Featured Using God's name in vain

He didn't "invent" it.
I believe in the pre-trib. I would dare to guess that more than half the board does. So, you are calling us all heretics now?

Let me ask you: Suppose I know Greek well enough to translate the NT (as John of Japan does).
--Will my translation be just "as inspired" as the KJV?
Will it be good enough to lead a person to the Lord?
Can a person be saved through its used?
Can the Holy Spirit use it?

Is John MacArthur a heretic too in your books--a man who is both a Calvinist and a dispensationalist?
Is everyone that disagrees with you a heretic?

He was one of the fundamentalists of his time, one of the contributing authors of the book The Fundamentals, edited by Charles F. Feinberg.
On the flyleaf of that book reads this introduction:

C.I. Scofield was among that group.

 

Yes, the fundamentalist movement.
The destruction of the Independent Baptists.
Schofield the champion of all things Darby.
Most famous for a "reference Bible" in which he constantly laments the 'mistranslation' of the very text he puports to help one understand.
Why couldn't he have made an RV reference Bible?
Becsuse, simply agreeing with the text wouldn't have fed his humanistic pride, and elevated his professoral ego. It wouldn't have brought him the worship that he so desired.
Look at the hodgepodge of his famous students and their movements:
Rice, Roberson, Roloff, Hyles, Norris.

All pre-tribbers because of Schofield's Darbyism, and his elevated place of instruction, at DTS.

Look at the mixed multitude.
Look at the doctrine.
Look at the false professions
Look at the worship of human intellect.

You have no idea how right you are, in bringing up those men. In my view, they were the forerunners of the Man of Sin, working to bring the Separatists back into the RCC fold, by the time he appears.

 

Just out of curiosity: your profile says that you are in Indiana, and you belong to Fairhaven Baptist Church, an Independent Baptist Church.
They have their statement of faith on-line.
It says:

http://church.fairhavenbaptist.org/welcome/our-beliefs

Do you not agree with your own statement of faith?
Why are you even there?

 

That is an excellent question. I went there for several years, to study a different viewpoint. I was on the pastoral staff of the First Baptist Church of Hammond, and taught the Missions majors of HAC in Planting New Testament Churches. I have been involved in the planting of 16, now.
The 'doctrine' in Hammond was so confused, after having been American Baptist, pastored by a Southern Baptist for 40 years, that many never noticed the heresy of
Dr.Schaap, until his arrest.
I took an outspoken stand against some, and was ostracized by the church I had attended for 30 years (obviously I was planting churches, so my involvement there was minimal from 1996 to 2006).

I am once again planting churches, among Native American Reservations, and should really update my profile.
Thank You for bringing that to mu attention. I havent had a p.c. for years, and dont see many of the same features, like polls, through my Tapatalk app.
I will look into updating.

BTW, I read the Koran , but not because I was considering Islaam. I read it to see where it differed from The Word of God. "Who is the Almighty, that He needs a son?" was the blasphemy which i found.

To be fair, Fairhaven had more traditional music, and i sought solace in such. I left there on good terms, and with then pastor Roger Voegtelin's blessing.
The current pastor : Steve Damron and I are friends.

I am a pioneer, called to be, set apart by my church to be, and have been about my Father's business for most of 20 years, in this capacity.

I am what I am, and I lament the fundamentslist movement. That's all. The end will come, and first a falling away. You know this, and so do I. MY OPINION IS that this the Fund.Mov. was a part of it.

 

I have said before, that Mac is Mac. He likes some attention. I won't call him a heretic. I just disagree with him often. But ive heard him preach truth, and preach it well, and it is hard to despise a Brother in Christ.

 

That is a sweeping generalization which cannot be proved.

He made the first "study reference Bible" in history--quite an accomplishment! People recognized that his notes were not inspired but "helps." And they did help the common person of that time, and throughout the following decades have helped many others. The changes made in the Old Scofield were always put in center column never in the text itself, as possible meanings--the same that almost every other study Bible does today.
An example: "conversation" means "behavior." Do you find that offensive?

Agreeing without out-dated Shakespearean English doesn't make him a humanist. That is a fallacy. He updated Old English words and clarified their meanings. Why are you offended?

You are way off base here. This is a non sequitor. It has nothing to do with those who chose to use his Bible. Which Bible do you use? What other groups use that Bible, and how do you know? I have a J.W. coming to my door this week. She promised to bring her KJV this time. Maybe it is the same one you use! Shall I relate you to the J.W.'s for using the same Bible??

Unless you are claiming to be God, making a claim of omniscient, you have no idea who used/uses a Scofield Bible and why. Their doctrinal stances may be as far and wide as all the people on this board and perhaps broader. The reason for using a Scofield Bible is for "reference," not for agreement. It is a "reference Bible." Understand that.

Again, a totally false allegation.
Who contributed to the book, The Fundamentals, besides Scofield:
They were men like:

James Orr,
James M. Gray,
A. C. Gaebelein
Benjamin Warfield,
R.A. Torrey,
Sir Robert Anderson,
J.C. Ryle,
G. Campbell Morgan,
Charles Feinberg,
A.C. Dixon,

and many others.
The were united, not necessarily in eschatology, but in the fundamentals of the faith, for the purpose of fighting against the modernism of the day that was starting to creep into the churches in that era.
A denial of the inspiration of the Bible.
A denial of a literal hell.
A denial of a literal second coming.
A denial of a bodily resurrection.
A denial of the virgin birth.
A denial of the deity of Christ.
A denial of salvation by grace through faith.

They fought against those who would deny the fundamentals of our faith. They were united in this. How could anyone say that this would be the fore-runner of the man of sin, is beyond me. In fact it is slanderous to say so.

At that time there was only two groups: believers and unbelievers. Every believer was a fundamental. There was no "inbetween" position.
Later on there developed "new evangelicalism," "new neutralism," "neo orthodoxy," and after that some other movements that we currently have.

The Fundamentalists progressed maintaining to adhere to a stand not only proclaiming a belief in the Fundamentals of the faith (which we all do), but in obedience to the faith (which they perceived was lacking in many). They began to separate from those who cooperated with the unbelievers that they had been fighting against.
That is how I believe "the fundamentalist" movement began.
Others may have a different take than me, or may be able to fill you in on the details. That is very brief.

 

Schofield impuned the translators, he didn't "update" anything. This is the standard lie, nothing new.

Read the "theme" of II Thes., for instance, and see if he was "updating".

Thanks for tipping your hand, though.

 

His notes are very similar to one of the study Bibles that I currently have.
In the center column it says: (vs. 2 ASV says "Day of the Lord").
There is no difference. Many of the current Bibles give the alternative readings from the critical text. Many of them even say "older and more accurate texts render the word as..." I disagree of course. Peruse through some other study Bibles and see what you find. Scofield was just one of many to give "alternative readings."

 

Do you regard him as even having been a Chrsitian then?

And he NEVER claimed that either his study notes/teachings were inspired, just 'helpful", so do you say same about ALl study bibles, or just Dispy ones?

 

I will not disagree. But when I was 5 or 6, I learned to say that from this older boy a couple of houses down from ours, and I didn't realize it was referring to God until it was pointed out to me by grandmother after I said it to express surprise at how fast something was beginning to grow in her garden. My other grandmother later heard me taking after other guys from school, saying "damn" or "dang," and made a big thing about me 'cussing.'

It's interesting how these grandmas often expressed their awe or surprise by saying "My Lord!" Just what is the difference? Aren't people selective?

 

All of them. We need the Author, our Guide and Teacher, to reveal His Word to us, and "study helps are at best a distraction".