 |
| Dr. Lito Cruz |
Extra Nos: BM's comments on Hunnius' book contra Huber:
Brett Meyer has a good comment on the book, Theses Opposed to Huberianism: A Defense of the Lutheran Doctrine of Justification by Aegidius Hunnius, translated by Paul A. Rydecki. It is found at Ichabod and can be read here.
Samuel Huber ( c. 1547-1624) was a former Reformed pastor/teacher who converted to Lutheranism. While teaching at Wittenberg, he espoused UOJ from which the present Waltherian UOJers have taken their present theory. Huber was rejected by the BoC writers. To say that he was treated as a heretic will be too mild.
Of course the UOJ myth makers will say, following Tom Hardt that - Huber's version of UOJ is bad, but the right version of UOJ is that of Walther's version. This again is a myth. To test this hypothesis, one just has to look at Hunnius' book then to see if Hunnius espouses Walther's version of UOJ. Now that will be an interesting scholarly exercise if ever they can show this. Then they have extended themselves. I doubt it.
Do you know also what is interesting during this controversy? Huber charged the BoC authors who espoused JBFA of Calvinism! Now does that not ring a peculiar bell?
Is it not interesting that the present UOJ defenders are doing the same in charging JBFA people of the same?
Like father, like son, so the saying goes. Present UOJ defenders are just like their father Huber. The fruit does not fall too far from the tree. This saying is solemnly true.
'via Blog this'
---
Although many agree that the term objective justification is ripe with red herrings, properly taught is not universalism. God's promise of the forgiveness of sins to all men given in Eden; culminated at the Cross and Resurrection, delivered on God's promise. In Christ is the forgiveness of men's sins. Had Christ not paid for every sin making forgiveness a reality for all men (since His will is for all to be saved), our faith would be in vain. Salvation consists of God's grace, Christ and His merits and faith in Christ and those merits. A man's rejection of these gifts (lack of faith) condemns him and he takes back the responsibility for his sins.
Enjoy the book.
http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2012/05/breaking-news-barth-kirschbaum-braaten.html
Answer this for me...Is our faith the cause of our election; or is our election the cause of our faith?
I have not read the book only the Introduction at Amazon. BM has read the entire book.
You said Although many agree that the term objective justification is ripe with red herrings, properly taught is not universalism.
This is according to Rydecki the same denial that Huber made. See p.5-6 of the book. Your denials reminds me of a person who says "I believe there is no God, but I am not an atheist"!
Regarding Lenski. Firstly can you point where Lenski is wrong on Election?
At any rate, I will answer you regarding you logic. You claim that Lenski must be wrong on X because he was wrong on Y. That is your claim.
Joe, no offense, but like your fellow UOJers you are a bit recalcitrant when fallacies are being presented to you. Joe, you are into a fallacy called non sequitur. If a man is wrong on X that does not mean he was also wrong in Y. However, I will not grant you that Lenski was wrong on Election.
Once again, you are practicing another form of fallacy. However, I will not grant Lenski wrong in election.
Answer this for me...Is our faith the cause of our election; or is our election the cause of our faith?
I am happy to answer you through the Errors of Missouri book. Also I have dealt with this using Hutter's argument which is following the one of the Church Father John of Damascus .
You can find my reply in an old post http://extranos.blogspot.com.au/2011/11/gross-kilcrease-calls-leyser-and-hutter.html
I repeat my argument to you...Do you believe you are justified through faith? If so, then you should believe that you are elected through faith too! Why? It is because there is no justification with out faith. Since, there is no justification with out faith, there is no election/predestination with out faith too, for the two are correlative to each other. You can not have justification with out the other, election. For what is election without justification? That is meaningless. If one is through faith, the other is through faith too. Hutter was being ultra reasonable in his logic. Romans 8:28-30 says that.
And I remind you that faith through which we are saved and that elected is a gift of God
Go ahead, repeat the same mantra against us and practice self delusion.
LPC
There is not one for whose sin and death he did not die, whose sin and death he did not remove and obliterate on the cross...There is not one who is not adequately and perfectly and finally justified in Him. There is not one whose sin is not forgiven sin in Him, whose death is not a death which has been put to death in Him...There is not one for whom he has not done everything in His death and received everything in His resurrection from the dead. (Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV, 1, 638)
I have highlighted the in Him language so that all may note how the same language is used by UOJers like Joe Krohn and Jim Pierce. Notice how similar the two groups corrupt the "in Him" expression found in Scripture. Here the "in Him" language is twisted.
LPC
Thank you for your wise input. Your suggestion is very sound. I just ordered my book yesterday and it will take sometime before it gets here.
The discussion of this thread is right now on justification and throwing issues about election right out of the bat before dealing with what Huber might have taught is a red herring in my view.
One can be right in one thing but wrong in another.
So I wish to paraphrase a quote from Luther ---- you can get all of the Doctrines in the Bible right [even election], but if you get Justification wrong, you are still stuffed. Sorry for my crude Aussie slang, Luther used the word "error".
LPC
Thesis 12
In addition, whether all men are, in fact, saved, including those who do not believe in Christ. This, likewise, is not, at the moment, being called into question.
Thesis 13
For although that conclusion can most definitely be reached from Huber’s doctrine as a consequence affirmed by the testimonies of Christ and the apostles, nevertheless, since Huber directly and intentionally does not teach in such a way, we are still willing not to charge him directly with that paradox.
At any rate, there was a problem with Huber's language for otherwise why would Hunnius write against his teachings and not only him but Leyser too.
And so is true for UOJers which was already pointed out by well meaning people of the past, that in their manner of speaking they distort the Scriptural teachings.
I was a Calvinist and I leaned my lesson not to defend a theological language that is in-defensible.
LPC
