An Inconsistency in Evangelical Doctrine?

[mfbukowski]

Here's the problem:

Luther rejected the doctrine of transubstantiation, saying it came from Greek philosophy. He was right.

Luther accepted the Nicene Creed notion of "substance" in the trinity, also found in Greek philosophy- it was the same idea of "substance" as the one which justified the trinity!

Most Evangelical Christians reject transubstantiation but accept the Nicene Creed notion of the Father and Son being "one substance"

I find that inconsistent. They accept part of Catholic doctrine, but not all of it. Incidentally, Catholics do not have that inconsistency. I disagree with their theology, but at least it is consistent.

This OP looks long, but the bottom section is all backup quotes you actually don't have to read unless you want to, starting here!

Also, don't quote the whole OP or we will all be doing nothing but scrolling down!

If you "get" the problem, stop reading now, and go ahead and comment! The rest is backup.

For those of you who want a little more backup, continue.

I will quote wikipedia for a good quick explanation of "substance" (see below for link)

"Substance" here means what something is in itself. (For more on the philosophical concept, see Substance theory- below) A hat's shape is not the hat itself, nor is its colour, size, softness to the touch, nor anything else about it perceptible to the senses. The hat itself (the "substance") has the shape, the color, the size, the softness and the other appearances, but is distinct from them.[12] While the appearances, which are referred to by the philosophical term accidents, are perceptible to the senses, the substance is not

In other words, the idea is that a hat is NOT it's size, shape color, texture, or anything perceptible to the senses, but something else- it is its "hatness"- the substance or essence of hatness- the IDEA of hatness is what makes a hat a hat. Supposedly the "substance" somehow underlies the sensory attributes of color, shape, texture etc- it's sensory qualities. The sum of the sensory qualities ARE NOT the hat- what IS the hat is the "substance" or "essence" of the hat. The sensory qualities on this theory are called "accidents".

So the bottom line is that the sensory qualities or "accidents" are in fact somewhat "accidental" and do not reflect what the thing "really is". A thing, according to this idea, could change what it looks like, tastes like, smells like, feels like, or sounds like and theoretically still be the same "thing"!

Well this sounds nonsensical to the modern scientific mind, but was a very popular way of seeing reality to the ancient Greeks. Modern philosophers for the most part (except in Catholic universities) have given up on this long ago. This was the basis of alchemy- the thought that one could change lead into gold. All one had to do is get down to the "substance" of a thing by burning off it's "accidents" and you could change lead into gold!

So here is the bottom line:

Both the doctrine of the "trinity" AND the doctrine of "transubstantiation" rely on the theory of "substance".

The Nicene Creed says that the Father and Son are of "one substance" ("homoousios")

The Catholic doctrine of "Transubstantiation" says that one can change wine and bread into body and blood- because only the "appearances" or "accidents" are being changed, but not the "substance". (ie: the bread is "trans-substance-iated")

The following are attended to be "Backup Quotes":

I quote a lot from wikipedia, because this is somewhat technical and wikipedia tends to be easy to read. But the articles are correct in my opinion!

Luther Rejects Transubstantiation

The earliest known use of the term "transubstantiation" to describe the change from bread and wine to body and blood of Christ was by Hildebert de Lavardin, Archbishop of Tours (died 1133), in the eleventh century and by the end of the twelfth century the term was in widespread use.[4] In 1215, the Fourth Council of the Lateran spoke of the bread and wine as "transubstantiated" into the body and blood of Christ: "His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been transubstantiated, by God's power, into his body and blood".[5]

During the Protestant Reformation, the doctrine of transubstantiation was heavily criticised as an import into Christian teaching of Aristotelian "pseudo-philosophy",[6] in favor of Martin Luther's doctrine of sacramental union, or in favor, per Huldrych Zwingli, of the Eucharist as memorial.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

Substance Theory

Substance theory, or substance attribute theory, is an ontological theory about objecthood, positing that a substance is distinct from its properties. A thing-in-itself is a property-bearer that must be distinguished from the properties it bears.[1]

Substance is a key concept in ontology and metaphysics. Philosophies may be divided into Monist, Dualist, or Pluralist varieties according to the number of substances they consider the world to comprise. According to Monistic views, such as those of stoicism and Spinoza, there is only one substance, often identified as God or Being. These modes of thinking are sometimes associated with the idea of immanence. Dualism sees the world as being composed of two fundamental substances, while Pluralism, a feature of Platonism , for example, and Aristotelianism, states that more substances exist, and often that these substances can be placed into an ontological hierarchy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory

Transubstantiation

The Council of Trent in its thirteenth session ending October 11, 1551, defined transubstantiation as "that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood

[Vance]

It seems that Evangelicals rejected things Catholic simply because they think Catholicism was totally apostate with this one exception. And they swallow it hook, line and sinker with a big smile on their face.

Yes, I do find it very inconsistent.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Interesting topic!

This is the problem with Reformation instead of Restoration, in reformation you have men deciding what is truth and what is not truth. When this happens you get conflicts like the one you posted about, they got rid of some of the man made doctrine but kept other man made doctrines because they felt it was vital to the faith to keep those doctrine but not the ones they got rid of.

This is why Protestantism is so divided, once you start reforming, you never know how far down that rabbit hole will go. As people get new idea and new doctrine they just break off and make a new church! This continues and continues and the division and new denominations grow exponentially. I believe if I recall correctly there is something like 1,500 different denominations of Christianity in the United States alone!

This is the blessing of being in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we are not a reformed Church but the restored Church that Christ established when he walked the Earth. Through prophets and apostles we have the Church as it was in Christ's time, and continue to receive modern revelation to guide the kingdom of God on the Earth, just like Peter received revelation for the Church when he was the leader of the Church after Christ's resurrection.

Reforming is always the work of best intentioned men, but even the best intending men cannot get everything right, nor can a Prophet get everything right. But a Prophet is entitled to the revelations of God to help guide him and the Lords Church in the right direction!

[Calm]

The Catholic doctrine of "Transubstantiation" says that one can change wine and bread into body and blood- because only the "appearances" or "accidents" are being changed, but not the "substance". (ie: the bread is "trans-substance-iated")

Wouldn't this be the reverse since the "appearances" aren't change, but the underlying substance is (from wine and bread to the body and blood of Christ)?

from your quote:

When at his Last Supper, Jesus said: "This is my body",[16] what he held in his hands still had all the appearances of bread: these "accidents" remained unchanged. However, the Roman Catholic Church believes that, when Jesus made that declaration,[17] the underlying reality (the "substance") of the bread was converted to that of his body.

[mfbukowski]

It seems that Evangelicals rejected things Catholic simply because they think Catholicism was totally apostate with this one exception. And they swallow it hook, line and sinker with a big smile on their face.

Yes, I do find it very inconsistent.

What I have always found very curious about Protestantism is where they draw the line. To me, Catholicism is either historically right or wrong. It is either apostate or not, and I think that is pretty much our doctrine- we of course believe it went "wrong", at least from my point of view, with the incorporation of Greek philosophy- the roots of this can be seen in the New Testament actually, including some Gnostic teachings. John was aware of Gnosticism and made allusions to it. Paul also hints at some Greek ideas as well.

But any attempt at explaining things rationally, I think, is going to naturally incorporate the philosophical notions of the age- so the idea of the gospel totally pure of "the philosophies of men" to me, is not possible. They are part of the way we see and think- we eat breathe and sleep the ideas of our culture. That's why "substance" seems silly to us in a scientific age. We believe in atoms and molecules- lead is lead because of its molecular structure- bread is bread etc. There is no such thing, literally, as "substance". It is made up, a concept, an idea without its own "reality".

But if you are going to incorporate philosophy, (impossible not to) at least make it consistent!

[mfbukowski]

Reforming is always the work of best intentioned men, but even the best intending men cannot get everything right, nor can a Prophet get everything right. But a Prophet is entitled to the revelations of God to help guide him and the Lords Church in the right direction!

I agree.

[ChristKnight]

Wouldn't this be the reverse since the "appearances" aren't change, but the underlying substance is (from wine and bread to the body and blood of Christ)?

from your quote:

Right you're correct. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is that the substance is changed from bread/wine to body/blood of Christ (Catholics believe that the whole Christ is present in each element, so that, if you only partake of the consecrated bread, you aren't just partaking in the body of Christ, but His blood, soul, and divinity as well), while the accidents of bread and wine remain.

From my understanding, Luther and Lutherans generally believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, while remaining bread and wine as well, without getting into a discussion of substance and "how" that change happens. In contrast, Catholics believe that the bread and wine cease to be bread and wine, and are just the body and blood of Christ, under the appearance/accidents of bread and wine.

[mfbukowski]

Wouldn't this be the reverse since the "appearances" aren't change, but the underlying substance is (from wine and bread to the body and blood of Christ)?

Well technically it is the appearances which are changed because bread doesn't look like flesh and water doesn't look like blood. But supposedly what you DON'T see- "the substance" remains the same. The Greeks would see appearances as "illusion" while the "reality" was the "substance" or "Being" of the thing. For them, ideas and abstractions are literally more "real" than what we see with the senses, because ideas are unchanging.

By the same magic trick, God the Father and the Son may "look" different- one supposedly has a body and the other doesn't, one became man and died, etc. they are of the same "substance" supposedly- so THAT did not change.

THAT is the basis of the whole idea of "homoousios" idea. Actually it is a bit more complicated than that, because involved also is the idea of "hypostasis" in the trinity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostasis_%28philosophy%29

Hellenic philosophy

For instance it was used by Aristotle in contrast to Plato and the Neoplatonists to speak of the objective reality of a thing or its inner reality (as opposed to outer form or illusion). In the Christian Scriptures this seems roughly its meaning at Hebrews 1:3. Allied to this was its use for "basis" or "foundation" and hence also "confidence," e.g., in Hebrews 3:14 and 11:1 and 2 Corinthians 9:4 and 11:17.

Early Christianity

In Early Christian writings it is used to denote "being" or "substantive reality" and is not always distinguished in meaning from ousia (essence); it was used in this way by Tatian and Origen, and also in the anathemas appended to the Nicene Creed of 325. See also: Hypostatic union, where the term is used to describe the union of Christ's humanity and divinity. The term has also been used and is still used in modern Greek (not just Koine Greek or common ancient Greek) to mean "existence" along with the Greek word h

[mfbukowski]

Right you're correct. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is that the substance is changed from bread/wine to body/blood of Christ (Catholics believe that the whole Christ is present in each element, so that, if you only partake of the consecrated bread, you aren't just partaking in the body of Christ, but His blood, soul, and divinity as well), while the accidents of bread and wine remain.

Well technically it is the appearances which are changed because bread doesn't look like flesh and water doesn't look like blood. But supposedly what you DON'T see- "the substance" remains the same.

Ooops- yep, ChristKnight is right- I got it backwards.

[ChristKnight]

Well technically it is the appearances which are changed because bread doesn't look like flesh and water doesn't look like blood. But supposedly what you DON'T see- "the substance" remains the same. The Greeks would see appearances as "illusion" while the "reality" was the "substance" or "Being" of the thing. For them, ideas and abstractions are literally more "real" than what we see with the senses, because ideas are unchanging.

Mfbukowski, I'm not following what you're saying. In transubstantiation, it is the substance that is changed (from bread/wine to body/blood) while the accidents/appearances remain the same. As you mentioned, "substance" refers to what something is. Catholics would say that the bread, once consecrated, is no longer bread, because its substance has changed to that of the body of Christ (or more precisely, the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ, since they believe that the "whole Christ" is present in each element used in the Eucharist), while the accidents/appearances (the shape, size, taste, of bread) remain the same.

Actually, now that I think about it, perhaps you're looking at this backwards. It isn't that Christ's body becomes the bread (which would show why you're saying that the appearances are changed while the substance remains the same), but the doctrine is that the bread becomes Christ's body (the substance changes while the accidents/appearances remain the same).

[ChristKnight]

Ooops- yep, ChristKnight is right- I got it backwards.

Yeah I just figured it out

[mfbukowski]

Yeah I just figured it out

Thanks to you and Cal for pointing it out!

It's been a lot of years since I thought like a Catholic!

That of course doesn't change the point of the OP.

[ChristKnight]

Thanks to you and Cal for pointing it out!

It's been a lot of years since I thought like a Catholic!

[mfbukowski]

Hey man, I don't want to get into trouble with the Catholic Police!

Any EV's out there want to get into this, or am I totally right?

[Hughes]

Here's the problem:

Luther rejected the doctrine of transubstantiation, saying it came from Greek philosophy. He was right.

Luther accepted the Nicene Creed notion of "substance" in the trinity, also found in Greek philosophy- it was the same idea of "substance" as the one which justified the trinity!

Most Evangelical Christians reject transubstantiation but accept the Nicene Creed notion of the Father and Son being "one substance"

I find that inconsistent. They accept part of Catholic doctrine, but not all of it. Incidentally, Catholics do not have that inconsistency. I disagree with their theology, but at least it is consistent.

What is the problem?

The elements of the Eucharist are symbolic. The essence of the trinity is actual.

[mfbukowski]

What is the problem?

The elements of the Eucharist are symbolic. The essence of the trinity is actual.

Show me some actual "substance" or "essence" and I will believe you.

How do you know they are both not symbolic? If one is wrong, why isn't the other? They are the same concept.

[Hughes]

Show me some actual "substance" or "essence" and I will believe you.

How do you know they are both not symbolic? If one is wrong, why isn't the other? They are the same concept.

Jesus said, "do this in remembrance of me...." He didn't say, this actually becomes my body and blood... rather do this and remember me.

The trinity, isn't ever mentioned as simply symbolic. Rather, Jesus said, the father and I are one, I am in the father, and he is in me. He states that God is spirit.

[mfbukowski]

Jesus said, "do this in remembrance of me...." He didn't say, this actually becomes my body and blood... rather do this and remember me.

The trinity, isn't ever mentioned as simply symbolic. Rather, Jesus said, the father and I are one, I am in the father, and he is in me. He states that God is spirit.

Well you are partially right. In fact "the trinity" is never mentioned at all in the Bible and wasn't really defined until the 4th century. It is purely Platonic doctrine from Greek philosophy.

First regarding the notion that God is spirit:

Actually John 4: 23 and 24 says:

23But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Every time the word "spirit" appears here, it is the same Greek word, pneuma, which of course also means "breath"

It does not say God is "A" spirit, it literally says (in the Greek) "God is pneuma"

Strong's says pneuma can mean:

???????

pneuma

pnyoo'-mah

From G4154; a current of air, that is, breath (blast) or a breeze; by analogy or figuratively a spirit, that is, (human) the rational soul, (by implication) vital principle, mental disposition, etc., or (superhuman) an angel, daemon, or (divine) God, Christ

[ChristKnight]

Perhaps I can clarify mfbukowski's argument:

He isn't saying that if one accepts the Trinitarian doctrine as defined by ancient Ecumenical Councils, using "substance" (Greek: ousia) as what unifies the Three Persons, then one should also accept the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, since it uses the same concept of substance to define how the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus Christ (the substance of bread/wine is gone (it is no longer bread/wine, since 'substance' is what something is), and changed into the substance of the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ, while retaining the appearance/accidents of bread/wine), if one accepts such a change.

What he is saying is that it is interesting that Luther would reject the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation on the basis that it uses Greek philosophy to explain how this change allegedly occurs (I'm just repeating what mfbukowski said, I haven't researched Luther's beliefs to know whether he said this), when using that same philosophical concept to define the oneness in the Trinity.

What's interesting to me is that Seventh-day Adventists, who can be seen as restorationists, though are also often considered to be Protestants, not only reject a Real Presence in the Eucharist, but also tend to reject creedal definitions of the Trinity. They accept a belief in the Trinity, as found in their Fundamental Beliefs, yet they do not adhere to the concept of "substance" to define the oneness of the Three, since they tend not to find creeds and the Ecumenical Councils to be authoritative.

[Vance]

As I have pointed out several times before.

John 4:19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.

20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.

21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.

22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

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

And people think that this is meant to be a description of physical nature of God.

[mfbukowski]

What he is saying is that it is interesting that Luther would reject the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation on the basis that it uses Greek philosophy to explain how this change allegedly occurs (I'm just repeating what mfbukowski said, I haven't researched Luther's beliefs to know whether he said this), when using that same philosophical concept to define the oneness in the Trinity.

That's it exactly, thanks for clarifying it. And the most remarkable thing to me, is that the Protestants who followed accept the same dichotomy of thought- "substance" works in one arena but not another.

I'll let Luther speak for himself on this so you can see how clearly he sees it- but only in the case of transubstantiation apparently!

[Hughes]

Well you are partially right. In fact "the trinity" is never mentioned at all in the Bible and wasn't really defined until the 4th century. It is purely Platonic doctrine from Greek philosophy.

First regarding the notion that God is spirit:

Actually John 4: 23 and 24 says:

Every time the word "spirit" appears here, it is the same Greek word, pneuma, which of course also means "breath"

It does not say God is "A" spirit, it literally says (in the Greek) "God is pneuma"

Strong's says pneuma can mean:

Notice the words "mental disposition"- which is what I think it means here. It means not "spirit" as in a spiritual entity, but the "mental disposition" of "being spiritual".

How do we worship "in spirit and truth" if that means "a spirit", in the sense of a spiritual entity? How does worship create a spiritual entity? It cannot mean that!

What is being said is that "God is spiritual" and must be worshipped spiritually.

First, what God is can't be accurately defined with a finite mind. Our words, whether we use Greek Pneuma or Hebrew Rhama, or English Spirit, won't ever completely capture what God is. Because what we are doing is looking at something larger than the Universe, and attempting to describe it in terms that we understand, as finite beings, we will always fail trying to describe the infinite.

Now, your definition of what the writers meant using the word Pneuma, as the "mental disposition" of "being spiritual" is rather ambiguous as well, since you are using the word "spiritual" in your definition. What is spiritual?

I would say that there is no appreciable difference between, God is spirit and God is a spirit. I'm not quite sure what you're making of the difference here.

And yes, the word "trinity" isn't in the bible just as "council of the Gods" isn't in there either.

What is in there are descriptions of both God being one, and God being three persons. So what ever "Godness" is, it is of such a state or essence that three can be one. This is only meant as a way to clarify what scripture plainly says. The use of the word essence, may have come from Platonic doctrine from Greek philosophy, but that doesn't make it wrong, since it's redefined to describe Christian theology. They were Greeks, so it's completely logical that they would use words they understood.

It is also said in the scriptures that "God is love". Well what is he? Is he a spirit or is he love? He is three persons unified in purpose and love and must be worshipped spiritually.

God is spirit or is he love? What makes you think that he can't be both?

We don't use the word "love" to describe one's being or essence, but one's attitude. But, we also don't use the word "spirit" to describe one's attitude, rather one's essence or being.

Love is an action or attitude, Spirit is a descriptor of being or essence.

Now regarding transubstantiation:

He said "this IS my body" and that is born out in the Greek- that is what he said.

Now you can take that symbolically, as we LDS do also, as a metaphor, like Shakespeare's famous line "Juliette is the sun", but what it literally says is that it IS his body.

So it is clear to me, that BOTH these passages must be taken figuratively.

The body/blood scripture might be taken literally, but that case the only way that can happen is if we make up something like "transubstantiation" which makes no sense

The only way the "God is spirit" scripture could mean that God is literally a spirit is if all the words for spirit in the passage mean the same thing, so that somehow the act of worship creates a spiritual entity, and that doesn't make sense either.

So of these possibilities, the only interpretation I see which makes sense is the LDS interpretation.

If you believe in "substance" in the Trinity, you are taking on a Greek philosophical position which is not Biblical.

Jesus standing there said, "This is my body..."

The disciples didn't think, "Oh wow, he just broke off a part of his flesh and gave it to us...." Nope. They understood him to literally mean, that the words, "this is my body" means this is a symbol of my body that is broken for you. Do this to remember me. It is taken literally, because it was meant to literally be a symbol of what Jesus did for us.

The context of "God is spirit, those who worship him must do so in Spirit and truth", doesn't mean that all the words for spirit in that passage have to mean the same thing. We don't even do that to ourselves in english.

Sometimes words that are exactly the same, mean different things in different contexts.

If we said that "God is French, therefore we must worship him in French.

You can see that we aren't saying that you must be French to worship him, but rather that you must speak French.

We are describing God's essence as French, which then helps us understand the means by which we connect with him.

The same is true with this passage. The passage says God is spirit, and he must be worshiped in spirit and truth.

[Vance]

First, what God is can't be accurately defined with a finite mind.

Well, if that is true then YOU don't know what He is AND you CAN'T know that we are wrong.

Our words, whether we use Greek Pneuma or Hebrew Rhama, or English Spirit, won't ever completely capture what God is.

Well, since they were NEVER intended to do so, that is not a surprise.

Because what we are doing is looking at something larger than the Universe, . . .

You CAN'T know that! And that isn't what Jesus taught.

Who to believe, Jesus or Hughes? WOW! that is a tough question.

and attempting to describe it in terms that we understand, as finite beings, we will always fail trying to describe the infinite.

Just WHERE in the Bible does it say God is infinite?

What is in there are descriptions of both God being one, and God being three persons.

THAT isn't in the Bible either.

Also, God being one WHAT?

So what ever "Godness" is, it is of such a state or essence that three can be one.

THAT isn't Biblical either. Again "three can be one" WHAT?

Three beings can't be one being. Three persons can't be one person. But three beings can be one GOD. Three Beings can be one, united in purpose, love, will, and perfection.

This is only meant as a way to clarify what scripture plainly says.

Where have you quoted scripture?

The use of the word essence, may have come from Platonic doctrine from Greek philosophy, but that doesn't make it wrong, since it's redefined to describe Christian theology.

You mean HELLENIZED non-Biblical Christian theology.

They were Greeks, so it's completely logical that they would use words they understood.

Instead of the Greek words used by the apostles, right?

God is spirit or is he love? What makes you think that he can't be both?

So, what makes you think that He can't have a body of flesh and bones?

We don't use the word "love" to describe one's being or essence, but one's attitude.

Good point. So we can use "spirit" to describe the attitude that we must have to WORSHIP God properly.

But, we also don't use the word "spirit" to describe one's attitude, rather one's essence or being.

That isn't what Jesus did.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Jesus said, "do this in remembrance of me...." He didn't say, this actually becomes my body and blood... rather do this and remember me.

The trinity, isn't ever mentioned as simply symbolic. Rather, Jesus said, the father and I are one, I am in the father, and he is in me. He states that God is spirit.

The scriptures also state that we are made in God's image (we are made of flesh and house our spirit within that flesh just like God does), it also says that Moses spoke with God face to face, we also have in Revelations Christ approaching the throne of God and taking the Book with the seven seals from God.

All these verses speak to the nature of God being on of flesh like ours (his is immortal and perfect our's is mortal and imperfect) and that he Christ and the Holy Ghost are 3 beings not 1 being. That they are unified in purpose not being, the greatest support for this verse is in John 17:21 " Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."

Now do you think that Christ is saying that all who believe in Christ through the Apostles teachings will become 1 literal person?

Cause Christ said he want's us to become one just like Christ and the Father are one!

It is a oneness of purpose not a oneness of being, this is why one must carefully study the scriptures least they find themselves believing in incorrect teachings of men that conflict with the scriptures.

[Vance]

The same is true with this passage. The passage says God is spirit, and he must be worshiped in spirit and truth.

And since a spirit doesn't have a body, you can't worship Him in spirit until after you loose your body in death, right?