# Dr. M. R. De Haan



## AV1611 (May 6, 2007)

Anyone have any background on Dr. M. R. De Haan?


----------



## Ivan (May 6, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> Anyone have any background on Dr. M. R. De Haan?



Here's some:

http://www.rbc.org/about/history.page


----------



## caddy (May 6, 2007)

*Snoopy & De Haan*



Ivan said:


> Here's some:
> 
> http://www.rbc.org/about/history.page


 
Good Stuff Ivan

I have benefited from this ministry.

I just recently purchased 3 of R.L. Short's Snoopy Books. This excerpt was on the RBC site.

Good, Stuff  

*Snoopy*


FOR 50 YEARS, cartoonist Charles Schulz gave us pictures of ourselves wrapped in a smile. One of the last strips I clipped from our Sunday paper showed Snoopy the dog sitting on top of his doghouse with a typewriter, writing about his life. He titled his story . . .
*The Dog Who Never Did Anything*
Snoopy remembers it this way, “You stay home now,” they said, “and be a good dog.”
So he stayed home and was a good dog.
Then he decided to be even a better dog. So he barked at everyone who went by. And he even chased the neighbor’s cats.
“What’s happened to you?” they said. “You used to be such a good dog.”
So he stopped barking and chasing cats, and everyone said, “You’re a good dog.”
The moral, as Snoopy typed it, is “Don’t do anything and you’ll be a good dog.”
As I turned the smile around in my mind, I noticed a quirk of the English language. Snoopy and God have something in common. They are related not only by alphabet (dog and god), but by what “creatures in the middle” expect of them. The idea intrigued me enough to try another version.
*The God Who Never Did Anything*
“You give me what I want now,” they said, “and be a good God.”
So He gave them what they wanted and He was a good God.
Then He decided to be an even better God.
He started knocking over the furniture of other gods, and He used pain to help people in ways they could not understand.
“What’s happened to You?” they said.
“You used to be such a good God.”
So He stopped knocking over the furniture of other gods, and He stopped using pain in ways that were beyond people’s ability to understand.
And everyone said, “You’re a good God.”
The moral, as angels might see it, “Stop acting like God and people will think You’re good.”
*The God We Want*
Many of us imagine God as we want Him to be. To our wishes we add expectation. We expect Him to encourage us when we are afraid, to comfort us when we’re hurt, to forgive us when we fail, and to give us what we think we need when we think we need it.
Yet, along the way, we keep stumbling into the awareness that the King of Heaven is more apt to come to us in His own style, time, and mystery. He is seldom as we imagine Him to be. He is more like the God who reveals Himself in the pages of His own history.
There He comes to us in the unexpected surprises of joy, in the unwanted nights of our misery, and in the solitary sounds of our own loneliness. He comes to us in the unexpected joys of Adam, in the numbed grief of Eve, in the inconsolable tears of the childless Hannah, in the murderous anger of Moses, and in the madness of a powerful Nebuchadnezzar.
But me? Until He responds, I’d rather have it my way. In the moments of my dissatisfaction, I don’t want to have to wait for what I want. I want it now. Now. I’ll pray. I’ll pay. I’ll bargain. I’ll crawl on my knees. But I want God to prove that He is good—right now.
*The God Who Has Been Good*
Even in our “maturity” we can be like 2- and 3-year-olds pulling at the pant leg of heaven. Our Father isn’t surprised. He knows how to raise physical, emotional, and spiritual toddlers. He knows how to run with us in our youth, and how to walk with us at 74, 84, and 94.
And for those who go further, He is still there, hearing once again our whimpers in the night, and reaching down with the affection of an adoring mother who carefully lifts her children from their crib to herself.
No, He has not always been the kind of parent we wanted Him to be. Yes, He has been good on His terms rather than on ours. He has not answered our prayers in the way we asked. Seldom has He allowed anything to play out according to our own expectations or childish demands. Yet His determination to lead us in the paths of His own choosing is what has made Him so good.
*The God Who Will Be Good*
The promise of tomorrow comes with the wrinkled snapshots of yesterday. Even though our memories are not as sharp as we’d like them to be, and even though the happy times are mixed with regret, our albums contain memories of a God who keeps reminding us that He is better than our expectations. He is better than our demands. He is better than anything this life has to offer.
If He allowed a relationship to be lost, He stayed with us to remind us that we weren’t made for one another as much as we were made for Him. As our bodies give way to time, they become painful reminders that we were not made for these bodies. We were made for the One who said from the top of a thundering, burning mountain—to a people huddled in the middle of a life-threatening wilderness—“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.”
This is the God who, because He is good, refuses to “stay home and do nothing.”
_Father, thank You for a man named Charles Schulz who brought us elements of truth amid our smiles. Thank You for being God on Your terms rather than ours. May Your name be hallowed as we wait on You. May Your kingdom be reflected in our patience. May Your will be done in our disappointments. Please, give us this day our daily bread._
-- Mart De Haan


----------



## Ivan (May 6, 2007)

I always liked Snoopy.


----------



## Guido's Brother (May 6, 2007)

When I preached through Ruth, I bought DeHaan's "The Romance of Redemption: Studies in the Book of Ruth." It is an absolutely awful book. For example, chapter 12 deals with "The Pretribulation Rapture." For me this was a good example of how *not* to preach Ruth.


----------



## bookslover (May 6, 2007)

Guido's Brother said:


> When I preached through Ruth, I bought DeHaan's "The Romance of Redemption: Studies in the Book of Ruth." It is an absolutely awful book. For example, chapter 12 deals with "The Pretribulation Rapture." For me this was a good example of how *not* to preach Ruth.



A good reason why medical doctors should stick to medicine (D. M. Lloyd-Jones excepted, of course)...


----------



## Ivan (May 6, 2007)

bookslover said:


> (D. M. Lloyd-Jones excepted, of course)...



Why....thank you!


----------



## Kevin (May 7, 2007)

I seem to recall that it was "DR" DeHaan who was cited as a medical "expert" to promote the heresy of the "Bucket of Blood' that went though fundamentalism in the 80's.


----------



## yeutter (May 7, 2007)

The Revd. Martin R. DeHaan had great influence in General Association of Regular Baptist Churches here in Michigan. If I remember right his home parish was Calvary Undenominational Church in GrandRapids. He founded it after he was deposed as Pastor of Calvary Reformed Churchin about 1929. He was deposed in a contraversy over his premillennial dispensational teaching. Herman Hoeksema was a noted critic of DeHann.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (May 7, 2007)

I'm not sure which one, but one of the DeHaan's supported the theory of a "Pre-Adamic" race of beings that were destroyed prior to Adam's creation. He published a pamphlet a number of years ago. Much scripture twisting to 'prove' his theory was employed, as I recall. It may be a different man however, than the one you're asking about.


----------



## turmeric (May 7, 2007)

"Bucket of Blood" heresy? That sounds messy at best. Is this the "trail of blood" thing?


----------



## Kevin (May 8, 2007)

turmeric said:


> "Bucket of Blood" heresy? That sounds messy at best. Is this the "trail of blood" thing?



No, but almost as strange. This is a bona fide heresy, that sprang up in American fundamentalism in the last half of the last century.

The idea is that the incarnation is accomplished by Christ being born with a "Human body" and "Divine blood". This is based on a pre-modern folk theory of conception i.e. the father provides the "blood' and the mother provides the "body" of the child.

Since the "Precious Blood of Jesus" saves us fom our sins this must be true.

The way that this works is at his death Jesus "sheds his blood" this (divine) blood is caught by angels and taken to heaven where it is actually poured out on the "heavenly Mercy seat".

Thus the Body of Christ after his ressurection has no blood in it (since all of his blood is in heaven).

This is actually several heresies all in one treaching; 
1) denial of the incarnation since Christ is not "very God" and "very man"
2) denial of the ressurection since Crist is not returned to life but is rather a re-animated corpse (ala Bram Stoker's dracula)
3) Possibly also a serious heresy re the atonement as well.

Promoted by Bob Jones jr and the (post John R. Rice) "Sword of the Lord" newspaper.

The cause was a defense (sic) of the "precious, saving, blood of Jesus" against attacks by (of all people) John McArther. Since Mac was defending the doctrines of grace within a Dispensational/fundy context he was accused of "Heresy" since he wrote and preached in traditional reformed theological language re the death of Christ he was guilty of denying the "Blood of Jesus".

It just kind of escalated from that. Hard to believe that a line from a poem/hymn could be used by (seemingly) smart men to trump the clear teaching of the scriptures and 2000 years of orthodoxy, but it happened.


----------



## turmeric (May 8, 2007)

It does sound a bit Nestorian to me...but that's a regular feature of fringe Dispensationalism - everything has to be so _literal!_


----------



## Kevin (May 8, 2007)

It is "literalism" run amok!


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (May 8, 2007)

So his book _The Chemistry of the Blood_ is no good (not medically accurate)? I have it on my shelves, but have not read it.

Steve


----------



## Kevin (May 8, 2007)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> So his book _The Chemistry of the Blood_ is no good (not medically accurate)? I have it on my shelves, but have not read it.
> 
> Steve



I think that is the one. I never read it, only the citations in other works so I may mis-remember .


----------

