The following interesting letter appeared in the “Life of Faith” of 11/1/75. I have taken the liberty of reprinting it here for the benefit of our readers.
“In response to the plea of Lois Ballard in your issue of December 21, for an explanation as to why so many ministers object to the Scofield Bible, may I say that I was one of the great many who were, so to speak, brought up on this book, and I can testify to the helpfulness of its chain reference system, its paragraph headings, and above all, its clear teaching on the great fundamental issues of the Christian Faith, such as the inspiration of the Bible, the deity of Christ, the atonement, justification by faith, regeneration, sanctification through the Holy Spirit, the resurrection of Christ, etc. Here its teaching rings clear as a bell.
But it is all too easy for a beginner to be taken in by the oracular and authoritative tone of the explanatory notes; Dr Scofield never intimates that he may be mistaken, or that any other view is possible but the one he lays down. Indeed, no infallible Pope could speak with greater certainty and authority than he, and the effect of such a tone upon the untrained and unwary reader is necessarily very great. Dr Scofield never argues, never explains, never apologises, and never assigns any reason for his views. In a large part of his teachings he represents a small minority in advocating a millennialism which no Christian church has ever admitted to its creed, yet he always maintains the same oracular ‘I know it all’ attitude. As a method of inspiring confidence among ignorant people, the method has merits: its effectiveness cannot be denied, but from a moral standpoint it deserves severe condemnation.
There are four distinctive features of the Scofield Bible which, to say the least, are questionable, and are certainly at variance with the traditional Protestant interpretation of the Bible.
There is the extravagant typology for which the New Testament offers no authority; Dr Scofield goes through book after book of the OT, finding types everywhere.
Then there is his theory of seven dispensations, for which there is no Scriptural authority whatever, any more than there is for his doctrine of the eight covenants. There is nothing in theology to correspond to the Adamic covenant and to the Palestinian covenant; it is this latter that is so vital to Dr Scofield’s scheme.
The most distinctive teaching of the Scofield Bible is its extreme ‘futuristic’ theory of prophecy. The secret rapture, the two comings of Christ, and His establishing of a political kingdom on earth (principally a Jewish one) were never heard of in a Protestant church before the 19th century, when they were foisted on it mainly by J.N. Darby and others who got them from the Jesuit Ribera (16th century). This teaching has maintained that much of the New Testament, especially the whole of Revelation after Chapter 3, has nothing to do with the Christian Church at all, but is for a so-called Jewish remnant after the rapture of the Church.
Worse still, is Scofield’s doctrine of the Church, which the historic Christian interpretation has always asserted, from Justin Martyr onwards, is the true Israel, heir to all the Old Testament promises and finding in her all their fulfilment. There was never any dissent to this traditional doctrine until the time of J.N. Darby. Christians might differ on almost anything else, but up to this time never on this. If Darby and his school and the Scofield Bible are right the entire Christian Church for 1800 years was wrong on a vital part of the Christian faith, and the Bible has been transformed into a Jewish book.
In closing, I would dare to say that there are as many expository novelties in the Scofield Bible as there are bones in a fish, and that in consequence it is a very dangerous book.”
(Rev.) John S. Benson, Bucknall, Salop.