I have written a number of articles critiquing Dave Bartosiewicz, most of which were written when he was an Evangelical Protestant. One can find them at Responses to Dave Bartosiewicz I also tried to interact with Dave, but he would never engage in meaningful exegesis in the attempted dialogues.
It has been no secret that Dave is on the verge of becoming a fully-fledged Eastern Orthodox. Indeed, he has a recent video entitled: What Mormon Missionaries Don't Tell You...Restored True Church?
According to Dave, as Eastern Orthodox priests and others have claimed that they are the True Church, that their doctrines do not differ from the earliest Christians, and that there was no apostasy. So basically, Dave accepts the ipse dixit of Eastern Orthodox apologists for Eastern Orthodox claims to authority. For instance, at the 5:04 mark, Dave says:
I interviewed Father Justin, he certainly, from, if you know who he is, he is a priest from the Saints Peter and Paul Orthodox Church in Salt Lake City . . . he declares "no way" there was never apostasy, doesn't even know where that comes from, that we're [Eastern Orthodox] exactly the Church that was established with all the same traditions, the sacraments, the rituals, the liturgy, everything, the Eucharist, everything, is still tied together.
Dave and his EO friends are way out in left field on many of these issues. Take, for example, the Eucharist. What Dave doesn't tell you is that the debates about the Eucharist are not about the Eucharist as an ordinance, but the theology thereof. EO holds to a corporeal understanding of the Real Presence and the concept of the Eucharist as a propitiatory sacrifice, similar to Roman Catholicism. As one Eastern Orthodox theologian wrote in favour of the Eucharistic Sacrifice and the nature thereof in EO theology:
The Elements of Bread and Wine are “changed” into the Body and Blood of Christ. This sanctification of the Elements is called change, transelementation, and depends mainly on the meaning of the words of Scripture: “This is my body”, and “this is my blood”. These words of Christ do not mean “my body” is present in the Bread, and “my blood” is present in the Wine. In reality the Elements of Bread and Wine become in substance the very Body and very Blood of Christ These words of Christ signify the actual “change” of the Elements rather than the co-existence of visible and invisible parts . . . The institution of the Holy Eucharist as Sacrifice took place on the Cross. Christ is the Sacrificer and the Sacrifice, for He offered His very Body and Blood to God the Father for the remission of the sins of the world. Christ instituted Holy Eucharist as Sacrifice in the two Elements, bread and wine, presenting explicitly the mystic separation of the Body from the Blood. This institution manifests Holy Eucharist as Sacrifice, for “Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, ‘Take, eat: this is my body’. and he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the new covenant which is poured out for may for the forgiveness of sins’”, Mt. 26:26-28. These words of Christ were spoken in the present tense and declare that this Sacrifice is ever-present—the bloodless Crucified-sacrifice . . . This is the very belief of the Church from the very beginning and is verified by an Ecumenical Synod: “The lamb of God is placed on the Holy Table, He Who lifted the sin of the world and is offered by the officiators of God as blood sacrifice” . . . The institution of the Holy Eucharist as the remembrance of the Crucified-Sacrifice is a re-enactment of the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. However, it is not merely a reflection of the historical fact; it is a real Sacrifice inasmuch as Christ is present in the Eucharist. Both the Sacrificer and the victim is Christ Himself, on the Cross and in the Holy Eucharist. The former wrought the salvation of man; the latter, wrought man’s personal appropriation. The Sacrifice of the Eucharist is offered in remembrance of the Passion of Christ, and bears all the elements of every sacrifice: victim, sacrificer, purpose, destruction or change of what is offered. The Sacrifice in the Eucharist is a re-enactment of the Sacrifice on the Cross inasmuch as Christ is present in the Eucharist, accomplishing on earth what He accomplishes in heaven. The Eucharist brings forth the same fruits as the Cross, the source of divine Grace and all spiritual gifts. This Sacrifice, which is the propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and the dead, is simultaneously a sacrifice of praise and intercession. (Rev. George Mastrantonis, A New-Style Catechism on the Eastern Orthodox Faith for Adults [St. Louis, Miss.: The OLogos Mission, 1969], 123-24, 127-28, 128-29; emphasis in original)
However, if we do indeed go back to the earliest sources as Dave (rightfully) encourages us to do, we see that this belief is absent from the New Testament and early post-New Testament eras. For a full discussion, see the various articles at:
The same applies for other doctrines accepted by Eastern Orthodoxy, such as the veneration of images (dogmatised in AD 787 at the Second Council of Nicea [the 7th Ecumenical Council]). For a fuller discussion of biblical and patristic evidence against this doctrine and practice, see:
and
By becoming an apologist for Eastern Orthodoxy, Bartosiewicz has shown that he has the same lack of critical thinking skills while he was an Evangelical Protestant. However, his movement towards EO can be seen as a positive step in perhaps coming back to the LDS Church. After all, note the following areas he and I disagreed on which he, as an EO apologist, sides with me and the LDS Church on:
Baptismal Regeneration
Justification being transformative, not merely declarative
Whether penal substitution is biblical
Eternal security
If one's then-future sins are forgiven at their justification
The importance of a "high" ecclesiology vs. the low ecclesiology of much of modern Protestantism
Whether the Bible is the sole, ultimate, final authority
The existence of a New Covenant Priesthood and not simply the "Priesthood of All Believers" merely
Salvific efficacy of ordinances
There might be hope for Dave in the future.
BTW, as for Dave's appeal to Matt 16:18, he is wrong in his eisegetical comments, so let us exegete the text.
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (KJV)
Since gates—even the gates of hell (Hades/Sheol)—do not attack and destroy churches (or anything else), it is clear that Jesus could not have meant that hell would not destroy the church. Indeed, gates are either intended to keep people in (prisoners) or keep people out. But since Jesus gave Peter keys in verse 19, it seems clear that he intended that the church should open the gates of hell and release its prisoners (cf. 1 Pet 3:18-20; 4:6). This is what he meant about the gates of hell not prevailing over the church. That this is the case can be seen in the fact that the Greek word rendered “prevail” in the King James Bible is κατισχύσουσιν, the third person plural future indicative active of κατισχύω, literally, “be strong against,” and it is often used in the sense of “restrain.”
As one Protestant scholar commented:
In keeping with the linguistic data, "gates of Hades" is to be considered a figure of speech for death, which cannot keep the Christ imprisoned. (Jack P. Lewis, "'The Gates of Hell Shall not Prevail Against It' (Matt 16:18): A Study of the History of Interpretation" in JETS 38/3 (September 1995): 349-67, here, pp. 366-67.
As New Testament scholars W.D. Davies and Dale C. Allison wrote on the phrase, “the gates of Hades will not overcome”:
The spectrum of opinion on these words, which in the early church were so often used against heretics, and which later came to serve as an apology for tradition, is unusually broad. But readers should likely think of the end-time scenario, when the powers of the underworld will be unleashed from below, from the abyss, and rage against the saints cf. Rev 6.8; 11.7; 17.8. The promise is that even the full fury of the underworld’s demonic forces will not overcome the church. One may compare Rev 9.1-11, where the demonic hosts, under their king Abaddon, come up from the bottomless pit to torment humanity. They prevail against all save those with the seal of God. Also worth comparing is 1QH 6.22-9. In this the author faces the gates of death but is delivered by entering a fortified city founded on a rock. The context is the great eschatological conflict. (W.D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Matthew: A Shorter Commentary [London: T&T Clark, 2004], 270)
In reality, the promises given to the New Testament Church strongly parallel those given to Israel in the Old Testament, and yet the latter apostasised. Eric Svendsen (again, a Protestant) wrote the following on this issue:
Catholic apologists often counter this point [the charge of apostasy] by noting that God promised the indestructibility and infallibility for his church in passages such as Matt 16:18 and 28:20—promises never granted to Israel. But such an assertion is incorrect. The people of Israel were given many promises that they would never cease to be God’s chosen people, as in the following passage:
“This is what the Lord says, he who appoints the sun to shine by day, who decrees the moon and stars to shine by night, who stirs up the sea so that it waves roar—the Lord Almighty is his name: “Only if these decrees vanish from my sight,” declares the Lord, “will the descendants of Israel ever cease to be a nation before me.” This is what the Lord says: “Only if the heavens above can be measured and the foundations of the earth below be searched out will I reject all the descendants of Israel because of all they have done,” declares the Lord. (Jer 31:35-37)
Moreover, Paul insists that it was to the Jews that God entrusted his word (Rom 3:1-2; 9:3-5). He further asserts of “the people of Israel” that:
“Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised!” (Rom 9:4-5)
According to these passages Israel was promised at least as much as the church was promised. Based on these promises the Pharisees might have made a similar argument for their own authority as Catholic apologists make today regarding the authority of Rome. The Pharisees alone, it could have been argued, were capable of interpreting the Old Testament and the “Fathers” (since they alone were entrusted with God’s word, and were promised the Law, the Covenants, and the Patriarchs). Similarly, they might have staked a claim to sole ownership of the tradition of the liturgy (since Paul includes “temple worship” in his list). And, of course, how could anyone deny that they possessed eternal life since they were granted “adoption as sons” and the Messiah himself? Indeed, these statements by Paul and Jeremiah are decidedly at least as strong as (if not much stronger than) those made in reference to the church.
As much as Catholic apologists are reluctant to do so, they must face the fact that their claims to indestructibility (based on the promises of Jesus to his church) are virtually indistinguishable from those made by Israel (based on Jeremiah, and later, Paul). More importantly, they must come to terms with the fact that Israel was dead wrong in just how those promises were to be understood! Israel was promised at least as much as the church was promised. The problem is, they thought they were invincible by virtue of their association with Moses (1 Cor 10:1-5) and their pedigree to Abraham (Matt 3:9)—and they wrongly defined “true Israel” as an institution. These are the same errors made by the Roman Catholic church. Sadly, those who ignore history are destined to repeat it.
In the end, because of her long history of disobedience and moral corruption, Israel as an institution was rejected by God; God then turned to the Gentiles who accepted his word with gladness. It is such a surprise then that God, after tolerating centuries of abuse and moral corruption, would finally say “enough!” (Eric D. Svendsen, Evangelical Answers: A Critique of Current Roman Catholic Apologists [Lindenhurst, N.Y.: Reformation Press, 1999], 112-14; comment in square brackets added for clarification)
Such fits neatly with informed LDS interpretations of this text. As one LDS scholar noted:
When Jesus referred to the establishment of his church in the gospel of Matthew, he promised an apostolic authority to “bind” and “loose” on earth with the guarantee of heavenly recognition for those actions. In the same pronouncement, he promised that “the gates of Hades [would] not prevail against” his church. For Mormons, those assurances are interconnected, the crucial point here being twofold. First, gates do not in the normal course of events function in an active sense. It is rather curious to imagine gates “prevailing against”—or failing to prevail against—anything. Gates don’t function actively, but what gates can do is keep inhabitants within or intruders without. Since no one is likely to attempt to infiltrate hell (Christ’s “harrowing” aside), a reasonable reading of the Savior’s words would be the promise that the gates of hell would fail to keep its inhabitants forever in bondage, remote from the saving church.
Second, Mormons find in this verse a warrant for the theological foundations to their sociable heaven: the sealing referred to, in other words, is for Latter-day Saints an eternal bound or connection to other human beings, within the kingdom of God. The power intimated is an apostolic authority to render human relationships eternal; “until death do you part” becomes “for time and eternity.” Together, the two assertions (authority to bind and permeable gates) create the basis of Mormon temple theology. God has thereby vouchsafed to human representatives a power stronger than death or hell, to reunite in everlasting bonds of love and association all the living and death who comply with the sacraments of temple “sealing.” Elijah was uniquely qualified for this bridging role since he was, according to scripture, taken into heaven without tasting death. As such a “translated” being, he united both realms in his own person. Smith was familiar with the original sense of sealing in its conventional Christian meaning of a pledge or assurance of salvation. However, he also developed the term in a uniquely Mormon was as Elijah loomed larger and larger in his theological understanding. (Terryl L. Givens, Feeding the Flock: The Foundations of Mormon Thought—Church and Praxis [New York: Oxford University Press, 2017], 180-81)