Dispensationalism: Establishing an Understanding
Comments
-
@C_M_ said:
He also states that some dispensational works were translated into Korean in the early twentieth century. During the Japanese occupation (1910-1945) some Christians went to the Shinto shrines...Actually under state law (when Korea was a colony of Japan) attendance at a Shinto shine was mandatory from the mid 1920's until the end of the occupation. After the war II most of the shinto shrines in Korea were destroyed or were converted into something korean. At some point dispensational theology might have been used as an convenient excuse but it was hardly the cause and I doubt that Koreans (be they Christian or not) actually wanted to go to a Shinto Shine.
If, anyone is actually serious about learning more about this issue I recommend starting with:
Chapter Four The Korean Presbyter Ian Church Under the Rule of Japanese Imperialism
https://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/24868/04chapter4.pdf?sequence=5The Shinto Shrine Issue in Korean Christianity under Japanese Colonialism
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23921260?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contentsKorean Christianity and the Shinto Shrine issue in the war period, 1931-1945 : a study of religion and politics
https://hydra.hull.ac.uk/resources/hull:3629 -
In the west Christians are often engaged in explaining how Monotheism is not incompatible with Trinitarianism. And, so the concept of distinct persons of the Trinity in stressed.
Unfortunately, when those same Christians come to Japan they forget that the Japanese never had the concept of monothesism. In fact in Shintoism the gods are everywhere and can be almost anything. So when those Christian evangelist/missionaries preach and teach the teach persons of trinity they fail to realize that the Japanese tend to understand this as Tri-theism or as a god family which is by the way not incompatible with Shintoism and Japanese Buddhism.
-
@Dave_L said:
Interesting. I know many have leveled the charge of antinomianism against the Dispies, because Scofield taught the Sermon on the Mount is not for the Church. Which of course is pure antinomianism. It also denies this "doctrine of Christ" as referred to by Matthew at the close of the Sermon. And John says, if any come to your house, not having the "doctrine of Christ", don't let them in or bid them a good day.
Scofield is ONE MAN. He is not Dispensational Theology.
-
Indeed, but had and have great influences across many denominations, especially with his SRB and now the NSRB. Don't try to down play this truth. The late Dr. Ryrie's work and the Dallas Theological Seminary are keepers of this man's legacy. It seems to be repackaged error, based on my finding thus far. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
Indeed, but had and have great influences across many denominations, especially with his SRB and now the NSRB. Don't try to down play this truth. The late Dr. Ryrie's work and the Dallas Theological Seminary are keepers of this man's legacy. It seems to be repackaged error, based on my finding thus far. CM
Yeah, based on ridiculous notions, uncited sources, and not actually going to the sources themselves.
-
@reformed said:
Yeah, based on ridiculous notions, uncited sources, and not actually going to the sources themselves.
All based on one book? Cite what you believe to be the right sources, please! CM
-
@C_M_ said:
All based on one book? Cite what you believe to be the right sources, please! CM
No not all based on one book. But that book would be considered a leading source. So would Progressive Dispensationalism by Bock. So unless you are going to investigate those leading Dispensationalism vs things that were written about them by others, there's really no reason to continue this discussion.
