# R.L. Dabney, Systematic Theology



## py3ak (Apr 21, 2013)

What are the distinctive features of Dabney's systematic theology? Where does he diverge from the Reformed mainstream? What cautions should one bear in mind in reading his work? Also, what particular value does it have?


----------



## arapahoepark (Apr 22, 2013)

I have not seen anywhere where he diverges and seems like a good theology but, I haven't read all the way through it. He also has a section on prayer.


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 22, 2013)

He has an interesting view on the extent of the atonement, while not moving from the Calvinist position that Christ died to save the elect. He believes that the common grace benefits to the reprobate that result from Christ's death were intended by God, and I suppose they must have been.

He doesn't believe that the infra/supra debate is sensible because of the nature of the Divine mind.

He believes in that baptised members who are not yet communicant members are like "minors in a commonwealth" and must be subject to "judicial prosecution" by the Session if they go astray. I still don't understand what this would involve.

He believes that, re Original Sin, some in the Reformed camp have gone too far in their positing a similarity between Christ's justification of believers and Adam's sin being imputed to us. He believes that both the guilt of Adam's sin is imputed to and the corruption is transmitted to us at the same time. Some of the Reformed have posited "immediate iimputation" by which Adam's guilt is imputed to us, and then results in our corruption.

He has an interesting discussion of the various hypothetical ways by which the Lord could have entered into a CoW with Man, e.g. as individuals, and finds the way the Lord arranged it most gracious and wise.

He believes that Christians, like Jews, shouldn't do their cooking on the Sabbath.

Probably much else could be said.


----------



## py3ak (Apr 22, 2013)

Thanks, Richard, that's very informative.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Apr 22, 2013)

Good stuff. It has certainly spurred me to re-read Dabney's Systematic.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Apr 22, 2013)

Robert L. Dabney's Third Lecture in his Systematic Theology on "The Evolution Theory" should have pretty much put to death any semblance of relation between orthodox Christianity and this particular idea. It also should put to death the idea that Warfield and Hodge just "didn't see the trajectory". Dabney's devastating critique cannot be answered rationally.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Apr 22, 2013)

"The sentiment of religion is omnipotent in the end. We may rest in assurance of its triumph, even without appealing to the work of the Holy Spirit, whom Christianity promises as the omnipotent coadjutor of the truth. While irreligious men explore the facts of natural history for fancied proofs of a creation by evolution which omits a Creator, the heralds of Christ will continue to lay their hands upon the heart-strings of immortal men, and find there always the forces to overwhelm unbelief." -- Robert L. Dabney, "Systematic Theology" pg. 63


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 22, 2013)

Richard, I love how the Lord gave you a great retention of things. I read that about a decade ago and loved it but couldn't tell you the specifics you share. I do remember it was like sitting and listening to him lecture. I wish I had kept mine. I had it all marked up with notes.


----------



## MW (Apr 22, 2013)

Dabney wavered between the voluntarist tradition which is inherent in Reformed defences of God's sovereignty, simplicity, etc., and the necessarian theology which became dominant in the 19th century. Basically, necessarians think of God in terms of a nature which His will is bound to follow. Such thoughts manifest themselves in discussions on the divine perfections, the decree, morality, and especially the atonement.


----------



## py3ak (Apr 23, 2013)

Thank you, Mr. Winzer. Do you think it was the influence of John Owen that led to the eventual decline of voluntarism?


----------



## au5t1n (Apr 23, 2013)

I've been surprised at the degree to which learning about divine voluntarism has helped harmonize other things in theology for me.


----------



## MW (Apr 23, 2013)

py3ak said:


> Do you think it was the influence of John Owen that led to the eventual decline of voluntarism?



I tend to think there was something bigger at work than a single person's ideas, and I don't think Owen strayed very far away from his voluntarist framework. It is hard to say what exactly influenced the decline. If I had to provide a simple answer I would lean towards the idea that "reason" was given too high a place and there was an over-reliance on "natural theology." A posteriori arguments for the existence of God reason towards a "nature-God."


----------



## py3ak (Apr 23, 2013)

That is interesting. I've wondered if the expanded role given to the affections, as though they were a faculty distinct from the will, in human psychology was then projected back onto God; from affections governing the will to nature governing the will seems only a short step.


----------



## au5t1n (Apr 23, 2013)

py3ak said:


> That is interesting. I've wondered if the expanded role given to the affections, as though they were a faculty distinct from the will, in human psychology was then projected back onto God; from affections governing the will to nature governing the will seems only a short step.



I'll bet so. That, and the general ignorance of the doctrine that God is without parts. If the simplicity of God were appreciated, it would do away with any idea that God has a nature distinguishable from his will such that one can be said to rule the other.


----------



## MW (Apr 23, 2013)

It is interesting that cases for divine emotivity overtly argue from the image of God in man. But then some insist that God wills to have these emotions, which would accord with the old psychology. It must depend on what one thinks "emotions" really are. As I understand the term, the "e" in "e-motion" makes it impossible to ascribe it to Divinity. God is pure act. If there is something in God which proceeds from that pure act, and is other than pure act, then we have pure God and less pure God. This is the essence of pantheism and contrary to biblical theism. E-motion must be tied to our finitude, and the fact that we will in various phases and conditions. Hence it is a property of being a creature and should not be imputed to the Creator.


----------

