Is Eve not a Type of the Church?
In his pamphlet, “Why I Left Scofieldism,” William E. Cox claims divine authority to take to task Scofieldism, Dispensationalism, Darbyism, and the Plymouth Brethren. His concludes that “Scofieldism is heresy, and that since God has given me this light, I must seek in love to warn others of the household of faith against this subtle, intriguing heresy.” By contrast, Paul says “Prove all things…” (1 Thessalonians. 5:21) and John says “…try the spirits.” (1 John 4:1)
William E. Cox’s main contention concerns dispensational interpretation as it relates to distinctions between Israel and the Church and the future of National Israel. His primary objective is to dissuade his reader from exposing himself to anything having to do with Plymouth Brethren, J. N. Darby, C. I. Scofield, or anything else that smacks of dispensational interpretation, which he does merely by making them into straw men. The following discourse examines one of William E. Cox’s points from this pamphlet in which he explicitly intends to prove that Scofield is a slandering heretic.
In “Why I Left Scofieldism,” Page 7. William E. Cox says:
I. SCOFIELD DOWNGRADES THE CHURCH AND HER ROLE IN GOD'S PLAN.
Historic Christian teaching always has been that the church was the antitype of national Israel. This teaching goes on to say that the church succeeded Israel at the first advent, and that all unfulfilled promises to Abraham will be fulfilled in and through the church.
Scofield admits that this is the historic Christian teaching, then proceeds to teach that it is erroneous. He says: “Especially is it necessary to exclude the notion--a legacy in Protestant thought from post-apostolic and Roman Catholic theology--that the Church is the true Israel, and that the Old Testament foreview of the kingdom is fulfilled in the Church” (p. 989, S.R.B.)
He begins early in his footnotes to lay the groundwork for his teaching that the church will end in failure and be replaced by national Israel, who will succeed where the church failed. On page 8, in footnote 1, he states that Eve is a type of the church! Like most of Scofield’s “types,” this one is arbitrary, artificial, and forced. Any reader may turn to the passages given as “proof” that Eve is a type of the church, and he will see that there is no mention whatsoever of this fact. He lists John 3:28,29; II Corinthians 11:2; Ephesians 5:25-32; and Revelation 19:7,8. This is typical of Scofield’s scriptural references; they rarely say what he says they do. He apparently counted on the fact that his readers would not turn to the passages given. Either that, or he slighted the intelligence of his readers.
It is patently erroneous that Scofield intended his readers not to check his references. He presumed his reader’s intelligence, as the references he cites Scofield as giving show:
John 3:28,29: Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him. He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.
II Corinthians 11:2 (supporting verses 3, 4, and 13-15, italics, which Scofield inadvertently omitted from the above reference): For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.... For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
Ephesians 5:25-32 (verses 22-24, italics, which Scofield omitted from the above reference): "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word. That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
Revelation 19:7,8: Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honor to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of the saints.
To the reference in Ephesians 30-31, page 1255 S.R.B, Scofield adds the following reference which Paul quotes and applies to the great mystery of Ephesians 5. If this does not irrefutably connect in one’s mind Eve and the Church as type and antitype, it ought to be easily understood why another would reasonably do so:
Genesis 2:21-25: And the LORD God caused deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
The remaining passage in the New Testament where Eve is mentioned by name is I Timothy 2:11-15:
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding, she shall be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
Finally, though the following passage does not name Eve, it is connected with the subject:
I Corinthians 11:2, 7-9, 11-12: But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God....For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man....Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
On this point, it is the criticism of Scofield that is arbitrary, artificial, and forced.
In “Why I Left Scofieldism,” Page 8, William E. Cox says:
On page 9, footnote 1 Scofield says: “The Adamic Covenant conditions the life of fallen man--conditions which must remain till, in the kingdom age, ‘the creation also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the sons of God’ (Rom. 8:21).” Here again the reader will find that the passage given does not even refer to people, but to the creation.
One might ask just what harm could come from fixing in people’s minds that Eve and Adamic conditions represent the church. The subtle danger is that when Scofield’s disciples think of the church they just automatically think of sinful, fallen, unfaithful children of Satan, and Adam and Eve! Then it is a simple step to teach, without scriptural proof, that the church is destined to end in failure (apostasy).
Who are the “sons of God” referred to in Romans 8:21 if they are not people?
It is pure legerdemain, or plain carelessness, but a simple step to take “The Adamic Covenant conditions the life of fallen man” and make it say “Eve and Adamic conditions represent the church.”
Again, how is there no harm in fixing in people’s minds, as does William E. Cox, that Israel, -Lo-ammi (not my people) the sinful kingdom, the children of the devil- typifies the Church? It is no less a simple step to teach that the Church is destined to end in failure (apostasy)? Here is another case where William E. Cox’s teachings can be refuted on the same grounds that he supposes to refute Scofield.
On page 1226, footnote 2, S.R.B., Scofield says Adam is a type of Christ! Any reader may turn to the passages given as “proof” that Adam is a type of Christ, and he will see that this is an irrefutable fact. He lists I Corinthians 45-47 and Romans 5:14-19.
Romans 5:14-21: Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure* of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
*From the Greek “tupos” a type; to strike, as an image. This word is variously translated in the K. J. V.; pattern, figure, example, ensample.
1 Corinthians 15:45-47 (supporting context omitted by Scofield added in italics: 21-22,42-44, and 48-49 ): For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive... So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
Once more, Matthew Henrey (1662-1714), a Presbyterian minister, in his commentary (the Bible with notes and comments), Vol. I, Genesis - Deuteronomy, page 20, column 1, presents Adam and Eve as types of Christ and His Church:
“In this (as in many other things) Adam was a figure of him that was to come; for out of the side of Christ, the second Adam, his spouse the church was formed, when he slept the sleep, the deep sleep, of death upon the cross, in order to which his side was opened, and there came out blood and water, blood to purchase his church and water to purify it to himself.”
Contrary to what William E. Cox says, but consistent with Scofield’s disclaimer of originality, this idea originated not from C.I. Scofield, J. N. Darby, Plymouth Brethren, no, not even a Dispensationalist, but over a hundred years before the birth of “modern dispensationalism.”
The reasoning that William E. Cox uses to prove that Eve is not a type of the Church must also prove that Adam is not a type of Christ, as the difference between the sinful first man Adam and the Last Adam is far greater than the difference between deceived Eve and the Church. If Eve being a type of the Church is absurdity, Adam being a type of Christ is greater absurdity. Yet, of the many types that are not explained in Scripture, Adam is among the comparatively few that are explained beyond all controversy. As the Church is subject unto Christ, so Eve is a subordinate type of the Church because subject to the interpretation of Adam being a type of Christ. “Scofield’s” type, far from being arbitrary, artificial, and forced, has a firm enough basis for serious consideration.
It seems that William E. Cox understands what the significance of Eve being a type of the Church is to dispensational theology by the length to which he takes it up. But if Israel is the type of the Church as William E. Cox says elsewhere, how is it to be understood that the woman was made for the man, or that Adam was first formed then Eve? And again, how can Israel be the type of the Church without actually being the Church?
Why I Left Scofieldism can be accessed at the following link:
http://www.gracegospel.org.uk/scofieldism.htm
In his pamphlet, “Why I Left Scofieldism,” William E. Cox claims divine authority to take to task Scofieldism, Dispensationalism, Darbyism, and the Plymouth Brethren. His concludes that “Scofieldism is heresy, and that since God has given me this light, I must seek in love to warn others of the household of faith against this subtle, intriguing heresy.” By contrast, Paul says “Prove all things…” (1 Thessalonians. 5:21) and John says “…try the spirits.” (1 John 4:1)
William E. Cox’s main contention concerns dispensational interpretation as it relates to distinctions between Israel and the Church and the future of National Israel. His primary objective is to dissuade his reader from exposing himself to anything having to do with Plymouth Brethren, J. N. Darby, C. I. Scofield, or anything else that smacks of dispensational interpretation, which he does merely by making them into straw men. The following discourse examines one of William E. Cox’s points from this pamphlet in which he explicitly intends to prove that Scofield is a slandering heretic.
In “Why I Left Scofieldism,” Page 7. William E. Cox says:
I. SCOFIELD DOWNGRADES THE CHURCH AND HER ROLE IN GOD'S PLAN.
Historic Christian teaching always has been that the church was the antitype of national Israel. This teaching goes on to say that the church succeeded Israel at the first advent, and that all unfulfilled promises to Abraham will be fulfilled in and through the church.
Scofield admits that this is the historic Christian teaching, then proceeds to teach that it is erroneous. He says: “Especially is it necessary to exclude the notion--a legacy in Protestant thought from post-apostolic and Roman Catholic theology--that the Church is the true Israel, and that the Old Testament foreview of the kingdom is fulfilled in the Church” (p. 989, S.R.B.)
He begins early in his footnotes to lay the groundwork for his teaching that the church will end in failure and be replaced by national Israel, who will succeed where the church failed. On page 8, in footnote 1, he states that Eve is a type of the church! Like most of Scofield’s “types,” this one is arbitrary, artificial, and forced. Any reader may turn to the passages given as “proof” that Eve is a type of the church, and he will see that there is no mention whatsoever of this fact. He lists John 3:28,29; II Corinthians 11:2; Ephesians 5:25-32; and Revelation 19:7,8. This is typical of Scofield’s scriptural references; they rarely say what he says they do. He apparently counted on the fact that his readers would not turn to the passages given. Either that, or he slighted the intelligence of his readers.
It is patently erroneous that Scofield intended his readers not to check his references. He presumed his reader’s intelligence, as the references he cites Scofield as giving show:
John 3:28,29: Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him. He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.
II Corinthians 11:2 (supporting verses 3, 4, and 13-15, italics, which Scofield inadvertently omitted from the above reference): For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.... For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
Ephesians 5:25-32 (verses 22-24, italics, which Scofield omitted from the above reference): "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word. That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
Revelation 19:7,8: Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honor to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of the saints.
To the reference in Ephesians 30-31, page 1255 S.R.B, Scofield adds the following reference which Paul quotes and applies to the great mystery of Ephesians 5. If this does not irrefutably connect in one’s mind Eve and the Church as type and antitype, it ought to be easily understood why another would reasonably do so:
Genesis 2:21-25: And the LORD God caused deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
The remaining passage in the New Testament where Eve is mentioned by name is I Timothy 2:11-15:
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding, she shall be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
Finally, though the following passage does not name Eve, it is connected with the subject:
I Corinthians 11:2, 7-9, 11-12: But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God....For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man....Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
On this point, it is the criticism of Scofield that is arbitrary, artificial, and forced.
In “Why I Left Scofieldism,” Page 8, William E. Cox says:
On page 9, footnote 1 Scofield says: “The Adamic Covenant conditions the life of fallen man--conditions which must remain till, in the kingdom age, ‘the creation also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the sons of God’ (Rom. 8:21).” Here again the reader will find that the passage given does not even refer to people, but to the creation.
One might ask just what harm could come from fixing in people’s minds that Eve and Adamic conditions represent the church. The subtle danger is that when Scofield’s disciples think of the church they just automatically think of sinful, fallen, unfaithful children of Satan, and Adam and Eve! Then it is a simple step to teach, without scriptural proof, that the church is destined to end in failure (apostasy).
Who are the “sons of God” referred to in Romans 8:21 if they are not people?
It is pure legerdemain, or plain carelessness, but a simple step to take “The Adamic Covenant conditions the life of fallen man” and make it say “Eve and Adamic conditions represent the church.”
Again, how is there no harm in fixing in people’s minds, as does William E. Cox, that Israel, -Lo-ammi (not my people) the sinful kingdom, the children of the devil- typifies the Church? It is no less a simple step to teach that the Church is destined to end in failure (apostasy)? Here is another case where William E. Cox’s teachings can be refuted on the same grounds that he supposes to refute Scofield.
On page 1226, footnote 2, S.R.B., Scofield says Adam is a type of Christ! Any reader may turn to the passages given as “proof” that Adam is a type of Christ, and he will see that this is an irrefutable fact. He lists I Corinthians 45-47 and Romans 5:14-19.
Romans 5:14-21: Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure* of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
*From the Greek “tupos” a type; to strike, as an image. This word is variously translated in the K. J. V.; pattern, figure, example, ensample.
1 Corinthians 15:45-47 (supporting context omitted by Scofield added in italics: 21-22,42-44, and 48-49 ): For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive... So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
Once more, Matthew Henrey (1662-1714), a Presbyterian minister, in his commentary (the Bible with notes and comments), Vol. I, Genesis - Deuteronomy, page 20, column 1, presents Adam and Eve as types of Christ and His Church:
“In this (as in many other things) Adam was a figure of him that was to come; for out of the side of Christ, the second Adam, his spouse the church was formed, when he slept the sleep, the deep sleep, of death upon the cross, in order to which his side was opened, and there came out blood and water, blood to purchase his church and water to purify it to himself.”
Contrary to what William E. Cox says, but consistent with Scofield’s disclaimer of originality, this idea originated not from C.I. Scofield, J. N. Darby, Plymouth Brethren, no, not even a Dispensationalist, but over a hundred years before the birth of “modern dispensationalism.”
The reasoning that William E. Cox uses to prove that Eve is not a type of the Church must also prove that Adam is not a type of Christ, as the difference between the sinful first man Adam and the Last Adam is far greater than the difference between deceived Eve and the Church. If Eve being a type of the Church is absurdity, Adam being a type of Christ is greater absurdity. Yet, of the many types that are not explained in Scripture, Adam is among the comparatively few that are explained beyond all controversy. As the Church is subject unto Christ, so Eve is a subordinate type of the Church because subject to the interpretation of Adam being a type of Christ. “Scofield’s” type, far from being arbitrary, artificial, and forced, has a firm enough basis for serious consideration.
It seems that William E. Cox understands what the significance of Eve being a type of the Church is to dispensational theology by the length to which he takes it up. But if Israel is the type of the Church as William E. Cox says elsewhere, how is it to be understood that the woman was made for the man, or that Adam was first formed then Eve? And again, how can Israel be the type of the Church without actually being the Church?
Why I Left Scofieldism can be accessed at the following link:
http://www.gracegospel.org.uk/scofieldism.htm
posted by MDB | 6:27 AM
3 Comments:
Hi..
I don't agree with Scofield either...I left the church I was in too.
Further obedience to the word lead me to learn that Paul taught contrary to Christ, is caught in in a lie regarding his "conversion story" he has 2 different versions(acts 22 and acts 26)He wasn't ordained by Christ (mat 10) it goes on and on...
I blogged about it on my site.
Continue in finding truth brother!
I wrote a similar piece on this little booklet, but not at nicely worded as you have done.
Here's what I wrote.
onthewestbeach.blogspot.com
I joined a class in our local Presbyterian church. The class was called Theology 101 which covered Presbyterian doctrine from the beginnings, going back to Luther and the Reformation. I could see from day one there would be a considerable effort made to disprove the doctrine of dispensationalism in order to prove Presbyterian doctrine. Before we sat down for our first class, my wife handed me a pamphlet she found next to the stack of study guides for the first lesson. The little 20-page pamphlet was called "Why I left Scofieldism" by William E. Cox.
Scofieldism? I didn't know Scofield was an "ism". I immediately started reading the little pamphlet.
Mr. Cox complains that after growing up with the Scoffield Reference Bible, he started to confuse Scoffield's notes with actual scripture. This is regrettable. But then he projects his problem onto everyone, implying we all would eventually do this, and then concludes the notes are therefore dangerous. Now I've had a Scoffield Reference Bible for 20 years, and I always considered Scoffield's notes as, well,... notes.
Mr. Cox says he "grudgingly" broke from so-called Scofieldism because Scofield's reference notes had been so much help in preparing Sunday School lessons. All he needed to do was read Scofield's notes on a passage and the lesson was done. Didn't he have a concordance, a Greek dictionary, or other commentaries? It seems like Mr. Cox's plunge into so-called Scofieldism is the fault of Mr. Cox himself. He created a problem and then he complains he had it.
After Mr. Cox created his obsession with "Scofieldism", he then describes his break from it as a 3 step process, similar to a person breaking from alcohol or a cult. He blames Scofield and his "followers" for bringing this problem to him. Mr. Cox in his own mind must denounce something or someone other than himself for his obsessive behavior.
Next Mr. Cox declares that Scofield's notes go against "historic Christian teaching". Why does he not condemn Luther or Calvin? They surely showed historic Christian teaching was wrong in a number of areas.. They brought new light, revival, and understanding for many believers. Do we stop at Calvin and declare no more bible study is needed? Did not the Presbyterian Church update there own Westminster Confession of Faith a few times since the days of Calvin?
After blaming Scofield and his "disciples" for his own problem, Mr. Cox begins to present the "subtle danger" that comes from reading the Scofield notes. He creates a few straw men that can be beaten up. He finds notes in the Scofield bible that many of us today do not agree with and he beats them up. He concludes that Scofield is a heretic and is dangerous.
I must say that many of Scofield's notes are wrong in my opinion and in the opinions of many other sober, clear-thinking bible students. Yet we appreciate the effort Mr. Scofield made in his work.
Mr. Cox in the end calls Scofield a heretic, and implies that others who teach "Scofieldism" are the same. This is because Scofield teaches dispensationalism, presents Paul's apostleship as distinctive and apart from the other 12 apostles, and he explains differences between God's program for the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel and God's program for the Body of Christ. Mr. Cox needs to understand that he is not calling a bunch of crazy people heretics. He is calling a bunch of clear-thinking, sane bible students, who understand they are saved by the blood of Christ, heretics.
Since Mr. Cox is now part of the Presbyterian Church, they should take notice. He may one day become obsessive, challenge their teaching, break from them, and then blame them for his own behavior in a little booklet. I would call this behavior Coxism.
I like your comment about the Presbyterian Church having need to beware of ex-Scofieldists. Homosexual people? not so much.
Post a Comment
<< Home