The Scofield Bible and the Downfall of the Church in America - Part I
Recently, a friend sent me a link to a slideshow on the website hosted by We Hold These Truths and Strait Gate Ministries at http://www.whtt.org/.
The slideshow “Christian-Zionism Roots” attacks the War in Iraq and the United States support of Israel. The presenter, Chuck Carlson, attempts to explain the reason the churches in America have declined.
As slide one unfolds the listener eagerly awaits to learn the cause for the demise of the Church in America. All of a sudden, we learn that the cause is Premillennialism and the Scofield Reference Bible.
For several reasons the argument is totally unconvincing.
First, A major flaw in Carlson's argument is his assumption that premillennial thinking is not biblically sound. If premillennial theology is true, the argument falls apart. However, he mentions no biblical basis for rejecting Premillennialism.
Second, Carlson makes some pretty big jumps in his argument without showing the connection between the points. He argues that Premillennialists must work vigorously to bring about and participate in Armageddon. He then launches into a discussion of Scofield, Walvoord and Dallas Seminary as the major proponents of Premillennialism in the 20th century.
What he fails to say is that neither Scofield, Walvoord nor Dallas Seminary hold the view that Christians should work to bring about and participate in Armageddon. In fact, several of Walvoord’s numerous journal articles and books over a 50-year period refute that argument.
He then says that premillennialists cannot pray for peace but must pray for war. That is also a gross error. If Carlson contacted all of the faculty members at Dallas Seminary about these views, he would not find any faculty members who hold these two views about Armageddon and prayer.
In short, he has not demonstrated that he understands the theological positions of the people he is criticizing.
When we publicly criticize other believers we should do so with grace. That means that we should take time to understand their positions before we attack them, especially when they are no longer here to defend themselves.
Second, we should be careful in the way we use history to attack people.
In his desire to paint Scofield as a rogue, Carlson mentions all kinds of negative things about him. Based on what other biographers have said about Scofield, there is reason to question whether some of Carlson’s points are correct. However, assuming for the moment that his facts are correct, he also omits key information.
For example, he does not tell the listeners that Scofield trusted the Lord after he lived a rather pagan lifestyle. That omission makes it look as if Scofield was a charlatan throughout his life.
Even the biographer Canfield who is generally critical of Scofield speaks of Scofield’s later life conversion. Though Carlson draws from Canfield’s work, Carlson doesn’t think it important to mention the timing of Scofield’s conversion in relation to his earlier behavior.
He does not mention that Scofield was admitted to practice law in the state of Kansas. He doesn’t mention that President Grant appointed Scofield to be the United States District Attorney of Kansas.
He does not mention that Scofield returned to the United States in 1904 and did not remain in Switzerland for four straight years doodling on yellow paper.
He doesn’t mention that Scofield was instrumental in creating the Central American Mission, now known as CAM International. This mission has had a great history of evangelism and discipleship in Central America. Its work is ongoing today.
A lot of Carlson’s argument is designed to attack the person, character and credibility of Scofield. However, Carlson does not have proof of who paid Scofield to spend time in Switzerland or how he got an introduction to Oxford Press. He doesn’t know anything about how various wording got into the notes of Scofield’s study Bible. Since he doesn’t have any facts he merely raises questions designed to get the listener to wonder about whether Scofield was somehow involved in a mysterious Zionist plot.
The argument rests on innuendo rather than fact. Without facts, all we have is opinion.
The sad part is that the character of Scofield has nothing whatsoever to do with the truth or falsity of Premillennialism anyway.
The slideshow “Christian-Zionism Roots” attacks the War in Iraq and the United States support of Israel. The presenter, Chuck Carlson, attempts to explain the reason the churches in America have declined.
As slide one unfolds the listener eagerly awaits to learn the cause for the demise of the Church in America. All of a sudden, we learn that the cause is Premillennialism and the Scofield Reference Bible.
For several reasons the argument is totally unconvincing.
First, A major flaw in Carlson's argument is his assumption that premillennial thinking is not biblically sound. If premillennial theology is true, the argument falls apart. However, he mentions no biblical basis for rejecting Premillennialism.
Second, Carlson makes some pretty big jumps in his argument without showing the connection between the points. He argues that Premillennialists must work vigorously to bring about and participate in Armageddon. He then launches into a discussion of Scofield, Walvoord and Dallas Seminary as the major proponents of Premillennialism in the 20th century.
What he fails to say is that neither Scofield, Walvoord nor Dallas Seminary hold the view that Christians should work to bring about and participate in Armageddon. In fact, several of Walvoord’s numerous journal articles and books over a 50-year period refute that argument.
He then says that premillennialists cannot pray for peace but must pray for war. That is also a gross error. If Carlson contacted all of the faculty members at Dallas Seminary about these views, he would not find any faculty members who hold these two views about Armageddon and prayer.
In short, he has not demonstrated that he understands the theological positions of the people he is criticizing.
When we publicly criticize other believers we should do so with grace. That means that we should take time to understand their positions before we attack them, especially when they are no longer here to defend themselves.
Second, we should be careful in the way we use history to attack people.
In his desire to paint Scofield as a rogue, Carlson mentions all kinds of negative things about him. Based on what other biographers have said about Scofield, there is reason to question whether some of Carlson’s points are correct. However, assuming for the moment that his facts are correct, he also omits key information.
For example, he does not tell the listeners that Scofield trusted the Lord after he lived a rather pagan lifestyle. That omission makes it look as if Scofield was a charlatan throughout his life.
Even the biographer Canfield who is generally critical of Scofield speaks of Scofield’s later life conversion. Though Carlson draws from Canfield’s work, Carlson doesn’t think it important to mention the timing of Scofield’s conversion in relation to his earlier behavior.
He does not mention that Scofield was admitted to practice law in the state of Kansas. He doesn’t mention that President Grant appointed Scofield to be the United States District Attorney of Kansas.
He does not mention that Scofield returned to the United States in 1904 and did not remain in Switzerland for four straight years doodling on yellow paper.
He doesn’t mention that Scofield was instrumental in creating the Central American Mission, now known as CAM International. This mission has had a great history of evangelism and discipleship in Central America. Its work is ongoing today.
A lot of Carlson’s argument is designed to attack the person, character and credibility of Scofield. However, Carlson does not have proof of who paid Scofield to spend time in Switzerland or how he got an introduction to Oxford Press. He doesn’t know anything about how various wording got into the notes of Scofield’s study Bible. Since he doesn’t have any facts he merely raises questions designed to get the listener to wonder about whether Scofield was somehow involved in a mysterious Zionist plot.
The argument rests on innuendo rather than fact. Without facts, all we have is opinion.
The sad part is that the character of Scofield has nothing whatsoever to do with the truth or falsity of Premillennialism anyway.
posted by Steve at 6:39 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home