Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2022 11:27:51 GMT -8
Further evidence of the newness and radical difference of Dispensational Premillennialism. From an article at Christianity today, " The church is in ruins," wrote John Darby, then a successful Anglican priest in Ireland. Echoing the lamentations of Protestant reformers three centuries earlier, he believed that the Church of England had lost any notion of salvation by grace and that it had forsaken biblical ideas of what church should be. For Darby it was time to start afresh with a new church and prepare for Jesus' imminent Second Coming. What resulted from Darby's departure was a new way of viewing the church and history that still pervades much of evangelical Christian thought." The article quotes Darby (infamously) saying, " It is positively stated (2 Tim. 3) that the church would fail and become as bad as heathenism," he wrote. "The Christian is directed to turn away from evil and turn to the Scriptures, and Christ (Rev. 2 and 3) is revealed as judging the state of the churches." The problem is neither 2 Timothy 3 nor Revelation 2 and 3 actually state the Church will fail. That's simply Darby's reading of those texts. He reads those passages that way in direct contradiction to Jesus' declaration the gates of hell will not prevail over the Church that Christ would build and Paul's teaching those wearing the armor of Christ extinguish all of the adversary's efforts. Darby defended his position in an article titled, " The Public Ruin of the Church". " Many dear brethren have been troubled at the expression " the ruin of the church "; now I can quite understand this, and I make no complaint about their jealousy lest it should be thought that the church could fail, because in one sense it is impossible that the church can be ruined; but there is confusion in some minds between the purposes of God, and present dispensation in which man is placed under responsibility. In speaking of the ruin of the church, we speak of it as down here, set to manifest Christ's glory in unity on the earth, and we must remember that there we are placed, and as in this responsibility, there we must stay. If it could fail spiritually it would be disastrous indeed! There are two thoughts respecting the church in ruin which are full of mischief. The thought on some brethren's minds is, that we intend by this the interruption of God's purpose, which evidently cannot be. There is a jealousy, which I respect and for which I have no regret, lest the idea of the church in ruin should seem to affect the purpose of God. As regards the purpose of God the church cannot be ruined, but as regards its actual present condition as a testimony for God on earth it is in ruin. The other thought is: Well, suppose it is in ruin, so it must be; there we are and there we must stay; so that we are saved at last, never mind; we will take no thought about the present condition of the church, being satisfied that we are saved from the wrath to come. This listlessness and hanging down of the hands, causing cessation of all spiritual energy, is induced by a want of apprehension of what the church is in God's sight. But practically many saints think they are to remain content in the ruin. There is danger in taking up such a thought, because it would be the denial of the power of God. To unbelief discouragement may be the result of this idea of the church's ruin, but I do not look at it as discouragement, because I believe the grace and power of the Lord is suited to the need of the church such as it is at all times. I should feel it to be a very sad effect if the expression " ruin of the church " were to dishearten a soul about the operation of the Spirit in bringing blessing to the church. Neither of the suppositions I have alluded to can be proved, for it is impossible that the church can be in utter ruin in the sense of upsetting God's purpose, or that the power of the Lord is enfeebled when there is actual present ruin. His working will be according to the state the church is in, not to the state she is not in. We are all liable from the feebleness of our minds to say too much or too little, even where truth is held. Man is in a sad state, and I should get disheartened unless I saw the power of Christ to meet that state...." Some of what this says we can all agree upon but the problem is Darby has conflated the unregenerate man with the regenerate man. When he says, "man is in a sad state," he can only be speaking of the unregenerate man and the unregenerate man is not the Church. Another problem is the false dichotomy between the Church as what he calls the "purpose of God," and the Church as scriptural history informs us as a group of very messy, always imperfect people, many of whom struggled with weak faith. Let me be clear: these are not simply differences of opinion or doctrine between Darby's Dispensationalism and alternative theologies (such as Reformed Theology or Pietism); these are clear contradiction with both the explicit report of scripture and the history of the Church provided in God's holy, impeccable, and inspired Word. Aside from the differences between Darby's view and scripture, these are also departures from previously held ecclesiology. The Church has always held to a need for reform. It is an inescapable and irrefutable fact of Church History. It is clearly visible in the ECFs' debates and wrestling matches with various points of view and heresies as our doctrines were formalized in the first 400 years following the NT era. It is visible in the great schism between east and west and again in the Reformation, but these are only the most visible examples. The restoration movement of the 1900s is another example. The questions we should be asking are, " Were all the changes correct?" and " Where were they correct and incorrect?" because one of the reasons reformation is needed periodically is because changes aren't always good, correct, or scriptural. This is particularly true when the efforts involve changes in long held and well-established doctrines the Church built on scripture through rigorous prayerful debate. Darby was shifting Christian theology away from Christology and soteriology to ecclesiology and eschatology and the views he asserted on both the nature of the Church and what was, in his opinion, the soon approaching end, were radical departures from previously held positions. The doctrine of the Church was fairly well-established hundreds of years before Darby, and little had changed by his time. This is not the case with eschatology. Eschatology has always been a matter of debate within the Church and it was never considered much a necessary doctrine prior to the 1800s. A survey of Christian literature, comparatively speaking, shows very little said prior to the restoration movement. It wasn't considered a matter of necessity because the territory was fairly well established into the three main camps of premillennialism, amillennialism, and post-millennialism. None of these positions held to different views of the Church. None of them held to a different view of Israel, either. None of them even considered Israel relevant!
That all changed with Darby. Darby held to a two-purpose view of creation, a completely different view of the Church that distinguished it from the qahal (the assembly) of the Old Testament and held it to be in ruins. His premillennialism not only departed from the more historical Historical Premillennialism, it departed from all previously held views of end times because he taught the Church was in ruins and because the Church was in ruins its force on the earth was gone and Jesus would soon be coming to remove the "true" Church from the earth before beginning His apocalyptic tribulational punishment. Darby was Anglican. The first quotes in that Christianity Today article were originally said in the context of the Anglican Church of Darby's day. He found community in the Brethren movement but his views were so radical that he eventually parted ways with many of his Brethren brethren, forming his own sect (against their protests) he called the " Exclusive Brethren." In other words, he started his own cult. He held himself out to be the judge of all others, starting his own sect that he considered "true." In the meantime, the Anglican Church continued, and despite its many problems has fostered some of the greatest Christian teachers, not only in modern times but also in comparison with some of Christian history's other great believers. So too has the rest of the Church survived and thrived. I can track down these stats if the reader desires, but anyone can visit Pew Research to verify this: the percentage of converts to Christ has remained constant as far back as we've been keeping such statistics (which dates back just about to the time of Darby. Numerically, the Church in western countries has decreased overall, but evangelicalism is thriving worldwide. The Church was not and is not in ruins. Darby was wrong. He was wrong theologically, and he was wrong factually, numerically, normatively, and scripturally. The Church has always been a messy place. There have always been good leaders and bad, sound teachers and false ones, and earnest sheep and poseurs. Many the worst examples in modern times come from within Dispensationalism, and they wouldn't exist were it not for the ideas Darby introduced (and others later legitimized). And throughout it all the purposes of God for the members of His Son's body remain, and they remain victorious. The huge irony of Dispensationalism is that Dispensationalism is the single greatest impediment within Protestant Christendom (some will argue the RCC is a bigger problem, but they are external to us Protestant ilk  ). Darby was evidence of his own complaint. There is a lot of good, commendable content in the writings of the Brethren leaders but I encourage any such reader to more closely examine their commentary on the nature of the Church and the end times. This is especially true of their view on the end of the world. In those days the predominantly used translation was the KJV, and the KJV sometimes translates " aion" as " world," and not " age." To the 18th and 19th century reader of the KJV there was a belief the actual world was going to end. That's not actually what scripture states. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2022 15:04:14 GMT -8
Chronologically and theologically speaking, folks like D. L. Moody precede Cyrus Scofield but Scofield is a pivotal and critical influence on the rise of Dispensationalism. Scofield was influenced by Darby and Moody, and also the 18th century pastor Isaac Watts. Scofield's influence was the Scofield Commentary Bible. Scofield was American. Darby was English and Anglican. The restoration movement was somewhat different in the US than in England and northern Europe (southern Europe remained very Catholic). Scofield fought in the US Civil War and that likely had an enormous influence because many evangelical and fundamentalist Christians during the restoration movement thought the Civil war was a harbinger of the end times. They viewed the Civil War in a similar way contemporaries view the problems in the middle east or the contest between the "super-powers" (Gog and Magog). After the Civil War it was the Spanish American War, and then the War to end all wars (WWI), and after that every war became a harbinger of the end for those of Dispensationalist persuasion. The Civil War was particularly apocalyptic for Americans because the body count and destruction were things Americans had never seen before. Brother drew sword and gun against brother and the casualty count wasn't good guys versus bad guys because they were ALL Americans. To this day the Battle of Gettysburg stands as the most lethal battle in American history because every single one of the casualties was American. More people died in three days of fighting at Gettysburg than fifteen years of fighting in Viet Nam. Twenty years of fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan are a comparative drop in the bucket. More Americans died in the US Civil War than died in WWII!
It was apocalyptic.
This is the context in which Scofield grew up. This was a societal fabric in which Dispensationalism arose.
So Scofield, growing up in what was viewed as an apocalyptic time and influenced by the apocalyptic preachers/teachers of his day, wrote a Bible in which he included his commentary. This was a time when most people still didn't own personal Bibles. America was still growing westward and there was very little institutional Church west of Ohio. This was the age of the "itinerant preacher," or "circuit preachers," the pastors who rode on horseback from town to town preaching the gospel in towns that weren't large enough to have their own church buildings or financially support their own minister. Where these men were seminary educated (many were not), they left seminary and whatever institutional oversight and accountability that was had there and the preached unsupervised. This is one of the reasons there was a sectarian explosion in the 1800s. Christians learned the scriptures from the pastors, church attendance and the creeds. Wesleyan experientialism was increasing, often exploited by the circuit riders because emotionalism is profitable. Scofield's Bible was a best-seller and it eventually put a Bible in millions of people's homes.
The problem is Scofield's Bible isn't always the Bible. One of the many problems was Scofield interpreted various texts to fit his Dispensationally-influenced views and he did not always translate uniformly. For example, using the KJV, he "translated" the word "near" or nigh" in many different ways, some of which have absolutely nothing to do with temporal of geographic proximity (or distance). Words like "suffering" replaced the word "near." Sometimes Scofield put his word in the text of scripture and noted what the original word used by scripture was in the margin. In other words, a person reading what they thought was the text of scripture was in reality using the text of Scofield, and only by reading the note in the margin would the reader ever know what were the original words of scripture!
Scofield also inserted his personal opinions as commentary up and against well-established commentary of historical Christianity. An example of this is observable in his commentary on the opening of Malachi.
Isaiah 2:2-4 NAS
2Now it will come about that in the last days, The mountain of the house of the LORD will be established as the chief of the mountains and will be raised above the hills; and all the nations will stream to it. 3 And many peoples will come and say, “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; that He may teach us concerning His ways and that we may walk in His paths.” For the law will go forth from Zion and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. 4And He will judge between the nations, and will render decisions for many peoples; and they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, and never again will they learn war.
Micah 4:1-3 NAS
And it will come about in the last days
That the mountain of the house of the LORD
Will be established as the chief of the mountains.
It will be raised above the hills,
And the peoples will stream to it.
2Many nations will come and say,
“Come and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD
And to the house of the God of Jacob,
That He may teach us about His ways
And that we may walk in His paths.”
For from Zion will go forth the law,
Even the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
3And He will judge between many peoples
And render decisions for mighty, distant nations.
Then they will hammer their swords into plowshares
And their spears into pruning hooks;
Nation will not lift up sword against nation,
And never again will they train for war.
That is what the text of Isaiah 2 and Malachi 4 state. Here's what Scofield said about these two texts...
"Micah 4:1-3 and Isa. 2:2-4 are practically identical. The Spirit of God gave both prophets the same revelation because of its surpassing importance. It is impossible to prove that either prophet was quoting the other."
Is this true? Is it correct? Isaiah lived about the same time as Micah. They lived and prophesied in completely different eras, addressing similar but also different problems in Jewish history. It is quite possible the Spirit of God gave both prophets the same words to speak. Why is this germane to the reading of Malachi? What would prompt Scofield to think this was even relevant to the reading of Malachi AND since he recognizes the two are "practically identical," why does he feel the need to comment about the source and why isn't he treating the text as evidence of..... continuity. The more glaring problem is that the two texts aren't wholly identical, and some of its differences are what is significant. More importantly, Scofield completely ignored what the New Testament states about these two texts! Both are referenced by the apostles in many places in the New Testament. The newer revelation informs our reading of both passages and Scofield ignored it all. I will suggest one of the reasons, if not the only reason, Scofield did this is because his Dispensational influences taught him discontinuity, not continuity, and they taught him a separation existed and not an overlap, and because Israel and the Church are two completely different entities (according to Dispensationalism) with two completely purposes the places where the New Testament uses the Old Testament have nothing to do with continuity, a single group of Giod's people, or a single purpose of God. It is a radically different set of positions.
Yet hundreds of thousands of Christians read their Scofield Bible believing this was true scripture and true, accurate and objective commentary on scripture when it is clearly not. What the reader learned was Scofieldism, not Christianity. The reader learned Dispensationalism, not mainstream, orthodox Christian doctrine and he learned in willfully veiled form because Scofield could have (and should have) stuck with mainstream orthodoxy.
Here's a comparison for you all to think about: The Jehovah's Witnesses have their own Bible. They published a translation called the New World Translation (NWT). The Jehovah Witnesses writings don't always come with any indication it is a Jehovah Witness source. Thier documents usually identify themselves as "Watch Tower" material. It's an inherently deceptive practice. More germane to this analogy is the reality if an otherwise sincere and earnest true convert to Christ did not know any better and all he had to read was the NWT s/he would walk away from the reading of his "Bible" having a completely different understanding of God, Jesus, and scripture than anything remotely related to mainstream, orthodox Christianity. For one, that reader would know and believe Jesus was not God; he was just an otherwise ordinary man who'd been specially blessed by God and uniquely endowed with the Holy Spirit to do what he did and teach what he taught but in no way was he Divine. That reader would have a completely different formal Theology (the nature of God), a completely different Christology (the nature of Christ), a completely different soteriology and ecclesiology. The difference in translation and comentary can create a completely different religion.
Scofield's influence was not quite as egregious. The Dispensationalists managed, in many ways, to stay within the pale of orthodoxy. At least sufficiently to find accommodation within Christianity despite the protests of many in the late 1800s and early 1900s. The Dispensationalist reader of my ops may find me unnecessarily adversarial (not my intent), but if you were to read the dissent of that day, you'd think these posts mild in comparison.
I will add other examples of Dispensationalism's newness and differences as I have time. The reader can investigate to verify this content and I encourage you all to do so. I again remind everyone something being new does not automatically make it wrong, any more than something being correct merely because it is old. Something being different isn't an automatic disqualifier of truth or orthodoxy, either. Something different crosses the boundary of falsehood when it is obviously contrary to truth, or so far removed in degree from truth that it is not wholly reconcilable with clear, explicit scripture. I will cover that terrain in my op on how Dispensationalism compromises core doctrines of lng held, well-established mainstream, orthodox, historical Christianity. Until I get around posting that op I'll add evidence of Dispensationalism's newness and radical differences so that you can know what has changed and not doubt the claim of newness and difference has some here have done.
|
|
|
|
Post by watchful on Apr 21, 2023 13:10:41 GMT -8
@josheb....may I ask, do you know of any pre-Darby/Dispensational Christian writings that speak of THIS age as being the 1000 year reign of Christ?
|
|
|
|
Post by civic on Apr 25, 2023 4:50:06 GMT -8
@josheb ....may I ask, do you know of any pre-Darby/Dispensational Christian writings that speak of THIS age as being the 1000 year reign of Christ? All dispensationaists believe in the literal 1000 year reign of Christ on earth known as the Millennial Kingdom- the Millennium. Its mentioned 5 times in 7 verses below.
Revelation 20 20 And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. 2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3 He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.
4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.
7 When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—and to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. 9 They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God’s people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. 10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
|
|
|
|
Post by Obadiah on Apr 25, 2023 5:20:07 GMT -8
@josheb ....may I ask, do you know of any pre-Darby/Dispensational Christian writings that speak of THIS age as being the 1000 year reign of Christ? All dispensationaists believe in the literal 1000 year reign of Christ on earth known as the Millennial Kingdom- the Millennium. Its mentioned 5 times in 7 verses below.
Revelation 20 20 And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. 2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3 He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.
4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.
7 When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—and to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. 9 They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God’s people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. 10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
This is a interesting topic, I think I'll study it out today. Amillennialists, like dispensational premillennialists, believe this world is progressively becoming more and more sinful, and the condition of the Church is becoming more and more apostate. Postmillennialists, unlike both amillennialists and dispensational premillennialists, believe that this world, and the condition of the Church, is progressively getting better. Kerry Trahan, A Complete Guide to Understanding the Dispensationalism Controversy |
|
|
|
Post by duncan on Apr 30, 2023 5:00:31 GMT -8
Chronologically and theologically speaking, folks like D. L. Moody precede Cyrus Scofield but Scofield is a pivotal and critical influence on the rise of Dispensationalism. Scofield was influenced by Darby and Moody, and also the 18th century pastor Isaac Watts. Scofield's influence was the Scofield Commentary Bible. Scofield was American. Darby was English and Anglican. The restoration movement was somewhat different in the US than in England and northern Europe (southern Europe remained very Catholic). Scofield fought in the US Civil War and that likely had an enormous influence because many evangelical and fundamentalist Christians during the restoration movement thought the Civil war was a harbinger of the end times. They viewed the Civil War in a similar way contemporaries view the problems in the middle east or the contest between the "super-powers" (Gog and Magog). After the Civil War it was the Spanish American War, and then the War to end all wars (WWI), and after that every war became a harbinger of the end for those of Dispensationalist persuasion. The Civil War was particularly apocalyptic for Americans because the body count and destruction were things Americans had never seen before. Brother drew sword and gun against brother and the casualty count wasn't good guys versus bad guys because they were ALL Americans. To this day the Battle of Gettysburg stands as the most lethal battle in American history because every single one of the casualties was American. More people died in three days of fighting at Gettysburg than fifteen years of fighting in Viet Nam. Twenty years of fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan are a comparative drop in the bucket. More Americans died in the US Civil War than died in WWII! It was apocalyptic. This is the context in which Scofield grew up. This was a societal fabric in which Dispensationalism arose. So Scofield, growing up in what was viewed as an apocalyptic time and influenced by the apocalyptic preachers/teachers of his day, wrote a Bible in which he included his commentary. This was a time when most people still didn't own personal Bibles. America was still growing westward and there was very little institutional Church west of Ohio. This was the age of the "itinerant preacher," or "circuit preachers," the pastors who rode on horseback from town to town preaching the gospel in towns that weren't large enough to have their own church buildings or financially support their own minister. Where these men were seminary educated (many were not), they left seminary and whatever institutional oversight and accountability that was had there and the preached unsupervised. This is one of the reasons there was a sectarian explosion in the 1800s. Christians learned the scriptures from the pastors, church attendance and the creeds. Wesleyan experientialism was increasing, often exploited by the circuit riders because emotionalism is profitable. Scofield's Bible was a best-seller and it eventually put a Bible in millions of people's homes. The problem is Scofield's Bible isn't always the Bible. One of the many problems was Scofield interpreted various texts to fit his Dispensationally-influenced views and he did not always translate uniformly. For example, using the KJV, he "translated" the word "near" or nigh" in many different ways, some of which have absolutely nothing to do with temporal of geographic proximity (or distance). Words like "suffering" replaced the word "near." Sometimes Scofield put his word in the text of scripture and noted what the original word used by scripture was in the margin. In other words, a person reading what they thought was the text of scripture was in reality using the text of Scofield, and only by reading the note in the margin would the reader ever know what were the original words of scripture! Scofield also inserted his personal opinions as commentary up and against well-established commentary of historical Christianity. An example of this is observable in his commentary on the opening of Malachi. Isaiah 2:2-4 NAS2Now it will come about that in the last days, The mountain of the house of the LORD will be established as the chief of the mountains and will be raised above the hills; and all the nations will stream to it. 3 And many peoples will come and say, “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; that He may teach us concerning His ways and that we may walk in His paths.” For the law will go forth from Zion and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. 4And He will judge between the nations, and will render decisions for many peoples; and they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, and never again will they learn war.Micah 4:1-3 NASAnd it will come about in the last days
That the mountain of the house of the LORD
Will be established as the chief of the mountains.
It will be raised above the hills,
And the peoples will stream to it.
2Many nations will come and say,
“Come and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD
And to the house of the God of Jacob,
That He may teach us about His ways
And that we may walk in His paths.”
For from Zion will go forth the law,
Even the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
3And He will judge between many peoples
And render decisions for mighty, distant nations.
Then they will hammer their swords into plowshares
And their spears into pruning hooks;
Nation will not lift up sword against nation,
And never again will they train for war. That is what the text of Isaiah 2 and Malachi 4 state. Here's what Scofield said about these two texts... " Micah 4:1-3 and Isa. 2:2-4 are practically identical. The Spirit of God gave both prophets the same revelation because of its surpassing importance. It is impossible to prove that either prophet was quoting the other." Is this true? Is it correct? Isaiah lived about the same time as Micah. They lived and prophesied in completely different eras, addressing similar but also different problems in Jewish history. It is quite possible the Spirit of God gave both prophets the same words to speak. Why is this germane to the reading of Malachi? What would prompt Scofield to think this was even relevant to the reading of Malachi AND since he recognizes the two are "practically identical," why does he feel the need to comment about the source and why isn't he treating the text as evidence of..... continuity. The more glaring problem is that the two texts aren't wholly identical, and some of its differences are what is significant. More importantly, Scofield completely ignored what the New Testament states about these two texts! Both are referenced by the apostles in many places in the New Testament. The newer revelation informs our reading of both passages and Scofield ignored it all. I will suggest one of the reasons, if not the only reason, Scofield did this is because his Dispensational influences taught him discontinuity, not continuity, and they taught him a separation existed and not an overlap, and because Israel and the Church are two completely different entities (according to Dispensationalism) with two completely purposes the places where the New Testament uses the Old Testament have nothing to do with continuity, a single group of Giod's people, or a single purpose of God. It is a radically different set of positions. Yet hundreds of thousands of Christians read their Scofield Bible believing this was true scripture and true, accurate and objective commentary on scripture when it is clearly not. What the reader learned was Scofieldism, not Christianity. The reader learned Dispensationalism, not mainstream, orthodox Christian doctrine and he learned in willfully veiled form because Scofield could have (and should have) stuck with mainstream orthodoxy. Here's a comparison for you all to think about: The Jehovah's Witnesses have their own Bible. They published a translation called the New World Translation (NWT). The Jehovah Witnesses writings don't always come with any indication it is a Jehovah Witness source. Thier documents usually identify themselves as "Watch Tower" material. It's an inherently deceptive practice. More germane to this analogy is the reality if an otherwise sincere and earnest true convert to Christ did not know any better and all he had to read was the NWT s/he would walk away from the reading of his "Bible" having a completely different understanding of God, Jesus, and scripture than anything remotely related to mainstream, orthodox Christianity. For one, that reader would know and believe Jesus was not God; he was just an otherwise ordinary man who'd been specially blessed by God and uniquely endowed with the Holy Spirit to do what he did and teach what he taught but in no way was he Divine. That reader would have a completely different formal Theology (the nature of God), a completely different Christology (the nature of Christ), a completely different soteriology and ecclesiology. The difference in translation and comentary can create a completely different religion. Scofield's influence was not quite as egregious. The Dispensationalists managed, in many ways, to stay within the pale of orthodoxy. At least sufficiently to find accommodation within Christianity despite the protests of many in the late 1800s and early 1900s. The Dispensationalist reader of my ops may find me unnecessarily adversarial (not my intent), but if you were to read the dissent of that day, you'd think these posts mild in comparison. I will add other examples of Dispensationalism's newness and differences as I have time. The reader can investigate to verify this content and I encourage you all to do so. I again remind everyone something being new does not automatically make it wrong, any more than something being correct merely because it is old. Something being different isn't an automatic disqualifier of truth or orthodoxy, either. Something different crosses the boundary of falsehood when it is obviously contrary to truth, or so far removed in degree from truth that it is not wholly reconcilable with clear, explicit scripture. I will cover that terrain in my op on how Dispensationalism compromises core doctrines of lng held, well-established mainstream, orthodox, historical Christianity. Until I get around posting that op I'll add evidence of Dispensationalism's newness and radical differences so that you can know what has changed and not doubt the claim of newness and difference has some here have done. I see you have a passion for this subject. You put a lot of time and effort in. |
|
|
|
Post by civic on May 8, 2023 4:31:55 GMT -8
Chronologically and theologically speaking, folks like D. L. Moody precede Cyrus Scofield but Scofield is a pivotal and critical influence on the rise of Dispensationalism. Scofield was influenced by Darby and Moody, and also the 18th century pastor Isaac Watts. Scofield's influence was the Scofield Commentary Bible. Scofield was American. Darby was English and Anglican. The restoration movement was somewhat different in the US than in England and northern Europe (southern Europe remained very Catholic). Scofield fought in the US Civil War and that likely had an enormous influence because many evangelical and fundamentalist Christians during the restoration movement thought the Civil war was a harbinger of the end times. They viewed the Civil War in a similar way contemporaries view the problems in the middle east or the contest between the "super-powers" (Gog and Magog). After the Civil War it was the Spanish American War, and then the War to end all wars (WWI), and after that every war became a harbinger of the end for those of Dispensationalist persuasion. The Civil War was particularly apocalyptic for Americans because the body count and destruction were things Americans had never seen before. Brother drew sword and gun against brother and the casualty count wasn't good guys versus bad guys because they were ALL Americans. To this day the Battle of Gettysburg stands as the most lethal battle in American history because every single one of the casualties was American. More people died in three days of fighting at Gettysburg than fifteen years of fighting in Viet Nam. Twenty years of fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan are a comparative drop in the bucket. More Americans died in the US Civil War than died in WWII! It was apocalyptic. This is the context in which Scofield grew up. This was a societal fabric in which Dispensationalism arose. So Scofield, growing up in what was viewed as an apocalyptic time and influenced by the apocalyptic preachers/teachers of his day, wrote a Bible in which he included his commentary. This was a time when most people still didn't own personal Bibles. America was still growing westward and there was very little institutional Church west of Ohio. This was the age of the "itinerant preacher," or "circuit preachers," the pastors who rode on horseback from town to town preaching the gospel in towns that weren't large enough to have their own church buildings or financially support their own minister. Where these men were seminary educated (many were not), they left seminary and whatever institutional oversight and accountability that was had there and the preached unsupervised. This is one of the reasons there was a sectarian explosion in the 1800s. Christians learned the scriptures from the pastors, church attendance and the creeds. Wesleyan experientialism was increasing, often exploited by the circuit riders because emotionalism is profitable. Scofield's Bible was a best-seller and it eventually put a Bible in millions of people's homes. The problem is Scofield's Bible isn't always the Bible. One of the many problems was Scofield interpreted various texts to fit his Dispensationally-influenced views and he did not always translate uniformly. For example, using the KJV, he "translated" the word "near" or nigh" in many different ways, some of which have absolutely nothing to do with temporal of geographic proximity (or distance). Words like "suffering" replaced the word "near." Sometimes Scofield put his word in the text of scripture and noted what the original word used by scripture was in the margin. In other words, a person reading what they thought was the text of scripture was in reality using the text of Scofield, and only by reading the note in the margin would the reader ever know what were the original words of scripture! Scofield also inserted his personal opinions as commentary up and against well-established commentary of historical Christianity. An example of this is observable in his commentary on the opening of Malachi. Isaiah 2:2-4 NAS2Now it will come about that in the last days, The mountain of the house of the LORD will be established as the chief of the mountains and will be raised above the hills; and all the nations will stream to it. 3 And many peoples will come and say, “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; that He may teach us concerning His ways and that we may walk in His paths.” For the law will go forth from Zion and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. 4And He will judge between the nations, and will render decisions for many peoples; and they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, and never again will they learn war.Micah 4:1-3 NASAnd it will come about in the last days
That the mountain of the house of the LORD
Will be established as the chief of the mountains.
It will be raised above the hills,
And the peoples will stream to it.
2Many nations will come and say,
“Come and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD
And to the house of the God of Jacob,
That He may teach us about His ways
And that we may walk in His paths.”
For from Zion will go forth the law,
Even the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
3And He will judge between many peoples
And render decisions for mighty, distant nations.
Then they will hammer their swords into plowshares
And their spears into pruning hooks;
Nation will not lift up sword against nation,
And never again will they train for war. That is what the text of Isaiah 2 and Malachi 4 state. Here's what Scofield said about these two texts... " Micah 4:1-3 and Isa. 2:2-4 are practically identical. The Spirit of God gave both prophets the same revelation because of its surpassing importance. It is impossible to prove that either prophet was quoting the other." Is this true? Is it correct? Isaiah lived about the same time as Micah. They lived and prophesied in completely different eras, addressing similar but also different problems in Jewish history. It is quite possible the Spirit of God gave both prophets the same words to speak. Why is this germane to the reading of Malachi? What would prompt Scofield to think this was even relevant to the reading of Malachi AND since he recognizes the two are "practically identical," why does he feel the need to comment about the source and why isn't he treating the text as evidence of..... continuity. The more glaring problem is that the two texts aren't wholly identical, and some of its differences are what is significant. More importantly, Scofield completely ignored what the New Testament states about these two texts! Both are referenced by the apostles in many places in the New Testament. The newer revelation informs our reading of both passages and Scofield ignored it all. I will suggest one of the reasons, if not the only reason, Scofield did this is because his Dispensational influences taught him discontinuity, not continuity, and they taught him a separation existed and not an overlap, and because Israel and the Church are two completely different entities (according to Dispensationalism) with two completely purposes the places where the New Testament uses the Old Testament have nothing to do with continuity, a single group of Giod's people, or a single purpose of God. It is a radically different set of positions. Yet hundreds of thousands of Christians read their Scofield Bible believing this was true scripture and true, accurate and objective commentary on scripture when it is clearly not. What the reader learned was Scofieldism, not Christianity. The reader learned Dispensationalism, not mainstream, orthodox Christian doctrine and he learned in willfully veiled form because Scofield could have (and should have) stuck with mainstream orthodoxy. Here's a comparison for you all to think about: The Jehovah's Witnesses have their own Bible. They published a translation called the New World Translation (NWT). The Jehovah Witnesses writings don't always come with any indication it is a Jehovah Witness source. Thier documents usually identify themselves as "Watch Tower" material. It's an inherently deceptive practice. More germane to this analogy is the reality if an otherwise sincere and earnest true convert to Christ did not know any better and all he had to read was the NWT s/he would walk away from the reading of his "Bible" having a completely different understanding of God, Jesus, and scripture than anything remotely related to mainstream, orthodox Christianity. For one, that reader would know and believe Jesus was not God; he was just an otherwise ordinary man who'd been specially blessed by God and uniquely endowed with the Holy Spirit to do what he did and teach what he taught but in no way was he Divine. That reader would have a completely different formal Theology (the nature of God), a completely different Christology (the nature of Christ), a completely different soteriology and ecclesiology. The difference in translation and comentary can create a completely different religion. Scofield's influence was not quite as egregious. The Dispensationalists managed, in many ways, to stay within the pale of orthodoxy. At least sufficiently to find accommodation within Christianity despite the protests of many in the late 1800s and early 1900s. The Dispensationalist reader of my ops may find me unnecessarily adversarial (not my intent), but if you were to read the dissent of that day, you'd think these posts mild in comparison. I will add other examples of Dispensationalism's newness and differences as I have time. The reader can investigate to verify this content and I encourage you all to do so. I again remind everyone something being new does not automatically make it wrong, any more than something being correct merely because it is old. Something being different isn't an automatic disqualifier of truth or orthodoxy, either. Something different crosses the boundary of falsehood when it is obviously contrary to truth, or so far removed in degree from truth that it is not wholly reconcilable with clear, explicit scripture. I will cover that terrain in my op on how Dispensationalism compromises core doctrines of lng held, well-established mainstream, orthodox, historical Christianity. Until I get around posting that op I'll add evidence of Dispensationalism's newness and radical differences so that you can know what has changed and not doubt the claim of newness and difference has some here have done. I see you have a passion for this subject. You put a lot of time and effort in. And passion doesn't make one right or wrong on a topic. I can use his own reasoning and logic against his argument with dispensationalism. One of his major assumptions is since its a one of the newest views its wrong. If that is the case so is Calvinism since it came along after Calvin. Replacement theology is also the new kid on the block which is why it should also be rejected using that same logic. hope this helps !!! |
|
). Darby was evidence of his own complaint. 
