosiah 3:14). This suggests that the carnal law, with which the Israelites were cursed according to Joseph Smith, was superimposed atop something else they had received from God--presumably something that was part of the higher law. Because the ten commandments are authoritatively cited as the word of God in the Old and New Testaments, as well as the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants, they must be part of the higher law that remained under the covenant made at Sinai. They would therefore not be part of the lesser "handwriting of ordinances" of which Paul said that Christ "took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross" (Colossians 2:14)
Christ told the Nephites, "in me is the law of Moses fulfilled" (3 Nephi 9:17; see also 3 Nephi 12:18-19; 15:4-5, 8). but he seems to have suggested that only the lesser portion of that law was fulfilled when he said, "Behold, ye have the commandments before you, and the law is fulfilled" (3 Nephi 12:19). . . In order to understand this subject, we must note that the law of Moses was comprised of three division, the commandments (sometimes called "law" or "testimonies"), the statutes (sometimes called "ordinances"), and the judgments (Deuteronomy 4:1-2, 13-14; 5:28; 6:20, 26; 26:17; 28:45; Kings 17:34, 37; 2 Chronicles 19:10; 29:19; 33:8; 34:31; Nehemiah 9:13-14; 10:30; Jeremiah 32:11) . . . [in Scripture] we learn that it was the statutes and judgments (or ordinances and performances) that would be done away in Christ, while the commandments would remain as part of the higher law that Christ revealed during his ministry. (The Most Correct Book: Insights from a Book of Mormon Scholar [Salt Lake City: Cornerstone, 1999], 251-52).
When read contextually, and in light of the entirety of Paul’s soteriology, there is nothing in Gal 2:20 or Col 2:14 to support forensic models of justification and, furthermore, when one examines such texts contextually and exegetically, there is much to support Latter-day Saint soteriology. Yet again, in spite of the eisegesis-fuelled protestations of our Evangelical Protestant critics, “Mormonism” is indeed reflective of “biblical Christianity.”
While much more could be said, as with all his videos, Dave Bartosiewicz packs a ton of eisegesis, heresy, and false a priori assumptions into a short space of time. What is clear is that his knowledge of the Bible is deficient and that he is a perpetuator of a false gospel.
