The History of the Scofield Reference Bible
- Thread starter Iosias
- Start date
- Status
- Jul 2, 2003
- 145,030
- 17,405
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
thereselittleflower said:
I figured you would take this stance....
Sorry to inform you , TLF, but people did NOT follow Scofield. There were no Scofieldites. Nor did Scofield come up with dispensationism and then promote his dispensationism. The theology was already well developed and spreading. There were many minnisters from around the country at the Nigara Falls conference. There was a whole denominational groups (Brethen, Congregational to name 2 ) who already believed it.
You are attempting to make Scofield the sole leader of it and all followed him, but that is not true.
So yes, my comparison with the Catholic Church and priests who conduct themselves badly. Using YOUR logic, one should leave that church.
And yes, people follow popes and priests, whether they are suppose to or not.
Now let's look at one in particular:
Enter one Cardinal Rodrigo Borgia. Nephew of Callixtus III, one of only 2 Spanish popes, Rodrigo himself became Pope Alexander IV in 1492 through bribery. While a cardinal, and then later as Pope, his conduct was most unbecoming to his saintly station. He openly kept a string of mistresses, fathered many children, and orgies were said to be commonplace within the papal residence. Cesare and Lucrezia were often seen taking part in their fathers licentious exploits. Nor was it a secret that she had carnal relations with both men on numerous occasions. Indeed, Cesares love of his sister was often called unnatural.
Yep - the Borgia pope was a wonderful example of a leader with unrepentent sin and who led the Catholic church. Using YOUR logic, no one should have stayed in it because of his unChristlike behavior and unrepentent immorality.
Now you will come up with all types of rationalizations to defend your church and your view,but if you are consistent with it, you would not be with the Catholic Church. In fact, proabably noone should stay with any church - for churches are made up of forgiven sinners who still struggle with sin.
You have decided he was unrepentent. D.L. Moody, the great evangelist, eventually told Scofield he needed to quit beating himself up. Because of Christ, he was forgiven. People aren't very good at forgiving themselves and others, though.
You are trying to play moderator again. My point is quite clear and comparing priests in the Catholic church with Scofield and the denomination he belonged to and the many Dispensationists that already were around is quite appropriate. Apparently, you don't like your own logic used with the Catholic church.
Upvote
0
AV . . did you not provide that biography of Scofield? Did you not provide a great deal of discussion in that biography about the PERSON Scofield?AV1611 said:
Are you not the one who initiated discussion about Scofield himself with that biography?
Are you saying you are the only one allowed to present personal information about Scofield?
You were the first one to bring Scofield and his life up. Not me, not other posters in this thread . .
We are discusing the validity of the information AND PERSON YOU presented for consideration ..
I am sorry you do not like how things have turned out, but there is no such things as one set of rules for the OP and those who agree with the OP and an different set of rules for those who don't agree . .
Scofield's life presents some very difficult and embarrassing issues for dispensationalists to deal with . . and it seems the only way dispensationalists know how to deal with those issues is to try to get those who expose them to keep silent about it . .
Where is the evidence that Scofield ever provided a dime for his wife and children?
Where is the evidence that Scofield was in a biblical marriage with his second wife?
Where is the evidence that Scofield legitimately earned or received his "degree" Doctor of Divinity?
instead of trying to silence us, why not present the evidence that refutes the issues raised?
What do you have to hide if we are wrong?
And since when did presenting information and asking questions become the equivvalant of debate?
Peace to all!
Upvote
0
FIC
What new teaching did Borgia teach that we are to reject?
What teaching of the Catholic Church was changd by Borgia?
None . .
This is not a thread about Catholicism. You are simply trying to deflect off the real topic of this thread which is Scofield.
If you see Borgia as a reason to reject the teaching of the Catholic Church (which he did not invent or change or introduce anything new to) then why do you approve of accepting the teaching of Scofield?
Peace to all!
What new teaching did Borgia teach that we are to reject?
What teaching of the Catholic Church was changd by Borgia?
None . .
This is not a thread about Catholicism. You are simply trying to deflect off the real topic of this thread which is Scofield.
If you see Borgia as a reason to reject the teaching of the Catholic Church (which he did not invent or change or introduce anything new to) then why do you approve of accepting the teaching of Scofield?
Peace to all!
Upvote
0
- Jul 2, 2003
- 145,030
- 17,405
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I was applying YOUR logic to situations in the Catholic church. Unlike you, I beleive that the theology of Christianity transcends the errors of men. AND I recognize that Scofield neither created Dispensationism, nor was the sole leader of it, and that it was spreading before the publication of the Scofield Reference Bible. The Bible itself is the KJV. He put notes at the bottom of the page and wrote statements at the beiginning of the books. There were 8 other editors of the Scofield Reference who agreed - godly men.thereselittleflower said:
And the people who read the notes at the bottom were not mindless idiots. The preachers who used that Bible were also not mindless idiots. There was denominational backing, otherwise the Reference Bible would not have gotten so popular.
So if you are going to use the logic you have decided on, you need to leave the Catholic church - in fact, everyone should leave every church.
Upvote
0
- Jul 2, 2003
- 145,030
- 17,405
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
I
In Christ Forever
Guest
The KJV is not the best translation to use as far as the words world, land, earth, dust, and age are concerned. Pretty important words in the bible I believe, especially concerning what the old heaven and earth represents.FreeinChrist said:
This is just on the word "world". Not counting land, earth, dust and age.
world occurs 287 times in 248 verses: Page 1, verses 1 - 25
tebel OT world(Strong's 08398) occurs 36 times in 36 verses
kosmos NT world (Strong's 2889) occurs 187 times in 152 verses
36 +187 = 223
287 - 223 = 64 times mistranslated.
Upvote
0
Interesting! The word Aion (Strong's #165), which means a block or period of time, is translated "world" many times in the Authorized Version as well. By reason of the confusion in terms, the revelation respecting successive ages was almost lost.In Christ Forever said:
In Christ,
Tracey
Upvote
0
- Jul 2, 2003
- 145,030
- 17,405
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Well, that is actually off-topic.In Christ Forever said:
But mistranslated? No. It means you need to consider context.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I
In Christ Forever
Guest
You brought up the KJV Scofield used. I never used it and never will. The NKJV is far better I believe. I use several translations and lexicons for scripture a lot, just for deeper study. I wouldn't recommend the KJV to anyone to tell you the truth. God bless.FreeinChrist said:
Isaiah 34:1 Come near, you nations, to hear; And heed, you people! Let the earth hear, and all that is in it, The world and all things that come forth from it.
jeremiah 51:14 The LORD of hosts has sworn by Himself: "Surely I will fill you with men, as with locusts, And they shall lift up a shout against you." 15 He has made the earth by His power; He has established the world by His wisdom, And stretched out the heaven by His understanding.
Upvote
0
FreeinChrist said:
Unfortunately for this discussion, you are not . .
And so, evidently, ALSO UNlike me, you do not find that the biblical mandates as to who is to be considered a legitimate teacher in the Church, who is a false teacher, and how to respond to false teachers, mean what they say . . and so can be ignored when one feels like it . .
I see . . .
That would depend entirely on how you view the word "spreading" . . any spreading it was doing before Scofield was very limited, especially to the spreading of this doctrine that resulted from the Scofield Reference Bible . .
He did not invent dispensationalism, but neither did he give credit to Darby, but put his own name to his notes . .
The important point is, this teaching did not exist in the Church, and even within Protestantism (except for a few pockets here and there as a result of Darby, and never before Darby) UNTIL SCOFIELD.
Though he did not "invent" it, (and there is nothing to suggest that those who invented it should be considered legitimate teachers of a new doctrine to the body of Christ), Scofield is PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE for "legitimizing" it and making availble to the masses in the PAGES of SCRIPTURE!
He was one of the innovators of this new doctrine . . and it does not matter that he picked up false teaching from somewhere else; he published it as his own, under his own name, as a pastor, a position he had no biblical authority to hold, and so became a teacher of this novel and new doctrine . . also a position he had no biblical authority to hold.
Other influencial leaders of dispensationalism followed Scofield, yes that is true, but just because there were "other" leaders, that does not lend any additional legitimacy to Dispenationalism or Scofield's wor.
We can see that those "other" leaders were heavily influenced by him and his Reference Bible . . and so, even though there were "other" leaders, it really doesn't mean a whole lot or give more credibility to dispensationalism, or make it more true . .
If the teaching of Scofield was false, . and other's picked up on his teaching, then they also were simply promoting the SAME FALSE teaching, maybe dressed up a little more, changed a little here or there, .. but essentially nothing more . .
And upon whose word were these godly men? I don't know if they were or not. It seems that at that time, one did not have to be a "godly man" to be promoted to positions of authority within the church, contrary to what is expressly stated in the scriptures!
I have absolutely no cofidence that one can assume they were godly men, especially when they affixed their names to a book (the notes contained in the margins of the bible constitue a book in and of themselves) authored by someone who had, BY HIS ACTIONS, denied the faith and was worse than an infidel according to the bible, and who was living in an biblically adulterous relationship with his second wife, unless they were ignorant of these issues surrounding Scofield, and then, even godly men can be decieved . .
You are simply asserting something that you cannot prove.
And they were editors, not teachers . . editors edit what is written . . they look for such things as spelling, puncutation, grammar, factual error (like dates, names, etc . . ) . . they do not contribute to the teaching, neither are editors generally viewed as qualified to judge the material as to its truthfulness or faithfulness to God's word . . So the fact that there were a certain number of EDITORS says nothing about the legitimacy of the teaching or the preson authoring it.
There could have been 100 editors . . it would not change anything . .the teaching would still be false no matter how many editors there were . .
The key here is, there was ONLY ONE AUTHOR . . . Scofield ..
Many people who get caught up in false teachings are not "mindless idiots" . . and actually many are very well educated.
SURELY you know this from the education you should be receiving in your Master's program . . so such a comment really is superluous . . it has no bearing on our discussion. It is an overstatement without application to our discussion . .
And your argument is a logical fallacy (that comes up often in our discussions) .. it is based on the false assumption that only "mindless idiots" can be decieved into believing false doctrne, and deceived in any great numbers . . not those who are educated and smart (the opposite of mindless idiots, and which we all hope we are (educated, smart, not easily beguiled individuals).
I guess the followers of Jim Jones were simply a bunch of mindless idiots too . .
And I guess Jim Jones was a "mindless idiot" too?
Was he? Were his followers?
Let's look at that whole phenomena . ..
This was a Christian destructive, doomsday cult founded and led by James Warren Jones (1931-1978). Jim Jones held degrees from Indiana University and Butler University.
Jim Jones was an educated and degreed man! (by the way, where were Scofield's degrees from?)
He was not a Fundamentalist pastor as many reports in the media and the anti-cult movement claim. He belonged to a mainline Christian denomination, having been ordained in the Christian Church/Disciples of Christ. (At the time of his ordination, the DoC allowed a local congregation to select and ordain a minister on their own. However, ordinations conducted without denominational endorsement were not considered valid within the rest of the church.)
Your statement above clearly plays on the common misconceptions that EDUCATED people (as opposed to MINDLESS IDIOTS) could not possibly be deceived into believing, promoting, endorsing and teaching false doctrine . . for they most certainly are not mindless idiots (and only mindless idiots would be so easily decieved). . And so, the arugement goes on, since they are educated, their acceptance of his teachings must be verification that his teachings are true . . . .
That assumption, for that is all this is, an assumption, is not based on ANYTHING we know from real life.
Here we see something very interesting about the false assumptions on which your arguement is based:
Surely anyone who could believe that a mechanic and would be rock star is Jesus Christ must be poor, uneducated and very gullible.
That makes sense, right? We are educated, and so we are not like those foolish poor, uneducated and very gulible people who would more naturally fall for deceptive teachings . .
So we are SAFE!!
If it seems true to us too, then we can rest assured that we are not going far into left field . . Right?
Let's look further:
People are surprised to find that many followers of religious extremists are highly educated people. Many have been successful business and professional leaders.
I guess not!!!
Education and socioeconomic position are not major factors in analyzing the dynamics of religious belief and practice.
http://www.watchman.org/cults/death.htm
How about HIGHLY EDUCATED??
Whether one is a "mindless idiots" or highly educated seems to have absoluely nothing to do, IN ANY MAJOR WAY, with whether or not one can discern between truth and error and avoid being deceived into believing a false teaching . .
So . . the "mindless idiotness" or educational status of the person reading Sofields notes has no bearing on this issue at all . .
Thank you for the opportunity to point this out . .
Having denominational backing does not seem to be a real feather in your cap either . .
[/quote]Hardly FIC . . all you are showing is you have failed to understand the logic and arguments presented so far against Scofield and his Reference Bible.
Peace to all!
Upvote
0
- Jul 2, 2003
- 145,030
- 17,405
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Yes, for the purpose of explaining that he used the English Bible most widely used and added notes at the bottom.In Christ Forever said:
NKJV was not available to Scofield, ICF. Nor was NIV (not that I would recommend it).
I prefer the NASB as being the best word for word translation.
And yes, you were off topic in that the question of whether he should have used KJV or NKJV or another is NOT the topic.
Upvote
0
- Jul 2, 2003
- 145,030
- 17,405
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Yes, actually for this discussion I am. You just don't like it when it is used against the RCC.thereselittleflower said:
I accept Biblical mandates for what determines a false teacher. You deny Scodfield's repentence when you have NO CLUE what was in his heart.
In contrast, a number of Christian men, men who meet that standard AND who interacted with Scofield, accepted his conversion and true repentence. AND these same men also taught dispensationism - which they did not learn from Scofield.
So using YOUR logic, you shouldn't be in the Catholic Church.
Hmmmm...what was the Niagara Conference, TL? Actually, there was much spreading of it.
Darby didn't INVENT it either, TLF, it just came together as a theology thanks to him. And there was no need to give credit to Darby.
BTW - the dispensations as described by Scofield do not line up with Darby's but is closer to what Isaac Watts (1674 1748) believed.
Already covered this ground, TLF. Much of the aspects of Dispensationism were held by those in the church since Revelation was written.
What follows in your post is mostly your unsupported bias about Dispensationism and Scofield.
WAs already legitimized, TLF. He simply did the task that many at the niagara Conference thought he should. You also, again, ignore that there were 8 other contributers on the title page.
He was an ordained minister, ordained in the Presbyterian church. He later became a Congregationist pastor, which does not affect his ordination.
YOU are under no Biblical authority to deny this ordination.
Wow - talk about "methinks she doth protest too much.." - you are a living example!
As professors in seminary and ministers, they were well knwn in their time.
WHO ARE YOU to declare they aren't godly?
Well, I will continue to use your logic.
Obviously, none of the Cardinals or Bishops that listened to or had supported Pope Alexander (the Borgia) could possibly be godly at all - they all must evil!!!
All the priests who associated with any priest who was involved in the sexual abuse scandal are obviouly all evil too !! Using YOUR logic, they cannot possibly be godly. Per YOUR logic.
You are placing your own interpretation of what a secular modern editor does on what was done on a religious work in early 1900. You are generalizing inappropriately.
Yet you are assuming they are mindless and unable to read for themsleves - as if no one was Spirit led and all the ministers - they were all just dumb, in your opinion? And you falsely imply that Scofield led everyone else to dispensatinism when in fact, it was already being spread.
Sorry, TLF - but you are going about your rationializing again.
To repeat what I already posted:
Now let's look at one in particular:
Enter one Cardinal Rodrigo Borgia. Nephew of Callixtus III, one of only 2 Spanish popes, Rodrigo himself became Pope Alexander IV in 1492 through bribery. While a cardinal, and then later as Pope, his conduct was most unbecoming to his saintly station. He openly kept a string of mistresses, fathered many children, and orgies were said to be commonplace within the papal residence. Cesare and Lucrezia were often seen taking part in their fathers licentious exploits. Nor was it a secret that she had carnal relations with both men on numerous occasions. Indeed, Cesares love of his sister was often called unnatural.
Yep - the Borgia pope was a wonderful example of a leader with unrepentent sin and who led the Catholic church. Using YOUR logic, no one should have stayed in it because of his unChristlike behavior and unrepentent immorality. And this fellow was given the power to speak Ex Cathedra???? whoa!
Now you will come up with all types of rationalizations to defend your church and your view,but if you are consistent with it, you would not be with the Catholic Church. In fact, probably noone should stay with any church - for churches are made up of forgiven sinners who still struggle with sin.
You have decided he was unrepentent. D.L. Moody, the great evangelist, eventually told Scofield he needed to quit beating himself up. Because of Christ, he was forgiven. People aren't very good at forgiving themselves and others, though.
And some people just can't not forgive....but they have to demonize, engage in character assassination, and keep screaming their hate from the rooftops.
Upvote
0
FreeinChrist said:
You have simply missed the point entirely. I don't know what more I can say to help you understand.
And neither do you have a clue as to what was in his heart, yet you seem to be all to willing to accept his conversion (and assumed repentance) as though it were legitimate when there is strong evidence to the contrary . .
But again, we are not talking about his salvation, but his fitness and biblical worthiness to teach and lead others.
There are many who have repented in the Church, that, in and of itself, does not make them fit for, or worthy to teach or lead the Church . . ]
You seem to keep forgetting, or choose to ignore, that the bible holds teachers and leaders to a HIGHER STANDARD than the rest of us repentant sinners. .
I am holding Scofield to that higher standard set forth in scripture . .
The question isn't why am I doing so . .
The REAL question is,
Why aren't you??
And what does that say?
They also ignored biblical mandates about who should be put in positions of leadership . .
Again, as I pointed out the biblical requirements, one of which is that a pastor be the husgand of ONE WIFE . .
That would preclude anyone who is divorced without biblical reason . . and unless it can be proven that Scofield had biblical reason to divorce his first wife, then it must not be assumed he did . .
And we know it is not Scofield who divorced his wife, but it was his wife who filed for divorce 3 years after his conversion, because he falied to provide for her and his dauhghters, etc . .
Scofield got remarried OnLY 3 MONTHS after his wife divorced him . . ONLY 3 MONTHS! To someone he had been seeing will still married to his wife!!! AND after he claimed conversion and true repentance!!
So, again, Scofield was in a biblical adulterous relationship, according to the words of Jesus Himself in the Gospels, with his new wife, for his first wife is still alive . . (I already gave the scriptures to back up what I am saying once, do you want me to produce them again?)
So . . what does this say about the men who chose to ignore that he was in such a biblically declared adulterous relationship, who chose to ignore the biblical requirements for a pastor of the church, and promoted him to such a position anyway accepting his repentance as legitimate even though he was living is gross sin with his new wife, obviously WITHOUT REPENTANCE FOR IT ?
Evidently they did not hold to what the bible has to say about the qualifications of leaders and teachers in very high esteem . . So why should I beleive they are trustworthy in their teaching on the rest of the bible, any more than Scofield was, or Jim Jones?
All this doesn't say a whole lot about them to me, or their qualifications to choose who is qualified to lead and teach and especially to promote new doctrine, or their ability to not be deceived by false docrines themselves . .
The question is,
Why does it to you?
Again, you have failed to understand the logic I am using, and as I stated above, I don't know what more I can say . .. .
I doubt that this conference had the impact in Christianity of spreading dispenationalism you would have us all believe . .
Yes, Darby did. And yes, Scofield took Darby's teachng and presented it as his own with no reference to the originator.
We can take a closer look at how closely Scofield and Darby were vs others later.
Yes, we have already covered this ground before and much of what you assert has been catagorically rejected . . your "much" is really only that aspect that relates to dispensationalism's pre-millenial stance, and even then, not identical to it . . AND what little similarities there are to chilaism, it was not something believed universally or even predominately by the Early Church.
The claims of ties to the Early Church are very, very weak at best.
No FIC . . your attacks on the information presented by those who don't agree with you, and the people who present it are full of assertions without factual basis, and are simply dismissive and trivializing without producing anything of substance to back up such claims.
No FIC . . just because a bunch of men get together at a conference and decide to "legitimize" a teaching, that does not make it legitimate doctrine. . .
And No .. I am speaking of being legitimized in the eyes of the thousands upon thousands who read his Reference Bible with his notes . . Scofield and his Reference Bible were responsible for that . .
And which is it? Contributors? Or Editors as you previoulsy claimed? And again . . SO WHAT if there were 8 editors? What does that prove??
You have ignored what I said in my last post . .
There could be 100 editors, 1000 editors, but that would not make a teaching more legitimate . .
THERE WAS ONE AUTHOR Scofield . .
Oh yes I am!!! We are told to be wise as serpents . .
We are told by the bible what the qualifications of a pastor are . .and he failed to meet them . .
So what denomination ordained him? I am not denying that this denomination ordained him . .
Again, so what?
What this means is that this denomination, and the Congregational denomination afterwards, BOTH IGNORED his FAILURE to meet the biblical qualifications to pastor the church . . !!!
And so it makes the ordination practices of these denominations suspect at the very least .
So what if MEN ordained him in their denomination ignoring the clear admonitions of scripture .. What does that prove?
Let's go out and get ordained and then we can teach anything we like and our ordination automatically makes it legitimate . .
I don't think so .. ..
God did not ordain him . .
He did not pass God's test as set forth in the scriptures, did he now . .
Jim Jones was an ordained minister too . .
LOL I don't think this phrase means what you think it means . .
Great attempt at a twist FIC and gross misrepresentation of what I said.
Deliberate misrepresentation of another's words - I think the rules say something about this . . .
Let's look at what I actually said again, shall we? Then let's compare it to your accusation above:
And upon whose word were these godly men? I don't know if they were or not.
Where did I declare that they weren't godly? Read more carefully next time so you can avoid coming across as deliberately misrepresenting someone's words . .
I'm not holding my breath, you have failed everytime you have tried to do so thus far . .
I was right . . .
You really shouldn't try to use someone else's logic against them until you better understand it yourself . .
You are barking up the wrong tree . .
You are substituting another strawman . . arguing against something you invented, not what I stated . .
The calling into question of the presumed godliness of those who ordained Scofield or knew him has nothing to do with the fact that they were associated with him.
I never claimed this .. so you are barking up the wrong tree . .
I was right, you have failed to understand and use my logic again . .
Am I? Then produce evidence of substance, not dismissive accusations.
You can assert this to be true . . but that does not make it true . .
Lets look at the definition of "editor" in the 1800's
Webster's 1828 Dictionary
Editor
ED'ITOR, n. [L. from edo, to publish.] A publisher; particularly, a person who superintends an impression of a book; the person who revises, corrects and prepares a book for publication; as Erasmus, Scaliger, &c.
1. One who superintends the publication of a newspaper.
And around the time of Scofield's reference bible Editor
ED'ITOR, n. [L. from edo, to publish.] A publisher; particularly, a person who superintends an impression of a book; the person who revises, corrects and prepares a book for publication; as Erasmus, Scaliger, &c.
1. One who superintends the publication of a newspaper.
Webster's 1913 Dictionary
Definition: \Ed"i*tor\, n. [L., that which produces, from edere to
publish: cf. F. ['e]diteur.]
One who edits; esp., a person who prepares, superintends,
revises, and corrects a book, magazine, or newspaper, etc.,
for publication.
Definition: \Ed"i*tor\, n. [L., that which produces, from edere to
publish: cf. F. ['e]diteur.]
One who edits; esp., a person who prepares, superintends,
revises, and corrects a book, magazine, or newspaper, etc.,
for publication.
If they had contributed substantially to the content of the Reference Bible, then they would not have been editors, but co-authors . .
We see however, only ONE author. That's why we call it Scofield's Reference Bible . .
I have to break this up
Peace to all!
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Really! I had no idea!! Thank you for letting me in on this!!
LOLOL
FIC . . you are putting words into my mouth . . enough said.
Really FIC . . you really should stop deliberately misrepresenting other people's words . . and you realy should try to understand your opponents better than this before you go off half cocked . .
These are your words, not mine . .
If you read what I said earlier, you will see that I talk about how highly educated (note, NOT dumb) people are very often the ones taken in by false doctrine . .
It is only you who seem to think such people are 'dumb' . no one else has even come close to making such a statement other than you in this thread . .
I wonder why that is?
And as to your assertion that I am falsely implying that Scofield led everyone else to dispensationalism . . well, I never said he led everybody . .that is again an example of your overgeneralizing and deliberately misrepresenting my words . .
But as far as the spreading of dispensastinalism, even the historians credit him with honor of being the one man most responsible for its extensive spreading and its greatest impact within evangelical Christianity in ths country. .
That is why he is such an important figure in the history of dispensatinalism .. even considered the MOST important!
No FIC . . when you stop rationalizing your position, and start producing hard and substantial evidence to back it up, rather than just more rationalizations, then we can have somethng worthwhile to discuss . .
This is just mop-up time as far as I am concerned . .
Why? You have already demonstrated you don't understand my arguments or the logic used . .
There is no point in going over them again . . I'll just refer you bak to my previous comments on the matter.
Again, No .. you are not using the same logic I did . . so no, not by my logic, but only by yours.
I am replying to this here becaues it brings up the opportunity to make a point . .
You continue to demonstrate that you do not understand the teaching of the Catholic Church, and you evidently do not understand the teaching concerning Papal infallibility, even though it has been explained to you many times in the past.
It is not that he is given the power to speak excathedra . . it is that the Church is protected, by the Holy Spirit from false declarations being promoted as infallible . . speaking excathedra is only ONE if the requirements . .
Can you demonstrate ONE declaration that meets the test of Papal infalliblity by this particular pope?
There are none . .
The Catholic Church is PROTECTED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT . . even from ungodly popes teaching false dogma . .
I am very sorry you have failed to grasp my arguments or the logic employed . .
I don't know what else to say to you . .
Who said Moody was right? What makes Moody an infallible judge?
In fact, if we look at this further, it is evident that some serious questions need answering:
Why would Moody accept and promote Scofield as a legitimate teacher and leader when Scofield did not meet the biblical standard to be one?
Why did Moody DISREGARD what the bible said about being the husband of ONE wife (Scofield was on his second while his first wife lived .. living in adultery according to Jesus)?
Why did Moody DISREGARD what the bible said about one who failed to provide for their own, and which , according to biblical standards, declared such a one to have DENIED HIS FAITH and be WORSE THAN an infidel an unbeleiver?
Why did Moody DISREGARD what the bible said about being the husband of ONE wife (Scofield was on his second while his first wife lived .. living in adultery according to Jesus)?
Why did Moody DISREGARD what the bible said about one who failed to provide for their own, and which , according to biblical standards, declared such a one to have DENIED HIS FAITH and be WORSE THAN an infidel an unbeleiver?
Obviously Moody did disregard what the bible said about such things in the case of Scofield . .
I have a big problem with Moody's obvious disregard of what the bible has to say on these matters when it came to Scofield . .
The question is,
Why don't you?
As a result, I do not accept Moody as a credible character witness for Scofield . .
The question is,
Why do you?
And when you have nothing of substance to say, no way to defend against the facts and conclusions, use bravado and attack the opponents . .
FIC . . We have been over this before .
It is not about forgiveness . .
It is about qualifications . .
Why do you think Paul lists qualifications to lead and teach if all one has to be is forgiven?
Who do you think Paul was talking to when he told them how to select their leaders and teachers?
He was talking to the forgiven . .
Obviously, simply being forgiven was not enough to be qualified to lead . .
More was required . .
So why do you keep bringing forgiveness up? Thsi is a deflection off the real issue . . just another strawman . . (they are so much easier for you to argue against, aren't they? That's why you find them so attractive).
So, stop misstating the issue . . it is not about forgiveness . it is about biblical qualifications . .
Scofield, whether he was forgiven or not, was not qualified to teach and/or lead according to biblical standards . .
Instead of twisitng other people's words and misstating the issue, why don't you spend some time and energy proving to us how he WAS biblically qualified to lead and teach?
What's that? Can't be done?
And again . . since it can't be done, it is easier to falsely accuse your neighbor than make legitimate arguements. .
Shall we go into what the bible has to say about making false accusations against your neighbor?
And we have been over the issue of character assassination before . . obviously, it doesn't matter if you throw around that term loosely or not, and falsely accuse another of what you are attempting yourself . .
Character assassination has to do with the LIVING . .not the dead . .
Character assassination has to do with slander . . NOT legitimate criticism . .
Character assassination has to do with intended harm to the other . . a dead person cannot be harmed . .
You are misusing this term . .
However, you seem to have no hesitation in using this form of attack against those who argue against your position when you can't defend it . .
Demonizing? That is exactly what you are doing in an attempt to silence those who effectively contradict your statements, whether in direct discussion or in publications . .
Screaming hate?
Hardly .. just exposing the facts that you keep trying to hide . .
Why do you keep trying to hide them FIC?
They must seriously hurt your position that dispensationalism is legitimate orthodox system of belief for you to spend so much time trying to intimidate and demonize your opponents . .
That means these points I, and others have made, and the facts thus far presented must be really very important and we should explore all this much more deeply . . and the position of dispensatinalism as an orthodox Christian belief is much more tenuous than you would have the rest of us believe. . actually, not an orthodox Christian belief at all!!
Just how far does the rabbit hole go??
Peace to all!
Upvote
0
- Jul 2, 2003
- 145,030
- 17,405
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Advice you should listen to yourself, TLF.thereselittleflower said:
And that is a HUGE assumption (and stereo-typing) on your part.
You need to look up "fundamental attribution error".
So, assuming your assumption is true - is it the uneducated that are likely to follow the Catholic church?
I disagree that I am misrepresenting anything, TLF. You have written to me that I wouldn't have heard of despensationism if it wasn't for Scofield and presented him as the only one who was spreading it, when in fact, it was already being spread.
You have a bad habit of making grand claims .
That's true, many do. And he did help spread it, in part through the Reference Bible and through his writings. But he wasn't the sole person doing it, or solely responsible as you are making it out to be. Clarence Larkin of the American Baptists also was a dispensationist, and first published his Dispensational Truth in 1918. But he had become premil and dispensationist before that date...and without Scofield.
By WHO? you?
Just because a person's name is recognized does not mean they are the most important.
You simply don't like having the same logic used against your own church. So now you will engage in insulting me as a result as usual.
Well, not every Christian agrees with you.
EVERY CHRISTIAN IS INDWELLED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT. (YES, I am yelling.) No - I don't see the Catholic church is protected as you claim - I see that error can creep in.
But this isn't a Catholic vs. Protestant thread.....
However, THANK YOU, for admitting he was an ungodly pope. Since he advocated Catholicism he didn't create...as Scofield advocated Dispensationism which he didn't create .... and we must disown a theology if an 'ungodly' person advocated it...then no one should be in the Catholic church, either.
Let see, was he the ONLY pope who was so bad??? no...
Moody was a dedicted Christian who worked very hard for the Lord.
Read his biography - you will se a Spirit-led man who glorified the Lord.
And God has used many men who have been divorced and remarried. Apparently God is far more forgiving than you!
IF you believe that the guidelines written by Paul are carved in stone with no room for God to work otherwise, then you had better no make a peep in church. You had better not be instructing any male....even online, TLF...and you better keep your head covered....
Since Moody showed more a Christlike attitude than you AND actually spoke with Scofield and knew far more details thanyou ...I 'll believe him.
WHY DON'T YOU????
WHERE DOES THE BIBLE SAY THE BEHAVIOR OF POPE ALEXANDER (AND OTHERS I HAVE NOT BROUGHT UP) IS OKAY? OR "BIBLICAL" AS YOU USE IT?
Why hasn't the RCC disavowed him?
BTW - Do you honestly think you are impressing anyone by making your long posts and and adding so much space between your words? By pasting in cells that take so much space?
It is obnoxious, IMHO.
Hold the mirror to yourself, TLF. What you have failed to recognize over the past year is that often, I have simply used the tactics you were already using and turned them right back on you. You get furious then. Downright indignant! It is hilarious.
That is why I said you want your cake and to eat it too.
The rest of your post is not worth responding to.
Upvote
0
- Jul 2, 2003
- 145,030
- 17,405
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I repeat - you just don't like the tables turned around, as in using your own logic against your own church.thereselittleflower said:
You started off in this forum questioning his conversion. So yes - initially it WAS about his salvation and now you want it about his being a pastor.
As he was ordained by a church, and accepted by Moody, and used by God to spread the gospel - I will accept him as Christian. I accept Dispensatinism because of scripture study.
God is FAR more forgiving than you, and can use people from ALL walks of life. He is able to make changes in the lies of the most wretched people on earth.
Now you will repeat yourself over and over...what was that phrase you usedearlier that I have repeated once? Oh yeah - "Me thinks she doth protest too much..",
And inserting statements placed in cells that take a large amount of space - wow, so impressive. Sure makes you more right...NOT!!!
Scofield got remarried OnLY 3 MONTHS after his wife divorced him . . ONLY 3 MONTHS! To someone he had been seeing will still married to his wife!!! AND after he claimed conversion and true repentance!!
OH MY!!! BURN HIM AT THE STAKE!!!!!!aND SHE GOES ON AND ON AND ON WITH ATTACKING HIS CHARACTER AND TRYING TO JUSTIFY IT ALL.......
Much of this blather is not worth being addressed, or has already been addressed.
Got it - you hate Scofield. He should be burned at the stake. No one should believe as he did - therefore, no one should be Christian. or dispensationist.
Same goes for old Pope Alexander - should be disavowed. No one should believe as he did. He was not up to Biblical standards for leadership - for unlike Scofield, he ordered murder and had many adulterous (involving sex) affars. Yet, no excomminication or disavowal of him as a pope.
Ever hear of the term 'double standard" , TLF?? shall I explore more popes?
No, Darby didn't. And No, Scofield didn't need to reference him. Have you even looked at a 1917 Reference Bible?
[quoteYes, we have already covered this ground before and much of what you assert has been catagorically rejected . . your "much" is really only that aspect that relates to dispensationalism's pre-millenial stance, and even then, not identical to it . . AND what little similarities there are to chilaism, it was not something believed universally or even predominately by the Early Church.
[/quote]Actually I can prove there was premillennialism in the early church and you cannot show an amil view in the same period.
I can go back and copy what I wrote and paste it here if you wish.....
In YOUR opinion...that's all.
They are on the title page. Ever read the foreward to the Scofield Bible?
ahh...then yo go back to the on line dictionary, again farthur down...what a surprize....
The teaching should be considered on how it fits scripture...not on YOUR opinion of one man. Just like Catholicism needs to be considered against scripture and not on Pope Alexander.
I don't think we are to be a serpent, though.
He was ordained in a church by the laying on of hands by Christian pastors.
If there was a problem, it is God's to deal with.
There you are...using a cell again, taking a lot of space, as if that gives you more legitimacy...
Whenever two or three are gathered....ever hear that phrase???? God was there....he was ordained accompanied by prayer.
Really, TLF, your anti-Protestanism (and anti-sola scriptura) has been glaringly obvious all along!
Please - go ahead and state that ordinations outside the Catholic church are not real or ok with God and alienate all nonCatholic readers.....
So was Pope Alexander...so were the priests that committed the sexual abuses. Do you really want to go there?
Then follow it!
Your earlier words speak for themselves.
And you go on and on and on with your attempts to justify your comments...rationalizing on and on.... it IS entertaining.
Upvote
0
FreeinChrist said:And you go on and on and on with your attempts to justify your comments...rationalizing on and on.... it IS entertaining.
Origen (185-255) declares infant Baptism an Apostolic institution (Epis. ad. Rom., Lib., v.. 9). and necessary to cleanse infants from their Original Sin (In Lev., viii., 3).
By all this logic the RCC should omit ALL the teachings of Origen.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Status
Similar threads
