Robert Louis Dabney (1820-1898) was an American theologian, a Southern Presbyterian pastor, and an influential scholar. His writings evince a high view of Scripture coupled with much rationality, and as such, continue to be valuable for instruction and spiritual edification even today. Of course Dabney was fallible, and, as with all theologians, we need to read him critically with constant reference to Scripture as our standard.
The doctrine of hell as involving the eternal conscious torment of body and soul of those dying in their sins without Christ was under assault in his day by various false teachers within Christendom, including Annihilationists (there is no hell of torment at all), Restorationists (hell is only temporary, like purgatory), and Universalists (hell is only this life’s suffering). As Solomon said, “There is no new thing under the sun. Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us” (Eccl 1.9-10). These old heresies have remained a trouble to the church, and they continue to rear their ugly heads, even if in new garb. Satan attempts to deceive each succeeding generation with the same old tricks.
A fresh seduction from the biblical doctrine of hell is represented in a brand new book by Rob Bell called Love Wins (March 2011). One reviewer wrote of it,
Here’s the gist: Hell is what we create for ourselves when we reject God’s love. Hell is both a present reality for those who resist God and a future reality for those who die unready for God’s love. Hell is what we make of heaven when we cannot accept the good news of God’s forgiveness and mercy. But hell is not forever. God will have his way. How can his good purposes fail? Every sinner will turn to God and realize he has already been reconciled to God, in this life or in the next. There will be no eternal conscious torment. God says no to injustice in the age to come, but he does not pour out wrath (we bring the temporary suffering upon ourselves), and he certainly does not punish for eternity. In the end, love wins.1
Here is a paragraph from Bell himself, to give you the flavor of his book in his own words:
A staggering number of people have been taught that a select few Christians will spend forever in a peaceful, joyous place called heaven while the rest of humanity spends forever in torment and punishment in hell with no chance for anything better. It’s been clearly communicated to many that this belief is a central truth of the Christian faith and to reject it is, in essence, to reject Jesus. This is misguided, toxic, and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus’ message of love, peace, forgiveness and joy that our world desperately needs to hear (viii).
Bell admits he has written nothing new. Truly, the tired old questions and objections he raises have been answered effectively many times before. Indeed, Dabney’s chapter, though written more than a hundred years before, is a powerful antidote to Bell’s false teaching.
Dabney’s prose is dense and demanding. Lectures in Systematic Theology was intended for seminary students, men preparing for pastoral ministry. This book was hugely indebted to the Institutes of Elenctic Theology by Francis Turretin (1623-1687), an example of sturdy Protestant scholasticism requiring great powers of concentration even to follow, more to absorb, and still more to dispute. I aim to do my readers a service by bringing out Dabney’s more important considerations in his treatment of the subject, “Nature and Duration of Hell Torments” (chapter LXXII of Lectures). I have taken considerable liberty in abridging, paraphrasing, and interpreting, so that anyone who really wants to know what Dabney wrote should go back to the original source material. What follows is my summary. Page numbers are in parentheses and precede the matter of that page.
(852) Wrongdoers deserve to suffer. (853) Some of their suffering comes from the wrongdoing itself. Wrongdoers must suffer their own forfeit of eternal happiness that comes only to the holy. Wrongdoers must suffer remorse because they still have a conscience. Wrongdoers must suffer the disorder of own emotions since they violate the divinely-intended use of their beings. Wrongdoers must suffer perpetual cravings unsatisfied, as this begins even in this life.
Besides these natural sufferings from wrongdoing there come sufferings inflicted by God, as the Scriptures in many places and in many ways assert that God will pour out his wrath upon his enemies and that he has both the power and the intention to inflict pains upon them. These divine penalties are necessary in the divine wisdom from the inadequacy of natural penalties to restrain foolish and insensitive sinners.
Also, it is evident that after the bodily resurrection of the wrongdoers, these punishments will include bodily pains, if not mainly those. There is an evident justice in the fact that the very members of the body which wrongdoers perverted for their own sinful pleasures should suffer pains as a penalty. The Bible’s representation of misery in the afterlife for these makes it plain that physical torment is involved, although whether there will be literal, physical fire, for example, is not certain, (854) nor darkness, the gnawing worm, the brimstone, and the smoke. Even if these varied biblical descriptions are metaphorical, we cannot escape the insinuation that sin will be punished in the afterlife by extreme and terrifying bodily torment.
Some deny future eternal punishment, and these include 1) Annihilationists who teach that the wicked will be completely put out of existence as their judgment and only the righteous will have a bodily resurrection, 2) Restorationists who teach that future punishments are shorter or longer depending on a man’s guilt, but eventually all may perhaps be saved, and 3) Universalists who teach that the sufferings of this life are our hell and will satisfy divine justice for our sins, so that there will be no future punishments in the afterlife. At death God fully sanctifies everyone in his universal mercy through Christ and we all go to heaven forever. This is the most extreme form of Universalism so we give it our closest attention.
Annihilationists are refuted by passages that proclaim future punishment, even if we do not, for argument’s sake, insist they are speaking about eternal punishment. These include Mark 9.48; Matt 25.46; Dan 12.2; John 5.28-29. The last two passages explicitly teach a general resurrection of the righteous and the wicked. “Everlasting punishment” cannot mean annihilation, for the one who ceases to exist cannot be punished forever.
(855) Eternal punishment is denied on general grounds such as, for example, the love of God. “God is love” (1 John 4.8, 16) is misinterpreted to make him pure benevolence without his other attributes that seem to us inconsistent with this. But does not Scripture also say, “God is light” (1 John 1.5) and “our God is a consuming fire” (Heb 12.29)? We would err in the same way to take these as making him nothing more than punitive justice. We must accept the entire biblical revelation of God’s glorious nature, all aspects being harmonious one with another. God’s benevolence does not by any means cancel out his punishing the guilty. This is the Bible’s indisputable testimony (Heb 10.31; 2 Cor 5.11; Psa 66.5; Rev 20.10).
Another general ground of objection to eternal punishment is to measure God by human standards. For example, it is asked, could any benevolent earthly father torment his own child, however bad, with eternal fire? Psalm 50.21 is a sufficient answer: “Thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee” (cf. Isa 55.8). We can see with our own eyes in this life that God does in fact punish a sinful world with major catastrophes, but this does not disprove his benevolence, because all sufferers are guilty and fully deserve whatever punishments they receive [or God uses these to his glory and his people’s good in the case of Christians, DSM]. If one is endlessly guilty, then God’s benevolence may allow endless punishment. A benevolent earthly father would not sacrifice the welfare of his whole household to the wicked pleasure of one rebellious son.
Some argue, “We are commanded to love our enemies and to be like God, but if we were like the Calvinist’s God, we would hate and damn our enemies.” This perverse irrationality fails to recognize that God is also a magistrate. Human magistrates are required to condemn the wicked and are not supposed to pardon and love them at the expense of justice and truth. One great reason that private individuals may not take revenge is that this revenge is the Lord’s prerogative (Rom 12.19). Besides, God has shown great forbearance toward his enemies by giving his Son to die for them (856) on the terms of faith and repentance.2
Some argue that God’s wisdom would not let him create immortal beings who forfeit the divine purpose for their existence, but this presumes to know God’s secret purpose regarding the reprobate, which no one imagines himself competent to decide. [Actually, Scripture reveals this plainly: Rom 9.22; Prov 16.4; 2 Pet 2.12; Jude 4, etc. God made the reprobate to glorify his power and justice and wrath—all attributes both glorious and holy—in the eternal punishment and ruin of the reprobate; cf. Rev 19.1-4, DSM.]
One would think the Bible’s terminology about eternal punishment would be clear enough, but some of the words can have more than one sense and the context must determine their meaning in each particular instance. Such is the case with “eternal” in that it can mean a long period or an age of finite duration, besides its usual and ordinary sense. This affords an opportunity for artful misinterpretation, but the Greek NT uses the same strong words (e.g., αἰώνιος, aionios) for God’s own eternality as for the eternality of his punishments upon the wicked. They are used to describe a state as long as the subject to which they are applied can permit, whether “everlasting hills” (Gen 49.26) or “everlasting punishment” (Matt 25.46). Consider in this light Rev 14.11; 20.10; 22.5; 2 Thess 1.9; Mark 3.29; Matt 18.8. In Matthew 25.46, we have a most impressive proof for punishment of an eternal duration, because the same word is used in the same verse and in a parallel way to describe the duration of the life to be enjoyed by the righteous in glory, and no one disputes that this is of an eternal duration.
Many other biblical texts assert unending torments in a way that cannot be evaded by this semantic quibble. For example, Scripture teaches that man’s state is fixed after death, and nothing can be done to change it (Eccl 9.10; 11.3; John 9.4). “Their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9.44, 46, 48). Compare John 3.3, 36; Luke 16.26; Rev 21.8; 22.11-12.
Our strongest argument is that (857) Universalists and Restorationists divorce our everlasting happiness from anything we believe or do in this life, and this contradicts Scripture in a thousand places (e.g., Mark 16.15). If we all end up in heaven, then the afterlife really can have no practical bearing on this life—an abhorrent idea. Providence illustrates that conduct influences destiny.
These false teachers also deny 1) grace (since they envision a man’s own suffering in this life as payment for his own sin), 2) pardon (since what a sinner pays for is not forgiven him), 3) redemption (since this is buying back by another’s paying the price), and 4) salvation (since the sinner himself suffers all the evils that his sin has merited, and thus does not escape misery that was coming to him). So it is not surprising that advocates of these schemes typically explain away the substitutionary and penal sacrifice of Christ.
Their system tends to undermine the authority of Scripture and promote irreverent questioning of its doctrines. Their way of thinking shows more in common with infidelity than with humble faith. While passing over the argument that sin has infinite demerit, we may at least mention that if a man in hell were to continue sinning forever, then justice requires that he continue suffering forever. And this is in fact what happens to the wicked in hell who continue a course of sin against God, at least in their hearts.
(858) These hell-deniers do speciously appeal to several Scripture texts which by no means prove their case. Two examples are Rom 5.18 and 1 Cor 15.22 which use the word “all.” Universalists fail to recognize that all is sometimes not meant to be understood as absolutely universal but only to mean all of a certain class, as must be seen in mundane instances like Matt 3.5 and Mark 1.37. So in the first two Scriptures above, the meaning is that all die who are “in Adam,” represented by him in a covenant of works as their federal head, and that all will live who are “in Christ,” represented by him in a covenant of grace as their federal head. But not all who begin “in Adam” are found to be “in Christ.” Besides, Paul immediately says “they that are Christ’s” are the ones who shall have a glorious resurrection at his coming (1 Cor 15.23 ff.), intimating that those who are still “in Adam” at that time will not be glorified with the saints.
The Bible also clearly teaches there shall be a great distinction in the resurrection of men’s bodies. There will be a resurrection of the just—most desirable and blessed. There will also be a resurrection of the unjust—dreadful beyond words, as John 5.29 intimates. This verse cannot be interpreted as a metaphorical resurrection, that is, as a conversion in this life, because it is a calling forth of the dead “from their graves,” a fate shared alike by the righteous and the wicked. Also, Philippians 3.11 and Hebrews 11.35 support our interpretation.
Universalism also takes away the character of severe judgment from those God killed for their sins, because it envisions that they immediately entered into a state of eternal life and happiness. Under the Universalist’s scheme, Noah’s neighbors immediately entered into bliss, while Noah himself was forced to endure the relative misery of life in this world for many hundreds of years after the flood. So also Sodomites were rewarded for their sins and Lot for his piety, not to mention cruel Egyptians who received instant blessedness at the Red Sea for their persecutions of God’s people while Moses continued in the long and tiring pilgrimage for forty years.
It is wrong to say that everyone receives a just recompense in this life for his sins. Both Scripture and observation are against it (Psa 73.3; Hab 1.13). There is clearly no direct correlation of righteousness and earthly blessings, nor of wickedness and earthly troubles. Often the wicked really do prosper in this life, while the righteous suffer oppression and slaughter at the hands of rich, powerful, healthy persecutors. It is amazing anyone could miss this.
The scheme of Universalists would also make God unjust, and therefore cannot be true. Without the imputation of human guilt to Christ, and punishment of it in him, flagrant inequality must remain forever uncompensated. The worst sinners would receive the same reward as others; the monster would share the same destiny as the saint. This is only reconcilable with God’s justice if we believe in the penal substitution of Christ.
Two persons (860) come to mind as illustrations; I knew them both personally, both their manner of life and their manner of death. One was a very exemplary Christian woman who died in severe physical and mental anguish after a life of extreme devotion to the Lord and self-denying benevolence toward others, even many who treated her very badly indeed.
(861) The other was a man who was as morally repulsive as anyone I have ever known. He was lustful, a drunkard, malicious, dishonest, quarrelsome, a terror to his neighbors, and even suspected of murder. Yet he remained very healthy. One night he laid down drunk in a second story bedroom of a tavern, and the next morning he was found under the window with a broken neck, stone cold dead. It was never discovered whether he had walked in his sleep or if someone had thrown him out the window. In either case, he probably died instantly without a single pang in body or soul.
Now can we suppose that these two people, spiritually poles apart, will have the same reception into the immediate presence of God? On the whole the most guilty enjoyed the greatest earthly blessings. If this is God’s justice then he is more fearful than blind chance and than the Prince of Darkness himself! Who can believe our everlasting destiny is in the hands of such unprincipled omnipotence? This would be worse than to live on the crumbling edge of a volcano. And if heaven consists of living in the presence of such a Deity, then it would have no attraction for a righteous soul.
Whether Universalism were true or false, it would be positively absurd to teach it. If it were true, no one would have lost his soul for not learning it. If it is false, then everyone who has embraced it will suffer an immense and irreparable evil. Since the chances it is true are a million to one, it would be madness and cruelty to teach it.3
What are we to conclude, however, that of all honest and intelligent students of Scripture, hardly one in a million has claimed to find universal salvation in it? The main practical argument in its favor is that Christians who claim to believe in it are sinfully callous toward this horrible destiny of their sinful fellow-creatures. How can we imagine their suffering in hell and remain so unmoved emotionally and practically for their deliverance? And yet we profess to have faith! How can our non-Christian friends conclude we are even sincere? Our apathy is Satan’s best argument for their skepticism. The best refutation of this heresy, then, must be our plainly-seen zeal—holy, tender, and humble—to pluck sinners like brands from the burning, before it is too late.
Notes:
1. Kevin DeYoung, “God Is Still Holy and What You Learned in Sunday School Is Still True: A Review of Love Wins by Rob Bell,” accessed online at http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2011/03/14/rob-bell-love-wins-review/
2. From this and other comments he wrote, I have concluded that Dabney was not completely sound in his view of the atonement. Here, for example, it would be much better to say that God has shown love to some of his enemies, the elect, by giving his Son to die in their place, paying the penalty required by their sins and his justice.
3. While this may be effective as a logical argument, it could give the false impression that the matter is not entirely clear from Scripture, so I question whether Dabney was wise to write this paragraph the way he did. I would say, rather, “Since Universalism is manifestly unscriptural, it is madness and cruelty to teach it.”
Posted with permission. All rights reserved.