What was Wrong with C. I. Scofield?

It is truly astonishing to see many “KJV only” preachers continue to use a Scofield Reference Bible, and to defend his notes & doctrines…

Here is “Point XI” of the Introduction to the Scofield Reference Bible

XI. “After mature reflection it was determined to use the Authorized Version. None of the many Revisions have commended themselves to the people at large. The Revised Version, which has now been before the public for twenty-seven years, gives no indication of becoming in any general sense the people’s Bible of the English-speaking world. The discovery of the Sinaitic MS. and the labours in the field of textual criticism of such scholars as Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Winer, Alford, and Westcott and Hort, have cleared the Greek textus receptus of minor inaccuracies, while confirming in a remarkable degree the general accuracy of the Authorized Version of that text. Such emendations of the text as scholarship demands have been placed in the margins of this edition, which therefore combines the dignity, the high religious value, the tender associations of the past, the literary beauty and remarkable general accuracy of the Authorized Version, with the results of the best textual scholarship.”

– C.I. Scofield (January 1, 1909)

{ Introduction to the Scofield Reference Bible, Point XI – pages 3-4 }

Although many “fundamental” Bible-Believer’s are Baptist, Scofield NEVER was…

Although most “Bible-believers” are opposed to a divorced & remarried man serving in the pulpit, as “pastor”, Scofield WAS divorced-remarried & still pastoring, all at the same time… CI Scofiled 1

In fact, in 1882, while separated from his first wife and daughters, he began pastoring the First Congregational Church of Dallas, TX.  Eventually, C.I. Scofield was officially divorced from his wife in 1883 (for his neglect). Within a few months into 1884, he had married another woman, and all-the-while maintaining his pastoral ministry at the First Congregational Church of Dallas, TX! (Now known as ~ “Scofield Memorial Church”)

Shame on such disobedience to Scripture! Shame on such un-Biblical congregations! If only there had been godly, Biblical men in the congregation, who would have stood up to such arrogant rebellion, there might never have been such a blight on Christianity as the Scofield Reference Bible. (Pastor Furse spends more than one chapter of his book detailing the many errors of this “study-Bible”.)

1Timothy 3:1-7

“This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;  3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;  4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.  7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.” (KJV)

Independent Baptist historian, James Beller, admits, “The honest truth is that we can never know the whole truth about Mr. Scofield. That there are gaps in Scofield’s life there can be no doubt. He is an enigmatic figure.”  (The Soul of St. Louis: A Historical Narrative of Revival in the Gateway City –  Arnold, Miss.: Prairie Fire, 1998, p 145)

And, as author David Lutzweiler noted, “One thing I have to say about Scofield is that his entire life was consistent. That is, it was filled with enigmas from beginning to end, both pre-conversion and post-conversion.”  (The Praise of Folly: The Enigmatic Life & Theology of C.I. Scofield – Lamplighter Educational Services, 2009 [Apologetics Group Media Materials] – p 189)

C.I. Scofield, Samuel Untermeyer, and the “Lotus Club”

For more information concerning the Doctrinal Heresies of Scofield, view this Video & their Video Playlist ~

Scofield claimed that Jesus “adopted” Talmudic teachings! (See for yourself, in the SRB notes on pages 1098-1099 – Luke 16)… The Talmud?? Really?!!



See also:John Hagee, the Scofield Bible, and “Israel”


We STRONGLY recommend listening to this very informative Radio Interview – by the renowned author, James Perloff Christian Zionism (A History of Scofield & his “Bible”)

View more info about James Perloff @

Scofield stated that the “day of Christ” was a “mistranslation” in the King James’ Authorized Version of 2Thessalonians 2:2!!! (His preferred switch to “day of the Lord” creates a BIG ERROR in Eschatology!)


And the “New Scofield Reference Bible” is even worse!

6 thoughts on “What was Wrong with C. I. Scofield?

  1. I was disappointed that you did not expand on Who is Israel? I understand that Scofield’s teaching has infiltrated the Church and has deceived many. If we read Daniel 9; understanding his deception and reading the chapter we find that Daniel is reading Jeremiah 29 and understands that there captivity was 70 years and those years were coming to a close. He puts on sackcloth and begins repenting for himself and Israel. Gabriel comes and gives him future events. He starts teaching about Jesus coming to finish transgression, to put an end to sin …… He continues to talk about the Anointed One. Then he mentions the desolator . Verse 27 He (Jesus) will confirm a covenant and in the middle (3 1/2 years) He will cause offerings and sacrifices to cease (ON THE CROSS). AND ON THE WING OF ABOMINATIONS SHALL COME ONE WHO MAKES DESOLATE, UNTIL THE DECREED END IS POURED OUT ON THE DESOLATOR (Revised Standard Version). That is the Antichrist. Totally different than Scofield’s teaching.

    • What do you mean? The book, “Who is Israel?” is very clear as to “who really is Israel”… Have you read it? Yes, I agree, Daniel 9 is a “watershed” passage that many have gotten wrong— But, using the unreliable Revised Standard Version is not necessary— the old KJV is clear enough.

  2. Who is Israel? Paul teaches a different teaching than what most of the Church has heard. Let me give background. When Jesus came He came for the Jews only. The Church began with Jews only until Acts 10 when Peter goes to Cornealous’ house. Paul was called to preach to Gentiles and about 70 years later the Church has more Gentiles then Jews. John writes III John 9. Diotrephes is a Greek; a Gentile and he is gossiping in the Church and keeps the Jews out. This is the beginning of “Replacement Theology”. Scofield’s teaching was also linked to replacement theology.
    What I want to address though is who is Israel? Jesus said, He came for the Jew only. In that context; He is changing the meaning of a Jew. Romans 2:28-29 What is an outward Jew? BORN A JEW. Circumcision was required in the OT; but in the NT circumcision is changed to circumcision of the heart. In considering this there is only two types of people: Jew or Gentile; Saved or unsaved. this is just the beginning.
    Could you please respond?

    • Not sure about all of your claims, here, but certainly—Scofield was in error about several things… Also, God DID expect His Old Testament people to be “circumcised in heart”, as He then repeats in the New Testament. (See: Lev. 26:40-42; Deut 10:16; Deut 30:6; Jer 4:4)

  3. While I share many of your concerns about Mr. Scofield, I find it disheartening that in your zeal to tell your viewpoint, you lose a sense of professionalism in both your words and your manner – it only detracts from your purpose. Also, if you are calling Plymouth Bretheren a “sect” because they held to a dispensational view (which I don’t- by the way); well I don’t think that qualifies them as a sect. I think it would behoove you to be a little more careful.

  4. Don Fellows,
    Do you have a substantive point?
    Hurt feelings don’t count, the man said what he said its his beliefs thats why he wrote a book. He’s a pastor he’s allowed to preach/teach with conviction. If you don’t like it write your own book, don’t tell him it behooves him to change his personal style, ridicules. Why can’t he say what he wants? Why are you so offended if the Plymouth Brethern are called a sect. They were a sect, totally out of the mainstream orthodoxy of Christianity at the time with these teaching that are now mainstream, that’s the point.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.