Theological perspectives on the nature of man

As is the typical pattern for my counseling courses at Luther Rice, our first discussion question in Foundations in Counseling was based on our reading assignment for the week. Our assignment was to present one of the theological perspectives on the nature of man. We were to support the view with Scripture, discuss how the nature of man is revealed in the Bible, and discuss the implications of the nature of man for biblical counselors. In my response, I present brief comments about monism, dichotomism, and trichotomism and my personal views on the matter.

Before I attended Dr. Charles Solomon’s Spirituotherapy Workshop on Exchanged Life Counseling in Pigeon Forge, TN, I never gave much thought to what Millard Erickson describes as the “constitutional nature of man.”[1] My understanding prior to that was that of mainstream biblical dichotomism, where man’s nature consisted of a material component and an immaterial component. My thinking at that time was that the material component of man was the body and the immaterial component was the soul or spirit, where I would use the terms “soul” or “spirit” interchangeably. After attending the Spirituotherapy Workshop and after having read books that were proponents of the Exchanged Life Counseling principles, I found myself being drawn to the trichotomist’s camp. 

Regarding monism, I reject it outright. The biblical case against monism is overwhelming. Using biblical evidence, it is clear that an immaterial aspect of man exists and, whether we call it spirit or soul, continues to live after the body dies. How else could Jesus promise the thief on the cross, in Luke 23:43, he would be with Him in Paradise that very day? Jesus makes the distinction between the body and the soul when he states in Matthew 10:28, “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” Paul, in Philippians 1:23-24 describes how he is torn between staying with his readers in the body and departing “and be with Christ, which is better by far.”[2]Again, in 2 Corinthians 5:8, Paul states that he would “prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.” John makes the distinction in 3 John 2 when he writes, “I pray that you may enjoy good health and that all may go well with you, even as your soul is getting along well.” Aside from the use of secular philosophical reasoning, the case of man having a nature consisting of material and immaterial aspects is incontrovertible from a biblical perspective.

The argument for dichotomism can find its support in many verses, including the ones that I have already listed. However, I found Erickson’s concept of conditional unity, a form of holistic dualism, to be intriguing. This view has a number of different titles, including “minimal dualism” as put forth by C. S. Evans, “interactive dualism” by Gordon Lewis, and “psychosomatic unity” as proposed by Anthony Hoekema.”[3] Regarding this position, Lewis and Demarest state, “To sum up the doctrine of humanness ontologically, … the whole person is a complex unity composed of two distinct entities, soul and body, intimately interacting with one another … an interacting dichotomy.”[4] I found Erickson’s analogy of the mixture of the immaterial and material aspects of man being two atoms that make up a chemical compound quite intriguing and intellectually satisfying. As atoms, they have their own unique characteristics. Yet when combined to form molecules, where “the molecules have characteristics or qualities that are unlike those of any of the elements of which they are composed,” using common table salt as an example.[5] In its compound form with sodium, ingesting chlorine is quite safe, yet as an element, it is extremely toxic. To complete his proposal, he notes that “unity is dissolvable, however; dissolution takes place at death.”[6]Regarding what happens to the immaterial aspect of man at the resurrection, he states, “a compound will again be formed, with the soul (if we choose to call it that) once more becoming inseparably attached to a body.”[7] 

Regarding trichotomism, I agree that the Scriptural references given by Richard Hall, among others, to support their belief of the tripartite nature of man present convincing evidence. In 1 Thessalonians 5:23, Paul is clear when he states, “Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” When describing the delineation between spirit and soul while making reference to the body, the writer of Hebrews 4:12 states, “For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joint and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.” Using Genesis 2:7 as his text, Hall describes early biblical evidence of the tripartite nature of man when he states, “God formed man’s body and breathed into him a spirit and man became a living, i.e. psychological being.”[8]

After the study this week, my concept of the ontological structure of man is now quite complex. Like Dr. Cobb, I am a dichotomist by substance, in that man is made up of material and immaterial components.  Again, like Dr. Cobb, I am a trichotomist by function, where God causes us to function physically, psychologically and spiritually. Yet, I am also a partial proponent of Erickson’s conditional unity in principle, because I can see that man is a “unitary compound” of body, soul and spirit and that within that compound, the three elements of body, soul and spirit can “retain their distinctive characteristics because they retain their separate identities.” [9] With Erickson’s construct, man remains a complex unity where “human nature is not reducible to a single principle,” “the different aspects of human nature are all to be attended to and respected,” and the “scriptural teaching of personal conscious existence between death and resurrection” is faithfully maintained.[10] And, 1 Thessalonians 5:23 supports the principle that “religious development or maturity does not consist in subjugating one part of human nature to another,” in that “God is at work renewing the whole of what we are.”[11]

However, this is where I slightly differ with Erickson. Like Erickson’s model, Dr. Solomon’s model shows that there is a joining of the body, soul and spirit and that there is a distinction between each.[12] However, Dr. Solomon goes one step further and demonstrates that there is an interaction between the components of the tripartite nature of man in that man’s spirit affects his soul, and his soul affects his body. [13]

Finally, HalI believes that each component of man’s nature is being changed at different times, in that, “The spiritual area of life has already been changed through God making an exchange. The psychological area is being changed. This twofold change is shown in Hebrews 10. The physical area according to Romans 8 is still not changed but will be in the future.”[14] Additionally, I believe that the sanctification process has a specific function, in that it is not only positional, but experientially effectual as well. I believe my position is consistent with the Exchanged Life Counseling model, which effectively guides a person into the sanctification process where an individual is convicted of his flesh patterns, broken of self-will, self-sufficiency and pride, learns the truths of identification with Christ, is illumined by the Holy Spirit as to the personal reality and significance of identification with Christ, and appropriates Christ as Life by faith.[15]

[1] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013),  475.

[2] Unless otherwise noted, all biblical passages referenced employ The Holy Bible, New International Version (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984).

[3] John B. Woodward, Man as Spirit, Soul, and Body: A Study of Biblical Psychology. (Pigeon Forge: Grace Fellowship International, 2007), 7.

[4] Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce A. Demarest, Integrative Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 148-49, quoted by Woodward, Man as Spirit, Soul, and Body: A Study of Biblical Psychology, 7.

[5] Erickson, 492.

[6] Ibid., 492.

[7] Ibid., 492.

[8] Richard F. Hall, Foundations of Exchanged Life Counseling (Englewood: Exchanged Life Ministries, 1995), 13. 

[9] Erickson, 492. 

[10] Ibid. 493.

[11] Ibid., 493. 

[12] Charles R. Solomon, Handbook to Happiness: A Biblical Guide to Victorious Living (Carol Stream: Tyndale House Publishers, 1999), 17.

[13] Ibid., 17.

[14] Hall, 14.

[15] “Appropriating Christ as Life,” gracenotebook.com, accessed September 12, 2020, https://gracenotebook.com/appropriating-christ-as-life/.