Jump to content
Online Baptist

Pastor Scott Markle

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content count

    2,038
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    101

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from OLD fashioned preacher in Helping the needy in local churches   
    Hmmm. They will have to get rid of me somehow before this is permitted.  I would fight it "tooth and nail."
  2. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from (Omega) in Helping the needy in local churches   
    Yes, as a pastor, I follow more of that manner of practice.  I pastor a small country church of approximately 45-50 people, so my examples will be within that context, rather than in the context of a significantly larger church.
    1.  Once a month, when we celebrate the Lord's Supper, we also take up a special offering for a Benevolent Fund.  The monies within the Benevolent Fund are then distributed at the discretion of the pastor (myself) and the two deacons, wherein there must be complete unanimity between those three individuals concerning to whom and how much.
    2.  One of our ladies has the ministry to organize other ladies to provide meals when a member is hospitalized for some reason, or undergoes surgery or some other health procedure that would hinder normal function.  This lady seeks for volunteers to provide a meal, and then organizes the daily schedule for such.
    3.  If one of our members (or another church or believer with which we have fellowship ties) encountered an immediate financial need that could not be handled by the Benevolent Fund , I would probably suggest a special offering for them to be collected over an appropriate period of time (from a few days to a few weeks).  (Note: We recently did this over a single month period for one of our missionaries, a missionary in Puerto Rico, after the devastation of the recent storm.  In fact, I did not even think of it; but it was suggested to me by the deacons.)
    4.  If one of our members has a circumstantial need (such as recently the need by one of our families for fire wood), I will approach those who have the appropriate skills, equipment, availability, etc. and will seek to organize them into a projected solution (usually including my own time and effort in the project).
    These are simply examples.  Many other formulas could be developed depending on the specific need and circumstance.
  3. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from Pastorj in Is the KJVO "movement" dying?   
    Another difference between the KJVO position and the OKJV position would be their differing viewpoint concerning Bible study through the use of the original languages, Hebrew and Greek.  Those of the KJVO position would view it as a major negative (maybe even, a sinful negative); those of the OKJV position would view it as a useful positive.
    In addition, those of the OKJV position will often indicate that what they really are is MTO (Massoretic Text Only) for the Hebrew of the Old Testament & TRO (Textus Receptus Only; Received Text Only) for the Greek of the New Testament.  
  4. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle reacted to Saved41199 in Is the KJVO "movement" dying?   
    I find this interesting, especially in North Carolina (Virginia native here). However, imagine our surprise to find a real, bible-preaching, bible-believing, soulwinning church in "sin city" of all places. My husband and I left the "hippy-skippy" feel-good, NIV (among others) using "megachurch". The Lord led my husband to think about where we attend church right at a year ago now. A year ago, we were still pretty lost, not connected to a community, spiritually comatose. One year later, we are connected, spiritually alive, my husband is saved. Don't ever doubt what God can do...ever! If someone had told me this would happen, I'd have told them they were clear out of their minds. 
  5. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle reacted to Ukulelemike in Is the KJVO "movement" dying?   
    Interesting, but flawed overall.
      The Bible itself, (In KJV), declares often that it is preserved, that the words are pure, and that they are the very words of God, breathed by the Holy Ghost to the writers.  So, when one considers that the stated intent of the authors of the revised Greek text, Westcott and Hort, was to produce a Bible never before seen in Heaven or Earth, right there, the KJVO proponents are vindicated. Their sloppy workmanship, based on clearly corrupt texts, one of which may have even been a complete forgery from the 19th century, (Sinaiticus), and their desire to  bring into play certain Catholic doctrines, to which they were partial, makes their work extremely suspect.
    As well, the antiquity of the TR, behind the KJV New testament, and the Masoretic, behind the KJV Old testament, speaks volumes to it's divine preservation. So no, there is AMPLE evidence of the great superiority of the King James over the new corrupt versions.
    Will it be diminished as time passes? Well, possibly, but only because of the increased heresies and compromise within 'churches' the world over, and so-called IFB's who seem to want nothing to do with what it is to BE and IFB. 
  6. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle reacted to AdamL in Is the KJVO "movement" dying?   
    I believe there is a big difference between preaching a sermon from I Timothy chapter 2 on modest dress or Titus chapter 2 on worldliness and reading 1 or 2 verses of Scripture and then screaming about women wearing pants.  That was my point.
    Both my wife and my daughter only wear skirts and dresses.  I threw away all of my rock and roll and worldly music about 8 months after I got saved.  These changes happened because through studying the Scriptures the Holy Spirit taught me and I brought these things to my wife and we studies them together and made a decision to obey. 
    I am in the Navy so I do quite a bit of traveling. Whenever I am traveling for work or on vacation I find a local church to go to wherever I am.  I also have been recommended many preachers and watched and listened to sermons online. There are some very good preachers from the samplings I have had but there is also a great number that will read a passage and never reference it again and scream about their pet peeves or tell stories for 45 minutes.  That is not preaching and it is certainly not doing anything for the Body of Christ.
  7. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle reacted to Alan in Is the KJVO "movement" dying?   
    This is entirely correct.
    The qualifications for a man to enter the ministry, to be the pastor in a local, New Testament, church is clearly listed in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:10 All (all as in every one to the last man) of the men (and women), in the Charismatic churches, the Catholic church, the Reformed Churches, (including Reformed Baptist), are not qualified according 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-10
    I do find fault with this thread as it seems that only the KJVO churches (and pastors), are at some fault. I did check out the forum, Baptist Board, that was referenced too. The members there disparage the KJV at will, use a variety of translations, and attend a variety of non-IFB churches. As usual, most of the non-KJV folks lash out at some fallen "leader," and use him to disparage KJV and Independent Baptist churches. The usual leaders are listed, Hyles, Anderson and Ruckman. And, the usual problems found in some of the IFB churches are listed. From a few pages that I read in the 'Baptist Board,' nobody made one critical remark about a non-KJVO individual. Interesting isn't it? All of the critical remarks were directed to KJVO men. 
    The churches that are KJVO are about the only men, and churches, in our age that are even qualified to be in the ministry. 
    As far as I am concerned, the whole issue is way out of proportion, led by (and fueled by), denominationalism, disgruntled saints, internet theologians, and internet forums. It almost seems that every time a pastor does preach on a 'hobby horse' he is food for the fodder and the congregation forgets the good that that pastor has done. If a pastor in a IFB church does not fit the qualifications of 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-10 then he should be put out of the ministry. If he does met the qualifications, than pray harder for him when he errors, preaches too many hobby horses, talks about tithing too much for your stomach, or some other subject you disagree with him. The average IFB pastor has enemies galore who non-stop abuse him verbally on every occasion. Why add to his sorrows?
     
     
  8. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle reacted to Roselove in Saved in 3 tenses?   
    Yes, thank you! 
  9. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from Roselove in Saved in 3 tenses?   
    Sister Rose,
    I have one more installment to do concerning the article. After I am able to present that installment, then I will handle your question on Luke 15:24. Will that be acceptable?
  10. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle reacted to Jordan Kurecki in Preaching Preference   
    I use to love and prefer only fire and brimstone preaching... However I think sometimes it's really easy for us to hear fire and brimstone preaching and that it's easy to say amen to. However I think encouragement and admonition is just as important. I also grow tired of preaching who get up and preach about all the sins except for the ones that their people are guilty about. It's really easy to preach against sins like sodomy, and abortion, because hardly anyone in our churches does those... I wish more preachers would preach on modesty and dress (and I mean actually talk about it instead of referring to it in vague generalities), the evils of public school system, worldly carnal entertainment, gossip, bitterness, etc. 
    I am all for preaching about hell and telling sinners to repent.. but I just think preachers really need to get down to where their peoples needs are and as God leads them to deliver God's message to them. I am not particularly fond of dry expositions, or shallow messages either.. I guess It is hard to explain..So much preaching is shallow in it's exposition of the scriptures, and so many times I feel like there are topics that should be preached on, and they are avoided or when they are touched on its so shallow as to even have an effect. 
    I think what we need today is true spirit filled men, who are sensitive to the heart of God, preaching and proclaiming God's message at God's timing.
  11. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle reacted to Jordan Kurecki in Thompson Chain Reference Bible   
    long story short, most bibles will include little letters or symbols in the text above the words, and then you look in the margin and it will reference you to similar passages and such. 
    The Thompson however has marginal columns on both sides of the text, and by each verse it has different topics or themes with a number next to the topic. every topic has a number, and in the back there is a list of topics with verse that belong to that topic. In the margins of the text, the margin will give you the next reference in the chain of that particular topic, and you can go through the entire bible looking at the different verses in the topic. It might sounds complicated, but honestly if you look at a Thompson for 5 minutes you will pretty much figure out how it works. the first time I glanced at one I couldn't figure it out, but that was only because I was use to other kinds of reference bibles. Rather than just having notes at the bottom to tell you what to think about a particular passage, the Thompson gives suggestions for different topics contained in a particular verse and will lead you to references pertaining to those topics. It is a great bible for those who actually want to study God's word, and also great for searching out particular thoughts you have as you are reading the bible devotionally. 
  12. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from BabeinChrist in "Repent of Your Sins" False gospel   
    Earlier I quoted Acts 2:22-24 . . .
    I really do not care that much about the dispute over "who really killed the Lord Jesus Christ."  However, I do care about claims that contradict the Scriptures of God.
    In Acts 2:22-24 the apostle Peter himself, on the Day of Pentecost, under the filling influence of the Holy Spirit, accused the "men of Israel" of having "crucified and slain" the Lord Jesus Christ "by wicked hands."  He certainly DID blame the Jews of that sin.  Furthermore, he applied that accusation unto Jews who had gathered from a multitude of nations around Israel, Jews who very possibly had not even been present at the time of the crucifixion, and who very likely were not directly involved in the decision.  Finally, the apostle Peter made this declaration while out "soul winning" in relation to those very Jews.
    On the other hand, I fully agree that the whole world stands in hateful opposition unto our Lord Jesus Christ (as the apostle Peter implied in Acts 4:26-28, which I also quoted above).
  13. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from No Nicolaitans in Spiritual bipolar nature of fallen mankind (an evil pole and a good Pole)   
    Would you please provide your understanding concerning the correct definition of Free Will (as per your viewpoint that "convince/persuade and free will are mutually exclusive," and thus cannot exist together)?
  14. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from No Nicolaitans in Spiritual bipolar nature of fallen mankind (an evil pole and a good Pole)   
    Would you please provide your understanding concerning the correct definition of Free Will (as per your viewpoint that "convince/persuade and free will are mutually exclusive," and thus cannot exist together)?
  15. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle reacted to No Nicolaitans in Spiritual bipolar nature of fallen mankind (an evil pole and a good Pole)   
    Not sure if I'm missing something or misunderstanding, but I would think that if God is the one who "convinces/persuades" a person, that is still akin to Calvinism. 
    The Holy Spirit convicts and draws them with the truth of the gospel. If the person is convinced/persuaded, it's because they believed that on their own...their response to the Holy Spirit's conviction and drawing is still their's to accept or deny. God knows who will be convinced/persuaded, but he doesn't cause them to be convinced/persuaded; otherwise, that negates free-will.
    As to all of this talk of "Molinism" sounds like some kind of mysticism gone awry. God knows everything, and there is no "need" for alternative creations, possible futures, etc. He knows each choice a person makes (will make), and there is no reason for "what ifs"...he already knows "what".
  16. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from Invicta in Saved in 3 tenses?   
    Indeed. We must ever remember that the devil's absolutely greatest weapon against humanity, to keep the lost from salvation and to keep the saved from faithfulness, is DECEPTION.  Certainly, the devil would not want the casting out of an evil spirit in order that the delivered individual might trust in Christ, as in the cases wherein our Lord Jesus Christ cast out evil spirits.  However, the devil would have no problem whatsoever empowering such events if he could use them as a tool of deception, especially if he could use them as a tool to deceive multiple individuals or even multitudes of individuals.
  17. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle reacted to Roselove in Saved in 3 tenses?   
    I certainly appreciate it, it definitely helps me to get as much info as possible, it helps a lot. I just have to put the pieces together, which might take me a bit, but I'm beginning to understand things more clearly!  
     
  18. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from Roselove in Saved in 3 tenses?   
    Sister Rose,
    I am sorry if I am giving you information overload.  It is simply my nature to be thorough and detailed in such matters.  Furthermore, I believe that a consideration of ALL the details reveals the faultiness of the authors presentation and point.
    As far as the lack of a sooner response, no offense was taken.
  19. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle reacted to Roselove in Saved in 3 tenses?   
    All of this makes sense, it's very complex to me, I'm having to really try to rap my head around all of the information, it does certainly cause me to see that the writer of the article wasn't thinking all of his stuff through, before writing the article. Thank you for explaining this portion, to me!
    By the way, I'm sorry I didn't respond sooner, I didn't get a notification for your comment for some reason! 
  20. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from Alan in Saved in 3 tenses?   
    In his second main point, the author of the article presented the following:
                   (https://edgarsreflections.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/what-did-jesus-mean-by-“i-will-lose-nothing”-in-john-639/amp/)
    This particular point would appear to be the author's strongest point, since it seems so easy to connect the idea of Jesus' losing nothing in John 6:39 with the idea of Jesus' losing none of them in John 17:12.  However, the true strength of this point rises or falls upon the validity of the author's other supporting points.  For this very reason, the author begin this point as follows, "Again, let me repeat that John 6:39 refers to the Jewish disciples only of the Lord Jesus when he was here on earth. Therefore, the “losing” here has something to do with them alone. It does not refer to salvation."  I myself have three points of conflict with this presentation of the author's second point:
    In the first place --
    As I have previously demonstrated in my previous postings of review concerning the author's article (here and here), I believe that the author is in error on a number of his supporting points.  Furthermore, as I proceed to the third and final point of the author's article I intend to demonstrate additional error in his supporting points.  Even so, since the strength of the author's present point rises or falls upon the foundation of his supporting points, I believe that as the points of the author's supporting foundation falls, so this point falls with it.
    In the second place --
    The Greek verb from which the English verb "should lose" in John 6:39 and the English verb "is lost" in John 17:12 are translated is worthy of our notice.  This Greek verb is "ἀπόλλυμι" ("apollumi").  This Greek verb is found twelve times in the gospel of John; and on a number of those occasions, it is translated with the English verb "perish." (See John 3:15-16; 10:28)  In particular its usage in John 10:28 is of significance for the present consideration.  As we have noted in a previously in this series of reviews, the context of John 10:27-30 also speaks concerning those whom God the Father had given unto God the Son, and applies that truth unto all of the Lord Jesus Christ's sheep.  Even so, in John 10:28 our Lord Jesus Christ spoke concerning all of His sheep, whom the God the Father had given unto Him, saying, "And I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand."  Now, herein the phrase, "shall never perish," is translated from the same Greek verb as is found in John 6:39 and John 17:12 concerning those who are not lost.  Thus we might consider our Lord's teaching in John 10:28 as follows: "And I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never BE LOST, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand."  Indeed, we might even consider the reason that our Lord reveals by which none of His sheep will ever be lost -- because they cannot be plucked out of His own hand.  Yea, none of His sheep will ever be lost specifically because He Himself will never lose any of them.  Then in John 10:29 our Lord Jesus Christ added the truth, "My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand."  So then, none of God the Son's sheep, whom God the Father has given unto Him, can ever be lost, specifically because God the Son AND God the Father will never lost them.  It seems to me that the truth concerning never being lost (or, never perishing) is certainly applied within the gospel of John unto more than just the eleven apostles (yea, unto ALL of God the Son's sheep) and is certainly applied unto more than just physical protection (yea, even unto the eternal security of a believer's eternal life).
    In the third place --
    The author of the article seems to assert that our Lord Jesus Christ's statement in John 17:12, "and none of them is lost," had application only unto physical protection.  However, this assertion does not follow the whole flow of thought within our Lord's prayer in John 17:11-17.  Certainly, the declaration of John 18:8-9 indicates that physical protection was included within that responsibility.  Yet the flow of thought in John 17:11-17 does not appear to indicate that physical protection was the exclusive meaning of that responsibility.  In John 17:11 our Lord Jesus Christ prayed for God the Father to keep through His own name those whom He had given unto God the Son.  Then at the end of John 17:11 our Lord Jesus Christ revealed the purpose for this keeping work of the Father, "that they may be one, as we are."  When we consider our Lord Jesus Christ's further prayer for oneness among believers in John 17:20-23, it seems quite clear that this oneness is a spiritual matter, not a physical matter.  Now, having prayed in John 17:11 for God the Father to keep the eleven apostles, our Lord Jesus Christ indicated in John 17:12 that already kept them in the Father's name while He was with them in the world.  Thus we may understand that the keeping work within the context of these verses is the same work.  The keeping work for which our Lord Jesus Christ prayed that the Father would administer unto the eleven was the same keeping work that our Lord Jesus Christ Himself had already administered unto them.  Yet the Lord Jesus Christ would be departing from the eleven in order to ascend unto God the Father.  As such, He would no longer be present with them in order to administer this keeping work directly.  Thus He prayed that God the Father would carry forward that keeping work once after His departure.  So then, how did our Lord Jesus Christ describe this keeping work that He had already administered unto the elven, and that He was praying for God the Father to continue administering unto them?  First, in John 17:12 our Lord Jesus Christ indicated the nature of this keeping work, stating, "While I was in the world, I kept them IN THY NAME."  Second, in John 17:15 our Lord Jesus Christ indicated the protection of this keeping work, praying, "I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them FROM THE EVIL."  Finally, in John 17:17 our Lord Jesus Christ revealed the means for this keeping work, praying, "Sanctify them THROUGH THY TRUTH: thy word is truth."  Even so, from the whole contextual flow of thought in our Lord's prayer, we may understand that the keeping work which He Himself had administered and for which He prayed of the Father was not strictly a physical matter, but was far more so a spiritual matter.  In fact, the very statement of exception that our Lord Jesus Christ made concerning Judas Iscariot, "the son of perdition," would also emphasize that this keeping work was a spiritual matter.  In John 17:12 our Lord Jesus Christ declared, "Those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, except the son of perdition."  Herein the clause of exception indicates that "the son of perdition" had indeed already been lost.  Yet Judas Iscariot had not come to any physical harm by this point in time.  Judas was not physically lost.  On the other hand, by this time it was quite certain that Judas was spiritually lost, and that for eternity.  So then, even the context of John 17:11-17 does not seem to allow for us to view this keeping work as encompassing only physical protection.  Certainly, as I have acknowledged, the declaration of John 18:8-9 indicates that physical protection was included within our Lord Jesus Christ's responsibility of the keeping work.  However, that physical protection was not the primary aspect of that keeping work.  Rather, spiritual protection was the primary aspect of that keeping work.
    However, the author of the article presented one more main point in his argument.  Therefore, there is yet more for us to consider.
    Sister Rose, are you following this information thus far; or do you have any questions about this information?
  21. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from Alan in Saved in 3 tenses?   
    In his second main point, the author of the article presented the following:
                   (https://edgarsreflections.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/what-did-jesus-mean-by-“i-will-lose-nothing”-in-john-639/amp/)
    This particular point would appear to be the author's strongest point, since it seems so easy to connect the idea of Jesus' losing nothing in John 6:39 with the idea of Jesus' losing none of them in John 17:12.  However, the true strength of this point rises or falls upon the validity of the author's other supporting points.  For this very reason, the author begin this point as follows, "Again, let me repeat that John 6:39 refers to the Jewish disciples only of the Lord Jesus when he was here on earth. Therefore, the “losing” here has something to do with them alone. It does not refer to salvation."  I myself have three points of conflict with this presentation of the author's second point:
    In the first place --
    As I have previously demonstrated in my previous postings of review concerning the author's article (here and here), I believe that the author is in error on a number of his supporting points.  Furthermore, as I proceed to the third and final point of the author's article I intend to demonstrate additional error in his supporting points.  Even so, since the strength of the author's present point rises or falls upon the foundation of his supporting points, I believe that as the points of the author's supporting foundation falls, so this point falls with it.
    In the second place --
    The Greek verb from which the English verb "should lose" in John 6:39 and the English verb "is lost" in John 17:12 are translated is worthy of our notice.  This Greek verb is "ἀπόλλυμι" ("apollumi").  This Greek verb is found twelve times in the gospel of John; and on a number of those occasions, it is translated with the English verb "perish." (See John 3:15-16; 10:28)  In particular its usage in John 10:28 is of significance for the present consideration.  As we have noted in a previously in this series of reviews, the context of John 10:27-30 also speaks concerning those whom God the Father had given unto God the Son, and applies that truth unto all of the Lord Jesus Christ's sheep.  Even so, in John 10:28 our Lord Jesus Christ spoke concerning all of His sheep, whom the God the Father had given unto Him, saying, "And I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand."  Now, herein the phrase, "shall never perish," is translated from the same Greek verb as is found in John 6:39 and John 17:12 concerning those who are not lost.  Thus we might consider our Lord's teaching in John 10:28 as follows: "And I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never BE LOST, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand."  Indeed, we might even consider the reason that our Lord reveals by which none of His sheep will ever be lost -- because they cannot be plucked out of His own hand.  Yea, none of His sheep will ever be lost specifically because He Himself will never lose any of them.  Then in John 10:29 our Lord Jesus Christ added the truth, "My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand."  So then, none of God the Son's sheep, whom God the Father has given unto Him, can ever be lost, specifically because God the Son AND God the Father will never lost them.  It seems to me that the truth concerning never being lost (or, never perishing) is certainly applied within the gospel of John unto more than just the eleven apostles (yea, unto ALL of God the Son's sheep) and is certainly applied unto more than just physical protection (yea, even unto the eternal security of a believer's eternal life).
    In the third place --
    The author of the article seems to assert that our Lord Jesus Christ's statement in John 17:12, "and none of them is lost," had application only unto physical protection.  However, this assertion does not follow the whole flow of thought within our Lord's prayer in John 17:11-17.  Certainly, the declaration of John 18:8-9 indicates that physical protection was included within that responsibility.  Yet the flow of thought in John 17:11-17 does not appear to indicate that physical protection was the exclusive meaning of that responsibility.  In John 17:11 our Lord Jesus Christ prayed for God the Father to keep through His own name those whom He had given unto God the Son.  Then at the end of John 17:11 our Lord Jesus Christ revealed the purpose for this keeping work of the Father, "that they may be one, as we are."  When we consider our Lord Jesus Christ's further prayer for oneness among believers in John 17:20-23, it seems quite clear that this oneness is a spiritual matter, not a physical matter.  Now, having prayed in John 17:11 for God the Father to keep the eleven apostles, our Lord Jesus Christ indicated in John 17:12 that already kept them in the Father's name while He was with them in the world.  Thus we may understand that the keeping work within the context of these verses is the same work.  The keeping work for which our Lord Jesus Christ prayed that the Father would administer unto the eleven was the same keeping work that our Lord Jesus Christ Himself had already administered unto them.  Yet the Lord Jesus Christ would be departing from the eleven in order to ascend unto God the Father.  As such, He would no longer be present with them in order to administer this keeping work directly.  Thus He prayed that God the Father would carry forward that keeping work once after His departure.  So then, how did our Lord Jesus Christ describe this keeping work that He had already administered unto the elven, and that He was praying for God the Father to continue administering unto them?  First, in John 17:12 our Lord Jesus Christ indicated the nature of this keeping work, stating, "While I was in the world, I kept them IN THY NAME."  Second, in John 17:15 our Lord Jesus Christ indicated the protection of this keeping work, praying, "I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them FROM THE EVIL."  Finally, in John 17:17 our Lord Jesus Christ revealed the means for this keeping work, praying, "Sanctify them THROUGH THY TRUTH: thy word is truth."  Even so, from the whole contextual flow of thought in our Lord's prayer, we may understand that the keeping work which He Himself had administered and for which He prayed of the Father was not strictly a physical matter, but was far more so a spiritual matter.  In fact, the very statement of exception that our Lord Jesus Christ made concerning Judas Iscariot, "the son of perdition," would also emphasize that this keeping work was a spiritual matter.  In John 17:12 our Lord Jesus Christ declared, "Those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, except the son of perdition."  Herein the clause of exception indicates that "the son of perdition" had indeed already been lost.  Yet Judas Iscariot had not come to any physical harm by this point in time.  Judas was not physically lost.  On the other hand, by this time it was quite certain that Judas was spiritually lost, and that for eternity.  So then, even the context of John 17:11-17 does not seem to allow for us to view this keeping work as encompassing only physical protection.  Certainly, as I have acknowledged, the declaration of John 18:8-9 indicates that physical protection was included within our Lord Jesus Christ's responsibility of the keeping work.  However, that physical protection was not the primary aspect of that keeping work.  Rather, spiritual protection was the primary aspect of that keeping work.
    However, the author of the article presented one more main point in his argument.  Therefore, there is yet more for us to consider.
    Sister Rose, are you following this information thus far; or do you have any questions about this information?
  22. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from swathdiver in Activity on Online Baptist   
    Brother Swathdiver,
    I understand the frustration with false teaching and false teachers.  I know that you and I do not always agree on every point.  However, I did try (when time permitted) to contend for the faith against such falseness.  I am sorry if I was not able to do so often enough or forcefully enough.  Indeed, I also miss some of the past members who were more prolific and ever edifying in their posting.
  23. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle got a reaction from swathdiver in Have you heard this statement?   
    Praise the Lord that some can still learn.
  24. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle reacted to Alimantado in Activity on Online Baptist   
    I still check in very occasionally. Good to see you again, PastorJ. Was it late 2000s when you were here last? If I recall correctly, back then OB had well over 50 active, daily contributors making something like 100 new posts per day (John81 alone was adding about 10 of those). I remember the 'Current News' and 'Lounge' sections were so busy that new posts would drop off the bottom within a day or so and I used to browse by section and thread because it wasn't realistic to view by recent activity--just too much. On a given thread I'd sometimes have to go back a couple of pages to pick up where I'd left off.
    Now the activity level is a dozen or so regular folk and half-a-dozen posts per day, maybe up to 50 per week. It must, at least, partly be down to general trends in web usage, for mailing lists, forums and chatrooms have declined and disappeared all over. Of course, on OB as it once was, the theological/doctrinal discussions were just a subset of all the activity and the spectrum of members was broader, maybe a bit more like church, with all that brings. I expect some would say that God has blessed this forum by ending its heady days and keeping the wheat, but I do rather miss those busier times. I hope this forum is still a blessing to many, since there are always more reading than writing. And thanks to Matt for keeping it running.
  25. Like
    Pastor Scott Markle reacted to swathdiver in Activity on Online Baptist   
    Y'all could pass for my daughters!  
    As for me, it's been a tough couple of years health wise and otherwise.  I grew sick and tired of the heretics, for a while it seemed i was outnumbered, that I was the heathen so I withdrew to spend time in more profitable endeavors.  I miss Jerry Numbers, John81 and Irishman and others.
×