Pastor Scott Markle

*Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content count

    1,849
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    84

Pastor Scott Markle last won the day on March 12

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

8,585 profile views
  1. Ahhh, but you see -- I myself would AGREE that a spiritually dead and lost sinner's will IS depraved. If you believe otherwise, then I would stand in disagreement with you on this particular point of "total depravity."
  2. Brother "Fastjav," I am quite familiar with calling the doctrine of "total depravity" instead the doctrine of "total inability." It really does not matter that much to me which title the doctrine is given, for my agreements and conflicts with the details of the doctrine will remain the same. I have no conflict with the truth that a spiritually dead and lost sinner has total inability within himself or herself because of his or her total depravity. I have no conflict with the truth that some work of our Lord God's grace must be applied in order for that total inability to be overcome. However, I DO have a conflict with the particular means of God's grace whereby they would teach that this total inability is overcome. (By the way, I ALSO have a conflict with the particular means of God's grace whereby the Arminian teaches that this total inability is overcome.)
  3. Do not a great majority of said people end up "broke"? Indeed, I "got the joke" of your posting . . . BUT I chose to wrest it unto my own agenda.
  4. Brother Orval, I have refrained from answering your original posting until this point because I do not actually meet the parameters of the request -- Since I myself do NOT hold to ANY of the "five" points of Calvinistic soteriology. However, in my experience (for whatever it may be worth) in dealing with Calvinistic individuals, I believe that the two strongest of their points are: 1. Total Depravity -- Since so much of this doctrine is indeed Biblically valid, and they err (in my opinion) simply on the means of God's grace by which He overcomes this depravity. 2. Unconditional Election, when joined with their viewpoint of Divine Sovereignty -- Since the doctrine of God's sovereignty is indeed Biblically valid, and they err (in my opinion) simply on the definition of that sovereignty both as applied to human decision-making generally and to faith for salvation specifically. On the other hand, I believe that the two weakest of their points are: 1. Limited Atonement -- Since there are direct statements of Scriptures which seem to stand so contrary to this point. 2. Irresistible Grace -- Since it is not directly referenced in Scripture as such, but seems to be primarily developed through a "logical" process from Total Depravity & Unconditional Election.
  5. Ah, but would a truly GOOD man leave a hole only half dug?
  6. Brother Orval, I thank you for your commendation of my postings. I ever pray that they are good unto the use of edifying and that they might minister God's truth and grace unto the readers. Concerning the author David F. Wells, I was not previously familiar with him. However, upon your recommendation I shall search out some of his books. (Now, if I may do a little bit of "self-promotion" (something which I do NOT much care to do) -- You have mentioned a number of times that you are involved with the teaching at Heartland Baptist Bible College. The Lord our God has graciously allowed me to self-publish a few books, and I was wondering if you would be willing to read them with a consideration of recommendation toward the college ministry. If so, I would donate a single copy of each for your consideration. If not, I will not AT ALL be offended.) By the way, I do NOT mind if you use my "break down" of the "five" points.
  7. Brother Orval, First, allow me to present that I do NOT hold to ANY of the "five" points in Calvinistic soteriology. Having said that, I HAVE dealt with various Calvinistic individuals at length and in depth. As such, I would contend that the FOUNDATIONAL doctrine of the Calvinistic system of soteriology is NOT even one of the "five" points, but IS the doctrine of divine sovereignty and the definition of sovereignty unto which they hold (which is the premise about which I believe they are in error). Even so, the "five" points of Calvinistic soteriology might be presented as follows: 1. Total Depravity -- The REASON for divine sovereignty in unconditional election 2. Unconditional Election -- The REALITY of divine sovereignty 3. Limited Atonement -- The PLAN of divine sovereignty in unconditional election 4. Irresistible Grace -- The POWER of divine sovereignty in unconditional election 5. Perseverance of the Saints -- The RESULT of divine sovereignty in unconditional election Indeed, if you take note of Brother "Fundamental Faith's" previous posting, you will find that the doctrine of divine sovereignty IS the premise issue for his consideration of Calvinistic soteriology. For he said: By the way, Brother "Fundamental Faith," as I stated at the beginning of this posting, I myself do NOT hold unto ANY of the "five" points in Calvinistic soteriology. As such, I must contend that "unconditional election" is NOT taught in John 6, John 10, Romans 8-9, or Ephesians 1. Furthermore, I must contend that although I do INDEED hold to the doctrine of our Lord God's universal sovereignty, I do NOT believe that Calvinistic soteriology holds to a correct DEFINITION of that sovereignty. Even so, IF the foundational premise is wrong, then all that logically proceeds from that premise will also be wrong.
  8. Brother "Fundamental Faith," (if you were to present me with your given name, I would use it herein out of respect for you as a brother in Christ) I presented my posting above in order to demonstrate that there is indeed a Biblical doctrine of "apologetics" in the New Testament and in order to reveal the Biblical foundation for that doctrine. I did this because some dispute over the matter had enter into this thread. However, I also recognize that the purpose of this particular thread is NOT to discuss the doctrine of "apologetics," but to discuss the doctrine of Calvinistic soteriology. Therefore, out of respect for the originator of this thread and for his original purpose therein, I would recommend that any further discussion or dispute concerning the doctrine of "apologetics" be moved to a different thread that is established for that very purpose.
  9. Concerning the Biblical idea of "apologetics" and the New Testament. For the context of this thread, the definition of the English word "apologetic" is "defending in writing or speech; vindicating;" and the definition of the English word "apologetics" is "the branch of theology having to do with the defense and proofs of Christianity." These English words find their origin in the Greek verb "apologeomai," which means "to defend one's self," and in the Greek noun "apologia," which means "a defense." In relation to the message of the gospel, the Greek noun "apologia" is used in the following New Testament passages: Philippians 1:7 -- "Even as it is meet for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart; inasmuch as both in my bonds, and in the defence and confirmation of the gospel, ye all are partakers of my grace." Philippians 1:16-17 -- "The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: but the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel." 1 Peter 3:15-16 -- "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ." In relation to defending one's self as a preacher of the gospel, the Greek verb "apologeomai" is used in the following New Testament passages: Luke 12:11-12 -- "And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say: for the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say." Luke 21:14-15 -- "Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer: for I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist." Acts 26:1-3 -- "Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Thou art permitted to speak for thyself. Then Paul stretched forth the hand, and answered for himself: I think myself happy, king Agrippa, because I shall answer for myself this day before thee touching all the things whereof I am accused of the Jews: especially because I know thee to be expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews: wherefore I beseech thee to hear me patiently." (See Acts 1:4-23) Furthermore, in relation to the message of the gospel, we find the Greek verb "dialegomai," meaning "to reason, to dialogue," used in following New Testament passages: Acts 17:2-3 -- "And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ." Acts 17:16-17 -- "Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry. Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him." Acts 18:4 -- "And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks." Acts 18:19 -- "And he came to Ephesus, and left them there: but he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews." Acts 19:8-9 -- "And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God. But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus." Acts 24:25 -- "And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered, Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee." It appears to me that there is indeed a "doctrine of apologetics" that is taught in the New Testament. Yet whether or not the present day practice of "apologetics" is in accord with that New Testament doctrine is another question.
  10. Ah, yes, let us talk about "dodging questions." In an above posting I asked of you seven questions (here). Have you yourself answered those questions, or have you yourself "dodged" them? Well, you yourself have not provided a single word of answer to those seven questions; therefore, it appears that "dodging" IS INDEED your manner of response. It is YOUR TURN to answer some questions, not mine. What answers do you give?
  11. Amen, and AMEN! I say to all that this is a worthy read.
  12. Brother Kinney, If you desire for me to physically SHOW you a copy this very instant, I cannot since we are conversing on the internet. Therefore, I cannot SHOW you any physical book in my possession. However, if you desire for me to answer whether I possess a physical copy of the Masoretic text in the Hebrew and of the Received text in the Greek, I do indeed possess a published copy of both. These published copies are NOT the actual "parchment and ink" of these texts, but they are published copies thereof. Just as your 1611 or 1769 King James translation is not the original "parchment and ink," but is a published copy thereof. As far as your article, I already read it completely through when you posted it in this thread. I myself have various disagreements with that article; however, the two most significant are the following: 1. You claim that there are only four possible positions concerning the matter; however, I will contend that there is at least a fifth possible position - which is the one that I am presenting unto you, the Masoretic and Received text ONLY view. As such, I reject all four of the positions that you presented. In introduction to your presentation of your four possible viewpoints, you state the following: "Keep in mind that these King James Bible critics do not believe that there EVER existed a perfect and infallible Bible in ANY language (including "the" Hebrew and Greek) and they certainly do not believe there exists one NOW. The force of their argument is that since there was no perfect and infallible Bible before the King James Bible, then the King James Bible itself cannot be the perfect words of God anymore than their favorite, multiple choice and contradictory bible versions." I myself AM NOT a King James translation critic. Rather, I believe with conviction that the King James translation is THE ONE translation of God's Holy Word in English that English speaking people should use today. Furthermore, I believe with conviction that the King James translation is a perfectly accurate translation of our Lord God's perfectly preserved Word, which I believe IS found in the Masoretic text Hebrew Old Testament and the Received text Greek New Testament. I DO with conviction believe that the Lord our God HAS preserved His Word with perfect purity for EVERY generation since those words have been originally given, preserved unto this very generation right NOW. I DO believe with conviction (even if you do not believe me, and prefer to call me a "liar") that the Lord our God has so preserved His Holy Word in the Hebrew of the Masoretic text and the Greek of the Received text. 2. I believe that your position concerning the King James translation, as presented in your article, stands upon a faulty view concerning the doctrine of preservation. The doctrine of translation is only implied in God's Holy Word. However, the doctrine of preservation is directly taught therein. As such, to be Biblically correct we must build our doctrine of translation (of which our position on the King James translation must be a part, since it IS a translation) must be built upon the Biblical doctrine of preservation. In your article you present a position concerning the doctrine of preservation that the Lord our God ONLY promised to preserve His Holy Word with purity and perfection IN HEAVEN. I would contend against that position, and would claim that the Lord our God promised to preserve His Holy Word with CONTINUOUS, GENERATIONAL (ON THE EARTH), PRECISE ("JOT AND TITTLE") preservation. By the way, if you are correct in your position that the Lord our God promised to preserve His Word with purity and perfection ONLY IN HEAVEN, then NO text or translation of God's Word on the earth has Biblical grounds for claiming to BE that pure and preserved Word on the earth. Biblical faith is faith that is built upon a word from God about a matter. Empty faith is faith that is built upon one's own desires or agenda. IF (as you present, but I contend against) we only have a word from God that He would preserve His Word IN HEAVEN, then we have NO word from God that He would preserve it upon the earth. Even so, IF (as you present, but I contend against) we have NO word from God that He would preserve His Word upon the earth, then any claim of such for ANY text or translation is made APART FROM any word of God on the matter, and is thus "empty faith." Now then, if you wish to continue this discussion, please understand that I will be pushing it toward a consideration of the Biblical doctrine of preservation BEFORE we proceed further on other matters. As such, you also have the option now to answer the questions that I have presented unto you above, which questions seek to parse the relationship of the King James translation with the promise and fulfillment of the Lord our God concerning preservation. You yourself indicated that the King James translators gave us in English what already existed prior to 1611. As such, it would appear that the Lord our God did INDEED preserve His Word through the years of the generations from their original giving, all the way down to 1611. The questions are available for you to answer; so then, what answers do you give?
  13. Brother Kinney, There most certainly IS the original Hebrew and Greek of God's Holy Word still in existence today, found in divinely preserved copies of divinely preserved copies of divinely preserved copies of divinely preserved copies . . . etc.; or else our Lord God's promise of "jot and tittle" preservation is false. As for me, I am ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that our Lord's promise of "jot and tittle" preservation is NOT AT ALL false. You may deny His promise of "jot and tittle" preservation if you will, but I most certainly WILL NOT. Now, before I respond to your accusation against me of "lying," and before I proceed to answer you next set of questions, I present that it is now your turn to answer some questions. You made the proposition of the thread. I responded with questions. You answered; and than asked your set of questions. I answered, and now I ask another set of questions. Your turn to answer. You state that the King James translators gave us the "pure and preserved words" of God "that had already been inspired." As such, those pure and preserved words had to have already existed before the King James translators gave them unto us in English. So then -- 1. Did the King James translators gave us these words of God through the work of copying from an English language form to English, or through the work of translating from foreign language forms to English? (Note: Consider the definition of the word "translation.") 2. If the King James translators gave us these words of God through the work of translating from foreign language forms to English, from what foreign language forms did they find these "pure and preserved words" of God, which "had already been inspired" (your own words) and thus had already existed before the King James translation of 1611? 3. If the King James translators gave us these words of God through the work of translating from foreign language forms to English, in what foreign language texts did they find these "pure and preserved words" of God, which "had already been inspired" (your own words) and thus had already existed before the King James translation of 1611? 4. If the King James translators gave us these words of God through the work of translating from foreign language forms to English, how long had those foreign language texts been existence (through divine preservation) and been honored of God before the 1611 King James translation ever existed? 5. On the other hand, if the Lord our God has ONLY preserved HIs words with perfect purity in heaven, and not in any language form on the earth before the 1611 King James translation, then how did the King James translators get these perfectly preserved and pure words down out of heaven in 1611? 6. Furthermore, if you believe that the Lord our God has promised to preserve His Word with perfect purity ONLY in heaven, then what authority do you have to claim that the King James translation IS the perfectly pure and preserved Word of God, since the King James translation is NOT in heaven, but is on the earth? 7. Based upon the position that you have presented thus far, do you believe that the Lord our God did not begin HIs divine work of preservation until the 1611 King James translation came into existence?
  14. Brother Kinney, It is my desire to provide a more thorough response unto your answers; however, time restrictions have not permitted me to do so. In particular, I desire to present a response unto your position concerning the doctrine of preservation, which I believe to be a Biblically faulty position. Yet with this posting I do intend to provide a quick answer unto your above question toward me -- YES, absolutely, I believe that the Lord our God both has promised and has been faithful unto His promise to preserve His pure and holy Word in the original languages of their originally inspired authorship, that is -- in the original Hebrew for the Old Testament and in the original Greek for the New Testament. I believe that those pure and preserved words are to be found in the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Old Testament and in the Received text of the Greek New Testament.
  15. Thank you for the information Brother Schneck. And now my heart grieves.