Monday, May 07, 2012

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.

28 comments:

LutherRocks said...

Have you read the book, Lito? I have it on order and am looking forward to reading it. From what I have gleaned, Huber took his reformed double predestination and eliminated the condemned part flinging him into full fledged universalism (all are saved without faith). Hopefully the book gives the Huber statements that the 200 some thesis are rejecting.

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.

Brett Meyer said...

Hunnius addresses and condemns not only Huber's errors but Joe Krohn's too.

Enjoy the book.

Gregory L. Jackson said...

Here is a link that shows the link between UOJ and Halle theology, via Karth Barth and his Commie mistress -

http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2012/05/breaking-news-barth-kirschbaum-braaten.html

LutherRocks said...

Lenski was wrong on justification because he was wrong on election. It is my opinion based on recent discussion that since you guys extoll his teachings, you make the same errors. Lenski gave faith the same role in justification as he does election while denying universal grace and that election is particular.

Answer this for me...Is our faith the cause of our election; or is our election the cause of our faith?

LPC said...

Joe,

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

LPC said...

I repeat this expression of Barth...
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

Rev. Paul A. Rydecki said...

The first 165 theses in the Hunnius book deal specifically with the role of faith in election. I highly recommend reading what this orthodox Lutheran theologian has to say before engaging in false dichotomies of which causes which. Hunnius clearly shows how faith proceeds from election, but neither is faith somehow discounted or "unregarded" by God in election, as if God turned a blind eye in eternity to faith or unbelief.

LPC said...

Hi Pr. Paul,

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

Rev. Paul A. Rydecki said...

These Theses demonstrate that Huber was not a "Universalist" in the sense that he taught all people go to heaven. He did not, although, as Hunnius points out, by teaching that all men were elected and justified, the Scriptural conclusion should be their eternal salvation. But Huber expressly denied that conclusion, so the orthodox theologians did not accuse him of it.

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.

LPC said...

This is fair enough. Rob Bell is the same, he denies universalism though he speaks that way.

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

Rev. Paul A. Rydecki said...

The interesting thing, as I see it, is that, even though Huber was not teaching "unbelievers go to heaven," yet his universal justification was still condemned by the Wittenberg theologians. They were not at all content to say, "As long as he's not teaching everybody goes to heaven, there's no problem with his doctrine."

LPC said...

Pr. Paul,

That is an excellent, exciting and a very perceptive point!

In my observation myself, prior to coming to Lutheranism, the BoC is one of the most precise confessions I have ever found. Being familiar with Calvinistic confessions, this is where I saw the difference.

In fact in the BoC we often read the words "manner of speaking". UOJ of any sort and of course that of Huber's, the manner of speaking is quite improper, so that make sense now why Huber was deposed by the BoC authors.

It was an improper way of speaking about the teaching of justification. To extend on your point, we know that the orthodox Lutherans considered his teaching false doctrine, if I read a few theses from your translation (the ones I have read so far).

LPC

Brett Meyer said...

It's important to remember that Universalism - the teaching that everyone is saved eternally regardless of their confession - is not the principle issue.

True, Samuel Huber, the Godfather of UOJ, did not state that everyone is saved. As Pastor Rydecki correctly pointed out and quoted, Hunnius stated as much while confirming that if Huber's doctrines were consistent they led to that understanding.

The principle issue with the false teaching of UOJ is that it is a new and different gospel than the one true Gospel declared in Scripture and confirmed in the faithful Confessions. New and different gospels separate the confessor from Christ and therefore from God, the forgiveness of sins and salvation and are condemned by God.

- UOJ teaches that the gospel message that creates faith is "your sins are already forgiven - believe it"
- UOJ condemns the Gospel of the Triune God which is "trust in Christ alone"
- UOJ's teachings confirm it's belief that faith is a work of man and not solely that of the Holy Ghost
- UOJ declares anathema on the Scriptural teaching that men are Justified by God's divine verdict by faith in Christ alone.
- UOJ diminishes the work of Christ, teaching that Christ did not die and pay for the sin of unbelief which the entire world was born guilty of.
- UOJ justifies the wicked and condemns those God has justified.

As our Confessors clearly show - UOJ is completely opposed to Scripture and as such the contradictions and abominations are endless.

LPC said...

Agreed.

Labeling something "improper" is not something to be proud of. It is not a mild annoying incident. In plane terms when something is spoken of in an improper way and specially when it pertains to how man declared righteous by God, it is false. Improper way of speaking is false way of speaking.

To speak improperly about how man is justified with God as UOJ is false and hence must be opposed vehemently.

LPC

Brett Meyer said...

Labeling the false gospel of UOJ as simply being the improper use of terminology would be akin to saying the Council of Trent was simply an improper use of terminology.

UOJ and the Council of Trent declare anathema on One Justification by Faith Alone.

Example deftly provided by LCMS spokesperson Mr. Jim Pierce in the award winning UOJ discussion on Steadfast Lutherans

January 29th, 2012 at 14:55 | #31 Reply | Quote @Brett Meyer #28

Mr. Meyer,

Thank God that the Scriptures and our Lutheran Confessions do not teach the abominable false teaching that our sins are NOT forgiven until the moment we believe.

http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=4190&cpage=1#comments

LPC said...

That quote is so Huberian. Pierce must have been reading fake Scripture and BoC.

Febreze's selections of the Theses of Hunnius have potent arguments which are worth posting at another time. I will post this next time.


LPC

LutherRocks said...

"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."

Lito,

Please clarify for me what you mean by 'election/predestination'.

Are you referring to the elect as in a choice has been made; or are you referring to the terms in view of what God has planned for those who believe?

Brett Meyer said...

These theses written by Hunnius which are faithful to Scripture, and which the Lutheran Confessions confirm, are directly relate to the issue at hand.

Thesis 17
Meanwhile, neither is this the source of contention, whether we were elected because of or on account of faith foreknown by the omniscient God in such a way that He was moved to elect us either by the quality or by the worthisness of faith; or whether we offered our faith to Him as a reason why He should elect us - a lie that Huber most falsely affixes to us.

Thesis 18
Fore we expressly deny that faith enters into the article of predestination in this manner, sense and respect. We speak of its consideration as being included only with respect to its relationship to the eternal act of election, insofar as it embraces Jesus Christ (as the Apologetic Book of the Saxon Visitation says), that is, the rock of salvation, without which neither the grace of God's calling nor the merit of Christ could be apprehended.

The theses that cover Huber's UOJ in his doctrine of Election are a total of 165 individual thesis and each is worthy of a sermon. Suffice it to say that Hunnius Theses Opposed to Huberianism obliterates any assertion that UOJ was taught or inferred by Scripture, the Book of Concord or any faithful Lutheran theologian - both then or today.

Enjoy the book.

LPC said...

Joe,

You asked??? Please clarify for me what you mean by 'election/predestination'.

What? You are back tracking now not understanding the terms you yourself introduced ?

Why are you asking me that now, it was you who introduced this red herring to the discussion of justification .

You retorted above... Answer this for me...Is our faith the cause of our election; or is our election the cause of our faith?


If you want to backtrack, then why don't you be the one to define your terms, which you yourself introduced!

I will also note for you Brett's reply to your question above.

I do have a BoC answer to you, but your red herring is of only secondary importance to me, for as I consider what Luther said - you can get all things in the Bible correct but if you get justification wrong, you are still in error.

It is obvious you are diverting the discussion in another direction, away from the fact that your advocacy of Huber's UOJ of which you now have re-embraced with fervor got rejected by the BoC authors and editors.

I quote Brett, Suffice it to say that Hunnius Theses Opposed to Huberianism obliterates any assertion that UOJ was taught or inferred by Scripture, the Book of Concord or any faithful Lutheran theologian - both then or today.


That is the point of the above blog post and that like as Huber called Hunnius and Leyser Calvinists, you do and have done the same to us.

LPC

LutherRocks said...

It was a sincere question with no ulterior motive...but you will get much of the Bible wrong if you get justification wrong...

You deny that the atonement was universal, Lito, since the atonement accomplishes the forgiveness of sins for all men to be received in faith. Christ took them as the Lamb who bore them. If they are on the Lamb, they are not on the world. Christ stole away with them, was punished for them, was forgiven for them and justified for them all on account of the whole human race. This objective reality is either received in faith, or rejected to man's own condemnation.

Brett Meyer said...

The gospel according to Joe: You deny that the atonement was universal, Lito, since the atonement accomplishes the forgiveness of sins for all men to be received in faith. Christ took them as the Lamb who bore them. If they are on the Lamb, they are not on the world.

The Gospel according to Scripture, the Lutheran Confessions and Aegidius Hunnius: Thesis 1
Huber professes such a justification, for the sake of which Christ has properly, actually and practically conferred redemption on the entire human race in such a way that sins have been equally remitted to all men, including the Turks (BM-Muslims), and that all men (including unbelievers) have received remission of sins, and that the whole human race has, in actual fact, been received into the grace and bosom of God.

Thesis 3
This universal justification of the entire human race he considers (even without respect to faith in Christ) to be fully completed, sins having been remitted on account of the satisfaction made by the Son of God and swallowed up in His own blood and wounds. These things he says concerning his justification.

Thesis 4
He was pleased to correct this foul and disgusting error in the first legal proceeding before the commissaries. But what he was at that time thought to have vomited out, he swallowed up again in his later writings,...

Thesis 5
...Nevertheless, no one is justified nor does anyone obtain remission of sins from this acquired universal righteousness without the imputation of this acquired righteousness of Christ. But the imputation of righteousness does not take place except through faith.

Thesis 6
Hence Paul, when he expressly discusses justification in Romans 3 and 4, does not know of a justification apart from faith, and especially as Galations 2 plainly says, "Man is not justified except by faith in Jesus Christ."

Thesis 7
Outside of faith in Christ and without it, man remains in condemnation, according to John 3, "Whoever does not believe has been judged already." And again, "Whoever does not believe in the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him." And Mark 16, "Whoever does not believe will be condemned." If such a one has already been judged, if the wrath of God remains upon him, if he will be condemned, then in what beautiful way has he been justified? In what splendid manner have his sins been remitted unto him? Indeed, where sins have truly been remitted, there all wrath and dcondemnation are gone(Rom. 8). "Blessed are they whose sins have been remitted" (Psalm 32). Now then, are all men blessed? Even unbelievers? (Muslims?), Reprobate Jews?

Thesis 8
Therefore, it is certain that no one receives remission of sins for the sake of christ except the one who believes in Him (Acts 10). Nor is anyone justified from his sins except the one who believes in Christ (Acts 13).

Thesis 9
But let Huber explain to us the mystery of this universal justification of his, and let him set forth in detail when these unbelievers, who have never believed and are not going to believe in the Son of God, ever received the remission of sins and were justified before God?


Hunnius continues from Thesis 10 through 19 obliterating the false gospel of UOJ and finishes with -

Thesis 20
Huber will never be able to explain his way out of this nonsense of insoluble contradictions and most prodigious absurdities. Therefore let him enjoy his justification, and let him bless the elect and sanctified people with it - (Muslims), Jews, and all unbelievers. We, in the meantime, shall restrict justification to believers only, as prescribed by all prophetic and apostolic Scriptures.


We can replace the name of Huber with all modern UOJists - Buchholz, Webber, Preus, Zarling, Krohn, Becker, Dorn, Humann, Sieltz, Rodmyre, Schleicher, Kilcrease, Pierce, Marquart, Walther, Pieper, Kuske, Schewe, Young...

...Your false gospel of UOJ has been condemned by the Triune God, Scripture, the Lutheran Confessions and me.

LPC said...

Joe,

I will add the following...

You claimed You deny that the atonement was universal, Lito, since the atonement accomplishes the forgiveness of sins for all men to be received in faith

As usual and typical of UOJers, you spew nonsense Joe. You have indeed become like them in your behavior.

Do you know what I deny? I deny (but which you accept) the 1932 BS of LC-MS Article 17b. which says Scripture teaches that God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ, Rom. 5:19; 2 Cor. 5:18-21; Rom. 4:25;

I condemn this as false statement thus a false teaching.

In fact you said this Unbelief does not change the fact that the forgiveness of sins is a done deal for all men since it is God’s will for all to be saved. He promised it to all men in the Garden of Eden. Faith does not make forgiveness real, but is a conduit for receiving something that already exists.". Everyone can read this confession of yours.

This is condemned by Hunnius - Thesis 3.

I learned again from Hunnius, he used the word "nonsense" to describe Huber and his UOJ.

Just like in here Joe, you spewed nonsense.

To be frank, no one knows what you really believe and I do not think you even know what you believe yourself. Yes I say "LIKE" because I do not think you are convinced by Scripture and the Confessions.

First you defended UOJ, then condemned UOJ then now condemn JBFA with the added bonus of denouncing us. So now like a prodigal son, you stoop down to re-embrace the legs of UOJ, kissing its feet. However, anyway you want to twist and wiggle your way, Hunnius is pointing towards you since you have swallowed again what you have vomited before -- the nonsense of UOJ.


LPC

LutherRocks said...

Thanks for monkey piling, fellas. I'm still waiting for my book. I have never rejected OJ rightly taught...only the skewed teaching that makes the leap that all are individually forgiven (subjectively) while they actively reject Christ and relish in their sin.

Your vitriol is worse than a pietist scorned...

Brett Meyer said...

Joe, you've had Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions all along so the statement "I'm still waiting for my book" would only count if it's the Bible - and it's not so no excuse.

Also, a thorough reading of Hunnius Theses will clearly show that those today who confess One Justification Solely by Faith Alone and are publicly opposed to UOJ have declared the contents of those theses over and over again - same Scripture and even more Confessions. It's not a matter of waiting for the book. It's a matter of rejecting Christ in the faithfully and purely declared Scritpures.

You are also not telling the truth since prior to your reconversion to UOJ were teaching that repentance was required for forgiveness which is Scriptural. You now confess, since the atonement accomplishes the forgiveness of sins for all men to be received in faith. Christ took them as the Lamb who bore them. If they are on the Lamb, they are not on the world.

If they are not on the world then what sin adheres to the world that they should repent of? None. This is part of your Huberistic teaching. Therefore UOJ's "gospel" of "you're already forgiven - just believe it" becomes Law. And doubly so since UOJ teaches faith is a work of man (since UOJ teaches if we are only considered forgiven by God through faith then it makes faith synergistic - a work of man contributing to his forgiveness and salvation).

Our vitriol is in response to your false teaching - a teaching that is discovering new "truths" seemingly every day.

For instance you've made these statements during your return to UOJ:

"God is guilty of forgiving the sins of the world. That is a negative way of saying something positive. He intended with such malice that he was going to save every man by sending His Son to die in their place. To have such intense intent, He could have only carried it out because he had forgiven the world already in His heart. We know this because His word says that His will is for all men to be saved."

"When a man is convicted of first degree murder, what is it that convicts him? Intent. He willfully planned to do harm to someone and maliciously carried it out. Not only is he guilty of the murder, but it is in the worst degree because it was proven that he intended to do it all along. God is guilty of forgiving the sins of the world. That is a negative way of saying something positive."

Wednesday April 4th 5:52pm

All of that "God acting with malice (evil intent)" and "God is guilty" is a product of UOJ and it's father the Devil.

Enjoy the book.

Brett Meyer said...

Lito, while on your blog tonight I reviewed the Live Traffic Feed data and saw that Phoenix was accessing one particular blog post multiple times. I clicked to follow the link to the post and enjoyed reading your comments on Gross: Kilcrease calls Leyser and Hutter heretics.

This statement you made stood out, "The term In Tuitu Fidei, does not mean in view of faith itself. Stellhorn says this was coined by Hunnius, but it was a short hand phrase for this - in view of the merits of Christ embraced and held fast in the end by faith. They did not mean naked faith as your straw man generators make of it."

This statement is true and you will find confirmation of it in Hunnius' Theses.

Thank you!
Christ's abundant blessings to you and your family,
Your brother in Christ,
Brett

LPC said...

Joe,

You said I have never rejected OJ rightly taught...only the skewed teaching that makes the leap that all are individually forgiven (subjectively) while they actively reject Christ and relish in their sin

At the very least you were disingeneous when you were with us for we clearly rejected any form of OJ teaching, so called. For example, I for one, do not subscribe to it neither do I have any need of it.

You do not like the leap? But by the mere fact you subscribe to the OJ and SJ paradigm you do have and indeed have accepted the leap.

Let me repeat your own words... you said God forgave the sins of all men in Christ's death since Christ was bearing them.

Since "forgiveness of sins" = justification, this the whole Christendom agree, your statement says "God justified all men in Christ's death since Christ was bearing them".

As you said, forgiveness (hence justification) already a done deal, a Huberian myth, but rejected by the orthodox Lutherans by Leyser and Hunnius.

Let me quote Barth to you since you share by that statement, the same ideas as 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..

Not only is your position Huberian, it is Barthian as well!

And that Joe is not a good thing.

However, that is not a surprize, because both Huber and Barth were universalistic in their outlook while denying their were bold face blatant universalists!

Lastly you said further this... If they (sins)are on the Lamb, they are not on the world.

This contradicts 1 John 1: 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us

It does not get any better Joe, each time you turn, there are spears poking at you, but that is the nature of UOJ nonsense (to use Hunnius' words - nonsense).

LPC

LPC said...

Brett,

Our comments crossed.

I wanted to write more on this because as can be seen here UOJers love to divert people's attention to the topic of intuitu fidei when in fact they misrepresent the term. Unfortunately I always run out of time.

Thanks for the input too dear brother. Your unapologetic stance and precision is something to emulate.

The Lord hold you and the family in His care.
Your brother in Christ,

Lito

Gregory L. Jackson said...

http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2012/05/project-gutenberg-apology-of-augsburg_7541.html