Leading figures of dispensational theology

[thereselittleflower]

I am embarrassed for you, TLF, that you find this type of thing acceptable. You obviously see nothing wrong with relying on gossip (the so-called adulterous affair) and presentation of some events in biased, negative terms.

FIC I am very sorry you are so embarrassed, but this type of rhetoric is not going to intimidate me in to keeping silient . .

It is interesting that when one cannot refute the accusations with clear and simple facts, that one resorts to adhominem attacks . . but such is life.

This tatic is not working . ..

Divorce was initiated by her. It took time in that day. You don't know if attempts were made to reconciliate or exactly what the state of affairs there were between the two. You have no idea if she was even willing to reconcile. Divorce decrees contained stuff that may or may not be true - even today.

Are you aware she initiated 2 divorces? Both after Scofield's conversion?

Are you aware that the first one was thrown out?

No .. divorces did not take as long as what you are suggesting in this post . . She did not file for divorce for the first time until 1881, and then refiled in 1882 . .


Here is where the real problem lies . . this stuff is a matter of historical record ... and the sources which are pro-Scofield have to gloss over these, such as the one you presented, which make no definitive statement of when she first filed for divorce, or that there were two divorce filings . . it is glossed over, in an attempt to make it appear that this was something filed before her husband converted . .

IT is your sources that call into question much of what has been presented here . . by failing to deal with it, by omitting facts surrounding it . .

Sorry . . but your attempts at intimmidation and silencing are not going to work . . my purpose is not to impress people . . I am simply presenting the facts . .

The truth is, the facts are not pretty





Peace in Him!

 

[FreeinChrist]

FIC I am very sorry you are so embarrassed, but this type of rhetoric is not going to intimidate me in to keeping silient . .

No, I suspect you will continue your attempts to tear him down.

Yes, I am embarrassed for you. It is sad.

It is interesting that when one cannot refute the accusations with clear and simple facts, that one resorts to adhominem attacks . . but such is life.

This tatic is not working . ..

Yes, you do use that tact alot..
Let's see, if we can't disprove dispensationism using scripture....let's go spread nasty stuff about a dispensationist...

wow. so impressive....not!

hmmm....shall I start telling of the fallables of the popes over the last 2000 years? The name Borgia comes to mind.....

Are you aware she initiated 2 divorces? Both after Scofield's conversion?

Are you aware that the first one was thrown out?
No .. divorces did not take as long as what you are suggesting in this post . . She did not file for divorce for the first time until 1881, and then refiled in 1882 . .

I don't care TLF. I am not a dispensationist because of Scofield. I don't put my trust in any man - not even a pope. Using YOUR logic, because Scofield was a fallible man, one shouldn't beleive in Dispensationism. I could point to some real fallible popes, so I should deny Catholicism, despite whatever else there is.


Fact is you were not in their home, in their lives, or at the court hearings or at the lawyer meetings, and you have no idea IF she was even willing to be reconciled. Neither do writers like Canfield in 1988. Court documents can include bad stuff, whether true or not. There is the gossip about "adulterous affairs" - but it is just gossip. He converted in 1979....guess he still wasn't a perfect person for a few years....even more.

Are you perfect?

 

[Iosias]

Perhaps you misunderstood why I posted that site. I felt it was more balanced. Much of the stuff posted by TLF is condemning Scofield for mistakes made before his conversion, and as that site showed, he changed a great deal after his conversion, especialy about the drinking.

No I am not saying people don't sin after conversion. I am trying to point out that continuing to condemn a person after their death for sinful acts prior to their conversion seems VERY unChristian.

I am sorry, I misunderstood, please accept my appologies.

 

[Iosias]

Scofield was a man, a sinner and he did sinful things. That is true for every human being. This said, it dies not mean that dispensationalism is wrong because Scofield was a sinner the test of dispensationalism is whether it is Biblical or not. If thereselittleflower wants to disagree then that is fine however I will not engage in a debate over the sins of Scofield or anyone else for that matter otherwise there would be a never ending discusson of who is the holiest and we would merely be falling into the trap of the disciples arguing over who will be greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

So I urge my fellow brethren, if non-dispensationalists want to continue to debate the sinfulness of Scofield then lets just leave them to it and I urge you not to reply to their posts.

thereselittleflower...I will not engage in a debate over the sins of Scofield and this is my last post in this thread.

 

[In Christ Forever]

Saying Dakes isn't a dispensationalist is like saying someone who flys a plane isn't a pilot. Do you yourself have any of his resources? Bible, Audio CD, Gods Plan For Man, etc?? If so, I don't knowhow anyone who would have this could say he isn't dispensationalist, every other Word Dakes said had some form of dispensatinoalist thought His hyper literal interpretion would make many of us look like the reformed.

My brother sent me an annotated Dake's dated 1987 earlier this year. It was pretty worn and written in, so I went on the internet to see comments on it and found out that it wasn't for me[the print is too small for one thing and why I never use study bibles]. The NIV is the only bible I really read and is good enough, but for serious study, I just go online and look up several translations at one time and try to learn a little greek while I am at it.
I guess I am a dispensationalist also, as I believe in 2 convenants, the OC and NC. I read the OT for knowledge of how God worked with His people and of course the NT on how Jesus worked with His people . One of these days I will get more deep into the various OC convenants but right now I am still learning God's book. God bless.

1 corin 2:9 But as it is written: "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have entered into the heart of man The things which God has prepared for those who love Him." 10 But God has revealed [them] to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Scofield was a man, a sinner and he did sinful things. That is true for every human being. This said, it dies not mean that dispensationalism is wrong because Scofield was a sinner the test of dispensationalism is whether it is Biblical or not. If thereselittleflower wants to disagree then that is fine however I will not engage in a debate over the sins of Scofield or anyone else for that matter otherwise there would be a never ending discusson of who is the holiest and we would merely be falling into the trap of the disciples arguing over who will be greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Hi AV . .

We are all sinners . . but we do not all claim to be great leaders and teachers of the Christian faith . .

Those who lead the Church are held to a higher standard than those who do not . .

The issue is not was Scofield a sinner ..

The issue is, did he possess the biblical qualifications to be called a leader of the Church and a teacher of divine truth?


The answer is no . . yet Dispensationalists look to him as the Greatest leader of this teaching . .


The truth is, according to the bible, by his actions of failing to provide for his family, especially when he had the means to do so, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever . .

This makes his wide promotion of a NEW and never before heard of doctrine highly suspect . .


The tendancey of dispensationalists is to ignore these very serious issues, and to excuse them, failing to recognize that he, by virture of being a leader, is held to a higher standard . . and so make void the word of God.

Either the word of God means what it says, or it is useless . .


I have already explained the very big problem the issues surrounding Scofield present . .

AV . . you are the one who first brought his life out for examination in one of your opneing posts . . . this is why we are discussing him . . because of the way he was presented earlier in this thread . .

The contribution of C. I. Scofield to the development of the evangelical fundamentalist movement in the twentieth century has been enormous, particularly as it relates to premillennial dispensationalism.
​

THIS is the issue . .

A man, who by biblical standards has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever has had an ENORMOUS effect on the development of the evangelical fundamentalist movement . . and in particular premillenial dispensationalism



I am sorry you do not like the results . . but the truth needs to be told.

So I urge my fellow brethren, if non-dispensationalists want to continue to debate the sinfulness of Scofield then lets just leave them to it and I urge you not to reply to their posts.

Whether someone replies or not is not the issue . . people who have denied the faith and are unbelievers are not qualified to lead the Church.

The issue is dispensationalists, whether they know it or not, follow the teachings of someone who was not qualified to teach or lead the Church.


Peace in Him!

 

[thereselittleflower]

No, I suspect you will continue your attempts to tear him down.

Yes, I am embarrassed for you. It is sad.

Well, since I can't stop you from being embarrassed, I will leave you to it then.

I don't care TLF. I am not a dispensationist because of Scofield.

Really now? I highly doubt that you would have ever even heard of dispensationalism if it had not been for Scofield, especially seeing the enormous effect he has had on evangelical fundamentalism . . and pre-millenial dispensationalism.

I don't put my trust in any man - not even a pope. Using YOUR logic, because Scofield was a fallible man, one shouldn't beleive in Dispensationism. I could point to some real fallible popes, so I should deny Catholicism, despite whatever else there is.

You apparantly have chosen to either not really read what I have posted or failed to understand the logic used . .

I have stated it enough times so I am not going to restate it here . . suffice it to say you have grossly misrepresented my words . . again <sigh>

Fact is you were not in their home, in their lives, or at the court hearings or at the lawyer meetings, and you have no idea IF she was even willing to be reconciled. Neither do writers like Canfield in 1988. Court documents can include bad stuff, whether true or not. There is the gossip about "adulterous affairs" - but it is just gossip. He converted in 1979....guess he still wasn't a perfect person for a few years....even more.

The fact is, he was still married when he began a relationship with another woman . .

The fact is, regardless of whether or not they could be reconcilled, it is his biblical duty to provide for his own, and he not only failed to do so, he refused to do so . . ALL AFTER his "conversion" and even MANY years later. . .

And, as I restated in the post above, that made him, according to biblical standards, someone who has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever, and so unfit to lead and teach the church . . And this a person who has had an ENORMOUS effect on evangelical fundamentalism and dispensationalism. I guess the only ones who have any qualms about it are those who don't buy into dispensastionalist theology . .. amazing . .


Unfortunately, it seems you keep getting the issues mixed up . . Oh well . .I was pretty clear in my post above . . . I can't help it if you choose to misunderstand . .

Are you perfect?

What does perfection have to do with anything? Just more twisting to confuse the issues . . oh well . ..

I think if you had any real arguments to refute what I have said, you would have presented them by now.

Since you have not, and no one else has either, it is obvous there is no good response to justify his being hailed as a great Christian leader of the last century . . .


Peace to all!

 

[FreeinChrist]

Really now? I highly doubt that you would have ever even heard of dispensationalism if it had not been for Scofield, especially seeing the enormous effect he has had on evangelical fundamentalism . . and pre-millenial dispensationalism.

since he was not the only one, I doubt that. The Lord sure did bless his efforts though.

You apparantly have chosen to either not really read what I have posted or failed to understand the logic used . .

I have stated it enough times so I am not going to restate it here . . suffice it to say you have grossly misrepresented my words . . again <sigh>

Oh, I read it..and see it for what it is.

The fact is, he was still married when he began a relationship with another woman . .

Define relationship.
Have you now changed your tune from "adulterous affairs" to relationship? If you are claiming he had sexual intercourse with another women in this time - prove it. For what I see is gossip based. Bigtime.
You REALLY need to reveiw what scripture says about gossip, TLF.

Do you have any clue how many people have a 'relationship' that is not sexual yet before the divorce is final? I suppose we should burn them all at the stake, huh? and the first was thrown out right? hmmm

Yes, I am embarrassed for you. Truly.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Scofield was a man, a sinner and he did sinful things. That is true for every human being. This said, it dies not mean that dispensationalism is wrong because Scofield was a sinner the test of dispensationalism is whether it is Biblical or not. If thereselittleflower wants to disagree then that is fine however I will not engage in a debate over the sins of Scofield or anyone else for that matter otherwise there would be a never ending discusson of who is the holiest and we would merely be falling into the trap of the disciples arguing over who will be greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

So I urge my fellow brethren, if non-dispensationalists want to continue to debate the sinfulness of Scofield then lets just leave them to it and I urge you not to reply to their posts.

thereselittleflower...I will not engage in a debate over the sins of Scofield and this is my last post in this thread.

Good advice.

 

[thereselittleflower]

since he was not the only one, I doubt that. The Lord sure did bless his efforts though.

Oh, I read it..and see it for what it is.

FIC If it wasn't for Scofield, it is HIGHLY unlikely that Moody, the Dallas Seminary etc would have ever picked up on it . . Evertyhing that came about in those circles and others are directly related to his efforts . . without his efforts, it is VERY unlikely Dispensationalism would have ever made it on the radar screen . .



As for the rest of your post, it is not even worth a response . . Just more attempts at deflection off the facts.


Peace in Him!

 

[FreeinChrist]

[/color]

FIC If it wasn't for Scofield, it is HIGHLY unlikely that Moody, the Dallas Seminary etc would have ever picked up on it . . Evertyhing that came about in those circles and others are directly related to his efforts . . without his efforts, it is VERY unlikely Dispensationalism would have ever made it on the radar screen . .



As for the rest of your post, it is not even worth a response . . Just more attempts at deflection off the facts.


Peace in Him!

You need to do more research into history, TLF.

I hardily doubt that D.L. Moody needed Scofield to hear about dispensationism. Moody traveled to England in the late 1860's and 1870s' and met with large number of evangelicals there. He was an evangelist that was used mightily of God there and in the US. He met with large numbers of evangelicals here, too. Moody was a mentor TO Scofield. He convinced Scofield to take on a pastorate.

 

[Tractor1]

You need to do more research into history, TLF.

I hardily doubt that D.L. Moody needed Scofield to hear about dispensationism. Moody traveled to England in the late 1860's and 1870s' and met with large number of evangelicals there. He was an evangelist that was used mightily of God there and in the US. He met with large numbers of evangelicals here, too. Moody was a mentor TO Scofield. He convinced Scofield to take on a pastorate.


As far as Dalllas Seminary - of course, that it is dispensationist is due to Scofield - he founded the original Bible school that became Dallas Seminary. That's a 'duh!!!!"

Obviously you don't know history well at all.

I believe Lewis Chafer was the founder of Dallas Theological Seminary (originally, the Evangelical Theological College) in 1924.

In Christ,
Tracey

 

[Ebb]

I thought it was Chafer, too.

http://www.dts.edu/aboutdts/arichtradition/

 

[thereselittleflower]

As far as Dalllas Seminary - of course, that it is dispensationist is due to Scofield - he founded the original Bible school that became Dallas Seminary. That's a 'duh!!!!"

Obviously you don't know history well at all.

I believe Lewis Chafer was the founder of Dallas Theological Seminary (originally, the Evangelical Theological College) in 1924.

In Christ,
Tracey

Thanks Tracey for providing this little history lesson . .


Peace in Him!

 

[FreeinChrist]

I believe Lewis Chafer was the founder of Dallas Theological Seminary (originally, the Evangelical Theological College) in 1924.

In Christ,
Tracey

Yes, you are right. I was remembering reading something Chafer said at the dedication of of the Seminary. Chafer knew Scofield and other dispensationists and made the comment ....but i have to look it up again to be sure.

Scofield did start CAM International. But I will go back and alter my post.


Ok, went back and found what I was looking for -
"Scofield directed the Southwestern School of the Bible in Dallas and was president of the board of trustees of the denomination's Lake Charles College in Lake Charles, Louisiana.... He was centrally prominent in the creation of several schools, beginning with the Southwestern School of the Bible during his first Dallas pastorate, then presiding over the Northfield Bible Training School, founding the New York School of the Bible, and, finally, establishing the Philadelphia School of the Bible (now Philadelphia College of Bible)."

And:
Writing shortly after Scofield's death, Chafer commented, "For twenty years, I have enjoyed the closest heart-fellowship with him, and the incalculable benefit of his personal counsel".. The fruit of that mentoring relationship was the founding of Dallas Seminary as the fulfillment of a dream of Scofield's.

To Noel, Scofield's son, Chafer wrote, "You will be interested to know that the school, for which your father prayed and hoped for so many years for Dallas is going to be located here."​

So, that was my confusion. The Seminary was a dream of Scofields and caried out later by Chafer.

 

[thereselittleflower]

You need to do more research into history, TLF.

I hardily doubt that D.L. Moody needed Scofield to hear about dispensationism. Moody traveled to England in the late 1860's and 1870s' and met with large number of evangelicals there. He was an evangelist that was used mightily of God there and in the US. He met with large numbers of evangelicals here, too. Moody was a mentor TO Scofield. He convinced Scofield to take on a pastorate.

Hmmm I see you edited out part of your "history lesson" . .

As for the information above . .

Well, according to the short biography of Scofield presented at the beginning of this thread, it seems that someone else was Scofield's mentor

Scofield experienced an evangelical conversion in 1879, apparently through the witness of Thomas McPhetters, who was a member of James Hall Brookes's Walnut Street Presbyterian Church. Brookes, claimed Scofleld, was his mentor in the faith. Scofleld immediately became active in Christian work assisting in the campaign of Moody in St. Louis, 1879-80 and joined the Pilgrim Congregational Church.
​

Peace to all!

 

[thereselittleflower]

Yes, you are right. I was remembering reading something Chafer said at the dedication of of the Seminary. Chafer knew Scofield and other dispensationists and made the comment ....but i have to look it up again to be sure.

Scofield did start CAM International. But I will go back and alter my post.

Thank you for removing the derrogatory comments flung my way as well.


Peace in Him!

 

[FreeinChrist]

Hmmm I see you edited out part of your "history lesson" . .

Yeah....but at least I am willing to be corrected, TLC. And I did find find the quote of Chafer's that the Dallas Seminary had been a dream of Scofield's...he WAS a part of its founding.

As for the information above . .

Well, according to the short biography of Scofield presented at the beginning of this thread, it seems that someone else was Scofield's mentor

Scofield experienced an evangelical conversion in 1879, apparently through the witness of Thomas McPhetters, who was a member of James Hall Brookes's Walnut Street Presbyterian Church. Brookes, claimed Scofleld, was his mentor in the faith. Scofleld immediately became active in Christian work assisting in the campaign of Moody in St. Louis, 1879-80 and joined the Pilgrim Congregational Church.


​

Yet, it was the older Moody who invited Scofield to be a pastor of a church in Northfield, Mass. My statement about Moody as mentor came from statements made about Moody advising Scofield, and it was a relationship that came later that Brookes.

 

[FreeinChrist]

[/color]

Thank you for removing the derrogatory comments flung my way as well.


Peace in Him!

But you still need to check history much better, TLF.

 

[Ebb]

I noticed this from Canfield's book on Scofield:

http://poweredbychrist.homestead.com/files/cyrus/scofield.htm

Men like 33rd degree freemason George Bannerman Dealey owner of the Dallas Morning News and member of Scofield’s church contributed greatly to the cause . But occasionally, newspapers who weren’t loyal to his cause would put out damaging information on him


Is this the famous Dealey of whom Dealey Plaza in Dallas is named?