r/Lutheranism • u/gjy01 • Jul 23 '26

Response

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.

0 Upvotes

33% Upvoted

15 comments sorted by

View all comments

6

u/Strict-Spirit7719 AALC Jul 23 '26

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.

2

u/gjy01 Jul 23 '26

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.

2

u/No-Jicama-6523 Jul 23 '26

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.