I have started reading D.G. Hart's biography of the 19th century German Reformed theologian JW Nevin (published by P&R). Does anyone have any thoughts on this book or upon the man in question? I have only read the first three chapters, but I get the impression that Dr Hart and the subject of his book support a sacramentalist view (though Nevin was good againt Finney).

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)

I have heard only good things about Nevin.......

Keith Mathison quotes him for his book "Given for you: Recovering the Reformed View of the Lord Supper".

Nevin holds to Calvins view of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.... He upheld the orthodox view of the Lord's Supper in the 19th century when few would....

I did not know there was a biography of Nevin by Hart, I am going to have to get it and read it....

__________________
Michael Daniels
Reformed, RPCNA
Denton, Maryland

[i][b]As For Me And My House, We Will Serve The Lord[/i][/b]

[SIZE="1"][I][FONT="Century Gothic"]Unum Deum in Trinitate: Pater, Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus [RIGHT]Sola scriptura - Sola gratia - Sola fide - Solus Christus - Soli Deo gloria - Solum psalterium - Lex talionis[/RIGHT][/FONT][/I][/SIZE]

I guess you can call Hart a High Church Calvinist but not as High as the Church of England or Lutheran..... I throw myself in the same catagory as Hart.....

He holds to the Dialogical Principle of Worship. A Dialog between God and Man during Worship... God speaks, we respond, God speaks, and we respond, etc.... All within a Covenantal Worship Pattern. From the Call of Worship to the Benediction. Weekly Communion is part of the Liturgy.. Prayers can be unwritten and written mixed within the service, etc.... Some call all of this High Church. But I tend to see it as High Church within the Low Church View....

Hart is very good. I have not read this particular book, though.

__________________
Scott Roberts
Ruling Elder, Lakeside Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Southlake, Texas

The book is okay. He does a good job describing Nevin's views. Keith Mathison did a better job. I did a review of this book on amazon. Hart did a good job until the very end when he made some irrelevant (and poorly argued) comments against the church having a prophetic voice in the world.

__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College

Thanks for your input everyone.

If memory serves me right, Calvin's view differs from that of the Westminster Standards.

I would agree with him on weekly communion, though not on other aspects of his view of worship.

Yes, Dr Hart is certainly a pietist; I am just after finishing Seeking a Better Country (which he co-authored with John Muether) that also suffers from a misreading of American history and principles of liberty (in relation to Calvinism) and repeats the same silly, unbiblical (meaning that no serious Biblical exegesis is offered in support of the view) arguments against societal reformation.

This is not a comment on Hart's biography of Nevin, though I have it and have only read bits and pieces. But I have no use for Nevin. He expressed contempt repeatedly for Puritan theology, and for a professor who attempted to understand the early church, he only had a superficial grasp of it in my opinion.

Cheers,
DTK

__________________
Sola Scriptura est norma normans non normata
D. T. King, pastor
Christ Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Elkton, Maryland
Augustine (354-430): Therefore what He [i.e., Christ] has deigned to speak to us, we ought to believe that He meant us to understand. But if we do not understand He, being asked, gives understanding, who gave His Word unasked. NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate XXII, §1.

Thanks for your input; I think he disliked Puritanism (unfairly in my opinion) because of its perceived subjectivism.

As of late, I myself have been disliking the Puritans (mostly the later Puritans) more and more and am clinging more and more to the the Reformers Theology..... Like Nevin I think there was alot of Subjectivism which was the forerunner of the Revivial period which has lead our church down to what it is today; in crisis!

Perhaps this is off topic, but here are a few comments from another historian on Nevin...

E. Brooks Holifield: Like the theologians of the Catholic Church, Nevin rejected the Calvinist distinction between the visible and the invisible church. An invisible church was to him an empty abstraction. The idea of the church included visibility as much as the idea of the human being supposed a body. As actual, the church was holy, one, and catholic only in a fragmented and incomplete way; it required a process of historical evolution to actualize itself fully. But its ideal was not a distant goal; the ideal was immanent within the actual, a life struggling to come to its full manifestation. Just as the ideal could have no reality save under the form of the historical and actual, so the actual could have no truth and inner power except through the presence of the ideal within it. E. Brooks Holifield, Theology in America: Christian Thought from the Age of the Puritans to the Civil War (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), p. 477-478.

E. Brooks Holifield: The response to Mercersburg from most Protestant theologians was so uncomprehending and hostile that Nevin almost decided to convert to Catholicism. In 1851-52 he published a series of articles on “Early Christianity” and “Cyprian.” The conclusion he drew from his studies was that the early church looked “very different from modern Protestantism.” It knew nothing of “the Bible and private judgment” as the rule of faith; it accepted the primacy of the Roman pontiff; it conceived of a “purely Divine character belonging to the Church.” It affirmed asceticism, celibacy, relics, miracles, purgatory, the veneration of saints, prayers for the dead, submission to the church, and faith in the sacraments as supernatural mysteries. He expressed sheer embarrassment at the ignorance of early Christianity that was revealed in the crude Protestant attacks on Rome. In 1851 Nevin resigned from his seminary position and seriously considered conversion. He entered into correspondence with both Orestes Brown and John Hughes.
Schaff never felt the same temptation, and he looked back at Nevin’s essays on early Christianity as an unfortunate turning point in the Mercersburg movement. But Schaff also deplored the tone and content of Protestant attacks on Catholicism, and he exposed the students at Mercersburg to Catholic readings. One group of students left the seminary in disgust. Schaff was more interested, however, in the church of the future that would unite the best features of the Protestant and Catholic traditions, and he spoke later of delicate relations with Nevin during this period.
Finally for Nevin, as well as for Schaff, the decision to remain within Protestantism rested on the vision of historical development. Nevin conceded that “the idea of historical development” was the only possible escape from the difficulty of affirming the continuity of Protestantism with the early church. Convinced that it “must be one with the ancient church, to have any valid claim to its prerogatives and powers,” he could accept it only because he was convinced that it stood in organic continuity with the previous history of the church. He took comfort from Schaff’s notion that the Protestant churches were in a stage of transition toward a higher and better state of the church.” E. Brooks Holifield, Theology in America: Christian Thought from the Age of the Puritans to the Civil War (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), p. 480.

It's no surprise to me that the adherents of the so-called Federal Vision theology think very highly of Nevin.

DTK

Here is my amazon review of the book:

Takes you to the edge of the cliff, but no more, February 12, 2007

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?

I liked Hart's book about Machen, but his performance on the DRC FV discussion left me feeling that it is quite needless to purchase any more of his books.

__________________
Ruben
Moderator
F.P.C.I.
Indiana

Vanities and disguises have covered us, and thereby we are naked; licenciousness hath inflam'd us, and thereby we are frozen; voluptuousness hath fed us, and thereby we are sterved, the fancies and traditions of men have taught and instructed us, and thereby we are ignorant.
John Donne

Board Rules - Signature Requirements - Suggestions?

Calvinistas Conversando
Teología en Mexico
The Howling Wilderness

Have you any evidence for this? I thought they taught the same

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK

I think William Cunningham says they differ in Historical Theology and in The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation (I have not read the latter).

Brian Schwertley explains the difference in some depth in a series of lectures on the Lord's Supper which are available on Sermon Audio.

What is his view of the FV?

My Review of the book has now been published on my blog:

Book Review: John Williamson Nevin - High Church Calvinist

He is against it, and postmillennialism, and theonomy, and worldview thinking, etc.

I definitely knew he was against the last two, though I thought he would be more favourable to the FV because of its more "churchly" emphasis.

You need to read Keith Mathison's Book "Given for you:Reclaiming Calvin's Doctrine of the Lord's Supper" Foreworded by R.C. Sproul....

There was No difference between the Standards and what John Calvin taught........

As much as I respect Schwertley, he is not perfect and I do not agree with him on everything...... I am a surprised that Schwertley believes there is a difference... I will have to hear the sermon to see what he exactly says.....