On a friend's facebook page, an article by Robert Bowman was critiqued by Christopher Davis:
Needless to say, instead of waiting to track down a copy of Huffer's volume, Bowman had to rush to attack the source of Davis' quote of Huffer (i.e., me) by accusing me (falsely) of misrepresenting Huffer (as well as throw in a dig at the fact Huffer was a member of the Church of God Abrahamic Faith [poisoning the well much, eh? (*)]):
Such a class act . . .
Fortunately, Davis owned Bowman on this and other things with the following informative post:
On the issue of adoption, a good scholarly volume would be that of Michael Peppard, The Son of God in the Roman World: Divine Sonship in its Social and Political Context (Oxford, 2012)
(*) Just as an aside, Huffer was a member of the Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith General Conference, not Church of God Abrahamic Faith, a different denomination. While both denominations share a common history, the latter would be more "Christadelphian" in their view of certain topics than the former, most notably Satan/demons and the question of "resurrectional responsibility" (Huffer's group accepted universal resurrection unlike Christadelphians and Church of God Abrahamic Faith reject universal resurrection).
One of the less impressive arguments Bowman makes in his critical article is in his section of "becoming sons of God". Obviously this approaches the biblical concept of adoption by/into God. But here Bowman is using a modern interpretation of the term (either deliberately or ignorantly). Alva Huffer explains why this is an incorrect approach.
"Today, when one speaks of adoption, he refers to the legal process whereby a stranger becomes a member of the family. In Paul’s time, however, adoptions referred to that legal process whereby a parent placed his own child in the legal position of an adult son, with all the privileges of inheritance. Someone may question why adoption was required when the child was already a son by birth. It must be remembered that in pagan Rome, a citizen often had many wives and many children. Some of the wives may have been concubines and slaves. The citizen may not have wanted the offspring of his slave wives to receive his titles, position in society, and inheritance. The legal procedure of adoption, therefore, provided a means whereby the citizen could designate those children which he wished to be considered his legal sons and heirs. Through receiving newness of life, believers become children of God. Through adoption, the children of God are declared to be His sons, who have all the privileges and inheritance of sonship. (Alva G. Huffer, Systematic Theology [Oregon, Illin.: The Restitution Herald, 1960], 390
Hat tip to Robert Boylan for the reference, as well as the next from Fitzmyer regarding the use of Aratus by Paul in Acts. (emphasis mine)
"‘For we too are his offspring.’ These words are quoted from the third-century astronomical poem of the Stoic, Aratus, who was born in Soli (in Cilicia) ca. 315 B.C., tou gar kai genos eimen, “of him we too are offspring” (Phaenomena 5). Luke may have changed the Ionic eimen to Attic semen, but he more likely found it so in a source, because the Attic form was current. It appears also in frg. 4 of the second-century B.C. Jewish apologist, Aristobulus, quoted in Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica 13.12.6 (GCS 8/2.194). In quoting this verse, the Lucan Paul makes a new point in part III of his address: GOD IS NOT ONLY NEAR TO HUMAN BEINGS, BUT THEY ARE RELATED TO HIM AS KIN. Paul understands the Stoic idea in a biblical sense; c. Psalm 139; Luke 3:38 (Adam as God’s son). (Joseph A. Fizmyer, The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 31; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1998], 611
I remain unimpressed by the red herrings of Bowman's article while also not dealing with the glaring inconsistencies between the ECF's and Reformed Protestantism on the same subject.
Needless to say, instead of waiting to track down a copy of Huffer's volume, Bowman had to rush to attack the source of Davis' quote of Huffer (i.e., me) by accusing me (falsely) of misrepresenting Huffer (as well as throw in a dig at the fact Huffer was a member of the Church of God Abrahamic Faith [poisoning the well much, eh? (*)]):
Such a class act . . .
Fortunately, Davis owned Bowman on this and other things with the following informative post:
//Huffer is an obscure author in the Church of God Abrahamic Faith, so I'm not embarrassed to say that I had never heard of him. My guess, however, is that Robert Boylan has misunderstood Huffer. My guess is that Huffer was explaining why believers need to be adopted if they are born again or begotten spiritually when they believe in Christ. If I am able to track down a copy of the book I will be able to check to see the context.//
So, he is from the Church of God Abrahamic Faith. How is that relevant? Or are you laying the ground ahead of time to dismiss him after you familiarize yourself with "Systematic Theology"?
You've admittedly never heard of this "obscure" author, yet you feel he is being misunderstood... for reasons you are not able to share, I suppose. Sure.
//In any case, Paul's metaphor was that we went from being slaves to being sons, not from being minor children to being adult sons, so the explanation as you and Boylan are using it won't work.//
Are you going to stick with that? Shall we examine Galatians 4? (Emphasis added)
"Now I say, THAT THE HEIR, AS LONG AS HE IS A CHILD, DIFFERETH NOTHING FROM A SERVANT, THOUGH HE BE LORD OF ALL; BUT IS UNDER TUTORS AND GOVERNORS UNTIL THE TIME APPOINTED OF THE FATHER. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, THAT WE MIGHT RECEIVE THE ADOPTION OF SONS. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ." - Galatians 4:1-5
Please tell me again how Paul is not talking about children growing to adult sons declared as heirs just as Huffer has explained. It is not so much different that the parable of the Prodigal Son, where the son requests his inheritance from his father, essentially severing himself from his father. Dr. Kenneth Bailey, who wrote "The Cross & The Prodigal: Luke 15 Through the Eyes of Middle Eastern Peasants" concludes that making this request while his father was still living was tantamount to saying that he wished his father was dead (p.40-44). Bailey concludes that while the son has not broken a law in this request, he has certainly wounded the father by this insult. Additionally, there is the geographic separation of himself from his father by traveling to a far off country. Prior to his penitent return to the Father, the son is reduced to caring for swine, an unthinkable employment, but he is in such a state that he would enjoy the husks that the unclean swine are fed. On his return, he plans to offer himself as a servant to the father, because in fact he has reduced himself to a creature beneath that even of a servant in his father's house. Yet on his return the Father, places his finest robes, shoes and his ring on the son's hand, all signs of a declaration of sonship, and a return to the father that he had ceremoniously disowned before. The language of the parable, the language used by Paul in Galatians, and expressed by the commentary of Huffer is very consistent. On the contrary, it works quite well.
//Your belief that they were apostates does not commit you to thinking them wrong about everything, but it does undermine the claim that they represent a pristine Christianity on a subject for which they seem to make statements that resonate with Mormons//
Thanks for the strawman, Rob. I've seen many LDS scholars cite the ECF's and I've never seen one of them claim that they represent a "pristine Christianity". In my experience they are usually referenced to argue against the abuse of texts in Isaiah that they allege strict monotheism in ancient Israel. It is also my experience with conversations with more Orthodox Christians who follow the teachings of the Patrists, the degree of deification seems to the the major differentiation between us. We both agree that we do become gods. We both agree that we become gods through the work of Christ and our participation with God. They argue that eternal progression towards the infinite divinity of God (per Irenaeus) is perpetual, but never attainable, and on that last portion "never attainable", we differ.
It is in this way that your second argument from your article fails. It maintains that deification could not be restored, because it was never actually lost. Yet you maintain time and time again that the ECF's DO NOT teach doctrine that resembles LDS doctrine of deification. Which is it, Rob? You can't have it both ways. You can't say that our theology is not support by the ECF's and we have misrepresented them, but then in the next breath argue that a restoration is not needed for a teaching that is not lost. I think if you spent more time making a coherent argument, rather than trying to incorporate different elements critical of Mormonism that contradict each other, you'd be better off.
//In any case, I answered your question in the very paragraph of the article that you quoted out of context. Here's the whole paragraph://
No need to repeat it. That was my point. You took great steps to argue points A, B, & C but then at the end, you conceded that our position is "theoretically possible", which makes me wonder why you bothered with points A, B, & C in the first place, except to poison the well.
//You really need to read what people say in context before you criticize them.//
I'd say you should probably read Huffer before you make an argument for him.
(*) Just as an aside, Huffer was a member of the Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith General Conference, not Church of God Abrahamic Faith, a different denomination. While both denominations share a common history, the latter would be more "Christadelphian" in their view of certain topics than the former, most notably Satan/demons and the question of "resurrectional responsibility" (Huffer's group accepted universal resurrection unlike Christadelphians and Church of God Abrahamic Faith reject universal resurrection).
Update:
Bowman has written a red herring filled "response" to this post:
As I told a mutual facebook friend of ours, Jaxon Washburn, who sent me this response, I never once stated anything contrary to the fact that Huffer did not believe we are spiritually begotten sons and daughters as we did not pre-exist (never claimed he did--he is a Socinian after all, so he rejected the personal pre-existence of everyone, Christ included, in favour of only an ideal/notional pre-existence). However, Huffer did discuss the ancient concept of biological children being "adopted" by their Father or a close family member, so people who are biologically related can and were adopted in antiquity, consistent with the LDS view that spiritual sons of God can and are to be adopted by Him and enter into a salvific relationship. Examples in antiquity would include Octavius being adopted by a biological family member (Julius Caesar, his uncle), making him both heir and appointed emperor. Funnily enough, such ancient concepts of "adoption" would make a good argument for theosis.
Instead of interacting with the true importance and significance of Huffer's comments, Bowman tried to argue against a strawman (e.g., that the use of Huffer by myself and my friend Christopher Davis "proves" universal personal pre-existence; the somewhat muted belief in a Mother in Heaven, etc--Bowman is simply engaging in projection by accusing LDS of building a strawman).
With respect to my charge that Bowman in poisoning the well--when he protested such, he inevitably trapped himself when he wrote that "It was because my prior knowledge of the doctrine of Huffer’s affiliated religious group informed my educated guess as to his meaning that I mentioned it, not to “poison the well” as Boylan falsely alleges." In other words, Bowman did poison the well in his original comments but just won't admit to it. I will leave it to readers to judge the level of intellectual integrity or lack thereof of Bowman reveals himself to have here (he poisoned the well by bringing up the fact Huffer's theological background--it being a group that, among other things, holds to a Socinian Christology ["Biblical unitarian" being a term they prefer these days] is poisoning the well from the get-go; Bowman in his recent update to the article seems to have missed what I meant by his having poisoned the well).
With respect to my charge that Bowman in poisoning the well--when he protested such, he inevitably trapped himself when he wrote that "It was because my prior knowledge of the doctrine of Huffer’s affiliated religious group informed my educated guess as to his meaning that I mentioned it, not to “poison the well” as Boylan falsely alleges." In other words, Bowman did poison the well in his original comments but just won't admit to it. I will leave it to readers to judge the level of intellectual integrity or lack thereof of Bowman reveals himself to have here (he poisoned the well by bringing up the fact Huffer's theological background--it being a group that, among other things, holds to a Socinian Christology ["Biblical unitarian" being a term they prefer these days] is poisoning the well from the get-go; Bowman in his recent update to the article seems to have missed what I meant by his having poisoned the well).
Finally with respect to my comments about the Church of God Abrahamic Faith that Bowman took exception with, "Church of God Abrahamic Faith General Conference" denominations sometimes uses "Church of God Abrahamic Faith" for short, but the official title is Church of God Abrahamic Faith General Conference. The "Church of the Blessed Hope" is just another title for the group called "Church of God Abrahamic Faith."
Wikipedia confirms this, contra Bowman, and anyone who has studied early Christadelphian history knows this, too (I know quite a bit about the history of John Thomas [1805-1871] and his various religious affiliations, including Thomas Marsh and Benjamin Wilson). In the Wikipedia article I linked above, we read the following in note 1:
A number of local congregations in the Church of God (General Conference) use the name the Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith, often leading to confusion of the two bodies. For this reason the Church of the Blessed Hope has been retained as the denominational title for this article.
Bowman does not have to take my word for it--he can contact a member of Huffer's denomination to confirm this (one well-known member being Sir Anthony F. Buzzard).
