Robert Lewis Dabney (1820-1898) was a racist Southern
Presbyterian theologian. He was, and still is considered by many today, a
"gentleman theologian," in spite of his virulent and wicked racism.
At the outset,
it must be pointed out to the uninformed that Dabney, a professed Calvinist,
who is often quoted favorably by Calvinists, believed that Christ made penal
satisfaction for the sins of every single person without exception and that he
believed that those who go to hell have their sins punished twice, just like
Arminians.
Here is
Dabney defending the view that punishing sin in the sinner's Substitute and
then again in the sinner is not opposed to the justice of God:
"Nor would we attach any force to the argument,
that if Christ made penal satisfaction for the sins of all, justice would
forbid any to be punished. To urge this argument surrenders virtually the very
ground on which the first Socinian objection was refuted, and is incompatible
with the facts that God chastises justified believers, and holds elect
unbelievers subject to wrath till they believe. Christ's satisfaction is not a
pecuniary equivalent, but only such a one as enables the Father, consistently
with His attributes, to pardon, if in His mercy He sees fit. The whole avails
of the satisfaction to a given man is suspended on his belief. There would be
no injustice to the man, if he remaining an unbeliever, his guilt were punished
twice over, first in his Savior, and then in him" (Lectures on Systematic Theology, p. 521).
Chastisement of justified believers is not penal.
Chastisement of justified believers is not satisfaction for sin. To punish
guilt "twice over, first in his Savior, and then
in him" is a second satisfaction for sin. The purpose of God in the
chastisement of justified believers is not to satisfy for sin, let alone to
double-satisfy for sin. They are chastised because they have One who satisfied
for them. If they had not a satisfaction for sin, then they would be spiritual
bastards and thus would receive no chastisement, as Hebrews 12:5-8 says.
Holding
elect unbelievers subject to wrath until they believe is penal. But it is not
doubly penal, as Dabney's damnable view is. Dabney would have those who call
him on his heresy in the same boat with him. But Dabney is guilty of blatant
equivocation. For he wickedly thinks that punishing BOTH Christ at the cross
AND one whom He represented in hell is the same thing as subjecting to
wrath one whom Christ represented until he believes. They are clearly two
completely different things. Dabney's doctrine of demons asserts that one for
whom Christ suffered the equivalent of the eternal torments of hell can again
undergo these eternal torments for whom Christ already made alleged
satisfaction. This is a far cry from subjecting elect unbelievers to wrath
until they believe.
Dabney, it seems, would have us embrace a false dichotomy. Either we accept his
demonic doctrine of denying the perfect satisfaction of Christ, or, if we
refuse to concede Dabney's position, we must deny along with the hypercalvinist
heretics that the elect are ever under the penal wrath of God at all. But there is
a third position of Biblical orthodoxy here; namely, that because elect unbelievers
have One who has made a satisfaction for their sins, not One whom Christ represented will be punished in hell, contra
Dabney. And because elect unbelievers actually did abide under the wrath of God
for a time before faith, they actually had need of a satisfaction to turn away
real wrath that was against them for their sins, contra the hypercalvinists.
From discussing the above quote with some supporters of Dabney, the point
regarding the "first Socinian objection" amounts to this: If full
satisfaction is made to the penal demands of God's law, then it would leave no
grace in the remission of sin; it is not of grace, but of debt. In sum, if
justice is satisfied, then there is no grace in the remission (forgiveness) of
sins. That is the Socinian objection. So basically what Dabney is arguing here
is that if the Bible says that the work of Christ demands the salvation of all
whom He represented at the cross, then when forgiveness comes in the course of
time to the elect sinner, is not a gracious remission at all, but simply one of
pure justice. Furthermore, this, according to Dabney, would put God in the
sinner's debt. In other words, for Dabney, if God CANNOT punish in hell those
for whom Christ has died, then there is no grace in the forgiveness.
This is a blatant non
sequitur, of course. Dabney is confounding the Representer with those whom
He represents. The death of Christ ensures and demands the salvation of all
whom He represented. It is grace that imputed the sins of the elect to Christ.
It is justice that bruised Christ for these imputed sins. It is according to
grace that God remits (forgives) sins for the sake of Christ's satisfaction. It
is according to justice that the grace of forgiveness should be bestowed upon
them. God has accepted the satisfaction rendered by Christ. Christ has earned
(merited) salvation for them. God freely and graciously pardons those for whom
justice has been satisfied. In short, on their part, forgiveness and salvation
are a matter of free grace, but on Christ's part it is a matter of justice
since God has truly accepted the satisfaction.
Dabney, on page 487 of his Systematic Theology, even says this in answering an
objection relating to Christ's work being a "mere act of justice": "To our Surety it is; but not to us." So,
in answer to Dabney above regarding a supposed concession on my part to the
Socinian argument, I quote his own words against him: "To our Surety it is
[a matter of justice]; but not to us." Even the Calvinist heretic Charles
Hodge appeared to understand this basic distinction of justice and grace as
they relate to the Surety and sinner: "It does
not, however, thereby cease to be to the captives a matter of grace [contra
Dabney]...So in the case of the satisfaction of Christ. Justice demands the
salvation of his people. That is his reward. It is He who has acquired this
claim on the justice of God; his people have no such claim except through Him.
Besides, it is of the nature of a satisfaction that it answers all the ends of
punishment. What reason can there be for the infliction of the penalty for
which satisfaction has been rendered?" (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol 2, p. 472).
Dabney erroneously and confusedly thinks along with the Socinian, that if
justice demands salvation, then somehow there is no grace in the matter of
remission (forgiveness).
Now we move on to Dabney's assertion that since it is a fact that God chastises
justified believers, then this means that it is compatible with the justice of
God to send to hell those for whom Christ has made penal satisfaction.
Obviously, it is true that justified believers are chastened in this life for
their sins. That chastening is corrective and painful (Hebrews 12:5-11). But
Dabney here is falsely equating chastisement with penal satisfaction for sin.
Chastening is one thing and satisfaction is another thing altogether. I say to
Dabney that not one of those for whom Christ made penal satisfaction will
undergo penal satisfaction in hell. Dabney responds: Not so - and for you to
urge that argument is incompatible with the fact that God chastises justified
believers.
So what
is the conclusion here drawn? Dabney must think that chastisements are
penal/punitive. Of course, chastisements are not penal, which even Dabney
inconsistently concedes later on in his refutation of the papistical tenet of
purgatory (Systematic Theology, p.
543). Dabney's antichristian argument that propitiated sins at the cross can
consistently be propitiated again in hell since justified believers are
chastised is very easily refuted, for the simple fact
that a chastisement is not a propitiatory sacrifice for sins. Apparently,
Dabney is confounding the chastisement of Hebrews 12:5-8 with the propitiation
of Romans 3:25.
Dabney thinks that since it is consistent with the justice of God to chastise
those for whom Christ died, then it must also be consistent with His justice to
punish the same sins twice, once in the sinner's Surety and then again in the
sinner in hell, in spite of the supposed satisfaction made by the sinner's
Surety. This is so wicked that it boggles the mind. Dabney is woefully, and, it
would seem, willfully ignorant of the truth that the very reason that believers
ARE chastised is because God loves them and Christ died for them. Chastisement
shows that God is dealing with them as sons. For if they are not chastised (of
which all true believing sons are sharers), then they are spiritual bastards,
and not true sons (Hebrews 12:5-8).
On the other hand, the very reason that certain sinners are punished in hell
for their sins is because God hates them and Christ did not die for them.
Dabney is equating the one for whom Christ died being lovingly chastised as a
son with the one for whom Christ did not die being justly dealt with as a
bastard and being punished eternally for his sins.
Justice does not forbid the chastising of those for whom Christ died, because
the VERY reason that they are chastised is that justice has been satisfied in
His death. Justice does forbid bastards (i.e., those for whom Christ did not
die) to be lovingly chastised since justice has not been satisfied in their
behalf. The justice of God forbids the punishing of those for whom Christ died,
since that would be the condemning of the just, which is an abomination to God
(Proverbs 17:15). Of course, there is the argument that the unbelieving elect
are not just, and thus to send such an unjust one to hell would not be an
abomination to God. And therein lies the rub. This argument assumes that there
are some for whom Christ died who will never be brought to faith in Christ. It
also assumes that faith is the instrumental condition for salvation, and thus
it is their "faith" that makes the difference between salvation and
damnation instead of the work of Christ alone. Those who urge this argument are
ignorant of the sole ground of being declared just, which is the atoning blood
and imputed righteousness of Christ. Since those who would urge this argument
say that Christ died in some sense for those in hell, then they must believe
that God declares a sinner just on other grounds than Christ's work. If they
(and Dabney) truly believed that Christ's work was the sole ground upon which a
sinner was declared just, then they, like Dabney, would not argue that justice
does not forbid one for whom Christ died be punished in hell.
It is a matter of justice that Christ receive the reward of His sufferings
(Isaiah 53). Christ made satisfaction for His people so they would not receive
punishment for their sins. If Christ truly made satisfaction, then what reason
can there be for the infliction of the penalty for which satisfaction has been
rendered?
A common
response to this is to ask questions like unto this: "On what basis are
the elect subject to the wrath of God prior to faith? After all, your sins were
paid for as one of the elect." And, "How then can God hold you
subject to His wrath even as the others? Christ paid for your sins when He
died."
The easy answer is that the unbelieving elect lack a righteousness that equals
God's righteousness, and that is why they are under His punitive wrath prior to
faith, just as the others (i.e., the reprobate). It is true that Christ paid
for the sins of the elect when He died. And this is why no one for whom Christ
died will go to hell, contra Dabney and his abettors. The reason that the
unbelieving elect are subject to His wrath even though Christ paid for their
sins approximately 2000 years ago is that God is demonstrating to us that
Christ's blood actually propitiates (Romans 3:25). Dabney, from his quote above,
obviously does not believe Christ's blood actually propitiates. But if one goes
to the other extreme and denies that the unbelieving elect are ever under wrath
at all, then there can be no demonstration in time that Christ's blood actually
propitiates when there is no actual wrath abiding on those for whom
propitiation was made. Dabney's position nullifies Christ's blood as a
propitiation in that it demonstrates a "propitiation" that does not
propitiate. The hypercalvinist position nullifies Christ's blood as a
propitiation in that it demonstrates a "propitiation" that
"propitiates" non-existent wrath.
Dabney's third argument against the perfection of Christ's work is that since
God "holds elect unbelievers subject to wrath
till they believe", it therefore follows from this that: "There would be no injustice to the man, if he
remaining an unbeliever, his guilt were punished twice over, first in his
Savior, and then in him."
Dabney is falsely equating the temporal wrath that the unbelieving elect
undergo in time with the eternal wrath that the reprobate will undergo in hell
for eternity. His argument is that if you cry double jeopardy to him, then he
is going to tell you that if you admit that the unbelieving elect are under
wrath for a time, then you are guilty of your own version of double jeopardy.
But really, is the temporal wrath that some are under (Ephesians 2:1-3) the
same as the eternal wrath the others will be under? To say another way: What is
the first penalty? It is eternal wrath (or the second death per Revelation).
Now, are those elect who are abiding under wrath until the time God converts
them undergoing a second penalty? No. For the only way that the elect would
have a second penalty exacted from them would be that if they actually suffered
the equivalent of what Christ suffered.
Dabney thinks that since those for whom Christ died are under the punitive
wrath of God for a TIME until they believe, then it follows that those for whom
Christ died can still be justly punished for ETERNITY. Once and wickedly again,
this by no means follows. For to punish a man "twice
over, first in his Savior, and then in him" is to deny that Christ
made perfect penal satisfaction for that man. And thus, Dabney denies that God
is satisfied with all for whom Christ made satisfaction. In stark contrast to
this, since the unregenerate elect do have a Surety, they will in time be
delivered from wrath.
Dabney thinks that since the unregenerate (unbelieving) elect are subject to
wrath until they believe, then it follows that the satisfaction of Christ is
suspended on this "belief." Dabney believes that Christ made
satisfaction for all men without exception (evinced by his belief in
"double-punishment") in order that the Father can "mercifully
pardon" on the ground of the sinner's "belief." Dabney's deadly
ignorance of Christ's atoning blood and imputed righteousness as the SOLE
ground of salvation is clearly manifest. Dabney does not know what salvation is
conditioned on. He thinks that it is the belief or the faith of the sinner. It
is not. The condition for salvation is a righteousness that answers the demands
of God's holy law and justice (Leviticus 18:5; Romans 10:5; Galatians 3:10). No
sinner can meet this condition or supposedly be enabled by the Holy Spirit of God
to meet this condition. Only Christ can meet, and has met, this condition of a
perfect righteousness that answers the demands of God's holy law and justice,
shedding blood that satisfies the wrath of God against sin; and by meeting this
condition, He has demanded and ensured that all those whom He represented in
His death will be saved. Thus, no one
for whom He died will end up in hell, contrary to the blasphemous dung shoveled
and tossed forth by Dabney.
Furthermore, Dabney denies that Christ is the "end of Law for
righteousness to everyone that believes," since he believes that Christ
made satisfaction to the breach or transgression of this law to no avail.
Dabney is ignorant of the righteousness of God and is thus seeking to establish
his own righteousness by being enabled to meet allegedly non-meritorious
instrumental conditions for his salvation. The Apostle Paul says that Christ is
the end of Law for righteousness (Romans 10:4). Dabney, in effect, says that
the sinner's belief is the end of Law for righteousness, since the sinner's
"belief" is what Dabney believes makes the ultimate difference
between heaven and hell, since he believes that justice does not forbid that
those for whom Christ made satisfaction be punished for their sins in hell. Dabney
thinks that the satisfaction of Jesus Christ and the merciful pardon of God is
suspended on the sinner's belief. On the contrary, the merciful pardon of God
is suspended on the satisfaction of Jesus Christ, and the benefits of this
satisfaction are bestowed on all the elect at the time appointed by the Father
(Galatians 4:1-6). The cry of faith, "Abba, Father!," is an immediate
and inevitable fruit or result of the Spirit of His Son being sent forth into
the hearts of the elect sons of God.
Dabney denies that the blood of Christ brings near everyone for whom it was
shed. Dabney denies that the blood of Christ propitiates the wrath of God.
Dabney does not boast in the cross alone, but makes his only boast, a
diabolical boast, in his so-called "belief."
The Bible teaches that salvation results in belief; Dabney thinks that belief
results in salvation. Dabney believes the damnable doctrine of salvation
conditioned on the sinner's efforts and rejects the true gospel doctrine of
salvation conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ
alone, apart from any effort whatsoever proceeding from the sinner's person
(Romans 3:21-28).
And whatever else may be said about this reasoning of Dabney, it can certainly
be said that it does not come from above, but is earthly, beastly, and devilish
reasoning. For Dabney lies against the truth that God is just to justify the
ungodly based on the work of Christ alone, that He is both a just God and a
Savior. Since Dabney believes that those for whom Christ died can still end up
in hell, then Dabney must believe that something other than Christ's
propitiating blood and imputed righteousness is the ground of the sinner's
salvation.
Dabney sets aside the grace of God and repudiates the particular preciousness
of Christ's blood and treats it as a common thing; thus, he blasphemes Christ.
For whoever's work one believes makes the ultimate difference between salvation
and damnation is what one believes righteousness is through. Dabney believes
that one for whom Christ made penal satisfaction can undergo that same penalty
that Christ underwent on the cross. Dabney believes that Christ died without
cause, since he believes that righteousness is through something OTHER than the
work of Christ.
"I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness is through Law,
then Christ died without cause" (Galatians 2:21).
Dabney--in spite of his God-hating tenet that justice does not forbid a sinner
for whom Christ died to be sent to hell--would not say that righteousness is
through law, but he will admit that Christ died without cause for some sinners.
Dabney believes that Christ died in some sense for all, and thus he believes
that righteousness is through the sinner, contrary to Jesus Christ's clear
teaching in John 14:6.
Back
to Genuine Historical Calvinism Roster