What is a Means of Grace

[Reformed]

Someone on the BB made me aware of a recent thread where the term "means of grace" was mentioned. The term seemed confusing, so I decided to address it.

Ligonier ministries posted this about means of grace:

"In His grace and in His wisdom, God has provided ways by which we can regularly have our faith in His promises fortified. Historically, we have referred to these ways of strengthening our faith as the ordinary means of grace. Prayer, the preaching of the Word, and the sacraments are not elaborate or fancy methods of giving us what we need to confirm our trust in Christ. To an outside observer, they do not seem special at all. After all, they make use of rather common things such as human speech, bread, wine, and water. But by faith and the work of the Spirit, these common elements are used to do an uncommon work — the confirmation of our trust in Jesus and the strengthening of our wills to flee from sin and rest in Christ alone."

Simply put, a means of grace is the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer through ordinary means such as reading the word, preaching, baptism, and the Lord's supper. It does not mean that something mystical takes place, like the papist view of transubstantiation. Instead the Holy Spirit helps confirm and encourage our faith through the things I mentioned. When we partake of the Lord's Supper, and contemplate the sacrifice of Christ on our behalf, our faith is strengthened and our hearts encouraged. That is a means of grace. The preaching of the Word is a means of grace as we feast upon God's word and our faith is once again strengthened.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Billx]

The explanation of the means of grace was explained once in the following manner. The seven sacrament of God,s holy church was places where one is refueling stations of the soul where by God gives us strength to live above the world. When we find ourselves out of spiritual energy we can have ourselves renewed. The first would be baptism whereby the damage of original sin is washed away and anointing with oil gives us the Holy Spirit. The list goes on...
The problem is no where in the writ do we find anything to this effect. It is the traditions of men. The second problem the sacraments or means of grace require an administrator, a man to preside. This denies that Christ is the sole provider of our forgiveness.
The sacramental system would say when we partake it not a mans hand giving the bread but actually the hand of Christ. It is a wonderful system from tradition but not biblical. Unfortunate the reformation did not toss out a little more tradition.
Our guide is by the Bible alone which depends on christs blood solely. It depends on Christ to keep in the faith. Dr. Sproul is great and expound wonderfully. I have the five pound bible and subscribe to table talk. When he starts with the covenant of grace it becomes only tulip, covenant theology. As an old lady once told me "that may be bible but it ain't Baptist'. The calvinists murdered so many of our anabaptist forefathers while attempting to bring salvation through modified sacramental means, ahh, there is that word MEANS.
HOPE THIS HELPS AND DOES NOT MUDDY THE WATER.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

'Means of grace,' like 'sacrament,' is a term that means something quite different to a Protestant than it means to a Roman Catholic. For that reason I rather wish that Protestants, and Baptists particularly, wouldn't use them.

Having said that, Reformed is quite correct in his definition-- for Protestants!

 

[Yeshua1]

'Means of grace,' like 'sacrament,' is a term that means something quite different to a Protestant than it means to a Roman Catholic. For that reason I rather wish that Protestants, and Baptists particularly, wouldn't use them.

Having said that, Reformed is quite correct in his definition-- for Protestants!

Many of us here would prefer to use term Ordinances of the church!

 

[Jerome]

One wonders what is motivating today's so-called Reformed Baptists to embrace "sacraments". The London Baptist Confession, which these guys supposedly "hold to", rejected the term sacrament in adapting the Presbyerian WCF. The Westminster Confession used the term some twenty times, none of which were retained by the Baptists.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

One wonders what is motivating today's so-called Reformed Baptists to embrace "sacraments". The London Baptist Confession, which these guys supposedly "hold to", rejected the term sacrament in adapting the Presbyerian WCF. The Westminster Confession used the term some twenty times, none of which were retained by the Baptists.

I have queried this with some of the leaders in R.B. circles, and was informed that the early Particular Baptists used the term 'sacraments' quite regularly in their writings, though not, as you say, in the confessions (1644 or 1689).
Nonetheless, I still think the use of the term causes confusion and shouldn't be used. There was a good reason why the publishers of the confessions used the term 'ordinances.'

 

[Jerome]

Many of us here would prefer to use term Ordinances of the church!

Southern Baptist theologian Nathan Finn of Union University explains it well:

http://v7.swbts.edu/tasks/render/file/?fileID=822376A2-AA7F-3A6A-E6628478A88E74D5

"most Baptist churches prefer to call them 'ordinances'"

"Most Baptists have historically held a “memorial view” of the Lord’s Supper, recalling Jesus’ command that the ordinance be observed “in remembrance of me.” Here Baptists follow the practice of the Swiss reformer Huldrych Zwingli and their close cousins in the Free Church tradition, the Anabaptists."

"In contrast to the memorial view, some Baptists hold to a view of the 'spiritual presence' of Christ in communion, following the Genevan reformer John Calvin"

"The 'spiritual presence' understanding of the Lord’s Supper is especially common among some moderate Southern Baptists and in the Reformed Baptist tradition"

 

[Yeshua1]

Southern Baptist theologian Nathan Finn of Union University explains it well:

http://v7.swbts.edu/tasks/render/file/?fileID=822376A2-AA7F-3A6A-E6628478A88E74D5

"most Baptist churches prefer to call them 'ordinances'"

"Most Baptists have historically held a “memorial view” of the Lord’s Supper, recalling Jesus’ command that the ordinance be observed “in remembrance of me.” Here Baptists follow the practice of the Swiss reformer Huldrych Zwingli and their close cousins in the Free Church tradition, the Anabaptists."

"In contrast to the memorial view, some Baptists hold to a view of the 'spiritual presence' of Christ in communion, following the Genevan reformer John Calvin"

"The 'spiritual presence' understanding of the Lord’s Supper is especially common among some moderate Southern Baptists and in the Reformed Baptist tradition"

Good answer, as both views have and are held by Baptists!

 

[JonC]

One wonders what is motivating today's so-called Reformed Baptists to embrace "sacraments". The London Baptist Confession, which these guys supposedly "hold to", rejected the term sacrament in adapting the Presbyerian WCF. The Westminster Confession used the term some twenty times, none of which were retained by the Baptists.

I think that there is also a tendency to minimize the ordinances of the church as a reaction to the sacramental view. I’ve seen the ordinance of baptism reduced down to a public confession of Christ, and the Lord’s Supper as merely a rememberance of Christ’s death.

But Scripture tends to speak otherwise. With baptism, it is an act that places one into the Body as the new believer and privately (this is a matter between the believer and the church and not the world) affirms through obedience a rebirth and entrance into the New Covenant as a partaker in Christ (His death, burial and resurrection). The Lord’s Supper is also a covenantal reaffirmation of what baptism has symbolized.

I think the return to a sacramental belief may be a reaction to shallow doctrine on the subject.