Monday, October 24, 2011

Digging Up an Obscure Theologian:
AC V Has a Busy Shovel



AC V has left a new comment on your post "AC V Quotes Luther on Justification by Faith. UOJ ...":

Rev. Jackson, give us a little history lesson on Samuel Huber (c. 1547-1624), professor at the University of Wittenberg circa 1592.

---

Tom Hardt has his own little claque in the Olde Synodical Conference. He wrote about Huber, perhaps the first Lutheran UOJ Stormtrooper. Huber was charged with Universalism.

Our investigation will be limited to the question concerning justification, leaving aside other aspects.23 Huber’s attempt to argue for the notion of a universal justification with reference to certain Scripture passages and to God’s universal will to save all men was met by firm opposition from men such as Egidius Hunnius, Polycarp Leyser and Samuel Gesner. They referred to the fact that the Lutheran confessions did not know of any such concept.24 When confronted with Huber’s interpretation of Romans 5:19b, where he understands “all” to include also unbelievers, his opponents introduce a distinction, saying that “condemnation as far as it concerns the debt belongs to all men but as far as concerns its execution (‘ACTU’) belongs only to impenitents and unbelievers. So the offer of God’s grace and Christ’s merit is universal but as far as it concerns its execution (‘ACTU’) it is limited to believers only, who are excluded from condemnation through the benefaction of Christ, grasped by faith.“25 Hunnius et alii thus do not reject the idea of a universally valid grace. Against Huber, however, they reject the idea that somehow this grace would already be conferred on the individuals through the universality of atonement, a notion that they think to be present in Huber’s works. Huber rejects this accusation as a calumniation, assuring that he has only “called universal justification that whereby God, considering the satisfaction of Christ, has because of this become propitiated toward all mankind, accepting it as if everyone had made satisfaction for himself.“26He assures that every individual must partake of this gift by faith in the Word and the sacraments.27 On the surface this seems to be an assuring convergence of views, which explains the temporary reconciliation between the parties.28

---

 Here is another quotation and source linked here: 11. The Huber Controversy (1595). — Samuel Huber, a Reformed preacher in the canton of Berne, became involved in a controversy with Wolfg. Mnsctdus about election, by transcending the Lutheran doctrine, and affirming that all men are predestinated unto salvation, though, through their own fault, all will not be saved. Banished from Berne, he joined the Lutheran Church, and was appointed a preacher in Wiirtemberg. There he accused Prof. Gerlach of Crypto-Calvinism, because he taught that only believers were predestinated to salvation. The controversy was stopped by his being called to Wittenberg. But he thought he discovered similar Crypto-Calvinism in his colleagues there (Polyc. Leyscr and uEgidiusHunnius), and opposed it. All the disputations and conferences upon the subject failed to change his views; and as parties arose among the students, he was dismissed from Wittenberg. He continued the controversy with increasing virulence, and wandered about in Germany many years, endeavoring to propagate his views, but without success. (06. 1624.)

6 comments:

AC V said...

Re:

“...called universal justification that whereby God, considering the satisfaction of Christ, has because of this become propitiated toward all mankind, accepting it as if everyone had made satisfaction for himself.“


Should UOJ now properly be called "Huberism"?

AC V said...

Another quotable quote from Hardt's paper:

...Huber insists that certain Pauline statements expressly make use of a universal justification terminology, which his opponents deny: "Never does Paul teach universal justification. For as far as concerns 2 Corinthians 5, the words ‘not imputing their trespasses unto them,’ they are not to be understood universally about all men regardless of faith.”39

The "opponents" (i.e. orthodox Wittenberg theologians) would have taken Hoenecke/Meyer/Kuske/Bivens to task because that's how they take 2 Corinthians 5. Here's what Bivens said in the October 2011 "Forward in Christ":

We're told in 2 Corinthians 5:18,19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, "not counting men's sins against them." The forgiveness of the world's sins is a universal reality to be announced and believed individually....The astonishing reality is that God has forgiven the sins of the whole world, whether people believe it or not.

Huberism?

bruce-church said...

I suppose you noticed how Hardt came up with his own theory as to why Huber's teaching was rejected by Wittenberg. Hardt maintains that Wittenberg had no problem with UOJ so Huber must have gotten UOJ a bit wrong. Yeah, right! If you believe that, then you've probably already bought the Brooklyn Bridge and swamp land in Florida:

http://luk.se/Justification-Easter.htm

Gregory L. Jackson said...

Clearly the Calov, Gerhard, and Quenstedt quotations are answering an issue. Perhaps they are all addressing Huberism. I would have to check on the dates, and much is lost to the fog of history.

I wonder if Robert Preus addressed this in his Justification book, only to have his sons edit out some of it, leaving plenty of trace evidence.

LPC said...

It is interesting that Huber used to be Reformed. He was in utter wacko mind when he thought that justification was the same as the atonement. This indeed is the paradigm of Calvinism.


Based on that quote that Dr. Greg provided, clearly Huber was a UOJer.

He was also greatly mistaken to believe that a person who claims only believers are saved is a Calvinist. He missed JBFA. Since he missed JBFA he could not then detect universalism in himself. One is a corollary to the other.

LPC

AC V said...

K. Marquart is aware of Hardt's paper and the Huber position:

The trouble with these repulsive “Kokomo” statements is that they ignore the pivotal significance of the means of grace and thereby abandon the proper distinction of Law and Gospel. That, too, in essence is what was wrong with Samuel Huber’s proposal, early in the 17th century, of a notion of “universal justification,” which was duly rejected by representative Lutherans at the time. The story is told in detail by Dr. Tom Hardt of Sweden, in the 1985 Festschrift for Robert Preus, A Lively Legacy.7 Hardt is a meticulous scholar who demonstrates in detail the difference between the wrong sort of “objective justification,” as taught by Huber, and the right sort, as found in C.F.W. Walther’s Easter preaching and theology.

"Objective Justification":

http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.marquartjustification.html