Pastor Scott Markle

*Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content count

    1,029
  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Pastor Scott Markle

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

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors


4,367 profile views

Pastor Scott Markle's Activity

  1. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic: Debate - Prophecy in Daniel 9   

    Brother Day,
    Since you appear to acknowledge that the pronoun "thy" in Daniel 9:24 is a reference to Daniel himself, would you agree that it is legitimate to explain the "thy people" phrase of Daniel 9:24 as being a reference to Daniel's people? 
  2. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic: Debate - Prophecy in Daniel 9   

    Brother Day,
    The word "thy" is a first person  second person, singular personal pronoun of possession.  While delivering his message to Daniel (the simple, contextually straightforward truth), the angel Gabriel uses this pronoun twice in Daniel 9:24, once in the phrase, "upon thy people," and once in the phrase, "upon thy holy city."
    Considering that the simple (contextually straightforward) truth is that the angel Gabriel was speaking to Daniel when he delivered the message of Daniel 9:24, when the angel Gabriel used the pronoun "thy" in this message, to what specific, singular individual was the angel Gabriel making reference?
  3. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic: Debate - Prophecy in Daniel 9   

    ​Indeed, Daniel 9:21-23 reads as follows:
    "Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.  And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding.  At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision."
    ​It appears from those portions of Daniel 9:21-23 which I have emboldened that the angel Gabriel was speaking to Daniel himself when he (the angel) delivered the message of Daniel 9:24.
    Brother Day, would you agree with this conclusion?
  4. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic: Comment On Current Debate   

    Brother David S.,
    As such, we would be in disagreement with one another on the above points.  However, I will not present my reasoning on the matter here, since my position concerning Daniel 9:26-27 is yet to be forthcoming in the discussion-debate with Brother Day.
    On the other hand, I did ask a question of you in my previous posting herein, as follows: 
    Would you provide your answer to this question?
  5. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic: Comment On Current Debate   

    ​Brother David S.,
    First, do you yourself believe that I deliberately misquoted you in my posting, or that I deliberately misunderstood your straightforward grammatical presentation?
    Second, I would have to contend that the use of the definite article "the" by definition only means that "the covenant" is a definite covenant.  On the other hand, I would further contend that the use of the verb "shall confirm" indicates that "the covenant" shall indeed be a pre-existent covenant.  Furthermore, I myself would agree that Daniel would very likely have understood the specific "covenant" to which the angel Gabriel was referring in his comment.
  6. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic: Debate - Prophecy in Daniel 9   

    Brother Day,
    One quick question -- To whom was the angel Gabriel speaking when he delivered the message of Daniel 9:24?
  7. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic: Comment On Current Debate   

    ​Brother Ken,
    This "participant" is more than willing to "finish the debate" in any case, or at least to finish explaining my understanding concerning the remainder of the passage.
  8. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic: Comment On Current Debate   

    ​Brother "Invicta,"
    I have provided in my above answer to Brother "Genevanpreahcer" (here) my reasons for employing the word "some" in my explanation for Daniel 9:27.  In fact, my use of the modifier "some" was presented in an explanation for the verse, not in a direct quotation of the verse.  Furthermore, within my explanation I placed quotation marks around only those portions that were directly quoted from the verse, in order to signify those portions of my explanation that were directly from God's Holy Word and those portions that were a part of my own explanation.
    On the other hand, it is interesting for me to note that in your explanation of the verse, you yourself also added a word that is not found in Daniel 9:27.  In the following quote, you yourself added the word "existing" -- "He shall confirm the existing covenant with many"  Yet the word "existing" is not found in the verse.  So then, do you hold to a different set of rules for yourself than for others?  Or, have you yourself fallen on the ground of self-contradiction, such that you yourself also can now be accused by your preacher's admonition?
    Now, I myself do not actually have a problem with your addition of the word "existing" in your attempt to explain your understanding of the verse.  I fully understand that when we engage in the process of explanation, we will employ terminology that is not always directly found within a given passage.  Such is the very nature of the process of explanation.  Even so, I would request that you might afford me the same courtesy of understanding when I engage in the process of explanation.
     
  9. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic: Comment On Current Debate   

    Brother Day, 
    ​By nature, the more the need for a teacher to engage in explanations and evidences, the more the words that teacher will employ in order to communicate those very explanations and evidences.
     
    Indeed, in the following quote you did make direct reference to my grammatical analysis -- "​​​I'm not convinced that your grammatical analysis leads to a proper understanding of the prophecy, or whether it actually obscures the clear meaning of the prophecy."
    Indeed, in the following quote you did make direct reference to complicated grammar -- "I think in this case, the 70 weeks is so clearly specific that simple arithmetic overrules complicated grammar."
    However, in the following quote you spoke against grammatical analysis in general, and that in specific relation to Biblical prophecy -- "We should judge prophecy both by its faithfulness to the Word, & by its fulfilment, not by grammatical analysis. (emboldening and underlining added by Pastor Scott Markle) There is a danger of being Pharisaical. Also, we have the mind of Christ - 1 Cor. 2:16 - so we can look at prophecy with an new covenant, spiritual, Spirit-aided understanding."  Herein you indicated that we should (as a positive assertion) judge prophecy "by its faithfulness to the Word."  Herein you also indicated that we should (as a positive assertion) judge prophecy "by its fulfillment."  However, herein you also indicated that we should not (as a negative assertion) judge prophecy "by grammatical analysis."  Furthermore, herein you also imply that "there is a danger of being Pharisaical" if we examine a prophecy too closely "by grammatical analysis."  Finally, herein you even seem to imply that our having "the mind of Christ" should be set in contrast with an examination of "grammatical analysis," such that our having "the mind of Christ" might even allow us to disregard any grammatical analysis and might allow us through our "new covenant, spiritual, Spirit-aided understanding" to bypass any grammatical analysis.  Even so, in relation to the debate itself, I shall continue to contend that you did just as I accused -- You suggested through the above quotation that the grammatical analysis "of a passage is not really a help, but is actually a hindrance in Bible study, especially in relation to prophetic utterance."
     
    Just above I have presented two quotes from you.  The first of these quotes indicates your agreement that "understanding grammar is necessary" for a correct understanding of written and spoken communication, which would imply that it is also necessary for a correct understanding of God's Holy Word, since it is a written communication as inspired by God the Holy Spirit.  The second of the quotes indicates you disapproval and disagreement with my own grammatical analysis of Daniel 9:24.  Therefore, I would request that you might, within the context of the debate itself, demonstrate the specific points at which my grammatical analysis of Daniel 9:24 is in specific error.  Since you claim that grammatical analysis is important, yet believe that my grammatical analysis is in error, you yourself ought to present the correct grammatical analysis and ought to reveal wherein my grammatical analysis is in error.
     
    By nature, correct grammatical analysis will be just as complicated as the sentence that is being analyzed.  If a simple sentence of only three to six words is being analyzed, then correct grammatical analysis will be somewhat simple also.  However, Daniel 9:24 is not such a simple sentence of only few words.  Rather, Daniel 9:24 is a more complex sentence of 49 words (if my count is correct), containing a main clause that is modified by six infinitive clauses.
     
    Indeed, only believers possess the aid of the indwelling Holy Spirit in order that we may understand the truths that the Lord our God has prepared for us in His Holy Word.  Even so, my statement above does not in any manner contradict this; for throughout my statement above I continually make reference to the "we" and the "us."  This usage of the "we" and the "us" pronouns in my above statement indicates that I was only applying my comments to the "we" and the "us" who are believers, such that my quote could have stated as follows:
    Grammatical analysis is not a hindrance to understanding God’s Holy Word correctly, for grammar is the means by which the Lord our God communicated to us [believers] in His Holy Word by the inspiration of His Holy Spirit.  Indeed, grammatical analysis is the means by which we [believers] can correctly understand that which the Lord our God has communicated unto us [believers]  through His Holy Word by the inspiration of His Holy Spirit.
  10. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic: Comment On Current Debate   

    ​Brother "Genevanpreacher,"
    In the portion of my posting that you quoted, I employed the modifier "some" twice.  In the first instance, I employed it to modify the word "he," as per the following -- "The opening line of this verse indicates that some 'he' . . . ."  In Daniel 9:27 the pronoun "he" refers to a definitely specific individual.  However, the verse itself does not specifically define who this specific "he" is.  Furthermore, in the previous verse of Daniel 9:26, we find two possible antecedents for this pronoun "he."  Since it was not my intention in my original posting to engage in the extensive discussion required to specify the correct antecedent for this pronoun "he," I employed the modifying "some" in order to communicate both the specific definiteness of the "he" and the lack of a specific definition within the verse for the "he."
    In like manner, I employed the word "some" to modify the word "covenant," as per the following -- ". . . that some 'he' will 'confirm' some 'covenant with many' . . . ."  In Daniel 9:27 the use of the definite article "the" as a modifier for the word "covenant" indicates that this covenant is a definitely specific "covenant."  However, again the verse itself does not specifically define what covenant this specific "covenant" is.  In fact, the definition for this specific "covenant" is not provided anywhere throughout the entire context of Daniel 9:24-27.  Now, I myself believe that an extended study throughout the entire context of the Book of Daniel would provide us with the means to determine the definition of this specific "covenant."  Yet since it was not my intention in my original posting to engage in that extensive study, I employed the modifying "some" in order to communicate both the specific definiteness of "the covenant" and the lack of a specific definition within the verse and the immediate context.
    I suppose that I could have communicated my point more clearly if I had employed the phrase "some specific" instead of just the modifier "some."  As such, my sentence would then read, "The opening line of this verse indicates that some specific 'he' will 'confirm' some specific 'covenant with many' . . . ."   
  11. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic: Comment On Current Debate   

    ​Brother Ken,
    First, I wish to commend you for some very thoughtful questions.  Now, these question appear to be divided into two parts -- (1) those concerning the period of time just before the Second Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and (2) those concerning the time period after the Second Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
    1.  Concerning the questions concerning the period of time just before the Second Coming.
    No.  Although I believe that the the six-fold purpose and result statements are in a logical order that climaxes with the anointing of our Lord Jesus Christ as King of kings, I believe that these six purposes and results will actually happen in the same moment of time.  It would be similar to the elements of our eternal salvation from sin's condemnation and bondage.  We can place some of these elements in a logical order, such as redemption, cleansing, forgiveness, regeneration, imputation, justification, reconciliation, sanctification.  However, we would also recognize that these elements of our eternal salvation all actually become effective in the same moment of time.
    I believe that many among the children of Israel will have placed heart-trust in Jesus as their Christ prior to the Second Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, such that they will be believers in a similar fashion as the believers of the Old Testament time.  Now, there is some debate as to whether Old Testament believers were actually "born again" (regenerated), or were just eternally saved and eternally justified.  I myself presented believe that Old Testament believers were "born again" (regenerated) by the power of the Holy Spirit, but that they just did not possess the permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  Thus I would conclude that any among the children of Israel, who will place heart-faith in Jesus as their personal Savior and Christ at that time, will indeed become a born again believer immediately at the moment of heart-faith.
    2.  Concerning the questions concerning the period of time after the Second Coming.
    This appears to be the case in accord with such passages as Isaiah 1:24-27, Jeremiah 3:15-19, 31:31-37, 32:36-42, Ezekiel 36:24-38, and Ezekiel 37:21-28, as well as others that are scattered throughout Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Minor Prophets which concern the children of Israel in the time period.
    The best answer that I can give to this question would be through the quotation of the following two passages:
    Isaiah 54:13 -- "And all thy children shall be taught of the LORD; and great shall be the peace of thy children."
    Jeremiah 32:39 -- "And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them, and of their children after them."
     
    Again, I pray that these answers will be helpful in answering the questions that you have presented.
  12. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic: Comment On Current Debate   

    To all who have recently engaged me on this thread,
    Responses are forthcoming as time permits.  I will seek to take each engagement in the order that it was delivered.  However, time will be needed for each response to be prepared and presented.
     
    1.  ​Concerning your comment that it is called "discussion."
    Indeed, it is called discussion.  You initiated the discussion with your discussion question.  I engaged in the discussion with a corrective to your discussion question, indicating that it was somewhat inaccurate and thus somewhat irrelevant to the context of Daniel 9:24-25.  
    However, you will also notice that although I myself believe your question to be somewhat inaccurate and irrelevant to the context of Daniel 9:24-25, I did in fact put forth the effort to research and report an answer to your discussion question, as per the following:
    As far as anything that happened historically around that time period, that may have had an impact upon the children of Israel -- According to Daniel 9:1 the events of this chapter occurred "in the first year of Darius the son of Ahasueres, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans."  In relation to this Daniel 6:28 seems to indicate either that this reign of Darius the Median over the realm of the Chaldeans was concurrent with the reign of Cyrus the Persian over the whole kingdom of Persia, or that this reign of Darius the Median (since he was 62 years old when he began to reign, as per Daniel 5:31) lasted only a short time and was quickly transferred to the reign of Cyrus the Persian.  Now, according to Ezra 1 it was in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia that he made the decree for the temple in Jerusalem to be rebuilt.  For me, the most interesting aspect of this historical information is that Daniel himself would have lived long enough to know of Cyrus decree to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, since Daniel himself was still alive at least until the third year of Cyrus king of Persia (as per Daniel 10:1).
    2.  Concerning your comments about the contextual flow of thought in Daniel 9 that precedes Daniel 9:24-27.
    Yes, Daniel was indeed "studying about Jeremiah's prophesy" (as per Daniel 9:2); and it does appear that he was looking with expectation for the 70 year Babylonian captivity to be soon ending.  In fact, in Daniel 9:2 he declared that he possessed understanding from and concerning the prophetic utterances of Jeremiah concerning the years of the captivity.  Thus Daniel was not moved to engage in his prayer of confession and supplication because he lacked understanding.  Rather, he was moved to engage in his prayer of confession and supplication specifically because possessed understanding.
    Furthermore, in the supplication portion of his prayer, Daniel did not present a request for understanding.  Rather, he presented a request for the Lord God's merciful forgiveness and favor to be poured out upon the children of Israel, upon the city of Jerusalem, and upon the temple in Jerusalem, as per the following in Daniel 9:16-19:
    "O Lord, according to all thy righteousness, I beseech thee, let thine anger and thy fury be turned away from thy city Jerusalem, thy holy mountain: because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and thy people are become a reproach to all that are about us.  Now therefore, O our God, hear the prayer of thy servant, and his supplications, and cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate, for the Lord’s sake.  O my God, incline thine ear, and hear; open thine eyes, and behold our desolations, and the city which is called by thy name: for we do not present our supplications before thee for our righteousnesses, but for thy great mercies.  O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, hearken and do; defer not, for thine own sake, O my God: for thy city and thy people are called by thy name."
    Therefore, the message of Daniel 9:24-27 was not delivered unto Daniel in order to answer any request on his part for understanding.  Rather, the message of Daniel 9:24-27 was delivered in order to reveal the Lord's intended answer into the future concerning Daniel's request for merciful forgiveness and favor upon the children of Israel, the city of Jerusalem, and the temple in Jerusalem.  Indeed, that is the very reason that Daniel 9:24 begins with the main clause -- "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy city and upon thy holy city."
  13. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic: Shepherding the Flock - Audio Sermon - Why We Need to Be in God's Word Daily (P7)   

    Please share this post with others: var addthis_config = {"data_track_addressbar":true}; [...]
    View the full article
  14. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic: Comment On Current Debate   

    To all as a side note for the sake of information,
    I myself am not a Schofield "lover."  In fact, I do not use a Schofield reference Bible (although I do own one, which I received as a gift); and I do not ever read or reference Schofield's notes.
  15. Pastor Scott Markle added a post in a topic: Comment On Current Debate   

    ​So then, was it your intention and desire that we should consider Daniel 9:24 in a manner that is completely separated from the context of Daniel 9:25-ff?
    Indeed, I did know that you were not quoting Scripture, since that quote cannot be found anywhere in the passage.  That is the very reason that I expressed my point -- in order to reveal the contrast between your statement (which was not a quote of Scripture, and thus did not possess Biblical authority) and my statement (which was a quote of Scripture, and thus did possess Biblical authority, that is -- as long as my quote was not wrested out of its context).
    Could I ask why it at all matters what may have happened in the 70 literal weeks that followed (that began from) the angel's announcement unto Daniel, since the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24 were not to begin from that announcement, but were to begin "from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem" (as per the context of Daniel 9:25)?
    As far as anything that happened historically around that time period, that may have had an impact upon the children of Israel -- According to Daniel 9:1 the events of this chapter occurred "in the first year of Darius the son of Ahasueres, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans."  In relation to this Daniel 6:28 seems to indicate either that this reign of Darius the Median over the realm of the Chaldeans was concurrent with the reign of Cyrus the Persian over the whole kingdom of Persia, or that this reign of Darius the Median (since he was 62 years old when he began to reign, as per Daniel 5:31) lasted only a short time and was quickly transferred to the reign of Cyrus the Persian.  Now, according to Ezra 1 it was in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia that he made the decree for the temple in Jerusalem to be rebuilt.  For me, the most interesting aspect of this historical information is that Daniel himself would have lived long enough to know of Cyrus decree to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, since Daniel himself was still alive at least until the third year of Cyrus king of Persia (as per Daniel 10:1).