A.W. 平克（1886-1952）
作者为加尔文主义者，浸信派基督徒，布道家，作者
“因为你们立志行事，都是神在你们心里运作，为要成他的美意。”
腓立比书二13
今天，在关于堕落人类的意志的性质和能力的问题上，许多基督徒存 在着相当混乱，甚至极端错误的认识。现今流行的观念，是人有自由 意志，而救恩就通过这意志与圣灵的合作降临到罪人身上。这是大多 数牧师在讲道坛上所传讲的信息。要否认人的自由意志，即他选择好 坏的能力和他本身拥有的接受基督的能力，马上就会召来一片嘘声， 甚至那些自称为正统基督徒的人也不例外。但是《圣经》反复强调说： “据此看来，这不在乎那定意的，也不在乎那奔跑的；只在乎发怜悯 的神”（罗九16 ）。经上又明明白白地说：“没有寻求神的”（罗三 11 ）。难道基督不曾对他同时代的人说：“然而你们不肯到我这里来 得生命”（约五40 ）吗？是的。但有些人确实到他这里来，确实接受 了他。不错，这些人是谁呢？《约翰福音》一章12 ，13 节告诉我们： “凡接待他的人，就是信他名的人，他就赐他们权炳，作神的儿女。 这等人不是从血气生的，不是从情欲生的， 也不是从人意生的，乃是从神生的。”但经上没有说过：“凡有人要来的，就可以 来”？这难道不能说明每一个人都有来的意愿吗？那些不愿来的人怎么样呢？要是“凡 有人要来的，就可以来”能说明堕落之人本身有来的能力，那“伸出手来”（太12 ： 13 ）这一命令就能说明一个胳膊萎缩的人自己有能力遵命而行。就他本身来说，属肉体 的人有能力拒绝基督，却没有能力接受基督。为什么呢？因为他的心是“与神为仇” （罗8 ：7 ），因为他从心底恨他（约15 ：18 ）。人选择那些与他本性相符的东西。因此 在他愿意选择或喜欢那些属神属灵的事物之前，必须得到全新的天性；换一句话来说， 他必须重生。
但有人会问了，难道圣灵使罪人知罪，明白他对基督的需要时，不曾战胜人的敌意和仇 恨吗？难道神的灵没有在许多灭亡的人心里播下这样的认识吗？这样的问话暴露了思维 上的混乱：如果人这种敌意真的被战胜了，那么，他就应该归向基督；既然他没有归向 基督，就说明他的敌意没有被战胜。但严酷的事实是：有许多人，听到了神话语的传讲， 圣灵使之确信罪和义，却依然死在不信当中。同时我们也不应该忘记，圣灵在神的选民 身上所作的，比在非选民身上所作要多：他在他们里面运行，“为要成就神的美意” （腓二13 ）
要回答我们刚才所提的这些问题，阿民念主义者会说：不，圣灵确信的工作在悔改者的 身上同在未悔改者的身上是一样的。其间的区别仅在于前者顺从他的争取，而后者予以 拒绝。但如果事实果真如此的话，那么基督徒就必须使他自己与别人有区别，而《圣 经》将区别归功于神不偏待人的恩典（哥前四7 ）。再者，如果事实果真如此的话，基督 徒就有理由去自夸，为自己与圣灵的合作而自我歌功颂德。但这就很明显地与《以弗所 书》二章8 节相矛盾：“你们得救是本乎恩，也因着信；这并不是出于自己，乃是神所赐 的。”
让我们来看基督徒读者的亲身经历。难道你不曾不愿意到基督这里来吗？──是的！ （愿想起这些使我们每一个人都匍匐尘埃）。后来你来了。你现在准备把这件事的所有 荣耀都归给他吗（诗115 ：1 ）？你认识到你之所以来到基督这里，是因为圣灵使你由不 情愿变为情愿吗？是的。那圣灵没有在许多其他人身上作他在你身上所作的工，岂不是 很明显的事实吗？那许多其他人也听过福音，圣灵也让他们看见自己对基督的需要；但 是，他们还是不愿到他这里来。因此他在你们里面所作的比在他们里面所作的更多。你 说，但我清楚记得当别人向我提出这生死攸关的问题时，我的良心可以证明我的意志行 动了，我顺从了基督的召唤。不错，但在你顺从之前，圣灵已经消除了你内心对神天生 的敌意，但他并没有在所有人身上都这样作。是否我们应该说，那是因为他们不愿意自 己的敌意被消除呢？啊，除非他施展大能，在人心里创造一个恩典的奇迹，没有人会愿 意的。
但我们要问，什么是人的意志？它是自我决定的能力，还是被其他力量决定的东西呢？ 它是自主的还是他主的？意志是高于我们生命的其他能力从而能够主宰它们，还是它为 它们的冲动所驱使，顺服它们的享乐欲望？是意志统帅心灵，还是心灵控制意志？意志 可以为所欲为地作它乐意的事，还是必须顺服它之外的某种力量？意志是不是独立于其 他器官，也不受灵魂的威力的辖制，是人中之人，能反其道而行之，与这个人作对，把 他劈成碎片，就象一条眼镜蛇碎尸万段？或者，是不是意志与其他器官相连，就象蛇的 尾巴与其身子相连，也就与它的头相连，这样蛇头一断，整条蛇也就死了。同样一个人 在心里思想，对不对？思想在先，然后是心（欲望或嫌恶）；然后再是行动。这岂不就 象狗摆动尾巴？或者，是意志，那条尾巴，摆动狗？意志是人身上主要的呢，还是最次 要的，次于其他器官和功能？《创世纪》三章16 节所展示，是道德行为和过程的真正规 律吗？“女人见那棵树上的果子好作食物”（感官印象，智识），“且是可喜爱的” （喜好），“就摘下果子来吃了”（意志）（G 。S 。白夏蒲）。这些问题比学术探讨含 义更深，它们非常重要。我们相信，当我们肯定对这些问题的回答是试验教义真伪的主 要试金石时，决不是夸大其词。
1 ．人意志的本性
什么是意志？意志是选择的能力，是所有行动直接的原因。选择意味着拒绝一件东西， 接受另一件。在作选择之前，人必须在心里权衡好的和坏的两方面。意志所导致的每一 桩行动都存在着偏向──对一件东西的欲望多过对另一件的。若没有偏向，而是完全的 无所谓，就不会有决定。意志意味着选择，而选择则是在不同的选项之间作决定。但选 择是受某种东西影响的，是这种东西决定选择的结果。因此意志不可能有主权，因为它 本身是那某种东西的奴仆。意志不可能既有主权又是奴仆，不可能既是原因又是结果。 意志不是原因，因为我们说过，是某种东西引起它作选择；因此那某种东西才应该是原 因。选择本身受某些考虑所影响，由个人身上的多种因素所决定。因此，决定是这些考 虑和因素的结果。既然是结果，就说明它是它们的奴仆；如果意志是它们的奴仆，它就 不是有主权的。如果意志不是有主权的，我们就不能断言它有所谓绝对的自由。意志所 导致的行动不可能自主自在，如果说它们能的话，就是在假定一个没有原因的结果。 “Ex nihilo nihil fit ”──从无中不可能生出任何东西来。
可是在历世历代，总有些人为意志的绝对自由或主权而奋斗。他们争辩说意志拥有一种 自决的力量。例如，我可以上下转动我的眼球，而我的心对我所作的无所谓；意志则必 须下决定。这本身听上去自相矛盾。这个例子假设我在处于一种完全无所谓的状态中时， 因为偏爱选择一样东西，而不是另一样。很显然，两者都不可能是真的。但我们可以说 心灵在有所选择之前，都是相当无所谓的。一点没错，那时意志也是静止的。但一旦静 止消失了，决定作好了，无所谓就让步于偏好。这样就推翻了所谓意志能在两样同等的 事物之间选择的论点。正如我们说过的，选择意味着选择一样拒绝另一样或其余。
决定意志的就是引起它选择的。如果意志是受决定的，那么就必须有一位决定者。是谁 在决定意志呢？我们说，是那加诸于其上最强的推动力，不同的事情有不同的动力。有 的可能是逻辑理由，有的可能是良心的声音，有的可能是感情的冲动，有的可能是试探 的诱惑，有的可能是圣灵的大能。不论最强的动力是什么，怎样在个人身上发挥最有力 的作用，都是它在推动意志去行动。用另一句话来说，意志的行动是由心灵的状况所决 定的，而心灵的状况受世界，肉体，魔鬼，或神的影响。心灵的状况最大程度地决定作 某种选择的倾向。要说明这一论点，我们来分析一个简单的例子。
某一个主日的下午，我们的一个朋友头疼得很厉害。他很想去探访病人，却害怕这样作 会使他自己的病情加剧，弄到不能去参加晚上的崇拜。这样一来他面临着两个选择：下 午冒着头疼加剧的危险去探访病人；或者，下午休息（第二天再去探访病人），头疼可 能消失，晚上就可以去崇拜。是什么决定我们的朋友在这两者之间选择呢？是意志吗？ 完全不是。没错，最后是由意志做出选择来，但意志本身受推动来作选择。在以上这个 例子里，有好些考虑成为选择的强大动力，选择者自己权衡这些动力，就是说，在他心 里，一个选项比另一个有更强的动力支持，决定由此形成；然后意志采取行动。一方面， 我们的朋友为一种要去探访病人的责任感所推动，他的慈心催促他这样作，这便成为一 种强大的动力。另一方面，他的理智在提醒他：他自己身体不好，实在需要休息。如果 他探访了病人，自己的病情也许就会加重，结果就不能去参加晚上的崇拜。再说，他知 道，如果主允许，他明天还可以去探访病人。结果，他决定那天下午休息。在这里有两 组选择摆在我们的基督徒弟兄面前：一方面是责任感加上他自己的同情心，另一方面是 他自己的需要加上一种对神的荣耀的真正关心，因为他觉得他还是应该晚上参加崇拜。 后者占了上风。属灵的考虑压倒了他的责任感。他作了决定，意志随之行动，他回到家 中休息。上述分析告诉我们：心灵或曰理论的能力是由属灵的考虑来引导的，心灵约束 并指挥意志。因此我们说，如果意志是受控制的，它就既不是有主权的，也不是自由的， 而是心灵的奴仆。
常有人教训我们说：意志主宰人；神的话语却教导我们说，心灵才是我们整个人的统治 中心。许多经文可以用来证明这点。“你要保守你的心，胜过保守一切，因为一生的果 效，是由心发出”（箴四23 ）；“因为从里面，就是从人心里发出恶念，苟合，偷盗， 凶杀”等等（可七21 ）。在此我们的主将这些罪恶的行径追溯到其本源，宣布这本源就 是人的心，而不是意志！还有，“这百姓用嘴唇尊敬我，心却远离我”（太十五8 ）。如 果要更多的证据，我们可以请大家注意：在《圣经》里，“心”这个词出现的次数比 “意志”这个词要多三倍。而且提到后者时，近半数都是有关神的意旨！当我们确信是 心而不是意志在人身上起主导作用时，我们不是仅仅在咬文嚼字，而是坚持非常重要的 意义区别。当一个人面临着两个选择时，他会选择哪一个呢？回答是，他更喜欢的那个。 这个“他”是指他的心──他的核心部份。摆在罪人面前的，一个是美德和敬虔的生活， 一个是罪恶堕落的生活，他会过哪一种呢？后面那一种。为什么？因为这是他所选择的。 但这能证明意志是有主权的吗？不能。从结果再回到原因看看。罪人为什么会选择罪恶 堕落的生活呢？因为他喜欢。当然所有论辩都会得出相反的结论，他自己当然也不喜欢 这种生活的后果。那为什么他会喜欢它呢？因为他的心是罪恶的。基督徒也面临着同样 的选择，他选择了敬虔和美德的生活并为此奋斗。为什么呢？因为神给了他一颗新心或 者说新的品性。因此我们说，不是意志使得罪人对“离弃自己的道路”的呼吁无动于衷， 而是他败坏邪恶的心使然。他不会到基督这里来，因为他不想。他不想，是因为他的心 憎恨神，爱恋罪（见耶利米书17 ：9 ）。
2 ．人的意志的捆绑
在所有论及人的意志，其品性和功能的文章中，都谈到了三种不同的人的意志，就是未 堕落的亚当的意志，罪人的意志和主耶稣基督的意志。在未堕落的亚当身上，意志是自 由的，可以在向善和向恶两个方向自由选择。但在罪人身上情形就不同了。罪人的意志 生来就不存在道德上的平衡，因为在他里面有一颗“比万物都诡诈，坏到极处”的心， 使他对罪恶满有偏好。在主耶稣身上也不是这样：他与未堕落的亚当截然不同。主耶稣 基督不会犯罪，因为他是“神的圣者”。他他出生之前，天使就对玛利亚说：“圣灵要 临到你身上，至高者的能力要荫庇你。因此所要生的圣者必称为神的儿子”（路一35 ）。 我们无法不崇敬地说，人子的意志不处于道德平衡状态，就是说，不存在有能力或选择 善或选择恶的问题。主耶稣的意志偏向善，因为与他无罪，圣洁，完美的人性共存的， 是□永恒的神性。与主耶稣只向善的意志不同，堕落前的亚当是处于一种道德平衡的状 态──可以向善，也可以向恶；而罪人的意志是只倾向于恶，因此只在一个方向有自由 而已，就是说，只在向恶的方向有自由。正如我们先前说过，罪人的意志是受奴役的， 因为它受一颗败坏的心的捆绑。
罪人的自由包括了什么呢？我们以上所述的完全可以回答这个问题。罪人的自由意味着 不受外界的强迫。罪人从来不是被迫犯罪。但罪人在行善或作恶上从来就没有自由，因 为他里面那颗罪恶的心总是使他倾向于罪。让我们来看看我们心里有些什么。好比我手 里拿着一本书。我一松手，会发生什么事？它掉了。朝哪个方向掉？向下，总是向下。 为什么呢？因为重力原理，书自身的重量使它往下掉。假如我想要这本书升高三尺，该 怎么办？我必须举起它；必须有一种书本以外的力量来举起它。这也是堕落之人与神的 关系。当神的力量支撑住他时，他就蒙保守，不致在罪里扎得更深。一旦这力量撤去了， 他就会跌倒，他自身的重量（罪）将他直往下拖。神没有把他推倒，就像我没有把书丢 掉一样。一旦神的所有约束撤掉了，每一个人都能变成，也会变成该隐，法老，犹大。 那罪人怎么可能行天路呢？是靠他自己意志的行动吗？不是。必须有一种来自他以外的 力量抓住他，领着他走每一步的路。罪人是自由的，但只在一个方向上自由：自由犯罪， 自由堕落。就像《圣经》所说：“你们作罪之奴仆的时候，就不被义约束了”（罗6 ： 20 ）。罪人可以作他喜欢作的，也总是作他喜欢作的（除了被神约束的时候），但他所 喜欢的只是罪。
在文章的开头，我们坚称对意志的品性和功能下一个恰当的定义是非常重要的，因为它 是神学是否正统或教义是否纯正的试金石。但愿我们可以详述这个论点，并努力展现其 真确性。意志的自由或是受捆绑是古代的奥古斯丁主义和伯拉纠主义，近代的加尔文主 义和阿民念主义之间的分界线。简而言之，就是说，它们之间的分别在于是肯定或是否 认人的全然败坏。
3 ．人的意志的无能
接受或拒绝主耶稣基督作救主，是在人的意志的能力范围之内吗？设想福音向罪人传播 了，圣灵也向他揭示了他失丧的处境，最后的关键是否在于他是否靠自己意志的能力向 神臣服呢？对这个问题的回答将决定我们对于人类败坏的定义。所有自称为基督徒的人 都承认人是堕落的，但大多数人所谓的堕落是什么却很难界定。一般的印象似乎是：人 现在是必死的，他不象刚离开他的创造主之手那时一样，而是会有疾病，会遗传邪恶的 天性。但是倘若他善用自己的力量，尽力而为，最终他总会快乐的。啊，这种说法离可 悲的现实相差何等遥远！缺陷，疾病，甚至死亡，比起堕落给道德和灵性带来的后果只 是小事一桩！只有查考《圣经》，我们才能真正对这一可悲灾难的严重后果有些微正确 的了解。
当我们说人全然败坏时，我们指的是，罪进入人的体内，对人的每一个部份每一种能力 都产生了影响。全然败坏意味着人在身心灵方面都成了罪的奴隶，魔鬼的俘虏。他行事 为人“顺服空中掌权者的首领，就是现今在悖逆之子心中运行的邪灵”（弗2 ：2 ）。对 这个宣判我们无需有争议，它的确是人所普遍经历的事实。人无法意识到自己的欲望， 无法将自己的欲望物质化。他不能作自己应该作的事，一种道德上的无能使他力不从心。 这就正面证明了他不是一个自由人，而是罪和撒旦的奴仆。“你们是出于你们的父魔鬼， 你们父的私欲你们偏要行”（约八44 ）。罪不仅仅是一个或一系列行动，而是一种状况， 是行动背后，产生行动的一种力量。罪已经渗透占据了人的全部。它使悟性盲目，心灵 败坏，使人心与神为敌。意志也未能逃脱其劫，而降伏在罪和撒旦的统治之下。因此， 意志也不是自由的。总而言之，感情之所以爱其所爱，意志之所以择其所择，都是因为 心灵的光景所致，因为人心比万物都诡诈，坏到极处。“没有寻求神的”（罗三11 ）。
我们再一次重复我们的问题：人要向神称服，是取决于他自己意志的力量吗？让我们先 来问其他几个问题，看能不能有个答案。水自己能上升到水平线以上吗？洁净的东西可 以出于不洁净之物吗？意志可以违拗人整个天性的倾向和束缚吗？在罪的束缚之下的事 物能产生纯净圣洁的事物吗？显然不能。一个堕落败坏的受造物要向神移动，必须有一 种神圣的力量临到，消除那把它朝相反方向拉的罪的所有影响。这只是“若不是差我来 的父吸引人，就没有能到我这里来的”的另一种说法。换句话来说，就是神在□掌权的 日子里，一定要使□的子民心甘情愿地称服。就象J 。N 。大比先生所说：“如果基督来 拯救那些失丧的人，自由意志就无立足之地。不是神阻止人接受基督，绝不是这样。但 当神在人心里使用了一切可能的引导和所有可能的影响，就更加显明了人对之无动于衷。 他的心是如此的败坏，他的意志如此顽固地拒绝向神投降（不管有多少是魔鬼在怂恿他 犯罪），以至于没有什么可以说服他去接受主，放弃罪。如果用‘人的自由’这样的词 语，就说明没有人强迫他拒绝主，这种自由完全存在。但如果有人说，因为罪的统治， 他又是罪的奴仆，那么他很自然地无法逃出自己的处境，选择善──那么他就没有任何 自由可言。”
意志没有主权。因为它为人身上另一些力量所影响所控制，它只是奴仆而已。人既然是 罪的奴仆，意志就无法自由──我们的主说得很清楚：“所以天父的儿子若叫你们自由， 你们就真自由了”（约八36 ）。人是有理性的，必须对神负责。但要肯定他能选择属灵 上的善，就是否认他其实是全然败坏的──就是说，在意志上败坏，也在其他一切上败 坏。因为人的意志是被他的心智所统率，因为这些都由于罪而变质而败坏，所以如果人 要转到神的方向，向这个方向行进，必须由神自己“为要成就□的美意”，在人的心里 作工。人所夸口的自由其实只是败坏的束缚。一个学识渊博的神的仆人说，人事奉自己 的欲望淫乐，“人的意志是无能的。他根本不想讨神的喜悦。我相信自由意志；但它的 自由只是根据它的天性行动的自由。鸽子是不吃腐肉的；乌鸦也不愿吃鸽子的乾净食物。 把鸽子的天性放到乌鸦里面，它才会吃鸽子的食物。撒旦对圣洁绝无欲望。我们心怀敬 畏地说，神也绝无对邪恶的欲望。罪人在其罪恶的天性里，不会有从神那里来的欲望。 因此他必须先得重生”（J 。邓含木·史密斯）。这正是我们通篇所说的──意志为天性 所束缚。在总结罗马天主教信仰标准的“天特会议”（1569 ）信条中我们可以发现下列 句子（在《称义标准》中）：“如果任何人坚称，由神所激发和推动的人的自由意志没 有与那作为推动者的神相配合，准备好称义；如果，还有任何人说，人类意志不可能按 它所喜欢的去拒绝服从，而是不活跃的，被动的，这样的人可咒可诅！”
“如果任何人要坚称，自从亚当的堕落，人的自由意志就失落了，消失了；或者，人的 自由意志只是有名无实，是由撒旦引荐到教会里的谎言，这样的人可咒可诅！”
因此，今天那些坚持人的自由意志的人，恰恰与罗马天主教所教导的如出一辙！
罪人若要得救，有三个必要条件：父神必须设计这个救恩计划，神子必须买赎，圣灵必 须运用。神对我们所作的，比设计更多。如果他仅仅只是发出邀请，我们所有的人都会 失丧。这在旧约圣经里有非常惊人的例证。在《以斯拉记》一章1-3 节我们读到：“波斯 王古列元年，耶和华为要应验藉耶利米口所说的话，就激动波斯王古列的心，使他下诏 通告全国说：‘波斯王古列如此说：耶和华天上的神已将天下万国赐给我，又嘱咐我在 犹大的耶路撒冷为他建造殿宇。在你们中间凡作他子民的，可以上犹大的耶路撒冷，在 耶路撒冷重建耶和华以色列神的殿。’”在这里，神向一群被掳的人发出邀请，给他们 机会重回耶路撒冷──神的殿堂所在之地。以色列人对此反应热烈吗？没有！大多数人 满足于呆在被掳之地，只有少数“剩下的人”积极响应。为什么他们会这样呢？看看 《圣经》对此的回答：“于是犹大和便雅悯的族长，祭司，利未人，就是一切被神激动 他心的人，都起来要上耶路撒冷去建造耶和华的殿”（一5 ）。同样，当有效呼召临到神 的选民时，神也激动了他们的心。直到那个时候，他们才会甘心乐意地回应神的呼召。
过去半个世纪里，不少职业的布道家所作的工作非常肤浅，他们应对现今流行的有关属 血气的人所受的束缚之错误认识负主要责任。这些错误宣传，因为会众懒于“凡事察验” （帖前5 ：21 ）而大为时兴。大多数牧师传达了这样的信息：罪人得救与否完全在于他自 己的能力，说是：“神作了他份内的事，现在轮到人履行他那部份的责任。”啊呀，一 个毫无生命的人可以作什么？人按天性来说是“死在过犯罪恶之中”（弗2 ：1 ）！如果 人们确信这一真理，我们就会更加依靠圣灵创造奇迹的力量，而不会洋洋自得地企图 “为基督赢得灵魂”。谈到未得救之人时，布道家们常把听到神的福音的罪人比作一个 其床头柜上放着药品的病人。这个病人所要作的一切就是伸出手去拿药服下。但若要这 个比喻切合《圣经》为我们所描绘的堕落败坏的罪人形像，卧床的病人就该被描绘为瞎 眼的（弗四18 ），因此他看不到桌上的药；手瘫了（罗五6 ），因此他无法伸手去拿；他 的心不仅对药物全无信心，而且恨极了医生本人（约十五18 ）。唉，我们现今对人的绝 望光景所作的描绘是如何的肤浅！基督来，不是为了帮助那些愿意自助的人，而是为□ 的子民作那些他们自己所无法作到的事：“开瞎子的眼，领被囚的出牢狱，领坐黑暗的 出监牢”（赛四十二7 ）。
在我们快要结束这篇文章时，我们来预料一个常见的，不可避免的反对意见──如果人 没有能力回答，为什么还要传扬福音？如果罪人受的奴役如此之深，以至于自己毫无力 量来靠近基督，为什么还吩咐他们到基督这里来？我们的回答是：
我们传扬福音，不是因为我们相信人有自由意志，能接受基督；而是因为神命令我们如 此行（可十六15 ）。虽然对那些要灭亡的人来说，福音是愚拙的，但是，“在我们得救 的人，却为神的大能”（哥前一18 ）。“因神的愚拙总比人智慧，神的软弱总比人强壮” （哥前一25 ）。罪人死在过犯罪恶当中（弗二1 ），而一个死人是完全没有能力去愿意作 任何事的。因此“属肉体的人不能得神的喜悦”（罗八8 ）
就属肉体的智慧而言，对那些死了的人，自己不能作任何事的人传福音实在是蠢到极点。 是的。但是神的道路不同于我们的道路。神乐意“用人所当作愚拙的道理拯救那些信的 人”（哥前一21 ）。对那些“枯干的骸骨”发预言，对它们说：“枯干的骸骨啊，要听 耶和华的话！”（结卅七4 ），这一幕会让世人哄然大笑。但是啊，这是神的话语，他所 说的话，“就是灵，就是生命”（约六63 ）。当主对坟墓里一个已死的人大声呼叫： “拉撒路出来！”时，那些站在一旁的聪明世故的人会说他显然是疯了。但是，那发出 这样的呼叫的人自己就是复活，就是生命，他的话语赋予死人生命！因此，我们传扬福 音，不是因为我们相信罪人本身有什么力量接受福音所宣扬的救主，而是因为福音本身 就是神的大能，要救一切相信的人，因为我们知道：“凡预定得永生的人”（徒十三 48 ），必会在神所预定的时间相信（约六37 ；10 ：16 ──注意这里的“必！”），因为 经上说：“在祢掌权的日子，祢的民要甘心。。。”（诗110 ：3 ）。
链接：https://chinachristianbooks.org/home/SingPage.aspx?CategoryId=447bc02e-738d-482e-867f-ad8f0ed1011b&SubCategoryId=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000&ContentId=db562ec2-b971-4ec2-beaf-b79ab4e411ca
"It is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure" (Phil. 2: 13).
Concerning the nature and the power of fallen man's will, the greatest confusion prevails today, and the most erroneous views are held, even by many of God's children. The popular idea now prevailing, and which is taught from the great majority of pulpits, is that man has a "free will," and that salvation comes to the sinner through his will co-operating with the Holy Spirit. To deny the "free will" of man, i.e., his power to choose that which is good, his native ability to accept Christ, is to bring one into disfavor at once, even before most of those who profess to be orthodox. And yet Scripture emphatically says, "It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy" (Rom. 9:16). Which shall we believe: God, or the preachers?
But some one may reply, Did not Joshua say to Israel, "Choose you this day whom ye will serve"? Yes, he did; but why not complete his sentence-"whether the gods which your fathers served which were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell" (Josh. 24:15)! But why attempt to pit Scripture against Scripture? The Word of God never contradicts itself, and the Word expressly declares, "There is none that seeketh after God" (Rom. 3:11). Did not Christ say to the men of His day "Ye will not come to Me, that ye might have life" (John 5:40)? Yes, but some did "come" to Him, some did receive Him. True and who were they? John 1:12, 13 tells us: "But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, to them that believe on His name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God"!
But does not Scripture say, "Whosoever will may come"? It does, but does this signify that everybody has the will to come? What of those who won't come? "Whosoever will may come" no more implies that fallen man has the power (in himself) to come, than "Stretch forth thine hand" implied that the man with the withered arm had ability (in himself) to comply. In and of himself the natural man has power to reject Christ; but in and of himself he has not the power to receive Christ. And why? Because he has a mind that is "enmity against" Him (Rom. 8:7); because he has a heart that hates Him (John 15:18). Man chooses that which is according to his nature, and therefore before he will ever choose or prefer that which is Divine and spiritual a new nature must be imparted to him; in other words, he must be born again.
Should it be asked, But does not the Holy Spirit overcome a man's enmity and hatred when He convicts the sinner of his sins and his need of Christ; and does not the Spirit of God produce such conviction in many that perish? Such language betrays confusion of thought: were such a man's enmity really "overcome," then he would readily turn to Christ; that he does not come to the Saviour demonstrates that his enmity is not overcome. But that many are, through the preaching of the Word, convicted by the Holy Spirit, who nevertheless die in unbelief, is solemnly true. Yet, it is a fact which must not be lost sight of that the Holy Spirit does something more in each of God's elect than He does in the non-elect: He works in them "both to will and to do of His good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).
In reply to what we have said above, Arminians would answer, No; the Spirit's work of conviction is the same both in the converted and in unconverted, that which distinguishes the one class from the other is that the former yielded to His strivings whereas the latter resist them. But if this were the case then the Christian would have ground for boasting and self-glorying over his cooperation with the Spirit; but this would flatly contradict Ephesians 2:8, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God."
Let us appeal to the actual experience of the Christian reader. Was there not a time (may the remembrance of it bow each of us into the dust) when you were unwilling to come to Christ? There was. Since then you have come to Him. Are you now prepared to give Him all the glory for that (Psa. 115:1)? Do you not acknowledge you came to Christ because the Holy Spirit brought you from unwillingness to willingness? You do. Then is it not also a patent fact that the Holy Spirit has not done in many others what He has in you! Granting that many others have heard the Gospel, been shown their need of Christ, yet, they are still unwilling to come to Him. Thus He has wrought more in you than in them. Do you answer, Yet I remember well the time when the Great Issue was presented to me, and my consciousness testifies that my will acted and that I yielded to the claims of Christ upon me. Quite true. But before you "yielded" the Holy Spirit overcame the native enmity of your mind against God, and this "enmity" He does not overcome in all. Should it be said, That is because they are unwilling for their enmity to be overcome. Ah! none are thus "'willing" till He has put forth His all-mighty power and wrought a miracle of grace in the heart.
But let us now inquire, What is the human Will? Is it a self-determining agent, or is it, in turn, determined by something else? Is it Sovereign or servant? Is the will superior to every other faculty of our being so that it governs them, or is it moved by their impulses and subject to their pleasure? Does the will rule the mind, or does the mind control the will? Is the will free to do as it pleases, or is it under the necessity of rendering obedience to something outside of itself? "Does the will stand apart from the other great faculties or powers of the soul, a man within a man, who can reverse the man and fly against the man and split him into segments, as a glass snake breaks in pieces? Or, is the will connected with the other faculties, as the tail of the serpent is with his body, and that again with his head, so that where the head goes, the whole creature goes, and, as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he? First thought, then heart (desire or aversion), and then act. Is it this way, the dog wags the tail? Or, is it the will, the tail, wags the dog? Is the will the first and chief thing in man, or is it the last thing-to be kept subordinate, and in its place beneath the other faculties? and, is the true philosophy of moral action and its process that of Genesis 3:6: 'And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food' (sense-perception, intelligence), 'and a tree to be desired' (affections), 'she took and ate thereof' (the will)." (George S. Bishop). These are questions of more than academical interest. They are of practical importance. We believe that we do not go too far when we affirm that the answer returned to these questions is a fundamental test of doctrinal soundness. *
1. THE NATURE OF THE HUMAN WILL.
What is the Will? We answer, the will is the faculty of choice, the immediate cause of all action. Choice necessarily implies the refusal of one thing and the acceptance of another. The positive and the negative must both be present to the mind before there can be any choice. In every act of the will there is a preference-the desiring one thing rather than another. Where there is no preference, but complete indifference, there is no volition. To will is to choose, and to choose is to decide between two or more alternatives. But there is something which influences the choice; something which determines the decision. Hence the will cannot be Sovereign because it is the servant of that something. The will cannot be both Sovereign and servant. It cannot be both cause and effect. The will is not causative, because, as we have said, something causes it to choose, therefore that something must be the causative agent. Choice itself is affected by certain considerations, is determined by various influences brought to bear upon the individual himself, hence, volition is the effect of these considerations and influences, and if the effect, it must be their servant; and if the will is their servant then it is not Sovereign, and if the will is not Sovereign, we certainly cannot predicate absolute "freedom" of it. Acts of the will cannot come to pass of themselves-
*Since writing the above we have read an article by the late J. N. Darby entitled, "Man's So-Called Freewill," that opens with these words: "This re-appearance of the doctrine of freewill serves to support that of the pretensions of the natural man to be not irremediably fallen, for this is what such doctrine tends to. All who have never been deeply convicted of sin, all persons in whom this conviction is based on gross external sins, believe more or less in freewill."
to say they can, is to postulate an uncaused effect. Ex nihilo nihil fit-nothing cannot produce something.
In all ages, however, there have been those who contended for the absolute freedom or Sovereignty of the human will. Men will argue that the will possesses a self-determining power. They say, for example, I can turn my eyes up or down, the mind is quite indifferent which I do, the will must decide. But this is a contradiction in terms. This case supposes that I choose one thing in preference to another while I am in a state of complete indifference. Manifestly, both cannot be true. But it may be replied, The mind was quite indifferent until it came to have a preference. Exactly; and at that time the will was quiescent too! But the moment indifference vanished, choice was made, and the fact that indifference gave place to preference, overthrows the argument that the will is capable of choosing between two equal things. As we have said, choice implies the acceptance of one alternative and the rejection of the other or others.
That which determines the will is that which causes it to choose. If the will is determined then there must be a determiner. What is it that determines the will? We reply, The strongest motive power which is brought to bear upon it. What this motive power is varies in different cases. With one it may be the logic of reason, with another the voice of conscience, with another the impulse of the emotions, with another the whisper of the Tempter, with another the power of the Holy Spirit; whichever of these presents the strongest motive power and exerts the greatest influence upon the individual himself is that which impels the will to act. In other words, the action of the will is determined by that condition of mind (which in turn is influenced by the world, the flesh, and the Devil, as well as by God) which has the greatest degree of tendency to excite volition. To illustrate what we have just said let us analyze a simple example-On a certain Lord's day afternoon a friend of ours was suffering from a severe headache. He was anxious to visit the sick but feared that if he did so his own condition would grow worse, and as a consequence, be unable to attend the preaching of the Gospel that evening. Two alternatives confronted him: to visit the sick that afternoon and risk being sick himself, or, to take a rest that afternoon (and visit the sick the next day) and probably arise refreshed and fit for the evening service. Now what was it that decided our friend in choosing between these two alternatives? The will? Not at all. True, that in the end, the will made a choice, but the will itself was moved to make the choice. In the above case certain considerations presented strong motives for selecting either alternative; these motives were balanced the one against the other by the individual himself, i.e., his heart and mind, and the one alternative being supported by stronger motives than the other, decision was formed accordingly, and then the will acted. On the one side, our friend felt impelled by a sense of duty to visit the sick; he was moved with compassion to do so, and thus a strong motive was presented to his mind. On the other hand, his judgment reminded him that he was feeling far from well himself, that he badly needed a rest, that if he visited the sick his own condition would probably be made worse, and in such case he would be prevented from attending the preaching of the Gospel that night; furthermore, he knew that on the morrow, the Lord willing, he could visit the sick, and this being so, he concluded he ought to rest that afternoon. Here then were two sets of alternatives presented to our Christian brother: on the one side was a sense of duty plus his own sympathy, on the other side was a sense of his own need plus a real concern for God's glory, for he felt that he ought to attend the preaching of the Gospel that night. The latter prevailed. Spiritual considerations outweighed his sense of duty. Having formed his decision the will acted accordingly and he retired to rest. An analysis of the above case shows that the mind or reasoning faculty was directed by spiritual considerations, and the mind regulated and controlled the will. Hence we say that, if the will is controlled, it is neither Sovereign nor free, but is the servant of the mind.
It is only as we see the real nature of freedom and mark that the will is subject to the motives brought to bear upon it that we are able to discern there is no conflict between two statements of Holy Writ which concern our blessed Lord. In Matthew 4:1 we read, "Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the Devil"; but in Mark 1:12, 13 we are told, "And immediately the Spirit drift Him into the wilderness. And He was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan." It is utterly impossible to harmonize these two statements by the Armenian conception of the will. But really there is no difficulty. That Christ was "driven" implies it was by a forcible motive or powerful impulse, such as was not to be resisted or refused; that He was "led" denotes His freedom in going. Putting the two together we learn that He was driven, with a voluntary condescension thereto. So, there is the liberty of man's will and the victorious efficacy of God's grace united together: a sinner may be "drawn" and yet "come" to Christ-the "drawing" presenting to him the irresistible motive, the "coming" signifying the response of his will-as Christ was "driven" and "led" by the Spirit into the wilderness.
Human philosophy insists that it is the will which governs the man, but the Word of God teaches that it is the heart which is the dominating center of our being. Many Scriptures might be quoted in substantiation of this. "Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life" (Prov. 4:23). "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders," etc. (Mark 7:21). Here our Lord traces these sinful acts back to their source and declares that their fountain is the "heart" and not the will! Again: "This people draweth nigh unto Me with their mouth, but their heart is far from Me" (Matt. 15:8). If further proof were required we might call attention to the fact that the word "heart" is found in the Bible more than three times oftener than is the word "will," even though nearly half of the references to the latter refer to God's will!
When we affirm that it is the heart and not the will which governs the man, we are not merely striving about words, but insisting on a distinction that is of vital importance. Here is an individual before whom two alternatives are placed; which will he choose? We answer, the one which is most agreeable to himself, i.e., his "heart"-the innermost core of his being? Before the sinner is set a life of virtue and piety, and a life of sinful indulgence; which will he follow? The latter. Why? Because that is his choice. But does that prove the will is Sovereign? Not at all. Go back from effect to cause. Why does the sinner choose a life of sinful indulgence? Because he prefers it-and he does prefer it, all arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, though of course he does not enjoy the effects of such a course. And why does he prefer it? Because his heart is sinful. The same alternatives, in like manner, confront the Christian, and he chooses and strives after a life of piety and virtue. Why? Because God has given him a new heart or nature. Hence we say it is not the will which makes the sinner impervious to all appeals to "forsake his way," but his corrupt and evil heart. He will not come to Christ because he does not want to, and he does not want to because his heart hates Him and loves sin: see Jeremiah 17:9!
In defining the will we have said above, that "the will is the faculty of choice, the immediate cause of all action." We say the immediate cause, for the will is not "the primary cause of any action." We say the immediate cause, for the will is not the primary cause of any action any more than the hand is. Just as the hand is controlled by the muscles and nerves of the arm, and the arm by the brain; so the will is the servant of the mind, and the mind, in turn, is affected by various influences and motives which are brought to bear upon it. But, it may be asked, Does not Scripture make its appeal to man's will? Is it not written, "And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely" (Rev. 22:17)? And did not our Lord say, "ye will not come to Me that ye might have life" (John 5:40)? We answer; the appeal of Scripture is not always made to man's "will"; other of his faculties are also addressed. For example: "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." "Hear and your soul shall live." "Look unto Me and be ye saved." "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." "Come now and let us reason together," "with the heart man believeth unto righteousness," etc., etc.
2. THE BONDAGE OF THE HUMAN WILL.
In any treatise that proposes to deal with the human will, its nature and functions, respect should be had to the will in three different men, namely, unfallen Adam, the sinner, and the Lord Jesus Christ. In unfallen Adam the will was free, free in both directions, free toward good and free toward evil. Adam was created in a state of innocency but not in a state of holiness, as is so often assumed and asserted. Adam's will was therefore in a condition of moral equipoise: that is to say, in Adam there was no constraining bias in him toward good or evil, and as such Adam differed radically from all his descendants, as well as from "the Man Christ Jesus." But with the sinner it is far otherwise. The sinner is born with a will that is not in a condition of moral equipoise, because in him there is a heart that is "deceitful above all things and desperately wicked," and this gives him a bias toward evil. So, too, with the Lord Jesus it was far otherwise: He also differed radically from unfallen Adam. The Lord Jesus Christ could not sin because He was the "Holy One of God." Before He was born into this world it was said to Mary, "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that Holy Thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35). Speaking reverently then we say, that the will of the Son of Man was not in a condition of moral equipoise, that is, capable of turning toward either good or evil. The will of the Lord Jesus was biased toward that which is good because, side by side with His sinless, holy, perfect humanity, was His eternal Deity. Now in contradistinction from the will of the Lord Jesus which was biased toward good, and Adam's will which, before his fall, was in a condition of moral equipoise-capable of turning toward either good or evil-the sinner's will is biased toward evil, and therefore is free in one direction only, namely, in the direction of evil. The sinner's will is enslaved because it is in bondage to and is the servant of a depraved heart.
In what does the sinner's freedom consist? This question is naturally suggested by what we have just said above. The sinner is "free" in the sense of being unforced from without. God never forces the sinner to sin. But the sinner is not free to do either good or evil because an evil heart within is ever inclining him toward sin. Let us illustrate what we have in mind. I hold in my hand a book. I release it; what happens? It falls. In which direction? Downwards; always downwards. Why? Because, answering the law of gravity, its own weight sinks it. Suppose I desire that book to occupy a position three feet higher; then what? I must lift it; a power outside of that book must raise it. Such is the relationship which fallen man sustains toward God. Whilst Divine power up-holds him he is preserved from plunging still deeper into sin; let that power be withdrawn and he falls-his own weight (of sin) drags him down. God does not push him down anymore than I did that book. Let all Divine restraint be removed and every man is capable of becoming, would become, a Cain, a Pharaoh, a Judas. How then is the sinner to move heavenward? By an act of his own will? Not so. A power outside of himself must grasp hold of him and lift him every inch of the way. The sinner is free, but free in one direction only-free to fall, free to sin. As the Word expresses it: "For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness" (Rom. 6:20). The sinner is free to do as he pleases, always as he pleases (except as he is restrained by God), but his pleasure is to sin.
In the opening paragraph of this chapter we insisted that a proper conception of the nature and function of the will is of practical importance, nay, that it constitutes a fundamental test of theological orthodoxy or doctrinal soundness. We wish to amplify this statement and attempt to demonstrate its accuracy. The freedom or bondage of the will was the dividing line between Augustinianism and Pelagianism, and in more recent times between Calvinism and Arminianism. Reduced to simple terms this means that the difference involved was the affirmation or denial of the total depravity of man. In taking the affirmative we shall now consider,
3. THE IMPOTENCY OF THE HUMAN WILL.
Does it lie within the province of man's will to accept or reject the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour? Granted that the Gospel is preached to the sinner, that the Holy Spirit convicts him of his lost condition, does it, in the final analysis, He within the power of his own will to resist or to yield himself up to God? The answer to this question defines our conception of human depravity. That man is a fallen creature all professing Christians will allow, but what many of them mean by "fallen" is often difficult to determine. The general impression seems to be that man is now mortal, that he is no longer in the condition in which he left the hands of his Creator, that he is liable to disease, that he inherits evil tendencies; but, that if he employs his powers to the best of his ability somehow he will be happy at last. O, how far short of the sad truth! Infirmities, sickness, even corporeal death, are but trifles in comparison with the moral and spiritual effects of the Fall! It is only by consulting the Holy Scriptures that we are able to obtain some conception of the extent of that terrible calamity.
When we say that man is totally depraved we mean that the entrance of sin into the human constitution has affected every part and faculty of man's being. Total depravity means that man is, in spirit and soul and body, the slave of sin and the captive of the Devil-walking "according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience" (Eph. 2:2). This statement ought not to need arguing: it is a common fact of human experience. Man is unable to realize his own aspirations and materialize his own ideals. He cannot do the things that he would. There is a moral inability which paralyzes him. This is proof positive that he is no free man, but instead, the slave of sin and Satan. "Ye are of your father the Devil, and the lusts (desires) of your father ye will do" (John 8:44). Sin is more than an act or a series of acts; it is a state or condition. It is that which lies behind and produces the acts. Sin has penetrated and permeated the whole of man's make-up. It has blinded the understanding, corrupted the heart, and alienated the mind from God. And the will has not escaped. The will is under the dominion of sin and Satan. Therefore, the will is not free. In short, the affections love as they do and the will chooses as it does because of the state of the heart, and because the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked "There is none that seeketh after God" (Rom. 3:11).
We repeat our question: Does it lie within the power of the sinner's will to yield himself up to God? Let us attempt an answer by asking several others: Can water (of itself) rise above its own level? Can a clean thing come out of an unclean? Can the will reverse the whole tendency and strain of human nature? Can that which is under the dominion of sin originate that which is pure and holy? Manifestly not. If ever the will of a fallen and depraved creature is to move Godward a Divine power must be brought to bear upon it which will overcome the influences of sin that pull in a counter direction. This is only another way of saying, "No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me, draw him (John 6:44). In other words, God's people must be made willing in the day of His power (Psa. 110:3). As said Mr. Darby, "If Christ came to save that which is lost, free will has no place. Not that God prevents men from receiving Christ-far from it. But even when God uses all possible inducements, all that is capable of exerting influence in the heart of man, it only serves to show that man will have none of it, that so corrupt is his heart, and so decided his will not to submit to God (however much it may be the devil who encourages him to sin) that nothing can induce him to receive the Lord, and to give up sin. If by the words, 'freedom of man,' they mean that no one forces him to reject the Lord, this liberty fully exists. But if it is said that, on account of the dominion of sin, of which he is the slave, and that voluntarily, he cannot escape from his condition, and make choice of the good-even while acknowledging it to be good, and approving of it-then he has no liberty whatever (italics ours). He is not subject to the law, neither indeed can be; hence, they that are in the flesh cannot please God."
The will is not Sovereign; it is a servant because influenced and controlled by the other faculties of man's being. The sinner is not a free agent because he is a slave of sin-this was clearly implied in our Lord's words, "If the Son shall therefore make you free, ye shall be free indeed" (John 8:36). Man is a rational being and as such responsible and accountable to God, but to affirm that he is a free moral agent is to deny that he is totally depraved-i.e., depraved in will as in everything else. Because man's will is governed by his mind and heart, and because these have been vitiated and corrupted by sin, then it follows that if ever man is to turn or move in a Godward direction God Himself must work in him "both to will and to do of His good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13). Man's boasted freedom is in truth "the bondage of corruption"; he "serves divers lusts and pleasures." Said a deeply taught servant of God, "Man is impotent as to his will. He has no will favorable to God. I believe in free will; but then it is a will only free to act according to nature (italics ours). A dove has no will to eat carrion; a raven no will to eat the clean food of the dove. Put the nature of the dove into the raven and it will eat the food of the dove. Satan could have no will for holiness. We speak it with reverence, God could have no will for evil. The sinner in his sinful nature could never have a will according to God. For this he must be born again" (J. Denham Smith). This is just what we have contended for throughout this chapter-the will is regulated by the nature.
Among the "decrees" of the Council of Trent (1563), which is the avowed standard of Popery, we find the following:
"If any one shall affirm, that man's free-will, moved and excited by God, does not, by consenting, cooperate with God, the mover and exciter, so as to prepare and dispose itself for the attainment of justification; if moreover, anyone shall say that the human will cannot refuse complying, if it pleases; but that it is unactive, and merely passive; let such an one be accursed"!
"If any one shall affirm, that since the fall of Adam, man's freewill is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing titular, yea a name, without a thing, and a fiction introduced by Satan into the Church; let such an one be accursed"!
Thus, those who today insist on the free-will of the natural man believe precisely what Rome teaches on the subject! That Roman Catholics and Arminians walk hand in hand may be seen from others of the decrees issued by the Council of Trent: "If any one shall affirm that a regenerate and justified man is bound to believe that he is certainly in the number of the elect (which 1 Thess. 1:4, 5 plainly teaches.--A.W.P.) let such an one be accursed"! "If any one shall affirm with positive and absolute certainty, that he shall surely have the gift of perseverance to the end (which John 10:28-30 assuredly guarantees, A. W. P.); let him be accursed"!
In order for any sinner to be saved three things were indispensable: God the Father had to purpose his salvation, God the Son had to purchase it, God the Spirit has to apply it. God does more than "propose" to us: were He only to "invite," every last one of us would be lost. This is strikingly illustrated in the Old Testament. In Ezra 1:1-3 we read, "Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing saying, Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, the LORD God of Heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and He hath charged me to build Him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all His people? his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem which is in Judah, and build the house of the LORD God of Israel." Here was an "offer" made, made to a people in captivity, affording them opportunity to leave and return to Jerusalem-God's dwelling-place. Did all Israel eagerly respond to this offer? No indeed. The vast majority were content to remain in the enemy's land. Only an insignificant "remnant" availed themselves of this overture of mercy! And why did they? Hear the answer of Scripture: "Then rose up the chief of the fathers of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests, and the Levites, with all whose spirit God had stirred up, to go up to build the house of the LORD which is in Jerusalem" (Ezra 1:5)! In like manner, God "stirs up" the spirits of His elect when the effectual call comes to them, and not till then do they have any willingness to respond to the Divine proclamation.
The superficial work of many of the professional evangelists of the last fifty years is largely responsible for the erroneous views now current upon the bondage of the natural man, encouraged by the laziness of those in the pew in their failure to "prove all things" (1 Thess. 5:21). The average evangelical pulpit conveys the impression that it lies wholly in the power of the sinner whether or not he shall be saved. It is said that "God has done His part, now man must do his." Alas, what can a lifeless man do, and man by nature is "dead in trespasses and sins" (Eph. 2:1)! If this were really believed there would be more dependence upon the Holy Spirit to come in with His miracle-working power and less confidence in our attempts to "win men for Christ."
When addressing the unsaved, preachers often draw an analogy between God's sending of the Gospel to the sinner, and a sick man in bed with some healing medicine on a table by his side: all he needs to do is reach forth his hand and take it. But in order for this illustration to be in any wise true to the picture which Scripture gives us of the fallen and depraved sinner, the sick man in bed must be described as one who is blind (Eph. 4:18) so that he cannot see the medicine, his hand paralyzed (Rom. 5:6) so that he is unable to reach forth for it, and his heart not only devoid of all confidence in the medicine but filled with hatred against the physician himself (John 15:18). O what superficial views of man's desperate plight are now entertained! Christ came here not to help those who were willing to help themselves, but to do for His people what they were incapable of doing for themselves: "To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house" (Isa. 42:7).
Now in conclusion let us anticipate and dispose of the usual and inevitable objection-Why preach the Gospel if man is powerless to respond? why did the sinner come to Christ if sin has so enslaved him that he has no power in himself to come? Reply: We do not preach the Gospel because we believe that men are free moral agents and therefore capable of receiving Christ, but we preach it because we are commanded to do so (Mark 16:15); and though to them that perish it is foolishness yet, "unto us which are saved it is the power of God" (1 Cor. 1:18). "The foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men" (1 Cor. 1:25). The sinner is dead in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1), and a dead man is utterly incapable of willing anything, hence it is that "they that are in the flesh (the unregenerate) cannot please God" (Rom. 8:8).
To fleshly wisdom it appears the height of folly to preach the Gospel to those that are dead, and therefore beyond the reach of doing anything themselves. Yes, but God's ways are different from ours. It pleases God "by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe" (1 Cor. 1:21). Man may deem it folly to prophesy to "dead bones" and to say unto them, "O ye dry bones, hear the Word of the Lord" (Ezek. 37:4). Ah! but then it is the Word of the Lord, and the words He speaks "they are spirit, and they are life" (John 6:63). Wise men standing by the grave of Lazarus might pronounce it an evidence of insanity when the Lord addressed a dead man with the words, "Lazarus, Come forth." Ah! but He who thus spake was and is Himself the Resurrection and the Life, and at His word even the dead live! We go forth to preach the Gospel, then, not because we believe that sinners have within themselves the power to receive the Saviour it proclaims but because the Gospel itself is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth, and because we know that "as many as were ordained to eternal life" (Acts 13:48) shall believe (John 6:37; 10:16-note the "shall's"!) in God's appointed time, for it is written "Thy people shall be willing in the day of Thy power" (Psa. 110:3)!
What we have set forth in this chapter is not a product of "modern thought"; no indeed, it is at direct variance with it. It is those of the past few generations who have departed so far from the teachings of their scripturally-instructed fathers. In the thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England we read, "The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself by his own natural strength and good works to faith, and calling upon God: Wherefore we have no power to do good works, pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us (being before-hand with us), that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will" (Article 10). In the Westminster Catechism of Faith (adopted by the Presbyterians) we read, "The sinfulness of that state whereinto man fell, consisteth in the guilt of Adam's first sin, the wont of that righteousness wherein he was created, and the corruption of his nature, whereby he is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually" (Answer to question 25). So in the Baptists' Philadelphian Confession of Faith, 1742, we read, "Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto" (Chapter 9).
link：https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/articles/index.php?view=article&aid=24846&fbclid=IwY2xjawG7MfRleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHX8KdTMf6fCFsc6OTQtAWZisKtb4tNGi-MJy2zEyLFUpQd3dMJRUpURb4Q_aem_k8v0OphGah3BV7d4A8-u9w
No comments:
Post a Comment