Allen Baird
[The following is an extract from an article originally published in the British Reformed Journal, in the July-September issue of 1996 (no. 15), pp. 42-45]
A number of extremely interesting points proceed from Dabney’s article.[1] The first is his description and subsequent rejection of the position of Francis Turretin on the matter.[2] He puts Turretin’s view as follows: “He urges that the only merciful volition of God in Scripture is that towards the elect; and ‘the rest He hardeneth;’ that it is inevitably delusive to represent an omniscient and omnipotent Agent as having any kind of volition towards a result, when, foreseeing that the sinner will certainly not present the essential condition thereof—faith—He Himself distinctly purposes not to bestow it; that the hearing of the gospel (Rom. 10:14) is a means equally essential, and God providentially leaves all the heathen without this; and that it is derogatory to God’s power and sovereignty to represent any volition of His, that is a volition, as failing in a multitude of cases.”[3] A more clear and concise statement of the position of the [British Reformed Fellowship (BRF)] on the matter could hardly be hoped for! But not only does Dabney admit that this is the position of the greatest of the Protestant seventeenth century theologians, he laments that other Reformed theologians have “so often” held the same view. The BRF might not have many friends in contemporary Calvinistic circles, but we do have historically.
Most of Dabney’s discussion constitutes an attempt to draw and defend a distinction between volition and propension, will and affection, in God. This would, or could, allow him to say that God desires, loves, and is favourably inclined towards the non-elect without having to will or determine their ultimate salvation. I believe that Dabney’s attempt, and therefore Mr. Brentnall’s position, fails for the following reasons.
Firstly, after emotively asserting that Turretin’s position flies in the face of the many Scriptures which ascribe to God a pitifulness towards the non-elect, he proceeds to try and prove his point by way of ‘analogical instances’[4] from fictitious scenarios involving humans. Clearly, this will not do. To argue by analogy means to give examples of similarity between two things which have a partial likeness to each other so that the more complex of the two (in this case God) can be more clearly understood in the light of the more familiar (in this case man). Although a methodology championed by Mediaeval theologians, the Reformed have tended to reject the way of analogy because of its arbitrary and concocted nature, and also because it enables us merely to say what God is like, not what God is.
Secondly, after drawing heavily upon the wells of the Mediaeval Schoolmen in his use of analogy, Dabney amazingly tries to justify the distinction of will and affections in God by refuting mere ‘scholastic’ explanations of God’s absolute simplicity! The point here is that God is simple and not composed of parts such that he can be divided into parts, and it is therefore impossible to make any such real distinction in the divine mind.[5] Dabney rejects God’s absolute simplicity, as does the modern Presbyterian theologian John Murray[6] so that he can maintain the analogy with the human mind and the division between will and desire which it allegedly proves.[7]
In his discussion of God’s impassibility, Dabnew [sic.] makes two great mistakes. First, he ascribes to God “passive powers”[8] or affections, so that it is false to say along with “the theologians” (a reference to traditional Reformed Theologians, no doubt) that God immutably acts on everything but is acted on by none. Indeed, says Dabney, God is acted on by the creature, so that God has to display or is caused to show certain dispositions toward them like wrath and delight, both of which Dabney wrongly considers as emotions rather than volitions, thereby making them separate from God’s own choice and sovereign freedom.
Thirdly, and somewhat inconsistently, Dabney interprets God’s wrath, pity, pleasure, love and hatred as anthropopathical in character and therefore not literal—a consequence of his use of analogy, I think. But is this not to undermine himself? If it is not literally true that God loves all men under the preaching of the gospel, as Dabney is trying to prove, then why bother to try and prove it? And if it is not literally true that God loves all men under the preaching of the gospel, then what on earth does it mean? What use could be derived from telling a sinner that God loves them and desires their salvation, but only in a metaphorical or analogical sense? Not much comfort for God’s people, either.
Dabney’s man-centred approach reaches its zenith when he considers Christ. The divinity and not the humanity of Christ constitutes the root and basis of His personality, so that when certain passages are considered which speak of Christ loving and willing, they must be analysed firstly and primarily from the perspective of the divine, not the human. Since the sixth Council of Constantinople in 680 AD, the established position is that the human will by its union with the divine did not become less human, but was heightened and perfected by the union, the two wills always acting in perfect harmony as directed by the divine person. But Dabney seems to want to make Christ’s mutable and temporal will dominant so that any passage of Scripture which seems to imply that Christ exercised a universal love must be taken in isolation from what Scripture teaches about God’s simplicity, eternity, immutability, and impassibility, and the divine is made to follow the leadings of the human.[9]
Much more could be said, especially with regard to Dabney’s attempt to justify the wellmeant offer by rejecting the truth that God knows through eternal and immediate intuition by speaking of God “thinking a sequence.”[10] Again this done by means of an analogy between God and man. Dabney goes on and on, talking about psychology and giving tedious examples from history to “prove” his point. But despite this rationalism, he finally finds solace in the absurd, speaking of “this wondrous and blessed paradox of omnipotent love lamenting those who yet it did not save.”[11] Mr. Brentnall can rest here with Dabney if he wishes. He too can base his arguments on human psychology, history and paradox. But we, with Calvin, will stick with Scripture.
FOOTNOTES.
[1] Discussions of Robert Lewis Dabney Vol. 1 pp 282-313. Banner of Truth reprint 1967.
[2] For a full discussion of Turretin’s doctrine of the will of God and the Gospel call see Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel by Prof. David J. Engelsma. Reformed Free Publishing Association U.S.A.
[3] Dabney, op cit. p. 283.
[4] Ibid., p. 284.
[5] See Westminster Confession of Faith Ch 2 Sect. 1.: “There is but one only, living and true God who is.....without body, parts, or passions...” Also see Belgic Confession of Faith, Article One: “We all believe with the heart...... that there is one only simple and spiritual Being, which we call God....”
[6] Calvin on Scripture and Divine Sovereignty, by John Murray, page 69 Note 44.
[7] I say “allegedly” on purpose because Dabney proves no such thing. In fact, Dabney is completely out of step with Reformed thought on the matter of seeing the will and affections as different. Augustine, Calvin, Bavinck, and Kuyper all held that the two were to be identified in men. For good discussion of the matter see: Jonathan Edwards: “Freedom of the Will,” Part one, Sect. 1, and “Religious Affections” Part one, sect. 1.
[8] Dabney: Op. cit. p. 291.
[9] Ibid., pp. 303-308.
[10] Ibid., p. 294.
[11]
Discussions, p. 309. Compare this attitude to Calvin who said, “I abhor
paradox” (See Calvin’s Selected Works: Vol. 3 and page 149. Publ. Baker
U.S.A, reprint of 1983.
[See also the following critiques of the same essay of Dabney:
https://commongracedebate.blogspot.com/2023/01/dabney-indiscriminate-proposals-of-mercy.html (Prof. David J. Engelsma)
https://commongracedebate.blogspot.com/2020/04/dabney-on-free-offer.html (Rev. Martyn McGeown)
No comments:
Post a Comment