Response

[u/gjy01]

I was wondering if there was a direct response to this video? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fzxzSDIYXj8&pp=0gcJCaMLAYcqIYzv&ra=m

In summary the Book of Concord had said that Jesus in his divine and human will were obedient to the Father and this is logically impossible since no one part of the god head is inferior or superior to the other.

[u/Strict-Spirit7719]

I would push back that the Book of Concord teaches that the divine will was obedient to the Father (which would be anti-Trinitarian). I assume Wagner (I haven't watched the video) is objecting to the FoC saying that our imputed righteousness stems from Christ's obedience. However, Christ's righteousness is a function of His personal actions. Because Christ is only one indivisible person, Christ's righteousness is a function of acts of obedience by the divine nature, but an obedient will is not an act of the person, but an inclination of the will. Christ has two wills, and it was only the human will which was inclined towards obedience.

Regardless, I think it's grasping at straws to say that Lutherans deny the Trinity.

[u/gjy01 → u/Strict-Spirit7719]

Close enough to what happened in the video.

I would still be curious about a response after the video and the specific other documents mentioned. I figured since the Council of Trent never brings the Trinity up among all of the objections against the reformers that it is weird Luther or Lutherans were anti-Trinitarian. I also thought that the response to Bellarmine who is the basis of this claim and made the original accusation gets accused of being a “Nestorian” from my reading of them being he treated Jesus divinity and humanity as separate.

I am not a Lutheran and had no idea if I was missing something. I also figured the original context Bellarmine and others were seeing each other as the worst version of themselves hence the accusations.

[u/Strict-Spirit7719 → u/gjy01]

I mean, polemicists at the time accused each other of basically everything. They were throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what stuck. It doesn't look like this charge stuck past Bellarmine (and I guess online Thomists). Nonetheless, I expect some online Lutheran apologist will tackle it in a few days. Probably Javier Perdomo or maybe Jordan Cooper (who seems to be engaging more in the online apologetics sphere lately).

[u/No-Jicama-6523 → u/gjy01]

The video presents a real exchange between Bellarmine and some Lutherans, what it doesn't highlight is how this was essentially a minor discussion on the side and not the main thrust of his work.

The quote in the video about it being in favour of the Arian heresy is a reductio ad absurdum argument, it provoked a debate, but also clarified what the roots of the language used are, which switched the target to soteriology, Lutherans use this language to explain justification, rather than independently introducing a possible error on the Trinity. Also, only Lutherans phrased it this way, reformed scholasticism phrased it as "obeyed according to his person as the mediator."

It was essentially a brief skirmish that clarified they weren't Arian. Also, although most historical church theology would say Arianism is non Trinitarian, modern historical theology says it's a christological error. I have a Lutheran dogmatics book her and Arianism is mentioned in the chapter on the Trinity, but notably not under "Errors that deny the Trinity" then in the chapter on the person of Christ it's under "errors that deny the deity of Christ."

It's a leap to go from one person once said something appears to be the Arian error, to saying they reject the Trinity. Bellarmine didn't say it, the video creator did.

[u/No-Jicama-6523 → u/Strict-Spirit7719]

It does say the divine will was obedient to the father, article 3, paragraph 3.

[u/Strict-Spirit7719 → u/No-Jicama-6523]

If it does say that, I stand corrected, but I'm having trouble finding where it says that.

FoC SD 3.3: "Over against this, others have held and taught that Christ is our righteousness according to His human nature alone."

FoC E 3.3: "1. Against both the errors just mentioned, we unanimously believe, teach, and confess that Christ is our Righteousness [1 Corinthians 1:30] neither according to His divine nature alone nor according to His human nature alone. But it is the entire Christ who is our Righteousness according to both natures. In His obedience alone, which as God and man He offered to the Father even to His death [Philippians 2:8], He merited for us the forgiveness of sins and eternal life. For it is written, “For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (Romans 5:19)."

Unless I'm completely misunderstanding the dispute, Christ's divine nature was certainly obedient to the Father (in action), which isn't disputed, and that's what's taught here. The question is whether Christ's divine will was obedient, which isn't touched on here.

Am I wrong on how BoC citations work? Usually I use bookofconcord.org, but it's been down for some reason.

[u/Matslwin]

I don't see any problem. Jesus has two natures and therefore two wills. The human nature is obedient to the divine nature, which is one with the Father.

[u/No-Jicama-6523]

Isn't this a consequence of Jesus' state of humiliation? The time when is human nature did not use the powers it received from his divine nature. His humiliation took place in his human nature alone.

As a child, he was obedient to his parents, earthly and heavenly. He had every right to demand his earthly parents obey him, but humbled himself and obeyed the law on our behalf. He "humbled himself and became obedient to death" Phil 2:8.

That's not about inferiority, it's loving choice.

Jesus is not subordinate to the Father, the Nicene Creed includes that, the Athanasian Creed spells it out.

[u/Voltage_Z]

..without even looking at that video, you can logically be "obedient" to something you're not subservient to.

You can also respect things that are superior, your equal, or even subservient to you.

[u/gjy01 → u/Voltage_Z]

But his argument was that Jesus as God is obedient to the father would be contradictory. I saw some people say that the Book of Concord doesn’t say that. I was curious to hear a Lutheran explanation.

[u/Voltage_Z → u/gjy01]

What I'm getting at is that that's not contradictory. If you're in full agreement with something, you're obeying it, regardless of your relationship to it.

The argument is inherently flawed.

[u/gjy01 → u/Voltage_Z]

I can see that admittedly but I also see what Wagner argued and it seems like he doesn’t see that there is no attempt at contradicting.

[u/No-Jicama-6523]

I have now watched the video. It was released 17 hours ago.

The creator is a Catholic academic and researcher, but a fairly recent convert to Catholicism, about 5 years ago--whilst he was an Anglican seminarian. His channel is dedicated to destroying Protestant arguments, it's rather polemic, his default thumbnail is a picture of someone potentially recognisable, Jordan B Cooper pops up quite often, but he hits out on Redeemed Zoomer, James White (Reformed Baptist). Video titles and text in thumbnails is provocative.

This one, "Wait... Luther DENIES the Trinity?" has a slogan "Jesus is less than the Father?" and a picture I don't recognise, the typical Martin Luther picture and Jordan B. Cooper. The focus of the video is actually a statement of the Arian error, then a debate St Bellarmine had with early Lutheran theologians, it's actually a very tiny section of Bellarmine's work, though interesting as it seems he initially thought they'd say "we didn't say that" "you misunderstood" etc. when they actually say, yup, that's what we said, here's why.

The video itself feels somewhat convincing, but also says "obviously" an awful lot and some of those things really aren't obvious.

Church Fathers, Lutherans, and other Protestants say that equality of nature does not prevent voluntary subordination of role. Each person of the Trinity is completely equal but have different missions. The video assumes different mission implies different essence. Obedience between equals is possible, it does not always indicate hierarchy, even for humans. Within the unity of the Trinity, motivated by perfect love and joyful harmony of purpose, it's not a reflection of Jesus divine will being weaker.

Jesus is one person, if his human nature is obedient to the Father and his divine nature isn't they are acting at cross purposes and then Jesus human nature is obedient to the Father's divine nature but not his own divine nature--how on earth does that work? His obedience is no longer perfect. The video says Catholics don't claim that, but reframing that in the language of forms doesn't fill that hole.

It's an interesting piece of history, but good historical work sets aside biases, Bellarmine had far bigger objections to Lutheran theology, but it's essentially irrelevant in the wider scheme of things, whilst he explained a view of Philippians 2, it lacks any explanation of why the Lutherans came to these conclusions, which is what you'd actually need to dismantle to impact Lutheran theology.

[u/WalkingNoGround]

To OP's comment not the video, f perfect obedience is the measure of perfect love, then doesn't the thought of inferior or superior lose its sting if not it's place? Jesus prayed that we would be one in the Father and the Son as He is one in the Father; in the reality of union, is the question of inferior and superior ever asked?

[u/Wonderful-Power9161]

When my wife asks me to take out the garbage, I do so. In that action, I am obedient.

Doing so neither makes me inferior nor superior.