Issue #136-Parts of DeHaan's 508 Answers to Bible

Biblical Errancy Issue #136-Parts of DeHaan's 508 Answers to Bible Questions, Parts of Stewart's 99 Questions People Ask Most About the Bible, Resurrection Redebated

Nov 10, '08 6:41 AM
by Loren for everyone










Issue No. 136

April 1994


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEHAAN'S 508 ANSWERS TO BIBLE QUESTIONS:

On page 25 in the book entitled 508 Answers to Bible Questions apologist M.R. DeHaan is asked: How could the Devil sin in Heaven? He responds by saying, "...we must remember that the Devil was not a redeemed creature, and, therefore, could sin, but we who are redeemed by the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, when we have received our resurrected bodies will be beyond all possibility of sinning. Remember that heaven, too, is going to be purified." DeHaan's conception of heaven is not only unbiblical, but illogical for several reasons. First, where does scripture say the Devil was unredeemed before his fall from heaven? If that were true, then he would have been a corrupt being in heaven before his fall, which is impossible, since corrupt beings can't be in heaven. Second, how could the Devil have behaved improperly in heaven? Heaven is a perfect place by definition, and nothing of an imperfect nature can occur there. It's the place that matters, not the deed or doer. The place only permits perfect behavior. And thirdly, whoever heard of heaven being "purified"? Heaven is going to be purified? How do you purify the perfect? If DeHaan's conception of heaven is valid, then Christians are attempting to enter a place that is similar to that which they are leaving. Hardly a pleasing prospect!

We have all seen babies being sprinkled or dunked in water by someone dressed in religious garb. Not only is the act of purifying someone who has never committed a morally reprehensible act incongruous, but the ritual itself is biblically unsupportable. Occasionally an apologist provides a correct response to biblical questions, and just such an answer is tendered by DeHaan to the query of whether or not infant baptism is taught in the Bible. He states, "...Carefully studying my Bible, I found that infant baptism is nowhere taught or even suggested in the Scriptures. It is a doctrine of the church which is certainly not founded upon the Word of God, but is a remnant of Roman Catholicism. There is not a clear instance of it in the Bible, and no trace of it until three hundred years after Pentecost. It is a wholly unscriptural doctrine of man...." DeHaan's analysis is correct.


Moving further, apologists claim that the angel of the Lord that reappeared several times in the OT was actually Jesus Christ. On page 57 DeHaan is asked where the Bible states that "the Angel of the Lord always refers to the Lord Jesus Christ in the Old Testament?" DeHaan responds by saying, "There is no direct statement which says in so many exact words that the 'angel of the Lord' is always the Lord Jesus, but it is rather on the accumulation of evidence where the term occurs in Scripture. From the various passages where the expression, 'the angel of the Lord,' occurs, it is quite evident that it is the second Person of the Trinity who is there, and who is the spokesman for the Trinity itself. We call this a 'theophany,' or an appearing of Jesus Christ in human form before His incarnation in Bethlehem. As is true of other doctrines of Scripture, we cannot put our finger on any one particular passage which states in so many words that this is true, but we have to assume it from the revelation." To say DeHaan is flying by the seat of his pants is an understatement. First, there is not only no "direct" statement saying so, but no "indirect" statement saying so, either. Second, there is not only a lack of "exact words" saying the angel of the Lord is Jesus Christ but a notable lack of "inexact words". Third, what "accumulation of evidence" is he referring to? He doesn't provide a shred of proof, let alone an accumulation. Fourth, in no way is it "quite evident" that the second Person of a Trinity is present. Fifth, DeHaan can call it a "theophany" or any other term he and his compatriots may wish to concoct, but it's not biblically sustainable. The evidence is weak at best and wholly unprovable in a court of law. And lastly, why do "we have to assume" Jesus appeared in the OT other than to satisfy the unsupportable Christian yearning for OT signs of the Trinity? Just because they are desperate for biblical assistance to their theological imaginings does not mean the rest of us have to follow suit. Much has been asserted but nothing proven. Interestingly enough, DeHaan ignored his own warning found on page 95, "Many Bible teachers and evangelists find things in the Bible which even the Lord did not place there." He would do well to heed his own advice.


Just to show readers the extent to which biblicists let their imaginations run wild through Scripture, we might note DeHaan's answer to the following question on page 96: Is the atomic bomb mentioned in Scripture, specifically Psalm 137:9, which says, "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones?" He responds by saying, "In regard to your question concerning Psalm 137:9, we would refer you to Isaiah 13:16 ('Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished'). The latter verse contains the same expression, and this is evidently referring to the atomic bomb in the judgment of the Lord during the tribulation, as seen in verses 13 and 14 of Isaiah 13 ('Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the Lord of Hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger...')." Children being dashed against stones and smashed into pieces is equivalent to atomic war? How DeHaan made this leap in logic is anyone's guess, and we are hearing this from a man with a doctorate degree. Shaking the heavens and moving the earth are far too vague to draw reliable conclusions. Assertions of this nature demonstrate why children should be kept as far from biblical indoctrination and "reasoning" as possible. Information within the verses themselves shows that they have nothing to do with the atomic bomb. Would people be concerned with ravishing wives and stealing from homes during atomic attack? More than likely concerns of this kind would be near the bottom of their list of priorities. Self-preservation, on the other hand, would undoubtedly be near the top. And would God employ the atomic bomb during the time of tribulation when his powers are far more potent?

On page 96 DeHaan confronts one of those problems that all biblicists would do well to flee. He is asked: How do you reconcile the Book of Ecclesiastes with the rest of Scripture? Specifically, DeHaan addresses the problem presented by Eccle. 1:9 ("The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun") by saying, "...Solomon speaks here not of the spiritual man, but of the physical man, and tells us that there is nothing new which man has ever discovered. All the inventions and discoveries of science are based upon the things which God has already placed in nature, so that he is only applying the laws and the materials which God has already created in making the things which we call new inventions. In this respect, there is 'nothing new under the sun'."

DeHaan is attempting to restrict the comment in Ecclesiastes to unformed matter and the natural laws by which it operates. But we are talking about more than just the ingredients out of which things are made. The arrangement of the materials is as important as the materials themselves. Airplanes, automobiles, computers, refrigerators, and millions of other items did not exist before 1800. Certainly their material components and the natural laws by which they operated were present, but all of the configurations in which they can lie vis a vis one another were by no means exhausted. So there are new things under the sun afterall.

On page 122 DeHaan is asked if Luke 14:26 ("If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple") teaches us to hate our parents. He responds by saying, "The word, 'hate,' in Luke 14:26 is a comparative word in the Greek and not an absolute word. It means that the tender love we have for our fathers and mothers and loved ones is like hatred in comparison with the love that we have for the Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord certainly does not tell us to hate our loved ones." Several problems accompany his explanation. First, if what DeHaan says is true, then the translators of the NASB, the NIV, the NWT, the NEB, the ASV, the JB, the KJ, the RSV, and the BBE are incompetent, because every one of these versions uses the word "hate," when they could just as easily have said "love less." According to DeHaan, who is no more of a Greek scholar than those who translated these versions, the verse should have been translated as, "If any man come to me, and does not love his (relatives--Ed.)...less than me, he cannot be my disciple." The difference between "love less" and "hate" is not only quantitative but qualitative. "Hate" is absolute in nature, while "love less" is not. Choosing between the two represents a major distinction in translation, which the translators of the previously-mentioned versions were no doubt aware of. Yet, they chose "hate" over "love less." Second, according to Strong's Concordance the word comes from the Greek word "miseo" which means "to detest (especially to persecute); by extension to love less:--hate (ful)." Detest clearly means more than just to "love less" and no doubt explains why the translators opted for the word "hate." Third, in 38 other instances in which the Greek word "miseo" is used in the NT it is translated as "hate" not "love less." Like so many apologists, DeHaan is grasping for the highest straw in the bunch because he can't think of another excuse. And lastly, DeHaan says, "The Lord certainly does not tell us to hate our loved ones" when he just did. How much clearer could the text be. What would Jesus have to say to convince him that that is exactly what he intended? Jesus is saying you must reject everything in this world, even your closest companions, if you want to be his disciple. How would Jesus have to phrase his admonition to convince DeHaan that that's precisely what he means? To resort to the common defense--that's what it says but that's not what it means--is to grasp for a thin string indeed.

On page 133 DeHaan, like so many other apologists, became entangled in the perennial problem of whether or not one can be saved without the Gospel. After being asked if the heathen can be saved without the Gospel, he responds by saying, "In regard to your question concerning Romans 1:19-20, the Bible is plain that there can be no salvation apart from faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Faith in the God of creation is not enough. However, we must remember that God is a just and righteous God, and the heathen who have never heard the Gospel will be judged by the light which they had. The judgment of the heathen will be infinitely lighter than that of those who have heard the Word and then rejected it." Apparently DeHaan doesn't realize that he has fallen into a theological quicksand bog. He began by saying everyone had to believe in Jesus in order to be saved, and then reversed himself by saying that the heathen who have never heard the Gospel are exempted. They will be judged by whatever light they have. Regardless of the light they have, it is not the light of Jesus Christ. So how could they be saved under the criterion he himself established? Either they have Jesus or they don't. There is no in between. They are either saved or they aren't. If they are saved by whatever light they had, then, in effect, belief in Jesus is not mandatory. Secondly, if "the judgment of the heathen will be infinitely lighter than that of those who have heard the Word and rejected it," then justice becomes a mockery, because a dual standard rules the roost. People will be judged more leniently or stringently because of where or when they were born, and that's injustice in action. Yet, Deut. 32:4 says God is just. Moreover, missionaries are disserving the heathen immensely, because the latter's salvation is virtually assured until the former appear on the scene.

On page 136 DeHaan is asked what Romans 14:5-6 ("One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it") teaches in regard to observing a sabbath. He responds by saying, "The Christian has no sabbath. The Lord's day is not a command, but a privilege, and Romans 14:5-6 has to do with our liberty in Christ. The spirit, not the day, is of the greatest importance." DeHaan doesn't seem to realize that he has, in effect, abolished the fourth commandment found in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. What does he mean by saying the Christian has no sabbath? If that's true, then how can he adhere to the fourth commandment? How can he observe a day he denies exists? What is he doing to heed the fourth commandment? How can DeHaan say "the Lord's day is not a command, but a privilege," when Exodus 20:8 says, "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work...." According to DeHaan you can obey or ignore the fourth commandment at will; you don't have to honor any day, be it the sabbath or the Lord's Day. If the spirit is all that matters, then any day could arbitrarily be deemed the sabbath and THE sabbath is fiction. You can call any day the sabbath or ignore it entirely, which hardly represents an adherence to the fourth commandment.

In regard to the same issue, DeHaan is asked on page 173 to explain the difference between the sabbath and the Lord's Day. He replies by saying, "Saturday is still the Jewish sabbath, but certainly not the Christian's. Sunday is not a sabbath, but the Lord's Day and the day of the resurrection. Saturday Christ spent in death; on the first day He rose from death.... The sabbath was a command to Israel. The Lord's day is a privilege for Christians. The sabbath has never been changed." Talk about perverting scripture and poor thought processes! In the first place, what does he mean by saying "Saturday is still the Jewish sabbath, but certainly not the Christian's." There are two sabbaths? How absurd! A "Christian sabbath" is unbiblical. Secondly, the 4th commandment says we are to observe the sabbath, not the Lord's Day. What difference does it make when the Lord's Day occurs when we are told to observe the sabbath? That's what matters! Whether or not the Lord's Day is a privilege or an obligation is irrelevant, since nothing is said about paying it homage. Third, since when did the fourth commandment become applicable only to Israel? It applies to everyone. Fourth, by DeHaan's own admission the sabbath has never been changed; therefore, the seventh day, Saturday, is the only day mankind is obligated to observe. And lastly, DeHaan admits Sunday is not the sabbath, and if that is true, then mankind is not obligated to observe Sunday in any event.

And finally, on page 209 DeHaan is asked: If Christ kept the law before Calvary, was he not breaking the law by plucking ears of corn on the sabbath day as recorded in Matthew 12:1? He answers by saying, "You are making the same mistake the Adventists and a great many others make in not distinguishing between the Law, and the traditions of the Law. When Christ 'violated the sabbath,' as you say, by picking corn, He was violating the 'tradition' of the Pharisees and the Scribes. Jesus Himself laid down the principle that it is good to do good on the Sabbath Day. If you will remember that it was 'tradition,' that Jesus violated, and not the 'Law of God,' I think you will have the solution to your problem." The only one making a mistake is DeHaan. People don't distinguish between the Law and "traditions of the Law" because no clearly defined biblical distinction is made, and that's a pretty good reason. If DeHaan tries to find textual support for his wholly arbitrary differentiation, he'll find the only one with a problem is himself. If plucking ears of corn on the sabbath can be relegated to the "traditions of men" category, then so can just about every other OT mandate. As was noted by his biblical critics, Jesus plucked ears of corn on the sabbath in clear violation of the law, and that's about all that needs to be said on that subject without becoming involved in maze of rationalization and obfuscation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STEWART'S 99 QUESTIONS PEOPLE ASK MOST ABOUT THE BIBLE:
On page 17 in a book entitled 99 Questions People Ask Most About the Bible apologist Don Stewart says, "Jesus claimed to be the unique Son of God, God in human flesh. And he backed up his claim with the most remarkable event in history. He came back from the dead...." Actually, in light of other biblical feats, the resurrection was by no means remarkable. As has been noted in prior issues, many people rose from the dead both before and after Jesus. Christians never tire of extolling the Resurrection, even though it was surpassed by other accomplishments. It was not an exceptional event and the record clearly proves as much.
On page 27 Stewart says, "The Bible is a unity, one unfolding account from beginning to end in complete harmony and continuity." To that one can't help but reply: Read the book with a more discerning eye, my friend. If there is anything the Bible is not, it is harmonious.

Two pages later Stewart says, "Unfortunately, many who practice biblical criticism assume nothing in the Bible is true unless it is proved correct by some outside source. Scripture is assumed to be in error until some evidence can be brought up to substantiate its trustworthiness." Stewart's prejudice against biblical critics is all too obvious. The latter don't assume the Bible is erroneous throughout; in fact, they don't assume much of anything. But they do ask for proof. And when the only "proof" that is forthcoming in far too many instances is testimony from a book that is saturated with errors, contradictions, and supernatural events, they understandably discount its reliability. When I am told to believe in something by a book that is not only inconsistent but says people rose from the dead, sticks turned into snakes, donkey's talked, people walked on water and iron ax heads floated, you can understand my skepticism. Stewart does not hesitate to reject Greek, Roman, and Egyptian mythological literature when they speak of fantastic events. Yet he races to embrace Christian mythology, which is no less incredible.

Then Stewart says, "The benefit of the doubt should be given to the Bible, not to the critic, and the work should be assumed to be correct until some evidence is brought forth contradicting what has been said." Again we are confronted with the time-honored tactic so often exhibited by those of a superstitious/religious mentality--shift the burden of proof. Instead of proving their assertions are true, they claim the latter are valid until opponents can prove they aren't. As has been noted previously, if this position were credible, every crackpot theory imaginable would be valid until proven false. No, the burden of proof lies on him who alleges. Those who make an assertion are obligated to prove it is true; opponents are not obligated to prove it is false. And until proven valid; it's not to be accepted as true.

On page 80 Stewart states, "Today, no serious scholar doubts the existence of Jesus. The fact that Jesus lived is an established historical fact." Don't be ridiculous! It is by no means an established historical fact. A significant number of scholars doubt Jesus lived, not so much because they can prove he didn't, as that his adherents can't prove he did. After all, the burden of proof lies on the latter.

On the next page Stewart states, "... disciples were eventually transformed from cowards to martyrs. Because of the influence of Jesus, men's lives were radically altered." Stewart contends we shouldn't rely so heavily on extra-biblical information, when that is the only source of data he could possibly use to substantiate his martyrdom proposition. Nowhere does the Bible state that the disciples of Jesus were transformed from cowards to martyrs. That isn't biblically sustainable.

And finally, on page 91 Stewart says, "...every time Satan spoke, he lied." How does he square that comment with Luke 4:41, which says, "And devils came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God. And Jesus rebuking them suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ'." Or are we supposed to believe devils can tell the truth but The Devil cannot? And what about Gen. 3:4, in which The Devil told Eve she would not die on the day she ate the forbidden fruit? Since Eve relayed the message to Adam and he lived to be 930 years old after eating the fruit, it is safe to conclude the Devil told the truth.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


DIALOGUE AND DEBATE
Letter #575 from JL of Seattle, Washington (Part a)
Dear Dennis.
I read your commentary on audio tape #5 and had some questions/responses for you. Specifically, I tried three of your four objections to the resurrection on a fundamentalist Christian, and I would like to share with you the responses I got.

First, you ask, "Why should the resurrection be of any significance to begin with, when other people rose from the dead before Jesus." Here is the response I got:
"This question shows a lack of knowledge of the Bible's message about the resurrection of Jesus.... Unlike any others, Jesus was without sin and was the perfect sacrifice to satisfy God's justice regarding payment for the sins of the world. When Jesus died he died for the sins of others, not for his own sin, since he was sinless, and thus the only person not worthy of death. His resurrection was the crowning statement that the power of death (which is sin) had been broken, and that forgiveness of sins and eternal life could be granted based on faith in the work of Christ. Finally, all others who came back to life in the Bible eventually died again, whereas Jesus rose never to die again."
Editor's Response to Letter #575 (Part a)
Dear JL.
Your fundamentalist acquaintance is attempting to employ a subtle shift in focus to escape what is otherwise a cul-de-sac. The first part of his answer, which includes everything but the last sentence, focuses on information that isn't even relevant. What difference does it make if Jesus was sinless or died for the sins of others? We aren't discussing his death; we are discussing his resurrection. That's the issue. And if his resurrection "was the crowning statement that the power of death had been broken," then some of his predecessors broke the power of death as well. <
As far as the last sentence is concerned, he is attempting to link the resurrection to immaterial considerations. We are talking about the resurrection, per se, not factors relative to the character of the one being resurrected. Paul said it is the resurrection that matters, not the fact that Jesus never died again or was superior to those who rose before.
Incidentally, how does he know these people died again? That's not stated in scripture. Perhaps they went straight to heaven like Elijah in the chariot.
(TO BE CONCLUDED NEXT MONTH)

Letter #576 from DP of Ann Arbor, Michigan
Dear Dennis.
Congratulations on your fine work in BE. I look forward to examining the outcome of your association with Prometheus Books. I have one small criticism. You frequently say, as in Issue 135, page 4, "The burden of proof is on he who alleges."
I certainly agree with your meaning, but the pronoun should be "him", not "he". It's the object of the preposition "on" (the clause "who alleges" is an adjective clause modifying the objective pronoun him.) If the adjective clause modifying the pronoun is omitted, one can clearly see that the objective form of the pronoun is required. Your assertion could read: The burden of proof is on him who alleges. OR, if you prefer, The burden of proof is on the one who alleges (or the person who alleges). It's just a small point, but it makes English teachers and editors grind their teeth (I've been both of those). You are doing a brilliant job, a superlative job. Don't stop.

Editor's Response to Letter #576
Dear DP.
I thought "who" was merely a repeat of "he" and both were subjects of the verb "alleges". Apparently I'm mistaken, in view of the fact that other knowledgeable subscribers recently sent us correspondence corroborating your observation. Corrections of this nature are always welcome and accepted in a spirit of respect.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Letter #577 from JP of Portland, Oregon
Dear Dennis.
One of the members of the Atheist Community Center introduced me to your newsletter, and I think it's fabulous. Therefore, I'd like to subscribe for one year. Frankly, I am glad that somebody is telling the truth about a 2,000 year old storybook that should be burned, banned, recycled, or just plain thrown away.
Would you, by any chance, be a professional editor/writer? Your skills really shine in your newsletter. So by all means, keep up the work! I'm looking forward to my first issue.
P.S. I also wanted to say that people like yourself are living proof that the home entrepreneur is alive and well. Why didn't I think of this concept? Oh well!
Editor's Response to Letter #577
Your kind comments are most appreciated and although I am not a professional writer or editor, I'd enjoy either role.

Letter #578 from DW of Marietta, Georgia
Dear Dennis.
I received and read my free sample issue of "Biblical Errancy" and have a few comments. I like the content, I like the format, I like the length, I like the price and I admire your style, your courage and your intransigent approach -- SIGN ME UP!....