The Scriptural doctrine of the means of grace has been grossly perverted by Romanists, Calvinists, and synergistic (Arminianistic) rationalists. On account of the importance of the matter we shall consider their outstanding errors in detail.
a. The error of Romanism. Romanism indeed teaches that Christ by His death has secured grace for sinners. Hence it emphatically rejects the doctrine that a sinner may be justified and saved "without divine grace through Christ" (Council of Trent, Sess. VI, Cans. 1. 2. 3. 10. 22). According to papistic doctrine this divine grace, secured by Christ, is designed for all men, so that the Council of Trent repudiates without reserve the particular grace (gratia particularis) of Calvinism (Sess. VI, Can. 17).
In view of these facts the Roman Catholic Church ought to espouse the Lutheran doctrine of justification by grace through faith in Christ's vicarious atonement; yet Rome has expressly anathematized this cardinal doctrine of the Christian Church.
To understand this attitude, we must remember what Roman Catholic theologians understand by the terms "divine grace," "justifying grace," etc. According to papistic doctrine, Christ died for the sins of the world in order that God can infuse into the sinner (with his own constant cooperation) so much grace (gratia infusa) that he is enabled truly to merit justification and salvation (Council of Trent, Sess. VI, Cans. 4. 32) either de congruo (by desiring, or striving after, the good) or de condigno (by actually accomplishing meritorious works). In other words, according to Roman Catholic doctrine, Christ has secured for sinners so much grace that they by divine gracious assistance (infusion of divine powers) can earn salvation themselves.
From this it follows that according to Roman Catholic doctrine the medt'a gratiae are not divinely appointed means by which God offers and conveys to the sinner by faith the entire obedience of Christ, but rather means by which the sinner through infused grace is put into a position to earn salvation by his own efforts. The entire doctrine of the means of grace is thus perverted in the interest of work-righteousness.
However, since reliance on works always leaves a sinner uncertain with regard to his state of grace and salvation (and such uncertainty Rome declares to be a particular Christian virtue; Council of Trent, Seas. VI, Cap. 9, Can. 13), the number of "sacraments" has been multiplied (confirmation, penance, ordination, marriage, extreme unction), so that the sinner through many "sacraments" may receive the maximum of gratia infusa and so multiply works for salvation (Council of Trent, Sess. VII, Cans. 3. 4).
Especially the "sacrament of penance"1 is designed for the production of good works on a large scale (crusades, pilgrimages, indulgences, monkery, etc.). In fact, there is no limit to the good works which a Catholic may do by diligently using the "sacrament of penance." Yet despite all these works he may never be sure of salvation, in consequence of which his Christian life remains a perpetual striving after salvation by means of good works. Even the Sacraments cannot give him comfort in his trouble of sin; for though they are said to "infuse grace," and this ex opere operata, sine bono motu utentis (of themselves, without any good intention on the part of the recipient), they do not impart forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation. The Romanistic doctrine of the Sacraments is therefore a radical perversion of the Scriptural doctrine of the means of grace.
b. The error of Calvinism. Since Calvinism denies the gratia universal is and insists that the grace of God in Christ Jesus is particular (gratia particularis), that is, designed for, and confined to, a limited number of men (the elect), it is obliged to teach that there are no real means of grace for the non-elect. On the contrary, for all those whom God has predestinated to eternal condemnation the means of grace become "means of damnation," as Calvin asserts. "Est universalis vocatio, qoo per externam Verbi praedicationem omnes pariter ad se invitat Deus, etiam quibus eam in mortis odorem et gravioris condemnationis materiam proponit." (Inst., III, 24, 8.)
It is true, Calvin ascribes the damnation of the non-elect also to their own rejection of divine grace, which is offered to them in the "universal call" of God through the preaching of the external Word; but this is one of the many inconsistencies of Calvinistic soteriology. In reality, according to the Calvinistic view, there is no divine grace for the non-elect, and hence there is no occasion for them to despise or reject it. He writes: "Only the elect experience the inward power of the Spirit and receive, in addition to the outward signs, also the res or virtus sacramenti." (Inst., III, 24, 15; Consens. Tigur., c. 16.)
In short, according to Calvin there is no saving grace for the non-elect, even though at times he charges the reprobi and impii with rejection of divine grace. In Calvin's case this mode of speech is only a meaningless repetition of the language of orthodox Christianity, which rightly speaks of a rejection of divine grace on the part of the improbi and impii, since on the basis of Scripture it teaches that divine grace is universal and the divine call to salvation therefore serious. Grace can be rejected by men only in case it is seriously offered to all (vocatio seria), as our dogmaticians have always pointed out.
However, in the final analysis, Calvinism acknowledges no means of grace even for the elect. Calvin distinctly advises the believer not to judge his election and salvation according to the universal Gospel call (vocatio universalis), which is extended through the external Word (per externam praedicationem), but only according to the special call (vocatio specialis), which consists in inward illumination by the Holy Ghost. From the strict Calvinistic point of view this direction is quite consistent, since even true believers dare not build their hope of salvation on the call and promise of the Word; for this is extended also to the non-elect as "a savor of death unto death" and might therefore deceive them. Consequently the Reformed pii and electi have no other way of judging their election and salvation than that of the inward illumination of the Holy Ghost (interior Spiritus illuminatio), or of infused grace.
However, even this inward illumination of the believer occurs, according to the Calvinistic view, not through the preaching of the Gospel, but immediately. ("In the working of regeneration all second causes are excluded."- "The infusion of a new life into the soul is the immediate work of the Spirit." - "The truth the Gospel attends the work of regeneration, but is not the means by which it is effected." Hodge, Syst. Theol., II, 684sq.)
From this it follows that Calvinism can recognize no means of grace by which God offers and seals salvation to men and engenders faith or works regeneration. In other words, Calvinism must reject the means of grace as "second causes," or means by which regeneration is effected. Its denial of the gratia universalis consistently destroys the Scriptural doctrine of the means of grace, leaving no signs and testimonies whatever (signa et testimonia) of God's gracious will toward the sinner by which faith is created or strengthened.
It is true, Calvinism speaks of the Word and the Sacraments also 88 "signs," "symbols," etc., of divine grace (signa, symbola, tesserae, sigilla.; Gonf. Helv., II, c. 19; Conf. Belgica, Art. 33). But as long as it holds that divine grace is particular and that the same signs may be "signs of salvation" and "signs of condemnation," the believer must forever remain in doubt regarding his state of grace, since he cannot detennine whether the signum or sigillum in his case means salvation or damnation. Hence he is obliged to put his hope for salvation in the interior illuminatio, or in the inward illumination of his heart; and that, after all, is nothing else than the gratia infusa.
However, the case is still more serious. The Calvinistic denial of universal grace and of the Scriptural doctrine of the means of grace destroys also the Scriptural doctrine of saving faith and saving grace. A faith that does not rely solely on the gracious promises of the Gospel is not true faith in the sense of Scripture, but only a mere fancy (Einbildung). According to the express teaching of the Bible saving faith is engendered through the preaching of the Gospel and consists essentially in reliance upon the Gospel promises, Rom. 10, 17; Mark 1, 15; 16, 15. 16. Every other kind of trust is confidence in a man-made foundation and therefore a
But right here Calvinism and Romanism meet to disavow the Scripture doctrine of saving faith. Romanism, on account of its rejection of the sola gratia, is forced to trust in infused grace (gratia infusa, i. e., sanctification, good works) for salvation; Calvinism, on account of its rejection of the gratia universalis, is likewise compelled to trust in sanctification for assurance of salvation (interior illuminatio). Romanism makes the mistake of claiming that divine grace is infused into the sinner ex opere operato, or without faith on the part of man; Calvinism makes the equally great mistake of teaching that the Holy Spirit works regeneration or faith immediately, or without the means of grace. The departure from Scripture in either case is evident and, consistently maintained, makes saving faith impossible, since it assigns to it a false foundation, sc. gratia Dei in nobis, or the sanctified heart.
However, saving faith and saving grace are correlatives, and he who perverts the one is bound to pervert also the other. As Romanism and Calvinism pervert the doctrine of saving faith by resting faith upon a good quality in man, so they also pervert the doctrine of saving grace (gratia salvifica). Both regard saving grace not as God's gracious disposition toward the sinner for Christ's sake (Dei favor gratuitus), but rather as God's gracious sanctifying operation in the heart, known in the one case as gratia infusa (Romanism) and in the other as interior illuminatio (Calvinism).
This is true despite the fact that many Reformed theologians expressly state that the object of the sinner's trust is the Dei favor gratuitus. What they teach in theory they retract in practise, especially whenever they are obliged to comfort a sinner who is alarmed about his state of grace. Since they deny universal grace and the objective reconciliation of the whole world through the death of Christ, they must point the sinner who is looking for assurance of salvation to divine grace as this is active in his heart, or to "the present experience of Christ's presence and indwelling, corroborated by active service and purity of life" (Strong). For additional assurance they point, moreover, to the supposed fact that the Holy Ghost, once granted to the believer, can never be lost. But both these doctrines are man-made, and so the assurance of salvation derived from them is likewise man-made and therefore nugatory and vain.
c. The error of synergism. What has been· said of Romanistic Semi-Pelagianism may be said also of synergism (Arminianism). Romanism denies the sola gratia; synergism does the same. Both ascribe salvation in part to the virtuous efforts of man to apply himself to, or to decide for, grace. And though neither synergism nor Arminianism regards the means of grace as working ex opere operato, yet they both consider them, not simply as God's conferring means (media δοτικά), by which He graciously offers salvation and engenders and strengthens faith, but rather as incentives by which the sinner is induced to convert himself through the divine powers communicated to him.
But here again it must be said that a faith which does not trust exclusively in the grace of God for Christ's sake is not true faith in the sense of Scripture, Gal. 5, 4; 3, 10, but the very opposite of faith, namely, wilful repudiation of the Gospel, Rom. 4, 4. 5. In its final result therefore also synergism perverts the doctrine of the means of grace and renders saving faith impossible.
d. It is almost superfluous to mention the fact that all errorists who deny the vicarious satisfaction of Christ (satisfactio vicaria) cannot teach the Scriptural doctrine of the means of grace. Since they refuse to accept the reconciliation secured by Christ's substitutionary death, they are obliged to reconcile God by "trying to keep the commandments of God," and this leaves no room for any divine means of grace as media remissionis peccatorom sive iustificationis, Eph. 1, 7; Gal. 5, 4. Modernism is paganism, veiled by, and decked with, Christian terminology, which destroys the very heart of the Christian religion, namely, justification by grace through faith in the atoning blood of Christ, Rom. 3, 23-28.
e. What is true of Modernism is true to a great extent also of enthusiasm, or the belief that the Holy Spirit works outside of, and apart from, the divinely ordained means of grace (extra illud entkusiasticum).
This error presents itself in many different forms. One form is that of Zwinglianism: "The Holy Spirit requires no wagon (vekiculum) to enter, and work in, the hearts of men; hence faith is not the fruit of the Gospel, but of the immediately working Spirit" (immediate operantis Spiritus). Quakerism is another and more extreme form of enthusiasm: "God gives His Spirit without the means of His Word, so that even those may be saved who have never heard of the historic Christ." But the error of enthusiasm is advocated also by those modem theologians who teach that faith may be awakened through "the person of Christ'' or His "historical manifestation" ("die gesckicktlicke Ersckeinunif'), apart from the Gospel-message of His vicarious death. Saving faith certainly trusts in the historic Christ, but the historic Christ is the Christ of the gospels, who shed His blood on the cross for the sins of the world, 1 John 1, 7; Gal. 3, 13; 2, 20. And this Christ, the only Savior of sinners, whose merits are earnestly offered to all men in the means of grace, modern rationalistic theology rejects.
That modern experimentalism (experience-theology; Erlebnistheologie) is enthusiasm pure and simple requires no further proof. A faith that is not engendered by the Holy Ghost through the means of grace is not true faith, but self-delusion, 1 Tim. 6, 3. 4. The different forms of enthusiasm (Muenzer, Zwingli, Hodge, the Pietists, modern experimentalists) differ not in kind, but only in degree. When modern experimentalists say: "The Christian lives not by the means of grace, but through the personal fellowship with God which he experiences in Christ" (A. Harnack) ; or: "The man who is inwardly overcome by the power of the person of Jesus experiences in this same inner transaction God's forgiveness of his sins" (W. Hermann), they prove by these clear statements that they reject the means of grace just as all other enthusiasts reject them. Faith is indeed an experience; but it is the Gospel that must produce this faith, or this experience, John 8, 31. 32; 17, 20. Whenever men look for the grace of God outside the Gospel, they overthrow the very foundation of faith.
Among the arguments by which enthusiasts of all types have attempted to justify their disavowal of the means of grace, we may note the following: -
a. The means of grace are superfluous, since the Holy Spirit requires no means (Zwingli: dux vel vehiculum) to enter and work in man's heart. Answer: Holy Scripture clearly teaches that the Holy Spirit will ordinarily not deal with men without means, John 17, 20; Rom. 10, 17; Eph. 2, 20; etc.
b. Since regeneration is the work of God's almighty power, it cannot be effected through means. Answer: Holy Scripture teaches that regeneration is the work of God's almighty power working through means, Eph. 1, 19; Rom. 10, 17; Titus 3, 5. For this reason Hodge should not write: "If the Gospel and the Sacraments save, it is no longer God who saves." (Syst. Theol., II, 683. 685. Cp. the following reductio ad absurdum: "If bread sustains life, it is no longer God who sustains life.").
c. It is an unworthy conception of God to regard Him as bound to means when dealing with men. Answer: Since it has pleased God to employ means both in the realm of nature and that of grace, it is unbecoming to us to judge Him.
d. If God actually operated through means of grace, then all to whom the means are applied would have to be saved. Answer: This argument does not hold since grace, operating through means, can be resisted, Matt. 23, 37; Acts 7, 51.
e. The means of grace are superfluous since saving faith rests on Christ. Answer: We admit that saving faith rests on Christ; but unless faith rests on the means of grace, it does not rest on Christ, John 8, 31. 32; 17, 20; 1 Tim. 6, 3 ff.
f. Many rely upon the fact that they are baptized and thus sink into carnal security. Answer: In spite of this fact Scripture teaches the efficacy of Baptism, Acts 2, 38; 1 Pet. 3, 21.
g. Holy Scripture teaches that we are saved alone by faith in Christ; therefore Baptism does not regenerate. (Cp. Hodge, Syst. Theol., III, 1600.) Answer: Scripture teaches both: Faith saves, and Baptism saves. The two statements do not exclude, but include each other.
h. The passage John 3, 8 is opposed to the doctrine of the means of grace. Answer: This passage describes the mysterious character of the work of the Holy Spirit, but it does not say that the Holy Spirit works without means; cp. v. 5; John 6, 45 ; Eph. 3,6; 1 Pet.1,23; John 17,20.
Enthusiasts thus pit their rationalist conceptions of what is possible and proper for God to do against the clear Scripturepassages which assert that God has appointed and uses the means of grace for the powerful operation of His grace, Is. 55, 11; J er. 23, 29; Acts 2, 38; 20, 32; Rom. 10, 17; 1 Pet. 1, 23; 3, 21, etc. (Cp. Dr. Engelder, Dogmatical Notes.)
The Scriptural doctrine of the means of grace is of such weighty importance that all Christians have reason to examine themselves whether on this point "they are in the faith," 2 Cor. 13, 5. If Christians neglect the means of grace (the hearing of the Word and the use of the Sacraments), they are in danger of falling from faith and losing their salvation, John 8, 43-47. All Christians, too, are constantly threatened by self-righteousness, since the opinio legis by nature inheres in their flesh, Gal. 3, 1-3. Also with respect to the doctrine of the means of grace Christ's earnest admonition "Watch and pray that ye enter not into temptation," Matt. 26, 41, must be constantly heeded.
In the Lutheran Church the Pietists directed the alarmed sinner not to the Word and the Sacraments, but to their own prayers and wrestlings with God in order that he might win his way into a state of grace. They also instructed the believer to base his assurance of grace not on the objective promise of the Gospel, but on the right quality of his contrition and faith and on his feeling of grace. In both cases they taught Reformed (enthusiastic) doctrine. Moreover, because they based salvation on what is really a gratia infusa, they championed papistic doctrine. (Cp. Luther, St. L., XI, 453 ff.; XIX, 943 ff. )
As we warn our hearers against the subjectivism of the sects, which makes the validity of the divine pardon offered in the means of grace and their efficacy dependent on the hearer's subjective attitude, we must strenuously uphold the objective nature of salvation, that is to say, the objectivity and reality of the vicarious atonement, as not being conditioned on any act of man and the objective nature of the means of grace as offering forgiveness of sins outright to men and exercising their power in every case where they are applied. What Dr. Walther writes on this point deserves our constant, diligent attention. He says: "The characteristic feature of our dear Evangelical Lutheran Church is her objectivity, which means that all her doctrines by their very nature keep man from seeking salvation in himself, in his own powers, aspiration,. performance, and condition and lead him to seek his salvation outside of himself, while the characteristic feature of all other churches is their subjectivity, they all leading man to ground his salvation upon himself." (Cp. Lehre und Wehre, 36, 19.) By nature all men are enthusiasts, and it is only through the diligent use of the means of grace that the believer obtains strength to overcome the temptation to renounce the means of grace. (Cp. Luther, St. L., XI, 455 ff.; also Dr. Engelder, Dogmatical Notes.)
In this connection we must warn our hearers also against the error of making faith its own object; that is to say, believers must never base their faith upon their faith. Faith must be based alone on the Gospel, never on anything within man (aliquid in nobis). Luther writes very aptly: "Es ist gar viel ein ander Ding den Glauben RABEN und sick auf den Glauben VERLABBEN." We are certainly required to believe, but only because by faith the promise of the Gospel is accepted, never because faith in itself, as a good quality, could reconcile God. To ask a person first to establish the fact that he has faith and then to permit him to trust in divine grace is a Calvinistic error, not Lutheran practise. Passages such as Mark 16, 15. 16; Acts 16, 31; Rom. 10, 9, etc., which have been quoted to support the Reformed error, in reality command us to look away from ourselves and to cling to the objective Gospel promises of grace and salvation.