Exposing the Scofield Study Bible and C.I. Scofield, a Peer Among Scallawags and Shysters

Cyrus Ingerson (C.I.) Scofield (1843–1921) was a Civil War veteran, U.S. state attorney, Kansas legislator, and influential American congregational minister. He was also a charlatan, a convicted criminal and a rogue. He was born into a mainline Anglican, or Episcopalian, a home of seven children, in the state of Michigan. But what C.I. Scofield is mostly known for is his authorship of the study Bible that bears his name: the infamous Scofield Reference Bible, which became an immensely popular and influential study Bible during the 20th century among conservative Protestants, Fundamentalists, Pentecostals, and Latter Rain sects, with annotations on the text, concordance, scripture references, etc. Scofield was also profoundly influential in the development of the Bible conference movement.

Many men have made Scofield and his Reference Bible popular and practically into a golden calf (even the very church where Scofield "pastored" in Dallas changed its name in 1923 to Scofield Memorial Church, with the approval of the congregation), such as Warren Wiersbe, who included him in his book on "50 People Every Christian Should Know: Learning from Spiritual Giants of the Faith." But Warren Wiersbe is an untrustworthy source considering the terrible compromise, ecumenicalism and heresies that he promoted in his teachings and writings and practice (The Heresies of Warren Wiersbe Demand Exposure and Separation, Not Acceptance or Ignorance). Most writers have emphasized Scofield's religious accomplishments while concealing his controversial personal life.

Scofield died in 1921, but the Scofield Reference Bible lives on. It was first published in 1909 and continues in print today as the Scofield Study Bible, available in eight languages. By 1930, one million copies had been printed. In 1967 an eight-member committee revised the notes, updating some archaic wording and adding about 700 new footnotes and 15,000 cross references. The 1967 edition is now called the New Scofield Study Bible (or the Scofield Study Bible III). The 1917 edition is referred to as the Old Scofield Study Bible. The New Scofield Study Bible is available in four versions: the KJV, the NKJV, the NIV, and the NASB.

Undoubtedly Scofield influenced the doctrine of multiple generations of professing Christians through his Reference Bible, especially dispensationalist theology, much of which we would not disagree with, through his non-allegorical interpretation of prophecy (which we also agree with). Nevertheless, God has given His servants a command to test all the spirits (1 Th. 5:21; 1 Jn 4:1), and to search the scriptures daily to see whether the teachings of men are true (Ac 17:11), without respect of persons or partiality (Jam 2:1-10; 3:17; 1 Tim 5:21), and steadfastly embrace sound doctrine and words and truth that we know to be true and reject the rest (2 Th 2:15; 2 Tim 1:13), yea even anathematize the remainder, or, in other words, let all other teachings and teachers be accursed! (Gal. 1:6-9; Eph 5:11; 1 Cor 16:22). This means every one, professing brother or not, that we come into contact with, must be critically tested, examined, judged and proven. Even Paul rebuked Peter, his senior and unofficial leader of the 12 apostles, openly in front of an entire church and billions of people who have read the Scripture, for fearing his Jewish brethren, those of the circumcision (Gal.2:11-14). Paul commanded his teachings to be judged (1 Cor 10:15), and called them noble that did so (Ac 17:11). He knew "there is no respect of persons with God." (Rom 2:11). He was speaking only to them that are wise, which are all true born again believers (Pr 17:24; 1 Cor 1:20). "I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say." Oops, there goes the "judge-not" crowd, condemned and anathematized for the charlatans that they are. C.I. Scofield’s life and doctrines are right out there, front and centre, open for all to see and scrutinize and measure against the yardstick of God's Word, since, after all, Scofield loved the spotlight. Then let us proceed without further ado.

Scofield was an Immoral and Ungodly Man, and that Includes After His Alleged "Conversion"

Scofield was born in Michigan, raised in Tennessee and served with General Robert E. Lee’s army in the American Civil War as a Confederate soldier, even allegedly decorated for valour (it was a lie, a lie that he never retracted after his profession of faith). At the same time he is known as a deserter of the South in 1862. He was discharged initially, but then deserted after a second Confederate conscription. After the Civil War, in 1866 Scofield married Leontine LeBeau Cerrè, a member of a prominent French Catholic family in St. Louis, with whom he had three children, a woman he pretended didn't exist after he became famous. Scofield attended law school and then served in the Kansas House of Representatives (for two terms, in 1871 and in 1872) and as the U. S. District Attorney for Kansas (appointed by President Ulysses S. Grant) but was forced to resign due to scandals and questionable practices, and it is possible that he even served some time in jail in Kansas. According to a book by Michael Phillips entitled, White Metropolis: Race, Ethnicity, and Religion in Dallas, 1841-2001, Scofield was forced to resign because of questionable financial transactions including, accepting bribes from railroads, stealing political contributions intended for Kansas Senator John Ingalls, and securing bank promissory notes by forging signatures. Scofield had devised a railroad scam luring prominent Republicans who invested thousands of dollars, which led to him resigning from federal office and fleeing the state of Kansas to St. Louis, Missouri (or possibly to Canada first, as some have reported) where he continued swindling people out of money, and getting six months in jail for forgery. This in turn led to him fleeing to Illinois. He was eventually arrested in 1878. Among his scams and scandals, he reportedly swindled his mother-in-law out of $1,300.00, her entire life savings. In 1874 his son, Guy, died and was buried in St. Louis and by 1879 Scofield had become a heavy drinker and had even abandoned his wife and children, who subsequently left him and went back to Kansas, and eventually divorced him (it was never finalized until 1884, nearly five years after his professed conversion, which Scofield made no attempt to desist).

In that same year, 1879, at the age of 36, Scofield claims to have become a Christian, possibly while incarcerated for forgery. But there is a big problem with his profession. There are a number of varied accounts of his alleged conversion from scallawag to saint, with some of these diverse accounts from the very mouth of Scofield himself, with at least one report of Scofield finding salvation in a St. Louis city jail ("Cyrus I. Schofield in the Role of a Congregational Minister"). It is told that a band of female Congressional missionaries began visiting Scofield in jail, one of whom became Scofield's mistress. Another conversion account surfaced after Scofield spoke of being converted in a Washington Avenue mission in St. Louis, MO. In yet another account, within the pages of Life Story, authored by the Keswick heretic Charles Trumbull, Scofield identified Thomas McPheeters, the head of the St. Louis Y.M.C.A. and member of James Hall Brookes's Walnut Street Presbyterian Church, as the man who prayed with Scofield to receive what he called a “Bible conversion.” (Charles Trumbull, Life Story, pp. 27, 31).

Here is how it had gone. McPheeters asked Scofield why he was not a Christian. Scofield replied because no one had asked him to become one. So McPheeters asked, and Scofield became a Christian. The End. Wow. Scofield told Trumbull the meeting with McPheeters occurred in Scofield’s law office. The account of Scofield's "conversion" written by Hy. Pickering reveals what Scofield went through was easy believism and quick prayerism to a 't' (source). The passages that McPheeters had share with him were: Jn 3:16; 6:47; 10:28; and Ac 13:38-39. How fitting. Not a one on sin, repentance, God's judgment upon him, or his necessity to repent and surrender to God. He was presented with an artificial finish line. Nothing at all mentioned about repentance, even though that door might've been opened to that possibility as he self-confessed his alcoholism and false religion. Very conveniently, he spared mention of his ungodly adultery against his wife and his abandonment of her and his children, his rampant fraud and thievery, lies, and so forth, all to keep an image, so he was never truly repentant, hence why repentance is never mentioned in his alleged profession, and why he afterward corrupted the most critical doctrine of repentance, which is the very foundation of salvation. Nothing noted either about the Lordship of Jesus Christ and what that entails, only the worn-out, unBiblical mantra of "receive Jesus Christ as my Saviour," which has slammed millions of unregenerate "Christians" into the eternal furnace of fire (Here at 20/20 we discuss why “Accept Jesus as Your Saviour” is not Biblical Salvation Language). It was as easy as it comes, and as quick as possible. Before he had a chance to think it over, he had been whisked away into "heaven." The wolf in sheep's clothing Jack Hyles would have been beaming proud of McPheeters technique. When Scofield answered to the question, "Will you accept the Lord Jesus Christ as your Saviour?" with "I'm going to think about it," the knee-jerk reaction by the great "soul-winner" McPheeters was "No, you're not! You've been thinking about it all your life. Will you settle it now? Will you believe on Christ now, and be saved?" A quick prayer later, it was all said and done. Wow. Impressive. The benchmark of the damnable heresies of quick prayerism and easy believism.

Scofield called his watershed moment "Bible Conversion," because he knows the word "Bible" carries authority. The scallawag and charlatan Scofield learnt to adopt Biblical language that conveys authority, both in his false "conversion," and then after as he went through the motions of a "Christian" and writing the Scofield Reference Bible, while living and traveling the world luxuriously (more on this later). It was at this point he began claiming to have been "born again" and converted to the Congregational Church. Later Scofield described his conversion upon recalling two great events in his life:

“The first was when I ceased to take as final human teachings about the Bible and went to the Bible itself. The second was when I found Christ as Victory and Achievement.”

Did he go to the Bible himself? If you want to call it that when it was briefly opened for a few mins to him by McPheeters. It is a curious thing that Scofield would say "Christ as . . . Achievement." Achievement for what? His own personal lusts and whims? More than likely, for Scofield was a self-promoter in every sense of the word, even lying about being able to comfort and calm the entire city of Belfast, Ireland with a sermon he delivered there later in his life on the Sunday after the Titanic sunk (Canfield, op. cit., pp. 239-240).

Less than three years later, in 1882, Scofield was ordained the pastor of the First Congregational Church in Dallas, Texas. Scofield abandoned his first wife and two daughters for Hettie Hall Van Wartz (also a northerner who had relocated to Dallas from Michigan)— marrying her in 1884 in Dallas , three months after the divorce was settled. He remained there until he transferred his work to Northfield, Mass, in 1895, where he pastored Trinitarian Congregational Church (at the invitation of D. L. Moody). The truth is, Scofield was never qualified to ever set foot in a pulpit, but moreover, these facts demonstrate that he was very likely never genuinely converted to begin with. It's quite possible he simply used Christianity as another lucrative tool for advantage in gaining filthy lucre, certainly not unheard of among heretical men, exemplified by Simon the sorcerer for instance in Scripture (Ac 8:13-24). He couldn't obey even the most simplest of instructions: no divorced man can be a pastor/elder/bishop, and continued insubordinately in that position of disobedience for the remainder of his life, demonstrating his utter disregard for Biblical obedience to the Triune God and lack of love for the Lord Jesus Christ:

"Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me." (Jn 14:23-24)

"If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha." (1 Cor 16:22)

C. I. Scofield did not actually love the Lord Jesus Christ, regardless of all the things he jotted down in a Reference Bible.

During the early 1880's, even during his first year of the pastorate in Dallas, Scofield began styling himself as Rev. C. I. Scofield, D.D.; but there are no extant records of any academic institution or other reports having conferred upon him either an earned or an honorary Doctor of Divinity (D.D.) degree. He was lying, to exalt himself in his new profession, which is an abomination to God, and Scripture makes crystal clear in no uncertain terms that all liars shall have their part in the lake of fire that burns with fire and brimstone:

"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. . . . And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life." (Rev 21:8, 27)

Was C.I. Scofield genuinely converted? Facts appear to point otherwise. We have demonstrated he was an ongoing liar right out of his "new" starting blocks, and that he did not love the Lord Jesus Christ illustrated by his blatant disobedience to the Word of God in some very important areas, living in adultery, abandoning his own family, and so forth, all after his so-called "conversion." Yes he ceased his alcoholism, but man outside of the new birth by mere reformation and sheer willpower, with strong wilful endeavour, is capable of overcoming alcoholism, which this author has witnessed on multiple occasions. The details surrounding his sudden alleged profession of faith are hazy at best, and that which he appears to have repeated later on, as dubious and unscriptural, certainly not what the Bible describes as the new birth.

Scofield's behind-the-scenes handlers saw to it that his swindles and schemes were swept under the rug and only a positive image of him was promoted, especially an exaggeration of his Biblical knowledge and wisdom. This is how many men continue operating today, hiding his grievous errors and sins and the fact he was very possibly an unregenerate man. The 33rd degree freemason George Bannerman Dealey, owner of the Dallas Morning News and member of Scofield’s church in Dallas, contributed greatly to that cause. But occasionally, newspapers who weren’t loyal to Scofield and his cause would put out damaging information on him. Here is an excerpt from the report, “CYRUS I. SCHOFIELD IN THE ROLE OF A CONGREGATIONAL MINISTER,” two years after his alleged conversion, appeared in the Topeka newspaper, The Daily Capital, dated Aug 27, 1881, which, from our knowledge, has never been challenged:

“Cyrus I. Schofield, formerly of Kansas, late lawyer, politician and shyster generally, has come to the surface again, and promises once more to gather around himself that halo of notoriety that has made him so prominent in the past. The last personal knowledge that Kansans have had of this peer among scalawags, was when about four years ago, after a series of forgeries and confidence games he left the state and a destitute family and took refuge in Canada. For a time he kept undercover, nothing being heard of him until within the past two years when he turned up in St. Louis, where he had a wealthy widowed sister living who has generally come to the front and squared up Cyrus’ little follies and foibles by paying good round sums of money. Within the past year, however, Cyrus committed a series of St. Louis forgeries that could not be settled so easily, and the erratic young gentleman was compelled to linger in the St. Louis jail for a period of six months."

"Among the many malicious acts that characterized his career, was one peculiarly atrocious, that has come under our personal notice. Shortly after he left Kansas, leaving his wife and two children dependent upon the bounty of his wife’s mother, he wrote his wife that he could invest some $1,300 of her mother’s money, all she had, in a manner that would return big interest. After some correspondence he forwarded them a mortgage, signed and executed by one, Chas. Best, purporting to convey valuable property in St. Louis. Upon this, the money was sent to him. Afterwards the mortgages were found to be base forgeries, no such person as Charles Best being in existence, and the property conveyed in the mortgage fictitious…”

Though some of the accusations levelled at Scofield in this news report occurred in the year 1879 or before, thus prior to his profession of faith, according to this article he was nevertheless responsible for ongoing forgeries in the year prior to this publication, which would have been in 1880, post-"conversion." Scofield's thievery of his own mother-in-law of her life savings, $1,300, occurred one year after his conversion. Unbelievable. Yet, he was apparently a "born again" man. The unimpressed authors clearly knew of his new role as a "congregational minister," as the title relates, and implicate him as an ongoing “shyster generally.”

True conversion would have undoubtedly resulted in Scofield making things right with the wife of his youth, the wife of his covenant made by the hands of God (Gen 2:24; Mal 2:10-17; Mk 10:2-12; 1 Cor 7:10-11, 39; Rom 7:1-3; etc), which is unbreakable besides death (Mal 2:10-17; Mk 10:2-12; Matt 19:3-9; Lk 16:18; 1 Cor 7:10-11, 39; Rom 7:1-3), not continuing to abandon her, his children, and continuing to defraud people, like stealing from her mother. Had Scofield been truly a new creature in Christ Jesus (2 Cor 5:17) dramatically regenerated by the Spirit of God (Ti 3:3-7), one permanently translated from the domain of Satan's darkness to the kingdom of light and God's dear Son (Col 1:12-14), he surely would've acknowledged the abomination of lying, and the wickedness of divorce and remarriage, unlike king Herod at the preaching of John the Baptist (Mk 6:17-20) but like the Samaritan woman at the well (Jn 4:15-19, 29), and there would've been a dramatic and unselfish rejuvenation of a broken marriage and home through contrite repentance, one that had been broken by sin, evil and selfishness, but now healed by God's redemptive work and blessing and forgiveness. This is what true salvation actually does, and not the kind we see with CI Scofield. But he wasn't interested. He excused it by claiming Leontine’s “temper and her religious zeal in the Catholic church was such that he could not possibly live with her.” (“Cyrus I. Schofield in the Role of a Congregational Minister.”) He then justified his divorce on the back of 2 Cor 6:14, "be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers." To bad, Mr. Scallawag. You sleep in the bed you have made. God made a covenant between him and his wife, and only death can break it (Rom 7:1-3; 1 Cor 7:10-11, 39; Mk 10:2-9; etc). 2 Cor 6:14 does not apply to his situation, because the covenant marriage is binding and unbreakable only by death. 2 Cor 6:14 applies proactively, not retroactively, concerning marriage. In the event salvation occurs during an unregenerate matrimony, then 1 Cor 7:12-16 comes into effect, which is Paul's advice, and not the Lords (v. 12). The only option outside of ongoing marriage relations in this case is separation, NOT divorce, which is adultery. "Let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband:" (v. 11) are the two options, NOT divorce, and certainly not remarriage, which is the very act of adultery, and ongoing until the ungodly and unBiblical relationship is ceased. Not only did Scofield not reflect the fruit of salvation concerning his marriage, the greatest of all earthly covenants, it took four more years before the adulterous act of divorce to be finalized, so the process and destruction (cf. Mal 2:10-17) was never ceased, nor any attempt whatsoever at repair, though there was plenty of time and opportunity. By principle, Scofield is of the ones being addressed in Mal 2:10-17, proclaiming by his actions the words of ungodly men who weary God:

"Ye have wearied the LORD with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied him? When ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and he delighteth in them; or, Where is the God of judgment?"

He courted another woman before his divorce (on the grounds of desertion, but it was Scofield who abandoned his wife) was even finalized, though such trivial matters make no difference — its adultery whether it was finalized or not. Once the divorce was consummated, in 1884, he immediately remarried within three months, which is adultery, plain and simple, while his covenantal wife is yet alive (1 Cor 7:10-11, 39; Rom 7:1-3). He committed adultery, ongoing adultery, both against his wife of his covenantal marriage, and the woman in the adulterous relationship.

" And [Jesus] saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery." (Mk 10:11-12)

"And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. . . . The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord." (1 Cor 7:10-11, 39)

"Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man." (Rom 7:1-3)

Adultery, like any other sin, doesn't cease because we mutter some words of regret, but rather when the sin is confessed and forsaken (Pr 28:13). For adultery to be forgiven, there is a complete expectation of leaving the adulterous relationship, which is after all what constitutes it as adultery when remarriage has occurred. But Scofield didn't, but continued on, even starting an adulterous relationship after his so-called "conversion," which continued for the remainder of his adult life, after his so-called profession of faith.

What does God say about adulterers?

"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." (Gal 5:19-21)

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Cor 6:9-11)

Adultery was the fruit of Scofields life. Some in Paul's audience were once adulterers, but God washed, sanctified and justified them in the name of His Son and by His Spirit, so they were no more adulterers. That means they stopped any behaviour that was adulterous, which is divorce and remarriage. This is what adultery pertains to. Extramarital sexual relations. Unfaithfulness and infidelity against a living spouse, whether a "legal marriage" agreement has been created by two humans of the opposite sex, or not. Adulterous relationships were stopped by the Corinthians as they were converted to Christ. This is so ridiculously easy, it's an utter shame that one even needs to go into any sort of detail. But such is the state of apostate "Christianity" today. When a man has sexual relations with a woman that is not his covenantal wife (Gen 2:24; Mal 2:10-16), he is committing adultery. And vice versa. If there is a remarriage, they are committing adultery, perpetually (Matt 19:2-9; Mk 10:2-12; Lk 16:18; 1 Cor 7:10-11, 39). Period. Only compromisers will argue against this, denying the perspicuously plain words of the Bible.

Furthermore, CI Scofield abandoned his wife and children and refused to support them, even pretending his wife didn't exist. 1 Tim 5:8 further condemns him as an unregenerate fake, even worse than the infidel:

“But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.”  

CI Scofield was an immoral and ungodly man considering his adulterous relationship on its own, which he never ceased, but in fact consummated after his so-called conversion, the very opposite behaviour of a true born again believer. The abandonment of his children and wife is a sin that even unregenerate sinners abhor, and makes him worse than them, again ongoing from his so-called conversion. Unbelievably, the adulterous divorcee hypocrite had the gall to claim that the rising worldly problems of divorce and crime in Dallas could only be answered by salvation (“Round about Town,” Dallas Morning News, 18 July 1897). While this is true, ironically it didn't work for him, and that of course was because he was a blind guide, a whited-sepulchre, a ravening hypocrite (Matt 23) that was living in adultery post divorce and remarriage, and had abandoned his own family for his new profession that was based upon an empty confession. To Scofield we would say the following (a text of Scripture directed towards the Jewish religious apparatus, v. 17, but in principle applicable to all false religious people):

"Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? . . . Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? . . . Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written." (Rom 2:21-24)

According to Scripture, he was thus an unconverted hypocrite. Does this mean he was wrong on dispensationalism? No, not necessarily. Unconverted false teachers can be right in some areas of doctrine, but unsound doctrine and continual corruption of Scripture or living immoral and hypocritical lives, or a combination of these things, points to an unregenerate/carnal nature.

Scofield was an Unqualified "Pastor"

C. I. Scofield, who was divorced in 1883 (a process that began in 1879), remarried three months later, and was ordained as the pastor in a Congregational church the same year. Wow. So much for obeying the Word of God, for either Scofield or the local church.

1 Tim. 3:2-4 however qualifies,

"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)”  

Scofield held the position of pastor unbiblically, having been divorced and remarried at least 2 times. That means he had more than "one wife." He also didn't "rule well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; " The divorce occurred after his "conversion," which makes it so much worse, but since marriage is honourable in all (Heb 13:4), divorce and remarriage is adultery in any case. The bed is defiled, and God will judge them (Heb 13:4).

Below is a typewritten copy of the Scofield divorce decree filed by the court in Atchison County, Kansas. His divorce was finalized at least four years after he became "born again."

Here is what the Scofield divorce decree states:

Journal M, November Term,  A.D. 1883  8th day of December 1883

Leontine Scofield Plaintiff

Vs

C. I. Scofield Defendant

  Now comes the plaintiff by her attorneys Tomlinson and

Griffin and the defendant enters for appearance and files

answer and makes no further appearance.

And thereupon this cause came on for hearing upon

the pleadings and testimony and was argued by counsel

upon consideration whereof the Court does find that the

defendant has been guilty of wilfull abandonment of the

plaintiff for more than one year prior to the commencement

of this action.

           It is therefore adjudged and decreed by the Court

here that the marriage relation heretofore existing between

the said parties be and the same is hereby set aside and

wholly annulled and the parties wholly released from the

obligations of the same.

           It is further ordered and decreed that the custody

nurture education and care of the said minor children

Abigal Scofield and Helen Scofield be and the same is

hereby given to the said plaintiff and the said defendant

is hereby forever enjoined from interfering with or disturbing

the said plaintiff in the custody care nurture and education

of the said above named children until the further order of this

Court.

When Leontine originally filed for divorce in July 1881, she argued the following reasons:

“ [he had] . . . absented himself from his said wife and children, and had not been with them but abandoned them with the intention of not returning to them again . . . has been guilty of gross neglect of duty and has 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, or in any manner performed his duty in the support of said family although he was able to do so.” (Quoted from papers in case No. 2161, supplied by the Atchison County Court – reproduced by Joseph Canfield, The Incredible Scofield And His Book, p. 89)

Again, this proves Scofield to not only be an unqualified "pastor," but further, a false "believer" that is worse than an infidel:

“But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.”  (1 Tim 5:8)

Consider again for a moment the gravity of the courts findings -- Scofield was so not fit to look after his own children; he couldn't even have access to them (which makes one wonder as to what else occurred, and shovelled under the rug). Yet what does Scripture further say about pastoral qualifications concerning the home (beside the obvious ones already in transgression). The pastor or bishop is to be:

"One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;" (1 Tim 3:4)

Not only did Scofield not rule his own house well, not only were his children not in subjection to him, but the very opposite was in fact true: he lost his home completely, his wife and children rejected him and the law of the land claimed him to be so incompetent, he wasn't even allowed access to them! It is obvious that Scofield the scallawag and shyster only ever married Leontine for money and power (she came from a fairly well-to-do and influential family), but when that wasn't really working in his favour, he discarded her like used trash. Though Scofield's friends and colleagues have tried to hide the fact that he was married twice, and Scofield has pretended his first wife didn't exist (after he became famous), and further, he lied about his divorce to people including the churches he "pastored," he was severely unqualified to be a pastor for many reasons, a blatant disobeyer and disregarder of the Word of God. The Scriptures really didn't dictate the affairs of Scofield after his alleged "conversion" — they were simply a means to an end, a new profession that his flesh lusted after since his old profession was tarnished and disgraced forever. Time for new "beginnings" but that is not exactly how it works in Biblical Christianity when you already have a wife and family.

Matt 7:20 is so applicable,

"Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

And his fruit was corrupt. A corrupt tree bearing corrupt fruit and eternal hell fire is the end:

"A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire." (Matt 7:18-19)

He was a corrupt tree bearing corrupt fruit because his true nature was that of a false teacher, a ravening wolf in sheep's clothing:

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." (Matt 7:15)

Scofield's Errors and Heresies in the Scofield Reference Bible

C.I. Scofield began working on his Reference Bible in 1903, which was financed by some very interesting characters, the financial security what the shyster Scofield had been looking for as he entered his new profession (on top of his demands immediately to be paid as a pastor years prior to this, something that was not very common in those days). The list includes Lyman Stewart (President of the Union Oil Co. of California); Francis E. Fitch (member of the Plymouth Brethren, which are very rich in certain countries such as Australia, and the head of a printing company which printed the NY Stock Exchange lists); Alwyn Ball, Jr. (real estate broker and member of the large New York real estate firm of Southack and Ball); John B. Buss (St. Louis businessman); and John T. Pirie (owner and New York representative of Carson, Pirie, Scott & Co., the large Chicago department store). John T. Pirie and Alwyn Ball, Jr., were the main contributors according to Scofield. It is reported that Pirie owned a large estate at Sea Cliff on the north shore of Long Island, and it was there, in the summer of 1902, that the decision was made to proceed with the Reference Bible. After securing financial support, Scofield set aside his "pastoral office" and spent most of his time on the project. The lucrative deal on his hands provided more than enough finances to even travel, and he did so extensively. As he wrote his reference notes, Scofield lived a very transient and luxurious lifestyle. According to William A. BeVier:

“During the years he spent writing the Reference Bible, Scofield resided in a number of places. He first moved from East Northfield, Mass. back to Dallas, the scene of his first ministry, but in 1904 he decided to visit England and Montreux, Switzerland, where he remained for nine months. He returned to Dallas in 1905, but in 1906 we find him first in New York City and then in Ashuelot, New Hampshire, continuing the work. In the fall of 1906 he again left for Europe, remaining until the following summer. During his two trips abroad he lectured throughout the British Isles, as well as before English speaking audiences in Rome, Paris, and Berlin. He visited Palestine and studied in libraries at Oxford and in Geneva; Switzerland. In the summer of 1907 he was writing in Orion, Michigan. By the fall of 1908 he was living at 21 Fort Washington Ave., New York City.” (“A Biographical Sketch of C. I. Scofield” — A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Southern Methodist University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master of Arts with a Major in History — 1960, pp. 72-81).

The Scofield Reference Bible seriously lacks doctrinal content and advances doctrinal error and heresies, including damnable heresies. Here are some items of particular concern in the Scofield Reference Bible, and in Scofield's doctrine and practice.

1. Concerning the Gospel. Scofield taught a perverted gospel. He claimed OT saints under the dispensation of the law were saved by works, which is connected to his rejection of repentance (its a work according to Scofield, which is also a lie).

Could we argue the same fallacy as C.I. Scofield that OT saints were saved by works? One would if one believed that the true definition of repentance, which is a turning from sin and from evil to God (Is. 55:6-7; Ezk. 18:30-32; 33; Pr. 1:23; Ru. 1:16-17; etc.) is a work and that this alone saves one.

His issue with repentance alone is worthy of the charge of false teacher. Scofield writes in The Scofield Reference Bible:

"Repentance is the translation of a Greek word (metanoia) meaning, "to have another mind," "to change the mind," and is used in the N.T. to indicate a change of mind in respect of sin, of God, and of self. This change of mind may, especially in the case of Christians who have fallen into sin, be preceded by sorrow (2 Cor. 7:8-11), but sorrow for sin, though it may "work" repentance, is not repentance. The son in Mt. 21:28, 29 illustrates true repentance. Saving faith (Heb. 11:39, note) includes and implies that change of mind which is called repentance." (Scofield note on Ac 17:30).

Repentance is not a mere change of mind. Not even close. Neither is there only one Greek word that translates repentance in the NT. Repentance at its most basic definition, concerning man, is a change of mind and will that leads to a change of action and produces a change of life. Every single example of repentance in the Bible bears forth this most basic definition. As we go deeper, repentance is even more than this. There are four Greek words that are translated into repent (and suffixes) or the principle of repentance. Repentance is not just a change of mind or synonymous with faith (as Scofield also claimed in his repentance notes), but a change of the mind and will of man that results in a change of action, which is turning to God in sorrow from sin, from self, from stuff, from people, which produces true Biblical conversion, the new birth, and always a changed life permanently.

When the Lord Jesus spoke of repentance of the lost, he spoke of the kind of change of mind and heart and will that brings a change of action and life that took place at Nineveh (Matt 12:41; Lk 11:32), and that crucially included turning from all our sin, from our evil ways which are very sinful ways, noted by the Ninevites who “believed God . . . and . . . turn[ed] every one from his evil way,” where “their works” were fruitful evidence (cf. Ac 26:20), that they had “turned” from sin, from their “evil ways.” Jesus said this is true repentance and its the example that all will be judged by.

Thus, when Jesus spoke of repentance such as in Lk 13, "I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish", He was speaking of the same sort of repentance as the Ninevites demonstrated (Matt 12:41; Lk 11:32). Its also noted in the book of Jeremiah repeatedly, who called on the Israelites to, “Turn ye again now every one from his evil way, and from the evil of your doings,” (Jer 18:11; 25:5; 36:7). This is repentance of sin for salvation, because those in the "evil way" are obviously unsaved.

Repentance is a critical element of the gospel of Christ (Mk 1; Ac 20:24, 21), the very foundation of salvation (Matt 4:17; Mk 6:12; Lk 24:44-48), and it encompasses the three faculties of man: the intellect, the emotions, and the volition (will), and its by these three elements that repentance is expressed in the NT through three different Greek words. This is very clear in scripture and really basic to the doctrine of repentance. Anyone that has a true and genuine desire to understand repentance will examine the doctrine at this level, to develop the full definition and illustration of the doctrine in Scripture, as illustrated below:

1. The Intellect. This is expressed in scripture through the Greek word “Metanoia,” which is used in number of scripture, such as Lk 11:32; 15:7, 10, and defined as a reversal of your thinking, your mental attitude. “Anonia” essentially refers to the mind. You change your mind, so one of the facilities repentance deals with is the mind. You have to change your mind about yourself, how you view yourself, the way you really are, the way Scripture says the way you are, how God says you are, to see yourself as a fallen, corrupt, and wicked sinner from the cranium to the feet. You acknowledge that you are a guilty filthy, wicked sinner under the wrath of God, and hell-bound.

2. The Emotions. This is expressed in scripture through the Greek word “Metamellomai,” another Greek word used for repentance seen in passages such as Matt 21:28-32, and it emphasizes regret and sorrow, the emotional faculty of man. Once the mind and heart grasps the new definition of who I am, there is a consequential emotion that goes from the mind to the feelings, and there is godly sorrow (2 Cor 7:10) and shame. This aligns perfectly with what Jesus said in the beginning of the sermon on the mount, “blessed are the poor in spirit,” so you understand who you are, you are spiritually poor, spiritually bankrupt, you have nothing, so what do you do? You actually are sad then, “Blessed are they which mourn, for they shall be comforted.” So you see your condition, you see your spiritual poverty and you mourn over your lost and unrighteous condition.

3. The Will (Volition). This is expressed in scripture through the Greek word “Epistrepho,” found in places such as Lk 17:4; 22:32, and means you change or turn directions in your life, referring to your will, your volition. Repentance starts in your mind, moves to your emotions and activates your will. It has to start in the mind, as you understand the truth, you know what it says. 2 Tim 3, “from a child thou has known the holy scriptures.” So you have to know it, understand it first, and actually love it, “receive . . . the love of the truth, that they might be saved” (2 Th 2:10), before it can get down to the emotional and volitional levels. It’s a self-assessment that matches up with what God’s Word says about you. You want to go away from yourself, and go after Him, “come after me” (Mk 8:34), thats the turning of repentance, turning from your ways, your sins, your idols and your loves, to God. This is the volition, and it starts with a self assessment that is dramatically different than anything you have ever viewed yourself. You have to hate yourself to the degree that you would literally die if needs be, deny self, and take up the cross, a symbol of death.

Eliminating either one of these three faculties results in a false repentance that won't save.

Repentance is certainly not just a change of mind, discussed in further detail here: Repentance is Not Just a Change of Mind. The "change of mind only" repentance is a faith of intellectual assent only, which is a false gospel (Gal 1:6-9; 2 Cor 11:4), a “repentance” that is shared with the devils (Jam 2:19).

Scofield’s "repentance" concludes as a mere intellectual “repentance,” one of mental assent and foreign to Gods Word, except maybe in another word, not a word for repentance, but a purely intellectual change of mind, which is the Greek "metaballo" found once in Scripture, Ac 28:6 and translated as "changed their minds.” Metaballo is confined purely to the intellect, no action, and nothing of the will of man or his emotions — all of which are faculties of man involved in true saving repentance— and is in fact reflective of the devils “faith” (Jam 2:19). This means he is preaching a false and perverted gospel (Gal 1:6-7), which then further means he is an accursed false teacher (Gal 1:8-9) and false brother (Gal 2:4-5).

Like many, many false teachers, Scofield perverted the gospel mainly in his beliefs about repentance and who Christ is, denying Christ's Lordship. In support of this, he also twisted numbers of salvation passages, turning those biblical texts that teach the gospel into something post-salvation, Christian living, or practical sanctification. Scofield contributed to the poisonous elixir of the false gospel of easy believism that almost completely dominates contemporary Christendom. Thanks in large part to Scofield, the false salvation that has made many millions two-fold children of hell (and then the false Keswick sanctification, that keeps them in their deluded estate) is found everywhere in churches today.

2. Concerning Creation and Evolution. Scofield believed in and taught theistic evolution. Scofield supported the “gap theory” and taught it in his notes, claiming there is a gap between the first and second verses of Genesis 1. Also called the "ruin-reconstruction theory," this false philosophy purports that an earlier creation existed that was judged by God, and within this earlier creation they place Satan’s fall, dinosaurs and so-called “cave men.” Supporters of the this unscriptural theory claim that the “darkness” in Gen. 1:2 is symbolic of evil. This is not always the case, though, as seen in Ps. 104: “Thou makest darkness, and it is night, wherein all the beasts of the forest do creep forth...” (vv. 20, 24). The darkness of Gen 1:2 refers to simple darkness, and not evil or sin. Scofield should have believed God rather than ungodly, atheistic "scientists," or attempted to appease the Christ-rejecting world of evolutionists. The gap theory was first proposed about two centuries ago by Rev. Thomas Chalmers as a response to the growing popularity of long evolutionary ages. It was widely spread among Christians in the notes that first appeared in the Scofield Reference Bible. It is widely accepted that Scofield was instrumental for spreading this view through his commentary in his old and new reference notes. For instance, in the old edition of the Scofield Reference Bible, the gap theory is connected with Genesis 1 (p. 3, notes 2, 3) stating,

“Clearly indicate that the earth had undergone a cataclysmic change as the result of divine judgment. The face of the earth bears everywhere the marks of such a catastrophe. There are not wanting imitations which connect it with a previous testing and fall of angels.” 

Clearly, this doctrine fits nicely with an evolutionist worldview, in particular, pertaining to the age of the earth. For years it was taught that the world was only thousands of years old, which it is, right around 6,000 years. However, since the early 1800’s, with this gap teaching, compounded with Darwin's wicked evolutionism in the late 1800's, there is room for the world to be billions of years old. On its own the gap theory/evolution is an ungodly and heretical false teaching, but it leads to greater dangers and apostasy such as worldly philosophies, and ultimately to pantheism, panentheism and atheism.

The gap theory, however, does not satisfy evolutionists; neither does the Hebrew of Genesis support it. Most importantly, the Bible teaches us that death first came into the world when humans began to sin. The Bible repeats many times that sin and death began with the first Adam and not before. This is such an important point that the Bible links the beginning of sin and death with the first Adam (Rom 5) and the victory over sin and death with Jesus Christ, spoken of as the Second Adam (Rom 5).

3. Concerning Scripture and Textual Criticism. As for Scofield’s doctrine and position on the text and authority of Scripture, the Old Scofield Reference Bible, though based on the KJV, contains marginal notes supporting the modern critical text. The New Scofield, even worse than the Old, places its “better renderings” into the text itself thus modifying the KJV. Right from its inception, the Scofield Bible was committed to the Critical Greek Text and its byproduct the Revised Version (RV), which were the product of deeply corrupted manuscripts born in Alexandria, Egypt, since Scofield was heavily influenced by and in fact promoted the known occultists and Oxford Bible scholars, B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, and their text (often subtly as noted in his notes), which only led to confusion concerning his alleged KJV/Textus Receptus position. One of Scofield's first suspicious moves in his world meanderings while producing his Reference Bible was to take an unnecessary trip to the British Isles for research, where he immediately sought out the controversial occult scholars Westcott and Hort in London. On page two of the introduction to the first edition published in 1909, Scofield acknowledged that he had been influenced by Westcott and Hort. Its also been reported that he preferred Westcott and Hort’s Revised Version (RV) over the KJV, but used the KJV, because it was more popular and hence, more lucrative, since after all, he was a man lusting after filthy lucre. This resulted in many critical differences that were characterized in his notes.

For instance, the note at Ac 8:37 says, “The best authorities omit v. 37.” That is a diabolical blatant lie, seeing that the Textus Receptus is based upon by far majority (>5,000) and best manuscripts (source). The 1 Jn 5:7 note says, “It is generally agreed that v. 7 has no real authority, and has been inserted.” Wow, patently and blasphemously evil. 1 Jn 5:7 is probably the clearest and plainest passage in Scripture on the Triune Nature of God, the Trinity, which reads: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." But Satan of course hates this wonderful testimony of God's Being, so he corrupts it through his ministers (2 Cor 11:12-15), which in this case is CI Scofield. Another example among many, Ac 19:2a, which says, "He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?" Scofield says, "Not as in A.V., "since ye believed," but as in R.V., and marg.: "Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye believed?""

The tampering that Scofield did, though "minor" in comparison to the blasphemous modern Bible perversions, is yet in similitude to that serpent questioning “yea hath God said?” to our first parents. Scofield took after his father by placing doubt on the Word of God and offering a shameful substitution. From the beginning, to the middle, and to the end of the Bible God has warned against tampering with His words in His Word:

De 4:2, 

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."

Pr 30:5-6,

"Every word of God is pure he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."

Rev 22:18-19,

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book,  if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of  life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

4. Concerning Keswick Theology. Scofield was a frequent speaker at American Keswick Conventions, including Niagara Falls Bible Conference. Although the Keswick Convention is a far cry from what it used to be, there are still strong influences today that promote Keswick sanctification. Scofield popularized and essentially canonized Keswick heretical teachings in his Reference Bible, which is a very, very popular form of false sanctification, with majority of Bible schools and churches teaching this false sanctification, even if not known by its labels (i.e., Keswick theology/ revivalism/ higher life/ deeper life/ crucified life/ victorious life/ etc). For instance, Scofield corrupted and wrested Rom 7 and 8 into Keswick theology. In this passage Paul’s struggle was claimed by Scofield to be “the record of past conflicts and defeats experienced as a renewed man under law.” Scofield supported the Keswick heresy of a second work of the Spirit in a believer’s life. His teaching led to the idea that at the point of salvation someone received Jesus, and at some later point, Jesus became Lord (which happened when he was "dedicated” or received the “second blessing”). He would be a carnal and lukewarm or backslidden Christian up until that point, Biblical terms also bastardized by this corrupt system of theology.

Lewis Sperry Chafer was heavily influenced by Scofield and carried a modified form of Keswick-style teaching into Dallas Theological Seminary. Andrew Murray's books which are still found in abundance in Christian bookstores are full of Keswick heresies. DL Moody, who Scofield was closely associated with, was a heavy influencer of Keswick heresy. Charles Stanley, neo-evangelical heretic and false teacher of In Touch Ministries, wrote a book on sanctification entitled, “The Wonderful Spirit-Filled Life.” The book is heavily influenced by Keswick theology. He quotes Hannah Whitehall Smith (a thorough ungodly apostate and major founder of Keswick heresy) and speaks about his own experience which came one afternoon while he was reading about J. Hudson Taylor’s “second blessing” experience. These contemporary illusions to Keswick sanctification have a subtle influence on Christians today who may have never even heard of the Keswick movement. Professing Christians read these types of books that claim to provide the answer in Keswick sanctification and try to create the same crisis experience about which the author has written. But it’s unBiblical and heretical and most often associated with unregenerate professors attempting to obtain the victorious life that is only and fully obtainable through the new birth. In this way Keswick teaching is very influential today, and almost every single preacher teaches some form of Keswick theology.

Chafer and Scofield were forged together, and they both popularized the idea that someone received Jesus as Saviour at the point of salvation (justification), and then at some later point, Jesus became Lord (was "dedicated" or surrendered). He popularized Keswick. The believer was said to be a carnal Christian up until that point. This of course all goes hand in hand with so much other Keswick heresies and all points towards a perversion of repentance and the changed life that comes with true repentance and salvation. For further reading, see: A Warning on Keswick Theology and Why It‘s So Dangerous, in a Nutshell.

5. Concerning Angels. According to Scofield, "angels" were to come in "human form," giving credence to William Branham and other post-WWII Healing revivalists who claimed to have been visited by "angels."

6. Concerning Ecclesiology. Scofield taught and advanced errors on the church, including the egregious "universal church" theory. This is where men such as David Cloud adopt their position, since he absolutely adores the Scofield Reference Bible, and takes it with him everywhere he goes (his own words). The influence of the Scofield Reference Bible on this heresy cannot be overstated. Scores of people, including Cloud and Arthur W. Pink have or had been influenced into this egregious doctrine. Consider the testimony of A. W. Pink concerning this matter in the article, “Does First Corinthians 12 Mean the Universal Church or a Local New Testament Church,” where he relates how he was corrupted in his position on the "universal church" through the specific clause of 1 Cor 12:13 thanks to the Scofield Bible, and eventually moved to the correct local-only ecclesiological view:

“For almost ten years after his regeneration the writer [Arthur Pink] never doubted that the ‘body’ spoken of in 1 Corinthians 12 had reference to ‘the Church Universal.’ This was taught him by those known as ‘Plymouth Brethren,’ which is found in the notes of the Scofield Reference Bible, and is widely accepted by evangelicals and prophetic students. Not until God brought him among Southern Baptists (a high privilege for which he will ever be deeply thankful) did he first hear the above view challenged. But it was difficult for him to weigh impartially an exposition which meant the refutation of a teaching received from men highly respected, to say nothing of confessing he had held an altogether erroneous concept so long, and had allowed himself to read 1 Corinthians 12 (and similar passages) through other men’s spectacles. However, of late, the writer has been led to make a prayerful and independent study of the subject for himself, with the result that he is obliged to renounce his former view as utterly untenable and unscriptural.” (source). 

This heresy and virus of the "universal church" was further dispersed to the churches and Christendom through The Fundamentals, a set of ninety essays published between 1910 and 1915 on alleged "fundamentals" of the faith, of which at least one was authored by C. I. Scofield. Anglican Bishop John Charles Ryle wrote the essay called the “True Church,” which he referred to as the so-called universal church. Of course he supported his theory with zero scripture, because he couldn't. No Scripture can be found to support this position. Unbelievably, this Ryle heretic claimed that your local church is not the “true church.” Referring to their committee Ryle also stated, “Its members are entirely agreed on all the weightier matters of religion, for they are all taught by one Spirit.” No, they were certainly not taught by the Spirit of God, but were indeed equally heretical in their position, which extended much beyond the "universal church."

There is no such thing as a "universal church," which we expose in the report Is the Church Local, or Universal, or Both? Part 1, and Does the Bible Teach the Church is Universal? Part 2, and The Destructive Damage of the “Universal Church” Doctrine, among others.

Scofield also taught a form of hyper-dispensationalism of the Laodecean church in the book of Revelation. Scofield called this time period, “the Laodecean Age”. This doctrine was made popular in fundamentalist evangelical circles at that time and is still widely taught even until this day. Many fundamental pastors speak unequivocally of this Laodecean Age in which a lukewarm apostate church will arise and grow. Have you ever asked yourself where this teaching comes from? This is classic Scofield doctrine on the seven churches. The fact is: the church has been falling away since Jesus day. Paul even preached warnings against it to the churches in his day. Yes, the churches are becoming lukewarm today but, the scriptures reveal all seven churches of Revelation are represented from Jesus time until today.

7. Concerning Specific Scripture.

He was wrong concerning 2 Th 2:2, where he states: “The theme of Second Thessalonians is, unfortunately, obscured by a mistranslation of the A.V...” referring to a translation of, “the day of Christ” where he says, “the day of the Lord” should be. The underlying Greek word in 2 Th 2:2 is "Christos" (Christ), not "kurios" (Lord), so the KJV translators were exactly right in their translation.

How About Scofield's Dispensationalism?

As dispensationalists ourselves we fully agree with Scofield's premillennialism, the 1,000 year millennial reign of Christ as King post-tribulation, and the sharp distinction between Israel and the Church. The biblical prophecies regarding Israel as separate from the Church are precisely true, as is a literal future restoration of the nation of Israel during the end times, which will take place during the 70th week of Daniel, the Great Tribulation. We agree with Scofield's position on Israel,

"The man or nation that lifts a voice or hand against Israel invites the wrath of God. . . . For a nation to commit the sin of anti-Semitism brings inevitable judgement.”

Scofield's commentary of Gen 12:1-3 ("And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee:" v. 3a) is as follows, which we agree with:

“‘I will bless them that bless thee.’ In fulfillment closely related to the next clause, ‘And curse him that curseth thee.’ Wonderfully fulfilled in the history of the dispersion. It has invariably fared ill with the people who have persecuted the Jew—well with those who have protected him. The future will still more remarkably prove this principle.”

This is absolutely correct, and history has shown us consistently, repeatedly, and clearly this principle, and what Scripture warns us about beyond Gen 12:1-3. To those who dare touch Israel, the Lord says: "for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye." (Ze 2:8). Many a people and nation has discovered this, especially the most rabid anti-semitic devils such as the Moslem peoples. Though there was certainly influence, the Scofield Reference Bible on its own did not make "Zionists of America’s Evangelical Christians" (source). The Bible does that, and all who miss it, are spiritually blind and lack Biblical regeneracy. Period.

We love Israel but also understand Israel is unregenerate and apostate and is not without criticism. We cover this subject in detail here: The Land of Israel, the Jew and the Covenants of God vs Replacement Theology (a Doctrine of Devils.

Conclusion

Many dispensationalists still consider Scofield a hero, although his particular brand of dispensationalism is not as popular today, as progressive dispensationalism is more in favour. His closely guarded reputation remains intact for the most part and the information provided here will only be useful to the truth-seekers, which represents a relatively small percentage of Christendom.

In spite of our agreement with most of Scofield's dispensationalism, one should not be using and definitely not promoting the Scofield Reference Bible for the reasons documented above, which was written by a heretic, crook (fraud), liar, and serial adulterer (divorced and remarried at least two times), all of which prove him to very likely be a counterfeit "Christian." He was an adulterer from his conversion onward, he was a liar (about his Civil War engagement, about him being a doctor of divinity), he was worse than an infidel concerning his familial responsibilities, and he taught blatant error and heresies. The pastoral office was a profession to Scofield, one that came with financial security, thats it. With the Scofield Reference Bible work, he found the financial lucrativeness that he really sought after. These things condemn him as a false believer and teacher, led by filthy lucre. As we often say here, false teachers get many things right as well; the closer to the truth a false teacher is, the more dangerous he appears in his deception and subtlety. Using a false teacher as support for unscriptural or even scriptural views is simply not wise.

This writer believes that Jer. 23:1 is an apt description of the spiritual scallawag and shyster C. I. Scofield:

“Woe be unto the shepherds that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith the LORD.”