Reformed Eucharistic Theology and the Case for Real Presence
In 1848, Charles Hodge’s blistering review of John Williamson Nevin’s The Mystical Presence launched a sharp debate about the history and meaning of Reformed eucharistic theology. This debate is of enduring interest not only because of Hodge’s enormous stature and influence, but because of the profo...
| Authors: | ; |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Sage Publ.
2015
|
| In: |
Theology today
Year: 2015, Volume: 71, Issue: 4, Pages: 429-439 |
| Further subjects: | B
Mercersburg
B John Calvin B Charles Hodge B John Nevin B Eucharist B Sacraments |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Parallel Edition: | Electronic
|
| Summary: | In 1848, Charles Hodge’s blistering review of John Williamson Nevin’s The Mystical Presence launched a sharp debate about the history and meaning of Reformed eucharistic theology. This debate is of enduring interest not only because of Hodge’s enormous stature and influence, but because of the profound theological and historical questions it raised, which continue to inform Reformed discussion of these issues today. In this essay, we first explore the fundamental theological points of tension, showing that the two men sparred inconclusively over the meaning of “presence,” over the relationship of Christ’s benefits to his life, and over the uniqueness of the grace available in the Eucharist. Their difficulty in resolving these issues, we suggest, stems in part from the complexity and ambiguity of Calvin’s own thought on these questions, although Nevin comes closer than Hodge in representing the views of the great reformer. We then show how the two men, following two very different concepts of the relationship between doctrine and history, offer different narratives of the evolution and devolution of Reformed eucharistic theology, and of Calvin’s place in this process of development. Again we argue that both Hodge and Nevin were overly quick to simplify the very complex disputes over the 16th century, although Nevin is right to discern the enormous influence of Calvin’s own synthesis, and right as well, we suggest, to recommend it to the contemporary Reformed. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2044-2556 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Theology today
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1177/0040573614552923 |