Did Luther affirm theopassianism?

[Jacque_Pierre22]

I've been reading things mainly from non-LCMS Lutherans saying that Luther affirmed this, but another says this is a Monophosite heresy condemned in 862 AD. can't find a real lengthy discussion of this from an LCMS source.

 

[JM]

"On account of this personal union, which cannot be thought of nor exist without such a true communion of the natures, not the mere human nature, whose property it is to suffer and die, has suffered for the sins of the world, but the Son of God Himself truly suffered, however, according to the assumed human nature, and (in accordance with our simple Christian faith) [as our Apostles' Creed testifies] truly died, although the divine nature can neither suffer nor die. This Dr. Luther has fully explained in his Large Confession concerning the Holy Supper in opposition to the blasphemous alloeosis of Zwingli, who taught that one nature should be taken and understood for the other, which Dr. Luther committed, as a devil’s mask, to the abyss of hell." Source: VIII. The Person of Christ

Luther's Works, volume 41. “We Christians should know that if God is not in the scale to give it weight, we, on our side, sink to the ground. I mean it this way: if it cannot be said that God died for us, but only a man, we are lost; but if God’s death and a dead God lie in the balance, his side goes down and ours goes up like a light and empty scale. Yet he can also readily go up again, or leap out of the scale! But he could not sit on the scale unless he had become a man like us, so that it could be called God’s dying, God’s martyrdom, God’s blood, and God’s death. For God in his own nature cannot die; but now that God and man are united in one person, it is called God’s death when the man dies who is one substance or one person with God” (LW 41:103–4). Source: What Luther Says about the Death of God

 

[Jacque_Pierre22]

"On account of this personal union, which cannot be thought of nor exist without such a true communion of the natures, not the mere human nature, whose property it is to suffer and die, has suffered for the sins of the world, but the Son of God Himself truly suffered, however, according to the assumed human nature, and (in accordance with our simple Christian faith) [as our Apostles' Creed testifies] truly died, although the divine nature can neither suffer nor die. This Dr. Luther has fully explained in his Large Confession concerning the Holy Supper in opposition to the blasphemous alloeosis of Zwingli, who taught that one nature should be taken and understood for the other, which Dr. Luther committed, as a devil’s mask, to the abyss of hell." Source: VIII. The Person of Christ

Luther's Works, volume 41. “We Christians should know that if God is not in the scale to give it weight, we, on our side, sink to the ground. I mean it this way: if it cannot be said that God died for us, but only a man, we are lost; but if God’s death and a dead God lie in the balance, his side goes down and ours goes up like a light and empty scale. Yet he can also readily go up again, or leap out of the scale! But he could not sit on the scale unless he had become a man like us, so that it could be called God’s dying, God’s martyrdom, God’s blood, and God’s death. For God in his own nature cannot die; but now that God and man are united in one person, it is called God’s death when the man dies who is one substance or one person with God” (LW 41:103–4). Source: What Luther Says about the Death of God

theopatrianism ( referring to Ted Peters systematics page 382 ) where he says "due to the communication of the attributes in the person of Christ, Jesus' experience of suffering as a human being is simultaneously a divine experience". That last line you quoted sounds like the argument he is making. He goes on to explain that Reformed deny this and say we are monophysites and we say they are nestorian. But the thing is neither discuss the doctrine of inseparable operations in this. The Reformed (specifically Zwingli) say that only the humanity suffered, then that goes against the trinity/divine simplicity.

 

[JM]

theopatrianism ( referring to Ted Peters systematics page 382 ) where he says "due to the communication of the attributes in the person of Christ, Jesus' experience of suffering as a human being is simultaneously a divine experience". That last line you quoted sounds like the argument he is making. He goes on to explain that Reformed deny this and say we are monophysites and we say they are nestorian. But the thing is neither discuss the doctrine of inseparable operations in this. The Reformed (specifically Zwingli) say that only the humanity suffered, then that goes against the trinity/divine simplicity.

As a former Reformed Christian for 25 years I can say it's mudslinging. Nothing more. It's the Reformed attempt to deny the true body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. Lutherans usually respond by say Reformed are Nestorian.

 

[JM]

“A man is sitting at the right hand of God. God died. Mary is the Mother of God and that Man is the ruler of all things.” – Will Weedon, Lutheran Pastor.