![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2025\/02\/JesusWalls-1.jpg\")
<\/a>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\u00a0Institutes of Elenctic Theology<\/em>\u00a0(Vol. 3,\u00a019th Topic: The Sacraments\u00a0<\/em>\/ 27th Question: Transubstantiation<\/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 In the Eucharist, is there an entire conversion of the substance of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ; or are the bread and wine, in virtue of the words of consecration, truly transubstantiated into the very body and blood of Christ, the external species only of the bread and wine remaining? We deny against the Romanists[.]<\/span><\/p>\n Although from the discussion of the preceding question, the decision of this can easily be made (for if it is once certain and indubitable that the sacramental words are figurative and tropical, as has been proved, the dogma of transubstantiation falls by that very thing, being founded solely upon the literalness of the words . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s anything but<\/em> \u201ccertain and indubitable that the sacramental words are figurative\u201d<\/span> as I submit that I demonstrated in my previous reply<\/a>. Turretin is now proceeding by assuming a false and undemonstrated premise.<\/p>\n yet because our opponents are desperately in love with this figment (as their Helen) and fiercely contend for it (as if for their altars and firesides), the treatment of this controversy must not be omitted.<\/span><\/p>\n We\u2019re \u201cdesperately in love with\u201d<\/span> whatever Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition teach us. As the Bible itself states: \u201cThe sum of thy word is truth\u201d (Ps 119:160).<\/p>\n the question does not simply concern the presence of Christ in the Supper; for this belongs to another controversy which will be taken up after this. Rather the question concerns the presence of Christ effected by way of conversion. . . . the question concerns a change as to substance\u2014whether a real conversion is made of the substance of the bread and wine into the substance of the body and blood of Christ. . . . We deny it and maintain that the bread and wine, although they are changed as to use according to the institution of God, yet they always retain their own substance, and that no real change or conversion takes place in reference to them.<\/span><\/p>\n This is a good description of the competing positions.<\/p>\n First, as to the senses. What many senses properly disposed and furnished with all the requisites for action, uniformly always and everywhere testify\u2014that is necessarily true. Now the senses with one accord (homothymadon<\/em>) testify that after the consecration, the symbols are properly bread and wine, not body and blood. Therefore, this is necessarily true.<\/span><\/p>\n I already refuted this thinking last time, citing an article of mine from 2000:<\/p>\n The virgin birth, . . . 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. 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?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Many miracles in Christianity are of such a nature that they cannot be perceived by the senses alone. In other words, not all knowledge is empirical (of the senses). The incarnation itself \u2014 as another example \u2014 can in no way be established through the senses (by simply looking at Jesus if one had been alive during His time). How can one determine whether God is eternal through the senses? We can\u2019t even comprehend eternity into the future, let alone infinitely extended back in time and before (or outside of) time itself. Yet all Christians including Turretin believe in that doctrine. Or we could talk about the Holy Trinity or many other doctrines.<\/p>\n 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 with the academicians (which the thing itself proclaims to be most absurd).<\/span><\/p>\n We need to do no such thing. There is nothing \u201canti-scientific\u201d entailed in believing in transubstantiation. All we need to do is what I just did<\/em>: note the obvious fact that not all<\/em> knowledge is obtained through the senses. The Bible clearly teaches this: \u201cfaith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen<\/em>\u201d (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 \u201cBlessed are those who have not seen<\/em> and yet believe\u201d (Jn 20:29).<\/p>\n In vain is it objected: (1) \u201cThe senses cannot give a judgment concerning mysteries, which are the object of faith, far surpassing the senses.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Yes, I essentially did<\/em> just assert that. Let\u2019s see how Turretin deals with it.<\/p>\n For although it is certain that the senses cannot judge of spiritual things as such (which occur in the mysteries of faith and transcend the senses), it does not follow that they cannot be consulted about sensible, visible things (which can occur in the mysteries). Undoubtedly two classes of mysteries are especially to be distinguished here. The one, 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. They are to be judged by the revelation of the word alone, not by the decision of reason or the testimony of the senses. However, 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. We maintain that the sacraments are such mysteries in which, accordingly, the senses of which they are the proper object are not to be excluded, but listened to.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019m glad he brought up the incarnation. What sense can prove that Jesus was the incarnate God merely by looking at Him or touching Him? The incarnation has everything to do with matter, since God became man. But it\u2019s not verified by eyesight or touch. Jesus looked, felt, and sounded like a man; no one but those possessing faith would know (from simply observing Him) that He was also God, an uncreated Person who had made everything upon which He stood. No blood test or any sort of scientific test could reveal that. The virgin birth is in the same category as well. It was a thing involving matter but it can\u2019t be verified in an empirical sense. Even today, if we could hypothetically use science to observe how Jesus the man came into the world (through microscopic observation), we couldn\u2019t determine by that method alone<\/em> that this male child was God.<\/p>\n In my previous installment I noted how God appeared in the pillars of cloud and fire in the Old Testament. Clouds consist primarily of carbon dioxide, water vapor, oxygen and nitrogen. Yet God was somehow \u201cin\u201d them. How? How could one tell the difference between a regular old cloud or a fire and the ones that God was \u201cin\u201d?\u00a0They couldn\u2019t (by scientific\/empirical criteria). And no one could today, either, if God did that again. The only difference is that God\u00a0said<\/i>\u00a0he was in both, in particular circumstances when both formed a \u201cpillar.\u201d But that\u2019s not\u00a0physical<\/i>\u00a0proof. It\u2019s\u00a0revelation<\/i>. And it is exactly the same, analogously, as what we have in the Eucharist (substance changing without the accidents or appearances changing).<\/p>\n God made a donkey talk to Balaam (Numbers 22:21-31: \u201cthe LORD opened the mouth of the ass\u201d: 22:28). Now, how would one go about demonstrating a physical change in the donkey, which now enabled it to speak (whereas we normally assume that animals do not<\/i>\u00a0speak, and not in the language we understand)?\u00a0Would a neurologist be able to examine the brain of the animal and figure out how it could speak; what change was in the brain compared to those of non-speaking donkeys? I doubt it. But Bible-believing Christians think this actually happened and that we can\u2019t hyper-analyze and explain it through the usual scientific means of verification.<\/p>\n Here again there was no outward change (the \u201caccidents\u201d perceived by our senses remained the same), but a miracle occurred in which a donkey talked. In other words, it is analogous to the Eucharist.<\/p>\n It is no more rightly said, \u201cThe 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.\u201d This rests upon a false hypothesis\u2014that the accidents are really distinguished from the substance and can be separated from it and subsist separately.<\/span><\/p>\n The latter state of affairs is true of the incarnation. Senses tell us that Jesus was an ordinary man. How can senses prove that He was God and man? They can\u2019t, because that is determined and believed in spiritually and philosophically. No microscope can identify anything in Jesus\u2019 body that would prove that He was also God come down to earth. Therefore, the accidents of Jesus\u2019 body have characteristics distinct and separate from the reality that He was God in the flesh. The accidents show nothing whatsoever of His divinity.<\/p>\n Just as we couldn\u2019t tell that Jesus was vastly, essentially different from an ordinary human being by senses alone, likewise, we can\u2019t tell that what was bread and wine before the consecration have become the body and blood of Jesus after it. It\u2019s not discerned by the senses but received by faith and revelation. Jesus\u2019 body didn\u2019t \u201clook like God\u201d just as the consecrated elements don\u2019t look like God, but we believe that they are by an informed faith that isn\u2019t opposed<\/em> to science, but rather transcends its sphere of knowledge. Science can\u2019t speak to it.<\/p>\n On the contrary, while it is certain that they are inseparable from the substance (nay, are really identified with it), whoever sees the accidents of a substance, by that very thing sees the substance itself, which can be seen in no other way than by its accidents.<\/span><\/p>\n Again, this is clearly not true concerning the incarnation, as just explained. By the same token, the consecrated elements that don\u2019t look like God, either, judging by the evidence of our senses. Turretin argues like a pagan rationalist. He\u2019s simply not thinking and analyzing deeply enough. His reasoning fails since it would \u201cprove\u201d that the incarnation is a falsehood. Therefore, by reductio ad absurdum<\/em>, it also fails by analogy in the case of the Eucharist.<\/p>\n Second, reason must be heard here, with which transubstantiation conflicts in many ways. Sound reason teaches that only one body occupies one place and cannot be at the same time in more places than one because it would be one and not one, standing apart from itself and exposed to various and contrary motions, which everyone sees to be absurd (asystaton<\/em>). <\/span><\/p>\n Reason doesn\u2019t disprove the supernatural and the miraculous. Again, he reasons like a pagan hyper-rationalist, as opposed to a Christian who believes any number of amazing things that go beyond the natural and the laws of science. Both reason and experience tell us that a physical body can\u2019t go through walls, either. But Jesus did that, in His resurrected body (Jn 20:19, 26). In the same context, Jesus showed that He had a physical body: \u201cPut your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side\u201d (Jn 20:27). He did the same thing in another post-resurrection appearance, to the two disciples walking to Emmaus:<\/p>\n Luke 24:36-43<\/strong>\u00a0As they were saying this, Jesus himself stood among them.\u00a0[37] But they were startled and frightened, and supposed that they saw a spirit. [38] And he said to them, \u201cWhy 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.\u201d [41] And while they still disbelieved for joy, and wondered, he said to them, \u201cHave you anything here to eat?\u201d [42] They gave him a piece of broiled fish, [43] and he took it and ate before them.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The point I\u2019m making is that the risen Jesus had a body, but it had characteristics that normal bodies didn\u2019t have: the ability to somehow \u201cdematerialize\u201d and go through walls (sort of like being \u201cbeamed up\u201d in the TV show Star Trek<\/em>). No one could have perceived that this was possible by putting their hand in the risen Jesus\u2019 side or the wounds in His hands and feet. In other words, it\u2019s another miracle regarding physical matter that can\u2019t be discerned by our senses, just as transubstantiation is. Turretin contends that bodies can\u2019t be in two places at one time. But we retort that \u2014 speaking of a strictly physical plane \u2014 neither can bodies go through walls; nor can a person raise Himself from the dead, as Jesus did (Jn 2:19-21; 10:17-18), or raise others from the dead, as He and His disciples both did.<\/p>\n Both things are supernatural. If one thing is possible, the other is entirely possible as well. It can\u2019t be ruled out by either reason or the senses. It\u2019s both possible and actual because God is God, and is omnipotent. But Turretin \u2014 not understanding all of this or consistently incorporating it into his thinking \u2014 problematically acts like the rebellious disciples and the unbelieving Jews in John 6, after Jesus said that bread and wine could become His body and blood:<\/p>\n John 6:52<\/strong> The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, \u201cHow can this man give us his flesh to eat?\u201d<\/p>\n John 6:60-61, 64, 66<\/strong> Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, \u201cThis is a hard saying; who can listen to it?\u201d\u00a0[61] But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, \u201cDo you take offense at this? . . . [64] . . .\u00a0 there are some of you that do not believe.\u201d 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n A body cannot be granted which does not have quantity and extension, since quantity and extension do not differ really from the material substance, but<\/span> In the purely natural world, this is true. But in the supernatural world, where bodies and other material things have extraordinary capabilities, Jesus\u2019 body and blood in the Eucharist have characteristics that normal bodies don\u2019t have. Miracles always entail going beyond the natural. It\u2019s almost as if Turretin can\u2019t or won\u2019t make exceptions to the laws of nature, for miracles. All of a sudden he has no belief in miracles, when it comes to the Eucharist. But why should it<\/em> be different from any other miracle? Donkeys can\u2019t and don\u2019t talk; yet one talked to Balaam; human beings have no power over whether it rains or not; yet Elijah did; etc., etc.<\/p>\n All these and many other monstrosities of the same kind (which we desist from enumerating) are not so much prodigies of nature, as most absurd and inconsistent (asystata<\/em>) creations of the human imagination, bringing the Christian religion into disgrace with infidels. They are the monstrous consectaries of the dogma of transubstantiation, which right reason not only does not receive, but is constantly opposed to.<\/span><\/p>\n To the contrary, all of the aspects of the Holy Eucharist that Turretin enumerated are every bit as possible as all the other miracles that we see described in the Bible. Once the miraculous (anything outside of the laws of nature) is possible in the first place, then any and all \u201cstrange\u201d scenarios are possible. Turretin arbitrarily sets apart the one miracle involved in transubstantiation and declares it \u201cmonstrous\u201d<\/span> and a \u201cdisgrace\u201d<\/span> but he does so only by thinking in a radically unbiblical, hyper-rationalistic, cynical and skeptical way.<\/p>\n The factuality or possibility of miracles or supernatural events aren\u2019t determined on the basis of whether we personally like<\/em> them or not. If we take that approach, we\u2019re like the unbelieving Pharisees who opposed Jesus: \u201cIt is only by Be-el\u2019zebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons\u201d (Mt 12:24). Jesus\u2019 response to their unbelief was to say, \u201cHe who is not with me is against me, . . . every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven\u201d (Mt 12:30-31). This was not merely a lack of ability to believe; but sinful unbelief, worthy of, ultimately, a sentence of hell. Turretin and those who think like him in this respect are treading very spiritually dangerous ground.<\/p>\n Although we do not deny that the mysteries of faith are above reason, still we do not think that they are contrary to it; so that if their truth cannot be proved from reason, still their credibility may be sufficiently established by faith.<\/span><\/p>\n We deny that transubstantiation is contrary to reason, and I have made arguments establishing that, and these need to be grappled with. But Protestants are exceedingly unwilling to do that, which is why I\u2019m sitting here \u201cdebating\u201d with a dead guy. That\u2019s fine with me. Turretin is one of the best historic Protestant theologians. Yet we see that his arguments regarding transubstantiation are very weak, and scarcely even biblical or Christian in nature. They do<\/em>, however, fit right in with the approach of the village atheist, who denies every miracle in the Bible or in life in general. But at least the atheist is consistent.<\/em> He doesn\u2019t arbitrarily choose which miracle he will reject, while accepting others, on no rational or consistent basis, other than (it seems to come down to) rejecting them simply because Catholics<\/em> accept them; sort of a \u201cguilt by association.\u201d<\/p>\n Reason may be blind and corrupted, repugnant to revelation and rising up against it; or it may be sound and well constituted, consenting to it and subordinated to it. . . . grace does not destroy nature, but makes it perfect; nor does faith exclude, but supposes reason.<\/span><\/p>\n Very true!<\/p>\n Finally, some mysteries of faith are true and genuine, clearly revealed in the Scriptures; others are false and spurious, not the streams and rays of divine revelation, but the offspring of human ignorance and blindness. Although reason is not sufficient to demonstrate the latter, still she is sufficient to strip off their deceitfulness and falsity. We maintain that the figment of transubstantiation is such.<\/span><\/p>\n And I have provided many biblical arguments by analogy, and arguments from reason and logic, for why we believe it is a true and biblical doctrine. Let the reader choose who has the more plausible and cogent case!<\/p>\n What is said of natural being and of sacramental being could be admitted, if by sacramental being is meant the symbolic and significative being of the bread (inasmuch as it is the sacrament of the body of Christ), but not with regard to his natural body (concerning which we speak). <\/span><\/p>\n Turretin irrationally limits himself in his thinking, by assuming hyper-rationalism and disallowing (as if he has the prerogative to do so) the supernatural to extend to this subject. In \u201cepistemological despair\u201d he adopts symbolism and metaphor, rather than accept the truth of eucharistic realism. Again, he neglects to realize that Jesus\u2019 \u201cnatural body\u201d after He resurrected, was capable of going through walls, in opposition to the laws of nature. And even before that, Jesus raised Himself. How many dead bodies do we see rising up again, through their own power? He ascended to heaven by His own power as well.<\/p>\n I submit that those three things are just as strange and unexpected as Jesus entering into bread and wine and changing them into His body and blood. If one can accept the first three (as Turretin and Protestants do), I see no reason why they can\u2019t accept the fourth thing: transubstantiation. So the question becomes: what determines if a miracle is \u201cmonstrous\u201d<\/span> or a \u201cdisgrace\u201d<\/span>? Turretin has not resolved that dilemma. He\u2019s simply playing games with words and philosophical concepts and placing skeptical philosophy above faith.<\/p>\n For if the form (superficies<\/em>) alone remains, how could Christ and Paul so often call it bread and the fruit of the vine?<\/span><\/p>\n In part, they speak phenomenologically, as Bible writers often do, and\/or refer to the accidents or outward characteristics in those instances. But they simultaneously<\/em> call what was bread and wine Jesus\u2019 body and blood, after they are consecrated (Jesus does so repeatedly in John 6). They do both<\/em> things, which is perfectly consistent with the Catholic position. I will treat this issue in more depth in my next installment.<\/p>\n We do not treat here of what God can do, but of what he wishes to do. The power of God is not the rule of our faith, but his will. For although all things are possible to God, he does not at once do whatever he is able, but only what he wishes.<\/span><\/p>\n Fair enough. The Catholic argues that God did indeed wish<\/em> to do this, based on the relevant texts (the Last Supper, John 6, and Paul\u2019s eucharistic passages). All taken together strongly support our view; so we argue. It\u2019s a straightforward biblical perspective; whereas I contend that Turretin\u2019s argument is hyper-rationalistic and skeptical and insufficiently biblical.<\/p>\n Omnipotence extends itself to all things possible, but not to those which are impossible; such as are those which imply a contradiction, which God can no more be said to be able to do than it be said that he is able to lie and sin. Nor are these marks of power, but of a defect and imperfection, which God not only cannot do, but which he cannot even will to do, because they are contrary to his wisdom, holiness and truth and repugnant to the laws established by him in nature.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n There is no inherent contradiction in God changing bread and wine into His body and blood. It\u2019s odd, strange, and not predictable, but not contradictory. God can certainly do this. He\u2019s not limited<\/em> by all of these laws of matter, that Turretin tries so hard to enlist as alleged disproofs of this miracle, simply because he doesn\u2019t like<\/em> eucharistic realism. Turretin almost seems to say that God is constrained by the very laws of nature that He created. He\u2019s not at all, of course. Every miracle proves this. I agree with St. John Henry Cardinal Newman, a truly towering intellect, whom few would accuse of being unreasonable, gullible, or philosophically naive, who commented on this issue as follows:<\/p>\n People say that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is difficult to believe . . . It is difficult, impossible to imagine, I grant \u2013 but how is it difficult to believe? . . . For myself, I cannot, indeed prove it, I cannot tell how<\/em> it is; but I say, \u2018 Why should it not be? What\u2019s to hinder it? What do I know of substance or matter? Just as much as the greatest philosophers, and that is nothing at all.\u2019\u00a0(Apologia pro vita Sua<\/em><\/a>, Garden City, New York: Doubleday Image, 1956; originally 1864; 318: part 7: \u201cGeneral Answer to Mr. Kingsley\u201d<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Although we confess that God can work above the order of nature, still we deny that his omnipotence extends to those things which are contrary to nature and the order established in it, because he cannot change the natures of things and overturn the order settled by himself.<\/span><\/p>\n This is sheer nonsense. It is as I suspected: Turretin turns God into a caricature of Himself; a sort of deist \u201cgod\u201d rather than the sovereign Master of the universe. Again, every miracle makes mincemeat of this self-contradictory gibberish.<\/p>\n Although God can make accidents with their subjects, it does not follow in like manner that he can also produce the former without the latter; not from a lack of power, but from the incompossiblity (incompossibilitate<\/em>) of the thing.<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s not impossible at all! Turretin deludes himself. Here are some things that are actually impossible, even for God: He can\u2019t make Himself exist and not exist at the same time or to be simultaneously eternal and not eternal. He can\u2019t make a circle a square. He can\u2019t simultaneously subsist in Four Divine Persons and Three, or create a world in which 2+2=4 and also<\/em> equals 5. And (here\u2019s the famous one), He can\u2019t make a rock so big that He can\u2019t lift it, because that\u2019s a logical self-contradiction.<\/p>\n All of those things are impossible for even an omnipotent being to do. But transubstantiation is not of the same nature as all of these things, and is entirely possible<\/em> and not<\/em> self-contradictory. Turretin builds his entire case upon the laws of nature, but he himself admits that \u201cGod can work above<\/em> the order of nature.\u201d <\/span>Yes! And He does so in transubstantiation. He states a true principle, but then proceeds to ignore it and make an \u201cexception\u201d based on nothing solid or incontrovertible at all. It\u2019s equally extraordinary and distressing to behold a brilliant Christian mind engage in such tortuous thinking and skeptical illogic.<\/p>\n But the mind cannot conceive an accident which is without its subject.<\/span><\/p>\n Sure it can. On what basis does he make this claim? We can conceive of it just as we do in the case of a cloud or fire having the usual properties that they do, while containing God within them, which the Old Testament states was the case. How could we know that God was there, except that He revealed that He was by revelation or divine utterance? To us it\u2019s just a cloud and fire, if we only employ our senses. It\u2019s the same with transubstantiation. God said that He is now present after the consecration, whereas to us it looks and tastes and feels like bread and wine. But we believe it isn\u2019t based on God\u2019s revelation, the Bible. But Turretin, oddly enough, thinks like the biblical \u201ccarnal\u201d or \u201cunspiritual\u201d man, that Paul describes:<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 2:7, 10-14, 16<\/strong> . . . we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glorification. . . . [10] God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. [11] For what person knows a man\u2019s thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. [12] Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. [13] And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit. [14]\u00a0The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. . . .\u00a0[16] \u201cFor who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?\u201d But we have the mind of Christ.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n * Photo credit:<\/strong> Image by<\/span> TheDigitalArtist<\/a> (1-1-20)<\/span> [Pixabay<\/a> \/ Pixabay Content License<\/a>]<\/p>\n Summary<\/em>: Calvinist theologian Fran\u00e7ois Turretin contended that\u00a0transubstantiation is \u201cmonstrous\u201d & impossible to believe. I offer numerous opposing biblical analogical & logical arguments.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Does Turretin think biblically in this regard or hyper-rationally and skeptically? \u00a0 Fran\u00e7ois Turretin\u00a0(1623-1687) was a Genevan-Italian\u00a0Reformed scholastic\u00a0theologian and renowned defender of the\u00a0Calvinistic\u00a0(Reformed) orthodoxy\u00a0represented by the\u00a0Synod of Dort, and was one of the authors of the\u00a0Helvetic Consensus\u00a0(1675). He is generally considered to be the best Calvinist apologist besides John Calvin himself. His\u00a0Institutes of Elenctic Theology\u00a0(three […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":90020,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[312,58],"tags":[16453,365,364,16459,650,385],"class_list":["post-90005","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-calvinism-general-protestantism","category-eucharist-liturgy","tag-francois-turretin","tag-holy-communion","tag-holy-eucharist","tag-institutes-of-elenctic-theology","tag-sacramentalism","tag-transubstantiation"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nare identified with it.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n
\n***
\n*<\/p>\n