"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth".

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

This is often a paradoxical argument. Is God a Spirit or does he have a body of "Flesh and Bone"

[Rob Bowman]

Pa Pa,

I don't know who told you that Christ "shed" his body, but that is not evangelical doctrine. Evangelical theology has always affirmed that Jesus will forever be fully God and fully man. He rose in his physical body with immortality and glory and will retain that glorified, immortal body forever. This is not only the standard evangelical doctrine, it is the standard orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation that is classically affirmed by Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant creeds and confessions.

The question you raise poses absolutely no difficulty to orthodox or evangelical theology. Before he became incarnate as the man Jesus Christ, the Son of God was the divine Logos (John 1:1-3), fully and truly God; he was a fully divine person, one with the Father and the Holy Spirit. He then became incarnate, that is, he took on human nature (John 1:14; Phil. 2:6-7). In doing so he came to have two distinct natures united in his one person: divine nature and human nature. Divine nature is incorporeal, infinite Spirit; human nature is corporeal, finite flesh. Christ possesses both natures united in himself as the Incarnation of God. Since Christ is God, in the Incarnation it is now true that God has a body of flesh and bones -- but he has it as the result of taking on the second nature of humanity. This is true specifically of the Son, not of the Father (and not of the Holy Spirit). Thus, God the Father does not have a physical body, because he did not become incarnate. It is God the Son who became incarnate and therefore has, in his human nature, a physical body.

In this theological context, John 4:24 means exactly what most Christians historically have understood it to mean. God, by nature, is Spirit. In the immediate context in John 4, the point being made is that since God is by nature infinite, omnipresent Spirit, true worship of God is not limited to specific places like a temple on a mountain. God is not located in such temples because he is infinite Spirit and therefore his divine being is never limited in location to one place or another (a clear teaching of the Old Testament as well). He accommodated himself to make himself known through the temple in Jerusalem under the old covenant, but now that the incarnate Son has come, the time has come for people to worship God "in spirit and truth," that is, in the spiritual reality that temple worship only foreshadowed.

[yesucan2]

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Pa Pa,

I don't know who told you that Christ "shed" his body, but that is not evangelical doctrine.

It was the Gospel according to Mark

[semlogo]

Pa Pa,

I don't know who told you that Christ "shed" his body, but that is not evangelical doctrine. Evangelical theology has always affirmed that Jesus will forever be fully God and fully man. He rose in his physical body with immortality and glory and will retain that glorified, immortal body forever. This is not only the standard evangelical doctrine, it is the standard orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation that is classically affirmed by Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant creeds and confessions.

Is there such a thing as an all-encompassing evangelical doctrine agreed upon by all evangelicals? In any case, I've heard that Christ shed His body too, albeit from Evangelicals in South America.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Is there such a thing as an all-encompassing evangelical doctrine agreed upon by all evangelicals?

No

[Vance]

I have heard some say that Christ body was "shed"

[RBoylan]

IIRC, J.P/ Holding in his book, The Mormon Defenders, rejected the idea that Jesus is currently embodied (cf. his comments on Acts 1:11 on divine embodiment [working from memory here; book is buried in a pile in another room, and it has been almost 5 years since I read it]). His "take" is a minority position, and compromises Jesus being the "God-Man" per the Hypostatic Union.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Iglesia ni Cristo is a heretical religion by both orthodox and evangelical standards. It is not evangelical in theology.

I have heard this same argument, more than once.

Edited to add,

In fact, the "Iglesia (sp?) Ni Christo" (Head quartered in the Philippines) uses a very similar argument to deny the divinity of Christ.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Vance,

Iglesia ni Cristo is a heretical religion. It is not evangelical in theology.

Who decides what doctrine is? This speaks to the heart of the problem, you have no central control

[Rob Bowman]

Pa Pa,

If you want to derail your own thread with irrelevancies, that's your business.

I never claim that one Mormon speaks for all Mormons unless that Mormon is Joseph Smith or the current LDS president (and even then I don't assume that they always speak for all Mormons). I doubt any serious critic of Mormonism goes around claiming that what Billy Bob Mormon in Outatheway Flats in Idaho says represents all Mormons. That's about the level of silliness of your "Gospel according to Mark (Browning)."

[Vance]

Vance,

Iglesia ni Cristo is a heretical religion by both orthodox and evangelical standards. It is not evangelical in theology.

Rob,

Let me be more clear.

I have heard that argument from more than one Evangelical.

Separate from those incidents I also heard a similar argument from several "Iglesia Ni Cristo".

I am not conflating the two. So neither should you.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Pa Pa,

If you want to derail your own thread with irrelevancies, that's your business.

I never claim that one Mormon speaks for all Mormons unless that Mormon is Joseph Smith or the current LDS president (and even then I don't assume that they always speak for all Mormons). I doubt any serious critic of Mormonism goes around claiming that what Billy Bob Mormon in Outatheway Flats in Idaho says represents all Mormons. That's about the level of silliness of your "Gospel according to Mark (Browning)."

Have you ever read a single thread by RussB...one is running now. Or are you going to be yet another dismissive Pundit

[Rob Bowman]

Pa Pa,

You wrote:

Who decides what doctrine is? This speaks to the heart of the problem, you have no central control

[BCSpace]

Pa Pa,

You have to understand that "God" to a trinitarian, both evangelical and Catholic, is an abstraction. Therefore "God" cannot have a physical body, but Jesus can. To a trinitarian, the three Persons; the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are to "God" just as a married couple is to the meaning and power (an abstraction) of a marriage license. The meaning and power of a marriage license does not have corporeal form but the persons of the married couple do.

It runs counter to the Bible and early Christian doctrine, but that's why there has been a Universal Apostasy as the Bible predicts.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Pa Pa,

You wrote:

More irrelevancies to your own thread. You have central control, apostles, and an international spokesman, yet you have folks with such divergent theologies as Blake Ostler, Bruce McConkie, Stephen Robinson , et. al., all claiming to be LDS. On this forum, you have such divergent voices as nackhadlow and zerinus.

Evangelicals have never had a national spokesman. The head of the National Association of Evangelicals is the spokesman for the NAE, not for evangelicals themselves. Now, if you really want to talk about hypocritical leaders, feel free to start a new thread and we can go there, but I wouldn't recommend it.

Since you mention these three...is their teaching contrary to what I have posted?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Pa Pa,

You have to understand that "God" to a trinitarian, both evangelical and Catholic, is an abstraction. Therefore "God" cannot have a physical body, but Jesus can. To a trinitarian, the three Persons; the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are to "God" just as a married couple is to the meaning (an abstraction) of a marriage license. The meaning of a marriage license does not have corporeal form but the persons of the married couple do.

It runs counter to the Bible and early Christian doctrine, but that's why there has been a Universal Apostasy as the Bible predicts.

Thanks for the reminder...I wonder how Modelist see this issue?

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Okey-dokey. Got it.

Now, these evangelicals -- are they pastors, theologians, scholars, or in any sense leaders in the evangelical community? Do they even use their full names? Or are we talking about "evangelical" lone-ranger types who really are representative only of themselves?

Just as you can't be held responsible for the variant opinions of LDS posters like zerinus, I refuse to be held responsible for the variant theological statements of unknown individuals who claim to be evangelicals (assuming these individuals actually made that claim).

Rob,

Let me be more clear.

I have heard that argument from more than one Evangelical.

Separate from those incidents I also heard a similar argument from several "Iglesia Ni Cristo".

I am not conflating the two. So neither should you.

[BCSpace]

Thanks for the reminder...I wonder how Modelist see this issue?

Instead of three Persons, there is only one, the three being separate manifestations of the one Person. Otherwise, the same. God is an abstraction.

[Tarski]

I don't know who told you that Christ "shed" his body, but that is not evangelical doctrine. Evangelical theology has always affirmed that Jesus will forever be fully God and fully man. He rose in his physical body with immortality and glory and will retain that glorified, immortal body forever. This is not only the standard evangelical doctrine, it is the standard orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation that is classically affirmed by Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant creeds and confessions.

The question you raise poses absolutely no difficulty to orthodox or evangelical theology. Before he became incarnate as the man Jesus Christ, the Son of God was the divine Logos (John 1:1-3), fully and truly God; he was a fully divine person, one with the Father and the Holy Spirit. He then became incarnate, that is, he took on human nature (John 1:14; Phil. 2:6-7). In doing so he came to have two distinct natures united in his one person: divine nature and human nature. Divine nature is incorporeal, infinite Spirit; human nature is corporeal, finite flesh. Christ possesses both natures united in himself as the Incarnation of God. Since Christ is God, in the Incarnation it is now true that God has a body of flesh and bones -- but he has it as the result of taking on the second nature of humanity. This is true specifically of the Son, not of the Father (and not of the Holy Spirit). Thus, God the Father does not have a physical body, because he did not become incarnate. It is God the Son who became incarnate and therefore has, in his human nature, a physical body.

How can something be true of the Son but not the Father if the Son is the same being as the Father?

I am sorry but this trinity stuff is a ball of self contradictory confusion--one giant bluff.

I am not Mormon so I have no dog in that fight but come on! I am not going to be bullied by the fact that some medieval theologians, desperate to save the inerrancy of the Bible, elevated this self contradiction to a sacred principle and then metaphorically stared us down daring us to call BS on them and their high-sounding nonsense.

Bob P. Trinity is my only brother. My only brother has no hands but the aforementioned Bob P. Trinity (who is my only brother) does have hands. Oooh deep! (Not)

[Rob Bowman]

semlogo,

The answer to your question is Yes. The statement of faith of the World Evangelical Alliance accurately and faithfully expresses a minimal doctrinal framework with which all evangelicals agree:

We believe ...in the Holy Scriptures as originally given by God, divinely inspired, infallible, entirely trustworthy; and the supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct... One God , eternally existent in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit...

Our Lord Jesus Christ , God manifest in the flesh, His virgin birth, His sinless human life, His divine miracles, His vicarious and atoning death, His bodily resurrection, His ascension, His mediatorial work, and His Personal return in power and glory...

The Salvation of lost and sinful man through the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ by faith apart from works, and regeneration by the Holy Spirit...

The Holy Spirit , by whose indwelling the believer is enabled to live a holy life, to witness and work for the Lord Jesus Christ...

The Unity of the Spirit of all true believers, the Church, the Body of Christ...

The Resurrection of both the saved and the lost; they that are saved unto the resurrection of life, they that are lost unto the resurrection of damnation

That is evangelical doctrine in summary form.

Is there such a thing as an all-encompassing evangelical doctrine agreed upon by all evangelicals? In any case, I've heard that Christ shed His body too, albeit from Evangelicals in South America.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Vance,

Okey-dokey. Got it.

Now, these evangelicals -- are they pastors, theologians, scholars, or in any sense leaders in the evangelical community? Do they even use their full names? Or are we talking about "evangelical" lone-ranger types who really are representative only of themselves?

Just as you can't be held responsible for the variant opinions of LDS posters like zerinus, I refuse to be held responsible for the variant theological statements of unknown individuals who claim to be evangelicals (assuming these individuals actually made that claim).

Are not these "lone rangers" also part of the "body of Christ". When did PhD's become the spokesmen for Christ. None of my Pastors growing up Baptist had such credentials. BTW...the same thing is happening in this Church. The "uneducated" need not apply for public callings. Why just the other day one such was telling me that age and life experiences were worthless

[Ahab]

This is often a paradoxical argument. Is God a Spirit or does he have a body of "Flesh and Bone"

[JAHS]

In regards to the "God is a spirit" verse. The context of that verse concerns a Samaritan woman who believed the Old Testament prophecies that Christ would come. Jesus declared to her that people would shortly worship God in spirit and in truth. Jesus then said God is a Spirit and repeated his statement that people would worship him in spirit and in truth. If Jesus meant God was only a spirit, he must have also meant people would leave their bodies and worship him with only their spirits, because the context of the word "spirit" is the same for both God and the worship of the people (same Greek word, pneuma). The context of the word "spirit" is that people would worship in the influence of God. Likewise, when Jesus said God is a Spirit he meant God fills space with his spiritual influence.

Also, modern scholars are agreed that the King James' translation of John 4:24 as "God is a Spirit" is incorrect. The correct rendering of the Greek is "God is spirit." The New Testament contains a number of other brief statements about God which, like John 4:24, were clearly not put forth as absolute definitions, e.g., "God is light" (1 John 1:5), "God is love" (1 John 4:, and "God is a consuming fire" (Hebrews 12:29). Obviously, these verses are simply metaphors.

So yes God is spirit, but he also happens to be made of flesh and bone.

[Rob Bowman]

RBoylan,

I might be mistaken, but what I see Holding saying is that Acts 1:11 does not address the question of Jesus' state of embodiment between his ascension and second coming. He doesn't seem to say that he rejects the idea that Jesus is currently embodied, but rather argues that Acts 1:11 does not imply "that Christ's body was a permanent, unalterable addition to his natural body" (23).

It's possible that Holding thinks that Jesus makes his physical body goes in and out of existence at will. If so, he would seem to be heterodox on that point. I guess I'll have to write to him and ask for clarification of his view.

IIRC, J.P/ Holding in his book, The Mormon Defenders, rejected the idea that Jesus is currently embodied (cf. his comments on Acts 1:11 on divine embodiment [working from memory here; book is buried in a pile in another room, and it has been almost 5 years since I read it]). His "take" is a minority position, and compromises Jesus being the "God-Man" per the Hypostatic Union.