# Means of Grace



## Larry Hughes (May 24, 2005)

Just a general question that hit me the other day. 

Are means of Grace primarily from the direction of heaven to earth rather than "earth to heaven"? That is if done properly are they to emphasize grace to us and be emphasized as grace to us, rather than our "obedience" in performing/taking hold of them?

And is this why the Reformed/Lutheran Confessionals identify two Word and Sacraments?

Ldh


----------



## turmeric (May 24, 2005)

I'm going to use the E-word again.

My experience is that in praying or reading Scripture or taking communion
I find myself engaging with God and struggling with my sin. God uses these means graciously, not because I'm so faithful, but because He has designed them to have this effect on us. So I vote for it being grace on God's part. My willingness to use these means are a reflection of what God has done in me.


----------



## Poimen (May 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> Just a general question that hit me the other day.
> 
> Are means of Grace primarily from the direction of heaven to earth rather than "earth to heaven"? That is if done properly are they to emphasize grace to us and be emphasized as grace to us, rather than our "obedience" in performing/taking hold of them?
> ...



The sacraments are the visible gospel so depending on how you view the gospel, your view of the sacraments necessarily follows...

Heidelberg Catechism

Q66: What are the sacraments?

A66: The sacraments are visible, holy signs and seals appointed by God for this end, that by their use He may the more fully declare and seal to us the promise of the Gospel, namely, that of free grace He grants us the forgiveness of sins and everlasting life for the sake of the one sacrifice of Christ accomplished on the cross.[1]

1. Gen. 17:11; Rom. 4:11; Deut. 30:6; Heb. 9:8-9; Ezek. 20:12

Q67: Are both the Word and the sacraments designed to direct our faith to the sacrifice of Christ on the cross as the only ground of our salvation?

A67: Yes, truly, for the Holy Ghost teaches in the Gospel and assures us by the holy sacraments, that our whole salvation stands in the one sacrifice of Christ made for us on the cross.[1]

1. Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27; Heb. 9:12; Acts 2:41-42


----------



## Jeremy (May 24, 2005)

It may be off base to mention John Piper, seeing that I don't know how well he is accepted here. But he had a small series of sermons answering the question as to whether or not those who take communion receive any special grace. His messages were really good I thought.

Basically his focus was on the fact that communion is a time for repentance and spiritual nourishment when we can truly contemplate Christ's sacrifice. And that the R.C. church's faulty interpretation of trans-substantiation has no place at the Lord's table. It isn't a time to merely have an intellectual recall of facts, but a time to focus on and feed on the Bread of Life and that in Him we are forgiven.

Also, there is no time that I am closer to Him than when I am on my knees in repentance, turning my sin over to Him who died for me and lives forevermore making intercession for me.


----------



## turmeric (May 24, 2005)

Jeremy,
You might want to get some good literature comparing the R.C, Lutheran, Reformed and Anabaptist views of the Lord's Supper if you haven't already done so.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 24, 2005)

The Sacraments, like the other means of grace, have origins with God and are applied to man.

This is why the orthodox view of Baptism, according to the Reformed church, is that baptism is God's work and God's sign, not man's subjective, personal profession of faith. In the same way, the spiritual grace presented in Christ's body and blood is given to us in the Lord's Supper each time we partake with a clean heart.


----------



## Jeremy (May 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> Jeremy,
> You might want to get some good literature comparing the R.C, Lutheran, Reformed and Anabaptist views of the Lord's Supper if you haven't already done so.



I know that the R.C. church has a heretical view of it. Not sure of anything that today's Lutheran church stands for, neither Anabaptist. 

Basically what I know is what the scripture says. That it is symbolic of the body and blood of the Lord. And that we are to do it in remembrance of Him. It is not a way to sustain our salvation or gain it or gain favor with God. It is for us and a time for reflection and to focus on the New Covenant promises. It helps us get focused on the Lord.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeremy_
> I know that the R.C. church has a heretical view of it. Not sure of anything that today's Lutheran church stands for, neither Anabaptist.
> 
> Basically what I know is what the scripture says. That it is symbolic of the body and blood of the Lord. And that we are to do it in remembrance of Him. It is not a way to sustain our salvation or gain it or gain favor with God. It is for us and a time for reflection and to focus on the New Covenant promises. It helps us get focused on the Lord.



It is obviously a little more important than just a simple remembrance of Christ, if Paul had to go to great lengths to warn against partaking in an unworthy manner (1 Cor 11), since many had *died* from partking in such a way...


----------



## Jeremy (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeremy_
> It isn't a time to merely have an intellectual recall of facts, but a time to focus on and feed on the Bread of Life and that in Him we are forgiven.
> 
> Also, there is no time that I am closer to Him than when I am on my knees in repentance, turning my sin over to Him who died for me and lives forevermore making intercession for me.



This is part of what I posted before, so I realize that. But what I am aiming at now is those who come to the table prepared and in a worthy, reverential manner are to use it as a time to reflect on all that Jesus did on the cross as opposed to using it as the R.C. church does in that without it we cannot be saved. They believe the sacraments are part of saving grace. We believe that Christ and His historical, one-time sacrifice is what saves us by God's grace. So in part, the Lord's table is a time to reflect on that.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 25, 2005)

The Lord's table may not "save us," but it is still a means of grace and part of our sanctification.


----------



## turmeric (May 25, 2005)

Okay, I wasn't gonna do this, but if people insist on serving up  I'll have to.

Correct me if I'm wrong, guys!

R.C. View = sacraments impart salvation, (can't remember the Latin, opera operandi or something like that)

Lutheran View= Jesus' real body & blood in the sacrament, too Nestorian, methinks!

Reformed = the Real Presence of Christ is in the Lord's Supper (I don't fully understand this view yet, though I believe it, it makes the most sense to me)

Anabaptist = It's just a memorial.

Okay, I've had enough  for tonite!


----------



## Jeremy (May 25, 2005)

Me too. I can't think straight at 12:52 A.M. 

I can barely see the screen because I am so tired, but those views sound interesting. 

Also, Gabe, I am in agreement with you. I find it interesting sometimes though how some people (not you) virtually make sanctification necessary for salvation, rather than making sanctification an inevitable result of salvation that God declares will happen. There's a difference. We are responsible to follow in obedience, but as a good reformed pastor once said, "Don't get ulcers over people's sanctification, God is at work in them." (Jeff LaSpina, Reformed Baptist Church of Scranton)

Good night.

J


----------



## Me Died Blue (May 25, 2005)

The means of grace are indeed first and foremost heavenly blessings that come down from God, and our own response is rooted completely in that blessing. As Calvin put it, "In a sacrament, we bring nothing of ourselves, but only receive."

Once again, Michael Horton hits the nail on the head in clearly, accurately and effectively describing the nature of the means of grace in his excellent book, _In the Face of God_ (from page 141):



> It was for this reason that the Protestant Reformers followed such great church fathers as St. Augustine in calling the sacraments "God's visible Word." The sacraments serve the same purpose as the Word itself, not only offering or exhibiting God's promise, but actually conferring his saving grace by linking us, through faith, to Christ and his benefits.
> 
> Someone will doubtless ask, "But if we're justified once and for all, why do we need to continue receiving forgiveness and grace through the sacraments?" It is interesting that we do not ask this question in relation to the Word. We know that we need to hear the gospel preached more than once in our lives, that we need to continually hear God's assurance of forgiveness and pardon extended to us in our weakness and doubt. The sacraments serve precisely the same purpose.



Later in the book, he continues along that same line of thought (from page 221):



> Does Baptism actually save, then, if so many who are baptized fail to believe? If the sacraments serve the same purpose as the Word"”that is, if they are means of grace"”then we can ask the same question of the Word: Does the preached Word actually save, if so many fail to believe? Most of us have no hesitation in answering, "[Of course.] God offers eternal life"”but if we reject it, we have no one to blame but ourselves. If we accept it, we have no one to praise but God." The same is true of baptism. If God offers eternal life to everyone, even to those outside the covenant of grace, then how much more will he hold us responsible for rejecting his saving grace sealed to us by his Spirit through the Word and baptism?



[Edited on 5-25-2005 by Me Died Blue]


----------



## fredtgreco (May 25, 2005)

The key to Calvin's understanding of the Real Presence is the work of the Spirit. Christ is present really and truly to the believer through the work of the Spirit, received by faith.


----------



## Me Died Blue (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> Okay, I wasn't gonna do this, but if people insist on serving up  I'll have to.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, guys!
> ...



The important thing to keep in mind regarding the Reformed view on the Supper is that by "the real presence," what is being referred to is the real _spiritual_ presence of Christ. In other words, though we reject the RC and Lutheran notion that Christ is physically present in any sense, what sets us apart from the memorialist view is our affirmation that Christ is truly communing with us spiritually during the sacrament, being linked to us by the Holy Spirit in the same way that He is united with us by the Spirit at conversion and the same way that the Spirit conforms us to Him in sanctification, both when we hear the preached Word.


----------



## Scott (May 25, 2005)

Chris: You hit the nail right on the head with those Horton quotes. Those are fabulous. Your later quote also indicates an excellent understanding of the reformed view (in distinction from Zwinglism, RC, Luther, etc.)

Larry: Here is a quote from Luther (so, it is giving a Lutheran perspective) that seems to directly relate to you question. He assigns it completely as God's work.



> However, it is often objected, "If Baptism is itself a work, and you say that works are of no use for salvation, what becomes of faith?" To this you may answer: Yes, it is true that our works are of no use for salvation. Baptism, however, is not our work but God's (for, as was said, you must distinguish Christ's Baptism quite clearly from a bath-keeper's baptism). God's works, however, are salutary and necessary for salvation, and they do not exclude but rather demand faith, for without faith they could not be grasped. . . . Thus you see plainly that Baptism is not a work which we do but is a treasure which God gives us and faith grasps, just as the Lord Christ upon the cross is not a work but a treasure comprehended and offered to us in the Word and received by faith."



[Edited on 5-25-2005 by Scott]


----------



## Jeremy (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> The important thing to keep in mind regarding the Reformed view on the Supper is that by "the real presence," what is being referred to is the real _spiritual_ presence of Christ. In other words, though we reject the RC and Lutheran notion that Christ is physically present in any sense, what sets us apart from the memorialist view is our affirmation that Christ is truly communing with us spiritually during the sacrament, being linked to us by the Holy Spirit in the same way that He is united with us by the Spirit at conversion and the same way that the Spirit conforms us to Him in sanctification, both when we hear the preached Word.



This is why I'm here. I've never heard it explained this way, but this in a nutshell explains what I experience during communion. So I guess you could say I don't hold to merely memorialist view, but the reformed view which is the truth. In "remembering Him" He communes with us and sanctifies our hearts.

I have a question: Is communion something that is only allowed in church among the body of believers, or is it something you can do in your own home, either with family or alone?

We should contemplate Christ always, taking every thought captive to Him in obedience.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 25, 2005)

Communion is about coming together as a body to commune with Christ. Doing it privately goes against the point of the sacrament.



> *WCF XXIX. IV.*:
> IV. Private masses, or receiving this sacrament by a priest, or any other, alone; as likewise the denial of the cup to the people; worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about for adoration, and the reserving them for any pretended religious use, are all contrary to the nature of this sacrament, and to the institution of Christ.


----------



## Jeremy (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Communion is about coming together as a body to commune with Christ. Doing it privately goes against the point of the sacrament.
> 
> 
> ...



Well said. Methinks I need to buy a copy of the WCF and LBC and do a hefty study before asking any more "foolish and unlearned questions".

Thanks guys.


----------



## Larry Hughes (May 25, 2005)

Jeremy,

Good quotes from the Heidelberg Catechism. I think I see what you are saying concerning repentance, but I´ve found an emphasis on that can in some cases forgets the real communicating of Grace Heaven to Earth. In other words repentance ceases to be passive/contrition and becomes active, Earth to Heaven, and in essence is saying by implication, "œGod here is my money (repentance) now give me the grace that I´ve purchased." Too put it crassly for purpose of clarity. Not that repentance is not there just a subtle difference based upon the emphasis. I don´t think that is what you mean though. Thanks for the reply.

Other/General,

The difference I was considering is that both the Reformed and Confessional Lutheran´s (the presence of the Lord´s body aside for now) have a view of the sacraments that communicates Heaven to Earth, so to speak. Yet, the Anabaptist, many Baptist and similar set up a communication that is Earth to Heaven either directly and explicitly or implicitly if the doctrine is logically carried out. And it hit me that "“ that is a crucial difference. Because many consider prayer as a "œmeans of Grace", mostly the later. Yet, Prayer in and of itself (not answer to prayer, which can fall into a subjective realm) is communication Earth to Heaven. I found this odd since, very generally speaking, those who consider prayer (earth to heaven communication) as a means of grace also tend to view the sacraments as pure or mostly ordinance (earth to heaven communication). I´m not sure about the Reformed but Lutherans reject out right prayer as a means of Grace. And that has been an eye opener to me in how I receive the Lord´s Table and by extension baptism and how I pray. Thus, I wondered if this is why in those churches (the later), as a logical outcome, that reject even by implication the heaven to earth communication of the Sacraments, "œpraying the prayer" and prayer become so high in terms of assurance/salvation issues. In essence they become pseudo means of grace for it is grace one seeks when seeking assurance/salvation. I say that somewhat from experience and wrestling much in the past with this.

Chris,

Very helpful!



> The means of grace are indeed first and foremost heavenly blessings that come down from God, and our own response is rooted completely in that blessing. As Calvin put it, "In a sacrament, we bring nothing of ourselves, but only receive."
> 
> Once again, Michael Horton hits the nail on the head in clearly, accurately and effectively describing the nature of the means of grace in his excellent book, In the Face of God (from page 141):
> Quote:
> ...






> Larry: Here is a quote from Luther (so, it is giving a Lutheran perspective) that seems to directly relate to you question. He assigns it completely as God's work.
> Quote:
> However, it is often objected, "If Baptism is itself a work, and you say that works are of no use for salvation, what becomes of faith?" To this you may answer: Yes, it is true that our works are of no use for salvation. Baptism, however, is not our work but God's (for, as was said, you must distinguish Christ's Baptism quite clearly from a bath-keeper's baptism). God's works, however, are salutary and necessary for salvation, and they do not exclude but rather demand faith, for without faith they could not be grasped. . . . Thus you see plainly that Baptism is not a work which we do but is a treasure which God gives us and faith grasps, just as the Lord Christ upon the cross is not a work but a treasure comprehended and offered to us in the Word and received by faith."




Also, very helpful. This is why I began to ponder the fundamental difference in the communication between Reformed/Lutherans Vs. others on this issue. The direction of the communication is what hit me as essential, without digging into details about the nature of the bread and wine (which I follow Calvin on, I think he nailed that one).

Thanks much,

Ldh


----------



## Me Died Blue (May 25, 2005)

As Gabe rightly pointed out, the Supper is a biblical ordinance of the Church, which is easier to see when we remember it as being of the same nature as baptism (and the ordained preaching of the Word), which the Church has the sole authority and responsibility to administer, just as Passover (and circumcision) was not a private feast in the Old Testament.

I would _highly_ recommend Horton's book I cited above for further teaching and elaboration on not only the means of grace, but the Reformed mindset of spirituality and communion with God in general. It is probably the book by a contemporary author that has most influenced my thinking on spirituality, as I have said many times in other threads.



> _Originally posted by Jeremy_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



You're welcome - I'm glad the discussion thus far was helpful, and I enjoy talking about such issues. And your questions are really _anything but_ "foolish and unlearned" - this is definite meat we're discussing, and takes repeated thought and meditation to really grasp, especially for those of us who grew up thinking of the sacraments as solely being symbolic signs to activate our minds and memories. I still struggle with shaking off the remains of that mindset, which was a completely new and foreign thing to me and so many other members here not too long ago.

You can find both the Westminster Confession (and the Catechisms) and the 1689 London Baptist Confession online at numerous Reformed sites, or just through a search. Also, the Three Forms of Unity shed some particularly experimental light on the means of grace. A good commentary on one or more of those confessional standards would be valuable as well. G. I. Williamson's on the WCF is one of the most commonly recommended, although I have not yet read it.

[Edited on 5-25-2005 by Me Died Blue]


----------



## Jeremy (May 25, 2005)

Thanks Chris,

I thought I saw something about the WCF and there being 2nd or 3rd revisions with corrections. What version of it should I get? the original? I could probably purchase a hard copy in book form via amazon.com, No?

Thanks for being gracious about my questions. I am learning fast that this board has members who are well further along in their faith than I. But "he that walks with the wise shall become wise." 

I have to get going for now, but will read your response later tonight.

Thanks,

J


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 25, 2005)

http://www.christianbook.com/Christ...06080&netp_id=352489&event=ESRCN&item_code=WW


----------



## Scott (May 25, 2005)

"Communion is about coming together as a body to commune with Christ. Doing it privately goes against the point of the sacrament."

This is true. An additional reason why we should not take communion privately is that only lawfully called ministers may rightly administer the sacraments. These ministers are the stewards of the mysteries of God. They possess the keys of the kingdom. Individuals do not and should not administer sacraments except possibly in extraordinary circumstances that rarely happen in real life (like being stranded on an island or something). 

Westminster Confession 27.4 summarizes the biblical position: "There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained." 

Here is the best site for the searchable Westminster standards with proof texts.


----------



## Me Died Blue (May 25, 2005)

Jeremy, I would recommend reading both the original as well as the versions with some updated sections.

Gabe, that looks like a great book to get, since it has the proof-texts in the footnotes of each page. Do the catechisms have the same feature? Also, is the text the original version or an updated one?

Scott, thanks for that link - I know that will prove to be very helpful in comparing different versions and forms of the standards, all in one place!


----------



## Jeremy (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> Jeremy,
> 
> Good quotes from the Heidelberg Catechism. I think I see what you are saying concerning repentance, but I´ve found an emphasis on that can in some cases forgets the real communicating of Grace Heaven to Earth. In other words repentance ceases to be passive/contrition and becomes active, Earth to Heaven, and in essence is saying by implication, "œGod here is my money (repentance) now give me the grace that I´ve purchased." Too put it crassly for purpose of clarity. Not that repentance is not there just a subtle difference based upon the emphasis. I don´t think that is what you mean though. Thanks for the reply.



Larry,

No problem. I'm not sure what part of the Heidelberg Catechism you're referring to, but you're welcome .

This is true what you say about repentance. Maybe that's why I'm always struggling, because I view it sometimes as an Earth to Heaven sort of communication, rather than receiving grace from Heaven. For lack of a better phrase I guess you could say it's like fighting against yourself. Usually I feel so unworthy of forgiveness(which I am) that I forget I John 2:1-2 that Christ and His righteousness are on my side in my defense. If the devil can get us to view Christ in some other way than Him being our perfect, perpetual righteousness, we'll lose the battle.

Thanks again.

J


----------



## Jeremy (May 25, 2005)

Thanks again Gabe, Scott, Chris,

I'll check out these links and get myself hooked up.

J


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Gabe, that looks like a great book to get, since it has the proof-texts in the footnotes of each page. Do the catechisms have the same feature? Also, is the text the original version or an updated one?



It is the 1646 version. It also contains the covenants, Book of Church Order, etc. Yes, there are the Scriptural footnotes on each page with the Catechisms as well.


----------

