One of Dabney’s answers to the charge that imputation is unjust is tat “God forbids imputation of capital guilt by human magistrates,” but “He customarily claims the exercise of it in His own government.” The difference he explains by saying “Human magistrates are themselves under law, in common with those they rule; God is above law, and His will is law.”
God’s government is not man’s. And yet, this answer to the objection is deeply unsatisfying. After all, the cross is supposed to be the revelation of God’s justice. If that’s so, then it has to be identifiable as justice . Dabney’s argument makes this impossible. We just have to accept that the atonement is just, which makes it something much less than a revelation of the righteousness of God.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
The Dreadful Christ of Pär Lagerkvist
It’s dangerous to meet a god,” says the disgraced Pythia in Pär Lagerkvist’s The Sibyl. Her observation…
The Possibility of Possibility
"Might could” is a Southern expression meaning “maybe I could” or “I might be able to,” conveying…
The False Promise of No Contact
Around the time nineteen-year-old Alice began cutting ties with her family, she announced on social media that…
