Heretics and “scriptural screw-balls” can often be identified by their use of million-dollar theological words and other terms not found in scripture. For example, when you hear somebody frequently using terms like “the secret rapture,” or “preterism versus futurism,” or “sovereign grace,” or “eternal decrees,” or “limited atonement” – it proves that person is spending his time and research OUTSIDE the pages of the Bible. These days, it’s the magic of the internet that casts the diabolical spell. Many of the brethren who stray off into the foul-territory of heresy need to ask themselves an honest question: “Would I have uncovered the material which has caused me to reject 70-80% of my doctrine without the guiding influence of YouTube and the internet?” Nine times out of ten, the answer is “No.” If the heretic happened to get his information from a book (that’s one of those square things with pages you can flip), he found the book thanks to something he saw or read on the internet.
Do you know what you find on the internet? You find whatever you want. You do a “search,” and when the results come up, your mind automatically filters out the things that seem unreasonable or less than authentic, and dismisses them as untrustworthy. At the same time, your mind takes in what seems to be reliable information and stores it. The problem is, your mind is doing all this work based on its own preferences. You’ve become your own authority. You get up from your computer thinking you’ve learned something, when all you’ve done in reality is find justification to believe what you already wanted to believe in your heart. That applies to anybody, researching anything on the internet. So the real problem with the graduates of “YouTube Theological Seminary” is not that they are simply misinformed, but that they are willfully ignorant of the truth, and selfishly biased in what they’ve chosen to replace it with.
Having spent a little time researching topics on the internet, I’ll confess some useful things can be found there. But when it comes to scriptural truth, the amount of garbage one must wade through to find the useful information nullifies the benefits. Heresies, deceptions, and apostate philosophies are propagated on the internet to such a degree that I have made it my recommendation for the average Christian to completely stay away from it with regard to scriptural topics. Again, perhaps it’s useful if you want to purchase something online or get a copy-cat recipe for your favorite Olive Garden dish, but don’t fool with anything doctrinal on there. God gave you a local church He wants you to attend, and a pastor to teach you the Bible (Eph. 4); you don’t need more than what He has provided.
Near the top of the garbage heap of online false doctrine, we can almost guess what we find without even looking. First, we find all the reasons why we shouldn’t “rightly divide the word of truth;” secondly, we find all the scum on the men of God who’ve taught and preached the truth for years, raked up by the Bible-rejecting, apostate, muck-raking scum-buckets. And if they don’t have any mud to sling, they fetch water and dirt and make it up themselves. C.I. Scofield was a Bible teacher around the turn of the 20th century who, along with Clarence Larkin and some others, was largely responsible for laying out the correct divisions of scripture in an understandable format for the average Bible-reader. The old Scofield Study Bible (not the new Scofield – it’s not even a King James Bible) can be purchased at most major Bible bookstores, and is carried under the arms of thousands of Bible believing Christians. This is not a promotion of Scofield, but any Bible-believer ought to be able to appreciate his work, which has come under attack most frequently on the internet.
The anti-Scofield guys have been around for years. They are, in the majority, a bunch of pharisaical, petty, disgruntled, Bible-rejecting, ex-dispensationalists, with a shallow under-standing of scripture, who either couldn’t “make it” (weren’t taken seriously as preachers or Bible teachers, or couldn’t garner a following) in dispensational circles, had their feelings hurt by somebody in those circles, or simply couldn’t read English well enough to understand how to rightly divide. The rest are conspiracy theorists (emphasis on the “theorists”), dishonest skeptics, and “lone rangers” (rebels who will not be pastored or taught anything by other men – unless it’s men THEY approve of, of course). My estimation has nothing to do with being biased toward Scofield, but is rather based on having examined his accusers and their accusations from several different angles. The complaints against him have to do mostly with unproven things in his personal life that he was ALLEGEDLY involved in before he was saved. There isn’t any solid, reliable documentation on those things that would hold up in any court of law, but rather evil surmisings and speculation. One author who hates Scofield views the lack of documentation for a certain period in Scofield’s life as “suspicious,” and postulates he was involved in some form of devilment for that period. We could just as easily assume he led ten thousand people to Christ during that period, as to suspect something ominous. Dave MacPherson (The Incredible Cover-Up, Omega Publications, Medford, OR, 1993) follows the same methodology in accusing John Nelson Darby (another dispensationalist) of “covering up” from where he supposedly got his pre-tribulation rapture “theory” (his word, not mine). It’s the “argument from silence.” That is, Darby didn’t say he got his teaching from the source (some charismatic girl named Margaret McDonald) that MacPherson says he did, which obviously means he’s covering up the fact that he did.
(MacPherson didn’t even bother to prove Darby ever met the crazy girl, but rather assumes it based on what he “thinks” Darby “meant” when he “said” or “didn’t say” something or other. I’ve never seen such a biased, dishonest, speculative, paranoid operation in all my life. The calibre of research behind these accusations can be illustrated in the following exchange:
“The Bible teaches that Simon Peter shot his mother-in-law with a .45 pistol.”
“Well, it doesn’t say that he DIDN’T, so he must have!”)
I have in my possession a book review that “fact checks” a work from the early 1980’s put out by a man named Joseph Canfield, who simply FABRICATED just about all of the so-called evidence against Scofield. I can make it available to whoever is interested. From what I can tell, many of Scofield’s detractors have simply copied Canfield’s biased and inaccurate information. The work by MacPherson was handily refuted and debunked (with REAL documentation, not assumptions, suspicions and silences) in the ‘80’s by the same author who reviewed Canfield’s work. Which begs the question, why haven’t Scofield’s detractors run across the truth of this matter? It wouldn’t take much digging to find it. These “internet scholars” aren’t interested in the truth, they are looking for a following. And the people who follow them are looking for justification to believe whatever they want, as long as they don’t have to submit to the authority God has placed in their lives.
In truth, the personal and the theological arguments against Scofield (or Darby, or any other pre-trib dispensationalist) amount to a straw dummy. Scofield is just the guy on which the anti-dispensationalists and anti-pre-tribbers have always focused their attacks, because his work, along with Larkin’s, has done such violence to their Bible-rejecting systems. Erecting straw dummies and attacking them is a misdirection all Bible-rejecters participate in, because they are driven by the same spirit. For example, the “scholarship-only” crowd can’t academically argue against Dr. Ruckman’s material on the King James, so they begin assaulting his character and personal life. They talk about his divorces, his “mean-spirited preaching,” his “bad language,” his “strange doctrines” – anything but deal with the Bible issue. It’s the same old jingle. The anti-dispensationalist will spend ten times the amount of energy assaulting Scofield’s character or personal life as he will dealing with the scriptures, because the man who refuses to rightly divide will remain so infantile in his Bible knowledge, he cannot understand or exposit the scriptures anyway.
Another attack waged against correct Biblical doctrine on the internet is against what is called pre-millennialism. That’s not a Bible word, but it describes something in the Bible: the physical return of Jesus Christ to reign for a literal 1000 years on this earth, which takes place BEFORE the White Throne judgment and the creation of the new heaven and earth (Rev. 19, 20).
The allegation that pre-millennialism, dispensationalism, and the so-called “secret rapture” (I don’t know what’s “secret” about it; the lost world will know we are gone, and born-again Christians will obviously have some indication. From whom is it being kept secret?) are “new, modern doctrines that have only been around since 1830” is without sure foundation in logic or evidence. The Calvinists (or Reform theologians, or Sovereign Grace, etc – all are wings flapping on the same turkey) and the mid-trib/post-trib/pre-wrath rapture bunch state that our scriptural positions on the pre-tribulation rapture of the church and the pre-millennial return of Jesus Christ are not the “traditional” positions of New Testament Christians, nor is there anything in writing to historically document our beliefs. This bunch of Bible-rejecters has proven they are not only Biblically illiterate, but generally illiterate – they’ve been spending too much time arguing about esoteric theological fantasies and not enough time reading (I Tim. 4:13; 6:3-5).
Much of so-called “history” consists of writers researching what other writers wrote about the writers who wrote. A lot of what is written concerning theological matters throughout church history could not be used to prove what millions of Christians who wrote nothing actually believed. Nevertheless, if they wish to refer to “historical positions,” here are some interesting ones. Pre-millennialism (the scriptural belief in the literal return of Jesus Christ to usher in a literal 1000-year reign of peace in a physical kingdom on this earth) was the doctrine of the early church fathers Papias, Barnabas, Commodian, Justin Martyr, Methodius, Irenaeus, Lactantius, Victorinus, and Tertullian; which means the line of pre-millennial witnesses runs unbroken from the Apostle John clear up to 311 A.D. It was Roman Catholic, dark-age false doctrine and persecution that influenced the abandonment (by some, certainly not all) of pre-millennialism to post-millennialism (Christ returns after man has established peace through his own efforts of making the world a better place) and amillennialism (Christ makes no literal, physical return). After all, the scholarly crowd doing most of the writing was not suffering any persecution, for much of them agreed with the catholics.
Dispensationalism is the teaching that there are divisions in scripture (II Tim. 2:15), with God telling certain men and groups different things that He expects from them to gain His approval and/or obtain salvation, at different times throughout history, including future history. That is a fact that is proven by a cursory, one-time reading of the Bible. That is not an opinion or an interpretation; it is a description of the contents of the Book. That this teaching is a modern doctrine recently conceived in the last 200 years is an absolute horselaugh. First of all, anybody who ever read the Bible (any Bible) ONCE believes there are divisions in it. Anybody who turned the pages from Malachi 4 to Matthew 1 noticed there’s a title page inserted between those books that says “New Testament.” Now there’s a division if you ever saw one. Everybody believes in dividing the Bible at least once (see II Cor. 3:6 and Heb. 9), so let’s dispense with all the hypocritical hot air about it.
Scofield and Darby invented dispensationalism, did they? What fool would think we have to check with them to find out there are different divisions and “dispensations” (Eph. 3:1-7) in the Bible? The fool who doesn’t read the Bible and believe what he reads, that’s who.
How could someone who read the Bible ONCE miss the fact that God’s commandment to one man was, “Don’t eat of that tree, or you’ll die” and within five chapters He’s commanding another man to build a boat to escape death and the judgment of God? The punishment was death for breaking either commandment. Something changed in the plans between Genesis 2 and Genesis 6. If not, why aren’t we worried about eating fruit or building boats today?
How could anyone who read the Bible one time through not notice that God made a pretty big deal about the ten commandments, to the extent that He promised life and blessing to those who kept them, and warned of curses, death, and destruction to those who broke them (Deut. 27, 28); only to turn around later and say you’re cursed if you try to keep them (Gal. 3:10-13)?! By the way, being “cursed” lands you in “everlasting fire” (Matt. 25:41); so keeping the law was not just a practical way to achieve sanctification – the death or life of the SOUL depends on it in the Old Testament (Eze. 18:20).
God told a fellow (Abraham) he’d have a lot of children (Gen. 12, 17), and then told him to take his son and offer him up for a burnt offering (Gen. 22). When the man believed God and obeyed (works), God accepted him and imputed righteousness to him (Gen. 15:6; Gen. 22; Jam. 2:21; Rom. 4:22). Did God ever tell YOU to do such a thing? Nope. He tells different men, and different groups to do different things at different times to gain His approval, both in the context of life on earth, and in eternity. He made different covenants (agreements) with different men and nations with completely different elements to them, at different times in history. That isn’t an invention; it’s a fact available to anyone who can read, and I don’t mean a Scofield study Bible.
One time (Eze. 18:20-27) God said, “If a man does good works all his life, and then at the end of his life decides to go to the ‘dark side’ and do evil, all his good works will not be remembered and he’ll die in his sins. On the other hand, if a man does evil works all his life, and then in the end decides to start living right, all his sins won’t be remembered, and He’ll SAVE HIS SOUL.” That’s what it says. Salvation by works, plain and simple. So is that how you “saved your soul”? You did it yourself, with your own righteousness, did you? You cannot possibly admit that to be true (not honestly anyway) in the light of the scriptures you know in the New Testament like Eph. 2:8-9; Tit. 3:5; Rom. 3:21-22; Rom. 10:3. Further, that passage in Ezekiel describes someone losing their salvation, when Rom. 8:35-39 describes someone who cannot. We then have another reversal in the system, when God, Who just said you can’t lose it in Romans 8, then turns around and commands some believers who keep the commandments AND have the faith of Jesus not to take a mark, or they’ll “lose it” and be damned (Rev. 14:9-12).
Now what does somebody do with a mess like that, who claims to believe in the inerrancy of scripture, and confesses there are no contradictions in the word of God? I’ll tell you what you do – you either reject the word of God and pretend It doesn’t say what It says (by “spiritualizing” and making up symbolism where there is none), or you submit yourself to the word of God, and observe the divisions that God shows you in the scriptures and practice “rightly dividing the word of truth” (not to be confused with “correctly handling” it – see II Tim. 2:15 in the new bibles).
Call it “dispensationalism,” call it “rightly dividing,” or call it “reading and believing what you read,” but you are faced with a choice: either the Bible is a confused web of contradictions that should be thrown out as pagan gibberish; or it is a book with divisions – which divisions must be faithfully observed. When one observes these divisions, he will see the Bible come together like perfect pieces of a puzzle, and every word and phrase is retained as absolutely pure and correct, with no contradiction whatsoever. If the Bible is truly inerrant, and is our Final Authority, we should conform our theology to It in such a way as to justify and protect Its text from any damage or abuse. Rightly dividing (II Tim. 2:15) accomplishes this; and every other system that is applied to the Book requires changing the words and practicing private interpretation to “patch up the holes.”
There are many systems out there that represent attempts at rightly dividing; Larkin’s system is not the same as Scofield’s, which is not the same as Darby’s. Dr. Ruckman teaches it from the standpoint of the covenants. I don’t know a Bible-believing pastor who does his own studying that agrees with 100% of any particular system; but where they disagree will be in the fine details, or in semantics, and not in the major essentials and necessities of proper division. For example, you can examine Genesis 1-2 and call it the “Edenic Covenant,” or the “Age of Innocence,” or “Division One,” or call it something else – but by whatever name you call it, there are changes God makes in His plans that have to be acknowledged. To disregard them is to disregard what God SAID.
“Nobody believed in dispensations until Scofield and Larkin.” Do you think because no one has found a theology book written before 1800 that goes through the finer points of “dispensations” proves no one believed it? Paul taught it (Gal. 4:4; Rom. 11:25-26); the writer of Hebrews believed it and wrote about it (Heb. 12:24); Simon Peter believed it and preached it (look at Acts 10-15!) – those guys are pretty reliable sources. And how about Jesus Christ the dispensationalist – “The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it” (Luke 16:16). Those writings are pretty “early.”
Which of our dark-age spiritual forefathers, as they were being ravaged, hounded, and persecuted across Europe and into the New World by the Roman Catholic church from 500-1500 A.D., had time to publish a theology book? Then again, maybe there were some written and published...and then burned by the Catholic inquisitors as “heretical writings.” This pretended absence of documentation proves nothing. There ISN’T an absence of documentation (see the list of pre-millennial church fathers above).
The argument against the pre-tribulation rapture of the body of Christ is the same as the argument against dispensationalism, in general. According to the nay-sayers, no one believed in it before 1830 (give or take). This is more of the same dishonest research. The church fathers I listed earlier believed Jesus Christ had to return bodily to reign on this earth, before it’s wiped out and a new one created (Isa. 65:17; Rev. 20, 21), for a literal thousand years. They were pre-millennialists, and it’s worth reading what they have to say about the catching out of believers before the tribulation, but here is the strongest statement of them all. Here we have a church father named Ephraem the Syrian – as in ANTIOCH of Syria, where the first Bible teachers show up (Acts 11:26) – writing between 303-373 A.D.:
“For all the saints and the elect of God are gathered prior to the Tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sin.”
This preacher believed the saints would be gone before THE Tribulation (not just common "tribulations"). Though it does not prove the pre-trib position to be correct (the Bible needs no help doing that), this citation proves that at least some Christians believed in a pre-tribulation rapture of believers more than a thousand years before Larkin, Darby, or Scofield ever showed up. The pre-tribulation rapture is not a “modern” teaching recently sprung up. The accusation is false, and supported only by speculation and circumstantial evidence from questionable sources.
I don’t believe the accusations against C. I. Scofield. I think they are fabrications invented by kooks and Bible-rejecting weirdos. But, for kicks, let’s say they are true. So what? “What saith the scriptures?” A lost, drunken bum on a street corner can quote John 3:16 to passers-by and be telling the truth. Somebody says, “Dr. Ruckman doesn’t qualify for the ministry because of etc., etc.” What if he didn’t? Would that negate what he taught about the King James Bible? It is not the source of truth that we are particularly interested in, but rather the truth itself. After all, God inspired a murderer to write more books in the Old Testament than any other author (Moses). He then let a guy who murdered someone while committing adultery with the victim’s wife (David) write the longest book in the Old Testament. (Most Christians wouldn’t tolerate a man like that taking a church to pastor in their town, let alone writing a book in the Bible!) God even allowed a lost, idol-worshipping, Gentile dictator, who’s a type of the Anti-Christ, to write a chapter in His Book (Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel 4). Further, God allowed someone who murdered and tortured Christians for a living (Paul) to write three-quarters of the New Testament, not to mention letting a cursing, swearing, Christ-denying commercial fisherman write two epistles (Simon Peter). And all these men were inspired by God. Apparently, God is more interested in the truth getting out than He is in the vessels he chooses to put that truth out. Also, He apparently has more grace with “the brethren” than some of the brethren have with one other. Who Scofield was and what he did is not nearly as important as the truth he put out.
It is quite an exaggeration to say that the “misinterpretations in the Scofield notes are plentiful,” as one critic put it. True, the business about the sons of God in Genesis 6 being the “godly line of Seth” who intermarried with the Cainites is unscriptural nonsense. That angels are “sexless” beings (see Scofield’s note on Matt. 22) is also ridiculous when checking it with the scriptures. Then again, nobody ever went to hell, misunderstood the atonement of Christ, rejected the history or prophecy recorded in the Bible, doubted their salvation, or failed to be a witness or a good testimony for Christ because they believed the giants came from the illicit relationships of Sethites with Cainites. Furthermore, a man could go his entire Christian life in faithful and pleasing service for the Lord and not truly understand what angels are.
There are a few places where the Scofield board of editors drop the ball and/or yield to the scholarship of their day – Genesis 1:2 (wrong cross-references – the passages in Jeremiah and Isaiah are proven by their contexts to be tribulation references.); Genesis 6 (the “godly line” of Sethites marrying Cainites); Matthew 22 (sexless angels); the introduction to James (they have the wrong “James” as author, and think the book is written to “Christian Jews of the dispersion” when it clearly says it’s to the “twelve tribes”); and the introduction to II Thessalonians (where the “day of Christ” in 2:1 is said to be a “mistranslation” and should read “the day of the Lord”). None of those do any extreme damage to essential doctrine, and where the notes recommend alternate translation, the text of scripture is, when all is said and done, left unmolested. I’d say that’s a pretty good record considering the size and scope of the work Scofield produced. He quotes the RV in the marginal notes from time to time – we don’t agree, but so what? The margin is where extra material that is not scripture belongs, in a study Bible. Say what you may, Scofield never altered the text of the King James Bible; which is more than we can say for our buddy MacPherson (see The Incredible Cover-up, pg. 119, where he “goes to the Greek” to change the word in the Bible that doesn’t fit his theology. And we’re going to trust a dishonest crook like that when it comes to his analysis of anything?). As a matter of fact, at the time when Scofield was putting his study Bible together, there may not have been reason to believe the RV was not a legitimate revision, the likes of which the King James had already undergone several times to adjust for spelling and usage. It only later became known that Westcott and Hort had secreted in a different text to replace the King James text. Scofield’s critics assume (without proof) that he was up to no good; we can just as easily assume he hadn’t the chance to thoroughly check the scholarship behind the RV. It’s also to Scofield’s credit that he didn’t fool with the ASV of 1901 which he had opportunity to utilize (again, more than we can say for Dave MacPherson) and didn’t.
The internet conspiracy theorists say the Scofield system “stinks of Rome,” or, “Scofield was a Jesuit, or influenced by them.” I have some questions about this.
1) What could Rome possibly have to gain by promoting dispensationalism, a pre-millennial theological system that pits the Bible directly against everything Rome teaches and stands for?
2) What would Rome gain by promoting pre-millennialism and dispensationalism through an obscure outlet like a Scofield Study Bible, which only certain, specific groups of one singular denomination (Baptists) utilize?
3) If Rome wanted people to believe what Scofield taught, wouldn’t they be teaching it themselves? What Rome teaches seems to have worked for them – a billion people ascribe to it.
4) And what has Rome to gain from spreading the “lie” that the rapture is imminent, hmm? Doesn’t that take the emphasis off the Pope’s present “rule and reign” and get people looking for Someone Else?
5) Rome is now actively engaged in proselytizing as many evangelicals and charismatics as possible to THEIR theology (their post-millennial “brotherhood of man” crap); why get them to believe in a theology that has taken virtually everyone who ever espoused it OUT and AWAY from the church of Rome? Isn’t that a little counter-productive?
If the accusation that “Scofield was a Jesuit” is a reference to the alleged influence of the Catholic Apostolics Irving and Margaret McDonald on Darby, who then supposedly influenced Scofield, that’s quite a reach. And it’s based on the word of an ASV toting, Bible-correcting, post-tribulational journalist (MacPherson, who by the way forgets to mention his own salvation or church membership in his book) seeking to discredit the pre-trib rapture doctrine by “marrying up” the teaching to a demon-possessed, hysterical woman whose “prophetic” statements can hardly be interpreted to match anything in Darby’s or Scofield’s material. On the other hand, It would be no surprise if there were portions of Margaret MacDonald’s confused ramblings that happen to match pre-millennial, pre-trib rapture doctrine – devils are familiar with the scriptures (Matt. 4), know and confess Who Jesus Christ is (Luke 4:34), and often tell the truth (Acts 16:16, 17). IF she spoke of a pre-tribulation rapture of believers (which remains to be seen; there’s certainly no reference to it in any of her written quotes), she spoke a truth while being demon-possessed. So what? Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, and the pope do that (speak a truth while being demon-possessed) on occasion.
MacPherson and others attempt to place suspicion on a teaching they don’t like by cherry-picking people of questionable character or belief and then hanging the teaching around their necks like a sandwich-board sign. “Guilt by association” is the game, and we’ve already commented on the fact that the people who shout the truth (like the drunken bum quoting John 3:16) have no influence on whether the thing they’re shouting is, in fact, the truth or not. Using that kind of logic, we would judge that the Protestant Reformation (a decidedly positive movement) was begun by baby-sprinkling Roman Catholics out to reform “mother church” from within, and therefore we should all become catholics, and align ourselves with all the doctrines the reformers held. That places MEN and their TRADITIONS or BEHAVIOURS as our final authority, and leaves the truth of the Bible out of the equation. In plainer words, to say that pre-millennialism and belief in the pre-tribulation rapture are false doctrines because of some bad folks you found associated with them is the same as saying Roman Catholic infant baptism is true doctrine because of some good folks you found associated with it. Associations prove nothing; and, to add insult to injury, MacPherson hasn’t even come close to proving the associations! He has only intimated, and assumed, and postulated, and cast suspicion, (the Bible calls it “evil surmisings” and “false accusation” – I Tim. 6:3, 4; II Tim. 3:1-7) and then got some other Bible ignoramuses (some of whom head up Bible-rejecting Christian colleges – many have since renounced any connection to MacPherson, and accused him of twisting their statements) to agree with him. He did this because he’s a dishonest skeptic – he already had his mind made up that the pre-tribulation rapture teaching was wrong when he went scouring the globe for his “proof.” When he couldn’t find any solid connections to anything nefarious in the histories of those who supposedly conceptualized the hated pre-trib doctrine, and the alternative was to believe Darby and others got their doctrine from their BIBLE STUDY (horrors!), he then did what any good journalist would do: he made something up.
Roman Catholic doctrine is against pre-millennial and pre-trib rapture theology. Rome is against it because it takes the pope off his throne. The catholic thinks the prophecies concerning Jesus Christ’s rule and reign were fulfilled at Calvary (note the serpent’s head being crushed under the foot of the dying saviour in many Bible-rejecting catholic depictions. An interesting interpretation, seeing that Satan’s head had not yet been “bruised” as late as Romans 16:20), so what’s left for “the church” to do is SUBJIGATE THE WORLD BY FORCE, and bring in “peace on earth to men of good will” through the efforts of the “brotherhood of man.” That’s why the pope is a political AND a religious leader, professing to rule in the place of Jesus Christ in order to “bring in the kingdom” on earth. In the Bible, Jesus Christ’s reign and kingdom are yet future (“...now is my kingdom not from hence” – John 18:36; Zech. 14:1-9), so the pope’s rule is invalid, and their physical warfare is directly against scripture (Eph. 6). Rome also denies the catching away of the body of Christ before the great tribulation (which it spiritualizes while rejecting scripture), and promotes replacement theology by applying to “the church” (meaning the Roman Catholic organization, not the body of born-again believers – Eph. 1, 2) the promises God made to the nation of Israel both in the Old Testament, and in places like Romans 9-11. “Roman leaven” is not found in the prophetic applications in Scofield’s teachings, but in preterism, post-millennialism, a-millennialism, replacement theology (which produces a “hate the Jews” mentality which all devout catholics have), and in the “pre-wrath, mid-trib, post-trib rapture” movement gaining more notoriety as of late.
If you want to find “Roman leaven,” you find folks who believe the same things Rome believes and teaches; and the most anti-catholic group with the LEAST in common with Rome will be pre-millennial, pre-tribulational, independent Baptists, some of whom happen to carry Scofield Reference Bibles.