Jump to content

Pastor Scott Markle

Members
  • Posts

    2,866
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    235

Posts posted by Pastor Scott Markle

  1. 12 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

    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?

    9 hours ago, SGO said:

    The last day means the last day.

    4 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

    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?

    3 hours ago, SGO said:

    If you do not like the last day that the Lord was talking about is the real last day

    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.

  2. 4 hours ago, SGO said:

    The last day means the last day.

    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?

  3. On 2/27/2024 at 11:00 AM, heartstrings said:

    Untitled-1.thumb.jpg.b9ab544ed103a0af550f209c25559f4c.jpg

    This is one of the comments to the above video.  If the above lady has a job, does she tell the supervisor in authority "you're just the "leader" and then decide whether to "follow the  leader"? Or does that "leader" regularly give her "commands" which she is supposed to obey? 

    Have you ever heard the saying "responsibility without authority is slavery, and authority without responsibility is tyranny"? For this not to be a total disaster you can't have one without the other. What say you?

    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?

  4. 15 hours ago, SGO said:

    I gave you more than one verse that specifically states that we will be raised on the last day.

    Guess what else happens in the last day?  John 12:48,  you and me both.

    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?

  5. 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.

  6. 21 hours ago, Joe Chandler said:

    Isaiah 28:9-13 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. 10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: 11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. 12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. 13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

    I was challenged to look at this passage recently. I have often heard the phrase "precept upon precept, line upon line" as the reason for understanding obscure passages by first learning the plain passages. I fully agree with the idea that plain passages should be understood before tackling the more difficult passages. It just makes sense.

    But, after reading this passage, it seems that the stubborn Jews of Isaiah's time were the ones who could not hear God's word because they viewed the scriptures as nothing more than precepts, lines, here a little and there a little. Am I missing something here?

    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.

  7. 6 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

     (happened to our son, when he didn't even have a job - but nobody wanted to hear that). There may be more than one, but I don't know. Also know of a church that had a young man who interned for a whole year for no pay...young man was presented with a bill for his tithe for the year, based on what they would have paid him. He had to work another 2-3 weeks for free before he could go on to the ministry God was calling him to. Where is that in the Bible?

    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.

  8. 12 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

    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.
     

    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.  

  9. 16 hours ago, JenM said:

    It's less clear to me how a wife can follow a husband who chooses not to lead. The act of following kind of assumes that some sort of direction has been given, and in the absence of that, how do you follow? I honestly don't know.

    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.
     

  10. 8 hours ago, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

    The issue appears to be about accentuation or rather, the lack thereof:

    CBMW - the accent itself . . . was not part of the original text . . . The original text would have had simply Iounian, which could be either the accusative masculine of Junias or the accusative feminine of Junia.

    CBE International - the Greek form used in Rom 16:7, Iounian, depending on how it is accented, has been understood as referring either to a woman named Junia or to a man named Junias. More specifically, Iounian ends with an “n” because in Rom 16:7 it is a direct object and therefore in the accusative case, and no NT occurrence of the name gives us an example in a different case. As a result, accentuation is an important factor. But the oldest Greek NT manuscripts contained no accents (accents did not become common until the ninth century). Paul himself certainly did not include accents in his letters.

    Church history shows favor for a feminine translation. Most translations too. Importantly for this forum, the KJV interpreters chose Junia.

    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.  

  11. 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").

  12. 12 hours ago, DaveW said:

    My advice to anyone reading OLB at this time, is that where you see this man's name on a post, you need to be aware that this man does not value the Word of God as the Word of God, he has no desire to reveal the truth of the Word of God, but only his own perceptions and interpretations of the Word of God, and the god that he follows is simply not the God of the Bible.

    And finally, none of this is an unfounded personal attack, as the facts that I state are clearly seen in his own posts and answers to other people's posts. I am not angry, other than to be offended at the blatant misuse, misrepresentation, and wresting of the Word of God, and disguised evil intent to draw people away from biblical truth. I am not attacking the man, but what the man has said and presented on this forum. It does however indicate the character of such a man and as such he will no doubt cry "ad hominin" to it.

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

  13. 15 minutes ago, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

    Concerning Amillennialism, The Baptist Messenger has an article, Exploring the Book of Revelation, which reads:

    Interpreting the book of Revelation from an amillennial perspective has a long history in the Church and, in fact, has been the predominant eschatological position of Christianity since the time of Augustine (though it was not called “amillennialism” until more recent times).

    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.)

  14. 1 hour ago, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

    I agree we should not 'attempt to organize a "universal" church on the earth.' I also believe that each church has its own internal authority structure.

    Nevertheless, I see the universal church and the church mentioned in Hebrews, "the heavenly Jerusalem," as one and the same. I believe that passage simply expands on what Paul wrote in Ephesians 2:6. See here:

    "[God] hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus."

    "But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem . . . to the spirits of just men made perfect . . ."

    Similarly, "John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband . . . that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God" (Rev 21:2-10).

    In this way, the prayer that God's "kingdom come . . . in earth, as it is in heaven" (Matt. 6:10) is continually being answered. As beings of the heavenly Jerusalem, "we are ambassadors for Christ" (2 Cor. 5:20), sent to establish His kingdom among the inhabitants of the earth.

    Joining this to the forum's topic, I believe the Spirit that believers are baptized with is illustrated in the final vision of Revelation. He is seen as a river running in "it," the city, coming from God, and Jesus. John writes, "And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations" (Rev. 22:1-2).

    Of the city, John says, "I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it" (Rev. 21:22). 

    "For the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it - They are present in all parts of it in their glory; they fill it with light; and the splendor of their presence may be said to be the temple" - Barnes.

    As Jesus said, "that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me" (John 17:21).

    Of this, Paul wrote, "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" (1 Cor. 3:16).

    And, Jesus said, "He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water" (John 7:38).

    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).

  15. 25 minutes ago, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

    Christ's church is seated in heavenly places. In writing to a local church, Paul says God "hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus" Ephesians 2:6. By saying "us," he is saying that they, he, and, no doubt, all believers are part of the entire church who are seated in heavenly places.

    Consequently, I don't think a distinction can be made between a "universal heavenly church" and the "universal church." Biblically defined, they're the same entity.

    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.

  16. 1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

    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.

    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. 

  17. 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.

  18. 1 hour ago, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

    Hi Tony,

    I would like to commend you for your zeal for the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit's instruction.

    Here are some of my thoughts in regard to what you shared.

    1. "No interpretation of scripture is private."

    This is true, "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:21). This verse follows yours and explains that the "holy men of God," who wrote the Scriptures, didn't give their own interpretation.

    2. "That's why we're told to study it for ourselves."

    Yes, too true! We are encouraged to study the Bible for ourselves. It is a safeguard against false teaching. However, that does not mean that we have not been given teachers who can help us know how to interpret properly and others who expound God's word. For Christ "gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers" (Eph. 4:11). That said, James warns, saying, "My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation" (James 3:1).

    3. "We're also told that the Holy Spirit, not your book will lead us to the truth."

    I agree wholeheartedly, Tony. We should all be like the Jews in Berea who "were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so" (Acts 17:10).

    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.)

  19. 3 hours ago, MikeWatson1 said:

    Well the idea of the body of Christ being all believers now is just assumed to be true.

    Scripture defines the body as the church.  And the church is defined as 'ecclessia'.   

    That is a 'called out' assembly or congregation.  Called out from their homes, to a gathering.

    So although so many assume the universal body of believers when referring to the body of Christ,  it's not actually supported in scripture.  

    God's Holy Word states the following in Hebrews 12:22-24 -- "But ye ARE come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and CHURCH ["ecclesia"] of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel."

    Herein God's own Word speaks of a church ("ecclesia") that universally includes all New Testament believers whose names "are written in heaven."  Furthermore, it speaks of this church ("ecclesia") in the present tense, and indicates that New Testament believers who are still on the earth have come to be a part thereof.

    18 hours ago, MikeWatson1 said:

    A body is connected.. unified..together. That's not  language you'd associate with believers scattered all over the world 

    Actually, it really does not matter what language I might associate with a given aspect of doctrine.  It really only matters what language the Lord our God Himself through His Holy Word as inspired by His Holy Spirit might associate with a given aspect of doctrine.

    Truthfully, I myself would not have considered on my own that all New Testament believers, scattered all over the world, are actually seated in heaven.  However, the Lord our God in His Holy Spirit inspired Word reveals precisely that.  I myself would not have considered on my own that all New Testament believers today were actually crucified with Christ two thousand years ago and raised again with Christ two thousand years ago.  However, the Lord our God in His Holy Spirit inspired Word teaches precisely that.  (By the way, according to Romans 6:4 all New Testament believers today were buried with Christ into His death by means of baptism, not figuratively, but actually.  So, was this accomplished by water baptism or by Spirit baptism.  (Note: Some so-called "figurative" baptism could not have accomplished what Romans 6:3-11 indicates.))

  20. On 4/7/2023 at 1:37 PM, MikeWatson1 said:

    With Paul in 1 co 12:13,. It's the royal 'we'... So meaning each separate local church.

    "The royal we, majestic plural (pluralis majestatis), or royal plural, is the use of a plural pronoun (or corresponding plural-inflected verb forms) used by a single person who is a monarch or holds a high office to refer to themselves."

    Paul was not only talking about himself in 1 Corinthians 12:13; therefore, he was NOT using the "royal 'we'."  In fact, the apostle Paul was speaking under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit concerning the same "we" that might also be defined by the "all."  

  • Member Statistics

    6,088
    Total Members
    2,124
    Most Online
    shlomo
    Newest Member
    shlomo
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...