Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

The trickle of appeals for church donations to colleges is becoming a flood. Yet, many staunch (?) opponents of the practice freely mix and mingle among the advocates. Guy N. Woods is now holding meetings in which the audience is allowed to hand in written questions (as at the Camden Avenue Church of Christ, Parkersburg, W.V., 15-18 October, 1978). An ad says, “His scholarship and many lectures on Bible themes put him in good standing when extemporaneously answering religious questions. Rarely does the public get an opportunity such as this to study with a Bible scholar having the stature of Guy N. Woods.” Someone needs to submit the question, “Are church donations to colleges sinful and should gospel preachers cry out publicly against the practice?” Through the years, Woods has claimed to opose the practice as a violation of New Testament teaching. Whereas he was once a veritable lion, he has been quieter than the church-house mouse for the past two decades.

The problem is, some of our brethren are caught between an idol and a hard place. They maintain that the church can make donations to human institutions in benevolence (old-age centers, convalescence homes, orphanages) but not in education (kindergartens, schools, colleges). These brethren are constantly yoked with cohorts – growing in number daily – who agree with Batsell Barrett Baxter’s parallel:

Some who are agreed that the church can contribute to an orphans’ home are not convinced that the church can contribute to a Christian school. It is difficult to see a significant difference so far as principle is concerned. The orphans’ home and the Christian school must stand or fall together (Questions and Issues of the Day, p. 29).

About a year ago, we invited Fred Dennis to write an article explaining what the difference is and promised to publish it in Truth Magazine; we are still waiting! Then there is the Northridge church in the Dayton, Ohio area which admired Baxter so much that they mailed out his tract free – with pages 25-32 cut out – the heading on page 25 is “What About the Church Contributing to Christian School?”

The North Carolina Christian, which circulates among liberal brethren, carried Editor Howard Winter’s complaint in August, 1978 that the college-in-the-church-budget was winning the day because no one was crying out against it. Indeed! The Gospel Advocate, co-edited by Bible scholar Woods, carries the ads of David Lipscomb College appealing for church support. In a letter to the Knollwood church of Xenia, Ohio, dated 15 September, 1978, President Clifton L. Ganus of Harding College wished to meet with the “elders about the work that is being done at Harding Graduate School . . . . Enclosed is a card with which we hope you will respond to let us know that in January, 1979, we can expect to receive your support of $125 per month! Probably this is just a fraction of a dollar per month per member in your congregation . . . .” He quotes Ira North, editor of the Gospel Advocate, in the letter. We are sitting on the edge of our seat waiting for co-editor Woods to turn in a manuscript to editor North, crying out against these practices as idolatrous perversions of New Testament Christianity. (It will be a long wait, won’t it?)

Not to be outdone, President E. Claude Gardner of Freed-Hardemen College mailed out a letter dated 15 September, 1978 to churches. “We would be pleased for you-to join with us and with other congregations and individuals in support of the Bible Teaching Program Fund at Freed-Hardemen College by giving the Fifth Sunday (October 29, 1978) contribution to assist us in this wonderful work of teaching the Bible,” said the President of the school reputed to be a stronghold of conservative convictions. The July, 1977 F-HC News and Report greeted as a first the plans of a church in Kraaifontein, South Africa, “to send a monthly financial contribution.” For many years, Bible” scholar Woods has chaired an open-forum styled question period at the annual F-HC Lectureship. He is hand-in-glove with colleges. The October, 1978 David Lipscomb College Bulletin announced the “Annual Thanksgiving Campaign” goal of $200,000 in honor of Batsell Barrett Baxter. The Bulletin was addressed to the `Knollwood Church of Christ, 1021 Welford Drive, Xenia, Ohio 45385″ and carried a reproduction of a letter of appeal on letterhead of the Madison (Tennessee) Church of Christ, signed “Ira North Minister, Madison Church of Christ’ Editor of Gospel Advocate.” Woods writes a questions-answer column in the Gospel Advocate, But somehow the question has not come up, “Are church donations to colleges sinful and should gospel preachers cry out publicly against the practice?” Maybe Ira North will submit the question, and soon no doubt.

We suggest a special issue of the Gospel Advocate, a special forum period at the F-HC Lectures, and special question periods with Wood’s gospel meetings, devoted to the theme “Ephraim’s Idols.”

To Drink or Not to Drink

Editor Durham of Mission Magazine found it “sickeningly petty” than an African Christian should give up his life rather than submit to some thugs who demanded he drink a beer. Durham bemoans “puritanical” standards on drinking intoxicants “from the southern U.S.” and argues it were better to drink and live (October, 1978, p. 23). When the New Testament forbids Christians to use the intoxicating drug as a beverage (1 Pet. 4:3), a man faced with the choice to drink or not to drink under the threats of thugs has the same choice he would have with regard to any other law of God. How many beers should he have taken – what about a homosexual act – fraud – curse Christ – smoke pot – take LSD – commit adultery blaspheme God’s name – shout filthy slogans – bow to an idol? When will the liberals publish a bona fide list of big and little sins, important and unimportant laws of God, essential and non-essential commands of Scripture?

Truth Magazine XXIII: 28, pp. 460-461
July 19, 1979

By Dennis C. Abernathy

In Matthew 28:18 Jesus said, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, to I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.”

Jesus has all power (or authority) in heaven and in earth; therefore, we cannot question the authority behind this commission. “In heaven and in earth” is rather inclusive and leaves no room for man, with all his human wisdom, to claim any authority whatsoever! We are to go and teach all nations (this leaves no room for respect of persons). Many today have an idea that the Jew has a special corner on God’s blessings. Jesus said all nations; not just Jew, but all! Should we go to Jew, Gentile (black, white, yellow, red, etc.)? Jesus then says, we are to “baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” That is not the command of man, we have not been taught it by some man, but it has the authority of the Godhead behind it. But Jesus further says we are to teach them (those we baptize) to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you!

This should be our standard, our rule, by which we walk: “Has Jesus commanded it?” If He has then I should observe it! Not just some things He commanded but All Things!

1. Where did the Lord command instrumental music in worship of the New Testament church? If the Lord has commanded or authorized the use of it, then we should observe it. But where has He done so? I can read very clearly the command to sing, but nowhere do I read of instrumental music in connection with the New Testament church. Now I can read of it in the writings of men, concocted after their own wisdom – but when it comes to the New Testament church – it is sing! (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). Why can man not be content with “whatsoever I have commanded you”? Do you think it a small thing to tamper with the things of God?

I surely know God did not say, “Thou shalt not use mechanical music in worship,” in those exact words. But He did say sing! If you sent your child to the grocery store to-buy a bag of lemons and he came back with the lemons plus $5.00 worth of candy, what would you say? Although you did not tell him not to get the candy, you did not intend for him to do so, because you specified the lemons. So it is with God! Why be specific, if it does not matter?

2. Where did the Lord command sprinkling and pouring for baptism? There is no doubt that the Lord has commanded baptism (Matt. 28;19) – but where has He commanded one to have water sprinkled or poured upon him and call it baptism? Just calling some action baptism surely does not make it so! Baptism is a burial in water (Rom. 6:3-4; Acts 10:47; Acts 8:38-39). You say, “Why do men sprinkle and pour water upon the individual and call it baptism?” Because they are not content with “whatsoever things I have commanded you”! The doctrine of sprinkling and pouring is with us today because of the wisdom of men (if not, where did the Lord command it) and is therefore unacceptable to God.

3. Where did the Lord command people to worship in the “church of your choice”? We read about the church, to be sure. Much is said in the New Testament about it. It is referred to as “my church” (Matt. 16:18). Christ is the purchaser, builder, and head of the church (Acts 20:28; Matt. 16:18; Eph. 1:22-23). There is only one church (Eph. 4:4-5; Col. 1:18) and it is made up of the saved (Acts 2:41, 47). Therefore, if one is not in the one body of Christ, he is not saved, because Christ is the Saviour of the body (Eph. 5:23). There is so much said about the Lord’s church that we could go on and on – but where did the Lord command “the church of your choice”? Suppose man’s choice is not the Lord’s choice? Why is it not up to man to choose (other than accepting the Lord’s choice). Do you really believe that God is saying that a person should take his pick of one of the countless denominations and serve Him therein? Jesus said, “whatsoever I have commanded you” – man has no authority whatsoever in the matter. It is up to man to obey God, not decide for himself what he wants to do, (man cannot direct himself to heaven – Jer. 10:23).

Just the other morning a preacher on the radio said, “I am Southern Baptist myself, but God has faithful Coristians in the Baptist, Methodist, Holiness, Church of Christ as well as others; yes, he does.” Of course, dear reader, he did not bother to give the scriptures which so teach. Do you know why? Because it is not according to “whatsoever I have commanded you.”

4. Where did the Lord command the church to get involved in the socializing recreation, and school business? We can read of the church working (preaching the gospel, edification, and benevolence) but where did the Lord command the church to do any of the far out things they are doing today?

Talk about denominations preachers quibbling and dodging in debates – the attempts gospel preachers(?) make to defend their kitchens, social halls, youth camps and retreats, all of the gimmicks used in the bus ministries, the allurements of gymnasiums and church ball teams, as well as the Christian Colleges and preacher schools and on and on and on are just downright pitiful. They know the Lord never did authorize such things, so they just give up trying to find a “whatsoever I have commanded you” and join the sectarians in shouting “we don’t need authority for all we do.” Do they really believe it?

Dear reader, this is a serious matter. It is no small thing of little consequence. The Lord Jesus Christ meant what He said. He really wants you and me to “observe all things wha’soever I have commanded you.’.’ These other things we have mentioned may sound good to you, and you may see no harm in them but remember, “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death” (Prov. 14:12). (Read also Heb. 5:8-9; Matt. 7:21; 15:8-9; 2 Jn. 9.)

Truth Magazine XXIII :28, p. 459-460
July 19, 1979

By William C. Sexton

Security is a commodity desired by all but obtained by very few, even though many spend most of their resources trying to obtain and maintain it. When we speak or think of “security,” we usually have in mind economic, social, medical, physical ideas. All of these are important to our well-being and consequently they are valuable to each of us. However, I have in mind another type of security Spiritual!

Spiritual security springs from the two-fold nature of man: he is not only physical, having a body with needs, he also has a spirit, a soul (Mt. 10:28; 1 Thess. 5:23), the “inward man” (2 Cor. 4:16) with needs, too. We wish to explore securities for this aspect of man. We challenge each person to be awaken to these securities and to become an investor in the same.

The Bible proposes to be a revelation from the Creator to man, declaring his origin, duty, and destiny! We believe that adequate evidence is available to the serious-minded, honest, investigation person to convince him of the claims, that it is genuine, authentic, indisputable, indestructible, and practical. Man’s physical and social needs are temporal and immediate; consequently, they are often given most of his time, energy, and resources. His spiritual needs, however, are eternal, deserving his first attention and most serious effort to obtain and maintain.

John 5:24 speaks of security, a type which we wish to examine closely as how it may be obtained and maintained by whom and under what conditions. The text has a wonderful message, which ought to be declared truthfully, accepted enthusiastically, and responded to whole-heartedly!,, Few passages, however according to our observation, have been so abused and misused, misunderstood and distorted to the injury of people, as this one. Therefore, we wish to deal with this passage in a way that will profit all of us, and hopefully we will be able to assist others more effectively who have found a false security based upon a distortion of this passage.

In order to avoid injury from a distortion of this text, one needs to see the context clearly – conditions which caused Jesus to produce this statement, an analysis of the text – observing the words and structure, thus the real meaning of the different parts; then, one needs to avail himself of the security. Therefore, we direct your attention to this passage, inviting you to drink from it.

I. The Context of any and every passage, is always significant in understanding the original message. In the first 9 verses of this 5th chapter, Jesus healed a man by saying “rise, take up thy bed . . . .” “Immediately the man was made whole.” However, it was on the Sabbath day, and the Jews had an idea of the Sabbath that made such a serious act of disobedience. Verses 10 to 16 show the Jews reacting in such a way as to identify Jesus as the sinner and seeking to have “him opposed by all. Verses 17 to 31 give us an account of Jesus’ response to their charges: He and the Father were working together, and it was impossible to honor one of them and not honor the other; all such effort was fruitless. His claim of having God as His Father was interpreted to mean that He had made Himself “equal with God, rendering Him worthy of being killed! They were determined to do that worthy act. Jesus claimed that the Father loved thr. Son and approved of all that was done by the Son and had given the Son power to raise the dead, judge them, and thus approved of the honor equally deserved and demanded by both. In that context, He said, “Verily, verily, I say unto you. He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.” In verses 32-47, He offered witnesses to testify to His claims. The text, then calls for hearing His word and believing on the Father, who had sent Him. Joint action of faith relative to each of these Divine persons, the Son and Father, is essential to spiritual-security as offered in this verse. Let us continue to focus our attention on that fact.

II. An Analysis of the Text He that heareth my words, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life thus is state. Many people have misused this verse to claim that one is saved at the point of faith before and without obedience, and then nothing can ever cause them to be lost, thus the doctrine of impossibility of apostasy. A close and correct view of this verse reveals something drastically different from what so many have loudly proclaimed relative to it.

First of all, let us look at the word in the original for heareth. It is the word akouon, being a present participle in the nomative case, singular, masculine in gender, present tense, and active voice (Harper’s Analytical Greek Lexicon, page 13) of the verb akouo. Participles are “verbal adjective (s), sharing in part the characteristics of both the verb and the adjective; it describes its subject as a doer of the action denoted by the verb” (Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in The New Testament Greek, Ernest De Witt Burton, page 53). The verb akouo, is defined as meaning, to hear, hearken, listen to; to heed, obey (Harper, p. 13; Green, p. 5; Arndt and Gingrich, p. 32; Thayer’s p. 23).

Therefore, the verb means more than just the words come so as to be perceived, but to have them understood and obeyed (Cf. Mt. 18:15; Acts 4:19). Thus the participle akouon is describing the person who is responding favorably to the words of Christ, not one time, but habitually, continually, and such is indicated by the word heareth in the English translation of the KJV. As Burton says, “The Present denotes action in progress . . .” (p. 54). Consequently, Jesus is saying something of a person who is actively doing what His words teach that person to do. Such is in harmony with the claim in Mt. 7:21-23; the one who hears and acts is blessed by Him and His Father.

Secondly, the word translated believeth is pisteuon. It too, like akouon, is a present participle, having all the functional characteristics as described above, but coming from the verb pisteuo, with the basic meaning of trust, which is also expressed in obedience. This is relative to the One who sent Jesus, the Father. As an example of one who did not continue to trust the Father in a beneficial, pleasing manner, read Num. 20:12.

Thirdly, Jesus says of that person or of those persons who are presently active in these two things: (1) Hearing the words of Jesus in the sense of perceiving and yielding to them; (2) Believing in the Father, who sent Him, in the sense of trusting and manifesting the same in his action, that person is saved! That person, or all who are described in those two participles have eternal life! They have made the transition from death to life! All such people have spiritual security!

Fourthly, all such persons shall never come into condemnation! The persons whose present life is described by those two participles, are as safe as if they were in the arms of the heavenly Father. They are just as sure not to come into condemnation as the unbeliever is not to “see life” (Jn. 3:36). However, beloved, be sure that you understand what that present life is: an active responsible yielding to the word of Christ and an active responsible trusting in the Father! If one ceases to be what those two participles describe, then just as the unbeliever who ceases to be thus described can come into life, so the once-active-hearer and believer shall come into condemnation (Heb. 3:12).

I found it interesting to notice that Kenneth S. Wuest, in his The New Testament An Expanded Translation renders our texts, “Most assuredly, I am saying to you, He who habitually hears my word and is believed the One who sent me has life eternal, and into judgment he does not come, but has been permanently transferred out from the sphere of death into life.” In like manner, Boyce W. Blackwelder, in his book Light From The Greek New Testament (page 105) says, “Jesus says (John 5:24): `Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth (present participle) my word, and believeth (present participle, goes on trusting) on him that sent me. hath (echei, present tense, goes on having) everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from (metabeken, perfect tense, is in the state of having passed from) death unto life.”

Thus the clear, emphatic, all important lesson taught in the verse is: when one is active in hearing the words of Jesus Christ – obeying them and believing the Father he is saved, having passed from death to life, remaining thus secure! Thus the hourly concern is: are we those described by those two participles? If so, let us rejoice; but if we are not, then let us seek to become so that we can and will be so described by God’s standard.

III. Application of the Principles Spiritual security, then beloved, is available to all men and women, on the same basis, and we would urge each to avail themselves of it.

The word of Jesus teaches that none who come to Him will be turned away, (Jn. 6:37). Coming, by hearing and responding to what He says, will not allow one to claim salvation without having done what He teaches, however (cf. Jn. 8:24; Lk. 13:3; Rom. 10:9-10; Mk. 16:16). Many do that very thing. Let us not be guilty of such foolish behavior. Continuing to serve Him in a faithful way is essential to keep that hope alive and secure (cf. 1 Pet. 1:3-5).

Friends, are you placing God “first” in your life, as the word of Christ teaches (Matt. 6:33)? If we will but hear His word and “follow” His voice (Jn. 10:28-29) we are secure and nothing is so powerful as to take us away. But let us not lose faith and go back into the world (2 Pet. 2:19-20). Unholy conduct will keep us from heaven (1 Cor. 6:9-11). Inactivity and unuse of our senses in the process of growth and development will cause us to be displeasing to God and unprepared for the present time (Heb. 5:11-6:6). Unscriptural practices will remove us from the realm of safety (2 Jn. 9).

It is our aim to encourage all to become concerned about his spiritual security, be informed as to how it maybe obtained and maintained, be sure that we are following the standard rule-book, the New Testament scriptures. If we let the spiritual security slip through our hands, we shall suffer eternally (Rev. 20:10-15). Do we have the right kind of securities?

Truth Magazine XXIII: 28, pp. 457-459
July 19, 1979

By Thomas C. Hickey

The October, 1978, issue of Reader’s Digest carries an article by Ernest O. Hauser dealing with the fourteen apocryphal books which are usually bound together with the inspired writings in Catholic editions, some Masonic editions and a few “Protestant” editions of the word of God. Although the article is informative and interesting it must be regarded as undocumented since it consists primarily of summary statements by the author. Occasional statements enclosed in quotation marks are never credited to a source.

While Hauser represents the viewpoints of different groups, he never quite gets around to clearly representing his own views of the apocrypha. The article seems calculated to recommend the study or the apocryphal books to “Protestants” along with the Bible, but several questions arise:

1. Is the Bible the inspired word of God?

2. Are we being encouraged to consider the apocryphal books as being inspired of God in the same sense as the books of the Bible?

3. Or are the apocryphal books merely being recommended as exciting religious source books in the Judeo-Christian tradition?

4. Does the author have a very limited conception of the inspiration of the scriptures, and is he merely recommending that the apocryphal books be received as “inspired” in this very limited way?

Hauser does state correctly that “the books of the Apocrypha were not part of the Hebrew Old Testament, which consisted of the Law, the Prophets and the Writings.” He further said that when the sacred scripture was translated into Greek (I suppose he is referring to the Septuagint Translation, made about 280 B.C. – TH) that several added works found their way into its text. By this I presume that he is referring to the fact that when the Greeks had the Hebrew scriptures translated for the library at Alexandria, Egypt, they did also have the Old Testament apocryphal books translated, and these were sometimes circulated along with the books of the Hebrew scriptures. It should be remembered that the Greeks were not interested in the Hebrew scriptures because they conceived of them as the word of God necessarily, but because they viewed them as being important Hebrew literary traditions.

In all of Hauser’s article the thing which troubles me most is his final statement; “Thus Protestants the world over are able to enjoy as an extra treat the wisdom and inspiration of the Apocrypha.” This statement troubles me for three reasons: first, I do not know what he means by “inspiration”; secondly, most people have little or no knowledge of the apocryphal writings; and thirdly, I fear that the average reader will take this as a claim that the apocryphal writings should be received on a par with the word of God!

1. What is meant by the word “inspiration”?

2. Is the Old Testament apocrypha inspired?

What Is Inspiration?

There are three commonly held views of inspiration:

1. Some hold that inspiration is nothing more than a flash of insight of purely naturalistic origins. Accordingly these people view an artist as “inspired” to produce a great painting. In actuality such a person may be talented and imaginative, but he is not inspired in the scriptural sense of the term!

2. Others hold that biblical inspiration involves God in some nebulous way implanting ideas or thoughts in the minds of prophets and apostles who in turn expressed those ideas however they chose from their own experience and background. This idea, sometimes called thought inspiration, could not be relied upon to produce an error free revelation since its quality would obviously be limited by the personal initiative and reliability of the men involved. As one might naturally expect, those who argue for the thought inspiration of the Bible often place a low estimate on the value and authority of its writings.

3. The Bible itself claims to have been produced by a process which is often called verbal and plenary inspiration. By definition, inspiration means “God-breathed” as translated from the Greek term theospneustos in 2 Tim. 3:16. Verbal means that the very words are each inspired as they were given by the Holy Spirit through the various apostles, prophets, etc. Plenary means that the whole thing is inspired and authoritative so that certain parts should not be thought of as mythological or imaginative.

The defense of the concept of verbal and plenary inspiration might justifiably exhaust many volumes, but a few reasons are outlined here:

1. Paul taught that the scriptures were breathed out by God, that is, spoken by Him (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

2. Scripture did not come by the will of the men who wrote it, but they wrote as they were moved to do so by the Holy Spirit of God (2 Pet. 1:20-21).

3. The very words of scripture were given by the wisdom of God (1 Cor. 2:13).

4. The function of prophets primarily involved vocalizing God’s will (Ex. 3:13-15; 4:1-16; 6:28 thru 7:1).

5. Declarations of religious responsibility were prohibited except to the extent that they were oracles from God (1 Pet. 4:11).

6. The Old Testament contains some 2,600 claims for inspiration.

7. Although not as prolific in making such claims for inspiration as the Old Testament is, the New Testament makes several dozen such claims.

8. Finally, we observe that Jesus (who claimed to be the Son of God) stressed that a receiving of the words of the apostolic messengers was tantamount to a receiving of Himself and of God the Father (Matt. 10:40; John 12:48; 13:20).

Is The Old Testament Apocrypha Inspired?

While there are some who argue for accepting the apocrypha as inspired, there are also others who only argue for the acceptance of the apocryphal books on a par with the scriptures. These are not the same as, in the latter case, their attitude toward the scriptures may be quite low. Still others, including myself, argue that the apocryphal books have some value from a historical perspective because they provide insight into Jewish history, culture, literary traditions and religious background of the biblical and immediate post-biblical era. But I deny that the apocryphal works are inspired or that they should be regarded on a par with scripture!

I now offer a few reasons for rejecting the apocryphal books as being inspired:

1. The fourteen Old Testament apocryphal books under consideration never make any claim to being inspired! If the authors themselves did not claim inspiration, why should we? The author of the Maccabees makes it very clear that there were no prophets or inspired men alive in his day, and that there had not been any for some time (1 Macc. 4:46; 9:27; 14:41)!

2. The Hebrews did not accept the apocrypha as part of the scriptures. Josephus listed the books of the Old Testament without making any allowance for the apocrypha.

3. There are some 280 direct quotations of the Old Testament in the new having been taken from some 28 of the 39 books of the Old Testament, but there is not one clear quotation from the apocryphal books.

4. According to Westcott and Hort, Paul himself quoted 192 times from 25 of the Old Testament books. But not once is there a clear quotation from the apocryphal books in Paul’s writings. Hauser’s article claims that echoes of the book Wisdom are found in Paul’s letter to the Romans, but he failed to cite these “echoes” or to give references.

5. Philo and Josephus, early Jewish writers, rejected the apocrypha. So did Origen and Jerome, early Christian writers. So did the council at Jamnia (90 A.D.). Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate widely used by the Roman Catholic Church, branded the works as apocryphal or spurious and denied their admission into the translation of the scriptures.

6. While Hauser alluded to the Catholic affirmation of the sanctity of the apocryphal books which was given at the Fourth Session of the Council of Trent on April 8, 1546, he failed to mention that they did not approve 1 and 2 Esdras or the Prayer of Manasseh. Furthermore, Roman Catholic approval of the apocryphal works at such a late date could hardly be considered unbiased since a number of cardinal church doctrines such as purgatory and prayer for the dead have absolutely no biblical support and just rest solely on the feeble support of obsecure apocryphal texts such as 2 Macc. 12:43-45.

7. The widespread uncertainty and lack of support for the apocryphal books which has generally characterized them as contrasted with the widespread acceptance cf the biblical books make the two different as day and night.

In conclusion, may I suggest that the historic worth of the apocryphal books may elevate them somewhat above the pseudepigrapha, but they fall far short of the mark of even being worthy of comparison with the books and letters which make up the Bible!

Truth Magazine XXIII: 28, pp. 455-457
July 19, 1979