Wednesday, February 21, 2018

Cockleburs, Gadflies, & Rubbing the Wrong Way

I recall Elder Sonny Pyles saying (back in the 70s) that he had been called, in ministry, to not only "comfort" but to be a "cocklebur under the saddle blanket." I heartedly agree. Not all preaching is to be soothing. Some is meant to be provocative, to "ruffle the feathers," so to speak. Some involves "rebuking sharply" (Titus 1: 13), stern warnings, and other harsh addresses.

Looking over my life as a servant of the gospel I can say that I have often had to be a cocklebur under the saddle blanket. I believe in being straightforward, to "call a spade a spade," to use a common figurative expression. It involves being frank and blunt. We should be both lambs and lions. God give us the wisdom to know when to behave more like the one than the other! Too often we are lambs when we ought to be lions and are lions when we ought to be lambs. One of my blogs has the word "gadfly" in it (The Baptist Gadfly), which, as all know, was the word used of Socrates, who was a pest to the Athenian and Greek ignorance and superstition of his day. It is used much the same way today to describe those who confront ignorance and give critical analysis to the various errors and outright falsehoods. Thus a "gadfly," as an adjective applied to people, denotes "a person who stimulates or annoys other people especially by persistent criticism." Generally, "gadfly" has a negative connotation.

Wrote one writer:

Plato in his Apology for the life of Socrates reminds us that all societies need a “gadfly” to sting the “steed” of state into acknowledging its proper duties and obligations:

I am the gadfly of the Athenian people, given to them by God, and they will never have another, if they kill me. And now, Athenians, I am not going to argue for my own sake, as you may think, but for yours, that you may not sin against the God by condemning me, who am his gift to you. For if you kill me you will not easily find a successor to me, who, if I may use such a ludicrous figure of speech, am a sort of gadfly, given to the state by God; and the state is a great and noble steed who is tardy in his motions owing to his very size, and requires to be stirred into life. I am that gadfly which God has attached to the state, and all day long and in all places am always fastening upon you, arousing and persuading and reproaching you. You will not easily find another like me, and therefore I would advise you to spare me. (see here)

What is the difference between being a gadfly and a goad? Were not the prophets and apostles, and the Lord Jesus himself, cockleburs, gadflies, and goads? Are not the "words of the wise like goads"? (Eccl. 12:11)

Father used to tell how he had been told by some that he "rubbed people the wrong way." He would say that sometimes, in rubbing the cat's fur the wrong way, you need to turn the cat around! I agree that such is the case many times. The fault in people feeling as though they have been rubbed the wrong way via preaching is in the people, and the change that needs to be made is not in the preaching but in the hearts of the people. All this makes me remember elder Pyles saying that people are simply "far too touchy," too sensitive. That is true.

To "provoke" is "to arouse to a feeling or action" or to act as a stimulus. In the NT Greek there are two different words for "provoke," one denoting a stirring of the emotions of jealousy and anger, generally in a bad sense, though sometimes not. To be stirred to hate evil is one thing, and to be stirred to hate good, another. The other Greek word (as in "provoke to love and good works" - Heb. 10:24) carries a more favorable connotation connected with the English word "provoke."

I feel sorry that some people have, over the years, been offended by any harsh or unbecoming language I have used. Yet, my conscience will not let me become overly condemned in this matter for I know that I was not sent to speak smoothly, as did the false prophets (Isa. 30:10), and as do false teachers in the NT (Rom. 16:18), but to sometimes speak harshly, realizing that I am to expect that sinners will be offended by the preaching of the gospel. "It must needs be that offences come," said the Lord. (Matt. 18: 7)

I can at least say that I have provoked thought. I think my theological criticisms have been just.

Tuesday, February 20, 2018

The Judgment of Believers

One of the most difficult areas of Bible doctrine that Hardshellism has is in regard to the future judgment of believers at the return of Christ. In recent days I have been studying once again this topic. Paul said that all believers "must stand before the judgment seat (Greek "bema") of Christ to give account of the deeds done in the body, whether good or evil." (II Cor. 5: 10 and Rom. 14:10) I recommend that all read Dr. John Piper's article on the topic.

In "What Happens When You Die? All Appear Before the Judgment Seat of Christ" (see here) Dr. Piper gives fully my views on the subject.

What do the Hardshells do with such passages in view of their unique presuppositions?

Wine vs. Grape Juice

One of the things I have praised about the "Primitive Baptists" is their continuing the ancient practice of using wine rather than grape juice in the Lord's Supper. Those churches today that have substituted grape juice for wine have violated scripture. This is no minor issue.

There is a sermon by elder Arden Hodgins of the Trinity Reformed Baptist Church of La Mirada, California on this subject and he gives a complete refutation of the grape juice view. You can find his sermon HERE.

People who argue for total abstinence make Jesus into a sinner, for he clearly drank wine. That is serious indeed. There is also much more to this issue than first meets the eye. Listen to this sermon and discover this for yourself.

Tuesday, February 6, 2018

Spurgeon Condemns Hardshellism

Wrote C.H. Spurgeon:

"In our own day, certain preachers assure us that a man must be regenerated before we may bid him believe in Jesus Christ; some degree of a work of grace in the heart being, in their judgment, the only warrant to believe. This also is false! It takes away a gospel for sinners, and offers us a gospel for saints! It is anything but a ministry of free grace!"

He said also:

"My opponents will say, “The sinner must have an awakened conscience before he is warranted to believe on Christ.” Well, then, if I trust Christ to save me because I have an awakened conscience, I say again, the most important part of the whole transaction is the alarm of my conscience, and my real trust hangs there. If I lean on Christ because I feel this and that, then I am leaning on my feelings and not on Christ alone—and this is legal, indeed! No, even if desires after Christ are to be my warrant for believing—if I am to believe in Jesus not because He bids me, but because I feel some desires after Him—you will again, with half an eye, perceive that the most important source of my comfort must be my own desires. So that we shall be always looking within, “Do I really desire? If I do, then Christ can save me. If I do not, then He cannot.” And so my desire overrides Christ and His divine grace! Away with such legality from the earth!"

For these citations and enlargement upon them SEE HERE.

Friday, February 2, 2018

Hardshells & The Adultery Question VIII

"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." (Matt. 19: 9 KJV)

Previous Postings

I (here)
II (here)
III (here)
IV (here)
V (here)
VI (here)
VII (here)

Wrote Professor Luck in "The Teaching of Jesus on Divorce — (Matthew 19:3-12, Mark 10:2-12)," installment #7 (see here):

"Actually, the statements in Mark and Luke, when abstracted and considered out of their context, do seem to prohibit all divorce and remarriage, but, when seen in their contexts and in the context of Matthew’s exception clauses, they prohibit only divorces that are ill grounded, i.e., not grounded in porneia."

This is indeed true. The verses in Mark and Luke do "seem" to prohibit all divorce and remarriage. There is no mention of any "exceptions" to the rule in those passages. There is no clause saying "except it be for fornication." Some insist that the absence of any exception clause in the Mark and Luke passages should take precedence over the passages in Matthew five and nineteen (which have the exception clause). These would say that the the exception clause must be interpreted so as to agree with Mark and Luke; And so there ends up really being no exception. Others, like Luck and I, and like most Protestant bible commentators, believe that the Mark and Luke statements are to be viewed by the context of the Matthew passages.

I also agree with Luck that the teachings of Jesus "prohibit only divorces that are ill grounded."

Wrote Luck:

"Unlike Luke 16, and like Matthew 5:32a, Matthew 19:9 specifies the treachery involved by employing the exception clause, namely, the divorcing male does not have Biblical justification (porneia), but only the desire to take another woman which motivates him to put his wife away."

I think that it is the general rule, or common practice. Unlawful divorces are generally the result of not only having coveted freedom from a present spouse but also from coveting another spouse. This treacherous coveting for another marital companion may be directed towards a specific person or it may be directed towards an ideal or imaginary person (that the divorcee expects to find after his or her unjust divorce). Those who unjustly divorce so they can remain single and celibate are few in number. But, even in these cases, the divorcee sees himself or herself as "free to play the field," and so the adulterous divorce in this case is shown to be the result of an imagined and desired sexual union, being the thing which motivates the divorce seeker.

Wrote Luck:

"If a man divorces his wife, without the proper grounds of porneia, he is guilty of adultery. Whether or not a remarriage takes place is incidental."

I don't think that the word "incidental" is the right word here. It is true that unjust divorce is an act of adultery, and that this is so by itself, not requiring an unjust remarriage to make the divorce adulterous. Remarriages that result from plans formulated by treacherous spouses are identified by Christ as being adulterous; And, as we have seen, such remarriages are single acts of adultery, and not a continuing state of sin. The act of marrying that is particularly condemned is that marriage which occurs between the adulterous divorcer and the proverbial "homewrecker." The words of Jesus do not condemn all remarriages by those who have unjustly divorced their spouses, but as Luck says, it does condemn those of the third party "homewrecker."

Wrote Luck:

"We cannot jump to the hasty conclusion that Jesus is completely condemning the second marriage."

Exactly. And yet, this is exactly what so many do. My father did so. Many Hardshells and others also. The amount of grief that such a position has given to men and women in second marriages is great indeed.

Wrote Luck:

"I prefer to see the presence of the second conditional as an identification of the reason for the unjust divorce. It is the person who is divorcing and remarrying as a united action who is committing adultery. We might even say that the divorce has not been properly grounded upon occurrence of fornication in the marriage; this man has put away his valid wife “for the purpose of marrying another woman.” This conjecture is supported by two considerations. First, this places it clearly in the category of the divorce situation that most recent, previous Scriptural teaching, Malachi 2, addressed, namely men divorcing their proper wives to marry others (“women of the land”). The only difference is that the specific objects of remarriage in Malachi’s day were illicit per se according to Exodus and Deuteronomy. As we noted in chapter 4, the reference to Abraham in the Malachi 2 passage affirms that these Hebrews could have taken these women as concubines (as Hagar had been), thus sort of half-wives, without moral stigma. The point of the Malachi passage is that the abiding sin is the rejection of the valid partner. This is to say, the problem is the divorce itself. So too here, it is not the remarriage itself that is the problem. The immorality only occurs because the first wife has been unjustly divorced (a point that Matthew notes and the other Gospel writers choose to omit)."

Again, I find these comments "spot on" and in need of little comment from me.

The Meaning of "And" ('kai')

Wrote Luck:

"Second, it is not improper to find in the meaning of the connector “and” (kai) the idea of “for the purpose of.” And the idea of immediate connection (ignoring the parenthetical exception clause, which could not be put elsewhere) seems clear in the combining of the conditions in the protasis that precedes any moral condemnation in the apodosis. The condemned action is again like that of Herod. He divorced his valid partner to marry Herodias. And so it often happens, especially where men do the divorcing. They often wish to devote themselves to only one woman (or more commonly the woman wishes the man to so devote himself), and so they treacherously put away the rightful partner to achieve the desired monogamous relationship. It is the case that, since the man promised to continuously provide for his valid partner, this putting away is itself adulterous. This is doubtless Paul’s point in 1 Corinthians 7 when he instructs the treacherous partner to remain unmarried or be reconciled."

I do agree with Luck on the meaning of "kai" in the adulterous remarriage passages.

Wrote Luck:

"...the “Kai” clause, “and marries another” intends to identify, by means of an ongoing narrative, the direction of the male’s actions." 

Again, I think that is right.

Wrote Luck:

"By telling us that the divorcing man is a man who is remarrying another woman, the text means for us to understand that he put away his wife for the purpose of marrying a second woman."

Again, I feel certain that this is correct, though missed by many.

Wrote Luck:

"Please note that it is not so much that the lexical meaning of kai denotes “for the purpose of as much as its presence in the flow of the discussion presents us with a narrative explanation of why the first, unjustified divorce occurred. It would be like my saying, “Any man who bears witness against his neighbor without cause and enjoys the effects of the perjury breaks the commandment” (Proverbs 24:28). Or, “Whoever steals his neighbor’s property and makes use of it is guilty of theft.” In both cases the enjoyment of the neighbor’s loss is only incidental information to the real moral point: the real sin is in the initial act, not the subsequent gratification the sin affords."

Agreed.

Wrote Luck:

"Indeed, these illustrations do not really tell the whole story, for if it is/were morally permissible for the man in question to take a second wife anyway, then the sin only (illicitly) enhanced a moral option, whereas in the illustrations, the enjoyment was only possible via an act of sin. Be this as it may, we cautiously conclude that remarriages that are not the goal of the divorce, that is, a part of the combined action of divorcing and remarrying, may be permissible—all other things (e.g., the belief of the potential partner) being equal."

Again, I think this is correct.

Wrote Luck:

"Finally, it is worth noting that the present indicative form of the offense term ("is committing adultery"), is not to be over-read to imply that the sin of adultery is endless. As with all sins, it continues until repentance occurs. Paul will later (1 Cor. 6:9-11) identify certain sins which the Corinthians had committed, but quickly add that such sinners they used to be, but now are not, insofar as they have been cleansed by Christ’s blood. The sin of adultery committed by a treacherous husband is not unpardonable nor indefinitely ongoing simply because the present indicative form is used. That form merely conveys the idea that the sin is ongoing. And it is ongoing until it stops. It stops with repentance. It is just as wrong to insist that the present indicative in this saying implies endless action regarding adultery as it would be to say that Jesus’ very speaking of the saying (the present active indicative, lego, which begins verse 19:9) is endless. Jesus didn’t keep on speaking the saying, He was saying it once."

This has been my leading contention against the notion that an adulterous marriage is endless or ongoing as long as the marriage remains.

Wrote Luck:

"When the covenant is broken by an action such as “fornication,” the divorce does not “sunder” the bond, the action itself has. If there is not such sundering prior to it, then the legal divorce is itself the sundering—is a treachery, is adultery."

I argued the same to my father many years ago.

Under the caption "THE REVERSAL CLAUSE," Luck wrote in commentary upon the words of the remaining text that says: “and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.”

Wrote Luck:

"This addition might seem especially applicable for disciples who would soon be “discipling” the nations, teaching them whatsoever I taught you.” However, the Herodias case, in which she divorced Philip using Roman law, certainly made this saying relevant to Jewish ears even at that point. Nonetheless, women divorcing men was rare in Israel, and for Jesus to have brought this point up in front of the Pharisees would only have put the subject off on a sidetrack. The point would have been clear to such teachers, but they would likely have been scrambling for “debater’s points” after being so thoroughly silenced by Jesus."

The teaching of Jesus spoke of the sin of adultery for both men and women.

Wrote Luck:

"The question arises, however, as with the man, when exactly does her sin of adultery happen. Does it happen as a result of her remarriage? This is the common assumption. Again I must disagree. Adultery only exists if there is a covenant. If the woman divorces her husband in order to marry another man, she ends the covenant. For her, as for him, an unjust divorce is the sundering of the marriage covenant. God has been a witness to their marriage, and neither party has the right to unilaterally end it. If either party does, that party sunders the marriage by the divorce action. And that goes for the woman as well."

Again, this is what I believe is the proper interpretation of the words of our Lord.

Wrote Luck:

"It is to be remembered that though Jesus does not discuss it, Exodus 21 teaches that there are valid reasons for a wife becoming free from her husband. Whether she divorced him or he was forced to end the legalities (as in Exodus) in such instances, the covenant was ended in the eyes of God when he abused her. Thus, Jesus could have said, “If a woman divorces her husband, except on the grounds of abuse, and marries another, she commits adultery.” But the issue of a woman’s grounds never came up and the Old Testament position rules. This means that, as with the man who had no grounds, her adultery happens when she separates from her husband—at the divorce. It is not her remarriage which constitutes the adultery, because she is no longer bound by covenant to him."

Again, that has been the my position for over thirty years.

Monday, January 29, 2018

Am I Sinning?

Am I sinning when I fail to capitalize divine pronouns? Many Christians, when they write about God, either Father, Son, or Spirit, capitalize pronouns that refer to them. They think God is honored by such a practice. By implication, I am sinning, or failing to give proper reverence, when I do not capitalize those pronouns. I have thought about this a lot. My conclusion? I do not believe I am disrespecting God by my failure to use capitals in divine pronouns.

Do we not realize that the bible is all written in capital letters? So, not only are capitals used for divine pronouns, but also with human. So, what does that show? It shows that the bible writers did not feel like they were exalting men by using capitals in human pronouns nor were they intending to honor God by using capitals.

Some also think that every noun used in reference to God must also be capitalized, as in Lord, Messiah, Christ, Jesus, Lamb, Prince, King, Son, Father, Spirit, Man, etc.

On this subject we find this in wikipedia

Reverential capitalization is the practice of capitalizing words, particularly pronouns, that refer to a deity or divine being, in cases where the words would not otherwise have been capitalized:

and God calleth to the light 'Day,' and to the darkness He hath called 'Night;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning — day one. -- Genesis 1:5, Young's Literal Translation (1862)

In this example, "God" is in capitals because it is, like "Day" or "Night", a noun which is here a proper name, whereas "He" is an example of reverential capitalization, since while proper names are capitalized universally, reverence for any particular divinity—belief therein implied on the part of the author who capitalizes pronouns in reference to such being—is not universal. In short, when pronouns are capitalized which usually are lowercase, this usually implies that the writer personally reveres and regards as a deity the antecedent of that pronoun.

Nouns, which are not proper names, can also be capitalized out of reverence of the entity they refer to. Such examples include "the Lord", "the Father", "the Creator".

Capitalizing nouns

Capitalization, punctuation, and spelling were not well standardized in early Modern English; for example, the 1611 King James Bible has:

For our heart shall reioyce in him: because we haue trusted in his holy name. -- Psalms 33:21

Capitalizing pronouns

In the 19th century, it became common to capitalize pronouns referring to the Christian God, in order to show respect:

For in Him doth our heart rejoice, For in His holy name we have trusted. -- Psalms 33:21, Young's Literal Translation (1862) In the 20th century this practice became far less common:

For our heart rejoices in him, because we have trusted in his holy name. -- Psalms 33:21, World English Bible (1997)

HERE is one writer who takes my position.
Bill Mounce's article is also a good defense of my position.

Eschatology Studies (introduction)

How do we, as Christians who look forward to the second coming of Christ, and the end of all things, "see (more and more) the day approaching" (Heb. 10:25)? It can only be by seeing prophesy fulfilled by events, called by Christ and his apostles "signs of the times," or "the times and seasons." (Matt. 16: 3; I Thess. 5: 1)

Everything that is prophesied to occur when Christ returns cannot happen "in the twinkling of an eye." Nor can it happen in 24 hours, or in a single day. The resurrection of saints may take place in an instant, but the resurrection is only one event in the agenda of Christ at his reappearing.

There are two categories of such events or signs. First, there are those events that are specifically said to occur before the coming again of the Christ. Second, there are those events that are said to occur at or as a result of the arrival of the Lord Jesus.

The job of the interpreter of these prophecies is to 1) understand the event prophesied and 2) see how the event is connected, sequentially or otherwise, with other events. Is the prophesy to be literally fulfilled? Does a "sign" denote what is not literal? Does the rapture take place before the judgment of the great tribulation or vise versa? How is the book of Revelation to be interpreted? What is the Millenium? What is the "kingdom of God"?

Over the next several months, and possibly years, if the Lord wills, I will be writing much on eschatology, assembling what I have already written over the years, and building upon it so that I might present what I think is the correct teaching of the Scriptures on the subject.

Not only should we all "see the day approaching" or drawing near, but should all realize, as the apostle said, "now is our salvation nearer than when we first believed." (Rom. 13: 11) If we are true Christians, then we will have a love and longing for his appearing. (II Tim. 4: 8)

Things in our day are happening at fast pace. Change is everywhere. People are in fear of what they perceive is about to come to pass. (Luke 21: 26) Thankfully, in the midst of it all, Christians have a "more sure word of prophesy" that anchors them. (II Peter 1:19)

Tuesday, January 23, 2018

New Book on Landmarkism

In an email from J.C. Settlemoir I learned of his new book on Landmarkism. I hope to put in my order. He writes:

Dear Friends:

Landmarkism Under Fire, Revised Edition, 2018 is now available.

The book is paperback, 424 pages. In it I have considered the best arguments presented in favor of the Mother Daughter position which I have seen.

Table of Contents FOREWORD......................................................................1
PREFACE TO REVISED EDITION 2017 ......................3
PREFACE TO 1ST EDITION ...........................................5
CHAPTER 1 .......................................................................7
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER 2 .....................................................................12
OLD LANDMARKISM DEFINED ........................................................ 12
CHAPTER 3 .....................................................................25
EMDA DEFINED ................................................................................. 25
CHAPTER 4 .....................................................................36
EMDA AND SCRIPTURE ..................................................................... 36
CHAPTER 5 .....................................................................53
THE MOTHER CHURCH IN EMDA .................................................... 53
CHAPTER 6 .....................................................................74
J. R. GRAVES, OLD LANDMARKISM AND CHURCH CONSTITUTION
CHAPTER 7 .....................................................................91
A CHALLENGE ISSUED AND ACCEPTED ........................................ 91
CHAPTER 8 ...................................................................107
BAPTIST TESTIMONY ON CHURCH CONSTITUTION ................... 107
CHAPTER 9 ...................................................................133
WHAT ACTUALLY CONSTITUTES A CHURCH? ............................. 133
CHAPTER 10 .................................................................149
THE ASSEMBLY OF SCRIPTURE ..................................................... 149
CHAPTER 11 .................................................................162
SAMPLES OF CHURCH CONSTITUTION........................................ 162
CHAPTER 12 .................................................................184
THE GREAT COMMISSION .............................................................. 184
CHAPTER 13 .................................................................204
GRAVES’ THEORY AND PRACTICE ................................................ 204
CHAPTER 14 .................................................................223 ix
MISTAKES-MISREPRESENTATIONS-MISQUOTES OF BROTHER FENISON
CHAPTER 15 .................................................................262
EMDA ON AUTO PILOT .................................................................... 262
CHAPTER 16 .................................................................281
PARANORMAL SILENCE OF EMDA IN BAPTIST HISTORY........... 281
CONCLUSION ..............................................................308
EMDA IS NOT A LANDMARK DOCTRINE ....................................... 308
APPENDIX I ..................................................................313
TERMS DEFINED .............................................................................. 313
APPENDIX II .................................................................326
CHURCH DEFINED BY BAPTISTS ................................................... 326
APPENDIX III ...............................................................336
OBJECTIONS TO DA CONSIDERED ................................................ 336
APPENDIX IV ...............................................................358
DID GRAVES CHANGE FROM DA TO EMDA ................................. 358
APPENDIX V .................................................................362
APPENDIX VI ...............................................................367
FENISON'S REFERENCES COMPARED .......................................... 367
APPENDIX VII ..............................................................389
DYERSBURG, TENNESSEE TO JERUSALEM .................................. 389
APPENDIX VIII ............................................................407
Wayne Camp’s Offer ........................................................................... 407
BIBLIOGRAPHY ..........................................................409
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY .........................................410
INDEXES ........................................................................412
AUTHOR INDEX 412
TEXTUAL INDEX

What others say about this book:

This book contains a feast of biblical and historical truth concerning the raging controversy over the issue of church constitution. The author’s work is both biblical and scholarly. Written in a loving Christian spirit, it should forever put to rest the errors and misrepresentations of those who oppose the Direct Authority view of church constitution. Added bonuses in the book include an exhaustive bibliography and scripture index. Laurence A. Justice, Retired Pastor

Brother Settlemoir has spared no effort in gathering contextual quotes from old Landmark Baptists. Quotes from these giants of the faith prove for the truth-seeking reader that these preachers of the faith once delivered unto the saints believed the Bible taught that churches could be established with two or three scripturally baptized persons without the aid of a "mother church." Moreover, these quotes prove beyond any shadow of doubt that these men believed no preacher was required to constitute a scriptural church. For them, the Lord's promise that where "two or three are gathered together in my name" was sufficient. When two or three baptized disciples purpose to carry out the Lord's commandments and keep the ordinances, they become a church. Is this not a church according to scripture? F. Leon King, Pastor,Hidden Hills Sovereign Grace Baptist Church, Willow, Alaska 99688

The book is free but we request that you send $4.00 for postage. Please include a mailing label or include your mailing address in your email, for this will save us considerable time because we can copy and paste the mailing labels.

J.C. Settlemoir @ jcsettle3@outlook.com

Witty Remarks From Dr. J.I. Packer

Wrote J. I. Packer:

"...a half-truth presented as the whole truth is a complete untruth." (see here)

He also said:

"An imaginary Christ will not bring a real salvation."

Offering Hope to Hypocrites?

"And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Matt. 24:51)

Hardshells of today, rather than warning and condemning "hypocrites," give them hope of heaven, just as they do to "unbelievers" (see my posting The Portion Of- Unbelievers), and to those who "live ungodly" (see my posting Fate- Of Those Who Live Ungodly), and to those who are "wretched, blind, bankrupt, and naked," spiritually speaking (see my posting Hardshells Affirm That They Are Saved). But, the "portion" of the hypocrites, like the "portion" of the "unbelievers," is to go to Hell, to the place where there is "weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Look at the following verses (highlighting mine) and see what is the fate of all hypocrites. I cannot offer them the hope of salvation so long as they remain so.

"He also shall be my salvation: for an hypocrite shall not come before him." (Job 13:16 kjv)

"That the triumphing of the wicked is short, and the joy of the hypocrite but for a moment?" (Job 20: 5)

"For what is the hope of the hypocrite, though he hath gained, when God taketh away his soul?" (Job 27:8)

"For the congregation of hypocrites shall be desolate, and fire shall consume the tabernacles of bribery." (Job 15:34)

"An hypocrite with his mouth destroyeth his neighbour: but through knowledge shall the just be delivered." (Prov. 11:9)

"Therefore the Lord shall have no joy in their young men, neither shall have mercy on their fatherless and widows: for every one is an hypocrite and an evildoer, and every mouth speaketh folly. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still." (Isa. 9:17)

"Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye." (Luke 6:42)

"But the hypocrites in heart heap up wrath: they cry not when he bindeth them." (Job 36:13)

"The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites. Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?" (Isa. 33:14)

"Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward...And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward." (Matt. 6:2,5)

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation." (Matt. 23:14)

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves." (Matt. 23:15)

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." (Matt. 23:23)

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness." (Matt. 23:27)

I rest my case.