While there is no argument as to the definition of figurative or symbolic language, there is a clear difference between common grammatical error in the proper use of the terms, i.e. the correct term for the illustration given versus intentional misapplication of figurative terms for the purpose of creating a connection in which neither part has any relation, and also to separate a relation that IS clearly connected. A person who is quite skilled at intentional misapplication could make great use of it through the process known as eisegesis—an interpretation, especially of Scripture, that expresses the interpreter’s own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text.

C. I. Scofield was guilty more often than not of eisegesic intentional misapplication, yet, he and his notes have acquired a celebrity status to the degree he is absolved of any personal wrong doing in his life. Despite the ample documentation proving the allegations for which there has been no documentation of his repentance, his notes became the final authority (even more so since his death in 1921). The Scofield Study Bible has been and continues to be used in churches, Bible Colleges and Universities to teach among other erroneous things, such as dispensationalism, the rapture and seven-year tribulation. For some, the defense of his notes, or the eschatological teaching within them is so dogmatic, lack of salvation or the disbelief of Christ’s return is implied if you don’t agree with them. Some have even gone so far as to sever relationships.

“One argument of defense was that Scofield did not write the notes. It is irrelevant how much of the notes are penned by Scofield’s hand. He is, on the one hand, having credit and fame bestowed upon him for them, but on the other hand, when issues of error arise he is defended as a nonparticipant. Scofield claimed thirty years of study and pastoral duty as well as being the editor of the notes. He approved of everything before it went to print. He also boasts of a,

“…wide circle of learned and spiritual brethren in Europe and America to whose labours he is indebted for suggestions of inestimable value.” Scofield Study Bible, Pocket Edition, page iv, 3rd paragraph.

They are highly educated people who should be well aware of the rules of English and the proper use of figurative terms, which brings us back to the original point of intentional misapplication.

To argue a case of misapplication by just spelling out a definition is as pointless as comparing apples to oranges. For example, if I said “the soup bone has been simmering for an hour” and “the dog’s bone is buried in the back yard” and the two sentences are related because they both speak of bones, you would probably give me a puzzled look as to how I came to that conclusion. Then someone comes to my defense by simply giving the definition of a bone. Would that convince you the two are related? Of course not, but that is what some have done with Scofield’s claim on all the “types” and figurative terms he says are connected as proof there is a rapture and seven-year tribulation. He also separates what should be connected partly because of the lack of similar wording, but mostly because it was necessary for his interpretation to be accepted. In order to win over as many as he could to his side of the fence, consistency of his view had to be maintained one way or another.

Ultimately, Scofield and friends manipulated the meanings and parts of speech to suit their teaching of eschatology and gain support of their version. In doing this, the chance was greater that the recipients of the teaching, by whatever means, would believe truth was in their grasp.

Some have said, “I never owned a Scofield Bible.” I can say, “I never owned a McGuffey Reader,” but it was the first to teach the phonics method in learning to read, which is how kids continue to learn to read today.

A person does not have to own a Scofield Bible to be taught the rapture/tribulation false doctrine contained in the notes.

Unfortunately, contrary to their belief, the acceptance of Scofield’s interpretation means students, pastors, teachers, etc., have also been manipulated and are continuing to teach the error in blind faith. Suffice it to say, if any other Bible version contains commentary supporting the rapture, etc., the original source from which they gleaned that teaching is Scofield’s Bible.

For more on Scofield and his notes click link below:

Is God’s Word Taking a Back Seat to Scofield’s?

An evil is in the professed camp of the Lord,

so gross in its impudence, that the most short-sighted can hardly fail to notice it. During the past few years it has developed at an abnormal rate, even for evil.

It has worked like leaven until the whole lump ferments. The devil has seldom done a cleverer thing than hinting to the Church that part of their mission is to provide entertainment for the people, with a view to winning them.

From speaking out as the Puritans did, the Church has gradually toned down her testimony, then winked at and excused the frivolities of the day. Then she tolerated them in her borders. Now she has adopted them under the plea of reaching the masses.

My first contention is that providing amusement for the people is nowhere spoken of in the Scriptures as a function of the Church. If it is a Christian work why did not Christ speak of it? “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.”

That is clear enough. So it would have been if he had added, “and provide amusement for those who do not relish the gospel.” No such words, however, are to be found. It did not seem to occur to him…

Again, providing amusement is in direct antagonism to the teaching and life of Christ and all his apostles. What was the attitude of the Church to the world? “Ye are the salt,” not the sugar candy — something the world will spit out, not swallow…

I do not hear [Jesus] say, “Run after these people, Peter, and tell them we will have a different style of service tomorrow, something short and attractive with little preaching. We will have a pleasant evening for the people. Tell them they will be sure to enjoy it.

Be quick, Peter, we must get the people somehow!” Jesus pitied sinners, sighed and wept over them, but never sought to amuse them. In vain will the Epistles be searched to find any trace of the gospel of amusement…

Lastly, the mission of amusement fails to effect the end desired. It works havoc among young converts. Let the careless and scoffers, who thank God because the Church met them half-way, speak and testify.

Let the heavy laden who found peace through the concert not keep silent! Let the drunkard to whom the dramatic entertainment had been God’s link in the chain of their conversion, stand up! There are none to answer.

The mission of amusement produces no converts. The need of the hour for today’s ministry is believing scholarship joined with earnest spirituality, the one springing from the other as fruit from the root.

The need is biblical doctrine, so understood and felt, that it sets men on fire.

Archibald Brown1

Endnotes

1. The above has been attributed to Charles Spurgeon but this quote is actually from a sermon called The Devil’s Mission of Amusement: The Church’s Task – Entertainment or Evangelization? by Archibald Brown, who was a student of Spurgeon. ↩

Copied from: http://apprising.org/2012/12/11/feeding-sheep-or-amusing-goats/

Link to Pulpit and Pen’s article:

Faith Based Movies Intending to Use More F-Bombs, Profanity

Excerpt:
“Oh, and they’re going to start using more swear words. There’s that.
According to Folmar, they “don’t want to play within the constraints of Christian moviemaking.” This includes producing movies with dozens and dozens of profane words, including some of the worst variety. Folmar explains…”

To read this article go to: http://pulpitandpen.org/2017/10/02/faith-based-movies-intending-to-use-more-f-bombs-profanity/

To any Christian reading, there is NO RATIONALE of this nature that is Biblical – it is sin and the ends do not justify the means! The Bible speaks plainly on this matter:

1 Timothy 1:9-10 “Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;”

There is no debate here, no way to justify the use of trash talk, simple as that! Thank you Pulpit & Pen for showing what is going on! I know of others in what are supposed to be Christian publishers of books using much of the same thinking.

Surprising news? Hank Hanegraaff has become Greek Orthodox? The Pulpit and Pen brought us this well done article today to show us Mr. Hanegraaff has flown the coop but I am thinking he is just showing the bad fruit that had been revealed long ago. First the latest,

The Bible Answer Man, Hank Hanegraaff, Leaves the Christian Faith?

Here’s just a little of the history going back more than a decade from the Biblical Discernment site’s materials found here:

Christian Research Institute (CRI) Ecumenical Fellowship With Rome

Excerpts:
On 8/12/93, Hank Hanegraaff boldly stated, “We believe that Roman Catholicism is foundationally Christian.” The Bible Answerman program that day had been devoted to the defense of Catholicism. Whether Catholicism is or is not a cult is not the main issue, but its false gospel. Yet, CRI spends a large part of its time trying to prove that Catholicism is not a cult. CRI needs to state clearly that Rome’s counterfeit gospel is sending hundreds of millions to hell. Instead, CRI has defended Catholicism on radio and in its Journal, while its “criticism” has been so vague as to leave one wondering what was meant. For example, on one Bible Answerman program, Catholic apologist Scott Hahn was given free rein to promote Catholicism, defend his conversion to it, and to defend it from callers’ objections without any rebuttal from CRI to his false statements! The average listener would have had to conclude that Roman Catholicism is merely another “Christian” denomination (10/93, The Berean Call). [And this is exactly how it is perceived. In a 2/94 letter-to-the-editor of the Catholic Answers magazine, This Rock, a writer credits CRI for being instrumental in bringing him to the Roman Catholic Church; i.e., he thanks CRI for opening his eyes “to the truths of Catholicism,” and for showing him that Catholicism “held firmly to all the essentials of the historic Christian faith.”]

–  If anyone doubts that Hank Hanegraaff is pro-Roman Catholic, one only need read Hanegraaff’s 6/7/95 fund-raising appeal letter and the pro-Catholic book offered therein — Hanegraaff offers for a gift of $25, the book Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, by Norman Geisler and Ralph MacKenzie. (Geisler and MacKenzie believe that a “cooperative effort between Roman Catholics and evangelicals could be the greatest social force for good in America” [p. 357].) Hanegraaff calls Roman Catholics and Evangelicals “must reading” for “thinking Christians who are concerned, not only about sound theology, but also about the future of our nation.” He goes on to proclaim that any obstacles (such as doctrine?) between Protestants and Catholics should not stand in the way of cooperation in areas where we share mutual interests and concerns. This is the same compromising spirit expressed by the Evangelical & Catholics Together (ECT) document authored by Charles Colson in March of 1994. [On two other Bible Answerman programs (one in late-April, 1995, and the other in late-June), Hanegraaff interviewed Geisler concerning the book Roman Catholics and Evangelicals. The compromise with Catholicism was absolutely sickening.]

CRI’s strong move toward ecumenism has led them to refuse to recognize Roman Catholicism for what it is — a cult at best and a false religion at worst. Hanegraaff, et al., continue to insist that Catholicism is a Christian religion with merely some teachings that they cannot agree with. In the process, CRI denigrates those who insist on not pandering to the Vatican’s ecumenical designs. CRI positions itself as the last word in apologetics and knowledge of theological issues. Their rallying cry is for adherence to orthodoxy rather than Biblicism; indeed, they would consider Roman Catholicism an orthodox faith. But orthodoxy is not Biblicism. Orthodoxy is largely based on religious tradition, and is, therefore, often found wanting. “Orthodoxy” is predicated upon the canons of whatever religious authority happens to interpret Scripture; it is not based upon Scripture directly. CRI wants us to believe that Roman Catholicism is a pussycat we can snuggle up to and join paws with for the Reconstructionist agenda of restructuring society. (Source: “Hanegraaff Urges Cooperation With Roman Catholicism,” Media Spotlight, Vol. 16 – No. 2 [9/95], pp. 5-6).

So am I surprised by the recent events and Hanegraaff’s ‘official’ departure from the faith? No, he left long ago.

This is a refreshing article and one that shows our need to pray for each other to be fearless in our stand for Jesus — following Him with sound doctrine! Costi Hinn’s article on Pulpit and Pen is a fearless stand that I’m pretty sure his heretical Uncle Benny would not be happy about:

Stop Calling Error “Anointed”

What better way to deceive the masses than to have no explanation whatsoever? A common tactic by Benny Hinn and other faith healers is to act absolutely dumbfounded at the miraculous hand of God apparently moving through the services. Unfortunately, there is one explanation for this lunacy that they all-too-frequently use – God told them to do it, of course. (Click here to go to Pulpit and Pen article)