Scofield

[AustinC]

D, like Reynolds, I like the no Scofield.

My first Bible was a maroon leather bound Scofield, given to me by my parents. I read it from cover to cover, reading the notes and looking at the diagrams. It thoroughly immersed me into Dispensationalism and messed up my understanding of God's word for 3 decades. Only when I went to inductive Bible study where I observed the text, asked my own questions, interpreted the text and then looked at commentaries did I begin to see that Dispensationalism missed the mark regarding the whole of scripture. In short, Scofield misunderstood the whole due to creating false categories into man-made dispensations that forced verses into out of context prooftexts for a faulty pretext.
So, no Scofield for me. Just give me a plain Bible with no ones notes.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

Which Scofield do you prefer

A- Old Scofield
B- New Scofield
C- About the same
D- I do not care for the Scofield
E- Other answer

I had an old Scofield reference bible my dad gave me. I never used it (nor really understood what it was for whenever I would flip thru it - it didn't have any notes in it that I could find) and I ended up sending it to love packages last year. I do know that Scofield advocated for the "gap" theory and was a premillennialist, and that's about it

 

[Marooncat79]

It’s evil in that it promulgates different ways of salvation for different dispensations

 

[5 point Gillinist]

It’s evil in that it promulgates different ways of salvation for different dispensations

How does it do that?

 

[Marooncat79]

The original Scofield did back in the day

 

[Reynolds]

Why is that?

I am dispensational, but he is too tied up in dispensationalism. That and the fact most KJVO folks worship the Schofield Bible.

 

[Salty]

I am dispensational, but he is too tied up in dispensationalism. That and the fact most KJVO folks worship the Schofield Bible.

I'm not sure - if I agree with that conclusion -
But it sounds like an interesting discussion -
so -lets dig into that as well on this thread
(since I am the OP - it is not hijacking!)

I have had Schofields in the past - but I certianly did not worship it.

 

[Reynolds]

I'm not sure - if I agree with that conclusion -
But it sounds like an interesting discussion -
so -lets dig into that as well on this thread
(since I am the OP - it is not hijacking!)

I have had Schofields in the past - but I certianly did not worship it.

I don't think you are KJVO either.

 

[Deacon]

D.

145 bucks + shipping, you can have an original 1909 first edition (I'm very surprised it's that cheap).

Rare 1st First Edition Oxford 1909 KJV Scofield Reference Bible Genuine Leather | eBay

Ouch, someone just bought it for $180 with shipping. Very pricey!

I’ve got both.
I’m very familiar with the New. I used it as a youth - you had to be careful with the notes at times.
I picked up the old version, black leather, black text, at a book store closing for ~$15 many years ago.
I keep it in the box. The notes are old and dusty.



Salvation was by faith in each “dispensation”, only expressed in varying ways based upon revealed truth.
…so many false myths revolve around Dispensational Theology.

Rob

 

[Salty]

Salvation was by faith in each “dispensation”, only expressed in varying ways based upon revealed truth.
…so many false myths revolve around Dispensational Theology.

Basically true - BUT in the Old Testament - you would not be asking Jesus Christ to forgive you of your sins

So there is a purpose in dispensation

 

[Dr. Bob]

A - Old Scofield. Got one the day I was baptized (Easter 1958) and have had 3 more since because of wear/tear (with use, they last about 15-20 years). Never had another in the pulpit for 50+ years. Did not "preach" from it (I don't use the KJV1769 revised translation in public) but could quickly look up passages, information, etc, when asked questions because of my familiarity with its layout/notes.

Strongly dispensational, very good notes/cross references. I laugh at those who say it taught different ways of salvation - purely the mantra of the covenant crowd to try to discredit, but without an iota of fact.

Recommend MacArthur Study Bible ESV for any who ask today. Same dispensational/calvinistic bent in better translation.

 

[AustinC]

A - Old Scofield. Got one the day I was baptized (Easter 1958) and have had 3 more since because of wear/tear (with use, they last about 15-20 years). Never had another in the pulpit for 50+ years. Did not "preach" from it (I don't use the KJV1769 revised translation in public) but could quickly look up passages, information, etc, when asked questions because of my familiarity with its layout/notes.

Strongly dispensational, very good notes/cross references. I laugh at those who say it taught different ways of salvation - purely the mantra of the covenant crowd to try to discredit, but without an iota of fact.

Recommend MacArthur Study Bible ESV for any who ask today. Same dispensational/calvinistic bent in better translation.

MacArthur's dispensationalism is his major error in Bible interpretation.

 

[JesusFan]

In the introduction to the 1967 edition, this is stated:

"The principle adopted by the committee of revision is as follows: Change (1) obsolete and archaic words; (2) words that have altered their meaning; (3) indelicate words or expressions; (4) relative pronouns, e.g. 'which' to 'who' when referring to persons; (5) proper names to make them conform, e.g. 'Elias" in the N. T. has been changed to 'Elijah,' as in the O.T.; and (6) in some few instances incorrect translation has been clarified. Virtually all changes as denoted in (1), (2), (3), and (6) are indicated by special markings, i.e. 'precede' in the text with the KJV word shown in the margin. Changes in proper nouns or in their spelling have been compiled and appear in the back of the book" (p. vi).

Proper Noun Changes

with headings "KJV word" and "changed to" are on pp. 1388-1392.

In this appendix, there were a few cases of a common noun in the KJV that was changed to a proper noun in the 1967 New Scofield.

"low country" in KJV changed to "Shephelah" in New Scofield

"south" in KJV changed to "Negev" in New Scofield

And that would be why the KJVO would now see that edition as being a "real Kjv"

 

[JesusFan]

A - Old Scofield. Got one the day I was baptized (Easter 1958) and have had 3 more since because of wear/tear (with use, they last about 15-20 years). Never had another in the pulpit for 50+ years. Did not "preach" from it (I don't use the KJV1769 revised translation in public) but could quickly look up passages, information, etc, when asked questions because of my familiarity with its layout/notes.

Strongly dispensational, very good notes/cross references. I laugh at those who say it taught different ways of salvation - purely the mantra of the covenant crowd to try to discredit, but without an iota of fact.

Recommend MacArthur Study Bible ESV for any who ask today. Same dispensational/calvinistic bent in better translation.

Didn't though the old Scofield notes indicate the OT saints were saved by the law?

 

[JesusFan]

MacArthur's dispensationalism is his major error in Bible interpretation.

Actually his view regarding eschatology would fit prophecy better, if he could just lose that pesky pretrib rapture point!

 

[Dr. Bob]

Many opponents of dispensationalism have raised objections against the theological system because it supposedly teaches multiple ways of salvation – salvation by means of law, and salvation by means of grace. Under the “Dispensation of Law,” they say, dispensationalists teach people were saved by keeping the law.

It appears the primary reason for this accusation is based on a note by C.I. Scofield in his reference bible on John 1:17: “As a dispensation, grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ (Rom. 3:24-26; 4:24, 25). The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ, with Good works as a fruit of salvation.” (Scofield Reference Bible, 1909, page 1115, note 1

The statement, “…legal obedience as the condition of salvation,” is ripped from context (it does NOT mean people saved by law-keeping) but that as a “condition to salvation,” the law was given as a test to prove men could not keep the law, and thus, grace through Christ was necessary for all men.

Scofield explicitly states, “The point of testing is no longer legal obedience…” seeing keeping the law as a test. In his note on Genesis 1:28, Scofield writes: “A dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God.” (Scofield Reference Bible, 1909, page 5, note 4)

“The Fifth Dispensation: Law. This dispensation extends from Sinai to Calvary – from the Exodus to the Cross… The testing of the nation by law ended in the judgement of the Captivities, but the dispensation itself ended at the Cross. (1) Man’s state at the beginning (Ex. 19:1-4). (2) His responsibility (Ex. 19:5-6; Rom. 10:5). (3) His failure (2 Ki. 17. 7-17, 19; Acts 2:22-23). (4) The judgement (2 Ki. 17:1-6, 20; 25:1-22; Lk. 21:20-25).” (Scofield Reference Bible, 1909, page 94, note 1)

Scofield understood the giving of the law as a condition where man’s obedience was tested. Scofield clearly believed man failed that test, and that the law brought condemnation and death. Nowhere in his reference bible did Scofield teach that men were ever saved by obedience to the law. If the condition of salvation was law-keeping, Scofield says, every man failed the test. Therefore, the “condition of salvation” statement from Scofield should be interpreted as that of a test which every man failed, and to prove all men in every age need salvation by grace through faith alone.

 

[Salty]

MacArthur's dispensationalism is his major error in Bible interpretation.

In your opinion!

 

[Dr. Bob]

In your opinion!

Salty, the majority of Baptists in US tend toward dispensational rather than covenant theology. I've run into only a few Baptist churches in all my life that didn't hold basic dispensational presuppositions and a literal second coming of Jesus pre-mill eschatology.

In my strongly reformed circles there are many who are covenant, but mostly baby-sprinklers and not Baptist.

On the BB we have seen some who are not. I try to always answer "in my interpretation" rather than a blanket "you are wrong" phrasing. They ARE wrong, but it will be up to God to shed His light on their minds.

 

[Salty]

Dr. Bob

It seems that additional Baptist are getting away from dispensation.
I have nothing to back that up - just a general feeling.

 

[AustinC]

In your opinion!

Indeed. God will correct McArthur in heaven and RC Sproul will say, "See, John, I told you so."