[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: 1199
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 # 57.

#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  


#8. To: PSUSA (#3) (Edited)

deleted

Eric Stratton  posted on  2010-08-23   11:15:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Eric Stratton (#8)

As to the translations, while there may be issues with some, and there are, the thing to keep in mind is that the entire thing needs to make sense as a complete whole.

If it made sense "as a complete whole", there wouldn't be hundreds, if not thousands, of denominations. There would be no room for conflict. None.

It does make sense as a complete whole, but that is not possible to see when you depend on faulty translations for understanding. You have to look and see the word games the translators used, and imho it was intentionally done.

I'll give you an example. Where does that word "hell" come from?

Why is it in both the old and new testaments? Why didn't they translate "sheol" consistently? Or Gehenna?

The errors have been isolated and then used by the "church". They have their foundations built on these errors.

. .

PSUSA  posted on  2010-08-23   11:49:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: PSUSA (#12)

deleted

Eric Stratton  posted on  2010-08-23   12:12:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: Eric Stratton (#13)

I don't know what you mean by "room for," as denominations are mans' divisions, not God's or Christ's. In fact, Paul warned sternly against them;

Then Christ came not to bring a sword? Either God is omnipotent or not. Either God is responsible for everything, or it somehow got out of Gods' control and God is scrambling and trying to keep things together...

The reason for the conflict is because it can't make sense as a whole. Christs' followers didn't understand His teachings on the kingdom. He taught the outsiders only in parables (that's rather exclusive of him, right?) They didn't understand until Pentecost where they were converted.

How many times have you heard that Christ used parables to make them more understandable to simple people? I've heard it plenty of times, and it directly contradicts scripture.

When you have a church full of people that aren't converted, they won't understand much of anything, so they form sects that are to their liking.

.

PSUSA  posted on  2010-08-23   12:30:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: PSUSA (#16)

deleted

Eric Stratton  posted on  2010-08-23   15:21:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: Eric Stratton (#21)

You're making quite a few assumptions.

No I'm not.

Then Christ came not to bring a sword?

Yes, but why? Simply to encourage dissensions amongst people? He states why.

Of course to cause dissension.

Luke 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

Luke 12:52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.

Luke 12:53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Interesting questions

That wasn't a question but a statement.

.

PSUSA  posted on  2010-08-23   15:41:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: PSUSA (#23)

deleted

Eric Stratton  posted on  2010-08-23   15:52:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: Eric Stratton (#25)

You site divisions, not "dissension." There's a difference.

Not really. Dissensions cause divisions. Look at what the scripture says: "divided, three against two, and two against three. ". That means there is dissension. If there was no dissension, there wouldn't be any divisions.

PSUSA  posted on  2010-08-23   16:02:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: PSUSA (#27)

deleted

Eric Stratton  posted on  2010-08-23   18:26:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: Eric Stratton (#33)

We're getting hung up on divisions and dissensions.

You first mentioned dissensions in post 21. All I said was that there was a lot of similarity between divisions and dissensions in post 27. (This is becoming tedious already ;) ).

The division(s) exist(ed) naturally, by birth due to sin. Similar in our "4um" example, many people are living in "errancy." Doesn't matter if it's willful ignorance, passive ignorance, open defiance, etc. Those are the same reasons why people do not turn to the Living God.

I disagree.

Mat 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

And John 6:44 is another one that is studiously ignored by the wolves.

6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

You can see how that word "draw" is used. www.biblestudytools.com/s...=gos&t=kjv&ps=10&s=Bibles

It's drawing water from a well. You lower the bucket, pull on the rope, the bucket comes to the top. The bucket has no say in the matter. It has no free will.

Here's another one with that infamous word "draw" plus the all-inclusive "all":

John 12:32 KJV And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

All means all, except to a theologian. Either that or the scripture is a lie, in which case we are all wasting out time.

.

PSUSA  posted on  2010-08-23   21:31:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: PSUSA (#39)

deleted

Eric Stratton  posted on  2010-08-23   21:47:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: Eric Stratton (#41)

I would also however suggest that there's more to that "draw" stuff that simply those verses. That fringes on Calvin's beliefs and I dismiss those.

You don't have to appreciate my take, because it isn't my take. I just show the scriptures. It is what it is. Anyone can understand it. Faith comes from knowing it's true. It's simplicity itself (2 Corinthians 11:3). It takes years of theological study to make it complicated. You can hide a lot of lies in a complicated story.

So, the calvinist belief that God knows who He will choose, and the rest end up in "hell" because they weren't "drawn", is related to this? Do you really think that God would do something so awful that you would never do it to another person, a person BTW that you created too weak to help themselves? Are you more merciful than God?

No. This is the damage that churchianities "hell" has done. There is no such thing. It's a hoax. Even the people that believe in it don't really believe in it, because it would lead to insanity brought about over worrying about loved ones, or a heart of stone where you just don't care about anyone but yourself. You got yours, to "hell" with everyone else, right? Take TC off of bozo and see for yourself what he writes. Not that I fault him, because I used to echo some of the same things in the past.

Who are the "elect" and what and who are they going to rule and reign over? What is Christs' teachings on those that would rule or be great?

It's one thing to see the lies promoted by the wolves, but what is the truth? You know they're lying, but what are they lying about? IMO they know these things. They aren't stupid.

.

PSUSA  posted on  2010-08-24   7:35:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: PSUSA (#43)

deleted

Eric Stratton  posted on  2010-08-24   9:54:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: Eric Stratton (#45)

The "elect" are the believers. However, there is no verse in the Bible that has "elect" and "reign" in the same sentence/context. If you find one, please reveal it to me.

I'm not sure I understand your point.

It's for the elects sake that things are stopped.

Matthew 24:22 KJV And except those days should be shortened , there should no flesh be saved : but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened

It's not stopped for the chosens sake, or anyone elses.

Revelation 20:6 KJV Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years

Elect:

1588   //  eklektov  //  eklektos   //  ek-lek-tos'  // 

from   1586  ; TDNT - 4:181,505; adj

AV - elect 16, chosen 7; 23

1) picked out, chosen
1a) chosen by God,
1a1) to obtain salvation through Christ
1a1a) Christians are called "chosen or elect" of God
1a2) the Messiah in called "elect", as appointed by God to the
most exalted office conceivable
1a3) choice, select, i.e. the best of its kind or class,
excellence preeminent: applied to certain individual
Christians

Not every Christian is "elect". You can see that here: www.biblestudytools.com/s...c=nt&t=kjv&ps=10&s=Bibles

PSUSA  posted on  2010-08-24   11:49:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: PSUSA (#47)

deleted

Eric Stratton  posted on  2010-08-24   14:47:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: Eric Stratton (#51)

Sounds to me like it's their choice, "belief" that is. While we can discuss what "belief" entails, it's pretty simple.

Sure, but according to scripture who gives that ability to believe? I already posted it, but I'll do it again.

John 6:44 KJV No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Like you say, it is simple.

Romans 3:10 As it is written , There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth , there is none that seeketh after God. 12 They are all gone out of the way , they are together become unprofitable ; there is none that doeth good, no, not one . 13

None. Not one. None. All. Together. None. No, not one. Sounds rather specific to me.

Read Romans Ch 10.

PSUSA  posted on  2010-08-24   16:05:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: PSUSA (#52)

None. Not one. None. All.

Obviously you've never been in a real theological food fight or you would be aware that 'all' only means 'all' when it is a verse that favors your preferred positions. If the verse does not favor your theology, then 'all' can be quite flexible and is likely to mean 'some' or even a number that approaches 'none'.

'All' is one of those terms you have to describe as 'fighting words'.

TooConservative  posted on  2010-08-24   16:29:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: TooConservative (#53)

Obviously you've never been in a real theological food fight or you would be aware that 'all' only means 'all' when it is a verse that favors your preferred positions. If the verse does not favor your theology, then 'all' can be quite flexible and is likely to mean 'some' or even a number that approaches 'none'.

'All' is one of those terms you have to describe as 'fighting words'.

THank you very much for making my point for me.

I said that it takes a theologian to twist and rewrite scripture to the point that it loses "all" meaning.

I said that "It takes years of theological study to make it complicated. You can hide a lot of lies in a complicated story."

I have no desire to get into any "theological food fights", but I like discussing things that show the shenanigans that churchianity is up to.

Seminaries seem to be more for manipulative indoctrination rather than simply learning scripture. Frankly, they'd probably walk all over me in a debate. But I'd have to let them do that or they wouldn't get away with it.

One thing they are loathe to say is "I don't know". I know that I dont know a lot of things, but I know when I'm on safe ground.

PSUSA  posted on  2010-08-24   17:05:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: PSUSA (#54)

Seminaries seem to be more for manipulative indoctrination rather than simply learning scripture.

Seminaries are generally known for the doctrines of the churches that sponsor them and their student body is often composed of the children of members of that church. And they are to prepare clergy for the ministry. So they are supposed to safeguard the doctrine of the church and faithfully transmit that doctrine to future generations.

So you have to expect they have a certain bias. It's a job requirement.

One thing they are loathe to say is "I don't know". I know that I dont know a lot of things, but I know when I'm on safe ground.

Well, most professors don't like to say that publicly. It raises some doubts about what they are worth if they don't have a good answer to Question X. And if they don't know and they do admit it, they'd better have a very good biblical reason for ascribing it to the mysteries of God that are unknowable to human beings by divine design.

If that doesn't work, they can always claim the dog ate their homework.

TooConservative  posted on  2010-08-24   17:39:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 57.

        There are no replies to Comment # 57.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 57.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


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