Pastor Scott Markle

*Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content count

    1,339
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 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 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.

Recent Profile Visitors

6,051 profile views
  1. The Kingdom

    1.  Yes, John was a Hebrew and a part of Israel.  Now let me ask -- Was John a New Testament believer; and was John a part of the New Testament church, the body of Christ, the one new man, wherein is joined together both Jewish and Gentile believers into one spiritual body? 2.  Yes, the promises of Exodus 19:5-6, as given in Exodus 19:5-6, apply only to Israel.  No, the New Testament church has NOT "replaced" Israel, such that the promise in Exodus 19:5-6 does NOT apply to the New Testament believers of the New Testament church.  Yet the truth of Revelation 1:4-6, as given in Revelation 1:4-6, DOES apply to the New Testament believers of the New Testament church, and not to Israel.
  2. The Kingdom

    No sir, I am NOT saying this at all.  Indeed, I have no need whatsoever at all to be saying this; for Genesis 6:4 does NOT indicate that the "giants" (Hebrew, "n'philiym") were the offspring of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men."  So then, let us consider what Genesis 6:4 actually DOES indicate. Concerning Genesis 6:4 “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” Grammatically, this verse presents a compound sentence, containing two independent clauses that are joined with the conjunction “and.”  The first of these independent clauses is the statement, “There were giants in the earth in those days.”  This statement simply reveals the existence of “giants” (Hebrew, “n’philiym”) “in the earth” at the time of “those days.”  It does not reveal anything more about those “giants.”  It does not reveal anything about their character or their conduct.  It does not reveal anything about their origins or their parentage.  It does not reveal anything about their size or their stature. Then the second of the independent clause in Genesis 6:4 encompasses the remainder of the verse, “And also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”  This statement begins with a phrase of addition and of time – “also after that.”  Herein the adverb “also” indicates that the reality of this independent clause is something that is in addition to the reality of the previous independent clause to which it is attached.  Furthermore, the prepositional phrase, “after that,” indicates that the reality of this independent clause is something that occurred in time after the reality of the previous independent clause to which it is attached.  Now, this is significant for a correct understanding of this verse, because of the principle that cause does not follow after effect, but that effect follows after cause.  Since this second independent clause speaks concerning the reproduction of “the sons of God” with “the daughters of men,” and since it speaks of this reproduction as occurring in time AFTER the existence of the “giants” (“n’philiym”) “in the earth,” it is NOT possible for this reproduction of “the sons of God” with “the daughters of men” to be the cause for that existence of the “giants in the earth.”  The cause for the existence of these “giants” CANNOT come AFTER the effect. However, the information of this second independent clause in Genesis 6:4 DOES reveal who actually WERE the offspring of “the sons of God” with “the daughters of men.”  After the opening phrase of addition and time, this clause presents a “when-then” statement.  First, the “when” side of the statement is grammatically presented as a compound protasis of two parts, as follows: (1) “when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men” and (2) when “they [the daughters of men] bare children to them [the sons of God].”  This “when” side of the statement reveals the cause for the “then” side of the statement.  This cause is that “the sons of God” engaged in sexual relations with “the daughters of men” (which, according to Genesis 6:1-2, “the sons of God” had taken as their wives) and that “the daughters of men” in turn became pregnant and bear children unto “the sons of God,” their husbands. Second, the “then” side of the statement (the apodosis) reveals the effect (or, result) of this procreation between “the sons of God” and “the daughters of men.”  Indeed, this effect (or, result) is that “the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”  Herein the subject of this effect (or, result) statement is “the same,” and it indicates that this statement is about the very “same” children that “the daughters of men” bare unto “the sons of God.”  These very “same” children grew up to become, NOT the “giants” (“n’philiym”), BUT “mighty men,” who were “men of renown.”  As such, it is grammatically invalid to claim from Genesis 6:4 that the “giants” (“n’philiym”) were the offspring of “the sons of God” and “the daughters of men.”
  3. The One, True Gospel & God's Saving Grace

    Indeed, I shall provide an explanation for Acts 2:38 as you have requested; and I shall not (as you have further requested) make even a single reference to the original, Holy Spirit inspired and preserved Greek.  However, I most certainly shall place a significant focus upon the Holy Spirit inspired grammar of the verse.   Concerning Acts 2:38 “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” First, let us recognize that according to the context of Acts 2 as a whole, the apostle Peter was filled with the Spirit when he made this statement.  Therefore, we should recognize that this statement presents doctrinal truth that is not in any contradiction to the whole of New Testament doctrine concerning the gospel. Grammatically, Peter’s statement presented a compound sentence of three independent clauses, with each independent clause being joined by the conjunction “and.”  The first two of these three independent clauses presented a two-fold instruction, and the third of these two independent clauses presented a result.  Indeed, the first of clause of instruction is completely bound up in the single word of instruction, “Repent.”  Then the second clause of instruction encompasses the statement, “And be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.”  Finally, the clause of result encompasses the statement, “And ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” 1.  The First Clause of Instruction – “Repent.” This single verb of instruction provides the first requirement of the gospel that the apostle Peter proclaimed unto his hearers.  Indeed, the ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ’s first coming actually began with the preaching of His forerunner, John the Baptizer; and the message that John preached was a call to repentance. (See Matthew 3:2; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3)  Then when our Lord Jesus Christ Himself began His preaching and teaching ministry, He also preached a call to repentance. (See Matthew 4:17; 9:13; 11:20-21; Mark 1:14-15; 2:17; Luke 5:32; 13:2-5)  In addition, during His ministry of preaching and teaching, our Lord Jesus Christ also sent forth His disciples to preach a call to repentance. (See Mark 6:12)  Furthermore, after the crucifixion and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, but before His ascension into heaven, when He gave His commission unto His disciple to preach the gospel unto the lost world, He instructed them to preach a message of “repentance” and of “remission of sins” as a result of that repentance. (See Luke 24:46-47)  Indeed, He commissioned them to preach that message of “repentance and remission of sins” “in His name,” and to do so “among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.”  Even so, when the apostle Peter preached the message of the gospel, he obeyed the Lord Jesus Christ by preaching a call to repentance. (See Acts 2:38; 3:19)  Even so also, when the apostle Paul preached the message of the gospel, he also obeyed the Lord Jesus Christ by preaching a call to repentance. (See Acts 17:30-31; 20:21; 26:20) Thus we recognize from this that repentance is a Biblical requirement of the gospel.  Furthermore, we recognize from the whole doctrine of the New Testament that faith in Christ is also a Biblical requirement of the gospel.  So then, we are brought to the question – What is the relationship to each other between this requirement of repentance and this requirement of faith?  Now, the only passages from which we may discern this relationship are those wherein both the requirement of repentance and the requirement of faith are presented.  Two of these are presented in Scripture (see Acts 19:4; 20:21); and in both of these passages, the requirement of repentance is presented as that which precedes the requirement of faith.  Even so, I would contend that this requirement of repentance means a change of heart attitude concerning an individual’s sinfulness before the Lord God which moves that individual to a heart-faith in the Lord Jesus Christ for eternal salvation from that personal sinfulness. 2.  The Second Clause of Instruction – “And be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.”  Now, it is with this clause of instruction that controversy is developed, primary over the relationship between the instruction to “be baptized” and the prepositional phrasing of result, “for the remission of sins.”  First, this second clause of instruction begins with the instruction of the verb itself, “Be baptized.”  Certainly, in this context this is an instruction to submit unto baptism with water.  Second, this clause grammatically continues with the direct object of the verb, along with its modifying prepositional phrase, “Every one of you.”  This would indicate that every single individual was required to obey the instruction to “be baptized.”  Third, this second clause of instruction then provides the prepositional phrasing, “In the name of Jesus Christ.”  Grammatically, this prepositional phrasing would modify verb the instructional verb, “Be baptized,” and thereby would reveal the specific name in which they were required to be baptized and the specific Person with whom they were to associate themselves through that baptism.  This was not just any baptism.  Rather, it was a baptism specifically “in the name of Jesus Christ,” in order to reveal their association unto Jesus Christ.  Finally, this clause of instruction concludes with the prepositional phrasing, “for the remission of sins.”  Clearly, this prepositional phrasing reveals a result.  Yet the question may be asked – For what does this phrasing reveal the result?  The answer to this question would be grammatically determined by that in the statement which this prepositional phrasing modifies, and in this statement there are two grammatical possibilities.  On the one hand, the prepositional phrasing, “for the remission of sins,” could grammatically modify the verb of instruction, “be baptized.”  In this case, “the remission of sins” would be the direct result of being baptized.  On the other hand, the prepositional phrasing, “for the remission of sins,” could grammatically modify the immediately previous prepositional phrasing, “in the name of Jesus Christ.”  In this case, “the remission of sins” would be the result of being associated unto “the name of Jesus Christ.”  So then, which of these two grammatically possibilities is the correct one?  For the answer it would be best to discern which possibility is in unity with the doctrinal teaching of the New Testament.  Are there any other passages that clearly connect the remission (or, forgiveness) of sins to baptism?  I myself am not aware of any.  (Note: Some might present Mark 1:4 & Luke 3:3; however, I would contend that “the remission of sins” is connected to the “repentance” in both of the verses, not to the baptism, which contention would be in doctrinal unity with Luke 24:47 & Acts 5:31.)  On the other hand, are there any passages that connect the remission (or, forgiveness) of sins to the name (or, Person) of Jesus Christ?  Indeed!!!  Acts 10:43 – “To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.”  Acts 13:38-39 – “Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: and by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.” Even so, I would contend that the phrase, “for the remission of sins,” in Acts 2:38 is intended as a grammatical modifier for the phrase, “in the name of Jesus Christ,” not for the verb of instruction, “be baptized.”  Furthermore, I would contend that is the association through heart-faith in the name and Person of Jesus Christ that results in “the remission of sins.”  Finally, I would contend that the baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ,” which the apostle Peter instructed of them, was intended as the outward act whereby an individual revealed his or her heart-faith “in the name of Jesus Christ.”  Indeed, by this grammatical understanding for Acts 2:38, there is no contradiction whatsoever to the gospel of eternal forgiveness, justification, and salvation by God’s grace alone through repentance and heart-faith alone. 3.  The Clause of Result – “And ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” This statement presents the result for each individual who would obey the two-fold instruction of the previous two statements.  Such obedient individuals would receive (apparently from the Lord God) “the gift of the Holy Ghost.”  Yet they did have to meet the requirements, which in review were as follows:           A.    To “repent” (of their sinfulness before God).           B.    To “be baptized” specifically “in the name of Jesus Christ,” as a public revelation of their association through faith “in the name of Jesus Christ.”
  4. The Priesthood of New Testament Believers

    Brother Chester, False!  For "the church in the wilderness" was a single church, whereas the "seven church" in Asia were seven different churches.
  5. Were old testament believers indwelt?

    Sorry, Sister Ronda, my brain must have been moving faster than my fingers could type.  That statement should have been as follows: On the other hand, I myself would say that if you have read the Bible from cover to cover, and if you truly understand the doctrine of Biblical regeneration, you could NOT say that Old Testament believers were not regenerated, but that they served the Lord as they did while still being dead unto God spiritually "in trespasses and sins." Thank you for so quickly catching my error.  I will quickly correct it with an edit.
  6. Were old testament believers indwelt?

    On the other hand, I myself would say that if you have read the Bible from cover to cover, and if you truly understand the doctrine of Biblical regeneration, you could NOT say that Old Testament believers were not regenerated, but that they served the Lord as they did while still being dead unto God spiritually "in trespasses and sins."
  7. IN THE BEGINNING

    Yes, essentially what I am saying is that Lucifer was created, along with all of the other angelic beings, sometime between the event of Genesis 1:1 (my leaning is -- within the event of Genesis 1:1) and the event of Genesis 1:9-12.  Concerning Job 38:7, since this verse is within the context of Job 38:4-11, wherein the Lord God spoke primarily concerning His laying of the foundation, measures, and corner stone of the earth and concerning His setting of boundaries for the sea, this passage would appear to be a reference unto the event of Genesis 1:9-12 wherein the Lord God created the dry land, which He Himself named Earth, and gathered together the waters, which He Himself named Sea. Furthermore, even if we were completely to discard the evidence of Ezekiel 28:13 concerning Lucifer's presence in "Eden the garden of God" as being the Garden of Eden from Genesis 2, you still have to contend with the evidence of Genesis 1:31 concerning the end of the sixth day of the creation work of the Lord God, in relation to the timing wherein Lucifer chose rebellion against the Lord God his Creator.  "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.  And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."  Was Lucifer one of the "every thing" that the Lord God "had made"?  Certainly, for all of the angelic beings are created by the Lord God.  If Lucifer had already chosen to rebel against the Lord God could the Lord God have assessed that he, as a part of the "every thing" that the Lord God "had made," was "very good"?  Certainly not, for the all-holy Lord God can and would NEVER assess sinful rebellion as being "very good."
  8. The Kingdom

    And the original Hebrew word "nephilim" ("n'philiym") is also found in Numbers 13:33, where the joining context of Numbers 13:32 indicates that these individuals were defined as "men [men, not hybrids] of a great stature."  Which truth I have presented in earlier posting in this very thread; however, it must be remembered that Brother "Beameup" has blocked my postings from his observation and awareness.
  9. IN THE BEGINNING

    Brother David, I have just now read over the entirety of Isaiah 13-14 (for "the burden of Babylon" begins with Isaiah 13:1).  In so doing, I would probably contend that the King of Babylon who is referenced in Isaiah 14:4 is NOT King Nebuchadnezzar, but IS King Belshazzar; for Isaiah 13:17 indicates that this burden of judgment against Babylon would occur when the Lord God would "stir up the Medes against them." Now, that does not directly impact our respective positions concerning Isaiah 14:12-15; but it might provide a more precise understanding for the entirety of Isaiah 13-14.
  10. The Kingdom

    Sister Ronda, Except that "min" is not a Hebrew adjective, but is a Hebrew preposition, even as I have presented above.  Except that this Hebrew preposition does NOT mean "similar, like," but means a part "out of, out from, away from" the whole, even as I have presented above.  Except that in its first usage Numbers 13:33 DOES use the Hebrew noun "n'philiym" without the preposition prefix "min," in order to describe those whom the spies saw in the land of Canaan. Sister Ronda, I wish graciously to point out that while you have attempted to demonstrate a distinct difference between the Hebrew "n'philiym" and "min-n'philiym," you have actually revealed a complete misunderstanding concerning Hebrew grammar.  Furthermore, I would present that the original translators of the King James translation were far, far, far, far superior to myself in their understanding of the Hebrew; and that which they translated in both Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:33 does provide a precisely accurate rendering in English, including the usage of the English word "giants" for both verses.
  11. IN THE BEGINNING

    Brother David, Indeed, if you choose to take the phrase, "fallen from heaven," as simply a figurative reference to falling from a very high position, then you are able to erase that one argument that I have presented. However, at the present I myself am compelled to take that phrase literally.  Therefore, the reason for my position concerning Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12-15.  Yet I would NOT engage in a significant conflict with you over the matter, specifically because I am also compelled to acknowledge that the weight of the surrounding context from Isaiah 14:4-23 IS in your favor.
  12. The Kingdom

    This posting was done in error.  Please ignore it and move to the next posting.
  13. A Forum Bible Study On 2 & 3 John

    First, I do apologize for not presenting the third set of study questions yesterday, as I had said that I would.  Time was restricted (1) because of unplanned home responsibilities that arose, and (2) because of my involvement in some other thread discussions.  Indeed, allowing myself to become embroiled in other thread discussions and conflicts will place pressure upon a consistent engagement in this Bible study thread.  However, I am determined (as long as our Lord will allow) that this Bible study thread shall NOT die!!! ______________________________________________ Thus far we have considered "overview" material concerning the epistles of 2 & 3 John.  As such, we have accumulated the following contributions: 2 John - Walking in Truth (Title contributed by Brother Middlebrooks) I.  Love in the Truth (2 John 1:1-6)      A.  The Salutation -- The relationship of unity between godly love and Biblical truth (2 John 1:1-4)           (Verse by verse assessment contributed by Brother Middlebrooks)            V. 1 – To whom the epistle is intended (all they that have known the truth).            V. 1 – The criteria of love (love in truth).            V. 2 – The duration of truth (for ever).            V. 2-3 – The blessing of love and truth (grace, mercy, peace).            V. 4 – The evidence of truth (walking in truth).            V. 4 – The command of truth (from Christ).      B.  The Message, Part 1 -- The responsibility of walking in godly love and Biblical truth (2 John 1:5-6)           (Verse by verse assessment contributed by Brother Middlebrooks)            V. 5 – Love, the unchanging command (not a new commandment).            V. 5 – Who we are to love (one another).            V. 6 – Love explained (this is love…).            V. 6 – The motive behind truth (love).            V. 6 – The unchanging truth (as ye have heard from the beginning).            V. 6 – Walk in love (this is the commandment…ye should walk in it). II.  The Message, Part 2 -- Separating from Falsehood (2 John 1:7-11)      A(1).  The revelation of the nature of falsehood through description (2 John 1:7)           (Verse by verse assessment contributed by Brother Middlebrooks)            V. 7 – The abundance of deceivers.            V. 7 – The identity of deceivers (antichrist).      B(1).  The requirement to reject falsehood through self-examination (2 John 1:8)           (Verse by verse assessment contributed by Brother Middlebrooks)            V. 8 – How we ought to respond (look to yourselves).            V. 8 – What is at stake (those things which we have wrought, a full reward).      A(2).  The revelation of the nature of falsehood through contrast (2 John 1:9)           (Verse by verse assessment contributed by Brother Middlebrooks)            V. 9 – The test of falsehood (whosoever transgresseth, abideth not in the doctrine).            V. 9 – The authority of truth (he that abideth…hath both the Father and the Son).      B(2).  The requirement to reject falsehood through separation (2 John 1:10-11)           (Verse by verse assessment contributed by Brother Middlebrooks)            V. 10 – Keeping company with deceivers (Don’t receive him, don’t bid him God speed).            V. 11 – The results of keeping company with deceivers (guilty by association). III.  The Conclusion (2 John 1:12-13) 3 John - Faithful to the Truth (Title contributed by Brother Middlebrooks) I.  The Salutation -- Walking in the Truth (3 John 1:1-4)      A.  A motivation for prayer (3 John 1:1-2)      B.  A motivation for joy (3 john 1:3-4) II.  The Message, Part 1 -- Charity toward Traveling Ministers (3 John 1:5-8)      A.  As a faithful servant of the Lord (3 John 1:5-6)      B.  As a fellowhelper of the truth (3 John 1:7-8) III.  The Message, Part 2 -- The Evil of Loving to Have Preeminence (3 John 1:9-12)      A.  In conflict with the Lord's authority (3 John 1:9-10)      B.  In contrast to that which is good (3 John 1:11-12) IV.  The Conclusion (3 John 1:13-14) ____________________________________________ With the next set of study questions, I do intend that we should begin to consider sentence-by-sentence the doctrinal and exhortational details of 2 John.  However, before we move to those details, I wish to present one more set of study questions concerning the "overview" of these two epistles.  That set of study questions is as follows: 1.  As we consider an "overview" of these epistles, are there any preliminary thoughts that you would share concerning the doctrine or exhortation of these epistles?
  14. The Priesthood of New Testament Believers

    Interesting, over two weeks have past, wherein postings have been made on other thread discussions; yet no answer has been given to my question.  I wonder if this is because the answer simply is not known (which would seem strange since the answer can be given with a direct quotation out of Revelation 1:4), or if this is because the answer would do damage to the doctrinal position that various individuals have chosen on this matter. Well, the answer actually is not that hard; for God the Holy Spirit inspired the apostle John to communicate the following at the beginning of Revelation 1:4 -- "John to the seven churches which are in Asia." (By the way, I have recently learned that Brother "Beameup" has blocked my postings from his observation and awareness.  I wonder if that might reveal anything about his ability to answer the challenge of my question?) _____________________________________________________ Concerning the matter of the book of the Revelation as a whole, I would add the following question and answer: Question -- To whom was the entire book of the Revelation written? Answer (from our Lord Jesus Christ's own lips) -- "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." (Revelation 22:16)
  15. IN THE BEGINNING

    Brother David, Indeed, I do not agree with you on this; however, I am compelled to acknowledge that you DO have a significant contextual argument from Isaiah 14:4-ff.  The only substantial response that I might deliver would concern the opening statement of Isaiah 14:12 -- "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!"  This statement appears to assume, not that Lucifer (whoever he may be) was seeking to obtain a position in heaven, but that he already possessed a position in heaven, from which he then fell by his rebellion against the God of heaven.  I am not certain that there would be an equivalent for this with King Nebuchadnezzar.