Jump to content
Online Baptist

Pastor Scott Markle

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content Count

    2,576
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    182

Pastor Scott Markle last won the day on January 9

Pastor Scott Markle had the most liked content!

5 Followers

About Pastor Scott Markle

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

Profile Information

Recent Profile Visitors

15,893 profile views
  1. No! The dictionary definition for "fatalism" is "the belief that all events are determined by fate and, therefore, inevitable; acceptance of every event as inevitable." The first difference between a believer in the Biblical God and a fatalist is the the "source" of "determination" for events -- For the fatalist that "source" is a completely impersonal, uncaring "fate;" whereas for the believer that "source" is a very personal, great and good God. From this first difference flows various others -- "Fate" is impersonal, and therefore neither wise nor unwise in its arrangement of events; wher
  2. Indeed, IF turning from iniquity (repentance) is defined as meaning a turning from the commission of sin, then it is a work (that is -- the work of quitting sin). In addition, then the purpose of preaching the gospel, which as you say is to turn them from iniquity, would be to motivate sinners to do the work of quitting sin in order to be saved. However, also as you say this IS "contradictory to the whole teaching of the Bible." Now, the debate among Fundamental Baptists over the definition of "repentance for salvation" has existed at least for a few generations. This debate over the
  3. Yes, with explanation. I have heard previously that "repentance for salvation" is being made into a work IF it is being defined as a "turning from sinful behavior" for salvation. However, those whom I have previously encountered along this line then proceed to indicate that such is a false definition for repentance; and they have further provided a definition that they believe does not make "repentance for salvation" out to be work. (Note: I myself would also hold that "repentance for salvation" is being made into a work IF it is being defined as a "turning from unrighteous behavior unt
  4. This is two points correct, and one point incorrect. Correct - Jesus came for all. (See 1 Timothy 2:3-6; Hebrews 2:9; 1 John 2:2) Correct - Only some accept. (See Revelation 19:11-15) Incorrect - None were condemned before their birth. Truth - All are under judgment to condemnation through and in Adam (not by their own first act of sinful offense, but by Adam's first act of sinful offense, indeed long before they ever even existed). (See Romans 5:18)
  5. Hebrews 2:9 -- "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for EVERY man." Furthermore, logic requires that you provide a passage which teaches that God the Son, Jesus the Christ, died ONLY for some. It is correct that some Biblical contexts focus upon a "subset" of all mankind. (See for example Acts 20:17-35) Thus in those contexts we may find statements that God the Son, Jesus the Christ, died for that particular "subset." (See for example Acts 20:28) However,
  6. Yes, I read EVERY word of the article (three times now, in response to each time that you have questioned me). So, to be more specific: Paragraph 3 read, "The GOP has a lot of really good policy, a lot of winning policies, but it does seem like often we can get caught up on the losing ones and fight like hell for them," said Cameron Adkins, a sophomore who is vice president of College Republicans at Columbia University. "When in reality, they're losing issues with the American people." My response - It does not matter if particular issues are "losing issues with the American people.
  7. I fear that this direction for the party will bring MORE compromise on the issues of Biblical morality; therefore, I am much AGAINST it. Furthermore, I fear that this direction for the party will return the party back to the weakness and softness that had developed before President Trump. Truth and Righteousness have NO real room for compromise. "Social inclusivism" is at the present time a political phrase that purposefully includes moral compromise. As such, I find it Biblically unacceptable. (Note: Although I would contend that not all which is called "racism" in present day politics i
  8. No, I do NOT agree. I really do NOT find it wise to let immature youth set the agenda, either for a church or for a country.
  9. Indeed, it is a shame, because getting "saved again" can NEVER be the solution to their fleshly/carnal character (since it is impossible to get "saved again"). Rather, the solution for victory in the believer's life, no matter how overcome by the flesh, is the process of broken-hearted repentance, humility before the Lord, dependence upon the Lord's grace, submission to the Lord, and walking in the Spirit. By confusing them with false teaching, in one form or another, the devil keeps them from finding the path to true victory. (And it saddens me how much of this is found within Fundamental
  10. Indeed, "preservation of the saints" certainly would be a better phrase; for it sets its focus on the promise and faithfulness of God our Savior just as God's Word does, rather than on our behavior. However, that phrase would not at all be accurate in relation to the Calvinistic system of belief, since that system of belief denies the existence of "carnal believers" and/or "backslidden believers" for any habitual length of time.
  11. Nope. My questions are assuming nothing. They are worded precisely as they are intended, asking whether certain characteristics are accurate to your Calvinistic system of belief. They are asking nothing more, and nothing less.
  12. No, sir. I would NOT hold with classical Arminianism concerning the manner of God's "intervention" being "prevenient grace," nor would I hold with Calvinism concerning the manner of God's "intervention" being "regenerating grace." Rather, I would hold that the manner of God's intervention is Biblically and very strictly "drawing grace." Furthermore, I would NOT hold with Arminianism concerning any ability to lose or willfully depart from eternal salvation once the gift has been applied by God, nor would I hold with Calvinism concerning "perseverance of the saints." Rather, I would hold to
  13. False. My questions are assuming no such things. They say nothing about "deserving" grace, nor do they say anything whatsoever at all about fairness. In fact, you have already asked me questions about God's fairness and about whether anyone "deserves" God's grace. And I have directly answered your questions. What I desire is for you as a Calvinist to acknowledge the doctrinal realities of your own system of belief, NOT to try to tell me what I assume in my system of belief. If you want to ask me direct questions about my system of belief, I will answer them and will even present Scriptur
  14. Certainly the context always matters for rightly dividing God's Word of truth; and in all three passages that I presented above, the words "all," "every," and "whole" refer to every single human individual throughout all time among humanity. You see, using Calvinistic rhetoric is not of use unless you actually demonstrate from each context that the "universal" words within those contexts are limited in some contextual manner. So, the challenge is now before you - You must contextually exegete 1 Timothy 2:3-6, Hebrews 2:9, and 1 John 2:2, and therein demonstrate a contextual limiter for those
  15. Thus far your only answer to the above four questions has been -- By using the word "if," you have presented only a hypothetical answer, but have not actually provided any direct answer. So I ask, is your answer to all four of the above questions a "yes," or not?
×
×
  • Create New...