All Trinitarians are Lost!!!!!!!!!!!

[AreYouReady?]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

So in other words, when you said "they do" you were agreeing with what I said?

You said this.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

They claim Peter as their first Pope. Is that true too?

Yes, I was confirming what you posted. "They do" claim Peter as their first pope.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by seekerman

You, nor Epley know what you're talking about. You both are suggesting that "epikalesamenos" is middle voice and therefore means that Ananias is the person calling upon the name of the Lord on behalf of Paul with Paul silently stands there allowing another man to call upon the name of the Lord for him. But simply saying it's the middle voice indicates that Epley knows little about what he speaks.

Here, let me help you out a bit. First, I noted that you offered no interaction w/ the numerous grammars I quoted, but true to form, merely offered denial!

Second, you offered no seem to quote from the book of I-say-It....Which is quite inadequate. Document your sources, as I have mine.

But, since I'm a fair man, let's try this again:

καὶ νῦν τί μέλλεις; ἀναστὰς βάπτισαι καὶ ἀπόλουσαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας σου ἐπικαλεσάμενος τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ.

The verbs "baptize" & "wash" & the participle "calling" (enlarged above) are in the Permissive Middle Voice, also known as the Causative Middle Voice. Are you denying this, yes or no:___________?

If not (& I sincerely hope you're not that far gone yet), the significance of the Permissive Middle indicates that the subject [Saul] "Permits" this action to be done to them.

"Calling" is what grammarians call the "Participle of Means," describing how the action of the main verbs are carried out.

Dr. Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (the leading grammar of our day), pp. 425-426:
"Permissive Middle Voice...the subject allows something to be done for or to himself or herself. The Permissive Middle is also like a Passive [Voice] in that the subject is the receiver of the action...[see] Acts 22:16."


Dr. A. T. Robertson, Large Grammar [in Light of Historical Research], pp. 808, 1110:

"Acts 22:16, the Causative Middle Voice [meaning] 'Get yourself baptized and get your sins washed away. There is nothing of a distinctive nature to be said about the voice of the participle ['calling'] in addition to what has already been said [about the voices]. THE VOICES RUN IN THE PARTICIPLE ['CALLING'] PRECISELY AS IN THE VERB ITSELF. All the nuances of the voices appear in the participle."

If you are denying these two foremost grammarians then offer textual evidence to overthrow their exegesis.

"Epikalesamenos" isn't simply middle voice or permissive middle voice but is the subject of "be baptized" which is 2 person, singular, aorist 1, imperative mood, and middle voice. This determines how "epikalesamenos" is used.

And here you reveal that you are the one who doesn't know what he's talking about! The participle "epikalesamenos" runs in conjunction w/ the permissive middle voice (not either middle [or] permissive voice) of the verbs translated "wash" & "baptize." Participles derive their info. from the action of the main verb(s) [e.g., time-frame, etc.], in this case "wash" & "baptize."

In this case the only conclusion is that the one being baptized is calling on the name of the Lord, which is Paul. It's not possible that ""epikalesamenos" is referring to Ananias, it has to be referring to Paul because he's the one receiving Ananias' command for him, Paul, to be baptized calling upon the name of the Lord.

Clearly, you do not understand the force of the permissive mid. voice (as indicated above). Nor do you offer any interaction w/ the various translations from grammarians below:

Dr. Paul Ferguson, "The Acts of Jesus Christ," pg. 83:
"get your sins washed away by having his name called over you."

M. D. Treece, "The Literal Word," Acts vol. 2, pg. 240:
"...wash away your sins having his name called upon you."

Talmadge French, A.T.F. Journal, pg. 102:

"The circumstantial participle [calling] is non-articular [lacking the definite article] and non-specific [meaning] having the name called over yourself."


Sorry....denial does not equal evidence!

Your bold font, pretty colors and underling has absolutely nothing to do with the truth of the passage. Take it, analyze it, and find what it actually says. I couldn't agree more with French that one has the name called over themselves. The one who is receiving the baptism is calling upon the name of the Lord over themselves, the action is focused on them, not the performance of the baptizor, in this case Ananias.

And your mere stomping your foot in denail does nothing to the syntactical force of the text. Just as I suspected, you are merely feigning in your handling of Koine'.

"The Greek aorist participle, f, translated "calling оn His name" refers еіthеr tо action that iѕ simultaneous with оr beforе thаt of the main verb, "be baptized." Here Paul’s calling оn Christ’s namе for salvation preceded hіs water baptism. The participle mаy be translated "having called оn His name" whіch makes more sense, аѕ it would сleаrlу indіaatе the order оf thе events."

Paul has already called upon the Lord on the road to Damascus, seen a vision of Him, & spoke w/ Him directly! Sorry....You're as wrong as two-boys kissing! What do you think the aorist aspect denotes? Will wait on your answer before I proceed (but I have my suspicion).

"translated "calling оn His name" refers еіthеr tо action that iѕ simultaneous with оr beforе thаt of the main verb, "be baptized." Here Paul’s calling оn Christ’s namе for salvation preceded hіs water baptism. The participle mаy be translated "having called оn His name" whіch makes more sense, аѕ it would сleаrlу indісatе the order оf thе events."

Let's try this again for you:

"Acts 22:16, the Causative Middle Voice [meaning] 'Get yourself baptized and get your sins washed away. There is nothing of a distinctive nature to be said about the voice of the participle ['calling'] in addition to what has already been said [about the voices]. THE VOICES RUN IN THE PARTICIPLE ['CALLING'] PRECISELY AS IN THE VERB ITSELF. All the nuances of the voices appear in the participle."


Did you get that?

Not surprisingly your, and Epley's, view places someone between man and God other than Jesus Christ, namely Ananias and his performance which was needed by Paul in order that Paul might be saved. There's nothing in the passage which slightly suggests such a thing.

Looks like you and Epley need to dig a little deeper.

Preachin' to yourself! The Name of Jesus invoked in water baptism in this passage was the "means" by which Saul's sins were washed away.

Deny it until the cows come home but it will still be there in eternity !

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

• The permissive middle is also like a passive in that the subject is the receiver of the action, but it is unlike the passive in that the middle always implies acknowledgment, consent, toleration, or permission of the action of the verb. The passive normally implies no such cognition.
An exception to this principle is the permissive passive. It is important to note that although both categories are rare (some grammarians even dispute the legitimacy of the permissive passive), the volitional element is almost always a part of the middle voice while it is almost always lacking in the passive.50
4. Illustrations
Luke 2:5
ἀνέβη Ἰωσὴφ ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας … (5) ἀπογράψασθαι σὺν Μαριάμ

Joseph went up from Galilee … (5) to be enrolled with Mary

The idea seems to be that Joseph “allowed himself to be enrolled.” That this is permissive is evident by vv 1, 3, in which the passive is apparently used (ἀπογράφεσθαι). The permissive middle makes explicit the notion of volition that is not naturally borne by the passive.
Acts 22:16
ἀναστὰς βάπτισαι καὶ ἀπόλουσαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας σου

Rise, have yourself baptized and allow your sins to be washed away

If βάπτισαι were a direct middle, the idea would be “baptize yourself”-a thoroughly unbiblical concept.51 If ἀπόλουσαι were an indirect middle, the idea would be “wash away your sins by yourself”-also thoroughly unbiblical. This particular verb occurs as a causative or permissive middle in 1 Cor 6:11 (see below), its only other NT occurrence. The force of the voices here seems to be causative or permissive direct middle for βάπτισαι and permissive indirect middle for ἀπόλουσαι.52

Wallace, D. B. (1999). Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics - Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (426). Zondervan Publishing House and Galaxie Software.

Whoop! There it is .

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by rdp

Preachin' to yourself! The Name of Jesus invoked in water baptism in this passage was the "means" by which Saul's sins were washed away.

Deny it until,the cows come home but it will still be there in eternity !

If you wish to base your salvation on the actions of another man, go for it. Your confession is worthless to you, it's the confession of another man on your behalf is what saves you. Let's rewrite the scripture to agree with your interpretation of the middle voice of "epikaleomai'

Act 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, with someone else calling on the name of the Lord on your behalf.

I'm telling you folks the Romanist mindset is deeply entrenched in oneness pentecostalism.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

• The permissive middle is also like a passive in that the subject is the receiver of the action, but it is unlike the passive in that the middle always implies acknowledgment, consent, toleration, or permission of the action of the verb. The passive normally implies no such cognition.
An exception to this principle is the permissive passive. It is important to note that although both categories are rare (some grammarians even dispute the legitimacy of the permissive passive), the volitional element is almost always a part of the middle voice while it is almost always lacking in the passive.50
4. Illustrations
Luke 2:5
ἀνέβη Ἰωσὴφ ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας … (5) ἀπογράψασθαι σὺν Μαριάμ

Joseph went up from Galilee … (5) to be enrolled with Mary

The idea seems to be that Joseph “allowed himself to be enrolled.” That this is permissive is evident by vv 1, 3, in which the passive is apparently used (ἀπογράφεσθαι). The permissive middle makes explicit the notion of volition that is not naturally borne by the passive.
Acts 22:16
ἀναστὰς βάπτισαι καὶ ἀπόλουσαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας σου

Rise, have yourself baptized and allow your sins to be washed away

If βάπτισαι were a direct middle, the idea would be “baptize yourself”-a thoroughly unbiblical concept.51 If ἀπόλουσαι were an indirect middle, the idea would be “wash away your sins by yourself”-also thoroughly unbiblical. This particular verb occurs as a causative or permissive middle in 1 Cor 6:11 (see below), its only other NT occurrence. The force of the voices here seems to be causative or permissive direct middle for βάπτισαι and permissive indirect middle for ἀπόλουσαι.52

Wallace, D. B. (1999). Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics - Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (426). Zondervan Publishing House and Galaxie Software.

The language in Acts 22:16 does not indicate that Paul's salvation hinged on Ananias' confession while he's baptizing him. The action is upon the one Ananias is speaking to Paul and instructing him to arise, it's not Ananias rising, to be baptized, it's not Ananias being baptized and for Paul to call upon the name of the Lord, not Ananias calling upon the name of the Lord on Paul's behalf. Nothing in the passage suggests such a role for Ananias. Additionally, the language indicates that Paul called upon the Lord prior to baptism. What the language does not suggest is that Ananias is calling upon the Lord during the baptismal process, while he plunging Paul other, so that the sins of Paul would be forgiven by his (Ananias') confession.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by rdp

Whoop! There it is .

Whoop, your salvation isn't obtained by the calling on the name of the Lord by another man. Don't depend on another person to obtain salvation for you while you stay silent on your confession of Jesus the Christ.

You ain't digging deep enough, choosing instead to place your faith in the finished work of another man instead of Jesus Christ.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Whoop, your salvation isn't obtained by the calling on the name of the Lord by another man. Don't depend on another person to obtain salvation for you while you stay silent on your confession of Jesus the Christ.

You ain't digging deep enough, choosing instead to place your faith in the finished work of another man instead of Jesus Christ.

Ahh Yes, the ol' "Finished Work" mantra'.

Ho-Hum & Big Yawn....Have dealt w/ it ad nauesum. It is an offense to Calvary & makes the Word of God of no effect.

Funny, from the looks of things it is you who needs to dig deeper....You clearly have not done your homework:


Dr. Paul Ferguson, "The Acts of Jesus Christ," pg. 83:
"get your sins washed away by having his name called over you."

M. D. Treece, "The Literal Word," Acts vol. 2, pg. 240:
"...wash away your sins having his name called upon you."

Talmadge French, A.T.F. Journal, pg. 102:

"The circumstantial participle [calling] is non-articular [lacking the definite article] and non-specific [meaning] having the name called over yourself."



Thank God for biblical salvation!

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by rdp

You're as off base as a lesbian pastor is from God:


"And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." [Acts 22:16].


The verbs "baptize" & "wash" & the participle "calling" are in the Permissive Middle Voice, also known as the Causative Middle Voice. The significance of the Permissive Middle indicates that the subject [Saul] "Permits" this action to be done to them.


"Calling" is what grammarians call the "Participle of Means," describing how the action of the main verbs are carried out. For example, "Cleanse the garment, washing it..." "Washing" would describe the means by which one is to cleanse the garment [i.e., participle of means].


Saul was the recipient of the action performed upon him in the sense of, "Get yourself baptized, get your sins washed away, get the Name of the Lord called upon you." Let's look at what a few reputable Lexicons & Grammars [& I have many more in my library] say about the Permissive Middle Voice of Acts 22:16:

Blass, Debrunner, Funk, "Grammar," pg. 166:
"The Middle Voice in the sense of 'to let oneself be'...[see] Acts 22:16."

Dr. Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (the leading grammar of our day), pp. 425-426:
"Permissive Middle Voice...the subject allows something to be done for or to himself or herself. The Permissive Middle is also like a Passive [Voice] in that the subject is the receiver of the action...[see] Acts 22:16."


*PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THIS NEXT ONE:


Dr. A. T. Robertson, Large Grammar [in Light of Historical Research], pp. 808, 1110:

"Acts 22:16, the Causative Middle Voice [meaning] 'Get yourself baptized and get your sins washed away. There is nothing of a distinctive nature to be said about the voice of the participle ['calling'] in addition to what has already been said [about the voices]. THE VOICES RUN IN THE PARTICIPLE ['CALLING'] PRECISELY AS IN THE VERB ITSELF. All the nuances of the voices appear in the participle."


In other words, what is demonstrated in the Permissive [or Causative] Middle Voice of the verbs "baptized" & "wash," [to permit yourself to be], is equally demonstrated in the participle "calling".


"Calling" derives from a compound term of the Greek preposition "epi," meaning "upon," & the verb "Kaleo" defines as "to call or pronounce" [Epi-Kaleo].


Bauer's Greek-English Lexicon, pg. 294: "Epikaleo, someone's name is CALLED OVER SOMEONE." While Bauer does not translate Acts 22.16 in this fashion, this strictly due to their not interacting on a syntactical level (e.g., the Permissive/Causative Mid. Voice force of the verbs). This term is used approximately 32 times in the NT & ALWAYS refers to an oral invocation.


Hence the transliteration, "permit the Name of the Lord to be called upon you" as the means (i.e., participle) of washing away your sins in baptism.


But, here, see below for more....Just in case there are still some who are reluctant to exchange their religious traditions for biblical salvation:


*Dana and Mantey, "A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament," pp. 160-162:

"Acts 22:16....is Middle [Voice] and means get yourself baptized." This Grammar then illustrates the meaning of the Middle Voice w/ I Cor. 6:7 where the church members were taking each other to court. They translate the Permissive Middle Voice [same as Acts 22:16] as, "why not rather LET YOURSELVES be wronged?"


NEB Translation: "And now why delay? Be baptized at once, with invocation of His name, and wash away your sins."


R. A. Knox Translation: "Why art thou wasting time? Rise up and receive baptism, washing away thy sins at the invocation of his name."


Dr. Paul Ferguson, "The Acts of Jesus Christ," pg. 83:
"get your sins washed away by having his name called over you."


M. D. Treece, "The Literal Word," Acts vol. 2, pg. 240:
"...wash away your sins having his name called upon you."


Talmadge French, A.T.F. Journal, pg. 102:

"The circumstantial participle [calling] is non-articular [lacking the definite article] and non-specific [meaning] having the name called over yourself."


**The Greek verbs translated "baptize" & "wash" are Aorist Tense, which denotes all-encompassing time [i.e., past, present, future], and Imperative Mood, meaning a command or order.

In the final syntactical analysis, Acts 22:16 denotes that the Name of Jesus invoked [epikalesamenos] over Saul [Permissive Middle Voice] is a time-less command [Aorist Imperative] & the means [Participle "calling"] by which sins are washed away!


Otherwise we find ourselves in the peculiar predicament of baptizing ourselves & washing away our own sins, which, obviously one would reject.

Moreover, the verb translated "baptize" is generally in the passive voice all throughout Scripture, which is why it's translated as "be baptized" [i.e., by another].


"Arise" in Acts 22:16 is a first person-active-imperative, indicating that Saul was to "Arise" himself. However, the syntactical structure of the sentence then shifts to the permissive middle voice which I have expounded above.

Here's the overriding point: If this was the case w/ the man caught up to heaven & who wrote 2/3 of the NT, what prohibits us from having our sins washed away in the same manner?!





Looks like Elder Epley is not the one who needs to do more homework !

Thank you. This is real scholarship!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by seekerman

You, nor Epley know what you're talking about. You both are suggesting that "epikalesamenos" is middle voice and therefore means that Ananias is the person calling upon the name of the Lord on behalf of Paul with Paul silently stands there allowing another man to call upon the name of the Lord for him. But simply saying it's the middle voice indicates that Epley knows little about what he speaks.

"Epikalesamenos" isn't simply middle voice or permissive middle voice but is the subject of "be baptized" which is 2 person, singular, aorist 1, imperative mood, and middle voice. This determines how "epikalesamenos" is used. In this case the only conclusion is that the one being baptized is calling on the name of the Lord, which is Paul. It's not possible that ""epikalesamenos" is referring to Ananias, it has to be referring to Paul because he's the one receiving Ananias' command for him, Paul, to be baptized calling upon the name of the Lord. Your bold font, pretty colors and underling has absolutely nothing to do with the truth of the passage. Take it, analyze it, and find what it actually says. I couldn't agree more with French that one has the name called over themselves. The one who is receiving the baptism is calling upon the name of the Lord over themselves, the action is focused on them, not the performance of the baptizor, in this case Ananias.

"The Greek aorist participle, f, translated "calling оn His name" refers еіthеr tо action that iѕ simultaneous with оr beforе thаt of the main verb, "be baptized." Here Paul’s calling оn Christ’s namе for salvation preceded hіs water baptism. The participle mаy be translated "having called оn His name" whіch makes more sense, аѕ it would сleаrlу indіaatе the order оf thе events."

"translated "calling оn His name" refers еіthеr tо action that iѕ simultaneous with оr beforе thаt of the main verb, "be baptized." Here Paul’s calling оn Christ’s namе for salvation preceded hіs water baptism. The participle mаy be translated "having called оn His name" whіch makes more sense, аѕ it would сleаrlу indісatе the order оf thе events."

Not surprisingly your, and Epley's, view places someone between man and God other than Jesus Christ, namely Ananias and his performance which was needed by Paul in order that Paul might be saved. There's nothing in the passage which slightly suggests such a thing.

Looks like you and Epley need to dig a little deeper.

I see you named your sources where he just said believe me.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by rdp

Ahh Yes, the ol' "Finished Work" mantra'.

Ho-Hum & Big Yawn....Have dealt w/ it ad nauesum. It is an offense to Calvary & makes the Word of God of no effect.

Funny, from the looks of things it is you who needs to dig deeper....You clearly have not done your homework:

Dr. Paul Ferguson, "The Acts of Jesus Christ," pg. 83:
"get your sins washed away by having his name called over you."

M. D. Treece, "The Literal Word," Acts vol. 2, pg. 240:
"...wash away your sins having his name called upon you."

Talmadge French, A.T.F. Journal, pg. 102:

"The circumstantial participle [calling] is non-articular [lacking the definite article] and non-specific [meaning] having the name called over yourself."



Thank God for biblical salvation!

Dr. Paul Ferguson, The Acts of Jesus Christ. Can't find it. Is it such an obscure work that you can't give a source for it? Oneness pentecostal fella I guess.

M.D. Treese, The Literal Word. Another rare obscure work by a oneness pentecostal?

Talmadge French, A.T.F. Journal. Yet another oneness pentecostal source which is so meaningless that those outside the oneness pentecostal sect have never heard of such.

You gotta realize, your scholarly sources are neither scholarly or unbiased. This is a joke, right? You're like the Jehovah's Witnesses publishing 'scholarly' works by Jehovah's Witnesses. It would be humorous if the work was not so poor and biased.

Your 'biblical' salvation hinges on the confession of someone like Epley speaking on your behalf, not your own according to your flawed interpretation of Acts 22:16. You wish to take the individual calling upon the name of the Lord for himself and replace him with someone else. Just stay silent and let the preacher obtain your salvation, you say, but that's not what the language of the passage says at all. Rewrite scripture to state that it's teaching that Ananias is calling on the name of the Lord for Paul's salvation but that's just a complete bastardization of the greek text.

You wish for an individual to obtain salvation through another man's 'correct' works, having faith in a man's (the oneness pentecostal priest) work instead of Christ's work. And yes, Christ does have a finished work which is of course absolutely destroys your salvation through the preacher's work theology. That's why you're sick of the finished work of Christ.

You base your salvation on someone else's confession, their proper righteous works on your behalf. Of course that's taught nowhere in the bible, including Acts 22:16, but that doesn't prevent you from proclaiming the Romanist salvation theology at all. The only thing that's missing from your theology of salvation by the confession of another man on your behalf is a funny looking fish hat and a backward collar.