Orthodox rite of baptism for adults

2»

Comments

  • I’m aware that Calvin’s view is not memorialist. He is not the extreme Neoplatonist Zwingli was.
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    edited July 2019
    Harold Browne, the 19th century High Churchman, described the doctrine of as "the real, spiritual presence" and that that was "more or less the doctrine of Calvin and many other continental reformers." I should perhaps note that Browne's favourable comments about Calvin's Eucharistic teaching occur in the same book in which he takes apart Calvin's position on Predestination, and also has a lot to say about Apostolic Succession.

    I sometimes have a sneaking suspicion, based on his 1525 Liturgy, that Zwingli was not really a Memorialist either, but that it dominated over all other thoughts when it came to discussion of the Lord's Supper. Memorialism seems to need a good dose of 18th century Rationalism to really get going.

    When it comes to 16th century Eucharistic doctrine in the Reformed tradition Nevin wiped the floor with Hodge with his 'Mystical Presence' and really exposed the gap between the rationalist influenced teaching of the Princeton school, and what the Reformers - mainly Bucer, Bullinger, and Calvin had actually said. Of those three, Bullinger is the lowest, and he still has some pretty realistic moments.
  • CyprianCyprian Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    I've heard of the retroactive thing but never heard it called ekonomia.

    It's not the retroactive thing being called ekonomia so much as the acceptance of any converts by any means other than baptism. In other words, the strictly "canonical" way to receive everyone is supposedly by baptism. Reception by chrismation or confession of faith is considered "economy", a relaxation of the strict practice...

    This is how I've heard and used the terminology of reception by economy since becoming Orthodox.

    I was received by baptism and at the time wouldn't have had it any other way had I been given a choice, which I wasn't. That would be different now, I think.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    I’m aware that Calvin’s view is not memorialist. He is not the extreme Neoplatonist Zwingli was.

    At the risk of a tangent, that difference and penal substitutionary atonement are the principal doctrines where Sydney Anglicanism is at odds with traditional low-church Anglican teaching.
Sign In or Register to comment.