Jump to content
Online Baptist

Pastor Scott Markle

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Pastor Scott Markle

  1. 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
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. Indeed. The very essence and agenda of the liberal belief system.
  8. Wrong. Take note of that which I have emboldened in my quotation above. I never indicated that human "logic" is unscriptural or that it should be avoided by Christians. What I indicated is that human "logic" should not be the BASIS for doctrine, especially when NO Scriptural support whatsoever is presented. What I further indicated is that my own argument and defense is an appeal to direct quotations of God's OWN Word. Indeed, I indicated that for me "the very precise wording that God the Holy Spirit inspired in the Holy Scriptures" will always be my foundational basis for true doctrine.
  9. I counted Brother Alan to be a faithful servant of our Lord and a valued online friend. I thank the Lord for the past number of years wherein I was able to experience Brother Alan's friendship and spiritual edification through Online Baptist. I am certainly praying for his wife and family, concerning comfort in their grief and help with their needs. I will miss him here.
  10. The holy man of God, Moses, under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit. Note: The same goes for Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
  11. Interesting defense, but let us consider the facts -- You are presenting human "logic" and human "common sense" as the basis for doctrine without presenting any Scriptural support at all; whereas I simply provided direct quotations from God's OWN Word. (Note: I did NOT "force" God's Word to say anything; in my original posting above, I simply quoted what it said and emphasized certain relevant phrases.) Which one is more sure as a foundation for true doctrine? As for me, that is an easy choice. Indeed, as for me I will simply accept the very precise wording that God the Holy Spirit inspire
  12. As SureWord indicated, the Calvinistic system of belief teaches that God's REGENERATING grace is that which is irresistible. In the Calvinistic system of belief, they generally believe that there is a general/universal call by God's grace unto all sinners, but that sinners who have not first experienced the regenerating grace of God are in bondage to their unregenerate/utterly depraved will and thus will certainly resist that general/universal call of God. On the other hand, those sinners who have experienced the regenerating grace of God will certainly respond positively through faith unto
  13. For those who are willing to consider Greek grammar in their study of the Scriptures, in the Greek the words "that which" from the phrase, "that which is perfect," of 1 Corinthians 13:10 translates a neuter pronoun. Whereas, if the phrase was a reference unto the coming of Jesus Christ, the perfect One, we would expect the phrase to be a masculine pronoun, such that it would read, "He which is perfect," rather than "that which is perfect." Concerning the terminology in the opening portion of 1 Corinthians 13:12, the word "darkly" is translated from the Greek prepositional phrase, "en ain
  14. No, we do not use "thee" and "thou" in common communication today, which is the reason that I acknowledged those pronouns as "archaic" elements of the language. However . . . Actually, I would contend that we are NOT able to convey the distinction between singular and plural with as much precise accuracy in the common usage of today simply through the pronoun "you" (sing.) and "you" (pl.). In fact, this is part of the reason why in various areas of the country we find phrases like - "you all," "yous," "yous guys," etc. All of those phrases serve as an attempt (although not grammatic
  15. So, as another has already asked earlier - How would you propose to retain that information if you chose not to use the "archaic" pronouns "thee," "thou," and "ye"?
  16. Since an answer does not seem forthcoming, allow me to provide the grammatical facts concerning the meaning and significance of the "archaic" pronouns "thee," "thou," and "ye." Concerning PERSONAL PRONOUNS in English 1st person personal pronouns are those referring to one's self. 2nd person personal pronouns are those referring to another or others spoken to directly. 3rd person personal pronouns are those referring to another or others spoken about indirectly. Personal pronouns contain both singular and plural forms for the sake of accuracy, EXCEPT in the case of the 2n
  17. By the way, if a word is a more "archaic" English word, but is still retained in a modern English dictionary, then that word is STILL a part of the language that we use today, even it is only on a rare (or specialized) occasion. That word (whatever word it may be) has NOT yet been lost from the language altogether.
  18. And there it is -- Avoid the question of ACCURACY in order to push your agenda of updating. You have again revealed your priorities. By the way, concerning the matter of accuracy and the "archaic" pronouns, with God indeed all things are possible; and God has already provided an answer -- Bible teachers who teach others the importance and meaning of those pronouns for the sake of accuracy. (Note: I myself did not know the grammatical significance of ANY pronouns, except that someone first taught me English grammar, so the need to be taught is NOT an argument against this provision.)
  19. Here is the problem in our discussion concerning the pronouns "thee," "thou," and "ye" -- I cannot discuss their importance for precise accuracy with you if you do not actually know what they mean grammatically. For that reason, I asked you above to provide your own understanding concerning their grammatical significance/meaning. You have not done so. Even so, you have proceeded to express disagreement; but you have NOT provided any evidence to support your disagreement. Let me ask you again -- What do you understand the grammatical significance/meaning of the pronouns "thee," "thou," and
  20. Yes, it IS "archaic" English, specifically for the sake of ACCURACY. So, you have now revealed what many have suspected. Removing that which you perceive as "archaic" is more important to you than retaining that which is important for ACCURACY. I must contend that such an attitude/philosophy of "updating" is an error. I will have nothing whatsoever at all to do with such an attitude/philosophy of "updating."
  21. Brother "BibleBeliever," Do you understand the grammatical significance of the pronouns "thee," "thou," and "ye"? If so, what do you understand that grammatical significance to be? In your opening question for this thread discussion, you ask about "a simple, ACCURATE KJV update." Understanding the grammatical significance for the pronouns "thee," "thou," and "ye," I would contend that they are included in the King James translation for precise accuracy. Furthermore, I would contend that arguing for them to be removed is demonstrating an interest in "simplicity" AT THE EXPENSE of a
  22. Hey, Brother Dave, I was starting to wonder what happened to you here on Online Baptist. Good to "see" your "smiling face." Praying for your daughter.
  23. IF one is the ONLY available translator (as per God's providence) in a particular case, and IF that one has no ability whatsoever with Hebrew and/or Greek, then the best available option would be to translate from the best language translation that IS known. IF that is the ONLY manner wherein a people group might acquire a translation in their language at a given time, then they should not be left in the dark; but the very best that could be done should be done. However, it certainly would be better to translate from the Hebrew and Greek, if any person with such ability can be made available
  24. For clarity I must contend -- "Legalism" is dealing with salvation AND sanctification, not standards. I know a number of pastors and preachers who argue that "legalism" is a Biblical matter that concerns ONLY the issue of salvation. With this I must strongly disagree. The apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, was dealing with the matter of Biblical "legalism" throughout the entire epistle to the Galatians; and his primary focus was not the issue of salvation, but was the issue of sanctification (as per Galatians 3:1-3).
  • Create New...