(Disclaimer: This transcript is auto-generated and may contain mistakes.)

Hello everybody, it's Mr. Tall23 back there with a video, just going to do a quick sound check first to make sure that the sound is working. Alright so it is working, today I'm going to be continuing the video that I promised I would do, or I'm going to do the video today that I promised I would do on, I think it was Tuesday when I made the video against dispensationalism and defining what the word dispensation actually means. So in this video I'm going to be talking about not the main source of dispensationalism, the inventor of the doctrine was John Nelson Darby, but the main propagator of it was C.I. Scofield, and that's the reason why most Baptists believe in the false doctrine of dispensationalism today is because of the Scofield reference bible. So let's say I were to go up to an independent Baptist pastor and I said, I found a great preacher who I want to come and preach here at our church, he's a presbyterian who has been divorced and remarried but still preaches and who calls himself a doctor despite having no actual degree, he doesn't believe in the authority of the King James Bible and in fact he promotes the modern versions and the changes made unto them, including removing verses like 1 John 5.7 and Acts 8.37, he denies that God created all things in this world in six days and promotes the gap theory, he believes that there are multiple gospels and that salvation has been different throughout history including that in the Old Testament people were saved by works. If I said that I can guarantee that 95% probably even more of independent Baptist pastors would call him a heretic and not allow him to enter their church, however if I went up to that same pastor and simply asked, would you let C.I. Scofield preach in your church, instead 95% of independent Baptist would probably say yes. I already showed the fraud of dispensationalism in the previous video I made this week or last week and now it's time to talk about the man who popularized the doctrine. The person who created dispensationalism was John Nelson Darby who was a predecessor of Scofield who was guilty of many of the same heresies and in some cases he was much worse. But Scofield with his Scofield reference bible is responsible for the deception of many honest Christians who truly believe the bible and who have inherited the Scofield reference bible for the last three or four generations and used it as a way to study the scriptures. But in fact, have you listened to a lot of older sermons just floating around the internet by people like just any independent Baptist like Curtis Hudson or Jack Hiles or John Rice or whatever, you'll notice that a lot of pastors in the 80s and 90s and they might still do it today, I don't know, I haven't really heard it myself, but you'll notice that a lot of pastors often said things like turn in your Scofield reference bible to page whatever because they knew that most of their congregation had that as their study bible. Well today that's what we're going to be doing, we're going to be turning and seeing what Scofield said in his Scofield reference bible and I will show you that Cyrus Scofield is not somebody we should trust for interpretation of the bible. In fact I think he can be comparable to John MacArthur of today, he's like the John MacArthur of his day, he's a Calvinist dispensationalist heretic who changes and twists what the bible says. So the first thing I'd like to mention is his promotion of textual criticism and the changing of the King James bible. It's really ironic that a lot of people who use the Scofield reference bible are King James onlyists even though Cyrus Scofield was against King James onlyism. So there's a lot of so-called Baptists who take a strong stance on the King James version. Even some of those who take the doctrine a bit too far because there's some so-called King James only people who believe that only the English version is correct and it's not the Greek or the Hebrew and it's the King James bible is just a new inspired translation which is or a new inspiration of God which is incorrect. It's perfect preserved translation but it's not a new inspiration but even the people who believe that the King James version is some new inspiration of God, they're too lazy to see what Scofield actually believed and taught and they still promote Scofield and his teachings. They have this mentality of, and I've heard people say this before, they'll just say well we'll just get the good things that we can out of his notes and just ignore the bad things. Well here's the problem with that. The bible says that unsaved people do not have the Spirit of God within them and it says the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God for their foolishness unto him neither can he know them for they're spiritually discerned. If somebody does not have the Holy Ghost indwelling within them because they're not saved they cannot understand the rest of the scriptures and if Scofield was saved the bible teaches that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. His twisted doctrinal systems corrupt his whole line of thinking and thus heresy and false teaching is widespread throughout his reference bible. We're only going to look at a few of the things which he taught today but I can't talk for hours about the lies and just the stupid and incorrect things which go against clear biblical teaching but I'm just going to be focusing on a few things today, the main things which expose him as a heretic. So concerning his view on the bible itself he says on page IV in Roman numerals 4, so not actual page 4 but page 4 roman numerals in his introduction, he says the revised version which has now been before the public for 27 years gives no indication of becoming in any general sense the people's bible of the English-speaking world. The discovery of the Sinaitic manuscript and the labors in the field of textual criticism of such scholars as Greifback, Lachman, Hichindorf, Tregoli, Weiner, Alford, 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 the text. Such commendations of the text of 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. So anybody who's familiar with the subject of textual criticism in the King James bible recognizes some of these terms and some of these people mentioned here by Scofield. According to Scofield in his own words in literally the fourth page of the whole book he praises the work of heretics like Westcott and Hort who I talk about on my video of why I'm only King James only, I think it was about a month ago or maybe just a few weeks ago but if you want to know more about that in particular go and watch that video. Anyway so he claims that the authorized version has inaccuracies, he says it's generally accurate but then these modern scholars have to change it and update it so that it actually is what he considers to be accurate. So he claims that the Sinaitic manuscript corrects the King James bible in the textus receptus and for those of you who don't remember and who haven't watched the video on why I'm King James only, the Sinaitic manuscript or Codex Sinaiticus is the corrupt piece of trash which was literally found in a waste bin buried in a monastery in Egypt for like 1500 years, that's what he's talking about. Here he mentions that changes to the text have been placed within the reference column of his bible and we'll see a few examples of that, they're the same changes pretty much that we see in the modern versions. So I have no doubt that if Scofield were alive today he'd probably promote either the new King James version or probably most likely the ESV because the only reason according to this introduction of why Scofield chooses to use the King James version is because he doesn't know if the revised version is going to become popular. This was back in 1909 that he published the Scofield reference bible when most of the modern versions had not been created yet, really the only modern version at this time was the revised version and I think the American Standard version I think was from 1901. So there weren't many new translations that were based on these new manuscripts, still the King James version was still the popular bible among Christians, it wasn't until like the 50s and the 60s that these new bibles started to be pumped out, people started to use them. So one example of clear questioning and changing of the text of the bible is in page 1160 of his bible which is a note for Acts 837 where he says, the best authorities omit verse 37. Now this is the verse we're talking about which clearly refuted infant baptism. The question is asked by the evangelist Philip, or actually no, the Ethiopian eunuch asked Philip he said, see here is water, what doth hinder me you baptize? And then Philip said, if thou believeth with all thine heart thou mayest. So a clear condition is given for baptism, the condition of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and that's why we as baptists do not baptize babies because the bible clearly indicates that somebody needs to be saved before they get baptized. So why would a Congregationalist and later Presbyterian say that the best authorities, and by that he means one or two trash manuscripts buried in the earth for a hundred years which were dug up and translated by a bunch of Darwinist, Papist heretics. Why would this Congregationalist, why would he say that the best authorities omit verse 37? Well I don't know, maybe because they believe in infant baptism. Huh, I wonder why, that's so confusing, why would a baby sprinkler, why would he want to delete a verse that says and clearly refutes the doctrine of infant baptism? So there's one change which is major, it changes the doctrine of baptism, there's another major change, 1 John 5.7, he said it is generally agreed that verse 7 has no real authority and has been inserted. This again is a change that's made in the most modern bibles. Here Schofield is saying that the word of God, because this is in the bible, he says that it does not have any real authority. He states it is generally agreed, which no it isn't. What he really means by that is it's generally agreed by Unitarians and unbelieving textual critics who don't believe in the trinity or sometimes don't believe in God at all and not people who actually believe the whole bible. So Schofield supports the change in the modern bibles of removing one of the most important verses concerning the trinity. Here's another change which he makes in his column of notes which isn't as much of heresy as these other ones but really affects people's way of thinking and that's 2 Thessalonians chapter 2 verse 2 where he changes at hand to now present and of course it's not difficult to understand why he would do this because 2 Thessalonians chapter 2 verse 2 is one of the strongest verses which debunks his stupid unbiblical pre-tribulation rapture doctrine. So therefore instead of adjusting his views to what the bible clearly says that the day shall not come referring to what it's talking about in verse 1, the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together unto him, he says that that day shall not come except there come a falling away first and the man of sin be revealed, the man of sin be revealed the son of perdition who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God. So 2 Thessalonians 2 clearly shows that the antichrist must be revealed, the abomination desolation must be set up which is in the midst of the 70th week prior to the coming of the day of the Lord and the rapture but Schofield changes that, he changes at hand to now present because throughout his reference bible he taught the pre-tribulation rapture doctrine. So instead of adjusting his views to what the bible says, he adjusts the bible to what his views are. So here's another change which affects doctrine which is a common change among those who do not understand the difference between the spirit and the flesh. Something which I think, I'm not wanting to present sure because I don't really listen to him that much, which John MacArthur who earlier in the video I said is probably like the modern day version of C.I. Schofield is also guilty of changing and I've heard people preach this before. On page 1323 in the notes for 1 John 3-9, note F replaces the word commit with practices. So instead of saying commit sin and now says practices sin according to Schofield. And from this comes the modern unbiblical doctrine that somebody who is saved does not practice or does not habitually do sin which is again what a lot of modern versions say. Now that's not what the word commit means at all and in fact if you just read the remainder of the verse that becomes clear because it says literally in the same exact verse he cannot sin because he is born of God. And then 1 John 5-18 says we know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not. So does commit sin just mean occasionally or habitually or sin a lot or make a practice of sin? No. It means he does not sin at all. Of course we know that that's referring to the spirit and not to the flesh and I made dozens of videos explaining that so I'm not going to go over that in detail. But anybody who watches my videos frequently should know what this verse means. That's referring to the born again inner man and not the unregenerate old man. It's not referring to the flesh, it's referring to the spirit because the Bible clearly teaches in Romans 7 that it is no longer I that do it but sin that dwelleth in me. Meaning that it's not the new man which sins because the new man can't sin, he is born of God but it's the old man, the flesh which falls into sin. So if we walk in the flesh we do the lust of the flesh but if we walk in the spirit the Bible says ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. So anyway it's clear that Schofield is a changer and a corruptor of God's word and he changed these words and changed these phrases and these verses for a reason. To preach heresy and to sow seeds of doubt in people's minds just as Satan was doing in Genesis chapter 3. And there's dozens of other examples of when he changes verses and says that these verses don't belong in the Bible. Pretty much just if you look up the ones that are changed in the modern versions those are usually the ones that he puts notes on saying the best authorities admit this or should really say this or whatever. They affect doctrine, they're the same verses which the modern versions change and evidently Schofield is a supporter of the damnable heretics Westcott and Hort. Yet Baptists somehow think that he's a reliable source of doctrine. What's another thing that Schofield was guilty of? Teaching the unbiblical doctrine of the gap theory. In his note on page 3, so again we're not very far into his Bible at all, for Genesis chapter 1 it says Jeremiah 4 23-26 Isaiah 24 1 and 45 18 clearly indicate that the earth has undergone a cataclysmic change as a result of a divine judgment. The face of the earth bears everywhere the marks of such a catastrophe. There are not wanting imitations which connect it with a previous testing and fall of angels. See Ezekiel 28 12-15 and Isaiah 14 9-14 which certainly go beyond the kings of Tyre and Babylon. Neither here nor in verses 14-18 is an original creative act implied. A different word is used. The senses made to appear made visible. The sun and moon were created in the beginning. The light of course came from the sun but the vapor diffused the light. Later the sun appeared in an unclouded sky. It is wrong. It is by no means necessary to suppose that the life germ, and this is another note on page 4, he said it is by no means necessary to suppose that the life germ of seeds perished in the catastrophic judgment which overthrew the primitive order. With the restoration of dry land and light the earth would bring forth as described. It was animal life which perished, the traces of which remain as fossils, relegate fossils to the primitive creation and no conflict of sight with the Genesis cosmogony remains. Literally in Genesis chapter 1, literally the first page of his skull-filled reference Bible, he's already teaching damnable heresy, claiming that there was a previous creation before the present creation. So he's denying the statement in the Bible where it says in Exodus chapter 20, which I'm going to read a little bit later, 4 and 6 days the Lord made heaven and earth to see and all that in them is. So he says that there was a previous creation and there was a catastrophic destruction resulting in the creation of this new world. The problem is there's no teaching of that anywhere in scripture. The word, he says all the word here is different from create. No it's not. It means create. That's why it's translated as create. He gives verses to support his doctrine as Jeremiah 4, 23 to 26, which has nothing to do with creation. It's a prophecy unto Judah about their destruction and has nothing to do with creation whatsoever. Isaiah 24, 1, again, a prophecy of destruction in the future. It's not saying this happened 4,000 or however many years ago. And then Isaiah 45, 18, which says for thus saith the Lord that created the heavens, God himself that formed the earth and made it. He hath established it. He had created it not in vain. He formed it to be inhabited. I am the Lord and there is none else. Now there's nothing in the verse which indicates that there was a previous creation. It simply says that God formed the earth, that he created the earth to be inhabited. That's what we're in right now, the world that he created to be inhabited. 6,000 years ago, God created the earth, which is now inhabited. I don't know how that proves a different creation. So this reminds me of 1 Corinthians chapter 2, verse 14, where it says the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God for their foolishness unto him, neither can he know them for their spiritually discern. Do you ever wonder why an unsaved person simply cannot understand a clear verse when you put it right in front of their face? It's because they don't have the Spirit of God within them to help them to understand what the scriptures say. Schofield clearly didn't understand this abundantly clear teaching in scripture, which every real Christian has always understood. I mean, this is not a problem for any Christian out there. The only people who ever teach the gap theory or some weird version of creation or theistic evolution, they believe in work salvation or they're a Roman Catholic or they're part of some false religion. They don't actually believe the Bible. Any actual Bible believer who is saved understands what Genesis chapter 1 says and also what Exodus 20, 11 says, for in six days, not millions of years, for in six days, the Lord made heaven and earth that see and all that in them is and rested the seventh day wherefore the Lord blessed the seventh day and howled it. So no, Schofield, the fossils in the ground were not for millions of years ago from a previous creation. All according to the scripture that's in the heavens, all that's in the earth and all that are in the seas was created in six days as described in the book of Genesis. It's pretty clear and it's clear to every Christian. The reason why it isn't clear to Schofield is because he was a unsaved heretic without the Spirit of God to guide him. I want to talk about Schofield's doctrine of dispensationalism as well, which we already disproved from the video from last week. Now I want to show you what he says about these dispensations and show you that he brought a false plan of salvation and a false gospel as well. He said, I think this is, I don't know what page this is on. I didn't put the page here, but I think this is for Genesis chapter 3. Yeah, I think it's for Genesis 3 23 around there says he defines what a dispensation is. At least you were wondering what it means because I've heard some people try to defend dispensationalism say, well, dispensationalism does not teach that dispensations are periods of time. Well, Schofield said a dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God. Even such dispensations are distinguished in scripture. See note five, the first dispensation in its intimacy. Man was created in intimacy, placed in a perfect environment, subjected to an absolutely simple test and warned of the consequence of disobedience. The woman fell through pride. The man deliberately first Timothy 2 14, God restored his sinning creatures, but the dispensation of intimacy ended in the judgment of the expulsion. See for the other dispensations conscience, Genesis 3 23 human government, Genesis 8 20 promise Genesis 12 one law, Exodus 19 eight grace, John 1 17 kingdom Ephesians 1 10 the Edenic covenant, the first of the eight great covenants. I think this is a different note. I think this is his fifth note on the same page. The Edenic covenant, the first of the great or the eight great covenants of scripture would condition life and salvation and about which all scripture crystallizes has seven elements. The man and woman in Eden were responsible to replenish the earth with a new order, man to subdue the earth to human uses, to have dominion over the animal creation, to eat herbs and fruits, to till and keep the garden, to abstain from eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the penalty death. The other seven covenants, the Adamic covenant, see Genesis 3 15 the no way hit covenant in Genesis nine one Abrahamic in Genesis 15 18 Mosaic and Exodus 19 25 Palestinian and Deuteronomy 33 Davidic and second Samuel seven 16 and the new covenant in Hebrews eight eight. Notice what Schofield says here. First of all, he defined the word dispensation as a period of time in which man is tested, which we already debunked in the last video is not being the definition of the biblical word dispensation whatsoever. Then he says later in the note that besides the seven dispensations, there were eight covenants which he says condition life and salvation. So according to Schofield, there are eight different ways to be saved throughout the different dispensations. That's heresy. A further heresy is shown by his note on the dispensation of grace. He says as a dispensation grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ. The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ with good works as a fruit of salvation. The immediate result of this testing was the rejection of Christ by the Jews and his crucifixion by Jew and Gentile. The predicted end of the testing of man under grace is the apostasy of the professing church and the result in apocalyptic judgments. From page 11, 15, I think that's his note on John 1.17. We read this in the previous video and debunked his interpretation of John 1.17, but the point is that Schofield claimed that in the Old Testament, legal obedience was the condition of salvation. And he says that only now it's by grace through faith, but he specifically also says that good works are fruit of salvation, which itself is wrong, but it's to be expected because he's a Calvinist. He believes that somebody who doesn't do good works or ever backslides that they're not saved to begin with because he believes in the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, which of course is never taught anywhere in the Bible. And in fact, Romans 4.5, where it says him that worketh not, but believeth, that completely refutes that doctrine. Anyway, there's really two heresies in the statement that salvation needs to be different. First of all, he's either teaching that it's possible for people to be saved by works or he's denying the omniscience of God. Because note that he says in his explanation of dispensationalism that dispensations involve testing mankind's obedience, implying that God didn't know from the beginning that Israel would fail to obey God's law. So either way, if he's saying that people were in reality saved by works of the law or not, he's still a heretic because he's either saying God didn't know, God wasn't aware that they're going to break his covenant, or he could also be saying that they were in fact saved by the law in the Old Testament, which both of them are false and wrong in heresy. Now he says also in his note on Revelation 14.6, he says, the everlasting gospel, this is to be preached to the earth dwellers at the very end of the great tribulation, and immediately preceding the judgment of the nations. It is neither the gospel of the kingdom nor of grace, though it's burden is judgment, not salvation. It is good news to Israel and to those who during the tribulation have been saved. Now Schofield says that there are multiple gospels. He claims that this everlasting gospel which is preached by the angel is not the gospel of grace. Well, the scriptures say in Galatians chapter one verse eight to nine, but though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so now I say again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that you have received, let him be accursed. So if it were true, which it's not, but if it were true that this angel were preaching another gospel as Schofield claimed, saying that this is not the gospel of grace, if it were true, then the angel would be accursed. But we know that in reality it's Schofield who was accursed, who taught lies in the name of Christ and has deceived millions and taught false gospels. So the conclusion of the matter is that Schofield taught a false gospel. He taught lies concerning salvation. He changed the word of God. He taught lies concerning creation, et cetera. So why would he get a special pass compared to anybody else who teaches these same doctrines which most Baptists would reject and not listen to? He shouldn't get a special pass. Any person who does that today, who does these same things today would immediately be called a heretic by a fundamental Baptist. But for some reason they just assume that Schofield was a man of God and he wasn't, he was a fraud. Being an unsaid false prophet, he did not have the spirit of God within him. If I were you, I would throw out that stupid Schofield reference Bible and throw it in the trash because it's completely and utterly worthless. There are many errors and false doctrines taught within this book which could be easily debunked and I'm only scratching the surface in this video. I recommend listening to a series of sermons preached by Pastor Joe Major. Just look up Schofield and Dispensationalism Joe Major on YouTube and there's a playlist of about 15 sermons in which he goes through different aspects of the teachings of Schofield and Schofield reference Bible. He reads passages from the Schofield reference Bible and then he debunks them using what the Bible says and he exposes him for the charlatan that he is. So I recommend watching that for more information if you're not convinced by this video. So thank you everybody for watching. I have a few questions here. Do you believe in dispensational salvation? What do you believe Israel's role in the end times and is the 143,000 I think the resurrected Old Testament saints? Yes they are because Revelation 14 indicates that they were already in heaven before they came down on the earth during the wrath of God. Was the Sabbath really done away with? Yes. How is not taking the mark in the tribulation works or faith works salvation as some teach? Not taking the mark. I don't know how that would be works. Not taking the mark in the tribulation works or faith works salvation. You don't get saved simply by not taking the mark. You just don't become a reprobate but it's not oh well I don't want to take the mark. That just automatically makes you safe. It's people who were already saved who aren't going to take the mark but then Revelation 13 clearly indicates that anybody who did not have their name written in the book of life will take the mark. So every unsaved person is going to take the mark of the beast and then they're going to persecute believers during that time. So I hope that makes sense. Anyway that's completely unrelated to the video but you have a lot of questions I guess. Anyway so thank you everybody for watching and God bless you and goodbye.