![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2025\/02\/LastSupperBloch.jpg\")
<\/a>Vs. Turretin #11: Eucharist, Pt. 1<\/h3>\n
Fran\u00e7ois Turretin\u00a0(1623-1687) was a Genevan-Italian\u00a0Reformed scholastic<\/a>\u00a0theologian and renowned defender of the\u00a0Calvinistic<\/a>\u00a0(Reformed) orthodoxy<\/a>\u00a0represented by the\u00a0Synod of Dort<\/a>, and was one of the authors of the\u00a0Helvetic Consensus<\/a><\/i>\u00a0(1675). He is generally considered to be the best Calvinist apologist besides John Calvin himself. His\u00a0Institutes of Elenctic Theology<\/em><\/a>\u00a0(three volumes, Geneva, 1679\u20131685) used the\u00a0scholastic<\/a>\u00a0method. \u201cElenctic\u201d\u00a0means<\/a>\u00a0\u201crefuting\u00a0an argument by proving the\u00a0falsehood\u00a0of its\u00a0conclusion.\u201d Turretin contended against the conflicting Christian\u00a0 perspectives of Catholicism and\u00a0Arminianism<\/a>. It was a popular textbook; notably at\u00a0Princeton Theological Seminary<\/a>, until it was replaced by\u00a0Charles Hodge<\/a>\u2018s\u00a0Systematic Theology<\/i>\u00a0in the late 19th century. Turretin also greatly influenced the\u00a0Puritans.<\/a><\/p>\n This is a reply to portions of a section of Institutes of Elenctic Theology<\/em> (Vol. 3, 19th Topic: The Sacraments <\/em>\/ 26th Question: The Meaning of the Sacramental Words<\/em>). I utilize\u00a0the edition<\/a>\u00a0translated 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. \u00a0All installments of this series of replies can be found on my\u00a0Calvinism & General Protestantism web page<\/a>, under the category, \u201cReplies to Francois Turretin (1632-1687).\u201d Turretin\u2019s words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Are the words of the Supper to be understood properly and literally . . . or figuratively and sacramentally? The former we deny; the latter we affirm against the Romanists and Lutherans.<\/span> [italicized in the original]<\/p>\n This is the debate in a nutshell. Does one take the words at face value (literally) or hold that they are metaphorical and symbolic only? The Church fathers, the medieval theologians, Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, and at least some \u201chigh\u201d Anglicans take them literally, making this by far the majority position in historical and current Christianity.<\/p>\n The body of Christ reclined at the table in the first Supper, so therefore it could not have been handed to the disciples; rather the bread which was set before them on the table was handed to them. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The disciples . . . could not have given to these words any other sense than the tropical. (1) They saw at the same time the body of the Lord reclining at the table and the bread which he took, as things separated from each other, both as to nature and as to place, so that they must have conceived the most diverse ideas concerning them. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The sixth class is drawn from the rules of discourse, which in this argument do not allow a proper sense, but necessarily demand a figurative. The first is: \u201cWhen a literal interpretation involves an absurdity and a contradiction, we must necessarily have recourse to the figurative sense.\u201d Since the human intellect cannot comprehend how a thing can be and not be at the same time, it is forced to recur to a figure. Now it is evident that the sacramental words, taken properly and literally . . . involve a thousand absurdities and contradictions . . .<\/span><\/p>\n None of this is successful argumentation, because 1) it limits God in His omniscience and omnipotence, and 2) it\u2019s unbiblical. Broadly speaking, God is everywhere and simultaneously can be said to be \u201cin\u201d certain things. God becoming a man in the incarnation is the most amazing manifestation of His taking on physical properties (God the Father and God the Holy Spirit being immaterial spirits). For example, the Bible asserts the equation<\/em> of God (in some very real sense) with the pillars of cloud and of fire:<\/p>\n Exodus 13:21<\/strong> And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of cloud to lead them along the way, and by night in a pillar of fire . . .<\/p>\n Exodus 14:24<\/strong> And in the morning watch the LORD in the pillar of fire and of cloud looked down upon the host of the Egyptians . . .<\/p>\n Exodus 33:9<\/strong> When Moses entered the tent, the pillar of\u00a0cloud would descend and stand at the door of the tent, and the LORD would speak with Moses.<\/p>\n Numbers 12:5<\/strong> And the LORD came down in a pillar of cloud, and stood at the door of the tent, and called Aaron and Miriam . . .<\/p>\n Numbers 14:14<\/strong> . . . thou goest before them, in a pillar of cloud by day and in a pillar of\u00a0fire by night.<\/p>\n Deuteronomy 31:15<\/strong> And the LORD appeared in the tent in a pillar of cloud . . .<\/p>\n Psalm 99:7<\/strong> He spoke to them in the pillar of cloud . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Lest Turretin counter that this<\/em> is merely symbolic, too, I submit this passage:<\/p>\n Exodus 33:10<\/strong> And when all the people saw the pillar of\u00a0cloud standing at the door of the tent, all the people would rise up and worship, every man at his tent door.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Only God can be worshiped; hence God truly was in the cloud. If He wasn\u2019t, this act would have been rank idolatry (worship of mere matter). But the inspired text gives no indication whatsoever that it was improper.\u00a0Likewise, God was in the burning bush in a very special way:<\/p>\n Exodus 3:4-6, 16<\/strong> . . . God called to him out of the bush, \u201cMoses, Moses!\u201d And he said, \u201cHere am I.\u201d [5] Then he said, \u201cDo not come near; put off your shoes from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.\u201d [6] And he said, \u201cI am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.\u201d And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God. . . . [16] \u201cGo and gather the elders of Israel together, and say to them, \u2018The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, has appeared to me\u2019 . . . \u201c<\/p><\/blockquote>\n God was also specially present in the tabernacle and temple, in the Holy of Holies, and specifically between the cherubim on top of the ark of the covenant. Yet we are to believe that Jesus (Who is God) can\u2019t will<\/em> to enter \u2014 and actually<\/em> enter \u2014 into what was formerly bread and wine and become substantially, bodily present in a miraculous way? To deny this is mere rationalistic special pleading, that lacks faith in God and belief in His omnipotent power.<\/p>\n If God could enter into a cloud or a fire, or in the holiest spaces in the ark, tabernacle, and temple, then He can do this by the same token, and the literal reading of the text is the fulfillment of it. Turretin put rationalistic philosophy in a higher place in this instance of his reasoning, than the Christian faith, and specifically faith in the supernatural.<\/p>\n Jesus was sovereign over the laws of nature and nature (matter) itself. He calmed a violent storm at sea (Mt 8:24-27). After His resurrection (when He had a body), Jesus passed through walls (Jn 20:19, 26). He raised the dead and in fact raised Himself (Jn 2:19-21; 10:17-18) because He had \u201cthe power which enables him even to subject all things to himself\u201d (Phil 3:21) and because \u201cin him all things hold together\u201d (Col 1:17; Heb 1:3). He was omnipotent. Even some of Jesus\u2019 followers had rather extraordinary and unusual miraculous gifts. Philip bilocated:<\/p>\n Acts 8:39-30<\/strong> . . . the Spirit of the Lord caught up Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. [40] But Philip was found at Azo\u2019tus, . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Philip was in Gaza with the Ethiopian eunuch when he was \u201ccaught up\u201d. Then he appeared in Azotus, which is modern-day Ashdod: some 27 kilometers or about 17 miles from the northernmost point of Gaza. So a created human being could do that, by God\u2019s power (and the prophet Elijah could stop rain for 3 1\/2 years: Jas 5:16-18), but Jesus, Who is the omnipotent God, supposedly cannot <\/em>do whatever amazing thing He desires to do? Such a notion is ludicrous and thoroughly anti-biblical. Turretin might deny that the ascended Jesus was omnipresent, but this is untrue as well:<\/p>\n Matthew 18:20<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cFor where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.\u201d<\/p>\n Matthew 28:20<\/strong>\u00a0\u201c. . . lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.\u201d<\/p>\n Ephesians 1:22-23\u00a0<\/b>. . . the church, [23] which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all.<\/p>\n Colossians 3:11\u00a0<\/b>. . . Christ is all, and in all.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Note that the Matthew 18 passage records Jesus\u2019 words before<\/em> He was resurrected or ascended, and He was already speaking in the present tense of an extraordinary trait akin to or consistent with omnipresence. Therefore, He certainly could have been sacramentally present in the former bread and wine even at the Last Supper, and this interpretation is at least as plausible as the merely symbolic one. If the objection is that He can be present spiritually or immaterially<\/em>, but not physically<\/em>, we reply that Paul equated the Church (an actual thing) with Jesus\u2019 \u201cbody\u201d in Ephesians 1:22-23 above.<\/p>\n Moreover, the risen, ascended, and glorified Jesus told the just-about-to-be-converted Paul, \u201cI am Jesus, whom you are persecuting\u201d (Acts 9:5; cf. 22:7-8; 26:14-15). But the New Testament elsewhere \u2014 including his own words \u2014 states that Paul persecuted \u201cthe church\u201d (Acts 8:1-3; 22:4; 26:9-11), which Paul later agreed was Jesus Himself (1 Tim 1:13). If Jesus, then, can equate Himself \u2014 including physically \u2014 with the \u201cbody of Christ\u201d: the Church (and Paul follows suit), then by the same token, He can equate Himself with what was bread and wine; and He does so not only at the Last Supper, but repeatedly in John 6. St. Paul is every bit as literal as Jesus, since he wrote, \u201cWhoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord\u201d (1 Cor 11:27).<\/p>\n He took bread from the table, blessed, broke and gave it to his disciples. He did and said nothing of this about his own body.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Really<\/em>?:<\/p>\n Matthew 26:26<\/strong> Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, \u201cTake, eat; this is my body.\u201d (cf. Mk 14:22; Lk 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n They had often heard the Lord speaking figuratively (who had accustomed them by the frequency of his parables to this mode of speaking), which could be understood only tropically and by analogy (as in Mt. 13 and elsewhere).<\/span><\/p>\n Again, this no more has<\/em> to be interpreted non-literally, than the pillars of cloud and fire and the burning bush do. They were literally outward physical manifestations of the presence of God (clouds are material and are composed of water); therefore, by analogy, the accidents or appearance of bread and wine can do the same thing. Granted, this takes things even further into the supernatural realm, but this is the omnipotent God, Who can do anything that is possible to do.<\/p>\n The time in which they lived, the business about which they were engaged, was mystical and full of various figures. For in the sacrament of the Passover, which Christ was celebrating, this tropical locution was constantly occurring.<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s a very poor and unfortunate example for Turretin to use in his argument, since Jesus was literally<\/em> the Passover lamb (Jn 1:29, 36; Acts 8:32; 1 Cor 5:7: \u201cChrist, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed\u201d; 1 Pet 1:19; Rev 5:6, 12; 12:11; many other NT usages<\/a> of \u201clamb\u201d referring to Jesus). Passover lambs were real lambs with real blood, and Jesus\u2019 crucifixion and shedding of blood on our behalf (Rom 3:25; 5:9; Eph 1:7; 2:13; Heb 9:14; 10:19; 1 Pet 1:19; 1 Jn 1:7; Rev 1:5) were quite real and sacrificial and sufficient to save the entire human race.<\/p>\n Nay, unless this had come into their minds that the bread was figuratively called a body, how could they have helped being disturbed by a thing so monstrous? They, who in the least difficulties were perplexed, who dispute among themselves how Christ was about to go to the Father; and moved the question how he would go out of the world; who understood nothing of what he had said concerning his heavenly Father, how could they have been so ready to believe what all reason repudiates\u2014that Christ was reclining at the table in their sight and that he was invisibly included under the bread?<\/span><\/p>\n They didn\u2019t have<\/em> to fully understand; at this point they were not yet indwelt with the Holy Spirit, as all Christian believers are. But they were called to accept His mysterious word because He was God and had proven that He was to them over and over with signs and various teachings. What they needed to do, therefore, was to believe in faith<\/em>. This is precisely what they did<\/em> do as described in John 6, after other \u201cdisciples\u201d objected to Jesus\u2019 \u201chard saying\u201d that they claimed no one could \u201clisten\u201d to (Jn 6:60) and \u201cdid not believe\u201d (6:64), with the result being that they \u201cdrew back and no longer went about with him\u201d (6:66) because He taught the Real Presence. But St. Peter, still faithful, said:<\/p>\n John 6:68-69<\/strong> . . .\u00a0 \u201cLord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; [69] and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n They did what Job did in the face of utter mystery and confusion: they believed God \u2014 though confused and perplexed \u2014 because He was God<\/em>. God drives home this point over and over in that book:<\/p>\n Job 9:3, 8-12<\/strong> If one wished to contend with him, one could not answer him once in a thousand times. . . . [8] who alone stretched out the heavens, and trampled the waves of the sea; [9] who made the Bear and Orion, the Plei\u2019ades and the chambers of the south; [10] who does great things beyond understanding, and marvelous things without number. [11] Lo, he passes by me, and I see him not; he moves on, but I do not perceive him. [12] Behold, he snatches away; who can hinder him? Who will say to him, \u2018What doest thou\u2019?<\/p>\n Job 38:1-2, 4-5<\/strong> Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind: [2] \u201cWho is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? . . . [4] \u201cWhere were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. [5] Who determined its measurements \u2014 surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it?<\/p>\n Job 38:31-33<\/strong> \u201cCan you bind the chains of the Plei\u2019ades, or loose the cords of Orion? [32] Can you lead forth the Maz\u2019zaroth in their season, or can you guide the Bear with its children? [33] Do you know the ordinances of the heavens? Can you establish their rule on the earth?<\/p>\n Job 40:1-2<\/strong> And the LORD said to Job: [2] \u201cShall a faultfinder contend with the Almighty? He who argues with God, let him answer it.\u201d<\/p>\n Job 42:1-3, 6<\/strong> Then Job answered the LORD: [2] \u201cI know that thou canst do all things, and that no purpose of thine can be thwarted. [3] \u2018Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?\u2019 Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know. . . . [6] therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I wrote in my cover story in Patrick Madrid\u2019s\u00a0Envoy Magazine<\/em>, Jan\/Feb 2000 issue, entitled, \u201cIs This God?\u201d:<\/p>\n The Eucharist was intended by God as a different kind of miracle from the outset, requiring more profound faith, as opposed to the \u201cproof\u201d of tangible, empirical miracles. But in this it was certainly not unique among Christian doctrines and traditional beliefs \u2013 many fully shared by our Protestant brethren. The Virgin Birth, for example, cannot be observed or proven, and is the utter opposite of a demonstrable miracle, yet it is indeed a miracle of the most extraordinary sort.<\/p>\n Likewise, in the Atonement of Jesus the world sees a wretch of a beaten and tortured man being put to death on a cross. The Christian, on the other hand, sees there the great miracle of Redemption and the means of the salvation of mankind \u2013 an unspeakably sublime miracle, yet who but those with the eyes of faith can see or believe it? In fact, the disciples (with the possible exception of St. John, the only one present) didn\u2019t even know what was happening at the time. . . .<\/p>\n Many Christian beliefs require a great deal of faith, even relatively \u201cblind\u201d faith. Protestants manage to believe in a number of such doctrines (such as the Trinity, God\u2019s eternal existence, omnipotence, angels, the power of prayer, instantaneous justification, the Second Coming, etc.). Why should the Real Presence be singled out for excessive skepticism and unchecked rationalism? . . .<\/p>\n This pervasive anti-eucharistic bias smacks of an analogy to the Jewish and Muslim belief that the Incarnation as an unthinkable (impossible?) task for God to undertake. They view the Incarnation in the same way as the majority of Protestants regard the Eucharist. For them God wouldn\u2019t or couldn\u2019t or shouldn\u2019t become a man. For evangelicals God wouldn\u2019t or couldn\u2019t or shouldn\u2019t become substantially, sacramentally present under the outward forms of bread and wine. I think the dynamic is the same. \u201cCoulda woulda shoulda\u201d theology is not biblical theology.\u00a0Every\u00a0Christian exercises faith in things which are very difficult to grasp with the natural mind, because they are revealed to be true by God in the Bible. I have attempted to show why I think Protestants inconsistently require a higher criterion of \u201cproof\u201d where the Holy Eucharist is concerned.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Turretin, following Calvin and Zwingli, wants to play the role of the unbelieving and rebellious disciples and of Job\u2019s miserable \u201ccomforters.\u201d He finds it too difficult to believe that God could or would become bodily present in what was bread and wine. That<\/em> unbelief and denial of the supernatural and God\u2019s omnipotence and the plain words of Jesus (however incomprehensible they may have been at first hearing) are, I respectfully submit, the things that are truly \u201cmonstrous\u201d<\/span> and what bring about \u201ca thousand absurdities and contradictions.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n *
\n***
\n*<\/p>\n