He was a slave owner.
Has it never occurred to you that he may be the single worst Presbyterian theologian of the 19th Century?
How could he not have looked into the future and seen that Slavery was a doomed institution?
Could the Civil War have been avoided?
Of course! Presbyterian ministers like Robert Dabney played directly into the hands of the Northern Abolitionists by not lookng into the future and renouncing slavery.
Can you imagine how more Christ-like it would have been if Dabney had had the spiritual courage to stand up in his Sunday pulpit and preached a vision of the gradual elimination of the peculiar institution?
Instead, what did he do? He defended slavery with the power of his Presbyterian authority. And we know what happened next.
He encouraged the Southern hot-heads and by his wretched preaching brought down upon the Confederacy the destruction of the Northern Armies.
No, there is not much to learn from Robert Dabney except how not to allow one's own economic circumstances to color your theology.
Robert Dabney was a slave owner and a terrible fool.
So was Abraham. So was Philemon.
King David was a murderer and an adulterer. King Solomon, an exponential polygamist.
This does not change the rectitude of their writings, where they were right.
Bulverism, "shooting the messenger", does not serve us Calvinists well. It is the tactic of the Arminians; and it was for the purpose of dispensing with their constant Bulverisms against the person of John Calvin that I penned my Article, Arminianism -- False Doctrines of the "Pope" of Modern Pelagianism. However, while it can be a useful counter-offensive tactic against Arminian Bulverisms to point out, "well, your own beloved Arminius was a Caesar-Worshipper who sanctified State Totalitarianism", that's not the sort of argument I'd want to see from my fellow Calvinists.
We're better than that; we can read and evaluate a Pastor's expositional sermons independent of his own personal failings. Indeed, as Calvinists, we should know to expect Personal Failings.
"Hypocrisy is the Ally, not the Enemy, of Virtue; for without Hypocrisy, no fallen Man could ever preach Virtue". -- OP (apparently)*
Proceeding on...
I don't think so. The Fall precedes from God's originating awareness of His creative actions. God creates every being with the perfect causative knowledge of that creature's end, albeit reprobation or salvation. ~~ Dr.Eckleburg
In the first place, Doctor, I am going to respectfully assume that you DON'T mean that "The Fall precedes" the rest of God's Creative Actions. After all, were you to maintain that the Fall precedes the rest of God's Creative Actions, then you should be the MOST "INFRA" of Infralapsarians whom I have ever known (indeed, I think that Infralapsarianism can go too far also; witness our soft-hearted but also theologically-indulgent brethren, the Amyrauldians).
I shall instead assume that you mean that "The Fall proceeds from God's originating awareness of His creative actions; God creates every being with the perfect causative knowledge of that creature's end, albeit reprobation or salvation." -- BUT IN THAT, you are incorrect, in assigning the Decree of Reprobation and Election without reference to The Fall.
The Decree of the Fall does not "Proceed" from "God's originating awareness of His creative actions", as the classic Supralapsarian contends; rather, as Dabney correctly maintains, "God's decree has no succession; and to Him nonsuccessive order of parts; because it is a cotemporaneous unit, comprehended altogether, by one infinite intuition." The Fall does not "proceed" from "God's originating awareness of His creative actions"; in fact, "The true statement of the matter is, that in this co-etaneous, unit plan, one part of the plan is devised by God with reference to a state of facts which He intended to result from another part of the plan; but all parts equally present, and all equally primary to His mind."
God does indeed "create every being with the perfect causative knowledge of that creature's end, albeit reprobation or salvation" (Dr. Eckleburg, #285); but He ordains the end of each creature with intrinsic reference to His Own Decree of The Fall (which is infralapsarian logic), not without reference to His Own Decree of The Fall (which is supralapsarian logic).
I honestly don't think that there is any way around this.
Supralapsarianism claims that the Decree of Election and Reprobation logically preceded the Decree of the Fall.
However, once you admit Dabney's Argument that "God's decree has no succession; and to Him nonsuccessive order of parts; because it is a cotemporaneous unit, comprehended altogether, by one infinite intuition"... it then becomes logically impossible that Reprobation should be ordained "prior to" The Fall, or without reference to The Fall, as the Supralapsarians maintain.
If God "is in One Mind", according to the Bible, and God's Right Hand knew what His Left Hand was doing, then there is no escaping the Logical Fact that Reprobation was Ordained with reference to to Ordination of The Fall. Infralapsarianism thence becomes the only Logical possibility.
I've always found this a strange way for a Calvinist to think. Is there a possibility that God could have decreed that mankind would fall, and yet He wouldn't reprobate men to damnation based on that decree? Of course not. Just like Adam, we were created to fall. Some were created to be redeemed. Some not. Vessels of wrath. Vessels of mercy. The problem with Infralapsarianism is that it implies there is a smidgen of time when God is a reactor and not the Creator, as if God is waiting to see how the Fall plays out. -- Dr.Eckleburg
Why is this a "strange way" for a Calvinist to think? Why should it be "strange" for God to make the accomplishment of Some of His Decrees contingent upon the accomplishment of His Other Decrees? Why should contingent logic be an Obstacle to the Almighty who absolutely determines the Drawing of the Lots?
Dabney, again (with my comments): "It does not seem to me that the Infralapsarian scheme makes the decree conditional. True, one result decreed is dependent on another result decreed; (Decreed by God; are you Supralapsarians DOUBTING that He controls the Lots?) but this is totally another thing. No scheme can avoid this, not even the Supralapsarian, unless it does away with all agency except God's, and makes Him the direct author of sin.
Well, duh. Who disagrees with that? When a man offers this line of reasoning to settle the infra/supra debate, he's lost it already. ~~ Dr. Eckleburg
On the contrary, my good Doctor.
Think about it. By re-framing the Debate as a question of Logical Reference, rather than Logical Order, Dabney has singularly out-flanked every Supralapsarian Apologist ever to take the field.
Versus, by comparison, the Classic Logical Order of Infralapsarianism...
If you will kindly note: Classical Supralapsarianism maintains (and has always maintained) that the Decree of Reprobation is established precedently and independently, as a matter of pure creative exercise, from the logically-subsequent Decree of The Fall.
By comparison, Infralapsarianism maintains that The Decree of Reprobation HAS logical reference to The Decree of The Fall. Classically, it is a matter of Logical Order; but as Dabney points out, it is foremost a matter of Logical Reference. Either God Decrees Reprobation with reference to His Decree of The Fall (Infralapsarianism), or else He Decrees Reprobation without reference to His Decree of The Fall (Supralapsarianism -- Ahh, but that is to UnBiblically Divide the very Mind of God!!)
When you acknowledge, "Well, duh. Who disagrees with that?", you are giving Dabney the whole of the Argument.
Supralapsarianism stands or falls upon the contention that the decretum horribile is conceived independent of The Fall. To acknowledge that God's Plan is conceived as a Co-etaneous Unit Whole, and that God's Decree of Reprobation is therefore (necessarily!) conceived with logical reference to God's Decree of the Fall (Assuming Cotemporaneity of Providential Decree, operant order doesn't really matter; referential correspondence is the key point), is to concede Dabney's Argument that the entire contention is not a matter of Logical Order, but rather of Logical Referent; and that Dabney is in fact RIGHT!
And that's why Infralapsarianism is the established, orthodox Doctrine of the Calvinist Reformation; that's why Infralapsarianism is the professed Doctrine of all the Calvinist "Greats", while Supralapsarianism is at best tolerated; and that, my amicably-beloved good Doctor, is where the Fat Lady Sings.
Best, OP