Pastor Scott Markle

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.

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.

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.

I've heard a pastor say, on more than one occasion. "Nowhere in the Bible does it say that a woman is to love her husband" which was right in the middle of one of these "it's all the man's fault for not leading" sermons. No, it does not directly tell women to love their husbands, that part is true; it tells husbands "love your wives" in more than one passage. . Does that mean that God does not want women to love their husbands then? No. 
Titus2
1But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine: 2That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience.  3The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; 4That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands(mentioned first), to love their children(mentioned second), 5To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
I would say that at least 99% of young mothers would say and demonstrate that they "love their children". Many if not most would say "I put my children first". Well, if that young woman is still married, therein lies a devastating problem. Titus 2 verse 4 says that young women must be taught by 'aged women" to love their husbands, to love their children. Why would a young woman who already loves her children need to be taught to do so?  If young wives don't love their husbands first it makes for a less than happy environment for the children, and they suffer because of it. There are some things young ladies need to know that only older women have the qualification and the life experience to teach and some things which would not be received well if taught by any man; even a preacher, or a husband so, the Word of God, in all it's wisdom prescribes Godly "aged women" for this responsibility. A Godly woman can teach young women how to truly love hubby and the kids and how to avoid "tearing their homes down with their hands". So, older ladies can either teach "Feminism 101" or how to have a happy home like the lady in Proverbs 31. There again, this is another example of "leadership". 

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.  

Thank you sharing, I’ll put myself in the firing range. My wife is a very spiritual and Godly woman, but is super controlling. Not just to me, but everyone. I had a very hard time raising our children because of this. Yes, many of times, I wished to be alone and single. Not to find a new woman, but peace. I do fall in the followers type, unfortunately. Keep me in your prayers thank you.

You know, we live in a rural area too. I always went to work, worked 2 jobs and built a house on the side while my Wife was a stay at home Mom. She homeschooled our children. But you wouldn't believe the talk and the peer pressure that came even from other members of our IFB church whose wives worked and believed kids should go to public school. They believed that our kids wouldn't know how to get along socially and these busybodies didn't keep those beliefs to themselves either. I could relate other things they did to undermine me in raising my kids but I won't. But I can say, despite the homeschooling, all three of our kids have good jobs, none of them are socially inept and have way more friends than I could count.

Thank you to Linda for providing the information along the way - to think of others at a time such as this is a testimony to your love and care.
Thanks also to Happy and the forum for allowing a place for this.
A man such as this who was always an encouragement in the Lord to those who knew him, and in my case (and many others here) I knew him only online, both here and via email, but the friendship was nonetheless real.
His voice on this forum will be greatly missed, and his contact with me will be missed greatly also.
Regards,
David

I'm sure this email was hard for Linda to write:
"I have set up donations for Jim's burial:   To Jim's many friends and family   Please know that your support means everything to me as I navigate this painful time. Even though I realized his life was coming to an end after 80 years, nothing prepared me for it happening so soon. We both thought we would have a few more years together.   We did not even consider Jim going to surgery and not coming out feeling better and having more energy. However he never woke up. He had several small strokes during the surgery. As you may know by now, he is off life support and being kept comfortable till his body no longer can sustain his life. As hard as this time is, I are still continuing to honor his wishes as to where he is finally laid to rest and where he wanted that to be.   Many of you have reached out to me and have asked how you can help me during this time. I really want to honor Jim’s wishes and I plan to do everything I can to make his wishes come true. One of his long standing desires was to be buried next to his late wife Marcia.    Someone has donated the plot for him, and another is building a casket. However, it is going to cost around another $5,000 more to actually get him laid to rest. If you are able to, and comfortable doing so, I would really appreciate any donation, big or small, towards fulfilling his desire to be buried next to Marcia.   Funds for his funeral cost may be sent to: https://www.paypal.com/pools/c/8WcvSEZEvi   Thank you again for your support during this time.   With appreciation, Jim Foley’s, wife Linda"

Linda, I understand completely the heart-wrenching decision you have made. My mom and I had to make this same decision for my father just a few years ago. My dad went by Alan on this site and often spoke favorably of Jim when we had in-depth discussions about topics and conversations from this site. I am sure my father and Jim will be rejoicing together that they finally get to meet each other in Heaven. I will continue to pray for you and your family as I know these days and the days to follow will be very difficult. May the Lord bring you peace during this time of decision-making and grief. ❤️

Over the last few months before Jim had his surgery - in my grief now - I had forgotten. In Jim's prayers, that I heard, he often dwelled on his home in heaven and distinguished it from his home in heaven and his home on earth. To most people that may not mean anything, but for me, it told a lot. He had never really done that before a few months ago.
Now that he is not waking up, the doctors have their reasons why. His brain is severely damaged by the stroke. If he did wake up it is likely that he wouldn’t be able to see, speak, feed himself, or breathe on his own. He has also developed an infection (Pneumonia) in his lungs. But I think there is an added reason - he doesn't want to wake up. He really has nothing to look forward to, he hated what the neuropathy was doing to him and it was getting worse, to the point that at some point he wouldn't have been able to do anything but sit in his chair and wait to die, which he felt he was already doing.
I really think he was ready to go months ago, long before he knew about his heart problem. Even though he did have great hope that he would recover from his surgery and feel better and have more energy. I also feel he was torn between the desire to die and leaving me a widow. But there is also that he felt trapped in his body.
So I have decided that I will let him die peacefully. I think he has a few more days before he has to have the stomach feeding portal installed. I have told them not to. It will also be at that time I will have them remove his ventilator so he can pass peacefully. There really is no hope he will recover, but even if there was - recover to what? To continue his neuropathy deterioration? I really think he doesn't want that, and is one reason he hasn't woke up.
I am sorry, so very sorry. Not just for me, but for him, his family, and his close friends. I don't know the exact date they will do this, but it will happen soon. I will go and see him one last time tomorrow and say my goodbyes. I cannot bear to watch him die. This is the hardest thing I have ever had to do. But he would not want to live like this, and I am abiding by his wishes. Please know, my heart goes out to you.
Linda, his wife

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

I find it interesting that when folks tout that male headship as God instituted in Genesis was done away with when Christ died because, you know, new creation and all that, NT verses are either ignored or twisted beyond recognition of their very clear words.
God makes it very clear in 1 Cor. 11 that man needs woman and woman needs man. He also makes it clear that the head of the woman is man. Uh-oh! Rank patriarchy right there in scripture! Keep in mind that Corinthians was written to a VERY carnal church. I think it's fair to say that CARNAL folks need to be reminded that God put man as the head...AFTER the resurrection. Speaking TO the church. Hmmm...
Then we float over to Ephesians 5.  Verse 21 has been used to teach that men are to submit to women, and that is for the  church and the home. Egregious error there. Many marriages have been  ruined by the teaching that this means the husband is not the head. But fair  warning: it is NOT addressing the marriage relationship, but rather the church. And it is NOT teaching that women can be pastors or teachers of men. Anyone who says it is, well, is lying...and God says that lying lips are an abomination to Him.
Gal. 5:13 could be considered a parallel thought to Eph. 5:21.  "...by love serve one another."  That is to the whole of Christendom, specifically our local churches...and it would trickle down to our homes as well. It is not a carte blanche to throw away God's design for the church and the home.   Which is men in leadership...which does not demean women in the least bit.
Eph. 5:22 then goes on to specifics, beginning to deal with the home. God makes it very clear that wives are to be subject to their OWN husbands (not every man just because he's male). And then verse 23: "For the HUSBAND IS THE HEAD OF THE WIFE..." There you have it, in God's own words. 
Now, let's be clear...the "caveman" idea of a husband is not what this is teaching (nor is it teaching that women have no  brains nor rights to say something). The next part talks about a comparison: hubs are heads of wives as Christ is the head of the church...and should be willing to die for their wives, as Christ did for His church. I guarantee if a man is leading his wife in the way Christ leads the church he is doing it in a loving way.
I have to be personal here and say that my husband fits that to a "T." Yes, he is the head and his decision is final (like it or not, anti-patriarchs). BUT! There are times his decisions are made based on my suggestions/thoughts. There are times when they are not. There are times he asks my opinion (and times he doesn't, but I give it anyway lol). IOW, he respects me enough to WANT to hear what I have to say. He values my words just as he values me. He serves me, and I serve him. That is how love works. 
God has laid it down that man is the head of the home. If one wants to "pull rank" and say that makes man/woman unequal, go for it. Who cares? Our standing BEFORE GOD is equal. And in the home, husband and wife are a team - with a captain and co-captain. Man sets the direction of the home (a smart man does so in agreement with his wife - before marriage), and as the co-captain, the wife helps steer the ship.
This whole anti-patriarchy garbage flows out of the women's rights movement. It is tainted with the stench of pride and rebellion, and God hates it. God has laid down His guidelines. We puny humans have NO RIGHT to go against them. But so many do. Because they think they are smarter than God, and smarter than anyone who disagrees with them. In actual fact, God says, "A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself." And let's remember God says, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and DESPERATELY WICKED..."
Teachings that go against God's clear word are foolishness, void of understanding...and desperately wicked.
Don't fall prey to the foolishness.
 
Oh, and btw, JESUS WAS SUBJECT TO THE FATHER...but nowhere does it state that the Father was subject to the Son.
 

Women as Pastors
The qualifications for a bishop, elder, and deacon.
Here are the qualifications of a bishop and a deacon. Read the whole passage in your bible, because I have omitted the parts not pertaining to being a man as a condition of candidacy. I shoot with a rifle not a shotgun. The shotgun approach is used, not for context, but for introducing confusion by those who wish to prove that women can be pastors. That is the truth of it.
1 Timothy 3:1-16 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, … 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)  8 Likewise must the deacons be … 11 Even so must their wives be grave, … 12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
Titus 1:5-12 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: 6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, …
Women in the church.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
1 Timothy 2:12-14 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Isaiah puts shame on women ruling.
Isaiah 3:12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.
The passages above are clear and plain. Read it. Stay on topic. The office of Apostle is not the same as the office of pastors. The idea that Junia was an apostle, is disputed by Wesley, John Trapp, Matthew Poole, Ellicott, Coke, Adam Clark, Albert Barnes, and John Calvin. Some of their comments are listed below.
Romans 16:7 … who are of note among the apostles; were well known by, and in great account with the twelve apostles, though not of their number; they might be converted by them, and be followers of them in Judea… John Gill
Who are of note among the apostles; i.e. they were well known to the apostles, and were in good esteem with them: not only the twelve, together with Paul and Barnabas, but other teachers are sometimes called apostles, or messengers; see 2Co 8:23; Php 2:25. Some have thought these two, Andronicus and Junia, were of the number of the seventy disciples, who are mentioned Lu 10:1. Others, that they were of the one hundred and twenty, who are mentioned in Ac 1:15; or of those that were converted by the first preaching of Peter, and the rest, Ac 2:41; 4:4. By what follows, it appeareth they were of considerable standing in Christianity. … Matthew Poole
Ver. 7. Andronicus and Junia— Or, Junias. Diodati thinks that by apostles in this verse are meant the evangelists; and that the meaning is, that these persons were noted messengers of the churches; but it is more probable that they were some early converts, who had been known and much esteemed by the apostles before the dispersion occasioned by the death of Stephen: and if so, St. Paul perhaps might once have been active in persecuting them, and have learned their names at first with an hostile intent of hunting them down to destruction. See Craddock's Apostol. Hist. Diodati, and Doddridge. … Coke … Adam Clarke
Who are of note. The word translated of note, (epishmoi) denotes, properly, those who are marked, designated, or distinguished in any way; used either in a good or bad sense. Comp. Mt 27:16. Here it is used in a good sense.
Among the apostles. This does not mean that they were apostles, as has been sometimes supposed. For,
(1.) there is no account of their having been appointed as such.
(2.) The expression is not one which would have been used if they had been. It would have been, "who were distinguished apostles." Comp. Ro 1:1; 1Co 1:1; 2Co 1:1; Col 1:1.
(3.) It by no means implies that they were apostles. All that the expression fairly implies is, that they were known to the other apostles; that they were regarded by them as worthy of their affection and confidence; that they had been known by them, as Paul immediately adds, before he was himself converted. They had been converted before he was, and were distinguished in Jerusalem among the early Christians, and honoured with the friendship of the other apostles.
(4.) The design of the office of apostles was to bear witness to the life, death, resurrection, doctrines, and miracles of Christ. Comp. Mt 10; Ac 1:21; 22:15. As there is no evidence that they had been witnesses of these things, or appointed to it, it is improbable that they were set apart to the apostolic office,
(5.) The word apostles is used sometimes to designate messengers of churches; or those who were sent from one church to another on some important business; and if this expression meant that they were apostles, it could only be in some such sense as having obtained deserved credit and eminence in that business. See Php 2:25; 2Co 8:23. Albert Barnes.

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.

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.  

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.  

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

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.

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").

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.

"A lot can be deduced" from just about every verse or small section of scripture. The JWs and Mormons are prime examples of those that have done "a lot of deduction".
None of your deduction, however, makes either Andronicus or Junia an actual officially designated Apostle as were Peter, Paul, Matthew, John, James, etc.
To your second point, many have been imprisoned for their faith to this day. Are they all then to be officially designated Apostles as were Peter, Paul, Matthew, John, James, etc.?
To your third point we all do work that the Apostles had done. If we are active Christians, we likely dabble in just about every discipline in the church to some extent. That does not qualify us to wear every title.
Jesus Himself gave us all the Great Commission: Matthew 28:18-20 All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
By your definitions above, and through this commission by Jesus Himself, I guess all Christians could be officially designated as Apostles as were Peter, Paul, Matthew, John, James, etc.
It really depends on how far you are willing to dilute God's word to suit your own agenda. But if we are all Apostles, what need have we for prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers (Eph 4:11); or bishops and deacons (1 Tim. 3), or elders (Titus 1:5)?
I prefer not to be in the practice of dilution. The Apostles are clearly named in the Bible. I need not add to their number to bolster any private interpretation.