Scofield Users

[DQ]

Greetings!
I see a lot of Scofield in these posts, and most baptist churches I have been at are all gung ho about the Scofield Bible. What I want to know is why? I don't like to use bibles with man-made notes/commentaries. Scofield believes in the universal church theory as well as the gap theory. If we are good fundamental baptists, we certainly don't hold to those beliefs. Anyone want to enlighten me?

DQ

[pneu-engine]

HI DQ,

[quote]
I see a lot of Scofield in these posts, and most baptist churches I have been at are all gung ho about the Scofield Bible.[b] What I want to know is why?[/b] I don't like to use bibles with man-made notes/commentaries. Scofield believes in the universal church theory as well as the gap theory. If we are good fundamental baptists, we certainly don't hold to those beliefs. Anyone want to enlighten me?
[/quote]

I think it's the old [b]"DIE HARD"[/b], philosophy. There was a day way back not too long ago, that if you did not have a [i]Schofield[/i], then you just weren't an enlightened [i]fundamentalist[/i]. In those days, an IFB Church was and [b]Independent Fundamental Bible Church"[/b], and that is what we attended when I got saved in 1956. also, at that time there weren't in existence the Modern Versions that are around today. There was the RSV ( we called it the Reversed Standard Vision), but that was about all. Dr. Schofield was accurate on many accounts, but the two that always made me groan were the very same two that you just mentioned. There was never a need for Bible scholars to "give into" or "crumble under" the onslaught of the evolutionists. God's word is always right and it is it's own best commentary. Instead those Bible scholars, including (or should I say, especially) Dr. Schofield compromised and developed and adopted a "form" of creation-thinking that would appease the so-called "scientific" world. They called it "Theistic Evolution", or the "Gap Theory". The main reason for their compromise was that they simply could not understand how those huge dinosaurs came to be, and then became extinct. What they failed to realize was that just because they could not understand something, does not mean they have to reinvent alternative theories for Creation.

In the meantime, Dr. Scholfield gained great popularity with his [i]Schofield Bible[/i], First Edition. There are very many good points in it. The problem is the same as with any chain, it is only as strong as its weakest link.

I personally prefer the, [b]Defined King James Bible[/b]. I guess I got long-winded. :D

[John the Baptist]

Dear LIGHTGAFFER

When the Lord turned my life around back in the late 60's The I. C. Scofield Bible was just about considered "Holy Writ" in many Baptist churches. I cut my spiritual teeth on a Scofield Bible. I will say one thing my Scofield Bible did help me spiritually as I begin to grow spiritually.

The trouble was that many people thought that if Scofield said it. Then his statement was like Scripture.

Today in most Southern Baptist churches they do not hardly know who Schofield was. He is about a forgotten name.

God Bless
John

[pneu-engine]

[quote]
When the Lord turned my life around back in the late 60's The I. C. Scofield Bible was just about considered "Holy Writ" in many Baptist churches. I cut my spiritual teeth on a Scofield Bible. I will say one thing my Scofield Bible did help me spiritually as I begin to grow spiritually.
[/quote]

Yep, you and a whole lotta other people (myself included).

[quote]
The trouble was that many people thought that if Scofield said it. Then his statement was like Scripture.
[/quote]

Ain't that the truth.

[quote]
Today in most Southern Baptist churches they do not hardly know who Schofield was. He is about a forgotten name.
[/quote]

My statement refers to Fundamental Bible churches of years gone by. Many of those (yours truly included) who grew up in them long ago ('50s and '60s) preferred nothing but a [i]Schofield Bible[/i]. I also bought into the Gap Theory just because Schofield endorsed it. When my eyes were opened, and saw that there is no "GAP" between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, I started to question lots of other things about Dr. Schofield's teachings.

Take a look at the Bible Church movement today. They are only a shadow of their former Spirituality. Here in Lancaster County there are just oodles of them, and they all preach [b]"A"[/b] salvation message, but I think there is only one or two any more that take a separated stand. The others all use a mixture of KJV and MVs.

[Guest Guest]

[quote]
The trouble was that many people thought that if Scofield said it. Then his statement was like Scripture.
[/quote]

I think that is pretty much true with most commentaries, Mathhew Herny, Ryrie and so forth.

I personally use a Ryrie, do I agree with everything he says, no. But for the most part his commentaries are accurate.

When in doubt just ask for wisdom, God will give it to you :saint

[danjanchelsie]

I use the Scofield KJV bible. I have for many years and will continue have no desire to switch to any other but then it is each individual to thier own preference and thier own chosen choice. :D

[John the Baptist]

Dear LIGHTGAFFER, Wildflower and others

I will say that Scofield did help keep Baptist straight on much doctrine. Today many church members beliefs are based on culture, what they believe and and some bible. There belief system many times is not in harmony with the Word of God.

The problem is many have gotten away from the authority of Scripture. They do not yeild their opinions and viewpoints to Scripture when not in harmony with the Word.

Many people have what I heard one preacher call Billy Goat Religion. They will say, "The Bible says this,[b]but[/b] I believe this."

God bless
John :mrgreen:

[pneu-engine]

[quote]
Many people have what I heard one preacher call Billy Goat Religion. They will say, "The Bible says this,but I believe this."
[/quote]

Heheehhehehhee :mrgreen: :D :lol:

Boy oh boy, have I ever seen that. :lol: :lol: