Summary assessment of the Reformed doctrine of means of grace.

Summary assessment of the Reformed doctrine of means of grace.

At the risk of being accused of unnecessary repetition and prolixity, we leave here, for several reasons, a summary assessment of the Reformed doctrine of the means of grace. — Zwingli's doctrine of a direct effect of the Spirit and the communication of grace caused a division in Protestant Christianity at the time of the Reformation. This division has not been eliminated to this day and forms a standing offence to the unbelieving world and gives Rome a welcome opportunity to mock the brokenness of Protestantism. Furthermore, it is an undeniable fact that the Reformed doctrine of the means of grace has also penetrated the Lutheran Church, especially through Pietism. It is fully evident that the newer so-called "theology of experience" has in principle completely gone over to the Reformed camp, because it wants to base faith in Christ not only on Christ's word, but also, in distinction from the word, on the "living Christ," the person of Christ," "the historical appearance" and "effect" of Christ. Finally, this is — and this can hardly be reminded often enough — a point on which all Christians have to learn throughout their lives. Theoretically, it is not difficult to find the right position against the Reformed Church, Pietism and experiential theology at this point, thanks to

627f) St. L. IX. 1514 f. Likewise in Joh. 17. 20: St. L. VIII, 829 ff.

169 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 143-144]

the clarity of Scripture. But to hold the right doctrines in practice is effort and work. Right standing in practice is removed from human ability and is merely an effect of the Holy Spirit through the Word. Not only can we by natural powers think that faith and regeneration are immediate effects of the Holy Spirit, but we can also by natural powers by our own action produce moods and states in us which we think are effects of the Holy Spirit. But to cling in true faith to the outward means of grace, as certain "signs and testimonies" of God's gracious will toward us, to hold fast with the heart to the outward word of the gospel, especially in the face of temptation, against all feeling and sensation, against the condemnation judgment of the divine law and of our own conscience: This we are able to do only through the action of the Holy Spirit, overcoming and killing the flesh, to whom Christ crucified, that is, Christ for us and outside us, is an offence and foolishness.

The question has been raised whether the peculiarly Reformed doctrine of the means of grace can still be called Christian. In answering this question, we are confronted with the same situation that confronted us in the Reformed doctrine of Christ's person and work. Where Reformed Christology consistently carries out its fundamental theorem that the finite is not capable of the infinite (Finitum non est capax infiniti), it leaves Christian territory and is forced out into Socinian (Unitarian) territory, that is, driven away to the denial of the Incarnation of the Son of God. Reformed Christology, however, returns to Christian territory when it becomes inconsistent, namely when, in the seriousness of Christian practice, it forgets the finitum non est capax infiniti, admits the real fellowship of divine and human nature (realis communio naturarum), so vigorously rejected before, and says of divine nature that it gives infinite value to the suffering of human nature.628) This double-sided character, consistency and inconsistency, confronts us also in the Reformed doctrine of the means of grace. Insofar as Reformed theology really teaches and adheres to its fundamental doctrine that the actually saving grace is communicated without the

628) Cf. the exposition II, 140 f. 299 ff.

170 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 144-145]

means of grace or alongside them (efficacious grace acts immediately), it leaves the Christian territory. As far as it abandons its fundamental proposition in practice, it returns to the Christian territory.

We remind again of the status controversiae. In question stands not whether God could not work directly, if he wanted to work so. In question stands also not whether God does not actually reserve himself cases of the direct effectiveness, which is also to be admitted.629) Nor does it stand in question — we emphasize this against the modern "experience theologians" — whether in the history of the world and of the church we do not perceptibly encounter an efficacy of the living Christ exalted at the right hand of God, which is also to be admitted. The only question is whether God can remind us men, when our conscience is affected by the law of God and we need a certain report about God's attitude towards us, of the objective Word of God's grace in Christ, the Gospel, and to the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper as objective signa and testimonia of his gracious will, or whether in this situation — scil, in the questioning of God's grace — we are to be referred to an immediate effect of God, an interior Spiritus illuminatio and an immediate agency of the Spirit.630) The former is taught by the Lutheran Church, the latter is put forward in the Reformed fellowships, where the Reformed principle is followed.

There is no scriptural evidence for the Reformed doctrine of means of grace. We have already explained in detail under the sections "The Means of Grace in General"631) and "All Means of Grace Have the Same Purpose and Effect"632) that according to Scripture the word of the gospel and the sacraments, namely baptism and the Lord's Supper, are given and ordered by God precisely for the purpose of offering the forgiveness of sins available through Christ's satisfactio vicaria, and that from the same means and through the same (εκ and διά) faith and regeneration come and the Holy Spirit is received. We add here that apostolic practice also agrees with this doctrine of Scripture,

629) Luke 1:15.

630) Calvin, Inst. III, 24, 8, and Hodge, Syst. Theology. II, 685.

631) p. 122 ff. <w:t xml:space="preserve"> 632) p. 127 ff.

171 > The Means of Grace. [English English ed. ~ 145]

while Reformed practice contrasts with apostolic practice. Where Reformed theology puts into practice its doctrine of the immediate efficacy of the Holy Spirit, it warns souls against seeking grace and salvation in the means of grace. Thus, as we have already seen, Calvin warns against trying to discern election from the common calling, that is, from the word of the Gospel.633) Likewise, the Consensus Tigurinus634) warns against the idea "as if the visible sign" (the sacraments), "while it is being offered, at the same moment also brings with it the grace of God." The Geneva Catechism also inculcates that "one need not cling to the outward signs in order to seek salvation there."635) We find exactly the opposite practice in the apostles. Paul does not warn against clinging to the outward word, but inculcates it very emphatically when, at his farewell to the Ephesian elders, he says: "Now, brethren, I commend you to God and to the word of his grace" (παρατίϑεμαι νμάς τω Κνρίω και τώ λόγω της χάριτος αντοΰ).636) Even Peter, on the first day of Pentecost, does not warn against the visibile signum of baptism, but refers the people who ask, "Men, brethren, what shall we do?" to Baptism, with the instruction that Baptism is for the remission of sins (εις αφεοιν των αμαρτιών νμών).637) And in order to immediately take into account the objection of the Reformers that being baptized is used by many for carnal security: Since the first day of Pentecost, Peter has experienced many abuses of Baptism on the part of those who either did not believe in baptismal grace at all or fell away from it again through unbelief.638) Nevertheless, Peter does not turn to the Reformed camp. He does not say with Böhl and all the old and new Reformed: Baptismal washing

633) Inst. III, 24. 8.

634) Cap. XX; in Niemeyer, p. 195: Utilitas, quam ex sacramentis percipimus, ad tempus, quo ea nobis administrantur, minime restringi debet, perinde aesi visibile signum, dum in medium profertur, eodem secum momento Dei gratiam adveheret. [Google]

635) De sacramentis; in Niemeyer, p. 161: Cur illic [in the sacraments] quaerendum esse Christ dicis? Intelligo non esse visibilibus signis inhaerendum, ut salutem inde petamus. [Google]

636) Acts 20:32.<w:t>637) Acts 2:38.

638) Acts 5:1 ff (Ananias and Sapphira); 8, 13 ff (Simon).

172 > The Means of Grace. [English English ed. ~ 145-146]

does not put away sin and does not make saved.639) Rather, Peter continues to doctrine in his first epistle of baptism: σώζει βάπτιομα, baptism makes saved.640) Likewise, the apostles had the sad experience that not all the hearers of the Word became faithful. Paul tells us explicitly, "for all men have not faith.."641) But still, the apostles do not separate the effect of faith and regeneration from the external Word. They do not say with Zwingli: Tractus internus immediate operantis est Spiritus,642) nor with Shedd: "The influence of the Holy Spirit is directly upon the human spirit, and is independent even of the Word." 643) Rather, they maintain that faith, regeneration, and the Spirit come through the external Word.644) In short, as the apostles teach that the external Word of the Gospel and the visibilia signa of the sacraments bring about the grace of God or the forgiveness of sins for us men, so also in the practical application of this doctrine they refer those inquiring about grace to these external things as from the means ordered by God to which faith must adhere. Therefore, we cannot but judge that the Reformed theologians and confessional writings are giving false instructions when they instruct souls not to seek grace and salvation in the Word and in Baptism.

Reformed theology gets into a very strange situation through its doctrine of the means of grace. By advocating an immediate communication of saving grace, it declares the whole method of the acquisition of salvation taught in Scripture to be a failure on the part of God. Reformed theology also found itself in a similar situation in the doctrine of Christ's person and work through the assertion that Christ's human nature could not be an organ for the actions of the divine nature. As for the organ relation of Christ's human nature, according to Scripture the matter stands that the Son of God appeared in the flesh, that is, in human nature, in order to destroy the works of the devil through the works accomplished in human nature.645) In God's view, therefore, the

639) Böhl, Dogmatik, pp. 5-58. 366.<w:t>649) 1 Pet. 3:21.

641) 2 Thess. 3:2.<w:t>612) Opera IV, 126.

643) Dogmatic Theology, II, 501.

644) Rom. 10:14-17 1 Pet. 1:23: Gal. 3:2.

645) 1 John 3:8.

173 > The Means of Grace. [English English ed. ~ 146-147]

he human nature of Christ is an entirely suitable means by which the divine work of world redemption is accomplished. Reformed Christology says no to this. It maintains that the human nature of Christ can never be an organ for divine actions and effects, and that therefore the action or activity (actio, operatio) of the divine nature of Christ is to be separated from his human nature. We heard, "Omnipresence and omniscience are not attributes of which a creature can be made the organ."646) Thus, in effect, the assumption of human nature on the part of the Son of God is declared to be a mistaken measure. A similar criticism of a divine measure comes out in the Reformed doctrine of the means of grace. According to the Scriptures, God, having reconciled the world to Himself through Christ, is now to proclaim His Word in the world and to administer Baptism, so that from these means and through these means men may become faithful or born again and thus partake of the grace acquired from Christ. In the divine view, therefore, Word and Baptism are quite suitable media for the communication of grace and the effect of grace. Reformed theology is of the opposite opinion, declaring: "There is here no place for the use of means", "Nothing intervenes between the volition of the Spirit and the regeneration of the soul".647) Tractus internus immediate operantis est Spiritus.648) Dux vel vehiculum Spiritui non est necessarium.649) "The sacraments do not operate the grace signified by them in us. Only the Holy Spirit can communicate grace."650)

Where is the error? How does the Reformed theology get into this bad situation that it opposes the yes of Scripture with a direct no? This is because Reformed theology, as in its Christology, so also in its doctrine of the means of grace, is dominated by the idea of the absolute God who cannot be bound to any means. Behind the Reformed doctrine of the means of grace stands the rationalistic thought, which is outside of Scripture, that the divine omnipotence, which is necessary for the production of faith and rebirth, cannot be accomplished by means.

646) Hodge, Syst.Theology, II, 417. 647) Hodge, op. cit. p. 685. 684.

648) Zwingli, De Providentia. Opp. IV, 125.

649) Zwingli, Fideii ratio. Niemeyer, p. 24.

650) Böhl, Dogmatik, p. 550.

174 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 147-148]

Among the newer Reformed theologians, Charles Hodge in particular brings this thought to the fore. He says: "If this one point be determined, namely, that efficacious grace is the almighty power of God, it decides all questions in controversy on this subject." 651) He then asserts, "Regeneration itself, the infusion of a new life into the soul, is the immediate work of the Spirit. There is here no place for the use of means."652) He thinks that one can spare oneself all book-writing. In order to get along in the doctrine of means of grace, he says, it is only necessary to hold on to this one thought, that rebirth is an effect of divine omnipotence. He says: "Volumes have been written on the contrary hypothesis; which volumes lose all their value if it be once admitted that regeneration, or effectual calling, is the work of omnipotence." To this it is to be said: Admittedly it is undeniable that the Christian faith or regeneration arises only by divine omnipotence. This is taught by the doctrines of Scripture. Luther also teaches this in a particularly decisive way, for example, when he says: "If God creates faith in man, it is as great a work as if he created heaven and earth again." 653) This is also to be held against all forms of synergism. But that therefore faith and rebirth should come into existence without means is a purely human thought. Scripture teaches both that faith and regeneration are an effect of divine omnipotence, and that this effect takes place through the external means of the Word and baptism. But now Reformed theology has settled on the idea of immediacy. This thought is the πρώτον ψεύδος from which the scriptural statements about the means of grace are reinterpreted. When the Scripture says διά and εκ, by the Word and from the Word, by baptism and from baptism, "by" must not mean "through," and "from" must not mean "out of," but "without," at most "besides," the attending circumstance. And when the Scripture places the Word and baptism virtually in the subject and says: the Word does (עָשָׂה֙ [HEBREW]) what pleases God,654) the Word is like a fire and like a hammer that breaks rocks,655) the Word is the light,656) the Word is the sword of the Spirit657) and: “baptism doth

651) op. cit., p. 683.<w:t xml:space="preserve">652) op. cit., p. 685.

653) St. L. IX. 972.<w:t>654) Is. 55:11.

655) Jer. 23:29.<w:t>656) 2 Pet. 1:19 : Ps. 119:105.

657) Eph. 6:17.

175 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 148]

Σοκει [“also now save us”].658) so this must mean: word and baptism represent externally what the spirit works internally before or besides without means, namely the immediate internal enlightenment of the spirit, the immediate internal washing of the soul by the spirit and the blood of Christ.

For the Reformed doctrine of the means of grace there is not even a semblance of Scriptural proof. If we examine the attempted scriptural proofs, it becomes apparent that we are always dealing with petitiones principii, that is, it is assumed as proven, as a foregone conclusion, that the Holy Spirit has no need of a vehiculum, indeed, that it is to God's honor if His efficacious grace is tied to the means of grace. According to this human postulate, the individual scriptural passages are then exegeted. Wherever the Holy Spirit or God's efficacy is mentioned in Scripture, immediate efficacy is inferred, even if it is immediately stated that the efficacy takes place through the Word or through water. Furthermore, where it is addressed in Scripture that no man can give faith to another, and no man to himself, but that the natural man is dead in sins, and therefore his conversion consists in a rebirth, in a revival from spiritual death by divine omnipotence, there again the direct efficacy is discontinued. And in this way of carrying out a "scriptural proof", all the means of grace agree, no matter whether we look to the Zwickau prophets or to Zwingli or to Calvin or to Beza or to Böhl or to Hodge, Shedd or Macpherson.

In Alexander Hodge659) we find the Reformed "scriptural proofs" briefly compiled. To the question, "What arguments go to show that there is an immediate influence of the Spirit on the soul, besides that which is exerted through the truth?"660) he answers with the following six scriptural evidences which

658) 1 Pet. 3:21.

659) Outlines of Theology, p. 338 f.

660) By "truth" these Reformed understand the word of truth or the word of the gospel. Thus Shedd, Dogmatic Theol., II, 509. by adding that by the word of truth the regeneration does not happen. Correctly, however, Barnes on 1 Pet. 1:23: "It is the uniform doctrine of the Scriptures that divine truth is made the instrument of quickening the soul into spiritual life." Shedd, however, allows himself l. c. the following exegesis:

176 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 149]

we set forth here:: "1st. The influence of the Spirit is distinguished from that of the Word." To prove this as a scriptural teaching, primo loco reference is made to Joh. 6:45, 64-65. In these passages, however, it is only said that coming to Christ does not stand in man's power (v. 44), but that all who actually come to Christ are taught by God, v. 46. The same thought is expressed in vv. 64-65: "No man can come to me, except it be given him of my Father." So little is there any address here — which A. Hodge nevertheless wishes to prove — of an "immediate infiuence of the Spirit" and of an effect "besides," apart from the Word, that rather the very opposite, namely, the effect through the Word, is very emphatically taught. Christ expressly declares v. 63: "The words (τα ρήματα) which I speak are spirit and are life." And Peter also correctly understood this instruction of Christ about the efficacy of the Holy Spirit tied to the Word. He responds to Christ's question, "Do you also want to go away?" V. 68: "Lord, whither shall we go? Thou hast words of eternal life." "2d. A divine influence is declared to be necessary to the reception of the truth." Reference is made to Ps. 119:18, where it is said, "Open mine eyes, that I may see the wonders of thy law!" Here, however, it is taught that the opening of the eyes to the truth of the divine Word of God is effect. But nothing is said of an immediate effect. On the contrary, in the same psalm it is taught that the opening of the eyes to the word is by the word itself, v. 104-105: "Thy word maketh me wise," and, "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path." "3d. Such an internal operation on the heart is attributed to God." Again, the same factual situation! Reference is made to Phil. 2:13: "It is God that worketh in you both to will and to do, according to his good pleasure." According to this passage, however, willing and doing are very decidedly taught as God's effect. But of a immediate effect, which Alexander Hodge wants to prove from the passage,

When Jam. 1:18 and 1 Pet. 1:23 say that the rebirth happens "through the word of truth" (λόγω άληϑείας) and "through the Word of God" (διά λόγον ζώντος ϑεον), it only means: "under the Gospel dispensation" or "under the Christian dispensation". Concerning 1 Pet. 1:23, Shedd still remarks in particular: "The 'Word of God,' here, is not 'the incorruptible seed' itself from which the birth proceeds. The Holy Ghost is this."

177 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 149-150]

nothing stands there to prove it. Rather, even in the Epistle to the Philippians, the apostle binds the divine effect for salvation so much to the Word that he still rejoices when Christ is preached even "for the sake of hatred and hatred" (δια φϑόνον καί εριν), chap. 1:15 ff. "4th. The gift of the Spirit is distinguished from the gift of the Word." Again, the same misuse of a scriptural word! The words of Christ Joh. 14:16 are referred to: "I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter." But Christ here calls the Holy Spirit another Comforter in distinction from His, the Son of God's, Person, not in distinction from His Word. Rather, in the same address, Christ says that the Holy Spirit will carry out His ministry of consolation through the words of Christ, v. 26: The Holy Spirit will "remind you of all that I have said to you." "5th. The nature of this influence is evidently different from that effected by the truth, Eph. 1:19; 3:7. And the effect is called a 'new creation,' 'new birth,' etc., etc." In the passage first quoted, however, it stands that we believe by God's omnipotence, "according to the effect of his mighty power," that is, by an act of God's creation. But what it does not say is that this creative act takes place without the Word or apart from the Word. The apostle Paul rejects this thought once and for all when he says: "How shall they believe, of whom they have heard nothing? And how shall they hear without a preacher? So faith comes from by hearing." 661) In the second passage quoted by A. Hodge, Eph. 3:6-7, it is expressly added that the participation of the heathen in Christ and his kingdom is mediated "by the gospel" (διά τον ευαγγελίου), of which the apostle has become the minister. "6th. Man by nature is dead in sin, and needs such a direct intervention of supernatural power." Here the calling to a scriptural passage is missing. Reference is made to Turretin. But even Turretin cannot help here. Man, however, is dead in sins, and only by a supernatural power does he come to believe the gospel. But that this power operates "directly" or "immediately" is a human opinion, raised without Scriptures and held against the Scriptures on the basis of the rationalistic canon that

661) Rom. 10:14, 17.

178 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 150-151]

a "chariot" is neither necessary nor proper to the Holy Spirit in His work for the salvation of men. The Reformed are only deceiving themselves when they refer to Scripture for their doctrine of the means of grace. They do not have this doctrine from Scripture. The scriptural statements, "faith cometh by hearing," "by the apostles' word," and, "born again by the word," "of water and the Spirit," "God made us saved by the bath of regeneration," "ye have received the Spirit by the preaching of faith"—these scriptural statements do not call out in any man's mind, not even in the mind of the Reformed, the idea that faith, regeneration, the Spirit are wrought or received directly, apart from or without Word and Baptism. The Reformed have come to this doctrine because, as in Christology, they have fallen into the hands of a formidable tyrant. The tyrant in Christology is the human axiom: "Finitum non est capax infiniti." The tyrant in the doctrine of the means of grace is the axiom: "Nothing intervenes between the volition of the Spirit and the regeneration of the soul." Under the rule of this tyrant, they interpret the scriptural statements. The inevitable consequence is that all attempted proofs take on the character of sham proofs.

This is also true of Calvin's proof of analogy, which has been inherited like a kind of eternal pest in Reformed theology. We mean the analogy of the physically blind who cannot see without light. Calvin says, “In vain would the light present itself to the blind unless this Spirit of understanding (mentis) would open their mental eyes, so that He [the Holy Spirit] may be justly called the key with which the treasures of the kingdom of heaven are unlocked to us; and His illumination constitutes our mental eyes to behold them” 662) This proof of analogy also appeals to recent Reformed theologians. Macpherson quotes663) the words of Calvin just quoted and calls "the position taken by Calvin a most reasonable and thoroughly consistent one." Hodge, too, repeatedly returns to this proof of the immediate effect of the Holy Spirit: "We may admit," he says, "the value and absolute necessity of

662) Inst. III, 1, 4: Frustra caecis lux se offerret, nisi Spiritus ille intelligentiae aperiret mentis oculos, ut rite elavem vocare queas, qua coelestis regni thesauri nobis reserantur, eiusque illuminationem mentis nostrae aciem ad videndum. [Google]

663) Christian Dogmatics. Edinburgh, 1898, p. 425.

179 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 151-152]

light, while we deny that light can open the eyes of the blind" and: "Men see by the light. Without light vision is impossible. Yet the eyes of the blind are not opened by means of the light."664) Likewise Shedd.665) And yet, in this proof taken from the effectiveness of natural light, there is a deception. Of course, a natural light brought to a physically blind person from the outside does not help him. The blind cannot see the light. But if in the case of the physically blind there were a light which, although brought to him only from the outside, worked the sight in him, he would be helped by such a light. But such a spiritual light, according to the constant doctrine of Scripture, is the word of the gospel. Christ's sermon is for the purpose of "preaching the vision to the blind" (κηρνξαι τυφλοΤς άνάβλεψιν),666) and Paul is sent with the gospel among the heathen to "open their eyes" (άνοϊξαι οφ&αλμους αυτών).667) Faith in the heart is the sight of the previously spiritually blind. But faith comes by the Word of God, both by that which is heard668) and by that which is read.669 Calvin and all who have adopted his proof without examination are thus deceiving themselves by a petitio principii. They should and want to prove that the spiritual enlightenment of the spiritually blind cannot come through the word of truth, the gospel. To prove this, they allow themselves the train of thought: as natural light does not open the eyes of the physically blind, so also the spiritual light of the Word of God does not give sight to the spiritually blind, that is, they assume as already proven that spiritual enlightenment cannot come through the Word of the Gospel. If they were not a priori dominated by this thought, they could not even think of using the natural light in its effect as an analog for the effect of the spiritual light of the Word of God.

We have previously reviewed other arguments that are put forward for a spiritual effect outside and alongside the means of grace.670) Here we refer back to the main arguments

664) System. Theol. II, 700. 685. likewise 1. c., p. 703. 714.

665) Dogmatic Theol., II, 506 f.

666) Luke 4:18.<w:t>667) Acts 26:18.

668) Joh. 17:20; Rom. 10:15-17; Joh. 20:31.

669) John 20:31; 1 John 5:13.<w:t>670) p. 151 ff.

180 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 152-153]

once again from the point of view that in the same a petitio principii and thus a self-deception is present. It is said that saving faith must be based on Christ himself, not on the means of grace. In this argument, which is common to the Reformed, the enthusiasts of all shades, and the newer "experiential theologians," it is assumed as proven that faith can and should be based on Christ apart from and in addition to the means of grace. According to Scripture, however, faith in Christ stands only through faith in Christ's Word671) and without faith in Christ's Word belongs to the realm of imagination.672) The so abundant scolding about hanging on the "dead letter" does not change the fact that one either hangs on the word of Christ or not on Christ at all, but on oneself and one's own thoughts. — It is further said that it is necessary to preserve the honor of God. It is unbearable to ascribe to the means of grace or even to men who handle the means of grace an effect that belongs to God alone. This argument is found in all the Reformed, from Zwingli down to the latest times, and this argument is used to accuse that by the Lutheran doctrine of the means of grace the effect of grace and omnipotence is taken from God and given to external means, at any rate divided between God and the means. Charles Hodge, in his description of the Lutheran doctrine, according to which the efficacy of the Holy Spirit is bound to the Word of God, allows himself the following sentences: "This theory cuts us off from all intercourse with the Spirit and all dependence upon Him as a personal voluntary agent." "God has given opium its narcotic power, and arsenic its power to corrode the stomach, and left them to men to use or to abuse as they see fit. Beyond giving them their properties, He has nothing to do with the effects which they produce. So the Spirit has nothing to do with the conviction, conversion, or sanctification of the people of God, or with illuminating, consoling, or guiding them, beyond once for all giving His Word divine power. There it is: men may use or neglect it as they please. The Spirit does not incline to use it. He does not open their hearts, as He opened the heart of Lydia, to receive the Word. He does not enlighten their eyes to

671) Joh. 8:31-32; 17:20.<w:t>672) 1 Tim. 6:3 ff.

181 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 153-154]

see wondrous things out of the Law."673) This is a wicked charge, however, and Hodge seems to make it bona fide. But even in this argument the spiritus enthusiasticus is merely moving in a petitio principii. He assumes as a priori established that the Holy Spirit, if he would preserve his divine propriety and keep divine efficacy in hand, must renounce the "chariot" and not tie his efficacy to the means of grace. Closer: the Reformed theology assumes that the Spiritus Dei cannot work through means in such a way that the effect thereby remains proper to him, the Spirit of God. According to the Scriptures, however, it stands in such a way that in the divine effect, which takes place through the means of grace, the gracious and omnipotent effect remains God's alone, but the whole divine effect takes place through the means of grace. There is neither a detachment of the divine effect from God nor a distribution of the divine effect between God are the means of grace. God works the whole, and the means of grace work the whole. This is expressed in the scriptural statements: God saves,674) and the Word and baptism save;675) faith comes from God's omnipotence676) and from the Word preached;677) the Spirit makes alive,678) and the words Christ speaks are spirit and are life; 679) Christians are begotten of God,680) and Paul begat Onesimus and the Corinthians, namely, by the gospel, διά τον ευαγγελίου υμάς έγέννησα,681) It also comes down to a petitio principii, when the Reformed theologians refer to the fact that not all hearers of the Word become faithful, and thus think to have proved that the divine effect for bringing forth faith is to be thought of as separate from the external Word.682) Here it is assumed as proven that the unbelief of those who remain unbelieving under the sound

673) Systematic Theol, III, 482. Cf. also II, 656 f. In passing, Hodge also attributes to the Lutheran Church the synergistic doctrine: "The reason why one man is saved and another not is simply that one resists the super-natural power of the Word and another does not." "The difference is in the moral state of those to whom the Word is presented."

674) 2 Tim. 1:9.<w:t>675) Acts 11:14; Jam. 1:21; 1 Pet. 3:21.

676) Eph. 1:19.<w:t>677) Rom. 10:17.<w:t>678) Joh. 6:63 a

679) Joh. <w:t>6:63 d.<w:t>680) Joh. 1:13.<w:t>681) Philemon 10; 1 Cor. 4:15.

682) Zwingli, Opera IV, 125; Calvin on the Consensus Tigurinus; in Niemeyer, p. 209.

182 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 154]

of the word is due to a lack of the divine efficacy of grace in the word. But the Scripture teaches very expressly that the divine efficacy for the production of faith extends also to those who remain unbelieving under the sound of the Word. "How often would I have gathered thy children together — and ye would not." 683) "Ye resist (άντιπίπτετέ) the Holy Spirit at all times, as your fathers did, so do ye."684) The matter therefore stands thus: if the fact that many hearers of the Word remain unbelievers is considered in the light of Scripture, and not from the Reformed point of view of an immediate and irresistible action of the Spirit, it proves not the separation but the binding of the gratia efficax with the external Word of God.

This is perhaps the best place to remind you that all the terminology used by Reformed theologians to distinguish between "common grace" and "efficacious grace" only serves to obscure the true facts for themselves and others. Alexander Hodge answers the question "How does common differ from efficacious grace?" very definitely: "1st. As to its subjects. All men are more or less the subjects of the one; only the elect are subjects of the other." 685) But this terminology proves to be unwarranted as soon as we test it against Scripture. Scripture does not limit grace "effectual unto faith and salvation" to the elect, but expressly extends it to the perishing.686) We are further instructed by the Reformed that the effects of common grace, which are also bestowed upon the lost, remain in the natural realm. "The moral and religious effects ascribed to it [scil, to common grace] never arise above, so to speak, the natural operations of the mind. The knowledge, the faith, the conviction, the remorse, the sorrow, and the joy, which the Spirit is said to produce by these common operations, are all natural affections or exercises, such as one man may measurably awaken in the minds of other men." 687) But this assertion again contradicts Scripture. Scripture also says of

683) Matt. 23:37.<w:t>684) Acts 7:51.

685) Outlines, p. 337. so also Charles Hodge, II, 675. 683 ff.

686) Acts 13:46; 7:51; Matt. 23:37.

687) Charles Hodge II, 674; Alexander Hodge, Outlines, p. 337.

183 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 154-155]

those who are lost, that they have received the knowledge of the truth and have been sanctified by Christ's blood.688) It should also be noted that by the term common grace, all those who, like Charles Hodge, explicitly limit Christ's merit to the elect are deceiving themselves and others.689) If the ransom paid by Christ and accepted by God ("the ransom paid and accepted") does not apply to all men, then there is no common grace at all, that is, grace extending to all men. Therefore, it is obvious that the whole terminology, according to which a distinction is made between common grace and efficacious grace, does not belong to the field of scriptural teaching, but to the field of human self-deception. It is only a play with words.

In a summary assessment of the Reformed doctrine of the means of grace, it is also necessary to point out the pernicious consequences that necessarily occur when we men try to detach ourselves from the divine order of the means of grace, that is, when we accept a divine opening of grace and the effect of grace for salvation apart from and alongside the means of grace. We summarize what was said earlier and elaborate on some points.

We men cannot break away from the divine order with impunity, neither in the realm of nature nor in the realm of grace. As far as the kingdom of nature is concerned, it is generally recognized that every violation of the "laws of nature" carries the punishment within itself. If in the realm of grace we try to break away from the divine ordered means of grace, exactly everything is turned upside down. All the Christian concepts that come into consideration in the faith and life of a Christian: the saving grace, the saving faith, the assurance of grace and blessedness, the fellowship with God and Christ, the witness of the Holy Spirit — all these concepts are perversed into their opposite. In place of the saving grace of God, that is, in place of the gracious disposition of God in Christ, favor Dei propter Christ, we put an immediate effect of grace in man, a gratia infusa, which, however, is a conceit, because the Holy Spirit does not indulge in an immediate infusion of grace. In place of the saving faith, which is always only vis-à-vis the

688)<w:t>Hebr. 10:26, 29.<w:t xml:space="preserve">689) Syst. Theol., II, 323.

184 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 155-156]

the only way in which the Holy Spirit's word of the Gospel comes into being and exists is through human excitement on the basis of an imagined direct effect of the Spirit. The certainty of faith in grace and salvation, which the Holy Spirit always works only on the way of faith in the forgiveness of sins offered in the means of grace, is replaced by the human decision, one can say: a stubbornness, to ascribe to oneself the sonship of God on the basis of imaginary effects of grace, a decision that breaks down miserably and is revealed as self-deception as soon as there is a real recognition of sins with the terrores conscientiae. Likewise, a human imagination takes the place of a real personal fellowship with God. As certainly as, according to Scripture, fellowship with Christ and God is imparted only through faith in Christ's Word, so certainly is an intercourse with God on the basis of allegedly immediate spiritual action not an intercourse with God, but an intercourse with oneself and a playing with one's own thoughts. Likewise, the immediacy theory substitutes a quid pro quo for the testimony of the Holy Spirit. God's Spirit bears inward witness to our sonship with God (testimonium Spiritus Sancti internum) by working in our hearts faith in God's testimony of His Son, that is, faith in the outward Word of God. "God's testimony is that which He has begotten of His Son. He that believeth on the Son of God hath such testimony in him (εν έαντφ). He that believeth not God maketh him a liar: for he believeth not the testimony” (the external word is meant) "which God beareth of his Son." 690) Putting aside God's testimony of His Son, that is, the outward Word of the Gospel, the Holy Spirit does not bear witness to him, but he issues a testimony to himself concerning his state of grace and sonship to God. With the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit, which is present through faith in the Word of the Gospel wrought by the Holy Spirit, the external testimony of the Holy Spirit, testimonium Spiritus Sancti externum, which is present in good works, is also lost. Good works are always only the fruits of that faith that has arisen through the word of the gospel (δια τον λόγου αυτών, scil, the apostle’s, Jn. 17:20) and therein

690) 1 John 5:9-10.

185 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 156]

has its existence. There is no faith that is worked apart from and beside the Word, therefore there are no fruits of it. In short, insofar as we detach ourselves from the means of grace ordered by God and place ourselves on an immediate inner illumination and effect of grace, Christianity is transformed into a groundless subjectivism. Instead of placing man on the rock foundation of the Word of God, we place him on himself. Instead of raising man to a position outside of himself, we push him back to his ego. Instead of imparting to him real intercourse with Christ and through Christ with God, we direct him to intercourse with himself and his own thoughts, moods and aspirations. This subjectivism has been described finely and scientifically, but also crudely and coarsely.691)

One more special type of self-deception should be mentioned, which is bound up with the assumption of the direct effect of the Spirit. It is found on the Reformed side both among the old and newer theologians and in the Reformed confessional writings. This is the attempt to assign to the means of grace the function that they represent, confirm and seal externally that which the Holy Spirit works directly and internally. Even if the saving grace, efficacious grace, does not come through the means of grace, the means of grace, especially the sacraments, nevertheless perform the important service of confirming the immediate gift and communication of the Spirit to those who are immediately born again or have become believers, thus attesting to it as genuine.692) There is so little sparing of compliments

691) It has been said that insofar as we detach ourselves from the external Word, we cannot go beyond a "fantasy of God and Christ," beyond "autosuggestion," beyond "projections of the self." Roughly, it has been said: We cannot get beyond the man "who raised himself by his own boot-straps," beyond the cat who plays with his own tail, beyond Munchausen who pulls himself and his horse out of the mire by his own head. Luther, too, wants to characterize the subjectivism introduced with the separation of the spirit from the external word when he uses the well-known coarse expression: "They lead me onto the monkey's tail." (St. L. III, 1693.)

692) This is the name given to the sacraments in Reformed confessional writings (the page numbers according to Niemeyer), Heidelb. Kat., p. 407: "visible sacred warzeichen und Sigill"; I. Helvet., p. 111: "Zeichen göttlicher Gnaden"; Catech. Genev., p. 60: externa divinae erga nos benevolentiae testificatio, quae visibili signo spirituales gratias figurat, ad obsignandas cordibus nostris Dei promissiones; Consens. Tigurinus, p.. 193: The noblest purpose of the sacraments is. ut per ea nobis gratiam suam testetur Deus, repraesentet atque obsignet. [Google]

186 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 157]

paid to the means of grace in this respect that both the old and the newer Reformed are eloquent on this point. Although Zwingli "never read in Scripture" that the sacraments bring grace and the Spirit,693) he will readily admit (he says: volens ac libens admitto) "that the sacraments are given for a public testimony (testimonium publicum) of the grace that each individual has beforehand."694) Exactly so Calvin. Although Calvin also does not want to know anything about grace and the Spirit being brought through the sacraments as through vessels and chariots (ceu vasculis et plaustris), at the same time he praises in many words the sacraments for being pledges and landmarks (arrhae et tesserae) that confirm grace as genuine, Calvin thinks that when the doctrines of the sacraments are taught in this way, "the dignity of the sacraments is gloriously praised, their use clearly indicated, and their benefit richly extolled.695) Likewise Böhl. He first assures us with great firmness that by such an institution as baptism sin cannot be washed away and regeneration wrought. He says, "The water" (of baptism) "cannot do such high things." 696) But then he stresses just as firmly that baptism is a "sign," indeed "a clear proof" that God is willing to wash us inwardly from sins through Christ's blood and Spirit. Baptism is "signum ablutionis". "As water cleanses us from outward filth, so Christ's blood and Spirit cleanses us from all our sins." 697) Nor does Böhl allow the word of the Gospel to be a medium of forgiveness of sins and of the Spirit's action, but he makes it a sign of piety directly wrought beforehand. He says: " Only to those made alive by the Holy Spirit

693) Fidei ratio; Niemeyer, p. 24.<w:t>694) op. cit. p. 25.

695) Inst. IV, 14, 17.<w:t xml:space="preserve">696) Dogmatik, p. 560.

697) op. cit., p. 558. Böhl only refers to Acts 22:16; Eph. 5:26; Tit. 3:5 without printing the passages. If he had printed the scriptures, his theory of signs would have been refuted. The passages do not say of the water of baptism that it cleanses from outward filth, but on the contrary that it washes away sins, cleanses from sins and saves: Acts 22:16: "Be baptized and wash away your sins"; Eph. 5:26: Christ cleansed the church "by the bath of water in the Word"; Tit. 3:5: God "saved us by the bath of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit".

187 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 158]

are those assurances of Jesus that the Word cleanses them”; "where it [the Word] meets with like personalities enlightened by the Holy Spirit in regeneration" (directly) "this Word of Scripture cannot fail to make an impression on them." 698) In short, the Reformed seek to cover the deficit in their doctrine of the means of grace by declaring the God-ordained means of grace, especially the sacraments, to be external signs, images, and thus stamps of authenticity of the inner, immediately conferred grace. But here there is a great self-deception. The means of grace do not know of any direct grace, but only of a grace which they themselves convey, that is, bring, offer and give. The forgiveness of sins and salvation is not signified or pictured by the gospel, but proclaimed and promised so that it may be believed by the hearers.699) Nor is faith imaged or signified by the gospel, but comes or arises from the sermon of the gospel.700) Neither does regeneration have its outward sign in the means of grace, but is wrought by the word and baptism.701) And as for the Spirit, it likewise is received by faith through the sermon,702) not signified or outwardly represented. It stands, therefore, indeed, that the means of grace do not picture and confirm immediate grace, but exhibit the testimony of inauthenticity to every "grace," to every "faith," to every "regeneration," which any one thinks he has obtained before the means of grace, beside the means of grace, and without the means of grace. Therefore, the Reformed, insofar as they teach an immediate revelation of grace and effect of grace, have no right to call the sacraments signs and seals of grace. That they use these expressions is again proof of the fact that certain expressions are perpetuated from generation to generation without any account being given of the meaning of the expressions. The historians of dogma who leave the use of the expressions "sign," "seal," etc. among the Reformed unchallenged also betray a lack of proper judgment. Only the Lutheran church with its doctrine that through Christ's substitutionary satisfaction for all men there is forgiveness of sins,

698) Op. cit., p. 445 f.<w:t>699) Luke 24:47; Acts 13:46.

700) Joh. 17:20; Rom. 10:17.<w:t>701) 1 Pet. 1:23; Tit. 3:5.

702) Gal. 3:2, 5.

188 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 158-159]

and that God promises this forgiveness of sins through the means of grace to all who use them, has a right to call also the sacraments "signs and testimonies of the [gracious] will" of God, as is done in the Augsburg Confession and in the other confessions.703)

If one wants to call our judgment that through the Reformed doctrine of the direct action of the Spirit personal Christianity is dissolved into

703) The terminology of the 13th article of the Augsburg Confession, that the sacraments are "signs and testimonies of divine will toward us, to awaken and strengthen our faith thereby," is to be recognized and held as classical and entirely appropriate. The terminology is based on the universal and perfect reconciliation of the world, which was accomplished through Christ. As God-ordered signs of this fact, the sacraments are never "empty signs," but they testify to everyone who uses them, certainly and infallibly, that God is gracious to him, for which reason faith also belongs to the salutary use of the sacraments on the part of man. As signs ordered by God, they are the hands of God, from which faith should and can take the forgiveness of sins. As Luther says in the Large Catechism (458, 55 [Trigl. 693, Art. III, 55 🔗]): "Everything is ordered in Christendom to obtain daily the forgiveness of sins through word and sign [the sacraments], to comfort and raise our conscience as long as we live here." Thus, in the Lutheran Confession, for the characterization of the sacraments, the expressions "sign of grace," "sign of the New Testament," "sign of the forgiveness of sins," etc., are often repeated, Apol. 173, 42 [Trigl. 261, XII, 42 🔗]: Sacramenta sunt signa novi testamenti, hoc est, signa remissionis peccatorum; 204, 14 [Ibid., 311, XIII, 14 🔗]: Sacramenta proprie sunt signa novi testamenti et sunt testimonia gratiae et remissionis peccatorum; 259, 49 [Ibid. 401, XXIV, 49 🔗]: Sacramentum ad hoc institutum est, ut sit sigillum et testimonium gratuitae remissionis peccatorum, ideoque debeat pavidas conscientias admonere, ut vere statuant et credant, sibi gratis remitti peccata; 264, 69 [Ibid. 409, XXII, 69 🔗]: Sacramenta sunt signa voluntatis Dei erga nos, non tantum signa sunt hominum inter sese, et recte definiunt sacramenta in novo testamento esse signa gratiae, [Google] in the German text: "And those are right who say that the sacraments are signa gratia, that is, the sacraments are signs of grace." It is terminology that does not accurately describe the situation when the difference between the Lutheran Church and the Reformed fellowships is determined to the effect that for the Reformed the sacraments (and the means of grace in general) are only signs of divine grace, whereas according to Lutheran doctrine the means of grace also offer and give what they signify. The situation is rather that the Reformed, due to their doctrine of gratia particularis and the direct communication of grace, do not find the means of grace signs, but rather sources of doubt concerning the gracious disposition of God. They can mean both wrath and grace to the individual man who uses them, under the condition of particular grace and direct spiritual effect.

189 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 159-160]

human subjectivism and amounts to self-deception a "hard address," we feel impelled to make a concession first. We concede that, from the natural human point of view, all efforts to obtain the grace of God, the Holy Spirit, and personal fellowship with God, apart from and in addition to the divinely ordained means of grace, command a certain respect when these efforts give the impression of natural religious seriousness. Truly, one cannot deny natural respect to monks like Luther, who pursue inward fellowship with God in the way of monasticism with all seriousness. The same natural respect is involuntarily shown to serious Quakers even in their extreme, the "silent meetings". Nor do we find it above us to sneer at the revival meetings of the Negroes when they try to summon "the Holy Spirit" with wild shouting and repulsive gestures. The ridicule which unbelieving newspaper writers pour upon the revival meetings of the Negroes and the whites fills us with disgust. But all natural respect for these human-serious efforts for the Spirit and the fellowship of God must not cloud our scriptural judgment that all intercourse with God and all personal fellowship with God apart from and alongside the means of grace is based on self-deception. It stands clear from Holy Scriptures that the Holy Spirit does not engage in an immediate effect of faith. The Holy Spirit does not follow Zwingli's Fidei Ratio, in which it reminds that he (the Holy Spirit) does not need a vehiculum. The Holy Spirit remains with his vehiculum because he has declared through his instrument, the apostle Paul, that he is received by faith through the sermon. The Holy Spirit also does not follow Shedd, Hodge and Böhl, who instruct him that efficacious grace does not take place through the means of grace, but directly. The Holy Spirit also behaves in a thoroughly recalcitrant manner with regard to the "silent meetings" of the Quakers, because He does not want to be effective through silence, but through the proclamation of the Gospel. He is, however, immediately present when the Quakers, in contradiction with their principle, diligently read the Bible, that is, the external Word. The Holy Spirit also gives nothing for the often very noisy meetings of the revival preachers. He does not come through shouting and noise. He also gives nothing for drums

190 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 160-161]

and flags. But he is immediately present when Christ, crucified to pay for the sins of the world, and faith in him as the way to salvation are proclaimed in these gatherings. In short, the Holy Spirit insists on his vehiculum. Insofar as one puts aside this vehiculum, the Holy Spirit is not there, but a product of another spirit and of one's own spirit is awakened, which one mistakenly takes for a product of the Holy Spirit and for the Holy Spirit Himself. Luther's judgment on the efforts of all those who assume a direct efficacy of the Holy Spirit is scriptural: "You must, they say, have the Spirit; but how I can have the Spirit they will not let me have. Now, how can I get the Spirit and believe, unless the Word of God is preached to me and the sacraments are administered? I must have the means; for faith cometh by hearing, but hearing by the oral word, Rom. 10:17." 704)

But to the summary evaluation of the Reformed means of grace doctrine belongs also the indication of a happy inconsistency, whereby the means of grace disavowed in theory are restituted in practice. This happens in more than one way. First of all, it must be remembered that the Reformed teachers and pastors themselves are not silent, but speak and write abundantly of God's mercy in Christ, of Christ's atoning sacrifice for man, of God's Word to be heard and read, and so on.705) This is admittedly inconsistent on the premise that spirit, faith and regeneration do not come through the external word. But God is very gracious and the Holy Spirit very faithful. Although men erroneously say that He directly works that by which a man is actually saved (efficacious grace), He uses the Word preached by them, insofar as it is the Word of God, as a means by which He produces faith and regeneration. — On the other hand, it must be remembered that the Reformed teachers do not remain consistent even in the exposition of their doctrine of the means of grace. On the one hand, Calvin warns against wanting to recognize eternal election from the external word of the Gospel,706) and the Geneva Catechism inculcates not to seek salvation in the sacraments.707) But besides this we find both in

704) St. L. III, 1695 f.<w:t>705) Smalc. Art., M. 322, 6. [Trigl. 495, 6 🔗]

706) Inst. III, 24, 8.<w:t>707) Niemeyer, p. 161.

191 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 161-162]

Calvin as well as in the Geneva Catechism and the other Reformed confessional writings that they call the external word the foundation of faith, exhort708) to hear and read it, and also refer to word and sacrament as means by which faith comes and is strengthened.709) Whoever leaves aside what is wrong and accepts only what is right — which undoubtedly happens in many cases — remains in the land of truth. The Reformed fully lay down their arms when it is necessary to free those who are challenged about their election from the distress of conscience. Then they remain silent about particular grace and immediate effectiveness and refer the fearful to the external statements of Scripture, in which the grace of God in Christ is promised to all men without exception. This, of course, is again very inconsistent. But insofar as, in this inconsistency, divine truth forces itself forth, if only in accommodation to the way of speaking of Scripture, the Holy Spirit has an opportunity to direct His work in producing faith in the Gospel.

This circumstance must not, of course, lead us to indifference with regard to the Reformed doctrine of the means of grace. We believe that we have amply demonstrated that it is contrary to Scripture and that it brings about a complete revolution in the relationship that God has established between Himself and man, in that it does not place man on the word of grace and thus on Christ and God Himself, but instructs him to place himself on himself and his own activity. Therefore, indifferentism is certainly not in place here. Rather, it is necessary to deny the assumption of a spiritual effect apart from and besides the Word any justification within the Christian church, to fight it as a foreign body that has penetrated the Christian doctrine and as a mortal enemy of the personal life of faith. Moreover, the representatives of this

708) Calvin, Inst. III, 2, 6: Verbum basis est, qua fulcitur et sustinetur [fides] ; unde si declinat, corruit. Tolle igitur verbum et nulla iam restabit fides. [Google]

709) Confessio Anglicana XXV (Niemeyer, p. 606): Sacramenta a Christo instituta non tantum sunt notae professionis Christianorum, sed certa quaedam potius testimonia et efficacia signa gratiae atque bonae in nos voluntatis Dei, per quae invisibiliter ipse in nos operatur, nostramque fidem in se non solum excitat, verum etiam confirmat. [One notices here the connection to the wording of the 13th article of the Augsburg Confession.

192 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 162]

misconception are by no means always peaceful people. They rather go on the warpath and say all kinds of evil things about the Biblical truth. They claim, as has already been repeatedly pointed out, that through the doctrine of a divine revelation of grace and the effect of grace, which takes place only through the Word of God and the sacraments, an external Christianity is cultivated, a "cession" of the divine power of the Holy Spirit to the Word of Scripture takes place710) and in general that which is God's alone is transferred to men.711) To this end, their polemics not infrequently take on an impure character. They make use of the evil procedure of the Council of Trent.712) They combine the biblical truth with an obvious error, e.g. with the Roman doctrine of the effect of the sacraments ex opere operato, and pronounce the condemnation sentence on both at the same time — on the truth and on the error. Beza, for example, proceeds in this way. Beza calls it "a palpable error, drawn from the fetid puddles of the scholastics, when the power to communicate grace is attributed to God as author, but as a tool to the sacraments."713) We must also point out another extremely ugly side effect. It is spiritual arrogance. Because those who cherish the idea of an activity of the Holy Spirit apart from and in addition to the means of grace deal with imaginary, self-made magnitudes, they consider themselves, as experience abundantly proves, to be truly spiritual people and Christians of the first class, while they regard Christians who remain in simple faith in the means of grace ordered by God as mere intellectualists, at most as Christians of the second class. Zwingli expresses his disdain for Luther's Christianity with the words: "I want to show you [Luther] that you have not recognized the broad, glorious light of

710) Böhl, Dogmatik, p. 440.

711) So Calvin, Inst. IV, 14, 17: Notandum, quod externa actione figurat et testatur minister, Deum intus peragere, ne ad hominem mortalem trahatur, quod Deus sibi uni vendicat. [Google] Cf. Calvin in Niemeyer, p. 208.

712) Sess. VI, can. 10.

713) Quenstedt II, 1131: Beza in Actis Colloq. Mompelgart., Pastor 2, p. 115, vocat, errorem palpabilem ex foetidis Scholasticorum lacunis haustum, si vis conferendae gratiae principalis quidem Deo, instrumentalis autem sacramentis tribuatur [Google].

.

193 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 162-163]

the gospel, because you have forgotten it again.”714) The same phenomenon appears with the enthusiasts who appeared within the Lutheran church in old and new times.715) This high self-assessment holds its own as long as there is no serious distress of conscience. If the latter occurs, the arrogance ends in despair, unless a conversion to Lutheran territory takes place, that is, unless faith is based on the external word that has been despised until now.

Is there an essential difference between the representatives of the immediate spiritual realm? Many things have been written about the difference between Zwingli and Calvin. In the history of dogma there is a tendency to assume an essential difference between Zwingli and Calvin. For example, the third edition of Winer's "Comparative Exposition" states:716) "The older Reformed confessions, which were written by Zwingli, teach differently about the sacraments. Zwingli's Fidei ratio: Credo, imo scio, omnia sacramenta tam abesse, ut gratiam conferant, ut ne adferant quidem aut dispensent. [“I believe, nay, I know, that all the sacraments are so far from conferring grace, that they do not even bring or dispense them.”] The doctrine of the later ones, influenced by Calvin, on the other hand, can be summarized approximately under the following points of view: 1. symbola mystica; 2. They are signs of his grace instituted by God, thus more than mere moral presentations of the heavenly; such could also be introduced by the church; 3. They are signs of what the Holy Spirit works inwardly; sign and effect coincide." This is misleading. Zwingli, too, claims for his doctrine of the sacraments that the sacraments are signs or symbols of the inner work of the Spirit instituted by God, and that sign and effect coincide, namely, in the sense that in the elect the signs depict and represent what is directly wrought by the Spirit.717) But Calvin does not get beyond this either. In fact, this is how it stands: There is no basis for a real disagreement between

714) St. L. XX, 1131.<w:t xml:space="preserve">715) Cf. II, 633 ff. <w:t xml:space="preserve">716) p. 117.

717) We can convince ourselves of this by reading only a few pages in Zwingli's Fidei ratio. In Niemeyer, De sacramentis, p. 25. 26: Credo, o Caesar, sacramentum esse sacrae rei, hoc est, factae gratiae, signum. Credo esse invisibilis gratiae, quae scilicet Dei munere facta et data est, visibilem figuram, hoc est, visibile exemplum, quod tamen fere analogiam quandam rei per Spiritum gestae prae se fert. Therefore the sacraments are religiose colenda, hoc est, in pretio habenda. [Google]

194 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 163-164]

Zwingli and Calvin. It stands here with the doctrine of the means of grace as with the doctrines of Christ's person and work and of the Lord's Supper. In these doctrines Zwingli and Calvin and all the Reformed remain united as long as they agree that Christ's body has only a local and visible mode of being or presence. Thus also in the doctrine of the means of grace Zwingli and Calvin cannot differ essentially, because both agree in two things: first, that Christ's merit and saving grace do not go to all who use the means of grace; second, that saving grace is not bound to the means of grace. Therefore, "sign" and "effect" never coincide for either. According to Scripture, the signs are signs of grace for all, according to Zwingli and Calvin only for the elect. According to Scripture, the saving work of the Spirit takes place through the Word and the sacraments. According to Zwingli and Calvin, this effect is not bound to the means of grace. Sign and effect come together only if the teaching of Scripture is adhered to, that the grace of God in Christ is not particular, but universal, and the Holy Spirit is active through the means of grace in all for the production of saving faith in the grace offered. Guericke points to Calvin's definition of the sacraments,718) which sounds much fuller than Zwingl's, but then continues, "But it is really more so in appearance than in essence. Even according to Calvin's doctrine and the symbolic Reformed doctrine shaped under Calvin's influence, the visible signs in the sacraments do not communicate as such an invisible divine thing, but only represent it in some way and seal it; according to Calvin, participation in the sacrament is only incidentally connected, although quite independently of the external signs,719) with a communicating effect of the Holy Spirit, but not for all participants, but only for the believers, for the predestinated; for all

718) Inst. IV, 14, 1: Quid sit sacramentum. Videtur autem mihi haec simplex et propria fore definitio, si dixerimus, externum esse symbolum, quo benevolentiae erga nos suae promissiones conscientiis nostris Dominus obsignat ad sustinendam fidei nostrae imbecillitatem, et nos vicissim pietatem erga eum nostram tam coram eo et angelis quam apud homines testamur. Licet etiam maiore compendio aliter definire: ut vocetur divinae in nos gratiae testimonium externo signo confirmatum, cum mutua nostrae erga ipsum pietatis testificatione. [Google]

719) "Ab externo ministerio distincta." Inst. IV, 14, 17.

195 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 164-165]

others, the sacraments themselves are nothing but dead, completely ineffective signs. From the sacrament as a sensual sign, the sanctifying and saving power is and remains sharply separated, even according to Calvin's as well as Zwingli's doctrine."720)

There is no factual justification at all to assume an essential difference between the representatives of the direct effect of the spirit, no matter who they are and whether they belong to the 16th or 20th century. Luther has been reproached for putting all those who assume a spiritual effect "without and before the word" into one class. In particular, it has been regretted by more recent Lutherans that Luther saw the same "enthusiast" in Zwingli as in Carlstadt and the Zwickau prophets.721) But even if we acknowledge differences — and indeed great differences — in the outward manner of appearance, we cannot escape the perception that Zwingli, for example, agreed with Thomas Münzer in the following matters: 1. In the doctrine that the Holy Spirit must reach the spirit of man without means; 2. In the accusation that Luther, because he did not want to know of any spiritual revelation and spiritual activity apart from and besides the outward word of the gospel, did not understand the gospel correctly and corrupted the true reformation of the church. Both therefore also thought that they were called to be reformers besides and above Luther. Muenzer called himself "Martin's rival with the Lord". Zwingli reminded them that Luther was only "one honest Ajax or Diomedes" among many heroes in the Greek camp.722) Both wanted to reform the state and the social relationships with the gospel, as they understood it miraculously. We would also leave the standpoint of objective judgment if we did not also want to bring the newer Reformed dogmatists and the "experiential theologians" who call themselves Lutheran under the general title of "enthusiasts". As Münzer wanted to lead "without any means" "into the spirit and to God" and Zwingli claimed that the Holy Spirit reaches "ad solum spiritum" "without a chariot", so also Hodge says: "Nothing intervenes between the volition of the Spirit and the regeneration of the soul"723) and Shedd: "The influence of the Holy Spirit is directly upon

720) Symbolik 2, p. 437 ff.<w:t>721) Meusel VII, 403.

722) St. L. XX, 1134.<w:t xml:space="preserve">723) System. Theol., II, 684.

196 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 165-166]

the human spirit, and is independent even of the Word itself"724) and Ihmels: "Even today only that is real faith in Jesus Christ, which is forced upon man by His appearance itself. "725) In short, it stands thus: All who hold the πρώτον ψενδος that the Holy Spirit works faith or regeneration apart from and alongside the external Word belong in one class. The existing differences reduce themselves to a more or less consistent carrying out of the fundamental error. The Reformed and Lutheran doctrines of the means of grace form complete opposites. The former maintains that the actual saving effect of the Spirit is not to be tied to the means of grace. The latter declares everything to be deception and fraud of the evil spirit, which is praised by the spirit without word and sacrament. These opposites have their type in Zwingli on the one hand and in Luther on the other.

Why this difference between Zwingli and Luther? Why Luther — as a recent Reformed theologian726) put it — "the kind of faith resting directly on word and sacrament", while Zwingli warns against clinging to such external things as word and sacrament? The reason for the difference is this: Luther became the reformer of the church through deep confession of sin and under years of terrible anguish of conscience, and learned in God's school that the conscience, struck by God's law, can become certain of God's grace in no other way than by faithful grasping of the grace promised in the objective Word of God and in the objective sacraments. Hence "Luther's way of faith resting directly on word and sacrament." Again and again Luther says: Experto crede Ruperto: "Where you do not seek forgiveness in the Word, you will gape in vain toward heaven for grace, or, as they say, inward forgiveness." 727) Zwingli's "Reformation," on the other hand, did not initially arise from anguish of conscience, but grew out of the soil of humanism. Zwingli did not want both to quiet a conscience stricken by God's law by witnessing to the gospel of the forgiveness of sins, but rather to bring about an improvement in the decayed morals,

724) Dogmatic Theol., II, 501.<w:t xml:space="preserve">725) Zentralfragen, p. 89.

726) E. F. Karl Müller, RE. 3 XV, 599.727) St. L. XIX, 946.

197 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 166-167]

which was the program of humanism and especially of Erasmus. Because Zwingli had not, like Luther, come to despair of himself and all his own actions under the terrores conscientiae, he had also not come to the realization through experience that nothing else saves from doubt and despair than the faithful grasp of the objective divine promise of grace, which is present in the external word of the gospel and in the sacraments. Hence Zwingli's disdain, even rejection, of the objective means of grace when it comes to the question of how man becomes partaker and certain of grace and the Spirit. The humanistic starting point of Zwingli's Reformation is fairly universally recognized in recent dogma history. Seeberg says:728) "Luther at that time" (when Zwingli took up the pastorate in Glarus in 1506) "sought 'a gracious God' in the monastery. When Luther began the great struggle in 1517, Zwingli was searching the Scriptures 'at Einsiedeln in the dark forest' for the true philosophy of Christ. The former stepped out of the solitude of inner struggles into the great struggle of the church; the latter had come to know men and life when he devoted himself to his studies in solitude. The religious need of his own heart guided Luther; the personal experience of faith made him a Reformer. Zwingli followed the counsel of Erasmus and the humanistic train of the time when he turned to the 'very purest sources'. He had a different starting point than Luther, namely the humanistic critical mood towards the church and the doctrine, the return to the sources or the conviction that only the biblical doctrine is truth. These were ideas that Erasmus espoused, and to which the majority of the educated cheered." Seeberg goes on to say,729) that the "undeniable difference" between Zwingli and Luther "can be understood from the fact that Zwingli owes the impetus for his thoughts to the Erasmian Enlightenment. … In all areas the medieval and humanistic barrier in Zwingli's doctrines and work confronts us, and in such a way that it establishes the difference to Luther's thoughts." Capito wrote to Bullinger in 1536 that he (Capito) and Zwingli had drawn their reformation thoughts "ex Erasmi consuetudine" before Luther's appearance (antequam Lutherus in lucem emerserat).730) That Zwingli never completely came out of the Erasmian ideas

728) Dogmengesch. II, 294.<w:t xml:space="preserve">729) A. a. O., p. 304.

730) Gieseler III, 1, p. 138.

198 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 167-168]

is also evident from the fact that shortly before his death, in his Christianae Fidei Expositio, he included Hercules, Theseus, Socrates, Aristides, Numa, etc. among the saints in heaven, in addition to the saints of the Old and New Testaments, in addition to Isaiah and Elijah, and in addition to Peter and Paul.731) Because Luther had formed a favorable opinion of Zwingli and his comrades after the colloquium in Marburg, because there they "indulged in so many good articles," he was very shocked when he saw Zwingli's writing in which he places the mentioned heathens among the Christian saints in heaven. Luther wrote on it the words which, under the circumstances, have been resented by many: “Tell me, you who would be a Christian, what need is there of Baptism, the Sacrament, Christ, the Gospel, or the Prophets, and Holy Scripture, if such godless heathen, Socrates, Aristides, even the dreadful Numa, who through the devil’s instigation was the first to institute the idolatry of all nations at Rome, as St. Augustine reports in De civitate Dei, and Scipio, the Epicurean, are blessed and saints with the patriarchs, Prophets, and Apostles in heaven, though they knew nothing of God, Scripture, the Gospel, Christ, Baptism, and the Sacrament, or the Christian faith? What can such a writer, preacher, and teacher believe of the Christian faith other than that it is on a level with all religions and that everyone can be saved by whatever he believes, even an idolater and Epicurean like Numa and Scipio?”732) Luther therefore rejects the claim that Zwingli died as a Christian martyr, especially since he "also had a worldly evil cause, since he acted maliciously against the other part by blocking the roads."733) But Luther adds: "I would like very much that he [Zwingli] would be chastised according to these passages [l Cor. 5:5; 11:32: 'chastened by the Lord, that we be not condemned with the world']; for I was and still am exceedingly sorry for such his misfortune." 734) Although Zwingli very decidedly — one must say in a morbid way — emphasized his independence from Luther,735) he nevertheless

731) St. L. XX, 1767.<w:t xml:space="preserve">732) A. a. O.. S. 1767.

733) "The five Catholic cantons were deprived of their supply by occupying the roads; this caused them to wage war against the Zurichers." (St. L. XX, 1777:note 3.)

734) op. cit., p. 1777.

735) Uslegen der Schlußreden 1523. Uslegung des XVIII. Art. (Opp. 1, 253): “Prior to and before ever any man in our neighborhood knew anything of Luther’s name,

199 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 168]

embodied much of the Evangelical truth brought to light by Luther into his writings.736)

But even apart from the Erasmian origin in Zwingli, the Reformed doctrine, as a result of the assumption of a direct effect of the spirit, places man on his own working and doing. That the Reformed doctrine, in contrast to the Lutheran, bears a "legal character" is quite generally conceded. Schneckenburger says that in the Reformed doctrine of the appropriation of salvation "an approximation to Catholic doctrine" is discernible.737) Seeberg remarks: "Zwingli does not feel that the law is an expression of a different worldview; imperceptibly the gospel becomes the 'nüwen Gesatz.'" 738) Rarely, however, is it pointed out by more recent theologians that this "legalistic stamp" or this "approach to Catholic doctrine" is a necessary consequence of the Reformed doctrine of the means of grace. We must, if we are to remain factual, give an even sharper version to the judgment that reads "legal stamp." We must say that the Reformed doctrine of the means of grace, unless it is broken by inconsistency, places man not merely in part, but wholly, on his own activity and works. This judgment therefore corresponds to the real state of affairs, because the immediate effect of the Spirit, which Reformed theology insists upon from Zwingli to Shedd, is a non-ens, existing only in the human imagination. If, however, the Holy Spirit does not concede to the immediate effect of the Spirit — and this stands firm from the Holy Scriptures — then nothing remains but that man produces from himself such states of soul, moods, changes and works which have an outward resemblance to the genuine product of the Holy Spirit. Thus

I had begun to preach the Gospel of Christ in the year 1516.” op. cit., p. 254: “For who has taught me to preach the Gospel and to preach an entire Evangelist serially? Was it perhaps Luther? But indeed I began such preaching before ever I had heard Luther mentioned.” By "Evangelion" Zwingli understood sermons, rather than on the pericopes, on the "Evangelion, described by Matthäo." For him, “Luther’s writing helped me little at that time toward the preaching of Matthew.”

736) Seeberg, II, 294 f. also insists on this: "Zwingli found Luther's thoughts in Scripture after he had learned them from Luther."

737) Vergleichende Darstellung, p. 160.<w:t xml:space="preserve">738) Dogmengesch. II, 299.

200 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 169]

the Reformed doctrine of the means of grace is driven with inner necessity into the Roman doctrine of works. Recently, however, it has been strongly emphasized that Reformed theology has an antidote to the Roman doctrine of works in its doctrine of predestination. Seeberg remarks: "In contrast to the Roman doctrine of merit and works Zwingli developed his doctrine of predestination",739) and of Zwingli's "determinism" Seeberg judges that "it has proven itself as a weapon against the Roman teaching of salvation by works".740) Schneckenburger also sees in the Reformed doctrine of predestination the factor that delivers the Reformed doctrine from the Roman camp and secures for it a place "in the soil of Evangelical Protestantism." Schneckenburger says: "Out of the soil of Evangelical Protestantism, however, it [the Reformed doctrine] remains only through the idea of predestination and the irresistible effect of grace." 741) Even more effusively, with regard to the alleged anti-Roman character of the Reformed doctrine of predestination, Meusel reads: "Unquestionably, this doctrine of predestination of Zwingli has thoroughly eliminated the synergism of the Roman Church."742) But this is a deception. Just the opposite is the case. The "predestination" assumed by Reformed theology, just like the immediate spiritual effect, is only a human imagination, because it includes in itself the assumption of the immediate spiritual effect. But no real effect of grace emanates from an imaginary factor. There is, however, an eternal election. But just as this eternal election did not take place directly, but by the way of the means of grace,743) , so it also does not take place directly in time, but by the way of the means of grace,744) , as has already been shown in the outline745) and is to be explained in more detail in the doctrine of election. Therefore, the election taught by the Reformers, which includes the assumption of the direct effect of the Spirit, which does not exist at all, does not form a "counterweight" against the Roman doctrine of works, but only pushes us even more into our own human activity. It is necessary to produce such moods, changes and works by one's own action, which seem to be marks

739) op. cit., II, p. 300.<w:t xml:space="preserve">740) op. cit., p. 304.

741) op. cit., p. 160.<w:t xml:space="preserve">742) Handlexikon VII, 405.

743) 2 Thess. 2:13.<w:t>744) 2 Thess. 2:14; 2 Tim. 1:9-10.

745) II, 498.

201 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 169-170]

of eternal election. There is only one deliverancer from the works doctrine for Reformed theology. That is the defection to Lutheran territory. It actually carries out this conversion, in that it, including Calvin, finally rejects those who are challenged because of their election from the general grace as it is testified in the means of grace. Schneckenburger also admits this. After pointing out the various means that Reformed theology uses in vain to remove doubts about grace and election, he continues: "Hence the admonition to make use of God's general promises, to look at His predestination only in Christ, the means of its realization, not to offend God by mistrusting His grace, and the like. But all this, strictly speaking, can be said only from the Lutheran point of view, so that here the practice is driven out of the same. [According to Reformed doctrines] the general grace of God, the merit of Christ, precisely cannot concern me." 746)

We have repeatedly referred from Schneckenburger's Vergleichende Darstellung des lutherischen und reformierten Lehrbegriffs. Schneckenburger errs in some matters. We have already seen that in his presentation he reckons with predestination, as it is taught by the Reformed, as a really existing factor, whereas it belongs entirely to the realm of imagination. Nevertheless, Schneckenburger's book remains worth reading. We therefore place here another section747), in which two things are treated: 1. that Reformed theology seeks to answer the question of grace and election by reflection from regeneration and good works, and is driven by the seriousness of practice from a Lutheran standpoint; 2. that within the Lutheran Church, through Pietism, a defection from Reformed territory has been in the offing, and that modern theology in principle walks entirely in Reformed paths. Schneckenburger says: "In Reformed congregations much more frequently than in Lutheran ones is found the fear of having committed the sin against the Holy Spirit. This is declared by the [Reformed] dogma of the impossibility of a total fall in the truly

746) op. cit., p. 260 ff.<w:t>747) Part I, p. 233 ff. 265 ff.

202 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 170-171]

born again748) and from the assumption of deceptions of the religious self-consciousness.749) Such a one, who formerly believed himself to be entitled to consider himself a born-again, is now seized by a real recognition of sin, overcome by a feeling of guilt, abandoned by uplifting sensations,750) and there, with the wavering of that confidence, there enters much more the desperation of being a reprobus, of having had only a deception in those earlier experiences, or rather of having tasted the heavenly goods, but only tasted and not possessed them. The more vivid those experiences were, the more the subject may have cause to reproach himself for the abuse of the grace enjoyed, the greater the distance is now felt, and the sin against the Holy Spirit, which leaves no room for repentance, permits no conversion, seems committed. Here the instruction is constantly given to convince such minds that this fear alone testifies to the contrary and points to the presence of a germ of faith.751) This is seldom enough for me; for the fear is a present one, filling the mind,752) especially since even according to the [Reformed] system it can be objected again and again with justification that this fear could just as well be the anticipation of hell as the fear of repentance.753) If it is also true of the positive feeling of grace that it can deceive, how much more of this? Moreover, in the case of the wavering of the immediate self-consciousness, which is to be given a firm basis by the idea of predestination, the idea of reprobation is readily added as the one corresponding to the depressed consciousness. In this case, consolation becomes difficult, and the symbols already know much to speak of the periculosissima praedestinationis tentatio. There it is a matter of showing that no one can be convinced of his election, as conversely also of his rejection, that therefore at any rate here an error occurs if someone

748) Cf. the Dordrecht Resolutions; in Niemeyer, p. 716. Cited II, 561, note 1304. Calvin, Inst. III, 2, 12.

749) Calvin, Inst. III, 24, 8.<w:t>750) Cromwell; cf. p. 108.

751) This is not wrong in itself. If there is a desire for the grace of God in Christ in a terrified sinner, faith itself is present, and the troubled one is to be told this. Cf. II, 533.

752) How the case is to be treated according to the Scriptures is set out in vol. II, 533 f..

753) According to Calvin, Inst. III, 24, 8, to a part of the hearers of the gospel it is preached for the purpose of "heavier damnation".

203 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 171-172]

thinks himself rejected without further ado. But the possibility always remains that the one who is afraid is really a rejected one, and the very imagined possibility has a paralyzing effect on every upswing. Hence the admonition to make use of God's general promises, to look at his predestination only in Christ, the means of its realization, not to offend God by mistrusting his grace, and so on. But all this, strictly speaking, can be said only from the Lutheran standpoint, so that here the practice will drift out to the same [scil. to the Lutheran standpoint]. The general grace of God, the merit of Christ can [according to Reformed doctrine] be of no concern to me, because I am a reprobate. In order to comfort the soul against such thoughts, it is always necessary to find positive reasons for my not being rejected, but of course only reasons that lie in my subjective quality as a certain one through God's grace. Then again, all kinds of earlier experiences of grace are referred to, which can have truth after all, although this inner truth of experience is not decisive; it is given to consider how God leads his chosen ones, according to Christ's example, into grave anxiety, and how the challenge speaks for the sonship of God. But in the end, of course, since the question always recurs whether it is a challenge or the beginning of damnation, nothing remains but the reference to that subjective behavior which alone has truth and is the right mark of election. The exhortation is to active obedience, to the practice of godliness, to diligence in good works, that is, to the power of action, the actions of which alone can bring about the satisfactory result for self-consciousness. But in most cases this also proves to be an inadequate means of consolation, which means to refute the inner doubt by one's own objective action, as if that very doubt did not invalidate every true activity. However, in order to drive to action in any case, the motives discussed above are applied and the encouragements to godly activity, e.g. by Hyperius, are taken from eternity itself at the risk of being condemned after all, since in this case at least the condemnation will be milder. In short, in the end everything boils down to never letting the thought arise that one is condemned but

204 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 172-173]

to test again and again by one's behavior whether one is not, after all, a chosen one, to live always as if one really is, and in the end also to believe that one is, after the responsible condition has at least shown the possibility of it. This alone is worthy of our position towards God, whose grace we would despise if we did not know whether it would accept us. God's will, which is promised to all, must also be regarded by all as specifically valid. Like faith in general, this special confidence in his election is subject to the law of duty. You have to let yourself be determined by the promising will of God, thus you have to believe in the divine grace also for you, that is, you have to forget that the grace can also only be a fucata [disguised].754) The basic idea is always that the strong decision of the will itself, the own inner self-deed, the courageous self-indication, because it is only possible through the salutary grace,755) is the surest sign of the same and thus is to be put into action above all. So the old teachers, loyal to the system. Newer ones, like Schaff, on the other hand, although holding to the thesis, which alone creates this need, know to appease the inner doubt as to whether one is really a born-again, only to answer simply from the Lutheran point of view, thus dropping the dogma of reprobation. Yes, even the Conf. Helv., c. 10,756) knows as a last resort against the periculosa tentatio praedestinationis only to refer to the sacraments, which are to give the subject the desirable confidence; whereby it is thus completely disregarded that the sacraments can only do this insofar as they are celebrated in faith, i.e., with a mood of soul about whose existence the subject is just uncertain." Hereby Schneckenburger correctly states that through the Reformed gratia particularis and through the separation of grace from the means of grace given with it, man is pointed to himself, his subjective nature and his own works, in the question of God's grace.

754) That is, God cannot present the gospel to you for the attainment of salvation, but for the attainment of a "heavier damnation." Calvin, Inst. III, 24, 8.

755) But the "saving grace" is only effective through the means of grace. With the assumption of an immediate effectiveness, however, there is not grace effectiveness, but a product of one's own ego.

756) The second Helvetic Confession, Confessio Helvetica posterior, is meant. In Niemeyer, p. 481 ff.

205 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 173-174]

How within the Lutheran Church a transition to Reformed territory took place, Schneckenburger depicts thus: "As the Reformed doctrine in praxi is always pushed towards the Lutheran side, so in thesi the Lutherans, as soon as they have left the old-church way of looking at things, … immediately fall at home. immediately fall prey to the abstract consequence of the Reformed doctrine, as at present the latter mode of conception is the dominant one in the newer theology."757) A little later758) Schneckenburger says: "The question of the individual assurance of the sonship with God and of salvation, which is inherently close to the Reformed, could not arise at all to the Lutheran in the flourishing period of church orthodoxy. In penitent faith he took from absolution, which for him was immediate truth and bearer of comfort from the Holy Spirit, the confidence of forgiveness, and where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation. Only Pietism brought about the reflection on one's own individual subject here as well. The free subjectivity was detached from the objective church actions that no longer gave full satisfaction. Thus, gradually, even among the orthodox, an approach to the Reformed way of looking at things is beginning to show itself." To these words of Schneckenburger some remarks should be added. The question of the "individual assurance of sonship with God" naturally comes to the orthodox Lutheran as well, and daily, because he agrees with David (Ps. 143:2) and with Paul (Rom. 7:18) concerning his own damnability. But as long as he remains "orthodox," he looks, as God would have every poor sinner to do, into God's grace-anthem in Christ, which shines out to him from the Word of God and the sacraments, as the divine means of forgiveness of sins. Also, for the "orthodox" Lutheran, absolution is only one form of the promise of grace among several. In the Smalcald Articles it says: "The gospel does not give counsel and help against sin in one way (non uno modo); for God is abundantly rich in his grace. Firstly, through the oral word, in which forgiveness of sin is preached in all the world, which [the forgiveness of sin] is the actual ministry of the gospel. Secondly, through Baptism. Thirdly, through the holy Sacrament of the

757) op. cit., p. 264.<w:t xml:space="preserve">758) op. cit., p. 282.

206 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 174]

Altar. Fourth, by the power of the keys and also per mutuum colloquium et consolationem fratrum, Matt. 18: ,,Ubi duo fuerint congregati' etc" 759) The "orthodox" Lutheran knows, as Luther puts it in the Large Catechism, "Everything in Christendom is ordered to the daily obtaining of forgiveness of sins by word and sign [the sacraments], to comfort and raise our consciences as long as we live here." 760) The reflection on one's own individual "subject" in the question of the forgiveness of sins is therefore rightly considered unnecessary by the "orthodox" Lutheran, because he knows that the forgiveness of sins is completely independent of one's own subjective condition. The adequate "subject" for the forgiveness of sins or justification is in any case "the ungodly" (ασεβής).761) As to "pietism," it has been rightly remarked that the expression has not always been used in the same sense.762) We understand by it, with Schneckenburger, the pathological phenomenon that emerged within the Lutheran Church at the end of the 17th century and in the first half of the 18th century. The essence of this pietism was that it gave instruction to base the state of grace before God on inner processes in the human heart, repentance, "faith," inner transformation, etc., instead of on the grace that Christ had acquired and offered in the objective means of grace. In this Schneckenburger rightly sees a crossing over into Reformed territory. A part of the Pietists obviously meant well. They wanted to oppose an "inward", "living" Christianity to the unfortunately torn down outward churchism, which makes an opus operatum out of dealing with the means of grace ordered by God. But they now unfortunately belonged to the class of reformers who do not understand the how of a true church reformation. Instead of confining themselves to the punishment of the abuse which the carnally secure make of the means of grace, they also touched the right use which poor sinners should make of the means of grace. Every poor sinner, who in the anguish of his heart asks for the grace of God, should be pointed directly to the Word of God and the sacraments, where God promises the forgiveness of sins acquired by Christ without any

759) M. 319, Art. IV.<w:t>760) M. 458, 55. [Trigl. 693, Art. III, 55 🔗]

761) Rom. 4:5.<w:t>762) RE.2 XI, 672 ff.

207 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 175]

subjective condition, that is, one that lies in man himself. In so far as Pietism did not refer poor sinners directly to the means of grace, but rather led them to reflect on their own condition, whether their repentance was deep enough and whether their faith was of the right kind, it actually denied perfect reconciliation through Christ (the satisfactio vicaria), it deprived justifying faith of its real object, and thus touched personal Christianity in its foundation and Christian piety in its innermost essence. The reflection on oneself, which befits the carnally secure and belongs to the sermon of the law, the pietists inculcated in the poor, frightened sinners to whom the gospel is to be preached. Thus, however, Pietism turned into Reformed and Roman waters.

Above all, however, it is obvious that all modern "experience theologians" who want to base faith not only on the word of Christ, but also on the historical appearance of Christ, the historical impressions of Christ, on the person of Christ as distinguished from the word of Christ, etc., have completely crossed over into Reformed territory. This crossing over is also found in the most positive representatives of "experiential theology". Only this is supposed to be "real faith in Christ, which is forced upon man by Christ's appearance Himself".763) It has been objected in favor of "experiential theology": Can one not also get the "impression" that there is a gracious God from the historical guidance and leadership both of the universal Church and of the lives of individual men? Against this objection it is necessary to remember a twofold point: 1. Admittedly, in the life of the Church and of individual men there are facts which make us recognize the strong and gracious hand of God. But as in the kingdom of nature, beside the signs of God's goodness, beside sunshine, growth and prosperity, peace and preservation, etc., there are also terrible signs of God's wrath, namely, thunder and lightning, earthquakes, floods of water, pestilence and dear times, wars and destruction: so also, historically speaking, we have this double phenomenon in the life of the Church and of individual men. We are confronted with the great number of false teachers and their overpowering followers, and the small number of Christians and their cross.

763) Ihmels, Zentralfragen, p. 89.

208 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 175-176]

And these historical phenomena are also felt by Christians as phenomena of wrath and at times make such a "historical impression" on the children of God that they think that not Christ but the devil is in the governance, and not the pious but the godless are God's favorites. Read Psalm 73. There is only one thing that helps: we must take refuge with Assaph in the "sanctuary of God" and orient ourselves about the "historical phenomena" from God's Word alone. Without this orientation from God's Word alone, we are given over to doubt and despair. 2. Even if we have correctly oriented ourselves from God's Word about the historical phenomena in the life of the church and in our own lives, and realize that all things, even the phenomena of wrath, must serve for the best to those who love God, we must still hold fast to this on the basis of Scripture: The object of saving faith is this grace of God, that is, the forgiveness of sins which Christ purchased for us before 1900 years ago driving by his satisfactio vicaria, and which is offered and promised to us in Word and Sacrament. Whoever makes what God works by grace in the church and in the life of the individual the foundation of his faith in the gracious God falls away from Christ eo ipso. He bases grace with God on his repentance, his faith, his regeneration, his "implantation into Christ," his insertion "into the new humanity," "into the church," etc., rather than on Christ's perfect reconciliation of the world of sin. Luther does not exaggerate when he calls one who bases his faith in a gracious God on his "experiences," specifically also on his own faith, an "idolatrous, denied Christian," on the grounds that: "for he trusts and builds on what is his, namely, on a gift that God has given him, and not on God's Word alone [which promises God's grace for the sake of Christ's work], just as another builds and trusts on his strength, wealth, power, wisdom, holiness, which are nevertheless also gifts, given to him by God."764) Thus it is clear that Schneckenburger is right when he says that the newer theology does not stand on Lutheran but on Reformed ground, that is, it only knows a faith that reflects on itself and its subjective nature in the question of God's grace.

764) St. L. XVII, 2213.

209 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 176-177]

Kirn also expressly makes the transformation of the life of mankind the object of reflective faith, because it (this transformation) is co-founding for the redemptive value of the work of Christ.765) Other "experience theologians" prefer other expressions. They substitute for the Christian faith, which grasps the divine forgiveness of sins in the means of grace, the reflection on the implantation in the new humanity of Christ, on the membership in the kingdom of God and the activity in the same, etc.

The relationship between "experiential theology" and Reformed theology explains the strange judgments about Zwingli's and Calvin's theology that we find in "experiential theologians" such as Seeberg.766) We would like to prevent the American Lutheran Church from being confused by these judgments. On the one hand, it is admitted that Zwingli's reformation is Eerasmian in origin, that Zwingli imperceptibly makes the gospel the new law, that Zwingli does not, like Luther, want to know God in Christ but means to know God before Christ, that Zwingli's Christianity becomes a kind of "philosophy" to be derived from the Bible. On the other hand, it is claimed that the essential agreement between Zwingli and Luther is obvious to everyone, that both have "a common understanding of the Gospel", that there is an "essential agreement" between Calvin's and Luther's "type of Protestantism". According to this, it would be immaterial for the conception of the gospel and of Christianity as a whole whether Christ redeemed all men or only a part of them, whether grace and the Spirit are given only through the means of grace ordered by God or without them and alongside them! This whimsical judgment is declared, as I said, from the kinship of "experiential theology" with Reformed theology. Both kinds of theology deny that the human world is reconciled to God through Christ's satisfactio vicaria. Reformed theology denies the extensive value, "experiential theology" denies the intensive value of the reconciliation that took place through Christ. Both types also deny that saving faith comes from the means of grace alone and has its object in these. Both, therefore, stand equally in the appropriation of salvation on Roman ground, that is, they agree that man, by reflection on his subjective quality, on his

765) Dogmatik, p. 118.

766) Seeberg, Dogmengesch. II, 299 ff.

210 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 177-178]

experiences, his renewal and his godly life, etc., must come to the certainty of grace. In a purely factual discussion of the situation created by the assumption of an effect of grace apart from and besides the word of Christ, we really come back again and again to Luther's judgment that in practice Papists and enthusiasts are one thing.

By adhering to this judgment of Luther, however, we have no cause to exalt ourselves before God over any "enthusiast". Rather, we remind ourselves once again of the fact that the enthusiasm which we condemn in the enthusiasts is still in our flesh as a result of our innate opinio legis. Luther, too, confesses again and again that he has not yet learned the art of detaching himself from himself or "going out of himself" in the question of whether God is gracious to him, and of clinging only to the word of promise against all feeling and sensibility in his own inner being. The difference between Luther and the Lutheran Church on the one hand, and between Calvin, the Reformed Church and "experiential theology" on the other hand, remains that the latter condemn enthusiasm as false doctrine, the latter defend enthusiasm as right doctrine.

In the chapter of the means of grace also belongs the question of the separation of church and state, insofar as in the treatment of the means of grace the question arises whether also the state with its orders and means of power is to be used as a kind of auxiliary means of grace for the building of the church. Rome's position is well known. Both medieval and post-medieval Rome makes a double demand on the L.state. On the one hand, the state should have the duty to put itself at the service of the church with its power, that is, under certain circumstances with fire and sword; on the other hand, the state should have the duty to establish itself, namely in its legislation, according to the regulations of the church.767) What position did the Church Reformation of the sixteenth century take on this question? Recent dogmatic history also points out a difference between the Reformed and Lutheran doctrines at this point. Whereas Luther establishes the principle that the state is to be governed not by the Word of God, but by human

767) Both demands are also sharply expressed in the papal circular of November 1, 1885 ("Immortale Dei"). See L. u. W. 1886, p. 12 ff.

211 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 178-179]

reason 768) and that it therefore does not belong to the office of the authorities "to remove what anyone wants to teach and believe, whether it be the gospel or lies."769) Zwingli very emphatically inculcates that the state must be governed by the Word of God, and that the authorities, if they are found to be negligent in this, "could be deposed with God’s approval”.770) And while the Augsburg Confession limits the power of the authorities to the effect that they do not have to protect souls, "but rather body and goods by external force with the sword and bodily sounds,"771) , Calvin, on the other hand, probably with a sideways glance at the Augsburg Confession, points to the folly (stultitia) of the people, who limit the office of authority to the handling of law among men (ius inter homines) and to the settlement of disputes about earthly things (terrenae controversiae) and do not want to extend it to the pure worship of God.772) Schneckenburger therefore judges: "The kinship of the Reformed piety with the Catholic one is generally also found in the fact that on both sides a theocracy over the state and worldly relationships in general is to be realized by men, the positive divine law is to be applied as the direct norm of all social relationships. … Both forms of piety [the Catholic and the Reformed], with their active social trend, form a certain difference from the Lutheran."773) Of course, the Lutheran Church also has an "active social direction" in that it very energetically directs Christians into social relationships with its ministries. Luther's dictum is well known: "Cursed be life that one lives for himself alone and not for his neighbor; and again, blessed be life that one lives not for himself but for his neighbor!" 774) The Lutheran Church relegates Christians with all their works all the more to the social life, as it teaches that works do not belong in the relationship before God, that is, are not necessary for the attainment and preservation of salvation. "See

768) St. L. X, 382 ff. 417. Cf. L. u. W.: "Are Political Pastors an Aberration?" 1896, p. 193 ff.

769) St. L. XVI, 50.<w:t>770) Opp. I, 369 ff. 524.<w:t>771) Art. 28; M., 63rd [Trigl. 85, 11 🔗]

772) Inst. IV, 20, 9: Coarguitur eorum stultitia, qui vellent, (reges) neglecta Dei cura, iuri inter homines dicundo tantum intentos esse. Quasi vero Praefectos Deus suo nomine constituerit, qui terrenas controversias deciderent, quod vero longe gravioris niomenti erat, Praetermiserit, ut ipse pure coleretur ex legis suae Praescripto. [Google]

773) Comparative account I, 161.<w:t xml:space="preserve">774) St. L. XI, 747.

212 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 179-180]

thereon", says Luther, "that these works that you do should not be directed toward God, but toward your neighbor. He who is a ruler, a prince, a mayor, a judge, should not think that he is a ruler because of this, that he earns heaven with it or seeks his own therein, but that he thereby serves the community [the commonwealth]. And so henceforth with other works which I accept for the benefit of my neighbor." 775) But the Lutheran Church, as long as it remains true to its principles,776) does not develop a social trend in the sense of theocracy, as if it demanded that the state include the Christian religion in its constitution and ensure its implementation. The Lutheran Church does not develop a social direction in the sense of theocracy. Rather, in the 28th article of the Augustana, the Lutheran Church warns against this mixing of church and state. The church "shall not lay down the law to secular power and set it by secular dealings," because the secular governance is not commanded to care for souls, but to protect "body and good against external power." To make religion a matter of state in the sense of theocracy corresponds to the Roman and Reformed, but contradicts the Lutheran doctrine. This is also how Schneckenburger understood it when he states at this point a difference between the Lutheran church on the one hand and the Roman and Reformed churches on the other. Zwingli's view of the relationship between church and state is described by Seeberg as follows: "The theocratic thought that guided Zwingli does not allow either the church or the state to have their way. On the one hand, the secular authorities exercise the church government, so that the Christian doctrine virtually becomes state law;777) on the other hand, these authorities are absolutely subject to the authority of Holy Scriptures; their laws and orders are valid only insofar as they are in accordance with Scripture. If the authorities act against Scripture, they are to be deposed.778) Only apparently is the subjection

775) Op. cit. [305].

776) About practical deviations from their principles later.

777) Second Disputation at Zurich, Opp. I, 524: "My lords shall not prescribe any law other than from the holy, unconfessed scripture of God. If they become sympathetic to it, and recognize otherwise, which I do not hope, then I will preach against them with the Word of God."

778) In the 42nd article, Opp. I, 369, says of the authorities: "If, however, they are unfaithful and deviate from the plumbline of Christ, they may be deposed with God’s sanction”. At the end of the section, Zwingli explains why it is that people do not unanimously reject tyrannical authorities. This is because piety and righteousness are not yet general enough. He says:

213 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 180-181]

of the church under the state, because state laws are only valid if they correspond to the law of the church or the Bible. This is truly medieval thinking. The implementation of his work of reformation included both a new doctrinal order and a new order of life, which are enforced by the means of state power. Christianity is the business of the state, but the state is the organ of the church. Like Savonarola, Zwingli also wanted to reform his city according to the divine law of the Bible with the help of the secular authorities. … In all areas, therefore, the medieval and humanistic barrier in Zwingli's teachings and work confronts us in such a way that it establishes the difference to Luther's thoughts." 779) With respect to Calvin, Seeberg notes,780) that the same "ascribed to the state the task of enforcing church ideals in the service of God, even by secular means. … The state has the duty to punish every rebellion against the recognized religion and to take care of the implementation of the commandments not only of the second but also of the first tablet. This is shown not only by Israelite history, but already by the pagan conception, which makes the cura pietatis the first task of the state.781) Of course, he may not change anything in the divine law. In reality, therefore, he will have to carry out only what the spiritual officials prescribe. From this point of view, the personal position that Calvin claimed in Geneva as well as the draconian severity of the legislation and justice that he directed can be understood. Since every sin is a rebellion against the divine majesty, it is also to be punished with the most severe civil punishments. Thus Calvin's reformation was carried out in the manner of theocracy. God is the Lord, whose service the church demands and which the state enforces. But since this position of state authority in relation to the church is ultimately connected with the church office endowed with divine authority, the connection

"Because we are so lukewarm in our love of common righteousness, we overlook all the wicked deeds of the tyrants and are deservedly rent by them and at last punished with them. So, then, it is not counsel or way of getting rid of the tyrants that is lacking, but general piety is lacking. Beware, you tyrants! The Gospel will train pious people. Become pious, too; then you will be bome up on hands. If, however, you do not do that, but rage and storm, you will be trodden under foot.”

779) Dogmengesch. II, 305. Cf. also Güder-R. Stähelin, RE.2 XVII, 630.

780) A. a. O. p. 400 f.<w:t xml:space="preserve">781) Inst. IV, 20, 3. 9.

214 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 181-182]

of the Calvinist church ideal with medieval ideas is an even clearer one than with Zwingli. … One understands from this view the proceedings against Servetus".782) Schneckenburger sees in this Reformed mixture of state and church a valuable complement to Luther's Reformation. He thinks: The difference between Catholic and Reformed piety on the one hand and Lutheran piety on the other "goes so far that the question has been raised, not without reason, whether the Reformation could have been carried out and maintained in only Lutheran specificity against the more energetic, society-forming principle in Catholicism, if the specifically Reformed one had not stood by its side. How long one hesitated in Saxony, after the Gospel had been preached for many years, to make even the slightest change in the worship, until Carlstadt entered in a Reformed way, with which, however, as a heterogeneous element, he could not hold on for the long run. … In Zurich, on the other hand," (under Zwingli) "a start was immediately made with the abolition of all unhealthy things, with a profound change in the worship, with the improvement of customs and the police”.783) But what Schneckenburger and others784) see at this point as a valuable addition to Lutheran doctrine and piety by Reformed doctrine and piety is in fact a continuance in Roman doctrine and practice, and has the effect of transforming Christianity into a works righteousness dressed up in Christianity. Both the assumption of an immediate Spirit effect and the mixing of state and church drive the Reformed Church into works doctrine. By the assumption of the direct effect of the Spirit this happens because this direct effect of the Spirit does not exist at all and therefore man is dependent on his own effect, which he then mistakenly believes to be a product of the Holy Spirit. The addition of the means of state power to the building of the church results in works righteousness, because the means of state — even if applied very vigorously — never convey the grace of God

782) Michael Servetus was burned for heresy (anti-Trinitarian) in Geneva on October 27, 1553. Unfortunately, Melanchthon also inexpensively approved of this procedure. Cf. Melanchthon's letter to Calvin of October 14, 1554 in Corp. Ref. VIII, 362 sq.

783) Comparative presentation I, 161 f.

784) Schneckenburger also refers to Ranke, Reformationsgesch. III, 89. cf. against Ranke L. u. W. 1868, p. 119 f.

215 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 182-183]

in Christ, faith and the Holy Spirit, but at best bring about an external piety that remains in the realm of law and external works. Luther writes:785) "It is futile and impossible to command or force someone by power to believe this way or that. It takes another grip; power does not do it. … It is a free work around faith, to which one can force nobody. Yes, it is a divine work in the spirit, let alone that external power should force and create it. … The blind, wretched people do not see how futile and impossible a thing they undertake. For no matter how hard they command and how much they rage, they cannot force people any further than to follow them with their mouths and hands; they cannot force their hearts if they tear themselves apart. … Thus the weak consciences are driven by power to lie, to deny, and to say otherwise than they hold it in their hearts, and thus burden themselves with abominable foreign sins." ¶ It should be added that, in spite of Luther's warnings and in spite of the clear exposition in the 28th article of the Augustana, the mixing of state and church has unfortunately penetrated into the Lutheran Church as well. But this fact is not to be regarded as a supplement or improvement of Lutheran doctrine and position, but is to be estimated as an aberration into Reformed-Roman territory, which is also accompanied by the same harmful consequences, provided the wrong principle prevails.786) It

785) St. L. X, 397 f.

786) The historical investigation is subject to the question whether Luther did not also disregard the correct principle issued by him in individual cases. Such a thing can also occur with great people. Peter acted in a certain case even after Pentecost against the principle he taught correctly, Gal. 2:11 ff. On Luther's sharp fundamental divorce between church and state on the one hand and his accommodation to the present confused relationships on the other, cf. Walther, Pastorale, p. 368 ff. [translated by Tappert in his Lutheran Confessional Theology in America 1840-1880, pgs 287-290]; Köstlin, Luthers Theologie 2, II, 274 ff. [Internet Archive here; English ed. Ggl Bks here] In the St. Louis edition of Luther's works, the historical introduction to the writings "Wider die Juden" is critical of Luther's 1543 writing, "Von den Juden und ihren Lügen," insofar as here Luther counsels the use of secular power on the part of the state after the Jews had abused his earlier protectorate. (Cf. XX, Introduction, p. 63, note 1.) Luther makes it the duty of the regents to "force the Jews to work, forbid usury, and control their blaspheming and cursing," XX, 1997. But here again Luther's refrain returns: "Whether they do not believe as we do, we cannot help it, and no one can be forced to believe," and the admonition to the pastors: "Not that they should curse them much

216 > The Means of Grace. [English ed. ~ 183]

is of no help: If we want to keep the Christian doctrine, namely the doctrine that we are saved and justified by God's grace through faith without the works of the law, we must on the one hand hold on to the means of grace ordered by God, and on the other hand be satisfied with these means and renounce the addition of the means of power of the state for the building of the church. We must return to this subject, the separation of church and state, in the doctrine of the church.