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
Dialogue on Reformed Eucharistic Theology

Dialogue on Reformed Eucharistic Theology

Last updated on: June 13, 2026 at 1:05 pm by Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Dialogue on Reformed Eucharistic Theology 2026-06-13T13:05:32-04:00 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.

: copyright , 2025.

His words are in blockquotes below, time-stamped to the video, so you can find each one.

*****

It is very important to know what the other is arguing before making a long video which respectfully most of it has little to do with the argument.

I have answered Turretin in-depth in reply articles 14 times now; the last four concerning the Eucharist. This came from one of the four. Most had little to do with his larger argument; I agree, because I was taking off from his comments about the “impossibility” of God being bodily present in the bread and wine and constructing a demonstration of all the different types of God’s presence in the Bible. So it’s a massive response to that one aspect of his argument. In that sense I readily agree that I wasn’t dealing with his entire argument. I do that across all four of my written responses.

I am not going to suppose all of Turretin’s arguments but will give some of the basics of a Reformed argument against Christ being physically present on earth after the ascension into heaven and before the second coming. I think that will clear up many misconceptions and thus clear up some confusion and false accusations.

Go for it. I so rarely get any responses that it is delightful to find someone willing to engage.

Reformed theology (RT) is not claiming that God cannot be present with man at any time. The whole list of how God in his divine nature is immaterially present has little to do with the subject and RT has no issue with it. They might have some slight differences, but they definitely believe in God’s omnipresence and also his special presence with believers by the Holy Spirit.

I agree. My argument was a huge reductio, trying to show that if God is immaterially present in ten ways and materially present in another nine ways, then how can Turretin claim that it’s “impossible” to believe in transubstantiation. It makes literally no sense, and is a universal negative type pseudo-“argument”: which is always a bad move on any sort of debate. Turretin not only claims God doesn’t do what we claim He does at every Mass, but can’t possibly do it: which is an exponentially larger claim and extremely difficult to prove from the Bible.

RT has no issue with pre incarnate physical appearances of God (Theophanies) but hold the incarnation in a special place. I do not think God was physically present in the burning bush but that is off topic.

My argument didn’t entail claiming that Reformed Protestants disagreed with all of these sorts of presence. I am explaining my intention with the argument, which you seem to have largely missed. I didn’t claim God was “physically present in the burning bush” either. What I claimed (in my notes for this video) was that it fell under the category of “Divine Presence Involving Physicality” and that “God can be and was present in a special way in matter (the burning bush . . .)”. That’s a different claim from saying that God himself was physically present in the bush. I chose my words very carefully, as I always do.

RT has no problem with the incarnation

I never claimed it did. So why would you bring this up? I’m saying that, given your acceptance of the incarnation, why do you think transubstantiation would be impossible?

RT has no issue with the in Christ language by Paul and others in he Bible. The issue as we will see is how.

I never claimed that, either. You are assuming a lot of things about either my argument or my intentions for it or about what I supposedly think about Reformed Protestantism (that I don’t). But an e for effort . . .

Okay. So what is the argument? Why are RT so against Jesus being physically (body) now in the Eucharist.

Thanks for explaining! Inquiring minds want to know . . .

The first issue is best understood through the Chalcedonian definition. It states, ” one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only” (From the Council of Chalcedon 451).

Thus, Jesus is one person in two natures, divine and human. And these two natures are not confused, do not change, are not divided or separated. He still has two natures today. If Jesus Christ is body is present in the Eucharist then we are saying that Jesus’ human nature is present in the Eucharist.

That’s not what we believe; rather, that He is present, “Body, blood, soul, and divinity.” But it’s a sacramental presence, which is a different mode of presence. We can no more separate the two natures in the Eucharist than we can when we talk about Mary being the Mother of God (Theotokos). Mothers aren’t parents of natures but of people.

It is argued that a human nature can only be at one place at a time and has boundaries and a limited scope (amount). So how is Jesus Christ human nature in heaven and on earth?

Well, it’s the whole Jesus, not just the human nature, but it is His physical body, which is the human nature. Why do you think this is impossible? How could the fish and the loaves be multiplied? These things simply aren’t impossible for God. The prior problem is that Turretin and many (most?) Reformed think that miracles ceased. So transubstantiation is made “impossible” by ruling out a category and a possibility, rather than by theological or biblical argument.

How can He have a physical body, yet walk through walls? The Eucharist is neither theologically nor logically impossible for God to do.

And how do millions of people eat his human body but it is not used up?

Because it’s a miracle. How can one believe that miracles ceased when the Bible never said that this would be the case?

Again, it is said to be a natural limitation of a human nature that we cannot be at two places at once and that we have a limited amount of body.

But we are finite, created human beings. God the Son is not that.

The human nature does not change or morph into a divine nature per Chalcedon. So how does this happen? You can say it is a miracle but that does not really help unless one gives some sort of explanation on how a human nature is multipresent.

Why do we even have to explain it? It’s what Jesus taught, so we believe it. He held bread in His hand and said “this is my boy” and he held a glass of wine and said it was His blood. Then He said that if we don’t partake in both we have no life in us. The people who were at Chalcedon believed, for the most part, believed in the transformational character of the Eucharist, according to Protestant historian Philp Schaff and many others. They saw no conflict here; only Calvinists do, 15 centuries after Christ.

God became flesh to suffer and die as a human. The divine nature did not die. Jesus’ human nature died.

No; Jesus died and He had both natures. We don’t say that a “human nature” or in our case that a “soul died.” We say that a human being died.

But Jesus is one person and so God died on the cross. The Divine nature did not change so it could suffer in the incarnation. Why does the human nature change in the Eucharist?

Because God so willed it. Bread and wine can become God, just as we can be “partakers of the divine nature” too.

Secondly, after the ascension the disciples were looking up. Acts 1:10-11 describes what occurred. “10 They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11 “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”

Yes, in the sense of the incarnate Jesus. He came with a human body the first time and He will do so the second time with a glorified human body. Sacramental presence is different in kind from that.

Another part of the argument is Jesus will return bodily at the second coming. He does not come back in between.

The first doesn’t rule out the possibility of the second. This is simply the usual hyper-rationalistic “either/or” Reformed thinking, whereas the Bible is “both/and.”

thus, Jesus in his manhood is sitting at the right hand of the Father (or in heaven) waiting for the appointed time of his second coming. He is not on earth because that would be a second coming. He cannot be in two places or more at once. And he only has a limited amount of physical body.

Who says He can’t do that? If Jesus says that He can and does and Calvin and Turretin and you disagree with Jesus, then I go with Jesus’ opinion.

Now many in the reformed theology camp ascribe to spiritual presence. At least one version of that sees a real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist but not on earth. So instead of Jesus coming down, believes are mystically brought up to heaven in the Eucharist to feed on the body and blood of Jesus.

None of which is in the Bible, so the sensible question is, “why would anyone believe that?”

This is not all of the RT but it is a view of the RT.

And it’s wrong and unbiblical, whatever it is.

That understanding would clear up many of the issues above. Jesus would be present in one location (not multi present at one time) and he has not come back to earth before his second coming (in his human nature). I ascribe to this view in some sense.

Paul says, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor 10:16, RSV),. He never says this is in heaven. You merely arbitrarily assume that, to make sense of your own false dilemma that really is none at all. The author of Hebrews also wrote:

Hebrews 13:10-12 We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat. [11] For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp. [12] So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood.

That’s not in heaven either. And it’s the same as “the table of the Lord” that Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians 10:21.

There is still mystery in the doctrine of communion. I have some affection and almost want to believe in a Lutheran or Eastern Orthodox type of view of real presence.

Glad to hear that. Perhaps my arguments can make you consider our view as a possibility.

I am not big on the Aristolean [sic] philosophy involved in the RC version.

That’s not of the essence of it. It was merely tool to help us understand substance and accidents in greater detail. But the majority of the fathers already had a transformational view of the Eucharist by the 4th-5th centuries some 500-66 years before Aristotle began being known in the west.

But what keeps me from a complete ascribing to the view is I think the RT argument above holds some real weight.

I think if you examine its premises again you may have less confidence in it.

But again it is important to know and steelman an opponent’s argument. Very little of the video actually deals with the argument.

I have not created any straw man (which is the term, not “steel man”), as explained. Thanks so much for watching the video and interacting. God bless you.

***

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 two YouTube channels, Catholic Bible Highlights and Lux Veritatis (featuring documentaries), where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos and documentaries), 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: copyright Catholic Bible Highlights, 2025.

Summary: Detailed, substantive, civil dialogue with a Calvinist on reasons why Reformed Protestants reject the real bodily (corporeal) presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist.

Calvinism & General Protestantism

Reformed eucharistic theology

transubstantiation

Previous Post

May 23, 2025

How Can That Be Jesus? (Turretin & the Eucharist)

Next Post

May 29, 2025 Eucharist = Jesus? Protestant Doubts vs. Biblical Faith

Recent Comments

0 | Leave a Comment

"Special pleading, and not a serious response to my arguments . . ."

Dave Armstrong

Is Venerating Men & Angels Worship? ..."

""no man needs to teach us."Didn't you just teach us?"

Dave Armstrong

Is Venerating Men & Angels Worship? ..."

""Catholics say they are the only church that can lead people into heaven."In fact, we ..."

Dave Armstrong

Is Venerating Men & Angels Worship? ..."

"And lastly, I belong to no denomination and am free to serve God as He ..."

Mariah

Is Venerating Men & Angels Worship? ..."

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category & Last Things About Me Anti-Catholicism Atheism & Agnosticism Baptism and Sacramentalism Bible and Tradition Blessed Virgin Mary Books by Dave Armstrong C. S. Lewis Calvinism & General Protestantism Catholic Apologetics Catholic Apologists Catholic conversion Catholic converts Christmas Church (Ecclesiology) Church History Conversion and Converts Development of Doctrine Eastern Orthodoxy Ecumenism & Christian Unity Eucharist & Liturgy Fathers of the Church French Translations G. K. Chesterton Hell Hell & Satan Hell & Satan & Last Things Heresies & Comparative Religion Holistic Health Inquisition & Crusades & Scandals James White Jews & Judaism & Old Testament John Calvin John Henry Newman Liberal / Modernist Theology Life Issues Literary Resume Lutheranism Mariology Martin Luther Music Orthodoxy Papacy & Infallibility Personal Page Philosophy & Science Political & Ethical & Moral Issues Protestant Persecution & Intolerance Protestantism Purgatory Purgatory & Penance Romantic & Imaginative Theology Saints & Purgatory & Penance Salvation Salvation & Justification Satan & Last Things Sexuality and Gender Issues Spanish Translations Traditionalism vs. Radical Catholic Reactionaries Traducciones al español / tradução para português Trinitarianism & Christology Uncategorized Videos

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 April 2010 March 2010 December 2009 October 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 March 2009 February 2009 October 2008 September 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 May 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 October 2005 June 2005 April 2005 February 2005 July 2004 May 2004 April 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz