Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Pastor Scott Markle

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Posts

    2,759
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    211

Pastor Scott Markle last won the day on December 25 2021

Pastor Scott Markle had the most liked content!

6 Followers

About Pastor Scott Markle

  • Birthday 08/13/1971

Profile Information

Recent Profile Visitors

17,480 profile views

Pastor Scott Markle's Achievements

  1. Indeed, the human person is made of three interrelated parts: 1. The soul -- which is the personhood of a person (including the heart for motivation, the mind for thinking, the emotion for attitude, the conscience for moral estimation, the will for decision making, etc.). 2. The body -- which is the physical "house" of the soul (by which the soul is able to act in and interact with the physical world). 3. The spirit -- which is the spiritual capacity of the soul (by which the soul is able to engage in fellowship with God, and which is so closely connected to the soul that it requires the superior sharpness of God's Word to divide between them). Now, if the body experiences some form of "depression," such as physical shock after an injury, then that is certainly a matter for physical medical treatment (bathed in prayer). If the spirit experiences depression, then that is certainly a matter for spiritual treatment. (Note: The regenerate spirit is created after God's own likeness in righteousness and true holiness, and as such would not actually be able to experience spiritual "depression;" whereas the unregenerate spirit is always in the darkness of unrighteousness, and thus is always in a form of spiritual "depression.") Yet the real dispute comes when the soul experiences some form of depression. Does the truth and wisdom of God's Holy Word speak concerning the matters of the human soul? Does the truth and wisdom of God's Holy Word speak concerning the matter of the human heart, the human mind, the human emotion, the human conscience, the human will, the selfish flesh, etc.? When considering "disorders" of the human soul, which is a better source for truth and wisdom -- the wisdom of God's Holy Word or the wisdom of human psychoanalysis? Furthermore, in today's culture, when human psychoanalysis engages such matters, it tends to disregard the close connection of the spirit and soul in a person, to disregard the truth and wisdom of God's Holy Word concerning matters of the soul, to disregard the place of God Himself in relation to the person, and (concerning believers) to disregard the reality that God the Holy Spirit HIMSELF resides within a believer. Even so, in today's culture human psychoanalysis attempts to engage "disorders" of the human soul by using only the tools of human wisdom and human ingenuity (at present, usually through pharmaceuticals). Now, the lost world really has no other option, since those are the only tools that are available to them. However, for us who are the children of God, the children of light, we should be following a better way; we should be using better "tools." 2 Corinthians 10:3-5 -- "For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity EVERY THOUGHT to the obedience of Christ."
  2. Depression and anxiety ARE spiritual issues. Providing information from articles that disregard the truth and wisdom of God's Holy Word on the subject will lead astray and will not help the root problem of the heart. When our answers concerning the heart and soul of mankind come from any source other than God's Holy Word, we are already on uncertain ground. Galatians 5:22-25 -- "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit." John 14:27 -- "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid." Psalm 43:5 -- "Why art thou cast down, O my soul? And why art thou disquieted within me? Hope in God: for I shall yet praise him, who is the health of my countenance, and my God." Philippians 4:6-9 -- "Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. And the peace of God which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus. Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. Those things which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you."
  3. Brother "StandingintheGap," I recognize your perspective on this matter (allowing for the fact that the passage does not specifically state that she was fornicating with the man that she was presently with); however, I would contend that Jesus' specific terminology would lend itself toward an accusation of sexual involvement. For Jesus did not say, "He whom thou now livest with." Rather, Jesus said, "He whom thou now HAST." Jesus employed a verb of possession, just as he had in the earlier phrase concerning the previous possession of husbands. Somehow she had "possession" of that man, in a similar fashion wherein she had had previous "possession" of husbands. How might that be? It could not be the "possession" of marriage since Jesus specifically stated that he was NOT her husband. So, how else does a woman "possess" a man who is not her husband? From my perspective it seems fairly clear that Jesus was referring to a sinful, sexual relationship (especially considering that contextually this seems to be the point by which the woman was convicted of sin unto faith in the Savior).
  4. On the one hand, I myself am compelled to acknowledge that the New Testament does not contain a direct command of tithing for the New Testament believer. On the other hand, I believe that the New Testament DOES provide a principle of percentage giving ("as God hath prospered" - 1 Corinthians 16:2, as well as 2 Corinthians 8:12) for the New Testament believer unto the ministry of the Lord. Furthermore, I believe that the primary motivation for giving unto the ministry of the Lord is out of HONOR for the Lord (as per Proverbs 3:9 & 2 Corinthians 8:9), and that this motivation is the true foundation for cheerful giving (as per 2 Corinthians 9:7). Finally, I believe that the principle of blessing according to the amount of percentage giving with a cheerful heart still holds for the New Testament believer (as per 2 Corinthians 9:6, 8-11) (which would seem to imply that the principle of cursing for not giving at all in honor unto the Lord would also still hold true). So then, with what percentage should a New Testament believer begin? According to 2 Corinthians 9:7 the New Testament instruction seems to be -- "according as he purposeth in his heart." However, throughout the whole of Scripture (including Abraham before the Law, and the instructions of the Law) the tithe out of the first fruits of our increase seems to be a base percentage for giving in honor unto the Lord our God.
  5. Actually, it appears from Genesis 20:13 that Abraham's instruction to Sarah about this matter was not just a two-time thing, but was actually a habitual thing -- "And it came to pass, when God caused me to wander from my father's house, that I said unto her, This is thy kindness which thou shalt shew unto me; at every place whither we shall come, say of me, He is my brother." In fact, I believe that this practice is what taught Isaac to do the same, that he learned this practice himself from the example of his father. I agree with this viewpoint. In fact, concerning the case of Rahab, it is possible that she was not even quite yet a convert/believer at the time of her lie.
  6. Philippians 2:5-8 -- "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Matthew 11:29-30 -- "Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly of heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."
  7. John 4:17-18 -- "The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband; for thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly." In this passage our Lord Jesus Christ Himself seems to be acknowledging that the woman HAD a man (was with a man), while that man was NOT to be viewed as the woman's actual husband. Indeed, when the woman stated that she had NO husband (at that present time), although she had engaged in five previous marriage relationships (as per Jesus' own declaration), and although she was presently with a man (as per Jesus' own declaration), our Lord Jesus Christ directly acknowledged that she had said WELL and TRULY. She had been married five previous times (all acknowledged by Jesus), but she was NOT married AT ALL at that present time (also acknowledged by Jesus). She had a man at that very present time (acknowledge by Jesus), but was NOT actually married to him at that present time (also acknowledged by Jesus). Thus it appears from our Lord Jesus Christ's own viewpoint that physical sexual relationship itself is NOT the defining factor for a divinely recognized marriage.
  8. First, I find no need to "account" for these things. These things are based upon the so-called "doctrine of numerology," to which I grant very little credibility because it lacks Scriptural support. Second, if for the sake of the argument we grant that the 1611 King James translation is the final basis for our Biblical study as English readers, then your numbering system concerning the books of the Bible is incorrect. In the 1611 King James translation the 40th book was NOT Matthew. Rather, the 40th book was 1 Esdras; for the 1611 King James translation included 14 books of the Apocrypha between Malachi and Matthew. This would also mean that the 1611 King James translation included 80 books altogether, not 66. Third, the fact that the 1611 King James translation included 14 books of the Apocrypha actually raises a question in relation to your belief system. You believe that the 1611 King James translation provided "advance revelations," since you believe that the King James translators were somehow specially guided by God the Holy Spirit in the translational process. So then, since they included 14 books of the Apocrypha, do you believe that we should be viewing these additional books as Holy Scripture as well? If not, then how do you account for the inclusion of the Apocrypha by those who were supposedly so specially guided by God the Holy Spirit? Was the inclusion of the Apocrypha by the will of man, by the will of God, or by the will of the devil? Fourth, if, on the other hand, you deny the credibility of the Apocrypha books (although they were included in the 1611 edition of the King James translation) because those books are no longer included in the 1769 edition of the King James translation (which is the one that we use today), then that raises a different question. Which of the five editions of the King James translation (1611 edition, 1629 edition, 1638 edition, 1762 edition, 1769 edition) is the single one that you have chosen to be your final authority? Furthermore, if you choose any one of the four editions after the 1611, to what extent did the King James translators really possess the "special" guidance of the Holy Spirit, since what they did needed further editing changes? In addition, what "special" guidance of the Holy Spirit was required for the various editors of these additional editions, in order to rightly make editing changes to that which had been originally given in 1611? Finally, if the various editors were so granted "special" guidance of God the Holy Spirit to make editing changes to that which had come before them, then why is it no longer possible for God the Holy Spirit to provide "special" guidance again in our day to make more editing changes in our day (not that I myself have any desire that any such thing should occur)? According to your belief system, how can you doctrinally verify from Holy Scripture that the edition of the King James translation that you have chosen for yourself is the FINAL authority which allows no further editing changes?
  9. In this post I wish to respond concerning the question over the second half of 1 John 2:23. And within the second to last paragraph of that which you posted on my personal profile: By the fact that you have repeated this case to me three different times, it seems that it is important to you. So then -- Your presentation of this case is somewhat false (and thus somewhat manipulative and deceptive). You provide us with THREE options to choose (which all turn out to be false options), but you neglect to provide the FOURTH option wherein the truth is actually found. The three options that you provide to us for the case concerning the second half of 1 John 2:23 are as follows: 1. The King James translators just made up this portion of 1 John 2:23, and thus took liberties with the Holy Scriptures by adding these ten words. (I answer -- This option is false.) 2. The King James translators received this portion of 1 John 2:23 from the devil. (I answer -- This option is false.) 3. The King James translators received this portion of 1 John 2:23 as an "advance revelation" from God the Holy Spirit. (This is the option that you desire for us to choose; however, I again answer -- This option is false). Now, these were the only three options that you offered us. Yet there is a fourth option that you neglected to offer us, as follows: 4. The King James translators included this portion of 1 John 2:23 because it already existed in previous sources of Holy Scripture, sources which they did indeed have available to them for their consideration. Brother West, you yourself attempted to cancel this option as even being possible with the following statements: The problem here is that you are wrong about what the King James translators had available to them. In truth, they did NOT develop these "10 words" completely new for the King James translation. In truth, the second half of 1 John 2:23 ALREADY EXISTED in previous English translations. Although it was not included in the 1526 Tyndale, the 1537 Matthews, or the 1560 Geneva translations, it WAS included in the 1395 Wycliffe translation and in the 1568 Bishop's Bible, which certainly were available to the King James translators for their consideration. Furthermore, this second half of 1 John 2:23 was also found in the Latin Vulgate, in the Syriac, Ethiopic, Coptic, Armenian, and Aramaic translations/versions, in Luther's German translation of 1545, in the Spanish Sagrada Escrituras of 1569, and in the Italian Diodati of 1649, which were also available to the King James translators for their consideration. Finally, although this second half of 1 John 2:23 was not included in Stephanus' Greek text of 1550, it WAS indeed found in Beza' Greek text of 1598. Indeed, this portion of 1 John 2:23 WAS found in various Greek texts that the King James translators certainly had available to them for their consideration. Therefore, in the particular case of 1 John 2:23, the use of italicized words does NOT indicate that the King James translators were unaware of any source support for the second half of the verse. So, why then did they put the second half of the verse in italics? Since (as far as I am aware) none of the King James translators communicated their reasoning in print, and since none of them remain alive today to ask, we can only speculate. One possible answer is that some of the King James translators were not as confident as others about the authenticity for that portion of 1 John 2:23. Thus in order to demonstrate THEIR HUMILITY (as per your own declaration of their character, Brother West -- "To say that these learned translators were humble would be an understatement"), those who were less confident humbly allowed it to be included; and those who were more confident humbly allowed it to be placed in italics. Another possibility is that the King James translators believed that the second half of 1 John 2:23 should be included, but they placed it italics in order to humbly acknowledge that it was not included in previously accepted English translations of the Holy Scriptures. (Note: As for myself, I find that there is more than enough source evidence for its authenticity. Even so, I have NO doubts against it.)
  10. To all, At present I am encountering a difficulty with handling the discussion to the extent that I desire. For the past few days, I have been unable to access my OnlineBaptist account from any computer at my own house. On the other hand, I AM able to access my account from other people's houses, which is what I am doing at present (at my in-law's). This has happened before and lasted approximately a week. I believe that it is a problem either with my router or with my internet provider. Therefore, having to access my account at other's houses limits my response-ability, because I do not have regular daily access. ___________________________________ To Brother West, You posted the following on my personal profile: Until the concluding two paragraphs, this presentation seems to be a response to the opening quote -- "Advanced revelation, then...prophecy IS advanced revelation in the context of the apostles." To this quote you then stated to me -- "I really do not know where you are going with this." The problem is that I myself did not present the original quotation. That original quotation was made above in this thread discussion by Brother Tony, not by me, as follows: Therefore, I cannot tell you where Brother Tony intended to be "going with this" statement. In order to know that, you have to talk to Brother Tony about it, not to me. __________________________________________________ Now, concerning your closing paragraph of that posting on my personal profile, as follows: First, let us recognize that chapter and verse divisions for the entire Old and New Testament Scriptures did NOT first begin with the King James translation. Although they were not included in the 1526 Tyndale translation or the 1537 Matthews translation, they were included in the 1560 Geneva translation. Even so, if for the sake of the argument we grant that these chapter and verse divisions were "advance revelation" (which I emphatically deny as true doctrine), then the King James translators did NOT themselves receive that "advance revelation." Then the King James translators were only continuing the "advance revelation" that had originally been granted to the Geneva translators. In addition, if we grant that such "advance revelation" can occur and be added through a sequence of English translations (which I emphatically deny), then there would be no grounds for claiming that a more modern English translation has not possibly also provided us with even further (and/or corrective) "advance revelation." What doctrinal grounds would we then have to claim that such "advance revelations" that occurred in the Tyndale translation, then in the Geneva translation, then in the 1611 King James translation, then in the four further editions of the King James translation, has ended with the 1769 edition of the King James translation? What doctrinal grounds would we then have to claim that God has not provided additional "advance revelations" in one or more of the English translations from the 1800s, 1900s, and 2000s? Second, since I would definitely deny that these chapter and verse divisions are "advance revelation," and since there is no direct Scriptural support for them, you ask whether I would reject them altogether. In answer I would say - No, there is no need to reject them altogether. These chapter and verse divisions serve as very useful TOOLS in locating specific statements of Holy Scripture for both Bible study and Bible memorization. Even so, there is good reason to retain them, and not to reject them. However, since these chapter and verse divisions were man made and were not a part of the original inspiration or divine preservation of the Holy Scriptures, they should NOT be viewed as carrying the "jot and tittle" authority of the very Holy Scriptures. Thus if a preacher or teacher indicates that a particular chapter division or verse division is "unfortunate," he is only expressing disagreement with a man-made tool, not with the Holy Spirit inspired and preserved Scriptures themselves.
  11. Advanced revelation, then...prophecy IS advanced revelation in the context of the apostles.

    I really do not know where you are going with this. The Bible itself has revelations and prophecies and not all revelations are prophecies.

    Paul had things revealed to him that were hid and unknown that the Gentiles would be fellow heirs.

    How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Eph 3:3-9

    And I do not mean this as a Hyper-dispensationalist would, for there were people in Christ before Paul (Rom. 16:7). This is not prophecy for there are none concerning the Church age in the O.T..

    Israel rejected the New Wine (Jesus Christ) and said the Old Wine (law) was better, had they tasted the New Wine there would be no church age or mystery as spoken above. to be revealed.

    It was a revealed mystery. Sure there are things concerning the Gentiles after the this age. And we can now see types in the Old Testament (Boaz and Ruth) concerning a Gentile bride, but this is hindsight.

    Peter could have had a ham sandwich in Acts 2, but he did not know it till later, by revelation. But this has nothing to do with 1John 2;23 and those 10 added words in italics. Where did they get them? Did the violate Pro. 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Where did they get this advance revelation? Was it from man, God or the devil?

      I just read your comment and you bypassed what I wrote concerning book arrangement, chapters being added and verse numberings and such. There is no scripture support for these either, should we reject these?

    Happy New Year

  12. So, you believe that which you (admittedly) cannot support directly from Scripture. By definition this seems to mean that you have chosen yourself (your own belief) as your final authority in this matter. However, I myself am NOT AT ALL bound to accept you (your particular beliefs that you cannot support directly from Scripture) as my authority for doctrine.
  13. Brother Jerry, I was NOT at all seeking to defend the falsehood of the Jewish false teachers. Rather, I was seeking only to present the facts for the origin of the Hebrew word "shekinah" within the Hebrew language and to present its original relationship to Old Testament Scripture. That the usage by Jewish false teachers has tainted the word is NOT to be denied and may be sufficient enough for us to reject any usage of the word altogether. Yet in itself the word is not corrupt, nor does its basic meaning present something false. Using English for the sake of ease - Scripture tells us directly that "the glory of the Lord abode ["shahkan"] upon Mount Sinai." Altering the Hebrew verb "shahkan" into its adjective form to modify the glory of the LORD simply means saying something like the following in English - the abiding glory of the Lord, or the Lord's abiding glory.
  14. In my case it is not simply "overtones;" rather, it is a very direct accusation. (And I am not shy to acknowledge it as such.) Except that I have not asked for an "example" of a place wherein you think that the King James translation has provided "advanced revelation" upon the original Hebrew and Greek. Rather, I have asked for you to provide actual doctrinal truth FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE that the Lord our God intended to provide "advance revelation" through the King James translation. Indeed, above I provided the following challenge: _______________________________________ However, let us consider your presented "example." -- 1. The King James translators did NOT "carry on" any "advance revelation" in their translational choice to use the English word "churches" in Acts 19:37. In fact, if the word "churches" in this verse actually is "advance revelation" (which I emphatically deny), then the King James translators only continued the "advance revelation" that had already been revealed through the 1526 Tyndale translation (as you yourself admited above). 2. No, as an advocate of the "original languages," I do NOT "cry error" to the translational choice of the King James translators for their usage of the English word "churches" in Acts 19:37. 3. Yes, the King James translators certainly were "learned in the original languages," just as they were quite learned in the English language as well. So, let us consider the English word "church." In its etymology the English Word "church" comes from the Middle English "chirche, kirke," back through the Old English and the German ultimately to the Greek word "kuriakon." Now, the meaning of the Greek word "kuriakon" is "a temple or religious building dedicated unto a god." Even so, the most basic meaning for the English word "church" is "a building set apart or consecrated for public worship." The particular deity for whom this building is consecrated is NOT specified in the word, only that the building is consecrated for the religious worship of some deity. As such, the English word "church" is an English synonym for the English word "temple." So then, why does the English word "churches" find its place in the translation of Acts 19:37? In the King James translation the whole English phrase "robbers of churches" translates the single Greek word "ierosulos." Now, the Greek word "ierosulos" was formed by the joining of the Greek noun "ieron" (translated by the English word "temple" throughout the King James translation) and the Greek verb "sulao" (meaning "to rob"). Even so, the basic meaning for the Greek noun "ierosulos" is "robbers of religious buildings." Considering then the basic meaning of the Greek word in Acts 19:37 and the basic meaning of the English word "church," the King James translators were quite accurate in their translational choice, as per their superior understanding in both the Greek language and the English language. We have no need to view them as being in some form of error. Nor do we have any need to view them as presenting "advance revelation." They simply translated the Greek that already existed with an accurate English phrase.
  15. Nor have I ever claimed to be infallible or a Bible scholar. Nor have I ever claimed to have "mastered" the subject of Biblical doctrine. However, I am more than willing to claim that I am a Bible STUDENT, who ever seeks to diligently study and grow in the understanding of God's truth and wisdom from His Holy Scriptures, that I might show myself "approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."
×
×
  • Create New...