[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: 1312
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 # 64.

#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  


#17. To: PSUSA (#16)

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.

A modern explanation that doesn't fit well.

Jesus speaking in parables was generally understood by His disciples and the people he was addressing. However, the language was often couched to keep the Pharisee spies and aggressors in the crowd from denouncing Him to the authorities who would have executed Him as a religious and political troublemaker. Which some people think He was, given how history has unfolded.

So the idea that no one understood His parables at the time seems farfetched to me.

TooConservative  posted on  2010-08-23   13:27:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: TooConservative (#17) (Edited)

Jesus speaking in parables was generally understood by His disciples and the people he was addressing.

KJV ;) Mark 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all [these] things are done in parables:

Mark 4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and [their] sins should be forgiven them.

Mark 4:13 And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?

How many times did he have to explain the parables to his followers? Every time.

THey were not generally understood. Teachings were intentionally hidden. Hmmm, you'd almost think He was intentionally dooming billions to "hell" to be tortured by pitchfork-weilding demons roasting them over billions of spits for countless trillions of centuries, all because they held the wrong beliefs...

Sometimes the Scribes & Co. perceived He was talking about them, but that doesn't mean they understood anything.

Of course, my view of these matters is no more likely to make me popular here than at bible studies with the Left Behinders.

As one heretic to another, I don't want to be popular with them.

The Bible is very subtle. Don't let the baggage of centuries of unscrupulous or uneducated preachers sour you on it.

It's not subtle, unless you consider a sword to be subtle (Heb 4:12)

It hasn't soured me on it. But I had to forget everything I thought I knew and start all over again.

I am not a textual deconstructionist and certainly no variety of universalist

I dont know about deconstructionism seeing as how I'm not really big on theological terminology, but I am a universalist.

.

PSUSA  posted on  2010-08-23   15:35:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: PSUSA (#22)

How many times did he have to explain the parables to his followers? Every time.

I don't think so. Many of these parables seem as though he was addressing a commonly debated moral point of the Jewish law, things that these folk had heard debated many times.

As to your larger point that the unbelievers did not grasp His parables, I do agree. Scripture is written for believers and for those who will at some point become believers. God doesn't not waste His breath on the chaff. Naturally, you will grasp that I am drifting toward a position of the Limited Atonement but the TULIP is far more a theological construct than any sort of guide to daily spiritual life. The hyper-Calvinists overstate its merits somewhat.

THey were not generally understood. Teachings were intentionally hidden. Hmmm, you'd almost think He was intentionally dooming billions to "hell" to be tortured by pitchfork-weilding demons roasting them over billions of spits for countless trillions of centuries, all because they held the wrong beliefs...

Scripture affirms repeatedly that God is willing that all men should come to salvation. Women too, I suppose. And this is a place where we don't need to parse whether "all means all" the way that Xlinton would debate the meaning of 'is'.

Of course, God may be willing but He values and does not violate our free will. OTOH, He is free to make as many as He can an offer they can't refuse. As you may be aware, He is quite subtle but quick to claim His own.

I also do not believe that Jesus lacked free will, though His crucifixion was foreordained from the foundation of the world.

As a first principle, we must affirm that God is not the author of evil.

It hasn't soured me on it. But I had to forget everything I thought I knew and start all over again.

Welcome to the club. :)

We often let others dictate their ideas to us. Or we misunderstand something and create problems for ourselves. God wants us to let Him teach us the inner meaning of scripture. Without Him, we cannot understand His will and His Word. I think you probably grasp my point. The Bible is to be comprehended spiritually, not intellectually. It is a supernatural book to the believer, a curse and frustration to the unbeliever. Only God can shed real light on it through the Spirit.

I dont know about deconstructionism seeing as how I'm not really big on theological terminology, but I am a universalist.

Well, scripture does not lend itself at all to an all-dogs-go-to-heaven outlook.

Deconstructionism is using formal literary technique, higher textual criticism, textual comparisons, historical speculation to essentially try to winnow out the "true" bible which the deconstructionists imagine to be filled with myths and legends and forgeries. It's been all the rage in some liberal denominations and among the cafeteria Catholics here in America.

TooConservative  posted on  2010-08-23   16:05:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: TooConservative (#28) (Edited)

Of course, God may be willing but He values and does not violate our free will.

Free will is an interesting topic. It is the only area where man claims superiority over God.

I don't believe in free will. Yes, we make choices but those choices are always limited, and that limited part takes away the "free" part. We are also limited in that we can't see where this is going and how choices are manipulated. We can only see it in hindsight.

When God hardened Pharaohs heart, didn't he violate his "free will"?

When Christ chose his disciples, what kept them from saying to Christ "You want me to drop everything and follow you? Who are you?" That would be the reasonable response. But that didn't happen, did it?

I can come up with a lot of other examples showing that there is no free will (as that term is used).

There are some other things I disagree with, but to do so would make things unmanageable and this thread would be all over the place. BTDT.

.

PSUSA  posted on  2010-08-23   16:21:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: PSUSA (#32)

Free will is an interesting topic. It is the only area where man claims superiority over God.

Yes, the free will discussion usually brings out of the very best in everyone. LOL.

When God hardened Pharaohs heart, didn't he violate his "free will"?

We do always have free will. The pharaoh example is interesting. Since during that era, salvation was of the Jews only (leaving out pharaoh as well as the rest of humanity), there was no reason why the pharaoh would have cause to complain against God over unfairness. He was never eligible for eternal life because he would never become a Jew.

If God is omnipotent and knows the entire future, of all choices we might make as well as the choices we each will make, due to our own nature, it could be said that God's choices are not especially harsh when He bends us to His will in order to fulfill His eternal plan as it applies to mankind. Again, if you read scripture as positivist, as something that leads to eternal life instead of eternal death, then a pharaoh may as well earn eternal death due to his own choices and natural disposition rather than God imposing those choices on him. But if the pharaoh would make those choices anyway, then how has God treated the pharaoh unfairly if He causes the pharaoh to make those choices in a particular way which better suits God's plan? Same outcome but God has dictated the precise outcomes according to His own plan from the foundations of the world.

When Christ chose his disciples, what kept them from saying to Christ "You want me to drop everything and follow you? Who are you?" That would be the reasonable response. But that didn't happen, did it?

In matters like these, God is a little like the Godfather in the old mafia movies. I would say He has a way of making us an offer we can't refuse. If He manifests His presence to one of us, it is pretty irresistible. After all, He is our creator and the entire universe is His personal property. Including everything that we have ever seen or touched or felt or even imagined.

A Calvinist would pooh-pooh my poor comparison of this to an old gangster movie and would say this is an example of Irresistible Grace in an outworking of God's Spirit in a person's Unconditional Election. Of course, people are going to find it hard to say no to God.

And for more fun with free will, we can always turn to Romans 7-9. Always a good warmup to the endless skirmishing between Arminians (or semi-Pelagians) and Calvinist scum like me. Not that I, for obvious reasons, care that deeply. After all, it is God who is working out these matters of the salvation of mankind, not me. Now and then, He may favor me in some way or arrange matters so that I have the privilege of doing some small and meaningless thing for Him (not that He ever needs me or anyone else) but I cannot get that worked up over the eternal spiritual fate of other people. I'm not indifferent exactly, just not persuaded that any believer is so powerful as to determine the outcome of someone else's salvation. Either God is in control or He is not. That said, I know that He does make use of certain persons in the outworking of His salvation of others. But I would stress that He doesn't actually need them; it is merely His pleasure to let one of His children help Him in small ways. In the end, He is still the potter and we are only His clay.

TooConservative  posted on  2010-08-23   19:48:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: TooConservative (#37)

After all, it is God who is working out these matters of the salvation of mankind, not me.

Your universalism is showing...

He was never eligible for eternal life because he would never become a Jew.

Show me the "racial eligibility clause" needed for aionian life.

We do always have free will.

No, we have the ability to make choices.

You claim to have free will. Free means unhindered and unrestrained. Create something out of nothing. Or run a 2 minute mile, or jump over a mountain. Use your mighty free will.

You're good at posting doctrine and using big theological terms. But you need to back it up with supporting scriptures.

.

PSUSA  posted on  2010-08-23   21:41:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: PSUSA (#40)

Your universalism is showing...

Not at all. I do not believe that God will save all men. Eternal life is only for believers, eternal death is for all others just as it is for animals.

There are too many passages in scripture that support this for me to think otherwise. Universalism is a myth produced by modernist liberals and it would not surprise me if someday the liberals actually put it to a vote to vote everyone into heaven and criminalize as a hate crime the preaching of the idea that anyone might not automatically go to heaven. Well, except Hitler. They wouldn't let Hitler in, would they? As would be expected, universalism is a very world-pleasing idea. That alone should clue you in as scripture describes itself as an offense that would always be hated by the world. And it is. But the watered-down powerless Christianity Lite version (which does tend toward universalism) is no threat to anyone. As for the historicity of universalism, keep in mind it goes back less than two hundred years so there is absolutely no ancient pedigree for such beliefs or any support for this thinking in the ancient churches or in Judaism.

He was never eligible for eternal life because he would never become a Jew. Show me the "racial eligibility clause" needed for aionian life.

It's very difficult to find any basis for salvation in the Old Testament outside of Jewish law and tradition. Well, it isn't difficult, it's impossible. As the old saying had it, "Salvation is of the Jews." It is an accurate summary from the perspective of both Jews and Christians.

You claim to have free will. Free means unhindered and unrestrained. Create something out of nothing. Or run a 2 minute mile, or jump over a mountain. Use your mighty free will.

I think the most helpful way to understand our free will and God's free will is to grasp that, given His unlimited knowledge and especially His foreknowledge, He can anticipate every choice we will ever make. So we may be making all the free will choices we want. That doesn't mean that God has no free will. What it means is that His plan is so large and so infallible that it accounts for and cannot be changed merely by the actions of His creatures, namely, us.

God exists outside the bounds of the space-time continuum, as we call it. He is much further beyond us than we are above, say, a mouse. Or maybe an amoeba. Look at the size of the universe, His personal domain. Our main problem is that we often can't even imagine the actual greatness of God.

Tell me, do you think your dog or cat thinks you're like God? You think your pet conceives of how you read, how you use computers, how you do the million things that are unthinkable for them? God is much much further ahead of us than we are ahead of our pets. And besides that, He owns the universe.

It is a little humbling to ponder.

You're good at posting doctrine and using big theological terms. But you need to back it up with supporting scriptures.

I actually tend to avoid debating these topics entirely any more. Back when I hung out at TOS, we had extended theology threads with hundreds of thousands of pages of such debate, much of it quite mean-spirited as is often the case with amateur debates of theology. It rapidly gets very personal.

Anyway I finally decided I am too weak a Christian and such debates were detrimental to my spiritual welfare and did no favors for God either. However, I did learn a truly tremendous amount of information about the history of various churches and Christian belief systems over the centuries. And none of it made me actually a better Christian. Maybe a better debater or a bigger know-it-all but, like the Pharisees, sometimes it is easier and more seductive to engage in intellectual pursuits and debate than to carry out the simple virtues commended by Christ and His disciples in scripture. You really can't neglect those basics, they are not considered optional by God. So I try to lead a simpler spiritual life now. Besides that, everyone hates doctrine and theology anyway.

As for me being a smarty-pants, well, maybe. Now and then, I do still enjoy tossing the old theological football around the backyard a bit but I don't do it seriously any more.

TooConservative  posted on  2010-08-23   22:42:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: TooConservative (#42)

Not at all. I do not believe that God will save all men. Eternal life is only for believers, eternal death is for all others just as it is for animals.

Your beliefs are your business.

Universalism is a myth produced by modernist liberals and it would not surprise me if someday the liberals actually put it to a vote to vote everyone into heaven and criminalize as a hate crime the preaching of the idea that anyone might not automatically go to heaven.

www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/briefhist.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chr...iversalism#Ancient_Church

No one says people "automatically go to heaven". You can be judged now or later.

1 Peter 4:17 KJV For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

Well, except Hitler. They wouldn't let Hitler in, would they?

Usually people bring up both Hitler AND Stalin. They'll be judged, same as everyone else.

That alone should clue you in as scripture describes itself as an offense that would always be hated by the world. And it is.

Matthew 10:22 KJV And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

Scripture doesn't describe itself like that. It describes Christ and his followers as being hated. We reject the world, the world rejects us. There's no big surprise there.

It's very difficult to find any basis for salvation in the Old Testament outside of Jewish law and tradition. Well, it isn't difficult, it's impossible. As the old saying had it, "Salvation is of the Jews." It is an accurate summary from the perspective of both Jews and Christians.

Isaiah 19:23 In that day shall there be a highway out of Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian shall come into Egypt, and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians shall serve with the Assyrians. 24 In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of the land: 25 Whom the LORD of hosts shall bless , saying , Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance.

Sure. The Hebrews were chosen, but they were chosen for a purpose, not because they were super-special people. They weren't.

Our main problem is that we often can't even imagine the actual greatness of God.

I agree with that.

PSUSA  posted on  2010-08-24   8:34:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: PSUSA (#44)

No one says people "automatically go to heaven". You can be judged now or later.

1 Peter 4:17 KJV For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

Oh, dear. If you read that verse in that way, we don't have much to discuss. At any rate, I'll say I would consider your reading a gross misinterpretation of the passage or it is uninformed as to the arguments, rather ancient even in the time of Jesus, of a particular moral argument that Jews were quite familiar with.

We have to understand that we are eavesdroppers in many passages in scripture. We are overhearing the middle of a longstanding argument or debate on the moral laws or Jewish religious tradition. This applies to the passage you cite because Midrash and other well-known Jewish sources debated this matter of the responsibility of the righteous in comparison to the unbelieving and disobedient.

It also applies to the quotes of secular Greek philosophers, as in the case of Paul who quotes and refutes a popular saying from a pagan philosopher. This is the 'eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die' passage.

Scripture doesn't describe itself like that. It describes Christ and his followers as being hated. We reject the world, the world rejects us. There's no big surprise there.

Well, let's stay in the first epistle of Peter since you quoted it. (1 Peter 2)

4To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,

5Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

6Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

7Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

8And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

You can find earlier references in scripture as to a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense as in Romans 9:33. And the passage here in Peter and Paul's reference in Romans harks back to Isaiah 8:14 which uses this same visual language. And we have to keep in mind that these disputes were very Jewish, not discussions that were important to Gentiles, if any, who overheard them in a crowd.

I suppose that you could argue the common phrase 'Word of God' was not demonstrably current to Jews who originally heard this argument. Yet you can argue forcefully that the concept of Christ and of God's Word in the New Testament is indissoluble and that the apostles did understand their own work and teachings in this light.

Sure. The Hebrews were chosen, but they were chosen for a purpose, not because they were super-special people. They weren't.

Good luck with finding scriptural assurances that any person outside Israel went to heaven during the era of the Old Covenant.

Again, we cannot agree.

TooConservative  posted on  2010-08-24   11:03:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: TooConservative (#46)

Oh, dear. If you read that verse in that way, we don't have much to discuss.

Well, how else are you going to read it? I suppose you can apply your theological principles and twist it to the point that it's meaningless, but that doesn't chance the meaning of a plainly worded sentence.

It seems that people like to say "It's true, but...." There is no "but".

This applies to the passage you cite because Midrash and other well-known Jewish sources debated this matter of the responsibility of the righteous in comparison to the unbelieving and disobedient.

I don't care what they debated, especially the jews. What it says is all that matters.

Good luck with finding scriptural assurances that any person outside Israel went to heaven during the era of the Old Covenant.

First you say "good luck" to finding any references to non-Hebrews being given aionian life, and I did just that. I provided scriptural proof from the OT. I can provide more. But you'll ignore it. Not that I mind you ignoring it, because I'm not doing this for your benefit, but for mine and anyone else that happens to read it.

Ezekiel 16:55 for example When thy sisters, Sodom and her daughters, shall return to their former estate, and Samaria and her daughters shall return to their former estate, then thou and thy daughters shall return to your former estate.

Wait. I thought Sodom was destroyed "for ever".

So, perhaps you can find scriptures that say that anyone except Christ has gone to Heaven, at any time, after they died? Good luck.

.

PSUSA  posted on  2010-08-24   13:27:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: PSUSA (#48)

I suppose you can apply your theological principles and twist it to the point that it's meaningless, but that doesn't chance the meaning of a plainly worded sentence.

I think you are reading into Peter a preferred meaning. And, boy, is it ever a people-pleaser? It's eisegesis, if you like that word.

When reading scripture, we should look for consistent multiple testimonies across various books and authors, and exclude any reading that contradicts the words of Christ. And read the books as a whole, not pluck verses willy-nilly to assemble something we want to make it say. Also, any doctrine that cannot be supported solely from scripture references in the New Testament (doctrine that cannot be justified without recourse to the Old Testament) should be considered suspect. The New Testament is complete and sufficient for salvation and for correct doctrine.

We are so far apart that discussion is pointless. You are a liberal modernist. I am an orthodox Christian. There simply isn't going to be much more than some rather shallow agreements between us.

Are we at the point where someone is ready to scream "Die, heretic"? Getting closer, no doubt.

TooConservative  posted on  2010-08-24   13:39:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: TooConservative (#49)

I"ve already admitted to being a heretic. And I will die someday.

I think you are reading into Peter a preferred meaning. And, boy, is it ever a people-pleaser? It's eisegesis, if you like that word.

It's not preferred. I simply refer to the plain meaning of the sentence(s). I"m not a theologian. I have not learned how to twist scriptures to the point where a plainly written and translated sentence means something totally different.

When reading scripture, we should look for consistent multiple testimonies across various books and authors, and exclude any reading that contradicts the words of Christ.

Do you think that is what I've done? Please be specific.

PSUSA  posted on  2010-08-24   17:13:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: PSUSA (#55)

When reading scripture, we should look for consistent multiple testimonies across various books and authors, and exclude any reading that contradicts the words of Christ.

Do you think that is what I've done? Please be specific.

I think you have invented for yourself or adopted from others a universalist bias. You look at scripture and inject your bias into it. This is not at all unusual. I watch myself for the tendency as well.

However, to adopt universalism means you must completely disregard many quotes from Jesus Himself about being born again, the wages of sin being death, the promises to prepare a place for His followers, etc.

At its most fundamental level, your universalism says that Jesus lied to people many times about key doctrinal matters.

As for your claims that universalism was the theology of the ancient church, when you have to start relying upon the Nestorians and the notorious heretics of Alexandria as examples of ancient Christianity (instead of the aberrations they actually were), you are on very weak ground. Or standing in scriptural quicksand.

Of course that is just my opinion. It's not like I can threaten to burn you at the stake if you won't recant your diabolical crowd-pleasing universalism. Sometimes being a Baptist by disposition and conviction just isn't as much fun as being Catholic. They have more exciting barbecues than humble Baptists.

But if God intends to save all mankind in the end, then why was the sacrifice of Christ necessary? And if He died to expiate the sins of men, then why (according to your universalist ideas) do Christians supposedly get to heaven faster and Hitler and Stalin and Mao all just arrive at the party a little late. After all, on the scale of eternity what is a mere 5,000 or 10,000 or a million years of death if at the end you will still go to heaven no matter what? Five trillion years from now there won't be any real difference between getting to heaven after 70 years of life or after 5000 years of death.

So, to you, I can't see any value whatsoever in the Atonement. Other than as a way for goody-two-shoes types to get to heaven marginally faster than Hitler will.

TooConservative  posted on  2010-08-24   17:50:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#61. To: TooConservative, Eric Stratton (#58)

I think you have invented for yourself or adopted from others a universalist bias. You look at scripture and inject your bias into it.

OK, please be specific. There is no "bias" in the words "all", "none", etc. The meaning is plain. The twisting of those words (and more words) by the "church" is self-evident. It's amazing to me to see the contortions they go through to twist and outright negate plainly written texts.

Of course that is just my opinion. It's not like I can threaten to burn you at the stake if you won't recant your diabolical crowd-pleasing universalism.

Crowd pleasing? Not hardly. People hate it. It's not universalism that they hate. They hate scriptures. They despise them. THey love their doctrines over and above anything else. I've been banned from "christian" boards for doing the same thing I do here. They never dispute what I say, they just attack the messenger and they shut me down when they know that they can't refute the scriptures. And there's hate. Perhaps you're feeling some of that hate? I wouldn't doubt it. I've seen it many times before.

And your forefathers in the calvinist movement would have burned me at the stake. Michael Servetus was one of them you people burned at the stake. I guess you're more civilized now...civilization being a very thin veneer.

Your entire post is nothing but doctrine apart from any scriptures to support it. I used scriptures to support what you call "my" position. You're not disputing me, you're disputing scripture. You are also adding to them and taking away from them. That is something we are plainly told not to do.

So if you have something specific to address, then please do so. But I'm not going to be distracted by silly theological arguments that focus only on someones doctrines, because I don't care about their doctrines.

.

PSUSA  posted on  2010-08-24   20:30:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#64. To: PSUSA (#61)

OK, please be specific. There is no "bias" in the words "all", "none", etc. The meaning is plain. The twisting of those words (and more words) by the "church" is self-evident. It's amazing to me to see the contortions they go through to twist and outright negate plainly written texts.

I'm not going to start verse-chopping with you.

I don't generally debate at length people that I consider outside the mainstream orthodox Christian tradition. Orthodox Christianity has never embraced universalism, no matter what heretical sources the Wiki people try to cite. It is just grossly ignorant or dishonest to pretend that this was or has ever been the position of the Latin church or the eastern churches or the Reformation churches or the Baptists or more recent churches like evangelicals and charismatics. To support universalism, you have to consider small groups of mainstream churches, few of which survived their original leader's lifetime, as representative of the whole of Christianity. Clearly, this is not the case and is not even debatable. To me, this is like you pretending that Christian nudists somehow represent a substantial portion of the ancient churches. And, BTW, Wikipedia would love to convince you that Christian nudism has been a long-accepted tradition among the churches. Of course, it is all liberal modern silliness, of about the same rank as pretending that Wicca is an ancient religion (it was invented around 1920) or that charismatic churches have a long history (first established in America around 1900 with only a few sporadic outbreaks in earlier centuries).

I think you should be a little more careful about Wikipedia or trusting them to be your spiritual guide. You seem to accept rather uncritically their grossly uninformed list of verses that they pretend offer support to universalism. Again, there is no evidence to support universalism in the ancient churches or at any other time; that doesn't change Wiki's desire to promote the idea to gullible people who don't grasp history.

Mormons are a variety of universalist though they soft-pedal it. There are some others as well like Quakers or Unitarians (most of whom deny Christ as a matter of principle). And some cafeteria Catholics take a quasi-universalist position.

TooConservative  posted on  2010-08-24   21:21:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 64.

#66. To: TooConservative (#64)

I think you should be a little more careful about Wikipedia or trusting them to be your spiritual guide.

That's just one source.

But you didn't disappoint me. I knew you would not cite specifics because I've been down this road many times before. If you could have been specific, I'm sure you would have done so.

And I never claimed it was mainstream. I'm glad it isn't. The mainstream is trash and is hardly something to revere. I'd rather be seen as a heretic. It puts me in good company.

.

PSUSA  posted on  2010-08-24 22:20:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 64.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


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