Pastor Scott Markle

*Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content count

    1,946
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    93

Pastor Scott Markle last won the day on April 30

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

8,965 profile views
  1. This is my very FIRST posting in this thread. Am I supposed to win something?
  2. Yeah, and if duct tape cannot fix it, then it would require a miracle from God.
  3. Indeed. Yet Adam was NOT completely alone from any personal relationship since he had an available relationship with the Lord God Himself. However, the Lord God Himself still said that it was not good for Adam to be "alone." Apparently, the Lord God had created man in such a way that he actually NEEDS human companionship.
  4. Yet the opening portion of Genesis 3:1 seems to indicates that the "serpent" was indeed a "beast [snake] of the field" -- "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made." Furthermore, Genesis 3:14 indicates that the Lord God actually did curse the "serpent" as a "snake" of the field -- "And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life."
  5. Indeed, Tozer (regardless of some doctrinal positions with which I might not agree) ever presents Biblical doctrine in a spiritually practical manner, even as the Lord our God always intended it. Indeed, ALL Biblical doctrine has spiritually practical application unto our lives, if we will only meditate therein and follow thereafter.
  6. This morning in my devotional reading I learned from Zechariah 8:5 that the Lord our God is comfortable with children engaging in play time. (Note: I have often wondered whether it is just a human viewpoint, a cultural viewpoint, or a naturally-created viewpoint that children "need to have play time.") Zechariah 8:5 -- "And the streets of the city shall be full of boys and girls playing in the streets thereof." (Note: This verse is presented as one of the blessings upon Israel when the Lord God restores them. Thus it would appear that this is something of which the Lord our God approves as a positive.) Also, (sarcasm warning) it appears that the Lord God approves of children playing in the street, so then all those parents who forbid it . . . .
  7. It is also worthy of consideration that the whole creation was fairly new unto Adam and Eve. Therefore, there was no real pattern of "normal," but rather a regular experience of new things.
  8. By the way, in both Hebrew and Greek pronouns can also be built right into the change in form or ending of a Hebrew or Greek word (for both verbs and nouns).
  9. Brother Ken, In English grammar the English verb changes verb tenses, voices, and moods by changing verb endings and by adding helping verbs, such as -- "am, is, are, was, were, be, being, been, have, has, had, do, does, did, should, could, would, will (wilt), shall, can, may, might, must." However, in both Hebrew and Greek we do not find such a use of separate "helping" verbs. Rather, in Hebrew and Greek the verb tenses, voices, and moods are developed simply through changing verb forms and endings. As such, that which English grammar accomplishes with "helping" verbs Hebrew and Greek builds right into the change of verb forms and endings themselves. Even so, the use of these "helping" verbs in an English translation actually DOES find its source in the Hebrew and Greek, not as individual "helping" verbs, but as that which is grammatically built into the individual Hebrew or Greek verb form and ending. The given Hebrew or Greek verb, including its particular form and ending, IS the source word for the English verb and its helping verb.
  10. Brother Tyndale, I believe that it is very important for you to answer Brother DaveW's question above. Most of those who have engaged with you in this thread believe that you are seeking to undercut the divine authority of the King James translation for English speaking people. Until you provide a clear answer to Brother DaveW's question that belief will continue.
  11. Brother Kurecki, 1. Indeed, I am as sure as I can presently be with a deep conviction concerning the matter. 2. I believe that our Lord's figure of speech concerning "a jot and a tittle" in Matthew 5:18 was intended to communicate a promise of letter-for-letter preservation, and that in principle this figure of speech encompasses both the Old and New Testament Scriptures in their original languages respectively. In my posting above unto Brother McWhorter, I present my explanation as follows:
  12. Brother McWhorter, I have a block of time today in order to provide some answers, and prayerfully some understanding. From the beginning, I do thank you (and others) for your trust toward me; and I pray that I will not damage that trust. (By the way, this is one place wherein I believe that Brother Tyndale made a mistake within this discussion. He did not first develop any level of trust with his audience before he engaged in such a controversial matter, especially with an approach that is not the common manner of approach.) 3. I use the phrase "Biblical" preservation as a reference unto the promise of the Lord our God and the doctrine of God's Holy Word wherein the Lord our God has informed us of HIs promise and practice to preserve the words and wordings of His inspired Scriptures (Writings). 2. I use the phrase "generational" preservation as a reference unto my belief concerning the doctrine of Biblical preservation that the Lord our God has promised to preserve the words and wordings of His inspired Scriptures (Writings) for access unto each and every generation of His people. 1. I use the phrase "jot and tittle" (precise) preservation as a reference unto my belief concerning the doctrine of Biblical preservation that the Lord our God has promise to preserve the words and wordings of His inspired Scriptures (Writings) unto the precision, not only of word-for-word, but even of letter-for-letter. I take my belief in "jot and tittle" preservation from Matthew 5:18. Indeed, I recognize that the primary thrust of Matthew 5:17-18 concerns the FULFILLMENT of God's Word and that the primary thrust of Matthew 5:19 concerns OBEDIENCE unto God's Word. Nevertheless, I do believe that phrase, "one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law," does speak concerning the matter of Biblical preservation. This phrase is connected unto a time period -- "Till heaven and earth pass." This phrase speaks concerning the written Word of God, the Holy Scriptures -- "one jot or one tittle." This phrase speaks concerning a continuing existence -- "shall in no wise pass." (By the way, this is the second place wherein I believe that Brother Tyndale made a mistake within this discussion. He did not first focus the discussion upon the Biblical definition for the doctrine of preservation before engaging in discussion concerning its application unto the King James translation.) So then, what is a "jot" and a "tittle"? The "jot" (yod) is the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet. The "tittle" is a small distinction mark that distinguishes one Hebrew letter from another Hebrew letter. When our Lord Jesus Christ made this statement, no single portion of the New Testament Scriptures (Writings) had been inspired and inscripturated. Thus when our Lord Jesus Christ made this statement, He made the statement in relation to the Old Testament Scriptures (Writings) and in relation to the original language of those Scriptures. As such, I believe that our Lord Jesus Christ was indicating that the preservation of God's Holy Word encompasses, not only a word-for-word preservation, but even a letter-for-letter preservation. Furthermore, I believe that in principle this figure of speech encompasses both the Old Testament Scriptures (Writings) and the New Testament Scriptures (Writings). Now, when I apply this doctrinal belief with PRECISION, I find that I cannot precisely apply it unto any given translation. (Note: Brother McWhorter, I believe that you and many others on this forum can recognize, and maybe even appreciate, my passion for precision in Bible study and Biblical doctrine.) Letter-for-letter ("jot and tittle") preservation precisely requires that the very letters of the very words and wordings remain the same. As is often stated in such discussions, "things that are different are not the same." Even so, by definition any given translation from one language unto another CHANGES the very letters. They do NOT remain the same. So then, IF the doctrine of preservation requires a letter-for-letter ("jot and tittle") preservation, such that every letter of the original Scriptures (Writings), as inspired by God the Holy Spirit, must remain the same, then the doctrine of preservation cannot be PRECISELY applied unto any given translation into any other language, but can only be PRECISELY applied unto copies of the Scriptures in the original language. For a practical consideration of this principles, we might consider the following scenarios: Scenario #1 -- If (the case of the present day) we possessed (as we do) accurate manuscripts of the original language Scriptures (Writings), and we possessed an accurate translation of those Scriptures into English (as we do with the King James translation), would God's promise and doctrine of preservation have a fulfillment? Answer -- YES. Scenario #2 -- If (a hypothetical case) we possessed (as we do) accurate manuscripts of the original language Scriptures (Writings), but we did not possess the King James translation because no translation into English had ever occurred, would God's promise and doctrine of preservation have a fulfillment? Answer -- YES. Scenario #3 -- If (a hypothetical case) we possessed an accurate translation of the Holy Scriptures into English (as we do with the King James translation), but we no longer possessed accurate manuscripts of the original language Scriptures (Writings), would God's promise and doctrine of preservation have a fulfillment? Answer -- NO. Yet this raises a very, VERY significant question for those who speak and read English, but know nothing of Hebrew or Greek -- In response to this, I must communicate a few points of understanding concerning Biblical inspiration and Biblical authority -- I believe that Biblical inspiration concerns the SOURCE for God's Holy Scriptures (Writings). As such, I believe that this matter of SOURCE (inspiration) can be sub-divided into two primary aspects -- (1) Inspirational origin and (2) inspirational authority. On the one hand, I believe that "inspirational ORIGIN" speaks concerning the inspiring work of God the Holy Spirit, wherein He moved in and through the original human penmen of the Holy Scriptures, such that they wrote God's Holy Word in a word-for-word (yea, even a letter-for-letter) manner precisely and perfectly as the Lord our God intended it and as He has settled it in heaven. As such, I believe that the focus for inspirational ORIGIN concerns the Holy Spirit inspiration of the penmen so that the Holy Scriptures originated on earth with precise perfection. On the other hand, I believe that "inspiration AUTHORITY" speaks concerning the inspiring work of God the Holy Spirit, wherein the Holy Scriptures themselves are infused with the living, powerful authority of God Himself. As such, I believe that the focus for inspirational AUTHORITY concerns the Holy Spirit inspiration of the Scriptures themselves so that the Holy Scriptures ever exist on earth with absolute authority. So then, how does this apply unto our present discussion? If I do NOT possess an original copy of the Holy Scriptures (Writings), but I DO possess a precisely accurate copy of the Holy Scriptures (Writings), can I claim that my precisely accurate copy is the preserved Word of God? Answer -- ABSOLUTELY, YES. Can I claim with precision that my precisely accurate copy possesses inspirational origin? Answer -- Not precisely, since none of the various copyists were moved by the Holy Spirit in a manner of miraculous inspiration. Can I claim that my precisely accurate copy possesses the divinely inspired words and writings (Scriptures) of God? Answer -- ABSOLUTELY, YES; for my copy possesses exactly the same words and writings as the original. So then, can I claim that my copy possesses inspirational authority? Answer -- ABSOELUTELY, YES. Now, if I possess a perfectly accurate translation (as we find with the King James translation) of my precisely accurate copy of the Holy Scriptures (Writings), can I claim with precision that my perfectly accurate translation is the preserved Word of God? Answer -- Not precisely, for every single letter and word of my perfectly accurate translation is, by the very definition of translation, different from my precisely accurate copy of the Holy Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek. On the other hand, can I claim that my perfectly accurate translation possesses absolute inspirational authority? Answer -- ABSOLUTELY, YES; for my perfectly accurate translation is still the VERY Word of God, just simply in a different language than the original. As such, with the King James translation the English speaker and reader does INDEED possess the means in English to live "by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." So then, with my own passion for precision, I myself do not use the modifier "preserved" to describe the King James translation, but only to describe the Hebrew and Greek textual families that underlie the King James translation. On the other hand, I most certainly do use the modifiers "absolutely authoritative," or "divinely authoritative," or "perfectly authoritative" to describe the King James translation. Along this very line, I am also quite comfortable using the modifier "inspired" to describe the King James translation, as long as the audience understands that I am speaking about inspirational authority, and not inspirational origin. By this means I am able to hold forth with forceful conviction the inspirational authority of the King James translation without moving toward the false teachings (as I see them) of Ruckmanism. Yet I fully recognize that many of my brethren, who hold unto the King James translation, but do not hold unto the doctrines of Ruckmanism, often use the modifier "preserved" to describe the King James translation in a manner that is very close to that in which I would use the modifier "authoritative." Therefore, I do not usually get "worked up" over the matter. In fact, I only get "worked up" when I begin to see the false doctrines (as I see them) of Ruckmanism coming forth. (In my firm, convictional opinion, any hint concerning the "re-inspiration" of the King James translation is false doctrine, and is in direct contradiction unto the Biblical doctrine of preservation.) (By the way, this is the greatest place wherein I believe that Brother Tyndale made a mistake within this discussion. He presented a great deal of information that brought into question the use of the modifier "preserved" for the King James translation, but he did not communicate any real support for the INSPIRATIONAL AUTHORITY of the King James translation. Even to this very moment, I know (because I asked, and he answered) his position concerning the preservation and authority of the competing Hebrew and Greek texts; but I do not yet know his position concerning the authority of the King James translation. Thus many have responded unto his discussion as if he is intentionally seeking to undercut the authority of the King James translation itself.)
  13. Brother McWhorter, I have every intention of responding with explanation; however, I am presently involved in a responsibility that is consuming a great deal of my time. Thus I request some patience from you, and even from all. I know that I have "stirred the pot" a little, and I do NOT intend to just leave it that way. I do NOT at all view your comments as an attack. I have (knowingly) presented some thoughts that are not the common expression. As such, I expected questions to be posed. In addition, I most CERTAINLY know that you love and respect me. Our "forum friendship" is NOT AT ALL in jeopardy. Brother Alan, I thank you for your trust. I pray that I will not harm it in any manner, although I may present some thoughts that are not exactly common on this matter.
  14. Brother "Weary Warrior," I also am on my way out the door for some responsibility, so I will not be back until much later this evening (if at all today). However, I thank you for your answer. I believe that it was sufficient to remove my confusion. As far as the phrase "jot and tittle," I believe that we may be in disagreement on this matter -- considering that I myself am the very one who originally introduced this phrase into the discussion on this thread.
  15. Brother McWhorter, The accuracy of your statement above is actually dependent upon the definition for "the doctrine of preservation." It would certainly be accurate to state that -- "The 'English translation' is a perfectly ACCURATE copy of the 'original'." It would certainly also be accurate to state that -- "The 'English translation' is a perfectly AUTHORITATIVE copy of the 'original'." However, if an individual holds to a definition of preservation that is "jot and tittle" preservation, then it would NOT be accurate to state that -- "The 'English translation' is a perfectly PRESERVED copy of the 'original'." This statement would NOT be accurate with such a definition specifically because the "jots and tittles" are NOT exactly (perfectly) the same. In fact, with a "jot and tittle" definition for preservation, ANY work of translation whatsoever at all into ANY language would be contrary to preservation since every letter of every word would change form.