Was Man Created Just Flesh?

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
I don't think my position is easy to defeat. Especially if you take the proper perspective that I outlined.
Ha! Certainly if I take your supposedly "proper perspective", I wouldn't even want to defeat your position. Your position IS your perspective.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
I distinguished the two.
While what I said may have been a bit rude, I did not mean to argue whether you were wrong. I don't wish to argue with you on the merits of your position. I'm not denying that to you, what you believe is material monism. And you may even be right that it is indeed "material monism". Who am I to define it for you? I was only commenting that within your take on it, (as I understood you), you yourself mention the body and the soul, as two different principles, almost as two different players.

My skepticism in such things is not usually personally against a person, but against what they said. You probably too, here on this site, have repeatedly found people who agree on something express it so differently as to become belligerent, both pointing out the implications of the words the other used.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
While what I said may have been a bit rude, I did not mean to argue whether you were wrong. I don't wish to argue with you on the merits of your position. I'm not denying that to you, what you believe is material monism. And you may even be right that it is indeed "material monism". Who am I to define it for you? I was only commenting that within your take on it, (as I understood you), you yourself mention the body and the soul, as two different principles, almost as two different players.
Maybe I'm the one being argumentative here. Hope I'm not being needlessly rude.

You can take some clay, divide it into two portions, and produce two different artifacts. That's my position, and I don't think it's strictly dualistic. However, I don't terribly mind that rubric, if at least my position is understood. You probably understand me so far.

I did not mean to argue whether you were wrong.
I welcome such debate, assuming the dissenters refrain from cheap tactics.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
You can take some clay, divide it into two portions, and produce two different artifacts. That's my position, and I don't think it's strictly dualistic. However, I don't terribly mind that rubric, if at least my position is understood. You probably understand me so far.
I agree; it is not strictly dualistic. And one regard, that is, after this temporal life is said and done, I don't think we will think of the body (such as whatever it is in eternity) and the soul/spirit, as two different things, but as the one individual. God, though we speak of the Trinity and see his deeds and functions as that of three persons, is still, one. He is not made of parts.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I agree; it is not strictly dualistic. And one regard, that is, after this temporal life is said and done, I don't think we will think of the body (such as whatever it is in eternity) and the soul/spirit, as two different things, but as the one individual.
I don't spend much time ruminating on eschatology. I would tend to assume that, in the next life, we will still be a living soul housed in a dead body. That's how I thought the term "resurrection" was being used? Or maybe I need to rethink this? Or, maybe you're just talking about a change in perspective.

God, though we speak of the Trinity and see his deeds and functions as that of three persons, is still, one. He is not made of parts.
FYI: In my materialism, God is indeed one large Mind but consists of three parts/persons:
...(1). The Father is a human-shaped figure seated on a throne.
...(2) Seated at His right-hand is the Son, likewise a human-shaped figure. We are forged in their physical image.
...(3) The remainder of the divine Presence, especially effluences from the Son (such as Fire and Light), is the Third Person.

Here's a partial picture of the Godhead, from the Book of Daniel:

9“As I looked, “thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow; the hair of his head was white like wool. His throne was flaming with fire, and its wheels were all ablaze. 10A river of fire was flowing, coming out from before him" (Dan 7).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mark Quayle
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
I don't spend much time ruminating on eschatology. I would tend to assume that, in the next life, we will still be a living soul housed in a dead body. That's how I thought the term "resurrection" was being used? Or maybe I need to rethink this? Or, maybe you're just talking about a change in perspective.
As I hope, you believe Scripture trumps reason, and certainly trumps speculation, both in questions of what is true and real, and what is moral. We know certain things from Scripture, that even now we are in him, and reason suggests that it will even more completely so in Heaven. Likewise, our bodies are even now the Temple of the Holy Spirit, but completely so in Heaven. Scripture says we will be raised incorruptible. Glorified. Changed. Doesn't sound in the least dead to me.

One principle I rather delight in, which Scripture seems to suggest, is that this life is but a vapor compared to the reality of the next.
9“As I looked, “thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow; the hair of his head was white like wool. His throne was flaming with fire, and its wheels were all ablaze. 10A river of fire was flowing, coming out from before him" (Dan 7).
Certainly looking forward to seeing him as he is. Not exactly the kindly grandfather some want to make him out to be. Burning purity and mercy.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
As I hope, you believe Scripture trumps reason, and certainly trumps speculation, both in questions of what is true and real, and what is moral. We know certain things from Scripture, that even now we are in him, and reason suggests that it will even more completely so in Heaven. Likewise, our bodies are even now the Temple of the Holy Spirit, but completely so in Heaven. Scripture says we will be raised incorruptible. Glorified. Changed. Doesn't sound in the least dead to me.
Fair enough. Personally I think a semantic ambiguity could be clarified here but, as far as this thread goes, it's probably not worth dissecting.
 
Upvote 0

Leaf473

Well-Known Member
Jul 17, 2020
8,128
2,191
54
Northeast
✟178,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
On another thread a member insisted he knew of a doctrine that Adam was created just flesh and without a spirit.

I have studied theology and this is new to me (I'm trying to reconcile exactly how those who hold this view deal with passages speaking of man's spirit).

I assume the idea comes from 1 Corinthians 15

1 Corinthians 15:45–47 So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.

But this is contrasting the natural with the spiritual (the life-giving Spirit) .

In Ezekiel we read that God will give man a new spirit (removing the old...implying there was a spirit in man).

So my question is for those who believe Adam was created just flesh - no spirit (or sprit/ soul for those who hold man being two parts).

What passages do you use to defend the idea?
What is the name of the doctrine?
Lastly, what denominations hold this view?
I don't know if this has been discussed yet or not, but this passage came to mind. If the forming and the breathing (spiriting) were two separate events, then Adam would have first been made flesh only, it looks like.

Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Aug 10, 2019
691
269
55
North Augusta
✟53,568.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I don't know if this has been discussed yet or not, but this passage came to mind. If the forming and the breathing (spiriting) were two separate events, then Adam would have first been made flesh only, it looks like.

Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
Good point.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Leaf473
Upvote 0

Aussie Pete

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 14, 2019
9,081
8,268
Frankston
Visit site
✟727,030.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
On another thread a member insisted he knew of a doctrine that Adam was created just flesh and without a spirit.

I have studied theology and this is new to me (I'm trying to reconcile exactly how those who hold this view deal with passages speaking of man's spirit).

I assume the idea comes from 1 Corinthians 15

1 Corinthians 15:45–47 So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.

But this is contrasting the natural with the spiritual (the life-giving Spirit) .

In Ezekiel we read that God will give man a new spirit (removing the old...implying there was a spirit in man).

So my question is for those who believe Adam was created just flesh - no spirit (or sprit/ soul for those who hold man being two parts).

What passages do you use to defend the idea?
What is the name of the doctrine?
Lastly, what denominations hold this view?
No. Adam had a spirit. He was made in the image of God. God breathed the breath of life, spirit, not physical. It's not clear exactly how, but the spirit also formed the soul and sparked the physical body into life.

There are many, many references to the spirit of man in the OT. It's clear to me that both believing and unbelieving people had a spirit. Adam's problem was that he rejected the fruit of the tree of Life and chose the principle of good and evil instead. He disobeyed and so brought all humanity under the principle of sin and death. That's why we need a new spirit - the part of us that is born again.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 10, 2019
691
269
55
North Augusta
✟53,568.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
No. Adam had a spirit. He was made in the image of God. God breathed the breath of life, spirit, not physical. It's not clear exactly how, but the spirit also formed the soul and sparked the physical body into life.

There are many, many references to the spirit of man in the OT. It's clear to me that both believing and unbelieving people had a spirit. Adam's problem was that he rejected the fruit of the tree of Life and chose the principle of good and evil instead. He disobeyed and so brought all humanity under the principle of sin and death. That's why we need a new spirit - the part of us that is born again.
I agree except on one point - Adam ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. God banished Adam so that he couldn't eat of the Tree of Life.
 
Upvote 0

Xeno.of.athens

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.
May 18, 2022
5,087
1,352
Perth
✟124,015.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
On another thread a member insisted he knew of a doctrine that Adam was created just flesh and without a spirit.

I have studied theology and this is new to me (I'm trying to reconcile exactly how those who hold this view deal with passages speaking of man's spirit).

I assume the idea comes from 1 Corinthians 15

1 Corinthians 15:45–47 So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.

But this is contrasting the natural with the spiritual (the life-giving Spirit) .

In Ezekiel we read that God will give man a new spirit (removing the old...implying there was a spirit in man).

So my question is for those who believe Adam was created just flesh - no spirit (or sprit/ soul for those who hold man being two parts).

What passages do you use to defend the idea?
What is the name of the doctrine?
Lastly, what denominations hold this view?
Is it possible that the statement about Adam arose from misunderstanding what groups such as Seventh Day Adventists teach about human nature?
 
Upvote 0

oikonomia

Well-Known Member
Nov 11, 2022
2,289
391
74
Pittsburgh
✟61,106.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Whatever is alive - has that spark - that breath of life in it.

Man is unique in being created "in the image of God" and having a soul that is capable of worshipping God , and has higher intellect.

In the Bible the spirit of man goes back to God at death - but that is not the case with animals as we see in Eccl 3.

I think if you check carefully you'll find the animals have souls also.

I take Ecclesiastes 3:21 on this as Solomon's question.
It is a "Who knows ...?" kind of statment.

"Who knows the breath of the children of men, that it goes upward; or the breath of the beasts, that it goes downward." (Ecc. 3:21)

This seems to me consistent with most of the book. The things "under the sun" are known. But who knows of more transcendent things by experience? No one has died and come back to tell those under the sun what to expect.

The pragmatism of the book shows the limitations of our knowledge.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums