Jump to content
Online Baptist

Pastor Scott Markle

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content count

    1,984
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    96

Pastor Scott Markle last won the day on September 22

Pastor Scott Markle had the most liked content!

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

9,726 profile views
  1. Saved in 3 tenses?

    Sister Rose, Having read through the article, I certainly understand why you are confused and uncertain. Thus I believe that BEFORE we move to John 15:1-6, we should examine the points of this article concerning the teaching of John 6:35-40. Would you agree?
  2. Saved in 3 tenses?

    Indeed, I wish to focus upon John 15:1-6 next, if that is acceptable. However, before we move, I wish to apply the truths that we have gleaned from John 6:35-40 unto your personal case -- Have you yourself, "Roselove," come unto God the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, through faith as personal Savior? If you have, then: 1. God the Father gave you unto God the Son. 2. God the Son did not and will not cast you out. 3. God the Father has assigned God the Son not to lose you. 4. God the Son will certainly NOT fail God the Father in this assignment. 5. God the Father has assigned God the Son to give you everlasting life. 6. God the Son has indeed given you everlasting life. 7. God the Father has assigned God the Son to raise you up at the last day. 8. God the Son will certainly raise you up at the last day. Your assurance of security is founded upon and rooted in the authority, power, and faithfulness of God the Father and God the Son. Indeed, in relation to God the Son's faithfulness, your assurance of security is not only founded upon and rooted in His faithfulness unto you, but even more so is founded upon and rooted in God the Son's faithfulness unto God the Father.
  3. Saved in 3 tenses?

    Indeed, God the Father is "NOT willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance," as per 2 Peter 3:9. However, that is NOT the point of God's giving certain individuals unto God the Son, as per John 6:37. Indeed, I believe in the doctrine that all human individuals are drawn by God unto His Son as Savior. However, I would agree with you that not every one will accept Him as Savior. Many follow the broad way unto eternal destruction; whereas few follow the narrow way unto life everlasting. God's Holy Word does NOT teach universalism in relation to eternal salvation and eternal life. All are drawn, but not all come; therefore, not all shall be saved. However, John 6:37 speaks concerning those individuals who actually DO come unto Christ through faith for salvation. The order of the verse is as follows: 1. God the Father gives certain individuals (NOT all individuals) unto God the Son. 2. ALL (every single one without exception) that God the Father gives actually do come unto God the Son through faith for salvation. 3. Each and every single individual who comes unto God the Son through faith for salvation shall "in no wise be cast out" by God the Son. If we then add the truths of John 6:39-40 concerning these individuals, we would add: 4. Each and every single individual who comes unto God the Son through faith for salvation shall have everlasting life (as per verse 40). 5. Each and every single individual who comes unto God the Son through faith for salvation shall not be lost by God the Son (as per verse 39). 6. Each and every single individual who comes unto God the Son through faith for salvation shall be raised up at the last day by God the Son (as per verses 39 & 40). The great doctrinal controversy then concerns a question in relation to point #1 -- By what means does God the Father determine which certain individuals He chooses to give unto the Son? I believe that the answer to this doctrinal controversy is to be found contextually within the teaching of John 6:44-45 (as per my note in my previous posting).
  4. Saved in 3 tenses?

    Sister Rose, In your above paragraph, you have made reference unto various passages of Scripture, including James 2:14-26; Acts 13:43; Galatians 5:4; Hebrews 12:4-11; Hebrews 12:15-17; John 15:1-6; Matthew 25:14-30. However, before I focus my attention upon these passages individually, I wish to focus your attention upon one of the passages that (I believe) teaches the doctrine of eternal security. This passage is John 6:35-40 -- "And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." In this passage we encounter four different groupings of individuals: 1. The Lord Jesus Christ, God the Son. 2. Those individuals who come unto and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. 3. Those individuals who do not believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. 4. God the Father, the One who sent God the Son. For the sake of our present discussion, I wish to focus out attention, not upon the activities of those who believe or upon the activities of those who do not believe, but upon the activities of God the Father and of God the Son and upon the relationship between God the Father and God the Son, as revealed in this passage. These points are as follows: 1. God the Father gives certain individuals unto the Son. 2. God the Son will "in no wise cast out" those individuals who come unto Him. 3. God the Son came down from heaven to do God the Father's will. 4. God the Father wills that of all the individuals which He hath given unto the Son, God the Son should lose nothing, no, not even a single one. 5. God the Father also wills that of all the individuals which He hath given unto the Son, God the Son should certainly raise them up in the last day. 6. God the Father also wills that unto every one of the individuals who believe on God the Son, God the Son should give them everlasting life. 7. God the Son will indeed raise up at the last day every one of those individuals who believe on Him. Now, I wish to ask of you some thought questions based upon this passage: 1. Since it is God the Father's will for God the Son to lose not even a single one of those whom the Father has given unto Him, if God the Son does actually lose even one of these individuals, would God the Son be fulfilling the will of God the Father or breaking the will of God the Father? 2. Since it is God the Father's will for God the Son to raise up at the last day (in the resurrection of righteousness) all whom the Father has given unto Him, if God the Son does not actually raise up every single one of these individuals, would God the Son be fulfilling the will of God the Father or breaking the will of God the Father? 3. If God the Son actually does in either of these matters break the will of God the Father, what would that be called spiritually? (Hint: It would be called sin against God, something that God the Son would NEVER actually do.) 4. If God the Son actually does commit a sin against God the Father, can He be the eternal Savior of any other sinner whatsoever at all? If tuno this point you have followed my flow of thought, then I would present the following truth for consideration: If God the Son loses even one, then God the Son can be the Savior of NONE. (Note for the audience as a whole: I fully recognize that John 6:35-40 is a passage of controversy in the doctrinal debate between the Calvinistic belief system and the Arminian belief system, specifically in relation to the doctrinal debate over unconditional election and irresistible grace. For the present thread discussion I was not focused upon the events that precede an individual's coming unto Christ through faith, but was focused rather upon the assignment of His will that God the Father placed upon God the Son concerning those who actually did come unto the Son through faith. However, I DO believe that the key in correctly understanding the passage in relation to the doctrinal debate over unconditional election and irresistible grace is to be found contextually through a correct understand of John 6:44-45, with a strong focus upon verse 45.)
  5. Saved in 3 tenses?

    Sister Rose, I have now read through all of the postings in your various other threads concerning the matter of eternal security. At present I am reading through the article that you referenced in another thread concerning "the tense readings of the Greek New Testament." In this posting, I wish to present some initial thoughts (which we may then consider in more detail as the discussion proceeds): 1. Concerning the matter of eternal security -- Those who hold strongly unto this doctrine (as I do) will place their primary focus upon God's authority and power to maintain a believer's eternal security. However, those who unto the doctrine of required perseverance (lest salvation be lost) will place their primary focus upon the believer's effort and power to maintain that security. In my own case, I begin with the passages concerning God's authority and power in the matter and then build upon that foundation in consideration of other passages. 2. Concerning the article about the tense readings -- Although I am only half-way through the article, I have a number of conflicts with the article already. First, I believe that the article immensely distorts the meaning of the Greek present tense, as well as somewhat distorts the meaning of the Greek aorist tense. Second, the author of the article appears to view the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration with favor. (By the way, if the author actually does/did hold that water baptism is necessary for regeneration and salvation, then he held unto a false gospel which included human works. As such, I must question the very salvation of the author, and thereby also question the ability of the author to discern Scripture correctly.) Third, the author of the article appears to view the false doctrine of purgatory with favor. Fourth, the author of the article strongly teaches the false doctrine of complete sanctification upon this earth. 3. Concerning the article about 1 Corinthians 15:1-2 -- I myself would contend that the author of the article mishandles the grammatical structure of the single sentence in these two verses. I suppose that I must now ask which of these matters you desire to consider in detail first?
  6. Saved in 3 tenses?

    By the way -- May I say that I do NOT AT ALL like the the "question" forum for such thread discussions, since postings can be moved through rating; and thereby the line of comment and response can become distorted. (I wonder if this thread discussion could be moved to a different forum structure by one of the moderators.)
  7. Saved in 3 tenses?

    Thank you for your clarification, Brother McWhorter. Indeed, the author DOES use a different English translation than the King James translation. However, the Greek terms that he references are the SAME as in the Received Text (from which the King James translation was translated). Note: I do NOT believe that an apology was necessary; for I do NOT believe that you did anything sinfully wrong. On the other hand, I do believe that a clarification was necessary; and you have now provided such.
  8. Saved in 3 tenses?

    Sister Rose, Thank you for clarifying. Yes, it does appear that Brother McWhorter was presenting his thoughts in order to "combat" the ideas of the article. However, with a little understanding of Greek prefixes and suffixes, it is possible to recognize that the SAME Greek verb is being used (just with differences in tense, voice, mood, etc.). Concerning the articles (for you did present two different articles), I intend to present some thoughts as we proceed (in response to your private request for help). However, at present I am reading through your past threads concerning the matter of eternal security in order to acquire some context for your struggle. As such, I would request patience, if I may.
  9. Saved in 3 tenses?

    Understood. The "copy and paste" method (from your posting) is how I was able to post such in my posting. Doing quite well. Just been so busy this whole year that I have very, very little time for Online Baptist posting. However, I do continue to read and follow those discussion that "catch my eye." (In this particular case, I received a private request for help on this matter. As such, I believe that the Lord would have me to make the time to provide what help that I am able.) Sister Rose, About what in particular are you confused?
  10. Saved in 3 tenses?

    Brother McWhorter, Actually, all of the examples provided ARE different forms of the SAME Greek verb. The different forms simply indicate differences in tense, voice, mood, person, number, etc. (in the case of participles). σωζεσθε -- present, passive, indicative, 2nd person, plural of σώζω σωζομενοις -- present, passive, participle, plural, dative, masculine of σώζω Note: When referencing Strong's concordance of Hebrew and Greek words (in accord with Strong's numbering system), it must be understood that Strong's concordance does NOT provide all of the various forms of a particular word (as per tense, voice, mood, person, gender, number, case), but only provides the ROOT form of the word. (By the way, how are you typing out words using actual Greek letters? I would like to know that for future posting.)
  11. Question for Pastor Markle

    In the posting above, I mentioned the commentary by Albert Barnes on Acts 13:48. Further, I mentioned that his word study of the Greek verb "tasso" was compelling me to continue considering the possibilities concerning its intended meaning in Acts 13:48. The following is Albert Barnes commentary on the matter: Having taken the time to examine Mr. Barnes' commentary and to also do the same word study of the Greek verb "tasso," I now am compelled to express a fault with Mr. Barnes' conclusions as per the portion that I have emboldened in the quote above. Mr. Barnes claimed that "the word is never used to denote an internal disposition or inclination arising from one's own self." Yet he had just made reference unto 1 Corinthians 16:15, wherein God the Holy used the word to indicate that "the house of Stephanas" had "ADDICTED THEMSELVES to the ministry of the saints." Mr. Barnes indicated that this usage of the Greek verb means "to addict to; to devote to." Well, being devoted to something certainly appears to be an internal disposition or inclination to me. Furthermore, in the Greek of 1 Corinthians 16:15 the word for "themselves" is very specifically included. As such, this certainly appears to be an internal disposition or inclination arising from one's own self to me. On this ground, I no longer find Mr. Barnes' word-study conclusion to bring my present understanding under question. _____________________________________________________________________________ On the other hand, I continue to contend that the contextual flow of thought provides a contrast between the self-decision of the Jews and the self-decision of the Gentiles in the passage. The following is a layout of that contrast: I. The Decision of the Jews A. Acts 13:45 -- "But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy . . . ." B. Acts 13:45 -- ". . . And spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming." C. Acts 13:46 -- ". . . But seeing ye put it [the word of God] from you . . . ." D. Acts 13:46 -- ". . . And judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life . . . ." II. The Decision of the Gentiles A. Acts 13:48 -- "And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad . . . ." B. Acts 13:48 -- ". . . And glorified the word of the Lord . . . ." C. Acts 13:48 -- ". . . And . . . believed." D. Acts 13:48 -- ". . . As many as were ordained [set in order by themselves] unto eternal life . . . ." III. The Specific Contrast between the Two A. The Jews were filled with envy; whereas the Gentiles were filled with gladness. B. The Jews spake against the gospel with contradiction and blasphemy; whereas the Gentiles glorified the word of the Lord. C. The Jews put the gospel away from them; whereas the Gentiles received the gospel through believing. D. The Jews judged themselves unworthy of everlasting-eternal life; whereas the Gentiles set themselves in order unto everlasting-eternal life.
  12. Question for Pastor Markle

    Brother Wayne, I cannot actually provide you with documentation that this verb is definitely in the middle voice. I cannot do so because the verb structure for the perfect, passive, participle and for the perfect, middle, participle are exactly the same. As such, I could only provide you with documentation for the POSSIBILITY that this verb is in the middle voice. (Furthermore, I am not a Greek "scholar" by any level of imagination; therefore, I am aware that others can understand elements in the Greek that I might miss.) In relation to that documented evidence, a little bit of Greek language understanding would make it a bit easier. However, if you do a google search for the following, "Greek perfect passive participle declension," you should find various sites with information on the matter. For your purposes and "skill" (?) level, it would be best simply to find a site with a middle and passive participle declension listing. When I did my google search (just now) to find a suggested site for you, the second site listed was the following: http://www.chlt.org/FirstGreekBook/JWW_FGB53.html This declension list is only about the middle and passive participle, just as is needed for the case in Acts 13:48. Now, this list uses a different Greek verb as its example verb for the list; but the Greek rules of declension would remain the same for the Greek participle in Acts 13:48. As such, you would want to scroll down to the "Masculine Perfect Middle and Passive Participle" listing. You will notice that the heading joins the perfect middle and passive together for the listing because the declensions are exactly the same for both the perfect middle participle and the perfect passive participle. If you look at the "Nominative and Vocative Plural" under this heading, you will find that the example verb begins with the doubling prefix "lelu--" (which represents the perfect tense), just as the participle "tetagmenoi" does in Acts 13:48. Furthermore, you will find that the example verb ends with the Greek ending "--menoi." (which represents the nominative, masculine, plural participle), just as "tetagmenoi" does in Acts 13:48. Can I provide you with a commentary that agrees? I could not find a single commentary among all of those that I possess that agrees specifically with the "prefect, middle, participle" claim. However, the following two commentators did speak to a similar position concerning the contextually meaning as I presently hold: (1) "The Acts of the Apostles" by Thomas Ethelbert Page, (2) "The Acts of the Apostles" by J. Rawson Lumby. In addition, you may want to consider "Notes on the New Testament: Acts" by Albert Barnes. He very strongly holds for a passive meaning of the verb, and provides strong "word-study" evidence for it (enough that I am compelled to continue considering the possibilities). However, Barnes does not take the common Calvinistic application of "pre-ordination." Rather, Barnes views the participle as a reference unto the pre-convicting work of the Holy Spirit upon the hearts of the Gentiles, so as to prepare them for the decision of belief. I pray that this is helpful.
  13. "Repent of Your Sins" False gospel

    Earlier I quoted Acts 22-24 . . . I really do not care that much about the dispute over "who really killed the Lord Jesus Christ." However, I do care about claims that contradict the Scriptures of God. In Acts 2:22-24 the apostle Peter himself, on the Day of Pentecost, under the filling influence of the Holy Spirit, accused the "men of Israel" and having "crucified and slain" the Lord Jesus Christ "by wicked hands." He certainly DID blame the Jews of that sin. Furthermore, he applied that accusation to Jews who had gathered from a multitude of nations around Israel, Jews who very possibly had not even been present at the time of the crucifixion, and who very likely were not directly involved in the decision. Finally, the apostle Peter made this declaration while out "soul winning" in relation to those very Jews. On the other hand, I fully agree that the whole world stands in hateful opposition to our Lord Jesus Christ (as the apostle Peter implied in Acts 4:26-28, which I also quoted above).
  14. Question for Pastor Markle

    Indeed, the verb "were" IS a being verb in both the Greek construction and in the English, as well as in your examples. Concerning Acts 13:48, note my statement above -- "The first ("were") is translated from the Greek verb "esan," which is the imperfect, active, indicative, third person, plural form of the Greek verb "eimi" (the Greek verb meaning "to be")." However, in both the Greek and English construction of Acts 13:48, as well as in all of your examples, the being verb "were" is employed as a HELPING verb for another verb of action. As such, the grammatical construction cannot simply be viewed as having a "state of being" meaning. Furthermore, in all of your examples you have presented constructions of past, active verbs, without any element of passive voice (or middle voice, which does not actually exist in English grammar). Yet in the Greek construction of Acts 13:48, there certainly IS the element of either passive or middle voice.
  15. Question for Pastor Markle

    First, a correction in my third paragraph -- I wrote, "However, for the Greek verb "tasso" the perfect, passive, participle form and the middle, passive, participle form are the same." I should have written, "However, for the Greek verb "tasso" the perfect, passive, participle form and the perfect, middle, participle form are the same." The underlined portions are wherein the correction should be. I will be editing my posting above to correct this. Now, to answer your question -- Because in the Greek the perfect, passive, participle form and the perfect, middle, participle form are the same. This means that the verb could be a perfect, MIDDLE, participle rather than a perfect, PASSIVE, participle. As such, the flow of thought COULD indicate that the Gentiles had performed this action upon themselves. For me this fits the contextual flow of thought in revealing the direct contrast between the believing Gentiles and the rejecting Jews, who certainly DID judge THEMSELVES unworthy of everlasting life. In both cases then, personal decision is being emphasized and contrasted. Would a Calvinist have a strong case against my position? Yes, if he argued heavily for the passive meaning of the verb, as opposed to the middle meaning of the verb.
×