How the Protestant Reformers are Still Changing the World

Category: Uncategorized (Page 1 of 2)

The Bias of Skepticism

The statue of David Hume, the Scottish Philosopher, dominates the square next to St. Giles Cathedral in Edinburgh, Scotland

Written by Dr. Marcus J. Serven

“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.” Proverbs 1:7

Introduction:

Hume’s big brass toe

Not long after I had visited Edinburgh, Scotland for the first time, a friend asked me, “Did you rub the big toe of David Hume?” I was a bit shocked at this question, but when I asked her, “What do you mean?” she explained that people oftentimes “rub” the big brass toe on Hume’s statue out of appreciation for his philosophy. This statue is placed right in the center of the Royal Mile in Edinburgh and it is a tribute to David Hume the famous skeptic and leader of the Scottish Enlightenment. Once I was clear on the meaning, I gave a firm answer to my friend that I would never even think of “rubbing” the big brass toe of that statue because I did not appreciate the philosophy of David Hume and his inveterate skepticism.

Dr. Dallas Willard

What exactly is skepticism? The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines it with these words: “Philosophical skepticism is the position that certainty in knowledge is never achievable, questioning the validity of beliefs that are typically taken for granted, such as those regarding the external world, causality, or sensory experience. It involves suspending judgment, arguing that justification for knowledge claims is always insufficient.” Or as some people would assert, “Question everything!” All of this sounds comfortably “neutral.” It is a view of reality that our postmodern culture would greatly appreciate. There are, however, serious problems with skepticism that I believe demonstrate it to be a flawed system of thought. Dallas Willard notes, “We live in a culture that has, for centuries cultivated the idea that the skeptical person is always smarter than one who believes. You can almost be as stupid as a cabbage as long as you doubt.” (Willard, Hearing God) In short, it is good to remember that any fool can be a skeptic.

Exposing the Bias:

Skepticism has at its very core a bias against supernaturalism. This is the idea that a transcendent God has revealed himself in nature (i.e. General Revelation) and in the Bible (i.e. Special Revelation). The concept that truth can be known outside of oneself is foreign to the skeptic. Instead, the skeptic elevates his or her own thinking to such a high level that anything outside of their own thoughts and impressions is to be doubted. In this respect it is a system of thought built upon the self. It is therefore biased towards any source of knowledge outside of the self; anything that is transcendent or supernatural. John Frame notes,

Prof. John Frame

The skeptical conclusion—that we know precisely nothing—is…so implausible, so unlikely, that it actually functions as a reductio. If an argument logically entails skepticism…there must be something wrong with the premises. Pure skepticism, of course, is irrefutable, since the skeptic allowed his critic no knowledge on the basis of which to debate. But we know that the skeptic is wrong; for if we don’t know that, we don’t know anything else. And if we do know that, it is evident that we know some things (e.g. that skepticism is false) that we cannot prove.

— Frame, A History of Western Philosophy and Theology, 704

John Stuart Mill

Since the time of the Reformation, skepticism has produced many adherents—David Hume (1711-1776), Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), and Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) are a few notable examples. These are the “children” of the Enlightenment. One of the more famous skeptics in the 19th century was the British philosopher, John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). Mill was a skeptic along the lines of David Hume in that he rejected God’s revelation to man as well as the fallen sinful nature of man. Stated briefly, he rejected all divine revelation and elevated his own judgements over all that God said in the Bible. He believed knowledge (i.e. Empiricism) stems only from personal observation. Anything outside of what a person can personally observe and verify is not to be trusted. Mill concludes, “Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign” (Mill, On Liberty). R. C. Sproul summarizes Mill’s belief system in this way,

Dr. R. C. Sproul

A philosopher, John Stuart Mill, considered the manifest presence in the world of pain, suffering, violence, and wickedness, and he concluded that what we encounter on a daily basis belies any hope of a good and loving God. In skepticism he said that if God is a God of love yet he allows such pain and suffering, then he is powerless to prevent it and is nothing more than a divine weakling incapable of administering peace and justice. If, on the other hand, he has the power to prevent evil but chooses not to, standing by and allowing it, then he may be powerful but he is not good or loving. The complaint Mill raised against historical Christianity is that either God is good but not all powerful, or he is all powerful but not good. What is missing from Mill’s oversimplified equation concerning the economy of grief and pain in the world is the reality of sin.

— R.C. Sproul, An Expositional Commentary on Romans, 268

R. C. Sproul, I believe, rightly identifies what is missing in Mill’s philosophy—“the reality of sin.” It is Mill’s over-reliance upon his own intellect to define reality and the rejection of any notion of sin against God’s law and sin against fellow human beings. Wikipedia notes, “In his views on religion, Mill was an agnostic and a skeptic, though Mill believed, in terms of the right answer to the question of God’s existence, that it is ‘a very probable hypothesis.’ He also saw as perfectly rational and legitimate to believe in God as an act of hope or as the result of one’s efforts to discern the meaning of life as a whole” (Wikipedia, “John Stuart Mill”). In essence, Mill believed that it was helpful to believe in God as an “act of hope.” This type of thinking is only a hopeful fiction and not a solid foundation upon which to build a person’s ethics, morality, and essential principles. If everything is subjective, then logically nothing is objective.

Providing an Alternative View:

In contrast, every man must become epistemologically self-conscious. This means that we must recognize our own intellectual limitations, and build our life upon a reality that is outside of us (i.e. extra nos). In this way, our understanding of reality is not held captive to our own personal observations and thoughts. Moreover, man must reconcile himself with the belief that he is but a creature—fallen, finite, and mortal. Whereas, God is holy, infinite, and eternal. This type of thinking maintains the “Creator-creature” distinction. John Calvin begins his celebrated book, Institutes of the Christian Religion, with the essential premise “that our very being is nothing else than subsistence in God alone.” Calvin writes,

John Calvin

Our wisdom in so far as it ought to be deemed true and solid wisdom, consists almost entirely of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves. But as those are connected together by many ties, it is not easy to determine which of the two precedes, and gives birth to the other. For, in the first place, no man can survey himself without forthwith turning his thoughts toward God in whom he lives and moves; because it is perfectly obvious, that the endowments which we possess cannot possibly be from ourselves, nay, that our very being is nothing else than subsistence in God alone.

— John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1:1:1

Cornelius Van Til explains Calvin’s essential theory by stating,

Dr. Cornelius Van Til

From this quotation, certain things are clear. Calvin never did start a chain of reasoning about man’s nature and destiny by taking man by himself. He did not start with man as with an ultimate starting point. Calvin did start with a general a priori position. His position is as radically opposed to that of Descartes as it is to that of Hume. Most apologetic writers who have come after Calvin have allowed themselves to be influenced unduly by Cartesian philosophy on this matter. Calvin recognized fully that if man is to have true knowledge of himself he must regard God as original and himself as derivative. He did not place God and man as correlatives next to one another, but he recognized from the outset two levels of existence and two levels of interpretation, on the one hand the divine and eternal, and on the other hand the human or temporal. To him it is perfectly obvious that the endowments that we possess are not of ourselves, but of God. Hence he says that, “not a particle of light, or wisdom, or justice, or power, or rectitude, or genuine truth, will anywhere be found, which does not flow from him: and of which he is not the cause.”

— Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology, 156-157

As human beings, then, let us not begin our search for reality with the false premise that man’s individual judgements and observations are an adequate foundation for finding the truth. Instead, in humility, let us build upon the premise that God is our Maker, and that all truth and reality stems from Him; in other words, outside of us. Solomon summarized this principle by writing, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction” (Prov. 1:7). This starting point in man’s quest for understanding, I believe, is a superior foundation for discerning reality and truth. It is not founded upon our own temporal thoughts and impressions (which are always changing), but upon the eternal realities of a sovereign God who has objectively established time, space, and reality. The Apostle James wisely exhorts, “Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you” (James 4:10). Therefore, a foundation of humility removes the bias of skepticism from the mind of all thinking persons. It is beneficial for all human beings to follow this sage advice.

Resources for Further Study:

Brown, Colin. Philosophy and the Christian Faith. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1968.

Burtt, Edwin A., ed. English Philosophers from Bacon to Mill. New York, NY: Random House, Inc., 1939.

  • David Hume: An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding; Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
  • John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism; On Liberty

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Ed. John T. McNeill. Trans. Ford Lewis Battles. 2 vols. Library of Christian Classics, no. 20-21. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1960.

Comesaña, Juan and Peter Klein. “Skepticism” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Spring 2026 Edition. Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman, eds. Accessed June 11, 2026: URL =
<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2026/entries/skepticism/>.

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

  • “Empiricism” by David A. Rausch 
  • “Epistemology” by Paul D. Feinberg
  • “Hume, David” by David A. Rausch 
  • “Naturalism” by Michael H. Macdonald
  • “Philosophy, Christian View of” by Stanley R. Obitts
  • “Reason” by Winfried Corduan
  • “Scottish Realism” by Douglas F. Kelly
  • “Utilitarianism” by David B. Fletcher

Frame, John M. Apologetics to the Glory of God: An Introduction. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1994.

Frame, John M. A History of Western Philosophy and Theology. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2015.

Johnson, Paul. Intellectuals. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers, 1988. 

Magee, Bryan. The Story of Philosophy: 2,500 Years of Great Thinkers from Socrates to the Existentialists and Beyond. New York, NY: Barnes and Noble, 2006. 

Rushdoony, Rousas John. To Be As God: A Study of Modern Thought since the Marquis de sade. Valecito, CA: Ross House Books, 2003.

Russell, Bertrand. Why I Am Not a Christian. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, Inc., 1957. 

Sproul, R.C. An Expositional Commentary on Romans. Orlando, FL: Ligonier Ministries, 2009. 

Sproul, R. C. Lifeviews: Understanding the Ideas that Shape Society Today. Old Tappen, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1986.  

Sproul, R. C. The Consequences of Ideas: Understanding the Concepts the Shaped Our World. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2000. 

Van Til, Cornelius. An Introduction to Systematic Theology. Second Edition. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2007.

Willard, Dallas. Hearing God: Developing a Conversational Relationship with God. Updated Edition. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2024.  

Dr. Marcus J. Serven, ThM and DMin

The Genevan Foundation – Copyright 2026 – All Rights Reserved

Will the Wicked be Tormented in Hell for Eternity?

Written by Dr. Marcus J. Serven

“And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” Matthew 25:46

Over the last fifty years a small, but vocal, group of evangelical theologians have questioned the eternality of Hell. It appears that their primary motive has been to give precedence to the love of God over and against God’s divine justice. This has led to the emergence of a number of erroneous doctrines that have typically been promoted by various sects, cults, and apostate churches. Here are four examples:

  • The false belief that an individual’s length of suffering in Hell is conditional (i.e. annihilationism). The specific error is that once a person has suffered enough for their sins in Hell they are simply annihilated by God (i.e. “they cease to be”). The Jehovah’s Witnesses are a typical example of those who hold to this falsehood.
  • The false belief that a person’s immortality is based upon one’s good works (i.e. conditional immortality). In other words, God grants immortality to the righteous, but withholds it from the unrighteous. Those sects who believe in a “works righteousness” path to salvation exemplify this false teaching.
  • The false belief that all individuals, even the devil and the demons, will ultimately be saved (i.e. universalism). Liberal Protestants who have rejected the doctrine of sin and the necessity of the New Birth oftentimes believe in universalism. Consequently they reject God’s holiness, his divine justice, and the Bible’s teaching of a future Judgement Day.
  • The false belief that following death there is an intermediate state where one can become “fit for Heaven” (i.e. an evangelical purgatory). Typically, the Roman Catholic Church has been the primary group who has taught that a person’s spiritual condition could be “improved” after death. This falsehood is in direct conflict with the teaching of the Bible (Lk. 16:26-27; 2 Cor. 5:10; Heb. 9:27). Sadly, some evangelical theologians have fallen into this error as well.

None of the four errors listed above is orthodox (i.e. “the straight and true way”) in any manner. Instead, they must all be labeled as heterodox (i.e. “a different or an erroneous way”). Hence, the church of Jesus Christ must courageously “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) by rejecting these errors. God’s Word is abundantly clear on this subject in numerous Old and New Testament citations. Here are two examples from the teaching of our Lord, Jesus Christ–Matthew 25:41, 46; and Mark 9:42-48.

One of the clearest passages, in my opinion, is Jesus’ statement in the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 25:41, 46) when he describes the eternal destiny of the “sheep” (i.e. the righteous) and the “goats” (i.e. the wicked). Both groups are sent away by the Lord to their eternal destiny–to Heaven, or to Hell. Jesus emphatically states, “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” (vs. 41)…”And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”(vs. 46). Notice how Jesus uses the word eternal (Gk. aionios) to refer to both “punishment” and “life.” Dr. James I. Packer comments on the repeated use of “eternal” by Jesus. He persuasively writes,

Dr. J. I. Packer (1926-2020)

“‘Eternal punishment’ is Jesus’ own phrase. It comes from the passage that pictures the day of judgment in terms of the Son of Man, now returned as King, separating the sheep from goats (that is, two classes of human beings from each other). To the goats his word is: ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for devil and his angels…Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life’ (Mt. 25:41, 46). ‘Eternal’ in these phrases is aionios, meaning, as has often been pointed out, not ‘endless,’ but pertaining to the age to come,’ as distinct from the order of things that now is. However, the age to come, as Jesus and the Jews conceived it, was to be unending; therefore aionios implies the unending continuance of that to which it refers, unless something is said to show the contrary. In vs. 46, Jesus’ statement about the eternal life into which the sheep enter and the eternal punishment into which the goats go is clearly a conscious parallelism on his part; so if eternal life is taken to be unending, as surely it must be, the only natural supposition is that eternal punishment is unending also.”

— Dr. J. I. Packer, The Problem of Eternal Punishment, 3

Packer’s argument that the destiny of the “sheep” and the “goats” is “a conscious parallelism” is a compelling and persuasive statement. I strongly agree with his exegesis. Moreover, J. I. Packer expresses his alarm for the growth and acceptance of conditionalism (i.e. annihilation) by some theologians within the evangelical church. He passionately contends that this error must be rejected. Packer forces the issue into the forefront of our thought through a serious of rhetorical questions. He asks,

“Are the biblical foundations of conditionalism secure? I think not. Does it matter whether an evangelical is a conditionalist or not? I think it does: for a conditionalist’s idea of God will miss out on the glory of divine justice, and his idea of worship will miss out on praise for God’s judgments, and his ideas of heaven will miss out on the thought that praise for God’s judgments goes on (cf. Rev. 16:5-7, 19:1-5), and his ideas of man will miss out on the awesome dignity of our having been made to last for eternity, and in his preaching of the gospel he will miss out on telling the unconverted that their prospects without Christ are as bad as they possibly could be—for on the conditionalist view they aren’t! These, surely, are sad losses. Conditionalism, logically thought through, cannot but impoverish a Christian man, and limit his usefulness to the Lord. That is why I am concerned about the current trend towards conditionalism. I hope it may soon be reversed.”

— Dr. J. I. Packer, The Problem of Eternal Punishment, 14 

Beyond Jesus’ sermon in the Olivet Discourse there is another significant passage in the New Testament. In particular, Dr. Robert A. Peterson comments on Jesus’ teaching on Hell in Mark 9:42-48. He explains,

Dr. Robert A. Peterson (b. 1948)

“Jesus’ vivid description of hell merits study. He says that hell is a place “where the fire never goes out” (vs. 43), thereby distinguishing the fires of hell from those on earth, all of which die. Even mighty forest fires, which may burn for weeks, eventually burn out. Hell-fire, however, is inextinguishable. It is unwise to press Jesus’ words concerning the fires of hell by asking about the temperature of the flames, for example. His main point is crystal clear: the pains of hell last forever. Jesus reinforces this point at the end of the passage when he again warns of being cast “into hell, where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched” (vv. 47-48). The Redeemer here depicts hell in the words of Isaiah 66:24.”

— Dr. Robert Peterson, Hell on Trial, 63

Hence, we find by a brief examination of Jesus’ teaching that the eternality of both Heaven and Hell is clearly taught in the Bible. Other passages could certainly be examined, but it is sufficient for the believer to understand that the unrighteous will be tormented in Hell for an eternity. Even though this teaching may be unsettling to some, it must be admitted that it is clearly taught by the Lord Jesus Christ. Moreover, it is consistent with the character of God–in that all of his divine attributes must be equally held, and not one placed over another. Therefore, God is loving, gracious, and forgiving. But at the same time God is holy, righteous, and just. It is not inconsistent to affirm everyone of these divine attributes. God is God, and his divine characteristics should never be held hostage to man’s limited understanding. Instead, we should gratefully acknowledge that he is our Creator and we are but mere creatures (Rom. 9:19-24).

Here are five volumes that helped me to write this article–Packer and Peterson are the best!

Resources for Further Study:

Boettner, Loraine. Immortality. Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1956. 

Crockett, William, ed. Four Views on Hell: Literal, Metaphorical, Purgatorial, Conditional. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992. 

Elwell, Walter A., ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. First Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984. 

  • “Annihilationism” by Roger Nicole
  • “Conditional Immortality” by Alan F. Johnson
  • “Eternal Punishment” by Leon Morris
  • “Final State” by J. Kenneth Grider
  • “Heaven” by J. Kenneth Grider
  • “Hell” by Robert P, Lightner
  • “Intermediate State” by Stephen M. Smith
  • “Immortality” by David W. Kerr
  • “Last Judgement, The” by David A. Hubbard
  • “Purgatory” by Loraine Boettner
  • “Resurrection of the Dead” by R. E. O. White
  • “Universalism” by David B. Eller

Morgan, Christopher W. and Robert A. Peterson, General Editors. Hell Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 2004.  

Packer, J. I. The Problem of Eternal Punishment. Orthos, No. 10 [Pamphlet]. Cheshire, UK: Fellowship of Word and Spirit, 1990. 

Peterson, Robert A. Hell on Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publications, 1995.

Shedd, William G. T. The Doctrine of Eternal Punishment. Edinburgh, Scotland: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1986.  

Thomas, Derek W. H. Heaven on Earth: What the Bible Teaches about Life to Come. Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2018. 

Dr. Marcus J. Serven, ThM and DMin

The Genevan Foundation – Copyright April 2026 – All Rights Reserved

G. I. Williamson on the Roman Catholic View of Justification

“Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” Romans 5:1

Rev. G. I. Williamson (1925-2023)

“One of the basic errors of Roman Catholicism is confusion of justification and sanctification, that is, between legal and inherent righteousness. Rome teaches that at certain times (such as immediately after baptism, or reception of one of the other sacraments) a person is “just.” What is meant, however, is that the person is actually made internally holy and not just legally righteous before God. This holiness, according to Rome, can then be partially or even totally destroyed by sin, venial or mortal. A person may cease to be just. He must again be justified through sacramental grace. And on it goes in a constant cycle. Sin nullifies sacramental grace, and then sacramental grace nullifies sin. This is a doctrine that gives no peace (see Rom. 5:1). One can never be certain of his standing with God. But more than this, it does not make sense. For if sacramental grace actually produced inward holiness, then why would that person ever sin again? If justification meant perfect inward holiness, then there could be no further sin, because a “perfect tree will bring forth perfect fruit” (see Luke 6:43-45). This difficulty is removed when we distinguish between justification and sanctification. In justification the sinner is once and for all declared holy, legally absolved from all guilt and punishment of sin, whether original or actual, past or future. In sanctification the sinner is gradually and progressively purged of all pollution and practice of sin, so that sin is progressively weakened (in the long run), and inherent holiness becomes progressively stronger, until finally the person becomes (at death) actually as righteous as he has long been legally.”

— Rev. G. I. Williamson, The Westminster Confession of Faith: For Study Classes, 142

These wise words from G. I. Williamson give me an eternal hope! I can trust that the justification provided by Jesus Christ is completely sufficient for the pardon of all of my sins. Based upon that new reality, I can live by faith as one who actively seeks after holiness. All of this is based upon the clear teachings of the Bible, and not just upon the ever-changing “traditions of men.” Praise be to God!

— Dr. Marcus J. Serven

Resources for Further Study:

Williamson, G. I. The Westminster Confession of Faith: For Study Classes. Second Edition. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2004.

You might also consider…

Barrett, Matthew, ed. The Doctrine on Which the Church Stands or Falls: Justification in Biblical, Theological, Historical, and Pastoral Perspective. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019.

McGrath, Allister E. Justification by Faith: What It Means to Us Today. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1988.

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

A Sermon: “The Parable of the Lamp” Mark 4:21-25

I had the privilege of preaching at Redeemer Presbyterian Church, where I serve as the Pastor of Christian Discipleship, this past Sunday (April 7, 2024). My part-time role is mainly focused on teaching adults in our School of Discipleship (on Sunday mornings) and in directing the newly established Redeemer Theological Academy (mid-week classes). Getting an opportunity to preach for me is a rarity–since we have a sizable staff of pastors–and so I was happy to take the opportunity when it came up! Below you will find a description of my sermon on the “Parable of the Lamp” and an audio clip so you can listen. I hope you enjoy it and are challenged by Jesus’ admonition to “let your light shine before others” (Matthew 5:16)!

Jesus uses a common oil-burning lamp as a “visual aid” or as a “parable” to illustrate the value of “light.” No doubt, you can think of examples in real life that demonstrate the value of light—a candle in the midst of a blackout, the light on your phone when you are trying to open the lock on your front door, or a handy flashlight to change a flat tire late at night. The Bible includes several references to “light” in both the Old and the New Testaments (see: Gen. 1:1-5; Ps. 119:105; Prov. 6:23; Matt. 5:14-16; Lk. 2:32; Jn. 3:19-21, 8:12). These short passages show us that light is a very important concept in the Bible. It is not an accident that Jesus uses a lamp that gives off light to express something quite valuable—but what does it mean? If we conclude that the “light” in the Parable of the Lamp refers to the gospel message then how should Christians today seek to show forth the “light” of the gospel? Both Jesus and Paul speak of Christians as the “sons of light” (Jn. 12:36; 1 Thes. 5:5). Therefore, we can be confident that whatever we might do in our life—whether it is in art, business, economics, education, family, law, politics, sports, or work—we bring the light of the gospel into it. Jesus did not intend for us to keep the light hidden, but to make it clearly known for all to see!

Here is the audio clip:

Just a few days after I preached, some friends very kindly gifted me with this genuine oil lamp made in Israel. Interestingly enough, the lamp I described in my sermon was very much like this one. My resource was the Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible which gave me the description that I used. But now I had in my possession the real deal–a simple oil-burning clay lamp of the type used by Jesus in his parable! What joy! Post Tenebras Lux (After darkness, Light!)

— Pastor Marcus J. Serven

The Power of God’s Word

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

The Federal Vision: A Concise Critique

Written by Dr. Marcus J. Serven 

Introduction:

Below you will find five distinctive marks of “The Federal Vision” theology that has been advocated by some theological writers and popular speakers since the early 2000’s. I believe that each one of these five marks can be refuted by the clear teaching of the Bible and by all of the Confessional documents of the Reformed and Presbyterian churches. I list the five marks as illustrative of how some good men can fall prey to bad theology.

  1. The Federal Vision endorses a fundamental paradigm shift away from the doctrine of “Regeneration” to the doctrine of the “Covenant” as the decisive starting place for all theological discussion and analysis (i.e. a hyper-covenantalism; an emphasis on “covenant membership”). 
  2. The Federal Vision rejects the Bible’s teaching of a “two-covenant system” (i.e. the covenant of works and the covenant of grace; or Law and Gospel) by setting in its place one single unfolding covenant. Hence, the status and the obligations of its members are radically reinterpreted. 
  3. The Federal Vision redefines the doctrine of Justification so that it is not based solely upon the righteousness of Christ imputed to the believer (forensic justification), but upon a combination of Christ’s work and the believer’s good works (a salvific syncretism). Federal Vision advocates also teach that justification is not limited to a particular time, but justification comes about progressively over a person’s lifetime leading to a final justification at one’s death. 
  4. The Federal Vision redefines the doctrine of the Church by rejecting the terms “visible” and “invisible.” Moreover, it underemphasizes evangelism and overemphasizes discipleship.
  5. The Federal Vision redefines the doctrine of the Sacraments so that infant baptism (paedo-baptism) is viewed as the “means of salvation” (i.e. through baptismal regeneration), rather than seen solely as a sign and seal of entrance into the visible church. Moreover, Federal Vision advocates insist that covenant membership entitles all baptized persons, even those who have never made a credible profession of faith, the right to participate in the Lord’s Supper (i.e. paedo-communion). 

Select Bibliography: 

Beisner, Calvin E. (ed.), The Auburn Avenue Theology, Pros & Cons: Debating the Federal Vision, Fort Lauderdale, FL: Knox Theological Seminary, 2004. 

Letham, Robert. The Lord’s Supper: Eternal Word in Broken Bread. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2001. 

Murray, John, Christian Baptism, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1980.

Pipa, Joseph A. & C.N. Willborn (eds.), The Covenant: God’s Voluntary Condescension, Taylors, SC: Presbyterian Press, 2005. 

Venema, Cornelis P. Children at the Lord’s Table? Assessing the Case for Paedocommunion. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2009. 

Waters, Guy Prentiss. Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul: A Review and Response. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 2004.

Waters, Guy Prentiss. The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology: A Comparative Analysis. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 2006.

Wilkins, Steve and Duane Garner, eds. The Federal Vision, Monroe, LA: The Athanasius Press, 2004.

Dr. Marcus J. Serven, ThM and DMin

The Genevan Foundation – Copyright 2012 – All Rights Reserved

Summer Class: “The Abiding Validity of Reformed Theology”

Four treasured books that have given me a lasting appreciation for Reformed Theology

“Reformed theology so far transcends the mere five points of Calvinism that it is an entire worldview.” ~Dr. R. C. Sproul

Class Description:

Is a belief in Reformed Theology a valid option for the contemporary Christian? The central thesis of this class is that Reformed Theology has “an abiding validity” since it freely flows from the pages of Holy Scripture. With that thesis in mind, we will explore the distinct beliefs of Reformed Theology in the Bible, in the key personalities of the Early Church, in the teaching of the Protestant Reformers, and in the significant Reformed thinkers of the modern era. Moreover, we will discuss how Reformed Theology has shaped modern culture—even though there are many who deny this fact—and how it has positively impacted education, care for the poor, law, politics, economics, a free society/liberty, vocation, the arts, missions, and social change. There will be multiple handouts and book recommendations given out for the benefit of each student.  

Location:

Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA) located in Austin, Texas. We will meet in Room 206 which is the large classroom upstairs in Calvin Hall.

Time:

Sunday mornings (10:15-11:00 AM) [See class schedule below]

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: 

— June 6 – What is Reformed Theology? (Part 1)

— June 13 – What is Reformed Theology? (Part 2)

— June 20 – The Early Church: Paul, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Augustine

— June 27 – The Protestant Reformation: Zwingli, Bucer, Luther, Calvin, Knox

— July 4 – Independence Day/No Class 

— July 11 – Significant Reformed Thinkers: Kuyper, Machen, Schaeffer, Sproul, Packer

— July 18 – A Reformed Worldview: Law, Politics, Care for the Poor

— July 25 – A Reformed Worldview: A Free Society/Liberty, Education, Personal Vocation

— August 1 – No Class

— August 8 – A Reformed Worldview: Economics, the Arts, Missions, Social Change

I hope you can join us as we study Reformed Theology–its foundation in the Bible, its proponents in the Early Church, the Reformation, and the Modern Era. And lastly, we’ll reflect upon its significant (but oftentimes unacknowledged) influence upon all that is good and life-producing in modern culture. You may be surprised at what you learn! Come check it out!

— Dr. Marcus J. Serven

One Man’s Impact on a City

A panorama view of Geneva, Switzerland
Dr. Ronald S. Wallace

What was the overall impact of Calvin’s ministry; and did it bear good fruit? Calvin scholar and long-time pastor, Ronald S. Wallace, suggests a much wider achievement occurred for Calvin’s shepherding ministry than just within the walls of Geneva. Wallace asserts an influence with international scope that continues to this very day through the legacy of Calvin’s pastoral method and the prominence of his city. He perceptively writes, 

Calvin’s influence in the sixteenth century however was due not only to his writing, counsel and teaching but also to what Geneva itself became under his influence. The perplexed pastor of today finds much of what is written by experts, and given as advice even at heart-warming church conferences, does not really fit into his own actual situation in the parish ministry. Calvin, however, instead of writing a “Utopia”, actually produced it in Geneva. He translated his ideas into ecclesiastical and even political institutions. He influenced the kind of individual people could meet as they went about the city. Geneva itself therefore became a fact of great importance. It attracted people. They sent their children so that they could come under the influence of the place. They came to believe it was possible for them to have something like it where they themselves lived and worked. 

Ronald Wallace, Calvin, Geneva, and the Reformation, 43. 

In this way we see the ongoing influence of Calvin as pastor and shepherd to the church of Jesus Christ. He demonstrated this legacy in three ways: first, by a city that was transformed by the gospel and that served as a beacon of righteousness for many centuries; second, by a church which established patterns for ministry that are still being imitated by churches today; and third, by a worldwide institution that became known in time as the Reformed church. Indeed, John Calvin was a faithful and successful pastor.

— Dr. Marcus J. Serven

Was the Protestant Reformation Merely a Revolution?

J. H. Merle D’Aubigne (1794-1872)

Dr. J. H. Merle D’Aubigne, distinguished Professor at the Evangelical Theological School, Geneva, Switzerland answers this important question in the following manner:
“The Reformation is eminently distinguished from all the revolutions of antiquity, and from most of those of modern times. Political changes—the consolidation or the overthrow of the power of the one or of the many—were the object of the latter. The love of truth, of holiness, or immortality, was the simple yet mighty spring which set in motion that which I have to describe. It indicates a forward movement in human nature. In truth, man advances—he improves, whenever he aims at higher objects, and seeks for immaterial and imperishable blessings, instead of pursuing material, temporal, and earthly advantages. The Reformation is one of the brightest days of this glorious progress. It is a guarantee that the new struggle, which is receiving its accomplishment under our own eyes, will terminate on the side of truth, in a purer, more spiritual, and still nobler triumph.” (Merle D’Aubigne, History of the Reformation in the 16th Century, Preface, xviii)

— Dr. Marcus J. Serven

Calvin, Geneva, and the Reformation

A panoramic view of Geneva, Switzerland

Wallace, Ronald S. Calvin, Geneva, and the Reformation: A Study of Calvin as Social Worker, Churchman, Pastor and Theologian. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988. Edinburgh, UK: Scottish Academic Press, 1990. [310 pages] 

Reviewed by Dr. Marcus J. Serven

The theological work of Rev. Dr. Ronald S. Wallace is best known from his two previous books: (1) Calvin’s Doctrine of Word and Sacrament (originally published in 1953, and reprinted in 1982), and (2) Calvin’s Doctrine of the Christian Life (his Ph.D. dissertation at the University of Edinburgh [no date], reprinted 1997). I was initially attracted to Wallace’s books by the fact that he served as a pastor in the Church of Scotland for twenty-seven years prior to taking up his responsibilities as a Professor. During this time of intense pastoral ministry he systematically engaged in scholarly research by writing the above books on Calvin’s theology and ministry, and pursued his doctoral degree. Eventually, he became a Professor at Columbia Theological Seminary, in Decatur, Georgia, where he taught theology and church history for fourteen years. Dr. Wallace died in 2006, having enjoyed a lengthy life of ninety-five years (1911-2006).

This current volume was originally published in 1988. It fulfills Dr. Wallace’s desire to write a biography on the life of John Calvin, but limits that larger project to a smaller scope. In essence, it is a study on Calvin’s pastoral theology; specifically his role as a social worker, churchman, pastor, and theologian. Wallace states, 

For several years I read and collected material for a biographical work on Calvin. I discovered eventually, however, that I was engaged too much in parish work, and in other studies, to be able to master the complicated details of affairs in Geneva to the extent necessary for such a task. Since I was in the ministry myself, I was especially interested both in the kind of ministry which Calvin set himself to fulfill in his city Church (or Church-city), and in the way in which he actually succeeded in fulfilling it. This book therefore is an account, chiefly drawn from the material I collected, of Calvin’s ministry as a social reformer, churchman, and pastor in the sixteenth century. It cannot be called a “Life of Calvin”, but is, rather, a series of essays on his work and on the thought and devotion which he put into it.

Ronald Wallace, Calvin, Geneva, and the Reformation, Forward, vii

What do I like best about this book? Here is a faithful pastor-scholar (Ronald Wallace) writing sympathetically and wisely about the life and ministry of another faithful pastor-scholar (John Calvin). In my opinion, nothing could be better than this!

Following a brief introduction to the major issues and events of the sixteenth century, plus a review of Calvin’s call and early ministry, Dr. Wallace then launches into his four main topics. The book is, therefore, segmented into three sections which explicate the four major themes of his study: (Part 1) The Reformer and his City, (Part 2) Churchman and Pastor, and (Part 3) The Theologian

Section one speaks of Calvin’s role as a “social worker.” The use of this term today garners images of one who unnecessarily meddles in people’s lives. Perhaps a more appropriate term for American readers would be “social reformer,” for in many ways that was exactly what Calvin set out to be. In this serious responsibility of cultural change, he earnestly sought the transformation of his entire city by the power of the gospel. Wallace describes Calvin’s approach in the following manner, 

His program could be described as one of social sanctification rather than of social reconstruction. A transformation first had to be brought about in the personal lives of Geneva’s citizens. This was to be achieved chiefly by two means: through social discipline, and through the sacramental power of the Word of God.

Ronald Wallace, Calvin, Geneva, and the Reformation, 31

Specifically regarding the practice of the Lord’s Supper, Wallace identifies the primary reason why Calvin guarded it so jealously, and why in time it came to grip the people of Geneva so strongly. He argues, 

It was a visible enactment of the mystery that Christ was theirs, and they were his. What was made visible by Christ at the Lord’s Table did not mock those present. The forgiveness, new life and power which each person present, therefore, received by faith through the sacrament could be come the most powerful force for the transformation of individual character, of social and family life within the city…He thus enforced his moral and social Gospel from the Lord’s Table.

Ronald Wallace, Calvin, Geneva, and the Reformation, 33-34

Yet, it seems evident that additional structures were needed to fully reform and regulate the unruly citizens of Geneva. Thus, upon his return to the troubled city on September 13, 1541, following his forced exile in Strasbourg, Calvin set out to perfect the ideas that were never fully implemented during his initial years in Geneva (1536-1538). He wrote a formal plan for civil and ecclesiastical reform which he called the Ecclesiastical Ordinances, which was approved by the City Council on November 20, 1541. He also established an organization of church and civil authorities who would uphold it. 

Calvin now proposed, in his Ecclesiastical Ordinances (1541) that there should be set up in Geneva a court which could have authority and make judgment on such matters of Church discipline. It was to be called a Consistory…”The duty of the Consistory was to summon, admonish or excommunicate those who lives were regarded as incurring such censures.” (Wallace, Calvin, Geneva, and the Reformation, 35)  In this endeavor of social reform, the Minister and the Magistrate worked together to uphold the laws of the city and to further the effect the reform. Wallace notes,  

Calvin was emphatic that ecclesiastical discipline was not enough by itself to produce the healthy society. Social discipline for moral and religious ends enforced by the civil magistrate with civil legal sanctions was also required and had to be distinguished from Church discipline.

Ronald Wallace, Calvin, Geneva, and the Reformation, 36
John Calvin (1509-1564), Pastor to the people of Geneva

It would be easy for those looking back upon the reformation of 16th Century Geneva from the lofty position of their own century to be overly critical. For this reason, Calvin has often been accused of being the “dictator of Geneva” who delighted in controlling the lives of others. It must be remembered, however, that Calvin’s stated goal was to bring transformation to society. The light of the gospel had to drive the darkness of moral depravity out of the culture all together. This would mean that all forms of public drunkenness, prostitution, usury, gambling, and youthful promiscuity should be radically curtailed, and that all of this change would be for the benefit of the people. It was not a matter of controlling the lives of the “free citizens of Geneva,” as the Libertines later made it out to be. It was bringing the lives of the people of Geneva into conformity with the benefits of the gospel and the sanctions of biblical law. Wallace puts it this way, 

His aim was also positive. The minutes of the consistory show only the negative side of the city discipline. Calvin’s program involved the active promotion of the good life by the exaltation of virtue. He encouraged the city fathers of Geneva not to become too absorbed with “law and order”. They were there to set up and maintain a good system of public education, to encourage wholesome culture, and to create, even by regulation, an environment for healthy social attitudes. He believed that good morals can be produced by good legislation and good social organization. His experiment proved in the long run that people who were carefully driven into living virtuously began to prefer virtue to vice.

Ronald Wallace, Calvin, Geneva, and the Reformation, 51

In summary, Calvin achieved his goal of social transformation by the following means: (1) through preaching and teaching the Word of God (twice every Lord’s Day and on several days throughout the week), (2) through the regular administration of the Lord’s Supper (in time this happened monthly), (3) through the regulating power of the Consistory (with weekly meetings on Thursday mornings), and (4) through the complementary and harmonious relationship that existed between the civil magistrates and the ecclesiastical authorities.

Section two of Wallace’s book deals with Calvin’s role as a Pastor and Churchman. Specifically, he set out to reform the church in such a way that it would not only uphold correct doctrine (orthodoxy), but it would also closely conform to biblical patterns of life (orthopraxy). This was a reconstruction project of the highest order. 

Calvin thought of himself in relation to the Church as an architect of reconstruction. In the letter dedicating his Commentary on Isaiah to King Edward VI he described the state of the Church. It had become like the ruined temple of God, utterly deformed, having lost all the glory of the early centuries of its life. But God had begun to raise it up so that men might begin again to see the beauty and glory of the former outline, and Calvin describes himself as one of many inconsiderable persons selected by God “as architects to promote the work of pure doctrine”. In his important letter to the King of Poland, he refers again to his call to “buildup he Church now lying deformed among the ruins of Popery.”

Ronald Wallace, Calvin, Geneva, and the Reformation, 134

Calvin did not just promote his ideology on paper, but he actually implemented it in Geneva and demonstrated to others that his plan could work. He cared for the welfare of the people by visiting them in their own homes, and by training-up others who would share in this on-going responsibility (e.g. Ruling Elders and Deacons). Wallace says, 

Moreover if he has a true pastoral concern for those to whom he is preaching he will seek not to fail to visit them in their homes. Calvin believed that Paul gave a pattern for the ministry of the Word when he spoke of how he did not cease to admonish both “publicly” and “from house to house”. “Whatever others may think,” Calvin wrote, “we do not regard our office as bound within so narrow limits that when the sermon is delivered we may rest as if our task was done. They whose blood will be required of us if lost through our slothfulness, are to be cared for much more closely and vigilantly.

Ronald Wallace, Calvin, Geneva, and the Reformation, 173

What of Calvin’s role as a Theologian? Much could be said, but it is important to note that Calvin did not pursue theology because he delighted in abstract thinking, biblical speculation, and dwelling on lofty subjects over and above the ordinary Christian. Instead, Wallace suggests a more personal motivation. He states,  

Theology for Calvin, was always an affair of the heart. Christianity, he insisted “is a doctrine not of the tongue but of the life and is not apprehended merely by the intellect and memory, like other sciences, but is received only when it possesses the whole soul, and finds its seat and habitation in the innermost recesses of the heart” [Institutes 3:6:4].

Ronald Wallace, Calvin, Geneva, and the Reformation, 233

And again, Wallace perceptively declares, 

Therefore the theological quest involves the theologian not simply in an effort to know about God but also in a growing desire for union and communion with God himself. Even as we meditate, for example, on the nature of the Trinity we are reminded by Calvin that God offers himself to our faith not only to be heard and tested, by to be contemplated, and we are urged to “look upon the one God, to unite with him, and to cleave to him” [Institutes 1:13:2, 1:13:16]. 

Ronald Wallace, Calvin, Geneva, and the Reformation, 234

Upon what did Calvin build his theology? He could have started with a scathing critique of all the medieval scholastic theologians and then moved on to what was wrong with the church in his time. Yet he does not fall into this purely negative approach. Rather, he consciously and purposefully bases his theology upon the Word of God. And from this unassailable foundation, he constructs a timeless pastoral methodology that is immune to philosophical speculation and the ever-changing trends of contemporary theology.

His theology was a theology of the Word of God. It can be argued that his contemporary influence was as much due to the circulation of his Commentaries as to the Institutes, which after all he regarded simply as a key to help people to know what to look for in the scriptures. His chief aim, therefore, as a theologian was simply to give a faithful and systematic account of what he himself had found there.

Ronald Wallace, Calvin, Geneva, and the Reformation, 222

Hence, I find that Dr. Ronald Wallace has very capably revealed Calvin’s role as a social worker, churchman, pastor, and theologian. He does this with numerous citations from the Institutes, the Commentaries, and the Letters. I appreciated his emphasis on Calvin’s pastoral ministry and his passion in presenting his research. I have read this book several times and continue to dip into it from time to time. In brief, I highly recommend it.

Subscript: This is the one book in all my reading on John Calvin’s role as a Pastor that deeply delves into the specifics of Calvin’s pastoral theology; and so, over the years it has been of immense interest and value to me. Inspired by Wallace’s perceptive book, I completed my own doctoral dissertation on Calvin’s pastoral theology at Covenant Theological Seminary (DMin, 2011). Several notable quotations from Wallace’s book find a prominent place in my dissertation, “Seeking the Old Paths: Towards a Recovery of John Calvin’s Pastoral Theology Amongst Reformed and Presbyterian Pastors Today.”

— Dr. Marcus J. Serven  

« Older posts