In contemporary soteriological discourse, the assertion has frequently been made that penal substitution jeopardizes the union of the Trinity. To answer the concern, many advocates of penal substitution have turned to the inseparability of operations in order to blunt the charge. While the inseparability of operations successfully circumnavigates some aspects of the Trinitarian Critique–as in the Father acting against the Son–it does not blunt the most formidable of the criticisms which is that penal substitution requires the separation of Son from Father for the view to obtain. In this paper, I contend that Herman Bavinck offers a classical Trinitarianism that unifies the Father and Son in a singular will. As it relates to the atonement itself, I defend a reading of Bavinck wherein the Son suffers abandonment to the curse of death and not loss of the Father in order to atone for the sins of humankind. Thus, I suggest that Bavinck offers a way to blunt the most formidable aspect of the Trinitarian Critique.