What in the world did Jesus mean when He uttered these last five or six words of John 14:28?[1] Are these words of Jesus somehow ambiguous? One difficulty that often comes into play when interpreting these words is that most Western Christians have been taught the theology of the so-called “Athanasian Creed” which basically says that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are coequal in every way.[2] But how can such an idea be reconciled with this plain statement from the mouth of Jesus? Most Western Christians would, of course, affirm that there is one God (not three). Yet, they would also say that the one God exists in a Trinity—that there are three distinct divine Persons who share the same essence, nature or ‘substance.’ But many Western Christians are unsure how to explain the many passages in Scripture that would indicate that the Son (and the Holy Spirit) are somehow subordinate to the Father, so the issue is usually just ignored or explained away with weak arguments.
Continue reading My Father is Greater than ITag Archives: Trinity
The Trinity & the Penal Satisfaction Theory of the Atonement
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