Jump to content

Pastor Scott Markle

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content Count

    2,350
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    139

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from HappyChristian in Eve's Transgression?   
    This is Biblically inaccurate.  When Eve ate of the fruit, she engaged in the first transgression against God's command.  As such, she is the first human sinner.  2 Timothy 2:14 declares, "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."  Eve DID eat of the forbidden fruit.  Eve DID commit sin against the Lord God by so eating.  Eve did eat of that fruit and thereby commit sin FIRST.
    On the other hand, Eve was NOT the divinely appointed representative for the entire human race.  God had placed this appointment upon Adam as the first man. (See 1 Corinthians 15:45-47)  Thus Romans 5:12 indicates that by the sin of the one/first man Adam (not by the sin of Eve) sin entered the world of mankind, and death by that man's sin.  Indeed, it is "through the offense" of the one/first man Adam that "many be dead." (See Romans 5:15)  Indeed, "the judgment was by one [the first man Adam] to condemnation." (See Romans 5:16)  It is "by one man's offense" that "death reigned by one." (See Romans 5:17)  It is "by the offence of one" that "judgment came upon all men to condemnation." (See Romans 5:18)  It is "by one man's disobedience" that "many were made sinners." (See Romans 5:19)
     
    Indeed, when the Lord God presented his command unto Adam in Genesis 2:16-17, He spoke directly to Adam; and at that time Eve was not even yet created.  Even so, the Lord God employed singular pronouns in His command to Adam, saying, "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
     
    First, there is NO Biblical principle which indicates that if God spoke directly to someone about any given matter, that His quotation about that matter MUST be recorded in Scripture.  That is a human conjecture, NOT a Biblical truth.
    Second, Eve herself reported differently than your conclusion.  In Genesis 3:3 Eve delivered what she claimed to be a direct quote from the Lord God, saying, "But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."  It should also be noticed that in her quotation from God, there are TWO significant differences in comparison to the direct command of the Lord God unto Adam as recorded in Genesis 2:16-17.  The first and most obvious difference is the addition, "Neither shall ye touch it."  The second significant difference is her usage of PLURAL pronouns -- "Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."  These plural pronouns within her direct quotation from the Lord God indicate that the Lord God had INDEED spoken this command unto BOTH of them (as a "ye") after Eve was created.
     
    First, Eve herself NEVER stated that she learned this command "through Adam" as you claim, nor does any statement of Scripture ever indicate such.  This is simply human conjecture.
    Second, Eve herself DID quote the Lord God as speaking His command to the "ye" (plural, as them both).
    Third, your declaration concerning "how the majority of men pass along messages" (indicating the need to "listen well" and implying the failure of many men not to "listen well") applies a common failure of sinfully fallen men unto Adam, who at the time was yet in a sinless state.  Such an application is a faulty application.  The characteristics of sinful man CANNOT rightly be applied unto Adam before his first disobedience and sin in eating the fruit.  Before that sinful disobedience his characteristics were faultless, not faulty.
    Fourth, your declaration concerning "how the majority of men pass along message" in itself even only encompasses "THE MAJORITY" of men.  It does not encompass ALL men ALL of the time.  Thus you are making an assumption about its application unto Adam for that given case without any Biblical evidence to do so.  Again this is human conjecture.
     
    Grammatically, Genesis 3:6 does NOT directly say that Adam was present with Eve throughout the serpent's temptation against her.  Yes, Genesis 3:6 does employ the phrase, "And gave also unto her husband with her."  However, from a grammatical perspective the prepositional phrase "with her" can carry two possible indications.  On the one hand, it could mean -- Who was PRESENT with her.  In this case the prepositional phrase would modify "her husband," indicating his location.  On the other hand, it could mean -- For him TO EAT with her.  In this case the prepositional phrase would modify "and gave," indicating her objective.  How might we choose between these options?
    Well, IF Adam was present "with her" throughout the temptation (as you indicate above), then indeed "Adam said nothing," and did not "stand up to the serpent and reiterate God's Word for word command," and did not "say a word in protest."  Then indeed Adam "SHOULD HAVE chimed in with 'Nope . . . God commanded me NO, we cannot do that."  Yet IF Adam was present and SHOULD HAVE done something that he did not do, then THIS was his first sin.  Not doing something that one SHOULD do in the sight of God IS a sin.  YET God's Holy Word NEVER attributes such a sin to Adam, but ALWAYS indicates that his first sin was partaking of the fruit.  According to God's Holy Word, Adam's first sin was partaking of the forbidden fruit, NOT failing to be a good husband unto his wife.  As for myself, I will NOT accuse Adam of a sin that God's own Word does not accuse him of.
  2. Thanks
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from No Nicolaitans in Eve's Transgression?   
    This is Biblically inaccurate.  When Eve ate of the fruit, she engaged in the first transgression against God's command.  As such, she is the first human sinner.  2 Timothy 2:14 declares, "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."  Eve DID eat of the forbidden fruit.  Eve DID commit sin against the Lord God by so eating.  Eve did eat of that fruit and thereby commit sin FIRST.
    On the other hand, Eve was NOT the divinely appointed representative for the entire human race.  God had placed this appointment upon Adam as the first man. (See 1 Corinthians 15:45-47)  Thus Romans 5:12 indicates that by the sin of the one/first man Adam (not by the sin of Eve) sin entered the world of mankind, and death by that man's sin.  Indeed, it is "through the offense" of the one/first man Adam that "many be dead." (See Romans 5:15)  Indeed, "the judgment was by one [the first man Adam] to condemnation." (See Romans 5:16)  It is "by one man's offense" that "death reigned by one." (See Romans 5:17)  It is "by the offence of one" that "judgment came upon all men to condemnation." (See Romans 5:18)  It is "by one man's disobedience" that "many were made sinners." (See Romans 5:19)
     
    Indeed, when the Lord God presented his command unto Adam in Genesis 2:16-17, He spoke directly to Adam; and at that time Eve was not even yet created.  Even so, the Lord God employed singular pronouns in His command to Adam, saying, "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
     
    First, there is NO Biblical principle which indicates that if God spoke directly to someone about any given matter, that His quotation about that matter MUST be recorded in Scripture.  That is a human conjecture, NOT a Biblical truth.
    Second, Eve herself reported differently than your conclusion.  In Genesis 3:3 Eve delivered what she claimed to be a direct quote from the Lord God, saying, "But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."  It should also be noticed that in her quotation from God, there are TWO significant differences in comparison to the direct command of the Lord God unto Adam as recorded in Genesis 2:16-17.  The first and most obvious difference is the addition, "Neither shall ye touch it."  The second significant difference is her usage of PLURAL pronouns -- "Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."  These plural pronouns within her direct quotation from the Lord God indicate that the Lord God had INDEED spoken this command unto BOTH of them (as a "ye") after Eve was created.
     
    First, Eve herself NEVER stated that she learned this command "through Adam" as you claim, nor does any statement of Scripture ever indicate such.  This is simply human conjecture.
    Second, Eve herself DID quote the Lord God as speaking His command to the "ye" (plural, as them both).
    Third, your declaration concerning "how the majority of men pass along messages" (indicating the need to "listen well" and implying the failure of many men not to "listen well") applies a common failure of sinfully fallen men unto Adam, who at the time was yet in a sinless state.  Such an application is a faulty application.  The characteristics of sinful man CANNOT rightly be applied unto Adam before his first disobedience and sin in eating the fruit.  Before that sinful disobedience his characteristics were faultless, not faulty.
    Fourth, your declaration concerning "how the majority of men pass along message" in itself even only encompasses "THE MAJORITY" of men.  It does not encompass ALL men ALL of the time.  Thus you are making an assumption about its application unto Adam for that given case without any Biblical evidence to do so.  Again this is human conjecture.
     
    Grammatically, Genesis 3:6 does NOT directly say that Adam was present with Eve throughout the serpent's temptation against her.  Yes, Genesis 3:6 does employ the phrase, "And gave also unto her husband with her."  However, from a grammatical perspective the prepositional phrase "with her" can carry two possible indications.  On the one hand, it could mean -- Who was PRESENT with her.  In this case the prepositional phrase would modify "her husband," indicating his location.  On the other hand, it could mean -- For him TO EAT with her.  In this case the prepositional phrase would modify "and gave," indicating her objective.  How might we choose between these options?
    Well, IF Adam was present "with her" throughout the temptation (as you indicate above), then indeed "Adam said nothing," and did not "stand up to the serpent and reiterate God's Word for word command," and did not "say a word in protest."  Then indeed Adam "SHOULD HAVE chimed in with 'Nope . . . God commanded me NO, we cannot do that."  Yet IF Adam was present and SHOULD HAVE done something that he did not do, then THIS was his first sin.  Not doing something that one SHOULD do in the sight of God IS a sin.  YET God's Holy Word NEVER attributes such a sin to Adam, but ALWAYS indicates that his first sin was partaking of the fruit.  According to God's Holy Word, Adam's first sin was partaking of the forbidden fruit, NOT failing to be a good husband unto his wife.  As for myself, I will NOT accuse Adam of a sin that God's own Word does not accuse him of.
  3. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from Jim_Alaska in Eve's Transgression?   
    This is Biblically inaccurate.  When Eve ate of the fruit, she engaged in the first transgression against God's command.  As such, she is the first human sinner.  2 Timothy 2:14 declares, "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."  Eve DID eat of the forbidden fruit.  Eve DID commit sin against the Lord God by so eating.  Eve did eat of that fruit and thereby commit sin FIRST.
    On the other hand, Eve was NOT the divinely appointed representative for the entire human race.  God had placed this appointment upon Adam as the first man. (See 1 Corinthians 15:45-47)  Thus Romans 5:12 indicates that by the sin of the one/first man Adam (not by the sin of Eve) sin entered the world of mankind, and death by that man's sin.  Indeed, it is "through the offense" of the one/first man Adam that "many be dead." (See Romans 5:15)  Indeed, "the judgment was by one [the first man Adam] to condemnation." (See Romans 5:16)  It is "by one man's offense" that "death reigned by one." (See Romans 5:17)  It is "by the offence of one" that "judgment came upon all men to condemnation." (See Romans 5:18)  It is "by one man's disobedience" that "many were made sinners." (See Romans 5:19)
     
    Indeed, when the Lord God presented his command unto Adam in Genesis 2:16-17, He spoke directly to Adam; and at that time Eve was not even yet created.  Even so, the Lord God employed singular pronouns in His command to Adam, saying, "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
     
    First, there is NO Biblical principle which indicates that if God spoke directly to someone about any given matter, that His quotation about that matter MUST be recorded in Scripture.  That is a human conjecture, NOT a Biblical truth.
    Second, Eve herself reported differently than your conclusion.  In Genesis 3:3 Eve delivered what she claimed to be a direct quote from the Lord God, saying, "But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."  It should also be noticed that in her quotation from God, there are TWO significant differences in comparison to the direct command of the Lord God unto Adam as recorded in Genesis 2:16-17.  The first and most obvious difference is the addition, "Neither shall ye touch it."  The second significant difference is her usage of PLURAL pronouns -- "Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."  These plural pronouns within her direct quotation from the Lord God indicate that the Lord God had INDEED spoken this command unto BOTH of them (as a "ye") after Eve was created.
     
    First, Eve herself NEVER stated that she learned this command "through Adam" as you claim, nor does any statement of Scripture ever indicate such.  This is simply human conjecture.
    Second, Eve herself DID quote the Lord God as speaking His command to the "ye" (plural, as them both).
    Third, your declaration concerning "how the majority of men pass along messages" (indicating the need to "listen well" and implying the failure of many men not to "listen well") applies a common failure of sinfully fallen men unto Adam, who at the time was yet in a sinless state.  Such an application is a faulty application.  The characteristics of sinful man CANNOT rightly be applied unto Adam before his first disobedience and sin in eating the fruit.  Before that sinful disobedience his characteristics were faultless, not faulty.
    Fourth, your declaration concerning "how the majority of men pass along message" in itself even only encompasses "THE MAJORITY" of men.  It does not encompass ALL men ALL of the time.  Thus you are making an assumption about its application unto Adam for that given case without any Biblical evidence to do so.  Again this is human conjecture.
     
    Grammatically, Genesis 3:6 does NOT directly say that Adam was present with Eve throughout the serpent's temptation against her.  Yes, Genesis 3:6 does employ the phrase, "And gave also unto her husband with her."  However, from a grammatical perspective the prepositional phrase "with her" can carry two possible indications.  On the one hand, it could mean -- Who was PRESENT with her.  In this case the prepositional phrase would modify "her husband," indicating his location.  On the other hand, it could mean -- For him TO EAT with her.  In this case the prepositional phrase would modify "and gave," indicating her objective.  How might we choose between these options?
    Well, IF Adam was present "with her" throughout the temptation (as you indicate above), then indeed "Adam said nothing," and did not "stand up to the serpent and reiterate God's Word for word command," and did not "say a word in protest."  Then indeed Adam "SHOULD HAVE chimed in with 'Nope . . . God commanded me NO, we cannot do that."  Yet IF Adam was present and SHOULD HAVE done something that he did not do, then THIS was his first sin.  Not doing something that one SHOULD do in the sight of God IS a sin.  YET God's Holy Word NEVER attributes such a sin to Adam, but ALWAYS indicates that his first sin was partaking of the fruit.  According to God's Holy Word, Adam's first sin was partaking of the forbidden fruit, NOT failing to be a good husband unto his wife.  As for myself, I will NOT accuse Adam of a sin that God's own Word does not accuse him of.
  4. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from JimR in Calvinism or Arminianism? How do you answer?   
    I assume that in this thread discussion we are speaking only about the doctrine of salvation (soteriology).  As such . . .
    Of the five points commonly argued, I would hold to ZERO points with Calvinism, THREE points with Arminianism, and TWO points with neither one.
  5. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from Alan in Eve's Transgression?   
    This is Biblically inaccurate.  When Eve ate of the fruit, she engaged in the first transgression against God's command.  As such, she is the first human sinner.  2 Timothy 2:14 declares, "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."  Eve DID eat of the forbidden fruit.  Eve DID commit sin against the Lord God by so eating.  Eve did eat of that fruit and thereby commit sin FIRST.
    On the other hand, Eve was NOT the divinely appointed representative for the entire human race.  God had placed this appointment upon Adam as the first man. (See 1 Corinthians 15:45-47)  Thus Romans 5:12 indicates that by the sin of the one/first man Adam (not by the sin of Eve) sin entered the world of mankind, and death by that man's sin.  Indeed, it is "through the offense" of the one/first man Adam that "many be dead." (See Romans 5:15)  Indeed, "the judgment was by one [the first man Adam] to condemnation." (See Romans 5:16)  It is "by one man's offense" that "death reigned by one." (See Romans 5:17)  It is "by the offence of one" that "judgment came upon all men to condemnation." (See Romans 5:18)  It is "by one man's disobedience" that "many were made sinners." (See Romans 5:19)
     
    Indeed, when the Lord God presented his command unto Adam in Genesis 2:16-17, He spoke directly to Adam; and at that time Eve was not even yet created.  Even so, the Lord God employed singular pronouns in His command to Adam, saying, "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
     
    First, there is NO Biblical principle which indicates that if God spoke directly to someone about any given matter, that His quotation about that matter MUST be recorded in Scripture.  That is a human conjecture, NOT a Biblical truth.
    Second, Eve herself reported differently than your conclusion.  In Genesis 3:3 Eve delivered what she claimed to be a direct quote from the Lord God, saying, "But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."  It should also be noticed that in her quotation from God, there are TWO significant differences in comparison to the direct command of the Lord God unto Adam as recorded in Genesis 2:16-17.  The first and most obvious difference is the addition, "Neither shall ye touch it."  The second significant difference is her usage of PLURAL pronouns -- "Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."  These plural pronouns within her direct quotation from the Lord God indicate that the Lord God had INDEED spoken this command unto BOTH of them (as a "ye") after Eve was created.
     
    First, Eve herself NEVER stated that she learned this command "through Adam" as you claim, nor does any statement of Scripture ever indicate such.  This is simply human conjecture.
    Second, Eve herself DID quote the Lord God as speaking His command to the "ye" (plural, as them both).
    Third, your declaration concerning "how the majority of men pass along messages" (indicating the need to "listen well" and implying the failure of many men not to "listen well") applies a common failure of sinfully fallen men unto Adam, who at the time was yet in a sinless state.  Such an application is a faulty application.  The characteristics of sinful man CANNOT rightly be applied unto Adam before his first disobedience and sin in eating the fruit.  Before that sinful disobedience his characteristics were faultless, not faulty.
    Fourth, your declaration concerning "how the majority of men pass along message" in itself even only encompasses "THE MAJORITY" of men.  It does not encompass ALL men ALL of the time.  Thus you are making an assumption about its application unto Adam for that given case without any Biblical evidence to do so.  Again this is human conjecture.
     
    Grammatically, Genesis 3:6 does NOT directly say that Adam was present with Eve throughout the serpent's temptation against her.  Yes, Genesis 3:6 does employ the phrase, "And gave also unto her husband with her."  However, from a grammatical perspective the prepositional phrase "with her" can carry two possible indications.  On the one hand, it could mean -- Who was PRESENT with her.  In this case the prepositional phrase would modify "her husband," indicating his location.  On the other hand, it could mean -- For him TO EAT with her.  In this case the prepositional phrase would modify "and gave," indicating her objective.  How might we choose between these options?
    Well, IF Adam was present "with her" throughout the temptation (as you indicate above), then indeed "Adam said nothing," and did not "stand up to the serpent and reiterate God's Word for word command," and did not "say a word in protest."  Then indeed Adam "SHOULD HAVE chimed in with 'Nope . . . God commanded me NO, we cannot do that."  Yet IF Adam was present and SHOULD HAVE done something that he did not do, then THIS was his first sin.  Not doing something that one SHOULD do in the sight of God IS a sin.  YET God's Holy Word NEVER attributes such a sin to Adam, but ALWAYS indicates that his first sin was partaking of the fruit.  According to God's Holy Word, Adam's first sin was partaking of the forbidden fruit, NOT failing to be a good husband unto his wife.  As for myself, I will NOT accuse Adam of a sin that God's own Word does not accuse him of.
  6. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from Alan in What are Your Thoughts on Effeminate Men in the Name of Christ   
    Yes, our Lord Jesus Christ Himself did indeed say, "Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven unto men."  
    This declaration by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself (God the Son Himself) indicates that the sin of homosexuality can INDEED "be forgiven unto men," and thus that such sinners can INDEED be saved (through faith Christ).  Any other voice on the subject simply does NOT match the authority of God the Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.  What then should we do "if any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ . . ."?
  7. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from Jim_Alaska in What are Your Thoughts on Effeminate Men in the Name of Christ   
    Yes, our Lord Jesus Christ Himself did indeed say, "Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven unto men."  
    This declaration by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself (God the Son Himself) indicates that the sin of homosexuality can INDEED "be forgiven unto men," and thus that such sinners can INDEED be saved (through faith Christ).  Any other voice on the subject simply does NOT match the authority of God the Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.  What then should we do "if any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ . . ."?
  8. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle reacted to heartstrings in What are Your Thoughts on Effeminate Men in the Name of Christ   
    Jesus said that the only sin which cannot be forgiven is the "blasphemy of the Holy Ghost". So to say that homosexuals or effeminates cannot be saved is quite frankly a lie of the Devil. The Bible plainly mentions "abusers of themselves with mankind" and (speaking to Christians) says "and such were some of you". Now a Homosexual or effeminate who has blasphemed the Holy Ghost; that is, of course, a different story, they sin their "day of grace" away as anyone else doing the same.  As to a "reprobate mind", this is a morally corrupt mind. But God does not "make" a person think, say or do wicked things. People cultivate that stuff themselves. When God stops pleading with one's heart, He then "leaves them to their own devices" so to speak. That is what "giving them over to a reprobate mind" means.
  9. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from No Nicolaitans in Eve's Transgression?   
    So then, our options are as follows:
    1.  God reiterated the command to both Adam and Eve, yet Eve misrepresented God by adding the phrase concerning not touching.
    Biblical evidence -- None whatsoever, just human conjecture.
    2.  Adam reported God's command to Eve, yet Eve misrepresented Adam and God by adding the phrase concerning not touching.
    Biblical evidence -- None whatsoever, just human conjecture.
    3.  Adam misrepresented God's command to Eve by adding the phrase concerning not touching, and Eve reported Adam's misrepresentation.
    Biblical evidence -- None whatsoever, just human conjecture.
    4.  Adam reported God's command to Eve and added his own standard of not touching, and Eve misunderstood Adam's report by attributing the added standard to God.
    Biblical evidence -- None whatsoever, just human conjecture.
    5.  Adam reported God's command to Eve and added his own standard of not touching, and Eve misrepresented Adam's report by attributing the added standard to God.
    Biblical evidence -- None whatsoever, just human conjecture.
    Concerning all of these options, I wish to present the following warning of another --
    6.  God reiterated the command to both Adam and Eve and added the phrase concerning not touching, and Eve reported God's command accurately.
    Biblical evidence -- The biblical record of Genesis 3:3 wherein Eve reports this very quote from God, "God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."
    I myself choose to accept Eve's word on this matter for the following reasons:
    1.  It is the only option that actually possesses any Biblical evidence whatsoever.
    2.  Eve made this claim while she was yet in the condition of a sinless character.
    3.  There is no Biblically recorded rebuke anywhere against Eve for misrepresenting either God or Adam.
    4.  There is no Biblically recorded indication anywhere that Eve misrepresented either God or Adam.
    So then, with the Biblical evidence of Eve's claim and without any Biblical evidence to counter that claim, I will accept her claim as the very truth.
     
    Yet there is one declaration of absolute conviction that stands against this position, as follows:
    Throughout, the premise of this absolute conviction and absolute declaration is basically the following:
    Adam's eyes were not opened to death until after the moment that he ate of the forbidden fruit, not at the moment when he touched the fruit; therefore, touching the fruit could not have been sin and thus could not have been forbidden directly by God.
    Now, there are a few problems with this premise, as follows:
    1.  In neither of the two reports of the command, not in the report of God's Word in Genesis 2:17 or in the report of Eve in Genesis 3:3, is there any statement whatsoever about when eyes would be opened unto anything.  Therefore, to make claims about when eyes should or should not, could or could not, would or would not be opened throughout the process is not Biblically founded, since God's Word does not reveal this information.  In fact, God's Word only gives us the report that their eyes were opened and at what point in the process this happened.  However, God's Word does not tell us exactly why this happened at the exact moment that it did.  So then, the above premise is based upon a bit of human speculation.
    2.  The first sin was in fact a process, just as in the case of any sin.  First, there is the temptation, the drawing away and enticing of one's lust.  Second, there is the conception of the lust, wherein the heart and mind make the decision to engage in the sin.  Third, there is the birthing of the sinful activity itself.  Fourth, there is the bring forth of death.  In the case of Eve's and Adam's sin, this process was also present.  First, the serpent tempted Eve.  Second, Eve came to agreement in her heart with the serpent, seeing the fruit in her mind as something good for her.  Third, she took of the fruit.  Fourth, she ate of the fruit.  First, Eve tempted Adam by offering him of the fruit and inviting him to join with her in eating.  Second, Adam willfully decided to join with his wife in eating, although he was not at all deceived and thus knew full well that it was not at all good for him.  Third, Adam took of the fruit from Eve's hand.  Fourth, Adam ate of the fruit along with his wife.  In both cases the sin began with a decision, not with an action.  Yet in this case the decision was acted out within seconds, for the entire process of decision, taking, and eating could not have taken more than 4-5 seconds as a whole.  
    3.  Upon what Biblical evidence may we conclude at what point the corruption of death began, whether at the point of decision, at the point of touching, or at the point of eating?  Is there any statement at all in the passage concerning precisely when this occurred?  If not, then why would we seek to make absolute declarations of interpretation upon the foundation of information that is not precisely revealed?
    4.  Finally, simply as a thought question -- How long might it have taken for the conviction of conscience and the consciousness of corruption to open their eyes unto full understanding of their new sinful condition?  I would suppose that it did not take long.  However, even if it took a few seconds, the entire process of sin (decision, taking, and eating) would have been completed before the opening of the eyes unto understanding.
     
     
  10. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle reacted to heartstrings in What are Your Thoughts on Effeminate Men in the Name of Christ   
    You said it better than I could. There's nothing morally or Biblical wrong with presenting the Word of God in a "soft spoken" manner. by a more refined "city guy" type man. I've heard great Bible preachers expound the scriptures that way. As well there's nothing wrong with a "rough", country backwoods "tough" man or "former marine" type either; I've heard great preaching from them too. Where either goes wrong is when pride or scorn rear their ugly heads up and, unfortunately, I've seen that from both "types"..  Not good. Rebuke (in love) when it's needed, but just don't forget that God commands us to "exhort" too.
  11. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle reacted to wretched in What are Your Thoughts on Effeminate Men in the Name of Christ   
    Consider that the context of the effeminate passage which lists those who are "abusers of themselves with mankind" directly after effeminate.
    Wouldn't it make more sense to define effeminate as the transvestite types, trannies or the flamboyant homosexuals whom purposely wear make up/clothing to appear feminine and not the purposely meek and humble men who look like men but rather follow Christ's example and not Adam's anymore?
    2 Tim 2: 24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will. (I can list many like this all true to their contexts)
    There is the Biblical answer, these who puff themselves up as harsh, manly men in the name of Christ, are simply not the true servants of Christ. They serve another father unwittingly through the pride and lusts of the flesh....mammon is not money only, recognition and making a name for oneself is also mammon.
    They deceive themselves but still have time to repent if they would turn from using God's Word as merely a reference for their "theology" and feed on it daily as the BREAD OF LIFE.
  12. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from No Nicolaitans in What are Your Thoughts on Effeminate Men in the Name of Christ   
    Indeed, I believe that a false definition/description for "effeminate" has been presented.  Therefore, this thread discussion has begun with confusion.  This is one of the reasons that I asked for a more precise listing of those characteristics (in demeanor and behavior) which might be Biblically viewed as those exclusively for women, and never for men.  (Note: If we consider the actual teaching of God's Holy Word, meekness certainly CANNOT be one of these characteristics.)
  13. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from heartstrings in What are Your Thoughts on Effeminate Men in the Name of Christ   
    Indeed, I believe that a false definition/description for "effeminate" has been presented.  Therefore, this thread discussion has begun with confusion.  This is one of the reasons that I asked for a more precise listing of those characteristics (in demeanor and behavior) which might be Biblically viewed as those exclusively for women, and never for men.  (Note: If we consider the actual teaching of God's Holy Word, meekness certainly CANNOT be one of these characteristics.)
  14. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from wretched in What are Your Thoughts on Effeminate Men in the Name of Christ   
    Indeed, I believe that a false definition/description for "effeminate" has been presented.  Therefore, this thread discussion has begun with confusion.  This is one of the reasons that I asked for a more precise listing of those characteristics (in demeanor and behavior) which might be Biblically viewed as those exclusively for women, and never for men.  (Note: If we consider the actual teaching of God's Holy Word, meekness certainly CANNOT be one of these characteristics.)
  15. Like
  16. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from Alan in What are Your Thoughts on Effeminate Men in the Name of Christ   
    Brother Wayne,
    I know a pastor who preaches both confrontation and commendation unto both the men and the women of the church at appropriate times and through appropriate passages.  Indeed, I even know that that same pastor has preached on 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 in the public service of the church (carefully, yet publicly).
  17. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from heartstrings in What are Your Thoughts on Effeminate Men in the Name of Christ   
    Brother Wayne,
    I know a pastor who preaches both confrontation and commendation unto both the men and the women of the church at appropriate times and through appropriate passages.  Indeed, I even know that that same pastor has preached on 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 in the public service of the church (carefully, yet publicly).
  18. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from No Nicolaitans in What are Your Thoughts on Effeminate Men in the Name of Christ   
    Ok, to me the opening post is a bit confusing. 
    Might it be clearly listed -- What specifically are the characteristics (by demeanor and behavior) that are specifically that of the female, by which the male should never be characterized?
  19. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle reacted to Salyan in Matthew 12:40   
    I think it’s Thursday, too.
    Oh, and I’m closing this thread. I see no value in having it periodically reopened in case there’s someone here to start an argument. 
  20. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle reacted to DaveW in What are Your Thoughts on Effeminate Men in the Name of Christ   
    Bible reference for this please?
    Actually Bible reference for any of it please?
    (And note that I am not necessarily saying any part of what you are saying is wrong, but EVERYTHING we do need to be Bible based.)
  21. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from HappyChristian in Aside from Sunday morning services.....   
    Ahhh, but generally speaking this issue is not about attendance and the recognition of its importance.  Rather, this issue is about commitment to the priority of the Lord in an individual's life.  Generally you will find that those who are Sunday morning only attenders also have the Lord and His Word at a lower level of priority in their daily lives, and have the world and its "things" at a higher level of priority.  In such cases, the attendance issue will not change until the priority of heart changes.  This is the FOUNDATIONAL issue - the priority of their hearts.
    (Note: Sometimes the numbers difference is contributed by a ministry program difference, such as a bus ministry on Sunday morning, but not for the other services.  Also, sometimes the Wednesday night lack is contributed by a work schedule difference, such as 2nd shift workers that are not affected on the weekends.)
  22. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from HappyChristian in Matthew 12:40   
    Actually, the great majority of Independent, Fundamental Baptists that I know believe that our Lord Jesus Christ was crucified on Wednesday.
    I myself believe strongly that our Lord Jesus Christ was crucified on Thursday.
    I myself am not aware of a single Independent, Fundamental Baptist who holds that our Lord Jesus Christ was crucified on Friday, no, not even a single one.
  23. Thanks
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from 2bLikeJesus in Commonly Misquoted verses   
    Concerning John 16:13-15
    John 16:13-15 serves as a unit of information concerning the work of the indwelling Holy Spirit in guiding believers “into all truth.”  The primary point of the passage is presented with the opening statement of John 16:13 – “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth.”  Herein we learn the following:
    1.  The timing for the Holy Spirit’s guiding work – “Howbeit when he . . . is come.”  This would refer to the sending forth of the Holy Spirit to permanently indwell New Testament believers, which began on the Day of Pentecost.
    2.  The character of the Holy Spirit’s guiding work – “the Spirit of truth.”
    3.  The need for the Holy Spirit’s guiding work – “he will guide.”
    4.  The recipients of the Holy Spirit’s guiding work – “you.”  This would be a direct reference unto the apostles as believers, and thus would have application unto all New Testament believers, since we are all now indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
    5.  The content of the Holy Spirit’s guiding work – “into all truth.”
    The entire rest of the passage then serves as an explanation for this primary point.  Specifically it serves as an explanation concerning the work of the Holy Spirit in guiding us “into all truth.”  Even so, from this point the passage begins to employ the two verbs “speak” and “shew” a number of times.
    The first part of this explanation encompasses the compound statement – “For he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak.”  This statement begins with the explanatory conjunction “for” in order to indicate that it is an explanation.  Furthermore, this compound statement employs the adversative conjunction “but” in order to indicate that it expresses two contrasting truths. 
    The first of these truths is that “he [the Spirit of truth] shall not speak of himself.”  Herein the preposition "of" is not employed to indicate the content of which (or, about which) the Holy Spirit will not speak, but is employed to indicate the source out of which (or, from which) the Holy Spirit will not speak.  Even so, when the Spirit of truth guides us “into all truth,” He will not speak out of Himself as the authority for that truth which He speaks.  Indeed, this understanding is substantiated by the contrasting truth concerning the source of authority out of which He will speak forth – “But whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak.”  When the Spirit of truth guides us “into all truth,” He will only speak forth that which He hears from another.  Yet that draws forth the question – Who is this other One from whom the Spirit of truth will hear, and thereby speak?
    The answer to that question is revealed in John 16:14-15.  However, before that answer is revealed, a statement is made concerning the content which the Spirit of truth will speak – “And he will shew you things to come.”  Thus some of the “all truth” into which the Spirit of truth will guide us will be prophetic utterances concerning the future.
    Then John 16:14 provides the answer to our above question --  Who is the One from whom the Spirit of truth will hear, and thereby speak?  “He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.”  In this statement our Lord Jesus Christ begins by declaring that the Spirit of truth will glorify Him, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.  Certainly, this could be taken to mean that the Holy Spirit will glorify the Lord Jesus Christ by speaking specifically about the Lord Jesus Christ.  However, such is not the explanation that the Lord Jesus Christ Himself gives for the declaration that the Holy Spirit will glorify Him.  Rather, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself gives the explanation – “For he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.”  Herein the explanatory conjunction “for” specifically indicates that this statement is the divine explanation for the previous statement.  So then, does this explanation focus upon the content about which the Spirit of truth will speak and by which He will glorify the Lord Jesus Christ?  No, it does not.  Rather, this explanation focuses upon the source from which the Spirit of truth will receive the truth to be revealed unto us.  Specifically, the Holy Spirit shall receive that truth of and from the Lord Jesus Christ, and such is the very truth that the Holy Spirit shall show unto us believers.  So then, the Spirit of truth will glorify the Lord Jesus Christ specifically by submitting Himself under the Lord’s authority so as to receive His message directly from the Lord Jesus Christ and so as to show forth only that message which the Lord Jesus Christ gives for Him to speak.  The Lord Jesus Christ is the One from whom, and the only One from whom the Spirit of truth will hear, and thereby speak.
    Yet this appears to exclude God the Father from the process.  Therefore, our Lord Jesus Christ adds a further explanation in John 16:15 – “All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.”  Herein the Lord Jesus Christ indicates that He Himself has equal ownership in all that God the Father owns.  As such, when the Holy Spirit receives and takes the message of truth directly from the Lord Jesus Christ, He is receiving and taking God the Father’s message also, since God the Father’s message and the Lord Jesus Christ’s message are the exact same message of truth to be delivered unto us. 
  24. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from Jordan Kurecki in Steven Anderson   
    Romans 16:17-18 -- "Now I BESEECH YOU, brethren, MARK THEM which cause divisions and offenses CONTRARY TO THE DOCTRINE which ye have learned; AND AVOID THEM.  For they that are such SERVE NOT OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches DECEIVE THE HEARTS OF THE SIMPLE."
  25. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from Jim_Alaska in Steven Anderson   
    Romans 16:17-18 -- "Now I BESEECH YOU, brethren, MARK THEM which cause divisions and offenses CONTRARY TO THE DOCTRINE which ye have learned; AND AVOID THEM.  For they that are such SERVE NOT OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches DECEIVE THE HEARTS OF THE SIMPLE."

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...