Pastor Scott Markle

*Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content count

    1,349
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Pastor Scott Markle

  • Rank
    Abiding in Christ
  • Birthday 08/13/1971

Contact Methods

  • Website URL http://www.shepherdingtheflock.com

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  • Location: Melvin, MI
  • Are you IFB? Yes

Uncategorized

  • Bio My name is Scott Markle, and I have served the Lord my God and Savior in pastoral ministry since 1992. I have served as the pastor of Melvin Baptist Church, a small country church in the Thumb area of Michigan, since 1998. I have been joyfully married to my beloved wife Kerry since 1993; and we have been blessed of the Lord with two sons, Padraic and Westley.

    My life-verses are Philippians 3:8 and John 15:4-5. "Yea, doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ." "Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine: no more can ye except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches. He that abideth in, and I in him, the same bringeth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing." The burden of my life is to pursue "the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord" and to walk daily abiding in Christ, and Christ in me.

    Concerning all my ministry, it is the burden of my heart to exalt, not myself, but the name of Jesus Christ and the truth of God's Word. It is my burden that Christ must increase, while I must decrease. Therefore, I maintain the policy that my name, as the author of a book, must remain smaller, while the phrase, "For the Glory of the Lord," must stand larger above it. Thus far the Lord our God has graciously allowed me to self-publish two books which can be purchased at my website: "God's Wisdom for Marriage & The Home" and "The Spirit of Revival: A Contrite and Humble Spirit." In addition, I maintain a daily (Monday-Friday) Bible study blog at that website.

Recent Profile Visitors

6,082 profile views
  1. The Forum of brotherly/sisterly love

    In addition, we must also consider the following: Galatians 1:6-9 -- "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.  But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.  As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." Note #1 -- Would some view it as unkind and unloving if we refused to allow someone entrance into our house and even refused to bid them to have a good day?  Would some view it as unkind and unloving if we publicly indicated that someone was accursed?  Would it actually be Biblically unkind and unloving to do these things in obedience unto 2 John 1:10-11 & Galatians 1:6-9. Note #2 -- Have there been any members on this forum who have lately been teaching the doctrine that there is more than one gospel?
  2. The Kingdom

    Brother Young, I thank you for your answer; however, I am still a "little" uncertain of your position.  I know that this may appear to be a repetition of the question that you just answered.  Yet I would ask specifically concerning regeneration for Old Testament believers -- Do you believe, specifically, that Biblical regeneration occurred for Old Testament believers?  Some believe that eternal justification and eternal salvation occurred for Old Testament believers, but that Biblical regeneration itself did not.  Since your answer specified that "salvation is obtained the same way in every age," that is -- "by faith in Christ, the Son of God," I am still a little uncertain of your position specifically concerning regeneration for Old Testament believers. I pray that you will not view me as an annoyance for repeating my question.  I pray that you may understand the reason for my repetition.
  3. Ambassadors for Christ (our "job description")

    Galatians 1:6-9 -- "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.  But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.  As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." (Note: I wonder -- Is it unkind and unloving to indicate publicly that some individuals should be viewed as accursed?)
  4. IN THE BEGINNING

    Brother David, I understand, and thank you for the gracious conversation.
  5. IN THE BEGINNING

    1.  First, I would contend that most of the descriptions concerning "the king of Tyrus" could ONLY be true for an angelic being.  Furthermore, I would contend that, yes, Satan does engage in merchandizing and trafficking upon the earth; for he seeks to trade (deceitful) promises for service unto him and unto his ways. 2.  Although the terms "prince" and "king" CAN be used interchangeably, it is NOT NECESSARY that they be used interchangeably; for they also CAN be used to designate and signal two different individuals. 3.  MAYBE because (conjecture due to lack of Biblical information) Satan was serving as the angelic influence (unrighteous) behind the government and society of Tyrus at that time (similar to the unrighteous angelic being who was designated as "the prince of the kingdom of Persia" in Daniel 10:13).
  6. IN THE BEGINNING

    Brother David, Although Ezekiel 28:1-10 concerning "the prince of Tyrus," as per verse 2, who is indeed referenced as "a man." Ezekiel 28:11 begins a lamentation against "the king of Tyrus," who was referenced as "the anointed cherub" in verse 14, who was referenced in verse 15 as an individual who was created "perfect" in his way "till iniquity was found" in him  (which, for humans, could only be said of Adam and Eve), and who was referenced as the "covering cherub" in verse 16.  It appears to me that Ezekiel 28:1-10 & Ezekiel 28:11-19 concern two different individuals.
  7. IN THE BEGINNING

    Brother David, In your studies have you then found another Biblical usage of the word "cherub" wherein it certainly refers to a human individual, and not to an angelic being?  If so, what passage?
  8. IN THE BEGINNING

    The above statement is NOT an overly relevant statement concerning the correct definition for the phrase, "Eden the garden of God," considering that the prepositional phrase "of God" does not have to indicate the location or abode of God, but can certainly indicate the possession or ownership of God.
  9. The Kingdom

    Brother Young, Not at all seeking to be in conflict with your above presentation (although at the present I do hold that the "sons of God" references in Job refer to the angelic beings, which might be in conflict with your presentation from Hebrews 1:1-14).  However, I present this posting in order ask a side (but related) question concerning your presentation from Hebrews 2:11-17, as follows: Do you then believe that Biblical regeneration occurred for believers in the time of the Old Testament, for how else do sinful humans by nature become the "sons of God"? (Note: This question is asked for information because I do not actually know your position concerning Biblical regeneration for Old Testament believers.  On the other hand, this question might also be posed to any who do actually deny regeneration for Old Testament believers, but who believe that "the sons of God" in Genesis 6:1-4 are human believers.)
  10. The Kingdom

    1.  I really do not care what human did or did not propagate a particular doctrinal position.  I care only what the Holy Spirit inspired grammar and context reveals.  For if the Holy Spirit inspired grammar and context reveals a particular position, then GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT taught that position FIRST; and I am more than happy to follow HIS lead. 2.  So then, now instead of following Augustine of Hippo (whose doctrinal position on many things I would certainly reject), we are to follow the writers of "extra-Biblical tradition" instead.  Is this not simply an exchange of one human authority for another.  I am not interested in human authority for my doctrine.  Rather, I am interested in Holy Spirit authority for my doctrine. (Note: It is interesting to me that Brother "Beameup" begins by stating that it is "pretty straight-forward;" but then instead of handling the actual grammatical structure of that which God the Holy Spirit inspired, he ran off to the "extra-Biblical traditions," such as "the Book of Enoch.")
  11. The Kingdom

    1.  Yes, John was a Hebrew and a part of Israel.  Now let me ask -- Was John a New Testament believer; and was John a part of the New Testament church, the body of Christ, the one new man, wherein is joined together both Jewish and Gentile believers into one spiritual body? 2.  Yes, the promises of Exodus 19:5-6, as given in Exodus 19:5-6, apply only to Israel.  No, the New Testament church has NOT "replaced" Israel, such that the promise in Exodus 19:5-6 does NOT apply to the New Testament believers of the New Testament church.  Yet the truth of Revelation 1:4-6, as given in Revelation 1:4-6, DOES apply to the New Testament believers of the New Testament church, and not to Israel.
  12. The Kingdom

    No sir, I am NOT saying this at all.  Indeed, I have no need whatsoever at all to be saying this; for Genesis 6:4 does NOT indicate that the "giants" (Hebrew, "n'philiym") were the offspring of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men."  So then, let us consider what Genesis 6:4 actually DOES indicate. Concerning Genesis 6:4 “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” Grammatically, this verse presents a compound sentence, containing two independent clauses that are joined with the conjunction “and.”  The first of these independent clauses is the statement, “There were giants in the earth in those days.”  This statement simply reveals the existence of “giants” (Hebrew, “n’philiym”) “in the earth” at the time of “those days.”  It does not reveal anything more about those “giants.”  It does not reveal anything about their character or their conduct.  It does not reveal anything about their origins or their parentage.  It does not reveal anything about their size or their stature. Then the second of the independent clause in Genesis 6:4 encompasses the remainder of the verse, “And also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”  This statement begins with a phrase of addition and of time – “also after that.”  Herein the adverb “also” indicates that the reality of this independent clause is something that is in addition to the reality of the previous independent clause to which it is attached.  Furthermore, the prepositional phrase, “after that,” indicates that the reality of this independent clause is something that occurred in time after the reality of the previous independent clause to which it is attached.  Now, this is significant for a correct understanding of this verse, because of the principle that cause does not follow after effect, but that effect follows after cause.  Since this second independent clause speaks concerning the reproduction of “the sons of God” with “the daughters of men,” and since it speaks of this reproduction as occurring in time AFTER the existence of the “giants” (“n’philiym”) “in the earth,” it is NOT possible for this reproduction of “the sons of God” with “the daughters of men” to be the cause for that existence of the “giants in the earth.”  The cause for the existence of these “giants” CANNOT come AFTER the effect. However, the information of this second independent clause in Genesis 6:4 DOES reveal who actually WERE the offspring of “the sons of God” with “the daughters of men.”  After the opening phrase of addition and time, this clause presents a “when-then” statement.  First, the “when” side of the statement is grammatically presented as a compound protasis of two parts, as follows: (1) “when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men” and (2) when “they [the daughters of men] bare children to them [the sons of God].”  This “when” side of the statement reveals the cause for the “then” side of the statement.  This cause is that “the sons of God” engaged in sexual relations with “the daughters of men” (which, according to Genesis 6:1-2, “the sons of God” had taken as their wives) and that “the daughters of men” in turn became pregnant and bear children unto “the sons of God,” their husbands. Second, the “then” side of the statement (the apodosis) reveals the effect (or, result) of this procreation between “the sons of God” and “the daughters of men.”  Indeed, this effect (or, result) is that “the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”  Herein the subject of this effect (or, result) statement is “the same,” and it indicates that this statement is about the very “same” children that “the daughters of men” bare unto “the sons of God.”  These very “same” children grew up to become, NOT the “giants” (“n’philiym”), BUT “mighty men,” who were “men of renown.”  As such, it is grammatically invalid to claim from Genesis 6:4 that the “giants” (“n’philiym”) were the offspring of “the sons of God” and “the daughters of men.”
  13. The One, True Gospel & God's Saving Grace

    Indeed, I shall provide an explanation for Acts 2:38 as you have requested; and I shall not (as you have further requested) make even a single reference to the original, Holy Spirit inspired and preserved Greek.  However, I most certainly shall place a significant focus upon the Holy Spirit inspired grammar of the verse.   Concerning Acts 2:38 “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” First, let us recognize that according to the context of Acts 2 as a whole, the apostle Peter was filled with the Spirit when he made this statement.  Therefore, we should recognize that this statement presents doctrinal truth that is not in any contradiction to the whole of New Testament doctrine concerning the gospel. Grammatically, Peter’s statement presented a compound sentence of three independent clauses, with each independent clause being joined by the conjunction “and.”  The first two of these three independent clauses presented a two-fold instruction, and the third of these two independent clauses presented a result.  Indeed, the first of clause of instruction is completely bound up in the single word of instruction, “Repent.”  Then the second clause of instruction encompasses the statement, “And be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.”  Finally, the clause of result encompasses the statement, “And ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” 1.  The First Clause of Instruction – “Repent.” This single verb of instruction provides the first requirement of the gospel that the apostle Peter proclaimed unto his hearers.  Indeed, the ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ’s first coming actually began with the preaching of His forerunner, John the Baptizer; and the message that John preached was a call to repentance. (See Matthew 3:2; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3)  Then when our Lord Jesus Christ Himself began His preaching and teaching ministry, He also preached a call to repentance. (See Matthew 4:17; 9:13; 11:20-21; Mark 1:14-15; 2:17; Luke 5:32; 13:2-5)  In addition, during His ministry of preaching and teaching, our Lord Jesus Christ also sent forth His disciples to preach a call to repentance. (See Mark 6:12)  Furthermore, after the crucifixion and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, but before His ascension into heaven, when He gave His commission unto His disciple to preach the gospel unto the lost world, He instructed them to preach a message of “repentance” and of “remission of sins” as a result of that repentance. (See Luke 24:46-47)  Indeed, He commissioned them to preach that message of “repentance and remission of sins” “in His name,” and to do so “among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.”  Even so, when the apostle Peter preached the message of the gospel, he obeyed the Lord Jesus Christ by preaching a call to repentance. (See Acts 2:38; 3:19)  Even so also, when the apostle Paul preached the message of the gospel, he also obeyed the Lord Jesus Christ by preaching a call to repentance. (See Acts 17:30-31; 20:21; 26:20) Thus we recognize from this that repentance is a Biblical requirement of the gospel.  Furthermore, we recognize from the whole doctrine of the New Testament that faith in Christ is also a Biblical requirement of the gospel.  So then, we are brought to the question – What is the relationship to each other between this requirement of repentance and this requirement of faith?  Now, the only passages from which we may discern this relationship are those wherein both the requirement of repentance and the requirement of faith are presented.  Two of these are presented in Scripture (see Acts 19:4; 20:21); and in both of these passages, the requirement of repentance is presented as that which precedes the requirement of faith.  Even so, I would contend that this requirement of repentance means a change of heart attitude concerning an individual’s sinfulness before the Lord God which moves that individual to a heart-faith in the Lord Jesus Christ for eternal salvation from that personal sinfulness. 2.  The Second Clause of Instruction – “And be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.”  Now, it is with this clause of instruction that controversy is developed, primary over the relationship between the instruction to “be baptized” and the prepositional phrasing of result, “for the remission of sins.”  First, this second clause of instruction begins with the instruction of the verb itself, “Be baptized.”  Certainly, in this context this is an instruction to submit unto baptism with water.  Second, this clause grammatically continues with the direct object of the verb, along with its modifying prepositional phrase, “Every one of you.”  This would indicate that every single individual was required to obey the instruction to “be baptized.”  Third, this second clause of instruction then provides the prepositional phrasing, “In the name of Jesus Christ.”  Grammatically, this prepositional phrasing would modify verb the instructional verb, “Be baptized,” and thereby would reveal the specific name in which they were required to be baptized and the specific Person with whom they were to associate themselves through that baptism.  This was not just any baptism.  Rather, it was a baptism specifically “in the name of Jesus Christ,” in order to reveal their association unto Jesus Christ.  Finally, this clause of instruction concludes with the prepositional phrasing, “for the remission of sins.”  Clearly, this prepositional phrasing reveals a result.  Yet the question may be asked – For what does this phrasing reveal the result?  The answer to this question would be grammatically determined by that in the statement which this prepositional phrasing modifies, and in this statement there are two grammatical possibilities.  On the one hand, the prepositional phrasing, “for the remission of sins,” could grammatically modify the verb of instruction, “be baptized.”  In this case, “the remission of sins” would be the direct result of being baptized.  On the other hand, the prepositional phrasing, “for the remission of sins,” could grammatically modify the immediately previous prepositional phrasing, “in the name of Jesus Christ.”  In this case, “the remission of sins” would be the result of being associated unto “the name of Jesus Christ.”  So then, which of these two grammatically possibilities is the correct one?  For the answer it would be best to discern which possibility is in unity with the doctrinal teaching of the New Testament.  Are there any other passages that clearly connect the remission (or, forgiveness) of sins to baptism?  I myself am not aware of any.  (Note: Some might present Mark 1:4 & Luke 3:3; however, I would contend that “the remission of sins” is connected to the “repentance” in both of the verses, not to the baptism, which contention would be in doctrinal unity with Luke 24:47 & Acts 5:31.)  On the other hand, are there any passages that connect the remission (or, forgiveness) of sins to the name (or, Person) of Jesus Christ?  Indeed!!!  Acts 10:43 – “To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.”  Acts 13:38-39 – “Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: and by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.” Even so, I would contend that the phrase, “for the remission of sins,” in Acts 2:38 is intended as a grammatical modifier for the phrase, “in the name of Jesus Christ,” not for the verb of instruction, “be baptized.”  Furthermore, I would contend that is the association through heart-faith in the name and Person of Jesus Christ that results in “the remission of sins.”  Finally, I would contend that the baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ,” which the apostle Peter instructed of them, was intended as the outward act whereby an individual revealed his or her heart-faith “in the name of Jesus Christ.”  Indeed, by this grammatical understanding for Acts 2:38, there is no contradiction whatsoever to the gospel of eternal forgiveness, justification, and salvation by God’s grace alone through repentance and heart-faith alone. 3.  The Clause of Result – “And ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” This statement presents the result for each individual who would obey the two-fold instruction of the previous two statements.  Such obedient individuals would receive (apparently from the Lord God) “the gift of the Holy Ghost.”  Yet they did have to meet the requirements, which in review were as follows:           A.    To “repent” (of their sinfulness before God).           B.    To “be baptized” specifically “in the name of Jesus Christ,” as a public revelation of their association through faith “in the name of Jesus Christ.”
  14. The Priesthood of New Testament Believers

    Brother Chester, False!  For "the church in the wilderness" was a single church, whereas the "seven church" in Asia were seven different churches.
  15. Were old testament believers indwelt?

    Sorry, Sister Ronda, my brain must have been moving faster than my fingers could type.  That statement should have been as follows: On the other hand, I myself would say that if you have read the Bible from cover to cover, and if you truly understand the doctrine of Biblical regeneration, you could NOT say that Old Testament believers were not regenerated, but that they served the Lord as they did while still being dead unto God spiritually "in trespasses and sins." Thank you for so quickly catching my error.  I will quickly correct it with an edit.