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
Protestant Eucharistic Objections Fail (Turretin)

Protestant Eucharistic Objections Fail (Turretin)

Last updated on: June 13, 2026 at 1:10 pm by Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Protestant Eucharistic Objections Fail (Turretin) 2026-06-13T13:10:27-04:00 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.

This is the complete transcript (including a rough equivalent of the dialogue) of the 42-minute video, “The Real Presence: Why Protestant Arguments Keep Failing” (Catholic Bible Highlights, with Kenny Burchard, 2-5-26). Kenny’s words will be in blue; Turretin’s in green.

*****

I’m Kenny Burchard and I’m sitting here with Dave Armstrong, the esteemed author and Catholic apologist. He doesn’t talk about himself that way, but I do. Dave, great to have you back again. How are you, sir?

I’m doin’ real good. How you doin’?

I am great. I’m glad you’re here. I’m glad we’re here. We’re talking about a topic that gets a lot of play in the comments. In fact, even on videos that have nothing to do with this, people ask us, can you do more of this? And it’s the theme of the Eucharist and helping to defend the Eucharist from Scripture.

And that’s what we’re gonna do in this episode and more going forward. But I was thinking before we even got started here, that many of the arguments that we hear from certain Protestants and evangelicals are, — I would call them — rewarmed arguments from other people throughout history that have been picked up and repeated. And you, Dave, have found some of these arguments in some older voices. I’ll let you introduce those voices, but we’re gonna hear arguments that maybe we wouldn’t hear from all Protestants and evangelicals, but from many. And one of the insights here, — and it’s important to remember this — is that Catholics are not the only ones who are arguing with Protestants about the Eucharist.

Some Protestants are closer to the way Catholics understand the Eucharist than others. So we’re gonna let Dave unpack all of that for us today. But before we do, grab your Bible, grab your pen, grab your highlighter, and get ready. And if you have not clicked “like” on the video, I always ask you to do that right outta the gate because it helps the video get traction. So like the video, subscribe to Catholic Bible Highlights. Dave, we’re almost at 32,000 subscribers. As this video goes live, please become a subscriber. Comment on the video before you leave the video support Catholic Bible Highlights. The easiest way to do that is just to click the thanks button below this video.

Or if you want to leave a tax deductible gift, you can always click on the giving page in the comments and share this video on your social media if you think it would be helpful down in the description of the video. There are a ton of free resources that Dave has provided and created for us, as well as access to one of his books that we featured on other episodes.

And I think every Catholic should have all your books, Dave, but if you don’t have this book, you need to get it, especially if you want to defend the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist from scripture. There’s nobody better than the Bible Answer Man of Catholicism, Dave Armstrong for this stuff and this book, Biblical Catholic Eucharistic Theology. We believe in the biblical Catholic eucharistic theology, and so everybody out there ought to have this Dave Armstrong book in your library. Get it in your library, get it in your heart, get it in your mind, get it highlighted in your Bible. All right, Dave, where are we headed today? What have you found for us? And what will you be unfolding in this episode?

This is one of a series of responses to François Turretin (1623-1687). He’s a Reformed or Calvinist theologian from the school of Reformed scholasticism: sort of influenced by Thomas Aquinas, in his method. So that makes it good. He’s one of the authors of the Helvetic Consensus (from 1675), which is a big confession of Protestantism. We’re replying to parts of his three-volume work and magnum opus called Institutes of Elenctic Theology — from Volume Three.

I had to look up the word “elenctic” (not “electric”) too. I didn’t know what it was. It means cross-examining or refuting or engaging in the Socratic method, which is dear to my own heart. It’s inquiring about why someone believes what they do: on what basis? So I think it’s pretty cool that he does that. And we’re gonna return the favor and do it back.

Let me read the first quote from Turretin to nail down exactly what he believes: specifically what he believes happens after the consecration of the bread and wine at Mass. Here’s what he says:

First, as to the senses. What many senses properly disposed and furnished with all the requisites for action, uniformly always and everywhere testify—that is necessarily true. Now the senses with one accord testify that after the consecration, the symbols are properly bread and wine, not body and blood. Therefore, this is necessarily true. (19th Topic: The Sacraments / 27th Question: Transubstantiation: edition translated by George Musgrave Giger and edited by James T. Dennison, Jr., Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Phillipsburg, New Jersey: 1997)

Many miracles in Christianity cannot be perceived by the senses alone. The belief in God becoming a man, for example, couldn’t be proven through the senses by simply examining Jesus. No one could have looked into a microscope at a lock of Jesus’ hair or one of His thumbnails and conclude, “hey, look! This proves that Jesus is God!” The cells wouldn’t have looked any different from any other human cells. How can one determine whether God is eternal through the senses? Yet Protestants accept these doctrines, as they do many other doctrines like the Holy Trinity, that can’t be proven through the senses alone.

Yeah, I like that observation. It’s axiomatic. Turretin, though, does not seem to like that angle at all. Here’s another quote from him where he simply says,

Otherwise we would have to say that there is nothing certain in the nature of things and the testimony of all the senses would have to be condemned . . .

There is nothing “anti-scientific” entailed in believing that bread and wine can miraculously transform into the Body and Blood of Christ. All we need to do is note the obvious fact that not all knowledge is obtained through the senses, that miracles occur, and that God, being all-powerful, can perform whatever miracle He wills. The Bible clearly states: “faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Heb 11:1). Even after appearing to Doubting Thomas and mercifully providing Him with empirical proof of His resurrection, Jesus went on to proclaim that “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe” (Jn 20:29). Turretin himself goes on to concede this point, at least.

Yes, he does. Let’s put it up on the screen. This is how Turretin puts it:

It is certain that the senses cannot judge of spiritual things as such (which occur in the mysteries of faith and transcend the senses), . . . wholly removed from corporeal things and as to all their parts mysteries, concealing themselves from us and far transcending the sphere both of reason and of the senses. These we hold are the object of faith alone, not of reason or of the senses.

He’s sort of talking out of both sides of his mouth, it seems to me. He concedes that there are mysteries and so forth, but then he gets into this thing, almost like — I’m gonna argue later — an atheist contending that all knowledge is from the senses. But what do you think?

I absolutely agree. When I saw that last quote, I was like, “well, which one is it, Mr. Turretin? Is it that God performs miracles: not all of which we can sense? Because he agrees that He does. Or is it that if you can’t sense it, it doesn’t really happen or hasn’t really happened? And I, I actually love the way that you began this, like try to find things like the incarnation. Just go to the doctrine of the incarnation and prove Jesus is God with your five senses. It’s almost like the way that atheists are: “If I can’t detect it with my senses, then I can’t believe it.” And he’s doing the same thing with eucharistic theology, at least it seems like that to me.

Yeah, the problem I have with it is that his reasoning would go as much against the incarnation as it does against the Eucharist. There’s no way that Jesus looks any different until He starts walking through walls; then it’s different. I think a lot of this kind of thing comes from bias against the Eucharist for various reasons. The excessive bias will cause otherwise brilliant minds like Turretin to make lousy arguments. I see this all the time in my apologetics: people that I admire as thinkers all of a sudden become irrational when they’re talking about Catholicism. I think this is an example of that.

It absolutely is. And for the sake of the folks who are wanting to highlight in their Bibles, before we go to more quotes by Turretin, I just remind you and encourage you right now just to pause and highlight the two verses that Dave pointed out a moment ago. The first is Hebrews chapter 11, verse one: “faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the convincing of things not seen.” And you should underline those two words in your Bible: “not seen” — because you’re gonna have folks who do not believe in the Catholic or the Lutheran perspective of transubstantiation say, “well, if I can’t detect it with my senses, then it can’t be real” – and then you can respond.

Well, biblical faith requires us to accept certain things that we cannot sense all the time: Hebrews 11 being one of them. And don’t forget one of the beatitudes outside of the Sermon on the Mount: “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe”, which is John 20:29. And you should chain link those two verses with annotations in the margins between both of them: Hebrews 11, one and John 20:29. And again, as we said, not all Protestants disavow this kind of eucharistic theology, but for those who do, those are two really important Bible verses. But we’re not done yet, are we, Dave?

Nope. Turretin actually goes on to list other miracles that are able to be examined by the senses.

Okay, let’s read some of that. He says in another place:

The other involved and connected with corporeal and sensible things (as the mystery of the incarnation, of the resurrection of Christ, and the various miracles brought by him), which have sensible things annexed to spiritual. Concerning the truth and certainty of these, the senses and reason can give their testimony.

Catholics agree. Thomas placed his hands in the wounds of the risen Christ and saw that He was physically raised from the dead, and believed. That had to do with the senses, and Jesus didn’t frown upon that. Some people don’t seem to believe any other way. But then He immediately noted that those who haven’t required sensible proofs are “blessed.” He could have been believed by His disciples simply because He said He would rise from the dead. Acts 1:3 also informs us that Jesus “presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days”. He did the same thing in another post-resurrection appearance, to the two disciples walking to Emmaus:

Here’s some more verses about this topic to highlight in your Bible. The first is Luke chapter 24, 36 to 40:

Luke 24:36-40 (RSV) As they were saying this, Jesus himself stood among them. [37] But they were startled and frightened, and supposed that they saw a spirit. [38] And he said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do questionings rise in your hearts? [39] See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have.”

He had done many miracles that were verified through the senses, such as healings, feeding the 5000, raising the dead, etc. But none of this rules out miracles that cannot be verified by the senses. That’s the point, the main point we’re making so far. Turretin attempts to make the Real Presence “impossible” by means of his arbitrary and abstract limitations on what God can do. In effect, he would “tie the hands of God.”

God made a donkey talk to Balaam (Numbers 22:21-31). That’s pretty “weird.” Now, how would one go about demonstrating biochemical changes in the donkey, enabling it to speak? Would a scientist be able to examine the brain of the animal and figure out how it could do that? I don’t think so. Here again – as with the Eucharist — there was no outward change (the “accidents” perceived by our senses remained the same), but a miracle occurred that enabled a donkey to talk.

Yeah, I think, you know, one of the things that I’ve done here in the development of my own faith as a Catholic Dave, is, I have thought about, for instance, what happened to me on my wedding day. This is me trying to build a bridge here between Eucharistic theology and other sacramental realities. And I jokingly — but not so jokingly — say that on my wedding day, I walked into the church a bachelor or a fiance, you could say. That’s how I went in. And then God’s word was pronounced over me and a minister said, “by the authority vested in me as a minister of the gospel, I now pronounce you man and wife.” And I moved out of the category of fiance and into the category of husband. And weirdly, strangely, from that moment forward, everybody started referring to me as a husband. Nobody grabbed a microscope and said, “well, let’s see if you’re really a husband. My senses don’t detect a husband anywhere.”

And that little metaphor, if you will, or analogy is a way of saying, “that’s what Catholics mean.” By substance and accidents (“under the appearance of”) Kenny, you know, in the same body that I had when I walked in with, I had become a husband. I had entered into a completely different category. And in fact, the Bible says, “what God has joined together, let no man separate.” Well, how can you detect with your senses that I had become a husband, Mr. Turretin? It was by God’s Word, the proclamation of God’s Word and the vows that I took to my wife, and all of those sacramental realities that are present in the sacraments, that’s where the change occurs. So that’s been helpful to me. You can’t find flesh and blood in the same way as my flesh and blood under the microscope, but you are going to find the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

[insert wedding day photo on the screen]

In fact, you, you may or may not believe that this is me, but that is me. I think I look exactly the same in this picture as I look, you know, 30, almost 35 years ago. But shockingly, I was transformed from a fiance into a husband by the Word of God, and by prayer and, you know, by all of these other realities, I moved from one category into another. I really did change into something else in that sense, and this has been a metaphor, at least for me, that’s been very helpful in understanding what we mean by transubstantiation as an analogy. Not sure what you think of that.

Well, I love analogies, and when you gave that example, it made me think of another one. I don’t think I ever thought of it before, how you said the minister proclaims “now you are man and wife” and everyone sitting there believes it.

Yeah. They started treating me like I was MaryJo’s husband from that moment forward.

So some kind of change has taken place and we believe it’s a sacrament.

Right.

It’s an analogy to the priest consecrating the bread and the wine. Here you announce that someone’s man and wife and a change takes place and you can’t tell the difference from minutes before. They look the same, but now they’re married.

Exactly. I think it’s a good analogy too. And you could say to Mr. Turretin: “well, using your senses, — because you said at the beginning that what the senses perceive is the thing that’s real — so use your senses to prove that I changed from a fiance to a husband after that ceremony; like, which of your senses would you have to employ in order to detect that change in me?” It kind of sounds silly to try to go at it that way. You have to believe in some metaphysical realities that can bring about category changes that go beyond the senses, you know?

And they believe that the pastor somehow has the power proclaim this thing called a marriage, and it becomes a reality.

I will tell you, Dave, I was a pastor from the time I was 24 years old until the time I was 44 years old. And I did more weddings than I can count. I lost count of all the weddings that I’ve done. And I will tell you this: every single time I did a wedding, Dave, every single time I said this, “by the power vested in me as a minister of the gospel I pronounce you husband and wife” and just like it happened to me at my wedding, everybody started acting like those people really were a husband and wife, ’cause Pastor Kenny said so, and so, to me, it’s the greatest analogy, especially for Protestants. How did I have the authority to say that?

And all we are saying, you know, to your point, is in our eucharistic theology, exactly the same thing is taking place with ordinary bread and wine. We receive them from that moment forward as what is spoken over them: the body and blood of Christ, even though before we said ordinary bread and wine.

It’s not true in the first place that senses give us all knowledge. It’s simply one branch of philosophy, that contains science. It’s a wonderful branch, but it’s not everything, and this illustrates that., I love this analogy, and I never thought of this in 35 years of Catholic apologetics. It’s really good, so I’m glad you brought that up.

Good. Good, good. But, here we’re moving to another Turretin quote. Here’s what he says:

It is no more rightly said, “The senses cannot judge in this matter because the reference is to an internal change in the substance of the bread, which does not strike the senses, because they stop with the external accidents.” This rests upon a false hypothesis—that the accidents are really distinguished from the substance and can be separated from it and subsist separately.

Help me, Dave. What in the world is he saying there?

I reply to it by reiterating once again that senses tell us that Jesus was an ordinary man. How can senses prove that He was God and man? They can’t. Therefore, the accidents of Jesus’ body have characteristics distinct and separate from the reality that He was God incarnate. The accidents prove nothing whatsoever regarding His divinity. Just as we couldn’t tell that Jesus was vastly different from an ordinary human being by senses alone, likewise, we can’t tell that what was bread and wine have become the body and blood of Jesus. It’s not discerned by the senses but received by faith, with the aid of God’s grace and the Holy Spirit.

Jesus’ body didn’t “look like God”. Nor do the consecrated elements look like the God-Man, but we believe that they are by an informed faith that isn’t opposed to science, but rather transcends its domain. Science can’t speak to it. Turretin – I hate to say it — argues like an atheist. That’s the scandal. He’s simply not thinking and analyzing deeply enough. His reasoning fails since it would “prove” that God couldn’t become a man. Therefore, by reductio ad absurdum, — Latin for “reduction to absurdity” — it also fails in the case of the Eucharist.

Yeah, that’s good. And to some degree I’m casting about here, Dave, thinking on my toes as it were, but one of the things I’m compelled to ask right here is we’ll do that with the Bible. You know, let’s pull our Bibles off the shelf and put ’em on the table in front of us, and let’s point at them and say, that’s the word of God, yes or no, Mr. Turretin?. And he would say, well, yes, you know, the Bible’s the Word of God. “Well, prove it with your senses. How do you detect God’s own voice in paper, in ink, in cow hide or fake leather or paper or whatever? How, how are you doing that with the Bible?

It is in fact the word of God. And I, I don’t know if it’s a great analogy or not, but to, to push everything physical aside and say that it cannot be something outside of what it appears to be; someone could say, “well, that’s paper and ink and leather. How is it also God’s word at the same time?” And in the same way the Eucharist truly conveys, brings to us, brings about in reality the very presence of Jesus through something like bread and wine that become, for us, the body and blood of Christ. So again, another analogy, prove, prove the Bible in on the desk is the word of God by your senses.

Dunno if my analogy is good or not. I’ll let you shoot it down. But here we go. Prove to me, prove to me that the Bible is the word of God on the table in front of you, using only your senses. I don’t know what you think of that.

No, that’s as good as any: anything that’s not empirical knowledge, and there’s all kinds of things. I mean, how do you prove romantic love through senses alone; how do you prove that you’re in love with somebody? It’s an emotion. There are all kinds of knowledge. Most of philosophical knowledge is not empirical. It’s a whole different thing. It’s hard for me to understand why Turretin would make this argument, because Protestants believe in a number of non-empirical things.

What about justification itself? It’s this big miraculous change that occurs. You go from darkness to light, and from death to life. How can you prove that by looking at somebody? You could say they are happier or something, but that’s not an ironclad proof. So the question is, why does he make an exception for the Eucharist? I think t’s just bias. That’s the only thing I can come up with because he’s too brilliant of a mind to make arguments this bad. That’s how I would look at that.

I think the little thing you just said there is really helpful, Dave. At least it helps me when I listen to non-Catholics and often anti-Catholic apologists. There just seems to be — this is my observation, my own observation — a little switch that gets clicked in their minds when a Catholic is talking. It’s something like this: a Catholic is talking. I better switch to the role of opponent here and they find it difficult to agree with Catholic perspectives because it’s a Catholic perspective, not because it is or isn’t reasonable. And it seems to me that that’s what Turretin is doing here.

And the other thing, — you tell me what you think of this too — it seems to me that Turretin didn’t embrace, let’s say a, a, a robust metaphysics. You know, he didn’t seem to have a deep understanding of metaphysical realities, because when he comes across them, he, he writes them off. And there’s so many things in life that are just impossible to understand in, in terms of, as you said, empiricism and materialism, for a man of faith, a Christian man.

Yeah, I think that’s basically it.

Let me read another quote from Turretin in which he can’t wrap his mind around how he thinks about this. He says,

Sound reason teaches that only one body occupies one place and cannot be at the same time in more places than one . . .

Reason doesn’t disprove the miraculous. Again, he reasons like an atheist, as opposed to a Christian who believes any number of amazing things that go beyond the known laws of science. Both reason and experience tell us that a physical body can’t go through walls, either. But Jesus did that, in His resurrected body (Jn 20:19, 26). He could somehow “dematerialize” and go through walls, sort of like Star Trek: “beam me up.” No one could have perceived that this was possible by putting their hand in the risen Jesus’ side or the wounds in His hands and feet.

In other words, it’s another miracle regarding physical matter that can’t – like the Real Presence in the Eucharist — be discerned by our senses. The book of Acts informs us that “the Spirit of the Lord caught up Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more, . . . Philip was found at Azotus” (Acts 8:39-40). Johann Bengel (1687-1752) was a prominent Lutheran commentator, who is considered a pioneer in New Testament textual criticism.

Okay, let me read a quote from him here. He says Philip was

caught away with miraculous velocity, without any action or exertion on the part of Philip, to a distance; as was needed in a pathless region. Such things often happened to the prophets: 1 Kings 18:12; 2 Kings 2:16. The same verb occurs, 2 Corinthians 12:2; 2 Corinthians 12:4; 1 Thessalonians 4:17.

2 Kings 2:16 states, “it may be that the Spirit of the LORD has caught him up and cast him upon some mountain or into some valley.” St. Paul proclaims that he was “caught up to the third heaven”; even possibly “in the body” (2 Cor 12:2). All of this is miraculous and science can’t explain it, or explain it away. It’s beyond science because the laws of physics are suspended when these things occur.

Turretin contends that bodies can’t be in two places at one time. But we retort that — speaking of a strictly physical plane — neither can bodies go through walls; nor can a person raise Himself from the dead, as Jesus did, nor raise others from the dead, as He and His disciples both did. If one thing is possible, the other is entirely possible as well. It can’t be ruled out by either reason or the senses. It’s both possible and true because God is God, and is omnipotent: all-powerful.

Yeah, I think that’s good. Here’s my final contribution to this discussion. I would pose it in the form of a question if someone were to come to me and say, “a body can’t be in more than one place at a time.” I would approach it this way. I would say, “well, well first of all, do you agree with the New Testament teaching that the Church is the body of Christ? Yes or no?” And of course the person’s gonna say, yes, the Church is the body of Christ. “Well, are you sure? Is that a designation you would use for the church in your church?” “The church is the body of Christ, yes.” Okay. I would say, “what’s the address of your church?” And they would tell me. “And does the Body of Christ meet at that address on Sunday mornings?” “Yes.” “Do you believe that at that address, only your church is the body of Christ on planet Earth? Yes or no?” “Well, no, of course.” “How many other body of Christs are there, are there in your town? Are there 10, 15, 20?”

When I was pastoring Dave in the small town of Hanford, California, there were 60 churches in our town. And many of them, many of the pastors and I were friends. You know, we met, we had lunch together, and they would say that their church was the body of Christ. Well, how? How can it be that it’s yours and yours and yours, when a body can only be in one place at a time? That would be kind of my analogy and critique.

That’s excellent! You came up with the wedding one and this one, and the inspired Bible being similar. This is good stuff.

I probably got it outta one of your books.

I don’t remember ever making these arguments! There’s probably more we could come up with, but that’s exciting to me. I love to discover new ways of defending Catholic truths and biblical truths. So this, this was a great discussion and I appreciate it, and especially your contribution.

Well, Dave, I appreciate you, man. You’re always coming up with these, these quotes from the past and bringing them forward into our here and now and bringing Scripture, and I love it. I love our exchanges, and I particularly like this one a lot. We’re gonna come back to Turretin pretty soon in a future episode, but this was really helpful. Thank you. Thank you. Let’s sign off though. Thanks for joining us, everybody. Be sure to click like, subscribe, comment, support the channel, and share this on your social media if you think it would be helpful to somebody. Don’t forget all the free stuff in the description below, and for sure, don’t forget to grab Dave’s book, Biblical Catholic Eucharistic Theology, and we’ll see you all next time on Catholic Bible Highlights.

See you again, Dave. God bless you.

See ya.

Related Videos (from this four-part series)

How Can That Be Jesus? (Turretin & the Eucharist): Calvinist Hyper-Rationalism vs. the Biblical Teaching of Twenty Kinds of God’s Presence [50 minutes, 5-23-25]

Eucharist = Jesus? Protestant Doubts vs. Biblical Faith [see the written transcript of the main presentation, minus additional discussion] [32 minutes, 5-29-25]

Related Web Page

Eucharist, Sacrifice of the Mass, & Liturgical Issues

Related Book

Biblical Catholic Eucharistic Theology (2011, 222 pages)

***

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 a Catholic or to return to the Catholic Church, or better understand some doctrines and why Catholics 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, in partnership 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!

***

Summary: 3rd of a four-part series examining the objections to transubstantiation of Reformed theologian François Turretin (1623-1687). We show why his arguments repeatedly fail.

Calvinism & General Protestantism

Institutes of Elenctic Theology

sacramentalism

transubstantiation

Previous Post

February 5, 2026

My 19 Imprimaturs vs. James Swan's Slanders