Dying with Unrepentant Sin

[Taylor]

Greetings, PB.

I am currently in a back-and-forth discussion on my blog related to the salvation of R. L. Dabney. My intention is both to acknowledge Dabney's great sin and to defend my belief that he is safe with his Lord.

Here is the question, though, that is currently bugging me:

If I "defend" (for lack of better terminology) the reality Dabney's salvation by saying that the fact the may have held to unrepentant sin does not negate the fact that Christ died for all his sin, does this mean that I must also defend the salvation of the open homosexual offender who still claims to trust the Christ of Scripture and maintain otherwise orthodox views of God and his Word?

In other words, if Dabney did in fact hold to racist thoughts until his very dying breath (which none of us can know, even the most researched of biographers), and yet we can still affirm that he was saved due to his life's work otherwise, is this any different than affirming the salvation of a practicing homosexual who otherwise was a firm believer?

 

[Edward]

It would be my proposition that virtually everyone dies with some unrepented sin. Lots of folks probably lack the self-awareness to identify all their sin.

 

[ZackF]

It would be my proposition that virtually everyone dies with some unrepented sin. Lots of folks probably lack the self-awareness to identify all their sin.

We also lack the God-awareness. The title of Welch’s book, “When People are Big and God is small” puts it well.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

@Taylor Sexton

We are ever and only saved due to the blood and righteousness of our Lord Jesus Christ. I am not saved because of my great faith (mustard-seed sized faith in Christ is efficacious because of its object). I am not saved because I repent of all my sin (I don't begin to know them all--certainly not as He does).

I am saved due only and entirely to the merits and mediation of Christ. Yes, that salvation includes not only the declarative acts of forensic justification and adoption, but also the sanative work of sanctification. But sanctification "is neither equal in all, nor in this life perfect in any, but growing up to perfection" (WLC 77).

Peace,
Alan

 

[Taylor]

@Taylor Sexton

We are ever and only saved due to the blood and righteousness of our Lord Jesus Christ. I am not saved because of my great faith (mustard-seed sized faith in Christ is efficacious because of its object). I am not saved because I repent of all my sin (I don't begin to know them all--certainly not as He does).

I am saved due only and entirely to the merits and mediation of Christ. Yes, that salvation includes not only the declarative acts of forensic justification and adoption, but also the sanative work of sanctification. But sanctification "is neither equal in all, nor in this life perfect in any, but growing up to perfection" (WLC 77).

Peace,
Alan

Dr. Strange,

Thanks for your reply.

Of course, I understand and affirm all this—no hesitation at all. The theory is not the issue; my concern here is the practical ramifications. Am I right in defending Dabney's salvation, even granting unrepentant, grievous sin, while feeling hesitant to defend it in, for example, a practicing homosexual who professes faith?

 

[Edward]

Am I right in defending Dabney's salvation, even granting unrepentant, grievous sin, while feeling hesitant to defend it in, for example, a practicing homosexual who professes faith?

What would your position be on the state of salvation of a couple living in unlawful cohabitation? Would whether or not fornication was involved impact your determination?

 

[Taylor]

What would your position be on the state of salvation of a couple living in unlawful cohabitation? Would whether or not fornication was involved impact your determination?

Brother Edward, I guess I'm not sure. Both are sin, especially if there is fornication occurring. If they profess to be believers, all the worse. While it could be evidence they are not truly saved, am I or anyone else in a position to draw a determinative conclusion?

I suppose that's my dilemma. You see, I am very concerned about being fair and just in my defense of Dabney. I truly believe he was regenerate as is currently enjoying fellowship with the Lord despite his grievous and apparently unrepentant sin of racism. However, I feel that, whether I am right or not, I would not afford the same charity to a practicing homosexual regarding that particular sin if unrepentant. Again, my question is this: Is this fair and biblical?

 

[Tom Hart]

Am I or anyone else in a position to draw a determinative conclusion?

Boiled down, at what point can we determine that a person is unsaved?

 

[Southern Presbyterian]

Who, in Dabney's time, ever called him to repentance for the sin of racism?

 

[Alan D. Strange]

@Taylor Sexton

I wanted to say what I did in the previous post and make another one to answer the problem of someone dying in impenitent racism or dying in impenitent homosexual conduct. I was quite certain that you affirmed all that I did there.

The church has been clear historically on sexual sin (this is not to say that it's been clear on all matters sexual, the Reformation impacting this area as well). Outward sexual faithfulness was universally part of the terms of ecclesiastical communion. Only in the most recent times has a faithless, departing church compromised its doctrines of biblical sexuality. All faithful churches call their members to sexual fidelity and impose discipline (including all degrees of censure) where indicated.

It is not the case that no one recognized Dabney's position as racist during his time, either with respect to his view of slavery or the African race. But in his own denomination, he was not charged with sin and called to repentance. This does not mean that we cannot now see things he said and did with respect to this as sinful. It does mean that in his time, the church of which he was a part didn't, and thus didn't censure him for impenitence in this regard.

The difference in the way that you are treating these two has to do with the view of the corporate church on the matter. Dabney's own church didn't see what he did and taught with respect to race as sinful and he remained fully within her communion. Any faithful church is obligated to excommunicate an impenitent party that practices homosexuality and this has long been recognized.

Having said all that, we must be careful in speaking of any particular persons, as if we are certain of their election. We are not, and by that I don't mean that we should doubt, but we should reserve certainty for God and His Word (and we too can have infallible assurance of our salvation). We do better to deal not with persons but principles, being certain always to call sin sin, regardless of who does it or refrains from it. We should treat sin uncompromisingly and persons with as much charity as any case may warrant.

Peace,
Alan

 

[VictorBravo]

Alan's point is very good, and it reminds us that church membership, and church discipline, matters.

Not because church membership gives you assurance of salvation, but that it gives you focus and framework. At the very least, a church should not be encouraging open sin.

Looking at it from a slightly different angle, I'd say it is always dangerous to weigh "how much can I get away with and still be saved?" The unrepentant homosexual is almost certainly quietly asking that question. Maybe many of us in our own pet sins are asking the same thing.

It's the "getting away with" part that is trouble. It shows a rebellious heart instead of a contrite heart. May God increase our faith!

 

[bookslover]

and yet we can still affirm that he was saved due to his life's work otherwise

No one is saved by this - not Dabney nor anyone else. (I know you know this; was this a slip of the typing finger?)

 

[Pergamum]

-Every single person dies with some unrepented of sin.

-Some sins are sins of weakness (lust, envy, etc) and some sins are sins of outright rebellion (worshipping Satan).

-We lose track of some sins due to the culture we live in.

-We are assuming that Dabney did, in fact, sin.

It was mentioned with great dismay that he was buried in his army uniform. He was simply proud of his country, the Confederacy, and chose to be buried in the honorable uniform of such country. Where is the sin in that?

 

[Taylor]

@Taylor Sexton

I wanted to say what I did in the previous post and make another one to answer the problem of someone dying in impenitent racism or dying in impenitent homosexual conduct. I was quite certain that you affirmed all that I did there.

The church has been clear historically on sexual sin (this is not to say that it's been clear on all matters sexual, the Reformation impacting this area as well). Outward sexual faithfulness was universally part of the terms of ecclesiastical communion. Only in the most recent times has a faithless, departing church compromised its doctrines of biblical sexuality. All faithful churches call their members to sexual fidelity and impose discipline (including all degrees of censure) where indicated.

It is not the case that no one recognized Dabney's position as racist during his time, either with respect to his view of slavery or the African race. But in his own denomination, he was not charged with sin and called to repentance. This does not mean that we cannot now see things he said and did with respect to this as sinful. It does mean that in his time, the church of which he was a part didn't, and thus didn't censure him for impenitence in this regard.

The difference in the way that you are treating these two has to do with the view of the corporate church on the matter. Dabney's own church didn't see what he did and taught with respect to race as sinful and he remained fully within her communion. Any faithful church is obligated to excommunicate an impenitent party that practices homosexuality and this has long been recognized.

Having said all that, we must be careful in speaking of any particular persons, as if we are certain of their election. We are not, and by that I don't mean that we should doubt, but we should reserve certainty for God and His Word (and we too can have infallible assurance of our salvation). We do better to deal not with persons but principles, being certain always to call sin sin, regardless of who does it or refrains from it. We should treat sin uncompromisingly and persons with as much charity as any case may warrant.

Peace,
Alan

This is immensely helpful, Dr. Strange, and is almost identical to the answer our mutual friend Ryan Noha gave me last night via text message to this very same question. Thank you!

No one is saved by this - not Dabney nor anyone else. (I know you know this; was this a slip of the typing finger?)

I am sorry, that was worded very poorly. The phrase "due to" modifies the clause "we can affirm," not "he was saved." Yes, it is not that Dabney was saved "due to" his life's work, but that we can affirm he was saved "due to" what we can see of his life‘ sword and confession. Worded better, it should say, "We can affirm—due to Dabney's confession and orthodox life and doctrine—that he was indeed saved." Maybe that is better...maybe.

 

[Jake]

Who, in Dabney's time, ever called him to repentance for the sin of racism?

https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...of-virginia-and-the-south.94656/#post-1154804

 

[Dachaser]

Greetings, PB.

I am currently in a back-and-forth discussion on my blog related to the salvation of R. L. Dabney. My intention is both to acknowledge Dabney's great sin and to defend my belief that he is safe with his Lord.

Here is the question, though, that is currently bugging me:

If I "defend" (for lack of better terminology) the reality Dabney's salvation by saying that the fact the may have held to unrepentant sin does not negate the fact that Christ died for all his sin, does this mean that I must also defend the salvation of the open homosexual offender who still claims to trust the Christ of Scripture and maintain otherwise orthodox views of God and his Word?

In other words, if Dabney did in fact hold to racist thoughts until his very dying breath (which none of us can know, even the most researched of biographers), and yet we can still affirm that he was saved due to his life's work otherwise, is this any different than affirming the salvation of a practicing homosexual who otherwise was a firm believer?

No, as the foundation for their salvation would be the finished work of Jesus on the Cross for both of their sin debt in full. the death of Jesus atoned for all of their sins, but they also will both have the Lord Jesus reveal to them just how wrong both of them really were. The problem with the Homosexual of your example is that one cannot be an open and active Homosexual without any sign of repenting or acknowledgement of this being sin would tend to negate that a real salvation happened.This kind of sin seems to be somewhat different then sinnong from a racist attitude.

 

[Edward]

Brother Edward, I guess I'm not sure. Both are sin, especially if there is fornication occurring. If they profess to be believers, all the worse. While it could be evidence they are not truly saved, am I or anyone else in a position to draw a determinative conclusion?

Do you see sanctification as an event or a process?

 

[Dachaser]

Do you see sanctification as an event or a process?

Both, but isn't Justification the means that actually gets us into Heaven?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Do you see sanctification as an event or a process?

In the compound sense, it is an event; in the divided, a process.

 

[Ben Mordecai]

R. C. Sproul made a great point once that all false doctrine is sin. I would illustrate this clearly by saying that it is breaking the commandment of taking the Lord's name in vain by invoking God's name to endorse a doctrine which he in fact does not endorse. The problem is that there are just so many doctrines of the faith that true believers come to mistaken conclusions on these issues. We might be tempted to add an "intentionality" component to what makes false doctrine sin but I think that would be mistaken. Just as many followers of Benny Hinn or Joel Osteen are likely very sincere in trying to follow Jesus it does not excuse the false doctrine because we are expected to make due use of ordinary means to discover the true doctrine.

No one has perfect doctrine, but not all doctrines are equally central. A person who denies the Trinity is in damnable heresy. A person who gets the doctrine of common grace wrong is not in damnable heresy. Nevertheless, all people die in unrepentant sin since no person has a perfect theology!

We should be able to agree that it would be absurd if we all had to be comprehensively repentant of all sins known and unknown to be saved. Repentance is a fruit of regeneration, not a precondition of regeneration.

Dabney's whole life lived demonstrates fruit of regeneration. While no human being can say with certainty the ultimate salvation of anyone (except the case of the inward testimony of assurance four ourselves and the case of specific individuals who were saved in the Bible), we aren't called to be certain. We are called to presume what is in accord with their confession unless we see strong evidence to the contrary.

Now let's contrast this with an unrepentant homosexual. Let's assume that this homosexual is deceived into thinking there is nothing sinful about homosexuality and that his church likewise has encouraged him in the sin or else does not practice discipline in any meaningful fashion. Is it possible for him to be saved? I think the answer is no for two reasons. First is that 1 Corinthians 6 directly says so. Second of all is the fact that I don't believe any regenerate person could make a practice of sexual sin without the Holy Spirit convicting their conscience.

 

[Grant]

It may also be helpful to remember that there is a biblical form of slavery. It sounds likely Dabney may not have practiced/taught a 100% right form, but according to the Bible there is a Right form of slavery.

There is NO biblical or rightoues form of homosexuality.... Period.

 

[Dachaser]

Brother Edward, I guess I'm not sure. Both are sin, especially if there is fornication occurring. If they profess to be believers, all the worse. While it could be evidence they are not truly saved, am I or anyone else in a position to draw a determinative conclusion?

I suppose that's my dilemma. You see, I am very concerned about being fair and just in my defense of Dabney. I truly believe he was regenerate as is currently enjoying fellowship with the Lord despite his grievous and apparently unrepentant sin of racism. However, I feel that, whether I am right or not, I would not afford the same charity to a practicing homosexual regarding that particular sin if unrepentant. Again, my question is this: Is this fair and biblical?

A person can be ignorant in regards to racism, as he would have been raised up conditioned by his culture and family to think that was the right way to think on the issue , but the Homosexual who claims to be a Christian would know that it was sinning, and he would be intentionally violating the ways of God.

 

[Grant]

A person can be ignorant in regards to racism, as he would have been raised up conditioned by his culture and family to think that was the right way to think on the issue , but the Homosexual who claims to be a Christian would know that it was sinning, and he would be intentionally violating the ways of God.

David,

This is inconsistent, inaccurate, and assumes too much. I think there is a distinction to make between the two sins discussed in the OP, but what you have stated here is not it.

For example:

In our current culture, it is possible for a person to be raised to see nothing wrong with homosexuality. Likewise there are those alive today who are legitimate racist, yet currently our culture does condemn it (kinda).

True knowledge of our sin comes not from culture, but from the illumination of the word by the Holy Spirit. One of the roles of the Holy Spirit is to convict us of our sins.

 

[Dachaser]

David,

This is inconsistent, inaccurate, and assumes too much. I think there is a distinction to make between the two sins discussed in the OP, but what you have stated here is not it.

For example:

In our current culture, it is possible for a person to be raised to see nothing wrong with homosexuality. Likewise there are those alive today who are legitimate racist, yet currently our culture does condemn it (kinda).

True knowledge of our sin comes not from culture, but from the illumination of the word by the Holy Spirit. One of the roles of the Holy Spirit is to convict us of our sins.

I was speaking more towards Mr Dabney situation on his particular raciist views, as do believe that he would have been raised up in a culture that tolerated and accepted those views much easier then we would now. His view would have been framed by his culture and raised around those with similiar views regarding persons of color. The person acting out in homesexual behavior and claiming to be saved would have ha to just willingly refused toaccept the conviction of the Spirit to cease from that sinning. Those 2 cases still seem different to me.

I do however accept what you stated in a general sense.

 

[Grant]

I was speaking more towards Mr Dabney situation on his particular raciist views, as do believe that he would have been raised up in a culture that tolerated and accepted those views much easier then we would now. His view would have been framed by his culture and raised around those with similiar views regarding persons of color. The person acting out in homesexual behavior and claiming to be saved would have ha to just willingly refused toaccept the conviction of the Spirit to cease from that sinning. Those 2 cases still seem different to me.

I do however accept what you stated in a general sense.

I understood your statement. However, there were outspoken reformed folk against the American Slavery in Dabney’s time. While I stand with Taylor’s opinion. You may find re-reading the below post and following the older thread helpful (as I did):

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/dying-with-unrepentant-sin.96396/#post-1178437

 

[Taylor]

Do you see sanctification as an event or a process?

Both. There is a positional sanctification that occurs at regeneration, and there is a progressive sanctification that happens over time and concludes on the glorified state.

It may also be helpful to remember that there is a biblical form of slavery. It sounds likely Dabney may not have practiced/taught a 100% right form, but according to the Bible there is a Right form of slavery.

Just to clarify, the issue here is not slavery. I am in full support of biblical slavery. It is obviously not sinful. Rather, he concern here is Dabney’s apparent racism, views such as that “negroes” are inherently morally or intellectually inferior to whites. Slavery is not inherently racist, no matter what liberals of today may assert.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

What is "biblical slavery," that being a curious (to me) word-association; and why would it deserve support? Is this some present-moment encouragement (something we ought to have)? Is it simply an ancient historic-moment acknowledgment of divine regulation? Or is it something else?

Would anyone say they support "biblical concubinage?" How about hereditary monarchy as the clearest model of "biblical national government?" Is there a biblical method of mildew eradication? These, and like questions might have different answers without even leaving the ancient context, depending on what nation was under consideration.

RLD was a racialst, and he lived at at time when such attitudes were not only the norm among his kind and class, they were staunchly believed and defended by the vast majority of US citizens, north as well as south, including none other revered Abolitionist saint than Abraham Lincoln.

Odd, that the virulent despisers of RLD are indifferent (not to say oblivious) to Honest Abe's bone-bred racialist convictions. Don't hear a peep from them about removing his Parthenon-esque monument from its apex of honor on Elysium's glorious Mall.

The moment anyone drifts from the religious principle, to put the Holy Bible in service to his political or social preferences, he commits the same sin (or error) that his opponent does. RLD failed, Calvin failed, Luther failed, Augustin failed, we all fail--precisely because it is almost impossible not to baptize as "consistent with righteousness" what seems to us the best and most natural features of anything promoting some order and stability to our lives. It is especially hard if we came of age benefiting from such advantages (few or many) as could be found within our comfortable system.

Ethics are necessarily religious, being extracted from morality; and yet ethics are adaptable where morality is fixed. Slavery--and there are many forms of slavery--is an ethical question. Indentured servitude is a form of slavery, as well as chattel slavery, both which were part of ancient Israel. Prison-populations have and may still have (for all I know) forced labor conditions. As well, we may contemplate conscription--drafting citizens for national service, whether as a soldier or any other type.

Many people today feel like "wage-slaves," whether they really are or not. Most middle class Americans work for the government of all levels (in nominal terms, allowing for some State-variations) without any promissory compensation for nearly four solid months of the year (google "tax-freedom day"). It is possible to interpret both mandatory K-12 "education" as coercive, as well as "re-education." In the USA today, there is a whole range of asserted government-ownership that is slavery in some form, just going by a different name.

Many people will say that a good number of those things above (or some form of them) are ethical. And that is my point. The closer one can put an ethical question to its foundation in morality, the simpler his answer will seem. But ultimately, God will be the judge. He will show whether the moral connection to the action was more or less correct, and he will judge the nature of the motive. And, he will finally regard the actor in terms of the relation of the Son to him, and not upon the quality of the actor's obedience (or character).

 

[TheOldCourse]

Both. There is a positional sanctification that occurs at regeneration, and there is a progressive sanctification that happens over time and concludes on the glorified state.



Just to clarify, the issue here is not slavery. I am in full support of biblical slavery. It is obviously not sinful. Rather, he concern here is Dabney’s apparent racism, views such as that “negroes” are inherently morally or intellectually inferior to whites. Slavery is not inherently racist, no matter what liberals of today may assert.

I don't know that his views regarding intellectual and moral inferiority were sinful, though they may well have been wrong. In the abstract he's correct that "a general equality of nature will by no means produce a literal and universal equality of civil condition." While history has demonstrated that any such ethnic differences, if they exist at all, are likely to be fleetingly small, nevertheless the idea that they may exist, especially from the perspective of the early 19th century, is plausible and not inherently sinful.

Now there's little doubt that he took views that were morally neutral to lengths and applications that were sinful and did so more than many of his contemporaries. An example would be his refusal to allow a black minister to exercise authority over a white congregant, which is clearly against the Scriptures. But we should be charitable towards our predecessors and avoid charging them according to the spirit of our own age.

 

[Taylor]

What is "biblical slavery," that being a curious (to me) word-association...?

It just means slavery as defined and regulated by biblical Law—i.e., a non-race-based servitude for the purpose of escaping poverty, paying off debts, or restitution for crimes like theft; no man-stealing, kidnapping, etc.

...and why would it deserve support?

I suppose that depends upon one’s view of Old Testament civil laws and the application of their “general equity.”

(I don’t want this to derail the thread, though. My concern isn’t about slavery or it’s modern validity at all, since slavery is not inherently sinful. My concern regards Dabney’s personal sin and how dealing with his salvation affects my theological dealings with open rebels.)

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I have not read every response here, but I will repeat what I said in the other thread where this topic came up in the discussion: such questions are neither wise nor profitable. In my judgment, R. L. Dabney's views of American slavery, race, and the Civil War were sinful. Also, in my view, his church should have called him to repentance. The fact that it did not do so and he did not express sorrow for those things is regretful.

Having made that point, do we really know enough to say that there was nothing about the man to suggest that he did not display the fruit of the Spirit in his life? In truth, I do not believe we have any reason to dogmatically answer that question. David never gave up his polygamous lifestyle, yet he was a man after God's own heart. So I am not sure we can judge a person fairly by only judging them on the worst aspect(s) of their life.

Some people here will agree with me about slavery, race, and the Civil War, others may quibble my conclusions with respect to two of those things. Either way, we will never really be able to answer the question as to whether or not said person was elect and is now in heaven, as we do not know the state of another person's heart. Nor do we need to know that; we would be better spending our time making our own calling and election sure.