I do not understand your issue? You pointed to a brief quote of a commentary that claims the belief in the Spiritual nature of God comes from the Enlightenment. I dispute this, and if I had access to Kieffer’s commentary I imagine that there is more of an explaination about this comment than you provide. I find it hard to beleive that she is positing that the beleif in the incopreal nature of God is an Enlightenment construct. But with the information that I have I pointed to Tatian and John Calvin, both pre-Enlightenment theologians, to show proof of the belief in an incorporeal God prior to the Enlightenment.

Tatian is just one of many writers who prior to the enlightenment points to the spiritual nature of God. While I may disagree with his views on marriage and I have not thought much on the salvation of Adam, Tatian’s use of John 4:24 is in line with Origen, Novatian, Gregory Thaumaturgus, and other of that era and showing a belief in an incorporeal God well prior to the Enlightenment .

“Tatian converted to Christianity while studying in Rome under the Christian apologist Justin Martyr. He early showed his ascetic bent, and, after Justin’s martyrdom (c. ad 165), Tatian drifted further toward dualism and Gnosticism, severed his ties with the church, and returned to Syria, where his association with the Encratites began. He formulated the doctrine that denied salvation to Adam, and he reinterpreted some of the Pauline texts of the New Testament (e.g., 1 Corinthians 7:3–6) to make them concur with the Encratite view that marriage was licentious and a service of the devil. Eusebius of Caesarea stated in his 4th-century history of the church that the Encratites actually rejected both the Pauline Letters and The Acts of the Apostles.”

And this is the guy you turn to for support?

My point is that Tatian’s comment was made in the second century, prior to the Enlightenment, and refers to the nature of God as Spirit in John 4:24. This shows that writers in the Church saw this passage as relating to the nature of God contradicting Kieffer’s claim that this is an Enlightenment era invention.

From a first look and only seeing what you have posted I think that Kieffer is conflating the future tense of John 4:14 and the present tense of John 4:24. I don’t know if Kieffer comments on verse 22 “You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know…” that most commentators (I think even Talmage) says answers the underlying question about the Samaritan worship at Mount Gerizim. I also do not see any comments on verse 21 where in a future tense Christ points to the fullfilment of Zephaniah 2:11 and Malachi 1:11 and the obsolescence of temple worship.

Basically this quote from Lehi’s Library doesn’t help your case when you read from Church history unless you can explain how Enlightenment though is different from either Tatian, Calvin or any churchmen who predates the Enlightenment.

Your assignment then, should you choose to accept it, is to find the difference between Enlightenment thought on the nature of God as spirit and the pre-Enlightenment thought. Then we can determine if the Enlightenment changed orthodox protestant though on this subject and affected the work of the Westminster divines in 1640-49.

Tatian mistakenly asserts that John 4:24 says something about the physical nature of God (He is invisible, impalpable . . ). Whereas Kieffer denies any such possibility (‘God is spirit’ has nothing to do with the Enlightenment description of the nature of God).

Nothing against Rene Kieffer but Tatian makes this comment in the second century, well before the Enlightenment.

“God is a Spirit, not pervading matter, but the Maker of material spirits, and of the forms that are in matter; He is invisible, impalpable, being Himself the Father of both sensible and invisible things. Him we know from His creation, and apprehend His invisible power by His works.”

Calvin who predated the Enlightenment by a century says “Christ simply declares here that his Father is of a spiritual nature, and, therefore, is not moved by frivolous matters, as men, through the lightness and unsteadiness of their character, are wont to be.” in his commentary on John 4:24.

Rene Kieffer, “John”, The Oxford Bible Commentary. Oxford University Press, NY, 2001. pp. 968.

http://www.multiline.com.au/~johnm/religion/spurious.htm

You claimed that these videos are from NON-LDS scholars, so I should be surprised when I find a review of “Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Deity: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses,” by the noted Mormon David L. Paulsen?

All you needed to do was come out a say that the video was about Paulsen’s article, how much time would that have taken?

Feel free to use whatever excuse you want.