I once knew of a hyper-dispensationalist forum (now defunct) that degenerated to the point where you had to first register and declare yourself "a friend" before being allowed to read along.
The sad thing is that they never did seem to understand the Biblical definition of a friend:
Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but lavished are the kisses of an enemy (Prov. 27:6, Rotherham.)
A friend is not one who agrees, always has something nice to say, or is always non-controversial, and a true friend is certainly no flatterer.
You know we never used flattery, nor did we put on a mask to cover up greed - God is our witness (1Thes. 2:5.)
Communities that refuse to allow visitors until they identify themselves as "friends" simply don't know the meaning of the word, but social scientists recognize such tactics as those employed by cults, and they do serve a purpose.
Their purpose is to aid in the gradual indoctrination of a recruit into a closed (and therefore un-falsifiable) belief system.
Theologians may be reminded of Paul's words to Timothy:
For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear (1 Tim. 4:3.)
Before hyper-dispensationalists quote this verse (as they often do when their system is questioned), they should ask themselves where The Body of Christ was for some eighteen hundred years, as their unique interpretation of scripture was unknown until an imaginative nineteenth century Theologian by the name of Bullinger advanced the idea.
Since then, some have discarded even the idea of repentance as being any part of what they call Paul's Gospel (despite the fact that Paul himself used the word), and there has been no shortage of "itching ears."
(See Repentance and the Pauline Gospel, by Darroll Evans.)
Hyper-dispensationalists should also ask themselves the following questions:
If their Gospels were so radically different, why do we have Paul telling Peter:
We, who by nature are Jews, and not sinners of the nations, having perceived that a man is not being justified by works of law, except alone through the faith of Christ Jesus, we also believe in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by the faith of Christ and not by works of law, seeing that by works of law shall no flesh at all be justified (Gal. 2:15-16, Concordant Version)?
If people were not distorting Paul’s message (as some do today), why did James say:
But someone will be declaring, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from the works and I shall be showing you my faith by my works (James 2:18, Concordant Version)?
If justification belongs to Paul's Gospel, and pardon belongs to the circumcision, why did Jesus say:
Now the tribute collector, standing afar off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his chest, saying, 'God, make a propitiatory shelter for me, the sinner!' I am saying to you, this man descended to his home justified, rather than that one (Luke 18:13-14, Concordant Version)?
Why did Paul say (of himself and the Colossian saints):
In Whom we are having deliverance, the pardon of sins (Colossians 1:14, Concordant Version)?
What was it in Paul’s epistles, that some were twisting to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16)?
If the Lord’s supper is not part of Paul’s Gospel, why did he say:
...as often as you are eating this bread and drinking this cup, you are announcing the Lord's death until He should be coming (1 Cor. 11:26, Concordant Version) ?
Did the Lord come when we weren’t watching, or should we still be announcing His death till He comes?
If water baptism is no part of “Paul’s Gospel,” why were many of the Corinthians baptized under Paul’s ministry?
Now Crispus, the chief of the synagogue, believes the Lord, together with his whole household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized (Acts 18:8, Concordant Version.)
The 18th chapter of Acts tells us that not only Crispus, Gaius, and the houshold of Stephanas (whom Paul baptized personally--1 Cor. 1:14-16) were baptized under Paul's ministry, MANY WERE!
Paul was later glad that he hadn’t personally baptized all of them, as he did not want his enemies to accuse him of baptizing in his own name (1 Cor. 1:15), but he nowhere says that water baptism wasn't part of his ministry.
Even hyper-dispensationalists admit it was part of Christ's ministry, and how many people did Christ personally baptize?
When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,) He left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee (John 4:1-3.)
We’re told He baptized (John 3:23), and baptized more disciples than John (John 4:1), but He Himself personally baptized no one (John 4:2.)
We’re told that many of the Corinthians were baptized under Paul’s ministry (Acts 18:8), and he personally baptized at least two individuals, and one household (1 Cor. 1:14-16.)
So it turns out that Paul (the Apostle to the Gentiles) personally baptized more people than Jesus (the "minister of the circumcision"--Romans 15:8.)
If the marriage of the Lamb is yet future (Rev. 21:2), is “the bride of Christ" not now betrothed to the Lamb?
Is Christ not the Lamb of Revelation, and did Paul not refer to the Corinthians (Jew and Gentile alike) as a virgin he had betrothed to Christ (2 Cor. 11:2)?
Artificial explanations aside, wasn’t he essentially using the same figure here as the so-called “circumcision writers”?
Would Peter, Paul, James, or John recognize the teaching of hyper-dispensationalists as anything remotely similar to the deposit of faith that was once delivered to the saints (Jude 3)?
Did Jude not say that we should earnestly contend for the faith once delivered?
Is hyper-dispensationalism really based on scripture, or the traditions of men (and why are some so afraid of these questions)?
I myself am a dispensationalist, but hyper-dispensationalists drown the baby in the bath water.
The forum I spoke of in the begining no longer exists, but I believe it could have survived and served a worthy purpose if the hyper-dispensationalists there had been less attached to their peculiar baggage (or at least willing to accept those with no such attachment as their brothers.)
Perhaps the biggest problem with the hyper D's is that they're so blinded by one another (constantly reinforcing their most unlikely opinions and interpretations) that they're unable to see the weaknesses of their interpretation, and consider themselves too spiritually mature to learn anything from those outside their little circle.
Return Home