# Is Prayer a "Means of Grace"?



## Arch2k (Jul 24, 2006)

It seems that there are differing opinions on this.

From What Makes Something a Sacrament? by Michael S. Horton 


> Whatever feeds us with God´s Word and guides us by his law is profitable. *Yet these are not, strictly speaking, the means of grace.* Many things are required as duties in the Christian life, and many other things not required by God may be useful. Yet these are not, strictly speaking, means of grace but means of discipleship. In other words, they are appropriate means of responding to God, while preaching and sacraments are God´s means of reaching us. The Heidelberg Catechism calls prayer, for example, "œthe most important part of the thankfulness God requires of us" (Q 116). It is indispensable to the Christian life, just as communication is for a fruitful marriage. Nevertheless, prayer is the response of faith, while preaching and sacrament create and confirm faith. As means of grace, sacraments communicate something from God to us, while in all exercises of Christian gratitude and obedience we respond in love to God and neighbor.



OR

From The Presbyterian Standards by Francis R. Beattie


> *Prayer is the third and last branch of the means of grace specially mentioned in the Standards*, and it is a very important practical matter. In the Confession there is no formal discussion or statement of the doctrine of prayer. Only two brief sections in the chapter on religious worship are devoted to it, and there the nature and duty of prayer are simply assumed without formal exposition. In the Catechisms, however, large space is devoted to the explanation of prayer as a means of grace. In the Shorter Catechism ten questions, and in the Larger no fewer than eighteen, are devoted to this subject. In these questions the general doctrine of prayer is stated in a formal way, and then the Lord's prayer is expounded at length as the rule of prayer. The result is, that in the Standards there is the most complete statement of the doctrine of prayer to be found in any of the great creeds. In the exposition of this chapter the Catechisms will be followed quite closely, and their statements will be condensed wherever the limits of a single chapter upon a great subject make it necessary.



Any thoughts? Is there some equivication on the meaning of "means of grace"? or is there a true disagreement here?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 24, 2006)

In his _The Foundation of Christian Religion, Gathered Into Six Principles_, William Perkins lists prayer as a means of grace (literally, one of the "ordinary or useful means for obtaining of faith") along with the preached Word and the administered sacraments.


----------



## ServantOfKing (Jul 24, 2006)

Keach's Catechism made to clarify the 1689 Confession:

Q. 95. What are the outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption?

A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption are His ordinances, especially the Word, Baptism, the Lord's Supper and Prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation. (Rom. 10:17; James 1:18; 1 Cor. 3:5; Acts 14:1; 

For whatever it's worth... It is interesting that even among Baptists who sometimes are hesitant to call things "means of grace" (in my experience) prayer is seen as a means of grace. 



[Edited on 7-24-2006 by ServantOfKing]


----------



## Puritanhead (Jul 24, 2006)

Yes. The Simple Answer is Yes.


----------



## Archlute (Jul 24, 2006)

Have had this conversation before with a brother here at WSC. It seems to be a point of contention/confessional pride with those holding to the 3FU, as those forms do not mention prayer as a means of grace. That, of course, would be one reason for Dr. Horton denying that prayer is indeed a means of grace, as he is a minister in the URCNA.

It would be interesting to find out if the prayer mentioned in the WSC answer was to be understood as being personal prayer or the public prayer of the minister. For this brother had to concede that if it was indeed the minister praying before the people in worship, then he could see how it could function as a means of grace by the converting power of the Holy Spirit, even though "technically" public prayer is seen as us speaking to God with the minister, rather than the Lord speaking to us.

At any rate, it is petty strifes like this that cause the reformed churches to remain fractured and allows them to foster the sinful pride of "confessional superiority" as any of you who have been involved in fruitless debates between WCF and 3FU adherents can so attest.


----------



## Archlute (Jul 24, 2006)

P.S. However, with all of you above, I would answer with a definite "yes".


----------



## Arch2k (Jul 24, 2006)

Well, I definately lean toward the Westminster Catechism's understanding (probably biased), but I was interested to learn if any others besides Horton believed this about prayer. Is this "unique" to WSCAL, or does it have historic support?


----------



## Arch2k (Jul 24, 2006)

From James Fisher's Catechism on the Catechism



> Q. 12. What is the special usefulness of prayer for the above purpose?
> 
> A. The prayer of faith fetches home to the soul all the good that is wrapped up both in the word and in the sacraments, Mark 11:24 -- "What things soever ye desire when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them."
> 
> ...


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jul 24, 2006)

Adam,

Minor differences (really on differences of emphasis) should not be opportunities for intra-confessional pride or strife.

Please tell this person to see me. I should like to talk with him/her about his/her attitude. 

If the 3 Forms and the Standards are read carefully and in their own contexts, it seems to me that they're not saying things that are very different.

There is no question that, in the WCF, prayer is a means of grace. There is no question that Berkhof denies the same, so yes, there can be said to be a difference, but what if the WCF doesn't treat prayer as a means of grace in exactly the same way as Word and Sacrament?

WLC 154 says:



> Q. 154. What are the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of his mediation?
> 
> A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to his church the benefits of his mediation, are all his ordinances; especially the Word, sacraments, and prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for their salvation



Everything the LC says is true, but does it require us to think or confess that prayer (which all admit is more subjective than Word or sacrament) is a "means of grace" exactly as the preaching of the Gospel and the administration of the sacraments?

I only find the expression "means of grace" in WLC #195. Yes, Q. 154 does speak of the "outward and ordinary means" and it would be quibbling perhaps to distinguish it from #195, but how precise does 154 intend to be? The WCF doesn't use the expression "means of grace."

I note that though the WCF does have specific articles on the sacraments in general, on baptism and the supper specifically, it does not have an article devoted to prayer. 21.3,4, address prayer specifically as a part of corporate worship, as one of the elements of worship.

14.1 does say that faith is "increased and strengthened" by "the administration of the sacraments and prayer." It does not say that these two are identical in the way the operate or that they are means of grace in precisely the same way. Everything it says is true and no sacrament or sermon is properly administered without prayer, but prayers are often administered in different circumstances than Word and sacraments.

I think that the good old distinction between "narrower" and "broader" is useful here. Word and sacrament are means of grace in the narrower sense (objective) and prayer is a means of grace in the broader sense (subjective) but they operate so closely together than they can be mentioned together in our confession without great differences being made.


rsc



> _Originally posted by Archlute_
> Have had this conversation before with a brother here at WSC. It seems to be a point of contention/confessional pride with those holding to the 3FU, as those forms do not mention prayer as a means of grace. That, of course, would be one reason for Dr. Horton denying that prayer is indeed a means of grace, as he is a minister in the URCNA.
> 
> It would be interesting to find out if the prayer mentioned in the WSC answer was to be understood as being personal prayer or the public prayer of the minister. For this brother had to concede that if it was indeed the minister praying before the people in worship, then he could see how it could function as a means of grace by the converting power of the Holy Spirit, even though "technically" public prayer is seen as us speaking to God with the minister, rather than the Lord speaking to us.
> ...



[Edited on 7-25-2006 by R. Scott Clark]


----------



## Arch2k (Jul 24, 2006)

Thank you Dr. Clark. I was hoping that you might provide your insights.


----------



## Archlute (Jul 25, 2006)

I thank you also, Dr. Clark. I am looking forward to taking your Reformed Confessions course this coming Spring, and to hearing more edifying analyses such as given above. The emphasis this year is upon the Westminster Standards is it not? Don't worry, if I had more time (and $$$) to stick around at WSC I'd even take the course emphasizing the "3 Forms"!

BTW, I'm pretty sure that this brother has mellowed out about it all, but I have continued to run into a few in our OPC circles, who have come there out of necessity from a more continental background, that engage in these petty debates. I don't know why; maybe it's the only way they can make conversation! It would be great if they could hear some more thoughtful harmonizations of our confessions.


----------



## Archlute (Jul 25, 2006)

Hey, this brings up a thought that I have been mulling over this summer since using portions of the Second Helvetic Confession to illustrate and support some of my teachings (this would probably be most appropriately enlarged upon if we split the thread). 

Are there any reformed denominations that still hold to that confession as a standard, and if the answer is "no" could you then explain what caused the reformed churches to drop it? There is some absolutely outstanding material on the sacraments and the preaching office to be found within that confession.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jul 25, 2006)

I think the PCUSA includes the 2nd Helvetic in their Book of Confessions, but all are trumped by the '67.

It may be that there is the Swiss Reformed Churches (if they still exist) hold the 2nd Helvetic, formally anyway. 

The only folk who seem to write about Zwingli or Bullinger are the Swiss Reformed.

It was adopted by the English for a time, I think. See Schaff's Creeds, vol 3 for more. See also the bibliog of Reformed confessions on my site.

In English speaking circles, it was succeeded by the WCF. Among the Dutch it was succeeded by the Belgic. 

There was some tension between Zurich and Heidelberg. The latter was closer to Geneva theologically. That may or may not have contributed to it falling into disuse. It was widely used for a time. 

rsc



> _Originally posted by Archlute_
> Hey, this brings up a thought that I have been mulling over this summer since using portions of the Second Helvetic Confession to illustrate and support some of my teachings (this would probably be most appropriately enlarged upon if we split the thread).
> 
> Are there any reformed denominations that still hold to that confession as a standard, and if the answer is "no" could you then explain what caused the reformed churches to drop it? There is some absolutely outstanding material on the sacraments and the preaching office to be found within that confession.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> I think the PCUSA includes the 2nd Helvetic in their Book of Confessions, but all are trumped by the '67.
> 
> It may be that there is the Swiss Reformed Churches (if they still exist) hold the 2nd Helvetic, formally anyway.
> ...



Schaff's comments are found here.


----------

