# The charge of Nominalism?



## arapahoepark (Feb 27, 2015)

Does anyone mind explaining why the charge of nominalism is leveled against the reformers? I have a superficial knowledge of the nominalism vs. realism debate , so how would this charge against them supposedly work against reformed theology?


----------



## Hamalas (Feb 27, 2015)

This article will probably help a bit (albeit, in a somewhat roundabout way): https://reformation500.wordpress.co...irms-supports-and-ensures-a-meaningful-world/


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 27, 2015)

arap said:


> Does anyone mind explaining why the charge of nominalism is leveled against the reformers? I have a superficial knowledge of the nominalism vs. realism debate , so how would this charge against them supposedly work against reformed theology?



Luther came from a school that used nominalistic language, so Radical Orthodoxy guys say the entire Reformation is nominalist, which is completely stupid. Vermigli, Bucer, and others were Thomistic Realists. 

More specifically, they try to say that imputation as a legal fiction only works in a nominalist taxonomy, but since we don't believe in a legal fiction (God's speech-act creates a real situation), the charge is false.


----------



## jwright82 (Mar 4, 2015)

Nominalistic ideas mean that the order and connections we "see" around us in reality are merely constructs of our mind, that is they aren't really real in reality. We may use the term horse to refer to things that resemble each other enough to warrant the term but that's just in our minds. In reality we are dealing with particular things that have no connection to any essences in them or outside of them, like in God's mind, but it is practical for us to use words to refer to things that in our minds are similar enough to be lumped together under one word.

The realist assumes that a horse is a horse because it shares, in some way, an "essence" of "hoarseness" with all other horses. How does this relate to theology? Well Catholic thinkers say that unless our justification "realy" happens in us, that is we become more righteous in our essence, than it is merely a legal fiction to declare us justified before the Lord because we are not "really" in our being or essence just. So we are, in their words, Nominalistic because the reality we assume is not real, it is a fiction of our mind. We admittedly are still sinners, Realism, but at the same time justified and righteous, in their terms nominalistic in our thinking, in reality. 

The reformers emphasized that in our union with Christ we really are justified but in our sanctification are really imperfect. We see a distinction where they do not. I hope this helps.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 4, 2015)

Another reason, perhaps more technical but in line with the Radical Orthodoxy charge, is that RO guys see the entire universe as an ascending/descending continuum, with each lower order participating in the higher order. It's a beatufiul ontology and backs up a radical sacramentalism. It's just not what the Bible says. The Reformed tradition swept all of this away and refocused the sacraments on God's promises to us.

RO guys get angry and say that the Reformed thus have a univocal universe--but the charge can be equally reversed (since in practice being is applied equally to God and creation on the RO reading).


----------



## jwright82 (Mar 4, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> Another reason, perhaps more technical but in line with the Radical Orthodoxy charge, is that RO guys see the entire universe as an ascending/descending continuum, with each lower order participating in the higher order. It's a beatufiul ontology and backs up a radical sacramentalism. It's just not what the Bible says. The Reformed tradition swept all of this away and refocused the sacraments on God's promises to us.
> 
> RO guys get angry and say that the Reformed thus have a univocal universe--but the charge can be equally reversed (since in practice being is applied equally to God and creation on the RO reading).



Nicely put. Yeah RO is great in some respects and but bad in others. I like James K. A. Smith's take on it all.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 4, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> The Reformed tradition swept all of this away and refocused the sacraments on God's promises to us.



I would say that's true but it's also true that the sacraments focus on the operation of the Holy Spirit Who mystically unites us to Christ and His benefits. As you note, there are those who see things in ontic terms - we are ascending into being more divine. The Bible doesn't teach that. The Scriptures teach an "already/not yet" or a "promise/fulfillment" or a "simultaneously just and sinner" theology.


----------

