Reviews for John Williamson Nevin: High Church Calvinist

The average rating for John Williamson Nevin: High Church Calvinist based on 2 reviews is 4 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2011-08-04 00:00:00 Thomas Funanish Thesis of the book: John Williamson Nevin's high church Calvinism attempted to steer a middle path between the individualism of 19C Presbyterianism while avoiding the tyranny of Rome. His view of the sacraments necessitates a higher view of the church. Summary and Critical Points: DG Hart's style is straightfoward and the narrative flows smoothly. Given the thesis, he accomplished his task while suggesting that Nevin's sacramentology can provide a more robust ecclesiology for the American Church. I can criticise Hart for only taking us to the edge of the cliff, but no further. I would have liked to see more detail on how Nevin's view of the Supper affects his Calvinist soteriology. Hart also had a few irrelevant and poorly argued comments at the end of the book on why the church shouldn't transform culture. Other than that, a worthy read. Now for the review. Abstract of Hart's Bio on Nevin Nevin's life is seen as a tension between the historical claims of the Roman Catholic Church on one hand and the energy of the Protestant Reformation on the other hand. The Incarnation was central to Nevin's Christology and Ecclesiology. His was a sacramental theology that shaped all else: his view of the church, his view of history and most importantly, his view of the Lord's Supper (207). Nevin battled for the recapturing of the Church's past. For Nevin, taking the claims of the early church seriously, and seeking the unity of the church as opposed to sectarianism, raised several problems: what does one do about the Roman Catholic Church? Nevin on the Church According to Hart, "The Church, in other words, was the manifestation in the natural world of the resurrected Christ, literally and supernaturally the body of Christ" (75). There was an objective character to the church. Among other things, this precluded revivalism and the use of an "anxious bench." Over against the anxious bench, which constituted Nevin's first foray into polemics (see pp. 88-103), Nevin proposed catechical instruction. Teaching the catechism, unlike the altar call, saw salvation as "new life emanating from union with Christ" (97). The channel of conversion should flow through the family, not the anxious bench. Nevin on Salvation Nevin anticipated the debate regarding union with Christ vs. imputation of Christ's righteousness (interestingly, Hart doesn't interact with this debate). Salvation, for Nevin, was corporate and organic and was mediated by the church. Discussion regarding Nevin's soteriology necessarily brings up his sacramentology. Standing in the Calvinian tradition, the sacrament is a sign and a seal embodying the actual presence of grace "and the very life of the Lord Jesus Christ himself" (118). When the believer partakes of the Supper, the body and blood of Christ from heaven is supernaturally communicated to him and he receives life in a new way (119). It is a "mystical union" where Christ communicates his own life and soul substantially to the believer. Nevin on History This constituted the crisis in Nevin's life: how to respond to Roman apologetics? To his credit he never became Roman Catholic, but he never gave a credible reason for not doing so. Nevin's argumentation regarding this point often broke down. He resorted, if Hart's representation is accurate, to simplistic generalizations and occasional special pleading in favor of Rome. He saw the Puritans [which Puritans? JBA] as simplistic "me and my bible" Christians ignoring the rich testimony of the Church while Roman Catholics had almost everything right historically, but erred on papal assertions to infallibility. No wonder he nearly went to Rome! Nevin was correct to see the church as a growing, organic body in union with Christ. This point alone, if further developed, should have persuaded him that Rome was not an option. Nevin himself was aware that Rome's position theoretically denied the possibility of improvement within the church. Since the church's teaching is by definition infallible, what's new to learn? The best Nevin did to this arena is urge apologists to incorporate more of the early and Medieval church into their apologetics.

Review # 2 was written on 2012-08-08 00:00:00 Matthew Measmer Well researched and sympathetic. Hart does a fine job of laying before the reader both Nevin's genius and weaknesses. Nevin himself is intriguing. A truly creative and deeply conservative man. His insistence on the central importance of the incarnation is surely correct, at least in part, but like many who discover or recover something truly helpful he takes it all too far and runs a little wild with it. His critique of Finney is the best we have. His work on the presence of Christ at the Eucharist is convincing and was genuinely a recovery of the older reformed position. And his evolutionary theory of Church history with its corresponding organic nature as Christ's body is exceptionally helpful. But beside all this is a measure of philosophical speculation, a commitment to German idealism, a theological vagueness on some important points and a tendency to Romanist (or early Church) errors that leaves the reformed reader cautious. Hart does a fine job of navigating through these various pitfalls with a light hand, however, and overall a study of the Mercerburg Theology is highly beneficial and thought-provoking. Loved it. Favourite part: the chapter covering Nevin's critique of Finney