Scofield

[ Reina Valera & NIV ] [ Subvert the Bible ] [ Ask a KJVO ] [ Almost KJV only ? ] [ KJV & Good Language ] [ What is a "Corrupt" Manuscript ? ] [ Notes on KJV Preface ] [ KJV NEWS ] [ Riplinger ] [ Dynamic Equivalence ] [ Doing Your Own Research ] [ King James Witchcraft ] [ Few Manuscripts & KJV ] [ Can a TRANSLATION be Inspired ? ] [ The Implications of Modern Versions - Does God Deceive People ? ] [ Historic and Orthodox Position on preservation of the Holy Bible ] [ Myth of Outdated Language ] [ Strain AT a gnat Matthew 23-24 ] [ Printing Errors in KJV King James Version KJVO ] [ Review of the book King James Onlyism - A New Sect KJVO Myths ] [ Jesus Christ only begotten Son of God ] [ Latin Vulgate ] [ QUESTIONS - LATIN VULGATE ] [ Role of Church ] [ Scofield ] [ SCOFIELD 2 (W & H) ] [ Foreign Language KJVs ] [ Vatican News ] [ Ankerberg and KJVO ] [ Cold - Love ] [ Where to Start ] [ The Word and Words ] [ False Pastors & Prophets ]

After looking at the facts, we can only say THANK GOD for C.I. Scofield.

As many of you know, we are familiar with the work of Westcott & Hort, and we have found several significant problem with them, their theology, and their work. There is No question that Westcott & Hort were occultists, based on the research we have done, and Yes they were occultists for a very long time (and not just in college as some have suggested elsewhere).

Preterist Myths - Irvin Baxter's bias against Scofield

We took a look recently at the site where an article originated suggesting that Scofield had ties to Westcott & Hort, and worked with them and agreed with their views. Those statements are simply FALSE. The Article was written to attempt to smear Scofield, because someone did not wish to try to refute Mr. Scofield on a doctrinal basis.

The fact remains that Scofield was a strong opponent of Westcott & Hort, and remained so throughout his life.

The site - where the article Against Scofield originated - is directed by Irvin Baxter Jr., who appears to be something called a Postmillenialist Preterist.

Irving Baxter - the author who attacked Scofield - is also Post-Tribber. So it should come as no surprise that he would attack Scofield for Scofield’s Biblically sound Pre-Trib position.

He is a Preterist which opposes Pre-Trib Rapture, and he calls himself a “Historicist”. That has a nice-sounding name to it.

But usually, when you hear “historicist” in an End-Times context, think anti-rapture. The General theory is that those who call themselves “historicist” claim to be in favor of the Reformation. But it is hard to give this view real credence, because they do not know much about the Reformation, nor Reformation writers, as a rule. (In addition, most of them do not seem to know much about Reformation doctrine).

The main reason why a few of the Reformation authors saw the Church (the body of Christ) as the replacement of Israel - back then - is because the Nation-State of Israel did not yet physically exist in the 1600s, [it only came back into existence in 1948] and this possibility of a “real” Israel – did not enter their minds, on a realistic basis.

However, many “Preterists / Historicists” want to go much farther with that point of view, to suggest that the Church SHOULD replace Israel, in every way.

That view is formally known as “Replacement Theology”, and it is wrong. It basically takes the geography of the known world in the 1500s and tries to maintain that the knowledge back then should limit us today. It takes Ideas that happened 500 years ago - Before certain historical developments -, and then tries to read those views back into the Bible.

One thing about God is that he is a Linear God. He may exist outside of Time (He does !). But we don't. And as History unfolds itself according to God's plan, He expects us to be able to understand this, and to respond appropriately to His sovereignty.

For example - The Soviet Union did not exist before, but they have existed, and the impact of their alliances is still felt today. The State of Israel exists today. God does not want us to suggest that the State of Israel SHOULD not exist...just because it was not yet formally re-born in the 1500s or 1600s. (But Preterists would like us to think this way...to omit the developments of the Historical record).

The Real Problem with Scofield

There seem to be two recurring themes that one finds...in the material [on websites] which is often Anti-Scofield:

The first is that Scofield advocated a view known as Dispensationalism.

The second is that Scofield seemed to be a strong advocate of Zionism.

Dispensationalism

One would think - reading some of the innacurate websites - that Scofield had invented Dispensationalism.

Dispensationalism is nothing more than the view that "God operates with humanity with different guidelines or sets of rules, from one time period to another".

Contrary to what critics suggest, this view is not something new and it did not originate with Scofield.

The view that God operates in the Old Testament differently than how God operates in the New Testament is a reflection of dispensationalism. The term "Dispensationalism" is derived from "Dispensation", which means a "period of time".

There are obvious benefits to the fact of Most Christians being dispensationalists, whether they call themselves this or not. One of the benefits is not having to carry out the death sentences for all of the offenses in the O.T. (Old Testament) for which the death penalty was mandated.

The reason why the Old Testament law is not enforced among Christians today is because the rules of the Old Testament do not apply to the TIME PERIOD that came AFTER the Death & Resurrection of Jesus Christ. His Arrival, Death & Physical Resurrection (A literal bodily physical resurrection, not the "metaphor" of a resurrection, and not simply a "spiritual resurrection" either).

Christians have understood that God operated differently in different time-periods ever since the ascension of Jesus to Heaven.

Zionism

Zionism is the view that the Jews are entitled, by virtue of ethnic origin, to inhabit and dwell in the land of their ancestors, which is Israel. The land of Israel is littered with historical sites that can be nothing other than the remains of the Jews for thousands of years. Others have inhabited Roman Palestine as well, but the term Palestinian has historically always meant the jews in anycase.

The notion of an Arab Palestinian is historically absent, and did not exist until after 1967. Most of the arabs in the Middle East seem to have a greater problem with the fact that their government(s) sided with Hitler during World War II, and with Germany against the Allies in World War I.

The moslems today have more than 500 times more land than Israel, and it is an interesting point that many families in the West have lost land of their own, over the centuries through all sorts of wars and conflicts.

It is not Scofield that gives legitimacy to Zionism but rather the Old Testament itself. That is not surprising, since most of it takes place in Israel. It used to be possible to suggest that those in Israel are not the "real" jews, since they could not prove their descent from the Jews of the Bible. Now thanks to DNA and the tribe of Levi, it turns out that many of the Jews of today CAN prove their descent from DNA, which means they are the real Jews.

The rest of the pieces of the Puzzle are not hard to understand: If the Jews can prove who they are genetically, then it means that they had a common genetic ancestor. That ancestor is Abraham, and this in only one more proof that the Old Testament is not fake, but actually authentic as well as historically accurate.

That the case for the Homeland of the Jews has been strengthened since World War II is a frustration of other groups. The Bible has often been a source of difficulty for those who rejected its message.

Obviously, nothing would justify violence against civilians in any conflict. This is just as true today for conflicts in the Middle East. Those who would seek to justify the annihilation of Israel attempt to de-legitimize Dispensationalism.

But to do this effectively has never been accomplished. If it were accomplished, the first result would be the re-institution of Mosaic Law. Few people would actually want this, and the point of the Jewish law was to demonstrate (to mankind) that laws could not be kept well enough to please God, and the only alternative was to accept His unmerited Grace and favor offered through Jesus Christ as found in the Bible.

The perspective on the Rapture - which remains alive despite attacks against it - received its popularity from a book written in the 1800s called "Jesus is coming soon". Its arguments were as valid then as they are now. Only now, it is possible to read it and understand that the events it was foretelling have since come to pass. (Note: That is NOT because the author of the book had the individual gift of revelation from God, but only that he could read and agree with what the Bible had previously prophecied ).

Concerning Scofield

ZERO evidence remains to suggest that Scofield was ever associated with Westcott & Hort or ever worked with them in any way. That is because Scofield was never associated with Westcott and Hort, and took several steps to distance his work from theirs. The views of Westcott and Hort was that the Textus Receptus and the King James Version were both Corrupt, and "evidences' of a false christianity.

The view of Scofield was exactly the opposite of Westcott and Hort: Scofield believed that the KJV is the Word of God, that it should be treated as such, and that the study of the Greek text from which the KJV is translated is another accurate means to understanding God. [Westcott and Hort rejected this view - intentionally].

The idea that Scofield cooperated with Westcott & Hort appears to be simply, the made-up view of Irvin Baxter Jr. He provides no documentation to substantiate that view, despite the other footnotes in his innacurate article.

There are many things wrong in the world, but sometimes - painting with a brush too broadly serves to undermine the premise asserted or the conclusions defended. Baxter’s article on Scofield is an example of websites that do this.

Refuting Scofield is not as easy as refuting Dispensationalism in any case. Scofield also wrote ten books, outside of the notes used for His Bible

Valid Conclusions about Scofield

The conclusions that remain valid – as far as we know – are:

1. The KJV is a great Bible (though we know it is tough to understand for newbies)

2. Westcott & Hort have significant doctrinal issues, as they deny the deity of Christ and the sufficiency of his work on the Cross.

3. Scofield remains a stalwart defender of the faith, a man of great integrity, and someone who did have a great and positive influence on the Christian world.

4. The 1917 Scofield KJV is hard to find these days. Thanks to Cambridge University , they have largely replaced it - these days - with an altered version – first for copyright & profits (it appears) and then for content change. Their edition is called the Scofield SYSTEM.

The Scofield SYSTEM does not contain the same notes as the Old Scofield Bible of 1917. So many people these days are walking around with new versions that are NOT the notes of Scofield, thinking that they are – when the Bibles plainly say Scofield SYSTEM, and often explain that many changes have been made. (The Original 1917 Scofield edition is now often called the “Old” Scofield).

But the 1917 Scofield Bible is a great Bible and it is among those that we use regularly. It is an extremely reliable version. (And Cambridge still sells the 1917 Scofield, but simply calls it the "Old Scofield" Version).

Scofield took strong stands 1. against the occult 2. against mystery religions and 3. about the Roman Catholic Church. As such – and as his notes demonstrate – his views would be diametrically contradictory to the books, activities and work of Westcott & Hort. It is for these reasons that Scofield is often attacked...

This just goes to show the importance of verifying every link in the evidence, the logic, and the conclusions reached. Baxter's Article demonstrates Scofield fought against any changes to the KJV.

Scofield insisted that the Scofield notes were to be used WITH the King James version, and NOT with the newly invented (1881/82) Bible of Westcott & Hort, their Revised Version. This changed only recently (1970s), but it had nothing to do with Scofield himself.

The RV (Revised Version) of Westcott & Hort was translated in 1881. The American Version came out in 1901, Twenty years after its counterpart [the Revised Version of 1881 from the UK] due to a censorship requirement instituted by Westcott & Hort to ensure that their edition would have time to capitalize on exclusive market share, even in the United States.

But the point is that Scofield – if he had wanted to – would easily have been able to work with Philip Schaff (Head of the American R.V, which is the American Standard Version/1901) or other pro- Westcott & Hort people – if Scofield would have chosen to do that.

Instead, Scofield chose to go the other way, in the opposite direction. And it is a tribute to his reputation and stature, that Oxford was willing to work with him, after Oxford academia had already been so influenced before – by Westcott & Hort.

You can do the math just as much as we can. Scofield could have associated himself with the Revised Version of Westcott & Hort after it came out in 1881. But He NEVER did. And Scofield could have made a deal with Oxford, in order for his own notes to be incorporated with the use of the Revised Version. But this did NOT happen.

Why Not ? Because both camps knew that their views were mutually exclusive. From 1881 to 1917 is nearly 40 years. That means that for about 40 years, Scofield Could Have worked with Westcott & Hort. But that did Not happen. Instead Scofield used his notes to point out dozens of Bible passages that contradict the wrong theology of Westcott & Hort. And He made sure that his own notes went (after the RV came out) to lending weight and support...to the KJV.

About any differences between the 1909 Scofield and the 1917, the main changes have to do with the changes in the world. The 1917 version reflects Scofield’s understanding (with 8 to 10 other scholars) of the World – After it had been altered by the events in World War I (1914-1917).

Scofield was not perfect, but we are glad to say that he was a man of God, who tried to follow God with all of his heart.

There are - at least - Four problems with the Preterist / Replacement Theology view:

1. Preterist / Replacement Advocates omit the Israel of Today from today's context.

2. Preterist / Replacement Advocates usually DO want the Church to replace Israel

3. Preterist / Replacement Advocates mistakenly attribute incorrect false motives to Rapture advocates, suggesting that rapture advocates are irresponsible and are simply not taking their faith seriously.

But as Rapture advocates have pointed out, the timing of the rapture is irrelevant. All believers should look forward to it, but we are all still told to Occupy until He comes, and we are called to be the Salt of the Earth, that is to be a good and accurate representation of the Love of Jesus Christ in our individual lives.

4. Though certain events are clearly historical, (such as the founding of Israel again in 1948), Preterist / Replacement Advocates treat the Modern State of Israel as if it were of No prophetic significance, and as if it were an inconvenience.

The Bottom line is this: We can thank God for Scofield and can only hope that those who desire both growth and stability in their spiritual walk will use the Scofield Study Bible and read the Books of Scofield.