Tag: Reformation Theology (Page 2 of 3)

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

October 20, 2021 / marcusserven

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).

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

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.

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

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,

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

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

Covenant Theology: A Theological Primer

March 18, 2021 / marcusserven

Written by Dr. Marcus J. Serven

“Thus it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.’” 1 Corinthians 15:45

Defining the word “Covenant” — In Hebrew > Berith = (lit.) “to divide”, “to cut in two”, or “covenant” (cf. Genesis 9:8-17; 15:9-10, 17-21; Exodus 31:16-17; 2 Samuel 23:5; Psalm 89:28-29; Isaiah 53:20-21; Jeremiah 31:31-34, 34:18-19). In Greek > Diatheke = “testament”, “will”, “covenant” (cf. Matthew 26:27-28; Romans 9:4, 11:26-27; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:4-18; Galatians 4:24; Hebrews 7:22, 8:6-13, 9:15-22, 12:22-24, 13:20-21). In Latin > Foedus = “covenant”, “compact”, “treaty” (we derive the English word “federal” from Foedus). The American Heritage Dictionary (1969) defines “covenant” in the following manner, “A binding agreement made by two or more persons or parties; a compact; a contract.”

A Biblical Pattern — “A binding agreement made by two or more persons” describes a contract negotiated between men or equals. Yet, a “covenant” between God and man has several differing aspects that make it unique: (1) Preamble: identifies the sovereign, (2) Historical Prologue: history of the relationship, (3) Stipulations: terms of the covenant, (4) Oaths/Vows: Promises that bind the parties, (5) Sanctions: blessings and curses, (6) Ratification: sealing the covenant by blood (animal sacrifices or the death of Christ). This unique pattern is found in the text of the Bible, and also in Ancient Near Eastern suzerain-vassal treaties amongst Hittite kings. No negotiation between parties takes place in establishing these types of covenants. They are imposed by the sovereign alone.

The Covenant of Works — When God created man He entered into a Covenant of Life (or Works) with him, upon condition of perfect obedience. Man was forbidden to eat from the “Tree of the knowledge of good and evil” upon the pain of death (cf. Genesis 2:16-17; Romans 1:18-20, 3:11-16, 5:18, 7:9-12, 10:5; Galatians 3:12-13). The Covenant of Works was further expanded by the giving of the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments), and by all the “case laws” which flow from these as expressions of true righteousness (cf. Exodus 20:1- 23:19; Deuteronomy 5-28). Dr. R. C. Sproul explains,

All human beings from Adam to the present are inescapably members of this covenant. People may refuse to obey or even acknowledge the existence of such a covenant, but they can never escape it. All human beings are in a covenant relationship with God, either as covenant breakers or covenant keepers. The covenant of works is the basis of our need of redemption (because we have violated it) and our hope of redemption (because Christ has fulfilled its terms for us).
R. C. Sproul, Essential Doctrines of the Christian Faith, 73)

The Covenant of Redemption — Some Reformed theologians make note of an eternal Covenant of Redemption, which is decreed by the hidden counsel of God prior to the creation of the heavens and the earth. Its purpose is to redeem a people out of fallen humanity to be God’s holy possession. In essence, it precedes the Covenant of Grace which is made known in history and it is foundational for the Covenant of Grace (cf. Deuteronomy 29:29; Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ephesians 1:4-6; 3:11; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:1-3; James 2:5; I Peter 1:2).

The Covenant of Grace — Throughout human history there is one single unfolding Covenant of Grace whereby God redeems His elect out of the mass of fallen humanity and brings them to eternal salvation (cf. Leviticus 26:12; Jeremiah 32:33; Ezekiel 37:27; 2 Corinthians 6:16). The administration of this gracious covenant to an individual results in that person’s calling, regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification (cf. Genesis 3:15, 12:2-3, 13:14-18, 15:5-7, 15:18, 17:1-14, 21:12; Jeremiah 31:3, 31:31-34, 37:24-27; Romans 5:8-9, 8:29-30, 9:8; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18; Galatians 3:16, 29, 4:28; Hebrews 11:9-10). Reformed theologians emphasize the continuity of the Covenant of Grace as it progressively unfolds through time.

The Covenantal Structure of the Bible —This series of unfolding covenants highlights how God enters into covenantal relationships with individuals and groups for the purpose of foreshadowing the Covenant of Grace. God faithfully keeps covenant with His people and He preserves, protects, and provides for them throughout history.

The Covenant of Creation > Genesis 1:26 (Dominion mandate), 1:28 (Procreative mandate), Gen. 1:28 and Matthew 28:18-20 (Cultural mandate).
The Covenant of Commencement (Adam) > Genesis 2:16-17, 3:15, 21
The Covenant of Preservation (Noah) > Genesis 6:13-21, 9:8-17
The Covenant of Promise (Abraham) > Genesis 12:1-3, 13:14-17, 15:5-20, 17:3-14, 18:18-19, 22:1-19, 26:2-5, 28:13-15; Acts 3:25; Romans 4:1-25
The Covenant of Law (Moses) > Exodus 20:1-17; Deuteronomy 5:6-21; Galatians 3:17-22
The Covenant of the Kingdom (David) > 2 Samuel 7:12-17, 23:5; Psalm 51; Luke 1:26-33, 18:38
The Covenant of Consummation (Christ) > Genesis 3:15; Psalm 22; Isaiah 9:6-7, 53:1-12; Luke 1:26-33; Romans 3:24-26; 2 Corinthians 5:17-21; Galatians 3:13, 4:4-5; Hebrews 4:14-16; 1 Peter 2:21-24, 3:18; 1 John 2:1-2; Revelation 19:6-20

Continuity and not Discontinuity — Reformed theologians do not accept a dispensational program that radically divides the various covenants listed in the Bible. Dispensationalism emphasizes discontinuity rather than continuity.

The Dispensation of Innocence (pre-Fall Adam)
The Dispensation of Conscience (post-Fall Adam)
The Dispensation of Human Government (Noah and his descendants)
The Dispensation of Promise (Abraham and his descendants)
The Dispensation of the Law (Moses and the Priests)
The Dispensation of Israel (David, Solomon, Kings of Judah)
The Dispensation of Grace (from Acts 2, i.e. “The Church Age”)
The Dispensation of the Kingdom (The Return of Christ and the restoration of national Israel in an earthly Millennial Kingdom)
The Dispensation of Heaven (Following the Judgment Day)

A Divine Relationship — A truly wonderful picture of God’s association with His people emerges throughout the Bible when passages that emphasize the divine relationship between God and His people are examined. Note the progression through biblical history, but note as well the fact that there is only one group of people and not two (cf. John 10:15-16; Romans 2:28-29; Galatians 3:7-9, 29, 6:16; Ephesians 2:13-16).

“And I will establish my covenant between you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.” Genesis 17:7
“I will take you to be my people, and I will be your God, who has brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.” Exodus 6:7
“I will make my dwelling among you, and my soul shall not abhor you. And I will walk among you and will be your God, and you shall be my people.” Leviticus 26:11-12
“Listen to my voice and do all that I command you. So shall you be my people, and I will be your God, that I may confirm the oath that I swore to your fathers, to give them a land flowing with milk and honey, as at this day.” Jeremiah 11:4b-5a
“Then the word of the LORD came to me: ‘Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel: like those good figs, so I will regard as good the exiles from Judah, whom I have sent away from this place to the land of the Chaldeans. I will set my eyes on them for good, and I will bring them back to this land. I will build them up, and not tear them down; I will plant them, and not uproot them. I will give them a heart to know that I am the LORD, and they shall be my people and I will be their God, for they shall return to me with their whole heart’.” Jeremiah 24:5-7
“But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” Jeremiah 31:33
“And they shall be my people, and I will be their God. I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for their own good and the good of their children after them. ” Jeremiah 32:38-39
“And you are my sheep, human sheep of my pasture, and I am your God, declares the Lord GOD.” Ezekiel 34:31
“My dwelling place shall be with them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” Ezekiel 37:27
“Thus says the LORD of hosts: behold, I will save my people from the east country and from the west country, and I will bring them to dwell in the midst of Jerusalem. And they shall be my people, and I will be their God, in faithfulness and in righteousness.” Zechariah 8:7-8
“What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God has said, ‘I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people’.” 2 Corinthians 6:16
“Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth has passed away and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.” Revelation 21:1-3
The Bible (English Standard Version)

Salvation History — God covenanted with only one group of people— His elect; which has been typified in the Old Testament era by the Nation of Israel (cf. Deuteronomy 7:6-11; Galatians 3:16; Romans 5:15-ff; Isaiah 53:10-11). Thus, the elect existed in the Old Testament era and were known as True Israel, being distinguished from National Israel. Also, the elect have existed in the New Testament era and have been known as the Invisible Church, in contrast to the Visible Church (cf. Matthew 13:24-30; Romans 2:28-29, 4:1-25, 9:6-7, 11:11-24; Galatians 3:29, 6:16).

Progressive Revelation — The relationship that God has with His people can be shown through a series of expanding and telescoping covenants:

Creation > Adam > Noah > Abraham > Moses > David > Christ

The New Covenant — Each covenant has blessings that come with obedience and curses that come with disobedience. Each covenant is progressive, in that through time God reveals more of His redemptive plan to successive generations. The ultimate expression of God’s covenant relationship is in the New Covenant [Gk. kaine diatheke] sealed by the work of Jesus Christ on the Cross. God’s covenant people are Believers, their children, and all who are in the visible church (Genesis 12:2-3, 17:7-11; Deuteronomy 5:1-21, 7:7-9, 10:16; Psalm 89:30-37, 103:17-18; Jeremiah 31:27-34; Acts 2:39; Romans 2:28-29; 1 Corinthians 7:14; Galatians 3:6-9, 29; Ephesians 2:14-16, 3:6-7; Hebrews 9).

The Sacraments — There are two Sacraments ordained by Jesus Christ: the Lord’s Supper and Baptism. The Lord’s Supper is a memorial feast where Christ is spiritually present in the hearts of every Believer (Martin Bucer, John Calvin). Both adult Believer’s baptism and infant baptism are practiced in Reformed churches as a sign and seal of one’s identification with Christ and the visible church (Romans 4:11-12) . Infant baptism is based on the covenant made by God with Abraham and all of his descendants (Genesis 17:7-14). Covenant theologians believe that the Bible is clear in stating that it was not just Abraham’s physical descendants, but his spiritual descendants who are truly the people of God (Romans 2:28-29, 9:6-8; Galatians 3:7-9, 29; Ephesians 2:13-22). The children of Christians are part of the covenant by virtue of their birth and are thereby entitled to its benefits and liable under its sanctions (Acts 2:38-39; 1 Corinthians 7:14; Ephesians 6:1-4). In the New Testament the practice of circumcision has been superseded by the sacrament of baptism (Colossians 2:11-12).

Resources for Further Study:

Archer, Gleason L. “Covenant” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Second Edition. Walter A. Elwell, ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001. See pages 299-301.

Bahnson, Greg L. and Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. House Divided: The Break-up of Dispensational Theology. Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989.

Beeke, Joel R. and Sinclair B. Ferguson, eds. Reformed Confessions Harmonized. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999.

Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. 4th edition, Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1941. See pages 262-301.

Bromiley, Geoffrey W. “Infant Baptism” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Second Edition. Walter A. Elwell, ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001. See pages 132-134.

Collins, George N. M. “Federal Theology” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Second Edition. Walter A. Elwell, ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001. See pages 444-445.

Gerstner, John H. Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism. Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt Publishers, 1991.

Golding, Peter. Covenant Theology: The Key of Theology in Reformed Thought and Tradition. Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications Ltd., 2004.

Hodge, Archibald A. The Westminster Confession of Faith: A Commentary. Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, first published 1869, reprinted 1958.

Horton, Michael Scott. Introducing Covenant Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2006.

Mathison, Keith A. Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God? Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1995.

Moore, Edwin Nisbet. Our Covenant Heritage: The Covenanters’ Struggle for Unity in Truth. Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications Ltd., 2000.

Murray, John. Redemption—Accomplished and Applied. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1955.

Murray, John. The Covenant of Grace: A Biblico-Theological Study. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1953.

Osterhaven, M. Eugene. “Covenant Theology” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Second Edition. Walter A. Elwell, ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001. See pages 301-303.

Osterhaven, M. Eugene. “Views of Lord’s Supper” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Second Edition. Walter A. Elwell, ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001. See pages 705-708.

Rayburn, Robert S. “New Covenant” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Second Edition. Walter A. Elwell, ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001. See page 301.

Reymond, Robert L. A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. 2nd Edition, Revised and Updated. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998. See pages 415-458, 503-544.

Rhodes, Jonty. Covenants Made Simple: Understanding God’s Unfolding Promises to His People. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2013.

Robertson, O. Palmer. The Christ of the Covenants. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1980.

Sproul, R. C. Essential Truths of the Christian Faith. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1992. See chapters #23, #24, #34, #35.

Sproul, R. C. Truths We Confess: A Systematic Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith. Orlando, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2019. See pages 171-188.

Van Groningen, Gerard. Messianic Revelation in the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1990.

Van Groningen, Gerard. From Creation to Consummation. Sioux Center, IA: Dordt College Press, 1996.

Vine, W. E. An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1940. “diatheke” = “covenant”, “testament”

Vine, W. E. An Expository Dictionary of Old Testament Words. F. F. Bruce ed. Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1978. “Berith” = “covenant”

Vos, Gerhardus, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids, MI: William. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1948.

Vos, Johannes G. The Westminster Larger Catechism: A Commentary. G. I. Williamson ed. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2002.

Waters, Guy Prentiss and J. Nicholas Reid and John R. Muether, eds. Covenant Theology: Biblical, Theological, and Historical Perspectives. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2020.

Williamson, G. I. The Westminster Confession of Faith: for Study Classes. 2nd Edition. Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1964.

Dr. Marcus J. Serven, ThM and DMin

Every Square Inch

January 12, 2021 / marcusserven

Christians have regularly struggled with how they should live in this fallen world. Should they retreat into their own enclaves and disengage from the world with all of its problems and attendant difficulties? “No,” asserts Dr. Abraham Kuyper! He gives us this bold answer to the question by reminding Christians everywhere that God owns the earth and all that is in it. Simply stated, the Lord has never given title to anyone else, nor did He leave it solely under the authority of the Evil One. The Lord owns it all–every “square inch.” In addition, the Lord is steadily advancing the kingdom of His Son here on earth. Consider these two Psalms,

“The earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein, for he founded it upon the seas and established it upon the rivers.”
Psalm 24:1-2

“The LORD says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool…The Lord is at your right hand; he will shatter kings on the day of His wrath. He will execute judgment among the nations, filling them with corpses; he will shatter chiefs over the wide earth. He will drink from the brook by the way; therefore he will lift up his head.”
Psalm 110:1, 4-7

Therefore, we as the people of God, must live under His authority and seek to advance His Son’s kingdom throughout our lives. It is not a futile task! The Lord promises us the Kingdom of Christ is a domain “that cannot be shaken.” (Heb. 12:28) It is steadily advancing throughout history, even though at times it may be hidden from our sight. (Matt. 13:31-33) Nonetheless, this fact should give us hope in times of growing darkness. Moreover, it gives us a confident expectation that righteousness shall prevail and that the Lord will bring all things under His dominion. Soli Deo Gloria! To God alone be the glory!

— Dr. Marcus J. Serven

Authority in the Christian Life

October 26, 2020 / marcusserven

Berthoud, Jean-Marc. Authority in the Christian Life. R. A. Sheets, trans. Monticello, FL: Psalm 78 Ministries, 2020. [152 pages]

Reviewed by Dr. Marcus J. Serven

During the time of the Reformation God raised-up the Reformers to recover the true Gospel and to rekindle a love for God’s Law. We all know their names: Martin Luther, Martin Bucer, Pierre Viret, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, and John Knox. These men established biblical principles of how Christians properly relate to the authorities of this world. Mankind, though, is forever seeking to promote independence from God’s Law and all human authorities. This selfish effort only results in lawlessness, rebellion, and judgment. Now at this time of radical social upheaval, God is raising-up another spokesman, Jean-Marc Berthoud of Lausanne, Switzerland, to trumpet aloud the need for a sober reevaluation of the extent and limits of human authority. One of the most important themes of this volume, in my opinion, is its clear emphasis on how human authorities are responsible to God to be just and upright. When they are not, then they fall under God’s judgment and are likely to be removed by the “lesser powers.” It is not the responsibility of the individual to avenge wrongdoing, but God’s responsibility. Jean-Marc Berthoud forcefully writes,

By avenging ourselves, by rendering evil for evil, we are strengthening the self-justification of the one who is unjust to us. By patiently bearing with injustice, and by even rendering good for evil, we labor to defuse the self-justification of the wicked and awaken his hardened conscience. We are working toward God’s conversion of the wicked. It is through repentance and regeneration, not mob action and revolution, that God changes injustice into justice.
Jean-Marc Berthoud, Authority in the christian life, 29

Thus, he encourages Christians everywhere to advance the Kingdom of God on earth by utilizing spiritual weapons rather than by physical conflict. In brief, he urges Christians to not fall into the revolutionary patterns of the mob, but to submit themselves to God and trust Him to make all things right. Moreover, Jean-Marc Berthoud thoughtfully provides a number of practical scenarios to illustrate the principles he puts forward in this volume—for the businessman, the doctor or nurse, the policeman, the magistrate, the soldier, the teacher, and the church leader. Finally, he deals with the subject of church discipline and delineates between the separated powers of the magistrate and the leaders of the church. This is biblical exposition and theological analysis at its finest.

I highly recommend this slender paperback volume. It can be purchased directly from the publisher at Psalm 78 Ministries (www.psalm78ministries.com), or on Amazon. Read the book!

— Dr. Marcus J. Serven

Martin Luther on Relationships

September 29, 2020 / marcusserven

How do you get along with your spouse, your kids, your relatives, your neighbors, your co-workers, etc in the midst of relational difficulties? Modern-day psychologists give lots of practical remedies, but I think most of us would confess these techniques rarely work. They just don’t get to the heart of the matter. And so, how do you get along with difficult people and heal broken relationships? Here is Martin Luther’s answer based on the teaching of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 7:1-5). Consider Luther’s thoughtful words as he applies Jesus’ teaching on the “speck” and the “log” to his own life…

“Therefore a Christian should follow a different practice. When he sees the mote in his brother’s eye, he should go look at himself in the mirror before passing judgment. He will then find beams in his eye big enough to make hog troughs. Consequently he will have to say: What is this anyway? My neighbor has done this once in a quarter, a half, a whole year; but I have become so old and have never yet kept the commandments of our Lord God, yea, I transgress them every hour and moment. How can I be such a desperate rascal? My sins are nothing but large oaks, thirty feet tall; and I allow the paltry motes, the specks of dust in my brother’s eye, to irritate me more than my large beams! But this should not be. I must first see how to get rid of my own sins. This will keep me so busy that I shall forget about the motes.”(Martin Luther, What Luther Says, Weimar Edition 52, p. 524)
Martin Luther, What Luther Says, Edwin M. Plass, ed. Weimar Edition 52, p. 524

In addition to the teaching of Jesus, the Bible also tells us, “Hatred stirs up strife, but love covers all offenses.” (Proverbs 10:12) And, “Whoever covers an offense seeks love, but he who repeats a matter separates friends.” (Proverbs 17:9) Lastly, “Good sense makes one slow to anger, and it is his glory to overlook an offense.” (Proverbs 19:11) These verses address our tendency as human beings to “take up an offense” and become “easily offended.” How much better it would be if we could look to God to help us in “overlooking an offense” and truly forgiving others! Instead of holding onto these hurts and allowing them to keep burning, like the embers from a smoldering fire, we are instructed to “cover” all offenses with “love” and to forgive those who have hurt us. The Lord promises that he will help us to do what we ourselves cannot do in our own strength.

The Apostle Paul gives further instruction with this powerful rejoinder, “Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.” (Ephesians 4:31-32) Therefore, the basis of covering offenses with “love” and extending genuine “forgiveness” in difficult relationships is found in the example of Jesus. And, the basis of all healing in broken relationships is found in the power of the Gospel that Jesus taught.

Peter asked Jesus, “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven.” (Matthew 18:21-22) This seems impossible to do! But that is the point! The disciples of Jesus are to look to Him by faith to help them in the midst of relational difficulties. As Christians, we must set aside our personal “offenses” and trust God to enable us to “cover” these smoldering hurts with “love”–the same kind of long-suffering “love” that Jesus has already shown to us. That is how we get along with difficult people and heal broken relationships.

— Dr. Marcus J. Serven

The Heidelberg Catechism: Comfort for a Troubled Soul

September 16, 2020 / marcusserven

“Old Town” Heidelberg on the Rhine River in Southern Germany

Written by Dr. Marcus J. Serven

Out of all the Creeds, Confessions, and Catechisms written during the time of the Protestant Reformation, the Heidelberg Catechism (1563) is the most beloved. It is loved for its brevity, its faithfulness to the Bible, and its testimony to shared human experience. Written in Heidelberg, Germany by Zacharius Ursinus (1534-1583) and Caspar Olevianus (1536-1587), it touches the core of human emotion by making numerous statements throughout that affirm the promises of God. It has especially been appreciated during times of persecution, trial, and war. It was commissioned by Prince Frederick III (1515-1576) elector of the Palatinate in Southern Germany. The people of the Netherlands came to greatly appreciate this Catechism and made it part of the “Three Forms of Unity” that are affirmed in most Dutch Reformed Churches. The “Three forms of Unity” consist of: (1) The Belgic Confession, (2) The Canons of Dort, and (3) The Heidelberg Catechism.

What is unique and special about the Heidelberg Catechism? G. I. Williamson answers with the following thoughtful explanation,

“One of the unique things about the Heidelberg Catechism is that it really is two creeds in one. Or, to say it differently, there is a creed with this creed. You see, a large part of the catechism (or creed) is simply a careful explanation of the Apostles’ Creed. The Apostles’ Creed is the earliest, or most ancient, creed of the church. And right here we see one of the most important things about a creed that is true to the Bible–it remains true down through the ages. It does not need to be changed again and again, with each generation, because it deals with things that are unchanging. Thus, an accurate creed binds the generations together. It reminds us that the church of Jesus Christ is not confined to one age, just as it is not confined to any one place. In other words, there is a unity in what Christians have believed, right down through the ages. Just think of it: when we confess our faith today in the words of the Apostles’ Creed, we join with all those believers who have gone before us. Does this not demonstrate that there is indeed just one Lord and one true faith?”
G. I. Williamson, The Heidelberg Catechism, 3

Here are the first two questions–of one hundred and twenty-nine altogether–that show forth the experiential and personally relevant character of the Heidelberg Catechism. Note the emphasis on one’s “comfort” and personal assurance in the face of the many trials and tribulations of this world.

Lord’s Day 1 – With Scripture Proofs

Q. 1: What is thy only comfort in life and death?

A.: That I with body and soul, both in life and death (1), am not my own (2), but belong unto my faithful Savior Jesus Christ (3); who, with His precious blood (4), hath fully satisfied for all my sins (5), and delivered me from all the power of the devil (6); and so preserves me (7) that without the will of my heavenly Father, not a hair can fall from my head (8); yea, that all things must be subservient to my salvation (9), and therefore, by His Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life (10), and makes me sincerely willing and ready, henceforth, to live unto Him (11).

1 Cor. 6:19-20
Rom. 14:7-9
1 Cor. 3:23
1 Pet. 1:18-19
John 1:17
1 John 3:8; Heb. 2:14-15
John 6:39; John 10:28-29
Luke 21:18; Matt. 10:30
Rom. 8:28
2 Cor. 1:22; 2 Cor. 5:5
Rom. 8:14; Rom. 7:22

Q. 2: How many things are necessary for thee to know, that thou, enjoying this comfort, mayest live and die happily?

A.: Three (1), the first, how great my sins and miseries are (2); the second, how I may be delivered from all my sins and miseries (3); the third, how I shall express my gratitude to God for such deliverance (4).

Luke 24:47
1 Cor. 6:10-11; John 9:41; Rom. 3:10, 19
John 17:3
Eph. 5:8-10

Let us, then, as students of the Bible resolve to learn the questions and answers from this historic catechism. It is an accurate summary of the teachings from the Bible. Plus, it addresses some of the most searching questions formulated by Christians who have experienced much misery and suffering. Soli Deo Gloria!

Select Bibliography:

Beeke, Joel & Sinclair Ferguson, eds. Reformed Confessions Harmonized. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1999.

Boekestein, William. The Quest for Comfort: The Story of the Heidelberg Catechism. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011.

Douglas, J. D. ed. The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1974; Revised edition, 1978.

“Calvin, John,” by W. S. Reid
“Calvinism,” by W. S. Reid
“Genevan Catechism,” by W. S. Reid
“Catechisms,” by Colin Buchanan
“Low Countries,” by Dirk Jellema
“Olevianus, Kaspar,” by J. G. C. Norman
“Protestantism,” by David C. Steinmetz
“Reformation, The,” by Robert D. Linder
“Reformed Churches,” by W. S. Reid
“Ursinus, Zacharias,” by Marvin W. Anderson

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

“Calvin, John,” by Hughes Oliphant Olds
“Calvinism,” by W. Stanford Reid
“Dutch Reformation,” by Donald Bruggink
“Genevan Reformation,” by Robert M. Kingdon
“Heidelberg Catechism,” by Shirley C. Guthrie
“Olevianus, Kaspar,” by Lyle D. Bierma
“Ursinus, Zacharius,” by Dirk Visser

Noll, Mark A., ed. Confessions and Catechisms of the Reformation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1991.

Williamson, G. I. The Heidelberg Catechism: A Study Guide. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishers, 1993.

Dr. Marcus J. Serven, ThM and DMin

One Man’s Impact on a City

September 14, 2020 / marcusserven

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

The Ongoing Impact of the Protestant Reformation

August 31, 2020 / marcusserven

What difference did the Protestant Reformation (1517-1650) make upon the religious practices of the world? Consider this thoughtful statement by Dr. Andrew Atherstone, Tutor in History and Doctrine, Wycliffe Hall, Oxford:

The sixteenth-century reformation was one of he most dramatic and significant series of events in the history of Christianity. It sent shock waves through the western world and changed the face of Europe forever. Its impact upon the church has sometimes been likened to a second Day of Pentecost, a crucial turning point and a moment of crisis. To some, this cataclysmic rupture in the fabric of catholic Christendom was interpreted as the labour pains of Christianity reborn. As one historian has put it, “No other movement or religious protest or reform since antiquity has been so widespread or lasting in its effects, so deep and searching in its criticism of received wisdom, so destructive in what it abolished or so fertile in what it created.”
Andrew Atherstone, The Reformation: Faith and Flames, 6

Atherstone’s quote tells us that the events of the Protestant Reformation were second only to the impact that the Day of Pentecost had upon the world. What specifically happened in the Reformation? By God’s grace, the Reformers clearly rediscovered the true Gospel and set about stripping away the “traditions of men” that clung like crusty barnacles to the hull of the true Church. In addition, new branches of Christendom were energized and established and the Gospel spread all over the world. Numerous Christian books and pamphlets were produced and widely distributed around the globe. Strenuous and sacrificial missionary endeavors took place so that people who lived in spiritual darkness were brought into the light. And finally, through the preaching and teaching of ministers, missionaries, and every day Christians the Gospel continued in its path of spiritual transformation and renewal.

Jesus instructed his disciples to “Go therefore and make disciples…baptizing them…[and] teaching them” (Matthew 28:18-20). That commission was pushed forward with new energy and zeal by the Reformers so that the Gospel spread into every dark corner of the world. Thus, we have much to be thankful for when we consider the work of the Protestant Reformers. The Reformation proved to be a decisive turning point in the history of the world and evangelical Christians everywhere should thank God for this great outpouring of revival.

— Dr. Marcus J. Serven

My Two Favorite Quotes about the Reformation:

August 29, 2020 / marcusserven

My interest in the Protestant Reformation is longstanding: I see it as significant time when the “traditions of men” were stripped away, the Bible was rediscovered and translated into the lingua franca, and the Gospel was widely preached throughout Europe. Many individuals came to faith in Jesus Christ, and indeed many nations were profoundly affected. These two quotations sum-up much of what I have come to believe about the importance of the Reformation. Both are pointed and powerful. Enjoy!

Dr. Roland Bainton, Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Yale University: “The Reformation was above all else a revival of religion. So much is this the case that some have looked upon it as the last great flowering of the piety of the Middle Ages.” (Roland Bainton, The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, 3)

Dr. Timothy George, Dean of Beeson Divinity School, Samford University: “The abiding validity of Reformation theology is that, despite the many varied emphases it contains within itself, it challenges the church to listen reverently and obediently to what God has once and for all said (Deus dixit) and once and for all done in Jesus Christ. How the church will respond to this challenge is not a matter of academic speculation or ecclesiastical gamesmanship. It is a question of life or death. It is the decision of whether the church will serve the true and living God of Jesus Christ, the God of the Old and the New Testaments, or else succumb to the worship of Baal.” (Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers, 310)

— Dr. Marcus J. Serven

Jan Hus: Bohemian Reformer and Martyr

August 27, 2020 / marcusserven

The beautiful City of Prague in the Czech Republic

Written by Dr. Marcus J. Serven

“Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they do” (cf. Luke 23:34). Our Lord Jesus Christ spoke these passionate words of forgiveness for the sake of the soldiers who gambled for his possessions at the foot of the Cross. Jesus prayed for those who crucified him and thereby showed future generations of his followers that Christianity was not only a faith of the persecuted, but it was also a faith of those who forgive. Over the centuries there have been many disciples of Jesus who have given up their lives for the cause of Christ. But, perhaps none have so closely paralleled the awful circumstances of our Lord as that of the fiery Bohemian reformer—Jan Hus (1373-1415). Like Jesus, Hus was blatantly betrayed, unjustly accused, and mercilessly killed. Of the many known statements uttered by Jan Hus approaching his death, these best exemplify the forgiving spirit of Christ, “Lord God, pardon my enemies. Thou knowest that I have been falsely accused, and unfairly sentenced. I pray Thee, Thine unspeakable mercy, not to lay it to their charge.”

In 1373 Jan Hus was born to a poor peasant family in southern Bohemia from the village of Husinec (from which he received his name “Hus”). His father and mother struggled financially to send their son to the best local schools and eventually, at age thirteen, they sent him away from home to the Elementary School at Prachatice. Although he greatly missed his family he diligently applied himself to his studies and performed well in his examinations. Following his graduation in 1390 Hus enrolled at the University of Prague. In that rarified academic environment he excelled in every subject, distinguishing himself in classical languages, Greek philosophy, and the early Church Fathers. In 1394 he was awarded a Bachelor of Arts degree and after a few additional years of study he received a Master of Arts degree (1396). Because of his fine academic record he immediately began teaching philosophy at the University in the faculty of arts. But, Hus also had strong religious interests and became an ordained Roman Catholic priest in 1400. After several years of teaching Hus was honored in 1401 by being appointed Dean of the philosophy faculty and in 1402 he became the Rector of the University. Jan Hus had risen far from his lowly beginnings to great heights in his chosen field at the University of Prague—human philosophy. He had every reason to be proud of his accomplishments, but God would soon begin to humble him so that he would become an accomplished preacher of the Word of God.

Unknown to Jan Hus there was a significant event which took place when he was nine years old (in 1382) that would greatly shape his emerging world—the marriage between Princess Ann of Bohemia and King Richard II of England (1367-1400). Traveling with the Princess’s entourage from Bohemia was Professor Faulfash from the University of Prague. While in England the learned professor purchased numerous copies of John Wycliffe’s books and after many years returned with them to Bohemia in 1401. He was greatly stirred by Wycliffe’s writings, agreeing with many of their key tenants. Over time Professor Faulfash began teaching about the abuses and ignorance of the priests in his lectures at the University. He boldly challenged the authority of the priests to represent God at the Mass (i.e. Sacerdotalism), and the power of the priests to give forgiveness to the people (i.e. the absolution of sins). The Czech Roman Catholic priests angrily reacted to these charges by accusing Professor Faulfash of heresy and eventually they appointed a bright young Czech priest and University professor to study his doctrines in order to find their weaknesses—this man was Jan Hus.

Throughout 1401 to 1403 Jan Hus became thoroughly acquainted with Wycliffe’s books during his study of the teachings of Professor Faulfash. As a result, he was forced to turn to the Bible to dispute this heretical propaganda. But, God did not allow Jan Hus to oppose these new found “doctrines of grace,” but instead softened his heart to the gospel bringing Hus to the point of conversion. Aware of his own sin for the very first time, Hus repented and placed his faith in Jesus Christ and his atoning work on the cross. The Bible took on new importance in his life and he adopted many of the views of John Wycliffe and Professor Faulfash as his own. In his enthusiasm Hus began to preach in various churches about his new-found faith and a popular following arose amongst the common people who in turn thronged to his sermons.

Following the completion of his Bachelor of Divinity degree in 1402 Hus was providentially appointed Rector and Preacher at Bethlehem Chapel in Prague. In his new role as an established preacher Hus began to systematically expound the Word of God teaching the people of Bohemia the great doctrines of the Bible. His fervent sermons became a lightening rod that attracted both enthusiastic approval from the masses and vehement criticism from the offended clergy. He preached with an urgency that contended for the soul of each one of his listeners. As a result, he became the “point man” of the incipient Bohemian reform movement. Specifically, Hus achieved notoriety for preaching the Bible in the common language of the people and for his popular writings against corrupt Church authorities. He stressed the Scriptures over Church canonical law and thus elevated the practice of expounding the Word of God. As a result of his teaching, many other reformers boldly rose up throughout Bohemia.

Jan Hus and the fledgling Bohemian reform movement enjoyed five years of nurture under the benevolent protection of Bohemian Archbishop Zbynek. At this time the clerical leaders of the Roman Catholic Church were preoccupied by a controversial split between three rival Popes (one in Rome, a second in Pisa, and a third in Avignon, France). When Pope Alexander V was finally able to depose all “anti-Popes” at the Council of Pisa in 1409 a renewed interest in cleansing all heresies within Roman Catholicism arose. Unfortunately for Jan Hus, this zeal to purge the Church of errant teachings focused on the doctrines of Wycliffe and anyone who taught them. Archbishop Zbynek had previously supported the reform movement in Bohemia; however when the Pope prohibited any “Wycliffite” preaching in chapels to take place the Archbishop changed his loyalty and sought to remove Hus. The final assault against Hus came in the form of a charge of heresy by the Archbishop. Ultimately, Hus did not bow to his authority and in 1410 was excommunicated. The people of Prague arose in anger supporting Jan Hus and his right to preach the Word of God. Eventually, the entire city was placed under a Papal interdict, forbidding any religious services and burial of the dead in consecrated ground. In 1412 Jan Hus fled Prague in order to lift the Papal interdict and to spare the people any further persecution.

Although Jan Hus was removed from his pulpit, he was not silenced. For two years Hus lived in exile in Southern Bohemia where he wrote several powerful treatises: On the Church, On Simony, Expositions of the Faith—on the Decalogue and the Lord’s Prayer. Here is a brief quotation on the subject of heresy and the supremacy of the Bible from Jan Hus’ work On Simony (1413). He cogently argues,

…I affirm that heresy is a stubborn adherence to an error contrary to the Holy Scriptures. I say “adherence to an error,” for without that one could not be a heretic. And since there can be no adherence without consent, no man can hold a heresy without consenting to the error. Hence heresy, equally with every mortal sin, has its nest and basis in the heart, that is, in the hearty will. As the Savior said, it is out of the heart that evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, robbery, false witness, and blasphemy proceed. Thus, no man, not even God, can make anyone a heretic without his consent. Secondly, you perceive that heresy can exist in none but a rational spirit which willfully opposes the truth of the Holy Scriptures. For as every mortal sin is found only in a rational spirit, and every heresy is a mortal sin, hence all heresy exists only in a rational spirit. Furthermore, it is stated that heresy implies a stubborn adherence [to the error], such as when a man refuses, temporarily or permanently, to give up. For when a man, holding an error as truth, recognizes that what he has held for truth is an error, and immediately acknowledges it to be such, he is not a heretic…Why? Because they did not perish in the error, but were willing to forsake it and gladly to accept the truth. Accordingly, every faithful Christian should be so minded as not to hold anything contrary to the Holy Scriptures.
Hus, “On Simony,” in Advocates of Reform, 196-197

With closely reasoned treatises like this, Hus continued to promote the authority of the Bible and to encourage the reading of Wycliffe’s works. In addition, he preached throughout Bohemia always encouraging the efforts of reform into whatever pulpit he was welcomed.

The long-standing rift between the rival Catholic Popes, however, was not completely solved by the Council of Pisa (1409) and therefore in 1414 Emperor Sigismund called for the meeting of the Council of Constance. Since the followers of Wycliffe, such as Jan Hus and several others, were perceived to be a growing problem within Roman Catholicism this issue was also made an agenda of the council. Hus was summoned by the Emperor Sigismund to defend his views and was given a “certificate of safe-passage” to and from the council. After much hesitation, and at the encouragement of the Bohemian King Wenceslas, Hus began his long journey on foot to Constance on October 11, 1414. All throughout his travels in Germany Hus was hailed by the local populace and reform-minded princes as a great preacher and spiritual reformer. He arrived in Constance on November 3, 1414 and was left alone by the papal authorities for one month. However, once he was put at ease, he was treacherously lured into the papal residence one day where he was quickly arrested and imprisoned inside a Dominican monastery.

The accusers of Hus filed thirty-nine charges against him based on his most popular work, On the Church. Here is a revealing selection from On the Church that demonstrates the kind of stinging rebuke that aroused the ire of the Roman Catholic clergy. Hus boldly declares,

It is one thing to be of the church, another thing to be in the church. Clearly it does not follow that all living persons who are in the church are of the church. On the contrary, we know that tares grow among the wheat, the raven eats from the same threshing floor as the dove, and the chaff is harvested along with the grain. Some are in the church in name and in reality—such as predestined Catholics obedient to Christ. Some are neither in name nor in reality in the church—such as reprobate pagans. Others are in the church in name only—such as, for example, reprobate hypocrites. Still others are in the church in reality and, although they appear to be in name outside it, are predestined Christians—such as those who are seen to be condemned by the satraps of the Antichrist before the church.
Hus, “On the Church,” Chapter 3, in A Concise History of Christian Thought, 138

Finally on June 5-6 and 8, 1415 the council heard charges against him. Hus was not allowed to be present to defend himself, nevertheless, the council found him to be a heretic. When Hus finally did appear before the council on July 6th, he refused to recant of the charges against him since they did not truly represent his teachings. While on the judgment seat Hus looked to Emperor Sigismund, who had the power to free him instantly, to see if he would abide by the promise of “safe-passage” that he had given to Hus. But, the Emperor had been deceived into thinking that he was not obliged to keep faith with a “heretic.” Emperor Sigismund quietly spoke the death sentence, “Let him be accursed of God and man eternally.” Whereupon Hus replied, “I am willing to suffer for the truth in the name of Jesus Christ.” A tall paper cap was placed upon his head with figures of the devil upon it and the inscription “A RINGLEADER OF HERETICS” emblazoned across the front. Thus, Jan Hus was declared to be an “obstinate heretic” and “a disciple of Wycliffe.” Consequently, he was deposed from the priesthood and sentenced to death.

The execution of Jan Hus in Constance, Germany

When face to face with the executioner Hus spoke these prophetic words, “You are now going to burn a goose (“Hus” signifying “goose” in the Bohemian language), but in a century you will have a swan which you can neither roast nor boil!” Unknown to Jan Hus the great German reformer Martin Luther (1483-1546) would claim the swan as his own symbol. In the midst of the flames Jan Hus bravely sang Kyrie Eleeson (a Christian prayer, meaning “Lord, have mercy”). The influence of the life of Jan Hus, even in death, was significant. Hus was declared a national hero and became the catalyst of an even greater reform movement in Bohemia. Although Jan Hus died in 1415, the entire Czech nation aligned itself with the efforts of reform until 1620 when they were conquered and were forced to return to Roman Catholicism. To this day both the doctrines John Wycliffe and Jan Hus are considered to be heretical by the Roman Catholic Church. Consider this revealing entry in The Catholic Encyclopedia:

Heresies – Forerunners of Luther, taking their cue from the anarchists, were the Wyclif heresy and that of John Huss. Wyclif, a Yorkshireman, born about 1326, became a well-educated reformer who maintained among other teachings that God is sovereign but man in the state of grace becomes sovereign over the entire universe through God; hence the Papacy lost its power. The Hussites following John Huss who was born in 1369, came forward with a strange collection of teachings such as: the scriptures alone are the source of truth, the papacy is only an institution in which Christ has no part, all superiors of religious orders lose their authority if they fall into sin, and that the Church is made up only of the predestined, and that predestination is infallible. Some of these ideas were to recur later when Luther took up his reform.
Broderick, ed., The Catholic Encyclopedia, 261

The animosity that leaders in the Roman Catholic Church have against both John Wycliffe and Jan Hus has not diminished despite the fact that five hundred years have now passed. As some wise men have noted, “Hatred dies a hard death.”

These somber words, however, were not the end of the story—for God was at work in raising-up other men who would carry forth the truth of the gospel in the years ahead. Merle D’Aubigne summarizes the impact of Jan Hus’ ministry in this way,

John Huss preached in Bohemia a century before Luther preached in Saxony. He seems to have penetrated deeper than his predecessors into the essence of Christian truth. He prayed to Christ for grace to glory only in his cross and in the inestimable humiliation of his sufferings. But his attacks were directed less against the errors of the Romish church than the scandalous lives of the clergy. Yet he was, if we may be allowed he expression, the John-Baptist of the Reformation. The flames of his pile kindled a fire in the Church that would cast a brilliant light into the surrounding darkness, and whose glimmerings were not to be so readily extinguished.
D’Aubigne, History of the Reformation, vol. 1, 92

Thus, Jan Hus became the preeminent catalyst of reform in central Europe during the 15th century. What John Wycliffe initiated in England, Jan Hus carried on in Europe, and Luther, Zwingli, Bucer, Melanchthon, Calvin, Bullinger, Knox, and many others would carry throughout the entire world.

Resources for Further Study:

Broderick, Robert C. ed. The Catholic Encyclopedia. Revised Edition. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987.

D’Aubigne, Merle. The History of the Reformation in the 16th Century. Volume 1. Dublin, Ireland: James M’Glashan, 1849; Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 2001.

Douglas, J.D. ed. The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church. Revised Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978.

“Avignon,” by James Taylor
“Bohemian Brethren,” by Peter Toon
“Constance, Council of,” by Robert G. Clouse
“Czechoslovak Church,” by J. G. C. Norman
“Great Schism, The,” by C. T. McIntire
“Hus, Jan,” by Matthew Spinka
“Luther, Martin,” by Carl S. Meyer
“Reformation, The,” by Robert D. Linder
“Wycliffe, John,” Robert G. Clouse

Christy-Murray, David. A History of Heresy. London, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1976.

Coffin, Charles C. The Story of Liberty. Originally published in 1879. Reprint, Gainesville, FL: Maranatha Publications, 1987.

Douglas, J.D. ed. Who’s Who In Christian History. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1992.

Dowley, Tim ed., The History of Christianity. Revised Edition. Oxford, Great Britain: Lion Publishers, 1990.

Fox, John. Fox’s Book of Martyrs. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1967.

Houghton, S.M. Sketches from Church History. Edinburgh, Scotland: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1980.

Hus, John. “On Simony” in Advocates of Reform: From Wyclif to Erasmus. Edited by Matthew Spinka. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Library of Christian Classics, no. 16. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1953.

Hus, John. “On the Church” in A Concise History of Christian Thought. Revised Edition. Edited by Tony Lane. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006.

Latourette, Kenneth Scott. A History of Christianity. Volume 1. Revised Edition. New York, NY: Harper & Row Publishers, 1975.

Woodbridge, John D. ed. Great Leaders of the Christian Church. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1988.

Wylie, James A. The History of Protestantism. 3 Volumes. Kilkeel, N. Ireland: Mourne Missionary Trust, 1990.

Dr. Marcus J. Serven, ThM and DMin

Tag: Reformation Theology (Page 2 of 3)

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

Covenant Theology: A Theological Primer

Resources for Further Study:

Every Square Inch

Authority in the Christian Life

Martin Luther on Relationships

The Heidelberg Catechism: Comfort for a Troubled Soul

Lord’s Day 1 – With Scripture Proofs

Select Bibliography:

One Man’s Impact on a City

The Ongoing Impact of the Protestant Reformation

My Two Favorite Quotes about the Reformation:

Jan Hus: Bohemian Reformer and Martyr

Resources for Further Study:

Recent Posts

Categories

Pages

Archives

Categories