Scofield assured himself of a very large reading audience and a very
favorable reception to his views, not by presenting his Explanatory Notes in a
separate commentary, in which case they probably would have had no more
influence than many another book, but by putting them in the Bible in such a way
that they would be read as the Bible is read. Imagine the confusion that would
result if other schools of thought put out Bibles with notes setting forth
postmillennial, amillennial, Calvinistic, and Arminian systems, not to mention
the endless interpretations that would result if the various denominations so
presented their views.
Boettner goes on to write:
We are convinced that much of what passes for Bible study in the dispensational
system ultimately rests on nothing more substantial than a footnote somewhere in
the Schofield Bible.
Great points. Most people will believe what their study notes say. How much of your eschatological assumptions are based upon objective, presuppositionless Bible study and how much is based upon something you read?
Loraine Boettner believed in Bibles printed by the British and Foreign Bible Society who stamped their logo on the Bible: "Without Note or Comment."
I hate to break the future to you Dr. Boettner, but the confusion you predicted by every doctrinal persuasion printing their own study Bible is in full force.
Which study Bible do you prefer?
1 comments:
Boettner was a very compelling author in the midst of a sea of dispensationalism in his day. I have really enjoyed his book. When Schofield's study Bible went to most of the seminaries, guess what most of the pastors came out teaching? Just another issue that future generations will look back on us as a struggling church era.
Post a Comment