Jump to content
Online Baptist

Pastor Scott Markle

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content Count

    2,516
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    169

Everything posted by Pastor Scott Markle

  1. For all who may be following in the audience, A number of times in this thread discussion I have asserted that the basic meaning of the English word "hell" is "the place of the dead," and that it includes two possible meanings -- (1) the grave or (2) the place of eternal judgment for the wicked. Allow me to present the following evidence for the assertion. In Noah Webster's dictionary of 1828 (facsimile edition), we find seven definitions for the English word "hell." The first two of these definitions are as follows: 1. The place or state of punishment for the wicked after d
  2. Indeed, the English word "paradise" is often used for the Garden of Eden. But that is NOT the question. The question is whether God the Holy Spirit ever inspired such a usage in the Holy Scriptures. If you use common human usage as your argument, then common human usage is your authority; but a sad (and unsound) authority it is for Biblical doctrine. Destroyed in the Flood. Where does God's Word indicates that "captivity" is a "them"? Actually, in His resurrection our Lord Jesus Christ took the captivity of death itself captive. Now the power of death and hell are in His han
  3. As for myself, I KNOW that Paradise is "a part" of the third heaven - because God's OWN Word says so: 2 Corinthians 12:4 -- "How that he [the one who was 'caught up to the third heaven' according to verse 2] was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter." Do you have ANY passage of Scripture that defines the Garden of Eden as "Biblical Paradise"? (If not, then your statement is human fabrication.) Do you have ANY passage of Scripture which indicates that Jesus took "Biblical Paradise" (apparently the Garden of Eden, ac
  4. Once again, what does God's OWN Word actually say about this place called "paradise" --
  5. I myself am also praying that Vice President Pence will serve like a Daniel for President Trump.
  6. We are voting for a Leader, and we desire that our Leaders possess good moral character.
  7. Acts 20:29-30 -- "For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them."
  8. The apostle was speaking under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit TO - the believers at Thessalonica. The apostle was speaking under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit ABOUT - "ANY" who "would not work." 2 Thessalonians 3:10 -- "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if ANY would not work, neither should he eat."
  9. This also is a misrepresentation of my position, for my position presents the need to balance ALL of God's teaching on the matter. Consider the following: Also consider: Now, the "entire body of principles in God's Word" on this matter would include the following studies: 1. The responsibility to give in support of church leadership and the Lord's work. 2. The responsibility to help fellow believers in material need. 3. The responsibility to help the Lord's Jewish brethren in material need. 4. The responsibility to help the general poor and needy. 5. The r
  10. This statement is a misrepresentation of my position, and as such is a false accusation. I have indeed indicated that those who WILL NOT work (that is -- the "unworthy lazy") "should not be given food." However, I have also indicated that welfare is "supposed to be FOR those who CANNOT work." Consider the following:
  11. Ah, I see. Then I must contend that you are falsely accusing me. A "liberal" interpretation" would be one wherein the Scriptures can be handled "fluidly," allowing for the redefining of terminology and for an allegorical understanding of passages. In Webster's New World College Dictionary 4th edition, the #4 definition for "liberal" is as follows -- "not restricted to the literal meaning; not strict [a "liberal" interpretation of the Bible]." (Politically, such is the manner with which liberals are handling the Constitution of the United States.) Whereas, a "literal" interpretation wou
  12. At this point, I am guessing that your use of the word "liberal" above is a mistype, and that you actually meant to use the word "literal."
  13. Matthew 25:31-46 -- "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: and before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: and he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I w
  14. Just a small comment at this point - There is a difference between a "movement" and an "organized association." An "organized association" has membership by an official membership "role." A "movement" simply has membership through interactive relationship and influence.
  15. In relation to my own God-given responsibility of stewardship over the material wealth that the Lord our God has entrusted to me, I must determine the answer to that matter for each case through the entire body of principles in God's Word concerning work ethic versus laziness, as well as through prayerful submission to the guidance of the indwelling Holy Spirit.
  16. Actually, it is best to seek obedience unto God's Holy Word in ALL matters, both in helping the genuine needy, as well as in confronting the unworthy lazy. The precepts and principles of God's Holy Word are not to be compromised either on the right hand or on the left. When God's Word states -- "If any WOULD NOT work, NEITHER SHOULD he eat," God's Word is providing a clear instruction concerning our behavior toward the unworthy lazy. Any individual, group, or program that does not seek a legitimate application of this Biblical principle in its giving policies toward the poor and need is not
  17. Biblically, there is a distinction between those who are poor because they CANNOT from those who are lazy and WILL NOT. In order to be strictly Biblical, we must develop an understanding and behavior that includes both sides of the distinction.
  18. Although I believe that such programs have administrative problems (bureaucratic inefficiency, fraud, etc.), I do NOT stand directly against such programs. When I was a child, my family was a recipient of WIC. As an adult, I have purposefully refused to take the benefits of such programs (even though my yearly income would have made us eligible). I believe that it is my responsibility first and foremost to support my family through diligent work and careful financial management. Furthermore, I believe that if my family can live comfortably thereby, then it is simply wrong for me to take "w
  19. As for myself, I am quite happy for my tax dollars to go to help people (if they a Biblically appropriate for that help) AND to kill people (if they are Biblically worthy to be killed). Let us consider what God's Own Word states concerning the divinely established purpose of human government. Romans 13:3-4 -- "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth
  20. And in relation to the idea of "pooling" our material wealth through a government program of charity, I have previously stated the following: Yet this is NOT the character of governmental liberalism, even as I have previously presented: Even worse, as I have also indicated previously, the present movement of governmental liberalism in our country is very much anti-God and anti-Biblical morality. Indeed, throughout the historical record we find that governmental liberalism in its various forms is quite usually anti-God and anti-Biblical morality. Such is NOT a governmental mov
  21. Now I have to wonder if you have even been paying attention throughout our discussion in this thread, for I have ALREADY defined Biblical liberality in my previous postings. In my first posting within this thread discussion, I included the following: In my second posting within this thread discussion, I included the following: In my third posting within this thread discussion, I included the following:
  22. You might want to read again, for I never used the phrase "Biblical liberalism." Rather, I purposefully used the phrase "Biblical liberality." The "ism" at the end of "liberalism" indicates that it is a system and movement of set beliefs. Whereas the word "liberality" simply indicates a particular activity of generous giving.
  23. There is probably not very much among the values of governmental liberalism that I would support. However, probably if someone provided an exhaustive list of their values, I might find a small number with which I could agree. (Note: I am not talking about the values that they promote only with their "words," but about the values that they actually drive with their agenda.) There is probably even less among the values of doctrinal liberalism that I would support. However again, probably if someone provided an exhaustive list of their values, I might find a small number with which I coul
  24. Are you asking what values of governmental liberalism would I support? Or are you asking what values of doctrinal liberalism would I support? Or are you asking what values of Biblical liberality would I support? Or are you asking what values of something "liberal" that I have not listed would I support?
  25. I was saying that I do not acknowledge or accept your "authority" to reprove Brother 1Timothy115 in the following manner: Brother 1Timothy115 did not change the subject since his statement was within the scope of this thread's original question. Brother 1Timothy115 did not change the subject since his statement was within the scope of your own original posting in this thread discussion. Brother 1Timothy115 did not change the subject since his statement served as a direct response toward your own statement about "divorcing God" from the lives of those in governmental roles. Thus I do
×
×
  • Create New...