“well it’s out on the highway and on with the show;
always telling people things they’re too lazy to know;
it will make you crazy, it will drive you insane;
tell me why, must i always explain”

You are right to take exception to my description in this essay. It was not my intention to give the impression that New Testament is chocked full of quotes from the Old Testament apocryphal books, but to show that these books are very important. So important that the early Church Fathers quote from them more than a little. But here is where one of the problems lie. Trying to get folks to understand the value of history by referring to a history they have likely missed out on and have little interest in is quite frustrating.

I wasn’t smart enough to phrase how a large portion of the church views them as well as you have, but I will try and remember for the next time. My weaknesses become more and more obvious over the years thanks be to God, but through His grace I’ve learned to be glad in this as well.

My desire is for them to see the importance of these books as well as their value. The very same importance that the Church Fathers gave them. I often hear some of them mention how they are familiar with the works of some of the Church Fathers (e.g. Sts Irenaeus, Basil, Chrysostom, and others), but I can’t help but wonder how much they actually know of what they read. I believe getting them to connect the Church Fathers and the New Testament is critical both historically and spiritually. Once they allow this then they can see for themselves how the Fathers saw and explained the foretelling and the arrival of the Savior through their Scriptures of the time, the Old Testament, as you well know. However, they will also be exposed to apologetic works of the Fathers who have dealt with heresies in ways that I don’t see anyone today approaching. St. Irenaeus alone pretty much took care of the Mormons, the Jehovah Witnesses, as well as many others in his works. But enough of my telling you what you know.

In plain speak, I simply want them to know their history and not try and reinvent what’s been so wonderfully done for them already.

the books of NT era apochrypha are often heretical–with the exception of books like “the didiche”, “shepherd of hermas” the “epistle of barnabas”. reading the gospel of thomas, or the gospel of peter is tantamount to reading the book of mormon. these NT era books are called psuedepigripha (“fake name”. as in, thomas and peter didn’t write the books attributed to them)

thus, most protestant’s association with books outside what we recognize as Canon, reflects a (healthy) fear. they are correct to be suspicious about books they haven’t been taught about, just as you would be if a mormon asked you to read what they recognize as inspired (i, of course, see a world of difference between the books you are talking about and the book of mormon and gnostic gospels…).

many of the OT era books (and the non-psuedepigraphal NT era books) are excellent and uplifting reading. while i dont’ recognize them as being inspired (as in “God-breathed”) and worthy to be in the Canon, they are inspiring.

i would take exception to some of your description in this essay…there is very little NT quotation from apochryphal books (jude has one…paul seems to use the LXX as he quotes from the OT)…but, suffice to say, most of these books are not harmful/heretical.

so, in talking about these books, i would say it this way “did you know that for centuries many of these books have been considered Canon by a large portion of the church?” or something to that effect. then separate them from those unhealthy books…and encourage them to read good spiriutal material in the same manner as they would read lewis or tozer or someone else.