1:16:00 Acts 22:16 Mike word-for-word: "In Acts 22:16, the two main verbs are commands: 'get yourself baptized' it's what's called 'in the middle voice' in the Greek and 'wash your sins away'. The other verbs are Aorist participles. This indicates actions that receive the actions of the main verse. The main verse 'get yourself baptized' and 'wash away your sins' -- the fact that they're in the Aorist tense indicates that these two events are _how_ you call on the name of the Lord when you look in the literal language." LOL what?? be baptized, βάπτισαι (baptisai) Verb - Aorist Imperative Middle - 2nd Person Singular wash [...away your sins] ἀπόλουσαι (apolousai) Verb - Aorist Imperative Middle - 2nd Person Singular calling on [...His name] ἐπικαλεσάμενος (epikalesamenos) Verb - Aorist Participle Middle - Nominative Masculine Singular So "calling on His name" as Aorist participle is either: a) antecedent (coming before) the other verbs (i.e., you start calling as you are (hence, prior to) being baptized + washing away sins) or b) coincident with the other verbs (happening at the same time). "Aorist" means uncertain. There is flexibility to decide the 'time' and 'kind' of action, but does not imply that "the imperatives are giving a formula, the process to complete for the participle". Where are you getting this?? Such a strange commentary. Also, (paraphrasing) "I encourage everyone to study the Greek on their own to avoid picking something that fits your theology." Wow pot calling the kettle black here. Your entire monologue about the Aorist participle indicating the imperatives are giving the formula for the particle is a textbook example of retrofitting the bible to fit your pet doctrines. From ntgreek.net (ntgreek.net/lesson33.htm): _It is tempting to say that, whereas the present participle is used of action that is coincident with that of the main verb, the aorist participle is used of action that is antecedent to that of the main verb. However... What we know of tense in general and of the aorist tense in particular remains true in the participle. Tense in Greek primarily has to do with kind of action, not time of action. And in the case of the aorist tense, even kind of action is left an open question. The aorist tense treats the action as a simple fact. Remember, "aorist" means indefinite. So the aorist participle can be of service in many situations, whether the action in view is prior to or coincident with the action of the main verb, and whether the action denoted by the participle itself is punctiliar or ongoing. The aorist participle does not stipulate any of these; it allows for all of these. That having been said, as a practical matter, the aorist participle is most often used of action that is in fact antecedent to the time of the main verb. (Ernest De Witt Burton discussed reasons for this in Moods and Tenses of New Testament Greek. See below.) But if context indicates the action was not antecedent to the time of the main verb, don't feel that the aorist participle forces you to translate it as if it were. Action Prior to that of the Main Verb Again, as a practical matter, most of the aorist participles you will encounter in this lesson, and indeed in the New Testament, can be well translated using language that sets the indicated action prior to the time of the action of the main verb._
13:10 Its a fight for your faith to remember the Death of Jesus. And to not get caught up in the legalism of "I gotta do all these things so I can be a 'Good Christian'..." "I GET TO DO ALL THESE THINGS because of what Jesus did for me" AMEN!!! Out of Gratitude for our Salvation!!! Dont forget the Lord's death. 💯💯💯💯💯😱❤🔥❤🔥❤🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥 JUST WOW!!!!!!!!!
rother i love your words they are so powerful i am a member the gicc but i saw you preach today 4-16-2023 and msg you gave was so powerful i had to here more so i foun your channle on youtube and love it
Awesome to see and hear the True Disciples of the 1st century church. "And teach them to obey everything i have commanded you. And surely i with you always to the very end of the age" - Matthew 28:20
2:33:57 Great video, very helpful to adding to my knowledge. One thing I will add is I know many believed Ephesians 2:8 saying (saved by Grace and not BY works) that all we have to do is believe. But a few verses below states a “therefore” which means something that was said before has an affect to what’s about to be said. Then Paul talks about circumcision. And this is the “not by works” he was referring to. That we can not work for our salvation like one becomes a citizen of Israel by being circumcised for those (Gentiles) who were uncircumcised. But in verse 13 it says in Christ Jesus we have been brought near to Jesus through the “blood of Christ”. And not by believing only. But the question remains: when do somebody come into contact with the Blood of Jesus? In context, Ephesians 1:7 scriptures read we have redemption (Salvation) through Jesus Blood, the forgiveness of sins in accordance to the riches of Gods grace. The Bible teaches that Jesus Blood is the forgiveness of sins and the only other place we see forgiveness of sins is in Acts 2:38 where baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. Baptism (AND FAITH, can’t have one without the other because they go hand in hand) is the point in time we make contact with Jesus blood which is the time we are saved. Thank you for reading. 🙏🏿
[ Feel free to add & email me if you have questions ] ------------ I have a few thoughts about this debate for anyone who leans in favor of White even after this----------> @101-3:XX , Pastor White's position on what "ἀντίτυπον" means echoes the sentiments of Matt Slick but similarly to him, he is grammatically incorrect. One cannot place the salvific properties to the ark because the ark didn't save Noah; the ark was merely the tool by which prevented the saving water that cleansed the Earth of its sin from overtaking Noah. The implication, is that without this cleaning water, that same sin would overtake Noah. Symbolically, as the scripture states, the water was a symbol for the water of future baptism, which now saves you also. The water is the physical foreshadowing of the spiritual truth to come which was, coming in contact with the blood of Christ in His death. To skip over 3 other nouns/pronouns to target the one his beliefs prefer is dogma, not data. No contemporary reader/hearer would understand the passage as he stated it, nor should we. Then @104-7:XX incorrectly applies "εἰς" to a "as a result of" modality when 34% (or debatably more) of it's uses are "for the purpose of" modality. This same concept functions with the idea of a job posting vs a wanted poster. One can be wanted for a job, but it would be grammatically assumed incorrect to be wanted TO COMMIT a murder. Thankfully, the "save yourselves" in Acts 2:40 redirects our attention from a false eisegesis. Then @107:XX, his assumption that the use of "Brother" in Acts 9 is referring to brother in Christ & not a fellow Hebrew is conclusively his personal eisegesis bleeding into the exposition. @108 he makes a false equivocation fallacy by thinking that the water of baptism is somehow the transubstantiation heresy of the Catholic church. @135:XX he admits that his doctrinal position is "by deduction" yet repeatedly injects his feelings into his statements. This is one of the reasons I am not a huge fan of seminaries that only focus on the periphery of textual criticism because these dogmatic presuppositions lock people into a mindset they cannot logically recover from since they didn't logically come to it in the first place. @216:XX , White believes that a "tare" can be one who claims salvation but isn't actually saved. This is a fair statement but somehow equating this to Rev. 3's "I will spit you out" statement directed specifically to those IN the body of Christ is once again a false equivalent. He doubles down on this by saying that if a person has the capacity to remove themselves from salvation by rejecting Christ, then they must be the one who saved themselves initially. This too is pure and utter nonsense. While the the Bible doesn't detail the Calvinism (predetermination) vs Arminian (Pre-destination) harmonization, outside of our continuum, such a paradox doesn't have to exist. If we limit our thinking to the limitations of our minds can fathom with comprehension, it's a logical fallacy to presume we are cognizant of the inner workings of a higher power. If we pretend like things are all on God, then all the accountability verses such as the one mentioned in John 15 @ 222:XX is moot. If we believe it is all about us, we reject God's devine plan of salvation and all the verses about His calling. To camp on either side is to play God and frankly academically PLUS dogmatically irresponsible. Lastly @230:XX, White mentions the Greek word for baptism from Roman 6 but says it mentions nothing about water. This too is a fair statement because the word "βαπτίζω" was used figuratively in ancient writings jus not the Bible to my knowledge. The complication here lies that 1 Peter 3, does mention water. Since both Jesus, Peter & Paul all were physically fully immersed in water, it is reasonable to conclude even without the dogma of univocality that this baptism was IN WATER despite it not being mentioned. ----------Overall, believing that one is saved at the moment of belief requires an endless supply of dogma, eisegesis & theological gymnastics that the 1st century church never would've considered based on the words used. The bottom line here is, data>dogma.
Pastor white believes in faith repentance and baptism, but he thinks the baptism that is necessary is spiritual and it happens in the spiritual which we cannot see and not physically being immersed in water. But it’s obvious that the baptism that the Bible speaks of is physical
Sorry to say, but pastor Nick White needs to learn how to correctly handle the Word of Truth in regards to baptism… all of his scriptures were not used in context of the rest of the Bible… his points are easily refuted… even by a person without a degree, such as myself.
