✪ The 14 books of the Septuagint included in the Vulgate but considered uncanonical by Protestants because they are not part of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Roman Catholic canon accepts 11 of these books and includes them in the Douay Bible. Writings or statements of questionable authorship or authenticity. [Middle English Apocrypha, not authentic, from Late Latin Apocrypha, the Apocrypha, from Greek Apokrupha, neuter pl. of apokruphos, secret, hidden, from apokruptein, to hide away : apo-, apo- + kruptein, kruph-, to hide.] Fifteen writings recorded during the 400 years between the Old and New testaments. Twelve of them were declared inspired and added to the Catholic Cannon in 1546. Ref-0165, p. 337. "The Roman Catholic Church's claim that these writings of the Apocrypha are inspired must be rejected for the following reasons. . ." Ref-0165, pp. 338-339. "The Apocrypha of the Old Testament: Tobit, Judith, Additions to Esther, The Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach), Baruch, 3 Ezra (=1 Esdras), 4 Ezra (=2 Esdras), The Letter of Jeremiah, The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, Psalm 151. All of these except 4 Ezra (2 Esdras) are present in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (LXX); 2 Esdras is found in the Latin translations of the Old Testament and was used by many early church fathers. While the Greek Orthodox use 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, and Psalm 151, the Roman Catholic Church does not." Ref-1200, p. 357.
✪ ". . .Jerome rejected the Apocryphal books that were being circulated in manuscripts of the Greek and Latin versions. In general Jerome had a low opinion of books in the Apocrypha. He did eventually translate Tobit, Judith, and the additions to Daniel and Esther, but rapidly and without much care." Ref-0062, pp. 78-79. "At the Council of Trent in 1546, the Roman Church promulgated the following decree: ‘If anyone receive not as sacred and canonical these said books, entire with all their parts. . . Let him be anathema!’ By this decree Jerome himself was condemned, while the very firm position of the synagogue on the canon was contradicted." Ref-0060, p. 173. "In this preface Jerome explains his views on the Apocrypha . . . He declares that as there are twenty-two letters in the Hebrew alphabet, so there are twenty-two books of the Hebrew canon. He then lists the twenty-two books which, though counted differently, are the same as our thirty-nine. Although Jerome hurridly translated Tobit and Judith for his friends, he excluded them from the canon because they did not meet the benchmark of what he called “the Hebrew truth.” Nevertheless, contrary to Jerome, the books of the Apocrypha, handed down in their Old Latin form, were retained in the Latin Bible." Ref-0236, p. 145. "The first Latin Bibles of the second century had been translated from the Greek Septuagint rather than from the Hebrew text and so had naturally included these books [the Apocrypha]. Jerome, however, insisted on distinguishing these apocryphal books from the canonical books, and thus he relegated them to a secondary position. At the Council of Carthage in 397, however, it was decided that the apocryphal books were suitable for reading in the churches despite Jerome's reservations." Ref-0791, p. 63.
✪ ". . .the Apocrypha were included in every major Protestant version of the English Bible from Coverdale to the Revised Standard Version." Ref-0073, p. 114, footnote p. 32.
✪ "It is. . . very remarkable that in the entire New Testament there is not one explicit citation from the Old Testament Apocrypha, those books declared canonical in the sixteenth century by the Roman Church." Ref-0060, p. 97. "[The Apocrypha] seem not to have been included in the beginning in the Septuagint, but they were gradually introduced into its later editions. Neither Josephus nor Philo cites them. Christ and the apostles never referred to them, although they freely used the text of the Septuagint and were certainly acquainted with the material in question. (Jude 1:9 may allude to the Book of Enoch, a pseudepigraph. . .). . . In the first century, Jerome added the Apocryphal books to his Latin translation of the Bible, the Vulgate, calling attention to the evident difference between the inspiration of the canonical writings and the less significant spiritual value of these." Ref-0060, p. 172. There is an almost unbroken testimony of antiquity AGAINST accepting the Apocrypha into the canon: (1) Philo quoted the OT prolifically, but never quoted from the Apocrypha as inspired. (2) Josephus explicitly excludes the Apocrypha, numbering the books of the OT as twenty-two. Neither does he quote the apocryphal books as Scripture. (3) Jesus and the NT writers never once quote the Apocrypha although there are hundreds of quotes and references to almost all of the canonical books of the OT. (4) The Jewish scholars of Jamnia (A.D. 90) did not recognize the Apocrypha. (5) No canon or council of the Christian church recognized the Apocrypha as inspired for nearly four centuries. (6) Many of the great Fathers of the early church spoke out against the Apocrypha, for example, Origin, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius. (7) Jerome, the great scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate, rejected the Apocrypha as part of the canon. (8) Many Roman Catholic scholars through the Reformation period rejected the Apocrypha. (9) Luther and the Reformers rejected the canonicity of the Apocrypha. "Josephus’s canon of twenty-two books clearly excludes the additions in the Greek version of his day. Discussion seeking to identify precisely which books he had in mind must take into consideration that some books which were counted as one in Josephus’s day are divided in modern Bibles. The most dramatic example is that in the first century the Minor Prophets were considered on book, the Book of Twelve, possibly because they all fitted on a standard-size scroll." Ref-1200, p. 137n13.
✪ "The New Testament writers quote from practically all of the Old Testament books but nowhere quote from any of the Apocrypha. The canon of the Old Testament accepted by Jesus and his apostles should be sufficient for Christians today." Ref-0236, p. 168.
✪ "On an unbelieving basis . . . there is no particular reason to believe that there are laws that accurately describe facts. Who is to know that reality is regular at all? If the world is ultimately the result of chance (or “ultimate matter,” which is the same thing), surely it is equally likely that the world will be random or chaotic; and if our senses and reason seem to be telling us differently, why should we believe that in a world of chaos they would be telling us the truth?" Ref-1344, p. 77.
✪ "Thus [W. H. Griffith] Thomas did not possess confidence in the role of apologetics that was embraced at Princeton Seminary.34 As a teacher of apologetics, a position denied him in Canada, he said its role was not to construct the edifice of faith. Why? Because it is not a source of revelation equal to “the revelation of God.” Instead the function of an apologist is to demolish his opponent's arguments and to demonstrate the reasonableness of faith. Supernatural truth is not beyond the grasp of knowing, but it is beyond the grasp of a whole-hearted affectional embrace.35" John D. Hannah, The “Thomas” in the W. H. Griffith Thomas Memorial Lectureship, Ref-0200, Vol. 163 No. 649 January-March 2006, 3:17, p. 11. "If the Holy Spirit depends upon a certain degree of apologetic proficiency in order to enable a person to believe, most Christians are automatically disqualified from evangelism." Ref-0819, p. 184. "In seeking to fulfill the Great Commission to propagate the message of salvation through Christ to the lost world, some Christians have abandoned “their God-given offensive weapons (the consistent godly life, persistent prayer, and the true preaching of God's Word)” in favor of proving the existence of God and the infallibility of the Bible by means of logic, philosophy, history, archaeology, and science. Such arguments, however, assume that (1) man is autonomous and can either reject or accept God and His Word at will, and (2) that God needs such common ground to accomplish the salvation of the sinner. The basic problem, therefore, is an improper doctrine of soteriology or inconsistency with such." Ref-0819, p. 189. "We are not commissioned to harmonize and reinterpret the Bible in line with contemporary thought in order to make Christianity more intellectually palatable and prestigious! We are not commissioned to be rationalistic apologist! Our only commission is to present the message of salvation. To our great frustration and humiliation, we must rely on the Holy Spirit for the rest, for it is He who will “convict the word concerning sin, and righteousness, and judgment” (John 16:8)." Ref-0819, p. 191. "A Proper definition of ‘Faith’ – “persuasion of Divine truth” (J. Frame). It is common for New Atheists to wrongly define faith as “belief in something without evidence.” (The multiverse hypothesis would exemplify this definition)." — Henebury, Paul - The Biblical Worldview (Against All Others), 20210130125538.pdf.
✪ "The notion is abroad in some circles that Van Til’s thought forbids us to seek to learn anything at all from unbelievers, or even from non-Reformed Christians. Van Til’s extreme antithetical formulations do give some aid and comfort to that position. I take it, however, that my analysis decisively refutes such applications of Van Til’s thought. Van Til himself learned much from non-Christian and non-Reformed thinkings, and he taught his students to do the same." Ref-1344, pp. 212-213. "Van Til does not hesitate to argue both that Christianity is in accordance with the facts and that it is rational. . . . “Hodge and Warfield were quite right in stressing the fact that Christianity meets every legitimate demand of reason. Surely Christianity is not irrational. To be sure, it must be accepted on faith, but surely it must not be taken on blind faith. Christianity is capable of rational defense.”" Ref-1344, p. 282. "You cannot evidence someone into saving faith." -- Patrick Slyman, The Gospel Summarized (John 6:41-59), May 19, 2019.
✪ "Just as there are some with whom we cannot reason at all, and others to whom we can only give simple testimonies, and still others with whom we can engage in sophisticated reasoning, so there are many others along the continuum of sophistication. There is a wide variety of “sorts and conditions of men “and they are in varying degrees capable of appreciating arguments and (relatively) nonargumentative testimonies of various sorts and in various combinations. The apologist must be wise in his judgment of what is called for in a particular situation, rather than imposing a rigid model upon every encounter." Ref-1344, p. 326.
✪ "Your last question again demonstrates you have missed the presuppositionalist challenge. It may be summarized thus: Unless the biblical picture of God, man and the world are presupposed (either via assent or dissent) it is not possible to make final sense of anything. A person who rejects the biblical worldview ought not to use elements of that worldview to prove their arguments. They should (but cannot) only use arguments which can be validated and supported by their worldview. That is what I’ve been trying to get you to see." Paul Henebury, [http://drreluctant.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/rejoinder-to-some-comments-regarding-presuppositionalism-christianity/] accessed 20110225. "The concept of revelation is fundamental to the Bible’s definition of God — which is why it comes under such withering fire from atheists. Sadly, Christian apologists often duck their heads below the parapet when this happens, fearing that to appeal to revelation is somehow sub-intellectual and exposes them to the charge of superstition. Accordingly, they fall back upon philosophical, scientific and pragmatic arguments, often falling over in the process." Ref-1341, loc. 1427. "The Christian apologist should emphasize . . . the issue of impersonalism versus personalism. It is this issue . . . that distinguishes the Christian worldview from all others. To emphasize it gives the apologist several advantages: (1) Inquirers sometimes tell us that there is no point in investigating Christianity, for if they did that, they would also have to investigate all the other religions, philosophies, and ideologies in the history of thought--an impossible task, to be sure. We can reply that they should give special attention to Christianity, for on the crucial question of whether the universe is governed by a person or by impersonal principles, Christianity is unique. It is consistently personalistic, and all its rivals are in the opposite camp. (2) The emphasis on personalism also addresses the loneliness of modern secular people. It offers them an ultimate friendship, ultimate love, something they will never find in a non-Christian view of the world. (3) It assures them that an ultimate rationality--and (4) an ultimate justice--govern the world order." Ref-1344, pp. 60-61. "Van Til uses the term presupposition to indicate the role that divine revelation ought to play in human thought. I do not believe that he ever defines the term. I have tried to define it for him as “basic heart-commitment.” For the Christian, that commitment is to God as he reveals himself in his Word. Non-Christians substitute something else--another god, themselves, pleasure, money, rationality, or whatever--as that to which they are ultimately committed and that which governs all of life, including thought. . . . Nor should we emphasize the pre- in presupposition to suggest that a presupposition must be held at some point in time prior to all our other knowledge. The pre- in presupposition refers to “pre-eminence” of the presupposition with respect to our other beliefs." Ref-1344, pp. 136-138. "The question is sometimes asked, How can people be expected to presuppose God’s revelation before they have come to believe in God? The answers are: (1) Everyone knows God already by virtue of natural revelation (Rom. 1:21). Those who choose not to believe in him do so contrary to their own better knowledge. (2) Even if presupposing God did required knowledge in addition to what we have, the lack of such knowledge would not invalidate the obligation to presuppose God. Rather, that obligation would entail the further obligation to gain that additional knowledge. (3) Even if the requirement to presuppose God’s revelation were in some sense impossible for man to obey, that fact would not invalidate it. Calvinism typically teaches that God commands what depraved man cannot do apart from grace." Ref-1344, p. 138. "Instead of presupposing God’s revelation as the ultimate criterion of truth, the sinner presupposes (as Kant advocated so clearly and explicitly) that his own autonomy is the ultimate principle of being and knowledge. Thus, fallen mans stands in antithesis to God and to God’s people as well." Ref-1344, p. 189. "The noetic implications of common grace are as follows: But in the course of history the natural man is not fully slf-conscious of his own position. The prodigal cannot altogether stifle his father’s voice. There is a conflict of notions within him. Be he himself is not fully and self-consciously aware of this conflict within him. He has within him the knowledge of God by virtue of his creation in the image of God. But his idea of God is suppressed by his false principle, the principle of autonomy. This principle of autonomy is, in turn, suppressed by the restraining power of God’s common grace. Thus the ideas with which he daily works do not proceed consistently either from the one principle or the other." Ref-1344, p. 189. "The most conspicuous feature of Van Til’s position is the “antithesis” between believing and unbelieving thought. . . . The concept of antithesis is one of Van Til’s major concerns, and it is the element in his thought that has brought him the most severe criticism. . . . As we consider the matter of antithesis, we must simultaneously consider the doctrine of common grace, which teaches that God restrains sin in the unregenerate. On the basis of common grace, Van Til maintains that unbelievers know some truth despite their sin and its effects." Ref-1344, pp. 187-188. "Certainly the concept of antithesis has the very practical function of warning apologists not to assume too much about the unbeliever. He is operating on a basic assumption or presupposition opposite to that of the Christian. And the unbeliever has a strong motivation to interpret all of reality according to his own presupposition. Thus, when the unbeliever finds in his own thinking some uncomfortable bit of Christian truth, his inclination will be somehow to twist it, suppress it, deny it, domesticate it, or simply change the subject." Ref-1344, p. 199. "When the apologist approaches an unbeliever, he should expect to find one who represses the truth of God in one way or another, so that the overall configuration of his life is wrong and wrongheaded. But the specific forms that this repression takes are so many and so varied that it is not possible to predict just how an apologetic confrontation will go." Ref-1344, pp. 208-209. "The strongest criticism of the apologetic tradition is that in its zeal to persuade non-Christians, it has often failed to communicate to them the full antithesis between Christian and non-Christian presuppositions." Ref-1344, p. 297. "Van Til has taught us that the debate between Christians and non-Christians is, among other things, a debate over the ultimate criterion of truth. Therefore, in his more extreme antithetical formulations, he declares that there is no common ground at all between believers and unbelievers. Of course, as we have seen, there is common ground, because the unbeliever is never consistent in his unbelief. There is no common ground in principle, but there is common ground in actual debate." Ref-1344, p. 305. "Van Til’s apologetics is essentially simple, however complicated its elaborations. It makes two basic assertions: (1) that human beings are obligated to presuppose God in all of their thinking, and (2) that unbelievers resist this obligation in every aspect of thought and life. The first assertion leads Van Til to criticize the notion of intellectual autonomy; the second leads him to discuss the noetic effects of sin." Ref-1344, p. 404. "All too frequently Christian theology and apologetics has not been consistent with its own principles. It has sought to prove the existence of God and the propriety or necessity of believing in the Bible as the Word of God by arguments that assumed the possibility of sound and true interpretation without God and without the Bible." Ref-1345, p. 20. "It is now apparent in what manner we would contend in our day for the philosophical relevance of Scripture. Such philosophical relevance cannot be established unless it be shown that all human predication is intelligible only on the presupposition of the truth of what the Bible teaches about God, man and the universe. If it be first granted that man can correctly interpret an aspect or dimension of reality while making man the final reference point then there is no justification for denying him the same competence in the field of religion. If the necessity for the belief in Scripture is established in terms of “experience” which is of itself interpreted in terms of Scripture it is not the necessity of Scripture that is established. The Scripture offers itself as the sun by which alone men can see their experience in its true setting. The facts of nature and history corroborate the Bible when it is made clear that they fit into no frame but that which Scripture offers." Ref-1345, p. 37. "Sometimes the demand to assume a neutral stance, a noncommittal attitude toward the truthfulness of Scripture, is heard in the area of Christian scholarship (whether it be the field of history, science, literature, philosophy, or whatever). Teachers, researchers, and writers are often led to think that honesty demands for them to put aside all distinctly Christian commitments when they study in an area which is not directly related to matters of Sunday worship. They reason that since truth is truth wherever it may be found, one should be able to search for truth under the guidance of the acclaimed thinkers in the field, even if they are secular in their outlook. . . . We must be willing, according to this outlook, to approach the deviate with unbelievers with a common attitude of neutrality--a “nobody knows as yet” attitude. We must assume as little as possible at the outset, we are told; and this means that we cannot assume any Christian premises or teachings of the bible. Thus the Christian is called upon to surrender his distinctive religious beliefs, to temporarily “put them on the shelf,” to take a neutral attitude in his thinking. Satan would love this to happen. More than anything else, this would prevent the conquest of the world to belief in Jesus Christ as Lord. More than anything else, this would make professing Christians impotent in their witness, ineffective in their evangelism, and powerless in their apologetic." Greg Bahnsen, Evangelism and Apologetics Ref-0066, Vol. 26 No. 2 Spring 2013, 52-56, p. 52. "Contrary to neutrality’s demand, God’s Word demands unreserved allegiance to God and His truth in all our thought and scholarly endeavors. . . . Paul infallibly declares in Colossians 2:3-8 that All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hid in Christ. . . . Every academic pursuit and every thought must be related to Jesus Christ, for Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). To Avoid Christ in your thought at any point, then, is to be misled, untruthful, and spiritually dead. To put aside your Christian commitments when it comes to defending the faith is willfully to steer away from the only path to wisdom and truth found in Christ. It is not the end or outcome of knowledge to fear the Lord: it is the beginning of knowledge to reference Him (Pr. 1:7; 9:10)." Greg Bahnsen, Evangelism and Apologetics Ref-0066, Vol. 26 No. 2 Spring 2013, 52-56, pp. 52-53. "Paul tells us in Ephesians 4 that to follow the methods dictated by the intellectual outlook of those who are outside of a saving relationship to God is to have a vain mind and darkened understanding (Eph. 4:17-18). Neutralist thinking then, is characterized by intellectual futility and ignorance. . . . Thus, if a Christian wished to begin his scholarly endeavors from a position of neutrality he would, in actuality, be willing to begin his thinking in the dark." Greg Bahnsen, Evangelism and Apologetics Ref-0066, Vol. 26 No. 2 Spring 2013, 52-56, p. 53. "Attempting to be neutral in one’s intellectual endeavors (whether research, argumentation, reasoning, or teaching) is tantamount to striving to erase the antithesis between the Christian and the unbeliever. Christ declared that the former was set apart from the latter by the truth of God’s Word (John 17:17)." Greg Bahnsen, Evangelism and Apologetics Ref-0066, Vol. 26 No. 2 Spring 2013, 52-56, p. 55. "The problem with human reason is that it, along with every other aspect of our humanity, was corrupted by the fall. This is what theologians refer to as the “noetic effects of the fall.” We have not lost the ability to know all things, but we have lost the ability to know them on our own authority and power. We are completely dependent upon divine revelation for the answers to the most important questions of life. Our sin keeps us from seeing what is right before our eyes in nature. We are dependent upon the God who loves us enough to reveal himself to us—and to give us his Word." Albert Mohler, Bill Nye’s Reasonable Man—The Central Worldview Clash of the Ham-Nye Debate, [http://www.albertmohler.com/?p=30250] accessed 20140205.
✪ "The earliest Bible translators all recognized the noun “apostasy” (2 Thess. 2:3a) as communicating physical departure. In fact, Jerome, going back to the fourth century, translated the New Testament from Greek into Latin in what is called the Latin Vulgate. It is called the Vulgate because Vulgate means common. Latin was the common language of the day. Jerome wanted the Bible readable in the common language of the day, which in the fourth century was Latin. From the word Vulgate, we get the word “vulgar,” as in common, earthy speech. When Jerome translated Second Thessalonians 2:3a he used the Latin word discessio, which means departure. Consequently, all the earliest English translations similarly translated the Greek noun apostasia in Second Thessalonians 2:3a as “departure” or “departing.” The following early English Bible translations all translated apostasia proton in Second Thessalonians 2:3a as “Departynge first”: the Wycliffe Bible (1384), the Tyndale Bible (1526), the Coverdale Bible (1535), and the Cranmer Bible (1539). Similarly, the following early English Bible translations all translated apostasia proton in Second Thessalonians 2:3a as “Departing first”: the Breeches Bible (1576), the Beza Bible (1583), and the Geneva Bible (1608). Thus, they all translated this noun, apostasia, as a physical departure in verse 3a. How did a spiritual departure understanding of apostasia in Second Thessalonians 2:3a then enter the translation history of the English Bible versions? Thomas Ice offers the following explanation: Most scholars say that no one knows the reason for the translation shift. However, a plausible theory has been put forth by Martin Butalla in his Master of Theology thesis produced at Dallas Theology Seminary in 1998. It appears that the Catholic translation into English from Jerome’s Latin Vulgate known as the Rheims Bible (1576) was the first to break the translation trend. “Apostasia was revised from ‘the departure’ to ‘the Protestant Re- volt,’” explains Butalla. “Revolution is the terminology still in use today when Catholicism teaches the history of the Protestant Reformation. Under this guise, apostasia would refer to a departure of Protestants from the Catholic Church.” The Catholic translators appear eager to engage in polemics against the Reformation by even allowing it to impact Bible translation. [Thomas Ice, “The ‘Departure’ in 2 Thessalonians 2:3,” online: https://www.pre-trib.org, accessed 7 May 2017, p. 2.] Thus, the shift from a physical to a spiritual under- standing of apostasia in Second Thessalonians 2:3a in the Roman Catholic Rheims Bible English translation appears to have been theologically rather than exegetically motivated. Furthermore, in 1611 the King James translators translated apostasia in Second Thessalonians 2:3a with the expression, “falling away.” This is perhaps the second time that we begin to see a spiritual departure understanding of this verse enter an English translation. Why did the King James translators translate it as a spiritual departure when virtually everybody else, going back to Jerome, thought it was speaking of a physical departure? The answer most likely lies in the fact the KJV translation was created in the wake of the Protestant Reformation. Consequently, the translators wanted to apply the verse to the Roman Catholic Church, which represented a “falling away” from the truth. Thus, the translators of both the Rheims Bible and the KJV errantly embraced the theological interpretation “falling way” in lieu of the longstanding exegetical interpretation “departing” that had been faithfully handed down to them. Most modern translations follow the pattern established by the King James Version. The New King James, NIV, RSV, ASV, the Jerusalem Bible, and the New American Standard Bible do not say “departure.” Rather, they translate apostasia in Second Thessalonians 2:3a as a doctrinal or spiritual departure by using such language as “apostasy, falling away, revolt, rejection, or rebellion.”" Andy Woods, 2_Thess._2:3 Spiritual or Physical Departure, Part V, Ref-1416, Vol. 9 Number 155, August 2017, 1-3, pp. 2-3. [https://adobeindd.com/view/publications/73beba58-b2f3-4143-8e7b-03f3a8b3898e/1/publication-web-resources/pdf/PreTrib_August_2017.pdf], see 20170919175015.pdf, 20160203161843.pdf.
✪ "That is the very essence of apostasy: hearing the truth, knowing what it is, professing to accept it, and then finally rejecting it. Because the final disavowal of the truth occurs with full knowledge and understanding, this is a fatal apostasy from which there is no hope of recovery." Ref-0789, p. 64.
✪ "Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well the main end of his life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life (John 17:3) and therefore to lay Christ in the bottom as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning. And seeing the Lord only giveth wisdom, let everyone seriously set himself by prayer in secret to seek it of Him (Prov. 2, 3). Everyone shall exercise himself in reading the Scriptures twice a day that he shall be ready to give such an account of his proficiency therein." -- Rules of Harvard in 1636; quoted in David Barton, "Original Intent" (Aledo, TX: Wall Builder Press, 1996), 81.
✪ "When religious people in mosques, synagogues, and churches take up their writings of their respective faiths, they find there what God has told to Muhammed or Moses or Jesus, true and factual stories about what the founders of Islam, Judaism, or Christianity have said and done. When scholars of Islam or Judaism or Christianity read these same writings, a fair number of them receive these writings not as God's word but as statements of what humanity has written down in God's name. In the case of the Gospels, therefore, the body of the faithful in the churches read words they assume Jesus said, accounts of what he did, while scholars in universities and Christian seminaries alike find in the Gospels evidence that - properly interpreted - may tell us about things Jesus ‘really’ did or said. It follows that there is a considerable difference between how the faithful receive Scriptures - as the word of God - and how scholars read this same Scripture - as (mere) evidence about what may or may not have been said. . . . which Jesus? Is it the one the scholars (this morning) tell me really lived and worked, said this (but not that), did this (but not the other thing)? Or the one Christian believers believe is son of God. . .?" Ref-0137, pp. 10-12.
✪ "Basically there are two questions concerning apostasy that must be answered. The first is this: Does the Bible indicate that there will be apostasy in the church? The second is, What should be the Christian's attitude toward it?" Ref-0056, p. 139. ". . . a definition of apostasy is this: ‘A departure from truth previously accepted, involving the breaking of a professed relationship with God.’ Apostasy always involves willful leaving of previously known truth and embracing error." Ref-0056, p. 140. "The following is a list of the seven major passages that deal with the last days for the church: 1 Timothy 4:1-3; 2 Timothy 3:1-5; 4:3-4; James 5:1-8; 2 Peter 2:1-22; 3:3-6; Jude 1:1-25. Every one of these passages emphasizes over and over again that the great characteristic of the final time of the church will be that of apostasy. The New Testament pictures the condition within the professing church at the end of the age by a system of denials. (1) Denial of God (Luke 17:26; 2 Timothy 3:4-5); (2) Denial of Christ (1 John 2:18; 4:3; 2 Peter 2:6); (3) Denial of Christ's return (2 Peter 3:3-4); (4) Denial of the Faith (1 Timothy 4:1-2; Jude 3); (5) Denial of sound doctrine (2 Timothy 4:3-4); (6) Denial of the separated life (2 Timothy 3:1-7); (6) Denial of Christian liberty (1 Timothy 4:3-4); (7) Denial of morals (2 Timothy 3:1-8,13; Jude 1:18); (8) Denial of Authority (2 Timothy 3:42)." Thomas Ice, Drowning in Apostasy Ref-0181, Volume 8, Number 90, August 2011, p. 4. "I have not written this book as some sort of frantic exhortation to an improbable general religious renewal. Such a renewal may in fact take place, I imagine, as the Spirit moves, and as a result of social and political forces I cannot hope to foresee. But I have operated throughout from the presupposition that, in the modern West, the situation of Christianity in culture at large is at least somewhat analogous to the condition of paganism in the days of Julian, though Christianity may not necessarily be quite as moribund. I do not, at any rate, anticipate a recovery under current circumstances, and I cannot at the moment envisage how those circumstances might change." Ref-1290, p. 239. "Long before his death, however, the spiritual condition of the land was changing and Spurgeon saw the change; whereas he used to hold out the prospect of a full church to the man who preached the gospel faithfully, he had to revise his opinion: ‘Compared with what it used to be, it is hard to win attention to the Word of God. I used to think that we had only to preach the gospel, and the people would throne to hear it. I fear I must correct my belief under this head . . . We all feel that a hardening process is going on among the masses.’" Ref-1324, p. 17. The first seven English translations of apostasia all rendered the noun as either “departure” or “departing.” They are as follows: Wycliffe Bible (1384); Tyndale Bible (1526); Coverdale Bible (1535); Cranmer Bible (1539); Breeches Bible (1576); Beza Bible (1583); Geneva Bible (1608). This supports the notion that the word truly means “departure.” In fact, Jerome's Latin translation known as the Vulgate from around the time of a.d. 400 renders apostasia with the “word discessio, meaning ‘departure.'” Why was the King James Version the first to depart from the established translation of “departure”? Most scholars say that no one knows the reason for the translation shift. However, a plausible theory has been put forth by Martin Butalla in his Master of Theology thesis produced at Dallas Theology Seminary in 1998. It appears that the Catholic translation into English from Jerome's Latin Vulgate known as the Rheims Bible (1576) was the first to break the translation trend. “Apostasia was revised from ‘the departure' to ‘the Protestant Revolt,'” explains Butalla. “Revolution is the terminology still in use today when Catholicism teaches the history of the Protestant Reformation. Under this guise, apostasia would refer to a departure of Protestants from the Catholic Church.” Thomas Ice, The "Departure" in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, Ref-0181, vol. 8 no. 119, May 2014, p. 3. [http://www.timlahaye.com/Images/PreTrib_May_2014.pdf] accessed 20140517. "It is well established that E. Schuyler English is thought to be the first pretribulationist to propose that “the departure” in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 was a physical departure and thus a reference to the pre-trib rapture. However, history records that at least a couple of men thought of this idea before English's series of articles in 1950. J. S. Mabie is said to have presented the view that “the departure” refers to the rapture as early as 1859 during a prophecy conference in Los Angeles. He later wrote his view in an article published in November 1895 in a periodical called Morning Star. Another pre-English proponent of “the departure” as the rapture was John R. Rice in a book in 1945." Thomas Ice, The "Departure" in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, Ref-0181, vol. 8 no. 119, May 2014, p. 4. [http://www.timlahaye.com/Images/PreTrib_May_2014.pdf] accessed 20140517. "Even believers . . . even believers armed with all the tools of the Word of God will not be able to change and transform the culture into the kingdom of God. They will be able to influence it to a degree, but that's all; they will never successfully transform the culture, because if they could Jesus Christ would not have to come back and do His work." Ref-1359, 14.188 ". . . we quote this enlightening forward, for it reveals, in Dr. Scofield’s clear-cut style, the gist of the prophetic teachings contained in the annotations of his own work: . . . The characteristic of the present age is a reckless and unreasonable optimism. On every hand we are assured that the Church is “marching grandly on to the conquest of the world,” and that despite the fact that, after one hundred years of missions, there are 200,000,000 more heathen to convert than at the beginning of the century. But prophecy, grandly optimistic in its ultimate view, presents anything but a flattering picture of the end of this age. Apostasy, heading up in the man of sin, and the utter destruction of the present imposing world-system by a crushing blow, is the testimony of the prophets. This is an unwelcome message, and therefore is not heeded." Ref-1506, p. 43.
✪ Greek apostolos = sent away from. Apos = away from, stello = sent. Hebrew equivalent: apo = me, stello = sheliac, the root for Mashiach or Messiah. "It is precarious to equate a missionary with an apostle merely upon the basis of the idea of sending forth in the verb from the same root, apostello. The word apostle means ‘a sent one’ only in the sense of a representative of God sent to the people . . . Except for Barnabas and Paul, the apostles were not characterized by missionary activity. On the contrary, the apostles remained in Jerusalem while others went forth with the message (See Acts 5:2,18; 6:2-6; 8:1; 9:27; 15:2; Gal. 1:17-2:10). Acts 8:1 especially makes this clear, since the apostles remained in Jerusalem after the rest of the church was scattered and even years after this event (see Acts 11:1; 15:2; Gal. 1:18; 2:1). The initial outward thrust of Christianity was carried by Philip the evangelist (Acts 8:5-40) rather than by an apostle." Ref-0115, pp. 53-54.
✪ "There is a great difference between the miracles worked by the Apostles and the 'miracles' it is claimed certain men perform today. One big difference is this, that you never find the Apostles announcing beforehand that they are going to hold a Healing Service in a few days' time. Why not? Because they never knew when it was going to happen. . . . There is a second difference also. The Apostles, you notice in the Book of Acts, never failed. It was never a case of making an experiment; there was no tentative element. They knew. They were given a commission, so they spoke with authority. They issued a command, and there was no failure; and there can be no failure when this is the position." Ref-1369, p. 311.
✪ "The word apostle is used in three senses in the New Testament. 1. In its primary sense of messenger (John 13:16; Php. 2:25; 2Cor. 8:23). . . 2. In the sense of missionaries, men sent by the church to preach the Gospel. . . (Acts 14:4,14; Rom. 16:7). 3. In the sense of plenipotentiaries of Christ; men whom he personally selected and sent forth invested with full authority to teach and rule in his name. . . (John 15:26; Acts 1:22; 2:32; 3:15; 13:31; 26:16; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:12)." Ref-0158, pp. 21-22.
✪ "The expression ‘of note among the apostles’ [Rom. 16:7]. . .may mean either that Andronicus and Junias were actually apostles or that the apostles recognized them as notable. . .If Andronicus and Junias were ‘notable apostles,’ why doesn't either Scripture or history ascribe such notoriety to them?. . .If Sosthenes were an apostle [1Cor. 1:1], why not say, ‘Paul and Sosthenes, apostles of Christ?’ Paul called himself an apostle but did not include Sosthenes under this title." Ref-0115, pp. 54-55. "The earliest manuscripts of the New Testament were written in an uppercase Greek script (uncial) that did not include accents. But copies of the Greek New Testament from later periods in a cursive script (minuscule) accent the name as female." Michael Heiser, Did Jesus Have Female Apostles, [https://blog.logos.com/2018/09/jesus-female-apostles/] Let every apostle that cometh to you be received as the Lord. But he shall not remain except one day; but if there be need, also the next; but if he remain three days, he is a false prophet. Ref-0543, p. 380.
✪ In Acts 9:38-41 none of the local believers raised Dorcus from the dead, but instead sent for the apostle Peter.
✪ Stephen's signs in (Acts 6:8) were performed after apostolic authority was conferred to him as a deacon (Acts 6:6). The relationship of having apostolic endorsement has been called that of an apostolic legate.
✪ Ref-0117, p. 120.
✪ APPLICATIONS stands for the following aspects of applying bible study: Adjust attitude. Promise to claim. Priority to change. Lesson to learn. Issue to solve. Command to obey. Activity to avoid or stop. Truth to believe. Idol to tear down. Offence to forgive. New direction to take. Sin to confess. "1. Are there examples to follow? 2. Are there commands to obey? 3. Are there errors to avoid? 4. Are there sins to forsake? 5. Are there promises to claim? 6. Are there new thoughts about God? 7. Are there principles to live by? " Ref-0110, p. 218.
✪ "Doctrine without practice is dead, and practice without doctrine is blind." Ron. J. Bigalke, Introduction, Ref-0785, Vol. 16 No. 48 August 2012, 5-10, p. 8. "Having started with his preliminary salutation he goes on to remind his readers of the great doctrines which they have believed. Having done that, about halfway through the letter he then introduces his great word 'therefore'. Now he is going to apply the doctrine. He says in effect, 'In the light of all this which you claim to have believed, this is what follows.' He reasons with them as to how they should live and so on. In other words, the first half, speaking very roughly, of every Epistle 'is doctrinal, and the second part is practical or application. Yet, having said that, what is always so fascinating, and to me thrilling and moving, is to observe the way in which even in the practical section he keeps on bringing in the doctrine again. There is the general division, but you must not press it too far, you must not make these divisions too absolute. You cannot do this with Paul's Epistles; all these aspects are so intimately related that you have got to keep them going together always" Ref-1369, p. 69.