# Dabney



## Flynn (Feb 6, 2006)

Well I didnt get any substantive discussion going with regard to Shedd. So I thought I would try another stalwart of the Reformed faith, the father of southern presbyterianism.

In 1 John 2:2, it is at least doubtful whether the express phrase, "whole world," can be restrained to the world of elect as including other than Jews. For it is indisputable, that the Apostle extends the propitiation of Christ beyond those whom he speaks of as "we," in verse first. The interpretation described obviously proceeds on the assumption that these are only Jewish believers. Can this be substantiated? Is this catholic epistle addressed only to Jews? This is more than doubtful. It would seem then, that the Apostle´s scope is to console and encourage sinning believers with the thought that since Christ made expiation for every man, there is no danger that He will not be found a propitiation for them who, having already believed, now sincerely turn to him from recent sins. Lectures, p., 525.

So, aside from Dabney rejecting the idea that the holos komos of 1 Jn 2:2 is limited to the elect, how is it that he can say that Christ made an expiation for every man? What does that mean in terms of Dabney's theology?

Any takers?

David


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 6, 2006)

David,

In dealing with Dabney exstensively with his ideas surrounding "common grace" in "Two Wills" I find that both he and Edwards have much the same idea surrounding the _sufficiency_ of the atonement.

Here is Edwards in the same vein - 

"Christ did die for all in this sense: that all by his death have an opportunity of being saved. He had that design in dying that they should have that opportunity by it, for it is a thing that God designed that all men should have such an opportunity, or they would not have it, and they have it by the death of Christ. This however is no designing of the atonement but only for the preservation of their being. Paul uses the term in a similar way in 1 Tim. 4:10, "œFor to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe."

This is, of course, not surrounding God's _eternal decrees_. Both Edwards and Dabney in this sense speak in terms of the "wide angle lense" (divided sense) in the "sufficiency of it." Edwards interpets this ultimately to speak about "opportunity" to believe (which is where he finally lands in realling defining "common grace"). Dabney is on that same page.


----------



## Flynn (Feb 8, 2006)

G'day There,

Matthew McMahon says:

In dealing with Dabney exstensively with his ideas surrounding "common grace" in "Two Wills" I find that both he and Edwards have much the same idea surrounding the _sufficiency_ of the atonement.

[cut]

And he continues"

This is, of course, not surrounding God's _eternal decrees_. Both Edwards and Dabney in this sense speak in terms of the "wide angle lense" (divided sense) in the "sufficiency of it." Edwards interpets this ultimately to speak about "opportunity" to believe (which is where he finally lands in realling defining "common grace"). Dabney is on that same page. [/quote]

Me now: 

1) Ive read the snippet from Edwards, but it does not address Dabney on his terms at all. I am asking how are we to understand Dabney on his terms. How was it that he could take the holos komos of 1 Jn 2:2 as all mankind, and how was it that he could say that Christ made an expiation for every man? Rememeber, in the syntax, its the one hilasmos which has reference to the sins of the readers and the sins of the whole world. How could one intelligently say that the one hilasmos had refernence for the sins of the whole world (all mankind for Dabney) if the sins of the whole world are not comprehended in the terms of the hilasmos? 

2), there is no way that Owen, et al, could have made such a statement. There is no way he would honestly have said, Christ made an expiation for every man, such that any man who believes, they will find God propitious. 

3) lets explore some of Dabney's language in his intro to the 5 points of Calvinism.

For example, he says this: "One is, that of the expiation for guilt provided in Christ's sacrifice."

And again: "But sacrifice, expiation, is one"” the single, glorious, indivisible act of the divine Redeemer, infinite and inexhaustible in merit."

Me again: So it is clear that for Dabney, when he uses the term expiation in this context he means the sacrifice of expiation, aka expiatory sacrifice. So in shorthand, he says Christ made an expiation for every man. He means, Christ made an expiatory sacrifice for every man.

But he could not have intelligently have said that if he didnt believe that the sins of all mankind were borne, or carried, by expiatory sacrifice, of Christ.

So can you please explain Dabney on his terms, and not on the tems of your own ideas or on the terms of a third party?

Take care,
David


----------



## Flynn (Feb 8, 2006)

While I am here,

I should let folk read some more of Dabney. Here Dabney categorically rejects Owen's double payment/jeopardy argument: that God cant exact a punishment for sins twice, first in Christ, then in the impenitent. Owen use of this alleged double-payment dilemma is really the single basis of his reduction of the Johannine kosmos of 1 Jn 2:2 to "elect". I mean by single basis, as its the only deductive argument he can put together. 

Dabney:

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*. See Hodge on Atonement, page 369 . Dabney, Lectures, p., 521.

A few points can be discerned from this. 

1) He rejected the double-payment argue as it rests on ultimately precuniary view of the expiation. 

2) And clearly he rejects the idea that the expiation, in itself, as a quality inherent to itself, secures its own application for all whom it was made. Dabney says, the expiation is only such a one as enables the Father to forgive whom he wishes.

3) Folk like John Gill are the only ones consisent in their used of the double-payment/jeopardy argument when they deny that the unbelieving elect were ever under the wrath of God. Its been my uniform experience that everyone who wants to hold to the double-payment/jeopardy argument does so by denying that the unbelieving elect were ever subjects of the wrath of God (ie objects of punishment) contra scripture and the confessions. 

Take care,
David


----------



## Flynn (Feb 9, 2006)

Here is another exerpt from Dabney.

"Now Christ is a true substitute. His sufferings were penal and vicarious, and made a true satisfaction for all those who actually embrace them by faith. But the conception charged on us seems to be, as though Christ's expiation were a web of the garment of righteousness to be cut into definite pieces and distributed out, so much to each person of the elect, whence, of course, it must have a definite aggregate length, and had God seen fit to add any to the number of elect, He must have had an additional extent of web woven. This is all incorrect. Satisfaction was Christ's indivisible act, and inseparable vicarious merit, infinite in moral value, the whole in its unity and completeness, imputed to every believing elect man, without numerical division, subtraction or exhaustion. Had there been but one elect man, his vicarious satisfaction had been just what it is in its essential nature. Had God elected all sinners, there would have been no necessity to make Christ's atoning sufferings essentially different. Remember, the limitation is precisely in the decree, and no where else. It seems plain that the vagueness and ambiguity of the modern term "atonement," has very much complicated the debate. This word, not classical in the Reformed theology, is used sometimes for satisfaction for guilt, sometimes for the reconciliation ensuing thereon; until men on both sides of the debate have forgotten the distinction. The one is cause, the other effect. The only New Testament sense the word atonement has is that of katallage , reconciliation. But expiation is another idea. Katallage is personal. Exhilasmos is impersonal. Katallage is multiplied, being repeated as often as a sinner comes to the expiatory blood. exhilasmos is single, unique, complete; and, in itself considered, has no more relation to one man's sins than another. As it is applied in effectual calling, it becomes personal, and receives a limitation. But in itself, limitation is irrelevant to it. Hence, when men use the word atonement, as they so often do, in the sense of expiation, the phrases, "limited atonement," "particular atonement," have no meaning. Redemption is limited, i.e., to true believers, and is particular. Expiation is not limited."
Dabney, Lectures, p., 528.

1)
For Dabney then, the expiation is unlimited as opposed to redemption which is limited. Now, if Dabney secretly meant that the expiation is limited, this makes no sense.

2) 
Note that for Dabney, the limitation is in the decree to apply this unlimited expiation.

So all this brings us to the underlying question in Dabney: Whose sins, did Dabney believe, were imputed to Christ? It seems that Dabney wants an unlimited imputation of sin. Its the sin due to every single man that is imputed to Christ, not merely the sins due to every elect man.

Any comments?

David


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 10, 2006)

Go here, which is the "Particular Redemption" section of Dabney's article on the Five Points of Calvinism, read the second paragraph and then footnote #2. It goes into this.


----------



## Flynn (Feb 10, 2006)

Dabney:
Christ´s work is shown to be properly *vicarious*, from His personal 
innocence. This argument has been anticipated. We shall, therefore, only tarry to clear it from the Pelagian evasion, and to carry it further. 
Pelagians, seeing that Christ, an innocent being, must have suffered 
vicarious punishment, if He suffered any punishment, deny that the 
providential evils of life are penal at all, and assert that they are 
only natural, so that Adam would have borne them in Paradise; the 
innocent Christ bore them as a natural matter of course. But what is the course of nature, except the will of God? Reason says that if God is good and just, He will only impose suffering where there is guilt. And this is the scriptural account, "death by sin."Further, Christ suffered far otherwise than is natural to good men. We do not allude so much to the peculiar severity of that combination of poverty, malice, treachery, destitution, slander, reproach and murder, visited on Christ; but to the sense of spiritual death, the horror, the fear, the pressure of God´s wrath and desertion, and the satanic buffeting let loose against Him, (Luke 22:53; Matt. 26:38; 27:46). See how manfully Christ approaches His martyrdom, and how sadly He sinks under it when it comes! Had He borne nothing more than natural evil, He would have been inferior to other merely human heroes, and instead of recognizing the exclamation of Rousseau as just.
"Socrates died like a philosopher; but Jesus Christ as a God," we must 
give the palm of superior fortitude to the Grecian sage. Christ´s 
crushing agonies must be accounted for by His bearing the wrath of God for the sins of the world. Lectures, p 511.

David: So Dabney held that Christ vicariously suffered for the sins of the world.

Comments are welcome.

David
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Calvin_and_Calvinism/


----------



## Flynn (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by TimeRedeemer_
> Go here, which is the "Particular Redemption" section of Dabney's article on the Five Points of Calvinism, read the second paragraph and then footnote #2. It goes into this.



G'day Michael,

Firstly the footnote is not Dabney, but a comment from someone who thinks Dabney should have said this. That someone was probably my old friend, Phil Johnson. If so, Ive spoken to Phil in the past regarding Dabney and he acknowledges that Dabney held to an unlimited expiation, with which Phil did not agree.

Its getting pretty clear that for Dabney, Christ did actually make an expiation of sacrifice wherein he suffered vicariously for the sins of the whole world. In Dabney's own words, Christ substituted for the guilt of the world.

Lets look at the footnote:

begin quote:
The thrust of Dabney's argument is this: The price the Savior paid for sin is infinite in its sufficiency. Had one more sinner been elect, Christ would not have had to suffer another stroke or endure any more of God's wrath. This is in perfect harmony with the Canons of the Synod of Dordt (2nd head, art. 3): "The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world."end

Sure. I shall return to this on Monday, Lord willing. Let me say this though, Dabney did not say that the price was of a sufficient nature to have been a suffiicent price for all (Owen). Dabney does not use these sort of conditional subjunctives which entail a hypothetical "contrary to fact," with past perfects. He says it is actually sufficient for all.

quote continues:
We might quibble, however, with Dabney's interpretation of 1 John 2:2. It's one thing to say that Christ's death is sufficient to expiate a world of guilt. It is quite another to imply (as Dabney's use of 1 John 2:2 does) that propitiation has been made"”and thus God's wrath has actually been satisfied"”on behalf of the whole world. 
end quote

But he does say that Christ made an expiation for every man. Its an unlimited expiation. Dabney does not say its merely sufficient to expiate (implying hypothetical and mere potency). Its actually rather bizarre to reduce Dabney's interpretation to a quibble.


Quote resumed:
Again, it is our opinion that Dabney spoke carelessly here.
end

Thats a big value statement. He also spoke carelessly in 3 other works, and he spoke carelessly right to his dying day. I dont find this remark credible. Dabney actually spoke very carefully and deliberatively. Its just that the author of this footnote doesnt agree with Dabney. But thats something very different. Rather than say things like this, the author should treat Dabney more honestly and just agree to disagree.


quote resumed:
A better explanation of 1 John 2:2 is this: "He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours [the Jewish nation's] only, but also for the sins of [the elect from every nation in] the whole world." Elsewhere the apostle clearly uses parallel expressions in precisely this sense: " . . . that Jesus should die for that nation; and not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad" (John 11:51-52).
end

But is not the point that we should treat a text on its own terms? Dabney clearly considered that he was offering a better explanation. He expressly finds this explanation completely inadequate, he says in his Lectures. And regarding 1 Jn2:2 he expressly says that Christ made an expiation for every man, so that any man who believes may find God propitious towards him.

As to the actual words from Dabney, from the Intro to the 5 points, what he says there is perfectly compatible with what said in his Lectures and other works. 

The real issue is, it seems to me, is "are we willing to treat Dabney on his own terms, and not on the terms of a third-party assessment or claim?" Should it be the case that we make Dabney say what we think he should have said, or can we let him say what he actually said, and then agree to disagree if need be?

Take care,
David


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 10, 2006)

Is your point to peel Dabney away from the ranks of five point Calvinists? (Or are you attempting to counter doctrine by going after Dabney rather than the Bible itself?) Of course Christ's sacrifice was infinite 'money'. Christ was not only innocent, but He was God. 

I realize you're deep into jots and tittles regarding these particular doctrinal points of contention you're quoting and bringing up, but it would be helpful if you posted a general statement of what you are trying to show and what you think it means?


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 10, 2006)

How much weight to you give to the fact that Dabney _argues_ for limited atonement?

Are you saying Dabney didn't understand his own position? Are you saying he wrote one thing but secretly believed something else, and provided 'clues' and 'hints' to those of a like mind in his writings? 

Perhaps Dabney confused himself by conflating terminology in some hazy way (expiation, propitiation). Perhaps Dabney's writings are not edited to confession standards? 

Do we basically know, though, Dabney's position on the 'L' in Tulip? Of course we do. 

Is it fair to speculate or assume he believed in something that would counter the weight of his doctrine in whole? Is that a serious thing to do?

Questions, questions, questions...

[Edited on 2-10-2006 by TimeRedeemer]


----------



## Flynn (Feb 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by TimeRedeemer_
> Is your point to peel Dabney away from the ranks of five point Calvinists? (Or are you attempting to counter doctrine by going after Dabney rather than the Bible itself?) Of course Christ's sacrifice was infinite 'money'. Christ was not only innocent, but He was God.
> 
> I realize you're deep into jots and tittles regarding these particular doctrinal points of contention you're quoting and bringing up, but it would be helpful if you posted a general statement of what you are trying to show and what you think it means?



G'day there,

If you want a personal reference, Fred Greco knows me well enough. I really would think its best to keep my motives, real or otherwise, out of the discussion. Its been my experience that sometimes a conversation is reduced to challenges about one party's motives and no longer about the original subject matter. The last thing I would want is for that to happen here. For then the conversation tends to degenerate.

So the original subject matter is what exactly did folk like Dabney and Shedd believe regarding the doctrine of limited versus unlimited imputation and expiation. I would put it to you that now a strong case--and one which get stronger on Monday--that most folk have gotten it quite wrong about Dabney and Shedd. It turns out that many of us have lived by an assumption that is not grounded in reality. It turns out that Dabney and Shedd operated by a very different set of theological assumptions. That to me is very interesting: cos possibly it may be able to inform us about our own theological assumptions, and which of those may have no real basis.

Does that help?
Take care,
David


----------



## Flynn (Feb 11, 2006)

G'day again,

I assume this is directed at me.


You ask:

How much weight to you give to the fact that Dabney _argues_ for limited atonement?

I answer: A lot of weight. But my question in return would be this: how much weight are you willing to give to his arguments *for* unlimited expiation and imputation?


You ask:
Are you saying Dabney didn't understand his own position? 

I reply: Not at all. I think Dabney was one of the most careful and competent Reformed theologians the South has birthed: if not the most. There is not a careless theological proposition in Dabney on these matters.

You ask again:

Are you saying he wrote one thing but secretly believed something else, and provided 'clues' and 'hints' to those of a like mind in his writings? 

I reply: Never. I do not for one minute think Dabney secretly believed something else. He clearly had a harmonised or systemic grasp of this doctrine. The problem is, its just not the one we been told about. The problem is, if we operate by an more rigid or ultra view of Calvinism, his view will seem incongruent and inexplicable to us, until we really do understand his underlying and controlling assumptions. (A note, by terms such as rigid and ultra, I am only using Dabney's own descriptors of men like Beza, Cunningham, and Turretin.)

You comment:

Perhaps Dabney confused himself by conflating terminology in some hazy way (expiation, propitiation). Perhaps Dabney's writings are not edited to confession standards? 

Me now: My problem is that this entails an attempt to second guess Dabney. And behind that is a really desire to make him read what he should have said, according to the grid of a third party, eg you. There are subtle things going on here. Do we really want Dabney to speak on his own terms, or do we secretely want him to tell us what we really want him to say? As an historian of Reformed soteriology, Ive seen a lot of the latter in my studies.

That last line from you is interested: edited. Do you mean purged, cleansed, touched up, corrected? Is that really what you mean to imply?


You ask:
Do we basically know, though, Dabney's position on the 'L' in Tulip? Of course we do. 

I reply: What is his position on the L in the tulip? Can you in 5 sentences faithfully (to him) review his position back to me?

And you continue:

Is it fair to speculate or assume he believed in something that would counter the weight of his doctrine in whole? Is that a serious thing to do?

Me again: And here you read to me as having a want to edit Dabney, make him fit, make him say what you think he should have said. 

What is serious is the self-honesty to read any man on his own terms. 

But also, you also appear to me to say, "Hey David, if your read of Dabney is right, then that makes Dabney contradict himself, contradict the overall thrust of his theology?' 

Well I would reply by asking what in Dabney do you think makes Dabney contradict Dabney?

You close:
Questions, questions, questions...

I rejoin: Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions... Sometimes we have theological myths about the past that weve never examined in-depth. Weve been happy to rely on secondary sources in stead of digging deep into the primary source material.

Take care,
David


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 11, 2006)

Well, I'm not certain Dabney has been a standard in the way you're presenting him. I think Reformed Christians find Dabney interesting for many reasons, but he himself betook of the river that was flowing from Calvin's and Turrentin's direction, and then flowed on through the Hodges and Warfield, etc. Dabney didn't play any role in redirecting or reinterpreting that river. What I mean by that is it's not like if you attack Dabney you attack the line of Reformed theology in America or as it's come to be seen and believed in our time.

Having said that: don't you think you're nitpicking a little? When I used the word edited, I meant if Dabney knew his writings were going to be dissected to such a degree he'd have put them through an editing process to suit that purpose.

Anyway, does this come down to infinite money vs. limited money? Who argues for limited money? And that God chooses and the Son redeems the chosen - particular redemption - is not effected. 

Also, I think you're playing games with your use of the words imputation, expiation, and propitiation. In other words, you're not putting all your cards on the table. Why don't you state what you really are attempting to say. Conflating imputation and Christ's sacrifice having infinite worth is probably where things need to be cleaned up...


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 11, 2006)

The power of the atonement is not limited, but it is fully effective for particular people.

"impute: To think of as belonging to someone, and therefore to cause it to belong to that person. God "thinks of" Adam's sin as belonging to us, and it therefore belongs to us, and in justification he thinks of Christ's righteousness as belonging to us and so relates to us on this basis." [from Grudem's Systematic Theology]


----------



## Flynn (Feb 11, 2006)

Well G'day again,

I lost my first reply. This is my second.

The more I think about this, the more I am concerned that we are degenerating here. Youve already dropped in words like attack, playing games, put my cards on the table... etc etc.

You say:
Well, I'm not certain Dabney has been a standard in the way you're presenting him. I think Reformed Christians find Dabney interesting for many reasons, but he himself betook of the river that was flowing from Calvin's and Turrentin's direction, and then flowed on through the Hodges and Warfield, etc. Dabney didn't play any role in redirecting or reinterpreting that river. What I mean by that is it's not like if you attack Dabney you attack the line of Reformed theology in America or as it's come to be seen and believed in our time.

Having said that: don't you think you're nitpicking a little? When I used the word edited, I meant if Dabney knew his writings were going to be dissected to such a degree he'd have put them through an editing process to suit that purpose.
end

Let me answer in reverse order:
The last first : 
On what basis from within the textual data of Dabney do you think that had he known that a modern reader of his corpus would be drawing inferences from his direct statements, that he would have thought that he should need to clean up his comments? Do you have any textual warrant for this claim. All I see is evidence that he consider that he was cleaning up Cunningham, Beza and Turretin. He calls Cunningham shortsighted, he rebukes Beza's tortuous exegesis. He calls their school rigid and ultra.

That leads into the second point. Given his chastisement of the rigid Calvinists, he actually states that he is now making his own ammendment, his own contribution to the issue of limited atonement. 

So working properly from the textual data of Dabney himself, he does seem to negate your thoughts here.

So, my closing question would be to restate the key question: where from within Dabney, do you get any indication that he would have thought that his comments needed correcting, needed to be brought in line with the very theology he chastised (eg Beza and Cunningham)?

I hope you can see my point here. My desire is that we seek to understand Dabney on his terms, not on the terms of a third party. In this way, we will stop trying to make Dabney say what we think he should have said, but understand what he actually said. When we get there, we can work to make his system explicable on his own terms. We may not agree, we may have subjective problems with it, it may confuse us, perplex us, but then at least we are dealing with him in a more honest way. For example, what do you make of the citations Ive posted so far? Did you read them carefully?

And to be sure, I am not at all trying to attack Dabney or his theology.


Hope that helps,
David


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 11, 2006)

You keep saying you want to take Dabney on his own terms, yet you are intent to ignore anything a few words away from what he wrote that you want to focus on. 

You also remind me of so-called Reformed Catholics who quote a hiccup from Calvin and draw from that Calvin really said that we should all kow-tow to the Pope. 

I've read through your posts above again, and frankly I don't get an impression you have a grasp of the doctrine you are attempting to dissect. You are working with parts without having understanding of the whole. 

You seem to miss that when Dabney says 'limited by the decree' that involves imputation. Those whom God has chosen have righteousness (Christ's) imputed to them. As Dabney says, Christ's sacrifice enables God to impute righteousness to those whom he has chosen (enabled in the context of the demands of God's attributes).


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 12, 2006)

If I've misunderstood you or not understood the points of doctrine you are focusing on or have been impatient or wrongly associated you with individuals or movements you have nothing to do with or have questioned your motives in an unfair way I apologise...


----------



## Flynn (Feb 13, 2006)

G'day there,

You say:
You seem to miss that when Dabney says 'limited by the decree' that involves imputation. Those whom God has chosen have righteousness (Christ's) imputed to them. As Dabney says, Christ's sacrifice enables God to impute righteousness to those whom he has chosen (enabled in the context of the demands of God's attributes). 
[end]

Me now:
To interpret the first comment from you, you seem to mean this: Dabney the expiation is limited by decree, and that involves imputation. Good. But you seem to switch to the active righteousness of Christ. Dabney agrees that the active righteousness is only imputed to the believer. No problem here. But he denies that the expiation wrought in Christ's 'passive obedience' (my words) is likewise limited. He actually affirms an unlimited terms of reference here. The passive obedience of Christ is for sin, the sin of all men (more later on this). 

So up to now I have presented some more explicit citations from Dabney. Today I will present a strong implicit one, and a very good explicit one.

I will work in reverse here from Dabney. On p523 of his Lectures, Dabney comes to the critical question of what grounds the free offer, is it sincere? etc. This is a topic that was dear to him. He contributed a solid article to this question (Indiscriminate Proposals of Mercy). In his Lectures he gives other clues as to what he thinks the problem is and what his proposed solution should be.

Now this needs some careful attention, and one should read his entire remarks here. For sake of brevity I will post his conclusion for now:

Dabney: The honest mind will feel these objections to be attended with real difficulty. Thus, in defining the nature of Christ vicarious work, Calvinists assert a proper substitution and imputation of individuals´ sins. On the strict view, the sins of the non elect were never imputed to Christ. The fact, then, that an infinite satisfaction was made for imputed guilt does not seem to be a sufficient ground for offering the benefits thereof to those whose sins were never imputed. end.

Now, note, on the strict view, the sins of the non-elect were never imputed to Christ. Then he says, an infinite satisfaction made for the limited guilt that (ie that only the sins of the elect were imputed to Christ), does not ground the free offer. It does not ground the offer to those whose guilt was never imputed to the expiation. He himself agrees here. Cunningham's solution will not work.

For sure you the reader will have to think about this. It is clear that for Dabney, any solution to the supposed free-offer/sincerity question that resources finally to a limited imputation view of sin, will not ground the offer. To then think that Dabney did in fact hold to a limited imputation of sin, as presupposed in his own solution, is to turn Dabney on his head.

Second citation:

See how manfully Christ approaches His martyrdom, and how sadly He sinks under it when it comes! Had He borne nothing more than natural evil, He would have been inferior to other merely human heroes, and instead of recognizing the exclamation of Rousseau as just. "Socrates died like a philosopher; but Jesus Christ as a God," we must give the palm of superior fortitude to the Grecian sage. Christ´s crushing agonies must be accounted for by His bearing the wrath of God for the sins of the world. Lectures, p511

In the context here, for suffer is to suffer vicariously the wrath of God, for imputed Guilt. There is no sensible way to conceive here that for Dabney, Christ didnt suffer the wrath of God for the [imputed] guilt of the world. If the imputed guilt Christ bore, was only that of the elect, then how Christ suffered for the sins of the world is now inexplicable at best, the hight of divine injustice and folly at worst. And recall, Dabney rejects the idea of converting and restricting kosmos to the elect. How can Christ bare the wrath of God for the sins of the world? Exactly because he made an expiation (ie sacrifice of expiation) for every man.

More from Dabney later.

Take care,
David


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 13, 2006)

David, you're a sophist in this sense: you refuse to put your cards on the table. Just say what you believe and what you consider Dabney to have believed. Then we can deal with Dabney's writings fairly and honestly. You won't do this because you can only operate between the lines of Dabney's writings. If you aren't allowed to ignore the weight and conclusions of Dabney you have nothing to say or assert.


----------



## Flynn (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by TimeRedeemer_
> David, you're a sophist in this sense: you refuse to put your cards on the table. Just say what you believe and what you consider Dabney to have believed. Then we can deal with Dabney's writings fairly and honestly. You won't do this because you can only operate between the lines of Dabney's writings. If you aren't allowed to ignore the weight and conclusions of Dabney you have nothing to say or assert.



Hey there,

If this is how you want to engage in a conversation, sure, Ill concede: you win... uncle...uncle... 

But levity aside. Ill ask you again, but in your own words: what weight and conclusions from Dabney should I not be allowed to ignore? Can you adduce these "conclusions" that demonstrate the invalidity of my inferences?

So far, Ive posted these basic premises posited directly from Dabney:

1) Christ made an expiation for every man.

2) Holos Kosmos/kosmos (1Jn2:2, Jn3:16) cannot be limited to the elect.

3) Dabney said that the expiation is unlimited: as opposed to redemption which is limited. The implication here is crystal.

4) Dabney says the limitation is only in the decree to _apply_ an unlimited expiation, an nowhere else.

5) Dabney rejected the double-payment/jeopardy argument.

6) The idea of a limited imputation of sins does not sustain a sincere and free offer. Thus any attempt to turn Dabney on his head at the end of the day is inexplicable.

7) Dabney says Christ bore the wrath of God for the sins of the world. And this is directly nested in Dabney's comments of Christ's vicarious suffering for imputed guilt.

And you have shown... what exactly?

Here is another snippet from Dabney which may interest you. Nested in his discussion of the kosmos of Jn 3:16 and 1Jn2:2 he says this (and Ill give some of the context):

Dabney:

But there are others of these passages, to which I think, the candid mind will admit, this sort of explanation is inapplicable. In John 3:16, make "the world" which Christ loved, to mean "the elect world," and we reach the absurdity that some of the elect may not believe, and perish. 

In 2 Cor. 5:15, if we make the all for whom Christ died, mean only the all who live unto Him"”i. e., the elect it would seem to be implied that of those elect for whom Christ died, only a part will live to Christ.
end Lectures, p., 525.

Immediately following this he also denies the alleged limitation of kosmos in 1jn2:2. But that aside for now. Note here his reference to 2 Cor 5:15, he denies that all for whom Christ died can be restricted to the elect. But strikingly, rigid and strict Calvinists have categorically rejected such an interpretation. The fact that he denies their stricture, shows us that he was in fact operating by a different set of theological assumptions.

More later...

Hope that helps,

Take care,
David


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 13, 2006)

You're the most intellectually muddled individual I think I've encountered on a Reformed forum. I believe you are in part willfully muddled. You keep swinging back to interpretations of statements as if a prior distinction or definition had not been made. Then you sprinkle in common rhetorical techniques one finds mostly in conspiracy writings ("But not only that..." "Yet I will give more along these lines upcoming..." "This here though is hardly all, later I will make it even more clear how..." 

I take biblical doctrine seriously. Until you choose to write honestly and at least attempt to write clearly (and to be up front with what your very thesis is) it is a waste of time...


----------



## Flynn (Feb 13, 2006)

G'day There,

You say:

You're the most intellectually muddled individual I think I've encountered on a Reformed forum. I believe you are in part willfully muddled. You keep swinging back to interpretations of statements as if a prior distinction or definition had not been made. Then you sprinkle in common rhetorical techniques one finds mostly in conspiracy writings ("But not only that..." "Yet I will give more along these lines upcoming..." "This here though is hardly all, later I will make it even more clear how..." 

I take biblical doctrine seriously. Until you choose to write honestly and at least attempt to write clearly (and to be up front with what your very thesis is) it is a waste of time... [end]

Me now:

Okay... thanks for sharing.

Take care,
David


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 14, 2006)

You're welcome.


----------



## Flynn (Feb 14, 2006)

There are 4 key sources for Dabney's ideas, his Lectures, his Introduction to the 5 points, and his published article, Indiscriminate Proposals, and his Christ our Penal Substitute.

I am sure there are other key references and slowly as I work through his corpus, I may find more. But now to Christ Our Penal Substiute. This book originally came from a series of lectures Dabney gave late in his life. He was an aging man at the time of these comments. Also of interest is that some of the material was pulled from his Lectures and no doubt other sources. This shows us that he was still of the same mind later in his life.

From Dabney:

1) 
Now, we find every condition which was lacking to the human substitute beautifully fulfilled in the case of Christ. He was innocent, owing for himself no debt of guilt. He gave his own free consent, a consent which his Godhead and autocracy of his own being entitled him to give or to withhold. (See John x. 17, 18.) He could not be holden by death; but, after paying the penal debt of the world, he resumed a life more glorious, happy, and beneficent than before. CoPS, p24.

Note here, Dabney says that Christ paid the penal debt of the world. This language is getting as strong as was Shedd's.

2)
But if the great truth be posited that a just ground was laid by Christ's voluntary substitution under the guilt of a world for these penal sufferings, and that by them God's purity, adorable justice, and infinite love for the unworthy are gloriously manifested together, then all these moral and didactic effects of Christ's sacrifice most truly result. CoPS, p66-7.

In this citaton, Dabney pulls all the terms together. It is a penal substitution which suffers for the guilt of the world. This well corresponds to Shedd's comment about Christ making a vicarious atonement for the whole world.

For this next and longer citation I will cite the important context:

3) 
Christ´s death is a proper ransom, because the very price is mentioned. In Bible times the person ransomed was either a criminal or a military captive, by the rules of ancient war legally bound to slavery. The ransom price was a sum of money or other valuables, paid to the Christ Our Penal Substitute master in satisfaction for his claim of service from the captive. This is the sense in which Christ´s righteousness is our ransom.

It has been shown in a previous chapter at what deadly price our opponents seek to escape the patent argument, that if Christ did not suffer for imputed guilt, since he was himself perfectly righteous, he must have been punished for no guilt at all. But this argument should be carried further. Even if we granted that the natural ills of life and
bodily death are not necessarily penal, but come to all alike in the course of events, the peculiar features of Christ's death would be unexplained. He suffers what no other good man sharing the regular course of nature ever experienced, the spiritual miseries of Divine desertion, of Satanic buffetings, let loose against him, and of all the
horrors of apprehended wrath which could be felt without personal remorse. (Luke xxii. 53; Matt. xxvi. 38, and xxvii. 46.) See how manfully Christ approaches his martyrdom, and how sadly he sinks under it when it comes. Had he borne nothing more than natural evil, he would have been inferior to the merely human heroes; and instead of recognizing the exclamation of Rousseau as just, "Socrates died like a philosopher, but Jesus Christ as a God," we must give the palm of superior fortitude to the Grecian sage. Christ's crushing agonies must be accounted for by his bearing the wrath of God for the sins of the world. CoPS, pp92-3.

Here a few things can be gleaned. He connects the penal substition with the price of the ransom paid. He also here explicitly connects the idea of of suffering for imputed guilt. And in suffering this imputed guilt, its a suffering the wrath of God for the sins of the world. Lastly, that last comment is verbatim from his Lectures, p., 511.

4)
Methodist Articles of Religion" (1784) are the responsible creed of the vast Wesleyan bodies of Britain and America. Many of these propositions are adopted verbatim from the "Thirty-nine Articles." This is true of Article II. which contains an identical assertion, in the same words, of the doctrine of Christ's penal substitution. The Catechism of the "Evangelical Union" teaches these doctrinal views, in which all the churches concur which are represented in the "Evangelical Alliance." This document omits the peculiar, distinctive doctrines in which these churches differ from each other. It was the work of Dr. Philip Schaff, D.D., LL. D., 1862, Lesson XXVIII., Question 4: "What did he (Christ) suffer there? " "He suffered unutterable pains in body and soul, and bore the guilt of the whole world."

Such is the tremendous array of the most responsible and deliberate testimonies of all the churches of Christendom, save one little exception, the Socinian, in support of our doctrine concerning the penal substitution of Christ... CoPS, p104. [Reader should read the remaining context]. 

This section of CoPS is Dabney's historical survey of the Christian position on this, as opposed to the Socinian. In this section of the chapter, he cites approvingly this little catechism by Schaff--the then famous historian. The wording too is identical to the wording in section 31 of the 39 Articles. Now too, world has the modifier "whole".

If we conclude all this then. Firstly, again, the reader should be aware that for the key Johannine kosmos verses, Dabney denied that they should or could be restricted to the elect. 

The modern mind no doubt wants to almost to automatically translate Dabney's "world" into elect in order to "make him fit" what me may think he should have said or meant. 

Next, no where in this work does Dabney even attempt to limit his English use of world to the elect. There are no indications that that was his intention.

Next, he clearly had a mind that Christ suffered vicarious the wrath of God, the imputed guilt of the sins of the whole world, and in so doing--to use his terms from his Lectures--to make an unlimited expiation for every man. 

Clearly he rejected the idea that only the sins, guilt, of the elect were imputed to Christ. For Dabney its sin, impersonally, that is imputed to Christ. Its not the sin of this man, as opposed to that man, but the sin that binds every man. For Dabney, imputation of sin is not like so many coins added up, but an individisible sin, which condemns us all. If we are willing we shall see C Hodge explain this for us.

Clearly Dabney held that the limitation is only in the application of the redemption, not in the expiation itself. Christ's sufferings are not pecuniary. Nor did he, or Shedd, accept the premise of the double-payment/joepard argument from men like Owen, et al.

I will post one more interesting snippet from Dabney for interest's sake. And then I will leave him for now, unless anyone wants to seriously discuss the content and claims of Dabney (rather than engage in ad hominems and the like 
 ).

So we are faced with a little problem: Either Dabney meant what he said, or its the case that he never meant what he said and he never said what he meant.

So here is my strong claim and challenge:
The attempt to convert Dabney, to clean him up, to purge him of his secret sins is an arbitrary act which commits the purger to simply lying about Dabney. If we will be honest theologians, honest Reformed men and women, we can only either agree with him or disagree. But to engage in a pseudo-Orwellian rewriting of his theology is indeed an a treacherous move, spiritually and historiographically.

Anyway, something to think about, something to explore... perhaps... perhaps not. 

Take care, 
David
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Calvin_and_Calvinism/

[Edited on 2-14-2006 by Flynn]


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 15, 2006)

I'd like to see someone else engage you, just to see if I was off-the-mark in my own responses... Any takers?


----------



## Flynn (Feb 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by TimeRedeemer_
> I'd like to see someone else engage you, just to see if I was off-the-mark in my own responses... Any takers?



G'day again,

Sure, you were way off base on just about everything, my motives, my scholarship and your reading of Dabney and Shedd. But thats okay, I understand. I know that here Dabney and Shedd must sound as if they are speaking a foreign language to you. They say things like Christ expiating the sin of all mankind, the whole human race (Shedd) or paying the penal debt of the world, by making an expiation for every man (Dabney). Thats gotta hurt. ;-) 

My joke and poke aside, youve been trained and conditioned to think of the matter one way, so much so, that when you hear the heroes saying contrary, the problem has to be with them. Either they were confused, or were inconsistent, or something. Its actually very hard to move from our conditioned perception to actually reading them honestly, with understanding, and then either agreeing or disagreeing with them.

Reading Shedd and Dabney makes us feel uncomfortable. That is fascinating. Why is that so? 

My word of caution is when you meet something like Dabney saying something you feel he shouldnt have said, ask yourself, who are you blaming first? For example, you first blamed Dabney: he was confused. Then you blamed me: I was a conspirator, etc etc. I dont think you ever got to the point of admitting to yourself that maybe you had misheard Dabney in the first place and that perhaps you should go back and listen to them man again, but now seeking to listen to him more carefully, trying to get inside his head for his own sake, on his own terms.

I would encourage you to read Dabney and Shedd and C Hodge for yourself. Read all that they have to say in their respective systematics. 

Re: the discussion of Dabney, I am more than willing to discuss his theology and his contribution. But that has to be done on his own terms, not on the terms of another or on the terms of what he "should have said" according to some predetermined assumption. (I sorta hope the terms thing is coming across clear now.  And yet any discussion of him must include the citations Ive posted, not ignore them.

Hope that helps,
David


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 15, 2006)

You're really overreaching. You still havn't given evidence that you understand the difference between sufficient for all but applied to the elect. God imputes. Jesus makes it possible. I suspect the reason no one else is dealing with you is because they've spent enough time with liberal, theological sophists in their day.


----------



## Flynn (Feb 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by TimeRedeemer_
> You're really overreaching. You still havn't given evidence that you understand the difference between sufficient for all but applied to the elect. God imputes. Jesus makes it possible. I suspect the reason no one else is dealing with you is because they've spent enough time with liberal, theological sophists in their day.



G'day Again,

I am really ambivalent about continuing this with you. A minute go I checked in and found what looked to me a comment from you calling me ignorant for such and such a reason. I then hit reply and was going to ask you if you were aware of what an ad hominem argument was. I then changed my mind. I went back to the main Calvinism forum and your post was not there anymore.

But that has really soured it for me. I am not sure I can continue this with you. All I can say/ask is this: show me from Dabney or Shedd where I have misrepresented their doctrines?

But to the general audience I will say this. The formula of sufficient for all, efficient for the elect underwent at least 2 revisions since it was first coined by Lombard in the 11thC. The original version itself was often expressed in three ways: 1) was that Christ suffered for all sufficiently, but for the elect efficiently, Calvin, Ursinus; 2) that Christ died for all sufficiently, but for the elect efficiently; 3) Christ redeemed all sufficiently, but the elect efficiently, Musculus, Virmiglie, poole, etc.

The idea was that Christ made a sufficient payment for all, but an efficient one for the elect.

Post Calvin the fomula was reinterpreted to mean, the death of Christ, or the value of the sufferings and death, was of such infinite value, that HAD God elected more, that death *would have been* sufficient for them too (Owen, Turretin, Beza). Note the English past perfect with a subjunctive hypothetical (a contrary to fact conditional). This revision denied that Christ actually made a payment for all sufficiently.

The third modification was from Boston, who tried to return to the idea of the original intent, but while affirming limited imputation of sin. The marrow men, thusly, would say, Christ is dead for you.

C Hodge, Dabney and Shedd, however, return to the basic original formulation of a sufficient expiation actually made for every man. AA Hodge to the Protestant Scholastic formula, but with Boston-like overtones, following the imput of John Brown of Haddington. 

Bye for now,
David



[Edited on 2-15-2006 by Flynn]

[Edited on 2-15-2006 by Flynn]

[Edited on 2-15-2006 by Flynn]


----------



## Magma2 (Feb 15, 2006)

> You're the most intellectually muddled individual I think I've encountered on a Reformed forum. I believe you are in part willfully muddled. You keep swinging back to interpretations of statements as if a prior distinction or definition had not been made. Then you sprinkle in common rhetorical techniques one finds mostly in conspiracy writings ("But not only that..." "Yet I will give more along these lines upcoming..." "This here though is hardly all, later I will make it even more clear how..."



That's David Ponter in a nut . . . shell


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 15, 2006)

Thanks for your contributions, David.


----------



## JM (Jan 16, 2007)

What's the difference between what Dabney taught and Amyrauldianism?

Thx.


----------

