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

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

NOPE!

YEP!

"…calling on the name of the Lord" (epikalesamenos to onoma autou). The word "calling" (epikalesamenos) is nominative case, singular in number, masculine in gender, participle, aorist 1 in tense, and middle voice (The Analytical Greek Lexicon, pg. 157). The participle form (the "ing") shows ongoing action and a relationship to baptism and the middle voice indicates that this is something the subject (Saul or Paul) is doing to benefit himself.

Study to show yourself approved.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by seekerman

YEP!

"…calling on the name of the Lord" (epikalesamenos to onoma autou). The word "calling" (epikalesamenos) is nominative case, singular in number, masculine in gender, participle, aorist 1 in tense, and middle voice (The Analytical Greek Lexicon, pg. 157). The participle form (the "ing") shows ongoing action and a relationship to baptism and the middle voice indicates that this is something the subject (Saul or Paul) is doing to benefit himself.

Study to show yourself approved.

Show us how the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8 called on the name of the Lord.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Show us how the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8 called on the name of the Lord.

Well, first, lets determine who was calling on the name of the Lord, Paul or Ananias? The language of the passage is without question, Paul was calling on the name of the Lord thus the usage of the word "epikalesamenos".

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

Ananias said, Paul, don't tarry. Paul, arise. Paul be baptized. Paul call on the name of the Lord. "Epikalesamenos" confirms this.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Well, first, lets determine who was calling on the name of the Lord, Paul or Ananias? The language of the passage is without question, Paul was calling on the name of the Lord thus the usage of the word "epikalesamenos".

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

Ananias said, Paul, don't tarry. Paul, arise. Paul be baptized. Paul call on the name of the Lord. "Epikalesamenos" confirms this.

Okay, having given us this again, tell us about Phillip and the Ethiopian Eunuch. How does the scripture show the Eunuch calling on the name of the Lord?

[Praxeas]

Church is usec in different ways in the nt. To refer to local congrgations and globally to the one body of believers

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Okay, having given us this again, tell us about Phillip and the Ethiopian Eunuch. How does the scripture show the Eunuch calling on the name of the Lord?

I'll be glad to discuss Phillip and the eunuch. But first, why not keep focus on Ananinas baptizing Paul and determine which one calls upon the Lord by looking at the greek? Epley made an ignorant and unlearned statement when he suggested that the middle voice of of the greek word "epikalesamenos" indicates that Ananias was the person calling on the name of the Lord in the passage instead of Paul.

Don't take my word for it, don't take Epley's word for it, search it for yourself.
After that we'll certainly discuss Philip and the eunuch.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by seekerman

I'll be glad to discuss Phillip and the eunuch. But first, why not keep focus on Ananinas baptizing Paul and determine which one calls upon the Lord by looking at the greek? Epley made an ignorant and unlearned statement when he suggested that the middle voice of of the greek word "epikalesamenos" indicates that Ananias was the person calling on the name of the Lord in the passage instead of Paul.

Don't take my word for it, don't take Epley's word for it, search it for yourself.
After that we'll certainly discuss Philip and the eunuch.

No, let's look at both of them. It doesn't matter, in that instance, if Ananias is speaking or Paul. Paul, in my opinion, is a whole different story since he first rejected Jesus Christ's doctrine dragging people out of their homes, was holding Stephen's coat while he was being stoned, and just a fearful man to the Christians.

What matters is that they have made a confession of their faith. That is tantamount for the NT church - Do you believe on the name of Jesus? If not, then they will die in their sins.

I think you are taking the one passage too far to prove something you cannot.

[navygoat1998]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

What matters is that they have made a confession of their faith. That is tantamount for the NT church - Do you believe on the name of Jesus? If not, then they will die in their sins.

Sister Pressing-On, Don't even Baptist believe on the Name of Jesus.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

No, let's look at both of them. It doesn't matter, in that instance, if Ananias is speaking or Paul. Paul, in my opinion, is a whole different story since he first rejected Jesus Christ's doctrine dragging people out of their homes, was holding Stephen's coat while he was being stoned, and just a fearful man to the Christians.

What matters is that they have made a confession of their faith. That is tantamount for the NT church - Do you believe on the name of Jesus? If not, then they will die in their sins.

I think you are taking the one passage too far to prove something you cannot.

The claim was made that it was not the baptizee (Paul) being instructed to call on the name of the Lord but was the baptizor (Ananias) who was to call on the name of the Lord. Who is doing what to whom in the passage is important, giving an illustration of the baptism process that Paul himself followed. You've not given your view on the language of the passage. Was it Ananias calling on the name of the Lord or was it Paul?

When we determine that, we'll move on to the eunuch. Why attempt to dismiss the passage without determining what is being taught in the passage?

[rdp]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Well, first, lets determine who was calling on the name of the Lord, Paul or Ananias? The language of the passage is without question, Paul was calling on the name of the Lord thus the usage of the word "epikalesamenos".

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

Ananias said, Paul, don't tarry. Paul, arise. Paul be baptized. Paul call on the name of the Lord. "Epikalesamenos" confirms this.

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 !