1st Semester / Week 6

“A church leader must be a man whose life is above reproach, the husband of one wife,” 1 Timothy 3:2

The following information is from sources such as Joseph Canfield’s book, The Incredible Scofield:

“Without a doubt, C. I. Scofield reshaped a significant part of American Protestantism. The holy grail for Dispensationalists is the Scofield Reference Bible, yet as it turns out, by researching the life of C.I. Scofield in books such as The Incredible Scofield, by Joseph M. Canfield, we discover in this extensively researched book that Scofield was not the man that many believe he was. The material gathered by Canfield on this subject is from well documented public records and is available for cross-referencing.”

It’s been stated that this book is, “a must read to fully understand how the majority of true Bible-believing Christians have been force-fed Antichrist doctrines,” such as, specifically, how dispensationalism has changed how Christians have interpreted Daniel 9, a prophecy that was all about the victory of Jesus Christ, and switched it to somehow being about the gloom and doom of a future Antichrist. Scofield was the one who’s responsible for popularizing futurism and dispensationalism among fundamentalist Christians.

It’s good to know that it’s absolutely and wonderfully true that God can take the worst sinner and radically change them to become like Him. However, it’s also just as important to have knowledge of how someone has been shaped by their past, and in order for someone to become a respectable leader who is trying to teach a radically new doctrine, it’s wise to know if their past actions have become a pattern, especially if they’ve given clues of being a habitual con artist. This is the reason why Scripture declares, “A church leader must be a man whose life is above reproach, the husband of one wife,” 1 Timothy 3:2.

Rather than ever receiving any higher education, Cyrus Scofield merely attempted on the job training in law, and later served as a politician. Even though those careers are notorious for containing a few corrupt men, Scofield was too corrupt even for those professions, was forced to resign, and had to even serve time in jail.

Scofield apprenticed in the law office of his brother-in-law in the Assessor’s Department and eventually worked for the election of John Ingalls. When Ingalls won, the new senator had Scofield appointed as U. S. District Attorney. However, “An article on December 14, 1873 in the Daily Times of Leavenworth suggested something was amiss in the D.A.’s office. A case was pending against ex-Senator Pomeroy, and there were hints that Pomeroy paid Cyrus to keep the case from coming to trial. A later Daily Times report stated that Pomeroy, Scofield and Ingalls were involved in ‘the most infamous of all infamous political bargains ever transacted in Kansas.’ The reporter suggested that Ingalls and Scofield had received pay-offs from railroad officials and settlers in South Kansas. Cyrus resigned on December 20, 1873 and was not involved in politics again.”

“Scofield himself stated that he was ignorant of things Christian up to the year 1879 when he was 36 years old, the year he assigned to his conversion, yet within a mere two years he was issued a license to preach even though he didn’t have any formal training, and he immediately formed a church. He had previously neglectfully abandoned his first wife and two daughters, forged his wife’s name twice in order to obtain two loans that he never repaid (even though a lawsuit was brought to court for repayment), and was then remarried another woman three months after his divorce was finalized. The church which he pastored had no idea that he had been previously married, yet they also gave him 5 months annual paid vacation in order to speak at conferences and to promote what later became the Dallas Theological Seminary. These Bible conferences ended up reshaping a significant part of American Protestantism, and Dallas Theological Seminary became the major center for spreading Scofield’s views.”

“Scofield had received a fair amount of publicity during his political life in Kansas. His sudden disappearance at the beginning of 1874 left editors wondering. The contrast between the politician of 1873, the scalawag of 1874, and the minister of 1881 was too profound to ignore. So we find a Scofield story in the Atchison Patriot that was picked up by the Topeka paper, August 27, 1881. The article starts by stating that Scofield, “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 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.”

“Schofield’s first booklet printed was in 1888, Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth, which presented his developing dispensational understanding, and was printed by a Plymouth Brethren printing company.” In this publication on “rightly dividing,” it should be obvious that without proper training, Scofield most likely had no idea about the actual Greek word which was used in Scripture. Again, what is the actual Greek word in 2 Timothy 2:15 which is interpreted as the phrase “rightly divided?” It is just one Greek word, Strong’s Greek 3718, “orthotomeó.” We’ve learned it means to “cut straight,” and “accurately handling,” and “to teach rightly,” and has nothing to do with chopping Scripture up into different sections.

“In 1892, he began using the title “Dr C.I. Scofield,” even though he didn’t have a doctorate. There is no indication anywhere that he ever received any doctorate from any school, not even an honorary doctorate. For that matter, there is no evidence that he ever attended or graduated from any institution of higher learning, neither in law nor in religion, therefore, using the false title of “Dr” gives the impression that he was a con artist.” After being made aware of his continual dishonesty, does it now appear that when he had previously been out of work and on the run from his creditors, his wife and two daughters, he might’ve simply been looking for a new occupation in order to make money? That now certainly appears to be a distinct possibility.

“If Scofield’s divorce and abandonment of his family had been discovered, he would have been immediately disqualified as a spiritual authority of any kind. The divorce decree dated December 6, 1883 stated, “…the Court does find that the defendant has been guilty of WILLFUL ABANDONMENT of the plaintiff.”

“To this day in fundamental churches (where the “secret” rapture and 7 years of “great” tribulation teachings are most prevalent) if a divorced man had repented and proven himself to be a changed man, he still would not be allowed to be a pastor. It has been many years since the truth of Scofield’s life has come to light. This begs the question, why has Mr. Scofield been allowed a pass for so long? Wouldn’t he in today’s vernacular be labeled a ‘deadbeat dad?’ Even now, so many years later the evidence is undeniable, yet the truth is denied, the exposers of the deception are scorned and Scofield has continued to be praised as a great and godly man. No one, regardless of how highly esteemed they are, is above the status of accountability. Being as the Bereans (Acts 17:11) means to thoroughly study if these things are so, and if found to be questionable, we should look more closely at the author and/or propagator. Many generations have staunchly taken up Scofield’s defense, unwilling to see the proof for fear the pedestal they raised him up on would come crashing down. The well documented personal history tells a great deal about: his character, his hypocrisy, deceit, and the life long effort made to cover up his indiscretions. John Nelson Darby wasn’t successful in pushing his belief of dispensationalism and his belief in the separation of the church and Israel, so Scofield and his wealthy underwriters stepped in and incorporated it into the notes of his Bible.”

“If Scofield’s personal life, before and after his alleged conversion in 1879, had been made public, his notes would not have been given a second look, let alone be allowed to occupy the same space as the Scriptures. Nor would he have been hailed today as a great and mighty man of God. If someone takes the time to read about the real life of C. I. Scofield, they may find themselves asking, how can a man with that kind of unrepentant reputation his entire life be given a pass while others who have repented of far less in their lifetime are looked on with scorn and forced to step down?”

“Contrary to popular opinion among Fundamentalists, Scofield’s work was not popular among many Christians at the time. Anyone who knows the depth and breadth of the effort required to produce a Reference Bible knows that it requires a lifetime of intense study. That level of study doesn’t appear to be a characteristic found in Scofield’s life. Scofield wrote to Arno C. Gaebelein suggesting that Gaebelein work on the Reference Bible, and that note reads, ‘By all means follow your own views of prophetic analysis. I sit at your feet when it comes to prophecy, and congratulate in advance the future readers of my Bible on having in their hands a safe, clear, sane guide through, what to most is a labyrinth’ (Canfield, p. 188).”

“Scofield also acknowledged the influence of two scholars whom he admired, and to whom he was introduced through his association with the Oxford Press. The oddity of a major, world-wide press signing a contract with a little known, sectarian preacher grows with one’s knowledge and experience of what it takes to get published. Oxford University Press is not known for its support of Christian causes, particularly sectarian or Fundamental causes. Oxford did not sign with Scofield for altruistic purposes since their first interest is in selling books for profit.”

“After his Reference Bible had been released, he wrote to his daughter Helene on September 30, 1909, ‘When I get rich I am going to have 3 homes-one in a winter apartment on Washington Heights, N.Y. City, one at Crestwood, one at Sorrento, Italy. …I shall have a large lecture room in the Carnegie Institute, & hold forth to all & sundry who may come for biblical instruction say 3 afternoons & 3 evenings in the week. At Sorrento & Crestwood I shall write books-un peu-but mostly loaf and invite my soul’ (Canfield, p. 224). Hardly the values usually attributed to Fundamentalists.”

In addition, as to Scriptural values, these are some of the breaches by Scofield:

1873 –false oath of office

1874 –taking bribes

1874 –failure to provide for family

1877 –fraud and forgery

1879 –failure to pay notes

1883 –divorce

“After he passed away in 1921, his entire estate was bequeathed to his 2nd wife and son. There was no mention of his first wife or his two abandoned daughters. Nothing was mentioned about giving anything to any Christian ministry, nor any educational, social, or charitable establishment.”

“What can we make of the theology that Scofield championed through his best-selling Reference Bible. We have seen that it is borrowed heavily from the Plymouth Brethren theologian, John Nelson Darby. People don’t seem to realize that dispensationalism is a relatively new theology that was popularized by Scofield and his Reference Bible. How did it become so popular other than that it was made readily available through Oxford University Press, a very liberal publisher? What did Scofield share with liberalism? Oswald T. Allis put his finger on it nearly a century ago. Writing in the Evangelical Quarterly (January, 1936), Oswald proposed that dispensationalism shares the fundamental error that is made by the so-called ‘higher criticism.’”

“It is now obvious that the higher criticism movement placed itself and its proponents above Scripture in order to critique Scripture’s structures and sources. That process has been very destructive of the ‘high view’ of Scripture that is foundational to the historical, orthodox doctrines of the faith. Despite the apparent differences between Scofieldism and higher criticism, they share a foundational tenet. ‘Higher Criticism divides Scripture up into documents which differ from or contradict on another. Dispensationalism divides the Bible up into dispensations which differ from or even contradict one another; and so radical is this difference as viewed by the extremist that the Christian of today who accepts the Dispensationalist view finds his Bible (the part directly intended for him) shrunk to the compass of the Imprisonment Epistles’ (Allis, Evangelical Quarterly, Jan., 1936). Both tear apart the unity of Scripture by cutting and pasting either Scripture itself (as does higher criticism) or biblical history (as does dispensationalism) to suit their theories. The methods of both undermine biblical unity, albeit different aspects of biblical unity. While higher criticism cuts the Bible into pieces and destroys its unity, so dispensationalism cuts biblical history into pieces and destroys its unity. And interestingly enough, both share the same roots-theologically, historically, and denominationally.”

“The danger inherent in dispensationalism is that people will believe that only certain parts of the Bible are relevant to them because they live in a particular dispensation. However, the founders of Protestantism such as Luther, Calvin, Knox, and Owen proclaimed that salvation was by grace alone, start to finish, cover-to-cover. Scripture makes it clear that salvation was never found in law keeping. God has desired faith and looked for the remnant who has faith, and therefore, by having faith, salvation has always been given by grace to the remnant. Abraham was saved by grace by having faith, as was Noah and Moses and Isaiah, and so are we.”

Let’s now ask this question: how has the world been shaped by what Scofield started? Somehow, in 1901, Scofield became a member of an exclusive New York men’s organization known as the Lotus Club. Joseph Canfield suggests of this liberal group, “The admission of Scofield to the Lotus Club, which could not have been sought by Scofield, strengthens the suspicion that has cropped up before, that someone was directing the career of C.I. Scofield.” That someone, Canfield suspects, was associated with one of the club’s committee members, the Wall Street lawyer Samuel Untermeyer. As Canfield intimates, Scofield’s theology was “most helpful in getting Fundamentalist Christians to back the international interest in one of Untermeyer’s pet projects—the Zionist Movement.” Prof. David W. Lutz writes, “Untermeyer used Scofield, a Kansas City lawyer with no formal training in theology, to inject Zionist ideas into American Protestantism. Untermeyer and other wealthy and influential Zionists whom he introduced to Scofield promoted and funded the latter’s career, including travel in Europe.”

Here’s an eye opening statement from the National Council of Churches (NCC), which is the largest ecumenical body in the United States, established in 1908, and is made up of 38 different faith groups including mainline Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, African American, and Evangelical. Together, they encompass more than 100,000 local congregations and 40 million adherents. What might be surprising to modern dispensationalists is that “the NCC assigns the label of ‘misguided ideology’ to the belief that the state of Israel has a divinely ordained role in ushering in the end of history. ‘The danger of this ideology is that it is a manipulation of Christian scripture and teaching,’ said Antonios Kireopoulos, NCC senior program director for interfaith relations. ‘Unfortunately it has influence in American churches, to the point where many well-meaning Christians are swayed to support particularly destructive directions in U.S. foreign policy.’”

Christian Pastor, author, radio host, and former candidate for President of the United States, Chuck Baldwin stated, “This flagrant misinterpretation of Scripture (popularized by Scofield) has turned modern Israel into a god in the eyes of many Christians. Oh, they would never admit to committing the sin of idolatry with Israel, but in truth, that is exactly what many of them are doing.”

As Christians, are we to simply view the physical nation of Israel as one of our key national allies that we should support and defend, or are we obligated to become Christian Zionists who view them as the center of God’s plan and that we’re to unquestionably support and bless their every action? Does God tell us that He blesses those that unquestionably bless a people group who have a specific DNA sequence? Does God even focus on someone’s particular DNA in order for them to be His “chosen people,” or has the centerpiece of God’s plan always been Jesus Christ? Do Christians have any connection to the name Israel? These are important questions that need to be addressed. Therefore we should ask, “According to Scripture, Who is Israel?” This is the hugely important question that we’ll be asking in the 2nd and 3rd Semesters of our study.

(Thorough research was begun in 1984 by Joseph M. Canfield to compile his book, The Incredible Scofield, https://www.amazon.com/Incredible-Scofield-His-Book/dp/1879998440?fbclid=IwAR2dLbv5ZpGeXFJBS0O1ZcNcwT7FHoXfL_0XmnxmFG4DxgyFrEQnVmvz6wM,and the information was gleaned from many sources. Genealogical data was supplied by Ruth Scofield Kennedy from a branch of the Scofield clan. Other records come from: University of Michigan Historical Society, Episcopal Historical Society, Encyclopedia of the History of St. Louis, Missouri Historical Society, St. Louis, Kansas Historical Society, U.S. Department of Justice, National Archives, U.S. Census for Michigan 1869, Lenawee County, U.S. Census for Tennessee, Wilson County, Confederate Research Center, City Directories, court records, newspaper articles of the period, both American and British, ship sailings, etc. Information was obtained from the papers of Emeline Papin’s Estate, Cyrus’ sister, on file in St. Louis County Courthouse, Clayton, Missouri. Some facts were gleaned from Laura Scofield Lames, another sister, St. Louis Directory-1877, public libraries, and many other sources).