The Genevan Foundation

How the Protestant Reformers are Still Changing the World

Page 8 of 14

Dr. Martin Luther: Father of the Protestant Reformation

October 30, 2021 /

Written by Dr. Marcus J. Serven

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

Fencing the Table: Calvin’s Defense of the Lord’s Supper

October 20, 2021 /

Written by Dr. Marcus J. Serven

“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

R. C. Sproul on Adoption

October 18, 2021 /

“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, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.” Romans 8:16-17

The doctrine of adoption is one of the most neglected aspects of Reformed soteriology. It spells out the change in legal status before God that believers in Christ now enjoy–that by an act of grace we become God’s sons and daughters. Moreover, it addresses the benefits and blessings that we receive from our heavenly Father. In particular, how He provides for our needs and providentially watches over the details of our life protecting us from harm. Dr. R. C. Sproul makes the following insightful comment about our adoption:

Dr. R. C. Sproul

Christ is God’s single heir by nature. He is the Father’s Son. We who are adopted become heirs of God, joint heirs with Christ, and ours is the most valuable and rich inheritance that anybody can have. The inheritance is given by God the Father to His Son, and everything Christ possesses is given to us, as His adopted brothers and sisters, including the gift of eternal life. He is called the first fruits of those who are raised from the dead. As God the Father has raised our elder brother from the grace, so He promises to do the same for us. It is an incalculable inheritance that God has preserved for His people, and at the last day God will say to His children, “Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world”(Matt. 25:34).

R. C. Sproul, Truths We Confess, 283

When we reflect on the doctrine of adoption, we learn how God has given believers a new legal standing. As a result of the work of Jesus Christ on our behalf we can now know that we have been justified, redeemed, reconciled, and adopted. These positional truths are absolute “game-changers” in the midst of the trials and tribulations of life. They give each believer a clear understanding of who they are in Christ and what kind of relationship they now enjoy with their heavenly Father.

Here are three additional passages from the Bible that feature the doctrine of adoption–one from the Lord Jesus Christ, one from the Apostle Paul, and a final one from the Apostle John :

“Or to which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good fits to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!” Matthew 7:9-11

“But when the fulness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.” Galatians 4:4-5

“See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does no know us is that it did not know him. Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is.” 1 John 3:1-2

If you want to read more about the subject of adoption from the pen of Dr. R. C. Sproul, then I recommend his book: Truths We Confess: A Systematic Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith, published by Reformation Trust Publishing, 2019. [See: pages 282-288]

— Dr. Marcus J. Serven

The Christian Life

September 15, 2021 /
Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Austin, TX

Announcing:

Starting on Sunday, September 12, 2021 there is a new School of Discipleship class for the Fall at Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Austin, TX. Below is the class description, its teacher, and its schedule.

Class Description:

Have you ever wondered—“Why do I struggle so much in my life as a Christian?” The answer to your difficulties may lie with a misunderstanding of just how the Christian life actually works. In this class we will explore the Bible’s teaching on faith, repentance, justification, adoption, and sanctification. We’ll also discuss how Christians receive and extend forgiveness, how they adopt an attitude of Cross-bearing, how they engage in prayer, and how they mortify the prevailing sins of their life. Several resources will be used from Church History—Augustine’s Confessions, Luther’s Small Catechism, Calvin’s Golden Booklet of the True Christian Life, Bunyan’s Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners, and rich insights from the Heidelberg Catechism. I hope and pray that not only will your questions be answered, but you will be equipped with several tools and strategies to strengthen your Christian life.

My resources for this class–Augustine, Luther, the Heidelberg Catechism, Calvin, and Bunyan. All of these books are considered to be classics in Christian literature.

Class Instructor: 

Rev. Dr. Marcus J. Serven is a longtime teacher of the Bible, Reformed theology, and the history of Christ’s Church. After a lengthy pastoral career of serving Presbyterian churches in both California and Missouri (1980-2016), Marcus and his family relocated to Austin, Texas in order to retire—but God had other plans! He now serves as the Pastor of Christian Discipleship at Redeemer Presbyterian Church and is a member of the Presbytery of South Texas (PCA). Marcus has earned degrees from the University of California at Davis (BA), Fuller Theological Seminary (MDiv), and Covenant Theological Seminary (ThM and DMin). He is an active member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Calvin Studies Society.

Class Schedule: 

  • Sept. 12 – The Christian Life
  • Sept. 19 – Faith
  • Sept. 26 – Repentance
  • Oct. 3 – Justification
  • Oct. 10 – Adoption
  • Oct. 17 – Sanctification
  • Oct. 24 – Forgiveness
  • Oct. 31 – Cross-bearing
  • Nov. 7 – Prayer
  • Nov. 14 – Assurance
  • Nov. 21 – Union with Christ 
  • Nov. 28 – Mortification of Sins
  • Dec. 5 – Word and Sacraments

I hope you can join us from week to week throughout the Fall! If you miss a Sunday, then don’t worry since I often refer back to the insights from previous lessons. We meet on Sundays at 10:15 AM in Calvin Hall (Room 206). Come early, since this is a very popular and crowded class!

— Dr. Marcus J. Serven

The Power of God’s Word

August 30, 2021 /

Consider this beneficial and comprehensive statement that Dr. David F. Wells makes about the power of God’s Holy Word:

Dr. David F. Wells

“For it is certainly the case that the Word of God, read or preached, has the power to enter the innermost crevices of a person’s being, to shine light in unwanted places, to explode the myths and debits by which fallen life sustains itself, and to bring that person face to face with the eternal God. It is this biblical Word which God uses to bring repentance, to excite faith, to give new life, to sustain that life once given, to correct, nurture, and guide the Church (Jer. 23:29; 2 Tim. 3:16; Heb. 4:12; Jas. 1:18). The biblical Word is self-authenticating under the power of the Holy Spirit. This Word of God is the means by which God accomplishes his saving work in his people, and this is a work that no evangelist and no preacher can do. This is why the dearth of serious, sustained biblical preaching in the Church today is a serious matter. When the Church loses the Word of God it loses the very means by which God does his work. In its absence, therefore, a script is being written, however unwittingly, for the Church’s undoing, not in one cataclysmic moment, but in a slow, inexorable slide made up of piece by tiny piece of daily dereliction.” (David F. Wells, Above All Earthly Pow’rs, 8-9)

This is a striking summary of the powerful way that God’s Word confronts, convicts, and converts people!

— Dr. Marcus J. Serven

Ordo Salutis

August 19, 2021 /

“And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.” Romans 8:30

Written by Dr. Marcus J. Serven

Every system of theology has a certain logical sequence in the order of salvation (Lat. ordo salutis). This is not a temporal sequence of events, but a logical ordering of the events. Humanly speaking, one may not be able to distinguish when it is that these particular events come about in the life of an individual Christian. However, contrasting one system of theology alongside another shows the differences regarding the logical progression of the eternal decrees of God and how the doctrine of salvation is perceived. Here are two systems of theology side by side—Reformed theology and Arminian theology. Notice the differences…

In Reformed Theology

  • Predestination & Election
  • An Outer Call & Inner Call
  • Regeneration (by Divine monergism)
  • Conversion (faith & repentance)
  • Justification
  • Sanctification (progressive)
  • Perseverance (by Divine protection)
  • Glorification

In Arminian Theology

  • Foreknowledge (foreseen faith)
  • Universal Calling (resistible)
  • Faith & Repentance (by Human decision)
  • Regeneration & Conversion
  • Justification
  • Sanctification (entire)
  • Perseverance (by faithful Human efforts)
  • Glorification

It is clear from this side by side analysis that the Reformed view emphasizes the sovereign activity of God, whereas the Arminian view emphasizes the personal decisions of individual men and women. This distinction is especially noticeable when the subject of regeneration is considered. Both theological positions recognize that regeneration is the work of God. However, the Reformed view claims that it is God alone who does this work (Divine monergism), while the Arminian view claims that God and man work together (cooperative synergism = God and man cooperating together). Moreover, note how in the Reformed view of salvation the work of regeneration precedes faith. In other words, without the sovereign work of God saving faith would not be possible. Thus, saving faith is truly a gift of God. Consider these explanatory statements by Louis Berkhof, R. C. Sproul, and J. I. Packer on the differences between the two theological systems—Reformed and Arminian—in the quotes below:

Prof. Louis Berkhof on the Order of Salvation:

Prof. Louis Berkhof

“This means that we take our starting point in those redemptive acts of God in which man does not cooperate, and in which redemption stands out most prominently as a work of God. By doing this we clearly recognize the fact that God and not man begins the redemptive process, and that salvation is altogether a work of divine grace, a work of which we become partakers only in union with Jesus Christ, with whom we are united by the work of regeneration. Many others, such as Lutherans and Arminians, take their starting point in man and begin their treatment of the order of salvation with a discussion of saving faith, considered more particularly as an act of man, by which he takes unto himself the blessings of salvation wrought by Christ. They do not speak of the application of the work of redemption by the Holy Spirit, but of its appropriation by man. And in this appropriation everything is made dependent on man’s act of faith. It is even by faith that man is regenerated. This representation clearly fits in with their conception of the free will of man. While we honor God as the author of our salvation, and as the primary cause of every redemptive act, we do not lose sight of the fact that, after regeneration, man appropriates the blessings of salvation by faith, and co-operates with the Spirit of God in some of the redemptive acts, such as conversion and sanctification.”

Louis Berkhof, The manual of Christian Doctrine, 92

Dr. R. C. Sproul on the Order of Salvation:

Dr. R. C. Sproul

“The classic issue between Augustinian theology and all forms of semi-Pelagianism focuses on one aspect of the order of salvation (ordo salutis): What is the relationship between regeneration and faith? Is regeneration a monergistic or synergistic work? Must a person first exercise faith in order to be born again? Or must rebirth occur before a person is able to exercise faith? Another way to state the question is this: Is the grace of regeneration operative or cooperative? Monergistic regeneration means that regeneration is accomplished by a single actor, God. It means literally a ‘one-working.’ Synergism, on the other hand, refers to a work that involves the action of two or more parties. It is a co-working. All forms of semi-Pelagianism assert some sort of synergism in the work of regeneration. Usually God’s assisting grace is seen as a necessary ingredient, but it is dependent on human cooperation for its efficacy. The Reformers taught not only that regeneration does precede faith but also that it must precede faith. Because of the moral bondage of the unregenerate sinner, he cannot have faith until he is changed internally by the operative, monergistic work of the Holy Spirit. Faith is regeneration’s fruit, not its cause.”

Sproul, Willing to Believe: The Controversy Over Free Will, 23

Dr. J. I. Packer on the Order of Salvation:

Dr. James I. Packer

“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.”

Packer, A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life, 128-129

Thus, those who hold to a Reformed theology place regeneration before faith and repentance in the order of salvation (Lat. ordo salutis). In fact it is necessary that we do so, because asserting otherwise would be logically inconsistent with a belief in the doctrines of Total Depravity and Total Inability.

Resources for Further Study:

Berkhof, Louis. Manual of Christian Doctrine. Second Edition. Derek Carlsen, ed. Arlington Heights, IL: Christian Liberty Press, 2003. 

Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. 4th Edition, Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1941. 

Elwell, Walter A., ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Second Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2001. 

  • “Arminianism,” by J. Kenneth Grider
  • “Arminius, James,” by J. Kenneth Grider
  • “Calling,” by James I. Packer
  • “Calvin, John” by W. Stanford Reid
  • “Calvinism,” by W. Stanford Reid
  • “Depravity, Total” by Charles C. Ryrie
  • “Foreknowledge,” by Geoffrey W. Bromiley
  • “Justification” by James I. Packer
  • “Monergism,” by C. George Fry
  • “Order of Salvation,” by G. N. M. Collins
  • “Predestination,” by Stephan R. Spencer
  • “Reformed Tradition,” by W. Stanford Reid
  • “Regeneration,” by James I. Packer
  • “Salvation” by R. E. O. White
  • “Sanctification” by R. E. O. White
  • “Semi-Pelagianism,” by Richard Kyle
  • “Synergism,” by C. George Fry

McKim, Donald, ed. Encyclopedia of the Reformed Faith. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1992.

  • “Augustine and Augustinianism,” by Eugene TeSelle
  • “Arminianism,” by Robert Letham
  • “Calvinism,” by W. Stanford Reid
  • “Faith,” by Daniel Migliore
  • “Free Will,” by James I. Packer
  • “John Calvin,” by Hughes O. Old
  • “Reformed Theology,” by John H. Leith
  • “Regeneration,” by Peter Toon
  • “Salvation,” by Anna Case-Winters

Packer, James I. A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1990. 

Sproul, R. C. Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1995.

Sproul, R. C. Grace Unknown: The Heart of Reformed Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1997.  

Sproul, R. C. Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1997.

Warfield, Benjamin B. The Plan of Salvation. Second Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1935; Avinger, TX: Simpson Publishing Company, Reprint, 1989. 

Dr. Marcus J. Serven, ThM and DMin

The Genevan Foundation – Copyright 2021 – All Rights Reserved

Munis Triplex

July 3, 2021 /

Compiled by Dr. Marcus J. Serven

Introduction: 

Professor Louis Berkhof

“It has become customary to speak of three offices in connection with the work of Christ, namely the prophetic, the priestly, and the kingly office. While some of the early Church Fathers already speak of the different offices of Christ, Calvin’s the first to recognize the importance of distinguishing the three offices of the Mediator and to call attention to it in a separate chapter of his Institutes…Some placed the prophetical, others the priestly, and still others the kingly, in the foreground. There were those who applied the idea of a chronological succession to them, and thought to Christ functioning as prophet during his public ministry on earth, as priest in his final sufferings and death on the cross, and as king now that He is seated at the right hand of God. Others, however, correctly stressed the fact that He must be conceived as functioning in His threefold capacity both in His state of humiliation and in His state of exaltation.” (Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 356)  

Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion (1559): 

“Therefore, in order that faith may find a firm basis for salvation in Christ, and thus rest in him, this principle must be laid down: the office enjoined upon Christ by the Father consists of three parts. For he was given to be prophet, king, and priest.” (Institutes 2:15:1)

Regarding Jesus’ Office as a Prophet:

Pastor John Calvin

“We see that he was anointed by the Spirit to be herald and witness of the Father’s grace. And that not in the common way—for he is distinguished from other teachers with a similar office. On the other hand, we must note this: he received anointing, not only for himself that he might carry out the office of teaching, but for his whole body that the power of the Spirit might be present in the continuing teaching of the gospel. This, however, remains certain: the perfect doctrine he has brought has made an end to all prophecies. All those, then, who, not content with the gospel, patch it with something extraneous to it, detract from Christ’s authority…But when Paul says that He was given to us as our wisdom [1 Cor. 1:30], and in another place, ‘In him are hid all the treasures of knowledge and understanding’ [Col. 2:3], he has a slightly different meaning. That is, outside Christ there is nothing worth knowing, and all who by faith perceive what he is like have grasped the whole immensity of heavenly benefits. For this reason, Paul writes in another passage: ‘I decided to know nothing precious…except Jesus Christ and him crucified’ [1 Cor. 2:2]. This is very true, because it is not lawful to go beyond the simplicity of the gospel. And the prophetic dignity in Christ leads us to know that in the sum of doctrine as he has given it to us all parts of perfect wisdom are contained.” (Institutes 2:15:2)

Regarding Jesus’ Office as a Priest:

“To sum up his argument: The priestly office belongs to Christ alone because by the sacrifice of his death he blotted out our own guilt and made satisfaction for our sins [Heb. 9:22]. God’s solemn oath, of which he ‘will not repent,’ warns us what a weighty matter this is: ‘You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek’ [Ps. 110:4; cf. Heb. 5:6; 7:15]. God undoubtedly willed in these words to ordain the principal point on which, he knew, our whole salvation turns. For, as has been said, we or our prayers have no access to God unless Christ, as our High Priest, having washed away our sins, sanctifies us and obtains for us that grace from which the uncleanness of our transgressions and vices debars us. Thus we see that we must begin from the death of Christ in order that the efficacy and benefit of his priesthood may reach us.” (Institutes 2:15:6)

Regarding Jesus’ Office as a King: 

“Thus it is that we may patiently pass through this life with its misery, hunger, cold, contempt, reproaches, and other troubles—content with this one thing: that our King will never leave us destitute, but will provide for our needs until, our warfare ended, we are called to triumph. Such is the nature of his rule, that he shares with us all that he has received from the Father. Now he arms and equips us with his power, adorns us with his beauty and magnificence, enriches us with his wealth. These benefits, then, give us the most fruitful occasion to glory, and also provide us with confidence to struggle fearlessly against the devil, sin, and death. Finally, clothed with his righteousness, we can valiantly rise above all the world’s reproaches; and just as he himself freely lavishes his gifts upon us, so may we, in return, bring forth fruit to his glory.” (Institutes 2:15:4)

Westminster Shorter Catechism (1647):

Q. 23. What offices doth Christ execute as our Redeemer?  

A. Christ, as our Redeemer, executeth the offices of a prophet (#1), of a priest (#2), and of a king (#3), both in his estate of humiliation and exaltation. 

  • (#1) Deut. 18:18; Acts 2:33; Acts 3:22-23; Heb. 1:1-2
  • (#2) Heb. 4:14-15; Heb. 5:5-6
  • (#3) Isa. 9:6-7; Luke 1:32-33; John 18:37; 1 Cor. 15:25

Q. 24. How doth Christ execute the office of a prophet? 

A. Christ executeth the office of a prophet, in revealing to us, by his word (#1) and Spirit (#2), the will of God for our salvation (#3).

  • (#1) Luke 4:18-19, 21; Acts 1:1-2; Heb. 2:3
  • (#2) John 15:26-27; Acts 1:8; 1 Pet. 1:11
  • (#3) John 4:41-42; John 20:30-31 

Q. 25. How doth Christ execute the office of a priest? 

A. Christ executeth the office of a priest, in his once offering up of himself a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice (#1), and reconcile us to God (#2), and in making continual intercession for us (#3).

  • (#1) Isa. 53; Acts 8:32-35; Heb. 9:26-28; Heb. 10:12
  • (#2) Rom. 5:10-11; 2 Cor. 5:18; Col. 1:21-22
  • (#3) Rom. 8:34; Heb. 7:25; Heb. 9:24

Q. 26. How doth Christ execute the office of a king?  

A. Christ executeth the office of a king, in subduing us to himself, in ruling and defending us (#1), and in restraining and conquering all his and our enemies (#2).

  • (#1) Ps. 110:3; Matt. 28:18-20; John 17:2; Col. 1:13
  • (#2) Ps. 2:6-9; Ps. 110:1-2; Matt. 12:28; 1 Cor. 15:24-26; Col. 2:15 

The Importance of this Doctrine: 

“The distinction of the three offices of Christ is a valuable one and ought to be retained…The fact that Christ was anointed to a threefold office finds its explanation in the fact that man was originally intended for this threefold office and work. As created by God, he was prophet, priest, and king, and as such was endowed with knowledge and understanding, with righteousness and holiness, and with dominion over the lower creation. Sin affected the entire life of man and manifested itself not only as ignorance, blindness, error, and untruthfulness; but also as unrighteousness, guilt, and moral pollution; and in addition to that as misery, death, and destruction. Hence it was necessary that Christ, as our Mediator, should be prophet, priest, and king. As Prophet He represents God with man; as Priest He represents man in the presence of God, and as King He exercises dominion and restores the original dominion of man.” (Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 357)

For Further Study: 

Berkhof, Louis. Manual of Christian Doctrine. Second Edition. Derek Carlsen, ed. Arlington Heights, IL: Christian Liberty Press, 2003. See: pages 80-85. 

Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. 4th Edition, Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1941. See: pages 356-366. 

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. John T. McNeill, ed. Ford Lewis Battles, trans. 2 vols. Library of Christian Classics, no. 20-21. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960. See: Institutes 2:15:1-ff

Reymond, Robert L. “Offices of Christ” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Second Edition. Walter A. Elwell, ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2001.

The Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms. Willow Grove, PA: The Committee on Christian Education of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 2005. 

Dr. Marcus J. Serven, ThM and DMin

The Genevan Foundation – Copyright 2021 – All Rights Reserved

The Writings of John Calvin

June 30, 2021 /

de Greef, Wulfert. The Writings of John Calvin: An Introductory Guide. Translated by Lyle D. Bierma. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993. [254 pages]

Reviewed by Dr. Marcus J. Serven

Dr. Wulfert de Greef from the Netherlands

I first read this book in preparation for a lecture that I had been invited to give at the Reformed Fellowship of the Southeastern United States in Columbia, South Carolina (April 28, 1998). My chosen topic was “A Reformation Hero: The Life and Theology of John Calvin.” During my time of preparation, it was difficult to find all of the correct dates and facts about the life of John Calvin in the standard biographies I already owned. This slim volume, however, put all of the essential information about Calvin’s life at my finger tips! Dr. de Greef has done us a great service by chronicling Calvin’s life and ministry on the basis of his writings. Moreover, that particular unifying theme (i.e. The Writings of John Calvin) gives the book an orderly, logical, and readable lens by which to examine Calvin’s rich and varied life.   

Here are the twenty-two volumes of Calvin’s Commentaries!

One particular question that I have been curious about was “How could John Calvin, the extraordinarily busy pastor of Geneva, find time to write his scholarly Commentaries on various books from the Bible?” After all, these Commentaries total twenty-two volumes in the Baker Books edition (over 30,000 pages)! From the very beginning of Calvin’s ministry in Geneva he solemnly committed himself to teaching the Bible to the population of Geneva. He took his title of “Professor of Sacred Literature” (sacrarum literarum doctor) very seriously and disciplined himself to give regular public lectures on the Bible; oftentimes on a weekly basis in the auditorium (the Auditore) right next to the church building (St. Pierre). Dr. de Greef cites evidence to show that many, but not all, of the Commentaries were taken from lecture notes (praelectiones) given by Calvin and compiled by others. The draft editions of the Commentaries would then be reviewed by Calvin before going to publication. Dr. de Greef notes, 

The first commentary Calvin published was on the Epistle to the Romans, which came off the press in Strasbourg in March 1540. The contents are probably a revised summary of lectures he had given in Geneva from 1536 to 1538…The commentary on the Epistle to the Romans was followed by a number of others…These publications were probably lectures that he had given…

de Greef, The Writings of John Calvin, 94-95

Here is a second example of this collaborative effort, 

The commentary on Isaiah, which appeared in 1551, was the first commentary in which Calvin engaged in the interpretation of the Old Testament. It was not put together by Calvin himself, however, since he did not have enough time to devote to it then. In 1549 Nicolas Des Gellars (Gallasius) had attended Calvin’s lectures on Isaiah, taken notes, and then developed them at home, letting Calvin read the finished product for possible corrections. Calvin dedicated the commentary on December 25, 1550, to King Edward VI of England (CO 13:669-74), noting that the commentary was not from his own hand, but had been carefully compiled from lectures (praelectiones) that he had given.

de Greef, The Writings of John Calvin, 101-102

In addition, we see from Dr. de Greef’s research the persuasive evidence that the Commentaries also came from the weekly ministerial lectures given by Calvin on Friday mornings at the Congregation, and from certain Sermons that were later edited into the form of a commentary on Scripture. For example, 

In Calvin’s forward [from his Commentary on the Psalms] of July 22, 1557, which contains various biographical data, he relates that he had first expounded on the Psalms for “our little school” a practice which, according to Nicolas Colladon (CO 21:75), he had begun in 1552. From 1555 until August 1559 the Psalms were also discussed during the weekly Bible studies (congregations). In addition, Calvin often chose a psalm for the Sunday afternoon sermon. At the repeated insistence of friends, he moved on to the writing of a commentary on the Psalms.

de Greef, The Writings of John Calvin, 105

At times, Calvin expressed a reluctance to have his material published in this manner, but due to the challenges of time he was unable to do otherwise. Dr. de Greef comments, 

Calvin has lectured on the New Testament at the gymnasium in Strasbourg, where he covered the Gospel of John and 1 Corinthians. In Geneva he gave exegetical lectures on the Old Testament, addressing in Latin the students, ministers, and other interested persons. He thoroughly prepared for these lectures even though he had nothing written in front of him during the classes themselves; he could not find the time to carefully write everything down….It is striking that in later translations of Calvin’s commentaries and lectures, the differences in character between the two are often not distinguished. Calvin himself wrote the commentaries, following as closely as possible the criteria that he had established for a good commentary. Thus in a commentary Calvin always gives a very concise interpretation of the text. In the lectures, however, he generally discusses the text in somewhat more detail than in his commentaries… Considering the different value that Calvin placed on his commentaries and his lectures, we do him an injustice if we do not clearly distinguish between them…Calvin writes in the forward that originally he was not at all keen about the publication of these lectures. Since he had too little time to give to their preparation, he felt that they were not suitable for publication. But he also could not find the time to write a commentary on Hosea, so he agreed to publish the lectures as an experiment. It appears from a letter to Heinrich Bullinger (dated February 17, 1557—CO 16:412-13) that Calvin was not very happy with the publication. But the experiment proved to be successful, and all his subsequent lectures, therefore, were published in both Latin and French.

de Greef, The Writings of John Calvin, 107-108

Hence, the answer to my question of “How could John Calvin find time to write his scholarly Commentaries on various books from the Bible?” is answered by the research put forward by Dr. de Greef. In short, it was through Calvin’s hard work of preparing and giving weekly lectures on the Bible, and through the editing of the transcriptions of those remarks written down by others, that the large number of Commentaries came into existence.

Besides giving the background of the Commentraries, Dr. de Greef comments on many of the other publications of Calvin: his early writings as a young humanist, his shorter theological tracts, his sermon manuscripts, his letters, and his lengthier books. The history of the five separate editions of Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, which stretches from 1536 to 1559, was especially helpful. Over the course of twenty-three years, Calvin’s Institutes steadily grew from a “small book” of six chapters that was designed to be “concealed in one’s pocket,” into a “large volume” containing eighty chapters in four books. This demonstrates the stellar effort that Calvin put into his literary projects over the course of his adult years.

On the left is Dr. de Greef’s fine book “The Writings of John Calvin,” plus two other noteworthy volumes

What can be learned from Calvin’s example? As a busy pastor, his determined effort stimulates me to continue my practice of working hard to fill my sermons and lectures with excellent material. Moreover, it should be my goal to preserve all of my material in personal files and/or by audio recordings. In this way, the work that goes into a given sermon or lecture is not only limited to that particular moment; but it lives on to be used another day. This same principle works well for various theological lectures and conference talks–each presentation can be used in other settings to further the impact of that one effort. May it all be to the Glory of God! Soli Deo Gloria!

— Dr. Marcus J. Serven 

John Calvin: A Biography

June 30, 2021 /

Parker, T. H. L. John Calvin: A Biography. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1975, Reprinted in 2007. [190 pages]

Reviewed by Dr. Marcus J. Serven

I have often argued that a good modern biography on the life of John Calvin is very difficult to find. The problem with many contemporary biographers is that they fall into the bad habit of treating their subjects as if they were merely specimens in a petri dish. They metaphorically slice off a little section from the life of that man or woman and analyze a particular characteristic, or event, under the discriminating lens of their own personal microscope. They wonder, “Hmm, what grows on that specimen?” Is it Marxist ideology, Freudian psychoanalysis, Post-Modern narcissism, or perhaps various aspects of the Critical Race Theory? By taking this very narrow and truncated view, however, they miss the overall picture of who the subject of their biography actually was in real life! This way of writing biographies seems to be more subjective speculation than objective history. Moreover, these modern-day biographers tend to discount the opinion of past historians and biographers and rely exclusively upon their own research of the primary sources; and ultimately upon their own opinions.

Professor T. H. L. Parker at work when he taught at the University of Durham

There has to be a better way, but what is it? Here’s my proposal: there should be a balance between researching the primary sources (ad fontes) and a thorough reading of the older well-respected biographers. Both elements are required to produce an interesting and accurate portrayal of the subject. T. H. L. Parker succeeds in his endeavor to write an interesting and accurate biography of John Calvin by doing just that–by interacting with the primary literature and by crediting the insights of past biographers. His current work builds on and expands an earlier volume, Portrait of Calvin (1954), also published by The Westminster Press. It is one of the first biographies I ever read about Calvin and it certainly created a hunger in me to know more about the Reformer of Geneva.

One of the most helpful aspects of T. H. L. Parker’s current biography is the careful analysis he does on re-dating the conversion of Calvin. He writes, 

On no part of Calvin’s life has so much energy been bestowed, so much ingenuity exercised, as upon the date, the manner, the causes, and the agencies of conversion. The pieces of information which our primary authorities furnish us are often inconsistent among themselves or with the assured or assumed knowledge we have of his early life. Such different views, such different datings have been advanced, and after nigh a century of Calvin-study so little certainty has been achieved, that one would wish a halt to be called were it not that in writing a life of Calvin it is not possible to describe the events of the decade 1525-34 without coming, however provisionally and hesitatingly, to some decision.

T. H. L. Parker, John Calvin: A Biography, 162

Parker draws from his careful analysis of Calvin’s own autobiographical Preface to the Psalms Commentary to come up with a potential date. In addition, he consults the older biographies, not ignoring their learned contributions, and makes some educated guesses. He argues, 

From our reading of the Preface, is it possible to indicate a probable date for the conversion? One thing seems to emerge as necessary; if Calvin has remembered the sequence of events correctly, his conversion must be placed during his legal studies. A pre-Orleans date is inadmissible, as is also a date after he had taken his licentiate. If, then 1525 (1526) and March 1531 are the termini, we must allow time for working hard and time (possibly less) for working more coolly. Something between 1528 and early in 1530 would be possible. If however, the migration to Bourges indicates continued enthusiasm for the law studies, we must advance beyond the spring of 1529. If on the other had, there is substance in the stories of his preaching at Bourges, we must allow time for it. The latter end of 1529 or early in 1530 seem to be indicated. After this, Calvin does not break off his law studies altogether. He returns to Orleans in October 1530 (?) for the final part of his course and takes his licentiate. He goes to Paris for further studies and finishes the Commentary on De Clementia.

T. H. L. Parker, John Calvin: A Biography, 165
Melchior Wolmar

These arguments are persuasive and point, as well, to the seminal influence of the out-spoken German scholar, Melchoir Wolmar, under whom Calvin studied Greek at Bourges. It is very likely that Calvin was exposed to Luther’s tracts from the hand of Wolmar. Out of gratitude for the studies in New Testament Greek Calvin dedicated his Commentary on 2 Corinthians to Wolmar (August 1, 1546). 

Thus, Parker writes a fascinating and colorful “portrait of Calvin” (to utilize his previous book’s title) that is built upon the primary sources, the older and well-respected works, and some shrewd guess-work on his part. Overall, I believe that he finds the proper balance of these elements without becoming overly speculative. I especially appreciated his numerous quotes from Nicolas Colladon’s early biography of Calvin (1565), which is rare to find in print, and his comments about the details of Calvin’s personal life. Parker opines, 

Calvin was a good and faithful friend. Like most men, he had his affective casualties; but they were few in comparison with his life-long attachments—de Montmor, Laurent de Normandie, Mathurin Cordier, from his boyhood; Beza, Wolmar, Cop, from his youth; Farel, Melanchthon, Bullinger, from his early manhood. There were always the flatterers and the hero-worshippers, like Jean de L’Espine who would write to say that he wished he could hear Calvin’s “most sweet clear voice” and gaze upon his “most happy face.” But he distrusted praise and preferred to learn his faults. It was perhaps this openness and honesty that kept his friends as much as his evidences of love. And for his part, as he said in a time of distress, he could not live without friendship.

T. H. L. Parker, John Calvin: A Biography, 103
John Calvin at mid-career

Is this the best modern biography available of John Calvin? In my opinion it is certainly better than William Bouwsma’s (John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait, Oxford, 1988) which is entirely too speculative in its psychoanalysis of Calvin’s character, and much better than Alister McGrath’s (A Life of John Calvin: A Study in the Shaping of Western Culture, Blackwell, 1990) which tends to be too technical. Thus, I would number it amongst the top two or three biographies on Calvin due to its careful objectivity, in-depth research, and winsome portrayal of the Reformer.

There is no shortage of biographies on John Calvin today. With the recent resurgence of interest in Reformed Theology and a growing reconsideration of the benefits of the Protestant Reformation, a large number of new biographical treatments of the Genevan Reformer have emerged. Here are three that merit a close and careful reading: (1) Bernard Cottret’s lively biography (Calvin: A Biography, Eerdmans, 2000); (2) Bruce Gordon’s encyclopedic biography (Calvin, Yale University Press, 2009); and lastly, Herman Selderhuis’s engaging biography (John Calvin: A Pilgrim’s Life, IVP, 2009). Perhaps in time one of these three scholarly volumes will replace Parker’s fine work, but until that time I believe it should be celebrated as one of the best overall biographies of John Calvin.

Hmm, why do publishers tend to use the same old pictures of John Calvin on their book covers?
Here are three more biographies showing some of the popular portraits of Calvin

Postscript: I was glad to note that The Westminster Press reprinted T. H. L. Parker’s biography of Calvin in 2007 for the celebration of Calvin’s 500th birthday on July 10, 2009. I trust that this book will continue to have a wide and appreciative readership in the years ahead. Tolle lege! Take up and read!

— Dr. Marcus J. Serven

Summer Internship at Redeemer Presbyterian Church

June 14, 2021 /
Here we are enjoying a brew and some tacos at Lazarus Brewing Company

Over these summer months I have the special privilege of mentoring Oguz Nurettin Alhan as a pastoral intern at Redeemer Presbyterian Church here in Austin, Texas. Oguz is from Smyrna, Turkey (cf. Rev. 2:8-11) and he is currently a student at Westminster Seminary in CA. Pray for Oguz as we expose him to all the facets pastoral ministry, and for me as I seek to instruct him in the many duties of a God-loving, long-suffering, and tender-hearted shepherd of the flock (Ezek. 34:15-17; Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:1-5).

— Dr. Marcus J. Serven

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2025 The Genevan Foundation

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑