Jump to content
Online Baptist

Pastor Scott Markle

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content Count

    2,629
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    193

Pastor Scott Markle last won the day on May 9

Pastor Scott Markle had the most liked content!

6 Followers

About Pastor Scott Markle

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

Profile Information

Recent Profile Visitors

16,266 profile views
  1. Since I hold that Luke 21:11 is a summary statement that looks forward to the statements of Luke 21:25-26, and thus should be viewed in union with Luke 21:25-26 (as per my reasoning above), I would further hold that Luke 21:11, 25-26 are to be viewed in parallel with Matthew 24:29 & Mark 13:24-25. Now, contextually Matthew 24:29 & Mark 13:24-25 seem to place these events AFTER the "great tribulation" (as per Matthew 24:15-28 & Mark 13:14-23) which is initiated by "the abomination of desolation" (as per Matthew 24:15 & Mark 13:14). Furthermore, I would hold that "the abominati
  2. It appears that Brother Mike and I would have a number of disagreements concerning "the flow of thought" throughout the Book of the Revelation.
  3. Brother 1Timothy115, I believe that contextually Luke 21:11 is a summary statement that looks forward to the statement of Luke 21:25. Furthermore, I believe that contextually the phrase, "But BEFORE all these things," with which Luke 21:12 begins, places all that is reported in verses 12-24 as a contextual break between the report of Luke 21:11 and Luke 21:25. As such, I would hold that Luke 21:12-24 reveals the events that will occur throughout "the times of Gentiles" (the time of the church age) as per verse 24; and I would hold that the report of Luke 21:11 & 25 (in union with on
  4. Yet this statement is quite a bit more in declaration that the details of the passage actually give. While you might accuse me of shying away from what seems to be the natural flow of thought in the passage (that he offered his daughter as a burnt sacrifice), I might also accuse you of claiming a bit more than God's Word actually says. In fact, while you might even accuse me of contradicting the precise statements of the passage; I might also accuse your claim above as doing the very same.
  5. I did not say that the contextual flow of thought in the passage IS (or necessitates) that he burned her up. I said that his "burning her up" is not made completely impossible by the contextual flow of thought in the passage. Or to communicate it another way - Nothing in the contextual flow of thought in the passage necessitates (or contextually proves) that he did not "burn her up." However, I believe that there are enough "contextual signals" in the passage to allow for the second viewpoint; and to be honest I find it hard (emotionally, probably) to believe that Scripture would not includ
  6. The viewpoint of the first paragraph is not completely impossible according to the contextual flow of thought in the passage. However, I myself also "lean" toward the viewpoint of the second paragraph.
  7. Music (not just the words, but the music itself) IS a medium of communication. Therefore, music is NOT amoral, but is definitely to be governed by the principles of moral communication. Music, although it communicates on multiple levels, is especially a medium of communication to human emotion. Therefore, music is a very powerful means of influence upon the human soul. Therefore, the matter of our music must be navigated very carefully, with Spirit-filled wisdom.
  8. Yet the English word "sovereign" simply means "1. above or superior to all others; chief; greatest; supreme: 2. supreme in power, rank, or authority: 3. of or holding the position of ruler; royal; reigning." Certainly that definition DOES apply to the Lord our God, the MOST HIGH God, the Ruler of heaven and earth. Furthermore, consider that we are quite comfortable using the term "trinity" although it is not specifically found in the King James translation, as well as other terms, such as "rapture," etc. If a term is a legitimate doctrinal term, used in accord with Biblical doctrine and
  9. That is an absolute certainty and our true hope - The Lord our God, the Lord God of heaven and earth, the faithful Lord God, the Deliverer of His faithful servants, ALWAYS sees, ALWAYS knows, and WILL eventually judge the unrighteous with righteous judgment. Although I am unaware of all the details in your case above, I am deeply grieved at the unrighteous behavior and unrepentant spirit which seems to have been involved.
  10. As far as I am aware, it is true that SOME of them did; but NOT necessarily that all of them did. On the other hand, in my own opinion the "church fathers" are NOT a good source of authority for true doctrine. In truth, the ONLY Biblically defined "church fathers" would be the original "apostles and prophets" of the first century church, with our Lord Jesus Christ himself being "the chief corner stone" (as per Ephesians 2:20). In my opinion the rest of the so-called "church fathers" were simply commentators and teachers of their respective time, just as we have in our time; and I believ
  11. Now, to give a more direct answer to question of the opening post. Whether the baptism of the Holy Spirit does or does not relate to the matter of eternal life will be determined wholly based upon a given individual's or teacher's definition for "the baptism of the Holy Spirit." For those who hold that the baptism of the Holy Spirit occurred one time only, on the Day of Pentecost, and that that occurrence was the complete fulfillment of that baptism - they certainly will NOT relate the baptism of the Holy Spirit to eternal eternal. Commonly such individuals are very, VERY strong "lo
  12. I myself would stand in some agreement with Brother "SureWord" on this matter, as well as some disagreement. I agree pretty much with all of that which I have quoted from Brother SureWord's posting above. I would only add further my belief that 1 Corinthians 12:13 is NOT talking about water baptism into a local body of Christ, but that it is talking about Spirit baptism (wherein the Holy Spirit is the substance of baptism, NOT the baptizer of the baptism) into "the general assembly and church of the firstborn," (which I would encompass under Brother SureWord's point #2 above). On the ot
  13. Sorry, Brother SureWord, as per my quotation above of one specific part in Brother Jerry's posting, I was not responding to any of the specifics that the liberal belief system presents concerning any specific book of the Holy Scriptures. Rather, as per that quotation, I was responding to the general motivation of the liberal belief system. Brother Jerry stated, "That PHILOSOPHY just creates doubt and uncertainty about the Word of God." I responded to that statement only by indicating that creating doubt and uncertainty about the Word of God is the VERY ESSENCE and AGENDA of the liberal beli
  14. Indeed. The very essence and agenda of the liberal belief system.
×
×
  • Create New...