Creeping Catholicism in Scofield's Notes?

Vivificat! News, Opinions, Commentary, Reflections, from a personal Catholic perspective ^ | 12 September 2006 | Teófilo

[Teófilo]

Cyrus Scofield thought that "Jesus' brethren" were not Mary the Virgin's children, but her nieces and nephews. That's exactly what the Catholic Church teaches.

Folks, this Scofield note has always caught my attention:

Six Marys are to be distinguished in the N.T.:

(1) the mother of Jesus; by the context.

(2) Mary Magdaalways clearly identified lene, a woman of Magdala, " out of whom went seven demons" Luke 8:2 She is never mentioned apart from the identifying word "Magdalene."

(3) The mother of James (called "the less," Mark 15:40) and Joses, the apostles. A comparison of ; John 19:25; Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40 establishes the inference that this Mary, the mother of James the less, and of Joses was the wife of Alphaeus (called also Cleophas), John 19:25 and a sister of Mary the mother of Jesus. Except in ; Matthew 27:61; 28:1 where she is called "the other Mary (i.e. "other" than her sister, Mary the Virgin); and John 19:25 where she is called "of Cleophas," she is mentioned only in connection with one or both of her sons.

(4) Mary of Bethany, sister of Martha and Lazarus, mentioned by name only in Luke 10:39-42; John 11:1,2,19,20,28,31,32,45; 12:3 but referred to in ; Matthew 26:7; Mark 14:3-9.

(5) The mother of John Mark and sister of Barnabas Acts 12:12.

(6) A helper of Paul in Rome Romans 16:6.

Notice what Scofield doesn't say but loudly implies: the so-called "brethren of Jesus" which detractors of Mary's perpetual virginity bring forth as "proof" that Mary didn't remain a Virgin were, according to this prominent Protestant biblical commentator, Mary's (the Mother of Jesus') nieces and nephews, children of her sister, Mary!

Far out! Note too how Scofield refers to Mary the Mother of Our Lord as "Mary the Virgin" without any qualifications.

Now, according to the Wikipedia,

Scofield's notes teach dispensationalism, a theology that was in part conceived in the early nineteenth century by the Anglo-Irish John Nelson Darby, who like Scofield had also been trained as a lawyer. Dispensationalism emphasizes the distinctions between the New Testament Church and ancient Israel of the Old Testament. Scofield believed that between creation and the final judgment there were seven distinct eras of God's dealing with man and that these eras were a framework around which the message of the Bible could be explained. It was largely through the influence of Scofield's notes that dispensationalism and premillennialism became influential among fundamentalist Christians in the United States.

What are we to make of the above note which undermines so much of the Protestant anti-Marian polemic? I say two things: not bad for a Fundamentalist and may God bless the man, for he knew exactly what Scripture said and in this instance, did not allow Protestant theological prejudice to drown what Scripture really said.

[HarleyD]

Cyrus Scofield thought that "Jesus' brethren" were not Mary the Virgin's children, but her nieces and nephews.

The author could have also gone back to Calvin and Luther. They argued the same thing. They were wrong.

[franky]

###"Protestants and Evangelicals are not "anti Mary"."###

I would just inject that there are 3,490,000 anti Mary, anti Blessed Virgin Mary sites on Google. Of course many are just questioning her Virginity but many are absolute in their vehemence

[franky]

Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23 are two that mention the Blessed Mother's virginity.

Possibly the Song of Songs by Solomon foretells of Mary

O queenly maiden!, yes, the humble maiden girl is now a Queen, because she is the spouse of the King... your soul is a Queen in Christ!.

Rv 11:19a; 12:1-6a, 10ab is viewed as the Blessed Mother:

“A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet”

Islam also believes in the Virgin Mary and their symbol is the crescent moon. The same moon that is depicted in Revelation that will be stomped on by the Blessed Mother in time.

The Bible does not state that Mary was a virgin after Jesus' Birth nor states she died as a virgin. The Catholic Church in their Councils declared various truths about the Blessed Mother and her perpetual virginity is part of those truths. These were established from the Church fathers in the 3rd century. It was not until 1200 years later that disputes arose.

I believe that God's Incarnation being perfect in all things would have to have someone who was also perfect in all things to be His mother. That perfection would include her obedience to our Lord in all things pure and dedication to Him from her Conception to Assumption.

God bless.

[ladyinred]

Thank you. I didn't think I had ever seen a scripture that said that. It is tradition then. Appreciate your answer.

[PetroniusMaximus]

"They argued the same thing. They were wrong."

HD, you seem pretty forceful on that point. What Scripture do you look to for support?

[PetroniusMaximus]

"Of course many are just questioning her Virginity but many are absolute in their vehemence"

You will find no Evangelical site questioning the fact that Mary was a virgin when she bore Christ.

Not one.

[HarleyD]

I don't mean to sound "forceful", simply right. ;O)

I would go into the plethora of statements such as:

Matthew's comment that Joseph didn't know his wife "until" after the birth of Christ (Matt 1:25)

How the Bible uses both the terms "cousin" and "brother" and does not interchange these terms contrary to the arguments often made. (Lk 1:36, Col 4:10)

Paul's sidebar of the Lord's brothers in 1 Cor 9:5 or again how Paul calls out James as "the Lord's brother". (Gal 1:19)

The many discussions of Mary and Jesus' family (Matt 13:55, Mark 6:3, Mark 3:33-35, etc.).

The fact that God looks upon marriage and love as a holy and righteous thing (Songs of Solomon).

But really, why should I bother? We will spend 150 posts going back and forth on variations of terms.

The simple fact is I believe the evidence is recorded in scripture and is very plain. Calvin and Luther could be excused from their error simply because they were coming from an environment that worships venerates Mary. Scofield may have simply read their notes. Scofield does not impress upon me to be the same scholar that Calvin and Luther were.

[StAthanasiustheGreat]

I would actually say Calvin and Luther were right on that.

But that isn't my question for you. my guess is that you are the best one to ask, who is Mr. (Rev?) Schofield, I am not familiar and figured you would be the person to give me the roundup.

[sitetest]

Dear franky,

"I would just inject that there are 3,490,000 anti Mary, anti Blessed Virgin Mary sites on Google. Of course many are just questioning her Virginity but many are absolute in their vehemence."

Heck, franky, you don't have to go out to other places on the Internet for that sort of stuff. We've seen it from non-Catholic/non-Orthodox posters right here on FR, the most ugly, virulent, obscene and blasphemous stuff. And, ironically, in at least one case, the poster is still around.


sitetest

[Campion]

I don't know where the scriptures are that say that Mary was a perpetual virgin.

If you're looking for a scriptural prooftext that says flatly "Mary was a perpetual virgin," there isn't one.

However, it's odd that, when Gabriel tells Mary she will conceive and bear a son, she says, "How can this be, since I do not know man?" An odd thing for a young woman, engaged to be married, to say!

Of course nobody in Scripture, except Jesus, is said to be a son or daughter of Mary. And there are many examples of the Hebrew usage of "brothers" and "sisters" to mean relatives more distant that true siblings.

[HarleyD]

But that isn't my question for you. my guess is that you are the best one to ask, who is Mr. (Rev?) Schofield, I am not familiar

Scofield never attended a theological school or received a formal degree in theology. Why he is called "Doctor" Scofield is a mystery to me except to say that it was probably an honorary title. While a formal degree is not a prerequisite for developing great theology, I find it helps.

Here is an excerpt favorable about his life from a Scofield fan.

C. I. Scofield

[Teófilo]

The author could have also gone back to Calvin and Luther. They argued the same thing. They were wrong.

Well, the thing is that many Fundamentalists and some Evangelicals and Pentecostals swear by Scofield's notes but would rend their vestments when they see notes in a Catholic Bible yet--here we find a fundamental--no pun intended-agreement between two exegetical methods.

As to your "they were wrong" assertion, I know better than to pursue this matter again, which has been prosecuted ad nauseam before. I am loath to reinvent the wheel so I gladly refer you and all to the website of my good friend and Master Catholic Apologist, Dave Armstrong, to survey the evidence.

-Theo

[HarleyD]

Well, the thing is that many Fundamentalists and some Evangelicals and Pentecostals swear by Scofield's notes but would rend their vestments when they see notes in a Catholic Bible yet--here we find a fundamental--no pun intended-agreement between two exegetical methods.

There is some truth to what you state. I also find it interesting that there are some Protestants who swear by notes contained in Bibles as if they were somehow inspired along with the scripture themselves. I suspect the Catholics take their notes more seriously. But none of these notes are inspired.

I have no problem (as I did here) in voicing my opinion that there are errors, not only with Scofield, but with Calvin and Luther. There are certainly errors with some of the early church fathers writings so what would make them special? Why, heck, I would even go so far as to say there's errors in my doctrine, but, hey, that's pushing it. ;O)

What is important is that we identify these errors and own up to them.

[Teófilo]

I have no problem (as I did here) in voicing my opinion that there are errors, not only with Scofield, but with Calvin and Luther. There are certainly errors with some of the early church fathers writings so what would make them special? Why, heck, I would even go so far as to say there's errors in my doctrine, but, hey, that's pushing it. ;O)

In my own defense I'll say that I've never claimed to be personally infallible, and I'll go as far as to say that even in that, I might be wrong.

:-D

But back on the issue, there's no Scriptural witness against Mary's Perpetual Virginity. Arguments regarding "Jesus' brethren" are based upon misunderstood biblical cues that Scofield himself understood correctly. Protestant argumentation against Mary's perpetual virginity is extra-Scriptural.

-Theo

[HarleyD]

I always tell my wife, "I thought I was wrong once but I was mistaken."

But back on the issue, there's no Scriptural witness against Mary's Perpetual Virginity.

This is the argument that is often used and is the argument Calvin uses. "There is no Scriptural witness against Mary's Perpetual Virginity, so it must be true." Don't you see the problem with this type of argument? It makes the assumption that if it's not mentioned, then it must be true. There is no Scriptural witness against moon monkeys, but I would hope that we wouldn't say moon monkeys must be true. At best, under this statement, all one could say is no one knows.

I would say that since there is NO scriptural proof of Mary's Prepetual Virginity, to assert otherwise is extra biblical. However I have supplied a number of verses that would state otherwise. These verses are always meant with, "Yeah, yeah, you don't know what your talking about." with people trying to spin the obvious verses with "until" doesn't means she couldn't stayed this way, or "brothers don't necessarily mean brother".

With all due respects to C.I. Scofield, I'm not confident he understood some of the theological issues. Certainly he never had formalized training. Based upon the ten different bios I read, it sounds as if he simply grabbed a Bible and started preaching. Everybody simply said, "Oooohhh...Aaaaahhhh".

I'm a cynic. Only in God do I place my faith. For all others I like to see creditials.

[PetroniusMaximus]

"There is no Scriptural witness against moon monkeys, but I would hope that we wouldn't say moon monkeys must be true. "

Ahem... cough, cough...

(Moon monkeys are true. I've seen them in my cereal.)

[Teófilo]

I would say that since there is NO scriptural proof of Mary's Prepetual Virginity, to assert otherwise is extra biblical.

Of course it is extrabiblical. I am Catholic; for me the Holy Scripture is not the sole rule of faith. Binding revelation is something "bigger" for a Catholic than for a Protestant.

It is what allows me to say that the "perpetual virginity" of Mary is a Christian belief, vs. a "biblical" belief. Just because a positive statement of this belief cannot be found in Scripture, doesn't make it untrue. We have the Church to judge its veracity and the Church has found it credible. Since I am in the Church, I believe with the Church. "Here I take my stand."

Great talking to you! :-)

-Theo

[HarleyD]

(Moon monkeys are true. I've seen them in my cereal.)

LOLOL!!! I missed that one. :O)

[HarleyD]

Of course it is extrabiblical. I am Catholic; for me the Holy Scripture is not the sole rule of faith.

And that's my point about Scofield. For a Protestant to make such claim is outside the scope of Protestantism. He has no biblical proof to support his claims and is violating a fundamental law of Protestantism which is; "Where the Bible speaks, we speak. Where the Bible is silent, we are silent."

I can forgive Luther and Calvin simply because they were trying to make sense of 1000 years of errors (if you'll forgive my impertinence). It isn't surprising that some amount of Catholic interpretation crept in. But Scofield violates the Protestant's rule. I'd like to give Scofield the benefit of the doubt and say that he most likely was expanding on Luther and Calvin; but if he truly was doing this then he was plagiarizing their work-never giving them credit for where he got the information-and claiming the notes for his own.

As far as the Catholic Church being able to judge the veracity of whether Mary was a Perpetual Virgin, I'm a bit skeptical. I find it a little incredulous that a several hundred men can get together hundreds of years after the fact and make a decision on the state of Mary's virginity. I understand that you would say the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and is free from error. That did not help much over the issue of indulgences.

[RobbyS]

My understanding is that both Luther and Calvin held to the perpetual virginity of Mary. Zwingli, I think not, because he was so much a rationalist and iconoclast.