Wait… Lutherans DENY the TRINITY?

[00:00:00]In the year 427, the western Roman Empire was embroiled in a civil war. At the time, the general Bonafice was rampaging through North Africa. So, the Germanic Roman general Flavius Sigis Volultus was sent to quell the rebellion and to restore order. By 428, Sigis Volultus had captured the cities of Carthage in Hippo. Coincidentally, Sigis Volultus, as a German, was an Aryan, not to be confused with the other Germanic Aryans. Aryanism was a heretical movement in the early church that denied the full divinity of Jesus Christ. Since sigis voltus was an Aryan, he brought with him an Aryan bishop named Maxaminus who was called the pope of the Aryans, an intelligent man and capable public speaker. As you can expect, Sigis Vultus, as conqueror of the North African city of Hippo, was quite excited to meet its most famous resident, St. Augustine of Hippo, the greatest of the fathers of the church and prolific defender of the Catholic faith. And while he was there, he had a plan. He would convince the famous Augustine to debate the Aryan Pope Maximus. In the midst of this debate, one of Maxaminus's core arguments against Trinitarianism was to conclude that the son was unequal to the father due to his obedience to the father. Drawing on texts like Philippians 2:8, where St. Paul says that Christ humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. From this Maximinus reasoned that Christ must be less than the father because Christ obeys the father and he who obeys is less than the person who commands. St. Augustine refutes this by pointing to the beginning of this verse where St. Paul clarifies that he was talking about Christ in so far as he emptied himself and took upon himself the form of a servant. So while St. Augustine conceds that Christ is obedient to the father and hence less than the father according to his human nature. He denies that this is the case according to his divine nature since St. Paul distinguishes between the form of God and the form of a servant in Christ.

[00:01:56]The reason St. Augustine can make this move has to do with the fact that Christ is two natures. So he can act or be acted upon either according to his divine nature or according to his human nature. Hence, Christ created the universe according to his divine nature, but is created according to his human nature. Over a thousand years later, the same debate would take place between a Catholic theologian and a heretical group. This time, the theologian was St. Robert Bellere, equal to St. Augustine in piety and learning, and the heretical group was Lutheranism. While many are surprised by this, accusations of Aryanism against certain Protestant tenants were quite common in the post-reformation era. This debate began when a theologian wrote a letter to St. Bellerin in the year 1580 asking what he thought about the newly published book of concord the collected confessional book of the Lutheran in response St. Bellerin wrote a small book going over the various errors in the work one error in particular is quite interesting and reminds us of the previous debate between St. Augustine and Maximus. In the epitome, the Lutheran teach that quote, "We unanimously believe, teach, and confess that Christ is our righteousness, neither according to the divine nature alone, nor according to the human nature alone, but that it is the entire Christ according to both natures. In his obedience alone, which is God and man, he rendered to the Father, even unto death, and thereby merited for us the forgiveness of sins and eternal life." End quote. While this quote doesn't really appear too problematic at first glance, St. Robert Bellerine points out that if the righteousness of Christ is given to us according to his divine nature and his righteousness consists in his obedience to the father and it obviously follows that Christ is not only obedient to the father in his human nature but that he's also obedient to the father in his divine nature. Quote the first error is that Christ not only as man but also as God was obedient to the father. This error gravely undermines the true divinity of Christ which the nyine creed asserted against the aryens. This attributes obedience to both natures and is Aryan. End quote. Now for some people they may look at the quote from the epitome and then look at this quote from St. Robert Bellerin in his judgment of the book of concord and they may say that this is a bit of a stretch but this is actually not something that St. Robert Bellere only drew as a conclusion from the Lutheran confessional documents. This is also something that the Lutheran explicitly said before this. So he quotes Philip Meenan, one of the chief theologians behind multiple works in the book of concord. quote, "The divine nature was not lacerated or dead, but it was obedient to the father.

[00:04:22]It quieted and calmed the wrath of the eternal father." End quote. Hence, in his controversies, St. Bellere gave the same judgment to the doctor, actually using the same quote from Philip Meen.

[00:04:33]Quote, "What could be said clearer in favor of the Aryan heresy? For if the divine nature of the son was obedient to the father, certainly there is not one nature of the father and the son, nor is God the son equal to God the father."

[00:04:45]End quote. Now we see these quotes from the Lutheran admitting some sort of obedience on the part of the divine nature of the father and St. Robert Belleramine is drawing the obvious conclusion that we already see from St. Augustine that this is actually an Aryan doctrine and this of course is a quite shocking accusation against the Lutheran. It seems far too obviously Aryan to admit that Christ in his divine nature obeys the father. This was one of the core tenants of Aryanism that the fathers of the church had to destroy in their disputes. Now, the obvious expectation would be that the Protestants would simply deny that their authors and confessions actually teach this and accuse St. Robert Belleream, as they often did, of actually lying and of misinterpreting their authors. So, this is why St. Robert Bellereman's reputation of the book of Concord is mostly an effort to prove that the Protestants actually teach this error since he himself expected them to just deny the accusation. Yet, it wouldn't be long before the Protestants completely blew this expectation out of the water.

[00:05:38]What was initially a private letter of St. Robert Belleramine to a superior who asked his position on this matter was eventually published at that superior's request. This printing of a pmical tract against the Lutheran drew a response a few years later from prominent Lutheran theologians who wish to defend the book of concord in a work titled Vera at solida refutatio. And this work is really kind of unsane and actually unbelievable when you read the things that they say because they not only proudly accept this doctrine of the obedience of divine nature in Christ to the father as their own, they also call St. Robert Bellerin a notorian for rejecting their opinion. But before I get into this response from the Lutheran, I want to look at the arguments that St. Robert Bellamine gave against the Lutheran doctrine. The first argument that he gave was that if this were true, then the father and son would not be united as one God, but distinguished from one another into two gods. Quote, "If Christ as God obeyed the father, then certainly as God, he is distinguished from the father.

[00:06:35]Therefore, the father is one God and the son another God, but there is only one true God. And it is agreed that the father is true God. Therefore, the son is not true God nor conssubstantial with the father as we confess in the Nyine creed." End quote. In order to get the reasoning behind why this argument is so powerful, you need to understand some of the theological principles behind this.

[00:06:55]Because outside of what are called notional or personal acts such as the father begetting the son and the spirit proceeding from the father and the son, the persons of the trinity are united in all of their acts. So for example, the persons of the trinity are united in creation. All three persons of the trinity come together as a single principle of all creation. So if we hold that one of the persons as they are God, so according to their divine nature performed an act of obedience towards another person of the trinity, what this would assume is that the natures in each are actually distinct from one another because they are not united in this act.

[00:07:30]The second argument he gave was that if this were true, then the father and son would not be equal with one another.

[00:07:36]Rather, if the father commanded and the son obeyed, then the deity of the father would be greater than the deity of the son, which is exactly what the Aryan heresy is. Quote, "He who obeys is less than the one whom he obeys. For to command belongs to a superior, to obey to an inferior. Therefore, if Christ is God obeys the father, then is God he is less than the father." And the aanation creed lies when it says equal to the father according to divinity, less than the father according to humanity. End quote. So the first argument was based on the divine nature and the unity of the divine nature and all of its external acts. So if you have two different persons doing two different external acts, one obeying, one commanding, then you're going to divide the natures of the person. The second argument is not actually on the basis of the divine nature and how it acts. It's actually based on the very nature of obedience. It argues that obedience implies superior and inferior.

[00:08:30]Therefore, it's not something that could possibly be done in the trinity. So the third and the fourth arguments that St. Robert Belleramine gives are exoggetical and they follow the interpretation of scripture that is commonly found in the works of the fathers against the Aryans.

[00:08:43]First, Christ's highest act of obedience was his death on the cross as is obvious from scripture. Yet Christ did not die in his divinity but only in his humanity. Hence, it stands to reason that he did not obey in his divinity but only in his humanity. Second, St. Robert Bellerin argues from the text of Philippians chapter 2, something that we already saw from St. Augustine against Maxaminus the Aryan. Philippians 2 is quite clear that Christ's obedience to the father was an effect of emptying himself that is in assuming a human nature and was in the form of a servant that is in his humanity not in the form of God. Hence from all of this it's obvious that we're looking at the obedience of Christ. This is something which is due to his assumption of human nature and it's something that is according to his humanity. Quote, "Finally, why, when the Apostle Paul was about to say in Philippians 2, he humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, did he preface it with, he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, unless to warn us that Christ rendered obedience unto death to God the Father, not according to the form of God, by which he is equal to the Father, but according to the form of a servant, by which he is less than the Father."

[00:09:46]End quote. Now, as I mentioned above, these claims are obviously controversial to accuse the Lutheran of Aryanism.

[00:09:54]Hence, 7 years after St. Robert Bellere published this work, the Lutheran theologians responded to it. And as I mentioned, they're not responding to his interpretation of the book of concord because they say that his interpretation that Christ obeys the father according to his divinity is actually absolutely correct. So in their response, what they do is they go through each one of these arguments from Bellerin line by line and answer each one. Again, this is very important to remember. The Lutheran theologians don't actually deny the charge that they hold that the son obeys the father and his divinity. In fact, in their response, they actually make it very clear that they are proud to admit this view and hold it as their greatest consolation. quote, "The Jesuit does not need to prove this doctrine to us at length out of the book of Concord in Philip's Losi. Since we not only constantly profess it, but reckon it our greatest consolation, that the obedience by which we are counted righteous and blessed is ascribed to Christ not only according to his humanity, but also according to the deity. Otherwise, we would be neither redeemed nor justified nor saved." End quote. And actually this claim from Lutheran theologians no matter who you're reading Kemnets Gearhard Philip Eder their confessional documents this claim that this act of obedience or some sort of act of mediation on the part of his divinity is actually necessary for us to be redeemed for us to be justified for us to be saved. Now to the claim that this made the Lutheran aryens they make a strange comparison between the obedience of Christ to the father and Mary's status as mother of God. quote, "The obedience rendered to the father overturns the deity of Christ just as little as the fact that Mary is the mother of God destroys his deity." End quote. And this is a really weird comparison to make because obviously Mary did not give the divinity to Christ. Mary gave Christ his humanity. And the only reason we refer to Mary as a mother of God is because the person to whom she gave the humanity is a divine person. Now, this isn't the claim that they're making when it comes to Christ and obedience in his deity.

[00:11:52]They're not merely claiming that a divine person obeys. We already agree with that. Everyone agrees with that.

[00:11:57]Rather, they're claiming that a divine person obeys according to his divinity.

[00:12:01]So, Robert Bellerin admits, of course, just like I explained that Christ is God and hence all of his actions are the actions of a divine person. So, when Christ died, we can obviously say that God died. Yet when we use the term as, such as when we say Christ died as man or Mary is a mother of God as man, we are not merely speaking of who did this or that action. We're not merely speaking of the divine person, but we're also speaking of the form or nature by which that person acts. So for example, if we say John as a doctor healed this man, what we mean is that John used his experience as a doctor in order to heal somebody. Hence, we can say that God died since this signifies the person.

[00:12:41]But we cannot say that Christ as God died since this would mean that God died according to the divine nature. So their example of Mary as the mother of God as I explained is not relevant since Mary is not the mother of God as God but the mother of God as man. So hence we admit that God obeyed the father that Christ who is God obeyed the father. But we don't say that God as God obeyed the father. only God as man obeyed the father that is Christ is man in his human nature according to his human form he obeyed the father so after this point of clarification the Lutheran respond to the first argument of St. Robert Belleramine and if you recall this argument is that if Christ obeys the father in his divine nature then he is distinguished from the father in the divine nature which is polytheism. They answer this quite harshly. They say quote these Jesuits must be crude asses since they do not know how to distinguish between the unity of the deity and the distinction among the persons in this one deity. For certainly the son is distinguished from the father as a divine person which the father himself is not. and yet he is no other god than the father and thus the father and the son are one god though distinct persons of whom the one obeys the other end quote yet when it comes to this response from the Lutheran this is actually completely irrelevant from a theological point of view the argument that St. Robert Bellereamine gave is that this divides the persons of the trinity as God. It's very important that qualification as God since the persons as God are united in all of the actions of the divine nature as one principle.

[00:14:17]So if you were to posit that one person acted in an external work such as creation without the other person's acting then the divine nature whereby the one person acts would be divided from the divine nature whereby the other person does not act. So the response from the Lutheran actually doesn't really touch the point since they simply speak of the actions of the persons towards one another. If there were another nature whereby a person acts towards another person such as you know in the incarnation this argument would obviously not apply and the doctrine would be free from aranism. And this is exactly what the case is with Christ since he has both a divine nature and a human nature. So he can do certain acts according to his human nature that he doesn't do according to his divine nature. So hence St. Robert Bellamin's qualification of Christ as God doing this being divided from the father as God is very important and the Lutheran completely miss this. Yet the Lutheran claim more than that arguing that the son obeys not only as man but also in his divine nature whereby is supposed to be united with the father. Hence St. Robert Bellere draws the following conclusion. Quote, "Since he who obeys is distinguished from him whom he obeys, it follows that Christ who obeys the father according to the deity is distinguished from the father according to his deity. And if the son is distinguished from the father according to the deity, it evidently follows that there are two divinities of the father and of the son. That the father is one God and the son another." Just as from the fact that the son is distinguished from the father according to personality, all theologians rightly gathered that there are two personalities of the father and the son.

[00:15:48]End quote. And this obviously makes perfect sense because a person acts according to their nature. Nature is the principle of operation. So if the father is doing one action that is commanding and the son is doing a different action that's not in the father that is obeying then there has to be two different principles right there of action. So they would have two distinct natures.

[00:16:11]They would be distinguished as distinct natures not merely distinct as to their personalities. So after this the Lutheran respond to the second argument of St. Robert Belleramine. That's the argument that the very nature of obedience excludes the fact that God could obey God because that would make the son lesser than the father. But the Lutheran argue that this reasoning only follows if the obedience is forced, not if it is free obedience. Quote, "The father did not command the son as God to assume human nature under compulsion.

[00:16:41]Rather, the son of god did this spontaneously and freely according to the eternal decree of the whole trinity.

[00:16:48]Wherefore the obedience of the son of god is also of a different kind than the obedience of a subject towards his magistrate. The obedience of Christ is a work not only of the humanity but also of the deity. And thus this obedience pertains to the whole person of Christ, God and man according to both natures.

[00:17:04]End quote. But this response doesn't really make any sense because free and spontaneous obedience is literally the only kind of obedience that is virtuous.

[00:17:13]That is the only good kind of obedience.

[00:17:15]For example, the virtuous citizen freely and spontaneously obeys the just decrees of the state. Hence, trying to distinguish these two forms of obedience into free and spontaneous and forced obedience doesn't really make any sense.

[00:17:28]And this also goes against the very nature of obedience because obedience is the subjection of the will to another.

[00:17:34]Whether this subjection is violent or free, subjection to another is always implied when we're talking about obedience. Hence, it is nonsensical to speak of Christ's subjection to the father in his divinity and not imply that Christ and his divinity is lesser than the father as being in subjection to him. And this is why St. Robert Belleramine accuses the Lutheran of completely inventing new senses of terms to get around objections to their doctrine. In the reply to St. Robert Bellerin, the Lutheran accuse him of notorianism. That is positing that there are two persons in Christ, the man Jesus and the second person, the Trinity, the Logos. And these are two distinct subjects that you cannot cross predicate one to another. But this is absolutely absurd and doesn't actually do justice to what Catholic theologians say to this. So Catholic theology never says that there is one person of Christ who is God who did not obey the father and then there is another person of Christ who is man who does obey the father.

[00:18:32]Rather all that we're saying is that there is one person who is God and when he obeys he is obeying according to his human nature. And if we wanted to put this in scriptural language Christ did not obey in the form of God but in the form of the servant. Yet, we always have to remember that it is the one Christ who acts in the form of God and in the form of the servant. So, obviously, we're not historians. The Lutheran also reveal the extent of their heresy in the midst of responding to these arguments of St. Robert Bellere. In order to argue for their position, they use the sending of the sun that takes place in order for the incarnation to come about to make their argument. So, from this, as St. Robert Belleream points out it necessarily follows that if you're using the sending of the son for the incarnation as your example of obedience then not only does the incarnate lord obey according to his divinity but also the pre-incarnate lord was also obeying according to his divinity. So they draw forth this conclusion explicitly. The Lutheran write, quote, "If then God sent his only begotten son into the world to save the human race, it is necessary that the son of God was obedient to the father when he came into the world and assumed human nature and in it redeemed us wretched sinners." End quote. So obviously since they are holding that this obedience was in the sending to the world, the conclusion that St. Robert Bellamine draws is completely valid.

[00:19:54]Also, interestingly enough, going from mission, that is the sending of the son in the incarnation to obedience is just a classical Aryan argument against nyine trinitarianism. This gets used all over from Aryan authors against Catholic authors and the Nyine fathers constantly respond to this argument against the Aryans and this is something that is pointed out by St. Robert Bellereman.

[00:20:18]Quote, "This is the very argument of the Aryens who inferred subjection from mission. But our forefathers answer the old Aryans, and we answer the new Aryens, that to send is not to command, nor is to be sent always to obey. For a master sends a servant by commanding, a friend sends a friend by urging. An inferior can send a superior by intreating." End quote. And this is actually, weirdly enough, not where the story ends. Now, St. Robert Bellere and the Lutheran theologians, they went to war. Sarah Belling wrote his judgment of the book of Concord. They responded with their reputation and then he responded with his brief apology for himself. And as a quick reminder, while there are a lot of different works which are written in response to Robert Bellerin's controversies, there were also a bunch of different works written in defense of St. Robert Bellerin and his controversies. There were plenty of Catholic authors who responded to the best of Lutheran and reformed theology in defending St. Robert Bellerin's controversies. I just wrote an article about this on my Substack, so check it out at tomism.com and make sure you subscribe. Now, let's get back to the video. So, one of these authors that responded to this argument from St. Robert Bellerin was Franciscus Junius, a reformed theologian who wrote a pretty lengthy reputation of St. Robert Bellerin's controversies. And in this response to St. Robert Bellereman's controversy and in his treatment of the matter, he's very concerned with the syntax of the proposition that Christ according to his divine nature obeys the father. And ultimately he concedes that it is true as long as the distinction is made between obedience according to nature and obedience according to will which if you remember this is exactly what the Lutheran theologian said to St. Robert Bellerin and there were other theologians as well that commented on this specific part of St. Robert Bellereamine and basically gave the same argument both Lutheran and reformed authors and against these different Protestant theologians. The Jesuit theologian Jacob Gretzer defends the Catholic doctrine and he expands upon many of these different arguments given by St. Robert Bellerin and clarifies many different points responds to other arguments as well. One of the objections that was being constantly brought up against St. Robert Bellereman and especially his second argument on obedience and dignity is that obedience of one to another and command of one to another. This actually doesn't imply a difference of nature. It only implies some sort of inequality of dignity. So for example, between different men we have obedience and command. Yet all men share the same human nature. But Gretzer obviously refutes this claim and calls it absurd and ridiculous because this is God we're talking about. So since God's dignity is essential to him and supreme and infinite, if there is an inequality of dignity between the persons of the trinity, then there is going to be an inequality of nature as well. And as for what Junius says about the voluntary subjection of the son to the father and his divinity, Gretz refuts this position by pointing out that God cannot voluntarily do whatever is in itself impossible. So what's important here isn't the specific error of the Lutheran that they have this abominable Aryan doctrine of the obedience of the son to the father. Rather what is important here is we have to ask ourselves the question of what is the root cause of this error. So according to the Lutheran in order for us to be completely justified it is not sufficient for Christ to mediate for us in his humanity. Rather it is necessary that Christ mediate for us in both his humanity and his divinity. The reason that they give is that we owe an infinite price to God by sin. So something infinitely worthy must be offered in order to overcome this debt.

[00:23:51]And since the human actions and passions of Christ are finite, they conclude that these do not actually intrinsically have an infinite worth. So they conclude from this that the divine nature must act in all of these mediatorial acts as well in order for Christ's work to be worthy before God. Now in response to this, the dignity of an action derives from the dignity of the person who acts. So even while the acts of Christ according to his humanity are finite, the person who does these actions is of infinite dignity. It is a divine person who is acting through the human nature that he has assumed to himself. So when the blood of Christ spills on the ground, it is not merely a man's blood. It is the blood of God and it has the dignity and worth of the blood of God. Hence the reasoning of the Lutheran is completely wrong. And rather than trying to salvage the incarnation or trying to dignify the humanity of Christ, it actually ignores an essential aspect of the dignity of Christ's humanity, which is that it is the humanity of a divine hypoasis of a divine person. Hence, it has the dignity of a divine person's humanity. Another important consideration is that the Lutheran do not properly distinguish the way in which the divinity of Christ is involved in the actions of his humanity.

[00:24:59]In order to be involved in a certain act and dignify it, Christ does not need to do something according to his divinity.

[00:25:04]In order for Christ's death to be worthy, Christ does not need to die according to his divinity. In order for his obedience to be worthy, Christ does not need to obey according to his divinity. Rather, it is completely sufficient for the divinity to influence the humanity in a different way. And this is what is pointed out by the Jesuit Vitus Erbamman in his reputation of the English Puritan theologian William Ames where he distinguishes between the physical influence of one thing on another and the moral influence of one thing on another. In scripture, the Holy Spirit is described as stirring up Christ and Christ as man as being persuaded towards a certain action. If the Holy Spirit stirs up Christ as man to obey the father, this doesn't imply that the Holy Spirit himself obeys the father, but that the Holy Spirit causes Christ as man to do something. In a similar way, we can think about the relationship between the divine and human natures in Christ. The divinity constantly influencing the humanity, but not necessarily doing the exact same operations as the humanity. So, that's all that I have for you. Remember to like, subscribe, and all of that stuff.

[00:26:04]Check out my substack on tomism.com. And as always, God bless.