Thanks!
A misunderstanding of Scofield's position arose from a poorly worded note on John 1:17 in the 1909 edition of the Scofield Reference Bible. The note stated that during the "Dispensation of Grace," "legal obedience" was "no longer" the "condition of salvation," leading some to wrongly infer that it once had been.
The editors of the 1967 edition of the New Scofield Reference Bible clarified the note to align with Scofield's actual theology, stating that the law was insufficient for salvation and that salvation prior to the cross was by faith based on Christ's atonement.
Are there any examples of anyone under the old covenant who were justified under it by leaving it?
It is a matter of dead faith vs living faith. If a person under the old covenant denies following the law, he shows that he is not following God. If one under the law accepts following the law he must still recognize that he is not able to keep the law.
This is why OT saints are “just,” living by faith, the same as the NT “just shall live by faith.
It is also said in the NT that faith without works is dead. If the faith that is had does nothing in a persons life his faith is as vain (empty) as the man himself.
James could be accused of the same “heresy” as Scofield, in that he says works accompany faith. If you view it differently and say that works are necessary for faith or that works are necessary for salvation you are saying something close enough to confuse the listener into a misunderstanding of what the Bible says.
In short, there is no way, as a person under the mosaic covenant, to say that you refuse to follow the Law of God and still follow God. In this way you cannot look at Scofield and say that he believed in works salvation for the old covenant.