Sunday, September 2, 2012

Extra Nos: UOJers are Huberites, their denials are futile

Extra Nos: UOJers are Huberites, their denials are futile:


UOJers are Huberites, their denials are futile

In the book Theses Opposed to Huberism, by Dr. Aegidus Hunnius, translated by Rev. Paul A. Rydecki from the Latin, here is what the translator says about Dr. Samuel Huber, the Reformed/Calvinist turned Lutheran who ended up being dismissed by well known orthodox Lutherans of his day,...

Rev. Rydecki writes in the preface:

Most  notably,  reacting to  Calvinism's  double predestina tion, Huber began to teach that God had elected all men in eternity to salvation  ("universal  election"), and  that  God had  not only redeemed the entire human race through the substitutionary death of Christ  (which  the  Lutheran theologians also  taught), but  that God, for the sake  of the merits of Christ,  had also  justified  the entire  human race,  apart from  faith  ("universal  justification").   In spite  of his teachings of universal election and  justification,  Huber appears never to have reached the conclusion of modern  Universalism  that the entire  human  race will eventually be received into eternal  life.  He continued  to insist  that  faith was essential for obtaining eternal salvation and that a person who rejected the Gospel would thereby forfeit the justification already pronounced upon the human race.

When  Huber's  novel terminology  and  doctrine  were  re jected by the faculty atWittenberg,  Huber then  began to accuse his colleagues, especially Leyser andHunnius, of Calvinism. When no reconciliation  could be achieved even after theintervention of foreign theologians,  Huber was dismissed  from his professorship atWittenberg and banished  from the country in 1595.   Nevertheless, his polemicalwritings and public accusations against the fac­ ulty at Wittenberg continued  forseveral  years, prompting  inter­ mittent  responses by both Leyser and Hunnius 



Observe the UOJer's position:
a.) They deny they are universalist, just like Huber.
b.) They affirm that the human race have been justified universally, apart from faith, just like Huber. See their synodical statements, you will find they teach in effect that God has declared the world already righteous in Christ. Just ask them if man by virtue of Romans 4:25 (their favorite mishandled verse) have been declared righteous already, apart from faith.
c.) When confronted of making faith of no consequence, they deny that too, and like Huber insist on faith, and its lack forfeit the one stated in b.)

Observe further, UOJers call pejoratively their critics as Calvinists, just like Huber!  Observe too how UOJers insists on UOJ/OJ/SJ terminology! Even Robert Preus, prior to his Justification and Rome book insisted on these categories and terms too! You can read their blabbering on this terminology - just wander of at Steadfast Lutheran (Waltherian) blog.

Now ask yourself the question, if Huber (and  by extension UOjers)  was correct on justification, why did the signers and editors of the Book of Concord banish him from their company?

Of course, when you tell UOJers they are Huberites they find this truth hard to swallow and so they deny they are. They play blind. 

Isn't there truth in the saying, if something walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, it is a duck?



Now please do not get me started on Hunnius' Thesis #1, because the more there the UOJer will be indicted by that thesis and their denial will show they are exercising sophistry.



6 comments:


Brett Meyer said...
New Steadfast discussion where the UOJists refuse to answer and even refuse to show proof of their teachings - Joe Krohn and Kilcrease have a hug fest while Kilcrease renounces the doctrine of Universal Election which Joe proclaims. http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=22406&cpage=1#comments
LPC said...
Brett, Yes I notice, they are having a love fest right now. They are practicing self delusion amongst themselves. They multiply cop outs and simply ignore the points being raised against their doctrine. Something similar like this happens in the corporate world, they self justify their belief amongst themselves comforting one another by repeating their well worn mantras. LPC
Brett Meyer said...
Romans 2:15, "Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;
Dr. Jack Kilcrease said...
Here's my take on the whole Huber red herring: http://jackkilcrease.blogspot.com/2012/09/samuel-huber-red-herring-in-objective.html Enjoy. I invite the usual name calling and non sequiturs. Bear in mind I won't be responding to them.
LPC said...
Jack, Of course I am aware of your work and your type of arguments. I monitor Steadfast Waltherians even though they have banned me and I read your comments there. I speak to you as a fellow scholar since you have a PhD. Below are my honest comments about your type of (IMHO, low) scholarship which your readers completely do not see since today Lutherans have done theology by proxy. Here are your arguments... Walther in the Baier compendium specifically rejects Huber's doctrine (in fact he has a whole section on it!).  ME: This kind of comment makes think you have not read Calvin at all, which you should because you are a systematician, it is a must reading even if you do not agree with him. Calvin used the same technique that Walther used in the Baier compendium. For example, Calvin elsewhere borrowed concepts from Lutherans without giving credit to where he got them, he made people think that he was trying to be original in some good aspects of his theology. Here Walther did the same thing as Calvin but the reverse. Walther knew well that smart Lutherans would detect he was being a Huberite - but what he did was to attack Huber but at the same time borrowed Huber's nice idea of universal justification. So his Huberian criticism is what we scholars (and I thought you would have known this but I was mistaken), a smoke screen. The authors of Errors of Missouri pointed this technique out and, no offense, between you and Stellhorn and Schmidt they knew more Calvinism than you do today. That is why they gain credibility with me simply because when they spoke about their critique of Calvinism, I agree with them because I was a former Calvinist and have read Calvin's writing myself. You and McCain do not know what you are talking about when you accuse us of crypto-Calvinism. 2. Huber did talk about a universal justification, but his heresy was more about and a reaction to the doctrine of election. Advocates of OJ such as Walther always taught particular election. ME: You make this sound as if it is of no consequence. You have not read Hunnius have you? Did you know that Hunnius wrote more than one tract to oppose Huber? Did you know that Hunnius both attacked Huber's doctrine of Election and Justification at the same time? It is not what OJ teach about Election that is at debPublish Postate at the moment, let us do first things first, and that is the central doctrine of Scripture - Justification. We shall come to the UOJ/OJ teaching on Election later. For after all as Luther said, you may get any teaching in the Bible right (even about election), but if you get justification wrong, you still are in pile of pooh. So you are giving your fans a fasle hope making them think that the Huberian accusation of UOJ teaching is immune from faults in their justification teaching. cont...
LPC said...
cont... 3. Moreover, since Huber claimed that justification was not merely pronounced to all (objective justification), but communicated to all (functional universalism), he has virtually no place for subjective justification. This would pretty much destroy the entire point of the distinction between objective and subjective justification.  ME: Firstly you appear to have not read Rydecki's translation but I will allow your point. Let us assume you are correct. You can do your distinctions until the moon becomes cheese but it won't avail because the issue is not subjective justification, the issue is universal justification as properly taken, to wit - the declaration of righteousness (not the payment of sins but the acquittal declaration). Is there such a thing in Scripture respecting the proper use of the term - justification? You UOJers agree with Huber on universal justification, that is the first starting point. The problem is that Huber was much more consistent than you lot. It stands to reason that if there is such a universal justification, then the so called subjective justification you propose is superfluous. However, to put it mildly you are lying about Huber as if Huber did not believe in personal justification like you do. Huber did not deny the need for faith which in your terminology subjective justification. Jack let me break this down to you so you can be more efficient in your propaganda in promoting UOJ and comforting UOJers. Deal with the question of universal absolution/justification. Show from Scripture and by exegesis where this is found properly respecting the term - justification. For we do not deny that Jesus died for all and hence, atoned for all. We do deny however that atonement and justification are the same. They are not the same. Thus and hence, we deny that though Jesus atoned for the sins of the world, it does not mean thereby that the whole world got already justified/declared righteous in Christ as your LC-MS 1932 Brief Statement Article 17b states. I am in the negative, you are in the positive. In debate, you are expected to show positively by exegesis this universal justification or objective justification you speak about. If you are using Romans 4:25 I have dealt with that verse in this blog countless times. LPC


'via Blog this'