 | Q11 : Learning about Dispensationalism |
| Q11 : Learning about Dispensationalism |
| Q11 : Learning about Dispensationalism I am fairly new to dispensational thinking and wanted your opinion concerning the Scofield Bible. Is this still a useful tool for the study of the Bible from a dispensational perspective? Also, do you have an opinion concerning whether one should use the Old (1917) vs. the New Scofield Bibles? |
| A11 : by Tony Garland I do believe the Scofield Bible is still a useful tool for bible study. I believe it is useful for two reasons: (1) for the teachings it contains, many of which are excellent summaries of dispensational thought; (2) for reference--this Bible had a major impact upon Bible understanding in the pews of America and Scofield is a giant among dispensational teachers. Having said that, there are also some areas where I would disagree with
Scofield. Two which come to mind are: (1) the Gap Theory where an
undetermined period of time is inserted between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2; (2) the
view that there are two Babylons in Revelation: "Mystery Babylon" in
Revelation 17 and "Babylon the city" in Revelation 18. (However, both of these
views are not uncommon even today.)
In many other ways, Scofield's Bible has
some excellent summary material.
I wouldn't choose the Scofield Bible as my main study bible simply
because I think there are other study Bibles from a dispensational perspective
which are superior. I rely heavily upon cross-references between related
passages and Scofield's Bible is weak in that area. So if you get one, I'd
get it mainly for access to his notes and for reference to the doctrinal
summaries.
As for the new vs. the old Scofield, I have both ;-) My impression
is that the new Scofield is probably better in that it clarifies some statements
that he made which have been pulled out of context to imply he taught salvation
by works prior to the cross and a different way of salvation (by faith)
afterward. He did not hold this view--as other passages in the
original work make clear--but he made an unguarded statement to that effect
which has been highly criticized by those who dislike dispensational
teachings. Overall, I think the new Scofield would be preferable as it
clarifies some of these areas and also has more readable fonts. Another
issue to consider is that the older version used Roman numerals for chapters
which is much more difficult to read for modern readers.
My preferences for a study bible for ongoing use would
be:
These are all basically dispensational and include full cross references.
Of the four, MacArthur is the least dispensational--not clearly distinguishing
between the various OT covenants in some of his notes and the topical
index.
|