Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
History and Religion
Reply to François Turretin #14: Eucharist, Pt. 2

Reply to François Turretin #14: Eucharist, Pt. 2

Last updated on: June 6, 2026 at 12:04 am by Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Reply to François Turretin #14: Eucharist, Pt. 2 2026-06-06T00:04:56-04:00 Dave Armstrong

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

False premises; unfounded, unbiblical divine “impossibilities”; cessationism; ten types of physical divine presence

Photo credit: image by VesaL (4-8-24) [Pixabay / Pixabay Content License]

François Turretin (1623-1687) was a Genevan-Italian Reformed scholastic theologian and renowned defender of the Calvinistic (Reformed) orthodoxy represented by the Synod of Dort, and was one of the authors of the Helvetic Consensus (1675). He is generally considered to be the best Calvinist apologist besides John Calvin himself. His Institutes of Elenctic Theology (three volumes, Geneva, 1679–1685) used the scholastic method. “Elenctic” means “refuting an argument by proving the falsehood of its conclusion.” Turretin contended against the conflicting Christian perspectives of Catholicism and Arminianism. It was a popular textbook; notably at Princeton Theological Seminary, until it was replaced by Charles Hodge’s Systematic Theology in the late 19th century. Turretin also greatly influenced the Puritans.

This is a reply to portions of a section of Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Vol. 3, 19th Topic: The Sacraments / 28th Question: The Corporeal Presence of Christ in the Supper and the Oral Manducation of It). I utilize the edition translated by George Musgrave Giger and edited by James T. Dennison, Jr. (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Phillipsburg, New Jersey: 1992 / 1994 / 1997; 2320 pages). It uses the KJV for Bible verses. I will use RSV unless otherwise indicated. All installments of this series of replies can be found on my Calvinism & General Protestantism web page, under the category, “Replies to Francois Turretin (1632-1687).” Turretin’s words will be in blue.

*****

Is Christ corporeally present in the Eucharist, and is he eaten with the mouth by believers? We deny against the Romanists and Lutherans.

And they “deny” against the Church fathers, medieval theologians, and the Bible. Not a good place to be . . .

The fiction of transubstantiation having been overthrown, . . .

I must have missed it. But it’s not overthrown if I am around to shoot down the weak and insufficient and radically unbiblical arguments against it. One day all saved believers will know what the truth of the matter is and will all agree. What a marvelous and blessed concept!: total unity. How sad that it was supposed to be like that in the Church all along.

The Scriptures so often propose to us the communion of the body and blood of Christ as the foundation and source of all his blessings . . .

Isn’t it odd and sad that Turretin can so casually and frequently make reference to “the body and blood of Christ” while at the same time denying that it really is that? But that’s the first thing that theological falsehood and heresy do: change the plain meanings of words.

Hence they invented a local and corporeal presence in order that it might be eaten with the mouth.

We didn’t invent anything. Jesus introduced these ideas, that had never crossed anyone’s mind:

John 6:50-51, 53-58 “This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. . . . if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh. . . . unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, . . . For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. . . . he who eats me will live because of me. . . . This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”

How many repetitions of an obvious truth does one need? It’s almost as if God was anticipating the eucharistic nonsense that we have been burdened with since the 1520s, and made the truth of the matter so clear in Scripture that no one without a prior bias or constant brainwashing could possibly deny it. Yet they do . . . so our apologetic and exegetical task still remains.

It is not inquired whether our union with Christ is necessary for salvation (which we acknowledge and urge) . . .

Note how he rightfully holds that partaking of Holy Communion is “necessary for salvation.”

Christ’s body is proposed in the Supper to us and represented by the sacramental signs as dead and his blood as poured out of his veins (in which manner it is impossible for Christ’s body to be made present to us at this day corporeally and indistantly [adiastatōs], since he can die no more); . . .

This is simply not impossible at all for God to do. Nothing logically forbids it, for those who grant miracles, the supernatural, and God’s omnipotence. Turretin assumes it but doesn’t prove it. Again, he thinks like the Pauline “unspiritual man.” His God is “too small.” As a thought experiment, imagine that instead of becoming one man, Jesus, in the incarnation, God the Father decided to become 10,000 men? Who could tell Him that it was “impossible” to do that? It’s no more impossible than one incarnation was. It’s no more impossible than God subsisting in three Persons, yet being one God and not three. Yet Turretin wants us to believe that it’s “impossible for Christ’s body to be made present to us at this day corporeally.” Nonsense!

Christ commands us “to do this in remembrance of him” (Lk. 22:19). Now memory is only of things absent and past, not of those present; nor, if all things are said to be present to faith, is this understood of a local presence . . .

Actually, the words used suggest a timeless present. The one crucifixion of Jesus in history is supernaturally made present to us in the Mass. See:

Passover in Judaism & a Mass that Transcends Time (“Past Events Become Present Today”/ Survey of “Remember” in Scripture) [7-7-09]

The Timeless Crucifixion & the Sacrifice of the Mass [9-25-09]

Time-Transcending Mass and the Hebrew “Remember” [National Catholic Register, 8-3-18]

From the passages in which the departure of Christ from the world is spoken of. (a) Where he predicts that he will go out of the world and will no longer be present here in his body: “Ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always” (Mt. 26:11); “I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father” (Jn. 16:28); . . .

Being sacramentally present is a different category of presence, so that there is no conflict in His saying that He would be gone in the sense of what He was during His earthly life. “Apples and oranges” in other words . . .

“They shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds” (Mt. 24:30).

Exactly! That’s obviously visible presence; whereas eucharistic Real Presence is discerned only by faith and revelation. This isn’t complicated. I contend that Protestants who deny the Real Presence don’t have enough faith. It’s a “miracle too far” for them. This is primarily a spiritual lack, as opposed to an intellectual one. Many of these same Protestants who deny the Real Presence, by the way, disbelieve in all miracles since the apostolic age (what’s known as cessationism). The Wikipedia article on the topic states,

The cessationist doctrine arose in the Reformed theology: initially in response to claims of Roman Catholic miracles. . . .

It was when these miracles in the Catholic Church were used as a polemic against the post-Reformation Protestant churches that John Calvin began to develop a doctrine of cessationism, and it was primarily in the Calvinist tradition that this doctrine was developed. . . .

The Roman Catholic Church and most other wings of Protestantism were never cessationist by doctrine.

In other words, disbelief in continuing miracles wasn’t based on the Bible (where, of course, it is never taught), but rather, upon anti-Catholic prejudice and polemics; not exactly an indisputable criterion of belief in anything. Sure enough, in the same volume 3 of the work I am critiquing, Turretin adopts cessationism: “miracles are accidents and extraordinary gifts which were given to the church only for a time, not always; for the establishment of Christianity, not for its continuance” (18.13.43; from an article on Turretin’s ecclesiology).

Obviously, if one is already hostile to miracles under false and unbiblical pretenses, then one will be disinclined to accept miracles at every Church gathering, which is what occurs in the Catholic Mass. So there is an inveterate false premise before we even begin this discussion. This is why one must always examine the underlying premises and presuppositions of one’s dialogical opponents. They determine everything else. It reminds me of Jesus’ remarks about “a foolish man who built his house upon the sand” (Mt 7:26), as opposed to building it on a “rock” (7:24).

From all these, an invincible argument is derived.

In fact, it isn’t “invincible” at all because it’s built upon false premises, or “sand” — as Jesus would say.

He who departed in body from the earth and left the world that he might betake himself to heaven where he is to remain until the restitution of all things; who is sought in vain on earth where he no longer is; and must be sought in heaven, where he sits at the right hand of God, cannot be said to be carnally present in the sacrament. . . . It is repugnant to the words of Christ, which speak of his departure and leaving the world, not only concerning the disappearance and hiddenness of his body. But how can he be said to leave the world and to be raised up into heaven, if he as yet remains perpetually on earth?

This doesn’t follow because he is again comparing apples and oranges. There are at least twenty major types of divine presence, that I can think of: ten involving physicality and ten in an immaterial sense:

Immaterial Divine Presence

God is omnipresent.

God can be and was specially present in empty spaces (e.g., the temple, tabernacle, and above the ark of the covenant).

God was “with” the victorious armies of the Israelites (Jud 6:16) and with holy men like Moses and Joshua.

God was present in sublime visual scenes, such as described by Isaiah, Daniel, and St. John (Is 6:1-7; Dan 7:1-10; Rev 1:12-16).

God was specially present in — even to the point of being equated with — the Angel of the Lord.

God indwells believers. The Bible says this interchangeably about all three Persons of the Holy Trinity. Once again, God is “in” physical matter (us).

We are continually working towards being united to God in the sense of theosis / divinization (2 Cor 3:18; Eph 4:15; 2 Pet 1:4).

Jesus’ disciples are “in Christ”.

Jesus’ disciples are “in the Father” (1 Jn 2:24), and (the same thing) “in him” (Acts 17:18; 1 Jn 2:5; 3:6).

Jesus’ disciples are “in the Holy Spirit” and “in the Spirit”.

Divine Presence Involving Physicality Wholly or Partially

God can be and was present in a special way in matter (the pillars of cloud and fire, the burning bush).

God was present in theophanies in the Old Testament.

God became a man, Jesus, in the incarnation (Jesus’ 33 years or so of earthly life).

Jesus was present for forty days as the incarnate God the Son risen from the dead, with a resurrected body capable of walking through walls (Jn 20:19, 26).

Jesus will be physically present in His glorified post-Ascension state when He returns in the Second Coming.

Jesus is present sacramentally (a different sort of miraculous physicality) in the Holy Eucharist.

We’re mysteriously united to Jesus in His death and resurrection in baptism (Rom 6:3-8).

We’re united in a profound sense to Jesus’ death and resurrection on an ongoing basis (2 Cor 4:10; Phil 3:10; Gal 2:20).

St. Paul said that “in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions” (Col 1:24) and “I bear on my body the marks of Jesus” (Gal 6:17).

Jesus is somehow connected to His Church, the Body of Christ; so much so that He told Paul that he was persecuting Him when he was persecuting the Church (Acts 9:4-5; 22:7-8; 26:14-15).

Yet a little later, Turretin wrote:

The union which exists between us and Christ is nowhere said to be corporeal, but spiritual and mystical, which can be brought about in no other way than by the Spirit and faith (1 Cor. 6:17; Eph. 3:17).

This is untrue, since #17-20 above (especially #19) refer to mysterious but literal corporeal aspects of our union with Jesus.

Much of theology involves rather fine distinctions. Turretin knew all of this (or should have, as a theologian). But he appears to either be unaware of or to ignore many of these necessary distinctions in direct proportion to how much he is hostile in an anti-Catholic sense, and hence he descends to being a prisoner of his own bias, leading to false premises and equally false conclusions drawn from them. This particular one isn’t rocket science. But Turretin only regards as relevant to this discussion, #13 and #15 of the types of presence and ignores the others, which — considered as a whole — highly suggest by analogy and variety that eucharistic Real Presence is altogether possible, if not plausible and likely and actual.

Christ in consoling the minds of his sad disciples ought to have used this distinction—that he would indeed visibly depart, but still would be invisibly with them by the presence of his body, to such a degree that he could be both received into their hands and taken into their mouths. But he employed far different means (to wit, the substitution of the Holy Spirit in place of his bodily presence, whom he promised to send that he might remain with them forever as his vicar).

John 6:56 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. [56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

So we see that in fact Jesus did say what Turretin said He ought to say if indeed the Real Presence and transubstantiation are true. Thus, according to Turretin, in this saying Jesus proved what Catholics have been saying all along. But sadly, Turretin and those who think like he does in effect act like those who heard this from Jesus:

John 6:60-61, 64, 66 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” [61] But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? . . . [64] But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. . . . [66] After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.

Based on how Turretin argues, he likely would have taken that approach if he were alive when Jesus was (i.e., not having enough faith or submissive obedience when Jesus taught about the Eucharist and transubstantiation). But one hopes not.

Now what need was there of the invisible presence of the Holy Spirit if the flesh of Christ always remains invisibly?

He’s our Helper, of course, and we have plenty of moments (indeed, the vast majority of the time) when we are not partaking in Holy Communion. But Jesus and the Father indwell us, too, according to Scripture. If we are to become one with God (deification) and begin that process in this life, then Holy Communion is one profound way that we do that on an ongoing basis in this life.

*
***
*

Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information.

You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my YouTube channel, Catholic Bible Highlights, where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!

***

Photo credit: image by VesaL (4-8-24) [Pixabay / Pixabay Content License]

Summary: Calvinist theologian François Turretin says transubstantiation is impossible and offers various and sundry weak arguments: all of which I shoot down from the Bible and logic.

Calvinism & General Protestantism

Institutes of Elenctic Theology

sacramentalism

sacraments

Previous Post

February 27, 2025

Reply to François Turretin #13: Transubstantiation, Pt. 2