I Guess I’m a Sacramental Calvinist
April 13, 2008 by Eric Parker
In the great American debate between John Williamson Nevin and Charles Hodge, the problem [of predestination and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist] resurfaced as an inner-Reformed controversy. Hodge was a predestinarian Calvinist, Nevin a sacramental Calvinist, and their debate may make one wonder if it is possible to be both at once. (B.A. Gerrish, Grace and Gratitude, p. 170)
Actually I think the controversy presents a false dichotomy, which gives an answer to Gerrish’s dilemma. Yes, it is possible to be a predestinarian/sacramental Calvinist. I think the whole controversy in the Presbyterian churches today has to do with this apparent dichotomy. It really boils down to the nature of sacramental symbols. Do the sign and the reality always go together? Calvin says, “The nature of the Sacrament is therefore canceled, unless, in the mode of signifying, the earthly sign corresponds to the heavenly thing.” (Institutes, IV.17.13) If the reality is removed the sign no longer functions as a sign, thus it ceases to be a sign of anything for anyone.
I absolutely love Gerrish, but I agree that it is a false dichotomy. Is it possible to be both a predestinarian and sacramental Calvinist at once? Well… Calvin certainly seemed to think so. The thing with Nevin and Hodge is that they had completely divergent philosophical presuppositions which controlled their thinking, and led them each to press certain aspects of Calvin’s thought to the expense of others. This is why their differences were completely irreconcilable. Nevin’s Calvinism is filtered through Hegel and Schleiermacher. Hodge’s Calvinism is filtered through Bacon and Reid. Neither was really Calvin’s Calvinism.
The thing is, however, that in their debate on the Sacraments, Hodge, though he differed in some serious ways with Calvin, still insisted that he was Calvin’s rightful heir, and that Nevin’s view was “somewhere in between Lutheranism and Romanism.” And he was manifestly and eggregiously wrong on this. But, in contrast, when it came to predestination, Nevin never made any pretense to an agreement with Calvin. He gladly admitted that he disagreed with Calvin on that point. So, the difference between them in my opinion is that, while Nevin was content to let Calvin be what he is and disagree with him honestly, Hodge just couldn’t accept the possibility that he diverged from Calvin in any substantial way.