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" (Dabney, Lectures on Systematic Theology, p. 521).
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.
On page 487 of his Systematic Theology, Dabney 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.
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).
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?
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).
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.
