I have to say that I do not understand Grudem’s language of “more grace.” Do we not have enough grace to save us by the faith we have in Jesus Christ? I fail to see what “more” of something that has already done its work is going to do for us.

“Catholics teach that the means of grace impart grace whether or not there is subjective faith on the part of the minister or the recipient, while Protestants hold that God only imparts grace when there is faith on the part of the persons receiving these means.”

I believe that the Bible supports both views of grace. In fact, I believe that faith is impossible without grace and so the fact that we are even able to have faith is a work of grace. But yeah, perhaps Protestants have not emphasized what Grudem calls the Catholic teaching in this regard. Certainly grace is extended to all, even unbelievers.

44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

(Matthew 5:44, 45)

My emails are being rejected by your spam filter. I don’t know if you can put me as safe or something?

Sure, communion may “grant grace” in the same way that prayer and singing songs of praise do. The comparison of the sacraments to prayer is in fact a good one. The words of a prayer themselves have no meaning. Even the most eloquent of speakers requires the Holy Spirit to “translate” for them into words that cannot be uttered. What is important is the seeking of unity with God and the submission and obedience to His will.

In the same way that reading the Bible “bestows grace” since it reminds and focuses us on the truth of what Christ did for us, so also do communion and Baptism. They are “outward reflections of inner change”. They do not CAUSE the change, they reflect the change that has already taken place. I completely agree though that communion is a powerful and meaningful symbol that ought to be performed reverently “as often as [we] do it”.

Of course there are many miracles referred to in the bible, that often defy the laws of nature. This would not be surprising for a believer. One could argue that there are many compelling examples of miracles today. The term “magic” in my book is usually associated with witchcraft and other cases that are linked with the other end of the supernatural spectrum like the Devil or demons. It’s my contention that a supernatural event or being for that matter is of one or the other; i.e. of God or of Satan’s side of the supernatural.

With that clarification, if we are talking about sacraments from God and instituted by Jesus, it’s fair to call them miracles with God’s Grace as it involves a supernatural interaction in our natural life.

The book “Miracles” by CS Lewis does an excellent job developing this concept.

It’s also quite reasonable to have a sacrament or a miracle not make “sense” in our minds as our capacity to understand supernatural things are beyond our comprehension. When we apply our earthly knowledge in a almost secular manner, these things probably seem bizarre.

The Last Supper and many of Jesus words to his Apostles prior to his death didn’t make any sense to the Apostles. These Mysteries require the gift of Faith and Grace for us to accept and receive.

It’s also quite reasonable to have a sacrament or a miracle not make “sense” in our minds as our capacity to understand supernatural things are beyond our comprehension. When we apply our earthly knowledge in a almost secular manner, these things probably seem bizarre.

Having something the Bible teaches not make sense it one thing. Have something developed whole clothe from human logic with NO Biblical support is another. Where we make up stuff that isn’t in the Bible, it doesn’t matter much whether it appears “bizarre” to earthly knowledge. The fact that this doesn’t make sense Scripturally OR logically though just makes it that much more obviously wrong. Find me one passage supporting the idea that taking communion confers grace. There is definitely one claiming that taking it disrespectfully will confer damage, but nowhere does the Bible teach that Communion is any more significant than any other act of obedience we perform (except that it provides us a clear reminder of what Christ did for us).

If the Bible says something apparently bizarre, I will accept it. If men say something apparently bizarre, I retain my right to be incredulous.

3. The Lord’s Supper. In addition to baptism, the other ordinance or ceremony that Jesus commanded the church to carry out is participation in the Lord’s Supper. Although this subject will be discussed more thoroughly in chapter 50, it is appropriate to note here that participation in the Lord’s Supper is also very clearly a means of grace which the Holy Spirit uses to bring blessing to the church. The Lord’s Supper is not simply an ordinary meal among human beings—it is a fellowship with Christ, in his presence and at his table.

Once again, we must avoid the idea that any automatic or magical benefit comes from sharing in the Lord’s Supper, whether a person participates in faith or not. But when a person participates in faith, renewing and strengthening his or her own trust in Christ for salvation, and believing that the Holy Spirit will bring spiritual blessing through such participation, then certainly additional blessing may be expected. We
must be careful here, as with baptism, to avoid the mistake of overreacting to Roman Catholic teaching and maintaining that the Lord’s Supper is merely symbolic and not a means of grace. Paul says, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation (Gk. κοινωνία, G3126, “sharing,” “fellowship”) in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation [κοινωνία] in the body of Christ?”(1 Cor. 10:16). Because there is such a sharing in the body and blood of Christ (apparently meaning a sharing in the benefits of Christ’s body and blood given for us), the unity of believers is beautifully exhibited at the time of the Lord’s Supper:

“Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Cor. 10:17). And since we are participants at “the table of the Lord” (1Cor. 10:21), Paul warns the Corinthians that they cannot participate in the Lord’s table and also participate in idol worship: “You cannot partake in the table of the Lord and the table of demons” (1 Cor. 10:21). There is a spiritual union among believers and with the Lord that is strengthened and solidified at the Lord’s Supper, and it is not to be taken lightly.

This is why the Corinthians were experiencing judgment for their abuse of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:29–30: “For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died”). But if Paul says there will be judgment for wrong participation in the Lord’s Supper, then certainly we should expect blessing for right participation in the Lord’s Supper. When we obey Jesus’ command, “Take, eat”(Matt. 26:26), and go through the physical activity of eating and drinking at the Lord’s table, our physical action pictures a corresponding spiritual nourishment, a nourishment of our souls that will occur when we participate in obedience and faith. Jesus says, “For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (John 6:55–56; cf. vv. 52– 54, 57–58; also vv. 27, 33–35, 48–51).

As with baptism, therefore, we should expect that the Lord would give spiritual blessing as we participate in the Lord’s Supper in faith and in obedience to the directions laid down in Scripture, and in this way it is a “means of grace” which the Holy Spirit uses to convey blessing to us.

Grudem doesn’t completely spiritualize what Christ says about the Lord’s Supper, nor does he understand it in the way the Roman Catholic Church does. He takes the Reformed middle road (so he gets hit from both sides). You can disagree with his understanding of the passages (As in, does John 6 have any connection to the Lord’s Supper?) but the Reformed tradition is in this respect is based on scripture, but I was going for a more philosophical defense of this doctrine in these post since I thought that the various debates over the verses in question were well known.