Where the Rubber Meets the Road

Last week we concluded Sunday school by skimming a couple of articles demonstrating the cultural relevance of our study of the Trinity. I thought I would post them for you to read in their entirety if you're interested. Here is the Fox News article http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293394,00.html and the World Magazine story http://www.worldmag.com/articles/13147?CFID=2509551&CFTOKEN=62149706. Also, I posed the question: What implications does the doctrine of the Trinity have on the Gospel? Any thoughts on this or other practical application of what we studied?

Does God have a body?

OK, now to a post more directly linked to this past week's Sunday School lesson. We briefly introduced the subject of God as spirit this past week. Among other things we mentioned that Scripture seems to indicate rather clearly that God is invisible. I'd like to expand the issue a little and propose that Scripture also indicates that God is non-material, i.e. He has no body or material substance that is an essential part of His being. In Luke 24:39, Jesus claims that he is not merely a spirit, because a spirit alone does not possess "flesh and bones." This comment is in response to the disciples' unbelief regarding whether the figure they see really is Jesus in bodily, resurrected form. It wouldn't make any sense unless it meant that there is something material about a body that a spirit does not have. Thus, among other things, we can conclude from this statement that spirits don't possess material bodies. And this would apply to God as well, since His essential nature is spirit (John 4:24).

Along the lines of this topic, here is a link to a site called the "Skeptics Annotated Bible," where the author takes up the seeming contradiction of how the Bible can say that God is only spirit and at the same time talk about how God has body parts. He lists several verses as proof of the contradiction. What is your first impression of this seeming contradiction?

Once you've read this, here are two sites listed that provide a short response to the issue from an orthodox Christian perspective: site #1, and site #2. I think these might help us think biblically about this topic.

What does Church History have to do with doctrine?

Why include church history in a study of biblical doctrines? Hopefully, this question has surfaced in the minds of some as we've discussed doctrines over the last five weeks. This seems like a fair question, so I wanted to take a post briefly to address it? If we're seeking to consider what the Bible has to say about God and doctrine, what are we doing studying a creed?
First, it should be stated that depending on your background or upbringing, you may already be disposed one way or the other regarding the value of considering church history, and most of what has come from it. Having been raised as a Baptist, for example, I was always naturally inclined to think that anything that seemed remotely high church, formal, or "Roman Catholic" in any way should be viewed with a little suspicion from the outset. This included learning or reciting any kind of creed or confessional statement. Maybe you can relate.

In any case, what might be the reason for giving a little attention to church history? To state it briefly, since the days of the apostles, the Holy Spirit has been active in helping all Christians understand God's Word. This is something we should not overlook. Throughout history, men and women who have gone before us have already thought through most if not all of the issues of doctrine that we will study in Sunday School. We are foolish if we simply write off their insights. Theologian Wayne Grudem makes a helpful observation: "We need to be thankful that God has put teachers in the church... [referring to 1 Cor. 12:28]. We should allow those with gifts of teaching to help us understand Scripture. This means that we should make use of systematic theologies and other books that have been written by some of the teachers that God has given the church over the course of its history." (Systematic Theology, p. 35). This includes such things as the doctrinal creeds and confessions that some of our brothers and sisters have hammered out in days gone by.

We will always test what others (both past and present) have written by comparing it to Scripture. Some of it will be wrong and should be discarded. But there is much that will also prove to be helpful as we struggle to get our arms around the doctrines of the Bible that we are studying. Just some food for thought...