A Tool of the Devil Much More Harmful than the Satanic Bible

The concept that God gives righteousness to man upon the merits of Christ, and therefore does not demand righteousness from man as a condition of exercising proper faith in Christ, permeates the realm of modern evangelical Christianity.  This concept is so prevalent that to so much as question it is often regarded as unthinkable heresy.  

The concept that God has a separate covenant with natural ethnic Jews, and has unconditionally granted them the land that was known as Canaan, also permeates the realm of modern evangelical Christianity.  This is evidenced  by how most Americans who profess to be born-again believers in Jesus Christ support the modern nation of Israel and still, more or less, regard ethnic Jews as a collective to be “God’s chosen people.”  They believe that God has a covenant with ethnic Jews which is separate from His covenant in Jesus Christ with the Christian Church.

And the concept that the Christian Church will be raptured out of the world before a seven year period of tribulation, along with the revelation of the antichrist at that time, is also a concept normally considered to be gospel in many circles of the realm of modern evangelical Christianity.  

How did these, and many other related concepts, get to be so popular?  Of the three concepts mentioned above, the first is a key aspect of Reformed Theology, known by many simply as Calvinism.  The popularity of this of course can be traced to the 16th century in the Reformation (and yet earlier when the influences of that which can be traced further back are discovered).  Yet the concepts of God having a separate covenant with  ethnic Jews and the pre-tribulation rapture first found notoriety in a 19th century Bible teacher from Ireland named John N. Darby.  Though Darby was not the very first one to teach these things, he gave these previously obscure and relatively new teachings an element of notoriety.  Darby’s teachings came to be embraced by a St. Louis Pastor named James H. Brookes in the latter 19th century.  A man whom Brookes mentored named Cyrus I. Scofield would go on to popularize Dispensational Theology through his Scofield Reference Bible, an early 20th century book that is basically a King James Bible with Scofield’s notes attached to it in the margin.  

The immense popularity, and even much greater influence, of this book has impacted modern evangelical Christianity to a degree that one can even consciously reject Scofield as a teacher while still having their life and doctrine remaining upon faulty foundations laid down in the Scofield Reference Bible and spread throughout the world by its vast influence.  Simply finding a professing “Bible church” now which has not been noticeably impacted by the bad influence of Dispensationalism is an incredibly difficult thing.  

Speaking from my own experience, even after being aware of Dispensationalism’s vast influence, and being on my guard against it, I found a church which I thought was not affected by it.  Several years later though, after coming to see clearly that there is no Biblical basis for a Christian to think that the God of the Bible approves of the modern nation of Israel or to think that the Jews return to the land is any way His doing, I came to see by the Pastor’s answers to my questions in relation to this that he is indeed very much tainted by Dispenational influence.  And that is all the more incredible because this was the very same person whose teaching has helped others see through a significant amount of Dispensational error.  And yet for all of that, he really only knew perhaps half of the bad influence of DIspensationalism.  He still believed and defended the other half (I’m speaking in terms of estimation and generality; understand the point I’m seeking to make and remember the Biblical truth that a little leaven leavens the whole lump).

It was highly unusual at the time of the publication of the Scofield Reference Bible for a man to dare to place his own notes right alongside the Holy Scriptures.  Scofield was discipled by James H. Brookes who was heavily influenced by J.N. Darby, a Calvinist; and influenced by the highly Calvinistic Plymouth Brethren as a group (a group which Darby had been part of).  Dallas Theological Seminary has, through its systematized dissemination of Scofield’s Reference Bible, been a great vehicle for spreading Dispensationalism throughout the world.  Scofield heavily influenced Lewis Sperry Chafer, founder of Dallas Theological Seminary.  Chafer claimed to be an unbiased Bible student, yet he was greatly influenced by C.I. Scofield.  Chafer has also openly admitted to being Calvinistic.  Dispensationalism is highly similar to Reformation/Calvinistic theology in terms of its beliefs about the nature of God, man, and salvation.  Disagreements in the aspects related to the end-times were the reason Dallas Theological Seminary grads were eventually not welcome in many Calvinistic/Reformed churches and rather ministered in Baptist and Independent churches.  

By the mid-1920s, Dispensationalism was being adopted by Conservative non-Calvinists too (probably not even recognizing the influence of Calvinism upon Dispensationalism; it is a blind spot which many have to this very day).  Dispensationalism thus became attached to Fundamentalist Evangelical churches and Pentecostal/Charismatic churches too (which certainly had their own serious problems already with their twisted ideas of the Holy Spirit and their crazy jibber jabber which they attribute to the Holy Spirit).  

Many adopted a Dispensationalist theology through reading the Scofield reference Bible’s notes, including many who had already been Biblical Fundamentalists.  The Scofield Reference Bible had sold more than two million copies by the end of WWII and evidently greatly influenced multitudes more, including by the great influence that the Dallas Theological Seminary has had upon countless other seminaries and Bible Colleges.  The Scofield Reference Bible’s vast influence today is as obvious as anything can be to anyone who is exposed to what is taught in today’s seminaries, churches, evangelical radio stations, and TV networks (though it is very hard for anyone to truly discern the extent of the permeation of this influence).

Scofield had already obtained the reputation of being a dishonest, unscrupulous man by the time of his alleged conversion to Christ in 1879.  It is no wonder that a man who has been so influential in persuading people that the Christian is released from obligation to keeping God’s Law abandoned his first wife and permanently cut off support of the couple’s two minor daughters.  1 Timothy 5:8 is in itself proof that one must walk in the light of God’s Word, honestly using the commandments of God as a guide to living by faith in Jesus Christ, in order to receive cleansing and justification by His blood.  The Scofield Reference Bible conveniently makes no comment at all on 1 Timothy 5:8.

1 Timothy 5:8: “ 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 (an unbeliever).”

The most influential work on allegedly Christian doctrine in the realm of evangelical Christianity for the past century came from a man whom the Bible says is worse than an infidel.  

Scofield’s abandonment of his family, after his alleged conversion to Christ, is publicly documented by an 1883 court ruling granting Scofield’s first wife the divorce which she sought on the grounds of desertion and also granting her full custody of their two daughters.  This ruling is publicly available to this day.  Scofield then married another woman three months later (one whom he had already been linked to by the time his divorce was granted).  Even when Scofield had obviously become rich from the royalties received from his reference Bible (close to a million dollars by today’s money), he left his two daughters, whom he had abandoned already, out of his will completely (all Christian work and charitable efforts were also left out of his will- he left everything to his second wife and the son they had together).  

There is no good reason to believe that Scofield’s dishonest, unscrupulous behavior stopped at the point of his alleged conversion to Christ.  Scofield was no Zaccheus (Zaccheus’ example is actually totally negated and contradicted in Scofield’s deceitful views on Christianity and Christian salvation).  This dishonest, unscrupulous behavior became cloaked in religiosity after his alleged conversion to Christ in 1879.  There is no record of Scofield ever attempting to pay back anyone whom he had defrauded (there are several reports of his fraudulent behavior both before and after his alleged conversion).  

In the early 1890s Cyrus I. Scofield even began styling himself as Reverend C. I.  Scofield D.D (Doctor of Divinity).  You should trust no man in spiritual matters who goes around calling himself Reverend.  Men are not called Reverend in the Bible.  God’s name is said to be “holy and reverend” in the Bible in Psalm 111:9.  For a man to take it upon himself to be called this, or to even let others call him this, is presumptuous, unwarranted, and (at the very least) risking blasphemy in and of itself.  It’s also a form of religious posturing (like clerical garments are).  It also indicates a tendency to accept extra-biblical tradition rather than to hold fast to what is written in the Bible.  There is not even any record of Scofield ever even having a Doctor of Divinity conferred upon him, though such a title is not proper to openly go around calling oneself even if he did have such a degree conferred upon him.  

Scofield gained much credit in evangelical circles due to his association with the evangelist D.L. Moody.  Moody sadly never examined Scofield and stood against him sufficiently to demand works fitting for repentance in relation to his family and in relation to others whom he had defrauded.  Scofield’s very own doctrine denied the absolute necessity of such restitution in order to be in God’s grace, let alone to be  qualified for Christian ministry.  It would be showing damnable respect of persons to not point out the failure of Moody and others who yoked with Scofield in ministry here.  I do not know how much Moody actually knew of Scofield, but Scofield’s teaching itself should have been a sufficient red flag in itself to confront Scofield and not give him a stage to spread his lies upon.

Scofield even taught the lie that man always fails God- one hundred percent of the time.  He taught that every one of the alleged seven dispensations of God’s dealing with mankind has ended, or will end with, man’s total failure (not accounting that the earliest Christians were Jews who had indeed learned the lessons that God sought to teach to Israel whereby Israel could properly discern and worship their Messiah when He came).  We have every reason to believe that this teaching of inevitable failure for man reflects Scofield’s own projection upon each and every person ever of his own moral failure and lack of fruitful repentance before God and man (and this is no different in principle than with the Calvinist teacher).

Another extremely suspicious thing about Scofield’s life is his acceptance as a member to the Lotos Club in New York City in 1901.  This club was an upscale Manhattan hangout which was not open to the public (it actually still exists to this day).  The only way in which one could get in (at least at the time, I don’t know about now) was to be recommended for membership by one of its highly wealthy members.  Scofield was not on record as having a large income at the time (even though he took multiple clergy positions which gave him more income than you would think a pastor/preacher would have).  This was in 1901, well before his famous “Reference Bible” was ever published and of course before he received large sums of money from its royalties..

Scofield biographer Joseph M. Canfield says in relation to this club membership, “The admission of Scofield to the Lotus (sic) 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.”

Many believe that was Samuel Untermayer, a Jewish lawyer who has been linked to international bankers and other prominent people in the Zionist movement (as well as to many Left-Wing causes).  Untermayer was well known in his time, yet he is not on Wikipedia’s list of famous Lotos Club members.  However, his 1940 New York Times obituary lists Untermayer as a member of the Lotos Club of Manhattan.  

Even if we don’t know with one hundred percent certainty exactly who got Scofield into the Lotos Club, this membership was surely obtained through someone very rich and powerful.  This was also almost a decade before Scofield’s Reference Bible was even published.  Why was a supposedly Christian preacher from the Midwest admitted to an upscale private club in New York City?  And what was he doing there anyways?  

And then when you consider how the Zionist movement had already begun at the time, and how the Rothschild international banking cartel was already using this movement to take the land which had been known as, and is again now known as Israel, for itself, the claim that Scofield and his work was being directed by powerful Zionists makes sense.  That is especially so when you consider the obvious fact that Christian resistance was a necessary force to overcome in order to cause this Zionist takeover to work.  

The Scofield Reference Bible taught the lies that natural Jews are God’s chosen people and that God has unconditionally granted them the land.  This caused an overwhelming shift in attitude towards Zionism in the visible churches right about the time the international bankers regained their stronghold on America through the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and right as the Zionist movement sped up exponentially.  Those in the visible churches who were not heavily influenced enough by the Zionism taught in the Scofield Reference Bible could at least be influenced enough by the Scofield Bible’s lie that Christians should accept evil prevailing in the world and not oppose it.  Opposing evil in the would allegedly mean that their hope was ultimately not in Jesus’ return, which according to the deceitful Scofield Bible would be divided into two parts, with Jesus coming for the Christians before things got “really bad.”  

And we know from history that Christian resistance to Zionism was prevented.  The visible churches did indeed fail to use their voice and influence to prevent the genocidal takeover of the land by the Zionist Jews in 1948.  And to this very day, the realm of evangelical Christendom, through the influence of the Scofield lies, generally stands with Israel in the atrocities which they commit against the Palestinians who had lawfully come to inhabit the land, thinking that they are siding with God by doing so.  They generally are not adequately concerned for righteousness prevailing in their own lives through the Dispensational Theology-empowered three headed monster of easy-believe-ism, antinomianism, and unconditional eternal security.  They also are not generally concerned enough with righteousness prevailing in society through the Dispensationally-empowered lie that evil prevailing in the world is inevitable- to the degree that it is pointless for Christians to even contend with it.  Dispensationalism even teaches the lie that God’s eternal moral law, displayed in the moral principles given in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, is not binding upon the Christian anyways.   This all destroys the souls of those under its influence and greatly empowers villains in their villainous schemes.  

It is logical and reasonable to conclude that was the plan all along.  

The original Scofield reference Bible contains no notes on 781 out of its 1,353 pages.  It’s as if Scofield had no other purpose in making his “Reference Bible” than to spread  the “distinctive” Dispensational points which his Bible came to be known for.  Zionist Jews are sinners who, even if they deny it, hate Jesus Christ- more than most sinners do.  They would gladly crucify Him again, if they could- more than most other sinners would.  It is no wonder that they would finance a man of Scofield’s character to use him to manipulate the Christian world to help them in their theft under the pretense of faithful Christianity.

Also, remember Proverbs 17:4 here.  “A wicked doer giveth heed to false lips; and a liar giveth ear to a naughty tongue.”

Many of our messages which have already been done deal in one way or another with exposing and refuting errors which are in some way related to Dispensational Theology.  This message is primarily about exposing the corrupt agent and his book which has caused these errors to become commonly regarded as “sound doctrine” while simultaneously causing truly sound doctrine to become commonly regarded as strange and heretical- right within circles where the Bible is claimed to be inerrant and inspired of God, and where the new birth in Jesus Christ is considered to be essential for salvation.  Apart from influence in these circles, the Scofield Reference Bible could not be any more harmful than Anton Lavey’s 1969 book The Satanic Bible.  Yet by gaining vast influence in these circles, the Scofield Reference Bible could have (and has indeed) done exceedingly more damage to the cause of Jesus Christ and the souls of people than The Satanic Bible could ever do.  

What are we going to do about that now?

Aaron’s email is: [email protected]