Dave "no intellectual integrity" Bartosiewicz recently wrote the following in a public facebook post:
Was Paul, who being an apostle of God, ever annointed by man or appointed by men to become an apostle? If authority is a big issue and in the Mormon faith, they declare one must have the M. Priesthood holder to bestow this position, than would you consider Paul wasn't an apostle? The word says, Galatians 1.1 Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead,) (source)
This type of eisegesis is par for the course for Dave.
Gal 1:1 reads as follows:
Paul an apostle--sent neither by human commission nor from human authorities, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead. (NRSV)
Paul, who is writing against the Judaizers in Galatia, is emphasising that he was called an apostle, but based on a whim, if you will, but was commissioned, like the Twelve, δια Ιησου Χριστου ("through Jesus Christ"), that is, he was a pretended apostle, but a true apostle.
This is consistent with Heb 5:4:
And no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.
Aaron, of course, was "called of God," but he was still ordained by men. If Dave were to be consistent, he would have to claim that Heb 5:4 and Gal 1:1 is inconsistent with one another.
When one reads further into this chapter, we read the following:
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. (Gal 1:18)
The verb translated as "to see" is ἱστορέω; according to BDAG, in this verse, it means "to make the acquaintance of Cephas" and "to get information from" Cephas. They were hardly talking about the whether for those fifteen days, but the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, Paul's seeking out Peter specifically demonstrates his high ecclesiology (cf. Matt 16:16-19), something he would discuss in 1 Tim 3:15:
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
Furthermore, it was only when Paul went up to Damascus that Paul became regenerated (via water baptism), which means he was not an apostle until then. In Acts 22, Paul recounts his encounter with Jesus on the Road to Damascus and his becoming blind, until Ananias restored his sight (v. 13). In Acts 22:16, Ananias commands Paul thusly:
And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
Commenting on the theology of this verse, one Lutheran scholar wrote the following:
16) The question: καὶ νῦν τὶ μέλλεις; as in the classics (Liddell and Scott), means: “And now why delayest thou?” Ananias is now encouraging Paul on his own account. He tells him what to do. The two aorist imperatives are causative middles: “get thyself baptized and get thyself washed as to thy sins” (B.-D. 317; R. 808). The action expressed by the aorist participle, “calling on his name,” is either simultaneous with that of the aorist imperatives or immediately precedes it, the difference being merely formal. “The name” is Jesus in his revelation; and to call on this name involves faith (Rom. 10:13, 14). This is one of the cardinal passages on the saving power of baptism; see the others, 2:38 discussed at length; Luke 3:3; John 3:3, 5; Tit. 3:5; Eph. 5:26. What makes the present passage unmistakably clear is the second imperative. Why was it not enough to say, “Having arisen, let thyself be baptized, calling on his name”? Why was “and let thyself be washed as to thy sins” inserted if baptism and its water did not do this washing to remove the sins? The answer has yet to be given.
Was Paul to submit to a mere symbolic ceremony? What lay heavy on his conscience was the guilt of his enormous sin of persecuting the Messiah himself (v. 7). With its water that was sanctified by the Word baptism was to wash away all this guilt, all these sins. This washing away is the ἄφεσις of 2:38, and Luke 3:3, the “remission,” the “removal” of sins. To be sure, this washing away is “picturesque language” (R., W. P.); it is figurative, to speak more exactly, and is appropriate in that baptism has water in connection with the Word, Eph. 5:26. But with “picturesque language” R. means that “here baptism pictures the change that had already taken place,” i. e., that is all that baptism does. R. does not seem to see that he contradicts Ananias. Whereas Ananias says, “Let thyself actually be baptized” (aorist), “let thyself actually be washed of thy sins” (again aorist), R. changes the latter and substitutes, “Let a picture be made of the washing away of thy sins.” It may be interesting to enact a picture, but that is about all. As βάπτισαι = a real baptism and not the mere picture of one, so ὑπόλουσαι = a real washing and not the mere picture of one. (Lenski, R. C. H. (1961). The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles (pp. 909–910). Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House)
This fits perfectly with Paul's theology where he explicitly teaches baptismal regeneration. In Rom 6:1-4, we read the following:
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grave 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 (εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν) were baptised into his death (εἰς τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ ἐβαπτίσθημεν)? Therefore, we are buried with him by baptism into death (διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος εἰς τὸν θάνατον): that like as (ὥσπερ) Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so (οὕτω) we also should walk in newness of life.
Paul, through his use of the conjunction ωσπερ and adverb ουτος, both meaning "just as," likens Christ’s being raised by the Father to our being given, by the Father, newness of life through the instrumental means of baptism. There is no exegetical wiggle-room, so to speak, for a purely symbolic view.
That this is the view of baptism in Romans has strong scholarly support, too. For instance:
The explanatory γαρ in 6:5 links the verse with his previous comments about the believer’s death with Christ through water-baptism in 6:3-4. His argument appears to be that believers died to sin and should no longer live under its power (6:2). Their water-baptism proves that they participate in the death of Jesus and experience a spiritual death to the power of sin (6:3). Therefore, Paul concludes that believers have been buried with Jesus through their participation in water-baptism, a baptism that identifies them with the death of Jesus (their representative [5:12-21]) and thereby kills the power of sin in their lives, so that they would live with Jesus in the resurrection just as Jesus presently lives in the power of his physical resurrection (6:4). Believers who died to the power of sin by being baptized into Jesus’ death will certainly (αλλα και) participate in a physical resurrection just as Jesus died and resurrected, because those who died to the power of sin (just as Jesus died = τω ομοιωματι του θανατου αυτου) will participate in a future resurrection (just as Jesus has already been resurrected) (6:5). (Jarvis J. Williams, Christ Died for Our Sins: Representation and Substitution in Romans and their Jewish Martyrological Background [Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick Publications, 2015], 178).
In Romans 6:1-14 the ritual of baptism is explicitly interpreted as a reenactment of the death and resurrection of Jesus in which the baptized person appropriates the significance of that death for himself or herself. In this understanding of the ritual, the experience of the Christian is firmly and vividly grounded in the story of the death and resurrection of Christ. These qualities of reenactment of a foundational story and the identification of the participant with the protagonist of the story are strikingly reminiscent of what is known about the initiation rituals of certain mystery religions, notably the Eleusinian mysteries and the Isis mysteries.[71]
One of the distinctive features of Roans 6 is that Paul avoids saying “we have risen” with Christ; rather he speaks of “newness of life.” The implication of Paul’s restraint is that the transformation is not complete. There is still an apocalyptic expectation of a future, fuller transformation into a heavenly form of life. This expectation fits with Paul’s use throughout the passage of the imperative alongside the indicative. “Newness of life” is a real, present possibility, both spiritually and ethically, but the actualizing of that possibility requires decision and commitment as well as grace.[72]
Notes for the Above:
[71] For the story or ιερος λογος of the Eleusinian mysteries, see the Homeric Hymn to Demeter. An English translation of this hymn, along with an introduction and bibliography has been published by Arvin W. Meyer, The Ancient Mysteries: A Sourcebook (New York: Harper & Row, 1987), 17-30. For an account of the initiation into the mysteries of Isis, see Apuleius, The Golden Ass, Book 11. See also Plutarch’s On Isis and Osiris. Meyer has include book 11 of the Golden Ass and selections from Plutarch’s work (ibid., 176-93 and 160-72).
[72] Note that the author of Colossians does not hesitate to say that Christians have risen with Christ (2:12, 3:1). Baptism is also linked to the resurrection of Christ in 1 Pet 3:21. See also the related interpretation of baptism as rebirth in John 3:3-8 and Titus 3:5.
Source: Adela Yarbro Collins, Cosmology and Eschatology in Jewish and Christian Apocalypticism (Leidin, The Netherlands: Brill, 2000), 237.
That the New Testament teaches an ordained priesthood as being part of the New Covenant can be seen in many places in the Bible, including prophecies in the Old Testament that such would be the case and the priestly, sacrificial language used in the Last Supper Accounts (click here); Jude 11 (cf. Num 16:3, 10); and other evidences--for more, see my page on the LDS Priesthoods.
Indeed, even Paul himself held to such a view of both ecclesiology and authority. As Jimmy Akin noted in a debate:
b. 2 Tim 1:6
We find the same pattern in 2 Timothy 1:6, when Paul urges his protégé to fulfill his ministry and says: "I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands."
c. 1 Tim 4:14
He spoke of the same thing in 1 Timothy 4:14, where Paul explains how he must fulfill his ministry as an evangelist and tells him: "Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the council of elders laid their hands upon you."
Other translators render this "which was given you . . . with the laying on of hands for the presbytery" or "in order to become a member of the presbytery."
d. 1 Tim. 5:19-22: Pass it on!
This gift of the Holy Spirit, through the laying on of hands in ordination, was something Paul instructed Timothy to pass on in the future. Part of his duty as a bishop-evangelist was to ordain elders in different congregations. He tells Timothy he must exercise this ministry carefully, lest he ordain a priest unworthy of the office. In 1 Timothy 5:19-22 he tells the young evangelist: "Never admit any charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. . . . Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor participate in another man's sins; keep yourself pure."
Paul tells Timothy not to lay hands on an elder too quickly; don't ordain him until he has been tested and shown to be of excellent character. Otherwise Timothy will share in his sins.
. . .
a. The priestly duty of preaching
i. Rom 15:15-16
The Bible indicates New Testament priests offer at least two sacrifices. One of them is discussed in Romans 15:15-16. In the New International Version of this passage, we read:
"I have written you quite boldly on some points, as if to remind you of them again, because of the grace God gave me to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit."
Paul tells us that because he has been given a calling as a professional minister of Christ, he has a priestly duty of preaching the gospel so that the Gentiles may be an offering—a sacrifice to God
Indeed, one has to realise that two things largely inform Dave's eisegesis of Gal 1:1. Firstly, it his uncritical acceptance of sola scriptura. However, no matter which biblical text he can appeal to, it only traps him as imposing the doctrine onto any biblical text results in an anachronism. As one commentator noted:
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]
The second point is his acceptance of the Protestant understanding of the "Priesthood of All Believers," a doctrine that is said to be taught in 1 Pet 2:4-10. However, many Protestant New Testament scholars agree that such is based on an eisegetical approach to the very few biblical texts Protestants point to in order to support such a doctrine. John H. Elliot, a Lutheran New Testament commentator, offered the following refutation of the claim such a doctrine is taught in 1 Pet 2:4-10, the key text Evangelicals cite:
(1) As is evident from its structure and content and from the accentuation of the election of both Jesus Christ and the believing community, 1 Pet 2:4-10 is designed as an affirmation of the elect and holy character of the believing community, which, through faith, is one with the elect and holy Christ. Election rather than priesthood is its central focus. The theme of election that extends from the letter’s beginning to its end (1:1; 5:13) receives here its most profound articulation. The passage, in fact, constitutes one of the most elaborate statements on Christian election in the entire NT.
(2) The covenant formula of LXX Exod 19:6, which included the terms basileion and hierateuma, in accord with prior Israelite interpretation of this text was one of several OT texts employed by the Petrine author to explicate the elect and holy character of the covenantal people of God as once affirmed at Sinai and now affirmed of God’s people at the end time.
(3) The term hierateuma, like the other honorific epithets for Israel with which it is joined here (“elect stock,” “holy people,” “people of God”), is a collective noun designating the believing community as community, as is true of other collective terms as well. The substantive basileion, “royal residence” (v 9b), likewise is applied to the believing community in its entirety and it interpreted as the “house(hold) of the Spirit” (v 5d)
(4) In both 1 Peter and its source, Exod 19:6, “priestly community” expresses the holiness of the covenant community and the immediacy of its relation to God, both of which are distinctive qualities of the believing community that the author stresses throughout the first major section of the letter with other language as well (1:2, 3-5, 14,16, 17-21, 22; 2:5 [“holy priestly community”], 9-10; c. also 3:5, 18c; 5:7a, 10). The action of the believers as priestly community is to offer “spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God” (2:5f), a cultic image that occurs only here in 1 Peter and that is not elaborated on anywhere else in the letter. Similarly, neither hierateuma plays no independent role in the ecclesial thought of the letter. The appearance of hierateuma in 2:5 and 9 is due solely to its place in the covenant formula of Exod 19:6, which is used by the Petrine author to affirm the election and holiness of the household of faith.
(5) No mention is made in 2:4-10 of baptism or any baptismal “ordination” or “consecration” to priesthood on the part of the believers.
(6) Nowhere in 1 Peter is there any reference to the priesthood of Christ or any suggestion that believers share in the priesthood of Christ by virtue of their constituting a “priestly community.” In the book of Hebrews, on the other hand, Jesus Christ is identified metaphorically as a priest (Heb 7:15, 21,; 8:4; 10:21) or high priest (Heb 2:17; 3:1; 4:14-15; 5:5, 10; 6:20; 7:26; 8:1; 9:11). In Revelation, Christians are denoted metaphorically as priests as well (Rev 1:6; 5:10; 20:6). In other NT writings, cultic metaphors occasionally are used to describe the proclamation of the gospel (Rom 15:16), the gift of material support (Phil 4:18), or aspects of salvation (Heb 4:16; 8:1; 9:11-14, 23-28; 10:10, 19-22; 13:10-16). No single NT author, however, makes any attempt to integrate these random images into a unified teaching on Christian priesthood, and this certainly includes the author of 1 Peter. To attributes these various motifs to 1 Peter is to impute alien notions to this text and to distort its focus. IN 1 Pet 2:4-10, the association of believers with Christ is that of “living stones,” who through faith are one with Christ, the “living stone,” and who are “elect” as he was “elect” in God’s sight. (John H. Elliot, 1 Peter [Anchor Bible 37b; Garden City: Doubleday, 2000], 451-53).
A death-knell to this doctrine can be found in the Acts of the Apostles. In Acts 8, we find that after Philip had baptised some Samaritans, the apostles Peter and John came and "Then laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost" (Acts 8:17). Seeing this, one of the recently-baptised, a man named Simon, "saw that through laying on the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, saying, give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost." But peter said unto him, "thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God" (Acts 8:18-21). Clearly, these apostles had "power" that Simon, already one of the believers, wanted to buy, demonstrating that he didn't have that power.
Much more could be said, but it is truly amazing the amount of eisegesis that one can pack into a short facebook post. Furthermore, it does show that Dave Bartosiewicz is incapable of engaging in exegesis and a purveyor of a false gospel (cf. Gal 1:8).