# How exactly does Presbyterian sacramental theology differ from ex opere operato?



## Mr. Bultitude (Aug 12, 2015)

Basically, what's the difference between our theology of the efficacy of baptism and the Lord's Supper and _ex opere operato_?


----------



## jwithnell (Aug 12, 2015)

Interesting question. My stab at it would focus upon a priest acting as _intermediary_ in the sacraments, truly in a priestly function.


----------



## a mere housewife (Aug 12, 2015)

Tying in with what Jean said about intermediaries -- would it be especially related to different ideas about the role of the Holy Spirit? 

B. B. Warfield says this in 'The Plan of Salvation':



> The typical form of sacerdotalism is supplied by the teaching of the Church of Rome. In that teaching the church is held to be the institution of salvation, through which alone is salvation conveyed to men. Outside the church and its ordinances salvation is not supposed to be found; grace is communicated by and through the ministrations of the church, otherwise not. The two maxims are therefore in force: Where the church is, there is the Spirit; outside the church there is no salvation. The sacerdotal principle is present, however, wherever instrumentalities through which saving grace is brought to the soul are made indispensable to salvation; and it is dominant wherever this indispensability is made absolute. Thus what are called the Means of Grace are given the "necessity of means," and are made in the strict sense not merely the sine quibius non, but the actual quibus of salvation.
> 
> Over against this whole view evangelicalism, seeking to conserve what it conceives to be only consistent supernaturalism, sweeps away every intermediary between the soul and its God, and leaves the soul dependent for its salvation on God alone, operating upon it by his immediate grace. It is directly upon God and not the means of grace that the evangelical feels dependent for salvation; it is directly to God rather than to the means of grace that he looks for grace; and he proclaims the Holy Spirit therefore not only able to act but actually operative where and when and how he will. The Church and its ordinances he conceives rather as instruments which the Spirit uses than as agents which employ the Holy Spirit in working salvation. In direct opposition to the maxims of consistent sacerdotalism, he takes therefore as his mottoes: Where the Spirit is, there is the church; outside the body of the saints there is no salvation.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 12, 2015)

Presbyterian view of efficacy is not tied to the moment of baptism (though leaving openly, logically, the possibility).


----------



## MW (Aug 12, 2015)

Mr. Bultitude said:


> Basically, what's the difference between our theology of the efficacy of baptism and the Lord's Supper and _ex opere operato_?



Election, the work of the Spirit, and faith are essential to the efficacy. The Presbyterian view of sacraments is Calvinist. That is why the sacraments are not cumbered with human ceremonies and intermediaries. Semi-Pelagianism and ritualism go hand in hand.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Aug 13, 2015)

Note the necessity of faith in the above comments. Ex opere operato works apart from faith--it "works in the doing".


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 13, 2015)

When we think of a Presbyterian definition of sacramental efficacy, the absolute easiest way to think about it is that the sacramental efficacy is precisely parallel to the efficacy of the Word of God. They differ in mode (the Word operates through hearing only, whereas the sacraments have hearing plus the other senses), but they operate very similarly in other respects. The role of the Holy Spirit is vital, as it instills faith in us, as has been mentioned already. The power of both Word and Sacrament, in fact, lies in the Holy Spirit making them efficacious, working faith in us. Just as the Word does not operate in and of itself, so also the sacraments. Another analogy can be helpful here. Ex opere operato works somewhat like a cashier's check: the efficacy is IN the check. Whereas a Presbyterian view of sacramental efficacy operates more like a regular check, where the money is not actually IN the check, but is dependent on other things and other times.


----------



## Mr. Bultitude (Aug 13, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> Presbyterian view of efficacy is not tied to the moment of baptism (though leaving openly, logically, the possibility).



Can you elaborate on this?


----------



## GraceOverwhelmsMe (Aug 13, 2015)

greenbaggins said:


> Another analogy can be helpful here. Ex opere operato works somewhat like a cashier's check: the efficacy is IN the check. Whereas a Presbyterian view of sacramental efficacy operates more like a regular check, where the money is not actually IN the check, but is dependent on other things and other times.



Love this analogy. 



Mr. Bultitude said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > Presbyterian view of efficacy is not tied to the moment of baptism (though leaving openly, logically, the possibility).
> ...



I think what Jacob is saying is that if the Holy Spirit decides to work at that moment of baptism to regenerate, He is certainly capable and permitted to do so - thus making the moment of baptism efficacious. It's just not a guaranteed thing as ex opere operato teaches.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 13, 2015)

MW said:


> Election, the work of the Spirit, and faith are essential to the efficacy. The Presbyterian view of sacraments is Calvinist. That is why the sacraments are not cumbered with human ceremonies and intermediaries. Semi-Pelagianism and ritualism go hand in hand.


It's funny but I was running today and that thought occurred to me. I'm always ruminating on how to communicate the importance of Sacraments to people so that they don't just think of things as a sign and my thoughts were drifting to how God instituted OT ceremonies in such a way to "replay" the redemptive history of Israel. As the worshiper ate the Passover meal or lived in tents or did a number of things it is fascinating to think of God condescending to our creaturelyness to sacramentally connect God's presence to some physical act.

My thought then drifted to Baptism and the Lord's Supper and how the Scriptures speak of both in very tangible (physical sign) and spiritual (seal) terms and how it is a shame that many have such a weak understanding of the way in which God has joined together in Word and Sacrament what ought not be separated. Thus, for the memorialist much of that theology doesn't theologically acknowledge the distance between Creator and creature and the need that God would condescend in some act that can be connected to an eternal Promise. It's enough, presumably, that the worshiper is able to just think about what happened in their semi-Pelagian strength. On the other end of the sacramental extreme, the ritualists talk about having a high view of liturgy or sacraments but what they really have a high view of is "show". It's not enough that God promises His nourishment or sovereign work through a simple act. No, the worshiper needs rainments and smoke and the sense that a priest can incant God to be present on demand so that physical act _is_ the sacrament and the worshiper is assured that they have received everything it could possibly signify as long as he/she employs the semi-Pelagian strength to cooperate with it.


----------

