As in all other schools of thought, it is also the case among those who hold to Dispensationalism as a key study principle to studying and sorting out the various issues; there is disagreement.
And there is disagreement about the significance of one issue on another.
Even within books about the Dispensational Hermeneutic, some are well known for holding to a conclusion about a thing as to some passages, only to turn around and contradict that elsewhere.
Though far from alone in this, one of the greatest Bible students history has ever recorded, E. W. Bullinger, is nevertheless, an example of this in his own writings.
Thus; its no surprise that he ended up moving from his earlier position: Mid Acts, to Acts 28.
This recurrent pattern is obvious in that great book of his "How to Enjoy and Study the Bible."
In page after page, he relates some very profound, yet very simple principles of Bible study.
But as you read some of his many examples, you cannot help - if you look at things through their recurrent patterns (as he himself had, ironically) - you cannot help seeing his own violating of his great book's study principles.
Left unchecked, that kind of thing can only begin to "eat" away more and more, at the very basis of that which is sound; at the Hermeneutic itself.
"As doth a canker."
The result is now history. Assert a thing is so, accommodate your study principles to its assertion, in contrast to "now run the math backwards, first" - violate that, and next thing you know, there is not much hope of turning back for you, you are perhaps too far gone.
This often happens within great men, but also, within those equally great movements they end up having been an important catalyst of.
For this also happens, and is in fact much more often the case; where the everyday "Bible" student gets his or her hermeneutic.
Not from Scripture, as they assert, rather; from those results that writers of books write about.
When such a books based "student" goes long in the reading "about" it, in "books," the tendency is to conclude from their reading "about" it, that they know the hermeneutic itself.
Soon thereafter, they begin to produce conclusions absent of the hermeneutic's built in checks and balances.
As a result, they end up unable to even see that they are asserting conclusions that actually violate the hermeneutic.
Conclusions that, absent of those checks and balances they never properly learned to begin with, do not allow them to see their error.
This together with the fleshly mind often involved not only in asserting a thing, but in needing to hold to it once the fleshly mind has been allowed out of its cursed box, does not allow them to even contemplate correction.
What's worse is when they then turn around and assert others are in violation of the hermeneutic.
Such appears to have been what took place, for example, within the Plymouth Brethren.
On the one hand there was Darby's consistent application of the Hermeneutic as he had known it at that time.
But coupled with his arrogance.
On the other hand, there was the Brethren's refusal to follow his lead, both in their refusal to examine the actual consistency of their application of the hermeneutic.
Coupled with their right refusal to allow his arrogance.
An arrogance that eventually leads to all the above errors.
This has been the case within various people as well as within various Dispensational groups ever since, and to this very day.
When the hermeneutic is off in some area, the rest begins to follow.
Newton was right in this once more "an object at rest, tends to stay at rest, unless acted upon by an outside force."
In this, even hot air can be turned into learning a thing from, even if all that learning is "stay away from their example, and its results!"
Here's to consistency then...in the Dispensational Hermeneutic...
And there is disagreement about the significance of one issue on another.
Even within books about the Dispensational Hermeneutic, some are well known for holding to a conclusion about a thing as to some passages, only to turn around and contradict that elsewhere.
Though far from alone in this, one of the greatest Bible students history has ever recorded, E. W. Bullinger, is nevertheless, an example of this in his own writings.
Thus; its no surprise that he ended up moving from his earlier position: Mid Acts, to Acts 28.
This recurrent pattern is obvious in that great book of his "How to Enjoy and Study the Bible."
In page after page, he relates some very profound, yet very simple principles of Bible study.
But as you read some of his many examples, you cannot help - if you look at things through their recurrent patterns (as he himself had, ironically) - you cannot help seeing his own violating of his great book's study principles.
Left unchecked, that kind of thing can only begin to "eat" away more and more, at the very basis of that which is sound; at the Hermeneutic itself.
"As doth a canker."
The result is now history. Assert a thing is so, accommodate your study principles to its assertion, in contrast to "now run the math backwards, first" - violate that, and next thing you know, there is not much hope of turning back for you, you are perhaps too far gone.
This often happens within great men, but also, within those equally great movements they end up having been an important catalyst of.
For this also happens, and is in fact much more often the case; where the everyday "Bible" student gets his or her hermeneutic.
Not from Scripture, as they assert, rather; from those results that writers of books write about.
When such a books based "student" goes long in the reading "about" it, in "books," the tendency is to conclude from their reading "about" it, that they know the hermeneutic itself.
Soon thereafter, they begin to produce conclusions absent of the hermeneutic's built in checks and balances.
As a result, they end up unable to even see that they are asserting conclusions that actually violate the hermeneutic.
Conclusions that, absent of those checks and balances they never properly learned to begin with, do not allow them to see their error.
This together with the fleshly mind often involved not only in asserting a thing, but in needing to hold to it once the fleshly mind has been allowed out of its cursed box, does not allow them to even contemplate correction.
What's worse is when they then turn around and assert others are in violation of the hermeneutic.
Such appears to have been what took place, for example, within the Plymouth Brethren.
On the one hand there was Darby's consistent application of the Hermeneutic as he had known it at that time.
But coupled with his arrogance.
On the other hand, there was the Brethren's refusal to follow his lead, both in their refusal to examine the actual consistency of their application of the hermeneutic.
Coupled with their right refusal to allow his arrogance.
An arrogance that eventually leads to all the above errors.
This has been the case within various people as well as within various Dispensational groups ever since, and to this very day.
When the hermeneutic is off in some area, the rest begins to follow.
Newton was right in this once more "an object at rest, tends to stay at rest, unless acted upon by an outside force."
In this, even hot air can be turned into learning a thing from, even if all that learning is "stay away from their example, and its results!"
Here's to consistency then...in the Dispensational Hermeneutic...