Scofieldism

[Rob_0126]

That is just one more false claim used by those who don't care about the truth and will say anything to try to discredit the rapture. There is significant documented evidence that the basic pre-tribulation rapture doctrine was being taught at least as far back as the fourth century AD by Ephraim the Syrian, and by many people in the centuries after him, long before Darby and the Jesuits.

Why don't you do some actual research on the subject before blindly jumping on the bandwagon?

I will ask a simple question then: With scripture(the 1611 kjv), prove the pre-trib rapture.

[Forty9er]

If I were to give a quick highlight of what is revealed:

- Scofield was a freemason.
- Scofield's god was the god of freemasonry (lucifer or satan).

Please present some actual proof that Scofield was a freemason (sorry if I don't just take Meyer's word for it and let it go at that). I have searched online and can find absolutely no evidence that he was ever a freemason.

But there are many other criticisms of Scofield that you will find, some may be true and others false, but I am not going to try to defend everything he may or may not have said or done. Dispensationalism doesn't depend on Scofield or what he taught or on what any man has taught. It depends on Scripture alone.

But what I have found interesting online in my searching is a virulent hatred of Scofield and everything dispensational and much of it seems to be tied to anti-semetism since dispensationals teach that when Christ returns Israel (the Jews) will be saved and restored to their land. And that idea drives anti-semites crazy so that they will say just about anything to try to delegitimize that doctrine (but I'm not accusing you of being anti-semetic).

- He took scripture out of context, and his doctrine is refuted with the very scripture he supposedly used.

Please provide examples of where he did this.

- Bro Meyer also explains why the Tribulation began, at the cross. (This will be hard for most to swallow)

Yes, I would say that is hard to swallow. Generally, I would think that people who believe that would believe in preterism. Is that what you believe?

[Forty9er]

I will ask a simple question then: With scripture(the 1611 kjv), prove the pre-trib rapture.

I have defended the pre-trib rapture in another thread. If you are interested I'm sure you can find it but I don't feel the need to try to prove it to you. You can believe what you want about it. I really don't care. But what I care about is the constant repeating of a false statement even though it has been debunked long ago.

[Rob_0126]

Please present some actual proof that Scofield was a freemason (sorry if I don't just take Meyer's word for it and let it go at that). I have searched online and can find absolutely no evidence that he was ever a freemason.

Bro Meyer explains it in the sermons.

But there are many other criticisms of Scofield that you will find, some may be true and others false, but I am not going to try to defend everything he may or may not have said or done. Dispensationalism doesn't depend on Scofield or what he taught or on what any man has taught. It depends on Scripture alone.

I can agree that it is scripture alone that you have to live your life by and base it on. Scofield did not. He gave his own interpretations of scripture, instead of letting it mean exactly what it says.
Bro Meyer goes thru all of this, but you would have to listen to it to know this.

But what I have found interesting online in my searching is a virulent hatred of Scofield and everything dispensational and much of it seems to be tied to anti-semetism since dispensationals teach that when Christ returns Israel (the Jews) will be saved and restored to their land. And that idea drives anti-semites crazy so that they will say just about anything to try to delegitimize that doctrine (but I'm not accusing you of being anti-semetic).

If you want to know who the Israel of God is, then spend an hr and hear this sermon.
The Israel of God

The Israel of God, the chosen people of God, is the born again believers and followers of Jesus Christ.
The Jews will not be saved without Jesus Christ, period. To say otherwise, is to go against God's Word.

Please provide examples of where he did this.

You will have to listen to the sermons. Bro Meyer exposes who scofield was, but it takes time to listen. It is a lot of info.
Sermon 2 starts to get into some of scofields associations.

Yes, I would say that is hard to swallow. Generally, I would think that people who believe that would believe in preterism. Is that what you believe?

I don't hold to any labels other than a born again believer and follower of Jesus Christ. I am non-denominational for good reason.
If it doesn't line up with the Word of God, then I don't believe it. Denominations are not in scripture.

I do believe the Tribulation started at the cross. I also believe some things in revelation haven't happened yet. But I do believe most of it has already passed.

This series would have been better as a dvd but audio is all that we have.

[Rob_0126]

By an internet search, here is info on scofields life. He was not a Godly man.

Tex Marrs on Scofield

Sweetliberty.org - Some background on scofields life

Rev. Ted Pike - The Zionist Scofield Bible-youtube

whtt.org - The Shadowy Origins of C.I. Scofield: Godfather of Christian Zionism

C.E. Carlson Article: The Source of the problem in the Middle East - Part 2

Scofield: The Man Behind the Myth, excerpts

Some info on scofield and his doings with Westcott and Hort
An excerpt from this link:
"Quite possibly the biggest momentum builder to the dispensationalist movement was the Scofield Reference Bible. It has even been suggested that dispensationalism might have died out if not for the timely introduction of this Reference Bible. In preparation for writing his bible, Scofield felt some strange need to travel to the British Isle for ‘research’. What he was really doing was going to get instructions from the controversial scholars B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort. There is much evidence out there documenting how these two bible scholars were deeply involved into occultic societies and mystery religions including Roman Catholicism. Scofield gratefully acknowledged the help of Hort and Westcott in the introduction of his 1909 Scofield Reference Bible. These two men are responsible for translating the corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts Sianaticus and Vaticanus into the Revised Version of the Bible in 1881.
Scofield wanted to use the Revised Version for his reference bible but in the climate of the times, the KJV was much more popular and respected (oh the times they are a changing), so he knew his reference work would not sell as well if coupled with the RV. But the King James Version is highly incompatible with the dispensationalist doctrines. In order to correct this problem, he inserted footnotes in crucial areas where the KJV disagreed with the RV and the Alexandrian manuscripts. Each footnote “corrected” the KJV text to comply with the corrupted manuscripts."

The Heretical Doctrines of C.I. Scofield - By Sam Adams, a baptist minister - part 1 of 4 - youtube

[Forty9er]

Bro Meyer explains it in the sermons.

That seems to be your answer for everything. I'm sorry, but that doesn't cut it for me. I'm not as accepting of what someone says on the internet without some other form of proof. And if you can't provide me with specific examples or answers then it doesn't seem like you know the subject very well and are just accepting what he is saying.

It seems that almost every crazy theory you can imagine has been presented on the internet like it has been "proven" when actually the opposite is true. And the fact that he is a pastor doesn't exempt him from the same initial scrutiny and skepticism.

The Jews will not be saved without Jesus Christ, period. To say otherwise, is to go against God's Word.

Absolutely true and I have never said anything different. Not only that but I have been recently arguing that point in the Chapel. And you are wrong if you think that dispensationalism teaches that Jews will be saved without Jesus Christ. It sounds like you have been watching John Hagee too much, although I think he has denied he agrees with Dual Covenant Theology, which is what you are describing. But Dual Covenant Theology is definitely not a part of dispensationalism.

I don't hold to any labels other than a born again believer and follower of Jesus Christ. I am non-denominational for good reason.
If it doesn't line up with the Word of God, then I don't believe it. Denominations are not in scripture.

That's fine. I don't associate myself with a denomination either.

[Rob_0126]

That seems to be your answer for everything. I'm sorry, but that doesn't cut it for me. I'm not as accepting of what someone says on the internet without some other form of proof. And if you can't provide me with specific examples or answers then it doesn't seem like you know the subject very well and are just accepting what he is saying.

It's a good thing that I don't have to prove anything to you.
All I am doing is presenting what a pastor, that was well versed in scripture, and filled with the Holy Ghost, had to say on Scofield and his doctrine. This is why I posted links to his Sermons, and not given a commentary on it, because it is a whole lot to cover.

He knew it well because he had taught scofieldism for 12 years, and I have no reason to believe he would make all of this up.

In fact, the internet search links I posted in this thread, show that scofield was no where near a Godly man, but a liar, adulterer, and a deceiver. Would you trust a man with scripture that did such things, while he was supposedly walking with God?

And no, I did not attend a seminary, so Im not well versed on theological jargon.
Btw, can you show where you have to be taught at a seminary, in the bible?

I rely on the Lord God Almighty to teach me and to lead me to the truth, thru His Word.

It seems that almost every crazy theory you can imagine has been presented on the internet like it has been "proven" when actually the opposite is true.

What 'crazy' theory are you talking about specifically?

And the fact that he is a pastor doesn't exempt him from the same initial scrutiny and skepticism.

Your right, and I have called him out in a sense for a few things I believe he got wrong. I mentioned it to his widowed wife, because I believe if you don't line up with scripture, then you are wrong, regardless of who you are.

Nobody is 100% right all the time. Are you?

This particular deal on scofield, I agree on, because he proves the error with Scripture.

But of course, it's convenient for you to not listen, so as to have your plausible ignorance in this matter. You make your accusations without hearing what the man had to say. (Proverbs 18:13 - "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.")

Are you afraid that he is right?

Absolutely true and I have never said anything different. Not only that but I have been recently arguing that point in the Chapel. And you are wrong if you think that dispensationalism teaches that Jews will be saved without Jesus Christ. It sounds like you have been watching John Hagee too much, although I think he has denied he agrees with Dual Covenant Theology, which is what you are describing. But Dual Covenant Theology is definitely not a part of dispensationalism.

I believe John Hagee is a heretic.

And no, I don't agree with 'dual covenant theology'. I believe the Old & New Testament are both the Word of God.
The only thing that changed was the covenant, and practices that went along with it. (Malachi 3:6 - "For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.")
The God of the OT is the God of the NT.

Jesus became our passover lamb. Their are no more sacrifices of animals for sins. To continue on with the old covenant, is to blaspheme the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
What the people of the state of Israel are doing is all in vain. They must enter by the door: Jesus Christ.
(John 10:1 - "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.")

[Forty9er]

This particular deal on scofield, I agree on, because he proves the error with Scripture.

This discussion is really going nowhere. You can't tell me specifically what his "error" is and I'm not interested in listening to several hours of recordings by someone who got the basic facts about Margaret MacDonald wrong. And people "prove" many things using Scripture but that doesn't mean they are all true.

I think almost all of this false narrative regarding the origin of the rapture doctrine can be traced to books written by Dave MacPherson who had an agenda he wanted to push which conflicted with the truth. If you are really interested in the truth you should read the following:

http://www.according2prophecy.org/macphers.html

http://www.raptureready.com/dave-macpherson/

[Rob_0126]

This discussion is really going nowhere. You can't tell me specifically what his "error" is and I'm not interested in listening to several hours of recordings by someone who got the basic facts about Margaret MacDonald wrong.

Your quick to dismiss a brother in Christ's warning, of why a man that is held in high regard by many Christians today(scofield), was a liar, adulterer, and a great deceiver.
He's trying to warn other brothers and sisters in Christ about that man and his teachings, but you are quick to dismiss what he had to say, using a miniscule excuse.

Are you always right?

Bro Meyer did this set of sermons in 1996. Apparently he did not have access to the information that is available now, 21 years later.
(Researching, Apparently Joseph Mede talked about a rapture in the 1600s)

And people "prove" many things using Scripture but that doesn't mean they are all true.

What other source of truth is there, other than the Word of God, in this world?
With that train of logic, how do we know your 'interpretation' of scripture is true?

Bro Meyer was not a liar. If he made a mistake, he admitted it, just as he admitted the deception of scofieldism, which he preached for over 12 years before.

I think almost all of this false narrative regarding the origin of the rapture doctrine can be traced to books written by Dave MacPherson who had an agenda he wanted to push which conflicted with the truth. If you are really interested in the truth you should read the following:

http://www.according2prophecy.org/macphers.html

http://www.raptureready.com/dave-macpherson/

I thought you said we shouldn't just accept all 'proofs' that we get from the internet?

One of Bro Meyer's source of information on scofield, is from a book called 'The Incredible Scofield and his Book' by Joseph M Canfield.
Another was 'Backgrounds to Dispensationalism' by Clarence B. Bass.

Then Bro Meyer, using scripture, blows holes all in scofields doctrine. This is why you must listen to the sermons, to get the whole picture. Bro Meyer explains it better than I can.

The whole reason I posted this, was to expose who scofield truly was.

Would you want an adulterer, thief, or liar, to interpret the Bible for you?

[Forty9er]

Your quick to dismiss a brother in Christ's warning, of why a man that is held in high regard by many Christians today(scofield), was a liar, adulterer, and a great deceiver.
He's trying to warn other brothers and sisters in Christ about that man and his teachings, but you are quick to dismiss what he had to say, using a miniscule excuse.

As I said before, I am not here to defend Scofield because first, dispensationalism doesn't depend on him, and second, I don't know the actual facts about him. But what I do know is that there are many people who would love to slander him to try to discredit the rapture and dispensationalism.

Bro Meyer did this set of sermons in 1996. Apparently he did not have access to the information that is available now, 21 years later.
(Researching, Apparently Joseph Mede talked about a rapture in the 1600s)

Yes, Joseph Mede taught the rapture along with others as far back as the 300's AD. All that Meyer most likely did was read one of MacPherson's books and just accepted it as the truth without doing any other research.

I thought you said we shouldn't just accept all 'proofs' that we get from the internet?

I didn't call those references "proofs" did I? They provide information that you can independently verify to find what the truth actually is.

Then Bro Meyer, using scripture, blows holes all in scofields doctrine. This is why you must listen to the sermons, to get the whole picture. Bro Meyer explains it better than I can.

Yes, just listen to these recordings and it will explain everything. Very similar to what the people who believe the earth is flat say - "just watch this video and it will prove that the earth is flat". And when you watch the video you find out that it proves nothing. That is one of the crazy ideas I was talking about that had been "proven".

The whole reason I posted this, was to expose who scofield truly was.

Yes, you called Scofield a freemason and you can't produce any evidence that he actually was. And then based on that you confidently say he worshiped Satan. And when I searched the internet to try to find out if any of that was true I can find no facts which support those claims only unsupported speculation, innuendo, and guilt by association.

If that is what you call the truth about Scofield I want no part of it.