Flying (By the Seat of Your Pants) [Song]

from the 1984 album Holiness by Don Francisco

Like everyone else I tried to fly through my life
Using only my feelings and instincts
By trial and error from the day I was born
I'd always heard that was the way it was done

So, I took the throttle and I made my own course
I headed out somewhere that way
But I hit some heavy weather and crashed and burned
Now listen to the lesson that I had to learn

If you're not living by the Word of God
You're flying by the seat of your pants
If you're not living in Jesus I wouldn't give you a snowball's chance
Your automatic pilot isn't doing too well
There's been a major malfunction and you're headed for hell
If you're not living by the Word of God you're flying by the seat of your pants

Now life may bring me some spins and some dives
And zero visibility too
But by His direction and by His word
I know I can make it through

With his Spirit as co-pilot here inside
Using His flight manual for my guide
I'll make a three point landing on the other side
And brother He'll do the same for you

But if you're not living by the Word of God
You're flying by the seat of your pants
If you're not living in Jesus I wouldn't give you a snowball's chance
Your automatic pilot isn't doing too well
There's been a major malfunction and you're headed for hell
You'd better stop flyin' by the seat of your pants and start livin' by the Word of God

Start livin' by the Word, livin' by the Word, livin' by the Word of God

Holiness [Song]

from the 1984 album Holiness by Don Fancisco

When God took His people

To the promised land

He gave them their freedom

He gave a command

He said, West of the Jordan

You can have all you see

But the ware of their idols

Won't be holy to Me

Holiness, holiness
It's the only life
That the Lord can bless
Holiness, holiness
It's the Lord's command
Not the Lord's request

They heard the commandment

But did not obey

They hardened their hearts

And wandered away

From the goodness of God

And the blessings He gave

Through traditions of men

And the yolk of a slave

Holiness, holiness
It's the only life
That the Lord can bless
Holiness, holiness
It's the Lord's command
Not the Lord's request
Holiness, holiness
It's a life apart
From the world's excess
For the people of God
The remains of rest
Holiness, holiness

Jesus is calling you

Come take My hand

I'll lead you away

From the wilderness land

To a place full of goodness

As far as the sea

But remember Who brought you

And be holy to Me

Holiness, holiness
It's not your food or drink
It's not the way to dress
Holiness, holiness
It's to hear the Lord
And answer yes
Holiness, holiness
It's the only life
That the Lord can bless
For the people of God
The remains of rest
For the people of God
The remains of rest
Holiness, holiness

Death-bed Repentance

by Gorham Abbott, 1833

"For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death!" 2 Corinthians 7:10

    Repentance is the tear of love,
    dropping from the eye of faith,
    when it fixes on Christ crucified.

Repentance begins in the humiliation of the heart, and ends in the reformation of the heart and of the life.

Sincere repentance is never too late, but late repentance is seldom sincere. The thief on the cross repented, and was pardoned in the last hour of his life. We have one such instance in scripture—that none might despair; and only one—that none might presume.

Still, however, the probability that apparent repentance which comes at a dying hour will be genuine, is very small. The following fact will furnish an affecting illustration of this sentiment, and a solemn warning against the too common delusion of deferring the work of repentance to a dying bed:

The faithful and laborious clergyman of a very large and populous parish had been accustomed, for a long series of years, to preserve notes of his visits to the afflicted, with remarks on the outcome of their affliction—whether life or death, and of the subsequent conduct of those who recovered.

He stated, that, during forty years, he had visited more than two thousand people apparently drawing near to death, and who revealed such signs of penitence as would have led him to indulge a good hope of their eternal safety—if they had died at that moment.

When they were restored to life and health—he eagerly watched if they should bring forth fruits fit for repentance. But alas! of the some two thousand death-bed professions, only two people manifested an abiding and saving change! The rest, when the terrors of eternity ceased to be in immediate prospect, forgot their pious impressions and their solemn vows—and returned with new avidity to their former worldly-mindedness and sinful pursuits.

"What the true proverb says has happened to them: The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire!" 2 Peter 2:22

Lost In the Deep

by D. L. Moody

I read some time ago of a vessel which had been off on a whaling voyage and had been gone about three years. I saw the account in print somewhere lately, but it happened a long time ago.

The father of one of those sailors had charge of the lighthouse. He was expecting his boy to come home for it was time for the whaling vessel to return.

One night there was a terrible gale, and the father fell asleep. While he slept his light went out, and when he awoke, he looked towards the shore and saw there had been a vessel wrecked. He at once went to see if he could save someone who might be still alive. The first body that came floating towards the shore was, to his great grief, the body of his own son! He had been watching for him for many days, and he had been gone for three years. Now the boy had at last come in sight of home and had perished because his father had let his light go out! I thought, what an illustration of fathers and mothers today who have let their light go out and haven't instructed their children in the word of God, prayed for them or shown them a Christian life and witness.

Are Gentiles the Sons of Japheth Only?

Individuals like Dante Fortson, and cults like The Black Hebrew Israelites, look at Genesis 10:5, ignorantly focus on the face-value translation in English, and blindly argue that based on this verse only Europeans—the descendants of Japheth—are Gentiles. Is that what this verse is teaching?

Let's look at Noah's three sons, shall we?

Gen. 10:5—By these were the isles of the Gentiles [1471. gowy, גּוֹי] divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations [1471. gowy, גּוֹי].
Gen. 10:20—These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues, in their countries, and in their nations [1471. gowy, גּוֹי].
Gen. 10:31—These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their nations [1471. gowy, גּוֹי].

Notice that, contrary to what individuals like Dante Fortson say and what cults like The Black Hebrew Israelites say, that the same Hebrew word is used in all three verses talking about the descendants of Noah's three sons. In the Hebrew, verse 5 reads exactly like this:

From_these were_separated into_their_nations [be·go·w·ye·hem] according_to_their_families according_to_their_language everyone into_their_lands peoples [hag·go·w·yim] the_maritime

The underscores connect words that are translated from a single word in Hebrew. The words "into_their_nations" and "peoples" are the same Hebrew word: 1471. gowy, גּוֹי.

In other words, the last two words of this verse in Hebrew read, "maritime peoples" or "maritime nations." In other words, they formed the coastlands. That is all that the text is trying to tell us. Genesis 10:5 could be correctly rendered as "By these were the nations of the isles divided..."

The other two verses read like this:

These the_sons of_Ham according_to_their_families according_to_
their_languages in_their_lands in_their_nations [be·go·w·ye·hem]

These the_sons of_Shem according_to_their_families according_to_
their_languages in_their_lands according_to_their_nations [le·go·w·ye·hem]

There are 561 occurrences of this word in its various forms in the Bible:

bag·gō·w·yim — 57 Occ.
bə·ḡō·w — 6 Occ.
bə·ḡō·w·yê·hem — 3 Occ.
bə·ḡō·w·yim — 1 Occ.
ḵag·gō·w·yim — 1 Occ.
gō·w — 59 Occ.
gō·w·ya·yiḵ — 1 Occ.
gō·w·yê — 3 Occ.
gō·w·ye·ḵā — 1 Occ.
gō·w·yê — 8 Occ.
gō·w·yî — 1 Occ.
gō·w·yim — 136 Occ.
hag·gō·w — 27 Occ.
hag·gō·w·yim — 180 Occ.
hă·ḡō·w — 1 Occ.
kag·gō·w·yim — 2 Occ.
kə·ḡō·w — 1 Occ.
lag·gō·w — 2 Occ.
lag·gō·w·yim — 14 Occ.
lə·ḡō·w — 14 Occ.
lə·ḡō·w·yê·hem — 1 Occ.
lə·ḡō·w·yim — 3 Occ.
mig·gō·w — 7 Occ.
mig·gō·w·yim — 1 Occ.
ū·ḇag·gō·w·yim — 4 Occ.
ḇag·gō·w·yim — 18 Occ.
wə·ḡō·w — 4 Occ.
wə·ḡō·w·ya·yiḵ — 2 Occ.
wə·ḡō·w·yim — 1 Occ.
wə·hag·gō·w — 1 Occ.
wə·hag·gō·w·yim — 1 Occ.

If the Hebrew form of gowy ends with hem or yim, the word is plural for nations. If the Hebrew form ends with w, the word is typically singular for nation. This word is also used of the Jewish nation, but we will address that later. But this sort of information individuals like Dante Fortson and cults like The Black Hebrew Israelites will not tell you because it undermines their agenda of lies and manipulation.

If the Hebrew word rendered as "Gentiles" in Genesis 10:5 refers only and specifically to the sons of Japheth, as Dante Fortson and The Black Hebrew Israelites claim, then they have a real conundrum on their hands come Genesis 10:32, and especially Genesis 48:19. You see, they cannot remain consistent with their interpretative method and theology without contradicting themselves and creating monumental problems. After listing the sons and descendants of Japheth, Shem, and Ham, verse 32 says, "These are the families of the sons of Noah, according to their genealogies, by their nations [1471. gowy, גּוֹי]; and out of these the nations [1471. gowy, גּוֹי] were separated on the earth after the flood." The second usage of the word is the same form as that found in Genesis 10:5: hag·go·w·yim. Using the same word as found translated in verse five, according to the theology of Dante Fortson and The Black Hebrew Israelites, the second half should read like this: "and out of these, the Gentiles were separated on the earth after the flood." 'These' referring to the descendants of all three of Noah's sons. This contradicts the "only European descendants of Japheth are Gentiles" theory.

This same word, hag·go·w·yim, is used in Jacob's prophetic blessing over Ephraim, the Jewish grandson of Israel (Jacob) himself. As so frequently happens in Scripture, the younger was chosen over the elder. Jacob's blessing said that Ephraim's descendants will become a multitude of "Gentiles," according to the theology of Dante Fortson and The Black Hebrew Israelites. How do Dante Fortson and The Black Hebrew Israelites explain how a blessing (on a Jewish individual) is all of a sudden a curse (resulting in Gentile nations) according to their bankrupt and erroneous theology? Ha·go·w·yim has 180 occurrences within Scripture. How much would you like to bet that there are other occurrences that contradict Dante Forton's false theology and that of The Black Hebrew Israelites?

If by "Gentiles" it only refers to the European nations, then what about all the Asian nations, such as Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, India, China, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam? Quite obviously these are not Israel, and if they are not Gentiles, then what are they? And what about all the other black nations? Even if some were Israel, quite clearly all are not Israel. If salvation is only offered to Israel and the Gentiles (being only Europeans), and if these other nations are not Gentiles, then I guess salvation is not offered to them. Do you see the mess that wrongly dividing the word of truth results in?

History has always taught us that the descendants of Japheth were the Europeans, the descendants of Shem were the Asians, and the descendants of Ham were the Africans. From the descendants of Shem is where the Israelites eventually came from (including nations such as Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, India, China, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam, etc., and people groups such as Native Americans, Mayans, and Incans).

Do we remember what transpired in the last verses of Genesis 9? Ham saw Noah's naked body and went and told his brothers. They went backwards and covered up his body. When Noah awoke, he pronounced a curse upon Ham. Do you remember the words of that curse?

When Noah awoke from his wine, he knew what his youngest son had done to him. So he said, "Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants He shall be to his brothers." He also said, "Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem; and let Canaan be his servant. May God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem; and let Canaan be his servant."

Now, the curse specifically names Canaan in our Bibles, and so individuals like Dante Fortson attempt to argue that Ham was not cursed. But the fact of reality is that Ham was cursed, and most severely. Why in our Bibles is Canaan specifically named in the curse despite it having been his father who commited the sin?

"When Canaan is mentioned, Ham is not exempted from the curse, but rather more deeply plunged into it, whilst he is pronounced accursed, not only in his person, (which is manifestly supposed by his commission of that sin for which the curse was inflicted,) but also in his posterity, which doubtless was a great aggravation of his grief; as on the contrary Joseph is said to be blessed when his children are blessed, Gen. 48:15-16. ... This may be an ellipsis, or defect of the word father; for such relative words are ofttimes omitted and understood in Scripture, as Matt. 4:21, James of Zebedee, for the son of Zebedee; John 19:25, Mary of Cleopas, for the wife of Cleopas; Acts 7:16, Emmor of Sychem, for the father of Sychem, as our English translation rightly supplies id from Gen. 33:19. Thus Goliath is put for Goliath's brother, as is evident by comparing 2 Sam. 21:19, with 1 Chron. 20:5. So here Canaan may be put for the father of Canaan, as the Arabic translation hath it, that is, Ham, as the Seventy here render it." —Matthew Poole

If it is a matter of an ellipsis, a defect of the word father, then the text would actually read like this:

When Noah awoke from his wine, he knew what his youngest son had done to him. So he said, "Cursed be the father of Canaan; A servant of servants He shall be to his brothers." He also said, "Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem; and let the father of Canaan be his servant. May God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem; and let the father of Canaan be his servant."

Dante Fortson tries to explain all of this away. He argues about people who would falsely use the word "uncovered" instead of the correct word "saw," but then he commits the same false teaching. Despite the text very clearly stating that "Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father," he attempts to argue that it was actually Canaan who saw it. He also ignores the text when it very clearly states that he "told his two brothers outside." According to Genesis 10:6, Canaan had three (3) brothers—not two. If he told any of his brothers, why would his uncles come and cover the body?

In either case, whether the curse was pronounced upon Canaan in order to aggravate Ham's grief and plunge him more deeply into the curse, or whether the text was supposed to be rendered as the father of Canaan, Ham is still the one being cursed. Dante Fortson argues that this correct interpretation of Scripture has been the result of church leaders teaching that Ham was cursed to have black skin and that such has been used to justify slavery. His premise and conclusion are false on so many levels! First, the curse says nothing about the colour of his skin. His descendants would eventually have dark skin, but that is not what the curse said or even what it was about. Second, the text says he and his descendants would be servants to his brothers Shem and Japheth and their descendants—not "slaves." There is a vast world of difference between a servant and a slave.

In the Greek, we have this word: 1484. ethnos, ἔθνος. There are 163 occurrences of this word in its various forms in the Bible.

ἔθνη — 53 Occ.
ἔθνει — 7 Occ.
ἔθνεσιν — 32 Occ.
ἐθνῶν — 46 Occ.
ἔθνος — 18 Occ.
ἔθνους — 7 Occ.

Neither the Hebrew word, gowy, (גּוֹי), nor the Greek word, ethnos (ἔθνος), mean "Gentile." Both of these words mean "a multitude, nation, people, country (esp. foreign); heathen; pagan," which is why they are both used to speak of the Jewish nation as well as other nations. God tells Abraham He will make a great gowy out of him (Gen. 12:2). God tells Moses He will make a great gowy out of him (Ex. 32:10). The gowy in Leviticus 18:26 is the Jewish nation. Likewise, ethnos is used of the Jewsish nation in Luke 7:5; 23:2; John 11:48, 50-53; 18:35; Acts 10:22; 24:2; etc. The English word "Gentile" is a transliteration of the Latin gentīlis, which means "of or belonging to the same people, clan, tribe, stock, or nation; heathen; pagan." It is not a translation of, nor the definition of, either the Hebrew or Greek words. It is simple common sense that the transliteration of a Latin word cannot be the translation, or definition, of a Hebrew or Greek word.

Is it not amazing how real study to correctly divide the truth of God's Word actually works? Rather than having an agenda and trying to twist Scripture through various efforts of eisegetical gymnastics and fallacious arguments?

Was Jesus Black?

More and more people these days are starting to buy into a theology that claims that Israel was black (and that therefore all black people are Israelites) and that Jesus was black. One website, not associated with The Black Hebrew Israelites cult, references two verses of Scripture as his proof text for Jesus being a black man.

Daniel 10:6
"His body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in colour to polished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude." (KJV)
"His body also was like beryl, his face had the appearance of lightning, his eyes were like flaming torches, his arms and feet like the gleam of polished bronze, and the sound of his words like the sound of a tumult." (NASB)

Revelation 1:15
"And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters." (KJV)
"His feet were like burnished bronze, when it has been made to glow in a furnace, and His voice was like the sound of many waters." (NASB)

The first verse, it is debated as to whether this is Jesus or another angel. If it were Jesus, do we really believe that the Devil could "withstand" Him, and that Michael the archangel would have to come to His rescue? We are talking about God Almighty here. After all, Ezekiel describes the four creatures as sparkling like polished bronze (1:7). Even if it were Jesus, does this man with his website (and those who believe like him) not understand poetic language? The descriptions in these two verses are poetic, symbolic—not literal! Hence the usage of the word "like."

Let us address his reference to Daniel 10:6. The text says this man's body was like (poetic language—not literal description) beryl (or yellow serpentine). The text says his arms and feet were like (poetic language—not literal description) the gleam of polished brass (KJV) or polished bronze (NASB) or burnished bronze (ESV). That is not the colour of a black man! Quite obviously this man with his website (and those who believe like him) is colour blind.

The above image on the left is of beryl. The above image in the center if of polished brass. The above image on the right is of polished bronze. Notice the yellowish-brown colour of the brass and bronze? By no stretch of the imagination is this the colour of a black man! No amount of reaching or eisegetical gymnastics will get a black man out of this description!

Let us address his reference to Revelation 1:15. The text says his feet were like (poetic language—not literal description) fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace (KJV) or burnished bronze, when it has been made to glow in a furnace (NASB) or burnished bronze, refined in a furnace (ESV). It does not say that his feet were "burned bronze," where this man with his website falsely assumes and draws his false conclusion based on an assumption that Jesus' feet were "black." The Greek word here (chalkolibanon, χαλκολίβανον) is "a certain kind of (yellow) frankincense." From chalkos (χαλκός), “what is made of brass,” and libanos (λίβανος), “frankincense.” No doubt John's thoughts were on Daniel 10:6. The word implies a "whiteness of brilliancy," "having a brilliant lustre." The other Greek word here (puroo, πυρόω) means "to set on fire." The verb form used (πεπυρωμένης) means "having been refined," as the ESV renders it. If you take a piece of iron and heat it up in a furnace, what happens to it? It glows red. Hence the term "red hot." If it gets hot enough, it glows white. Hence the term "white hot." The image presented here is one of purity, as in gold refined by fire, removing any dross.

The above image is what burnished bronze would look like. It has a glow like a brilliant lustre, having been refined in the fire. It is a yellowish-brown colour. The polished brass or polished bronze colours above look similar to this colour below.

This colour is olive. The yellowish-brown or olive colour is the same pigment we tend to see in middle-eastern Asian people today. Beware of false teachers who show you photos of dark brown bronzed feet, arguing that it is proof that Jesus was a black man. Just do an image search for “polished bronze” and you will quickly discover what cons and great liars these in-dividuals are. Polished bronze can have a yellow (like gold), beige, or light brown (hazelnut) colour. It does not become darker in colour until you have applied certain coatings and a wax to protect it. At that point, it is no longer “polished” bronze.

Also beware of false teachers who use the argument that black people come in a variety of pigments, including white. While this is true (a black person can be born with albinism), it is also true of Asians. Look at the Asian nations of Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, India, China, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam, etc., and people groups such as Native Americans, Mayans, and Incans. They all have different skin pigments. Some are darker than others. It does not mean they are "black" or that their lineage was affected by blacks.

Copper is darker than brass and bronze and would be a much better descriptor of a black man. Jesus was not a white man, to the contrary ignorance of those who think He was white! Jesus was not a black man, to the contrary ignorance of those who think He was black! He was a Jew, and His skin colour would have been the same yellowish-brown olive colour as the middle-eastern Asians we see today.

For the individual white man who thinks/believes that Jesus was a white man—if it turned out that Jesus was indeed a black man, what would that do to your faith? If you have a problem with that, if your faith is based on the colour of His skin, then your faith quite obviously is not the genuine thing. For the individual black man who thinks/believes that Jesus was a black man—if it turned out that Jesus was indeed a white man, what would that do to your faith? If you have a problem with that, if your faith is based on the colour of His skin, then your faith quite obviously is not the genuine thing.

The language of these two verses is poetic or symbolic. It is not literal. Those who try to take it as literal are making a category error and quite obviously have no actual training in how to read and/or study God's Word. Do these individuals read passages where Jesus is described as a lamb and think that He was an actual four-footed bleating animal? I would hope not!

The Israelites were not black. Black people today are not Israelites. People who believe this today are just as gullible, ignorant, and arrogant as those who believe that the Israelites were white. The typical painting you see of the Last Supper is in error. None of the disciples, not even Jesus, were white! Sites like the one I am refuting in this article, including cult groups like The Black Hebrew Israelites, are also wrong because none of the disciples, not even Jesus, were black!

These individuals can make all the false claims they want, twisting Scripture as much as they desire, but those of us correctly dividing the word of truth will always stand in their way, exposing their eisegesis.

Superficial Faith

"Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one. Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.
What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? 'ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.' Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: 'BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED. BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.' Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, 'FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.' How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised." Romans 3:27-4:12

"What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,' and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.
But someone may well say, 'You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.' You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, 'AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS,' and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead." James 2:14-26

Did you notice that both Paul and James quote the same Old Testament passage? "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righeousness" (Gen. 15:6). Did you also notice that Paul says, "a man is justified by faith," (Rom. 3:28) while James says, "a man is justified by works" (James 2:24)? Paul and James are not polarized here. They are not saying two different things.

Paul was attacking the Pharisaic idea that our works (works of the Law, good deeds) will commend us to God. No one is good enough to earn salvation! If you are obeying the Law, or you are performing good deeds, merely to earn favour with God, then you are engaging in legalism. Your actions do not stem from faith.

James was attacking the idea that genuine saving faith does not need to do anything ("works," produce fruit). Genuine faith always produces fruit and results in good works (deeds) that we were foreordained to do. If you are obeying the Law, or you are performing good deeds, because you love Jesus and you desire to obey His commands, your actions are rooted in faith.

The Law is not a bad thing. Scripture tells us this repeatedly. The Law was our schoolmaster leading us to Christ. What Jesus hated the most, and what He spoke against the most, was hypocrisy. Pharisees said one thing but did another. They paid lip service to God but their hearts were far from Him.

When James is talking about Abraham and being justified by "works," what do you suppose he was talking about? Was he talking about "works of the Law"? Did Abraham perform some "work of the Law" by offering Isaac up as a sacrifice? Nope! The Law would not come for another 400 years. Was he talking about "good deeds"? Did Abraham perform some "good deed" by offering Isaac up as a sacrifice? Nope! While we were created to do good deeds and ought to do so, Abraham was performing no such thing. So what kind of "work" was he performing? Living faith or faith in action.

What did Abraham believe God for? God had promised him a son and that through his son he would be father of many. But then God asks him to sacrifice his only son. Because God had promised him a son and that he would be the father of many, Abraham believed that God would either spare his son or resurrect him in order to fulfill His promise. God asked for his only son, and Abraham acted in faith. Every instance of faith in Scripture is accompanied by faith in action (works). They are inseparable.

Faith is having a complete trust or confidence in something or someone. If you have such a trust or confidence in something or someone, you act according to that capacity. If you say you believe something but act contrary to your words, then you do not truly believe what you profess to believe. I am sure that by sola fide, this is what the Reformers meant. If they meant it as most people today try to apply it, having "faith" but no actions that corroborate and correspond with it, then I reject sola fide because Scripture teaches the former. Faith is not a mere mental assent to the facts, nor is it something merely contained in the heart. Genuine faith produces like fruit, fruit that corroborates and corresponds with the faith.

Salvation and works are both from God: "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them" (Eph. 2:10).

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again from above he cannot see the kingdom of God. . . . Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." ← When you are born from above, there is no boasting in your salvation. → "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast." Regeneration, being born again, is not the product of man's action; it is the product of the Holy Spirit's action.

A Pure Life Will Pay the Price

"Then the commissioners [administrators, governors, presidents] and satraps [princes] began trying to find a ground of accusation against Daniel in regard to government affairs; but they could find no ground of accusation or evidence of corruption, inasmuch as he was faithful, and no negligence or corruption was to be found in him." Daniel 6:4

Daniel was extremely careful not to make a mistake. He was not noted for any lack of judgment. There was no error recorded against him; no lapse of discernment or discretion. Nothing on his record was bad. Alexander Maclaren had this to say about Daniel:

"It's remarkable that a character of such beauty and consecration as Daniel's should be rooted and grow out of the court where Daniel was. For this court was half shambles and half pig stye. It was filled with luxury and sensuality and lust and self-seeking and idolatry and ruthless cruelty; and the like were the environment of this man. And in the middle of this there grew up that fair flower of character, pure and stainless by the acknowledging of his enemies."

People today, especially nominal "Christians," will often argue, "God doesn't expect us to live that kind of life in our current culture and environment." Are you sure about that? Where Daniel was, it was ten times worse than anything you or I know, and anything currently happening around us. Yet Scripture testifies of Daniel that "neither was there any error or fault found in him." So how were these men going to find fault in Daniel? Through his religion...

"Then these men said, 'We will not find any ground of accusation against this Daniel unless we find it against him with regard to the law of his God.'" Daniel 6:5

Anyone who aspires to leadership, there is always going to be a price to pay for being a leader. There is always going to be a penalty to pay for excellency in anything you do. Anyone who is determined to excel and succeed will sooner or later pay the price for primacy. Envy hates the excellency it cannot reach! Even the New Testament records the fact of Daniel's character and all like him:

"All who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted." 2 Timothy 3:12

In a world that is rotten and corrupt to the core, God expects—no, He demands—us to live pure, righteous, holy, and blameless before others. How can we expect to be the salt and light in the world if we are not living in such a way? Those who are arguing and attempting to make excuses for the sin patterns in their lives, arguing that the holiness God demands is somehow "legalism," will more than likely hear those fateful words, "Depart from Me, you worker of lawlessness. I never knew you!" The genuine born-again Christian who strives to "be perfect, as [their] heavenly Father is perfect" and to "be holy, for [He is] holy" will hear those wonderful words, "Well done, My good and faithful servant."

No matter how backward, corrupt, and wicked our culture and environment get, genuine Christians are always to live contrary to them. We are to be in the world, but not like the world. We are set apart and should live like it. We are to walk in such a way that is worthy of our calling, worthy of the Gospel, worthy of the Lord, and worthy of God (Eph. 14:1; Phil. 1:27; Col. 1:10; 1 Thess. 2:12). We are to be a light on a hill, shining in the darkness. We are to be different from the world, and if we have truly been with Jesus, the world will know it because they will see it. Anyone who disagrees with this has obviously never read their Bible and is clearly not a Christian!

"Jealousy is the tribute that mediocrity pays to genius." —Unknown

When you strive for excellency and live in excellency, those who are jealous of you will try to seek occasion against you. If they can find no dirt on you, they will attempt to make it up, and if that does not work, they will seek a way against you using your religion as they did with Daniel.

Did Jesus Go To Hell?

Not surprisingly, the clause "He descended into Hell" was interpolated into the Apostle's Creed in the fourth century. The fourth century is just after all the calamity that Emperor Constantine would introduce into the Church, claiming that he had become a "Christian." The fourth century is also the one in which the heretic Jerome existed, wherein he introduced his Latin translation of the Scriptures, the Vulgate, in which was taught that Jesus went to Hell [Lat. inferno] rather than the grave (e.g., Ps. 16:10; Acts 2:31). No doubt this is how that clause got interpolated into the Apostle's Creed. In its original form, the Apostle's Creed read thus: "Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead, and buried; the third day he rose again from the dead." In the earliest creeds, is there any teaching of Christ Jesus going to Hell?

Ignatius of Antioch, A.D. 107

Be deaf, therefore, when any would speak to you apart from (at variance with) Jesus Christ
[the Son of God],
who was descended from the family of David,
born of Mary,
who truly was born
[both of God and of the Virgin . . .
truly took a body; for the Word became flesh and dwelt among us without sin . . .],
ate and drank [truly],
truly suffered persecution under Pontius Pilate,
was truly [and not in appearance] crucified and died . . .
who was also truly raised from the dead [and rose after three days],
his Father raising him up . . .
[and after having spent forty days with the Apostles,
was received up to the Father,
and sits on his right hand,
waiting till his enemies are put under his feet].

Irenaeus, A.D. 180

First Form

The Church, though scattered through the whole world to the ends of the earth, has received from the Apostles and their disciples the faith
IN ONE GOD, THE FATHER ALMIGHTY,
who made the heaven and the earth,
and the seas, and all that in them is;
and IN ONE CHRIST JESUS, THE SON OF GOD,
who became flesh for our salvation;
and IN THE HOLY GHOST,
who through the prophets preached the dispensations and the advent,
and the birth from the Virgin,
and the passion,
and the resurrection from the dead,
and the bodily assumption into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord,
and his appearing from heaven in the glory of the Father,
to comprehend all things under one head,
and to raise up all flesh of all mankind,
that, according to the good pleasure of the Father invisible, every knee of those that are in heaven and on the earth and under the earth should bow before Christ Jesus, our Lord and God and Saviour and King, and that every tongue should confess to him, and that he may execute righteous judgment over all: sending into eternal fire the spiritual powers of wickedness, and the angels who transgressed and apostatized, and the godless and unrighteous and lawless and blasphemous among men, and granting life and immortality and eternal glory to the righteous and holy, who have both kept the commandments and continued in his love, some from the beginning, some after their conversion.

Second Form

If the Apostles had not left to us the Scriptures, would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which those to whom they committed the churches handed down? To this order many nations of barbarians give assent, those who believe in Christ having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit without paper and ink, and guarding diligently the ancient tradition,
believing IN ONE GOD,
Maker of heaven and earth,
and all that in them is,
Through CHRIST JESUS THE SON OF GOD;
Who, for his astounding love towards his creatures,
sustained the birth of the Virgin,
himself uniting his manhood to God,
and suffered under Pontius Pilate,
and rose again,
and was received in glory,
shall come in glory,
the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged; and sending into eternal fire the perverters of the truth and the despisers of his Father and his advent.

Third Form

IN ONE GOD ALMIGHTY,
and IN THE SON OF GOD, JESUS CHRIST,
our Lord,
by whom are all things,
and in his dispensations,
through which the Son of God became man;
the firm persuasion also IN THE SPIRIT OF GOD,
who furnishes us with a knowledge of the truth, and has set forth the dispensations of the Father and the Son, in virtue of which he dwells in every generation of men, according to the will of the Father.

Tertullian, A.D. 200

First Form

The Rule of Faith is altogether one, sole, immovable, and irreformable—namely, to believe
IN ONE GOD ALMIGHTY,
the Maker of the world;
and HIS SON, JESUS CHRIST,
born of the Virgin Mary,
crucified under Pontius Pilate,
on the third day raised again from the dead,
received into the heavens,
sitting now at the right hand of the Father,
coming to judge the quick and the dead,
also through the resurrection of the flesh.

Second Form

But we believe always, and now more, being better instructed by the Paraclete, and Leader into all truth,
ONE GOD:
but under this dispensation which we call economy,
and the SON of the one God,
his Word [Logos] who proceeded from him,
by whom all things were made,
and without whom nothing was made.
This was sent from the Father into the Virgin,
and was born of her,
both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God,
and called JESUS CHRIST:
He suffered,
he died and was buried,
according to the Scriptures;
and raised again by the Father,
and taken up into the heavens,
and sits at the right hand of the Father,
he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:
He thence did send, according to his promise, from the Father,
the HOLY GHOST, the Paraclete,
the Sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.

Third Form

The Rule of Faith is, . . . namely, that by which we believe
That there is but ONE GOD,
and no other besides the Maker of the world,
who produced the universe out of nothing,
by his Word sent forth first of all;
that this Word, called HIS SON,
was seen in the name of God in various ways by the patriarchs,
was always heard in the prophets,
at last was sent down, from the Spirit and power of God the Father, into the Virgin Mary,
was made flesh in her womb, and born of her,
lived (appeared) as JESUS CHRIST;
that then he preached the new law and the new promise of the kingdom of heaven;
wrought miracles;
was nailed to the cross;
rose again on the third day;
was caught up to the heavens;
and sat down at the right hand of the Father;
sent in his place the power of the HOLY GHOST,
to guide the believers;
he will come again with glory
to take the saints into the enjoyment of eternal life and the celestial promises,
and to judge the wicked with eternal fire,
after the resuscitation (resurrection) of both,
with the restitution (restoration) of the flesh.

Believers after the Reformed tradition generally understand this clause—"He descended into Hell"—to refer to the sufferings, or "hell," that Jesus endured from the moment He was snatched in the garden to His crucifixion to His three days spent in the grave (Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 44; Canons of Dort, 2.4; Westminster Larger Catechism, Q&A 50). I think these believers chose to interpret this clause in this way because every Christian who knows their Bible knows that Scripture repudiates the idea that Christ Jesus spent any amount of time in Hell. Jesus told the thief on the cross that he would be with Him in Paradise that very day (Luke 23:43). Does Paradise reside in Hell? According to Dispensationalists it did, but that is sheer nonsense. Jesus committed His soul into the hands of the Father (Luke 23:46). Does the Father now reside in Hell? 

How can we know that the Reformed tradition is wrong in their understanding and interpretation of this added clause? Look at the location of the clause:

suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead and buried.
He descended into Hell.
The third day He arose from the dead,

If the clause was referring to the sufferings, or "hell," that Christ Jesus endured, then why is it placed after He has already been buried? Logically, it should find its place either before "suffered under Pontius Pilate" or before "was crucified, dead and buried." Its location does not, and cannot possibly, support the understanding of the Reformed tradition. The Westminster explanation, however, would explain well the location here, but it would likewise fail in interpretation because it says "descended into Hell," and not "endured hell." No amount of linguistical, etymological, or grammatical gymnastics will get you from "descended" to "endured." Upon realization that this clause was added in the fourth century, and knowing that Jesus did not go to Hell, believers of the Reformed tradition ought to have removed this clause from the Apostle's Creed, rather than trying to attach an explanation to it that simply does not support its location in the Creed.

None of the early personal creeds of the church fathers (Cyprian, Novatian, Origen, Lucian, Arius, Eusebius, Cyril, Epiphanius, etc.) says anything about Jesus descending into Hell. Origen had "suffered in truth, and...truly died; for he truly rose from the dead, and...was taken up." Lucian had "who suffered for us, and rose for us the third day, and ascended into heaven." Arius had "and suffered; and rose again; and ascended to the heavens." Cyril had "was crucified and was buried; rose on the third day; and ascended into heaven." Epiphanius had "He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried; and the third day rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven."

The personal and local descent of Jesus into Hell would have been one of the great cardinal facts connected with the incarnation, falling into the same class with the nativity, the baptism, the passion, the crucifixion, the resurrection, and the ascension. Less important facts than these are recorded, but none of the Apostles wrote about Christ’s descent into Hell? The total silence of the four Gospels is fatal to this false doctrine, which has mythology at its root.

What's In A Name?

I have encountered a good variety of websites lately who argue that the Messiah/Christ's name was not really "Jesus." Each and every single one of these sites, while the owner/operators profess to be "Christians," are nothing more than false teachers and false prophets. These sites and individuals will argue that the name Jesus is either an English alteration of some kind or an invention by either Emperor Constantine, heretic Jerome and his Latin Vulgate, or the Catholic Church in their "invention of Christianity."

For those ignorant fools who claim that the name "Jesus" is the invention and perversion of either Emperor Constantine, heretic Jerome and his Latin Vulgate, or the Catholic Church, how do these false teachers explain the use of the name "Jesus" by much earlier Christians writing in Latin, such as Tertullian?

For those ignorant fools who claim that the name "Jesus" is the result of English alteration of some kind, how about this little wake-up call? In early English, there was no such letter as the letter "J." Early English translations had names like Ioshua, Iosiah, Iohn (Ἰωάννης), Iordan (Ἰορδάνου), Iudea (Ἰουδαία), Ierusalem (Ἱεροσόλυμα), etc. Are these false teachers attempting to claim that by changing the "I" in these names to a "J" that they have somehow corrupted the names? In the Greek, they all start with the letter "I." In Hebrew, they all start with the letter "Y."

Some of these individuals argue that His name should really be Joshua (an English transliteration of the Latin) and not Jesus (an English transliteration of the Latin). Others argue that His name should really be Iesous and that names do not change from language to language (despite the fact that my name is Timothy in English, Timoteo in Spanish, Timotheus in Greek, Timofeyevka in Russian, etc.).

I write this to expose such false teachers as Dean Haskins and Patrick Scrivener, to name a few, who argue ignorantly that Messiah/Christ should be called Yehoshua or Joshua instead.  To educate these false teachers further, since Greek words starting with "I" are rendered with a "J" in English, let us simply change the letter on the Greek and see what we get: Jesous (Jay-Seuss). This would easily end up as Jesus. The name Jesus is from the Greek—not from the Latin! (Any English dictionary will confirm this.) The Latin, Iosue, transliterated would be Josue, which would become Joshua.

The Messiah/Christ's name in the Greek is Iesous (Ἰησοῦς). The Hebrew equivalents to this are Yeshua (יֵשׁוּעַ, meaning "He will save") and Yehoshua (יְהוֹשֻׁעַ). Yehoshua is the name that Moses gave Hoshea the son of Nun (Num. 13:16). In Latin, this name is Iosue. In early English, it was transliterated as Ioshua, and today is rendered as Joshua. The Latin equivalent to Iesous is Iesus, from which we get the early transliterated Iesus and later Jesus. Call Him whatever you want to call Him—Yeshua, Iesous, Joshua, Jesus, it all amounts to the same thing. Better yet, to avoid all this foolishness over a name, how about we simply start calling Him "Emmanuel" (Greek) or "Immanuel" (Hebrew), since that is the name He was to be given in Matthew 1:23, which means "God is with us"? After all, God was with us. He walked among us. The most important thing is that you trust and believe in Him and His work on the cross at Calvary for the forgiveness of your sins.

Even Affliction Is Profitable For the Godly

by Daniel Rowlands

Romans 8:28, "We know that God causes ALL things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose."

Make no exception, when Paul makes none. ALL! Remember Paul excepts nothing.

Give glory to God, and resolve with Job, "Though He slays me—yet will I trust in Him."

The Almighty may seem for a season to be your enemy, in order that he may become your eternal friend.

Oh! Believers, after all your tribulation and anguish, you must conclude with David, "It is good for me that I have been afflicted, that I might learn Your statutes."

Under all your disquietudes you must exclaim, "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!"

Even affliction is very useful and profitable to the godly!

The prodigal son had no thought of returning to his father's house until he had been humbled by adversity.

Hagar was haughty under Abraham's roof, and despised her mistress; but in the wilderness she was meek and lowly.

Jonah sleeps on board ship; but in the whale's belly he watches and prays.

Manasseh lived as a libertine at Jerusalem, and committed the most enormous crimes; but when he was bound in chains in the prison at Babylon his heart was turned to seek the Lord his God.

Bodily pain and disease have been instrumental in rousing many to seek Christ, when those who were in good health have given themselves no concern about Him.

The ground which is not rent and torn with the plough, bears nothing but thistles and thorns.

The vines will run wild in process of time, if they are not pruned and trimmed. So would our wild hearts be overrun with filthy, poisonous weeds—if the true Vine-dresser did not often check their growth by crosses and sanctified troubles.

See, therefore, that all the paths of the Lord are mercy, and that God causes ALL things to work together for good to those who love Him.

All the events that take place in the world carry on the same work—the glory of the Father and the salvation of His redeemed people.

Every illness and infirmity that may seize you,

   every loss you may meet with,

   every reproach you may endure,

   every shame that may color your faces,

   every sorrow in your hearts,

   every agony and pain in your flesh,

   every aching in your bones

—are for your good!

Every change in your condition . . .

   your fine weather and your rough weather,

   your sunny weather and your cloudy weather,

   your ebbing and your flowing,

   your liberty and your imprisonment

—all work for good.

Oh, Christians, see what a harvest of blessings ripens from this text!

The Lord is at work; all creation is at work; men and angels, friends and foes—all are busy working together for God's glory and your good.

Oh, dear Lord Jesus, what have you seen in us that you should order things so wondrously for us, and make all things to work together for our good?

The Doctor of the Church

Jerome (A.D. 347-420) is known as the "Doctor of the Church." Jerome, however, was a plague upon the true church. Everything wrong with the Roman Catholic Church, the Greek Orthodox Catholic Church, and every other denomination of Catholicism, including their multitude of corrupt practices and false doctrines, can be traced back to Jerome and his perverse Latin translation, the Vulgate.

1.) Jerome condemned Jovinian as a "heretic" because he believed that virgins, widows, and married women, even re-married widows, are of equal merit in the Christian community. Jovinian went through Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, showing what high honour marriage is given. Jerome wrote an entire heretical book filled with abusive and intemperate language to praise virginity and disparage the state of marriage; that holy state which God in His Holy Word says should be "held in honor among all" (Heb. 13:4), that holy union that is a picture of Christ and His bride—the Church. Jerome even went so far as to talk about how virgins will supposedly receive many rewards in heaven while married people receive their rewards here on Earth. Jerome pretty much demonized marriage. Anyone who dares to read the Bible carefully will see how much honour God bestows upon marriage. Virginity is sacred, but it has next to nothing written about it by comparison with marriage. Jovinian was correct. The true heretic here was Jerome!

2.) Jovinian also denied the false doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which Scripture also denies. According to Scripture, Mary clearly had other children, which strongly implies that she and Joseph had normal marital relations after Jesus. In Mark, a crowd asks of Jesus, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother (adelphos, ἀδελφὸς) of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?” (6:3). In Luke, when Jesus is told by a crowd gathered to hear him speak, “Your mother and Your brothers (adelphos, ἀδελφὸς) are standing outside, wishing to see You,” Jesus famously answers them: “My mother and My brothers (adelphos, ἀδελφὸς) are those who hear the word of God and do it” (8:19-21). John writes that after Jesus had performed His first miracle in Cana, “He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother and His brothers (adelphos, ἀδελφὸς) and His disciples; and they stayed there a few days” (2:12).

Jerome argued that these "brothers" were either step-brothers, older sons of Joseph from a previous marriage (of which nothing is mentioned in Scripture), or merely cousins. Throughout the entire birth narrative and childhood narrative, there is never any mention of any other children. So where were these older step-brothers during all of this? The argument for them being step-brothers attempts to use two verses for its support. The first verse: In the upper room were "Mary the mother of Jesus, and . . . His brothers" (Acts 1:14). The argument is that it does not say "her sons," but rather "His brothers." The reason it says "His brothers" is because Jesus is the focus here—not Mary. Jesus is the object. The second verse: On the cross, Jesus looks to John, His disciple, and says, "Behold, your mother!" The argument is that He did not say this to any of His family, but to a complete stranger, implying that she must have been alone. Jesus did not give this responsibility to his brothers because they were not sympathetic to His ministry, nor did they believe in Him, and they likely were not present at the time.

Let us assume these "brothers" were indeed older step-brothers. Even if this were the case, Mary still was not a perpetual virgin. "[Joseph] did not have sexual relations with [Mary] until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus" (Matt. 1:25). Even if you attempt to argue for the word "to" to be translated instead of "until," the word is pointing toward a specific point—the "birth of a Son." Heōs (ἕως) is a conjunction, preposition, and adverb of continuance. The word signifies something that "continues up to a certain time." She remained a virgin "until the time when" she gave birth. After the birth of Christ, she was no longer a virgin because she and Joseph engaged in normal marital relations. To argue that they did not is to create a huge problem, which Paul addressed in 1 Corinthians 7:3-5. If Joseph never touched Mary, he would have burned with desire and taken that desire elsewhere, which would have made him an adulterer. The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary has many holes and creates many problems within the rest of Scripture.

The Greek does not support the perpetual virginity of Mary. The writings of the Apostles do not support the perpetual virginity of Mary. The writings of the earliest disciples of the Apostles do not support the perpetual virginity of Mary. The perpetual virginity of Mary is entrenched solely in the traditions and errors of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. Scripture repudiates these very teachings. Anathema upon any heretic who teaches and proclaims this false doctrine!

3.) Jerome's Latin Vulgate calls a 'bribe' a "gift" (Num. 8:19; Prov. 17:23; etc.). The Latin word for a 'bribe' is corruptela, from which the English word corrupt is derived. The Latin word for a 'gift' is munus, from which the word municipal is derived. The Latin word for 'money' is pecuniam, from which the word penny is derived. For those King James Only-ists, the fallibility and errancy of the King James Bible can be seen clearly in these verses, translating them as "gift" instead of the correct translation "bribe." When Simon the magician sought to purchase the gift of God for money, Peter told him to "Repent" (Acts 8:22). The Douay-Rheims, after the Latin Vulgate, has "Do penance" instead, which is where this false doctrine and practice had its origin.
Jerome's Latin Vulgate eliminates the many references to God as a "Rock." It also said that Jesus went to Hell (Lat. inferno) (Ps. 16:10; Acts 2:31), rather than the grave. No doubt this is how that clause was interpolated into the Apostle's Creed in the fourth century, despite being absent prior. Most Reformed individuals understand this to mean the hell he endure from His sufferings to His crucifixion to His death and subsequent three days in the grave. Nevertheless, "He descended into Hell" is a poor wording to comprehend that.
In Matthew 6:11, Jerome's Latin Vulgate has us praying for our "supersubstantial" (Lat. supersubstantialem) bread, rather than our 'daily' bread. This is where the false doctrine and practice of transubstantiation had its origin.
In 1 Corinthians 11, Jerome's Latin Vulgate talks about us "nourishing" (Lat. nutriat) our hair (i.e., if a man "nourishes" his hair, it is a shame to him, but a woman "nourishing" her hair is her glory).
In Jerome's Latin Vulgate, sodomites were expelled (Deut. 23:17; 1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7; Job 36:14) and replaced with words like "whoremonger" and "effeminate." These passages demonstrate that there is much said against homosexuality, which the LGBT want to deny.
Jerome's Latin Vulgate refers to "holocaust" (Lat. holocausta) 359 times, where most English translations have 'burnt offering.' Jermone's translation skills sucked, to say the least. Many errors in translation and word choice find their way into his Latin Vulgate. Because of those errors, the Catholic Church teaches and practices their multitudes of doctrinal errors. If the Catholic Church were to translate a new Latin Bible from the original languages, with no regard for their heretical traditions, they would find that much of their religion would have to change, both in doctrine and practice.
The word "cross" originates from Jerome's Latin Vulgate, too, where the Greek Scriptures used the words xylon for 'tree' and stauros for 'wood,' like a stake. The "cross" dates back to Emperor Constantine with his vision, except as a pagan Mithraic sun-worship symbol. Whether Jesus was nailed to an actual cross-shaped stake is not mentioned in Scripture (except by English translation). We would have to rely on early Christianity and historical witnesses to inform us of that. Quite possibly, His hands would have been nailed together above His head. This bit of information—whether it was a stake, a tree, or a cross—does not change the fundamental theology for one's salvation. He was crucified, regardless of what it was to.

Jerome ought to have been the one labeled as a heretic. He is the one who shaped and defended many of the heretical doctrines and practices of the Catholic Church. Jerome condemned others as "heretics" who, at least in the key areas he disagreed with them, were not heretics in the least. On the three main issues between Jerome and Jovinian, Jovinian was in the right while Jerome was in the wrong. One needs to study history from a variety of sources in order to arrive at the truth, and not from Roman Catholic sources that paint everyone outside their cult as the wicked ones. Emperor Constantine is the foundation beneath all the corruption that found its way into the Catholic Church, abandoning the truth of the Scriptures.

Mystery of the Gentiles

It is important that we remember that the Bible in its original writings did not consist of chapters and verses. Therefore, we should not start and stop our readings and studies with these divisions, but look at the writings in their complete form, noting appropriate changes in subject discussion. Dispensationalism/Zionism has re-interpreted much of Scripture, looking at it through the lens of Judaism. This is why they miss much of the truths stated and revealed in Scripture. Especially those truths re-interpreted by Jesus and His Apostles from the Old Testament Scriptures. Whether deliberately or ignorantly, they ignore much of what the New Testament has to say and try to develop their theology based on a Pharisaical-type interpretation of the Old Testament (the interpretation the Pharisees applied caused them to miss the predictions and first coming of Jesus). With this in mind, let us now look to Scripture for its clear teachings.

"Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called 'Uncircumcision' by the so-called 'Circumcision,' which is performed in the flesh by human hands—remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. AND HE CAME AND PREACHED PEACE TO YOU WHO WERE FAR AWAY, AND PEACE TO THOSE WHO WERE NEAR; for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.
For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles—if indeed you have heard of the stewardship of God's grace which was given to me for you; that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief. By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel, of which I was made a minister, according to the gift of God's grace which was given to me according to the working of His power. To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ, and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things; so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places. This was in accordance with the eternal purpose which He carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and confident access through faith in Him. Therefore I ask you not to lose heart at my tribulations on your behalf, for they are your glory." Ephesians 2:11-3:13

Five things were true of Gentiles in the past. We were...

1. ...separate from Christ
2. ...excluded from the commonwealth of Israel
3. ...strangers to the covenants of promise
4. ...having no hope
5. ...without God in the world

"But now," Paul says, "in Christ Jesus, you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ." The two—Jewish believers and Gentile believers—have been made into one body! "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." Dispensationalists want to divide God's people into two groups, saying that the unbelieving nation of Israel will get a pass simply because of their Jewishness. But this is repudiated by all of Scripture! If they do not come to and through Jesus, they do not come at all. How many times does Jesus have to talk about the kingdom being taken from the Jews and given to a people bearing the fruits thereof before Dispensationalists accept what it is the Bible is saying? Gentiles are now...

1. ...in Christ ("you who formerly were far off have been brought near")
2. ...included in the commonwealth of Israel ("you are fellow citizens with the saints")
3. ...heirs of the covenants of promise ("fellow partakers of the promise")
4. ...with hope ("the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body")
5. ...with God in the world ("of God's household")

Dispensationalists will argue that 1, 4 and 5 are true of Gentile believers, but they want to deny 2 and 3 as being true as well. They are refuted concerning 3 when they read Ephesians 3:6 and especially Galatians 3. In Ephesians, Paul talks about how Gentiles were "strangers to the covenants of promise." But in Galatians, Paul talks about how Gentiles are "Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise" if we belong to Christ and have the same faith as Abraham had.

"Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS. Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, 'ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU.' So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer. ... Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ. ... There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise." Galatians 3:6-9, 16, 28-29

Following on what Paul had just said in 2:11-22, he begins what he is about to reveal in 3:1-13 with, "For this reason." In Ephesians 3, Paul informs us that the mystery was made known to him by revelation, and that this mystery was not known to former generations. What was this mystery? That Gentiles are fellow heirs with the Jews (v.6): "the mystery...has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs." Romans 11:17-26 explains this mystery of the Gentile inclusion. True Israel—believing Israel, spiritual Israel—is expanded with the inclusion of believing Gentiles who are grafted in with them.

"But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, 'Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.' Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree? For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation—that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, 'THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB.'" Romans 11:17-26

As the ESV reads, "In this way all Israel will be saved." What way is that? By the inclusion of the Gentiles: "a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in." In to what? Into Israel: "and so all Israel will be saved." 'All' does not refer to 'each and every individual,' nor does 'Israel' here mean physical, national Israel. The first 'Israel' speaks of physical Israel, while the second 'Israel' speaks of the true—the spiritual—believing Israel, which consists of believing Gentiles. Dispensationalists want to deny this, but if you carefully pay attention to what this passage is saying, to the picture it is painting, that is precisely what is being taught. Expansion Theology!

Paul takes national, physical, ethnic Israel and divides them into two groups: believing Israel and unbelieving Israel. According to Romans 2:28-29, unbelieving Israel are not true Jews. Believing Gentiles, having circumcision of heart, according to these verses, are true Jews. According to Romans 9:6-8, unbelieving Israel does not belong to Israel. Believing Gentiles, according to these verses, do belong to Israel, as attested by Galatians 3 and Ephesians 2:11-3:13.

There has always been a faithful remnant of believing Jews in national, physical, ethnic Israel. These were the true Israel. (Jesus Himself is the true Israel.) Not all national, physical, ethnic Jews were true Jews (see Rom. 2:28-29). But some were. Not all national, physical, ethnic Israel were true Israel (see Rom. 9:6-8). But some were. When Jesus the Messiah came, the evidence of whether a national, physical, ethnic Jew was part of the true Israel was whether he/she confessed Jesus as the Son of God or denied Him. Jesus stated that, "He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him" (John 5:23). Even the Apostle John stated that, "Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also" (1 John 2:23). If you reject Jesus, you reject God; and if you reject God, you are not part of true Israel, even though you may be a national, physical, ethnic Jew.

"The manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places." Ephesians 3:10

God's aim is to hold up the Church as a showcase of the glory of His perfections, saying to Heaven and Hell, "This is the glory of My Son—His Church!" This was supposed to be Israel's destiny. Now, Jews and Gentiles together as the Church will be God's people. Jewish rabbis and Dispensationalists/Zionists will say that God has two plans to bless people: one for Jews and one for Christians. Jews can get to God without Jesus without becoming Christians, and Christians can get to God with Jesus without becoming Jews. But this is false! Jesus made is absolutely clear: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father except through Me!" If Jew and Gentile do not come to and through Jesus alone, they do not come at all. They will spend eternity in Hell.

The picture that Romans 11:17-26, Galatians 3, and Ephesians 2:11-3:13 paint is this: the true Israel becomes the Church of Christ and the Church of Christ emerges as the true Israel. The two are one in the same! God has one Church, one body, one people. This one body of Jewish believers and Gentile believers, from both the Old Testament and the New Testament, is not only the true Israel—spiritual Israel—but also the true Church, which consists of anyone (Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female) having the same faith as Abraham. Any theology that attempts to divide what God has joined together is an aberrant, heretical theology. Biblical theology teaches expansion theology!