“And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” Matthew 25:46
Over the last fifty years a small, but vocal, group of evangelical theologians have questioned the eternality of Hell. It appears that their primary motive has been to give precedence to the love of God over and against God’s divine justice. This has led to the emergence of a number of erroneous doctrines that have typically been promoted by various sects, cults, and apostate churches. Here are four examples:
The false belief that an individual’s length of suffering in Hell is conditional (i.e. annihilationism). The specific error is that once a person has suffered enough for their sins in Hell they are simply annihilated by God (i.e. “they cease to be”). The Jehovah’s Witnesses are a typical example of those who hold to this falsehood.
The false belief that a person’s immortality is based upon one’s good works (i.e. conditional immortality). In other words, God grants immortality to the righteous, but withholds it from the unrighteous. Those sects who believe in a “works righteousness” path to salvation exemplify this false teaching.
The false belief that all individuals, even the devil and the demons, will ultimately be saved (i.e. universalism). Liberal Protestants who have rejected the doctrine of sin and the necessity of the New Birth oftentimes believe in universalism. Consequently they reject God’s holiness, his divine justice, and the Bible’s teaching of a future Judgement Day.
The false belief that following death there is an intermediate state where one can become “fit for Heaven” (i.e. an evangelical purgatory). Typically, the Roman Catholic Church has been the primary group who has taught that a person’s spiritual condition could be “improved” after death. This falsehood is in direct conflict with the teaching of the Bible (Lk. 16:26-27; 2 Cor. 5:10; Heb. 9:27). Sadly, some evangelical theologians have fallen into this error as well.
None of the four errors listed above is orthodox (i.e. “the straight and true way”) in any manner. Instead, they must all be labeled as heterodox (i.e. “a different or an erroneous way”). Hence, the church of Jesus Christ must courageously “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) by rejecting these errors. God’s Word is abundantly clear on this subject in numerous Old and New Testament citations. Here are two examples from the teaching of our Lord, Jesus Christ–Matthew 25:41, 46; and Mark 9:42-48.
One of the clearest passages, in my opinion, is Jesus’ statement in the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 25:41, 46) when he describes the eternal destiny of the “sheep” (i.e. the righteous) and the “goats” (i.e. the wicked). Both groups are sent away by the Lord to their eternal destiny–to Heaven, or to Hell. Jesus emphatically states, “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” (vs. 41)…”And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”(vs. 46). Notice how Jesus uses the word eternal (Gk. aionios) to refer to both “punishment” and “life.” Dr. James I. Packer comments on the repeated use of “eternal” by Jesus. He persuasively writes,
Dr. J. I. Packer (1926-2020)
“‘Eternal punishment’ is Jesus’ own phrase. It comes from the passage that pictures the day of judgment in terms of the Son of Man, now returned as King, separating the sheep from goats (that is, two classes of human beings from each other). To the goats his word is: ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for devil and his angels…Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life’ (Mt. 25:41, 46). ‘Eternal’ in these phrases is aionios, meaning, as has often been pointed out, not ‘endless,’ but pertaining to the age to come,’ as distinct from the order of things that now is. However, the age to come, as Jesus and the Jews conceived it, was to be unending; therefore aionios implies the unending continuance of that to which it refers, unless something is said to show the contrary. In vs. 46, Jesus’ statement about the eternal life into which the sheep enter and the eternal punishment into which the goats go is clearly a conscious parallelism on his part; so if eternal life is taken to be unending, as surely it must be, the only natural supposition is that eternal punishment is unending also.”
— Dr. J. I. Packer, The Problem of Eternal Punishment, 3
Packer’s argument that the destiny of the “sheep” and the “goats” is “a conscious parallelism” is a compelling and persuasive statement. I strongly agree with his exegesis. Moreover, J. I. Packer expresses his alarm for the growth and acceptance of conditionalism (i.e. annihilation) by some theologians within the evangelical church. He passionately contends that this error must be rejected. Packer forces the issue into the forefront of our thought through a serious of rhetorical questions. He asks,
“Are the biblical foundations of conditionalism secure? I think not. Does it matter whether an evangelical is a conditionalist or not? I think it does: for a conditionalist’s idea of God will miss out on the glory of divine justice, and his idea of worship will miss out on praise for God’s judgments, and his ideas of heaven will miss out on the thought that praise for God’s judgments goes on (cf. Rev. 16:5-7, 19:1-5), and his ideas of man will miss out on the awesome dignity of our having been made to last for eternity, and in his preaching of the gospel he will miss out on telling the unconverted that their prospects without Christ are as bad as they possibly could be—for on the conditionalist view they aren’t! These, surely, are sad losses. Conditionalism, logically thought through, cannot but impoverish a Christian man, and limit his usefulness to the Lord. That is why I am concerned about the current trend towards conditionalism. I hope it may soon be reversed.”
— Dr. J. I. Packer, The Problem of Eternal Punishment, 14
Beyond Jesus’ sermon in the Olivet Discourse there is another significant passage in the New Testament. In particular, Dr. Robert A. Peterson comments on Jesus’ teaching on Hell in Mark 9:42-48. He explains,
Dr. Robert A. Peterson (b. 1948)
“Jesus’ vivid description of hell merits study. He says that hell is a place “where the fire never goes out” (vs. 43), thereby distinguishing the fires of hell from those on earth, all of which die. Even mighty forest fires, which may burn for weeks, eventually burn out. Hell-fire, however, is inextinguishable. It is unwise to press Jesus’ words concerning the fires of hell by asking about the temperature of the flames, for example. His main point is crystal clear: the pains of hell last forever. Jesus reinforces this point at the end of the passage when he again warns of being cast “into hell, where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched” (vv. 47-48). The Redeemer here depicts hell in the words of Isaiah 66:24.”
— Dr. Robert Peterson, Hell on Trial, 63
Hence, we find by a brief examination of Jesus’ teaching that the eternality of both Heaven and Hell is clearly taught in the Bible. Other passages could certainly be examined, but it is sufficient for the believer to understand that the unrighteous will be tormented in Hell for an eternity. Even though this teaching may be unsettling to some, it must be admitted that it is clearly taught by the Lord Jesus Christ. Moreover, it is consistent with the character of God–in that all of his divine attributes must be equally held, and not one placed over another. Therefore, God is loving, gracious, and forgiving. But at the same time God is holy, righteous, and just. It is not inconsistent to affirm everyone of these divine attributes. God is God, and his divine characteristics should never be held hostage to man’s limited understanding. Instead, we should gratefully acknowledge that he is our Creator and we are but mere creatures (Rom. 9:19-24).
Here are five volumes that helped me to write this article–Packer and Peterson are the best!
Crockett, William, ed. Four Views on Hell: Literal, Metaphorical, Purgatorial, Conditional. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.
Elwell, Walter A., ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. First Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984.
“Annihilationism” by Roger Nicole
“Conditional Immortality” by Alan F. Johnson
“Eternal Punishment” by Leon Morris
“Final State” by J. Kenneth Grider
“Heaven” by J. Kenneth Grider
“Hell” by Robert P, Lightner
“Intermediate State” by Stephen M. Smith
“Immortality” by David W. Kerr
“Last Judgement, The” by David A. Hubbard
“Purgatory” by Loraine Boettner
“Resurrection of the Dead” by R. E. O. White
“Universalism” by David B. Eller
Morgan, Christopher W. and Robert A. Peterson, General Editors. Hell Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 2004.
Packer, J. I. The Problem of Eternal Punishment. Orthos, No. 10 [Pamphlet]. Cheshire, UK: Fellowship of Word and Spirit, 1990.
Peterson, Robert A. Hell on Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publications, 1995.
Shedd, William G. T. The Doctrine of Eternal Punishment. Edinburgh, Scotland: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1986.
Thomas, Derek W. H. Heaven on Earth: What the Bible Teaches about Life to Come. Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2018.
Dr. Marcus J. Serven, ThM and DMin
The Genevan Foundation – Copyright April 2026 – All Rights Reserved
“I have come into the world–to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” John 18:37b
How do we define Modernism and Postmodernism? The citations below, from Dr. Richard Winter, were very helpful to me in defining these unfamiliar and complex philosophical terms:
Dr. Richard Winter, M.D. Professor Emeritus of Counseling at Covenant Theological Seminary
In our culture we live at the confluence of two highly influential rivers of thought: modernism and postmodernism. These are the humanist and existential ideas that, over the last three hundred years, have replaced Christianity as the dominant world view in our culture. They flow through and around us, affecting everything, often without being named or recognized, shaping both our way of thinking about ourselves and the world we live in—for good or ill.
— Richard Winter, Perfecting Ourselves to Death, 149.
Here are the definitions that made plain the meanings of Modernism and Postmodernism for me. Stating it bluntly, these simple explanations “cleared the fog” of uncertainty! My exposure to philosophy has been minimal. I’ve picked-up a few concepts here and there in studying theology and church history. Philosophy, however, is an entirely different discipline that has its own set of academic terms and its own catalogue of philosophical jargon. I hope Dr. Winter’s explanations can be as helpful to you as they were to me.
Put very briefly, modernism is that belief that with science, reason and technology we can make our world a better place. Our identity from a modernist perspective, is defined by the objective, scientific experts of genetics, anthropology, psychology, sociology, biology and other sciences. Reality is what is described and measured. Biologists or sociologists, for example, tend to reduce the fundamentals of human nature to biological or sociological processes, respectively. God is no longer needed (in this modernist perspective) as part of the explanation of how things work or to give a moral framework for living.
However, even from the beginning of modernism, in what we call the Enlightenment, there was a reaction against this emerging mechanistic view of human nature. In an attempt to preserve the significance and dignity of persons in a scientific age, these reactionary movements—seen in romanticism, existentialism and mysticism—emphasized personal and subjective values almost to the exclusion of the mechanistic and objective. The pendulum swung to the other extreme. It was these ideas that became what we now call postmodernism, in which, without a reference point outside of ourselves in revelation, reason or science, we are left only with subjective experience and freedom to choose to be whatever we want to be—to invent ourselves. Self-fulfillment becomes a core value.
— Richard Winter, Perfecting Ourselves to Death, 149-150.
As you encounter these two terms in conversation, literature, film, and music, you now have an explanation that makes their meaning plain. It is interesting to note that in both Modernism and Postmodernism the need for a transcendent God is steadfastly rejected. The Modernists deny God’s very existence by insisting that they are the masters of their own destiny. And the Postmodernists elevate the Self to the position of the one who determines all reality and truth. In this sense, as Christians, we see the utter futility of these two philosophical systems. Yet, it benefits us to understand the philosophical “world views” of those whom God brings into our life. How else can we best know how to answer the questions they pose in response to the Gospel? Therefore, it helps us to understand where people are coming from when we seek to “make a defense to anyone who asks…for the hope that is in [us].” (1 Pet. 3:15)
Source: Richard Winter, Perfecting Ourselves to Death: The Pursuit of Excellence and the Perils of Perfectionism, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005. Pages 149-151
Dr. Marcus J. Serven, ThM and DMin
The Genevan Foundation – Copyright 2026 – All Rights Reserved
“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” Matthew 28:19-20a
Introduction:
Over the years I have had numerous encounters with the “doorstep debaters” who deny the doctrine of the Trinity. Usually they are from the Jehovah’s Witnesses, or they are young men serving as Mormon missionaries. Most of these people have only heard one view concerning the Trinity. Here is an example of a conversation I had one day with a Jehovah’s Witness:
JW: “I don’t believe in the Trinity because it doesn’t make any sense to me.”
Me: “And so are you saying that just because you don’t understand it, therefore it can’t possibly be true?”
JW: “Yes, it is not logical.”
Me: “Do you know everything?”
JW: “Ah…of course not!”
Me: “Since you admit that you don’t know everything, then is it not possible that there are many truths that are outside of your own personal knowledge?”
JW: “Silence…”
Me: “Since God has revealed Himself in the pages of Holy Scripture, then is it not logical that as human beings—mere creatures that we are—we need to humble ourselves to God’s teachings in the Bible and not stand in judgment over them?”
JW: “Silence…”
Me: “Well then, let me show you some of the passages in the Bible that clearly teach the doctrine of the Trinity. I believe you will find them to be a logical and sensible conclusion of what the Bible actually says.”
The reality is that the doctrine of the Trinity is a conclusion based on a multiplicity of biblical texts. The word “Trinity” is not found in the Bible, however, the pages of the Bible are overflowing with the concept of the Trinity. What exactly is this concept? Essentially, it is that the divinity of God the Father is abundantly proved from the pages of Holy Scripture; the divinity of God the Son is clearly demonstrated by the evidences that are recorded in the Bible; and the divinity of God the Holy Spirit is also forthrightly taught by numerous passages in God’s revelation. In addition, both the Old and the New Testaments give many clear proofs for the doctrine of the Trinity. Consider these following passages:
Biblical Texts that support the Doctrine of the Trinity:
There are numerous texts in the Bible that make it clear that the Father is God (Gen. 1:1; Ps. 24:1-2; Isa. 45:5-7; 1 Tim. 1:17). In addition, the Bible speaks of how the Son [Jesus Christ] is God and worthy of all adoration, praise, and worship (Ps. 2:7-12; Isa. 9:6-7; Lk. 1:30-33; Jn. 1:1-5, 1:14-18; Jn. 8:56-59; Col. 1:15-20, 2:9; Heb. 1:2-4; Rev. 1:4-8). Lastly, the Bible makes it evident that the Holy Spirit is God and possesses a divine essence that is equal with the Father and the Son (Gen. 1:2; Matt. 3:16; Jn. 14:26; Jn. 15:26; Jn. 16:7-13; Acts 5:3). Therefore it is logical that God is known as a Trinity—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Beyond that, there are several texts in the Bible where the Trinitarian nature of God is clearly on display. These texts are as follows:
— Genesis 1:26a “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.’” (Note the use of the first-person plural personal pronoun “us” and the repeated use of he first-person plural possessive pronoun “our.” Each word refers to the plurality of the Godhead. This is not three separate Gods, but one God who has revealed himself in three persons. In other words, God is known in the Bible as a Trinity.)
— Genesis 3:22 “The the LORD God said, ‘Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil.’” (Note the first-person plural personal pronoun “us” referring to the plurality of the Godhead)
— Genesis 11:7 “Come, let us go down there and confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another’s speech.” (Note the first-person plural personal pronoun “us” referring to the plurality of the Godhead)
— Matthew 3:16-17 “And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; and behold a voice from heaven said, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.’” (Note the presence of the Holy Spirit, the Son, and [by implication] the Father in this text)
— Matthew 28:19 “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” (Note the use of the singular noun “name,” rather than the plural noun “names.” This makes it clear that God is one, and that baptisms are blessed in that one name—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”)
— John 10:30 “I and the Father are one.” (Jesus claims to have the same essential nature as God the Father in this verse. Immediately after Jesus makes this bold claim, the Jews pick up stones in order to stone him to death, “because you, being a man, make yourself God.” vs. 33)
— John 14:16-17 “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.” (Note how Jesus calls upon his heavenly Father to send forth the Helper [Gk. paracletos = lit. “helper,” “intercessor,” (i.e.) the Holy Spirit] to minister to his disciples. The Son, Father, and Holy Spirit are all evident in this text.)
— 2 Corinthians 13:14 “The Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” (Note the reference to the triune God in this benediction: “the Lord Jesus Christ…God [the Father]…and the Holy Spirit.”)
— Ephesians 2:18 “For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father.” (In the immediate context the main focus is on how Jesus Christ has brought together the Jews and the Gentiles. These two groups were formerly separated by a “wall of hostility” (vs. 12), but in Christ they are now “members of the household of God” (vs. 19). The word “him” refers to Jesus Christ. The “Spirit” and the “Father”are obvious references to the two other members of the Godhead.)
Confessional Reconnaissance:
— The Apostles’ Creed (c.140 AD in its initial form)
“I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth; And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead; I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic church, the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen”
— The Heidelberg Catechism (1563)
Q. 24: How are these articles divided? [i.e. Speaking of the three articles in the Apostles’ Creed]
A.: Into three parts; the first is of God the Father and our creation (#1); the second, of God the Son and our redemption (#2); the third, of God the Holy Ghost and our sanctification (#3).
Q. 25: Since there is but one only divine essence (#1), why speakest thou of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?
A.: Because God hath so revealed Himself in His Word (#2), that these three distinct persons are the one only true and eternal God.
(#1) Deut. 6:4; (#2) Gen. 1:26; Isa. 61:1; John 14:16-17; 1 John 5:7; John 1:13; Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14
— Westminster Confession of Faith (1647)
Chapter 2, Article 3. In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost (#1): the Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father (#2); the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son (#3).
(#1) Matt. 3:16-17; Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; See Eph. 2:18; (#2) John 1:14, 18; See Heb. 1:1-2; Col. 1:15; (#3) John 15:26; Gal 4:6
— The Westminster Larger Catechism (1648)
Q. 8: Are there more Gods than one?
A.: There is but one only, the living and true God (#1).
(#1) Jer. 10:10; John 17:3; 1 Thess. 1:9; 1 John 5:20
Q. 9: How many persons are there in the Godhead?
A.: There be three persons in the Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (#1); and these three are one true, eternal God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory; although distinguished by their personal properties (#2).
(#1) Matt. 3:16-17; Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; (#2) John 1:1; See also Gen. 1:1-3; John 17:5; John 10:30; Ps. 45:6; See also Heb. 1:8-9; Acts 5:3-4; Rom. 9:5; Col. 2:9
An Economic View of the Trinity:
Some Christian scholars have taught an “economic” (Gk. oikonomos = household administrator) view of the Trinity. Basically, this is the idea that each member of the Godhead has specific duties that they fulfill (Lat. opera ad extra). For example, God the Father is the creator and sustainer of the universe; God the Son is the redeemer of God’s people through his sacrificial death upon the cross; and God the Holy Spirit is the one who sanctifies the believer and assists them through the difficulties and trials of the Christian life. There is some validity to this way of thinking, however, it can be quickly demonstrated that it is superficial. If we examine the statement that God the Father is the creator, then it must be acknowledged that the Son of God was also present at the creation of the universe and that by him all things hold together (Col. 1:16-17). Moreover, it must be admitted that the Holy Spirit was also present at the creation given that the Spirit “was hovering over the face of the waters” (Gen. 1:2), and that the Spirit gave Adam the “breath of life” (Gen. 2:7). Thus, a simplistic explanation of the economic view of the Trinity seems to fall short of reality. Louis Berkhof explains the economic view of the Trinity in the following manner:
“These are never works of one person exclusively, but always works of the Divine Being as a whole. At the same time it is true that in the economical order of God’s works some of the opera ad extra are ascribed more particularly to one person, and some more especially to another. Though they are all works of the three persons jointly, creation is ascribed primarily to the Father, redemption to the Son, and sanctification to the Holy Spirit. This order in the divine operation points back to the essential order in God and forms the basis for what is generally known as the economic Trinity.”
— Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 89
Thus, our understanding of the Trinity must acknowledge that creation, redemption, and sanctification “are all works of the three persons jointly.” With this understanding the essential nature of each person is shown to be the same—all are divine and worthy of worship. Yet, there can also be a recognition of the distinction made between the three persons of the Godhead—in that they are uniquely Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And so, as Christians we affirm the truth that there is one God who makes himself manifest in three persons.
Key Quotes:
— John Calvin (1509-1564)
“Again, Scripture sets forth a distinction of the Father from the Word, and of the Word from the Spirit. Yet the greatness of the mystery warns us how much reverence and sobriety we ought to use in investigating this. And that passage in Gregory of Nazianzus vastly delights me: ‘I can not think on the one without quickly being encircled by the splendor of the three; nor can I discern the three without being straightway carried back to the one.’ Let us not, then, be led to imagine a trinity of persons that keeps our thoughts distracted and does not at once lead them back to the unity. Indeed, the words “Father,” “Son,” and “Spirit” imply a real distinction—let no one think that these titles, whereby God is variously designated from his works, are empty—but a distinction, not a division.” (Calvin, Institutes 1:13:17)
— Prof. Louis Berkhof (1873-1957)
“The western conception of the Trinity reached its final statement in the great work of Augustine, De Trinitate. He too stresses the unity of essence and the Trinity of Persons. Each one of the three Persons possesses the entire essence, and is in so far identical with the essence and with each one of the other Persons. They are not like three human persons, each one of which possesses only a part of generic human nature. Moreover, the one is never and can never be without the other; the relation of dependence between them is a mutual one. The divine essence belongs to each of them under a different point of view, as generating, generated, or existing through inspiration. Between the three hypostases there is a relation of mutual interpenetration and inter-dwelling.” (Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrines, 92)
— Dr. R. C. Sproul (1939-2017)
“The historic formulation of the Trinity is that God is one in essence and three in person. Though the formula is mysterious and even paradoxical, it is in no way contradictory. The unity of the Godhead is affirmed in terms of essence of being, while the diversity of the Godhead is expressed in terms of person…the Bible clearly affirms the full deity of the three persons of the Godhead: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The church has rejected the heresies of modalism and tritheism. Modalism denies the distinction of persons within the Godhead, claiming that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are just ways in which God expresses Himself. Tritheism, on the other hand, falsely declares that there are three beings who together make up God. The term person does not mean a distinction in essence but a different subsistence in the Godhead. A subsistence in the Godhead is a real difference in being. Each person subsists or exists “under” the pure essence of deity. Subsistence is a difference within the scope of being, not a separate being or essence. All persons in the Godhead have all the attributes of deity…The doctrine of the Trinity does not fully explain the mysterious character of God. Rather, it sets the boundaries outside of which we must not step. It defines the limits of our finite reflection. It demands that we be faithful to the biblical revelation that in one sense God is one and in a different sense He is three.” (Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, 35-36)
“The word Trinity does not appear in Scripture. Nor do the terms homoousios or persona as such appear. That language has entered the vocabulary of the church, indeed the touchstone of orthodoxy itself, is decried by many as an intrusion into biblical faith of speculative philosophy in general and of Greek modes of thinking in particular. However, the concepts these words convey are found in Scripture, and they have been usefully employed in the church. Like it or not, the English language is tied inseparably to concepts of early Greek discrimination…It is important to remember that it did not offend the Holy Ghost to use the Greek language as a vehicle for revelation. What, then, do we mean when we express our faith in the Trinity by the formula: God is one in essence, and three in person? In addition to the numerical differences, the key distinctive concepts are essence and person. Essence, we know, refers to the being, substance, or stuff of any entity. Essence is what something ultimately is. In the formula of the Trinity it is the concept of person that is most troublesome. The term person comes from the Latin persona. It corresponds to the Greek word for face. In the ancient theater one actor could perform more than one role in a play. To assume the role of a different character the actor donned a persona or mask to dramatize the different character. This human analogy breaks down, however, when applied to God…The three persons are equal to each other in deity, dignity, power, and glory. They are distinguished in name, in the order of their being, in the mode of their action, and in their effects.” (Sproul, Right Now Counts Forever, Vol. 2, 97-98)
“This technical discussion of the Trinity can be confusing, but here is what we should come away with: the Westminster divines, following the historic formulas of the church, are being extremely careful to affirm the full deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and at the same time to steer clear of tritheism or polytheism. In simple terms, the Westminster divines are saying that in an absolute, ultimate sense, God is one—one being—yet within the Godhead are three distinct persons or subsistences that must be recognized if we want to be faithful to Scripture. The subsistences, or persons, are more than offices, more than modes, more than activities, more than masks, and more than ways of appearing. The church historically has said that we do not understand how God is three in one. But we do understand that He is not three gods, and that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all divine.” (Sproul, Truths We Confess, 65-66)
Conclusion:
It is important to remember that the doctrine of the Trinity is a theological conclusion that is based upon Holy Scripture. The Bible is clear that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. There are not three Gods, but only one. Therefore, we recognize that there is one God who has made himself known in three persons. These are not three divine “modes” with each “mode” fitting into a differing period of time (e.g. God the Father in the Old Testament; God the Son in the New Testament; and God the Holy Spirit in the Church age). This view represents a heresy called “modalism.” No, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit—the three members of the Godhead—co-exist in eternity, they are not to be confused, nor are they to be divided. They co-operate with one another in all activities related to this world and in eternity. Thus, we worship one God who has made Himself known in three persons—a Holy Trinity.
These three volumes do a very fine job of explaining the doctrine of the Trinity! Start with Sproul, and then work your way into Berkhof and Bavinck.
Resources for Further Study:
Bavinck, Herman. The Doctrine of God. William Henricksen, trans. Edinburgh, Scotland: The Banner of Truth Trust, Reprint, 1978.
Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Fourth Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1939.
Berkhof, Louis. The History of Christian Doctrines. Edinburgh, Scotland: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1949.
Elwell, Walter A. ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Second Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2001.
“Christology” by Ronald S. Wallace
“God, Doctrine of” by Robert L. Saucy.
“Holy Spirit” by Thomas S. Caulley
“Jesus Christ” by Robert H. Stein
“Only Begotten” by Everett F. Harrison
“Son of God” by Gary T. Burke
“Trinity” by Geoffrey W. Bromiley
McGrath, Alister E. Understanding the Trinity. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1988.
Packer, James I. Knowing God. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1973.
Reymond, Robert L. A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. Second Edition. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998.
Sproul, R. C. Essential Truths of the Christian Faith. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale Publishers, Inc., 1992.
Sproul, R. C. Truths We Confess: A Systematic Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith. Revised Edition. Orlando, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2019.
The Confession of Faith and Catechisms. American Edition (1788). Jointly published by Great Commission Publications (PCA) in Atlanta, GA, and the Committee on Christian Education (OPC) in Willow Grove, PA, 2005.
Vos, Johannes G. The Westminster Larger Catechism: A Commentary. G. I. Williamson, ed. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2002.
Williamson, G. I. The Westminster Confession of Faith: for Study Classes. Second Edition. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2004.
Dr. Marcus J. Serven, ThM and DMin
The Genevan Foundation – Copyright Feb. 2026 – All Rights Reserved
Key Protestant Reformers–(L to R) Ulrich Zwingli, Pierre Viret, John Knox, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Willaim Tyndale, and John Wycliffe
Written by Dr. Marcus J. Serven
“Christ is the only way to salvation for all who were, are, and ever shall be.” Zwingli, Sixty-Seven Articles, #3
Zwingli’s humble birthplace
Most Christians today know very little about the Protestant reformer, Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531). If you actually lived in Switzerland, however, you would esteem him as one of the more significant figures in Swiss history—one who brought Switzerland out of the darkness of Medievalism into the modern age. Born and raised in Wildhaus, a small rural village in the region of Toggenburg, Ulrich Zwingli was drawn into church service from an early age. He pursued orders within the Roman Catholic Church and he was ordained as a priest in 1506 (at 22 years old). Zwingli served as the pastor of a small rural congregation in Glaurus, Switzerland for ten years before he sought after more extensive training in biblical languages and theology. He settled at the Abbey of Einsiedeln and during his studies he was deeply stirred by reading the New Testament (in the Greek text) and the Early Church Fathers (in Latin and Greek). In time, Zwingli experienced an evangelical conversion and became the pastor of the church in Einsiedeln. As he began preaching the word of God, his popularity grew and he was noticed by others throughout Switzerland.
Zwingli as a young Pastor
As a result, Zwingli was invited to be a guest preacher in the Great Minster of Zurich (Ger. Grossmuenster). Following a series of sermons on the Gospel of Matthew, Zwingli was invited to become the pastor of the Great Minster and in a short time he became known as the “People’s Priest” (1519-on). Building his ministry on the clear exposition of the Bible, he was convicted to bring about many reforms within the church. In particular he advocated a great number of significant changes: the breaking of Lent, allowing the clergy to marry, encouraging a fresh translation of the Bible, revising the baptismal order, criticism of the Mass, the removal of images in churches (i.e. iconoclasm), severing the church from the control of the Papacy, the dissolution of monasteries, reforming the ministerial schools, establishing weekly Bible study groups for the clergy (which were called “prophesyings”), the termination of church music, the replacement of the Mass, establishing a quarterly Communion, ordering synodical church government, and setting-up church discipline under a shared clerical and lay control. These sweeping reforms kept him extremely busy, but they also awakened a small group of vocal citizens in Zurich who were opposed to his efforts. Since he worked with the local magistrates at enforcing these reforms, he became known (along with Martin Bucer, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and several other reformers) as one of the “Magisterial Reformers.”
The beautiful city of Zurich, Switzerland
Swiss Sausages of the kind eaten by Zwingli and others at the “Sausage Supper” (1522)
In 1522 Zwingli participated in the “Affair of the Sausages” when he boldly stood against the Roman Catholic prohibition of eating meat during Lent. This simple Swiss dinner at the home of Christoph Frowschauer, kicked-off the Reformation in Zurich and represented a repudiation of Roman Catholic practices. On a more personal note, in early 1524 Zwingli secretly married Anna Reinhart (a local widow). A public ceremony occurred a few months later when they were married in the church on April 2, 1524. Over time they were blessed with four children—Regula, William, Huldrych, and Anna.
A year later in 1525 a small, but determined, group of young men in Zurich began advocating that only adult believers should be baptized, in contrast to the regular practice of infant baptism. Three out-spoken leaders emerged from this group: Conrad Grebel, Felix Manz, and Georg Blaurock. They called themselves “Anabaptists” (Gk. ana-baptizo = again baptized). A public disputation was held between Zwingli and the Anabaptist leaders, but the City Council favored the arguments for the validity of infant baptism presented by Zwingli. As a result, the Anabaptists were repressed, persecuted, arrested, imprisoned, banished, and some were even executed. Sadly, Zwingli encouraged this purge. Nevertheless, despite the persecution it was out of this small group that the Anabaptist movement emerged and rapidly spread throughout Europe. Martin Luther coldly referred to the Anabaptists as “Schwarmer” (i.e. like the bugs found under a rock). Moreover, Zwingli published an extensive critique of Anabaptism called, Refutation of the Tricks of the Catabaptists (i.e. the Anabaptists). Much later, in a more charitable manner, certain scholars of the Reformation referred to the Anabaptist sect as the “Radical Reformation” and “The Stepchildren of the Reformers.”
Luther and Zwingli debate the nature of the Lord’s Supper at the Marburg Colloquy (1529)
In 1527 Zwingli participated in an important meeting with Martin Luther and other Reformers at Marburg, Germany. The purpose of this conciliatory gathering was to bring about an opportunity for the German Reformers to find common ground in their doctrines and practices with the Swiss Reformers. Good progress was being made until the participants came to the subject of the Lord’s Supper. At that point a severe disagreement took place between Luther and Zwingli over the “real presence of Christ” in the elements of the Lord’s Supper. Luther taught “Consubstantiation” (i.e. that Christ is present “in, with, and under” the elements). Zwingli, however, taught that the Lord’s Supper is merely a “Memorial Feast” (i.e. a time of remembering the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross for the sins of his people). In response, Luther loudly shouted the words of Jesus, “Hoc est corpus meum” (“this is my body”)! Luther angrily repeated this phrase over and over to Zwingli at the gathering and thereby ended the discussion. Sadly, any possibility of the Lutheran and Reformed theologians coming to an agreement on the real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper was destroyed. Rather than finding unity, this gathering brought about a breach between the Lutheran churches and the Reformed churches that still remains to this day.
Finally, in 1529 Zwingli participated in a military conflict between Zurich and the neighboring Roman Catholic cantons (i.e. the 1st Cappel War). The outcome was a uncertain and an armistice was negotiated. A few years later at the Second Battle of Cappel in 1531 Zwingli served as a chaplain to the army of Zurich. Unfortunately, he was encountered on the battlefield by enemy soldiers, was recognized, and immediately slain. The people of Zurich had lost their “People’s Priest” and they deeply mourned the loss. Zwingli was succeeded in Zurich by his assistant, Johan Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575). A leading Reformation scholar, Dr. Geoffrey Bromiley, summarizes the numerous contributions that Zwingli made at reforming the church in Switzerland; he notes,
Zwingli’s death at the 2nd Battle of Cappel (1531)
Ulrich Zwingli in his maturity
“Zwingli dismantled the corrupt medieval system. Like Luther, he stopped the hierarchical abuse of power and the financial racketeering associated with masses, indulgences, relics, and pilgrimages. He substituted the popular tongue for Latin and replaced the sacramentalist round by the expository preaching of a trained ministry. More radically than Luther, he simplified the liturgy, purging it of esthetic elements. He took a more drastic disciplinary action, set up synodical government, brought the laity more fully into church affairs, and secured tighter biblical control. Zwingli’s work had its defects. His services involved liturgical impoverishment, especially the odd exclusion of singing (later reversed). He tied church and state too closely together, working through the council, retaining tithes, and enforcing discipline by secular penalties. The discipline involved an unhealthy and petty legalism, and cantonal policy became subservient to religious ends, with disastrous results at Cappel. Theologically, Zwingli, like Luther, opposed the distortions linked to purgatory, merit, clericalism, sacramentalism, and tradition. He championed scriptural primacy, Christ’s all-sufficient work, justification by faith, election, and calling by Word and Spirit. Distinctive emphases include the clarity and power of Scripture, the Spirit as its true exegete, the covenant, divine sovereignty in providence and predestination, and the Eucharist as a visible word by which the Spirit nourishes those who partake in faith.”
— Geoffrey Bromiley, “Third Man of the Reformation” in Great Leaders of the Christian Faith, 200
This great Swiss champion served in the first wave of the Protestant Reformation (1515-1535). In time, Ulrich Zwingli would become known to many as “The Third Man of the Reformation” behind two other Protestant Reformers of note—Martin Luther and John Calvin. To this day, however, the people of the Reformed churches in Switzerland see him as an example of a mighty man of God. He led the way back to the gospel, which had been corrupted by the traditions of men, and restored a vibrant life-giving faith. In short, Zwingli reintroduced the Swiss people to their Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. And for that, they remain exceedingly grateful!
Rising high above the city of Zurich, the lofty spires of the Grossmuenster Cathedral serve as an ongoing memorial to their beloved pastor–Ulrich Zwingli!
* * * * * * *
His Early Years: Birth and Preparation (1484-1506)
1484 Born on January 1st in Wildhaus (Toggenburg), a small village in the canton of St. Gallen, Switzerland
1489 Zwingli begins his initial studies in Weesen, then in Basel, and later in Bern
1498 He begins University studies in Vienna, and again at Basel under the reforming ministry of Thomas Wyttenbach (1472-1526)
In Glarus: His Ordination and Service as a Priest (1506-1516)
1506 Ordained into the Roman Catholic priesthood he serves as pastor for ten years at the village church in Glarus, Switzerland
1510 He writes The Poetic Fable about the Ox, an allegorical poem criticizing the Swiss mercenary system
1513 Zwingli travels to Novara, Italy with troops from Glarus and witnesses first hand the horrors of warfare; as a result he rejects the Swiss mercenary system
1516 He writes The Labyrinth; a satirical allegory that criticizes the use of mercenaries to fight the wars of others
1516 He accompanies Glarus troops to Marignano, Italy
1516 Zwingli visits in Basel with the Humanist Scholar, Desiderius Erasmus (c.1466-1536)
In Einsiedeln: His Conversion and Initial Efforts at Reform (1516-1518)
1516 He studies at the Abbey of Einsiedeln and comes to an evangelical faith; in particular he focuses his studies on the Greek New Testament and the Early Church Fathers
1516 In November Zwingli is appointed the pastor of the church in Einsiedeln
1518 He is offended by the peddling of indulgences by a Franciscan priest named Samson; he begins to doubt the authenticity and authority of the Roman Catholic Church
In Zurich: Serving as the People’s Priest (1519-1528)
1519 On January 1st he begins the verse by verse exposition of Matthew’s Gospel (Lat. lectio continua); large crowds eagerly attend his preaching in Zurich
1519 Zwingli begins his public ministry as the “People’s Priest” (Ger. Leutpriester) at the Great Minster (Ger. Grossmuenster) in Zurich
1519 Zwingli strongly urges the magistrates of Zurich to rebuff Samson, the seller of indulgences, at the gates of the city; Samson returns to Italy in defeat
1522 The “Affair of the Sausages” takes place as a rejection of not eating meat during Lent; this event sparks the Protestant Reformation in Zurich
1522 Zwingli begins making numerous reforms in Zurich–to the worship service and to the morals of the people; many approve, but a few oppose his reforms
1523 The Zurich Disputation takes place and the city becomes Protestant
1523 Zwingli writes the Sixty-Seven Articles; Divine and Human Righteousness; and publishes a key sermon on The Clarity and Certainty of the Word of God .
1524 Zwingli secretly marries Anna Reinhart (a widow); a few months later they are married in a public ceremony on April 2, 1524
1525 The rise of the Anabaptist sect occurs in Zurich. A public disputation takes place, but the arguments of Zwingli prevail. The leaders of the Anabaptist movement are jailed, exiled, and some are even executed
1525 Zwingli writes three significant treatises True and False Religion; The Pastoral Office; and Baptism
1526 Zwingli writes a highly-valued treatise on nature of the Lord’s Supper
1526 The Baden Disputation—Zwingli suffers a setback when the Roman Catholic theologian John Eck prevails over Johannes Oecolampadius (a fellow-reformer); as a result Zwingli’s books are banned by the Papacy
1527 Zwingli writes Refutation of the Tricks of the Catabaptists (i.e. the Anabaptists)
1528 The Bern Disputation—Zwingli reverses the defeat suffered at Baden by his powerful preaching and argumentation; Bern becomes a Protestant canton
1528 Bern endorses Protestant reform efforts in Basel, Vaud, Neuchatel, and Geneva–leading over time to each canton identifying with the Protestants
At War: Theological and Military Conflicts (1529-1531)
1529 First Cappel War—Roman Catholic cantons versus the Protestant cantons; an armistice is negotiated, but with no apparent victor
1529 The Marburg Colloquy takes place, but with no measurable results
1530 Zwingli writes An Account of the Faith (Lat. Fidei Ratio); he also publishes a key sermon on the doctrine of God’s Providence
1530 The Augsburg Diet. Zwingli writes his well-regarded treatise, Exposition of the Faith, for King Francis 1st of France with the hope that he could be won to the Reformation; this proves to be futile
1531 Second Cappel War begins and Zwingli dies in the battle (October 11, 1531); all of Zurich and the Protestant forces mourn his death
1531 Zwingli is succeeded by Heinrich Bullinger in December 1531; Bullinger becomes the Head Pastor of the Great Minster in Zurich and ably serves for the next 44 years
Resources for Further Study:
Bainton, Roland H. The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century. Boston, MA: The Beacon Press, 1952.
Bettenson, Henry. Documents of the Christian Church. Second Edition. London, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1963.
Bromiley, Geoffrey. “Third Man of the Reformation” in Great Leaders of the Christian Church. Edited by John D. Woodbridge. Chicago, IL: The Moody Press, 1988.
Bromiley, Geoffrey, ed. Zwingli and Bullinger. The Library of Christian Classics. Vol. 24. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1953.
Douglas, J.D. ed. The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church. Revised Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978.
“Bucer (Butzer), Martin” by D. F. Wright
“Bullinger, Johann Heinrich” by Robert C. Walton
“Erasmus, Desiderius” by Robert G. Clouse
“Luther, Martin” by Carl S. Meyer
“Marburg Colloquy (1529)” Robert G. Clouse
“Oecolampadius” by Robert G. Clouse
“Zwingli, Ulrich” by Robert C. Walton
Douglas, J. D. ed. Who’s Who In Christian History. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1992.
Dowley, Tim ed., The History of Christianity. Revised Edition. Oxford, Great Britain: Lion Publishers, 1990.
Estep, William R. The Anabaptist Story. Revised Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1975.
Fox, John. Fox’s Book of Martyrs. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1967.
Gabler, Ulrich. Huldrych Zwingli: His Life and Work. Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T Clark, 1986.
George, Timothy. Theology of the Reformers. Nashville, TN: The Broadman Press, 1988.
Houghton, S.M. Sketches from Church History. Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1980.
Jackson, Samuel Macauley, ed. Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531): Selected Works. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1901.
Latourette, Kenneth Scott. A History of Christianity (Vol. 1). Revised Edition. New York, NY: Harper & Row Publishers, 1975.
Verduin, Leonard. The Reformers and Their Stepchildren. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1964.
Williams, George Hunston. The Radical Reformation. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1962
Wylie, James A. The History of Protestantism. 3 Volumes. Kilkeel, N. Ireland: Mourne Missionary Trust, 1990.
Dr. Marcus J. Serven, ThM and DMin
The Genevan Foundation – Copyright 2026 – All Rights Reserved
“Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.” Phil. 4:6
George Mueller (1805-1898), in my opinion, is one of the most remarkable men of faith in the 19th Century. Following his conversion in a prayer meeting at age twenty, he began to develop a great passion for the evangelization of the Jews. He subsequently left his native Germany and traveled to England to be trained as a missionary. In 1829 he associated with The London Society for Promoting Christianity Amongst the Jews. After relating to the society for less than a year, he received formal notice that they felt he was unfit to be a missionary because of his unwillingness to submit to the leadership of the society. This was an extremely humbling blow to his dreams and aspirations, but it can now be seen in hindsight that this was God’s way of breaking him of his pride and fierce independence. In George Mueller’s Bible the following verse is underlined, “The steps of a man are ordered by the Lord” (Ps. 37:23) and then in his own handwriting, “as well as his stops.” God’s providential hand had firmly closed the door on George Mueller becoming a missionary to the Jews—but what door would the Lord now open for him?
Shortly after his dismissal George Mueller started preaching in a small Plymouth Brethren congregation. There in 1830 he met and married his life’s partner, Mary Groves, and also made a life-time commitment to receive no salary from his ministry, simply living “by faith.” Little did he know that God was already preparing him for a ministry that would focus on meeting the needs of one of the most disadvantaged groups of society; the homeless “street children” of Victorian England. After witnessing first hand the deplorable state that many young children were in, Mueller determined—with God’s help—to be a “Father of the fatherless” (Ps. 68:5). What began as a small effort in 1832, when the Mueller’s opened their home for children to sleep on the floor at night and to receive a warm breakfast the next morning, eventually grew into five large homes on Ashley Down in Bristol, England. These purpose built dormitories cared for as many as 2,000 orphaned and abandoned children all at one time. Besides providing food for the orphans, Mueller’s ministry was also committed to providing clothing, Christian education, and vocational training. All this was accomplished “by faith” without any public solicitation for funds.
A girls class at the Bristol orphanage from the 1840’s
Consider these typical examples of God’s provision from Mueller’s detailed diary,
August 18, 1838. I have not one penny in hand for the Orphans. In a day or two again many pounds will be needed. My eyes are up to the Lord. Evening. Before this day is over, I have received from a sister λ5. She had some time since put away her trinkets, to be sold for the benefit of the Orphans. This morning, whilst in prayer, it came to her mind, “I have this λ5, and owe no man anything, therefore it would be better to give the money at once, as it may be some time, before I can dispose of the trinkets.” She therefore brought it, little knowing that there was not a penny at hand, and that I had been able to advance only λ4 15s 5d for housekeeping in the Boy’s Orphan House, instead of the usual λ10; knowing also, that within a few days many pounds more will be needed.
August 20, 1838. The λ5 which I had received on the 18th, had been given for housekeeping, so that today I was again penniless. But my eyes were up to the Lord. I gave myself to prayer this morning, knowing that I should want again this week at least λ13, if not above λ20. Today I received λ12 in answer to prayer, from a lady who was staying at Clifton, whom I had never seen before.
August 23, 1838. Today I was again without one single penny, when λ3 was sent from Clapham, with a box of new clothes for the Orphans.
— Roger Steer, George Mueller: Delighted in God!, 89
These are the buildings that served the orphanage in Bristol, England. Today, they house a museum dedicated to the life and work of George Mueller, and a local Community College.
Mueller was convinced that God had “a bank which cannot break.” After the first five years of operating the orphan home “by faith” Mueller explained,
The chief end for which the Institution was established is that the Church of Christ at large might be benefited by seeing manifestly the hand of God stretched out on our behalf in the hour of need, in answer to prayer. Our desire, therefore, is not that we may be without trials of faith, but that the Lord graciously would be pleased to support us in the trial, that we may not dishonor Him by distrust. This way of living brings the Lord remarkably near. He is, as it were, morning by morning inspecting our stores, that accordingly He may send help. Great and more manifest nearness of the Lord’s presence I have never had, than when after breakfast there were no means for dinner, and then the Lord provided the dinner for more than one hundred persons; or when after dinner, there were no means for tea, and yet the Lord provided the tea; all this without one single human being having been informed about our need…
— Roger Steer, George Mueller: Delighted in God!, 107
During the course of sixty-six years of ministry there was never a day that the orphans went hungry or were ill-dressed. A debt never went unpaid. Through his ministry, the Scriptural Knowledge Institution, he tabulated that 1,453,153 pounds was raised for the work of the gospel. Asked his secret, Mueller replied, “There was a day when I died, utterly died,” and, as he spoke, he bent lower and lower until he almost touched the floor, “died to George Mueller, his opinions, preferences, tastes, and will—died to the world. Its approval or censure—died to the approval or blame even of my brethren and friends—and since then I have studied only to show myself approved unto God.” Here was a humble man of faith who served a faithful and generous Lord. He carried out his life and ministry by trusting God for the results, and therefore he became a powerful example of Christian piety to the entire world. His motto was simple: “The beginning of anxiety is the end of faith. The beginning of true faith is the end of anxiety.” The Lord blessed him in all that he endeavored. When anxious, he simply got on his knees and prayed that God would meet the need. And it can be demonstrated that the Lord never let him down.
Here is a picture of Rev. George Mueller and a favorite quote
Sources of Information: Davey, C. “George Mueller: Brethren Philanthropist” in Great Leaders of the Christian Church. Edited by John D. Woodbridge. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1988.
Douglas, J. D., ed. The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church. Revised edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978.
“George Mueller” by J. G. G. Norman
“Plymouth Brethren” by G. C. D. Howley
Douglas, J. D. and Philip W. Comfort, eds. Who’s Who in Christian History. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1992.
“George Muller” by Norman Hillyer
Steer, Roger. George Muller: Delighted in God! Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1975.
Dr. Marcus J. Serven, ThM and DMin
The Genevan Foundation – Copyright 2026 – All Rights Reserved
“But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.” Matthew 12:28
Jesus Christ instructs his followers to pray in this manner, “Pray then like this: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:9-10). Some Bible teachers have boldly taught that the Lord’s Prayer is not for this present age, but only for a future age (i.e. during an earthly millennium). I believe that their conclusion is a mistaken interpretation of the text. Jesus is clearly instructing his listeners—in their present-day circumstances—how they should pray to God. They are not to pray “like the hypocrites” so that “they may be seen by others,” but “in secret” so that “your Father who sees in secret will reward you” (Matt. 6:5-6). The context is entirely contemporaneous. It is spoken for Jesus’ followers in this present age. Therefore, the phrase “Your kingdom come, your will be done, as it in heaven” must also be interpreted as a present-day reality with the expectation that God’s kingdom will progressively grow during this current age. Moreover, the implication of this prayer is that the followers of Jesus will actually participate in kingdom-activity, not only by their prayers but by their work as “witnesses” (Acts 1:8) and as “ambassadors of Christ” (2 Cor. 5:20).
The question surrounding the present-day reality of the kingdom of God is a vital one for all Christians to answer. Generally, there have been two answers: (1) that the kingdom of God is entirely in the future and begins when Jesus Christ reigns in Jerusalem during an earthly millennium; or (2) that the kingdom of God is a present-day reality that is growing and expanding while Jesus Christ reigns at the right hand of God the Father in heaven (cf. Ps. 110:1; Matt. 12:28-29; Rev. 20:1-3). In my opinion, it is the second answer that makes the most sense in the immediate context of Jesus’ instructions about prayer—that the kingdom of God is a present-day reality. Consider the wise and thoughtful exegesis that Dr. Herman Ridderbos puts forward on this subject:
Dr. Herman Ridderbos (1909-2007)
“The question as to what constitutes the great change, viz., the coming of the kingdom which has begun with Jesus’ activity, finds its fundamental and unmistakable answer in the statement made in Matthew 12:28, Luke 11:20. Here Jesus speaks very emphatically of the presence of the kingdom: “If I cast out devils by the Spirit of God (Luke has: ‘with the finger of God’), then the kingdom of God has come unto you.” That the last words of this text must be rendered by the perfect “has come” is pretty well certain, in spite of the criticism of some writers. Apart from the linguistic question, it may be seen from the whole context, especially from what follows in Matthew. Jesus here answers the slander of the Pharisees who had said that he cast out devils by Beelzebub, the prince of devils. He shows the absurdity of the accusation by comparing the power of the devil with that of a kingdom or a town or a house, i.e., with an organically coherent unity. If one devil should cast out another, the kingdom of the devils would not stand but would fall asunder. But this does not happen. That is why there is only one explanation for Jesus’ power over the demons, viz., that by the Spirit (or the finger of God) he was able to cast them out. The opposite to Satan and his kingdom is God and the dominion that is at his disposal, viz., the kingdom of God. Its power and so its presence is the explanation of Jesus’ dominion over the demons. All this is further confirmed in Matthew 12:29 (cf. Mark 3:27) by what is said of the strong man whose house can only be looted after he himself has first been bound. In the same way the casting out of the devils proves the victory over the devil gained by Jesus and thus the break-through by the kingdom of heaven.”
— Herman Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom, 61-62
Ridderbos offers a “rock-solid” exegetical explanation of the present-day reality of the kingdom of God. He doesn’t just offer his opinion, but he puts forward a clearly articulated defense of the subject based on the exegesis of several scriptural passages. This does not mean that all aspects of the kingdom of God are currently present. But that the kingdom of God “has come” [note the perfect tense of this verb, which refers to a past event but with ongoing results] while we live here on the earth (Matt. 12:28), and that in the future it will be fully consummated. This is a helpful alternative, I believe, to the wrong-headed view that the kingdom of God is entirely in the future. The truth is this–that the kingdom of God is present now during this current age (Mark 1:14-15; Luke 17:20-21), and by grace we who are alive get to participate in its growth and expansion (Matt. 5:14-16; Matt. 13:31-32; 2 Cor. 10:3-6). And that is a great privilege!
Here are four volumes by Herman Ridderbos that I greatly value!
Source: Ridderbos, Herman N. The Coming of the Kingdom. Translated by H. de Jongste. Edited by Raymond O. Zorn. Philadelphia, PA: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1962.
Dr. Marcus J. Serven, ThM and DMin
The Genevan Foundation – Copyright 2026 – All Rights Reserved
* * * * * * *
Also, here is a related article on the “this age” and “the age to come” concept:
St. Giles Cathedral in Edinburgh, Scotland. John Knox faithfully served here as Pastor from 1559-1572.
“And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching…” Acts 2:42a
The quote below from R. B. Kuiper’s classic treatise, The Glorious Body of Christ, really resonated with me. He powerfully argues that, “Organizational succession without doctrinal succession is worthless.” Those churches who have departed from the teaching of the Apostles have no real connection to the true Christian faith. They are mere counterfeits and shadows of what our Lord Jesus Christ intended. Let us, then, “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3b). It is only those who have remained faithful to the teachings of the Lord and the Apostles who should be considered as legitimate churches of Jesus Christ.
Prof. R. B. Kuiper (1886-1966)
Certain churches lay claim to apostolicity in the sense of their being exclusively, or nearly so, the uninterrupted continuation of the organized church as it existed in the days of the apostles. Particularly do they boast of their clergy as the unbroken succession of the bishops ordained by the apostles. This view is known as “apostolic succession” and is held by the Greek Catholic, the Roman Catholic and the Anglican churches…One serious fallacy in these claims to apostolic succession is that they completely overlook the fact that organizational succession does not guarantee doctrinal succession. To say nothing of the other communions just named, the Roman Catholic Church has departed very far from the teaching of the apostles. Does it not deny that doctrine which lies at the very heart of apostolic teaching—justification by faith only? For that reason, among others, the Reformers of the sixteenth century did not hesitate to pronounce Rome a false church. Organizational succession without doctrinal succession is worthless. A church that possesses the former but has lost the latter is no longer a church of Jesus Christ. Our Reformed fathers were right when they said that ‘succession of doctrine’ rather than ‘succession of persons and places’ is a mark of the true church. [See Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, Vol. IV, p. 353]”
— R. B. Kuiper, The Glorious Body of Christ, 64-65.
Remember the distinction made in Kuiper’s quote–that the difference between “organizational succession” and “doctrinal succession” is the determining factor between truth and error. It is only faithful “doctrinal succession” that is worth fighting for. Moreover, upholding the “apostles’ teaching” is a mark of the true church of Jesus Christ.
— Dr. Marcus J. Serven
Source: Kuiper, R. B. The Glorious Body of Christ: A Scriptural Appreciation of the One Holy Church. Edinburgh, Scotland: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1967.
Biographical Statement: Prof. R. B. Kuiper served as the President of Calvin College for 22 years (1930-1952). He then taught at Westminster Theological Seminary for 14 years as the Professor of Practical Theology (1952-1966). He was well-loved for his zeal in teaching the Bible and for the application of its principles to the doctrine of the Church. “Well done good and faithful servant” (cf. Matt. 25:21).
The Basilica Santa Maria Novella lies in the very center of Florence, Italy–it is such a beautiful, inspiring, and majestic city!
Written by Dr. Marcus J. Serven
“For we are an aroma of Christ to God among those who are perishing, to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life.” 2 Cor. 3:15-16
Who was Girolamo Savonarola (A.D. 1452-1498)? Briefly stated, he was an Italian monk and preacher who arose just prior to the Reformation. Savonarola was under Dominican orders and vows throughout his adult life (from 1474); although he grew somewhat more independent as he became better known throughout Italy. Born in Ferrara, from 1482 he made his home and base of operations in Florence. There he became the Prior of the convent of San Marco and began to preach in the cathedral. Church historian, S. M. Houghton observes,
But whereas Wycliffe and Huss were involved in attacking the unbiblical teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, Savonarola was not a doctrinal reformer. He was a man who attacked the evil lives and immoral habits of many of his fellow countrymen. God had used the writings of Augustine of Hippo to open his eyes to the moral apostasy in the Church.
— S. M. Houghton, Sketches in Church History, 72
One artist’s depiction of Girolamo Savonarola preaching his message of reform to the people of Florence, Italy
He called the city and the Roman Catholic Church to moral reform by a series of scathing sermons on a coming Apocalypse. This apocalyptic theme, which he garnered from reading the Old Testament prophets and the Book of Revelation, dominated his preaching and became his lifetime message. For example Savonarola proclaimed in one fiery sermon, “In the primitive church the chalices were of wood, the prelates of gold; in these days the church hath chalices of gold and prelates of wood.” This kind of direct confrontation of church leaders brought forth both praise from some and opposition from others. Moreover, Savonarola embraced an early version of the doctrine of biblical authority (Lat. Sola Scriptura = “by Scripture Alone”) and called the Church to reject the authority of the Pope by looking to the Bible alone.
Girolamo Savonarola in his maturity (1452-1498)
In 1494 Charles VIII, King of France, sent his armies ravaging throughout Italy and twice spared Florence due to Savonarola’s requests. The people of Florence interpreted this to be an example of God protecting the city from judgment. Savonarola used this “victory” to call for further moral reforms in Florence, which were enforced at times with a strong hand—for example during the Carnival of 1496 many profane and lewd books were publicly burnt in a “bonfire of vanities.” Some people welcomed these changes, but others resisted his efforts at reformation. He was openly opposed by the rival Franciscans, and by citizens who were still loyal to Piero de’ Medici (who had fled when Charles VIII threatened the city with destruction).
Pope Alexander VI (1431-1503)
Pope Alexander VI (also known as Alexander Borgia) responded to Savonarola’s criticisms of the Roman Catholic Church by threatening to place Florence under an interdict if they allowed Savonarola to continue his preaching. The Pope referred to Savonarola as “that meddlesome friar” and in 1497 excommunicated him. Savonarola responded with the charge that the Pope was “a representative of Satan not of Christ.” This led to Savonarola’s arrest in 1498, a trial for sedition and heresy, an extensive time of torture, and finally on May 23 a martyr’s death. Between episodes of torture he wrote meditations on Psalm 32 and 51, which Martin Luther later published and referred to them as “a piece of evangelical testing and Christian piety.” At his execution, Savonarola was stripped of his priestly vestments. The presiding Bishop said, “I separate thee from the church militant and from the church triumphant.” Savonarola boldly replied, “Militant, not triumphant, for you have no power to separate me from the church triumphant to which I go.” He was then hanged, and his body was burned at the stake. His remains, and those of two other men who were killed alongside of him, were thrown into the river Arno so that no relic of his life could be preserved. Dr. Howard F. Vos summarized Savonarola’s life with these words,
While Savonarola demanded reform in the church, he never took the more advanced position of Wycliffe and Huss. He had no quarrel with the teaching or the organization of the church, but seems to have believed in justification by faith. He was characterized by religious zeal and personal piety.
— Howard F. Vos, Who’s Who in Christian History, 607-608
Thus, a remarkable man passed from the scene. Yet, his energetic preaching, biblical teaching, and personal zeal laid the ground work for the Reformation which would spring forth into existence from the religious awakening of another monk in twenty years time–and that man was Martin Luther.
Here is the execution of Savonarola in the public square of Florence (May 23, 1498). In God’s providence he preceded the beginning stages of the Reformation by twenty years. Many of the Protestant Reformers greatly esteemed him!
Resources for Further Study:
Douglas, J. D., Gen. Edit. The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church. Second Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978.
“Alexander VI,” by Robert C. Clouse
“Dominicans” by A. S. Toon
“Papal States,” by Marvin W. Anderson
“Reformation, The” by Robert D. Linder
“Roman Catholicism” by H. M. Carson
“Savonarola, Girolamo,” by Robert C. Clouse
Houghton, S. M. Sketches from Church History. Edinburgh, Scotland: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1980.
Kuiper, R. B. The Glorious Body of Christ. Edinburgh, Scotland: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1966.
Sheldon, Henry C. History of the Christian Church. Vol. 2, “The Medieval Church.” New York, NY: Thomas Y. Crowell and Co., 1895; Peabody, MA: Hendricksen Publishers. Reprint, 1988.
Vos, Howard F. “Savonarola” in Who’s Who in Christian History. Douglas, J. D. and Philip W. Comfort (Co-editors). Wheaton, IL: Tyndale Publishers, 1992.
Dr. Marcus J. Serven, ThM and DMin
The Genevan Foundation – Copyright Nov. 2025 – All Rights Reserved
Archibald Alexander Hall at Princeton Theological Seminary
“The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs–heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ…” Rom. 8:16-17a
A close family friend sent this powerful quotation from Dr. Benjamin B. Warfield to one of my family members who has been struggling with her health. What an encouragement it was to her and to all of us! This citation is from a sermon given by Dr. Warfield in Miller Chapel to his students at Princeton Theological Seminary. Over the course of his lengthy ministry of teaching systematic theology in the classroom (1887-1921), he also passionately exhorted his students from the pulpit. Let me share it with you…
Dr. B. B. Warfield (1851-1921)
“If God be for us who can be against us?” (Rom. 8:31) Let our hearts repeat this cry of victory today. And as we repeat it, let us go onward, in hope and triumph, in our holy efforts. Let our slack knees be strengthened and new vigor enter our every nerve. The victory is assured. The Holy Spirit within us cannot fail us. The way may be rough; the path may climb the dizzy ascent with a rapidity too great for our faltering feet; dangers, pitfalls are on every side. But the Holy Spirit is leading us. Surely, in that assurance, despite dangers and weakness, and panting chest and swimming head, we can find strength to go ever forward.”
— Warfield, Biblical and Theological Studies, 558
I pray the Lord will encourage and strengthen you to go forward by faith in the Christian life. The Holy Spirit who dwells within you, is stronger than all of the temptations and trials of this present world (1 Cor. 3:16 and 6:19-20; 1 John 4:4). His presence in our life is a great blessing, and one that we should regularly remind ourselves of. Recall as well, this ringing exclamation: “If God be for us who can be against us?” (Rom 8:31)
— Dr. Marcus J. Serven
Source: Warfield, Benjamin Breckinridge. “A Sermon: The Leading of the Spirit” in Biblical and Theological Studies. Edited by Samuel G. Craig. Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1968. [page 558]
This is not a very clear photo–but here is my family and some dear friends gathered at the graves of B. B. Warfield and his wife in the Old Princeton Cemetery (“Heroes, History, and Hope Tour” 2013)
The Wartburg Castle near Eisenach, Germany, is where Dr. Martin Luther was safely held for nearly a year in 1521-1522
“The LORD of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our fortress.” Psalm 46:11
Yesterday, I had the opportunity to preach for Reformation Sunday at Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA) here in Austin, Texas. We have four pastors at Redeemer, and since I am the only one who is “semi-retired” I usually preach once or twice a year. Instead, my main role at Redeemer is focused on teaching. I regularly instruct adults in our School of Discipleship classes on Sunday mornings. Beyond that, I am the director of Redeemer Theological Academy teaching college-level courses in Biblical studies, Systematic Theology, Church History, Apologetics, and Ministry. This suits me quite well, and I am grateful to focus my energies on teaching at this point in life. Nonetheless, below is an audio file of my most recent sermon. Also, you will find an introduction to the sermon and an outline of the text. I hope you enjoy it!
— Dr. Marcus J. Serven
* * * * * * * * * *
“The Lord is our Fortress” – Psalm 46:1-11
Direct, succinct, and pastoral–it is hard to beat Derek Kidner’s fine commentary on the Psalms.
Introduction: The image of a “fortress” or “stronghold” in relation to the Lord shows up in many passages in the Old Testament (e.g. 2 Sam. 22:1-4; Ps. 9:9; 18:2; 31:3; 71:3; 91:2; 144:2; Prov. 18:10; Jer. 16:19). It is a portrait of strength, security, and safety for the people of God. Indeed, the Lord is the only one who could provide such protection in times of trouble. He is the one who created all things and also controls all things (Ps. 103:19). Essentially, this word-picture of a “fortress” and “stronghold” teaches us the doctrine of the sovereignty of God. In other words, we can believe that when everything in our world seems to be falling apart we can take comfort from the fact that all things are firmly under the control of the Lord. Even when misfortunes come our way, or when wickedness is exalted, we can be confident that “The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble” (Prov. 16:4). This doesn’t mean that we never experience any difficulties and trials in life. It does mean, however, that God is in the midst of these difficulties and trials, and that he is able to bring good out of them (Rom. 8:28). Let us, then, go forward as those who trust in the sovereign rule of the Lord over all things in our own personal circumstances and in the tumultuous events of this world. Soli Deo Gloria!
Here is an outline of my sermon: 1. The Lord is our Refuge and Strength, (vs. 1-3) 2. The Lord is the Source of All Blessings, (vs. 4-5) 3. The Lord is the Ruler of the Nations, (vs. 6-9) 4. The Lord is the King of His Saints, (vs. 10-11)
These four volumes are good places to start if you want to know more about Martin Luther
Also, here is a short article about the fateful day that Martin Luther was kidnapped and taken to the Wartburg Castle.
