Consistent Lutheran Christology sounds Barthian

Fourth, if, on account of the union the divine properties are communicated to the flesh, then the properties of the flesh ought in turn to be communicated to the Logos (Logo). The union is reciprocal. However, they are unwilling to admit this. Nor can the distinction of the nature assuming and assumed remedy this difficulty. The foundation of a reciprocal communication is not assumption, but the union itself, which is reciprocal (as the divine is united to the human nature, so the human is united to the divine). Thus also it would demand a reciprocal communication, not in the concrete only, but also in the abstract. Nor can a difference be derived from this-that the human nature indeed needed the communication of these attributes, but not the divine nature. The human nature did indeed need exalted gifts for the performance of its own work, but not attributes of God (which would rather have destroyed the human nature and transformed it into deity).

 

Francis Turretin, Inst. III.XIII.XII.

On Lutheran Christology

Nor was Eutyches ever charged with believing that the flesh of Christ was made divine by itself and from itself; yea, not even that can be thought by those who are endowed with reason.

 

Francis Turretin, Inst. XIII.VIII.XIII