ABOUT R.L. DABNEY
Robert Lewis Dabney is undoubtedly one of the greatest Southern Presbyterian theologians of all time. He pastored Tinkling Spring Presbyterian Church in Augusta County, VA from 1847-1853 and later College Church in Hampden-Sydney, VA from 1858-1874. He was the Professor of Ecclesiastical History and Systematic Theology at Union Theological Seminary in Richmond, VA from 1853-1883. It was in 1883 that he left his home state of Virginia to be the Professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of Texas in Austin. During the American Civil War, Dabney was a chaplain for the Confederate army and was close friends with General Stonewall Jackson. He was a conservative Presbyterian who sought to submit his views to the authority of Scripture as well as to the Westminster Confession of Faith. The bulk of his work can be found in his multi-volume Discussions as well as his Systematic Theology.
INTRODUCTION TO THE DEBATE
If God desires that all men be saved and yet still chooses to only save the elect, does that call into question His sincerity in the offer of the gospel to all mankind? If God desires that none should perish, and yet does not save all sinners of His own volition, does that not call into question His power and wisdom? To the Arminian[1] and other opponents of Calvinism,[2] this is a significant weakness in Reformed soteriology.[3] Dabney himself humbly admits that this line of argumentation is the most difficult for the Calvinist to refute. Nonetheless, Scripture does not contradict itself and maintains that Calvinism is true.
Common Scriptural Objections to Calvinism
At first glance, there are several passages of Scripture that appear to be a problem for the Calvinistic argument. Dabney shows that these can be easily understood and explained. These difficult texts of Scripture, according to Dabney, can be considered in three different categories. In the first category are those passages that teach that the offer of salvation through Jesus Christ is to be presented to all men equally (Matt. 24:14 and 28:19-20, Mark 16:15). In the second category are those passages that seem to suggest that the sacrifice of Christ was for all men, or the “whole world” (John 1:29 and 3:16, 1 Tim. 2:5-6). In the third category are those passages that appear to exhibit a profound pity that God has for all sinners, including those who will never be saved (2 Pet. 3:9, 1 Tim. 2:4). While the texts about the nature of Christ’s atoning sacrifice can be debated in more exegetical detail, Dabney affirms the truth of all these passages without dispute. But the mere mention of these texts does not prove the Arminian view. It does, however, remind us that there must be more “satisfactory discussion”[4] on the matter. Dabney’s essay is not to be understood merely as a direct response to Arminianism. He also has in mind the differing views among Calvinists as they attempt to answer Arminian objections. He believes that his position provides more theological clarity and presents a stronger Calvinistic soteriology.
Differing Views Among Calvinists
In interacting with various Calvinistic responses to Arminianism, Dabney addresses a particular view of the atonement known as Hypothetical Universalism. The Hypothetical Universalists are those within the Reformed and Calvinistic tradition that sought to provide what they believed to be a more satisfactory answer to questions posed by Arminians. They did this by espousing a version of Calvinism that can be seen as more moderate in its understanding of the nature of Christ’s atonement. He briefly summarizes the view elsewhere by saying,
It presents the divine plan in redemption thus: God decreed from eternity, to create the human race, to permit the fall; then in His infinite compassion, to send Christ to atone for every human being’s sins, (conditioned on his believing); but also foreseeing that all, in consequence of total depravity and the bondage of their will, would inevitably reject this mercy if left to themselves, He selected out of the whole a definite number of elect, to whom He also gave, in His sovereign love, grace to “make them willing in the day of His power.” The non-elect, never enjoying this persuasive grace, infallibly choose to reject the provided atonement; and so, as its application is suspended on faith, they fail to receive the benefit of it, and perish.[5]
According to Dabney, the Hypothetical Universalists describe two acts of will from God regarding salvation. The first is known as a general or conditional will. This view puts into question the doctrine of limited atonement[6] by stating that Christ died for all of mankind with the purpose of receiving them for eternal life. However, only the elect receives the special, unconditional, and salvific benefits of God’s will. Regarding the non-elect, God wills that Christ would die for them with the intention that they be saved and yet does not send forward His special will, thus leaving them dead in their trespasses and sins. While Dabney is somewhat sympathetic to the Hypothetical Universalists, he rejects their understanding of God’s decree[7] and a “hypothetical” nature of the atonement. He clarifies his opposition,
“It was hoped that this view would meet the cavils urged by Arminians against the seeming lack of candor in offering Christ’s sacrifice for reconciliation, to those for whom God never designed it. But I submit that this cavil is not in the least dissolved by saying, that God designed Christ’s sacrifice to provide satisfaction for every non-elect man’s guilt, which would avail for his atonement only on condition of his true faith, while the omniscience of God showed him that this sinner would certainly refuse this faith, in consequence of his total depravity, and God’s purpose was distinctly formed not to remove that depravity by His effectual grace. To say that God purposed, even conditionally, the reconciliation of that sinner by Christ’s sacrifice, while also distinctly proposing to do nothing effectual to bring about the fulfillment of the condition He knew the man would surely refuse, is contradictory. It is hard to see how, on this scheme, the sacrifice is related more beneficially to the non-elect sinner, than on the strict Calvinist’s plan.”[8]
Dabney believes that some in the Reformed tradition have sought to refute the Hypothetical Universalist, but in so doing, have become guilty of another extreme. This extreme is commonly known as Hyper-Calvinism. To the Hyper-Calvinist, only the elect receives any sort of positive action from God. Because God does not will the salvation of the non-elect, He has no genuine proposition or affection toward them in any way. Dabney rejects this view as well and argues for a middle ground position that is true to both the Westminster Standards and the word of God.
DABNEY’S VIEW ILLUSTRATED
Dabney begins his argument with an illustration. On October 2, 1780, British Major General John André was found guilty of spying on the American military and was put to death by hanging under the order of George Washington. André had made a deal with Benedict Arnold to reveal important and secretive information about the American armed forces. It is a fact of history that Washington obeyed the requirement of the law to put him to death with tremendous reluctance and pity.[9] Washington knew that he had the authority and power to spare or end André’s life. But if he felt true pity for him, why did his pity not move him to free the man? Is Washington a liar and hypocrite by expressing some sort of quiet compassion toward him while still deciding to put him to death? The simple fact is that although Washington’s pity was genuine, he still decided that it was best to have him destroyed. Dabney says it this way,
Washington’s volition to sign the death-warrant of André did not arise from the fact that his compassion was slight or feigned, but from the fact that it was rationally counterpoised by a complex of superior judgements and propensions of wisdom, duty, patriotism, and moral indignation…The pity was real, but was restrained by superior elements of motive. Thus, his pity was genuine, yet his volition not to indulge it free and sovereign.[10]
Washington’s wisdom and power are not at odds with his sincerity. Rather, the complexities of his motives led him to take what he believed to be the better action. Dabney says that there are two important aspects of one’s motives. In the first place, they reveal a “desire or propension of some subjective power” and secondly, a “judgement of the intelligence as to the true and preferable.”[11] It does not necessarily follow that these two aspects are contradictory in and of themselves.
GOD’S DISPOSITION AND VOLITION
Are God’s Actions Contradictory?
Dabney generally uses the term “disposition” to describe God’s divine affection or compassion toward His creation, while his “volition” speaks of His free exercise. The crux of his argument is that while God does not have passions in the way we do as human beings,[12] and while the divine simplicity of God[13] is to be reverently believed, there is nevertheless infinite depth in both the disposition and volition of God. Because of this, we must accept, by faith, that the exact will of God remains a mystery to us as finite creatures (Deut. 29:29). This means that there is no injustice on God’s part for extending a free offer of the gospel to all mankind while also choosing to only save His elect. The juxtaposition of His free offer to all and His final act to save only His people does not contradict His wisdom, power, or sincerity. For Dabney, the pity that God feels for the damned sinner is real. And yet, this pity is “countervailed by superior motives”[14] which leads God to pass over the reprobate. The Hyper-Calvinist should understand that God’s restraint of His of salvific volition toward the non-elect does not imply that He has no positive disposition toward them at all. Opponents of Dabney’s view see his argument as an unjust claim that God has conflicting motives and wills, which is an offense to His perfect character.[15] But Dabney is quick to affirm the doctrine of God’s divine simplicity as taught in the Westminster Confession, “There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions…”[16] When the Confession speaks of “passions” it should be taken to mean “fluctuations” or “agitations.”[17] It is certainly true that we as human beings have passions in the sense that we are often ruled by our impulses, desires, and emotions in a way that proves our weakness and finitude. These passions can easily be contradictory to one another and lead us to unrighteous desires or choices. We lack the wisdom and power to understand them and control them. God, however, has no passions. And yet, Dabney makes the case that God does have “active principles”[18] which are not at all to be confused with human passions. He defines God’s active principles as “affections of his will, actively distinguished from the cognitions of his intelligence. They are true optative functions of the divine spirit.”[19] These active principles of God are often a mystery to us, but we know that they are always in accord with His perfect will and character.
Seeing God as He Has Revealed Himself
Scripture repeatedly speaks of God’s wrath, pity, pleasure, love, jealousy, and hatred. However anthropopathic[20] these statements may seem, they are from the inspired Word of God and therefore we “should do violence to them if we denied that he here meant to ascribe to himself active affections in some mode suitable to his nature.”[21] The Bible speaks of God’s disposition and volition not as arbitrary or robotic, but rather as directed toward a specific object and for a specific purpose. In other words, his actions are personal, not distant. Scripture says “God is angry with the wicked every day” (Ps. 7:11); “But the thing that David had done displeased the Lord” (2 Sam. 11:27); “My delight is in her” (Is. 62:4); “In these things I delight, saith the Lord (Jer. 9:24).[22] Dabney explains,
“Is all this so anthropopathic as not even to mean that God’s active principles here have an objective? Why not let the Scriptures mean what they so plainly strive to declare? But some seem so afraid of recognizing in God any susceptibility of a passive nature that they virtually set Scripture aside and paint a God whose whole activities of intelligence and will are so exclusively from himself that even the relation of objective occasion to him is made unreal, and no other is allowed than a species of coincidence or preestablished harmony. They are chary of conceding (what the Bible seems so plainly to say) that God is angry because men sin; and would go no farther than to admit that somehow he is angry when men sin, yet, because absolutely independent, angry only of himself.”[23]
In considering God’s disposition and volition, it is important to remember the theological distinction between His communicable and incommunicable attributes. In His communicable attributes, God includes certain characteristics within us that come directly as a result of being made in His image. It is therefore not wrong at all to consider these attributes within man to be analogous with those found in God. In all things, we are reminded that God is “most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory;”[24]
Dabney further articulates his view in this way,
“But the hinge of the doctrine is here: in the case of the elect, God has a secret rational motive, which has no application to the non-elect, overweighing the motive to reject presented in their evil desert; in the case of the non-elect, this latter motive, finding nothing to counterpoise it, prompts its natural and righteous volition, deserved rejection.”[25]
Contending for God’s pity for all mankind, even the non-elect, he argues that God’s compassion for his own creature is as natural to Him in His infinite benevolence as His moral indignation against sin in His infinite righteousness.[26] In both the salvation and damnation of sinners, the greatness of God’s character is on display for His glory alone.
THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT AND GOD’S REAL PITY TOWARD SINNERS: EXEGETICAL EXAMPLES
Asking the Right Question
While Dabney rejects their specific exegetical conclusion, he is happy to affirm the validity of the various passages of Scripture used by Arminians against Calvinists. He reminds the Hyper-Calvinist that the passages which speak of God’s sovereign election do not nullify the passages that speak of God’s desire that all be saved (1 Timothy 2:3-4, 2 Peter 3:9). He also counters the Arminian view with an excellent exposition of Romans 9:13. For Dabney, the simple and straightforward question is, ‘why did God choose Jacob and reject Esau? Is it not true that both men were born into sin and equally deserving of God’s wrath?’ The answer is certainly yes. How would it be possible for God to feel pity for Esau’s misery and yet to still reject him? Dabney says the question should be considered from a different angle… how would it be possible for God to feel indignation toward Jacob’s sin and yet still save him?
Christ’s Tears are Real Tears of Pity
Another important passage for understanding God’s pity toward sinners is Luke 19:41-42 in which Jesus weeps over Jerusalem while also pronouncing destruction upon them. But if Christ felt such tender pity toward all of Jerusalem, why did He not refrain from sending His judgment? To the Arminian, the pity of Christ is caused by the unbeliever rejecting Him out of their own free-will. But this implies that not only can man choose God of his own volition, but that God can do nothing to overrule the will of the unbelieving sinner. This is grossly unbiblical and a grave theological error (Rom. 9:10-24). On the other hand, the Hyper-Calvinist argues that in this text it is not the divine nature of Jesus that weeps but His human nature alone. To Dabney, this is an extreme view and does not at all provide any real solution to the problem. In fact, it carries with it troubling theological implications. He says that such a view would lead the average Christian to believe that “holy humanity is more generous and tender than God.”[27] This implies an unnatural confusion and even separation between the divine and human natures of Christ.[28] While these natures are distinct, Dabney reminds us that Christ in the flesh is the manifestation of the divine nature. For Christ is the “image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15) and the “exact imprint of His nature” (Heb. 1:3). This means that we have a clear example in Scripture of God truly pitying those whom He has willed to destroy.
CONCLUSION
A Full-Orbed Picture of the Atonement
In his defense of Calvinism, Dabney sought to address the most common arguments made by Arminians. He also spoke at length about the differing views among Calvinists as they attempt to answer Arminian objections. He articulated a biblical and confessional position that he believed offers more theological clarity and presents a stronger Calvinistic soteriology. In this position, he makes the case that there is no contradiction between the pity of God toward the non-elect and the salvation of the elect. He rightly concludes his argument by clarifying what he believes to be a biblical understanding of the nature of Christ’s atonement. He feels that this clarification is necessary considering there are such obvious differences on this specific subject among Arminians, Hypothetical Universalists, and Hyper-Calvinists alike. Dabney says that the sacrifice of Christ is a “manifestation of God’s supreme glory, and especially that of his love” (Luke 2:14, Eph. 2:10-11).[29] It is not to be viewed as a cold transaction, but rather the ultimate expression of divine love. It is also to “ransom, effectually call, and glorify an elect people infallibly given to Christ” (John 17:6-11). It is not a mere attempted or contingent mission in which Christ did not actually guarantee the salvation of sinners. Nor was it to ransom or call the non-elect. Finally, the atonement of Christ was made “to procure for the whole race a temporal suspension from doom” (Rom. 2:4, 2 Pet. 3:15). For Dabney, there is a real sense in which the atonement of Christ has some sort of benefit for all of mankind. This benefit comes to all by delaying the final judgement of God toward unrighteousness, and by being the ultimate expression of the truth of God, which further leaves man without excuse.
Pastoral Implications
To love God is to strive to be like Him. Through the power of the Holy Spirit, we are to grow in our pity towards others even as we seek the truth in all things. God is a God of both infinite justice and infinite benevolence and compassion. We should never seek justice at the expense of pity. When the elders of a local church are faced with serious matters of church discipline, they are to courageously rule and render judgment while also being overwhelmed with profound pity for the guilty. When an unbelieving coworker continually finds ways to mistreat us or others, we are to pursue the truth at all costs while also growing in affection for the individual. When we hear of someone in the news committing a horrifically violent crime, we are to be filled with righteous indignation while also experiencing some pity toward the brokenness of the criminal. We are to unapologetically strive for justice at all times, but we are not to delight in the destruction of any human being, no matter how guilty they are. God acts in His justice even while maintaining His pity for the damned, and so should we. Do you feel real pity for the nonbeliever in your family or among your friends? Do you pray earnestly, perhaps even with tears, for their conversion? Is there any part of you at all that would resonate with the Apostle Paul, “For I wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh” (Rom. 9:3)? As Charles Spurgeon says, "If sinners be damned, at least let them leap to Hell over our bodies. And if they will perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees. Let no one go there unwarned and unprayed for." The Calvinist should be a staunch proponent of both God’s sovereign grace for the elect as well as His pity toward the non-elect. “Salvation is of the Lord” (Jonah. 2:9, Psalm. 3:8, Acts. 4:12), let us therefore share the message of salvation with the whole world.
[1] Dabney speaks of Arminianism as a soteriological position that emphasizes human free-will as the decisive act of salvation as opposed to God’s sovereign grace. Like the rest of the Reformed tradition, he condemns the view as being semi-Pelagian in nature. For more reading on this subject, see his Systematic Theology, Lecture XLVIII & XLVIX, “Arminian Theory of Redemption” (Banner of Truth, 1996), 579-899.
[2] In opposition to Arminianism, Calvinism teaches that man is dead in his trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1-5) and is therefore unable to choose God for salvation of his own free-will. Salvation is an act of God’s sovereign grace alone towards those whom He has chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4). I define Calvinism in this sense because it leaves room for some of the more nuanced positions on the nature of Christ’s atonement, which, as this essay proves, can be a point of contention among some Calvinists.
[3] Also known as the doctrine of salvation.
[4] R.L. Dabney, Discussions, Vol. 1 (Sprinkle Publications, 1982), 283.
[5] R. L. Dabney, Systematic Theology (Banner of Truth, 1996), 519.
[6] Simply put, the doctrine that Christ only died for His elect.
[7] R.L. Dabney, Systematic Theology (Banner of Truth, 1996), 520.
[8] R. L. Dabney, Systematic Theology (Banner of Truth, 1996), 520.
[9] Marshall, Life of Washington (Vol. IV, Chap. VI) quoted in R.L. Dabney, Discussions, Vol. 1 (Sprinkle Publications, 1982.), 285.
[10] R.L. Dabney, Discussions, Vol. 1 (Sprinkle Publications, 1982), 285-286.
[11] R.L. Dabney, Discussions, Vol. 1 (Sprinkle Publications, 1982), 285.
[12] The Westminster Confession of Faith, Ch. II.I.
[13] God is not composite, or made up of parts like human beings, but is pure act.
[14] R.L. Dabney, Discussions, Vol. 1 (Sprinkle Publications, 1982), 286.
[15] David Englesman, Dabney on Proposals of Mercy (The Standard Bearer, 2023).
[16] The Westminster Confession of Faith, Ch. II.I.
[17] R. L. Dabney, Discussions, Vol. 1 (Sprinkle Publications, 1982), 291.
[18] R. L. Dabney, Discussions, Vol. 1 (Sprinkle Publications, 1982), 291.
[19] R. L. Dabney, Discussions, Vol. 1 (Sprinkle Publications, 1982), 291.
[20] From the Greek, Anthropos and pathos, relating to human passions.
[21] R. L. Dabney, Discussions, Vol. 1 (Sprinkle Publications, 1982), 291.
[22] R. L. Dabney, Discussions, Vol. 1 (Sprinkle Publications, 1982), 292.
[23] R. L. Dabney, Discussions, Vol. 1 (Sprinkle Publications, 1982), 292.
[24] The Westminster Confession of Faith, Ch. II.
[25] R. L. Dabney, Discussions, Vol. 1 (Sprinkle Publications, 1982), 302.
[26] R. L. Dabney, Discussions, Vol. 1 (Sprinkle Publications, 1982), 303.
[27] R. L. Dabney, Discussions, Vol. 1 (Sprinkle Publications, 1982), 308.
[28] The view that Christ’s natures can be divided, as if into individual persons, is a heresy, which was condemned at the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451 and is known as Nestorianism.
[29] R. L. Dabney, Discussions, Vol. 1 (Sprinkle Publications, 1982), 310.