“Christ as Mediator entered into the federal relation in which Adam stood in the state of integrity, in order to merit eternal life for the sinner. This constitutes the active obedience of Christ, consisting in all that Christ did to observe the law in its federal aspect, as the condition for obtaining eternal life. The active obedience of Christ was necessary to make His passive obedience acceptable with God, that is, to make it an object of God’s good pleasure. It is only on account of it that God’s estimate of the sufferings of Christ differs from His estimate of the sufferings of the lost. Moreover, if Christ had not rendered active obedience, the human nature of Christ itself would have fallen short of the just demands of God, and He would not have been able to atone for others. And, finally, if Christ had suffered only the penalty imposed on man, those who shared in the fruits of His work would have been left exactly where Adam was before he fell. Christ merits more for sinners than the forgiveness of sins. According to Gal. 4:4-5 they are through Christ set free from the law as the condition of life, are adopted to be sons of God, and as sons are also heirs of eternal life, Gal. 4:7. All this is conditioned primarily on the active obedience of Christ. Through Christ the righteousness of faith is substituted for the righteousness of the law, Rom. 10:3-4. Paul tells us that by the work of Christ ‘the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us,’ Rom. 8:3-4; and that we are made ‘the righteousness of God in Him,’ 2 Cor. 5:21.” (Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 380)
Source: Louis Berkhof. Systematic Theology. 4th Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1939.
An after class celebration at Pok-e-Jo’s Smokehouse in Austin
Over the past twenty-two months I have really enjoyed the privilege of teaching theology to this serious group of adult-learners. We call ourselves the “Theology Study Group.” Our class formed in the Summer of 2020 with four students and over time we grew to sixteen students. The basic plan was to meet weekly on Thursday mornings (weather, vacations, and illnesses permitting) at Redeemer Presbyterian Church. The Lord has certainly blessed us as we dug deep into the Bible and wrestled with all of the major doctrines of the Christian faith.
Today we reached the final pages in Louis Berkhof’s “Manual of Christian Doctrine” and we discussed–as you might expect–the Return of Christ and the coming Judgment Day. The promise of “the blessed hope” which is “the appearing of…our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13) is a strong motivation to holy living and faithfulness. What a privilege it is to reflect on these precious doctrines of God. Class members: (L-R) Max, Donna, Steven, Albert, David, Joel, Bret, me, Steven, and Boyd. Missing from this picture are regular attenders: Robert, Brian, Joseph, and Jack.
“The Reformers believed that the will, although in a fallen state, could still achieve civic virtue or civic righteousness. Fallen man can still obey the traffic lights and so on, but he cannot incline himself to the things of God. Jesus said, ‘This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father’ (John 6:65). ‘No one can’ means that no one is able. One of the key doctrines of the Reformation was sola gratia, meaning that we are saved by God’s grace alone and not from our own efforts. Does fallen man have the ability to turn to Christ and to choose Him before he is born of the Holy Spirit? Most professing evangelical Christians today believe that faith comes first and then rebirth. This presupposes that the unconverted person has the ability to incline himself, or choose to come, to Jesus Christ. Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and Edwards said that no one is able to do that. If we continue to think that in our fallen state we have the moral ability to come to Christ apart from the grace of God, we do so at our own peril. In John 6:65, our Lord clearly says that no one is able to come to Him unless the ability to do so is given to him by the Father. Fortunately for us, Jesus puts the word ‘unless’ in the statement. That word points to what we call a necessary condition, a sine qua non. A necessary condition has to be met before a desired result can occur. The desired result is coming to Christ; the necessary condition is that the ability to come must be given to each person by the Father. Only God gives that ability. No one can come to Christ on his own; we are not able to, unless God gives us the moral ability to do it.” (Sproul, Truths We Confess, 235-236)
Source: Sproul, R. C. Truths We Confess: A Systematic Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith. Orlando, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2019.
The present reality of the Kingdom of God was persistently taught by John Calvin in the 1500’s and it made a profound and positive impact upon the people of Geneva, Switzerland and many others
“And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” Matthew 28:20b
Written by Dr. Marcus J. Serven
Introduction:
Our Lord gives a defining picture of the chronology of the world in multiple passages throughout the Gospels. He speaks of “this age” and “the age to come.” In other words, Jesus teaches that there are two “ages” that we should be concerned about, and no others. “This age” refers to the present age in which we now live here on the earth. And the phrase “the age to come” refers to that age which is called the “new heavens and the new earth” where will we live with the Lord in heaven. There are not three ages: this age, an in-between age, and the age to come. There are only two ages.
“This age” in which we now live—our earthly existence—is identified with that time in which the kingdom of God “breaks-through” into human history and grows and expands into every dark corner of the earth. It anticipates the consummation of that kingdom in “the age to come.” The kingdom of God is already present, but it is not yet fulfilled. Hence, there is an over-lap between the two ages. This is sometimes referred to as the “already, but not yet” principle of the kingdom of God. To repeat, the kingdom of God is already present, but it is not yet fulfilled—there is more to come at the consummation of all earth history when Jesus Christ returns.
“This Age” and “the Age to Come” according to Geerhardus Vos
This way of thinking is often called an “inaugurated eschatology.” Simply stated, inaugurated eschatology is the belief in Christian doctrine that the end times were inaugurated in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and thus there are both “already” and “not yet” aspects to the kingdom of God. Christians now live as present-day members of the kingdom of God while still anticipating a future consummation. The kingdom of God is both “realized” in the present time, but it is also “anticipated” in the future as greater fulfillments are expected.
Key Bible Passages: (all italics are mine)
“Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” Matthew 12:31-32
[The Parable of the Weeds explained] “The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the close of the age, and the reapers are the angels. Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the close of the age.” Matthew 13:38-40
[The Parable of the Net] “So it will be at the close of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Matthew 13:49-50
“As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, ‘Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?’” Matthew 24:3
“And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” Matthew 28:20b
“Jesus said, ‘Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, house and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life.’” Mark 10:29-30
“And he said to them, ‘Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not receive many times more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life.’” Luke 18:29-30
“And Jesus said to them, ‘The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.’” Luke 20:34-36
“Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age?” 1 Corinthians 1:20
“Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” 1 Corinthians 2:6-8
“In that case the god of this world [in Greek: aeon = age] has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” 2 Corinthians 4:4
“Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen.” Galatians 1:3-5
“…according to the working of his great might that we worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come.” Ephesians 1:19b-21
“As for the rich in the present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy. They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, thus storing up treasure for themselves as a good foundation for the future [lit. “for the coming age”], so that they may take hold of that which is truly life.” 1 Timothy 6:17-19
“For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.” Titus 2:11-14
“For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.” Hebrews 6:4-7
Significant Quotations:
Dr. Cornelis P. Venema
— Cornelis P. Venema (b. 1954) “In the coming of Christ, the long-awaited coming of God’s kingdom is inaugurated. In the Gospels, both John the Baptist and Jesus announce in their preaching that the kingdom of God ‘is at hand’ (literally, ‘has drawn near’, Matt. 3:2, Mark 1:15). When Christ cast out demons, he testified to the Pharisees that this was evidence that the kingdom of God ‘had come upon them’ (Matt. 12:28). Similarly, the Gospel accounts of Christ’s miracles and the authority with which he commissioned the disciples to preach the gospel of the kingdom serve to confirm that, with his coming, the Old Testament promise regarding the future coming of the kingdom is being fulfilled. Though this kingdom has not yet come in all of its fullness, it has come in the person and work Jesus Christ, in his life, death, resurrection and ascension to the Father’s right hand, whence he presently reigns until all of his enemies have been subdued beneath his feet (1 Cor. 15:25).” (Venema, The Promise of the Future, 26)
Dr. George Eldon Ladd
— George Eldon Ladd (1911-1982) “There is a powerful dualism in the New Testament: God’s will is done in heaven; his Kingdom brings it to earth. In the Age to Come, heaven descends to earth and lifts historical existence to a new level of redeemed life (Rev. 21:2-3). This is hinted at, although not elaborated on, in the Gospels. Those who ‘attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot die any more, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection’ (Lk. 20:35-36). Here is a truly inconceivable order of existence. There are no human analogies to describe existence without the physiological and sociological bonds of sex and family. But this is the will of God: to conquer evil and to bring his people finally into the blessed immortality of the eternal life of the Age to Come.” (Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, 69)
“If God’s Kingdom is the gift of life bestowed upon his people when he manifests his rule in eschatological glory, and if God’s Kingdom is also God’s rule invading history before the eschatological consummation, it follows that we may expect God’s rule in the present to bring a preliminary blessing to his people. This is in fact what we find. The Kingdom is not only an eschatological gift belonging to the age to come; it is also a gift to be received in the old aeon.” (Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, 72)
Dr. Anthony A. Hoekema
— Anthony A. Hoekema (1913-1988) “The nature of New Testament eschatology may be summed up under three observations: (1) the great eschatological event predicted in the Old Testament has happened; (2) what the Old Testament writers seems to depict as one movement is now seen to involve two stages: the present age and the age of the future; and (3) the relation between these two eschatological stages is that the blessings of the present age are the pledge and guarantee of greater blessings to come.” (Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 21-22)
Dr. Geerhardus Vos
“At this point we should take a look at a theologian who has made a significant contribution to eschatological studies, but who has not received the attention he deserves. I refer to Geerhardus Vos (1862-1949), who was professor of Biblical Theology at Princeton Theological Seminary from 1893-1932…In his Pauline Eschatology, published in 1930, Vos further developed these insights, particularly as they reflected the teachings of the Apostle Paul. For the Old Testament writers, he states, the distinction between ‘this age’ and the ‘age to come’ was thought of simply in terms of chronological succession. But when the Messiah whose coming these Old Testament writers had predicted actually arrived on the scene, the eschatological process had in principle already begun, and therefore the simple scheme of chronological succession between this age or world and the age or world to come was no longer adequate. The Messianic appearance now began to unfold itself into two successive epochs; ‘the age to come was perceived to bear in its womb another age to come’ [Vos, The Pauline Eschatology, 36]…According to Vos, therefore, the New Testament believer lives both in the age or world and in the age or world to come at the same time. Vos would therefore agree with Dodd that there is a sense in which the age to come has already arrived. He would differ from Dodd, however, in maintaining that there will be a future Parousia or Second Coming of Christ, and a future consummation of the age or world to come in which all its potentialities will be fully realized.” (Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 298-299)
Dr. Herman Ridderbos
— Herman Ridderbos (1909-2007) “The coming of the Lord can for this reason not only be a motive for sanctification, but also a source and ground of comfort in the present ‘affliction,’ a word that does not merely refer to an incidental setback of difficulty, but very definitely characterizes the last phase of the present world preceding the coming of Christ. Therefore the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven also signifies rest for those who are now in this distress (2 These. 1:6-ff). Because of this hope of the glory of God the church may glory in this affliction (Rom 5: 2-5). Affliction, suffering, and glory frequently occur in one context (Rom. 8:18), indeed in the former lie the announcement and proof of the latter (Rom. 8:19-23). Hope in the appearing of Christ (Tit. 2:13) is accordingly the distinguishing mark of the Christian life (Rom. 8:24; Gal. 5:5). As the one who will appear, Christ is the hope of glory (Col. 1:27), or in the absolute sense ‘our hope’ (1 Tim. 1:1), with whose manifestation the church, too, will be manifested in glory (Col. 3:4). It is this glory which is time and again held out in prospect to the church that now finds itself in distress and suffering (1 Cor. 15:43; 2 Cor. 3:18, 4:17; Eph. 1:18; Phil. 3:4; 2 Thess. 2:14; 2 Tim. 1:10), and on which its hope is set (Col. 1:5; 1 Thess. 5:8; Tit. 1:2, 2:13, 3:7). And with what intensity this expectation is charged all those passages prove in which the apostle strongly accentuates the ‘not yet’ of the present. These the sparks shoot, as it were, to and fro between the two poles (Rom. 8:18-ff; 2 Cor. 4:16-18); there it is evident what a living and fervent longing supports and glows through all the preaching of the apostle (cf. Rom 7:24, 25, 8:23, et al.).” (Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, 488-489).
— Dr. Kim Riddlebarger (b. 1954)
“Both Jesus and Paul repeatedly spoke of “this age” and the “age to come” as two successive and qualitatively distinct eschatological periods. In three places in the synoptic Gospels, our Lord explicitly contrasted “this age” with “an age to come.” In Matthew 12:32 Jesus spoke of the impossibility of forgiveness for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit either “in this age or the age to come.” In Luke 18:29-30 Jesus spoke about the kingdom of God in response to the unbelief expressed by the rich young ruler. Jesus said, “I tell you the truth…no one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God will fail to receive many times as much in this age and, in the age to come, eternal life.” In Luke 20:34-35 Jesus declared, “The people of this age neither marry nor are given in marriage. But those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, and they can no longer die; for thy are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection.” These texts make it clear that our Lord understood these two ages as successive and qualitatively distinct.” (Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 82)
— Dr. Craig G. Bartholomew (b. 1961) and Dr. Michael W. Goheen (b. 1955)
“But if the old has passed away and the new has come, why do evil and death remain in the world? Paul’s letters are charged with the same tension between the “already” and “not yet” aspects of the kingdom of God that we have seen in Jesus’s own teachings but with some differences in emphasis. For Paul, the kingdom is here already in that Jesus’s death brings an end to the old and his resurrection inaugurates the new. The Spirit is described as a deposit (or down payment) on the coming kingdom (2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5; Eph. 1:14). A deposit is not merely an IOU or promise for the future; instead, it is a real payment given now as a guarantee that in the future the rest will be paid. The Spirit is also pictured as first fruits, the first part of the harvest, ready to be enjoyed now, and tangible evidence that the remainder of the harvest will also come (Rom. 8:23). The kingdom has not yet arrived for us in its fullness. We remain in a world that has not yet been fully delivered from the influence of evil, demonic powers (2 Cor. 4:4). We are still surrounded by the darkness of sin and rebellion against God (Eph. 2:2-3), even while we anticipate the full revelation of God’s kingdom in which those things shall be no more. Thus, in Paul’s thought there is no clearly marked threshold between the present age and the age to come. We live in the in-between time, in which the two ages overlap.” (Bartholomew and Goheen, The Drama of Scripture, 206-207)
These particular books have helped me to understand the present reality of the Kingdom of God more than any others–each one is superlative!
Resources for Further Study:
Bartholomew, Craig G. and Michael W. Goheen. The Drama of Scripture: Finding Our Place in the Biblical Story, Second Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2014.
Elwell, Walter A. ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Second Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2001.
“Age, Ages” by George E. Ladd
“Eschatology” by Frederick F. Bruce
“Kingdom of Christ, God, Heaven” by George E. Ladd
“Millennium, Views of the” by Robert G. Clouse
“Realized Eschatology” by Gary M. Burge
“Second Coming of Christ” by Millard J. Ericksen
“This Age, The Age to Come” by Gary M. Burge
Hoekema, Anthony. The Bible and the Future. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979.
Ladd, George Eldon. A Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974.
Ladd, George Eldon. The Presence of the Future: An Eschatology of Biblical Realism. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974.
Lloyd-Jones, Martyn. The Kingdom of God. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1992.
Ridderbos, Herman. The Coming of the Kingdom. Raymond O. Zorn, ed. H. de Jongste, trans. Philadelphia, PA: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing company, 1962.
Ridderbos, Herman. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. John R. De Witt, Trans. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1975.
Riddlebarger, Kim. The Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2003.
Venema, Cornelis P. The Promise of the Future. Edinburgh, Scotland: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2000.
Vos, Geerhardus. The Kingdom of God and the Church. Originally published in 1903; Dallas, TX: Fontes Press, Reprint, 2017.
Vos, Geerhardus. The Pauline Eschatology. Originally published in 1930; Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, Reprint 1979.
Dr. Marcus J. Serven, ThM and DMin
The Genevan Foundation – Copyright April, 2022 – All Rights Reserved
“Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven” Matt. 6:10
Later in life when Martin Bucer (1491-1551) served as the Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University, he wrote, perhaps, his greatest work De Regno Christi which is translated “The Kingdom of Christ” (1550). This significant book shaped theological and political thought for many centuries in Reformation-minded countries by setting forth a blueprint for Christian society. It was dedicated to the young English Monarch, King Edward VI.
Bucer described the Kingdom of God in the following manner,
Dr. Martin Bucer, Protestant Reformer of Strasbourg
“We read that this Kingdom is called “the Kingdom of God” (Matt. 6:33), “the Kingdom of the beloved Son of God” (Eph. 5:5), and “the Kingdom of Heaven” (Matt. 3:12). Now we know that a kingdom, if it is rightly and properly so called, is said to be the administration of a people or state by which the one person who excels the others in wisdom and every virtue so arranges and obtains whatever is for the well-being of the citizens that nothing at all is lacking to them, in such a way that from earliest childhood everyone is formed and led toward a responsible and happy way of life. Since this is the nature and purpose of any kingdom which can really be called a kingdom, let us consider that the kingdom about which we are reading is called the Kingdom of God. Whatever good properties exist in any human kingdom exist and are found in fuller perfection here, inasmuch as God is above all men, both in the wisdom of his governance and in the benevolence of his will for all mankind. Indeed, since God alone is good, wise, and powerful, only in his Kingdom can those things which ought to be done by royal rule be plainly perceived.”
Bucer, De Regno Christi, 176-177
Here we see the thoughts of a mature Christian man who was thoroughly saturated with the principles of the Word of God. Bucer rightly acknowledges, “Whatever good properties exist in any human kingdom exist and are found in fuller perfection here” (i.e. in the Kingdom of God). Thus, it is beneficial, good, and right for the leaders of the kingdoms of this earth to emulate the King of Kings in their judgements, laws, and societal standards. To do otherwise, invites the judgement and discipline of the Lord (Ps. 2:10-12).
May God give us confidence in the rule of the Lord Jesus Christ during these dark days (Ps. 110:1-7). Those who flagrantly rule over humanity with deception, injustice, and wickedness must ultimately give an account to the King of Kings and Lord of Lords (2 Cor. 5:10). That sobering fact should give all Christians a great sense of assurance. The Kingdom of God will prevail despite all those who oppose it. Jesus plainly states, “I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18b).
— Dr. Marcus J. Serven
Biographical Source:
Bucer, Martin. “De Regno Christi” in Melancthon and Bucer. Wilhelm Pauck, ed. Francois Wendel, trans. The Library of Christian Classics. Volume XIX. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1969.
Within all of the varieties of Protestant theology there are two central systems of thought regarding the doctrine of salvation–it is entirely of God (monergism), or it is a cooperative effort by God and man (synergism). Both systems of theology are named after men–John Calvin’s teaching reflects the monergistic view, and Jacobus Arminius’ teaching represents the synergistic view. Moreover, it must be noted that both men would probably be very uncomfortable with having their names attached to these two systems of thought–Calvinism and Arminianism. Nevertheless, their names are useful handles for identifying the differing views that each system claims. But what exactly are the differences?
J. I. Packer ably explains the differences in the quote below:
Dr. J. I. Packer (1926-2020)
“Now, here are two coherent interpretations of the biblical gospel, which stand in evident opposition to each other. The difference between them is not primarily one of emphasis, but of content. One proclaims a God who saves; the other speaks of a God who enables man to save himself. One view presents the three great acts of the Holy Trinity for the recovering of lost mankind—election by the Father, redemption by the Son, calling by the Spirit—as directed towards the same persons, and as securing their salvation infallibly. The other view gives each act a different reference (the objects of redemption being all mankind, of calling, all who hear the gospel, and of election, those hearers who respond), and denies that any man’s salvation is secured by any of them. The two theologies thus conceive the plan of salvation in quite different terms. One makes salvation depend on the work of God, the other on a work of man; one regards faith as part of God’s gift of salvation, the other as man’s own contribution to salvation; one gives all the glory of saving sinners to God, the other divides the praise between God, who, so to speak, built the machinery of salvation, and man, who by believing operated it. Plainly, these differences are important, and the permanent value of the five points, as a summary of Calvinism, is that they make clear the areas in which, and the extent to which, the two conceptions are at variance.”
J. I. Packer, A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life, 128-129
These are not inconsequential matters, or just abstruse theological technicalities. Which system you adhere to gets at the very essence of the Gospel and how you lead your life as a Christian. J. I. Packer explains, “One proclaims a God who saves; the other speaks of a God who enables man to save himself.” If it is God who does the saving–then that leads to a deep and abiding sense of security and an expression of gratitude. If it is man who does the saving–then that leads to a temporal and irregular sense of security and an expression of uncertainty.
As for myself, I am totally committed to preaching and teaching the view that God does the saving. Why? Because it is the clear message of the Bible. He elects in eternity (John 15:16; Acts 13:48; Rom. 9:16; Eph. 1:3-5). He calls and convicts the sinner (John 6:44; John 10:1-5, 27-29). He regenerates the unbeliever and gives him the gift of faith to believe and trust in Christ (John 3:3, 5; Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5-7). He justifies, adopts, redeems, and reconciles the new believer so that he begins to manifest a new manner of life (Rom. 3:24-26; Rom. 5:1; Rom. 8:1-2, 14-17; 2 Cor. 5:17-21). And, He progressively sanctifies the believer throughout the remainder of his life (John 17:17; 1 Cor. 6:11; 1 Thess. 4:3). In short, God gets the all glory in the matter of salvation–Soli Deo Gloria!
— Dr. Marcus J. Serven
Here is a short list of some of J. I. Packer’s most insightful books:
Packer, James I. A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1990.
Packer, James I. Concise Theology: A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2001.
Packer, James I. Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1961.
Packer, James I. Growing in Christ. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Publishers, 2007.
Packer, James I. Knowing God. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1973.
All three of these books by J. I. Packer are well worth your time to read–each has been a blessing to me!
Prof. Louis Berkhof of Calvin Theological Seminary
“Is immersion that only proper mode of baptism? The generally prevailing opinion outside of Baptist circles is that, as long as the fundamental idea, namely, that of purification, finds expression in the rite, the mode of baptism is quite immaterial. It may be administered by immersion, by pouring or effusion, or by sprinkling. The Bible simply uses a generic word to denote an action designed to produce a certain effect, namely, cleansing or purification, but nowhere determines the specific mode in which the effect is to be produced. Jesus did not prescribe a certain mode of baptism. He evidently did not attach as much importance to it as the Baptists do. Neither do the Biblical examples of baptism stress any particular mode…That this purification was sometimes effected by sprinkling, is evident from Num. 8:7; 19:13, 18, 19, 20; Ps. 51:7; Ezek. 36:25; Heb. 9:10…Neither is this possible in connection with the following passages of the New Testament: Matt. 3:11; Luke 11:37-38; 12:50; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 12:13; Heb. 9:10 (cf. verses 13, 14, 19, 21); 1 Cor. 10:1-2. Since the word baptizo does not necessarily mean ‘to immerse,’ and because the New Testament does not in any case explicitly assert that baptism took place by immersion, the burden of proof would seem to rest on the Baptists…The passages referred to in the preceding prove that many Old Testament washings (baptizings) took place by sprinkling. In a prophecy respecting the spiritual renewal of the New Testament day the Lord says: ‘And I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean,’ Ezek. 36:25. The matter signified in baptism, namely, the purifying Spirit, was poured out upon the Church, Joel 2:28-29; Acts 2:4, 33. And the writer of Hebrews speaks of his readers as having their hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, Heb. 10:22.” (Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 629-631)
Here is a short summary statement of John Calvin’s argument for applying the sign of baptism to the children of Believers:
John Calvin (1509-1564)
“Reason would tell us that baptism is rightly administered to babies. The Lord did not give circumcision long ago without making them (infants) partakers of everything represented by circumcision. He would have been deceiving his people with a sham, if he had reassured them with false signs. The idea is very shocking. He distinctly states that the circumcision of the infant is the seal of covenant promise. If the covenant remains firm and unmoved, this is just as relevant to the children of Christians today as it was to the children of the Jews under the Old Testament…The truth of baptism applies to infants, so why do we deny them the sign? The Lord himself formally admitted infants to his covenant, so what more do we need?”
John Calvin, Institutes of the christian religion, 4:16:5 (Beveridge Edition)
Most Reformed and Presbyterian families embrace Calvin’s way of thinking when it comes to our “Covenant Children.” We understand that God has given each child to the Christian family as a “heritage,” a “reward,” and a “blessing” (Ps. 127:3-5). And, that the sign and seal of the Old Testament–which was circumcision (Gen. 17:7-9; Rom. 4:11)–has now been replaced by baptism in the New Testament (Col. 2:11-12). Standing on the promises of the Covenant of Grace, Christian parents are solemnly tasked by Jesus Christ “to make disciples” of their children by “baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19). Lastly, they are instructed by the Apostle Paul to “bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4; Matt. 28:20). This is serious business!
An Infant Baptism at Covenant Family Church in Troy, MO
Therefore, it is imperative that Christian fathers and mothers embrace the promises of God for each one of their children (Ps. 78:1-8). Consider the Apostle Peter’s striking admonition to his fellow Jews on the day of Pentecost, “For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself” (Acts 2:39). In other words, those who follow Jesus Christ as His disciples are responsible by faith to entrust the spiritual awakening of their own children to God’s gracious work (John 3:3-5; Titus 3:5-7). We do this by presenting our “Covenant Children” for baptism and by instructing them in the truths of the Gospel as they mature.
Why take the time to study the life and ministry of Martin Luther (1483-1546)? After all he lived around 500 years ago, and surely everything that could be said about him has already been said! In answer to this question it must be stated that, “Yes” a lot has already been said about Martin Luther, but also a lot has been forgotten about the details of his life and the incredible influence he had upon the modern world. It is to Martin Luther that we credit a recovery of the Gospel of grace and a reaffirmation of the core doctrines of the Christian faith. His bold and stubborn proclamation of the Bible’s life-giving message delivered whole nations from religious slavery and opened the door to the progress of religious liberty. His persistence in preaching, teaching, and writing flooded the market with life-changing literature that revolutionized the lives of individuals and led to the formation of entirely new denominations.
In my opinion, Martin Luther deserves first place in the past 500 years in shaping the world in which we now live. He had a greater influence in his own spheres (theology and biblical exposition) than Karl Marx (in politics), Charles Darwin (in science), Sigmund Freud (in psychology), Soren Kierkegaard (in philosophy), Mahatma Gandhi (in spirituality), Reinhold Niebuhr (in theology), and John Maynard Keynes (in economics). He brought forward the key themes of faith, freedom, government, grace, higher education, justification, law, liberty, marriage and family, music, salvation, vocation, and worship. In short, he transformed Germany, the remainder of Europe, North America, and in time the rest of the world. Today, it is a benefit for everyone to know about this unique man and the central beliefs that motivated him to stand firm throughout his life in the midst of so much adversity. Let us, then, reflect on his life and ministry and give thanks to God for raising up such a man!
Martin Luther’s birthplace–Eisleben, Germany
Martin Luther was born on November 10, 1483 and raised in the small German town of Eisleben. His father came from peasant stock, but earned enough money from mining silver that he was able to afford an excellent education for his son. Luther progressed through the academic ranks attending the very best preparatory schools. At age eighteen he began his studies at the University of Erfurt graduating with a Bachelor of Arts in 1502 and a Master of Arts in 1505. His father wanted him to pursue law, but following a narrow brush with death in a violent thunderstorm (he was struck by lightning!), he made a life-changing vow to become an Augustinian monk (age 23). He went on to become a priest in 1507 and studied theology at Wittenberg University. He was awarded a Bachelor of Divinity in 1509 when he was 26 years old.
It was during these years of monastery life (1507-1512) that Luther experienced an intense spiritual struggle where he sought to work out his own salvation by careful observance of monastic rule, personal confession, and the discipline of self-mortification. In many respects, Luther “out-monked” all of the other monks! His health declined due to his tireless devotion to study and self-denial (i.e. lack of food and sleep). Luther describes this period of his life in the following quote,
I was indeed a pious monk and kept the rules of my order so strictly that I can say: if ever a monk gained heaven through monkery, it should have been I. All my monastic brethren who knew me well will testify to this. I would have martyred myself to death with fasting, praying, reading, and other good works had I remained a monk much longer.
Hillerbrand, ed. The Reformation: A Narrative History, 24
Martin Luther as a young Monk
Fortunately, the vicar general of his order, Johann von Staupitz, encouraged him to reconsider the insights of Augustine on the nature of divine grace. These readings in Augustine, plus the fruits of his own biblical study gradually began to erode the prevailing “works-righteousness” that had so thoroughly dominated his mind. A spiritual crisis arose while on a journey to Rome on behalf of his monastic order (1510-1511). After observing the cavalier lifestyle of the religious authorities in Rome he became acutely aware of the gross hypocrisy and corruption amongst the higher clergy. This realization deeply disturbed him and it became the basis for his future thoughts on the utter depravity of the human heart. Upon his return from Rome he completed studies for the Doctor of Theology degree (1512) and was appointed chair of biblical studies at Wittenberg University serving in this capacity for the rest of his life.
His class room lectures, and the personal studies that preceded them, were the final turning point in his search for righteousness. The book of Psalms, Paul’s letters to the Romans and Galatians, and the book of Hebrews greatly reshaped his understanding of the doctrines of grace, sin, righteousness, salvation, and Christian discipleship. He became profoundly aware of his own deep-rooted sin. Personal merit in all of its forms became offensive to him and he realized that righteousness was a judicial act of God through Christ rather than a result of individual striving. It was while pondering Romans 1:16-17 that he finally realized God’s righteousness was not the divine justice we fear, but the gracious gift that God gives to all believers who trust in Christ alone for salvation. Luther’s personal discovery led to a new emphasis of the central New Testament doctrine “justification by grace through faith” (cf. Romans 3:21-30, Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5-7). He wrote about this transformative experience saying,
I greatly longed to understand Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, and nothing stood in the way but that one expression, “the righteousness of God,” because I took it to mean that righteousness whereby God is righteous and deals righteously in punishing the unrighteous…Night and day I pondered until…I grasped the truth that the righteousness of God is that righteousness whereby, through grace and sheer mercy, he justifies us by faith. Thereupon I felt myself to be reborn and to have gone through open doors into paradise. The whole of Scripture took on new meaning, and whereas before “the righteousness of God” had filled with me with hate, now it became to me inexpressibly sweet in greater love. This passage of Paul became to me a gateway to heaven.
Tim Dowley, ed. The History of Christianity, 372
Luther posting the 95 Theses on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg
Luther’s new found truths became a lightening rod for dissatisfaction in the church. He desired only to reform the church, not to leave it or to promote dissension. However, in 1517 when Johann Tetzel began preaching the sale of Indulgences (i.e. a “certificate of forgiveness” from sins)—Luther was outraged and an open controversy resulted. It seems that only Luther was bold enough to stand-up to this error. He responded with 95 Theses in Latin which were nailed to the Castle Church door at Wittenberg on October 31, 1517. These theses were quickly translated into German and were widely circulated. As a result, a growing throng of Germans supported his efforts at reform. Moreover, Luther came under great pressure from the church authorities to recant, especially when the sale of the Indulgences began to suffer. He pointedly wrote,
Thesis #27 — “Those who assert that a soul straightway flies out (of purgatory) as a coin tinkles in the collection-box, are preaching an invention of man.”
Thesis #28 — “It is sure that when a coin tinkles greed and avarice are increased; but the intercession of the church is the will of God alone.”
Thesis #32 — “Those who think themselves sure of salvation through their letters of pardon will be forever damned along with their teachers.”
Thesis #50 — “Christians must be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the preachers of indulgences he would rather have Saint Peter’s basilica reduced to ashes than built with the skin, flesh, and bones of his sheep.”
Thesis #51 — “Christians are to be taught that the pope (as is his duty) would desire to give of his own substance to those poor men from many of whom certain sellers of pardons are extracting money; that to this end he would even, if need be, sell the basilica of Saint Peter.”
Thesis #52 — “Confidence in salvation through letters of indulgence is vain; and that even if the commissary, nay, even the pope himself, should pledge his soul as a guarantee.”
Thesis #62 — “The true treasure of the church is the most holy gospel of the glory and the grace of God.”
(Bettenson, Documents of the Christian Church, 197-203)
Albert, the Archbishop of Mainz, complained to Leo X, the Pope, about the growing popularity of Luther’s teachings. As a result, Luther became involved in defending himself at the Heidelberg disputation before his fellow Augustinians (1518), at the Augsburg disputation against Cardinal Cajetan (1518), and at the famous Leipzig disputation against Johann Eck (1519). This led to a Papal Bull being issued in June, 1520 (Exsurge Dominie) which began with the provocative phrase, “Arise, O Lord, and judge thy cause. A wild boar has invaded thy vineyard.” Indeed, a “wild boar” was rooting up the vineyard—but it was those vines that were not producing any fruit.
Emperor Charles V
Not long afterwards, Luther received a formal summons to appear at the imperial Diet at Worms (April, 1521). Charles the 5th, the Holy Roman Emperor, and all of the emissaries of the Roman Catholic Church put tremendous pressure on Luther to renounce his numerous teachings and writings at Worms. It was demanded that Luther recant, under the threat of being declared an “outlaw” of the empire, but after an anguished night of prayer and reflection he refused with the following courageous words,
Martin Luther defending himself at the Diet of Worms (1521)
Your Imperial Majesty and Lordships demand a simple answer. Here it is, plain and unvarnished. Unless I am convicted of error by the testimony of Scriptures or (since I put no trust in the unsupported authority of Pope or of councils, since it is plain that they have often erred and often contradicted themselves) by manifest reasoning I stand convicted by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive by God’s word, I cannot and will not recant anything, for to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us. On this I take my stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.
Bettenson, Documents of the Christian Church, 214
The Wartburg Castle outside of Eisenach, Germany
Frederick III of Saxony
Although Luther had been promised “safe passage” to and from Worms, the supportive German Prince, Frederick of Saxony, feared for Luther’s life and quietly arranged for his “kidnapping” so that he would remain safe from those who sought his life. Heavily armed soldiers, loyal to Frederick, disguised themselves as common thieves and captured Luther, whisking him off to a castle high in the mountains of Thuringia. The entire German nation feared that their champion was dead! For almost a year he lay hidden in “The Wartburg” under a pseudonymous name, Junker Jorg, or “George the Knight.” It was during this time that he grew a beard and carried a large sword to complete the deception. He used his time of concealment well, however, and translated the entire New Testament into German (1522) and began work on the translation of the Old Testament which he finished in 1534. He also wrote many stirring hymns of which “A Mighty Fortress is our God” is the best known (no doubt inspired by Psalm 46 while in the Wartburg). Finally, when he could remain hidden no longer, he boldly emerged from his concealment and returned to Wittenberg to lead the fledgling efforts of reform (1522).
Family Life: Martin Luther leading hymns with his Wife, Children, and Philip Melanchthon
The following years of public leadership resulted in many significant changes within the German church. After reconsidering his vow of celibacy, Luther rejected it and encouraged the marriage of priests and nuns. He himself married the ex-nun Katharine von Bora in 1525. They enjoyed a happy life together and were blessed with six children. Frederick rewarded Luther with title to the Black Cloister monastery in Wittenberg; from then on it became known as Luther Haus. Moreover, the Christian education of children became prominent in his mind and he wrote a Large Catechism (1528) and a Small Catechism (1529) for the purpose of teaching theology to heads of households and promoting Bible reading in Christian families. He also brought about sweeping changes in the liturgy of the worship service, seeking to simplify it and to put it into German.
Luther and Zwingli argue over the Lord’s Supper at the Marburg Colloquy (1529)
Ulrich Zwingli
Luther was a man of strong passions and convictions. He both argued against and endeavored to unify fellow Reformers. When the German and Swiss Reformers gathered at the Marburg Colloquy in October, 1529 an explosive debate ensued between Ulrich Zwingli and Martin Luther over the nature of the Lord’s Supper. The question of whether Jesus Christ was really and truly present in the elements—the bread and wine—dominated the gathering. All of the Reformers sought to avoid the absurd complexity of transubstantiation (i.e. the belief that the elements were transformed by the Priest into the actual body and blood of Jesus). Zwingli argued that the Lord’s Supper was merely “a memorial service” where believers remembered the sacrificial death of Jesus on the Cross; quoting Jesus’ words, “Do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19).
Martin Luther at Mid-Career
Luther, however, forcefully argued that Jesus’ words, “This is my body” and “This is my blood of the covenant” (Matt. 26:26-28), were more than a mere remembrance of a past event. Instead, Luther declared they affirmed the reality that Jesus’ actual body and blood were present “in, with, or under” the elements. Luther’s position in time became known as consubstantiation. He also affirmed the doctrine of “ubiquity”—that Jesus Christ was bodily present in the elements of the Lord’s Supper despite the fact that the “accidents” (the bread and wine) remained as bread and wine. This breach between the Lutherans and Swiss Reformers has never been fully healed. Although, Luther gave some credence to the solution that Calvin proposed many years later—that Jesus Christ was “spiritually” present in the elements of the Lord’s Supper—Luther and the Lutheran Church have doggedly held to the doctrine of consubstantiation.
How do we evaluate the life and ministry of Martin Luther? Consider this analogy: the Medieval Roman Catholic Church had become like a giant ship that over time sank lower and lower in the water and lost its ability to plow through the waves. Its hull had become so encrusted with unwanted barnacles and seaweed that it could barely move. Instead of racing through the ocean at top speed, this ship (i.e. the church) was so burdened with the excessive weight of the “traditions of men” that the gospel was completely obscured. One way for this situation to change was for the Lord to raise-up a group of godly men (i.e. the Reformers) who would drag the ship into a dry dock, empty out all of the water, and scrape the sides of the ship getting rid of all that encumbered it. Once this was done, the church—like a freshly cleaned and painted ship—was once again able to race through the water at top speed. In essence, Martin Luther accomplished what no man up to that time had been able to accomplish—he stripped away many of the “traditions of men” and recovered the gospel “that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). For this stellar achievement, all Protestants should be exceedingly thankful!
Near the end of his life, Luther was asked about his lasting impact on the religious awakening of the day. Luther humbly replied,
I simply taught, preached, wrote God’s Word; otherwise I did nothing. And then, while I slept, or drank Wittenberg beer with my Philip and my Amsdorf, the Word so greatly weakened the papacy that never a prince or emperor did such damage to it. I did nothing. The Word did it all.
stephanek, Martin Luther, 15
Martin Luther died on Feb. 18, 1546 (aged 63) in the town of his birth, Eisleben, leaving a wonderful legacy that survives to this present day. Steven Lawson colorfully paints the scene of his death and his ongoing legacy with these words,
Luther’s Grave in the Castle Church
Knowing the end was near, he wrote his last will and testament. It began with the words, “I am well known in heaven, on earth, and in hell,” a true statement of the result of his bold stance throughout his life. In his last moments, Luther was asked by his friend Justus Jonas, “Do you want to die standing firm on Christ and the doctrine you have taught?” He answered emphatically, “Yes!” Luther’s last words were: “We are beggars. This is true.” Luther’s body was carried to Wittenberg as thousands of mourners lined the route. Church bells tolled for their fallen leader. Luther was buried, appropriately, in the Castle Church of Wittenberg. This was the very church where, twenty-nine years earlier, he had nailed his Ninety-five Theses. His final resting place was immediately below the pulpit, where he had so often stood to preach the Word. His wife, Katherine, wrote: “For who would not be sad and afflicted at the loss of such a precious man as my dear lord was. He did great things not just for a city or a single land, but for the whole world.” The influence of her husband did, indeed, reach around the globe.
Lawson, the heroic boldness of martin luther, 23
Martin Luther’s theology and personal convictions can be summarized in these six “rallying-cries” of the Protestant Reformation:
“By Christ Alone” (Solus Christus): Jesus Christ alone is the name by which we may be saved (John 14:6; Acts 4:12).
“Scripture Alone” (Sola Scriptura): The Bible alone is the source of God’s revelation, the gospel (John 10:35; 2 Timothy 3:14-17).
“By Grace Alone” (Sola Gratia): God’s grace alone is the ground of salvation, and this is received by faith (Ephesians 2:4-10; Titus 2:11-14).
“By Faith Alone” (Sola Fide): God-given faith is the only way to receive the imputed righteousness of Christ, and this results in our justification (Romans 1:16-17, 3:28; Ephesians 2:8-9).
“In the Presence of God” (Coram Deo): Christians are exhorted by the Bible to live all of life in the presence of God. This implies that there is no area of life where you do not have (negotium cum Deo) “business with God” (Ephesians 5:1-14; Colossians 3:1-17).
“To God Be the Glory” (Soli Deo Gloria): God alone is the proper recipient of our gratitude in the matter of salvation and the Christian life (1 Corinthians 10:31; Titus 3:5-7).
The entire Protestant world will be forever in the debt of Dr. Martin Luther. His recovery of the true Gospel from the accretions of human tradition and self-righteousness brought spiritual liberty to the heirs of the Reformation. His life-giving message continues on giving hope to Christians from every denomination throughout the globe. The preeminent Reformation scholar, Dr. Hugh T. Kerr, explains,
There is virtual unanimity among historians and theologians as to the unique importance and significance of Martin Luther. He was not only the outstanding hero of the Protestant Reformation, but his influence was such that subsequent history cannot be understood without taking him into consideration. Even those who do not subscribe to his views are forced to admit that he brought about a transformation, if not a reformation, in life and thought as well as in religion…Surely he is one of he pivotal personalities of history, and he has always been acknowledged as such. His appeal is universal, and if books about him mean anything he grows in importance with the passing years. That is why he belongs not to one branch of Protestantism, but, we may say, to Christian theology.
kerr, ed. A Compend of Luther’s theology, v
Thus, the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther continues on as a lasting testimony to God’s grace and mercy in the life of sinners! As he painfully gasped at the very end of his life, “We are beggars. This is true.”
Here are four of my favorite books on the life and theology of Dr. Martin Luther
And, here are four newer books on the life and theology of Dr. Martin Luther–all of them winners!
Resources for Further Study:
Althaus, Paul. The Theology of Martin Luther. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1966.
Bainton, Roland H. Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther. New York: Penguin Books, 1950.
Bettenson, Henry and Chris Maunder. Documents of the Christian Church. 4th Edition. London, England: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Douglas, J.D., ed. The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church. Revised edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978.
“Justification,” by Ian Sellers
“Leo X,” by Robert G. Clouse
“Luther, Martin (1483-1546),” by Carl S. Meyer
“Melancthon, Phillip,” by Carl S. Meyer
“Reformation, The,” by Robert D. Linder
“Roman Catholicism,” by H. M. Carson
Dowley, Tim, ed. The History of Christianity. Revised edition. Oxford, England: Lion Publishers, 1990.
Elwell, Walter A., ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Second Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2001.
“Faith,” by J. I. Packer
“Justification,” by J. I. Packer
“Lord’s Supper, Views of,” by M. E. Osterhaven
“Luther, Martin,” by R. W. Heinze
“Marburg Colloquy,” by R. W. Heinze
“Zwingli, Ulrich,” by M. A. Noll
George, Timothy. Theology of the Reformers. Revised Edition. Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 2013.
Hillerbrand, ed. Hans J. The Reformation: A Narrative History Related by Contemporary Observers and Participants. New York, NY: Harper & Row Publishers, 1964.
Houghton, S. M. Sketches from Church History. Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1980.
Kerr, Hugh Thomson, ed. A Compend of Luther’s Theology. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1943.
Kittleson, James M. Luther the Reformer: The Story of the Man and his Career. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1986.
Kolb, Robert. Martin Luther and the Enduring Word of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2016.
Kolb, Robert. Martin Luther as Prophet, Teacher, and Hero: Images of the Reformer 1520-1620. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999.
Lawson, Steven J. The Heroic Boldness of Martin Luther. Orlando, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2013.
Luther, Martin. The Bondage of the Will. Translated by J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston. Grand Rapids, IM: Fleming H. Revell, 1957.
McGrath, Allister. Luther’s Theology of the Cross. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1990.
Nichols, Stephen J. Beyond the 95 Theses: Martin Luther’s Life, Thought, and Lasting Legacy. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2016.
Petersen, William J. Martin Luther had a Wife. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1983.
Rupp, Gordon. Luther’s Progress to the Diet of Worms 1521. London: SCM Press, 1951.
Selderhuis, Herman. Martin Luther: A Spiritual Biography. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Publishers, 2017.
Sproul, R. C. and Stephen Nichols, eds. The Legacy of Luther. Orlando, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2016.
Stephanek, Sally. World Leaders Past and Present: Martin Luther. New York, NY: Chelsea House Publishers, 1986.
Watson, Philip S. Let God Be God: An Interpretation of the Theology of Martin Luther. London, The Epworth Press, 1947.
Woodbridge, John D., ed. Great Leaders of the Christian Church. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1988.
Dr. Marcus J. Serven, ThM and DMin
The Genevan Foundation – Copyright 2021 – All Rights Reserved
“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. ” 1 Cor. 11:27
St. Pierre Cathedral in Geneva, Switzerland–Calvin’s pulpit is at the center-left
Who possesses the authority to admit a person to the Lord’s Supper or to ban the unrepentant sinner from it—the civil magistrates or the officers of Christ’s Church? This central question plagued the city of Geneva for several decades during the time of the Reformation. The Ecclesiastical Ordinances, written by John Calvin in 1541 and received by the Small Council of Geneva in that same year (November 20th), clearly specifies that the Church retains the right to properly order the Lord’s Supper. This would include who is admitted to the Table and who is banned from the Table. Many of Calvin’s biographers have commented on these controversial events, but what original documents can be found to show exactly what happened? Two sources are notable (1) The Resister of the Company of Pastors in Geneva in the time of Calvin: 1546-1564, translated and edited by Philip E. Hughes (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1966), and (2) Life of John Calvin, written by Theodore Beza in 1564 immediately following Calvin’s death (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1983).
William Farel
The citizens of Geneva formally decided for the Reformation, against Roman Catholicism, on May 21, 1536. With right hands raised, they swore to live by the Word of God and to reject Romanist idolatries. This initial effort was led by two missionary evangelists, William Farel (1489-1565) and Pierre Viret (1511-1571). Shortly after this, John Calvin was also added to the team of Reformers working in Geneva. These ministers of the gospel envisioned a reformation that would not only bring about the adoption of a new Protestant Statement of Faith, which was presented to the Small Council in January 1537, but also a complete reformation of the morals of the town. They rightly reasoned that for any reform effort to be successful a change in doctrine (orthodoxy) must always be accompanied by a change in behavior (orthopraxy). Geneva had been long known for its loose morals. Dr. John T. McNeill, a highly regarded Reformation historian, comments,
Moral conditions were, indeed, such as to invite drastic reform. Medieval Geneva, by common consent of historians, abounded in centers of dissolute pleasure. Even contemporary opponents of the Reformation freely accuse the pre-Reformation clergy and friars of appalling misbehavior; and while this was resented by the people, it was also imitated by them. Genevese gaiety was often associated with intemperance, obscenity, and licentiousness.
McNeill, The History and Character of Calvinism, 166
John Calvin as a young Pastor
Calvin drafted a plan for the reformation of the church and society of Geneva and he called it the Ecclesiastical Ordinances (1541). It was composed by Calvin right after his return to Geneva. His basic plan was to establish four offices within the church—pastors, doctors, elders, and deacons. These men had the spiritual responsibility to advance the teaching of biblical doctrine and behavior. Violations of these biblical standards would be enforced by the Genevan Consistory; which was made up of representatives from both the church and civil government. If the violations were of a serious nature and recurrent then a person could be suspended from the Lord’s Table. What breaches might lead to suspension from the Lord’s Table? Here are seven stipulations listed in the Ecclesiastical Ordinances,
(1) If anyone speaks critically against the received doctrine”, (2) “If anyone is negligent to come to church in such a way that a serious contempt of Christians is apparent”, (3) “if any one shows himself to be scornful of the ecclesiastical order”, (4) “those who mock at the specific admonitions of their neighbor”, (5) “for those notorious and public vices which the Church cannot condone”, (6) “for those crimes which deserve not only verbal rebuke but correction with punishment”, (7) “If through contumacy or rebelliousness such a person attempts to intrude himself contrary to the prohibition.
Hughes, Ed. The Register, 48-49
The length of the suspension, whether it was temporary or permanent, would depend upon the offending person’s repentance. Accordingly, the pastor who was responsible for administering the Lord’s Supper was also responsible to “fence the Table” so that those who were “unworthy” partakers would not be able to receive the Lord’s Supper. The Reformers insisted that the “three marks of a church” are these: (1) the true preaching of the Word of God; (2) the right administration of the Sacraments (Baptism and the Lord’s Supper); and (3) the faithful exercise of church discipline (cf. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 576-578). Calvin strongly resolved that upon these three foundational marks the Church of Jesus Christ in Geneva would be built.
Here is a “primary source” that reveals the reforming work of the Genevan Church
During the fourteen years that followed the approval of the Ecclesiastical Ordinances by the City Council (November 20, 1541) wide-ranging conflicts raged throughout Geneva. It proved far easier to reform the doctrine of the people than to reform their behavior. As a result an opposition party was formed by some of the key families of Geneva (the Perrins, Favres, Vandels, Bertheliers, etc.). They called themselves the Libertines (also known as the Enfants de Geneva). Here is an example from The Register of the Company of Pastors (December 23, 1552) where a certain individual complained to the Small Council (referred to as the Messieurs or Senate) about being suspended from the Lord’s Table.
On the same day and at the same hour Messieurs proposed to us that some reconciliation should be made in the case of those who had been banned from the supper by the Consistory. Monsieur Calvin replied at once in the name of all the brethren, making two requests on our behalf: firstly, that they should not give the ministers the authority which belonged to the whole Consistory, of which each was a member, since it was not for us as individuals to deprive anyone of the supper, nor did we have authority, apart from the decision of the Consistory, to readmit those who had been deprived; and, secondly, that they should exhibit the same impartiality to all. Philibert Berthelier was then sent into our presence. He showed the same or even greater rebelliousness than before, saying that it was not his understanding that the Consistory possessed such authority nor that the people were bound by its decisions. Messieurs therefore confirmed the sentence of the Consistory and pronounced him unworthy of the supper.
hughes, ed. The Register, 205
Who exactly was Philibert Berthelier? Dr. Philip E. Hughes, a capable and well-known Calvin scholar, writes,
Philibert Berthelier, son of the hero and martyr for Genevan freedom, was one of Calvin’s most intransigent adversaries in Geneva. Communion was forbidden him in 1551 because he had publicly declared that he was “just as good a man as Calvin,” and despite his repeated protestations, this ban was regularly renewed. In defiance of the authority of the Consistory, Berthelier appealed to the Council, and the latter attempted to set aside this ban, to the great offense of Calvin’s followers.
Hughes, ed.The Register, note #39, 205
The decision of the Small Council to uphold the Berthelier’s suspension from the Lord’s Table became a focal point of controversy. The Libertines argued that suspension from the Lord’s Table was an “individual matter”, and at other times they argued that it should be decided by the Small Council and not by the Genevan Consistory.
Michael Servetus
Ten months later in the midst of the heresy trial for Michael Servetus (August 17, 1553 through October 26, 1553), the determined Philibert Berthelier once again requested permission from the Small Council to be readmitted to the Lord’s Supper (September 1, 1553). It should be pointed out that the excommunicate Berthelier was also serving as the defense attorney for Servetus. This stormy trial was utilized by the Libertines as a means for undermining the authority of the Reformers. Bringing up once again the issue of Berthelier’s ban from the Lord’s Supper was simply a way of increasing the pressure on Calvin and the other Reformers. The Register of the Company of Pastors states,
At the beginning of September 1553 this church was greatly troubled since Philibert Berthelier, who had been excommunicated and forbidden the Sacraments because of his rebellion against the Consistory, had been granted absolution by Messieurs, without the Consistory being given a hearing. This action was opposed by the ministers, who unanimously declared that they could not admit this man, or others like him, to the supper until the Consistory had evidence of repentance, and had absolved him. It was objected, moreover, that the order of the Church laid down that authority to forbid or admit to the Lord’s supper belonged to the Consistory, and not Messieurs. Maitre Jean Calvin protested publicly from the pulpit, in the same sermon when the supper was administered, that under no circumstances would he receive such a rebel at the supper, and that it was not for men to compel him to do what was scandalous, but that Messieurs rather should be urged to prevent Berthelier from presenting himself at the sacrament.
hughes, ed. The register, 285-286
The City Hall of Geneva
Why, then, was this precise moment the opportune time to push the point of Berthelier’s excommunication? Several citizens who were members of the Libertine party had recently secured key positions on the Small Council and in the Council of the Two Hundred. With Ami Perrin, one of their own, now in charge as the First Syndic, they reasoned that they could overthrow the power and authority of the Church (and Calvin) at this crucial moment. There had also been several small victories in the Servetus trial for the defense and it was theoretically possible that he could be set free and Calvin held liable for bringing false charges against an innocent man. This political scheme could very well have worked, but they did not reckon with the steel-like resolve of Calvin. Theodore Beza comments,
So far this year seems to have been divided between hope and fear, the former, however, prevailing in the end. But while the cause of Servetus was under discussion, one of the factious, Berthelier by name, a man of the most consummate impudence, whom the Presbytery, for his many iniquities, excluded from the Lord’s Table, comes before the Senate, and prays to be absolved by their authority. Had this been done, there cannot be a doubt that the bond of ecclesiastical discipline being forthwith dissolved, everything would instantly have gone to wreck. Therefore Calvin, in name of the Presbytery, made strenuous and unremitting opposition, showing that magistrates ought to be the vindicators, not the destroyers, of sacred laws. In short, he omitted nothing which a contest of so much moment demanded. However, the false clamors of those who said that the Presbytery were in some things arrogating to themselves the authority of the magistrates prevailed, and it was, accordingly resolved, in the Council of the Two Hundred, that, in excommunication, the ultimate right belonged to the Senate, who were entitled to absolve whom they pleased. In consequence of this resolution having been passed by the Senate, who had then given little attention to the subject, Berthelier surreptitiously obtained letters of absolution under the seal of the Republic. Perrin, with his followers, hoped that one of two consequences would follow—that if Calvin refused to obey the Senate, he would be able to overwhelm him by means of a mob; that if Calvin obeyed, he would have no difficulty in depriving the Presbytery of all authority, in other words, in removing every restraint upon wickedness.
Beza, Life of John Calvin, lxii
Regardless of Calvin’s appeals, the Small Council upheld the decision to restore Berthelier to the Lord’s Table. However, several members of the Small Council began to waver in their convictions—they became afraid that if they defied Calvin and the Genevan Consistory there would be a general uprising leading to a complete collapse of law and order. Therefore, Berthelier was privately ordered by his friends to not partake of the Lord’s Supper; but Calvin knew nothing of this secret decision.
Calvin barring the Libertines from the Lord’s Table as “the despisers of sacred mysteries”
When the day for worship arrived two days later St. Pierre’s Cathedral was unusually crowded (September 3, 1553). All of the Libertines swaggered in with their hands placed on the hilts of their swords, and took their seats near the Lord’s Table. Calvin boldly preached his sermon, and after descending from the pulpit he firmly placed himself behind the Lord’s Table refusing to serve any “despisers of sacred mysteries”. He said, “These hands you may crush; these arms you may lop off; my life you may take; my blood is yours, you may shed it; but you shall never force me to give holy things to the profane, and dishonor the table of my God.” (Wiley, The History of Protestantism, Vol. 2, 327) These words hit the Libertines like a thunder-clap, and those who had entered the church so proudly now left it very ashamed of themselves. Beza reports,
But Calvin, though he had been informed of what was done only two days before the usual period of celebrating the Lord’s Supper, raising his voice and his hand in the course of his sermon, after he had spoken at some length of the despisers of sacred mysteries, exclaimed, in the words of Chrysostom, “I will die sooner than this hand shall stretch forth the sacred things of the Lord to those who have been judged despisers.” These words, strange to say, had such an effect upon these men, however lawless, that Perrin secretly advised Berthelier not to come forward to the Table. The sacrament was celebrated with extraordinary silence, not without some degree of trembling, as if the Deity himself were actually present.
Beza, Life of John Calvin, lxii-lxiii
Later that afternoon Calvin prepared to preach what he thought would be his final sermon in Geneva. It was his firm expectation that he would once again be banished from the tumultuous city as had previously happened in 1538. Thus, he chose for his text Acts 20:17-38, where Paul gives his farewell address to the Ephesian Elders. Beza writes,
Theodore Beza
In the afternoon Calvin, taking for his text the celebrated passage in the Acts of the Apostles, in which Paul bids farewell to the Church of Ephesus, declared that he was not a man who knew or taught others to fight against magistrates; and after exhorting his audience at great length to persevere in the doctrine which they had heard, as if it was the last sermon he was to deliver at Geneva, concluded thus:–“Since these things are so, allow me also, brethren, to use these words of the Apostle, ‘I commend you to the Lord, and to the Word of his grace’.” These words made a wonderful impression even on the most abandoned, while they, at the same time, seriously warned good men what their duty was.
Beza, life of John calvin, lxiii
But, in God’s gracious providence, Calvin was not removed as he feared from his position as head pastor of the Genevan Church. Instead, the Small Council did nothing and the Libertines retreated into their parlors to make further strategies of how they could defeat the Reformers, especially Calvin. This extraordinary standoff at the Lord’s Supper surely can be compared with Martin Luther’s dramatic declaration of faith at the Diet of Worms in 1521. Whereas Luther defied the edict of Charles 5th and the assembled Roman Catholic priests in a great doctrinal battle, Calvin defied the schemes of Berthelier and the Libertines in a great moral battle. Dr. James A. Wylie, the preeminent Scottish historian of the Reformation, summarizes,
We know nothing more truly sublime in the whole history of the Reformation, that epoch of heroic men and grand events. The only thing we can compare with it is Luther’s appearance at the Diet of Worms. If we abstract the dramatic accompaniments of the latter scene—the gorgeous hall; the majesty of the emperor; the blaze of princely and knightly rank gathered around him; the glitter of stars and decorations; the men-at-arms; the lackeys and other attendants—and look only at the principle at stake, and the wide and lasting good achieved by the prompt vindication of the principle, the act of Calvin in the Cathedral of St. Peter’s, in 1553, stands side by side, its equal in spiritual sublimity and heroism, with the act of Luther in the Hall of Worms, in 1521. “I cannot,” said Luther. “I will not,” said Calvin. The one repelled the tyrant, the other flung back the mob; the one stemmed the haughtiness of power, the other bridled the raging fury of ungodliness; in both the danger was equal, in both the faith and fortitude were equal, and each saved the Reformation at a great crisis.
Wylie, The History of Protestantism, Vol. 2, 328
Even though this one battle was narrowly won by Calvin and the Reformers it was only a few weeks later that the Libertines launched a fresh attack (November 7, 1553). This time Berthelier and the Libertines sought to influence the more malleable Council of the Two Hundred.
On Tuesday 7 November the Council of the Two Hundred was convened in connection with the question of the authority of the Consistory and to consider the problem of respecting to whom it belongs to excommunicate and to absolve. Before the Two Hundred had entered, however, Messieurs declared that it was their intention to reserve to themselves the power of absolving those who had been banned from the supper. Thereupon the Consistory asked to be allowed to consult among themselves and, having withdrawn, resolved that they could not possibly consent to the pretensions of Messieurs, which were contrary to the order of the church, and they requested to be heard before the Council of the Two Hundred. In the presence of the Council Maitre Jean Calvin, speaking for the Consistory, stated the case most adequately and explained why it was impossible to acquiesce in the pretensions of Messieurs; and then the declaration which had previously been presented in writing to Messieurs by the ministers was read before all. On the following Thursday, after hearing the decision of the Council of Two Hundred that the whole right of forbidding from and readmitting to the supper should be taken away from the Consistory, the ministers presented themselves before Messieurs and unanimously declared that they were unable to consent to this ruling, and that to compel obedience would be to drive them from their charge, for they would choose death rather than consent to the abandonment of so holy and sacred an order, which had so long been preserved in this church. The ministers—and especially M. Jean Calvin, in accordance with the written promises he had received from Messieurs—requested to be heard before the Council of Two Hundred and the General Council. This was not granted, but they were told the request would receive attention.
hughes, ed. The Register, 291
This apparent defeat suffered by Calvin and the Reformers shows that they did not, in fact, dominate the political affairs of Geneva as some have wrongly asserted. The ongoing struggle shows that there was a lively dissent against the reformation of morals in Geneva, and that the Libertines had every possibility of defeating the Reformers.
A few weeks later on December 21, 1553 the controversy continued on, but this time within the chambers of the Small Council. The Genevan Consistory was summoned to defend themselves against charges of intolerance and spiritual tyranny.
An artist’s conception of the Genevan Consistory at work
On Thursday 21 December the Consistory was summoned before Messieurs in connection with the case of Philibert Berthelier, who insisted on being admitted to the supper. The Consistory opposed this until such a time as Berthelier should give evidence of repentance and humble himself before the Consistory, against whom he had been rebellious. Immediately Francois Berthelier, who had accompanied his brother, burst out, in the presence of Messieurs, with outrageous accusations against the ministers, asserting that they wished to tyrannize and dominate and were disobedient to the Seigneurie. Because of these harmful and monstrous accusations Messieurs commanded him to leave. As for Philibert, no further ruling was given, except that he could continue to abstain from the supper.
hughes, ed. the register, 293
The Genevan Consistory responded to this angry outburst with their own summons for Francois Berthelier to appear before them.
On the same day Francois Berthelier was summoned before the Consistory and asked how he could conscientiously partake of the Lord’s Supper in view of the outrageous things he had uttered that morning in the presence of Messieurs. He, however, continued his calumnies, declaring that so far as the Consistory was concerned he was addressing himself only to the ministers, whose treatment of his brother had been satanical, in holding him to be excommunicated and reprobate, without being able to produce any reason for doing so. He claimed, further, that he had power to give absolution just as much as they had to excommunicate, with a number of outrageous utterances. Thereupon he too was banned from the supper, and it was resolved that on the following Thursday all the members of the Consistory should present themselves before Messieurs to complain of the outrageous charges which had been made by Francois.
hughes, ed. the register, 293
In time, the Genevan Consistory was successful in thwarting the attack of the Berthelier brothers and the Libertines; this later led to Francois Berthelier’s repentance on March 8, 1554.
On Thursday 8 March, by order of Messieurs, Francois Berthelier attended the Consistory where he declared that he had been carried away by affection for his brother, with the result that he had said things against the ministers which should not have been said, and that he was sorry for having said them. He requested that he should be readmitted to the supper, which had been forbidden him. After various exhortations this was granted.
hughes, ed. the register, 294
His brother, though, was unrepentant when he appeared a few weeks later,
On Thursday 22 March Philibert Berthelier also attended the Consistory by order of the Messieurs. He was sent out and recalled three or four times, but refused to acknowledge his fault and his rebelliousness, despite the fact that a number of good and godly admonitions were addressed to him. Accordingly, the ban against his partaking of the supper of our Lord remained in force.
hughes, ed. The Register, 294
The controversy surrounding the Lord’s Supper see-sawed back and forth for several months until the elections of January 1555 changed the political mix of the Small Council and the Council of the Two Hundred in favor of the Reformers. With renewed vigor Calvin and the other ministers persuaded the Small Council to formally adopt the Ecclesiastical Ordinances, and they did so on January 24, 1555. A comprehensive victory for the Reformers was finally achieved!
On Thursday 24 January the Council of 60 and the Council of Two Hundred assemble in connection with the question of the authority of the Consistory and excommunication, and at both Councils M. Jean Calvin, in the name of the Consistory, the ministers of the city also being present with him, very adequately refuted the arguments which had been advanced for the diminution or rather the demolition of the Consistory’s authority, and demonstrated from passages of Holy Scripture and from the practice always found in the Church when it was in a state of purity what was the true use of excommunication, and to whom it belonged to excommunicate and to admit to communion. Thereupon, despite every effort of Satan to overthrow so godly and useful an order, Sr. Amblard Corne, the first Syndic, announced to the ministers in full Council that God had been victorious, and that both the Council of 60 and the Council of 200 had resolved that the Consistory should retain its status and exercise its accustomed authority, in accordance with the Word of God and the ordinances previously passed.
Hughes, ed. the register, 305
John Calvin in his maturity
Following the election and the success of the Reformers, the Libertines became desperate to bring about a change—and they sought to do this through anarchy and revolution. Their fractious spirit culminated in a not-too-secretive plot to foment a public riot (May 16, 1555). It was their hope was to kill Calvin and several other church officers in one swift blow. Thankfully, these murderous plans were discovered and the riot turned out to be a small affair carried out by an inebriated rabble. The rioters were quickly apprehended, yet Perrin and Berthelier fled the city and later were tried in absentia. The Libertines were finally defeated.
Who, then, possesses the authority to admit a person to the Lord’s Supper or to ban the unrepentant sinner from it—the civil magistrates or the officers of Christ’s Church? In answer to this question it is helpful to remember that God has given each one of the separate jurisdictions an implement to accomplish its mission:
the civil magistrate is given the “sword” to enforce the laws of the land (Romans 13:4)
the family is given the “rod” to enforce the laws of the home (Proverbs 13:24)
the church is given the “keys” to enforce the laws of the Bible (Matthew 16:19)
Specifically, the Lord Jesus said to his Apostles, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:19). A few chapters later our Lord powerfully states the doctrine of excommunication that his Church should always follow. He gives precise instructions about how to treat an unrepentant sinner,
If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
matthew 18:17-18
It is clear, then, that our Lord gave authority to the Apostles to admit the believer to the Lord’s Table or to ban the unrepentant sinner from it—these men and their fellow church officers are given authority from the Lord both to “bind” and to “loose”. In this way they are using the “keys of the kingdom”. It is also helpful to recall what Calvin wrote that is based upon these biblical principles. He says,
The church does not assume what is proper to the magistrate; nor can the magistrate execute what is carried out by the church…Their functions ought to be so joined that each serves to help, not hinder, the other.
calvin, institutes, 4:11:3
And so in conclusion, who possesses the authority to admit a person to the Lord’s Supper or to ban the unrepentant sinner from it—the civil magistrates or the officers of Christ’s Church? It is not the civil magistrate, nor the family, but the officers of Christ’s Church who have the sole authority from God to admit to the Lord’s Supper or to ban the unrepentant sinner from it.
Resources for Further Study:
Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Fourth Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1939.
Beza, Theodore. Life of John Calvin. Edited and translated by Henry Beveridge, included in the Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters. Volume 1. Originally published in Edinburgh by the Calvin Translation Society, 1844. Reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1983.
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. The Library of Christian Classics, vol. XXI. Edited by John T. McNeill and translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1960.
Hughes, Philip E., ed. and trans. The Register of the Company of Pastors of Geneva in the Time of Calvin. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1966.
McKim, Donald, ed. Encyclopedia of the Reformed Faith. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1992.
“Authority”, by W. Stanford Reid
“Beza, Theodore”, by Philip C. Holtrop
“Calvin, John”, by Hughes O. Old
“Calvinism”, by W. Stanford Reid
“Confirmation/Admission to the Lord’s Supper”, by James A. Whyte
“Church”, by Jack L. Scotts
“Discipline, Church”, by J. Wayne Baker
“Ecclesiastical Ordinances”, by Robert D. Linder
“Elders”, by Elsie Anne McKee
“Farel, William”, by Charles Partee
“Geneva Company of Pastors”, by Robert M. Kingdon
“Geneva Consistory”, by Robert M. Kingdon
“Genevan Reformation”, by Robert M. Kingdon
“Liturgy, Reformed”, by David G. Buttrick
“Lord’s Supper”, by Geoffrey W. Bromiley
“Sacraments”, by M. Eugene Osterhaven
“Servetus, Michael”, by Nathan P. Feldmeth
“Theology, Reformed”, by John H. Leith
“Viret, Pierre”, by Robert D. Linder
“Worship”, by Hughes O. Olds
McNeill, John T. The History and Character of Calvinism. London: Oxford University Press, 1954.
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 2012 – All Rights Reserved
