{"id":119909,"date":"2025-09-12T12:18:55","date_gmt":"2025-09-12T11:18:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/banneroftruth.org\/uk\/?p=119909"},"modified":"2025-09-12T12:18:55","modified_gmt":"2025-09-12T11:18:55","slug":"a-review-of-fred-sanders-fountain-of-salvation-trinity-and-soteriology","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/banneroftruth.org\/uk\/resources\/book-review-resources\/2025\/a-review-of-fred-sanders-fountain-of-salvation-trinity-and-soteriology\/","title":{"rendered":"A Review of Fred Sanders’ Fountain of Salvation: Trinity and Soteriology<\/em>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Banner trustee Donald John MacLean (Westminster Seminary UK) reviews Fred Sanders’ Fountain of Salvation: Trinity and Soteriology\u00a0<\/em>(Eerdmans, 2021, 221pp., pbk \u00a319.99) in the latest issue of the Banner of Truth magazine.<\/p>\n

Fred Sanders is one of the leading contemporary evangelical voices on the doctrine of the Trinity and contributions by him on any matter related to trinitarian theology are to be welcomed. However, as this volume is in many respects an engagement with contemporary scholarship (with all that entails), this is not his most accessible work. Still, it repays careful reading.<\/p>\n

Sanders\u2019 main concern in this work is to bring together two doctrines which should never be separated\u2014those of the Trinity and salvation. In pursuing this goal, Sanders covers areas such as \u2018The Trinity as the Norm for Soteriology,\u2019 \u2018Trinity and Atonement,\u2019 \u2018Salvation and the Eternal Generation of the Son,\u2019 and \u2018Salvation and the Eternal Procession of the Spirit.\u2019 His treatment of the importance of eternal generation is a highlight of the book, as is his concluding chapter, \u2018Retrieval and the Doctrine of the Trinity.\u2019 This chapter is, perhaps, the most evaluative in the book and highlights problems with many modern trinitarian constructions and historical narratives.<\/p>\n

This book will further enhance Sanders\u2019 reputation as a theologian of the Trinity, and rightly so. Nevertheless, it raises at least two important questions. First, there seems to be a risk of undermining the importance of genuine soteriological differences, or at least subordinating them to a common trinitarian orthodoxy. Consider the statement, \u2018the health of the doctrine of the Trinity is a good indicator of the overall vigour and balance of a theological system\u2019 (27). Well, yes, it is a necessary indicator, but not a sufficient<\/em> indicator of good theological health. A common trinitarian orthodoxy is shared by the Westminster Confession and by the Council of Trent, but hardly an equally vigorous and balanced theological system.<\/p>\n

The second relates to the nature of academic theological writing. A dizzying array of conversation partners fills the book. From deeply orthodox figures to heterodox theologians (particularly the chapter on \u2018The Modern Trinity\u2019), to traditional and modern Roman Catholic theologians. But there is little to indicate the chasm between these figures on the very principia<\/em> of theology. If there is a material divergence on the principium cognoscendi externum<\/em> (revelation) or the principium cognoscendi internum<\/em> (faith), then dialogue as equal ecumenical conversation partners is impossible. Reformed theology has gladly acknowledged all truth as God\u2019s truth, and been happy to plunder the Egyptians, but it is another thing to treat them as fellow labourers in \u2018the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth\u2019 (1 Tim. 3:15).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Also in this issue (October 2025):<\/p>\n