When all else fails, accuse your opponent of making things up

On a friend's facebook page, an article by Robert Bowman was critiqued by Christopher Davis:

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.

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).

Update:

Bowman has written a red herring filled "response" to this post:

Robert Boylan, Alva Huffer, and Mormon vs. Evangelical Views of Being Children of God

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).

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).

Yet another example of the great ignorance of Evangelical Anti-Mormons

A rather ignorant anti-Mormon based in the UK posted the following on a friend's facebook status:

The only thing funny with this comment is the author's ignorance. Latter-day Saints do not believe that everything affirmed by Patristic-era authors were in error. After all, these patristic authors were pretty unanimous in affirming doctrines and concepts this (Reformed) Protestant would reject as heretical, such as baptismal regeneration; transformative, not merely declarative, justification; rejection of eternal security; did not hold to a view of the Bible similar to that of the Reformation-era concept of Sola Scriptura; and yes, they even affirmed a form of deification closer (though not identical) to LDS views than the weak deification held by Calvin et al. Such refuted a later comment from him that, “The early church fathers definitely didn't have parallel beliefs or doctrine anything like modern day LDS teaching.” As an example of the anti-biblical, ahistorical nature of this apologist's theollogy, particularly both the biblical and Patristic evidence against sola scriptura, the formal doctrine of Protestantism, a doctrine Brown holds to, see:

Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura

Furthermore, one cannot help but see the hypocrisy of Protestant critics for criqituing Latter-day Saints for appealing to the writings of early Christian authors. After all, both historical (e.g., Martin Chemnitz and John Calvin in their critique of the Council of Trent) and modern (e.g., William Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History) appeal to Patristic-era literature to support their theology and/or critique the theology of other groups such as Roman Catholicism, and yet, they were in some state of apostasy (Athanasius, for instance, held to the perpetual virginity of Mary; Augustine believed in Purgatory; personal sinlessness of Mary; prayers to saints, and yet these are two oft-appealed to early Chrisitans by Protestant apologists).

Jordan Vajda, at the time an ordained Roman Catholic priest who, based in part of his studies, would later become a Latter-day Saint, wrote a M.A. thesis which shows the strong Patristic evidence for the LDS doctrine of theosis:

"Partakers of the Divine Nature": A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization

In terms of the biblical evidence for robust deification, note one of the glorious promises to those who endure in Rev 3:9, 21 (this is Christ Himself speaking through John):

Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee . . . To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

In 3:21, believers are promised to sit down on Christ’s throne, which is the Father's very own throne! Interestingly, Christ sitting down on the throne of the Father is cited as prima facie evidence of his being numerically identical to the “one God” (see the works of Richard Bauckham on “divine identity” on this issue), and yet, believers are promised the very same thing! This is in agreement with John 17:22 in that we will all share the same glory and be one with Christ and God just as they are one. Sitting in it does not indicate such "oness" is that of "divine identity" contra Richard Bauckahm et al (cf. Testament of Job 32:2-9, where Job is promised to sit on God’s throne, something that is common in the literature of Second Temple Judaism and other works within the Jewish pseudepigrapha and elsewhere).

As for Rev 3:9, believers are promised that they will be the future recipients of προσκυνέω. While some may try to downplay the significance of this term, in all other instances where it is used in the book of Revelation it denotes religious worship (Rev 4:10; 5:14; 7:11; 9:20; 11:1, 16; 13:4, 8, 12, 15; 14:7, 9, 11; 15:4; 16:2; 19:4, 10, 20; 20:4; 22:8, 9). Only by engaging in special pleading and question begging can one claim it does not carry religious significance in Rev 3:9.

To add to the discussion, here is the exegesis provided by New Testament scholar, Jürgen Roloff, on these important verses:

[3:9] With the same words that are in 2:9, the claim of the Jews to be the assembly (synagōgē) of God and the people of God's is rejected as false. Because they rejected Jesus as bringer of God's salvation, in truth they subordinated themselves to the dominion of God's adversary. Israel's heritage and claim are completely transferred to the Christian community. To it, therefore, also belongs the promise, originally made to Israel, that at the end time of the Gentiles will enter the city of God and subjugate themselves to the people of God (Isa. 60:14 and elsewhere). Indeed, among those who then come will be the unbelieving Jews, who will realize that Jesus loved them and that means he chose them; (cf. Isa. 42:1) and made them into the people of God. When mention is made of "bowing down" before the feet of the church, this assumes full participation of the church in the kingdom of Christ and sitting with him on his throne (v. 21) . . . [3:21] The final word about overcoming in the series of letters has particular importance. It summarizes in conclusion the central promise of salvation, which is the promises heretofore was sounded several times with variations and modifications, by using another Synoptic expression of Jesus (Luke 22:30b; Matt 19:28 [Q?]: to those who overcome is promised here participation in Jesus' heavenly kingdom. Thus, just as Jesus sits on his throne (cf. 5:6) beside God as equal ruler on the basis of his having overcome and thereby shares his dominion, so also will those who have overcome for his sake receive a place in his messianic rule (cf. 20:6) with unlimited communion, and even equality, with him. (Jürgen Roloff, Revelation [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993], 61, 65-66)

This is yet another area where Latter-day Saint theology and practice is more commensurate with “biblical Christianity” and not the theologies of our Evangelical opponents.

For more, see Edward T. Jones, The Christian Doctrine of Deification

For a balanced approach to Patristic theology, see Daniel O. McClellan, Latter-day Saints and Patristics

Book of Mormon Names No Fiction Writer Would Choose

The following is an article I just encountered:

Sharon Black and Brad Wilcox, "188 Unexplainable Names: Book of Mormon Names No Fiction Writer Would Choose," in Religious Educator 12, no. 2 (2011): 119–133.

The following is the conclusion of this very interesting article:

The 337 names included by Joseph Smith in the Book of Mormon (188 of which had never been heard or written before) seem to violate all the rules for choosing fictional names:

1. Joseph did not make conscious and deliberate choices. He dictated his manuscript to scribes without even pausing when he introduced extremely complex names.

2. Joseph did not choose names that would be easily accessible to readers. On the contrary, the names are almost all quite long and complex; his scribes reported that he could not pronounce most of them himself but had to spell them. Many of them are quite similar and easily confused: sounds are repeated with very little variation in surrounding sounds, and some names seem to be close variants of others.

3. Joseph did not choose names to fit characters. Some names are given to both heroes and villains, and no real correspondence has been noted between sound and personality. The Book of Mormon is set in times and cultures with languages about which Joseph Smith knew nothing. He knew little about its antecedent Hebrew and Egyptian languages or cultures at the time of translation, although he did study them during later periods of his life.

4. Joseph did not use different resources. Local artifacts of Joseph Smith’s lifetime and lifestyle had no connection to the civilization of the Book of Mormon or its culture or languages. Ancient and foreign name lists were not available.

5. Joseph did not choose names because of personal associations. The only Book of Mormon names with any connection to Joseph Smith’s family or associates are Joseph and Samuel—such common names in ancient Hebrew cultures and so prominent in the Bible that claims of personal connections seem unfounded.

Does Joseph Smith’s disregard for naming conventions indicate he was a careless craftsman, or does it indicate he was a careful translator of a record full of authentic names which were not his inventions? For Joseph Smith to have invented the 188 unique names found in the Book of Mormon seems highly unlikely. Coming up with that many names would have been overwhelming—especially considering Joseph’s limited formal education. Even if someone were to suggest that inventing that number of names in a severely limited time frame might have been possible, their consistency with language patterns yet to be discovered removes it far from the realm of probability.

If the Book of Mormon is a clever work of fiction, it is reasonable to expect that Joseph Smith chose character names in the way that clever fiction writers do. However, this study demonstrates that he did not.

Terryl Givens on Matthew 16:18-19

When Jesus referred to the establishment of his church in the gospel of Matthew, he promised an apostolic authority to “bind” and “loose” on earth with the guarantee of heavenly recognition for those actions. In the same pronouncement, he promised that “the gates of Hades [would] not prevail against” his church. For Mormons, those assurances are interconnected, the crucial point here being twofold. First, gates do not in the normal course of events function in an active sense. It is rather curious to imagine gates “prevailing against”—or failing to prevail against—anything. Gates don’t function actively, but what gates can do is keep inhabitants within or intruders without. Since no one is likely to attempt to infiltrate hell (Christ’s “harrowing” aside), a reasonable reading of the Savior’s words would be the promise that the gates of hell would fail to keep its inhabitants forever in bondage, remote from the saving church.

Second, Mormons find in this verse a warrant for the theological foundations to their sociable heaven: the sealing referred to, in other words, is for Latter-day Saints an eternal bound or connection to other human beings, within the kingdom of God. The power intimated is an apostolic authority to render human relationships eternal; “until death do you part” becomes “for time and eternity.” Together, the two assertions (authority to bind and permeable gates) create the basis of Mormon temple theology. God has thereby vouchsafed to human representatives a power stronger than death or hell, to reunite in everlasting bonds of love and association all the living and death who comply with the sacraments of temple “sealing.” Elijah was uniquely qualified for this bridging role since he was, according to scripture, taken into heaven without tasting death. As such a “translated” being, he united both realms in his own person. Smith was familiar with the original sense of sealing in its conventional Christian meaning of a pledge or assurance of salvation. However, he also developed the term in a uniquely Mormon was as Elijah loomed larger and larger in his theological understanding. (Terryl L. Givens, Feeding the Flock: The Foundations of Mormon Thought—Church and Praxis [New York: Oxford University Press, 2017], 180-81)

Evasive Ignorance: Anti-Mormon Claims that B.H. Roberts Lost His Testimony

B.H. Roberts is one of my favourite LDS theologians of all time (his The Truth, the Way, the Life: An Elementary Treatise on Theology is one of my favourite works on Latter-day Saint theology [if LDS did "patron saints," he would me the patron saint of my blog]). This paper soundly refutes the false claim Roberts, near the end of his life, rejected the historicity of the Book of Mormon:

Evasive Ignorance: Anti-Mormon Claims that B.H. Roberts Lost His Testimony

Jed Woodworth on the Word of Wisdom

The LDS Perspectives Podcast has recently interviewed Jed Woodworth on the topic of D&C 89 (the Word of Wisdom):

Episode 41 The Word of Wisdom - Jed Woodworth


Woodworth is the author on the this very same topic as part of the Revelations in Context manual published by the LDS Church:

The Word of Wisdom D&C 89

Trent on Worship of the Eucharistic Host

In session XIII of the Council of Trent, held October 11, 1551, we read the following about the worship of the consecrated host:

878 [DS 1643] There is, therefore, no room left for doubt that all the faithful of Christ in accordance with a custom always received in the Catholic Church offer in veneration [can. 6] the worship of latria which is due to the true God, to this most Holy Sacrament. For it is not less to be adored because it was instituted by Christ the Lord to be received [cf. Matt. 26:26 ff.]. For we believe that same God to be present therein, of whom the eternal Father when introducing Him into the world says: “And let all the Angels of God adore Him” [Heb. 1:6; Ps. 96:7), whom the Magi “falling down adored” [cf. Matt. 2:11], who finally, as the Scripture testifies [cf. Matt. 28:17], was adored by the apostles in Galilee. [DS 1644] The holy Synod declares, moreover, that this custom was piously and religiously introduced into the Church of God, so that this sublime and venerable sacrament was celebrated every year on a special feast day with extraordinary veneration and solemnity, and was borne reverently and with honor in processions through the streets and public places. For it is most proper that some holy days be established when all Christians may testify, with an extraordinary and unusual expression, that their minds are grateful to and mindful of their common Lord and Redeemer for such an ineffable and truly divine a favor whereby the victory and triumph of His death is represented. And thus, indeed, ought victorious truth to celebrate a triumph over falsehood and heresy, that her adversaries, placed in view of so much splendor and amid such deep joy of the universal Church, may either vanish weakened and broken, or overcome and confounded by shame may some day recover their senses.

In other words, one is condemned if they do not believe that it is proper to give latria, the highest form of worship to the consecrated host, as, in Rome’s theology, it is substantially the second person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ. This is why one cannot be neutral on the issue of Roman Catholicism in general and the Mass in particular—it is either the most important act of worship one can participate in or it is an act of idolatry. No other option is possible.

Interestingly enough, a long-standing critic of the LDS Church, during a debate/dialogue with Scott Hahn, who advocates Rome’s blasphemous and idolatrous teachings on Mary as well as giving graven bread worship reserved only for God, stated that Hahn is a saved Christian(!) One could expect, if he were consistent (he isn’t; I am not deluded), he would condemn both the LDS Church and its proponents and Rome and her proponents as preaching false gospels. Go figure. In light of his defence of Hank Hanegraaff being a saved Christian in spite of converting to Eastern Orthodoxy, I don’t think his attitude towards Rome and Hahn has changed one iota since the debate in 1997.