Leading figures of dispensational theology

[thereselittleflower]

Dakes has probably written more on Dispensational theology than Scofield and Darby combined Dake is staunchly dispensational .

About the Dakes Bible (of which I own)
"KJV Dakes Annotated Reference Bible/Compact
[font=Arial,Helvetica]Fundamentalist and dispensational in perspective, this KJV reference Bible offers copious commentary notes, cross-references, and key-word definitions. 3-column format of Bible text, notes, and comments * Book summaries * Dake Bible chart adaptations * Words of Christ in red "[/font]

also:

"The purpose of the Dake's Annotated Reference Bible is to house a variety of study resources in one volume: commentary, atlas, dictionary, concordance, and study helps geared toward dispensational thought, such as charts of doctrines, prophetic studies, and notes on "Dispensational Truth." Dake's is Fundamentalist and Dispensationalist in its orientation. The Dake's Bible has four equal-sized columns on each page-- two columns of bible text with a column of notes on each side, and symbols in the text to indicate prophecies, promises, commands and "new messages from God."

His other book, "Gods Plan for Man" (also which I own) is a MUST have by any dispensationlist, as I said, Dakes has written more in his life about Dispenastional theology then most dispeys put together.

%99 of all Pentecostals (AOG, etc..) are all dispenastionalist. Remember, dispenastionalism is not agreeing with Scofield and Darby, but dividing Gods Word into dispensations.

I also own a Dake's bible, my pastor of the FourSquare Church when I was in college and afterwards preached heavily from it, and since he used it, I got one for myself.

It is indeed heavily dispensationalist!


I have a lot to unlearn that I learned from Dake . .


Peace in Him!

 

[FreeinChrist]

Much was left out of the biography presented in this thread, of C.I. Scofield . . much was omitted or glossed over . . .

Canfield's detailed investigation of Scofield's past portrays a very different person. Discrepancies exist between Scofield's own reminiscences, Trumbull's biography, family correspondence and actual public records regarding many aspects of Scofield's life and ministry both before and after his alleged conversion, ordination and association with D. L. Moody. These range from the trivial to the reprehensible.



1. His claim to have fought with General Lee is disputed as is his alleged decoration for service in the Confederate army in 1861.7

2. His 'rank perjury' in swearing the oath of office to become District Attorney for Kansas in June 1873, denying he had served in the Confederate Army8, a post he then had to resign just six months later following well publicised charges of extortion and blackmail.9

3. The desertion of his first wife Leontine, and daughters Abigail and Marie-Helene from 1877 and failure to provide for them.10

4. The unsubstantiated claim that he was admitted to the Bar of St. Louis and practised law.11

5. The discrepancies surrounding his alleged conversion in 1879 in jail and also while practising law.12

​

Interesting that slander pieces show up about Scofield from time to time. Of course, these slander pieces did not show up in Scofield's lifetime.


Scofield was converted in 1879. Some of the stuff above - like the disertion of his wife - was before his conversion.

BTW, he had an alcohol problem before his conversion...did you post that, too?

I suppose we all should hold EVERYTHING against ALL Christians before their conversions....I mean, even though CHRIST forgave, I suppose we shouldn't, right???



BTW, Scofield studied law in St. Louis, and then was admitted to the bar in the state of Kansas. The move back to St. Louis came later...and when he had a drinking problem. Guess there is NO forgiveness for that!! Never saw any documentation that he was not admitted to the bar in Missouri at that time, BTW. OR that he actually practiced law there as he had intended.



I have read many pieces pro and antiScofield. I have found that many of the anti pieces are mostly based on someone who wrote AFTER Scofield died, and on 2 people in particular. I'm not impressed with the rabid anti-Scofield advocates.

What I do believe is that Scofield is a flawed human being, like every one of us, had made mistakes, was converted and his life changed. He worked hard for Christ to spread the gospel message, and I beleive he will be rewarded.






​

 

[FreeinChrist]

Here is an interesting site that points out Scofield's flaws, and what happened AFTER his conversion:


http://www.tyndale.edu/dirn/bios/scofield.html

 

[thereselittleflower]

Interesting that slander pieces show up about Scofield from time to time. Of course, these slander pieces did not show up in Scofield's lifetime.

Hi FIC

They are only slander if they are not true . .

Scofield was converted in 1879. Some of the stuff above - like the disertion of his wife - was before his conversion.

Are you saying he was divorced and married again BEFORE his conversion?

He wasn't divorced or married again until a few years AFTER his conversion . .so it is not so much the fact that he disserted his wife and 2 daughters and had adulterous relationships with 2 other women at the same time before his conversion . ..

It is that he CONTINUED those adulterous relationships and faled to support his real family at all AFTER his conversion!

When one converts, one turns away from sin, and inherent in true coversion is a desire to make restituion and set things right.

To set things right, one would expect to see the repentant converted to have left off his adulterous relationship(s) and return to his wife and daughters and keep his marriage vows to them ..

He didn't do this.

And one would also expect to see that he provide financially for them if he was able . . He made a bunch of money on his reference bible and refused even them to send a penny to his daughters even when they asked . .

That is not the fruit one would expect to see if someone has truly repented.

BTW, he had an alcohol problem before his conversion...did you post that, too?

I suppose we all should hold EVERYTHING against ALL Christians before their conversions....I mean, even though CHRIST forgave, I suppose we shouldn't, right???

Do you see now that it is not about what happened BEFORE his conversion, but what continued to happen AFTER his conversion as well . . and when one sees that there is not a true change of heart, but that a previous pattern continued, then the previous history comes into play to establish that pattern and show that the pattern of behavior after his supposed conversion is relatively unchanged . .

That is not the fruit of genuine conversion . .

BTW, Scofield studied law in St. Louis,

Where in St Louis? What college or university?

and then was admitted to the bar in the state of Kansas.

And what were the circumstances surrounding his appointment?

The move back to St. Louis came later...and when he had a drinking problem. Guess there is NO forgiveness for that!! Never saw any documentation that he was not admitted to the bar in Missouri at that time, BTW. OR that he actually practiced law there as he had intended.

Sounds like a bit of an over reaction to what is being said to me . .

There are a LOT of holes in the biography done on his life . . and they are holles that should raise seroius questions as to why they are there . .

I have read many pieces pro and antiScofield. I have found that many of the anti pieces are mostly based on someone who wrote AFTER Scofield died, and on 2 people in particular. I'm not impressed with the rabid anti-Scofield advocates.

Then I suggest that someone does a very well studied and detailed biography of the man that effectively shows that such accusations are unfounded, for such a biography is seriously lacking . . and that also begs the question 'why?'

What I do believe is that Scofield is a flawed human being, like every one of us, had made mistakes, was converted and his life changed. He worked hard for Christ to spread the gospel message, and I beleive he will be rewarded.

That is, of course, the white washed version of his life . . but my concerns still stand and are still unaddressed . .

He did not leave his lover and return to his wife after his "conversion" . . he did not provide for his wife and children contrary to the clear admonishion of scripture; he took to himself a degree he never earned or was ever conferred on him .. Doctorate of Divinty . .

I don't see a changed life FIC . . I see a man who continued with the same issues after his conversion as he had before his conversion.

It is not that he had problems . . but he is held to be a great teacher and preacher . . and so he is to be held to a higher standard . . and he fails that standard from everything I can see . .

It is not slander to speak the truth about someone . ..


Peace in Him!

 

[In Christ Forever]

Interesting that slander pieces show up about Scofield from time to time. Of course, these slander pieces did not show up in Scofield's lifetime.

So what is the real reason people follow his teachings? If he was the type of person a christian should follow, why don't more follow him?
I guess I should be blessed I never knew him before I read the bible myself from what I have heard. That is just me though. God bless.

rev 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, [the] Beginning and [the] End," says the Lord, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

reve 4:8 [The] four living creatures, each having six wings, were full of eyes around and within. And they do not rest day or night, saying: "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, Who was and is and is to come!"

 

[Iosias]

Ah . . AV . .

I think that because I have a Catholic Icon by my name that you somehow see this now as a Catholic/Protestant thing?

It isn't . . . your words above give away how poorly you understand Catholicism . . and how poorly you understand traditional Protestantism as well.

This is not a Catholic/Protestant thing . .

This is a new. novel idea against all Christianity has believed, Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant in the history of the Church from its beginning.

It sets itself against historical Christian beliefs . .

But to lay your mind a rest, a priest does not tell me how to interpret scripture . .that is a myth that many non-Catholics have about Catholicism . . If you would like to learn more about this, may I invite you to OBOB to ask us there so we don't derail this thread.

The Church has always believed certain things to be true . . And I look at scripture in light of what the Church has always believed to be true . .


The fact that the Church is not mentioned per-se in that verse does not exclude the Church . . for the Church to have been excluded would mean that there would have to be clear language that it would be with the house of Israel and Judah ONLY . .but that langauge is not there . .

When the New Covenant is made with the Church it is at the same time made with Israel and Judah . .for the scriptures tell us that there in no longer Jew or Gentile . .there is no longer 2 groups, but they have been made one in Christ, made One NEW MAN.

This is not sometime off in the future . . this finds its fulfillment in the Church and is happening now.


Peace in Him!

It is indeed a Catholic-protestant 'thing' and the reason we have covenantalists who adhere to amillenialism is because during the reformation the emphasis was on the Theology if SALVATION with the reformers taking a literal interpretation of scripture and applying it to soteriology. Through dispensationalists that same method was applied to the Theology of LAST THINGS.

Regarding the NC...the words of scripture are quite clear...God said His NC was with Israel and Judah...it is exclusive language.

 

[Iosias]

Here is an interesting site that points out Scofield's flaws, and what happened AFTER his conversion:


http://www.tyndale.edu/dirn/bios/scofield.html

And since your conversion you have never sinned I suppose?

 

[TheScottsMen]

I agree with AV1611. How would any of us like it if a person whom we did not agree with could simply could post a link with all our faults?

 

[JM]

I don't believe Dake would be considered a Dispensationalist, he does borrow (as he does from Bullinger, almost word for word at times) from Dispensational theology.

 

[JM]

littleflower, why are you so considered over the personal life of a sinner who's passed on? If we dig deep we can find dirt on anyone, some of your saints lived before the modern age where everything is under the mircoscope, everything being recorded.

 

[FreeinChrist]

And since your conversion you have never sinned I suppose?

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.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Hi FIC
They are only slander if they are not true . .

Instead of "slander piece", character "asassination piece" and that is just what you posted. A piece written after a person's death, condemning him for his sins before he was converted.
Taken events and posting them in the worse possible way.

Are you saying he was divorced and married again BEFORE his conversion?

He wasn't divorced or married again until a few years AFTER his conversion . .so it is not so much the fact that he disserted his wife and 2 daughters and had adulterous relationships with 2 other women at the same time before his conversion . ..

He was separated and heading for divorce at the time of his conversion. Reconciliation wasn't in the picture. He remarried later.

As far as the "adulterous affairs" - where did you come up with that cr*ap? I have read the bio done by his own biographer, and by those who seek to discredit him AND by nonbiased sources.

PROOF of the adulterous affairs, TLF??? All I saw was nasty gossip.

You know, ole King David should burn in hell, too! Let's hate him forever and deny what he believed too! (NOT!)
{where is that rolling eye guy!)

I'd address the rest of your post but that would be giving it too much credence. What is truly pathetic is the attempt to discredit dispensationism by doing a character asassination of Scofield.

As far as his changed life, and his repentence, to others who are interested, please read this site:

http://www.duluthbible.org/g_f_j/C._I._Scofield.htm

 

[FreeinChrist]

I agree with AV1611. How would any of us like it if a person whom we did not agree with could simply could post a link with all our faults?

I sure wouldn't. No one is perfect, everyone makes mistakes.

Like King David - adultery, murder, deceit ....but he repented.

 

[TheScottsMen]

I don't believe Dake would be considered a Dispensationalist, he does borrow (as he does from Bullinger, almost word for word at times) from Dispensational theology.

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.

 

[thereselittleflower]

littleflower, why are you so considered over the personal life of a sinner who's passed on? If we dig deep we can find dirt on anyone, some of your saints lived before the modern age where everything is under the mircoscope, everything being recorded.

That he was a sinner is not what is relevant we are all sinners ..

What IS relevant is that unlike you or me, Scofield is held up as a leader among Christians, and so is necessarily held to a higher standard . .

The scriptures say

But if any do not take care of their relatives, especially the members of their own family, they have denied the faith and are worse than an unbeliever.

​

how can one be a man of God chosen by God to proclaim the faith if his actions show him to be somone who has denied the faith and be labled by the scripture as worse than an unbeliever .. an infidel in the King James version . ..


Why would you want to hide the fact that by Scofield's actions, the bible declares him to be an infidel? Why would you want to follow the teachings of someone the bible declares to be an infidel?

He unrepentantly failed tot ake care of the members of his own family, his wife and daughters while at the same time proclaiming and spreading this new idea of dispensationalism. . EVEN WHEN he had the monetary means to do so!


I am not holding his life up to a microscope . .. Others have investigated his life and have found these issues which are extremely serious and have been surpresed by those who would hold him up as a model for chrsitian faith and living, and to be respected as a teacher of God's truth . .

How can one who has, according to scripture, denied the faith by his actions, who is WORSE THAN an infidel, honestly be held up to be respected as a teacher of God's truth?



The reason we are examining his life is because he has been held up in THIS THREAD as a major teacher and founder of Dispensationalism . ..

This means that Dispenstationalism has, as one of its major founders and teachers, someone who has denied the faith and is worse than in infidel according to scriptures . .

And yet dispensationalists hold him up to be a man of God, qualified to teach God's word . . .



That is a REALLY BIG problem . .


That the response here to this exposing of the nature of his character and how it measures up to what the scriptures say is very telling . .


I choose not to follow the teachings of a man the bible lables as someone who has denied the faith and is worse than an infidel . .



Peace in Him!

 

[thereselittleflower]

I sure wouldn't. No one is perfect, everyone makes mistakes.

Like King David - adultery, murder, deceit ....but he repented.

Yep . . he repented . .


Where didi Scofield repent of his failure to provide for his family?


Where did Scofield repent of his assuming falsely the title Doctor of Divinity?


The key is repentance . . . and showing forth fruits worthy of repentance . .

David did this . .


Scofield? ? ? ? ?


Peace in Him!

 

[thereselittleflower]

It is indeed a Catholic-protestant 'thing' and the reason we have covenantalists who adhere to amillenialism is because during the reformation the emphasis was on the Theology if SALVATION with the reformers taking a literal interpretation of scripture and applying it to soteriology. Through dispensationalists that same method was applied to the Theology of LAST THINGS.

Regarding the NC...the words of scripture are quite clear...God said His NC was with Israel and Judah...it is exclusive language.

I am sorry you see it that way . . . it is an an orthodox Christian vs dispensationalist "thing" . ..

You are in error in your view, for most Protestasnt Chrsitians are not dispensationalist . ..


Peace in Him!

 

[thereselittleflower]

Instead of "slander piece", character "asassination piece" and that is just what you posted. A piece written after a person's death, condemning him for his sins before he was converted.
Taken events and posting them in the worse possible way.

Hardly FIC . .

First, biographies are usually written after someone dies . .. so the fact that it was written after his death has nothing to do with anything . . .

Second, it seems you keep confusing the issues . .

the issue is not so much what did he do before his conversion, but what he did and DID NOT do AFTER his conversion . ..


FIC . . show me where he followed the scriptural mandate to provide for his family after his conversion?


Show me where he honestly obtained the degree Doctor of Divinity he claimed for himself?


How do you know a reconcilliation was not possible after his conversion?

His wife, from all I have read, did not file for divorce until AFTER his conversion and he failed to provide for them and was having a relationship with another woman . .


Again, the bible tells us that someone who fails to provide for his family has DENIED the faith and is WORSE THAN an infidel . ..


Yet he is presented here as one of the Leading figures of Dispensationalism, and in fact is THE leading figure, for without his reference bible, it is very doubtful it would have risen to the place it has in the US . . .

He was separated and heading for divorce at the time of his conversion. Reconciliation wasn't in the picture.

How do you know?

He remarried later.

Yes, 3 months later . .

As far as the "adulterous affairs" - where did you come up with that cr*ap? I have read the bio done by his own biographer, and by those who seek to discredit him AND by nonbiased sources.

PROOF of the adulterous affairs, TLF??? All I saw was nasty gossip.

Maybe you should look harder?

You know, ole King David should burn in hell, too

! Let's hate him forever and deny what he believed too! (NOT!)

{where is that rolling eye guy!)

I'd address the rest of your post but that would be giving it too much credence. What is truly pathetic is the attempt to discredit dispensationism by doing a character asassination of Scofield.

As far as his changed life, and his repentence, to others who are interested, please read this site:

http://www.duluthbible.org/g_f_j/C._I._Scofield.htm

FIC . .. I read through the article you posted . .. I would hardly call it non-biased.

A couple of points (though by no means exhaustive) that have to deal with what I am speaking to above . .

First, it states he and his wife got a legal separation in 1877 just 2 years before his "conversion" . ..

A legal separation is not a filing for divorce.

The article does not state when filing for divorce occured . . it skips over that and goes right to the divorce which happened 4 YEARS AFTER his conversion ..

Seems to me there was ample time, 4 YEARS. to try to reconcile and leave the relationship he was having with another woman after his conversion if he was truly repentant.

Are you contesting the facts that he was not in a relationship with another woman before his divorce went through (remember, he was still married to his first wife until the divorce went through) . .. they got married pretty quickly after his divorce went through . . 3 months later . .


However, whether or not he could reconclie with his wife did not releive him of his biblical responsiblity to provide for her and their children . .

You keep comparing him to King David . .. there is no comparison in my book .

They were both sinners . . yes . .. but one repented . . Where is the proof of repentance by the other? It is not enough to CLAIM you have repented . . .


Also, where in the article you posted does it tell us how and when and where Scofield received the degree Doctor of Divinity?



Peace in him!

 

[thereselittleflower]

Regarding Scofield's divorce:

Contrary to how the article FIC presented above portrays it as somehow having started before his 'conversion", his wife didn't actually file for divorce until 1881, 2 years AFTER his conversion:

8. The embarrassment of having divorce proceedings initiated against him by his wife Leontine in 1881 while he was pastor of Hyde Park Congregational Church, St. Louis . Her divorce papers charged Scofield with, '...gross neglect of duty...' having, 'failed to support this plaintiff or her said children, or to contribute thereto, and has made no provision for them for food, clothing or a home...' 16 The court decided in favour of Leontine after some delay in 1883 and issued a decree of divorce in December of that year, describing Scofield as, '...not a fit person to have custody of the children.
​

This is a matter of historical record . .


For another look at Scofield


http://www.virginiawater.co.uk/christchurch/articles/scofield1.html


Peace in Him!

 

[FreeinChrist]

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. 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.

I truly hope God forgives you more than you apparently forgive others.

From the email I have received, you aren't impressing folks with this stuff.