Jump to content

Pastor Scott Markle

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content Count

    2,365
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    142

Pastor Scott Markle last won the day on December 8

Pastor Scott Markle had the most liked content!

About Pastor Scott Markle

  • Rank
    Abiding in Christ
  • Birthday 08/13/1971

Profile Information

Recent Profile Visitors

13,763 profile views
  1. Brother Wretched, I certainly appreciate your respect toward me (now and in the past). Although we have not always agreed, I have definitely come to respect you a great deal through our various interactions. Even so, I desire that the following post not be taken as disrespectful; for I do NOT intend it as such. Nevertheless, I do intend it to be somewhat corrective (which some take as disrespectful). (Note: I have pondered much on how to present the following. I pray that it will truly be "good to the use of edifying.") With your linked phrase (tells us "believe"), you make reference unto the parable of the sower as recorded in Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23, in Mark 4:3-9, 14-20, and in Luke 8:5-8, 11-15. In relation to the parable of the sower, you speak about "tares" and seem to indicate that "they on the rock" should be viewed as such "tares." However, I am compelled to contend that there are NO "tares" whatsoever at all in the parable of the sower. The ONLY seed sown in the parable of the sower is the "good" (incorruptible - see for reference 1 Peter 1:23) seed of God's Word; and the ONLY sower in the parable of the sower is a "good" sower of the incorruptible Word (as implied by the fact that he is sowing the "good" seed of God's Word). From my perspective, to indicate or imply that the incorruptible seed of God's Word can produce (germinate into) "tares" is somewhat offensive against the incorruptible character of God's Holy Word. On the other hand, the only place wherein "tares" are directly referenced in the New Testament is in the parable of the tares as recorded in Matthew 13:24-30, 37-43. In the parable of the tares, there are TWO DIFFERENT kinds of seed that are sown: (1) "the good seed" and (2) the "tares" seed. Furthermore, in that parable there are TWO DIFFERENT sowers of seed: (1) the good sower of the good seed, "the Son of man," and (2) the "enemy" sower of the "tares" seed, "the devil." If we seek to correlate the two parables, it would seem to me that the correlation between them is at the point of "the good seed," the incorruptible seed of God's Holy Word. This good, incorruptible seed of God's Word produces (germinates into) wheat, NOT tares. Thus I would further contend that the "belief" presented in Luke 8:13 is genuine faith in the gospel of Christ, through which the Word of God germinates in their hearts and through which they pass from death unto life (as indicated by the very fact that there IS plant growth). The germination and LIFE of God's Word in an individual's heart is itself an evidence that an individual is "born again." (See for reference 1 Peter 1:23)
  2. Indeed, I understand that sentiment. Yet as a pastor I AM responsible - in two different directions: 1. On the one hand, I am responsible to obey God's command to guide new born babes in Christ unto the obedience of baptism and to be "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." 2. On the other hand, I am responsible to guard the flock from deceivers and from corruption. (Certainly not an easy task, yet possible under the guiding and empowering influence of the indwelling of Holy Spirit of God.
  3. Ahhh, yes. That does help to clear things between us a little more. So then, if your concern is primarily that of a trend, which appears to be revealed as faulty when the children get older, I would contend that the problem is NOT at what age we baptize, BUT is how poorly we are handling the matter of gospel faith with our children.
  4. Sister Salyan, I do NOT stand in disagreement with your point. However, I did wish to spring off your thoughts with an important distinction in the matter of this "debate." According to God's Word the issue is NOT whether a church does or does not baptize babies because of their age. Rather, according God's Word the issue IS whether a church does or does not baptize UNBELIEVERS regardless of their age. In accord with the teaching of God's Word, I will NOT baptize anyone from babyhood unto "ancient-hood" that does not have a testimony of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as personal Savior. If a baby cannot or has not believed in Christ, then that baby should not be baptized. If a young child cannot or has not believed in Christ, then that young child should not be baptized. If an older child cannot or has not believed in Christ, then that older child should not be baptized. If a teen child cannot or has not believed in Christ, then that teen child should not be baptized. If a young adult cannot or has not believed in Christ, then that young adult should not be baptized. If an older adult cannot or has not believed in Christ, then that older adult should not be baptized. If an "ancient" (Bible word) adult cannot or has not believed in Christ, then that "ancient" adult should not be baptized. However, if ANY INDIVIDUAL has placed genuine faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as personal Savior, then that individual IS Biblically qualified to be baptized. Thus we return to the question - At what age can a child come unto genuine faith/belief in the Lord Jesus Christ as personal Savior? This is the doctrinal question that needs to be answer FROM THE TEACHING OF GOD'S WORD.
  5. Brother JimR, What does God's Holy Word instruct me to do in this matter? Do the New Testament Scriptures indicate that I should baptize "on profession of faith," or that I should "insist on some education first"? Consider the order that is revealed in the instruction of Matthew 28:19-20 -- "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen." Do the New Testament Scriptures indicate that I should baptize "on profession of faith," or that I should "insist on . . . evidence of a changed life"? (Note: I would contend that the "evidience of a changed life" is actually the evidence of spiritual growth unto spiritual maturity, NOT the evidence of the new birth. I would further contend that the evidence of the new birth is simply an evidence that spiritual life exists, NOT an evidence of being transformed in character. A seed does not provide its first evidence of life when it bears fruit. Rather, a seed provides its first evidence of life when it germinates and thus begins to grow its first baby root.) My authority of belief and behavior is GOD'S HOLY WORD. What it teaches is what I SHOULD do. What others teach that cannot be found taught in God's Word is simply the doctrines of men according to the authority of men. As per my comment above that God's Holy Word is my authority for belief and behavior, I do not find this "evidence" for you position to be relevant. WHAT DOES GOD'S WORD TEACH? Yet your postings have raised a question in my mind. Throughout this thread discussion, thus far you have not referenced a single passage of Scripture. This moves me to wonder - What is your chosen authority for belief and behavior? Is it the teaching of God's Word, or is it the traditions of Baptists? From your postings in this thread discussion thus far (noting that I have not examined any other postings in any other thread discussion to which you have contributed), it appears to me that your chosen authority is the traditions of Baptists. At least from my perspective that appears to be the authority unto which you have continued to make your appeal.
  6. Brother JimR, I do not feel that my toes are "stepped on," nor do I feel offended. I only care with deep conviction and commitment that Biblical authority be that which is used to determine such spiritual and church issues. Thus I would contend that the age for marriage or military service is not at all relevant to the case in question. God's Word indicates (as you referenced) that Biblical baptism is for genuine believers. Thus if a younger child can genuinely believe on Christ for eternal salvation, then that younger child is qualified for believer's baptism. Even so, the real question is whether younger children can genuinely believe on Christ for eternal salvation. From my perspective the very best person to answer that question is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, as per the passage that I quoted from Matthew 18:5-6. Biblical truth is found in the Bible alone.
  7. Personal experience: Saved at the age of 4; baptized by immersion at the age of 5 (time difference due to a fear of drowning); NEVER any doubts or questions concerning salvation. Biblical truth: Matthew 18:5-6 - "And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."
  8. Brother Wayne, I myself would agree (I think). For I would contend that the repentance necessary for salvation includes, NOT a repentance from individual sins of unrighteousness (per se) unto a walk of righteousness, BUT a repentance from utter sinFULness in character unto the Savior from all sinfulness. (1st Note: I also believe that the repentance for salvation includes a repentance toward God (unto the truth) and a repentance from dead works (as a means of salvation).) (2nd Note: I would acknowledge that a confrontation of an individual sin may be the means by which a lost sinner comes to recognize his or her utter sinFULness, as per the case of the Samaritan woman in John 4.)
  9. Yes, Brother Wretched, it makes sense . . . IF we are parsing sinful actions from sinful attitudes in relation to the matter of repentance, and IF the wickedness of Simon was the sinful attitude of unbelief. However, I myself would take issue with this for the following reasons: 1. I would NOT parse sinful actions from sinful attitudes in relation to the matter of repentance. Rather, I would contend that the matter of repentance encompasses any and all sinfulness, including BOTH sinful actions and sinful attitudes, BOTH sinful speech and sinful thoughts. 2. I would contend that Simon's wickedness was NOT the sinful attitude of unbelief, but was the thought that spiritual blessings can be purchases with carnal money (in principle - the thought that carnal means are the way to spiritual progress). Consider Acts 8:18-23 -- "And when Simon saw that through laying on of 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. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity." Throughout this I do not see any place wherein Peter accuses Simon concerning the sinful attitude of unbelief. Rather, it appears to me that Peter accused Simon concerning the sinful attitudes of materialism (as the means for spiritual progress) and of bitterness. In fact, the Holy Spirit inspired Word of God itself reports that Simon DID believe. Even so, BEFORE the event of Acts 8:18-23, the opening line of Acts 8:13 reports, "Then Simon himself believed also."
  10. Acts 8:22 - "Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee."
  11. Let us just make sure we understand the postings against which the above contributor is speaking so harshly . . .
  12. So, which "God" is being referenced in Romans 1:19? The same "God" that is referenced in Romans 1:18, since Romans 1:19 is grammatically a part of the same sentence as Romans 1:18. That sentence begins at the beginning of Romans 1:18 and ends at the end of Romans 1:19. So then, who is this God? He is the God who reveals His wrath "from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men." (See Romans 1:18). To me that sure seems like a reference unto THE God of heaven and of all-holiness.
  13. Creative use of the money symbol, brother.
  14. Indeed, the primary issue about being a "stumbling block" in Romans 14 is that of diet (as per verses 2, 3, 6, 15, 17, 20, 21). However, it appears to me that a secondary issue is also referenced concerning days (as per verses 5, 6). From your comments above it appears that you are viewing this reference to days as a reference to "fasting on certain days." However, I see NO reference to the idea of fasting in the chapter at all. Could you point out the particular wording anywhere in the chapter which moves you to the idea of fasting?
  15. As per the portions that I have emphasized with emboldening and underlining, it sure appears to me that these verses are talking about DAYS, not about diets. Brother "Rstrats," could you point out the particular wording in the verses above which move you to see the issue of diets?

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...