On Ortho Bridge’s future of protestantism thread, the admin mentioned Nevin, particularly Leithart’s use of Nevin. I was intrigued. I’ve long read Nevin (and Leithart) and I knew that Leithart’s project depends on Nevin’s theology. I made a comment along the lines of “The Trueman-Leithart debate is an exact replay of the Nevin-Hodge debate.” I thought it was a commonsensical and brilliant comment. I was warned not to derail the discussion. Well, the comment I was about to make, and one pertaining directly to both Nevin’s and Orthodoxy’s anthropology was this:
if we accept Nevin’s platonic essentialism, especially with regard to the Eucharist and Christology, then we run into huge problems. If Christ assumed the universal humanity, then he also assumed the rules of predicating of genus: the more universal a genus, the less specific it is. If Christ is the universal humanity, then there is nothing specifically human about him!