Dispensationalism is overtly inconsistent in practice. To be hypocritical is to say one thing and do the opposite, or to assert a standard and then not practice it. This happens in multiple ways with Dispensational Premillennialism
For example, one of the core tenets of Dispensationalism is the belief scripture should be read literally. Sometimes this is qualified to say prophecy, not all scripture, is to be read literally. The problems arising from this position are that the rules of correct biblical exegesis have been long-held and well-established by nearly everyone in Christendom no matter their respective theology or eschatology or other doctrinal views. The literal reading of scripture is a basic tenet of exegesis but that rule does not apply to ALL scripture, especially not prophecy since prophecy is often one of the most figurative and/or allegorical literary genres. As a consequence, Dispensationalism's requirement for literal reading ignores centuries of Christian thought, doctrine, and practice, but another problem arises because Dispensationalists do not actually read all prophecy literally, and they openly criticize others when they practice literal reading! Not only is literalism not practiced consistently despite the self-asserted emphasis on literalism, and not only is there inherently contradictory criticism of those who do practice literalism where Dispensationalists do not, but there is also enormous inconsistency between the imminent prognostications constantly being asserted and the fact rarely do any Dispensationalists act is if their own claims are actually true! They say the world is coming to an end any day now but they do not actually act as if that is true.
Scripture should be read literally, however there is a hermeneutic they speak to that has rules. It is nice that you don't mention this at all so you can bash dispys. For instance, I beleive that every prophecy is literal, and that the actual event/thing being prophesied about MUST remain UNCHANGED through one's interpretation. There is enough given prophecy, that has given fulfillment, or fulfillment that can be seen in history, that shows that this is the case. It is one reason so many literal scholars absolutely hate the book of Daniel, and the early date given for it being written. It is like a guidebook to how predictive prophecy is given and fulfilled. And God, for whatever reason, keeps giving out evidence that points to the early date as being when it was written. Consider Daniel's statue. The times of the Gentile. When you take this with the related prophecy of the four beasts, you have a VERY accurate rendition of history. One doesn't have to reinterpret everything. The literal events are just couched in symbols. Consider the chest and arms of the statue, to the bear beast with it's uneven nature. The Medes and Persians. Two peoples, two arms/sides of the statue. Uneven in strength (the bear is unbalanced), the Medes (I believe, I could have this backwards) were always more powerful than the Persians. Consider the leopard (fast) with the four wings (now supercharged really fast), and four heads. Alexander conquered VERY VERY quickly, and when he died, his kingdom was divided amongst four of his generals. God was VERY literal in the prophecies, just couched in imagery.
Go back to Joseph and the cup bearer/baker of Pharaoh. Their prophetic dreams were VERY literal even in the imagery. Same with Pharaoh's dream about the famine. It was told twice, and even with different imagery each time, what was said by the imagery was exactly the same both times.
You have to consider the rules of the literal hermeneutic as they give it. It does not say that there is nothing that might be figurative, or symbolic in language. However, it does speak to how it should be handled.. I read some information on covenant amillennialism and the sheer amount of presupposition and forcing of beliefs onto scripture was... frankly... incredible. I didn't even know how bad it was. Right down to ignoring things Jesus Himself said, or saying, that isn't what He meant.
In regard to the emphasis on literalism, the
Dispensational Hermeneutic (pdf file) states a word should be “
given the same meaning it would have in normal usage.” In Dispensationalism this is often applied to OT prophecy but not NT prophecy. Neither is it applied to NT renderings of the OT. For example, Dispensationalists take literally the promise of a Davidic throne found in 2 Samuel 7 but they do not take literally Peter’s statements in Acts 2 about that promise. Another example of this inconsistency is when they use the word “
near” to mean near but do not read scripture's use of "
near" to mean near. They say, “
The building of the temple is near,” but they do not give God’s use of the word “
near,” in Revelation the same meaning it would have in normal usage. The word “
near,” literally mean near in time or space.
You should be honest in your portrayal. Not being such is deceitful. Ryrie had this to say "The literalist(so called) is not one who denies that figurative language, that symbols, are used in prophecy, nor does he deny that great spiritual truths are set forth therein; his position is, simply, that the prophecies are to be normally interpreted (i.e., according to received laws of language) as any other utterances are interpreted—that which is manifestly figurative being so regarded."
In the same paper you gave, it says that the literal hermeneutic of the dispensationalist is basically the grammical-historical method used consistently. "Thus, dispensationalists, by and large, have used the term literal to refer to their system of interpretation (the consistent use of the grammatical-historical system), and once inside that system, literal refers to whether or not a specific word or phrase is used in its context in a figurative or literal sense. This helps us understand why Radmacher describes the system of literal interpretation (Johnson's no.2) as “both plain-literal and figurative-literal”"
Then when a non-Dispensationalist Christian does read verses or passages literally, they expose themselves to criticism by Dispensationalists and that criticism in often rude, disrespectful and sometime profane. I have even had my salvation called into question when I post a literal reading of scripture.
Then you need to consider whether it was plain literal or figurative literal. I have a feeling you were presenting figurative literal as plain literal, in which case they may have rightly called you out on it.
Robert Fitzpatrick was a man who spent over $140,000 on billboards and other advertisements to proclaim the gospel leading up to the return of Jesus on May 21, 2011 according to the predictions made by Harold Camping. No matter what anyone here thinks of Camping, Mr. Fitzpatrick acted with integrity; he acted in a manner consistent with his own beliefs. He acted in a manner consistent with the Dispensational Premillennial teaching he had received. He genuinely believed he was not going to be around to spend his wealth, so he spent it on that which was important to him:
the gospel. Scores of people have behaved in like manner due to the Dispensational Premillennialist eschatology they were taught. They all lost their money foolishly and no one in DP leadership ever apologized or compensated any of them.
If a person truly believes they will raptured off of the planet next week, next month, next year, within the next decade or two then there is little sense in paying a mortgage, saving money for retirement, or investing in profitability of future stocks. That person will not be around to spend that wealth if what they believe to be true is in fact true. Therefore, every single Dispensationalist who believes in a soon-occurring rapture but acts in a manner inconsistent with that belief is acting with hypocrisy. Ironically, Dispensational Premillennialism also explicitly asserts the Church is corrupt and actively anticipates false teachers in the future, particularly as the millennium approaches but 1) it fosters an enormous number of teachers who teach falsely and 2) it does nothing to change this practice. More often than not those decrying false teachers are false teachers.
In other words, there are numerous conditions wherein Dispensationalism fosters objectively observable hypocrisy, where the Dispensationalist practices that which s/he reports to eschew or disdain.
You do realize that when you have a soon/imminent event, you have no idea when it is going to occur, right? It is impossible to know. And when you ask people to tell you, you are basically attacking Jesus' statement, of which every dispensationalist should remember, it isn't our business to know about times or seasons that God the Father has established by His own power. We are to be evangelizing the world. We have been given signs for some things, and no signs for others. Those we can know the signs, but we don't know when they are going to happen. For instance, there will be plagues before the kingdom, and Jesus second coming. Have you heard of the black plague? 1/3 of the population of the known world dead... in the 14th century. Kingdom against kingdom and nation against nation. WW I and II. (Just one war with an intermission). Kingdom against kingdom, and nation against nation is a Jewish idiom, and when you consider its meaning, that's really all you are left with. BTW, with idioms, it means it doesn't have a direct connection to your language/culture, so it has to be explained. When I was learning to be a linguist with the Russian language, the Russian teachers kept asking us what English idioms mean, because they couldn't wrap their minds around some of them. They understood when we explained it has a lot to do with feeling. (Also known as nuance). Russians have some really crazy idioms and slang. For istance, "Overconfident" is a sentence (slang) in Russian literally translated "one who sits on porcupine with bare backside."
No other eschatology has these problems)
You might be surprised how many problems your own eschatology has. Presupposition features heavily in covenantal amillennialism. Not to mention a lot of eisegesis. I can't say much on it because I am only about half way through the book I am reading on that. It is part of a 13 year researched doctrinal thesis. (The original thesis was 2200 pages...)
From an
article at Christianity Today on John Darby.
”What separated Darby's dispensationalism was his novel method of biblical interpretation, which consisted of a strict literalism, the absolute separation of Israel and the church into two distinct peoples of God, and the separation of the rapture (the 'catching away' of the church) from Christ's Second Coming. At the rapture, he said, Christ will come for his saints; and at the Second Coming, he will come with his saints.”
How many Dispensationalists do you know currently planning to liquidate their IRAs before the Rapture?
As what has already presented, it isn't strict literalism. Also, if you know when the rapture is, please let me know because there are some computer parts I would like to buy, but they aren't cheap. If I don't need money for much longer, then I could go buy it. The rapture is imminent, in that it can happen at any time. However, the 70th week has a starting event that is set in stone. It isn't going to just happen at any time. It happens when he makes a new strong treaty with the many. (The he being some Gentile of Roman descent.)
