This is Part Two of my list of best books in 2024. In Part One I listed numbers six through ten. Since I chose to interact more extensively with the next one on my list, I will have at least one more article to complete the list of ten.
(5) Daily Doctrine: A One-Year Guide to Systematic Theology, by Kevin DeYoung (Wheaton: Crossway, 2024), 409pp.
Kevin has provided the church with a superb compilation of Christian truths that will be much more accessible to the average Christian than the typical systematic theology text. This book has 260 entries that cover virtually every topic addressed in Scripture, and some that are not explicitly mentioned in the Bible. Each entry is substantive, but can be read in less than five minutes, making for a “Daily” diet of biblical truth.
I regard Kevin as a good friend, but I must mention a few areas where I found myself in disagreement with his position. The areas where I differ with him do not pertain to what I call foundational doctrines. These are secondary issues (some are tertiary) and thus are not of the level of importance that require heated dispute.
First, I simply cannot embrace the traditional notion of the impassibility of God. Kevin acknowledges that “of all the classical attributes, impassibility is the one most likely to be rejected by contemporary Christians” (53). He insists that “God does not suffer” (53) but does not define what suffering entails. If by denying that God “suffers” he means that God is not affected, displeased, or angry in the presence of human sin and idolatry, I must disagree. His appeal to the biblical use of “anthropopathisms” (“describing God as having human emotions”, 53) does not settle the issue. I agree with him that God does not “feel” the way we feel. But God still feels, in ways that are appropriate to his divine nature.
We all affirm the presence in Scripture of anthropomorphisms in which God is portrayed as having human form or body parts (see Exodus 7:5; Numbers 6:25; Psalm 34:15). Of course, we know these are not to be taken literally because Scripture repeatedly tells us that God is spirit (John 4:24, among others). When Scripture says that God has eyes, we know it means that he sees or is aware of all things. When it speaks of God’s ears, we rejoice to know that he hears our prayers. God’s strong right arm or his hand is designed to remind us that he is all-powerful and can be trusted to protect us and vanquish our enemies.
But nowhere does Scripture say that God’s anger (Deut. 1:37) or feelings of pity (Judges 2:18) or pleasure (Ps. 147:11) refer to something other than real anger, pity, or pleasure. In other words, there is no further truth in mind when we say God feels delight. It simply means he feels delight. Likewise, in Isaiah 63:9, we read: “In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them; in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; he lifted them up and carried them all the days of old.”
Charles Spurgeon clearly did not believe in divine impassibility as it is currently being espoused:
“We have been educated to the idea that the Lord is above emotions, either of sorrow or pleasure. That He cannot suffer, for instance, is always laid down as a self-evident postulate. . . . For my part, I rejoice to worship the living God, who, because He is living, does grieve and rejoice! . . . To look upon Him as utterly impassive and incapable of anything like emotion does not, to my mind, exalt the Lord, but rather brings Him down to be comparable to the gods of stone or wood which cannot sympathize with their worshippers.”
My fear is that impassibility is an example of how people allow their theological concepts to mute the voice of Scripture. I simply cannot dismiss as an “anthropopathism” the countless times Scripture refers to God as being “pleased” or “displeased” by Christian behavior. Kevin writes that “God is not made to feel by forces outside of himself” (53). But this implies that God is not affected by how we live and think and behave. To say that he “feels” certain emotions or affections as a result of human actions is not a threat to his independence or sovereignty. The very name of God is “jealous” (Exod. 34:14; 20:5). Granted, his jealousy is pure and righteous and altogether justified whereas ours is often the fruit of bitterness and resentment and pride. But that doesn’t mean God doesn’t genuinely “feel” jealous when his glory is stolen by idolatrous worship.
And how should we interpret Ephesians 4:30 which speaks of our sin as grieving the Holy Spirit? Something we do, such as persist in unrepentant sin, causes pain or distress in the Holy Spirit who dwells within. If this is nothing more than an anthropopathism, what then does it mean? Well, enough on that for now.
Second, Kevin endorses a form of the so-called “cluster” argument, according to which biblical miracles were concentrated or clustered at certain stages of redemptive history. This idea has been thoroughly debunked by Jack Deere (see his book, Why I Am Still Surprised by the Power of the Spirit, 289-305) and yours truly and I’m surprised that Kevin would cite it in his treatment of the miraculous. A simple reading of Genesis, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 Kings 1-16, 1 Chronicles 12-21, 2 Chronicles 7-28, Daniel, and the Minor Prophets will prove that miracles of a wide variety were consistently present throughout the OT narrative (and not just clustered during the time of Moses/Joshua, Elijah/Elisha, and Jesus).
Third, Kevin is also a cessationist, and for all the wrong reasons. Since I’ve written extensively on this in the past, I will forego repeating myself here.
Fourth, as expected, Kevin endorses the regulative principle of worship. My book on worship will be published by Zondervan in the early fall of 2025, in which I critique the regulative principle as practically unworkable. I advocate what is known as the normative principle of worship.
Fifth, I must take exception to Kevin’s belief that only “ordained shepherds of the congregation” (318), by which he means Elders (and possibly Deacons) can administer the sacrament of baptism. The simple fact is that there is no explicit statement in the NT that says this. Furthermore, how, then, are we to explain the baptism of “about three thousand souls” on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:41)? At that time, there were no Elders or Deacons and they were saved without any explicit relation to a local church. Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:36-38). There is no explicit reference to Philip being “ordained,” yet he baptized, and also outside the parameters of a local church. And Peter “commanded” (Acts 10:48) others to baptize Cornelius and his companions when they came to faith. I see no definitive reason why Christians other than so-called “ordained shepherds” cannot baptize those who come to faith.
Sixth, as a Presbyterian, Kevin of course advocates infant baptism. As a theological (but not denominational) baptist, I do not.
Please don’t let these minor disagreements hinder you from obtaining and reading Kevin’s book. It is excellent, clear, and will prove to be a blessing to all who read it.
To be continued . . .
1 Comment
harv Jan 13, 2025 @ 8:55 am
Write a Comment
Comments for this post have been disabled.