Those who trust in the finished work of Jesus Christ will NEVER face God’s judgment for their sin. Instead, God promises to clothe them in the perfect, pure, and spotless righteousness of Jesus Christ. The promise of God’s judgment in Hebrews 9:27 is followed by these beautiful words: “so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for Him” (9:28). No other religion will save you, because no other religion has a Saviour.

One True Judgment / Fundamentals of the Faith (Part III)

And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment…
(Hebrews 9:27)

In his 1971 hit single ‘Imagine,’ John Lennon sang the following lyrics: “Imagine there’s no heaven. It’s easy if you try. No hell below us. Above us, only sky.”
I think it’s fair to say that many Australians follow Lennon’s philosophy, particularly when it comes to hell. Many naturally find the concept of hell deeply troubling, and so it is easier to ‘imagine’ such a place does not exist at all.
Australians are happy with a God of love. However, we find it difficult to believe in a God who judges sinners by casting them into eternal, conscious torment.
Therefore, as a culture, we have decided it is socially unacceptable to speak of God’s judgment. In fact, we don’t even talk about death. It is offensive to our modern ears to speak about such things.
However, we need to stop and ask ourselves this:
“Why do we find death and hell so difficult to talk about?”
After all, you don’t get offended if someone talks about Santa punishing you with coal for being naughty. You don’t get offended if someone tells you that the Easter Bunny is running late.
You don’t get angry if someone mentions unicorns or the tooth fairy. We don’t get offended by things that we know are not true.
So, why is it that we find the idea of God’s judgment so deeply offensive to discuss? Why are we deeply unsettled by the idea of hell?
Could it be that deep-down, we all know that God’s judgment is a reality we must all, one day face?
Why Don’t We Talk About Death?
I think there are two reasons we don’t like to talk about death.
FIRST, when someone brings up the subject of death or God’s judgment, we are reminded of our mortality. We are reminded that we will not live forever, and this is scary. Death reminds us that we are not actually in control of our lives.
SECOND, death reminds us that we will be held accountable for the way we lived our lives. No sin will be left unpunished by the God who sees all. Death reminds us that there are consequences for our actions.
We Run Away from God
No one doubts the existence of God; rather, we suppress it (Rom 1:18). Just as a prisoner does not doubt the existence of the police, neither do we doubt the existence of God. We just run away from Him.
Every single person to have walked the planet (bar one) is guilty before the Living God.
Read More
Related Posts:

We really don’t have generalizable data on how widespread (or not) the practice [of unordained women serving as deaconesses] is in the PCA. How many churches have deaconesses? How many deaconesses are there in the PCA? The purpose of this project is not to pick a fight, but to shed light, in the hopes that it will lead to more productive debate at PCA General Assembly.

Overture 26 from Northwest Georgia presbytery proposes a change to chapter 7 of the Book of Church Order that would disallow unordained people from being “referred to as, or given the titles connected to, the ecclesial offices of pastor, elder, or deacon.” RE Brad Isbell wrote that the overture effectively addresses “a big ecclesial deal” and helps the PCA “get ahead of things for once,” since there seems to be some lack of clarity (or at least consistency) on the issue. More recently, Isbell provided some examples of the practice in the PCA. On the other side of the debate, TE Tim LeCroy warned of the coming fight with the “far right of our denomination”: “Watch out! Do you have unordained women serving as deaconesses?” But we really don’t have generalizable data on how widespread (or not) the practice is in the PCA.
How many churches have deaconesses? How many deaconesses are there in the PCA? The purpose of this project is not to pick a fight, but to shed light, in the hopes that it will lead to more productive debate at PCA General Assembly.
Method
We drew a random sample of presbyteries in the PCA, stratifying by US Census region. We stratified by region so that at least two presbyteries were chosen from each region to ensure geographic representation. We sampled more presbyteries in the South region, a region densely populated with PCA churches and presbyteries. Random sampling is important because it allows for generalizable inference. Randomization is important because, since each presbytery had an equally likely chance of being chosen, it allows us to say that our findings are generalizable within a certain margin of error. This method is similar to what pollsters using during election season to claim that a candidate is polling at some level, plus or minus some margin of error.
We also drew a random sample of presbyteries from two sister denominations in the North America Presbyterian and Reformed Council (NAPARC): the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) and the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (RPCNA). Since these denominations are smaller, we did not do a stratified randomization. In total, we sampled 14 presbyteries from the PCA, 4 presbyteries from the OPC, and 2 presbyteries from the RPCNA (see Table 1). These sister denominations are good comparisons for this analysis for a few reasons: (1) the PCA has fraternal relations with both of them; (2) they share doctrinal standards (Westminster); (3) the PCA and OPC do not allow for deaconesses as an ordained office, while the RPCNA does.

Table 1. Presbyteries sampled for analysis

US Census Region
Presbyteries
Denomination

South
James River
PCA

South
Central Florida
PCA

South
Tidewater
PCA

South
South Florida
PCA

South
Central Carolina
PCA

South
Georgia Foothills
PCA

South
Metro Atlanta
PCA

West
Canada West
PCA

West
Pacific
PCA

West
Pacific Northwest
PCA

Northeast
Westminster
PCA

Northeast
Ascension
PCA

Midwest
Ohio Valley
PCA

Midwest
Great Lakes
PCA

Northeast
New York and New England
OPC

West
Southern California
OPC

Northeast
New Jersey
OPC

Midwest
Ohio
OPC

Midwest
Midwest
RPCNA

Northeast/South
Alleghenies
RPCNA

Together, these 20 presbyteries have 465 congregations. We excluded 36 churches from our analysis if no functioning website could be found or if the website was predominantly in a language other than English. We retained over 90% of all churches sampled in each of the three denominations.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of church websites

PCA
OPC
RPCNA

Presbyteries sampled
14
4
2

Congregations in sample
319
101
45

Congregations excluded
25
10
1

Total churches in analysis
294
91
44

% churches in analysis
92.2%
90.1%
97.8%

Website information

% TE only
17.0%
20.9%
20.5%

% TE/RE only
21.1%
46.2%
40.9%

% TE and Staff only
16.3%
1.1%
0.0%

% Deaconesses
4.1%
0.0%
13.6%

% No deacons, no deaconesses
50.0%
51.6%
59.1%

The purpose was to capture what is clearly portrayed on each church’s website, rather than to conduct a deep investigation into each church’s website. As such, we typically spent no more than 30 seconds per website to count the number of Teaching Elders (TEs), Ruling Elders (REs), deacons, and deaconesses, typically summarized on a “Leadership” or “Officers and Staff” page.
To be counted as a deaconess, a website had to explicitly identify the woman as a deaconess. Ours is therefore a very conservative estimate because if there were ever any reason not to count a woman as a deaconess, we did not count her. Deaconess with parenthetical note? Nope. Mercy team? Nope. Women to pastors? Nope.
Limitations
Before we proceed to share what we found, the reader should keep in mind that this kind of research is subject to several limitations.
Because the practice of having ordained deaconesses is de jure not allowed in the PCA and the practice of having unordained deaconesses is contested (see this year’s Overture 26, for example), PCA churches may be pressured not to report deaconesses, even if the practice is de facto in place. Indeed, many of the websites we found mentioned “deaconesses” or “women on the diaconate” without listing the number or names. These churches were coded as having zero deaconesses for the purpose of our analysis. As such, we suspect that our findings are a lower bound estimate, underreporting the practice in the PCA.

Our method does not allow us to account for churches that forgo ordination of deacons and commission “mercy ministry teams” in lieu of a diaconate (e.g., Evergreen Church). or in addition to a diaconate (e.g., Christ Presbyterian in Santa Barbara, CA). These were not counted in our data. Others list deaconesses with a clarifying note that these are not considered ordained officers (e.g., University Reformed Church).
Different readers will come to different conclusions about our assessment of titles and practices, so we expect there will be competing views about the inferences that can be drawn from the data. Nonetheless, we believe it will be helpful to both sides of the debate to have some data on the issue.
Findings

PCA churches have nearly as many publicly listed deaconesses on average as the RPCNA, a denomination that allows for women to hold the office, but the practice is less widespread in the PCA.

In our website searches, we found that PCA churches have 0.19 deaconesses listed on their websites on average while RPCNA churches have 0.27 deaconesses listed on their websites on average. However, only one in twenty-five PCA churches listed deaconesses and six presbyteries did not have any deaconesses (Ascension, Canada West, Georgia Foothills, Ohio Valley, Tidewater, and Westminster), while the practice was almost three times as common in the RPCNA. The PCA churches listing deaconesses had 4.3 deaconesses on average and RPCNA churches doing the same had 2.0 deaconesses on average. The 101 OPC churches in total listed zero deaconesses on their websites.

2. PCA churches are more likely to give the impression of being “staff led” and OPC and RPCNA churches are more likely to give the impression of being “officer led.”
This is not to say that PCA churches are not in practice “officer led,” but as far as what is reported on their websites, they are more likely to give the impression of being “staff led.” A smaller proportion of PCA churches list only a TE on their websites (17%) than either OPC churches (21%) or RPCNA churches (21%). Similarly, a smaller proportion of PCA churches list only elders (ruling or teaching) on their websites (21%) than either OPC churches (46%) or RPCNA churches (41%). In contrast, PCA churches are more likely to list only TEs and staff (16%) than either OPC churches (one church) or RPCNA churches (zero churches).

3. The practice of having deaconesses appears to be common in some presbyteries, less prevalent in others.
On average, most churches in our analytic sample list between one and two TEs, two and four REs, and two and four deacons. There are, of course, some exceptions to that rule. Churches in Central Carolina and Tidewater had over five ruling elders on average and, in the latter presbytery, over six deacons on average. Much of this variation is explained by church size and membership.
There is more variation when it comes to having deaconesses. It should come as no surprise that not all presbyteries are the same with respect to this practice. Six presbyteries in our sample did not have a single deaconess listed on their churches’ websites (Ascension, Canada West, Georgia Foothills, Ohio Valley, Tidewater, and Westminster). Metro Atlanta had the most, with 0.79, followed by Central Florida (0.34), Pacific Northwest (0.28), and Great Lakes (0.19).
Matthew Lee is a ruling elder at Covenant Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Fayetteville, AR, where Liam Carr serves as a deacon.
Related Posts:

The gospel is the power of God for salvation and the gathering of God’s people where the Word is rightly preached, the ordinances are rightly observed, and the saints are rightly taught, equipped, and sent out to make disciples is sufficient to accomplish all that God intends. The question is, will we believe God’s message and God’s methodology? Or will we be double-minded men?

Somewhere in seminary I was introduced to The Gospel Blimp (1967), a made-for-television adaptation of Joseph Bayly’s book by the same name (circa 1950s). For those who do not know Joseph Bayly, he was a Christian editor, author, and satirist that would make the brothers at the Babylon Bee proud. And I lead with his classic film, not because it possessed the best acting or cinematography, but because of its important warning: The works man cannot accomplish the works of God. 
More specifically, the book lampoons the way Christians, especially evangelicals, employ all kinds of gimmicks in order to preach the gospel. Yet, such gimmicks, Jesus junk, and revivalist tactics actual deny the power of the gospel and the wisdom of God that they claim to believe.
What is the wisdom of God? What is a demonstration of God’s power? How should we herald God’s truth?
According to Paul the wisdom of God is found in the preaching of the gospel (1 Corinthians 1-2) and the gathering of the church (Ephesians 3). In other words, the most effective ways for evangelism are not the schemes and strategies of men, nor are they the “God showed me” ideas of eager Christians. Instead, God’s strategy is laid down in Scripture. God’s plan is simple: disciples making disciples, by means of the regular preaching of the Word, the sharing of the gospel, prayer, and suffering.
Historically, this approach to limiting ministry to the regular means of grace has been referred to as the regulative principle. The regulative principle of worship affirms the all-sufficient wisdom of God’s Word and seeks to practice only what is commanded in Scripture. By contrast, the normative principle of worship has granted more freedom of expression, whatever Scripture does not forbid is thereby permitted.
Obviously, these are principles for church worship are derived from Scripture; they are not absolute mandates found in Scripture. That said, they provide a helpful rubric for thinking about what we do in church and what we don’t. So to help understand these principles, let me offer a few definitions and then return to the main point—that we should avoid gospel gimmicks and stick to the simple wisdom proclaiming the Word and gathering the people.
The Regulative Principle
In his Dictionary of Theological Terms (377–78), Alan Cairns defines the regulative principle in this way, “The theory of church government and worship that stipulates that not only church doctrine but also church practice, must be based on clear scriptural warrant.” That is his one-sentence definition, and it helps us to see that the regulative principle is one that stands on the whole counsel of God and calls the church to avoid creativity in worship or ministry.
Historically, this is the approach of the Reformed tradition as set out in the Westminster Confession, which Cairns cites as he gives a brief history of the regulative principle
[The regulative principle] is the position laid down in the Westminster Confession of Faith and is the opposite of the normative principle espoused by Lutherans and Anglicans.
In its statement on the Holy Scriptures the Confession says, “The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or, by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge … that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed” (chap. 1, sec. 6).
In its chapter on “Religious Worship and the Sabbath” the Confession applies these general principles to the particulars of worship and practice: “The acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture” (chap. 21, sec. 1).
These balanced statements avoid the extreme of allowing into the church’s worship and government whatever is not expressly forbidden in the Word and the opposite extreme of demanding that every detail of our practice should have an explicit command of Scripture before it is allowable. Many things—e.g., the time and frequency of church services, the particular order of service in public worship, the length of services and sermons, the taking of minutes in session meetings, etc.—are not given us in Scripture.
Read More