Lordship Salvation

By the grace of God, when we come to faith in Christ as our Savior, we are coming to him to save us from both the guilt and power of sin. No one prays, “Lord save me from guilt and wrath but please leave me under sin’s power.” Right? That would be a clear indication of an unregenerate heart. So the very act of coming to Christ as Savior encompasses his Lordship. Wanting Christ to save us from sin’s power reveals that the Spirit has wrought repentance in that person.

Looked at from this perspective, Lordship salvation is undeniable.

– John Hendryx

Faith and Works in the Covenant of Works and Grace

How Faith and Works Operate in the Covenant of Works and in the Covenant of Grace – Francis Turretin

“Nor can it be objected here that faith was required also in the first covenant and works are not excluded in the second …. They stand in a far different relation. For in the first covenant, faith was required as a work and a part of the inherent righteousness to which life was promised. But in the second, it is demanded―not as a work on account of which life is given, but as a mere instrument apprehending the righteousness of Christ (on account of which alone salvation is granted to us). In the one, faith was a theological virtue from the strength of nature, terminating on God, the Creator; in the other, faith is an evangelical condition after the manner of supernatural grace, terminating on God, the Redeemer. As to works, they were required in the first as an antecedent condition by way of a cause for acquiring life; but in the second, they are only the subsequent condition as the fruit and effect of the life already acquired.”

This quote is taken from Dr. Robert Godfrey’s lecture on Church History (made available by Ligonier Ministries) entitled “A Survey of Church History, Part 4 A.D. 1600-1800 Scholastic Theology” starting around the 7:25 mark. The quote comes from Francis Turretin’s Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Twelfth Topic, Q. 4, #7, 2:191-92.

Starting Reformation Sunday

LOOK WHAT THE LORD HAS DONE!

Having outgrown our present location at Palos Verdes…

STARTING SUNDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2018 – REFORMATION SUNDAY

KING’S CHURCH WILL HAVE A NEW MEETING PLACE!

13450 N. Plaza Del Rio Blvd, Peoria, AZ 85381 (Close to the 101 Freeway, just south of Thunderbird Road)

We will be using the beautiful facilities of Grace in the Desert Adventist Church, every Sunday and Wednesday.

Plenty of parking – the sanctuary comfortably seats 300 people – just 4.3 miles south of our current location.

Meeting times remain unchanged:

SUNDAY SERVICES: (Adult) Sunday School: 9:30 a.m. Worship: 10:30 a.m.

WEDNESDAY: Bible Study/Prayer: 7:00 p.m.

The Key to a Good Night’s Sleep

Article: Psalm 4: The Key to a Good Night’s Sleep By Ross Lester. (original source here). Ross lives in Blairgowrie, Johannesburg with his wife Sue and young son, Daniel. He is lead pastor and elder at Bryanston Bible Church.

For the choir director; on stringed instruments. A Psalm of David.

1 Answer me when I call, O God of my righteousness!
You have relieved me in my distress;
Be gracious to me and hear my prayer.
2 O sons of men, how long will my honor become a reproach?
How long will you love what is worthless and aim at deception? Selah.
3 But know that the LORD has set apart the godly man for Himself;
The LORD hears when I call to Him.
4 Tremble, and do not sin;
Meditate in your heart upon your bed, and be still. Selah.
5 Offer the sacrifices of righteousness,
And trust in the LORD.
6 Many are saying, “Who will show us any good?”
Lift up the light of Your countenance upon us, O LORD!
7 You have put gladness in my heart,
More than when their grain and new wine abound.
8 In peace I will both lie down and sleep,
For You alone, O LORD, make me to dwell in safety.

Reflection:
Psalm 3 and Psalm 4 are said to be a pair that are intended to go together. They function as bookends for a day. Psalm 3 is a Psalm for the morning (which is probably why it is so angry), and Psalm 4 is a song for the evening. A lullaby, if you like; a soothing song to hum along to before you fall asleep.

Do you ever struggle to sleep? The key to a good night’s sleep, according to David, is to know that what God thinks about your right standing before him is way more important than what you or others believe about it. In verse 1 of the Psalm, David uses a name for God that isn’t used anywhere else in Scripture. He calls him “God of my righteousness.” Now, because it is such a unique term in the Scripture, there is a lot of argument about how best to express it. C.H. Spurgeon was fascinated by the term, and he explained it this way:

It means, Thou art the author, the witness, the maintainer, the judge, and the rewarder of my righteousness; to thee I appeal from the calumnies and harsh judgments of men. Herein is wisdom, let us imitate it and always take our suit, not to the petty courts of human opinion, but into the superior court, the King’s Bench of heaven. (The Treasury of David, Vol 1, Pg. 34)

As David was being pursued by forces led by his son Absalom, he was having a lot of accusations thrown at him. They must have kept him up at night. “You are a sham, David. You were a lousy king. Remember what you did with Bathsheba? Even your own son hates you.”

I reckon that a lot of us have voices of accusation that keep us up at night. I don’t know what they sound like to you, but I certainly experience them at times in my life. Continue reading

Concerning God’s Will

This article is adapted from “In His Image: 10 Ways God Calls Us to Reflect His Character” by Jen Wilkin.

Discerning God’s Will
For the believer wanting to know God’s will for her life, the first question to pose is not “What should I do?” but “Who should I be?”

Perhaps you’ve tried to use the Bible to answer the question “What should I do?” Facing a difficult decision, perhaps you’ve meditated for hours on a psalm or a story in the Gospels, asking God to show you how it speaks to your current dilemma. Perhaps you’ve known the frustration of hearing silence, or worse, of acting on a hunch or “leading” only to find later that you apparently had not heard the Lord’s will. I know that process better than I’d like to admit, and I also know the shame that accompanies it—the sense that I’m tone-deaf to the Holy Spirit, that I’m terrible at discovering God’s will.

But God does not hide his will from his children. As an earthly parent, I do not tell my kids, “There is a way to please me. Let’s see if you can figure out what it is.” If I do not conceal my will from my earthly children, how much more our heavenly Father? His will does not need discovering. It is in plain sight. To see it we need to start asking the question that deals with his primary concern. We need to ask, “Who should I be?”

Start with the Heart
Of course, the questions “What should I do?” and “Who should I be?” are not unrelated. But the order in which we ask them matters. If we focus on our actions without addressing our hearts, we may end up merely as better behaved lovers of self.

Think about it. What good is it for me to choose the right job if I’m still consumed with selfishness? What good is it for me to choose the right home or spouse if I’m still eaten up with covetousness? What does it profit me to make the right choice if I’m still the wrong person? A lost person can make “good choices.” But only a person indwelt by the Holy Spirit can make a good choice for the purpose of glorifying God.

The hope of the gospel in our sanctification is not simply that we would make better choices, but that we would become better people. This is the hope that caused John Newton to pen, “I once was lost but now am found, was blind, but now I see.” It is what inspires the apostle Paul to speak of believers “being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another” (2 Cor. 3:18). The gospel teaches us that the grace that is ours through Christ is, by the work of the Spirit, transforming us increasingly into someone better. But not just anyone better.

The gospel begins transforming us into who we should have been. It re-images us. Want to know what it should have been like to be human? Look to the only human who never sinned.

Sexuality, Idolatry and Such

Article: Revoice and the “Idolatry” of the Nuclear Family by Richard Phillips, senior minister of Second Presbyterian Church in Greenville, SC. He has been the chairman of the Philadelphia Conference on Reformed Theology since 2000 and is series co-editor of the Reformed Expository Commentary series (P&R). (original source here)

When the Obergefell case was argued before the US Supreme Court to establish the right to gay marriage, many saw little threat to religious liberty. It became clear, however, that the approval of same-sex marriage would in fact result in the delegitimizing of the Christian view of sexuality and marriage in American society. Justice Samuel Alito noted that far from merely establishing equal protection to competing views, the official approval of gay marriage would “vilify those who disagree, and treat them as bigots.”

Something similar now seems to be taking place within the “gay Christian” circles of the church, as evidenced by the recent Revoice conference held at Memorial Presbyterian Church (PCA) in St. Louis. One of the surprising claims to come out of this conference was made by Revoice president Dr. Nate Collins. In his address titled “Lament,” Collins suggested that the homosexual community be compared to Old Testament prophets like Jeremiah. “Is it possible,” he asked, “that gay people today are being sent by God, like Jeremiah, to find God’s words for the church. . . [and] shed light on contemporary false teachings and even idolatries?”

The question can be raised as to whether there is a genuine analogy, as Collins sees it, between the poor oppressed of Israel in the days of Jeremiah and the homosexual community today which is joined not only by the afflictions of sin but also by a shared temptation to sin. But more significantly, when Collins goes on to identify the false teachings exposed by “sexual minorities,” he states that the presence of gay people in the church constitutes “a prophetic call to the church to abandon idolatrous attitudes toward the nuclear family.”1

I place Collins’ comments beside the effects of the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision because they share a significant common feature. As Justice Alito pointed out, the right to gay marriage not only grants a freedom to one view but also denies freedom to its opposite. Likewise, the vision of human sexuality espoused by Revoice not only conflicts with but also excludes the biblical vision for sexuality and human society.

In both cases, Obergefell and Revoice, this collision is inevitable since the normalizing of homosexual behavior/desires demands a radical revision of human life. The Bible says that God created mankind “male and female” (Gen. 1:27) and then placed them in the covenant union of marriage involving a man and a woman. “It is not good for the man to be alone,” the Lord noted, and in direct response to this assessment he created the first woman (Gen. 2:18-22).

In contrast, a major theme of Revoice is that homosexual desires existed before the fall and are not in themselves necessarily sinful. Yet as we consider what the Bible says, homosexual desire has no way to fit into Genesis 2 and thus the ordering of human relations by our Creator. There is no male-to-male or female-to-female sexuality in God’s created design. Furthermore, Genesis 2 views the creation of nuclear families not as idolatry but as a vitally significant way in which man’s purpose in life is fulfilled. The words, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” (Gen. 1:28), described not the worship of a false god but obedient faith in the one true God. If the fulfilling of mankind’s creation mandate involves idolatry, then the world created by God must inevitably be a different one from that which is described in Genesis 1 and 2. Therefore, if there is a prophetic call from those who seek to normalize homosexual desires, its message is that the Bible’s view of humanity and life must be recast according to the agenda of “sexual minorities.”

There are many reasons to have sympathy with the aims expressed by the Revoice conference, especially the genuine sorrows of those who experience same-sex attraction. But the doctrine of Revoice is not one that biblically faithful Christians can afford to view with sympathy. Either the biblical view of humanity, sex, marriage, and society is right or else it is wrong. Likewise, if gays represent a prophetic voice challenging the church to conform, then it is the traditionally understood Christian view of sex and marriage that comes under rebuke. It is for this reason that the PCA cannot afford either to endorse the Revoice message or even to stand by inactive as conferences like these are held in our churches. If the Bible is true, right, wholesome, and good, then the doctrine of Revoice must not be embraced, nor permitted in the counsels of the church. What is at stake in this controversy is nothing less than the commitment of our denomination to the truth of God’s Word and our embrace of the Scripture’s view of life and godliness.

1. Revoice 2018, General Session 2: Lament (starting at the 36:30 mark).

False Assumptions about Science

Article: “3 False Assumptions About Science” by Leah Baugh, staff writer at Core Christianity and Associate Editor of Bible Studies at White Horse Inn. She received a Bachelor of Arts in Chemistry before turning to theology and receiving a Master of Arts in Biblical Studies and a Master of Arts in Theological Studies. (original source here)

Our modern society celebrates reason and rationality as the pinnacle of man’s virtue and ability. Particularly the field of science has been influenced greatly by the idolization of reason and logic as the source of all meaningful and true knowledge. The scientific method in particular has claimed rational superiority to any other method of determining reality. It is this superiority that has been used to exclude religion or faith as a viable mode of knowledge. Science has often been used to push God out of the picture.

Part of the reason science and God seem incompatible is a misunderstanding of what exactly “science” means. Unless you’ve worked in a scientific field of study, it can be easy to simply trust the experts without knowing how to check their conclusions yourself. There are several things to note when evaluating science and what it claims to say about faith, God, and this world. Briefly, here are three false assumptions about science.

1. Scientific conclusions are made up completely of empirical facts.
The results of hypothesizing and experimenting do not just produce objective facts. The information gained through the scientific method must be interpreted and can be interpreted falsely. Physicist John Polkinghorne writes,

In the first case, the facts that concern scientists are already interpreted facts. Most of the time you can’t see directly what’s happening. You have to infer it from the things you can see, and that inference requires the use of theoretical interpretation. (Quarks, Chaos, and Christianity, 2-3)

He goes on to say that scientific conclusions are usually a mix of fact and opinion. Because of the interpretive element of the scientist, most scientific conclusions have a measure of uncertainty inherent in them.

2. The scientific method is the best method for gaining knowledge about everything.
Traditionally, science has made four claims about itself: rationality, truth, objectivity, and realism. However, these claims have been under attack, and the consensus about the ability of science to fulfill all four of these claims varies widely among scientists. The rationality of a scientific conclusion can be examined by looking at the presuppositions, evidence, and logic that went into reaching that conclusion. However, the bigger question to ask is what is the scientific method used for?

While this assumption is necessary for science to work, this presupposition itself both supports and limits science. Author Marilyn Robinson states the problem:

While the assumption of the intelligibility of the universe is still useful, it is not appropriately regarded as a statement of doctrine, and should never have been. Science of the kind I criticize tends to assert that everything is explicable, that whatever has not been explained will be explained—and, furthermore, by their methods” (The Givenness of Things, 14).

The mysteries of the human mind, the human self, history, and religion all operate outside of the basic assumption science makes in order to operate. The principle that everything is knowable only by this specific methodology is like assuming that everything can be measured by tablespoons. John Polkinghorne writes, “Science makes maps of the physical world that are reliable for some, but not every, purpose” (Quarks, Chaos, and Christianity, 7).

Limitations of science actually come from within science itself. The best example of this is Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Basically, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle says that you cannot simultaneously know where a particle is and what it is doing. This is just one example of the strange world we find ourselves in that sometimes is rational and predictable and other times completely bucks our theories.

3. Science determines what is possible and not possible in our world.
The other fundamental problem is that science of the kind I have been talking about captures the realm of possibility and severely restricts it. Marilyn Robinson writes, “Possibility has been captive to a narrow definition for a very long time, ourselves with it” (The Givenness of Things, 14). If we assume science is the only way to determine not only what does happen but what can happen, then our view of the world is extremely narrow. A purely naturalistic explanation of the world cannot satisfy every aspect of human life. The mind, consciousness, self-awareness, and human history refuse to be captured by a purely materialistic definition.

In many ways, the great success of science has expanded our models of reality to include multiple worlds, realms, and dimensions. This expansion only cements further the realization that our planet is radically exceptional and that “our capacity for awareness is therefore parochial in ways and degrees we cannot begin to estimate.” (The Givenness of Things, 14).

With these considerations in mind, science can be used and supported for what it is and for the good it can achieve in helping us understand our world. Trouble arises, however, when scientism exceeds the limits of its reference and purpose. We must be willing to lift our eyes above the horizon of purely naturalistic explanations as we seek to understand the complex and multidimensional world we find ourselves in.