“Dabney believed that this “penal substitutionary theory” of the atonement was the keystone of Christianity. ‘There is scarcely a leading head of divinity which is not changed or perverted as a logical consequence of this denial of penal substitution consistently carried out,’ Dabney taught. Forsake the penal substitutionary theory of the atonement and other key doctrines were sure to go: God’s distributive justice; God’s immutability; the doctrines of adoption and perseverance; and the church’s teaching on the eternal punishment of the reprobate. Most important, however, was what the denial of the penal theory of the atonement would do to the doctrine of providence. If there was no special providence in Christ’s sufferings, then the problem of evil would forever remain an ‘insoluble mystery.’ Such an idea was unthinkable to Dabney. The scoffers against Christianity would have his objections answered in ‘our doctrine of redemption through Christ’s substitution, and nowhere else.’ God permitted evil in the world and suffered with that world in order to demonstrate his glory through the cross-work of Jesus. Dabney exclaimed exultantly, ‘The Messiah is our complete theodicy!’ Divine providence was saved through the penal substitutionary atonement of Jesus” (Sean Michael Lucas, Robert Lewis Dabney, 91-92).