The Trinity & the Penal Satisfaction Theory of the Atonement

The relation that exists between a particular aspect of the Trinitarian teachings of classical Christianity and a particular theory regarding the atonement of the cross (a theory which is now widely assumed to be the only acceptable version of the atonement) was initially perceived by this writer while doing research on the subject of the popular teaching of Unconditional Eternal Security (a.k.a. Once Saved Always Saved). The connection that exists between the atonement of the cross and intra-Trinitarian relations became evident because of how Unconditional Eternal Security advocates would very often attempt to support their arguments by appealing to the atonement of the cross. They commonly assert that all of our sins have been paid for (past, present, and future) and can never be charged back to our account because God’s wrath has been satisfied—Jesus took the punishment from God that we deserved.

Like Charles Stanley (president of the S.B.C. 1984-1986), advocates of Unconditional Eternal Security often assert that holding to a position of Conditional Security is tantamount to denying the finished atoning work of Christ.[1] However, not only can it be proven that Unconditional Eternal Security advocates depart from the earliest, most universally held consensus of Christian teaching on the subject of salvation security, but in their desperate efforts to defend their doctrine by appealing to and arguing from the Penal Satisfaction theory of the atonement, they only reveal how inconsistent this concept of the atonement is with a well-established key element of Trinitarian doctrine—the inseparability of the three divine persons.[2] Continue reading The Trinity & the Penal Satisfaction Theory of the Atonement →