两种本性

“从肉身生的就是肉身，从灵生的就是灵”（约翰福音 3:6）；“情欲和灵相争，灵和情欲相争，这两个是彼此相敌”（加拉太书 5:17）。这些和类似的经文清楚地表明，基督徒有两种截然不同的行动源泉，从中产生恶行和善行。古代的解经家习惯于将这些行动源泉称为“原则”——邪恶和圣洁的原则。现代作家更经常将它们称为“信徒的两种本性”。我们不反对这种表达方式，只要它用来代表圣经的现实而不是人类的幻想。但我们认为，今天有不少人谈论“两种本性”，却不清楚这个词的含义，常常向听众传达错误的想法。

在普通用语中，“天性”首先表达了我们由起源而拥有的东西的结果；其次，表达了我们成长过程中形成的品质。因此，我们谈论任何兽性或恶魔的东西，都认为它们与人性相悖——可惜野兽常常让我们感到羞愧。更明确地说，我们谈论狮子的天性（凶猛）、秃鹫的天性（以腐尸为食）、羔羊的天性（温柔）。因此，“天性”描述了一个生物的出生和性格。现在，基督徒经历了两次出生，经历了两次成长。他拥有两套道德品质：一套是亚当所生，另一套是上帝所生。但在这一点上需要非常谨慎，以免一方面我们将对新生的概念世俗化，另一方面，我们过于纠结于这两种天性，以至于我们忽视了拥有它们的人，从而实际上否认了他的责任。

为了清晰起见，我们必须分别考虑这两种本性，首先考虑我们作为人类的孩子是什么，然后考虑我们作为上帝的孩子是什么。在考虑我们作为人类是什么时，我们必须明确区分上帝创造我们时的样子，以及我们因偏离最初被创造时的正直而堕落成为的样子，因为堕落的人性与我们原始的状态截然不同。但在这里，也必须非常小心地定义这种差异。人类并没有因为堕落而失去其存在的任何组成部分：他仍然由“精神、灵魂和身体”组成。他体质中没有基本要素被丧失，他的能力也没有被摧毁。相反，他的整个存在被玷污和腐化，患上了一种令人厌恶的疾病。土豆冷冻后仍然是土豆；苹果内部腐烂后仍然是苹果，尽管不再可食用。由于堕落，人类放弃了他的荣誉和荣耀，失去了他的圣洁，失去了上帝的恩惠；但他仍然保留了他的人性。

再怎么强调也不为过，人类复杂构造中没有一个基本部分，也没有一个能力在人类堕落时被摧毁，因为许多人正试图在这一点上躲在误解的背后。他们认为，当亚当吃了禁果时，人类失去了本性中一些至关重要的部分，而正是这种损失导致了人类所有的失败。人类认为自己更值得同情而不是责备。他认为，责备应该归咎于他的祖先，他应该被同情，因为他被剥夺了行义的能力。撒旦就是以这种方式成功地欺骗了许多受害者，基督教牧师的职责就是揭露这种诡辩，把不信神的人赶出他们的谎言避难所。事实是，今天的人类拥有与亚当最初被创造时完全相同的能力，他的责任在于他对这些能力的使用，他的罪行在于他滥用这些能力。

另一方面，也有不少人相信，人类在堕落时获得了一种他以前不具备的本性，为了逃避责任，他把自己不守法律的行为全部归咎于这种邪恶的本性。这种托词同样是错误和徒劳的。人类在堕落时并没有增加任何物质，只是从中拿走了一部分。人类在堕落时进入的就是罪，罪玷污了他身体的每一部分——但为此我们应该受到指责，而不是怜悯。堕落的人并没有无助地成为罪的受害者，以至于他的责任被取消：相反，上帝让他有责任抵制和拒绝一切邪恶的倾向，如果他没有这样做，他将受到公正的惩罚。我们必须坚决抵制任何否定人类责任的企图。

青年与婴儿有很大不同，成年人与未成熟的青年有很大不同；然而，经历这些阶段的却是同一个人，同一个人。我们是人，并且永远是人：无论我们在重生时会经历什么样的内在变化，无论在复活时身体会经历什么样的变化，我们永远不会失去上帝最初创造我们时的本质身份。让我们清楚地理解并牢牢把握这一点。

首先：我们始终都是同一个人。无论是堕落时精神生活的丧失，还是新生时精神生活的交流，都不会影响我们拥有我们通常所说的人性这一事实。由于堕落，我们并没有变得比人低下；由于重生，我们也没有变得比人高出一筹。构成我们人性的本质并没有丢失，无论在重生时赋予我们什么，我们的个性都不会改变。

如果仔细记住上述区别，特别是我们的本质是什么以及它由于变化而“意外”变成什么，那么我们理解主承担我们的本性意味着什么就不会那么困难了。当神的儿子化身为人时，他便承担了人性。他在各方面都是真正的人，拥有灵、魂和肉体：“他凡事该与他的弟兄相同”（希伯来书 2:17）。这并没有解释神化身的奇迹和奥秘，因为那是不可理解的；但它陈述了它的基本事实。基督没有继承我们的腐败，因为那不是人类的本质。他生来就是纯洁圣洁的，并且永远保持着纯洁圣洁；然而，从本质上讲，他继承了我们的本性。

回到我们开头的经文：“从肉身生的就是肉身。”这里的“肉身”是指人类堕落的本性——它不应局限于身体（如在几段经文中是这样的），而应理解为（如在新约中一般）整个人类体格。在肯定“从肉身生的就是肉身”时，基督重申了基本不变的原则——在《创世记》第 1 章中重复了不少于九次——即每个生物都“各从其类”。果实的质量取决于结出果实的树的性质：邪恶的树不能结出好果实。人类堕落的本性不能结出无罪的东西。无论堕落的人受过多少教育、文明或宗教化，在他的自然状态下，他都无法产生三位一体的上帝所接受的东西。为了做到这一点，他必须重生——赋予他一种新的、无罪的本性。

“从灵生的就是灵。”新的灵性生命被传递，由此产生其主体的重大道德变化。新约以各种比喻来描述这种将神的生命传递到灵魂的过程。它被比作在灵魂中植入一颗不朽的“种子”（彼得前书 1:23；约翰一书 3:9）；心灵的净化，“用水藉着道来洗净”（提多书 3:5；以弗所书 5:26）；意志的更新，或将上帝的律法写在心中（希伯来书 8:10）。“种子”的比喻传达了后续成长的概念；水的洗涤表明净化过程才刚刚开始；而上帝将他的律法写在我们的心中则暗示了他的恩典工作的持久性和永久性。所有灵性生活都源于这种由圣灵赋予的新生命或新本性。

我们不想贬低新生的奇迹和神迹：我们完全不这么认为，我们完全接受主的宣告，这是一个超出人类能力的奥秘（约翰福音 3:8）。如果自然生命的传递对人类的理解来说是一个谜，那么精神生命的传递更是如此。因此，在我们努力简化再生的一个方面时，我们会努力防止在另一个方面被歪曲。我们想要澄清的是，在新生时，人的灵魂不会增加任何新的能力，他的三重基本构成也不会增加任何新的东西。以前，他拥有灵魂和身体；现在他没有第四种东西被赋予他。重生的是人自己。正如在堕落时他的人性被玷污一样，现在他的人性得到了重生——这一切的全部影响只有在他得荣耀时才会显现出来。

如此简要地考虑了基督徒的两种本性之后，我们现在必须明确区分这两种本性以及它们所寄居的个体。本性和人在许多方面大不相同。无论是未悔改还是悔改，人从本质上来说都是一样的：是死在过犯和罪恶中的人，被神复活了。是同一个人，从前是悖逆之子，受到谴责，现在被称义和圣化了。我的读者，责任在于人，而不是他的本性。行为属于个人，而不是他的本性。再多的争论也无法否认这样一个事实：即使是未悔改的人，在内心深处也意识到，他有责任违背自己堕落的本性行事和生活，如果他屈服于堕落的倾向，他就应该受到应有的惩罚。正是基于这一点，上帝将在来日审判他，而这显然是公义的，以至于“众人的口都被塞住”（罗马书 3:20），上帝“审判的时候，显明真理”（诗篇 51:4）。

虽然这很简单明了，但我们觉得必须进一步阐述这一点。今天有多少自称是基督徒的人谈到自己和他人身上的“肉体”，就好像这是肉体的表现，这已经完全解释了一切。如果一个人责备另一个人的行为不符合上帝的孩子身份，而他回答说，是的，那是肉体在我身上作祟，那么这种话显然表明他试图逃避责任。如果基督徒的恶行可以原谅，理由是肉体仍然存在于他身上，那么按照同样的道理，地球上的每个罪人都可以原谅自己，那么上帝又怎么能审判世界呢？事实上，未重生的人确实在任何地方都依赖他们的罪性来逃避谴责，而如果他们听从良心的话，他们肯定会知道他们的本性从未迫使他们犯下任何罪。本性使他们倾向于犯罪，但他们有责任控制和抵制它，而他们罪孽的本质就是他们没有这样做。

因此，犯罪的是人，是罪人；需要被宽恕和称义的是人；有责任不走在肉体中而是走在圣灵中的人。自始至终都是同一个人。重生的是人，而不是本性。的确，在新生时，他获得了新的生命或本性，因此他现在有两种本性，他的责任是克制旧的本性，滋养、加强和受新的本性的支配。肉体不会因为“灵”的存在而得到改善，就像杂草不会因为在它们中间种花而得到改善一样。肉体与精神是互相对立的，我的责任是不为前者做任何准备，而是按照后者的指示行事。

google translate from: https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/articles/index.php?view=article&aid=1119

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3:6); "The flesh lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary the one to the other" (Galatians 5:17). These and similar passages, clearly connote that there are two distinct and diverse springs of action in the Christian, from which proceed, either evil and good works. The older expositors were accustomed to speak of these springs of action as "principles"—the principles of evil and holiness. Modern writers more frequently refer to them as "the two natures in the believer." We have no objection against this form of expression, provided it be used to represent Scriptural realities—and not human fancies. But it appears to us, that there are not a few today who speak of the "two natures" and yet have no clear conception of what the term signifies, often conveying a faulty idea to the minds of their hearers.

In ordinary parlance "nature" expresses, first, the result of what we have by our origin: and second, the qualities that are developed in us by growth. Thus, we talk of anything bestial or devilish as being contrary to human nature—alas that the beasts so often put us to shame! More distinctly, we speak of a lion's nature (ferocity), a vulture's nature (feeding on carrion), a lamb's nature (gentleness). A "nature," then, describes what a creature is by birth and disposition. Now the Christian has experienced two births, and is subject to two growths. Two sets of moral qualities belong to him: the one as born of Adam, the other as born of God. But much caution needs to be exercised at this point, lest on the one hand we carnalize our conception of the new birth—or, on the other hand, dwell so much on the two natures, that we lose sight of the person who possesses them, and thus practically deny his responsibility.

In the interests of clarity, we must contemplate these two natures separately, considering first what we are as children of men—and then what we are as children of God. In contemplating what we are as men, we must distinguish sharply between what we are by God's creation, and what we became by our fall from that uprightness in which we were originally made—for fallen human nature is radically different from our primitive condition. But here, too, great care must be taken in defining that difference. Man did not lose any component part of his being by the Fall: he still consists of "spirit and soul and body." No essential element of his constitution was forfeited, none of his faculties were destroyed. Rather was his entire being, vitiated and corrupted, stricken with a loathsome disease. A potato is still a potato when frozen; an apple remains an apple when decayed within, though no longer edible. By the Fall, man relinquished his honor and glory, lost his holiness, and forfeited the favor of God; but he still retained his human nature.

It cannot be insisted upon too strongly, that no essential part of man's complex make-up, no faculty of his being, was destroyed at the Fall—for multitudes are seeking to shelter behind a misconception at this very point. They suppose that man lost some vital part of his nature when Adam ate of the forbidden fruit, and that it is this loss which accounts for all his failures. Man imagines he is far more to be pitied than blamed. The blame, he supposes, belongs to his first parent, and he is to be pitied because deprived of his capability of working righteousness. It is in such a manner, that Satan succeeds in deceiving many of his victims, and it is the bounden duty of the Christian minister to expose such a sophistry and drive the ungodly out of their refuge of lies.

The truth is, that man today possesses identically the same faculties as those with which Adam was originally created, and his accountability lies in the use he makes of those faculties, and his criminality consists in his abuse of the same.

On the other hand, there are not a few who believe that at the Fall, man received a nature which he did not possess before, and in his efforts to evade his responsibility he throws all the blame of his lawless actions on that evil nature. Equally erroneous and equally vain, is such a subterfuge. No material addition was made to man's being at the Fall, any more than that some part was taken from it.

That which entered man's being at the Fall was sin, and sin has defiled every part of his person—but for that we are to be blamed—and not pitied. Nor has fallen man become so helplessly the victim of sin that his accountability is cancelled! Rather does God hold him responsible to resist and reject every inclination unto evil, and will justly punish him because he fails to do so! Every attempt to negate human responsibility, must be steadfastly resisted by us.

The youth differs much from the infant, and the man from the immature youth; nevertheless it is the same individual, the same human person, who passes through these stages. Men we are, and shall ever remain. Whatever internal change we may be subject to at regeneration, and whatever change awaits the body at resurrection, we shall never lose our essential identity, as God created us at the first. Let this be clearly understood and firmly grasped.

At the outset: we are the same people all through. Neither the deprivation of spiritual life at the Fall—nor the communication of spiritual life at the new birth, affects the reality of our being in possession of what we commonly call human nature. By the Fall we did not become less than men; by regeneration we do not become more than men. That which essentially constitutes our manhood was not lost—and no matter whatever is imparted to us at regeneration, our individuality is never changed.

If the above distinctions are carefully borne in mind, particularly between what our nature essentially consists of and what it "accidentally" became by virtue of the changes passing upon it—then there should be less difficulty in our understanding what is signified by the Lord's assuming our nature. When the Son of God became incarnate, He took to Himself human nature. He was in every respect true Man, possessing spirit and soul and body: "in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren" (Hebrews 2:17). This does not explain the miracle and mystery of the Divine incarnation, for that is incomprehensible; but it states the fundamental fact of it. Christ did not inherit our corruption, for that was not an essential of manhood. He was born and ever remained immaculately pure and holy; nevertheless, He took upon Him our nature, intrinsically considered.

Reverting for a moment to our opening passage: "that which is born of the flesh is flesh." Here "the flesh" is the name given to human nature as fallen—it must not be restricted to the body (as in a few passages it is)—but understood (as generally in the New Testament) of the entire human constitution. In affirming, "that which is born of the flesh is flesh," Christ reiterated the basic and unchanging principle—repeated no less than nine times in Genesis 1—that every creature brings forth "after its kind." The quality of the fruit—is determined by the nature of the tree which bears it: an evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit. Man's fallen nature cannot yield that which is sinless. No matter how much fallen man may be educated, civilized, or religionized, in his natural state he cannot produce that which is acceptable to the thrice holy God. In order to that he must be born again—a new and sinless nature imparted to him.

"But that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." A new, a spiritual life is communicated, from which the grand moral change in its subject proceeds. This communication of Divine life to the soul is viewed in the New Testament under various figures.

It is likened to the implanting of an incorruptible "seed" in the soul (1 Peter 1:23; 1 John 3:9); to a cleansing of the heart, a "washing of water by the Word" (Titus 3:5; Eph. 5:26); to a renovation of the will—or a writing of God's Law in the mind (Hebrews 8:10). The figure of the "seed" conveys the idea of a subsequent growth; the washing of water, suggests a process of cleansing only commenced; while that of God's writing His Law in our minds, intimates the durability and permanence of His work of grace. It is from this new life or nature, imparted by the Spirit, that all spiritual life proceeds.

We have no desire to belittle the marvel and miracle of the new birth: so far from it, we freely accept our Lord's declaration that it is a mystery beyond man's power to solve (John 3:8). If the communication of natural life is an enigma to human understanding, much more so is the impartation of spiritual life. Thus, in our efforts to simplify one aspect of regeneration, we seek to guard against falsifying it at another.

What we wish to make clear is, that at the new birth no new faculties are added to man's soul, no addition is made to his essential threefold constitution. Previously, he possessed a spirit and soul and body; he does not now have a fourth thing bestowed upon him. It is the man himself who is born again. As at the Fall, his person was vitiated—now his person is regenerated— the full effects of which will only appear at his glorification.

Having thus considered, very briefly, the two natures in the Christian, we must now distinguish sharply between them—and the individual in whom they reside. A nature and a person are in many respects widely different. Whether unconverted or converted, the person is constitutionally the same: it is the one who was dead in trespasses and sins—who has been Divinely quickened. It is identically the same individual who formerly was a child of disobedience, under condemnation, who is now justified and sanctified. And, my reader, it is to the person—and not to his nature—that accountability attaches. Deeds belong to the individual, and not to his nature. No amount of quibbling can gainsay the fact that in his heart, even the unregenerate is conscious that he is responsible to act and live contrary to his fallen nature, and that he is justly culpable if he yields to his depraved inclinations. It is on this very ground that God will judge him in the Day to come, and so self-evidently righteous will this be, that "every mouth will be stopped" (Romans 3:20) and God "will be clear when He judges" (Psalm 51:4).

Plain and simple though it is—yet we feel we must labor the point a little further. How many professing Christians today speak of "the flesh," in themselves and in others, in such a way as if its being an exhibition of the flesh, thoroughly explained matters. Were one to rebuke another for conduct inappropriate for a child of God, and he replied, 'Yes, that is the flesh working in me,' such language would plainly evidence an attempt to escape responsibility. If evil deeds by a Christian were excusable on the ground that the flesh still remains within him, then by parity of reason every sinner on earth could excuse himself—and how then could God judge the world? In point of fact the unregenerate do, everywhere, fall back on their sinful nature to escape condemnation, whereas if they listened to conscience, they would certainly know that their nature never compelled them to commit a single sin. It inclined them—but they were responsible to control and resist it, and the essence of their guilt is that they did not.

It is the man, then, who sins—and is the sinner. It is the man who needs to be forgiven and justified. It is the man who is responsible to walk not in the flesh, but in the Spirit. It is the same person all through. It is the man who is born again, and not a nature. True, at the new birth he receives a new life or nature, so that he now has two natures, and his responsibility is to mortify the old nature—and feed, strengthen, and be governed by the new nature. The flesh is in no way improved by the presence of the "spirit," any more than weeds are bettered by planting flowers in their midst. The flesh and the spirit are contrary to each other, and my responsibility lies in making no provision for the former—acting according to the dictates of the latter!

link: https://gracegems.org/Pink2/two_natures.htm