文/Kim Riddlebarger 译/煦 校/米利暗
一、“唯独恩典”的定义
当我们使用“唯独恩典”这个短语时，我们的意思是，我们从神的忿怒中被拯救出来，脱离地狱的永火，是因为神的良善，而不是因为我们里面有任何良善。在圣经的概念里，亚当和夏娃堕落陷入罪中之后，人的本质就不再是良善的；而美国人，似乎对人的本质和人的良善有无穷的信心，很难接受圣经所说关于人的景况。在像我们这样的民主文化中，我们相信我们的投票是有价值的，通过行使我们的选择权，我们能够切实地改变周围的世界。我们从年轻的时候就被教导，只要我们下定决心，付出最大的努力，我们自己里面就有能力去完成任何事情。当我们成为基督徒时，我们把这种乐观主义也带进我们的神学。如果神告诉我们要做某件事，那一定是因为我们有能力做他所吩咐的事！选择成为一切。因此，我们一头扎进一个在教会历史上最大的异端——伯拉纠主义里（我们将在本文结尾讨论这个问题）。对于一个不认为人的景况有多糟的美国人，恩典就没有多大意义了，就是这么简单。因为如果人们基本上是良善的，那么我们何必需要恩典才能得救？
但对于那些明白圣经所教导的关于罪之后果的人，唯独恩典是我们进天堂的唯一希望。因此，当我们谈到“唯独恩典”（sola gratia），我们说的是这个事实：神拯救我们是因为他对我们的慈爱和恩惠，并不是因为我们里面有什么东西——任何东西——能令神喜悦。除非我们确切地明白罪对我们造成的影响，我们真的无法理解唯独恩典。
二、人的全然败坏
圣经关于亚当的罪对人类的影响是非常清楚的，有许多段落讲人的罪的问题。在约伯记14:1-4我们看到：“人为妇人所生，日子短少，多有患难。出来如花，又被割下；飞去如影，不能存留。这样的人你岂睁眼看他吗？又叫我来受审吗？谁能使洁净之物出于污秽之中呢？无论谁也不能。”换句话说，我们生来就“不纯”或有罪，因此当受神的审判。在这方面约伯问了一个尖锐的问题，“谁能使洁净之物出于污秽之中呢？”而答案肯定是“没有”。耶利米问了类似的问题，“古实人岂能改变皮肤呢？豹岂能改变斑点呢？若能，你们这习惯行恶的便能行善了。”（耶13:23）因为我们的罪，我们是不纯的，习惯于做恶事，我们不能做任何事情来改变我们的真实本性，就像豹子希望改变它的斑点是不可能的一样，我们也不可能因愿望而改变我们的肤色。圣经也清楚地表明我们的罪性是生来就有的。根据诗篇51:5，诗人说，“我是在罪孽里生的，在我母亲怀胎的时候就有了罪。”因此我们生来就有罪，在受孕的那一刻就有罪。诗人在诗篇58:3接着说，“恶人一出母胎，就与神疏远；一离母腹，便走错路，说谎话。”我们一出生就走错误的路，天生就是说谎的。我们不需要学习如何去犯罪，因为这就是我们的本性。
我们与生俱来的罪性（即“肉体”）产生一系列罪恶的行为。列王纪上的作者称“世上没有不犯罪的人。”（王上8:46）箴言的作者感叹道“谁能说，我洁净了我的心，我脱净了我的罪？”（箴20:9）事实上摩西在创世记6:5写到，“耶和华见人在地上罪恶很大，终日所思想的尽都是恶。”因此，我们生在罪中，每一个思想，每一个倾向都是完全邪恶的。这不是我们喜欢听的，但圣经关于人的本性就是这样清楚地教导的。
这种关于人的罪性的教义不仅是旧约里的教导，在新约中也占同等的份量，甚至我们的主也亲自这样教导。在马太福音15:19，我们的主有同样的宣告，他说“因为从心里发出来的，有恶念、凶杀、奸淫、苟合、偷盗、妄证、谤渎。”因此，我们所犯的具体的罪行来自于我们心中的罪恶状况。因为在圣经中“心”的用法，是指我们的人格所在——真实的自我，我们的本质。在马太福音7:16-20，耶稣进一步指出“凭着他们的果子，就可以认出他们来。荆棘上岂能摘葡萄呢？蒺藜里岂能摘无花果呢？这样，凡好树都结好果子；惟独坏树结坏果子。好树不能结坏果子，坏树不能结好果子。凡不结好果子的树，就砍下来丢在火里。所以，凭着他们的果子，就可以认出他们来。”我们中的任何一个人，能够有一个时刻假装跟其他人不一样，似乎我们生来就是好树，好像我们逃脱了临在整个人类的罪恶影响吗？因为恶行和罪恶不可避免地从我们每一个人的心中冒出来，所以犯罪是我们所有人的常规状态。
如果这还不是全部，那耶稣还提醒我们，即使我们没有犯下特定的罪行，你也可以确定我们的心中已经犯罪了。耶稣这样说到：“凡看见妇女就动淫念的，这人心里已经与她犯奸淫了。”耶稣还说，“你们听见有吩咐古人的话，说：‘不可杀人’，又说：‘凡杀人的，难免受审判。’”所以，可能有人说，“我不是凶手！我从来没有杀过人”。但耶稣说不是的。你可能没有取过另一个人的生命，但正如耶稣所说，“凡向弟兄动怒的，难免受审断”，“凡骂弟兄是魔利（傻瓜）的，难免地狱的火。”（太5:21-22）
圣经很清楚地指出，我们生在罪中，我们犯罪是因为我们是罪人，圣经关于罪对我们与神的关系的具体影响的教导也同样清晰。使徒保罗说，“原来体贴肉体的，就是与神为仇，因为不服神的律法，也是不能服。而且属肉体的人不能得神的喜欢。”（罗8:7-8）因为我们生在罪中，我们不能顺服神的律法，也不愿意取悦神。非基督徒想要遵守十诫是绝无可能的。在加拉太书中，保罗说，“情欲的事都是显而易见的，就如奸淫、污秽、邪荡、拜偶像、邪术、仇恨、争竞、忌恨、恼怒、结党、纷争、异端、嫉妒、醉酒、荒宴等类，我从前告诉你们，现在又告诉你们，行这样事的人必不能承受神的国。”（加5:19-21）虽然我们倾向于区分所谓的大罪和小罪，保罗却不同意这种区分。所有的罪都是该死的，甚至包括嫉妒和野心之类，这些罪都是从我们罪恶的本性中油然而生的。这当然会让我们想起主说坏树结坏果子的话。肉体的罪恶是从我们罪恶的心生出来，就像苹果从苹果树上长出来一样。
说到底，保罗确实描绘了一个非常黑暗的画面。在罗马书3:10-12他写道：“就如经上所记：‘没有义人，连一个也没有；没有明白的，没有寻求神的；都是偏离正路，一同变为无用。没有行善的，连一个也没有。’”保罗在这里说得很清楚，虽然我们中间许多人不喜欢他所说的。
首先，他指出没有一个人是义的，也就是说，没有一个人没有罪。为了强调，他重复说：“连一个也没有。”其次，他指出，因为罪，没有明白的，就像他在别处说，罪使我们不能明白，使我们心地昏昧，心思徒劳，对神的事情心里刚硬（参弗4:18）；第三，这些罪恶的致盲效果导致没有人寻求神。尽管这些话使我们中的许多人如鲠在喉，它们实在不对美国人的胃口，然而，保罗绝对清楚地说（因为罪）“没有人寻求神。”这些确实是严厉的话，但我们不能因为不喜欢它们而逃避。
我们若不信保罗的见证，耶稣所说的也完全一样。在他喂饱五千人之后，对那些因为看到了神迹也希望吃饼得饱而追随他的人群说，“若不是差我来的父吸引人，就没有能到我这里来的；到我这里来的，在末日我要叫他复活。”（约6:44）换句话说，你不能来到神面前，除非你被吸引，翻译为“吸引”的词汇在新约的其他地方也翻译成“拉”，例如，在使徒行传21:30，当保罗被强行拉出圣殿时也用的这个词。然后，在约翰福音6章65节相同的话再次出现，好像他第一次说的还不够清楚： “所以我对你们说过，若不是蒙我父的恩赐，没有人能到我这里来。”因此，除非（父）使我们能够，否则我们不能也不会转向神，接受耶稣基督。因为我们是有罪的，我们不寻求神，不明白神，不遵守神的律法，并且保罗确实说，我们也不能遵守。我们的心是有罪的，没有义人，连一个也没有，我们自由而心甘情愿地犯罪，因为我们想犯罪。
因此，归根结底，这意味着，如果神不做一些事情来拯救我们脱离困境，我们将在我们的罪中灭亡。这就是我们所说的“我们唯独靠恩典得救”的意思，因为我们里面没有任何东西值得拯救，在这样的困境中我们也不能做任何事情可以拯救自己。我们的救赎依赖于神的恩惠，而不是我们的良善。
因此，正是在这种圣经对罪及其影响的描述的背景下，我们现在把注意力转向“唯独恩典”。
三、圣经中的“唯独恩典”
简单地说，圣经清楚地表明，人的本质是有罪的，不能做任何事情来拯救自己，或预备自己得救。圣经也同样清楚地表明，是神，唯独藉着恩典、唯独通过信心、唯独依靠基督来施行拯救。这就意味着，当罪人还死在罪中时，神首先在罪人身上行事。正如我们所见，罪人是被罪的本性和肉体的喜好所奴役，并不会来到神面前，正如保罗所宣称的。但福音是，在罪人不寻求神时，神却寻求罪人。这就是我们所说的“唯独恩典”的意思。
圣经从许多方面谈到“唯独恩典”的概念，有三段经文我们需要详细思考，就是约翰福音3章，约翰福音11章和以弗所书2章。
约翰福音3章
许多福音派[2]信徒确定他们是“重生（born again）”的基督徒。事实上，我们的主在约翰福音3:3-7明确说，“人若不重生”，就不能见、也不能进神的国。那么，“重生（born again）”的意思是什么？历史上的新教，包括路德宗和改革宗，并没有像我们许多当代福音派那样，把“重生（born again）” 的概念放在基督徒信仰的中心。路德宗和改革宗这样做的原因不是因为拒绝“重生（born again）”的概念。相反，他们把约翰所教导的重生与 “重生（regeneration）”相等同，即“重生（born again）”是“重生（regeneration）”或“活过来（being made alive）”的同义词，因此，对于基督徒生命的这个重要方面，它所处理的这个角度是：重生（regeneration）是神做成的，而不是人做的。
历史上的新教没有强调“重生（born again）”的另一个原因，是因为重生（regeneration）是神对罪人的作为；而另一方面，新约强调福音是神在我们之外、在基督里为我们所做的，唯独这福音——耶稣基督为罪人死与复活的消息（林前15:1-8）——是神拯救的大能。神赐予新生命诞生——或使用约翰的短语，使人“重生（born again）”——是通过传讲福音。重要的是要注意，新生命诞生不是通过传讲“重生（born again）”，而是通过传讲基督钉十字架！
如果“重生（born again）”或重生（regeneration）是基督教信仰的一个重要方面，那么我们用这个词到底指的是什么？著名的改革宗神学家伯克富（Louis Berkhof）定义重生（regeneration）为：“重生是神的工作，在其中人是完全被动的，没有人合作之处……神创造性的工作在一个人的里面产生出新的生命，使其与耶稣基督同活，同享复活的生命，并可以被称为一个新造的人。”
同样重要的是，耶稣的话不应被视为一个命令，要我们做什么事来被重生。在约翰福音3章，耶稣不是告诉我们去做任何事情！相反，他在告诉我们关于我们的状况——告诉我们，如果我们要见并进入神的国，一些事情必须先发生。因此，“人若不重生，不能进入神的国。”在同一卷福音书的后面，主告诉我们，我们必须“出死入生”（约5:24），而且没有人能到他那里去，除非天父不仅吸引他们（约6:44），并使他们能够到主耶稣那里去（约6:65）。事实上，在约翰福音3:3-8耶稣表达得很清楚，“从肉身生的，就是肉身；从灵生的，就是灵。”圣灵就像一阵风，随着它自己的意思吹。在约翰福音1章中，我们发现非常类似的句子，“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。”（约1:13）。我们经常引用这段经文的第一部分，“凡接待他的，就是信他名的人，他就赐他们权柄，作神的儿女。”然后解释说，我们只有先选择神才能得救。但是，接下来的经文告诉我们正好相反，即：“我们不是从血气生的，不是从情欲生的，也不是从人意生的，乃是从神生的。”
因此，至关重要的是要注意整个圣经的根据，尤其是在约翰福音3章，圣灵是神重生人的中介，他赐给人新生命，而不是人接受耶稣为救主或邀请他进入我心的“决定”。大多数解经家指出，这个在这里翻译为“重生（born again）”的词——anothen可以指“从上面来”或“第二次”。 尼哥底母很有可能理解为后者，因为他很尖锐地问耶稣，我“岂能再进母腹生出来吗”？
第二，同样重要的是，耶稣将重生与“水和圣灵”联系起来，这到底是什么意思？基督徒一般以如下三种方式之一回答这个问题。有些人，如路德和大多数教父，都认为是指基督教的洗礼，这里所说的水是洗礼的水。第二类解经家认为，水是指施洗约翰的洗礼。这一连接也许可以在2章6节中找到，并且可以在第3章中进一步加强，在那里，水与洁净联系在一起（25节）。第三种观点将水与自然生育或生殖等同。有一些证据表明，犹太拉比作家确实将水与自然生育和男性精液连接。如果这样看水，这里是说，就像尼哥底母的第一次出生（自然出生——水），他还必须通过圣灵第二次出生。这是大多数现代福音派和改革宗解经家解读这段经文的方式。这也会让人们看到，有两种出生。第一种是“从肉身生的肉身”，第二种是圣灵所生的灵，即我们“重生（born again）”了。
但无论我们决定如何解释，约翰福音3章彻底排除“重生是我们行为的结果”的想法。耶稣讲得很清楚，神是行动的一方，而我们却是被动的，并且是神行动的对象。在新的诞生里，神是主动的一方，因为人都死在过犯和罪恶中，不能自己复活。路德宗和改革宗的传统都仔细地遵循圣经，把重生与宣讲神的话（特别是律法和福音）而不是与堕落的人类意志连在一起。因此，如果我们希望看见神呼召死人重生，并赐下新生作为礼物，我们就宣讲基督钉十字架。因为是藉着这个信息，神赐给人新生，呼召人们相信他的儿子。
因此，任何把重生定义为人的工作或是人工作的结果的“重生观”，都有严重的错误，并且否认了我们得救是“唯独恩典”。
约翰福音11章
另一个需要考虑的段落是在约翰福音11章中，我们的主使他的朋友拉撒路从死里复活。在此，约翰为我们详细讲述了主如何使一个已经死了四天的人复活的故事。几个原因使拉撒路复活这段经文非常重要，其中之一是它清楚地表明了“唯独恩典”的概念。死人复活的神迹也许比其他任何东西都更清楚地显明耶稣的权能超越了死亡和坟墓。因为只有道成肉身的神才能从死亡中召唤出生命。正如耶稣对马大说：“复活在我，生命也在我；信我的人，虽然死了，也必复活。”（25节）这赐生命的能力有两种形式。在约翰福音5:24-25，耶稣说：“我实实在在地告诉你们：那听我话、又信差我来者的，就有永生，不至于定罪，是已经出死入生了。我实实在在地告诉你们：时候将到，现在就是了，死人要听见神儿子的声音，听见的人就要活了。”这意味着，在某种意义上，相信基督救赎的人有两次复活。第一次复活是“灵的复活”，使人可以相信基督，因为我们的主自己说，相信他的人已经出死入生。正如我们在约翰福音3章中所看到的，通过神至高无上的权能，我们通过神的话语由圣灵“重生”。实际上，当我们被赐予新生命的那个时刻，我们已经出死入生。第二次复活，将发生在耶稣基督再来审判时，在末了使死人复活，这是“身体的复活”。
但拉撒路复活的故事里最需要注意的是，当耶稣叫他走出坟墓的时候拉撒路是死的！他不只是生病或是有点不舒服，他也没有做任何与神的恩典合作的事。事实上，他对自己得救的唯一贡献是他死了！拉撒路并没有在坟墓里自己解开绷带，好像如果拉撒路做了他的部分，这样耶稣就可以做另外的部分！我们的主不是去到坟墓，留下一种有助于拉撒路自己复活的药，但愿拉撒路伸手拿药。耶稣没有站在外面“恳求”拉撒路出来！除了神的声音呼召他从坟墓里出来，并在这过程中赐给他生命之外，拉撒路什么也不能做。这就是圣经对我们所说的，我们死在过犯罪恶中，就像拉撒路一样，我们也必须被神呼召，藉着耶稣的话得生命，不然我们就是仍然死在罪里。这是“唯独恩典”的意义——当我们死了也臭了的时候，神呼召我们活过来，且这呼召不是因为他看到我们里面有什么。
以弗所书2章
另一段重要的经文是以弗所书2:1-10。“你们死在过犯罪恶之中，他叫你们活过来。那时，你们在其中行事为人，随从今世的风俗，顺从空中掌权者的首领，就是现今在悖逆之子心中运行的邪灵。”（弗2:1-2）像耶稣一样，保罗很清楚地表明，我们是死“在过犯和罪恶中”。没有办法以美国人的乐观来规避保罗这里竭力论证的。所以在第3节中，保罗描述死在罪中是如何导致一种以罪恶行为为特征的生活。“我们从前也都在他们中间，放纵肉体的私欲，随着肉体和心中所喜好的去行，本为可怒之子，和别人一样。”因此，理应受到神公义的审判。这很清楚：我们死在罪恶和过犯中，被我们罪恶的情欲和欲望所奴役，天生是可怒之子。如果随着我们自己，必将走向地狱和永恒的审判，因为我们自己不能改变任何事情。
然而，正是在这里，在他的心目中带着这幅人类罪恶光景的画面，保罗突然转变主题，并给了我们在圣经中对“唯独恩典”的最清晰的阐释，于是，我们读到4-5节，“然而神既有丰富的怜悯，因他爱我们的大爱，当我们死在过犯中的时候，便叫我们与基督一同活过来（你们得救是本乎恩）。”至关重要的是，保罗说，正是当我们死在罪恶和过犯中的时候，神叫我们与基督一同活过来。耶稣叫拉撒路从坟墓里出来时，他已经死了四天，完全不能做任何事来合作拯救自己，我们也一样，当死在罪中的时候，神使我们和耶稣基督一同活过来。这就是我们所说的“唯独恩典”，是因为神对无助罪人的怜悯和爱，那些生来有罪并选择犯罪的人，现在成了耶稣基督的信徒！是神拣选我们在基督耶稣里得拯救，而不是我们拣选了耶稣基督！因为圣经上说，当我们死在罪中的时候，是神因他的慈爱和怜悯在我们身上做工。神先呼召了我们，我们就因着信，接受耶稣基督。这就是“唯独恩典”。
在本章的剩余部分，保罗继续使这一点更清晰。“他又叫我们与基督耶稣一同复活，一同坐在天上，要将他极丰富的恩典，就是他在基督耶稣里向我们所施的恩慈，显明给后来的世代看。”（弗3:6-7）因为神让我们活过来，我们现在与耶稣基督一同坐在天上，正像保罗在罗马书11:29说的，“神的恩赐和选召是没有后悔的。”神不会开始了一件事又失去兴趣或放弃，纵然我们失信，他永远信实。
这样，保罗就在第8节和之后的经文中下结论说：“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；也不是出于行为，免得有人自夸。我们原是他的工作，在基督耶稣里造成的，为要叫我们行善，就是神所预备叫我们行的。”虽然这是新约中常被引用的段落之一，但我们应停下来充分考虑保罗在这里所说的到底是什么。8节的背景是在1-5节说的，我们死在罪中，被罪奴役。所以，很明显，当保罗指出“当我们死在过犯中的时候，神叫我们与基督一同活过来”时，他的解释是“唯独恩典”——“你们得救是本乎恩”。我们必须清楚这一点，否则会错过保罗所说的话。多年来，我已经听到太多的人对我说，“哦，是的，我相信，我们得救是本乎恩”，并赞同地引用这段经文，然后他们转过身又认为，除非我们先做什么，除非我们决定，除非我们选择，除非我们接受耶稣基督为我们个人的救主，否则恩典是无用的。很清楚这不是保罗所说的。认为除非我们先做一些事，否则恩典就与我们无效，就是完全否认“唯独恩典”！
如果你还不信服，想想接下来的段落。“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；也不是出于行为，免得有人自夸”。（弗3:8-9）首先，我们不是靠信心得救，我们得救是靠恩典，通过信心。我们得救不是因为我们相信，但神拯救是通过相信耶稣基督（唯独因信称义）——从我们在基督里活过来、操练信心、脱离神的忿怒、在基督里被收养，甚至现在我与他一同坐在天上，都是神做的，不是我们。事实上，保罗说，我们得救是唯独藉着恩典，唯独通过信心，唯独倚靠基督，并且整个事情，从开始到结束，是一个礼物。我们将谈论信心如何与此有关，但如果你认为恩典取决于信心，你便误读了保罗。这在罗马书10章中更加清楚，正如保罗所说的：“可见信道是从听道来的，听道是从基督的话来的。”（罗10:17）信心与传福音有关，正如耶稣将神的道说出来便叫拉撒路从死里复活，通过传讲和分享福音，同样的事情今天也发生在我们身上。正是通过福音之道，并只能通过福音之道，神从死里呼召我们。“当我们死在过犯中的时候，便叫我们与基督一同活过来。你们得救是本乎恩。”这就是“唯独恩典”的意义。
四、美国福音派在“唯独恩典”上的错误
基督教神学里没有什么比教导“唯独恩典”教义更冒犯我们的同时代人了（尤其是我们的基督徒朋友和家人）。美国人讨厌被告知自己是无助的。令人惊讶的是，对这一圣经教导最大的反对者不是来自世俗文化，而是来自美国教会耳熟能详的各派领袖。从当代人物，如加略山教会的恰克•史密斯（Chuck Smith）和学园传道会的白立德（Bill Bright），从芬尼（Charles Grandison Finney)（我们一会儿再回来谈他）发源出来的几乎所有形式的奋兴运动和五旬节运动，亚历山大•坎贝尔（Alexander Campbell）和恢复运动，约瑟•史密斯（Joseph Smith）和后来成为邪教的摩门教，威廉•米勒（William Miller）与基督复临安息日会运动，我们可以继续列举下去；所有这些运动至少部分基于否认“唯独恩典”，直接反对宗教改革神学和圣经对这一点的教导。美国人讨厌听到神不依赖于他们和他们所做出的决定。我们作为宗教改革之后的基督徒和历史上的新教徒，正是在这点上冲撞了我们的文化和大多数美国基督徒。这就是为什么当谈到这些教义时，我们的朋友和家人看我们就像是三头怪物。但这是历史上新教的立场，对唯独恩典的广泛排斥显明了到目前为止的“福音派运动”已经背离历史和圣经的福音派信仰有多远！
事实上，拒绝“唯独恩典”不是什么新鲜事，它是一个古代的异端“伯拉纠主义”。伯拉纠主义的教导强调人的自由，认为原罪不是从始祖犯罪而来的败坏和罪恶，只是亚当带给世界的一个坏的例子。伯拉纠主义认为恩典是一种影响，吸引我们按照正确的信息行事。坚强的、白手起家的、独立的、前沿的美国人会被吸引，走向强调人与天然自由意志的神学，这是很自然的。是从伯拉纠而不是圣经，我们得到这样的想法：孩子都是无辜的，没有罪；罪是我们的行为，而不是我们的所是。一个历史学家这样说，“美国人对伯拉纠的想法非常赞同，即，每个人都总是可以有一个新的开始，他可以以他个人的自由来做出支持或反对神的决定。”
随着美国基督教远离东部沿海已经建立的地区迁往尚待开发的区域，他们也偏离了清教徒和加尔文对人性的评价。我们能征服西部，在荒野之地建造城市，如果这是天命显明的成果和我们的民主理想，那么，在这种情况下，美国人是坚强的、有能力的和基本上良善的人。因此，伯拉纠成为了我们的守护神，芬尼成为他的主要代言人。
刚刚提到的大多数的伯拉纠主义运动，涌现在美国偏远地区纽约上州的一个区，不是偶然的。这个区域就是历史学家所谓“焚毁区”（Burned-over district），是产生千禧世代派(Millennialism)和基督再临教派（Millerites）的区域，约瑟•史密斯和摩门教、亚历山大•坎贝尔和恢复运动，震颤派（Shakers）和其他教主，都是在芬尼和他的新方法引起的“大觉醒”后成长起来的。从改革宗的角度来看，“焚毁区”是一种神学上的百慕大三角区。
到了第十八世纪后期的第二次大觉醒的时候，以爱德华兹和怀特腓尔德的宗教改革讲道为特征的1730-40年第一次大觉醒，已让位于以人为中心、以体验为导向的神学。芬尼使得第二次大觉醒更加地去除了第一次大觉醒的对宗教改革的强调。芬尼出生于1792年，是美国民主理想和先锋精神的产物。学习法律后，在1821年他经历了戏剧性的转变，然后寻求进入长老会事奉。很快芬尼就显露出来他对长老会教义的基本宣告《威斯敏斯特信仰告白》并不感兴趣，并且他的讲道或多或少是纽海文神学（对爱德华兹神学的根本篡改）与典型的威廉•布莱克斯通（William Blackstone）的常识判例法的结合。是芬尼发明了焦虑座（后演变为呼召人走到台前决志），建立了旷日持久的奋兴会。有趣的是，在芬尼的影响下，杰西•杰克逊（Jesse Jackson）和杰里•福尔韦尔（Jerry Falwell）两人，作为自由派的左翼和基督教的右翼，追踪自己的行动主义的根，都直接归结于芬尼对政治运动和社会改革的强调。我们追踪禁酒主义和禁酒运动以及废奴主义也是来源于芬尼。这种对基督教行动主义强调的危险后果是：在芬尼的体系里基督教成为行动主义。另一方面，宗教改革的基督教坚持认为，基督教应该废奴和反堕胎，但废奴主义与反堕胎本身不是基督教。当然，禁酒主义也不是！它是卫理公会留给我们的一种致命的错误！
我钦佩芬尼的一件事是他很明确。在他关于奋兴的演讲（1835），用罗伯特•戈弗雷（Robert Godfrey）博士的话是“比伯拉纠还伯拉纠”，芬尼说“根据‘神迹’的另一个定义——超越自然力的东西，复兴不是神迹。宗教没有超越普通自然的力量……奋兴不是神迹，也不依赖于任何意义上的神迹。‘奋兴’是正确使用特定手段的一个纯粹的哲学结果”。因此，如果我们以正确的方式推动撬棒，简单的使用正确的方法，我们就根本不需要神的恩典。我们拥有我们所需要的一切自然能力。因此，奋兴完全不取决于神，它取决于我们，简单明确。正如普林斯顿神学家华菲德（B. B. Warfield）说，这根本不是神学，这就是伦理学。华菲德说，“我们说，神完全可以从芬尼的道德理论里被除掉而对其没有伤害：我们甚至可以说‘神’从其中被除掉反而使其更具‘优势’。”
在后期的工作中，芬尼很清楚地表示他拒绝“唯独恩典”。在他的系统神学中他写道，“重生是罪人改变他最终的选择、意向、偏好；或从自私到爱和仁慈；或者，换句话说，从以自我满足为最高选择，转为选择爱神和爱邻舍。当然，重生的对象必须是重生工作的代理人”。正如我所说，芬尼是明确的，很难误解他。人是自己重生的代理人。公然地拒绝圣经对新生命和重生的教导，这是难以想象的。芬尼的拉撒路能够让自己复活，不需要神的帮助。
为什么芬尼对我们来说非常重要，因为正是他播种了伯拉纠主义的种子，随后在美国各地到处萌芽。让我们想想他对当代教会的影响：
芬尼是奋兴主义之父，以郊外的奋兴帐篷营会和木屑步道（sawdust
trail）为特征。芬尼奋兴主义的遗产在今天充满体育场的“守约者大会”（Promise Keepers）可以最明显地看到。
芬尼是“布道会”和呼召决志的开创者，对技术导向的福音派来说，这些所谓的“新方法”，在很大程度上取代了教会正常的圣礼和讲道。
整个教会增长运动，可以追溯到芬尼的新方法，旨在吸引所谓的“慕道友”来教会，透过去除教会崇拜中那些得罪他们的东西（换句话说，任何明显基督教的东西）；现在我们的新方法，是使用市场营销、目标群体和人口统计的语言。
无论是恰克•史密斯、白立德还是葛培理（Billy
Graham），毫无疑问，各自的理论都可以追溯回到芬尼，即使在同一宗派的另一分支可以追溯到新教的祖先，这些特质现在也退化模糊了。因为“芬尼家族”的特征现在在美国教会中占主导地位。而“唯独恩典”不再是需要维护的教义，而是得罪人和令人尴尬的教义。当人自己有能力时，谁还需要神？
五、我们的回应
首先，圣经并非像大多数美国人一样，认为每个人都有机会进天堂。现在，当我们看到民主的方式——人人都有投票权，法律面前人人平等——构成了一个良好的政府体系时，就认为为了公平，每个人都应该有平等的机会参与这个过程。我们都可以行使我们的投票权，作一个决定能真正改变事情。然而，神不是民主的，他不按照美国的民主理想运作。圣经并不像人们所争论的那样从人类自由开始，而是从亚当堕落入罪恶中及其后果开始。这意味着我们在堕落时已经失去了投票权和自由！因为全人类与亚当一同堕落，正如圣经所说的那样。因此，作为基督徒，我们必须以圣经的起点即人类的罪恶事实为起点，并且我们的脑海中应清楚地知道，没有一个人配得去天堂，而且我们没有任何人能做任何事而得以进天堂。若认为除非当我们想选择神时我们有自由意志去选择，否则基督教（的神）是不公平的，我们就错过了要点，因为神不欠罪人任何东西。如果我们是那样想的，我们也许受的民主文化熏陶太深，我们没有按照应有的角度来处理问题，就是圣经中所发现的角度。
其次，在何种程度上认为我们有助于我们的救恩，就在何种程度上否认唯独恩典。司布真说，“轻看罪的人就会轻看救主。”这真的很简单。要么神拯救那些在罪中死去的罪人，当他们什么都不能贡献的时候从坟墓中呼召他们出来；要么罪人在他们里面有良善，没有被我们堕落的败坏所玷污、腐蚀和污染。圣经教导的是前者而不是后者。将我们所做的任何事加进唯独恩典里，就是否定唯独恩典！二者只能取其一。加尔文《基督教要义》里说，“任何将自由意志的能力，混合添加进神恩典里的人类研究，只是对它的污染；就像如果有人将脏水或苦水兑到好酒里。”既然我们从头到脚，都是有罪的，无论我们添加什么贡献到神的恩典里，都只能起到污染作用，不能触发神的恩典！因此，当我们寻找这类问题的答案时，比如：“为什么神要拯救这个人而不是那个人？”我们最好像一位清教徒神职人员所说的：“恩典是没有理由的，除了恩典本身。”神是神，我们是被造物，我们不应该问为什么。
第三，唯独恩典是我们作为罪人在圣洁的神面前得安慰和保证的基础。因为任何我可能在得救上所做的贡献，都必然是有罪的，我就将永远被怀疑所困扰，怀疑我应该做的贡献是什么，以及我贡献的方式是否正确。如果我认为“是由我决定接受耶稣作为我的救主而得救”，我怎么知道当我邀请他进入我的心时我是否是真心的？如果我因“我的信心”而得救，当我信心软弱时，或在罪中，或被纠缠不休的疑惑所困扰时，我该怎么办？我需要再次被拯救吗？这不是信心的宗教，而是恐惧和骄傲的宗教。因为圣经教导我们得救不是因为我们所做的任何事，而是耶稣基督和他的工作，我们所仰望的并不是我们所做的，乃是转向我们的救主去看他所做成的。因为在耶稣基督里，我们明白靠恩典得救意味着什么。
我们仰望一位救主，他从坟墓中呼召死人的时候他们仍然散发着罪的臭气；甚至当我们误入歧途时，这位救主承诺永不离弃我们。我们仰望一个好牧人，他的羊他一个都不会丢弃，他说；“凡父所赐给我的人，必到我这里来；到我这里来的，我总不丢弃他……在末日却叫他复活。”（约6:37、39）我们仰望一位为我们所有的罪死了的救主，并且他在世的每一分钟都完美遵守神的律法，好使他完美的公义可以覆盖我们的不义。我们仰望被钉在十字架上的救主，他战胜了死亡和坟墓，又升到天上正在作王掌权，并自始至终都为我们祷告，作我们的代理人和辩护者。在这个事实上最为清晰地看见唯独恩典，那就是耶稣基督来为我们成就了那些我们不能为自己做的所有事情。因为他来寻找并拯救失丧的人。这爱子就是唯独恩典，当我们仍死在我们的罪中的时候，神无罪的儿子，为世人的罪死在罗马人的十字架上，为我们的称义从死里复活，通过他的话叫我们活过来。主的名是应当称颂的！
作者简介：
金•里德巴格（Kim Riddlebarger）博士毕业于加利福尼亚州立大学（学士），加利福尼亚威斯敏斯特神学院（宗教学硕士），和富勒神学院（博士）。他参与写作了一些书籍，如《权力宗教：福音派教会推销什么？》、《罗马天主教：福音派新教徒分析是什么使我们联合和分裂》、《基督是主：宗教改革和主权的救恩》。目前是加利福尼亚普拉森舍基督归正教会的牧师。
[1] 本文取自神恩独作网站，https://www.monergism.com/grace-alone-evangelical-problem-0（2017年4月20日存取）。承蒙Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals（认信福音派联盟）授权翻译转载，特此致谢。原文为一篇讲道，略有修改，题目为本刊编辑重拟。——编者注
[2] 本文中所谈及的福音派都特指美国福音派。——编者注
Grace
Alone: An Evangelical Problem?
BY
DR. KIM RIDDLEBARGER
Outline:
(1)
What do we mean by the phrase "grace alone?"
(2)
What is the human condition according to the Scriptures?
(3)
What do the Scriptures say about Sola Gratia?
(4)
Why do American Evangelicals have such a difficult time with this doctrine?
(5)
How do we respond when these issues are at stake?
-----
1)
What do we mean when we say "that we are saved by grace alone?"
When
we use the term "grace alone," what we mean is that our salvation
from the wrath of God - our deliverance from hell - is because of something
good in God, and not because of anything good in us. The Biblical conception of
human nature after Adam and Eve's fall into sin is not a pretty picture, and
Amerians, who seem to have an unlimited confidence in human nature and human
goodness, have a very difficult time accepting what the bible says about the
human condition. In a democratic culture such as ours, we believe that our vote
counts, and that by exercising our right to choose, we can actually and
significantly change the world around us. We are all taught from our youth that
we have it within ourselves to accomplish anything, if we simply put our minds
to it and give it our best efforts. And when we become Christians we carry that
optimism over into our theology. If God tells us to do something, it must be
because we have the ability to do what he commands! Choice becomes everything.
And thus we fall headlong into one of the greatest heresies in church history,
the heresy of Pelagianism, a theme to which we will return at the end of this
lecture. It is really quite simple; grace alone doesn't make much sense to an
American who doesn't think that much is wrong with the human condition in the
first place. For if people are basically good, why then, do we need grace in
order to be saved.
But
to those who understand what the bible teaches about the effects of sin, grace
alone is our only hope of heaven. And thus when we speak of grace alone (sola
gratia), we are speaking of the fact that God saves us, because of his mercy
and graciousness toward us, and not because of something - indeed anything - in
us that makes us desirable to God. We really cannot understand grace alone
unless we understand what it is, exactly, that sin has wrought upon us.
2)
What do the Scriptures teach about the Human Condition?
The
Scriptures are very clear about the effects of Adam's sin upon the human race,
and there are a host of passages that speak to the issue of human sinfulness.
In Job 14:1-4 we read, "Man born of woman is of few days and full of
trouble. He springs up like a flower and withers away; like a fleeting shadow,
he does not endure. Do you fix your eye on such a one? Will you bring him
before you for judgment? Who can bring what is pure from the impure? No
one!" In other words, we are born "impure" or sinful, and
therefore, subject to the judgment of God. Job asks the poignant question in
this regard, "who can bring what is pure from what is impure?" and
the answer is emphatically, "no one." Jeremiah (13:23) asks a similar
question, "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots?
Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil." Thus because of
our sin, we are impure, accustomed to doing evil, and unable to do anything to
change our true nature any more then a leopard can wish his spots away, or that
we can change the color of our skin simply by wishing it were so.
The
Scriptures are also clear that our sinful nature is something with which we are
born. According to the Psalmist in Psalm 51:5, "Surely I was sinful at
birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." Thus we are born
sinful, sinful from the very moment of conception. The Psalmist goes on to say
in Psalm 58(3), "Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they
are wayward and speak lies." We go astray from birth and we are born
liars. We do not need to learn how to sin, it comes quite naturally to us.
The
sinful nature (i.e., "the flesh") with which we are born produces a
host of sinful actions. The author of 1 Kings (8:46) contends "there is no
one who does not sin" and the author of Proverbs (20:9) laments, "Who
can say, `I have kept my heart pure; I am clean and without sin'? Indeed Moses
writes in Genesis 6:5, "the LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the
earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was
only evil all the time." Thus because we are born in sin, every thought,
every inclination is purely evil. This is not something that we enjoy hearing,
but it is what the Scripture clearly teaches about human nature.
And
this doctrine of human sinfulness is not only clearly taught in the OT, it is
found with equal force in the New Testament, even on the lips of our Lord. For
our Lord says much the same thing in Matthew 15:19, when he declares "For
out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality,
theft, false testimony, slander." Thus the specific sins which we commit come
from the sinful condition of our hearts. For as it is used in Scripture, the
heart is the seat of our very personality - the heart is the true self, what we
really are. Jesus went on to point out in Matthew 7:16-20, that "By their
fruit you will recognize [wolves who come in sheep's clothes]. Do people pick
grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears
good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit,
and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit
is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize
them." Can any one of us here pretend for even a single moment that unlike
everyone else, we are born good trees, and that we somehow escape the effects
of sin which befall the entire human race? For out of each of our hearts
inevitably spring the evil deeds and sins that all of us commit on a regular
basis.
And
if that is not all, it is Jesus who also reminds us that even if we haven't committed
a specific sin with our hands, you can bet we have done it in our hearts. It is
Jesus who declares, "anyone who looks at a women lustfully has already
committed adultery with her in his heart." Jesus also said, "You have
heard it said, `Do not murder,' and anyone who murders will be subject to
judgement.'" And so there may be someone who is even now saying to
themselves, "I am not a murderer!" I have never taken a life. Jesus
says otherwise. You may not have taken the life of another, but as Jesus says,
"any one who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgement,"
and "anyone who calls his brother a fool will be in danger of the fire of
hell." Thus any one of us who has ever driven a Southern California
freeway is certainly guilty as charged.
While
the Scriptures are clear that we are born in sin, and that we sin because we
are sinners, the Scriptures are equally clear about the specific effects of our
own sinfulness upon our relationship with God. According to the Apostle Paul,
(Romans 8:7-8), "the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to
God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot
please God." Thus because of the sin into which we are born, we cannot
submit to God's law, nor do anything to please him. So much for non-Christians
supposedly keeping the 10 Commandments. In his letter to the Galatians
(5:19-21), Paul speaks of the human condition this way: "The acts of the
sinful nature [the flesh] are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery;
idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish
ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I
warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the
kingdom of God." While we are apt to make distinctions between so-called
big and little sins, Paul would not agree. All sins damn, even such things as
jealousy and ambition, and these sins that damn spring forth spontaneously from
our sinful nature. This certainly calls to mind our Lord's comments about bad
fruit coming forth from a bad tree. The sins of the flesh spring forth from our
sinful hearts as surely as apples grow on an apple tree.
And
when all is said and done, Paul indeed paints a very dark picture. In Romans
3:10-12 he writes; "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no
one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have
together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one."
Paul is clear, here, though many of us do not like what he says.
First,
he points out that there are none righteous, that is, none without the guilt of
sin. And for the sake of emphasis, he repeats the phrase, "no, not even
one."
Next
he states that because of sin, there is no one who understands, for as he says
elsewhere, sin has darkened our understanding, made our thinking futile, and
hardened our hearts to the things of God (Ephesians 4:18 ff).
Third,
the result of these blinding effects of sin is that there is no one who seeks
God. Even though these words make many of us choke, they are simply
un-American, nevertheless, Paul is utterly clear, because of sin, "no one
seeks God." Tough words, but we cannot evade them simply because we do not
like them.
And
if we do not believe the testimony of Paul, Jesus says exactly the same thing.
Speaking to the crowds that followed him after he feed the five thousand and
because they saw the miracles and wanted their stomachs filled (John 6:44),
Jesus declared, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws
him, and I will raise him up at the last day." In other words, you cannot
come to God unless you are drawn, the term translated here as "to
draw" is also translated "to drag" elsewhere in the NT, as for
example, when Paul is dragged out of the temple against his will in Acts 21:30.
And then again in that same discourse in John 6, as if he was not clear enough
the first time he said it , Jesus went on to say in verse 65, "This is why
I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."
Thus unless we are enabled to come to Father, we cannot and indeed will not
turn to God and embrace Jesus Christ. For we are sinful, we do not seek God, we
do not understand God, we do not obey God's law, and indeed says Paul, we
cannot. Our hearts are sinful, there are none righteous, not even one, and we
sin freely and willingly because we want to.
Thus
when all is said and done, what this means is that if God does not do something
to rescue us from our predicament, we will perish in our sins. And this is what
we mean when we say we are saved by grace alone, because there is certainly
nothing in us worth saving and there is nothing that creatures in such a
predicament can do to save themselves. Our salvation depends upon God's
graciousness and not upon our goodness.
So it
is against this backdrop the biblical description of sin and its effects that
we now turn our focus to grace alone.
3)
What the Scriptures say about Sola Gratia:
Simply
stated, if the Scriptures are clear that men and women are sinful by nature and
cannot do anything to save themselves or even prepare themselves to be saved,
the Scriptures are equally clear that it is God who saves by grace alone
through faith alone on account of Christ alone. This means that it is God who
acts first, upon the sinner, while the sinner is dead in sin. For as we have
seen, the sinner is enslaved to the sinful nature and its passions, and will
not come to God, as Paul declares. But the good news is that while sinners do
not seek God, God seeks sinners. And this is what we mean by the phrase, grace
alone.
The
Bible approaches the idea of grace alone from a number of ways and there are
three passages that we need to consider in some detail, John 3, John 11, and
Ephesians 2.
Many
Evangelicals identify themselves as "born again" Christians. And
indeed, as our Lord expressly states in John 3:3-7, "unless one is born
again," they cannot see, much less enter into the kingdom of God."
What then, does it mean to be "born again?" Historic Protestants,
both the Lutherans and Reformed, have not placed the notion of being "born
again" at the center of the Christian faith in the way in which many of
our Evangelical contemporaries do. The reason for this is not because Lutheran
and Reformed Christians reject the idea of being "born again."
Instead, they equate John's teaching on being born again with the larger Biblical
category of "regeneration." That is, being "born again," is
a synonym for being "regenerate," or "being made alive,"
and therefore, while an essential aspect of the Christian life, it is
approached from the perspective that regeneration is something God does, not
man.
Another
reason historic Protestants have not stressed being "born again," is
because regeneration is an act of God upon the sinner, whereas the New
Testament, on the other hand, stresses that the Gospel is something that God
has done for us in Christ outside of ourselves, and that the Gospel alone - the
message that Christ died and rose again for sinners (1 Corinthians 15:1-8) - is
the power of God unto salvation. It is through preaching the Gospel, the
sacrificial death of Jesus Christ for sinners, that God gives the new birth, or
causes one to be "born again," to use John's phrase. The new birth,
it is important to note, does not come through preaching the new birth, it
comes through the preaching of Christ crucified!
If
being "born again" or "regenerated" is an essential aspect
of the Christian faith, what exactly do we mean by the term? The noted Reformed
theologian Louis Berkhof, defines regeneration as "a work in which man is
purely passive, and in which there is no place for human co-operation....The
creative work of God produces new life, in virtue of which man, made alive with
Christ, shares the resurrection life, and can be called a new creature."
Indeed, no one will ever see heaven if they are not regenerate or "born
again."
It is
also vital to notice that Jesus' words here are not to be taken as a command in
which we are to do what it takes to "be born again." In John 3, Jesus
is not telling us to do anything! Instead, he is telling us about our condition
- telling us that something must happen to us first, if we are to see and then
enter the kingdom of God. Thus, "Unless you are born again, you cannot
enter into the Kingdom of God." Later in the same gospel, our Lord tells
us that "we must cross over from death to life" (John 5:24), and that
no one can even come to Him unless the Father not only draw them (6:44), but
also enables them to come to Him (6:65). In fact, in John 3:3-8, notice that
Jesus makes it very clear that "flesh gives birth to flesh, but Spirit
gives birth to spirit." The Spirit is like the wind, it blows wherever it
wills. When we look back at John chapter one, we find the very similar
statement that "we are born not of natural descent, nor of a human
decision or a husband's will, but [we are] born of God (John 1:13)." We
often quote the first part of the verse, "to all who received him, to
those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of
God," and we then interpret this to mean, that unless we first choose God
we cannot be saved. But the very next clause tells us just the opposite,
namely, "we are born not of natural descent, nor of a human decision or a
husband's will, but [we are] born of God."
Therefore,
it is vital to notice that throughout the Scriptural data, especially here in
John 3, God the Holy Spirit is the agent of regeneration, the one who gives the
new birth, and not a human "decision" to accept Jesus as savior, or
to invite him into our hearts. As most commentators point out, the word
translated here as "born again," (anothen) is a word that can either
mean "from above" or "second time." Nicodemus very likely
understood it to have the latter meaning since he very pointedly asks Jesus,
"how can I go back into the womb to be born all over again."
Second,
it is also important to notice that Jesus connects being "born again"
to being born of "water and the Spirit." What on earth does Jesus
mean by this? The Christian family has generally answered this question in one
of three ways. Some such as Luther and most of the church fathers, have
understood this to refer to Christian baptism; the water spoken of here is the
water of baptism. A second group of commentators have argued that water is a
reference to the baptism of John the Baptist. This connection perhaps can be
found in chapter 2, verse 6 and can be strengthened by looking further in
chapter three, where water is connected with purification (v. 25). A third view
equates water with natural birth or procreation. There is some evidence that
Rabbinic writers did indeed connect water with natural birth and male semen. If
water is seen in this manner, the idea is conveyed that just as Nicodemus was
born the first time (of natural descent - water), he must also be born again a
second time by the Holy Spirit. This is the way most modern Evangelical and
Reformed commentators interpret the passage. This would also pick up on the
notion that two births are in view. In the first birth "flesh gives birth
to flesh," and in the second birth (the birth about which Jesus is
informing Nicodemus), the Spirit gives birth to spirit, and we are "born
again."
But
no matter how we decide upon this matter, there is one thing that is certainly
precluded by John 3, and that is the idea that being "born again," is
something that results from an act on our part. If Jesus is clear about
anything, it is that God is the active party while we remain passive, and are
acted upon by God. In the new birth, God is the active party as men and women,
who are dead in sins and transgressions, cannot be seen to resurrect themselves.
Both the Lutheran and Reformed traditions carefully following the Scriptures,
connect regeneration to the proclamation of the Word of God, specifically the
Law and the Gospel, and not to the powers of the fallen human will. Therefore,
if we wish to see God call the dead to life and give the gift of new birth, we
preach Christ crucified, for it is through this message that God gives the gift
of the new birth and calls people to faith in his Son.
Thus
any view of being "born again," which defines regeneration either as
a work of man, or resulting from a work of man, is therefore, seriously
deficient, and denies that we are saved by grace alone.
Another
one of the passages we need to briefly consider is found in John 11, when our
Lord raises his friend Lazarus from the dead. In this account John details for
us the utterly amazing story of how our Lord brought back to life a man who had
been dead for some four days. The raising of Lazarus is important for several
reasons, one of which being it clearly demonstrates the idea of sola gratia.
The miracle of raising the dead demonstrates perhaps more clearly than anything
else, Jesus' power over death and the grave. For only God in human flesh can
call forth life where there is death. As Jesus himself declares to Martha,
"I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even
though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die (v.
25)." This power to give life takes two forms. In John 5:24-25, Jesus says
"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me
has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to
life. I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead
will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live." This
means that in a sense, there are two resurrections for the one who trusts in
Christ for salvation. The first resurrection - a "spiritual"
resurrection - occurs so that one can believe in Christ, for our Lord himself
states that whoever believes in him has already crossed over from death to
life. That is, as we have seen in our treatment of John 3, through the
sovereign power of God, we are "born again" or regenerated by the
Holy Spirit, through the Word of God. When we are given the new birth, in
effect, at that very moment, we cross over from death to life. The second
resurrection, of course, occurs at the end of the age when Jesus Christ returns
in judgement and to raise the dead at the end of the age. This is the bodily
resurrection.
But
the most important thing to note about the account of the raising of Lazarus,
is that Lazarus was dead! He was not merely sick, or a tad under the weather,
nor was he doing anything to co-operate with the grace of God, when Jesus
called him forth from the grave. In fact, his only contribution to his
salvation was the fact that he was dead! Lazarus was not inside the tomb taking
the bandages off, unwrapping himself, so that Jesus would do his part if
Lazarus did his! Our Lord did not go to the tomb and leave a medicine outside
that would help Lazarus to raise himself, if only he Lazarus would reach out
and take the medicine. Jesus did not stand outside and "woo" Lazarus
to come forth! Lazarus could do nothing to raise himself, apart from the sovereign
voice of God calling him forth from the tomb and giving life to him in the
process. And this exactly what the Scripture says of us, we are dead in sins
and transgressions, and just like Lazarus, we too must be called to life by God
through the word of Jesus or else we remain dead in our sins. And this is the
meaning of grace alone God calling us to life when we are reeking in death,
and calling us not because of anything he sees in us.
Another
very important text in this regard is found in the first 10 verses of the
second chapter of Paul's letter to the Ephesians. Listen very carefully to what
Paul says: "As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in
which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the
ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are
disobedient." Like Jesus, Paul is crystal clear that we are "dead in
transgressions and sins." There is no way for optimistic Americans to
circumvent the thrust of Paul's argument here. And so in verse 3, Paul can
describe how it is, that being dead in sin, leads to a life characterized by
sinful actions. "All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying
the cravings of our sinful nature [our flesh] and following its desires and
thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath." Thus because
we are born sinful, dead in trespasses and in sins, we live our lives trying to
gratify the cravings of our flesh to which we are enslaved. As Paul says, we
are by nature children of wrath, and therefore, rightfully subject to God's
righteous judgement. This is very clear: we are dead in sins and
transgressions, enslaved to our sinful passions and desires, and by nature children
of wrath. If left to ourselves, we are headed for hell and eternal judgement,
and we can do nothing to change things.
It is
here, then, with this picture of human sinfulness in his mind that Paul
abruptly changes subjects, and gives us one of the clearest presentations of
sola gratia, found anywhere in Scripture. Thus we read in verse 4, "But
because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with
Christ even when we were dead in transgressions it is by grace you have been
saved." It is vital to note that Paul says that it is when we are dead in
sins and transgressions that God made us alive with Christ. As Jesus called
Lazarus forth from the tomb, a man who had been dead for four days and who was
totally incapable of doing anything to co-operate and save himself, so too, God
makes us alive with Christ when we were dead in sin. And this is what we mean
when we speak of "grace alone." It is because of God's mercy and His
love for helpless sinners, that folk who are sinful by nature and by choice,
are now believers in Jesus Christ! It is God's choice of us in Jesus Christ
that saves, not our choice of Christ! For the Scriptures declare that it t is
God who acts upon us in his love and mercy when we are dead in sin. How on earth,
do dead men and women make themselves alive? Can they co-operate with God's
grace? How do dead men and women do their part so that God can supposedly do
his? This is sheer nonsense. It is because God calls us forth from death
through his word, and only because God calls us forth that we embrace Jesus
Christ through faith in the first place. This is why we speak of grace alone.
Paul
goes on make this point with even greater clarity in the balance of the
chapter. "And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the
heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show
the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ
Jesus." Because God has made us alive, we are now seen as raised and
seated with Christ in heaven, because as Paul will say in Romans 11:29,
"God's gifts and calling are irrevocable." God doesn't start
something and loose interest and quit. He is faithful even when we are not.
Thus
Paul can conclude in verses 8 and ff., "For it is by grace you have been
saved, through faith and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not
by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in
Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."
Though this is one of the most oft-quoted passages in the New Testament, I'm
not sure if we ever stop to fully consider what it is, exactly, that Paul is
saying here. The context of Ephesians 2:8 is the condition of being dead in
sins and transgressions, and our enslavement to the sinful nature in verses
1-5. And so it is clear, I think, that when pointing out that "God makes
us alive with Christ, even when we were dead in sin," Paul's explanation
is sola gratia that is, "it is by grace you have been saved." That
God raised us in Christ when we were dead in sin, is to be saved by grace. We
must be clear about this, or we will miss what Paul is saying. I have heard far
too many people say to me over the years, "Oh yes, I believe we are saved
by grace alone," and approvingly quote this verse, and then they turn
right around and argue that unless we do something first, unless we decide,
unless we choose, unless we accept Jesus Christ as our personal Savior, grace
is useless. It is crystal clear that this is not what Paul is saying, and to
argue that grace is of no avail to us, unless we do something first, is to deny
sola gratia altogether!
If
you are not convinced, consider the rest of the passage. "For it is by
grace you have been saved though faith -- and this is not from yourselves, it
is the gift of God, not by works so that no one can boast." Whether or not
the faith mentioned here by Paul is the gift spoken of or not, it doesn't
matter. First, we are not saved by faith, we are saved by grace through faith.
We are not saved because we believe, but it is through faith in Christ (sola
fide) that God saves --- from our being made alive in Christ, to our exercising
faith, to being saved from God's wrath, and our being raised in Christ and even
now, our being seated in the heavenlies with him --- it is all God's doing, not
ours. The fact is, Paul says that we are saved by grace alone, through faith
alone, on account of Christ alone and the whole thing, from beginning to end,
is a gift. We'll talk about how faith relates to this in our second hour, but
if you think that grace depends upon faith, and not the other way around, you
misread and misunderstand Paul at this point. This becomes clear in Romans 10,
as Paul says there that "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word
of Christ." That is, faith arises in connection with the preaching of the
gospel. As Jesus spoke forth the word of God and raised Lazarus from the dead,
the same thing happens to us through the preaching and sharing of the gospel today.
For it is through the word of the Gospel, and only through the Word of the
Gospel, that God calls us forth from the dead -- or to use Paul's language
here, "God made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in sin, for
you have been saved by grace." And this beloved, is precisely what we mean
when we speak of grace alone. God makes us alive, when we are dead in sin. This
is what it means to be saved by grace alone.
4)
Why is it, then, that American evangelicals have so many problems with this
biblical teaching?
There
is no teaching in Christian theology that offends our contemporaries
(especially our Christian friends and family), any more then the teaching of
sola gratia. Americans hate to be told "no," that they are helpless.
Surprisingly, the greatest opposition to the biblical teaching on this point
comes not from a secular culture, but from household-name leaders in the
American Church. From contemporary figures such as Chuck Smith at Calvary
Chapel to Bill Bright and Campus Crusade, to virtually all forms of revivalism
and Pentecostalism which spring from the loins of one Charles Grandison Finney
(to whom we will return in a minute), to Alexander Campbell and the
Restorationist movement, to Joseph Smith and what later on became the cult
known as Mormonism, to William Miller and the Adventist movement, and we can go
on and on; all of these movements are based, at least in part, upon a denial of
sola gratia, in direct opposition to Reformation theology, and the biblical
teaching on this point. Americans hate to be told that God does not depend upon
them and a decision that they make. And it is here, then, that we as
Reformation Christians and historic Protestants run smack dab into our culture
and to much of American Christianity. This is why our friends and families look
at us like we have three heads when we speak of these doctrines. But this is
the historic Protestant position, and the wholesale rejection of sola gratia
demonstrates how far the "evangelical movement" has departed from the
historic and biblical Evangelical faith.
This
rejection of sola gratia is not new, in fact, it is an ancient heresy known as
Pelagianism. Named for the monk Pelagius (who lived in the fourth century) and
who was the arch-foe of St. Augustine, Pelagianism is that teaching which
emphasizes the human freedom, sees original sin not as corruption and guilt
inherited from our first father but simply the bad example introduced by into
the world by Adam. Pelagianism sees grace as simply an influence enticing us to
act upon proper information. And it is only natural that rugged, self-made,
independent, frontier Americans would naturally gravitate to a theology that
emphasized human ability and natural freedom to act. It is from Pelagius and
not Holy Scripture that we derive the idea that children are born innocent, not
sinful, and it is from Pelagius that we learn that sin is simply that which we
do, not what we are. In the words of one historian, "America is very much
in favor of this Pelagian idea that every individual can always make a new
beginning, that he is able by his individual freedom to make decisions for or
against the divine."
As
American Christians moved to the frontier away from the established communities
along the eastern seaboard, they also moved away from their Puritan and
Calvinistic assessment of human nature. If we could conquer the west, build
cities where there had been only wilderness, and if this was the fruit of our
manifest destiny and our democratic ideal, then the "terrible
honesty" of Calvinistic convictions, to use Ann Douglas' phrase, made
little sense. In this context, Americans are rugged, capable and basically good
people. And so, Pelagius became our patron saint and Charles Finney his main
spokesman.
It is
no accident that most of the Pelagianizing movements just mentioned, sprang up
on the American frontier in a region in upper state New York, known to
historians as the "burned over district," a region which produced
millennialism and Millerites, Joseph Smith and Mormonism, Alexander Campbell and
the Restoration movement, the Shakers and a host of others, all which grew up
in the Wake of Charles Finney and his new measures. From a Reformed
perspective, the "burned over district" is a kind of a theological
Bermuda Triangle.
By
the time of the Second Great Awakening in the latter years of the 17th century,
the Reformation preaching of Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield which
characterized the first great awakening of the 1730's-40's, had given way to a
man-centered, experience oriented theology. And it was Charles Finney, perhaps
more than anyone else, who ensured that the Second Great Awakening undid the
Reformation emphases of the first. Finney was born in 1792, and was a child of
both the American democratic ideal as well as the frontier spirit. After
studying law, Finney experienced a dramatic conversion in 1821, and then sought
to enter the Presbyterian ministry. It was soon all too evident that Finney was
not interested in the Westminster Standards, the basic statement of
Presbyterian doctrine, and that his preaching was more or less combination of
the New Haven theology - a radical modification of the theology of Jonathan
Edwards, and common-sense case law typical of William Blackstone. It was Finney
who invented the anxious bench (the fore-runner of the alter call), and
established the protracted revival meeting. Interestingly enough, both Jesse
Jackson and Jerry Falwell stand in Finney's shadow, as both the liberal-left
and the Christian-right trace their own activistic roots directly to Finney's
stress upon political activism and social reform. It is from Finney that we
trace prohibitionism and the temperance movement as well as abolitionism. The
danger in this stress upon Christian activism is, of course, that Christianity
in Finney's scheme, becomes activism. Reformation Christians would, on the
other hand, insist that while Christians should be abolitionists and pro-life,
abolitionism and being pro-life per se is not Christianity. Prohibitionism is,
of course, right out! It is a pernicious error bequeathed to us by the
Methodists!
One
thing I admire about Finney is that he is clear. In his Lectures on Revival
(1835) Finney "out Pelagius' Pelagius" to use Dr. Robert Godfrey's
phrase, when he states "A revival is not a miracle according to another
definition of the term "miracle" something above the powers of
nature. There is nothing in religion beyond the ordinary powers of nature....A
revival is not a miracle, nor dependent on a miracle in any sense. [A revival]
is a purely philosophical result of the right use of the constituted
means." Thus if we jiggle the lever in the right way, and simply use the
right means, we don't need the grace of God, at all. We have all the natural
ability we need. Thus a revival does not at all depend upon God, it depends
upon us, plain and simple. As the Princeton theologian B. B. Warfield remarked,
this is not theology at all. This is ethics. According to Warfield, "we
said that God might be eliminated entirely from Finney's ethical theory without
injury to it: are we not prepared to now say that [God] might be eliminated
from it with some advantage to it."
In a
later work Finney expresses his rejection of sola gratia very clearly. In his
Systematic Theology (1846) he wrote, "Regeneration consists in the sinner
changing his ultimate choice, intention, preference; or in changing from
selfishness to love and benevolence; or, in other words, in turning from the
supreme choice of self-gratification, to the supreme love of God and the equal
love of his neighbor. Of course the subject of regeneration must be an agent in
the work (p. 224)." As I said, Finney is clear and it is hard to
misunderstand him here. Man is the agent of his own regeneration. A more
blatant rejection of what the Scriptures teach about the new-birth and
regeneration is hardly imaginable. Finney's Lazarus is capable of resurrecting
himself, without God's help, thank you.
Why
Charles Finney is important to us this morning, is precisely because it is
Finney who serves to sow the Pelagian seed which germinates all over the
American landscape in subsequent years. Think of his influence on the
contemporary church for just one moment:
Finney
is the father of revivalism, characterized by the frontier revival tent meeting
and the sawdust trail. Finney's revivalist legacy is most clearly seen today in
a stadium filled with Promise Keepers.
Finney
is the father of the alter call and the "evangelistic meeting" that
takes place apart from the normal preaching and sacramental ministry of the
local church. It was the stress upon the "new measures," as Finney
called them that largely served to displace the sacramental and preaching
ministry of the church for technique-oriented evangelism.
The
entire church growth movement, which seeks to entice so-called
"seekers" to church by removing those things from the church service
which offend them (in other words, anything distinctly Christian), can be traced
back to Finney's new measures; only the new measures now come to us couched in
the language of marketing and sales, target groups and demographics.
Whether
it be Chuck Smith, Bill Bright, or Billy Graham, there is no doubt that one
branch of each of their respective intellectual family trees traces itself back
to Charles Finney, and even if another branch in that same family tree can be
traced back to Protestant forbears, these traits are now mist certainly
recessive. For Finney's family characteristics are now dominant in the American
church. And sola gratia is no longer a doctrine to be defended, it is an
offence and an embarrassment. Who needs God when man is quite capable on his
own.
5)
How are we to respond?
First,
the Bible does not approach this subject from the perspective that everyone is
entitled to a chance at heaven, as do most Americans. Now it makes for a
wonderful system of government when we see things democratically everyone has
a vote and everyone is equal before the Law, and that in order to be fair,
everyone should have an equal chance to participate in the process. We can all
exercise our vote, make a decision, and really change things. God, however, is
not democratic and he does not operate according to American democratic ideals.
The Scriptures do not begin with human freedom, as it is argued, they begin
with the fall of Adam into sin and its consequences. This means that we lost
our vote and our freedom in the Fall! And because the entire human race fell
with Adam, we are everything that the Scriptures say about us. Thus, as
Christians, we must begin where the Bible does, with the fact of human
sinfulness and with the idea clearly in our minds that no one deserves to go to
heaven, and that none of us can do anything to get there. To start with the
presupposition that unless we have free will to choose God whenever we want to,
or else Christianity (and by implication - God) would not be fair, we miss the
point. God does not owe sinners anything. And if we are thinking this way, we
have, perhaps, imbibed too deeply from our democratic culture, and we are not
approaching things, as we should, from the perspective found in the Holy
Scriptures.
Second,
the degree to which we argue that we contribute something to our salvation is
the degree to which we deny sola gratia. It was Charles Spurgeon who said,
"he that thinks lightly of sin, thinks lightly of the savior." It is
really very simple. Either God saves sinners who are dead in sin, by calling
them forth from the grave when they could contribute nothing, or else sinners
have something good within them is that not somehow tainted, corrupted,
polluted our damaged by the fall. As we have seen the Scriptures teach the
former rather than the latter. To add anything we do to grace alone, is to deny
grace alone! You cannot have it either way. As Calvin puts in the Institutes,
"Whatever mixture men study to add from the power of free-will to the
grace of God, is only a corruption of it; just as if anyone should dilute good
wine with dirty or bitter water." Since we are sinful from head to toe,
from hair to toe-nail, whatever our contribution we might add to God's grace,
only can serve to pollute, not to activate the grace of God! And so when we
look to as answers for questions like, "Why does God save this one rather
than that one?" we do well to answer as one Puritan divine put it,
"There is no reason to be given for grace, but grace." God is God and
we are sinful creatures. It is not ours to ask why.
Third,
sola gratia is the basis for our comfort and assurance as sinners before a Holy
God. Since any contribution that I am supposed to make to make my salvation
possible is necessarily tainted by sin, I will always be plagued by doubts
about what it is that I am supposed to contribute, and whether or not I
contributed it in the right way. If I think that I am saved by my decision to
accept Jesus as my Savior, how do I know if I really meant it when I asked him
into my heart? If I am saved because of my faith, what do I do when my faith is
weak, or when I am in sin or else plagued by nagging doubts? Do I need to be
saved all over again? This is not religion of faith but a religion of fear and
of pride. Since the Scriptures teach that we are saved not because of anything
that is in us, and that the merit necessary for our salvation comes to us from
the person and work of Jesus Christ, we look, not within at what we have done,
but we to our savior to see what he has done. For in Jesus Christ we see what
it means to be saved by grace.
We
look to a savior who calls the dead from the tomb when they still reek of their
sins; a savior who promises never to leave or forsake us, even when we go
astray. We look to a good shepherd who will lose none of his sheep and who
declares; "all that the Father gives to me will come to me, and I will
lose none of them, but raise them all up on the last day." We look to a
savior who died for all of our sins and who kept God's Law perfectly every
minute of his life, so that his perfect righteousness could be given to cover
our unrighteousness. We look to a savior who was crucified, but who conquered
death and the grave and who rose again who ascended into heaven, and who even
now is ruling and reigning, all the while praying for us, as our advocate and
defender. Sola gratia is most clearly seen in the fact that Jesus Christ came
to do for us they very thing that we could no do for ourselves. For he came to
seek and to save that which was lost. This beloved is sola gratia, the sinless
Son of God, dying upon a Roman cross for the sins of the world, rising from the
dead for our justification, and making us alive, through his word, when we were
still dead in our sins. Blessed be the name of the Lord.
