“Biblical scholarship has long taught us that the essential meaning of biblical remembrance (anamnesis) has to do with making present the reality of the saving events in the context of communal prayer and worship. In antiquity the ritual acts among Jews and Christians were not taken as merely figurative, a modern notion, but rather they were seen as bearing divine powers and having decisive consequences according to the words of Saint Paul.
Just as the preaching of the word of God carries intrinsic power and transformative impact on receptive hearers, so also, and indeed more so, the ritual acts of Baptism and the Eucharist, in the context of the Church’s living faith and the power of the Holy Spirit, make present the saving reality and blessings of the death and resurrection of the Lord.
Surely the Apostle Paul did not view the Lord’s Supper as merely metaphorical in 1 Cor. 11, any more than he viewed Baptism as figurative in Rom. 6. The Gospel of John which declares that true worship is ‘in spirit and truth’ (Jn. 4:24) also contains references to Baptism and the Eucharist as determining one’s entry into the kingdom (Jn. 3:5) and one’s sharing in the divine life of the Incarnate Lord (Jn. 6:52-58). Seen from this perspective, the Orthodox Eucharist is not only a proclamation but also an actualization of the good news of Christ and his saving work.” (Theodore G. Stylianopoulos, The Way of Christ: Gospel, Spiritual Life and Renewal in Orthodoxy, pps. 36-37)
Fraternized 
Fr. Ted:
I have often used a medical illustration using the word, “anamnesis.” When the body is challenged by an infectious disease the white blood cells (lymphocytes in this case) eventually produce antibody to the infectious agent. After the person recovers, some of these lymphocytes take residence in the bone marrow and other places. When challenged with the same disease, these “memory cells” activate and produce antiboy quickly.
We call this the anamnestic response. It literally brings forth into the present, preformed antibodies from the past insult.
A very nice medical illustration to the “remembrance” that you describe above.
Val
I’ve heard you mention this before. It is a most fascinating insight into the idea of remembering.
Yes, but this is the first opportunity I’ve had to post a blog reply about it. LOL.
Fr. Ted: I sent your article on hell to a pastor. Here’s his reply:
————————————————————————————————————————-
After reviewing Philippians 2, Mike, it seems to me that Christ emptied Himself (v. 7); that He was therefore exalted (v. 9); and that even those “under the earth” must, belatedly, acknowledge His sovereignty (vv. 10-11).
God has “endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction”—but they will never be “the vessels of mercy” (Rom 9:22-23).
—————————————————————————————————————————
How does one respond?
Thanks for sending your articles. They are very insightful!
Your brother in Christ,
Mike
There is the possibility that there is no response which can change his beliefs. Not all beliefs are going to be refuted by argumentation or proof-texting. In Orthodoxy at least some saints believed that the love of God ultimately triumphs over everything. God is love and all God does is based in this love. This is of course a belief system, which one may not be able to prove, but in which one can hope. Some are quite comfortable with God destroying any and all of the people He created according to His own will. God does not need to justify His decisions – He can create people for no other purpose then to eternally torment them in hell. Others think that ultimately all Scripture must be read through the lens of love, and so passages in Scripture which portray God in ways which seem inconsistent with love are a challenge to our thinking and understanding, but that is because our understanding is limited or one-sided. The principle that God is love however can never be changed and so we are forced to rethink the scriptures or our interpretation of them by keeping the lens in place. So if any passage of Scripture seems to present God as anything but love, it is not the passage which is at fault but our understanding of it.
For me his interpretation seems to conform more to ideas of Karma than to the theological revelation that God is love. Karma is absolute justice which no one, not even God can escape. Karma demands that God must conform to the law of Karma. We on the other hand believe God is Lord even of the Sabbath Day and so can overturn justice because He is love.
Besides, if God is only just, and as a result even one sinner must be punished, then all of us are doomed to punishment since all have sinned. If on the other hand, God is love and can forgive even one sinner, then there is open the possibility that we all can be forgiven.
So we pray, “Lord have mercy!” not “God be just!”
Thank you, Fr. Ted!
It also addresses the theories of atonement. The satisfaction theory, which this person would no doubt endorse, says that God’s justice and wrath had to be satisfied and Christ’s crucifixion paid the penalty due to us for sin. It is a legal, or forensic, framework.
Orthodoxy embraces the Christus Victor theory of the atonement. Christ was victorious and through His death and resurrection, defeated death itself (“trampling down death by death and upon those in the tombs bestowing life”). He opened the path for our restoration and theosis. This includes forgiveness of sins, of course.