# Reformed Nominalistic Eucharist?



## RamistThomist (Jul 30, 2013)

I am currently working on an essay responding to an Anglo-Catholic who charges the Reformed tradition with nominalism, particularly on the Eucharist. I have it pretty much under control, but what are some good resources that specifically address the Reformed nominalist charge (I have Horton and Muller)?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 30, 2013)

There is some talk about it in Keith Mathison's _Given For You_.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 30, 2013)

I can answer the standard nominalist charges about Calvin and the Reformation. Anyone who has read more than five minutes of Richard Muller knows how to deal with those claims. This gentleman is more perceptive than most and offers a different spin. He argues that Calvin's gutting worship of its "visible" participation elements corresponds to the rising nominalism of late medieval thought. E.g., Calvin Not the greatest argument in the world, but it is different from the standard convertskii attacks on Calvin.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 30, 2013)

Why do you find the latter argument "more perceptive"? That argument would be more of an RPW argument than having to argue that the Reformed understanding of the Sacraments is not Nominalistic.

In other words, let's assume for a moment that the Reformers are correct about the nature of God's worship. If something is included in worship that God has not commanded then it doesn't matter what perceived "value" it has if it is idolatrous. Its exclusion from proper worship owes nothing more than the belief that it is idolatry to practice it.

As an example, according to this fellow's argument, when Hezekiah destroyed the bronze serpent it somehow demonstrated a "rising nominalism". Such an argument is absurd. The elements of worship were clearly prescribed by God and so whatever excess "liturgical elements" were destroyed by the King actually focused the people on those elements that were legitimate. If Hezekiah's reforms reduced the "elements" in the worship of his people from hundreds of innovations to a dozen then the only thing it demonstrated was the amount of idolatry that existed at the time of his reform.

Two men can share the exact same view on the nature of the means of grace but if they differ on the RPW then it will lead them to different conclusions. Person A believes in the RPW and so the means of grace prescribed by God are seen as bringing him into real contact with the living Christ. Person B does not believe in the RPW and so he believes the Church can add elements not prescribed by the Scripture but, ultimately, the goal of those added elements is to accomplish the same end under their common understanding of the means of grace.

Honestly, the argument strikes me as a puerile "counting of things practiced in worship" as if it is already established that the more elements we have the more "real" the worship is.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 30, 2013)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Why do you find the latter argument "more perceptive"? That argument would be more of an RPW argument than having to argue that the Reformed understanding of the Sacraments is not Nominalistic.
> 
> In other words, let's assume for a moment that the Reformers are correct about the nature of God's worship. If something is included in worship that God has not commanded then it doesn't matter what perceived "value" it has if it is idolatrous. Its exclusion from proper worship owes nothing more than the belief that it is idolatry to practice it.
> 
> ...



I agree with what you are saying, but a number of convertskii are seeing this guy as their "go-to guy" and I want to explore his argument as thoroughly as I can before debunking it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 30, 2013)

No problem Brother. I didn't intend for your critique to consist of telling him his arguments are puerile. I am, perhaps, suggesting that part of your argument would be to point out the distinction between the nature of the Sacraments to deal with the Nominalist charge on the one hand while, on the other, pointing out that a belief in the RPW may pare back the number of things that one "experiences" in worship but, if those elements are innovations, then the issue is not nominalism but one of idolatry.


----------



## MW (Jul 30, 2013)

I would just accept the nominalist charge (or rationalist, as applied to the 19th century), and seek to explain the position according to its content and teaching in the Scripture. It is like the Liberal claiming that the evangelical view of Scripture is not dynamic enough because it does not allow for human error. The terms are relative to the person's own theological perspective.

From a sociological point of view the emergence of liberty has its roots in pre-reformation nominal thought, so there is nothing inherently objectionable in the historical claim being offered. The issue is whether one accepts the immediacy of communion with God through Christ alone or whether some medium such as church, priesthood, and sacrifice is deemed necessary.

As far as Calvin is concerned, any analysis which delivers him from ritualistic interpretation is worth hearing. Some of the modern realistic views are fascinating but do not validate the primacy of the Word in Calvin's thought.

It is the primacy of the Word and faith grounded thereon which is basically being charged with nominalism.


----------



## CharlieJ (Jul 31, 2013)

There is a good discussion of nominalism with some bibliography in Rediscovering the Natural Law in Reformed Theological Ethics. If it's not in that book, it's one with a very similar title. You might even be able to google book search the bibliography...


----------

