What were the essential difference between Nevin and Hodge on the Lords Supper?

[Anglicanorthodoxy]

I regularly read D. G Harts blog Old Life, and he ocasionaly brings up John Williamson Nevin. I did some research on Nevin, and I've become pretty interested in his views on the Lords Supper. I'm considering ordering his book "The Mystical Presance" as well as D. G Harts biography of Nevin. I see that Nevin and Charles Hodge vigorously debated the issue. What were the main differences between Nevin and Hodge on the Lords Supper? Who do you agree with( and who's view is more confessional) I've also heard that Keith Mathisons book"Given for You: Reclaiming Calvin's Doctrine of the Lord's Supper" is a good book. Have any of you read Nevins Mystical Presance or Mathisons book on the Supper? Would you recommend them?

 

[RamistThomist]

Definitely Mathison. I'll try to summarize his arguments later

 

[RamistThomist]

Summary of Mathison (pp. 135ff)

Hodge: Christ's presence in the Supper is intellectual ("intellectual cognition," III: 641-642).

Nevin: connection between sacrament and union with Christ. While Christ is bodily in heaven, by the power of the Holy Spirit the distance is overcome and the very body/blood is supernaturally communicated to us.

Further, for Nevin, the sacrament has objective force. The invisible grace is the substantial life, particularly the human nature, of the Savior.

Hodge's Response

Hodge said Nevin basically embraced Eutychianism and Pantheism (you see this charge a lot). Whenever someone says "Hegelian" or "pantheistic," ask them what Hegel specifically taught.

Nevin's Rebuttal

real presence: not simply intellectual, but transcending and taking on a more dynamic role.

 

[Dachaser]

Summary of Mathison (pp. 135ff)

Hodge: Christ's presence in the Supper is intellectual ("intellectual cognition," III: 641-642).

Nevin: connection between sacrament and union with Christ. While Christ is bodily in heaven, by the power of the Holy Spirit the distance is overcome and the very body/blood is supernaturally communicated to us.

Further, for Nevin, the sacrament has objective force. The invisible grace is the substantial life, particularly the human nature, of the Savior.

Hodge's Response

Hodge said Nevin basically embraced Eutychianism and Pantheism (you see this charge a lot). Whenever someone says "Hegelian" or "pantheistic," ask them what Hegel specifically taught.

Nevin's Rebuttal

real presence: not simply intellectual, but transcending and taking on a more dynamic role.

That would not be then either the Catholic or Lutheran view on it?

 

[RamistThomist]

That would not be then either the Catholic or Lutheran view on it?

No

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Rather than repeat here what I said there, I'll refer you to my review of Hart's book on Nevin in The Confessional Presbyterian 3 (2007), 256-61.

I can say, summarily, that I appear to be less supportive of Nevin than Jacob does here, although I am not addressing the Supper narrowly but the whole of Nevin's life and work more broadly.

Hodge was deficient on the Supper, I sadly concede, and Nevin was helpful on it, in some respects, though not without problems, particularly the way in which he situated that in the whole of his theology (which the review points out, as well as his positive contributions).

I don't presume that Jacob would not share at least some of my criticism ( I do think that Nevin was clearly influenced by German Idealism, hence Hegel, discussed in the review). I would argue that whatever he recalls for us from Calvin needed to be heard in 19th c. Scottish and American Presbyterianism, but, situated as it was in his own theology, it was not without problems. Again, the review!

Peace,
Alan

 

[RamistThomist]

Rather than repeat here what I said there, I'll refer you to my review of Hart's book on Nevin in The Confessional Presbyterian 3 (2007), 256-61.

I can say, summarily, that I appear to be less supportive of Nevin than Jacob does here, although I am not addressing the Supper narrowly but the whole of Nevin's life and work more broadly.

Hodge was deficient on the Supper, I sadly concede, and Nevin was helpful on it, in some respects, though not without problems, particularly the way in which he situated that in the whole of his theology (which the review points out, as well as his positive contributions).

I don't presume that Jacob would not share at least some of my criticism ( I do think that Nevin was clearly influenced by German Idealism, hence Hegel, discussed in the review). I would argue that whatever he recalls for us from Calvin needed to be heard in 19th c. Scottish and American Presbyterianism, but, situated as it was in his own theology, it was not without problems. Again, the review!

Peace,
Alan

Right. I like Nevin on the Supper. I concede that much. He was influenced by German Idealism, to be sure. The nature of Hegel loomed large. I think there is a difference between using the language of Idealism (as Van Til did) without buying into Hegel's Logic.

My problems with Nevin is he appeared to have an overly romantic view of Rome's unity in contrast with revivalist America. He could have been more critical of Rome.

Further, while I like Nevin's language of dynamic relationship, I am not 100% sure of what it means.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

I agree that one can do what CVT did without being an Idealist. However, I think that the Mercersburg Theology in general (seen perhaps more so in Schaff) did buy into Hegel in some degree. I address all of this in the review. We are likely not that far apart in our views of this.

Peace,
Alan

 

[RamistThomist]

I agree that one can do what CVT did without being an Idealist. However, I think that the Mercersburg Theology in general (seen perhaps more so in Schaff) did buy into Hegel in some degree. I address all of this in the review. We are likely not that far apart in our views of this.

Peace,
Alan

I think we are on the same page. I generally like much in Nevin but I found his life kind of depressing (at least going by Hart's bio). I first read Nevin over ten years ago, when I was just starting out. I'm tempted to reread him now, having read most of the Nicene Fathers plus mountains of literature on Hegel and Kant (and stuff by Hegel and Kant).

 

[yeutter]

Jacob accurately described Nevin's understanding of how Christ is present to us in the Lord's Supper.

Alan is correct, to understand Nevin it is important to place him philosophically, as a post-Kantian thinker; who is interacting with Hegel.

It is also important to understand Nevin historically in the context of the sacramental theology of the Reformed Churches in Germany. Luther and Melanchthon had put forward the Augsburg Confession in 1530. The 1530 Augsburg set forth the confessional Lutheran understanding of Christ's presence in the Eucharist. Augsburg 1530 says, "Concerning the Lord's Supper, they teach that the body and blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed [communicated] to those that eat in the Lord's Supper. And they disapprove of those who teach otherwise."

Melanchthon carefully listened to the Reformed [Calvin, Brucer not Zwingli] difficulties with the Augsburg and in 1540 but forward an amended version of the Augsburg that he hoped would keep all but the most ardent Zwinglian memorialists in the fold. 1540 Augsburg Variata says, "Concerning the Lord's Supper, They teach that with bread and wine are truly exhibited the body and blood of Christ, to those that eat in the Lord's Supper.

Brucer was satisfied by this broader language. Many Lutherans were satisfied with this language. Many other Lutherans found this language unacceptable.

Most German protestants were members of the State Church. In some German Kingdoms this was a mixed Lutheran and Reformed State Church. [The exception is those German protestants who came from Roman Catholic kingdoms, like Bavaria] If I remember right, the State Church of Prussia was tolerant of cleric both Lutheran and Reformed based on subscription to Augsburg 1540. The State Church of Wuerttemberg accepted the 1530 Augsburg but also accepted the Heidelberg Catechism. The German Reformed Churches defined themselves in terms of how they related to Lutherans not in terms of how they related to Presbyterians and the Westminster.

When the German protestants emigrated to North America they then divided into their respective Reformed and Lutheran confessional camps.

 

[yeutter]

As an aside let me observe that Nevin's understanding of the sacraments are very much in line with most of his non-Tractarian Anglican contemporaries.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

When the German protestants emigrated to North America they then divided into their respective Reformed and Lutheran confessional camps.

The strength of division between Reformed and Lutheran was already present in the German lands in the post-Reformation period, as evidenced by the Concordia-invariata demand of the gnesio-Lutherans. This book
https://www.amazon.com/Colloquy-Montbeliard-Religion-Politics-Sixteenth/dp/0195075668
is a case study of the meeting of Theodore Beza (for the Reformed) and Jacob Andreae (for the Lutherans) at Montbeliard.

Rapprochement has always been difficult. The choice of 18th/19th century Prussian leadership to forge a unified state-church for a united Germany, through a combination of the Lutherans with the Reformed precipitated certain immigrant groups heading to the USA, determined not to water-down their Confessional conviction. The American scene at the time was something of a melting-pot of evangelical Protestantism; and from there derived the two streams of "mainline-tolerant" and "sideline-distinctive" churches. The latter is where Confessionalists of various stripes will be found.

 

[Wayne]

Thoughts on J.J. Janeway's work, Antidote to the Poison of Popery in the Writings and Conduct of Professors Nevin and Schaff? In particular see the review of the aforementioned which appears on page vii of the preface, where reference is made to Hegel.

https://archive.org/details/antidotetopoiso00janegoog

 

[RamistThomist]

Thoughts on J.J. Janeway's work, Antidote to the Poison of Popery in the Writings and Conduct of Professors Nevin and Schaff? In particular see the review of the aforementioned which appears on page vii of the preface, where reference is made to Hegel.

https://archive.org/details/antidotetopoiso00janegoog

Not much to go on besides the bare mention of Hegel. There is similarity between Schelling and Hegel, to be sure (though Schelling later accused Hegel of ripping off his whole system). Hegel ridiculed Schleiermacher in his lectures on philosophy religion.

As to the actual work, I would be interested to compare it to Mathison's analysis.

 

[timfost]

As an aside, I believe Schaff's Hegelian influence brought him to the conclusion that the Lutheran system was the synthesis between Rome and the Reformed. Many of the old German reformed churches (now primarily UCC churches) have the pulpit at the side rather than the center.

 

[RamistThomist]

As an aside, I believe Schaff's Hegelian influence brought him to the conclusion that the Lutheran system was the synthesis between Rome and the Reformed. Many of the old German reformed churches (now primarily UCC churches) have the pulpit at the side rather than the center.

What's the connection between Hegelian influence and the Lutheran synthesis?

Many of the old German reformed churches (now primarily UCC churches) have the pulpit at the side rather than the center.

Many Anglo Reformed churches have it as well. The Word of God is read from one lectern in the reading of the Epistles and the OT. The sermon is preached from the other. This is to show that the Word of God is not the same thing as man's word.

 

[yeutter]

As an aside, I believe Schaff's Hegelian influence brought him to the conclusion that the Lutheran system was the synthesis between Rome and the Reformed. Many of the old German reformed churches (now primarily UCC churches) have the pulpit at the side rather than the center.

This placement of the Lectern and the Pulpit was almost universal in the Protestant Churches in Germany.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Whenever someone says "Hegelian" or "pantheistic," ask them what Hegel specifically taught.

I see your strategy. End the debate by asking an unanswerable question

 

[RamistThomist]

I see your strategy. End the debate by asking an unanswerable question

It can be done, though. I just want to see how Nevin is saying that Geist seeks out embodiment and finitude in order to overcome estrangement and alienation. That's the worst part of Hegel.

 

[timfost]

This placement of the Lectern and the Pulpit was almost universal in the Protestant Churches in Germany.

I didn't know that. Thanks for the info!