John Calvin's Life

[Covenanter]

From Wilchbla's link:

The Scofield Reference Bible was published in 1909 by Oxford University Press and it and various revised versions became a fixture within conservative Protestant circles, eventually selling more than two million copies–it was often joked that its readers had a difficult time separating the biblical text from the volume’s copious notes.

[Invicta]

From Wilchbla's link:

Shall we have a new thread regarding this evil man?

[John81]

It's interesting that many will reject Christian singers for far less in their lives than what Scofield was involved in yet they accept Scofield and his Bible.

Why are those who don't live to high standards unworthy to write Christian songs and perform them but the same isn't applied to Scofield writing a commentary Bible?

[Invicta]

It's interesting that many will reject Christian singers for far less in their lives than what Scofield was involved in yet they accept Scofield and his Bible.

Why are those who don't live to high standards unworthy to write Christian songs and perform them but the same isn't applied to Scofield writing a commentary Bible?

It is due to Brainwashing.

[JerryNumbers]

Because people sue a Scofield Bible does not mean they believe all of his teachings, in fact I know several that use a Scofield Bible that will warn that some of his teachings are 100 % wrong.

I know of one pastor that added notes to his Bible pointing out all the teachings that were no right.

In fact I figure most any preacher or pastor worth his salt would say never trust a study Bible nor a commentary written by man 100%, that the only thing one can rightly trust is the old KJB,

[Wilchbla]

Shall we have a new thread regarding this evil man?

It seems you already have in order to justify Calvin's sins.

[Covenanter]

It seems you already have in order to justify Calvin's sins.

If you read my & Invicta's points you will see we have made no attempt to justify Calvin's sins.

The Reformation, together with the invention of printing, allowed the wide dissemination of books, particularly theology. Names of authors became associated with doctrine.

Church history shows that the doctrines known as "calvinism" became accepted widely, including by those who rejected his magisterial (church-state) authority - Baptists & Independents. In no way is the doctrine dependent on the integrity of Calvin himself - those who believe it see it in Scripture.

Scofield is another question. He began his ministerial career with his integrity comprised by his defiance of NT teaching on marriage. He was worse than an infidel. Why should his "Bible" by disseminated in the colleges? If his dispensational teaching is valid, teach it from Scripture.

As it is, it cannot be supported from the NT. It is a paradigm imposed on Scripture.

[John81]

In fact I figure most any preacher or pastor worth his salt would say never trust a study Bible nor a commentary written by man 100%, that the only thing one can rightly trust is the old KJB,

[JerryNumbers]

John, Maybe I'm wrong, some seem to think a person has to be perfect and sin free, of which there was never but One that met that standard. Yet if the one they follow, does not meet the standard of perfection, that is OK.

[PreacherE]

In fact I figure most any preacher or pastor worth his salt would say never trust a study Bible nor a commentary written by man 100%, that the only thing one can rightly trust is the old KJB,

That's the truth. Every study Bible I've ever used I've marked out notes in because they were off doctrinally or attempted to correct the Word of God.

[John81]

That's the truth. Every study Bible I've ever used I've marked out notes in because they were off doctrinally or attempted to correct the Word of God.

I've always hated it when I look at a study note for a verse and it says, "better translated as..." or simply, "better..." and then they provide what they think is better than what's in the KJB!