Pastor Scott Markle

*Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content count

    1,688
  • Joined

  • Last visited

4 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 three books and a three booklets, as well as to produce a line of Scripture memory cards, which all can be purchased at my website: www.shepherdingtheflock.com. In addition, I maintain a monthly Bible study blog at that website.

Recent Profile Visitors

7,550 profile views
  1. Well, Brother Young, The opening six words of your above posting appear to reveal that you did NOT understand AT ALL the point of my presentation; for there is NOT a SINGLE word in my entire presentation that places the definition and application of the word "all" in contrast or conflict with the definition and application of the word "many" (as is indicated by your use of the abbreviation "vs"). Throughout my entire presentation the word "all" retains its meaning of "all human individuals since Adam." There is NOT a SINGLE time wherein I indicate that the word "all" means anything different than this. Rather, the entire presentation is intended as a contextual study concerning the meaning application of the word "MANY" in Romans 5:15 & Romans 5:19, wherein I indicate from the context that in some cases the word "MANY" is used as a reference and equivalent to "all" and in other cases is used as a reference to "a large number among all." Certainly, Calvinists do often attempt to redefine the word "all" in some contexts as referring only unto some among all. However, since (as I have stated above) there is NOT a SINGLE time in my above presentation wherein I indicate that the word "all" means anything less than all human individuals since Adam at any age of years throughout any time of history in any place of the world, your comparison of my posting unto the common practice of Calvinists seems complete invalid. (If you disagree, you can certainly take the opportunity to quote the exact place of my presentation wherein I did otherwise.) Well, as I have just indicated, your expressed bias against my presentation is invalid, since it is based upon your invalid comparison of my presentation with the common practice of Calvinists, which is itself invalid because it is based upon a false understanding of my presentation. Well, although you are NOT directly saying that my presentation is wrong, you are saying that will not give it an honest, contextual consideration because you are already biased against it. Indeed, "much study" should ALWAYS go into understanding any given word of Scripture within its particular grammatical and contextual location. This is the very nature of "jot and tittle" precision in Bible study for "rightly dividing" God's Word of truth. By the way, you are correct that my presentation above does attempt to demonstrate contextually that in some of the cases in Romans 5:15 & Romans 5:19 that the word "many" is indeed a reference unto "the all." However, as I have already indicated, there is NOT a SINGLE occasion in my presentation above wherein I attempt to demonstrate that the word "all" "just really means 'many'," as you incorrectly claim. So then, do NOT actually believe in precise grammatical and contextual Bible study? If you do believe in it, then "contextualizing the words in that way" is exactly what must be done for precise grammatical and contextual Bible study. Furthermore, what a word "truly means in the simplicity of the text" is exactly what precise grammatical and contextual Bible study does. By the way, the word "many" by its very definition is NOT a technical term, but is a general term. Therefore, the word "many" must ALWAYS be defined and applied precisely in accord with its context. First, I am in full agreement (as I have previously noted) that when the apostle employs the word "all" in the passage, he is referring unto all human individuals since Adam at any age of years throughout any time of history in any place of the world. However, you are simply wrong when you seem to indicate with your opening statement that the apostle is dealing only "with all men in the world and not only certain groups or groupings." Actually, the apostle is dealing with one category which are "the all men" and with another category which are "the many among the all." Indeed, you yourself indicate your recognition of this in your later two statements. First, you indicate that "when he says 'many,' he means 'many of those men in the world'." which means that you do recognize two groupings in this passage, that is -- the grouping of "the all" and the grouping of "the many." Second, you indicate that you "do not see any other group in the passage beside these." Now, the word "these" which you use in your statement is a plural word, thus indicating your recognition of more than one "group" in the passage. So then, how does this conflict with my presentation above? I myself also believe that there are two "groups" in the passage, and "do not see any other group in the passage beside these" two. First, I see the group of "the all," which I contend is ALWAYS referenced with the word "all" and is sometimes ALSO referenced with the word "many." Second, I see the group of "the many from among the all," which I contend is sometimes referenced with the word "many," but NEVER with the word "all." This is simply incorrect. In this passage the apostle Paul is dealing with MORE than only two contrasting comparisons. These contrasting comparisons begin in Romans 5:15, and they include at least the following: 1a. In Romans 5:15 we find "the offence" set in a comparison of contrast with "the free gift." - "But not as the offence, so also is the free gift." 1b. In Romans 5:15 we find "the offence of one " set in a comparison of contrast with "the grace of God, and the gift by grace." - "For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many." 2a. In Romans 5:16 we find "judgment to condemnation" set in a comparison of contrast with "the free gift unto justification." - "And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification." 3. In Romans 5:17 we find "death" set in a comparison of contrast with "life" - "For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ." 2b. In Romans 5:18 we again find "judgment to condemnation" set in a comparison of contrast with "the free gift unto justification of life." - "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." 4. In Romans 5:19 we find "many made sinners" set in a comparison of contrast with "many made righteous." - "For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." It is quite interesting to me that you seem completely to ignore the "set" of condemnation and justification in this passage, which is actually presented in two separate verses of the passage. I have to wonder WHY you ignore this apparently important "set" in the passage. Indeed, by ignoring the apparently important "set" of condemnation and justification in this passage (which is also a very significant theme in the entire first five chapters of Romans), you find it quite easy to conclude that this passage is all about "the physical world" and physical death. However, throughout the epistle of Romans the matters of condemnation and justification are NOT physical matters, but are SPIRITUAL matters. Not only does that passage teach that "death and sin" are in the world because of Adam's first disobedience, but also it teaches that "judgment came upon ALL men to condemnation" by Adam's first disobedience. Furthermore, this passage not only teaches the existence of sin in the world because of Adam's first disobedience, but also it teaches that "many were MADE SINNERS" by Adam's first disobedience. Why do you continue to ignore the PRECISE statements of Romans 5:18-19? Yet you do try to handle the truths of Romans 5:18-19, just through a distortion of them. Indeed, the passage does indicate that ALL are already under "judgment to condemnation;" but nowhere does the passage indicate that all are condemned "to get death." That is your insertion. Furthermore, the passage does NOT say that "judgment came [past tense] upon all men to condemnation" BECAUSE OF Adam himself. Rather, the passage precisely says that this occurred "BY the OFFENCE of one [ADAM]." It was not because of Adam himself. Rather, it was BY ADAM'S OFFENSE. Finally, it is utterly incorrect according to the passage to say that "our sin . . . condemns the soul." In both verses wherein the truth of "judgment unto condemnation" is mention, those being Romans 5:16 & Romans 5:18, our sin is NOT mentioned AT ALL. Rather, in both verses the cause for the "judgment unto condemnation" upon all men is "BY ONE," that is -- "BY THE OFFENCE OF ONE." According to both of these verses, we ALL are judged unto condemnation before God BY ADAM'S ONE OFFENSE, not at all by our sin; and in both of these verses that "judgment unto condemnation" "came upon ALL men" in the past tense. Again, Romans 5:19 does indeed indicate that "many were made sinners." However, again this verse does NOT say that "many were made sinners" BECAUSE OF Adam himself, or because of Adam's example. Rather, this verse precisely says that "many were made sinners" "BY ONE MAN'S DISOBEDIENCE." Again, the cause by which "many were made sinners" is not by their own sin. In fact, Romans 5:19 does NOT mention AT ALL the sin of "the many." Rather, the cause by which "many were made sinners" is precisely "BY ONE MAN'S DISOBEDIENCE." So then, now we might understand why you continue to ignore the PRECISE statements of Romans 5:18-19 - because those PRECISE statements defeat you position concerning the condition of spiritual innocence. The only way for you to legitimately handle this matter is to consider each individual usage of the word "many" in the passage. You have not and did not do this. Therefore, you have not done anything to counteract my previous presentation, wherein I did do this. Rather, you simply said that you "not think contextualizing the words to in that way helps in actually understanding the passage;" and thereby ignored the need to do any such consideration. Furthermore, you then made the assumption that when the apostle Paul "says 'many' he means 'many of those men in the world'," without legitimately considering any other possibility. Such is NOT Bible study. Yet since Romans 5:18 PRECISELY says that "judgment came upon ALL men to condemnation," your denial of condemnation upon some is a direct contradiction of the PRECISE statement in Scripture. Furthermore, since Romans 5:18 PRECISELY says that this "judgment to condemnation" came "BY THE OFFENCE OF ONE," your reference unto some having "never lived long enough to sin" is irrelevant to the Biblical truth, since their sin is not the cause of the "judgment to condemnation" anyway. Yet the passage does NOT say a single word about Adam's EXAMPLE, does it? Romans 5:18-19 is the exactly relevant quotation for this discussion. Now, break just those two sentences down into their precise grammatical construction without changing any words, and you will understand the truth.
  2. And how many times is the phrase "his body" used, wherein the pronoun "his" refers unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
  3. Ahhh, but that one does not have to be in the Bible precisely; for I like to do the same. Thus Matthew 18:19 would apply -- "Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven."
  4. So then, for my first "preface posting" on this matter, I present a posting that I had previously presented in the other thread concerning the nature of human individuals --
  5. Some months ago, in the thread concerning "The Spiritual Progression of Human Souls," I was challenged concerning my position on "human sinfulness and the accountability of babies." It was my intention to answer that challenge as I was able; however, I have been finding it difficult to engage appropriately on this matter within the other thread discussion. The focus of that thread discussion is not upon this matter, but upon another (although related) matter. Therefore, I am beginning this thread with the intention to present my case and to field any question that may arise about it - concerning the matter of "human sinfulness and the accountability of babies." As I mentioned in the other thread discussion, so I present also herein - Before I speak directly about the matter in question, I shall be presenting a few "preface postings" in order to lay a doctrinal foundation for my case. Furthermore, in the other thread I have made a few "quick remarks" concerning this matter, which I believe is appropriate to bring over into this thread, as follows:
  6. Brother Young, 1. Romans 5:19 does NOT teach that "many were made sinners" "by choice," as you say. Rather, Romans 5:19 teaches that "many were made sinners" "by one man's [Adam's] disobedience." So then, which is the source of truth - your position, or the Biblical statement? 2. The fact is that there is not a single verse in all of Scripture which joins the verb "become" (or one of its cognates) with the word "sinners," no, not even one. As such, God's Word does NOT say anything about "becoming" sinners. Rather, in Romans 5:19 God's Word speaks about "being made" sinners by the disobedience of one human individual, Adam. The fact is that God's Word DOES say that "many were made sinners" because of Adam. (By the way, I am not ignoring the passage which you presented in support of your statement, that is -- Romans 7:4-11. However, I find that this passage, which you have presented in support of your statements about individuals "becoming" sinners, does not even once employ either the word "sinner" or "sinners." So then, I wonder how it can say what you claim when it does not even use your terminology. On the other, Romans 5:19 DOES use the word "sinners," and DOES speak about how "many were made sinners." Precision in Bible study requires that we begin with the precise terminology of God's Word in its precise grammatical and contextual construction.)
  7. Well, as I make my rounds through the various thread discussions and Bible studies in which I have a part, I now return unto this thread discussion. Concerning the word “many” in Romans 5:12-19. The word “many” is employed as a designation for a group of people in two verses within Romans 5:12-19. These two verses are verse 15 and verse 19. Yet in both of these verses the word “many” is employed within both of the contrasting statements in each verse respectively. Now, basically the word “many” means “a large grouping.” In some manner, it refers to a subset of some group. However, the word “many” is not a technical term of amount, but is a general term of amount. Therefore, the subset which it represents could be differently defined according to a given context. First, the subset of the word “many” could refer unto “the many” which encompasses “the all.” In such a case, “the all” would indeed encompass “a large grouping,” thereby fulfilling the basic definition of “many.” Second, the subset of the word “many” could refer to some majority number from among the whole, which would encompass “a large grouping” in relation to the whole. Third, the subset of the word “many” could even refer to some minority number from among the whole, as long as that minority number actually does still encompass “a large grouping.” Furthermore, it is worthy of notice that within the context of Romans 5:15 and Romans 5:19, there is no specific indication that the word “many” in each case is intended as a reference unto the same exact grouping of “many” for each case. 1. Romans 5:15a – “But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead . . . .” Herein Romans 5:15 indicates that “the many” are dead through the first disobedience of Adam. Now, I would contend that in this statement the word “many” refers unto “the many” who are “the all” for the following reasons. First, earlier in the context Romans 5:12 declares that “death passed upon all men.” Second, earlier in the context Romans 5:14 indicated that “death reigned” within the human race “from Adam to Moses,” even before the Law was given at Sinai. Since death has “passed upon all men,” such that “death reigned” within the human race from the very time of Adam, it seems reasonable to conclude from the context that “the many” who are dead in Romans 5:14 are the same as “the all” upon whom “death passed” in Romans 5:12. 2. Romans 5:15b – “. . . Much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.” Herein Romans 5:15 indicates that God’s grace and the gift of that grace has “abounded unto many” by Jesus Christ. Now, in this statement the word “many” could refer contextually unto “the many” who are “the all,” or unto a grouping of many from among “the all.” If this statement refers unto the offer of God’s grace and gift, then it would be indicating that this offer has been made unto “the many” who are “the all.” This viewpoint would correspond with the closing statement of Romans 5:18 – “. . . Even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.” Now, from the earlier teaching in the whole epistle to the Romans, we understand that the “free gift” of eternal justification and eternal life is only experienced by those who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Furthermore, we understand from the teaching of the whole New Testament, that not “all men” believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus we would understand that this reference concerning the “free gift’s” coming “upon all men unto justification of life” must be a reference unto the offer of that “free gift” for “all men,” not the experience of that “free gift” by “all men.” On the other hand, if the statement of Romans 5:15 refers unto the experience of God’s grace and gift, then it would be indicating that this experience occurs for “the many” from among “the all.” First, as I have previously noted, the earlier teaching in the whole epistle to the Romans reveals that not “all men” experience God’s grace and gift unto “justification of life,” but only those who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Furthermore, this viewpoint would correspond with the closing statement of Romans 5:17 – “. . . Much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.” This statement refers unto those who “receive” the abundance of God’s grace and the abundance of His gift of righteousness (justification), and the way to “receive” this grace and gift of God is through faith. In addition, this statement indicates that those who receive “shall reign in life” by Jesus Christ. Such is the language of experiencing eternal life, and such an experience is only for those who believe on Christ. 3. Romans 5:19a – “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners . . . .” Herein Romans 5:19 indicates that “many” individuals “were made sinners,” not by their own choice of disobedience, but by Adam’s first choice of disobedience. Now, I would contend that in this statement the word “many” also refers unto “the many” who are “the all” for the following reasons. First, earlier in the context Romans 5:12 declared that “all have sinned” (see also Romans 3:23), so that there are no exceptions in this matter. Second, according to the use of the explanatory conjunction “for” at the beginning of Romans 5:19, this statement is provided as an explanation for that truth which was expressed in Romans 5:18. Therein the truth was expressed that by Adam’s first disobedience and offense “judgment came upon all men to condemnation.” Now, in the justice of God, judgment unto condemnation does not come upon individuals unless there is sinfulness and guiltiness for which to judge and condemn. So then, if “all men” are judged unto condemnation, there must be some reason of sinfulness and guiltiness by which to cause this. Even so, the opening portion of Romans 5:19 reveals that cause – in that “many were made sinners” by Adam’s first disobedience. Since the judgment unto condemnation came upon “all men,” it seems reasonable to conclude from the context that “the many” who “were made sinners” in Romans 5:19 are the same as “the all” upon whom judgment unto condemnation for sinfulness has come. 4. Romans 5:19b – “. . . So by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” Herein Romans 5:19 indicates that “many” individuals shall “be made righteous” by the obedience of the Lord Jesus Christ, even unto the death of the cross. Now, I would contend that in this statement the word “many” refers unto a grouping of “many” from among “the all.” The grammatical phrase, “shall be made righteous,” is a phrase of experience. As such, this statement indicates that “the many” shall experience the righteousness of Christ unto them in their justification and upon them in their regeneration. Since we understand from the earlier teaching of the whole epistle to the Romans that this is only experienced through faith in Christ, and since we understand from the teaching of the whole New Testament that not “all men” believe on Christ, it seems reasonable to conclude that the experience of this statement is limited only unto “the many” who actually believe on Christ.
  8. Brother "Swathdiver," Could you provide us with some Biblical evidence that the "bride-body of Christ" is made up of local churches, not of Christian individuals?
  9. I do not know if anyone is still with me in this Bible study; however, I myself intend to continue until the study is complete. Therefore . . . . 2 John 1:1-3 – The Salutation As we begin, we find that 2 John is written in the common pattern of that day, including the salutation (2 John 1:1-3), the message (2 John 1:4-11), and the conclusion (2 John 1:12-13). Then as we narrow our focus further, we find that the opening salutation is also written in the common pattern of that time, including the author, the recipients, and the greeting. Yet we also find that the apostle John provided a more expanded presentation concerning the recipients. In this expanded presentation, the apostle John presented the subjects of “love” and “truth” as two important themes upon which to set our focus. In fact, he presented these two subjects as having an integral relationship with each other. So then, with this in mind I would present the next set of Bible study questions: 1. What are the various points of relationship between "love" and "truth" that is presented in this salutation? 2. What edificational and exhorational thoughts would you present concerning these various points of relationship? Furthermore, as we consider the opening line of 2 John, we are also brought to a number of interpretational questions: 1. What does it mean to "love in the truth"? 2. In this context, what does it mean to describe individuals as those who have "known the truth"? Is this a reference only unto believers in the gospel, or is this a reference unto something more? 3. In what way does "love" occur "for the truth's sake"? 4. In what manner does the "truth" dwell "in us" and abide "with us for ever"? 5. Does the prepositional phrase, "in truth and love," at the end of verse 3 modify the phrase, "Grace be with you, mercy, and peace;" or does it modify the phrase, "the Son of the Father"? Are we to understand this as -- "Grace be with you, mercy, and peace in truth and love"? Or are we to understand this as -- "the Son of the Father in truth and love"? 6. If it is to be understood as -- "Grace be with you, mercy, and peace in truth and love," then what does it mean for grace, mercy, and peace to be administered unto us from God the Father and God the Son "in truth and love"? Does this refer to the manner in which they administer grace, mercy, and peace? Or does this refer to the realm in which they administer grace, mercy, and peace? 7. If it is to be understood as -- "the Son of the Father in truth and love," then what does it mean that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God the Father "in truth and love"?
  10. Luke 12:51-53 – “Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: for from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.” 1. The Corrective – The Person, work, and gospel of Christ will NOT bring peace on the earth. “Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay” 2. The Warning – The Person, work, and gospel of Christ will bring division on the earth. “I tell you, Nay; but rather division.” 3. The Reality – The Person, work, and gospel of Christ will bring division even into households. “For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.”
  11. If you want to teach the doctrine of "local church ONLY" unto those who believe in the doctrine of "universal church ALSO," you must recognize the basic difference between the two positions. That difference is NOT - ONE possibility ("the local church only") vs. ONE possibility ("the universal church only"). Rather, that difference IS - ONE possibility ("the local church only") vs. TWO possibilities at the same time (both "the local church" and "the universal church"). Therefore, in many of those passages wherein you would present the application unto "the local church," they can completely agree with you without moving from their belief ALSO in "the universal church." The passage you have presented is acknowledged to be a "local church" passage, and they would not derive their belief in "the universal church" from a "local church" passage. Rather, they would derive their belief in "the universal church" from what they would consider to be a "universal church" passage. Therefore, if you want to demonstrate that the doctrine of "the universal church" is false, you must specifically demonstrate that such is not the meaning in those specific passages which they would consider to be a "universal church" passages. Furthermore, you would have to demonstrate this for EVERY passage which they would consider to be a "universal church" passage, because if even one passage of Scripture teaches "the universal church," then that doctrine does indeed exist as truth.
  12. It is my understanding that when God's people in the Old Testament did not do aright, the Lord motivated them unto doing aright through the preaching of the prophets. Furthermore, it is my understanding that the message of the prophets from the Lord at such times was specifically a message unto broken-hearted repentance, not a message of emotional motivations. Thus even if the techniques of emotional motivation are able to move people unto doing "the right things," if those people do not ever come unto broken-hearted repentance before the Lord for having done sinful wrong against Him, those techniques of motivation are spiritually unprofitable. Finally, it is my understanding that if a prophet proclaimed, "Peace, peace," wherein there was no peace before the Lord, then that prophet was to be considered a false prophet. At such times, the correct message would have been, "Repent, repent," rather than, "Peace, peace." (By the way, what will help to bring a true, Biblical revival among Fundamental Baptists -- the message of repentance, or the message of motivation?)
  13. Another set of thoughts concerning this matter of "motivating God's people" would be as follows: Question #1: If the Lord Himself cannot motivate His own people to serve Him aright, why do I think that I can motivate them to do aright? Answer #1: Because human methods of motivation have worked in all departments of life since man has walked the earth. Question #2: If my human motivations are moving God's people t0 do aright when God's own motivations did not, will that human motivation produce spiritual growth and spiritual fruitfulness? Answer #2: No. For according to God's Word spiritual growth and spiritual fruitfulness is only produced through abiding in Christ and walking after the Holy Spirit, not by my human motivations and manipulations. Question #3: If my human motivations are not sourced in the work of the Holy Spirit and do not produce the growth and fruit of the Spirit, then in what are they sourced? Answer #3: If something in the Christian life is not sourced in the Spirit, then the only other source is the flesh. Question #4: If my human motivations are actually sourced in the flesh, then even if God's people are moved to do "the right things," what am I actually producing in their character? Answer #4: . . . . . Yet another "thought question" -- When God's people in the Old Testament did not do aright, and the Lord God wanted to motivate them unto doing aright, in what manner did the Lord God direct His prophets to motivate the people?
  14. Brother Chappell's name would be pronounced the same a the word "chapel," as in a religious "chapel."
  15. Ok, for the sake of clarity I must acknowledge that I did not watch this podcast. Furthermore, I must acknowledge that the subject matter of the title itself was a little bit of a "turn off" for me. However, it was the subject matter of the title that moved me unto the following question: How much Bible doctrine do we find on the matter of "motivational style"? For some additional "thought qustions" -- What "style" of motivation does God our heavenly Father use to motivate His children? What "style" of motivation did our Lord Jesus Christ use to motivate His disciples? What "style" of motivation did the apostles use to motivate various believers? So then, why was I so quick to be "turned off" -- I just wonder if a subject such as this is more about "leadership philosophy" than about "Biblical teaching" on the matter. But let us be honest -- By characteristic personality I may be a leader and a teacher; however, by characteristic personality I am NOT a motivator (or, manipulator).