Pastor Scott Markle

And my annual "like" of Brother Dave's annual post is also now done.

Revelation 14:10-11: "The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name." Revelation 20:15: "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." Revelation 21:8: "And the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."

My question has nothing to do with what I like or dislike. My question has to do with making sure that I understand your position correctly. Such is the reason that in my first posting above I asked whether I was correct in understanding your viewpoint to be that the phrase "the last day" refers to "the very last day of all time within this present universe." Because you have not been willing to provide a clear definition as I requested, my question remains.

No sir. The last day means the last day of something. For example - In John 7:37 God Word reports, "In the last day, . . . Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink." Now in the place wherein I provided the ellipsis within the quote, God's Word provides its explanation for the last day of what. For it says, "In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus said . . . ." Thus it is quite appropriate to ask concerning the phrase "at the last day" - the last day of what? Even so, my question to you remains - What last day do you understand our Lord Jesus Christ to be referencing with the phrase "at the last day" in John 6 - the last day of what?

I would simply say -- The husband is the "head" of his wife in the same manner that Christ is the "Head" of the church. However that might apply for Christ in relation to the church must have a similar application for the husband in relation to his wife. So, is Christ just a "spiritual leader" for the church; or is Christ the "boss" of the church?

SGO, may I request that you define your understanding concerning our Lord Jesus' use of the phrase "the last day"? The "last day" of what? It appears that you are understanding that phrase as a reference to the very last day of all time within this present universe. Is that a correct understanding for your viewpoint? Or would you define "the last day" in a different fashion?

Agreed. Maybe one of those matters wherein we simply ought not be busy bodies in other church's matters.

Ha! I am a pastor, and I am willing to say that I have my own assigned parking space. The parsonage is on the church grounds, and my assigned parking space is in my garage (since I just walk to the church building). By the way, why is it a problem for the pastor to have an assigned parking space. Consider 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13 -- "And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; and to esteem them very highly in love for their works sake. And be at peace among yourselves." If the church body itself decides to grant an assigned parking space to the pastor, this does not seem from my perspective to be outside the boundaries of esteeming him very highly in love.

Spiritual fact: Disobedience to God is NEVER the right choice.

At the present time I am of the impression that Isaiah 28:9-13 presents BOTH the positive AND negative sides to the "precept upon precept, line upon line" teaching approach. In verses 9-10 we find the value of this teaching approach, especially when instructing babes/beginners. Indeed, with verse 11 the Lord announces His intention to employ this teaching approach toward Israel by means of foreign language speaking. On the other hand, in verses 12-13 we find the drudgery of this teaching approach for those who are rebelliously resistant and wise in their own eyes. Even so, this teaching method would result in their fall and destruction. As such, the teaching approach of "precept upon precept, line upon line" is not so much about comparing truth to truth in order to discern the validity of the first truth, but is about building truth upon truth in order to grow in spiritual wisdom thereby. However, for those who possess a rebellious heart, this teaching approach will be viewed as utter drudgery. It will not be fast enough or "flashy" enough for their taste, primarily because it will be contrary to their heart's desires.

Hmmm. I am pretty sure that 10% of $0.00 is ZERO. (Even so, those churches did not even charge a "tithe-tax." What they actually charged was membership dues.) In addition, the case of the second church was completely backward. If the intern worked for the church for free, then the church received "services" and was thus the entity that acquired increase, not the intern. Even so, the church should have been responsible for the 10% of their increase, not the intern. What an ungodly shame the above two scenarios present. My heart continues to break over the condition of so much within the Independent Fundamental Baptist movement.

Having posted above, my ponderings on the matter continued. Thus I present some further thoughts: We often teach our men that some of the most important phrases for a happy home are - Yes, dear; I was wrong, dear; whatever you want, dear. Then we wonder why we have no male leadership in our homes. We say things like - Happy wife, happy life. But is this universally true. What if making my wife happy makes my God unhappy? Will that result in a happy life? Well, it might in the short term; but it definitely will not in the long term. Adam made his wife "happy" when he chose to eat the fruit with her. Did it result in a "happy life?" Not for him, nor for the rest humanity either. Abraham made his wife "happy" when he took her advise to beget a child by Hagar. Did it result in a "happy life?" Not really for him, for her, or for the Middle East unto the present day.

The picture that you imply with your comments about "a husband who chooses not to lead" seems to be that he is not moving forward at all and/or that he has no agenda of any kind whatsoever at all. Yet these things are simply not a reality in human existence. The husband in your scenario above may not "take" the leadership, may not administer leadership, may not show strength of leadership; but it is likely that he does have some form of personal agenda (even if he never directly communicates it) and does move forward in life in some manner. Now, if he moves forward in life at all, then a wife can indeed follow him simply by waiting for his next step forward and then stepping in behind. However, for many wives the husband's agenda simply does not fit with her agenda, so she dominates over his agenda with her own, until his agenda simply becomes to "keep his wife happy, to do whatever she wants." Indeed, for many wives the husband moves forward more slowly than she prefers or in a different direction than she prefers, thus she excuses her dominance over him by simply claiming that he is not leading aright; and since he is not a "strong" leader, he simply steps in behind her and follows her.

Indeed. I fully recognize the uncertainty within the Greek usage of "Iounian." Even so, your above posting helps to establish my point -- that Romans 16:7 is the obscure (uncertain) passage, NOT the clear instructions of 1 Timothy 2:9-15.

Some information concerning the Greek name "Iounian" (Junia) in Romans 16:7. It is true that an "an" declension at the end of a Greek word commonly conveys that the Greek word is feminine. However, such is NOT universally the case in the Greek language. There are some Greek words that carry what appears to be a feminine declension (containing the "a" element), but are NOT feminine words. To illustrate -- In Romans 16:8 the apostle Paul mentions "Amplian" (Amplias). Herein we notice that the name "Amplian" does indeed carry the "an" declension at the end of the word. However, in the Greek the descriptive phrase "my beloved in the Lord" clearly carries the masculine Greek declension, clearly revealing that "Amplian" is masculine, even though the Greek ending to his name is "an." Actually, the so-called Greek grammar convention that Dr. Morley has employed in his above argumentation is that which is obscure, NOT the clear teaching of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 (which is found within a broader context wherein the apostle Paul is providing instruction on how we ought to behave ourselves "in the house of God, which is the church of the living God").

I wish to publicly add my voice - Amen, and AMEN! I agree with Brother Dave fully in his above posting.

As for myself, I must contend that our Lord Jesus Christ started the New Testament church, NOT John the Baptist.

Some "dress to impress;" others "dress to respect." The outward appearance may be similar for both, but the heart attitude is definitely different.

A further thought - If one were to consider the predominant position during the time of the Old Testament prophets, a great deal of the time the predominant position was the position of the false prophets and false teachers, NOT the position of the true prophets of God. In addition, if one were to consider the predominant position during the ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ, the predominant position was NOT on the side of our Lord. Yet I am quite certain that the true prophets of God and our Lord Jesus Christ were the CORRECT position. Finding the "majority" position in the conflict of true doctrine versus false doctrine really does not move me much, when I consider how often the true servants of the Lord our God are in the minority.

Indeed, for Augustine has led many astray with his false teachings. (By the way, the statement above seems to work - as long as you hold a loose definition for "Christianity." However, I myself would contend that any individual or group who teaches a false, unbiblical gospel, while humanly included in Christendom, should not be accepted as a legitimate part of Biblical Christianity.)

I fully agree that Hebrews 12:22-23 & Ephesians 2:6 correspond to one another. Indeed, I believe that Ephesians 2:6 helps to explain how the Church of the First Born in heaven can be a local assembly (in one location - in heaven), yet also include all New Testament believers who are still alive on the earth -- because the Lord our God spiritually sees all of us as presently seated in HEAVENLY places in Christ. Furthermore, both passages precisely specify that these truths are heavenly, in heavenly places (not on the earth). Even so, I fully disagree with your allegorical usages of the passages in the Book of the Revelation. The prophetic utterance concerning the New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven has NOT yet occurred, but is yet to come after the event of the Great White Throne Judgment, which will occur after the end of this first creation through divine fire. We definitely part company and walk with significant division over the manner in which you handle the Book of the Revelation (which seems to be a "go-to" doctrinal focus for you, as per your primary involvement as you first joined the forum).

Yet God's own Word in Hebrews 12:22-23 makes it quite distinct, saying, "But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, THE HEAVENLY JERUSALEM, and to an inumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect . . . ." I myself would contend that wherein God's own Word makes something precise and specific, we ought not make it general. By means of this Biblical precision we are able to discern that the "universal heavenly church" does NOT exist and is NOT assembled on the earth. Members thereof do indeed exist on the earth, but the entity itself exists and is assembled ONLY in heaven. Indeed, just as the Old Testament tabernacle/temple was intended by the Lord our God as a physical, earthly manifestation of the heavenly temple, even so the local church institution is intended by the Lord our God as a physical, earthly manifestation of the heavenly church. Thus any attempt to organize a "universal" church on the earth, or to disregard the Biblical local church structure that the Lord our God DID institute for the earth, is contrary to Biblical truth. Indeed, I would contend that Biblical precision prevents false doctrine and false practice.

Concerning the "1700's British separatist origins" viewpoint (which is somewhat beloved to more "Calvinistic Baptists," since the British Baptists of that time were primarily Particular (Calvinistic) Baptists) for present-day Baptists, I believe that there is actually historical evidence for British Baptist origins to find their roots in some anabaptists who migrated to Britain.

Hmmm. This thread discussion has moved some distance from the original subject of "Holy Spirit baptism." Concerning "Holy Spirit baptism," the following questions must be considered: 1. Does God's Word at all teach a doctrine of "Holy Spirit baptism"? 2. If it does, when does it teach that such a baptism occurred or occurs (i.e. fulfilled at Pentecost or for all believers)? 3. If it is for all believers, when does it occur for all believers; and what does it accomplish for them? 4. Specifically, what baptism is taught in Romans 6:3-4, 1 Corinthians 12:13, and Galatians 3:27? As for myself, I was raised on "local church only" doctrine and defended that position for many years. However, due to certain matters of personal Bible study, I no longer hold strictly to that position. I now hold to what I might call a "local church only on the earth" position AND a "universal heavenly church" position (which is NOT precisely the same the common "universal church" position, and which does actually retain the "local" aspect in the Greek word "ecclesia.") Concerning "Baptist origins," I would hold to an "anabaptist heritage" position (although NOT an "unbroken succession" position), wherein the heritage of doctrine is more important than a succession of title, name, or institution.

Hmmm. While I most certainly do NOT agree with the position that you have taken concerning the Book of the Revelation, I DO wish to commend the above posting and comments. They are well delivered, and points with which I can fully agree. (Note: I myself believe that the "private interpretation" phrase from 1 Peter 1:20 is often taken out of context and thus misapplied. I agree with your assessment concerning its contextual intent.)