I’m not a defender of DeHaan, but we should remember that he made his remarks about the blood when we knew very little about it.

I.M. Halderman also made some interesting remarks about the virgin birth and sin nature long before we knew much about human genetics and the biological and psychological contribution both parents make to their offspring.

Interestingly, I once had a J-Mac supporter tell me how extreme DeHaan was in his remarks about the blood. I told him I agreed and reminded him that such remarks weren’t limited to men like DeHaan. I then gave him a half dozen quotes from G. Smeaton’s two volume work on the atonement. In those volumes, Smeaton refers to the blood of Christ as THE BLOOD OF GOD.

Understandably, men who hold to a high view of the blood of Christ (high in the sense of worth and value) sometimes use language that overstates their case.

Smeaton was a strong Calvinists, by the way.

Have a good one!

It is a challenge isn’t it?

Hi Charles,

Yes, the topic needs to be set right. DeHaan was entirely wrong on this point. Those who have followed his teaching are also wrong.

The question is, what to do about those who are in error here?

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

When teaching verse by verse you deal with the text within the text and sometimes it will lead others to believe you are teaching error, when you are not.

I was raised as a boy listening to M R DeHaan, and most of the preachers would agree with DeHaan, and today most of them still do. Just talk about the blood of Jesus being human and you will get a fight.

So the topic needs to be set right, right?

I only raise the issue of the blood because Dave did in his “Bad Chemistry, Worse Theology.” I realize he wasn’t discussing the J-Mac issue.

Concerning the booklet, I’m not even sure of the name of it. I read it years ago. A friend of mine had a copy and asked me to read it. So I did. I remember being quite puzzled over some of his statements.

Perhaps I can get a copy of it and post some passages on-line. I’m sure it’ll raise a few eyebrows. I’ve often wondered why it wasn’t cited during the controversy between BJ and J-Mac over the blood. Maybe the contents will reveal why.

I don’t remember the booklet. I don’t think that it is the MacArthur controversy that Dave is aiming at, though.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I agree. Speculation isn’t helpful. But I couldn’t help but see that the very thing Dave flamed against–that Morris’ view undermines Christ’s humanity–wasn’t altogether different from John the Baptist’s view.

I, too, am interested in what Dave thinks we should do about those who embrace the theories of Morris and DeHaan. But I would be even more interested to know what he would do about the BJ grads who embarce the early views of Stewart Custer on the blood.

If I recall correctly, years ago Custer wrote a little booklet on the blood of Christ in which he espoused views Dave would now condemn as cultic. That little booklet reveals, at least to my mind, why many BJ men responded so negatively to J-Mac’s views.

I think the point being made is reasonably well taken. We need to note such errors and something should be said about them. But of course, no proposal is made in the articles as to what should be done about Morris, DeHaan, and “fundamentalists”. It would be interesting to see what Dave thinks should be done.

As to John the Baptist, I suppose it depends on how those stones could be raised up as sons of Abraham. I don’t want to speculate here, since the Scripture doesn’t give us much to go on. It is true that it is possible to be a son of Abraham in the ‘by faith’ way, as Paul teaches in Romans. But if John’s statement is taken strictly literally, it would appear that God would be making new humans out of literal rocks. These would be genetically unconnected with Abraham and with Adam, for that matter. Would they then have a sin nature? So… I think I’ll just let John the Baptist’s comment stand and not speculate.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I’ve been reading the same articles you have and found them good. But a question occurred to me as I read Dave’s remarks on Morris’ view of the “transplanted embryo.” Would Morris’ view of a “transplanted embryo” make Jesus any less a physical decedent of Abraham and David than John the Baptist’s view that God could turn rocks into the children of Abraham (Mt. 3:9; Lk. 3:8)? Is Dave limiting the power of God and what He can actually do? Or is John the Baptist speaking with the same “subtle,” “frightening,” and “contradictory” language as Morris?