[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Arctic Sea Ice Soars to Highest Level for 21 Years

Tucker Carlson Reveals He Was Clawed By a Demon While Sleeping, Even Started to Bleed

Top Kamala Harris Surrogate Mark Cuban Faces Intense Backlash From #WomenForTrump

Kamala Harris Is Insane & Cannot Be Trusted

Israel-Hezbollah Ceasefire Possible Within 'Days': Lebanese PM

‘We were totally betrayed’ – 500 migrants for tiny German village of 600 will nearly double population

Hezbollah tactics, weapons stall Israeli advance

President Kennedy's Final Address to the United Nations General Assembly

RFK Jr. Explains Plan For Reforming The CIA

Harris Campaign Recruits Foreign Volunteers, Tells Noncitizens How To Skirt Donation Rules

Lame Yuck! With Nothing To Lose, Biden Goes On Baby-Mouthing Spree At White House Halloween Party

The Fastest Way To Reverse A Fatty Liver Naturally | Dr. William Li

CIA Advisor Warns: This is the beginning of the 2025 Civil War

When Evil Is Allowed In, Evil Stays

US layoffs rose 42% in three years, reaching 1.83M in September.

Iran Will Carry Out 'Definitive, Painful' Retaliatory Strike, Likely Before Election: CNN

How 2024 Election Will Lead To Second Civil War

Tulsi Gabbard Drops a Killer Trump Ad

Israel Genocide Tracker Account Sparks 'Panic' Among Israeli Soldiers

Battleground Voting Shift: Hispanic Voters Now Driven by Issues, Not Party Lines

North Carolina Appeals Court Rules to Allow Voters Who have Never Lived in the U.S. To Vote in State Elections

The 5 Tiers of Stolen Elections (Dems already did 1 & 2)

A Palestinian Family Goes to Pick Up Olives. It Ends in an Execution by Israeli Soldiers

Israel Suffers A Multimillion Dollar Economic SUCKER PUNCH!

The Babylon Bee Endorses Communist Harris

Nosy NY Times Journos Uncover Elon Musk's Secret Luxury Compound In Austin

A 20% surge in gov't spending inflates the national debt, inflation, and interest rates, now reaching 10% of GDP

MI EARLY VOTE SHOCKER! An Excess of 125,428 Votes Cast!

DMSO is the ivermectin for strokes and neurological damage

The Curious Case Of Ariane Tabatabai


Religion
See other Religion Articles

Title: C. I. Scofield ["Christianity" by Scofield: With Friends Like This, Who Needs Enemies - my title]
Source: Grace Online Library
URL Source: http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/etc/printer-friendly.asp?ID=175
Published: Aug 23, 2010
Author: William E. Cox
Post Date: 2010-08-23 08:26:01 by Eric Stratton
Keywords: None
Views: 1321
Comments: 84

C. I. Scofield ["Christianity" by Scofield: With Friends Like This, Who Needs Enemies - my title]
by William E. Cox

The father of dispensationalism, Darby, as well as his teachings, probably would be unheard of today were it not for his devoted follower, Scofield. The writer became increasingly aware of this fact as he did research for this book. Darby's books are gathering dust on the shelves of the comparatively few libraries stocking them. Information concerning him is scarce indeed.

Darby was a prolific writer, and also spent much time lecturing in different countries. Scofield came to know him and became enamored by his teachings. These two men had at least two things in common - both had practiced law, and both had untiring energy in advancing their beliefs. Scofield wrote many books, founded what is now called the Philadelphia College of the Bible, and, in 1909, published his Scofield Reference Bible. All these efforts inculcated the Plymouth Brethren teachings learned from Darby.

Cyrus Ingerson Scofield lived from August 19, 1843, until July 24, 1921. He was born in Michigan, but his family soon moved to Tennessee. While serving as a private in the Confederate Army, during the Civil War, he was decorated. Upon being discharged from the Army he took up law. He also entered politics and was appointed U. S. Attorney to Kansas by President Grant. During this period of his life he became a heavy drinker.

Scofield was converted in 1879, and three years later was ordained a Congregational minister. With no formal theological training he wrote his reference Bible. Except for this work, it is doubtful whether this man's name would be remembered any more than would Darby's. Taking the King James Bible and adding his own Notes to it, he assured himself a place in the memory of all who read that version of the Bible. This was in violation of the policy of all well known Bible societies, whose rules have been: 'Without Note or Comment.' Certainly Scofield was ignoring John the Revelator's warning about adding or taking from his prophecy (Rev 22:19), for he did not hesitate to pry apart John's verses and intersperse his own ideas between the sentences of John. This he did throughout the Bible, and, in the minds of many unwary people, Scofield's ideas are equated with the Word of God itself.

Had Scofield put his Notes in separate books rather than inserting them inside the Bible itself, there seems to be little doubt that his books would have joined those of Darby's in gathering dust and not being reprinted. The best evidence of this fact lies in the great dearth of information about the man himself in our libraries today, while his reference Bible is a household word. Only his being associated with Paul and Peter, through his audacity in placing his personal ideas on the same sacred pages as theirs, has kept his name alive. And in the minds of some of Scofield's devoted followers, to differ from him is tantamount to differing from Paul or Peter! The following quotation bears mute testimony:

One young minister I know, pastor of a large church, has been driven almost frantic by constant persecution day in and day out. He is an able, orthodox preacher with a distinctly prophetic note in his teaching. Because he does not preach dispensationalism, his congregation will acknowledge no good in him. He has repeatedly been driven to the point of resigning and taking another church, but feels it his duty to save this church for the Christian faith (W. D. Chamberlain, The Church Faces the Isms, pp.106,107).

The Scofield Bible has done good at points where it has dealt with the cardinal doctrines of historic Christianity. Scofield was a conservative Bible believer, and brought his Notes into existence at a time when the Bible was being attacked on many sides by the so-called higher critics and other liberal theologians. Scofield's defense of the major doctrines of the Bible called forth a renewed interest in Bible study at a time when such a challenge was sorely needed. Followers of Scofield also manifest a respect for the authority of Scripture that is sorely lacking in many Christian circles today.

It must be stated, however, that the Scofield Bible contains many teachings which are at variance with historic teachings of the Christian church. Many have questioned whether the good done by this man is not overshadowed by these new and dangerous theories.

An advanced Bible student might read the Scofield Reference Bible critically and get some good points from it, and at the same time avoid its erroneous doctrines. However, in the hands of a novice or young convert, this can be a dangerous book. Not least among these dangers is the superior attitude it implants in the minds of its readers. No doctrine of the Bible presents the least problem to these Bible 'experts.' Nor do they need any further study - all they need is contained in the footnotes of the Scofield Reference Bible.

...These good people do not lack faith and zeal, but they sadly lack knowledge; and the tragedy of the situation lies just here, that this is the very thing they think they have obtained from the Scofield Bible! They are apt to say in their hearts, and not infrequently with their lips: 'I have more understanding than all my teachers - because I have a Scofield Bible' (Albertus Pieters, A Candid Examination of the Scofield Bible, p.5). From a position of entire ignorance of the Scriptures to a position of oracular religious certainty - especially respecting eschatological matters - for some people requires from three to six months with a Scofield Bible (T. T. Shields, The Gospel Witness for April 7, 1932).

I readily recognize that the Scofield Bible is very popular with novices, that is, those newly come to the faith, and also with many of longer Christian experience who are but superficial students of Scripture. Ready made clothes are everywhere popular with people of average size ... On the same principle, ready made religious ideas will always'be popular, especially with those indisposed to the exertion of fitting their religious conceptions to an ever increasing scriptural knowledge. That common human disposition very largely explains the popularity of the Scofield Bible (ibid.).

In the field of Systematic Theology he is good, for there he utilizes the fruits of the standard Protestant and Calvinistic thinking; but in general Bible knowledge he makes many mistakes, and in his eschatology he goes far astray from anything the church has ever believed. Undoubtedly this oracular and authoritative manner has been effective, but it is not to be excused for that reason. It seems like a harsh judgment, but in the interest of truth it must be uttered: Dr. Scofield in this was acting the part of an intellectual charlatan, a fraud who pretends to knowledge which he does not possess; like a quack doctor, who is ready with a confident diagnosis in many cases where a competent physician is unable to decide (Pieters, op. cit.).

Scofield's worst critics are men who have come out of his camp, and who remain true to the Bible as the infallible Word of God. A list of these men would include such outstanding men as Mauro, Gordon, G. Campbell Morgan, and Harry Rimmer. Paul B. Fischer, himself a graduate of Wheaton, wrote a pamphlet entitled Ultra Dispensationalism is Modernism. Fischer attacks dispensationalism as being a twin to liberalism on two points: (1) the deity of Christ, and (2) the disunity of the Bible.

In 1954 a committee of nine men headed by E. Schuyler English was formed to revise the Scofield Bible. They hope to finish their work by 1963.

A great need exists for the followers of C. I. Scofield to consider objectively the fact that so many earnest, conservative students of the Bible have left his school of theological thought. These sincere Christians need to become concerned over the divisions caused among conservative men of God by the footnotes and other personal insertions Dr. Scofield added to the King James Version of the Holy Bible. It would be well for these folk to realize that any sincere man, including Scofield, can be sincerely wrong.

It is well to keep in mind, too, that we conservatives are not divided over the Bible; we are divided, rather, over the personal explanations which a man took the liberty of inserting alongside the inspired writings of the Bible. The gist of the entire controversy at this point, it seems to me, lies in the fact that many of Scofield's most devoted disciples equate his Notes with the inspired words of the writers of the New Testament. The difficulty arises when they attempt to force this equation upon the minds and hearts of others.

We will continue to have tensions until this man is recognized as an extracanonical writer and his ideas are brought into the theological arena, where his good points may be accepted gratefully while his mistaken ideas may be discarded without fear of reprisal.

Having once been a devoted disciple of Scofield, this writer knows the difficulty of becoming objective after years of being subjective to, and captivated by, his great legal mind.

Scofield was, no doubt, an outstanding man. He was, however, only a man; and neither he nor his footnotes were infallible.

Click for Full Text!

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 14.

#1. To: Eric Stratton (#0)

If Christs own followers didn't have a clue what he was talking about until they were converted after He died, then what kind of "conversion" did Scofield have when he wrote errors into a KJV that already had translational errors in it?

And why does anyone take anything they say seriously?

.

PSUSA  posted on  2010-08-23   8:43:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: PSUSA (#1)

The article indicates a far greater influence of the KJB and Scofield than they still have. Both have declined, largely in tandem. Scofield KJBs were a mainstay among apocalyptic fundamentalists in the mid-twentieth century. As most of these people have aged out or died, Scofield has a residual influence. The far larger current is of evangelical churches with those who attend carrying NIV bibles, often with the NIV commentary. Naturally, you can disparage the NIV commentary or any other commentary like Scofield's, as placing their own words and ideas alongside those of scripture much as the author did here with Scofield.

This is a conservative critique in many ways, relying somewhat on the views of the old Bible societies who resisted commentaries. This comes from issues like the role of the Geneva Bible and its footnotes (commentary) which was key to the thinking of American colonists and their rebellion against the monarch (despot) of Britain.

So it is difficult to deny that fundamental policy and politics in America has never been strongly swayed by contemporary commentaries being added to a translation of the Bible. It was true of America's Revolutionary War. And you can't deny the extent of evangelical and charismatic political support for Israel revolves around evangelical literature on these topics and modern apocalyptic.

The apocalyptic is itself an original doctrine of America, something not widely known. America was to be a new Israel and also to be the scene of the final battles of Revelation. This justified doctrines that evicted the heathen Indians, manifest destiny, etc. You can find references in the colonial era to this kind of thinking, often promoted by Cotton Mather and his influential father, Increase Mather.

So the topic is a worthy one as you examine the role of Israel to the thinking of modern Americans, especially the key support among evangelicals that is tangent to Israel's future role in the apocalypse. This is a key juncture of evangelical and Republican politics and, generally, for support of the two wars we are fighting in the Mideast. Many of the soldiers also are almost crusader-like in their expectations that they are somehow playing a role in shaping the Mideast for the final chapter of history.

TooConservative  posted on  2010-08-23   9:08:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: TooConservative (#2)

The far larger current is of evangelical churches with those who attend carrying NIV bibles, often with the NIV commentary. Naturally, you can disparage the NIV commentary or any other commentary like Scofield's, as placing their own words and ideas alongside those of scripture much as the author did here with Scofield.

It's been years since I've set foot inside a church, and I have no problem in taking your word for that.

One thing I do know is that there are many that consider the KJV to be "inerrant" and "perfect", and any other version is "of the devil", including the NIV. But ask them which printing of the KJ is the perfect one, and you can practically see their heads explode. They don't even know that there have already been many modifications to the KJ, and they don't care to know.

When it comes to commentaries, they can be helpful when it comes to explaining a specific point, which can then be verified. I learned the hard way that verification is not just an option.

The apocalyptic is itself an original doctrine of America, something not widely known. America was to be a new Israel and also to be the scene of the final battles of Revelation. This justified doctrines that evicted the heathen Indians, manifest destiny, etc. You can find references in the colonial era to this kind of thinking, often promoted by Cotton Mather and his influential father, Increase Mather.

Again, I have no problem in taking your word for that. That's the first I heard of this, but it fits.

This is a key juncture of evangelical and Republican politics and, generally, for support of the two wars we are fighting in the Mideast. Many of the soldiers also are almost crusader-like in their expectations that they are somehow playing a role in shaping the Mideast for the final chapter of history.

Agreed. This is precisely why they are so dangerous. It has real life consequences.

PSUSA  posted on  2010-08-23   9:36:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: PSUSA (#3)

One thing I do know is that there are many that consider the KJV to be "inerrant" and "perfect", and any other version is "of the devil", including the NIV. But ask them which printing of the KJ is the perfect one, and you can practically see their heads explode. They don't even know that there have already been many modifications to the KJ, and they don't care to know.

The KJV-Onlyists, a tiresome lot. They compete in making grandiose claims for the KJV. Like it is of equal inspiration to the original scripture monographs, the originals. Or that is the perfect and immutable version of scripture for all time which is sheer nonsense but actually parallels rather directly the same exact claims made for Jerome's old Catholic Vulgate bible in Latin which was praised for being in an unchanging dead language where the meanings of the words were fixed. Latin became a language of scholars in part for this reason.

I prefer the KJV personally but it has a few inaccurate passages but nothing wrong doctrinally. It has archaic terms from Elizabethan English but a short pamphlet of about five pages provides a dictionary to these terms in key passages of the KJV.

The KJV remains one of the great bibles because of its extremely clever construction and pedigree.

First, the words are written in poetic cadence. The words and phrases have an internal rhythm. This is why, when you hear someone quote scripture from memory, it is nearly always the KJV version. The language is grand but, as with secular materials, it is always easier to memorize and recite poetry than it is for other written materials. The internal cadences please the ear and have a mnemonic effect that aids memorization.

Second, the KJV has an invaluable study aid in its text: italic text. Whenever you see italics in the KJV, it indicates the words inserted so that a modern reader would grasp the intent of the passage but would directly understand which words were inserted by the translators for clarification and which words were direct translations of the source Greek text from ancient sources.

Third, the source versions of the KJV were the body of ancient scriptures known as the Received Text (also Byzantine text). These were the preserved texts of the eastern churches of the Roman empire, the most conservative elements. The modern evangelical bibles rely upon the very slightly older Vaticanus and Sinaiticus documents that have many problems in terms of agreeing with each other and showing marks of corruption and editing. The Received Text had a far wider ancient readership in the early church as indicated by the fact that 99% of the 5000-6000 ancient manuscripts that we have are in the Received Text. In addition, the Vaticanus/Sinaiticus were derived from Alexandria, a very well-known hotbed of ancient Christian heresy and corrupters of text and doctrine (hence the name of this tiny but influential family as the Alexandrian family). The slightly greater age of the Alexandrian texts is offset by even older fragments that we have of the Byzantine line, something a lot of people don't know.

So the ancient pedigrees of these source bibles is important. But also who read them, which versions were the authentic versions used by the vast majority of ancient Christians, the geographical distribution, these are important. But also the literary style and the painful honesty of the translators makes a major contribution to the durability of the KJV.

I like the KJV and treasure it but I don't consider it an insuperable translation. It could certainly be improved. And I find little merit in the modernist versions like the NIV which are based on the Alexandrian (Latin Catholic) tradition.

The apocalyptic is itself an original doctrine of America, something not widely known. America was to be a new Israel and also to be the scene of the final battles of Revelation. This justified doctrines that evicted the heathen Indians, manifest destiny, etc. You can find references in the colonial era to this kind of thinking, often promoted by Cotton Mather and his influential father, Increase Mather. Again, I have no problem in taking your word for that. That's the first I heard of this, but it fits.
The best book I know of on the topic was called When Time Shall Be No More: Prophecy Belief in Modern American Culture (Studies in Cultural History).

An academic wrote this in the early Nineties and expected that about a dozen people would ever read it. A fine book in many ways and the author has a bit of fun with apocalyptic craziness over the centuries so it is fun to read as well. But he did a very good job with the colonial era. After reading it, you see how the apocalyptic is part of manifest destiny which is the precursor to this modern abomination of an idea that we are the hope of humanity, an idea our gooberment loves to foster to justify its endless meddling in foreign affairs and looting our taxpayers and starting wars to keep us distracted from their other robberies of the public and dereliction of their general duties.

So this fine book on the history of the apocalyptic in America was published and being ignored. I bought it out of curiosity and thought it was fascinating. And only a few months later, Waco happened.

The author was brought in to explain to FBI this topic. He became the instant expert, the guy with exactly the right book at the right time. I even saw him on some pundit shows but anything about religion clearly made the hosts squirm too much.

So Waco was lousy for the Branch Davidian victims but kind of a career-maker, by sheer coincidence, for this writer Boyle. I guess every cloud has a silver lining, at least for someone.

I really should get that book out and read it again. I enjoyed the photos he collected of wacky apocalyptic placemats and such.

TooConservative  posted on  2010-08-23   11:00:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: TooConservative (#5)

I like the KJV and treasure it but I don't consider it an insuperable translation.

I agree. It's good as far as it goes. But people out too much faith in it. I personally think Youngs Literal is better when you try and get to the meaning of something. IMO it's more accurate, but not as easy to read as the KJ.

Here's what I did in the past, when my Big Question is how a supposedly all-loving and all-knowing God could send most of HIs creation to be tortured in real fire for endless time for not having the right beliefs, when the vast majority never had the chance to hear of those beliefs. IMO this is why many despise Christianity; they see the total insanity of this. But instead of abandoning it as the idiocy it was, I wanted to find the answer. I spent a lot of time on things that were, in hindsight, just as stupid as the doctrine of "hell", including serpent seed doctrine, new age, calvinism, and other nonsense.

I downloaded e-sword program (I really recommend that program. It's free and very good) and with a particular website on the screen and the program working in the background, I saw how the inconsistencies worked in the KJ. I verified everything that author claimed. I went searching far and wide for something that was right in front of my face.

It helps to see how one word was translated in one passage and compare that to how it is translated into a completely different word with a different meaning in another passage. Then the inconsistencies come to light. Then I understood how the churches based their entire doctrines on these errors and ignore everything that contradicts their doctrines.

An academic wrote this in the early Nineties and expected that about a dozen people would ever read it.

That's a shame. But I think it's typical.

.

PSUSA  posted on  2010-08-23   12:19:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 14.

#19. To: PSUSA (#14) (Edited)

I agree. It's good as far as it goes. But people out too much faith in it. I personally think Youngs Literal is better when you try and get to the meaning of something. IMO it's more accurate, but not as easy to read as the KJ.

Young's is good. Not perfect but worth keeping in the reading list.

Here's what I did in the past, when my Big Question is how a supposedly all-loving and all-knowing God could send most of HIs creation to be tortured in real fire for endless time for not having the right beliefs, when the vast majority never had the chance to hear of those beliefs. IMO this is why many despise Christianity; they see the total insanity of this. But instead of abandoning it as the idiocy it was, I wanted to find the answer. I spent a lot of time on things that were, in hindsight, just as stupid as the doctrine of "hell", including serpent seed doctrine, new age, calvinism, and other nonsense.

Oh, Lordy, the Serpent Seed doctrine. LOL. Actually, that should be somewhat popular here at 4um but Shepherd's Chapel is too corny for me. Has 4um ever had any threads on Serpent Seed, the Kenites and so on? The depiction of Kenites as the "bad Jews" would seem irresistible. It is something of a theological hoot to me, almost as good as the Baptist Bride doctrine. I love it when people start squabbling over real estate in the New Jerusalem and who is going to get to live just down the street from Jesus on the choice part of Onward Christian Soldiers Boulevard.

If you are disturbed by how some ignorant/unprincipled persons have presented the eternal hellfire issue over the centuries, keep in mind how plentiful and common the teaching of eternal life in Christ is in scripture. It is the central message of the New Testament, a new life in Christ in this life leading to eternity with Him in heaven. This was the emphasis, a life-affirming doctrine and one that led directly to eternal life for believers. The doctrines surrounding hell/sheol are much more mixed and often read like parables or a kind of figurative language. [Edit: In scripture, there are references to eternal life juxtaposed against eternal life; again these are much much more common than somewhat contradictory descriptions of hellfire.] I am not a textual deconstructionist and certainly no variety of universalist but it is difficult to deny that heaven and the promises to believers of a good afterlife are much vastly more plentiful and consistent than any depiction of unbelievers suffering an eternal torment (lake of fire for the fallen angels or a smoldering garbage dump outside Jerusalem?).

The Bible is very subtle. Don't let the baggage of centuries of unscrupulous or uneducated preachers sour you on it. Don't let them make it say a word more or less than it says for itself.

You'll find that the issues, once investigated, are much more minor than they seem at first. BTW, I once held such objections. OTOH, by the time you learn that much detail of doctrine and the history of scripture, you suddenly find you're not quite as welcome at bible studies or Sunday school. LOL. Oh, well, churches do prefer those who accept whatever pap is being issued by their mini-popes at the current juncture.

I downloaded e-sword program (I really recommend that program. It's free and very good) and with a particular website on the screen and the program working in the background, I saw how the inconsistencies worked in the KJ. I verified everything that author claimed. I went searching far and wide for something that was right in front of my face.

I love e-Sword. A great free program.

I enjoy especially some of the commentaries you can download and a few of the Byzantine (Received Text/Textus Receptus) family of translations. Also, I like to compare the 1611 KJV to the later one that we use from the mid-nineteenth century (after the last few letters of English were invented). Many of the KJVists think they're actually using a 1611 KJV when they would recoil in horror from the inclusion of the Catholic Apocrypha in the original 1611 AV. Ooops, old King James missed that one!

As for e-Sword, I love the Gill commentary (having Calvinist and Baptist biases). I find Vincent's Word Studies to be valuable. I still dislike both the brief and the full versions of Matthew Henry. Wesley's commentary is always good for a laugh, both at him and the Methodists (what a weak thinker). The Lightfoot commentary on the Talmud and Hebraica of the New Testament is required reading to begin deep study, perhaps a bit beyond me personally to fully appreciate Lightfoot.

As for scripture versions, I especially like the obscure Analytical-Literal Translation for e-Sword. It produces the most literal translation possible, even beyond the other literals like Young's. It's almost painfully literal. But it isn't very readable and certainly lacks the lyrical qualities and grand language of the KJV that make its text so memorable (including the subtle poetic meter of the KJV). If you like the KJV and its text but want something much more radically literal, the ALT version in e-Sword is quite good. You can even order printed copies of it from their website.

TooConservative  posted on  2010-08-23 14:07:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 14.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]