The a priori assertion is made by some that Huber's doctrine of "universal or general justification" has nothing at all to do with the modern version of "universal or general justification." They claim that the exact same terms are being used for completely different doctrines, and that Hunnius was only writing against Huber's version of universal justification, whereas he (together with the whole Lutheran Church of the 16th Century) would have readily accepted the modern version of universal justification.
This is quite a claim. I would ask those who stand by this assertion to explain, then, the vast difference between modern "universal justification" and Huber's "universal justification." From the outset, I would like to include in the parameters for discussion that no one is allowed to use the terms "objective" or "subjective." We should be able to explain what we mean without using those words.
I offer this simple comparison to get things started: