The Doctrine of Complete Dispensationalism (Refining it Down)

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
356
Reaction score
22
Points
28
UGC is now teaching our refined doctrine of Complete Dispensationalism for the first time.

I know you guys are going to really enjoy these video Bible studies

You can also follow us on Facebook at: facebook.com/theUGChurch

-James
 

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
356
Reaction score
22
Points
28
Brand New!

It's under 20 mins this time.

Bible Study on The Great Tribulation & The Gospel of the Kingdom (Prophecy & Mystery Pt. 2)
 

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
356
Reaction score
22
Points
28
Dispensationalism Chart: From Moderate Center (Classic) to either Extreme

UGC_DispenChart.jpg
 

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
356
Reaction score
22
Points
28
New video addresses Covenant Theology, Perseverance of the Saints, and Preterism in total clarity

 

FSSL

Unconditionally Called to Glory
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
6,721
Reaction score
14
Points
38
The KJV (Scofield edition notes) was responsible for an ultra-dispensational understanding regarding the multiple gospels.

But, I am not following how the KJV (in itself) promotes a dispensational understanding. Even Darby, had his own version.

What is more accurate is the approach to interpreting the Bible, not the version of the Bible, itself.
 

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
356
Reaction score
22
Points
28
The KJV (Scofield edition notes) was responsible for an ultra-dispensational understanding
Making the claim that Scofield was "ultra-dispensational" is uninformed at best.

Dispensationalism has had a healthy range of study leaning to both sides of Classical center (a range which aids in validating doctrines shared between them):

1590165415227.png
It would be more accurate to refer to Acts 28 Dispens as "Ultra".
Less so than them, Mid-Acts would be "Hyper".
Even less so would be Ruckman (though he had a stronger Covenantal understanding than the others).
Less than all of them, Scofield is center.
On the other side, Ryrie was "Revised" and used the New Versions.
Finally, DTS is currently "Progressive" in softening it's distinctions with Covenant Theology, to the point where not all of them even agree in lock-step soteriologically with Ryrie anymore.


In considering this scale, one must understand that even the Ultra Acts 28 is still recognized as a formidable position, and one would have to conduct a lot of work to contend they get more wrong than they actually got right.
Therefore, if you're claiming to be a Dispensationalist and already thinking center is "ultra", it demonstrates an ignorance of the brilliant work many Mid-Acts and even Acts 28 Dispens have written, which while again may be "hyper" in some regards, still carry far more scriptural discernment than Covenant Theology.

In fact, that is the crux of the difference between Dispen and Covenant T: Dispensationalism surgically identifies more distinctions in scripture, whereas Covenant Theology bolsters its viewpoints on the back of "unity", meaning less distinctions and an attempt to conglomerate all things under one or two indistinguishable categories.
 

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
356
Reaction score
22
Points
28
Some have erroneously claimed "Calvin didn't use the TULIP" as a red herring to avoid addressing Calvin's adoption of Catholic soteriological positions like "Perseverance of the Saints", which is a distinct component of the Catholic works salvation doctrine, along with the position of Amillennial/Post-Millennialism.


A lesser known Calvinist once claimed, "The first documented use of the "TULIP" acronym is in an American source written in English: Lorraine Boettner's The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, written in the 1930s. If there are earlier examples, I highly doubt they go earlier than the 20th century."


In actuality, R.C. Sproul, one of the most recognized recent Calvinists of our day, along with numerous others, have stated that the 5 points simply summarized and restated the 1618 Canons of Dort, which was an early Calvinist response to Arminianism.

Sources:
What is Reformed Theology? (1997), R.C. Sproul pp. 27–28
Ten Myths about Calvinism (2011), Kenneth Stewart

Some have claimed there is no historical relationship between them, but this only strengthens Sproul's argument that early Calvinists already defined the underlying doctrines outlined by TULIP, especially if there is no direct historical relationship, because it means early Calvinists were already applying the system of TULIP just without using that specific label to describe what they were doing.

Therefore, TULIP is synonymous with Calvin's doctrines, and can be used interchangeably as a representative of them; to critique TULIP is to critique Calvin's invented system of doctrinal interpretation in the late 16th century. To disagree, one would have to prove that TULIP instead departs from Calvin's doctrines, and is not an accurate representation of them.



Perhaps even stronger documentation published by other Reformed Theologians take the system of the 5 points back even further:

"The origins of the five points and the acronym are uncertain, but they appear to be outlined in the Counter Remonstrance of 1611, a less known Reformed reply to the Arminians that occurred prior to the Canons of Dort."
-Crisis In The Reformed Churches: Essays in Commemoration of the Synod of Dort (1618–1619). Reformed Fellowship, Inc. pp. 52–58.


A lesser known Calvinist once claimed, "The Counter Remonstrance of 1611 was 7 points, not 5."


In actuality, points 2-3 both defend Unconditional Election, and are therefore equated to 1 point in TULIP: U.
And points 6-7 both defend the Catholic soteriological doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints, and are therefore equated 1 point in TULIP: P.

Therefore, the 7 points are essentially the 5 points, which is why no one calls themself a 7-point Calvinist, but a 5-point Calvinist.

This proves that the points outlined by the TULIP system can be traced back as far as 1611 at the very least, but are in actuality synonymous and interchangeable with Calvin's doctrines altogether.
 

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
356
Reaction score
22
Points
28
Embarrassingly enough for Calvinists, the Catholic doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints is actually more scripturally accurate than Calvin's.

While both Catholics and Calvinists share the belief that perseverance is necessary for salvation (yet Catholics already openly espouse works salvation, while Calvinists can't as they have to blend in with Protestants), they differ on but one essential aspect of perseverance: Catholics do not believe God will make a person persevere to the end, despite agreeing that working to persevere to the end is still necessary.

In reality, the Catholics are correct here. Scripture provides clear examples of saints who did not persevere to the end, only all Non-Calvinist Protestants believe they were still saved.

Protestants and Catholics may not agree on much, but we can agree on one thing: Calvinism is a paradoxical doctrine that can only be adopted by those willing to sacrifice logic and reason for the prestigious name of "Reformer". Hopefully the time for the New Calvinist Movement is up, as all its current representatives are getting old and irrelevant, while the younger guys are now moving in to restore Dispensational truth to the church.

Thank God.
 

Ransom

Calvinist Mole
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
7,476
Reaction score
75
Points
48
Some--specifically, the UGC Wonder Twins, those affable nitwits--have used the following blather:

Some have erroneously claimed "Calvin didn't use the TULIP" as a red herring to avoid addressing Calvin's adoption of Catholic soteriological positions like "Perseverance of the Saints", which is a distinct component of the Catholic works salvation doctrine, along with the position of Amillennial/Post-Millennialism.
to obfuscate the fact that they previously claimed, wrongly, that Calvin invented the TULIP acronym:

Calvin showed up late in the 16th Century and invented a 5-letter acronym to understand the Bible (which aligns in points with Catholic soteriological doctrine).
Subsequently, when the obvious howler was pointed out to them, the lesser-known YouTubers were compelled to backpedal:

Actually history states that the origin of the English acronym is uncertain.
"Calvin invented a 5-letter acronym to understand the Bible" sounds less like "uncertain history" than an assertion of actual historical fact; conversely, "history states that the origin...is uncertain" sounds suspiciously synonymous to "Whoops, someone who actually knows church history caught me in a really stupid lie."

Shape of . . . a couple of dummies!

A lesser known Calvinist once claimed, "The first documented use of the "TULIP" acronym is in an American source written in English: Lorraine Boettner's The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, written in the 1930s. If there are earlier examples, I highly doubt they go earlier than the 20th century."
It took me a while to trace the source of this obscure quote by an unknown figure, but I finally found it:

The first documented use of the "TULIP" acronym is in an American source written in English: Lorraine Boettner's The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, written in the 1930s. If there are earlier examples, I highly doubt they go earlier than the 20th century.
Whatever caused the UGC Wonder Twins to try and disguise that they're not addressing my very words, made this very day, on this very forum?

Form of . . . obfuscatory windbaggery!

In actuality, R.C. Sproul, one of the most recognized recent Calvinists of our day, along with numerous others, have stated that the 5 points simply summarized and restated the 1618 Canons of Dort, which was an early Calvinist response to Arminianism.
Blah blah blah.

Note that the UGC Wonder Twins started out by asserting (wrongly) that John Calvin invented the TULIP acronym; now he's arguing that the Synod of Dort summarized Calvin's soteriology in five points. Which is true, but a) they are not responsible for an English acronym; b) they expressed it in the wrong order, anyway (more like "TUILP," if I recall correctly), and c) it's not even the UGC Wonder Twins' original assertion that I challenged.

At this point, the All-New Stupour Friends have dragged those goalposts around so much, the coach is going to keep them after school and make them re-sod the field.

Perhaps even stronger documentation published by other Reformed Theologians take the system of the 5 points back even further:
Perhaps the UGC Wonder Twins should seek to find "stronger documentation" of the claims they made, rather than the claims they pivoted to when their stupidity was exposed. This whole post is such a straw man, you can hear the UGC theme song, "If I Only Had a Brain," in the background.
 

Ransom

Calvinist Mole
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
7,476
Reaction score
75
Points
48
While both Catholics and Calvinists share the belief that perseverance is necessary for salvation (yet Catholics already openly espouse works salvation, while Calvinists can't as they have to blend in with Protestants), they differ on but one essential aspect of perseverance: Catholics do not believe God will make a person persevere to the end, despite agreeing that working to persevere to the end is still necessary.
Let's not forget that earlier, the UGC Wonder Twins informed us that Calvin's doctrine of perseverance was the "Catholic" one:

Calvin showed up late in the 16th Century and invented a 5-letter acronym to understand the Bible (which aligns in points with Catholic soteriological doctrine).
It isn't, but it is, but it isn't. I suppose it depends on which Wonder Twin decides to lick the Cheeto powder from his fingers and sit down at the family computer at any given time.

In reality, the Catholics are correct here. Scripture provides clear examples of saints who did not persevere to the end, only all Non-Calvinist Protestants believe they were still saved.
I will note for the record that if "the Catholics are correct here," then the UGC Wonder Twins are averring that:

Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2010, emphasis in original.)​

Paul asked: "Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?" (Galatians 3:3).

The Reformers, who properly understood that the work of salvation was wrought by the Godhead from start to finish, would rightly answer, "No!"

This is what the Wonder Twins tried, above, to downplay as "but one" difference between the Catholic and Protestant doctrines: the Catholics believe God initiates the work of salvation, but man must cooperate by contributing his own good works to merit eternal life (synergism); while the Protestants believe God initiates and carries through the entire work of salvation on the objective basis of Jesus Christ's merits (monergism). UGC assert, contradictorily, that this "but one" difference is an "essential" one. And on the latter, they are correct: whether salvation is all God's work, or part man's, makes all the difference.

The UGC Wonder Twins have basically just admitted that they answer "Yes!" to Paul's second question--and therefore, also, to the first.

And this is why I'm grateful people wanted to see a series on Galatians. If UGC are the "younger guys" who are going to "restore" doctrine to the church, then their garbage needs to be exposed and refuted. UGC was cheering me on when I began the Galatians thread. If I'm handling that letter correctly, obviously they won't be cheering for long.
 
Last edited:

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
356
Reaction score
22
Points
28
Calvin invented the TULIP acronym:
Calvin invented the system, TULIP is just the most recent name by which we label that system. It's the identifier that we all associate it with when we hear it spoken.

The point is, Calvin used a primitive system that attempted to combine Catholic doctrines (Perseverance of the Saints, not even mentioning his Amillennialsm/Post-Millennialism) with non-Catholic doctrines using 5 overarching principles:

T
otal depravity
Unconditional election
Limited atonement
Irresistible grace
Perseverence of the saints

Dating back to at least 1611, we see these principles outlined in the Counter Remonstrance (and if you claim the "7 points" differed from the 5: points 2-3 are both the U, and 6-7 the P, so it's the same 5 principles).

asserting (wrongly) that John Calvin invented the TULIP acronym
John Calvin invented what is translated into English as the doctrines of total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints (a 5-principle system). He used this system to understand the Bible. Fact.

To deny this is to say TULIP is in some way a departure from the Calvin's doctrines, and a departure from both the Counter Remonstrance of 1611 and the 1618 Canons of Dort.

Are you trying to argue the systematic doctrines of total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints are not Calvin's? Because if Calvin did use these principles, it means he indeed applied a 5-principle system, which we now refer to in English as TULIP, to understand the Bible.
 

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
356
Reaction score
22
Points
28
informed us that Calvin's doctrine of perseverance was the "Catholic" one:
Are you saying Catholics don't believe in Perseverance of the Saints?
 

Ransom

Calvinist Mole
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
7,476
Reaction score
75
Points
48
Calvin invented the system
Ah, so when you said "Calvin invented a 5-letter acronym," you really meant "Calvin didn't invent a 5-letter acronym."

Thanks for the clarification. The entire church throughout history is grateful you're here to set them straight. Without the UGC Wonder Twins, how would we ever know that Calvin invented "the system" of theology that has been expressly stated in some form since the fourth century at the latest?

Are you trying to argue the systematic doctrines of total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints are not Calvin's?
No serious person would even have to ask that question. Are you trying to advertise the fact that you are utterly ignorant of the topic? Or just disprove the old adage that there's no such thing as a stupid question?

Of course, you're still obfuscating the fact that you originally blundered when you claimed "Calvin invented a 5-letter algorithm."
Of course, Calvin, a 16th-century Frenchman, did not invent an acronym, based on an English word, that all the evidence suggests came from 20th-century American Calvinists.
Of course, Calvin also did not originate the doctrines for which the modern acronym stands.
Of course, Calvin nonetheless believed and taught them.
Of course, you would have to be illiterate and unread on the topic of church history to think or assert otherwise.
 
Last edited:

Ransom

Calvinist Mole
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
7,476
Reaction score
75
Points
48
Are you saying Catholics don't believe in Perseverance of the Saints?
Of course they don't, as perseverence of the saints is defined by Protestants like Calvin.
In fact, I explained the difference between the Protestant and Catholic definition of perseverence just a few posts above. You did read it, right genius?
 

Ransom

Calvinist Mole
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
7,476
Reaction score
75
Points
48
Thanks to UGC, we should retitle this thread to just: "Doctrine (Completely Dumbing it Down)."
 

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
356
Reaction score
22
Points
28
Ah, so when you said "Calvin invented a 5-letter acronym,"
Here, this analogy will clear it up:

In some countries, cookies have always been "biscuits". However in the US, that's not the identifier by which we know someone is talking about cookies.
In the US, if you make a video about cookies and call them "biscuits", no one will know you're talking about cookies, they'll think you're referring to breakfast biscuits.

We could have easily said "Calvin invented a system of interpretation that is fundamentally based on 5 overarching principles", but unfortunately that language is
academic and abstract for our target audience (keep in mind I have an MBA and studied communication): we're not targeting scholars who are hyper-aware of the
discrepancies in precisely how something is worded, we're communicating on a level of understanding to the general public (which is why our videos are so good
at breaking down complex subjects into an easily digestible format).

The message we were communicating is that Calvin used a few specific principles in an overly general way by inaccurately applying them across the entirety of scripture
(today these principles are understood by the identifier "TULIP". T.U.L.I. and P. are these principles.) This is actually one of the primary issues Non-Calvinists have with
his system: the axioms by which he drew his overarching conclusions on all of scripture, such as "Unconditional Election" and "Irresistible Grace", are based on the
fallacy of Hasty Generalization: he interpreted a small sample set of verses a certain way and then applied them at the macro level using this interpretation.

For example, Calvin believed God elected and predestinated people in Christ before they even came to saving faith. Many of the verses he drew this conclusion from were
actually talking about individuals who were already saved then being predestined for the adoption, which is actually the future redemption of our bodies (Rom. 8:23),
and not initial saving faith itself. This had led many famous Calvinists since to assume that "we were already in Christ before the foundation of the world", while
scripture clearly gives examples of saints who were out of Christ and then placed in Christ at a later time (Eph. 2:11-13), which is why it's common for Non-Calvinists to
argue that many Calvinists are essentially asserting that saints were in Christ, then taken out of Christ, and then placed back into Christ.

You have to realize, Calvin wasn't special. He was just another guy who happened to garner some attention. I personally think there are far more brilliant men throughout
the ages who had a finer discernment of the scriptures who were not as famous. Fame is absolutely no measure of genius. And what are we doing when we study the Bible?
We're studying the mind and words of the most deep and complex being in the universe: God himself. Great is the mystery of Godliness, beyond measure. God can certainly
use men of exceptional intellect to discern the finer things in scripture, while others with different strengths he can use in different ways, there are many members.
John Calvin used a primitive system founded on a small sample size of hasty generalization axioms. Today we refer to this system as TULIP.
 

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
356
Reaction score
22
Points
28
Of course they don't, as perseverence of the saints is defined by Protestants like Calvin.
No, Catholics have traditionally believed in Perseverance of the Saints. I would know, my Dad is Catholic and I grew up attending mass
on some Sundays and Protestant services on others (my Mom is Protestant). I've a keen understanding of both systems since childhood,
whereas most only have an understanding of one and an incomplete interpretation of the other that they learned from their biased
denominational defense apologetics.

Catholics even recite this many times during mass: "We believe in the Perseverance of the Saints".

Calvin simply took Perseverance of the Saints and redefined it using the hasty generalization system of axioms that I just described
in post #19, to imply that all saints will persevere to the end. Catholics have always believed that saints must persevere to the end,
however there are many writings and debates where Catholics have clearly stated God will not force them to, and the apostasy of
a believer is possible.

Catholics certainly believe perseverance to the end is necessary, and this is an obvious component of their works salvation doctrine,
as scripture clearly calls perseverance a work; laboring.

Calvin took this concept and combined it with justification by faith, meaning he had to force all who were justified to also persevere
as an act predestined and controlled by God otherwise this would obviously be works salvation (which it is: Calvin just did backflips
on fallacies to reinforce his axioms). Since Non-Catholics have historically believed that works salvation is heresy, Calvin got around
this by dividing salvation into 2 parts:
justification and his once again hasty generalization interpretation of God-controlled sanctification
(which sanctification is actually 3 parts, 2 parts God, 1 part man, but Calvin lazily conglomerated it all into 1: See UGC Bible Study #2 on
Sanctification).

This is how "Reformers" get around being labeled works salvationists; they say "Oh, justification is by faith alone... but perseverance
and "sanctification" (their conglomerated interpretation of sanctification) are the absolute byproduct whereby works will follow to the end
of your final salvation, but God will force this perseverance in works to happen once you get justified." Such is a quagmire of fallacies.
Any logician who wasn't brainwashed and indoctrinated into this system will concur: this is works salvation.
 
Top