by R. L. Dabney
If God is love, how can His Son have taken on our transgressions through penal substitution? The act of sacrificing one person for the sins of many has been related by some biblical scholars and students to pagan sacrificial practices and to the idea that God cannot both be love and be our penal substitution. Dabney argues that Christ’s atonement of our sins does not mirror pagan sacrificial practices, nor does it negate the fact that God is love. True to form, Dabney backs his writing with scriptural references and carefully constructed theological points.
A very helpful review of this title by Warfield that appeared in the 1898 issue of The Presbyterian Quarterly, pp. 440-442.
Dabney himself wrote a brief tract on penal substitution, circa 1880, and the text is different from what appears in the book.
Table of Contents
1. The Rationalistic Objections to Penal Substitute
2. Definitions and Statement of the Issue
3. Objections Examined
4. The Utilitarian Theory of Punishments
5. Retribution not Revenge
6. The Witness of Human Consciousness and Experience
7. Our Opponents' Self Contradiction
8. The Ethical Objections Considered
9. What Scripture Says of Substitution
10. The Testimony of Christendom