Official Roman Catholic teaching expressly denies worshipping Mary, but this oftentimes seems to be overshadowed when conduct is put into practice. Rome claims Mary holds a highly exulted status and that she is highly honored, not worshipped. Yet, Roman Catholic piety over the years has elevated Mary’s status far beyond the level of what I would consider "honoring" someone. Consider just a few of the many examples of what I am referring to. This first one is a prayer taken from St. Alphonsus de Liguori’s Glories of Mary, which bears the Roman Catholic imprimatur and has undergone more than 800 editions since first published, so it is no inconsequential work. I quote: "Most Holy Immaculate Virgin and my mother Mary, to thee who art the mother of my Lord, the Queen of the world, the advocate, hope, and refuge of sinners, I have recourse today, I who am the most miserable of all! I adore thee, O great Queen, and thank thee for all the graces thou hast conferred on me until now, and particularly for having delivered me from hell, which I have so often deserved…In thee I place all my hopes, and I confide my salvation to thy care…"

Another common prayer found in Glories of Mary reads: "O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the goods which God grants to us miserable sinners, and for this reason he has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee…In thy hands I place my eternal salvation and to thee do I entrust my soul…Obtain for me, then, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace always to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help."

These highly exultant words should not be arbitrarily dismissed, as some Catholic apologist have attempted to do, by suggesting these prayers are not part of the "official" teachings of the Church. I respond simply by pointing out that not only do these prayers appear in literature that bears the official Roman approbation for publication, but also that Rome possesses the ecclesiastical power to extinguish this sort of devotion to Mary but fails to do anything to prevent it. In fact, I would go so far in suggesting Rome has overtly facilitated her exultation with magisterial approval through papal encyclicals and the like. Nevertheless, note the words of St. Alphonsus.

Returning, now, to the prayers. The individual reciting these words has expressed assurance and hope in Mary for his eternal salvation. Compare this supplication, however, with the psalmist who petitioned rightly, "Preserve me, O God: for in thee do I put my trust" (Ps 16:1 KJV). David placed his confidence in God; the Roman Catholic prayer teaches to place one’s trust elsewhere. Additionally, the one reciting this prayer no longer fears the wrath that is due for his sins since Mary has delivered him from hell. According to his words, she will single handedly obtain a release from the punishment that is rightly due the sinner. Also, it must be stressed that Mary is represented in this prayer as having extraordinary power in that she has the capability of plucking a sinner from the jaws of eternal perdition, appeasing the wrath of an indignant God in order to save the lost. That is truly an amazing accomplishment if you ask me. Moreover, what is also troubling about these prayers is the tacit assumption that Mary protects sinners from Christ Jesus. Even though Scripture clearly points to Jesus as our one and only mediator between God and man (1 Tim 2:5), I cannot see how one can read the prayers and not reach the conclusion that Mary is here pictured as a greater appeaser against a wrathful Christ and also serving as Mediatrix, another mediator in the salvific process.

If one thinks my conclusion is speculative and unwarranted, just take a look at the abundance of popular Roman Catholic literature on this subject, papal statements, or encyclicals, which bear witness to my statement. For instance, Pope Leo XIII said regarding Mary’s mediation: "With equal truth may it be also affirmed that, by the will of God, Mary is the intermediary through whom is distributed unto us this immense treasure of mercies gathered by God, for mercy and truth were created by Jesus Christ. Thus as no man goeth to the Father but by the Son, so no man goeth to Christ but by His mother." Elsewhere, Benedict XV is attributed with saying: "It has pleased God to grant us all graces through the intercession of Mary."

If that is not unpleasant enough, let me offer just one more instance in which a Psalm, that is to say, sacred Scripture, was rewritten in order to esteem Mary. "We praise thee, O Mother of God; we confess thee, Mary ever Virgin…Thee all angels and archangels, thrones and principalities serve. Thee all powers and virtues of heaven and all dominions obey. Before thee all the angelic choirs, the cherubim and seraphim, exulting, stand. With unceasing voice every angelic creature proclaims thee: Holy, holy, holy, Mary, Virgin Mother of God!"

I do not think I need to add much commentary, as I believe the words speak for themselves. I trust the reader will use his best judgement in determining whether or not I have a right to conclude such language surpasses veneration, is blasphemous in essence, and is akin to rank idolatry. Again, I believe this only serves to buttress my original proposition: Rome has done nothing to distance herself from popular piety within the Church and has even gone so far in expressing attributes and characteristics to Mary that she is now seen as greater than mankind and the angels, slowly replacing the preeminence of Christ in the salvation of the sinner—at least in practice of prayer.

One can only wonder how prayers such as those recorded by St. Alphonsus have gained popularity within Roman Catholicism since they do not find justification in Scripture. One modern Roman Catholic apologist has noted, "[Mary as Mediatrix of all graces] is accepted, ultimately, on the authority of the Church rather than on the authority of clear scriptural references." Indeed, I believe this proves the evangelical position regarding the authority of Rome. Once the individual abandons the perspicuity of Scripture in favor of the dogmatic teachings of Rome, he is duty-bound to believe that what is clearly white is black, because his ultimate authority, Rome, has said so.

Whose canon is correct? Pick up any Roman Catholic Bible and compare it with your own, and you will discover there is a great disparity between the Old Testaments. It is no secret Roman Catholics include a number of works to the Old Testament commonly referred to as the Apocrypha or the deuterocanonical Scriptures. The exact number of books (and additions to several canonical books of Scripture) varies depending on how one counts them. Sometimes listed at 14 or 15, the Apocrypha includes Baruch, Judith, 1&2 Maccabees, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Tobit and Wisdom, as well as some additions to Daniel and Esther. Combined, these works amount to approximately two-thirds the size of the entire New Testament—quite a substantial sum, if you ask me. Since we are dealing with such a vast amount of literature, which introduces concepts foreign to the rest of Scripture (e.g., Purgatory, prayers for the dead), it goes without saying that recognizing the extent of the Bible is no trivial matter. Not only this, the Council of Trent anathematized any person who did not accept the apocryphal literature as equally authoritative as the other sixty-six books of Scripture. What this says is that the Church has the authority to define what is and what is not canon. That is, for me, and for all intents and purposes, the locus of the issue at hand.

Moreover, practically applying the Berean principle of searching the Scriptures (Acts 17:11) or following Paul’s admonition to Timothy to search the Old Testament (2 Tim 3:16) would be difficult to accomplish without first noting what exactly is to be investigated. The question, then, becomes even more urgent: what is the extent of the canon, and how does one discover which Bible is accurate?

I submit that a reasonable answer to these questions can be arrived at following a proper investigation of the facts. If we permit the internal and external evidence to guide us to the truth, I am confident we can come to a satisfactory conclusion that provides us with assurance we can know with certainty which canon contains the complete Word of God—nothing more and nothing less. The dispassionate seeker must take a look at the factual evidence and allow it to lead him accordingly. 

For me, the important question to ask in this search is which canon did the Jews of Palestine, Jesus, and the New Testament authors accept? That is, what books belonged in the Hebrew Bible? Remember that it was Paul who wrote, "the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God" (Rom 3:2). Meaning, the Hebrew people were given the awesome responsibility of recognizing what was God-breathed. Accomplishing this task, the Jews preserved the Word of God and bequeathed it to the early church. It is the canon of the Jews, therefore, that we must investigate and discover what exactly they understood the extent of Scripture to be.

Roman apologists, however, argue the Hebrew canon was still open prior to the church age and points to two main historical arguments in support of her claims. First, Rome insists the Council of Jamnia, which met in the late first century after the fall of the Temple, convened in order to officially close the Jewish canon. Second, Roman proponents point to the Greek-speaking Jews who used the Septuagint (also called LXX), the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible in the city of Alexandria. The argument goes that the Alexandrian canon contained the Apocrypha, because our earliest Septuagint manuscripts contain the apocryphal books. These are two arguments we will deal with later on, but I submit there is also another unspoken reason—the real reason, if you will—why Roman Catholics accept the Apocrypha. Specifically, the faithful Roman Catholic willfully obliges the Church because his ultimate authority (the Roman Catholic Church) tells him he must accept it. Indeed, in spite of the overwhelming internal and external evidence that points one to a different conclusion, ultimately, one must embrace the Apocrypha because the Church says so. It’s truly that simple.

I believe the facts of history and modern scholarship answer the anemic attempt by Roman Catholics to elevate the Apocrypha to an authority the Jews and many early ecclesiastical writers would have never bestowed upon the books. By the time of Christ, the Hebrew canon was closed, contained a specific number of books, and was arranged according to a particular order. Jesus, first century Jews, early church fathers, Rabbinical literature and, yes, even the Apocrypha are just a few independent sources that provide an attestation of this reality.

As early as the second century prior to Christ, the Hebrew canon contained the traditional reckoning of twenty-four books—although some Jews counted Ruth as an appendix to Judges and Lamentations to Jeremiah, rendering the number at twenty-two. So anytime one sees or hears the number twenty-two or twenty-four, it is specifically referencing a limited canon. Anyways, the first century Jewish historian Josephus, in the first volume of his treatise Against Apion, bears testimony to a fixed canon when he spoke of the Hebrew Bible consisting of only twenty-two books, comprised of the traditional threefold division: the Law, the Prophets, and Writings, which are the same books of the Protestant Bible. It is clear from the writings of Josephus that the Apocrypha was not included in his delineation of the Hebrew Bible nor was it even in consideration. The matter was not up for debate, and there isn’t a shred of evidence to suggest any Jewish writer of any repute argued for their canonicity. Not desiring to beat the proverbial "dead horse," but I do not think Josephus’ testimony can be overstated. Living in the first century, he was a man of unparalleled learning and training, son of a priest and descendant from the Maccabean kings, so if anyone would know about the Apocrypha and its canonicity, it would be Josephus. Yet, he is clear in recording the consensus of his day was that the prophetical era ceased with Malachi, and thus, the reason the Hebrew Bible was closed, excluding the deutero-canonical books.

Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BC–AD 50) is another man who is interesting to note and must be dealt with on a historical level when discussing canonical matters. He was, by all accounts, and as one scholar has summed up, the apotheosis of Alexandrian Judaism. What is interesting to note about his life and testimony is that he only knew of the Greek version of the Bible. Why is this important, one might ask? Well, simply because he acknowledged the traditional division of the Hebrew Bible—Law, Prophets, and Writings—and yet, he gave no sign of accepting the Apocrypha as authoritative. Even though Roman Catholic apologists argue for the worldwide acceptance of apocryphal books contained in the Greek Bible, Philo doesn’t seem to recognize the historicity of Rome’s allegations. If ever there were a representative who could testify to the authenticity of the deuterocanonical Scriptures, it would have been Philo, the Jewish philosopher of Alexandria, but we do not any have evidence for this.

Rabbinical literature from the early Christian centuries also provides a key piece of information in understanding the division and content of the Hebrew Bible. One of the clearest statements regarding the threefold division of Jewish Scriptures is found in the tractate Baba Bathra in the Babylonian Talmud. This passage provides us with knowledge regarding the makeup of the early Jewish writings and demonstrates the canonical status during the first century did not include the Apocrypha. Again, we see the ancient documents of antiquity fail to provide support for the Roman Old Testament.

And let’s not forget about Aquila, the early second century Jewish proselyte. I have never found anyone who would dispute his credentials in learning. He labored under the daunting task of translating the Hebrew Scriptures in Greek in the early years of the second century since many Jews were not happy with the Christian’s usage of the Septuagint. Aquila, working under the supervision of Palestinian Jews, accomplished this monumental endeavor. In so doing, he followed the traditional reckoning of the Old Testament of twenty-four books, excluding the apocryphal literature. By now, the reader should be seeing a theme that is rather disturbing in light of the reality that one who does not accept this corpus of literature is anathematized. However, pressing ahead.

There is yet another significant witness to this threefold division of the Hebrew canon. This one, nonetheless, is found in the prologue to one of the apocryphal books, Ecclesiasticus (written c. 130 B.C.). Amazingly, the writer understands there are three specific groups of books which are authoritative, and he does not include Ecclesiasticus as belonging in either of the three categories of Law, Prophets, or the rest of the books. So the question you need to consider is: how can the Roman Catholic Church state Ecclesiasticus belongs to the Old Testament canon when the book itself delimits its own authority? If the writer acknowledges a tripartite division is already in existence, then Ecclesiasticus clearly cannot belong to those divisions. Meaning, if the divisions and contents thereof were already defined before Ecclesiasticus was even written, then how can Ecclesiasticus be said to belong to one of the divisions? The answer, of course, is obvious—it cannot.

Another telling point to consider comes from another apocryphal book, 1 Maccabees. The author in several instances mentions that there was no prophet in the land at the time of his writing (4:46; 9:27; 14:41). Why is this important? Well, because Peter tells us "knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Pet 1:20–21). Following the death of Judas Maccabeus, prophets and the spirit of prophecy had ceased to exist in the land of Israel. Since a prophet must be living in order to receive sacred Scripture, and Maccabeus tells us there were no prophets, the author eliminates his own work from contention of being in the canon. Without a prophet there can be no inspired writings.

Having said all that, this now brings me to the early church and the testimony of the Fathers. Remember that Trent claimed to follow in the example of the orthodox Fathers by embracing the Apocrypha. But how true is this? Has Trent merely cherry picked early theologians who agreed with their position at the exclusion of many? Was the decision rendered after a rigorous examination of the evidence? I submit the Council’s decision was rendered, not after having investigated the historical record judiciously, but merely as a reaction against the Protestant Reformation. Trent’s decision came in response to perceived and legitimate threats against the sovereignty of the bishop of Rome and not as a consequence of thorough investigation. This is not simply my unfounded opinion but a belief held by others as well. In fact, the Anglican scholar B. F. Wescott noted in his nineteenth century book, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament that not one scholar trained for historical learning in canonical issues was among the fifty-three prelates who ratified the canon. To me, that is a truly sobering fact. I wonder how many Roman Catholics are aware of this revelation?

The list of Fathers spanning the centuries up to and including the time of Trent—those who were familiar with the Hebrew language and studied the matter—were more inclined to recognize the Apocrypha did not belong among the recognized authoritative books of Scripture. Let me offer just a few of the Church fathers who testified to the threefold division of the Hebrew canon and the exclusion of the Apocrypha as belonging among the canonical books: Origen, Jerome, Hilary of Poitiers, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil the Great, Rufinus, Melito of Sardis, Amphilochius, Leontius, Bede, The Council of Trullo (6th Ecumenical Council), Cardinal Cajetan, Hugo of St. Victor, William Occham, Thomas Aquinas, Erasmus, and the list goes on. Not a small listing, huh? These are just a few of the many who rejected the books Trent tells us we must accept for salvation, yet a large portion of Rome’s own theologians and scholars would be anathematized if they still held to their beliefs and were living today. I could provide many more names, but I think my point is well taken. Nevertheless, before moving on, I want to make one final statement in regards to this list that I almost forgot to mention. In his introduction to the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament, Cardinal Ximenes presented the same rejection of apocryphal books of Cardinal Cajetan—and Pope Leo X (yes, the same pope who anathematized Martin Luther) still gave his approbation for the publication of the work. So even up to the time of the sixteenth century, Rome’s own scholars were openly rejecting the canonicity of the Apocrypha.

That said, I must be careful here and make sure that one does not misunderstand what I am trying to say. It is not my position that every Church Father or even the majority of them limited the Old Testament to twenty-four books. Rather, my position is to maintain that those most intimate with the Hebrew language and an understanding of the Palestinian canon recognized that the Jews did not embrace the apocryphal writings as authoritative. Moreover, I am also attempting to quell the notion that the deuterocanonical books were embraced by a "universal consent of the Fathers." That is simply contrary to historical fact. But be that as it may, and the entire aforementioned, external evidence aside, I believe there is even more compelling evidence from Christ that gives us a picture of the Hebrew canon that He used.

In Luke’s Gospel, we read: "Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary" (Luke 11:50–51, NIV). Jesus, I believe, is here referring to the structure Hebrew Bible. When Christ spoke of Abel to Zechariah, He was pointing out the first and the last murders. That is, Abel’s death is recorded in Genesis, while Zechariah is cited in 2 Chronicles—the first and last books of the Jewish canon.

Also, on the road to Emmaeus, Luke again records what Jesus and the apostles viewed as canonical. "And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself" (Luke 24:27). Again, the general description of using the traditional division of "Moses" (or Law), "Prophets," or "Psalms" as Jesus did in Mark 12:10 each designate certain books that were known to all. There is no room to argue, well, maybe the Apocrypha could have belonged to one of these divisions. No, everyone knew which set of books were authoritative and nowhere can you find one reference that any Palestinian Jew listed the Apocrypha among the tripartite division of the Hebrew canon. Now normally I shy away from using words such as "all" and "no one," but here is one case where I can say with absolute certainty this is truly the case. Indeed, this is not even in dispute. Never before has anyone put forward any notion with a single shred of evidence to support the idea first century Palestinian Jews counted the apocryphal works among the canon. Jesus was familiar with canon, the Apostles understood, so too were the Pharisees, and all of Jesus’ hearers knew what He meant when He asked His audience, "have you not read?" We see Jesus expected His hearers to know what was in the canon, and He even held them responsible for its contents. All the evidence, from Jesus to the Jewish historians all point us to one place—a Hebrew canon that is comprised of the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings.

Roman Catholic Arguments Considered

Okay, so having said all that, returning, now, to the Roman Catholics insistence that the Council of Jamnia closed the canon around the year A.D. 90. I will spare providing all the painful details concerning the synod of rabbis, and without going in to much detail, just know that this theory is devoid of serious investigation as Roger Beckwith has so ably demonstrated in his The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and has also been refuted by J. P Lewis and S. Z. Leiman, if one cares to investigate this matter in greater detail for himself. I would suggest Beckwith’s monumental work. It is a lot of reading but well worth the effort, I assure you.

Anyways, the important thing to remember about the entire gathering was that, as far as we can tell, it was only a discussion concerning the books already accepted as canonical. There might have been some discussion over the authority concerning some books such as Esther, but what we do know for certain is that while some might have accepted or rejected this particular book, no discussion ever took place concerning the Apocrypha. Jamnia introduced nothing new. Again, I refer the reader back to Aquila and his translation of the Hebrew canon into Greek just a few decades after Jamnia. His canon bears witness to the same writings agreed upon by earlier writers, namely, Josephus and the threefold division.

That, then, brings us to the second argument used by Roman Catholics, which insist the Apocrypha should be accepted because the LXX was Bible of the early church. That the early Fathers were confused over exactly which books belonged to the canon is without much dispute. We see theologians from the West holding different and varying perspectives than from many of those in the East. J. N. D. Kelley makes this point clear when he remarked, "The view which now commanded itself fairly generally in the Eastern church, as represented by Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzus and Epiphanius was that the deutero-canonical books should be relegated to a subordinate position outside the canon proper." In the West, however, they were more generally inclined to accept a larger canon, but even then, it is not certain which books were contained in the LXX of the early church in the West. The earliest extant manuscripts we have date back to around four centuries after Christ and even they do not reflect a general agreement as to which apocryphal books belonged. Specifically, Codex Vaticanus omits the book of Maccabees. So did the early church accept Maccabees or no? Which one is it? The earliest manuscripts differ from Trent’s pronouncement. So if we are to believe the earliest documents, then we must reject Maccabees as well. Nevertheless, what we must remember is that the church was not entrusted with the Words of God, the Jews were. So it is to the Hebrew canon that we are to look to understand which Old Testament books were inspired by God and not to fourth century documents written by Christians. I invite one to explore this topic in greater depth, and I am confident one will discover those who knew the Hebrew language and those who actually traveled to Jerusalem were the ones who best had a clearer understanding of which books belonged in the canon and which ones were good for reading.

In the final analysis, the entire Roman Catholic argument is based upon fourth century Greek manuscripts copied by Christians for their infallible pronouncement. And even then, these copies do not provide us with unanimous consent regarding the Old Testament. Even though, as I have shown, a wide array of theologians from the earliest believers to Cardinals and a pope of the sixteenth century, have all rejected the Apocrypha, we are told our soul’s eternal destiny is at stake in this matter. As Trent pronounced, the one who denies the books enumerated among the Apocrypha is anathema, cut off spiritually from the Church. Serious statements must be backed up with serious, historical fact and not merely conjecture and postulating.

Parting Thoughts

Having presented a lot of evidence, and briskly, let’s quickly review the evidence presented in this discussion. Remember that Rome, at the Council of Trent in 1546, has determined that under the pain of the eternal anathema every Christian is duty bound to believe in the inspiration and canonicity of the Apocrypha and that this has been the consent of the ecclesiastical writers, Jesus, and the Jews. Summing up, then, we conclude: The Jews who were entrusted with the Words of God did not recognize the apocryphal books. Jesus limited the canon of His day to the traditional Hebrew reckoning of Law, Prophets, and Writings. The primary Jewish historian Josephus bears witness in excluding the Apocrypha, as does the Alexandrian Jew, Philo. The ecclesiastical writers who were familiar with Hebraic backgrounds to the Old Testament or understood the Jewish language largely rejected the Apocrypha. Gregory the Great, while writing as bishop of Rome, rejected the Apocrypha in his prefatory remarks—as well as other sixteenth century Roman scholars, including Cardinals Cajetan and Ximenes with the approbation of Pope Leo X. And these are just a few of the evidences against the apocrypha, without getting into the differences between the apocryphal literature accepted at Hippo, Carthage, and later, at Trent; the official Bible commentary used in the middle ages in training centers denying the canonicity of the Apocrypha; and the historical and factual errors in the deuterocanonical books.

With all this evidence, I submit there is really only one reason not to accept the truth, and the honest Roman Catholic will admit that the reason he accepts a larger Old Testament canon is because the Church tells him so. Embracing these books is not the conclusion of a long and sincere inquiry into the facts, because a truthful investigation will never lead anyone to the conclusion the Apocrypha is canonical. It is, therefore, the end result of one thing and one thing only—one’s ultimate authority compels him to believe this even though it goes against reason and the clear testimony of Scripture and history. The more I study Roman Catholic issues, the more I am convinced the Roman Catholic is first told what to believe and will then filter all historical and rational evidence through that lens so that a reasonable conclusion is elusive. The person who wants to believe in the canonicity of the Apocrypha will undoubtedly "see" evidence for his position and will muster "facts" to buttress his presupposition, but the historical reality stands at open variance to that which Trent has anathematized every evangelical Christian. 

According to Mormon history, the validity of the religion is based on the discovery of golden tablets by Joseph Smith and witnessed by three people: Oliver Crowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris. When first apprised of their duty to validate the golden tablets, they naturally asked to see them. This legitimate request gave rise to a new revelation by Smith for them. "Ye shall testify that you have seen them, even as my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., has seen them, for it is by my power that he has seen them, and it is because he had faith" (Hill, Donna. Joseph Smith: The First Mormon, p. 90).

What is important to note is that the testimony of the three witnesses is not that Joseph Smith actually showed them the gold plates, but rather, while they were in the woods the plates were shown to them "by the power of God, and not of man". According to the testimony, "an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes that we beheld and saw the plates and the engravings thereon" (The Testimony of the Three Witnesses, Book of Mormon). How clever is that? Without saying they actually saw the gold plates the three witnesses could testify that an angel told them they had seen the gold plates! Is it any wonder the apostle Paul warned the church more than two thousand years ago to beware of any man or angel from heaven proclaiming another gospel? Galatians 1:8, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."

Mormons are not the only people on whom this deceptive technique has been used. The Word of Faith movement advocates Positive Confession, which tells people to believe in things they have not received or even seen. And what shall we say of our dispensational brethren who "see" a secret, seven-year rapture of the church in 1 Thessalonians 4:16ff? In dispensationalism, many do not know they are advocating a theological system rather than the simplicity of the Scriptures that Jesus Christ is coming the second time for all who believe (Heb 9:28), and not merely in "stages" or "phases" with intervals of time. Ah, the enemy of the historic Christian faith is sly. We have to ask in amazement at his cunningness, "How clever is that?"