古老異端的五個新要點FiveNew Points of Old Heresy

作者: Burk Parsons  譯者: Maria Marta

https://tabletalkmagazine.com/article/2019/01/five-new-points-old-heresy/

每個人都有自己的信條。即使那些聲稱他們「唯一的信條是基督」的基督徒也有一條信條，因為就在他們開始解釋他們對基督的信仰的那一刻，他們實際上在背誦他們關於基督的信條。事實上，沒有信條是不可能的。因此，問題是:  我們的信條是否經過謹慎制定並記錄下來，是否合乎聖經和正統教義，並得到教會先輩們的確認?  或者我們的信條是建立在我們自己的權威和聰明的發明之上，總是按照我們讀到的最新互聯網帖文，或按照我們自己對教義的突發奇想而改變。

如果我們確實是基督徒，我們就會關心我們所相信的，因此，我們會關心信條中所認信的，因為我們所相信的是一種依據，以此判斷我們是否合乎聖經正統，是否是異教徒。歷史上的改革宗信經和信條總結並系統地闡明上帝話語對我們的教導，其最終的目的是使我們能榮耀上帝，以祂為樂，直到永遠。如果我們關心我們所相信的，我們就會關心教會歷史上的信經和信條，我們就會關心四百年前荷蘭發生的事，以及改革宗教會是如何作出回應的。

雅各布斯•阿米念（Jacobus Arminius）教授於1609年去世後，他的學生們采納了他的一些觀點，並加上許多他們自己的觀點，以抗議改革宗教會長期以來確立的教義。這些抗議者或抗辯派（Remonstrants）起草了與改革宗教會在教義上存在分歧的五點意見。他們的五要點其實並不新鮮。它們同樣是一些穿著十七世紀裝束的老伯拉糾異端。為了回應抗辯派的非正統的教義陳述，多特會議於1618-1619年在德雷赫特 (簡稱多特) 召開，目的是打擊他們的錯誤教導。會議擬定出多特信經，它與比利時信條(1561年)、海德堡要理問答(1563) 的信仰準則一致。這些文獻稱為三項聯合信條，改革教會在幾個世紀以來一直由衷地肯定這些文獻，為的是讓教會能夠繼續認識和敬拜那一位按照祂的形象創造我們的獨一真神，而非我們在我們的心中制造出來的神。

Dr. Burk Parsons (@BurkParsons) is editor of Tabletalk magazine, senior pastor of Saint Andrew’s Chapel in Sanford, Fla., and a Ligonier Ministries teaching fellow. He is cotranslator and coeditor of A Little Book on the Christian Life by John Calvin.

Five New Points of Old Heresy

by Burk Parsons

Everyone has a creed. Even those Christians who claim that their “only creed is Christ” have a creed, because the very moment they begin to explain what they believe about Christ, they are in fact reciting their creed about Christ. In truth, it’s impossible not to have a creed. So, the question is this: Is our creed carefully formulated and written down, biblically and doctrinally orthodox, and attested to by faithful forefathers of the church? Or is it based on our own authority and clever invention, always changing according to the last internet post we read or according to our own doctrinal whims?

If indeed we are Christians, we will care what we believe and, therefore, what we confess in our creed, for what we believe is the very basis of whether we are biblically orthodox or whether we’re heretics. The historic Reformed creeds and confessions summarize and systematically articulate what the Word of God teaches us, to the end that we might glorify God and enjoy Him forever. If we care about what we believe, we will care about the historic creeds and confessions of the church, and we will care about what happened in the Netherlands four hundred years ago and how the Reformed church responded.

After the death of professor Jacobus Arminius in 1609, his students took some of his thoughts and many of their own and protested the long-established doctrines of the Reformed church. These protesters, or Remonstrants, drafted five points of doctrinal disagreement with the Reformed church. Their five points were nothing new. They were some of the same old Pelagian heresies dressed in seventeenth-century garb. In response to their unorthodox doctrinal formulations, a synod was held in Dordrecht in 1618–19 to combat their false teaching. The synod produced the Canons of Dort, which are consistent with the Belgic Confession (1561) and the Heidelberg Catechism (1563). These documents are known as the Three Forms of Unity, and the Reformed church has heartily affirmed them through the centuries to the end that the church might continue to know and worship the one, true God who made us in His image, and not the god we made in ours.

亵渎神性的“教义”——阿米念普救论的错误

摘自《为了上帝的荣耀》经典传承出版，Joel R•Beeke著/陈知纲、安娜译，标题为编者所加。

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/WXHWtIU2xK0hwEs97XbC-A

阿米念派的观点已成为当今基督教会中最流行的四种观点之一，然而，我们必须对阿米念派的普救论进行以下几方面的严厉驳斥。

一、它谤渎了上帝的诸多属性，如祂的爱

阿米念主义提出了一种实际上无法拯救人的爱。这种爱虽然会泽被众人，然而一旦遭到拒绝，就会变成仇恨与忿怒。这并不是恒久忍耐、亘古不变的爱；它虽然为所有人提供了救赎，随后却又保留了可使这救恩在所有生命中产生效力的恩典之道，不把它赐给人。难道我们要相信基督虽为住在最深处的丛林和最黑暗的城市中的每个人死了，神的爱却不会为他们赐下宣教士、传道人或讲道，以使祂的死得以产生功效吗？

二、它谤渎了上帝的智慧

上帝难道会制订了一番要拯救每个人的计划，然后却不去将其付诸实施吗？难道祂如此愚拙，即便知道基督不能得着他为之付上赎价的人，还要让自己的爱子为所有人的救恩付上赎价吗？有人说，上帝没有认识到这一结果，祂足以高瞻远瞩到为人提供救赎，却没有看到有人不会接受它。这等主张岂不是谤渎上帝的智慧吗？难道上帝计划并提供救赎，却无法认识到自己的救赎不会被人接受吗？

假如我走进一家商店，买了些东西，接下来落下这些东西就走了，我会觉得自己很傻。然而，阿米念主义却要我们相信，这种情形在救恩问题上是真的——东西已经买了，也就是说救赎已经实施了，但主没有把祂所买赎的那些人带走。这显然亵渎了上帝的智慧。

 三、它谤渎了上帝的权能

阿米念派普救论要我们相信上帝能做成拯救工作中赚取救恩的那部分，然而应用救恩的那部分却依赖于人及其自由意志来完成。它同样要我们相信，上帝已经将每个人的救恩做到了一个地步，却不能再进一步为任何人完成它。这种观点暗示，上帝已经在祂和我们之间搭建起一座救恩的桥梁，而我们只要藉着出于意志的自由行动来接受神的条件，走过这座桥就万事大吉了。“上帝做了自己当做之事，”阿米念派说，“现在我们必须尽自己的本分了。”

加尔文主义者回应说，这种观点将救恩看成是依赖于人的意志，从而贬低了上帝和祂的权能。在这种情形下，我们并不是举着自已枯干了的手来到上帝面前，说：“主若愿意，就必能使我好了。”相反，这种观点乃是让上帝来到我们面前，举着一只枯干了的手，一只没有强壮到足以拯救我们任何人的手，说：“你若愿意，就必能成就这救恩，你就可以使我完全了。”就其本质而言，现代福音布道常会使用这种方法：“上帝已经成就了很多事，祂却要让你来完成这一工作。”难道这种思维方式不是在毁谤上帝全然充分自足的能力吗？它使上帝需要依靠人的意志。

 四、它谤渎了上帝的公义

基督是为每个人满足了上帝的公义吗？基督是背负了每个人当受的刑罚吗？若是如此，上帝又怎能再惩罚任何人呢？为一个人所犯的罪惩罚了另一个人，随后又再去惩罚这位罪的始作俑者，这难道公义吗？奥古斯都托普雷迪说：

“上主唯公义，安能复征捐；

一自中保手，一自我手边”。

上帝断不可能也不会要求双重赎价。双重刑罚并非公义之举。

五、它抹杀了基督的神性

一位被打败的救主不是上帝。这种谬论教导人们，基督试图救赎每个人却没有成功。它否认基督之血的功效，因为并非祂为之代死的所有人都蒙了拯救。因此，基督的鲜血在犹大和以扫身上被浪费掉了，祂的劳苦、眼泪和血都白白轻抛了。换言之，在众多祂曾为之受死的人的身上，祂并未看到自己劳苦的功效，也不会心满意足（赛53: 11）。有很多救赎计划流产了——那些祂曾为之在灵里劳苦的人，最终却没有得救。难道这等失败不是让基督变成小神了吗？难怪司布真将这种教义称为荒谬的教义。

六、它破坏了三位一体的合一

正如父母必须一同劳苦以使家庭有效运转，三一上帝的每个位格也会为着一致的意志和目标共同做工。一个位格不可能去拯救另一个位格未决定拯救的人，但阿米念主义普救论却暗示性地这样教导人。它否定了圣父主权的拣选，而既然基督也为着上帝未曾命定拯救的那些人受死，这就使得基督似乎怀着不同于父上帝的计划。这种主张对耶稣来说是可咒可诅的事，因祂宣称自己的全部救赎工作就是有意识地成就上帝所设定的计划（约6: 38 -39）。

T.J.克罗福德（TJ. Crawford）曾写道：“耶稣的救赎工作始于天父的大爱，这工作是天父乐意拯救罪人的结果，而非原因。按照这种观点来看，救主自己的表述是慎重的，神没有将所有的刻板和严厉都归于自己的父上帝，而宣称自己是温柔和怜悯的。祂特别劳苦乃是让我们确信，祂的使命就是宣告这充满爱的信息，并完成天父的旨意。”在救赎中，我们不是要从一位随时准备定我们有罪的严厉审判官上帝面前逃走，逃到圣子那里，认为祂比圣父更有恩慈。毋宁说，在救赎中，我们因为基督的缘故，得着了一条道路可以逃到圣父面前并安息在祂里面，就像孩子跑到自己父母膝前依偎在那里一样。

阿米念派的救赎观实际上同样也将基督自身割裂开来。加尔文主义者主张说，基督全部的祭司工作必须视为一个和谐的整体，祂赎罪代死的救赎和作为祭司的代求乃是并存的。认为基督为所有人死，却仅为某些人代求，这是何等自相矛盾（参照约17: 2, 4，6，9，12, 20，24）。

最后，阿米念派的救赎观否认了圣灵的救赎性工作，因为他宣称基督的宝血要比圣灵的救赎工作应用范围更为广泛。任何使圣父或圣灵的作为落在基督作为之后的表述，都与三一上帝的内在合一互相抵触。圣父与圣子原为一；圣灵与圣子原为一。基督不可能为圣父没有预定、圣灵也没有实施救赎的那些人去死；上帝不可能与自己相冲突。阿米念主义是一种不融贯的普救论。

七、它抛弃了加尔文主义所有其他的要点

阿米念派的救赎观抛弃了人全然败坏的教义，反而教导说人自身有能力接受基督。它抛弃了无条件拣选，教导说上帝基于一种可预见的信心来拣选人；它抛弃了不可抗拒的恩典，教导说人的意志比上帝的意志更强有力；它抛弃了信徒恒忍的教义，教导说人能背弃信仰。巴刻说：“若我们还未将十字架看作是福音的核心，那么我们还不清楚十字架的真意——十字架的一侧是人的全然无能和无条件的拣选，而另侧是不可抗拒的恩典与最终的保守——这一点再怎么强调也不过分。”

八、它减损了上帝的荣耀

若上帝做成了一切救赎之工，那祂就当得着一切荣耀；但若上帝只能做这么多而不是所有事，在中间架桥的人至少得着了某种荣耀。这就是人们在向普罗大众传福音的过程中如此强调自由意志的原因所在，他们既没有为这完全的救恩高举上帝的荣耀，也没有高举基督的荣耀。相反，他们告诉我们的是人有自由意志，若没有它，救恩就不可能发生效力。他们告诉我们当行使自己的自由意志，却没有告诉我们这种意志因着我们自身败坏的本质已经受到捆绑。我们靠着自已绝不能拣选上帝和救恩；我们无法搭建这桥梁，是上帝建成了这座桥梁，正如《哥林多前书》1 章18 节至31 节中告诉我们的那样：“使一切有血气的，在上帝面前一个也不能自夸”。普遍救赎高举人的意志，却贬低了上帝的荣耀。

九、它摧毁了人的感恩与确信

我为何要为自己做成的事来感谢上帝呢？若主耶稣为我所做的，并不比为犹大和所多玛的居民所做的更多，那我为什么要感谢神，而不是自己呢？倘若基督为之而死的某些人今天堕人了地狱，那我又何以能确信祂为我成就的救恩呢？

十、它颠倒了福音

今天，我们不断从福音派的信息中听到：“基督为你死了。你要为基督做什么？”但是，我们有没有发现圣经中曾有人被告知说“基督为你死了”呢？与之相反，我们看到的是对基督作为的解释，紧接着是对每个人的呼召：“你当悔改、信福音。”福音信息并不是“当信基督为你死”或“当信你是一位选民”；福音是“当信主耶稣基督，你就必得救”。

 十一、它贬低了救赎本身固有的有效性

阿米念派教导人们，基督的作为使圣父充满恩慈地接受了耶稣成就的一切，并以此代替他对自己公义的完全满足。这听起来就像耶稣说服了自己的圣父接受某种次于公义所要求的事物。因此，阿米念派宣称，当上帝拯救罪人时，他就从公义的宝座下来，坐上了恩典的宝座。但是，上帝并无两个宝座：他公义的宝座正是他恩典的宝座（诗85: 10）。阿米念派忘了，救赎不是赢得上帝的爱，而是上帝赐下祂的爱；在这份赐予中，基督付上了公义的赎价。他不是为所欠的债付上了预付款，而是付上了罪的全部工价，好叫作为审判者的圣父能公正地取消这债务（来10: 14-18）。

因此，阿米念主义最终只是一种不融贯的普救论，正如约翰欧文在《阿米念主义的表现》（A Display of Arminianism）一书中所有力表明的那样。欧文对阿米念派在上帝救赎计划问题上的错谬作了如下解释：

"上帝发出自己当有的烈怒，基督承受地狱之苦：

（1）要么是为所有人所有的罪；

（2）要么是为某些人所有的罪；

（3）要么是为所有人的某些罪。

若是最后一种情形，即所有人的某些罪，就会让所有人为其他的罪负责，因此必不会有哪个人能得救。若是第二种情形，那就是我们所肯定的立场，即基督为世上所有选民所有的罪，代替他们受苦。若是第一种情形，那为何并非所有人都从自己罪的刑罚中得了释放了呢？诸位会说：“因为他们不信，他们不会信。”但是，这种不信是不是罪呢？假若不是罪，为何他们要因此承受刑罚呢？假若是罪，那基督要么是为此承受了刑罚，要么就是没有为此承受刑罚。假若基督确实为此承受了刑罚，那为何他们这罪比基督为之而死的其他罪对他们的拦阻更甚，使他们无法享受到基督代死的功效呢？假若基督并没有为此承受刑罚，那祂就必不是为他们所有的罪而受死了"。

阿民念主義、加爾文主義和極端加爾文主義的區別What'sthe Difference Between Arminianism, Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism?

作者：Tom Ascol 譯者:  Duncan Liang

https://founders.org/2016/05/10/whats-the-difference-between-arminianism-calvinism-and-hyper-calvinism/

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1592310987747973&id=1524929341152805

據說已故的鐘馬田曾說過，“無知的阿民念主義者不明白加爾文主義和極端加爾文主義之間的區別。”按照人經常把這兩者混淆的頻率，我認為這種無知並不局限於我們相信阿民念主義的朋友。雖然可以論述更多，但以下的概括已經表明了阿民念主義、加爾文主義和極端加爾文主義之間的基本區別。

The late Martyn Lloyd-Jones was reported to have said that “the ignorant Arminian doesn’t know the difference between Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism.” Based on the frequency with which the two are often confused I would suggest that the ignorance is not limited to our Arminian friends. While much more could be said, the following summary reveals the basic differences between Arminianism, Calvinism, and hyper-Calvinism.

在一種意義上，極端加爾文主義和阿民念主義一樣，是對真加爾文主義的理性主義歪曲。阿民念主義削弱神的主權，而極端加爾文主義削弱人的責任。具有諷刺意味的是，阿民念主義和極端加爾文主義都始於同樣的、錯誤的理性主義預設前提，就是人的能力和責任具有相同的外延。這就是說，它們必須完全吻合，否則就不合理。如果一個人要為某件事負責，他就必然有做這件事的能力。另一方面，如果人沒有做這件事的能力，他就沒有義務要如此行。

The Similarity of Arminianism and hyper-Calvinism

In one sense, hyper-Calvinism, like Arminianism, is a rationalistic perversion of true Calvinism. Whereas Arminianism undermines divine sovereignty, hyper-Calvinism undermines human responsibility. The irony is that both Arminianism and hyper-Calvinism start from the same, erroneous rationalistic presupposition, namely that human ability and responsibility are coextensive. That is, they must match up exactly or else it is irrational. If a man is to be held responsible for something, then he must have the ability to do it. On the other hand, if a man does not have the ability to perform it, he cannot be obligated to do it.

阿民念主義者看這前提說：“同意！我們知道聖經要所有人為悔改和相信負責（這是對的），所以我們必然要得出結論，就是所有人在自己裡面都有悔改和相信的能力（按聖經這是錯的）。”就這樣，阿民念主義者教導說，未歸正的人在他們自己身上有悔改和相信的屬靈能力，雖然這種能力必須要有恩典幫助才行。

Arminian Rationalism

The Arminian looks at this premise and says, “Agreed! We know that the Bible holds all people responsible to repent and believe [which is true]. Therefore we must conclude that all men have the ability in themselves to repent and believe [which is false, according to the Bible].” Thus, Arminians teach that unconverted people have within themselves the spiritual ability to repent and believe, albeit such ability must be aided by grace.

極端加爾文主義者接受同樣的前提（就是人的能力和責任有同樣的外延），說道：“同意！我們知道聖經教導說，人在自己、靠自己並沒有悔改和相信的屬靈能力（這是對的），所以我們必然要得出結論，未歸正的人沒有悔改和相信福音的義務（按聖經這是錯的）。”

Hyper-Calvinist Rationalism

The hyper-Calvinist takes the same premise (that man’s ability and responsibility are coextensive) and says, “Agreed! We know that the Bible teaches that in and of themselves all men are without spiritual ability to repent and believe [which is true]. Therefore we must conclude that unconverted people are not under obligation to repent and believe the gospel [which is false, according to the Bible].”

與這兩種人形成對比的是，加爾文主義者看這前提說：“錯了！它看似合理，卻不符合聖經。聖經既教導人沒有屬靈的能力，也教導人有義務悔改和相信。只有靠著聖靈大能、使人重生的作為，人才得著能力盡他的本分悔改相信。”雖然在理性主義者眼中這可能看似不合理，當中卻沒有矛盾，並且這正是聖經教導的立場。加爾文主義的觀點可能看似不講理性，但實際上是超越理性——這種觀點是神的啟示。

Biblical Calvinism

In contrast to both of these, the Calvinist looks at the premise and says, “Wrong! While it looks reasonable, it is not biblical. The Bible teaches both that fallen man is without spiritual ability and that he is obligated to repent and believe. Only by the powerful, regenerating work of the Holy Spirit is man given the ability to fulfill his duty to repent and believe.” And though this may seem unreasonable to rationalistic minds, there is no contradiction, and it is precisely the position the Bible teaches. The Calvinist view may appear irrational but in reality is supra-rational—it is revealed.

阿民念主义者缺少安全感TheArminian Sense Of Insecurity

摘自《基督教預定論》The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination,  伯特納Loraine Boettner著/趙中輝譯，222-223頁, 台北基督教改革宗出版社

https://plus.google.com/u/3/105106813742373627205/posts/KAspQfPXMiT

一个人如果完全信从阿民念主义，恪遵「人有自由意志」与「人可能从恩典中堕落」的教义，那么在他还活在地上的年日里，他是不能确信自己是否永远得救的。他当然可以有把握现在得救，但是将来呢？他只能盼望自己永远得救。他可以揣测他自己可能永远得救，但是他不能确定。他看见有人信主起头很好，后来跌倒灭亡了。他有什么理由断定这样的事不会临到自己呢？只要人还在世上，就有残余的罪性紧随我们，又加上最诱人的世界享乐，以及魔鬼最狡猾的试探环绕身旁，还在许多所谓的基督教会中听新派牧师的教导，其实这些教导根本不合基督教信仰。如果阿民念主义正确，那么基督徒仍然很危险，因为他们只是受造物，意志软弱而不完全，而他们永恒的命运却必须由他们这样的意志决定。我们凭自己的意志能持续择选正途的机率有多大，你我心知肚明。再者，阿民念主义在逻辑上应该主张「人即使进了天国，仍然无法保证可以一直圣洁」；因为即使到了天国，人还是保有他的自由意志，也随时有犯罪的可能。

　　阿民念主义好比有一个人承继了一笔十万圆的遗产，他知道还有许多人也承受了这笔遗产，但是由于判断力不足、被人欺诈、遭遇灾祸等各种因素而失去。但是他自信满满，以为靠自己的力量能够明智地处理这笔财产，一点不疑惑。别人都失败了，但是他有把握必能成功。只是如果把这个比喻用到灵界的事上，那可就真是自欺欺人了！一个人如果对自己稍有认识，知道自己何等倾向罪恶，居然还要把自己得救的确据建立在这么脆弱的基础上，那就太可悲了！不以全能神永远的膀臂为他永蒙保守的原因，而以为罪人软弱的意志可以使自己坚忍到底，这就是阿民念主义。

从逻辑来看，阿民念主义者应该说：「基督徒最聪明的办法，不就是趁早离开世界吗？」，「这样不就可以确保那无价的遗产了吗？」。他已经看见许多人堕落了，那么他为了多活几年地上的生命，享受那至暂至轻的今世福乐，却冒着他丧失永远救恩的危险，这样值得吗？如果有人做生意为了多赚几块钱，而把他全部财产放在一个公认不被看好的投资事业上，那么恐怕这个人脑筋有问题。说实话，这至少有点暗示「神没有把他们在还作真基督徒的时候就把他们提到天上去，是有点考虑不周」的味道。至少笔者认为，如果有人是阿民念主义者，又知道自己是已经得救的基督徒，就会想要赶快离开世界，好保证他自己可以得救，万无一失。

在属灵的事上，心存怀疑总是令人苦恼。真基督徒永远不能与神的爱隔绝，这样的信念能带给信徒极大的安慰。否认这个教义，就是毁坏圣徒在地上喜乐的根基。试想，一个人如果相信随时有可能被别人欺侮，或者自己随时有可能堕落，那么他还能有什么喜乐呢？如果我们的安全感只建筑在我们摇摆善变的性情上，我们就永远不能知道「基督徒内心平安而稳妥」是怎么回事，而这正是基督徒的特质。马飞治(McFetridge)在他所写《历史中的加尔文主义》(Calvinism in History)这本小册中说：「我很能体会一个敏锐的心灵如果对救恩不确定，那样的黑暗会带来怎样的恐惧。同样，如果一个人虽然成为基督徒已经很久，也经历许多少熬炼，却仍然一直觉得有可能从恩典中堕落，这样的恐惧实在不好受，而这就是阿民念主义的教导。对我而言，阿民念主义带出的这种恐惧，足以使我永远不要碰它，又会使我一直充满说不出的困惑。我会觉得我好象要越过危险的人生海洋，而我是否安全，到头来却是由我自己叛逆的本性来决定！这足以使我满心惊恐，而且这样的惊恐将永无止息。如果可能，我要确定这只船是否能在海上行驶，因为我把我的生命交托给这只船了。我也要知道我上了船以后，是否就会平安到达目的地。」(注一)

其实我们能得救，不是靠我们对神软弱易变的爱，而是在于神对我们永恒不变的爱。除非我们对这个奇妙的真理有正确的体认，否则我们基督徒的生活就不可能平安稳妥；而只有加尔文主义者因为知道自己在神手中绝对安全，才能感受到这种内在的平安与稳妥，因为知道在神永远的旨意中，他已被拣选、得洁净、得荣耀了，没有任何事可以阻碍神的旨意。他知道自己是被一股属灵的能力带到称义的地位，这能力好象地心引力，取之不尽，历久不变，又好象阳光与维他命，供应我们灵命成长一切的需要。

ARMINIAN SENSE OF INSECURITY

A consistent Arminian, with his doctrines of free will and of falling from grace, can never in this life be certain of his eternal salvation. He may, indeed, have the assurance of his present salvation, but he can have only a hope of his final salvation. He may regard his final salvation as highly probable, but he cannot know it as a certainty. He has seen many of his fellow Christians backslide and perish after making a good start. Why may not he do the same thing? So long as men remain in this world they have the remnants of the old sinful nature clinging to them; they are surrounded by the most alluring and deceptive pleasures of the world and the most subtle temptations of the Devil. In many of the supposedly Christian churches they hear the false teaching of modernistic, and therefore unchristian, ministers. If Arminianism were true, Christians would still be in very dangerous positions, with their eternal destiny suspended upon the probability that their weak, creaturely wills would continue to choose right. Furthermore, Arminianism would logically hold that no confirmation in holiness is possible, not even in heaven; for even there the person would still retain his free will and might commit sin any time he chose.

By comparison the Arminian is like the person who has inherited a fortune of, say, $100,000. He knows that many others who have inherited such fortunes have lost them through poor judgment, fraud, calamity, etc., but he has enough confidence in his own ability to handle money wisely that he does not doubt but that he will keep his. His assurance is based largely on self-confidence. Others have failed, but he is confident that he will not fail. But what a delusion is this when applied to the spiritual realm! What a pity that any one who is at all acquainted with his own tendency to sin should base his assurance of salvation upon such grounds! His system places the cause of his perseverance, not in the hands of an all-powerful, never-changing God, but in the hands of weak sinful man.

And does not the logic of the Arminian system tell us that the wise thing for the Christian to do is to die as soon as possible and thus confirm the inheritance which to him is of infinite value? In view of the fact that so many have fallen away, is it worth while for him to remain here and risk his eternal salvation for the sake of a little more life in this world? What would be thought of a business man who, in order to gain a few more dollars, would risk his entire fortune in some admittedly questionable venture? In fact, does it not at least suggest that the Lord has made many mistakes in not removing these people while they were true Christians? The writer, at least, is convinced that if he held the Arminian view and knew himself to be a saved Christian he would want to die as soon as possible and thus place his salvation beyond all possible doubt.

In regard to spiritual matters, a state of doubt is a state of misery. The assurance that Christians can never be separated from the love of God is one of the greatest comforts of the Christian life. To deny this doctrine is to destroy the grounds for any rejoicing among the saints on earth; for what kind of rejoicing can those have who believe that they may at any time be deceived and led astray? If our sense of security is based only on our changeable and wavering natures, we can never know the inward calm and peace which, should characterize the Christian. Says McFetridge, in his very illuminating little book, Calvinism In History, “I can well conceive of the terror to a sensitive soul of dark uncertainty as to salvation, and of that ever-abiding consciousness of the awful possibility of falling away from grace after a long and painful Christian life, which is taught by Arminianism. To me such a doctrine has terrors which would cause me to shrink away from it for ever, and which would fill me with constant and unspeakable perplexities. To feel that I were crossing the troubled and dangerous sea of life dependent for my final security upon the actings of my own treacherous nature were enough to fill me with a perpetual alarm. If it is possible, I want to know that the vessel to which I commit my life is seaworthy, and that, having once embarked, I shall arrive in safety at my destination.” (P. 112.)

It is not until we duly appreciate this wonderful truth, that our salvation is not suspended on our weak and wavering love to God, but rather upon His eternal and unchangeable love to us, that we can have peace and certainty in the Christian life. And only the Calvinist, who knows himself to be absolutely safe in the hands of God, can have that inward sense of peace and security, knowing that in the eternal counsels of God he has been chosen to be cleansed and glorified and that nothing can thwart that purpose. He knows himself to be held to righteousness by a spiritual power which is as exhaustless and unvarying as the force of gravitation, and as necessary to the development of the spirit as sunshine and vitamins are to the body.

属血气的人不会向你透露这类信息& 约翰福音三章16节Fleshand Blood Has Not Revealed this to You & John 3:16

作者: John_Hendryx   翻译:  Maria Marta 

http://www.monergism.com/blog/flesh-and-blood-has-not-revealed-you-john-316

https://plus.google.com/u/0/106695469993489516884/posts/g22hhDHGQxR

上帝的诫命从不赐予我们能力,  而是拆除我们信靠自己的能力, 好叫我们自己能够走到终点。非常清楚，保罗教导这是上帝律法的目的（罗三20, 五20，加三19,24）。带有可扩充的, 有前提条件的声明的诫命或邀请,  例如约翰福音三章16节中的「叫一切信他的」，并不含有实现之能力的意思。在约一13，罗九16，约六37，44，63-65，罗三11; 太十六-廿六 ，林前二14这些经文的亮光下显得特别真实,   有更多的经文表明,  人在堕落的状态下无能力归信或相信福音。我们未重生的天然本性不需要上帝，而是爱黑暗「并不来就光」（约三19，20）。

如果从未发现，人在天然本性上愿意在信心中顺服基督福音那使人降卑的条件,  那麽福音怎麽会是好消息？（罗三11; 约六64,65; 帖后三2） 因为在耶稣基督裡，上帝把祂对我们的要求白白地赐给我们。在福音中，上帝对我们启示了义和信心，祂对我们的要求正是相同的义和信心。我们必须要拥有的，但不能创造或实现或完成的，上帝白白地赐给我们，也就是说，上帝白白地赐给我们祂自己的义（林后五21）和与基督联合的活信心。上帝启示:   与基督耶稣裡的恩赐一样,  义和信心是唯一一次的要求。信心不是罪人获得救恩代价的原因之一。耶稣已经为我们所有人付出代价。可以这麽说,  信心是我们新生命的第一道呼吸气息。上帝恩典工作的见证已经在我们裡面发生（弗二5，八2  ;提后二25; 约一5:1，约六63）。

注意罗马书三章11至12节说：「没有寻求神的，连一个也没有。」和哥林多前书二章14节说：「然而，属血气的人不领会神圣灵的事，反倒以为愚拙，并且不能知道；因为这些事惟有属灵的人才能看透。」 即使彼得也需要父上帝的启示: 耶稣是基督（太十六17）。我们与阿民念者都确信「叫一切信他的」得永生... ... 但这问题可以可追溯至更久远... ...什麽原因导致人相信？

对此,  司布真在《证道集-人之无能》中非常清晰地解释：

「阿民念说，『哦！如果他们愿意,  人就可得拯救。』我们回答：『我亲爱的先生，我们都相信这点。』 但问题正是出在『如果他们愿意』这句话上。我们断言若人不是被吸引，没有人可以到基督这里来。 不，不是我们这样断言，是基督祂自己宣告的: 『你们不肯到我这里来得生命』。只要『你们不会来』这句话还保留在圣经裡，任何人有自由意志的教条就都是不能使人信服的。当谈论自由意志时，他们在谈论根本不明白的事情，这是多麽的奇怪阿。

有人说，『我相信如果人愿意，他们就可以得救。』我亲爱的先生，这根本不是问题。 问题在于，有人是按本性愿意顺服基督福音那使人降卑的条件吗？我们照着圣经的权威宣告，人的意志是如此拼命要行恶，如此败坏，倾向任何罪恶之事——对任何良善之事如此抗拒——若没有圣灵大能，超自然和不可抗拒的影响，没有人会被约束归向基督。你回答说人有时候没有圣灵的帮助也是愿意的。我回答说——你从来遇见过这样的人没有？⋯⋯」

我认为这就是耶稣在约翰福音第三章整章强调重生的原因了。尼哥底母不明白耶稣的说话：「从肉身生的就是肉身；从灵生的就是灵。」 正如我们第一次从肉身生是被动的，我们从灵生也一样是被动的。我们不主动配合参与这两次生命的「出生」。在这段经文中, 圣灵被比拟为风, 我们不知道祂从哪裡来，往哪裡去；凡从圣灵生的，也是如此。 (约三8) 

换句话说，圣灵的工作是主权性的，超自然的。就如你在一个盲人眼前点亮一道光,  向他命令你所有的需要，盲人仍在黑暗中什麽也看不见。盲人不是需要光，而是一双全新的眼睛。新生命也是这样。重生之前,  撒旦俘虏我们,  使我们按照牠的意志行事。牠弄瞎我们的眼睛, 使我们看不见真理。我们必须脱离自己的基本慾望和被俘虏的意志的困绑,  这只能由上帝的手藉着基督所作成的工来完成。

在约翰福音三章19至20节中------与三章16节同样的脉络,  耶稣修饰祂「叫一切信他的」的声明：「这是审判：光来到世间，世人因自己的行为是恶的，不爱光，倒爱黑暗，定他们的罪就是在此。」（这是我们所有人重生之前的光景）。

但我们都知道, 有些人来接近光,  阅读约翰福音三章20至21节中关于这些人的描述「…但行真理的必来就光，要显明他所行的是靠神而行。」 因此，确实也有一些人来接近光;  这些人的行为是上帝作工的结果。 「靠神而行」是指在主裡由主而作。撇开上帝这种恩慈的重生工作，所有人都会憎恨上帝的光，不会来接近光。

与依靠单独地阅读适合我们特定的神学系统的单一经文相反，我们必须以经解经。现在我们看了约翰福音第三章整体，经文的真正含义就变得清晰了。当我们分享福音时，约翰一章10-12节也是特别受喜爱的配合经文：

「他在世界，世界也是藉着他造的，世界却不认识他。他到自己的地方来，自己的人却不接受他。凡接受他的，就是信他名的人，他就赐给他们权利，成为神的儿女。」（约1:10-12新译本）

多么伟大的经文，我也爱用这几节经文，但我们不能就此止步。我们应该认识到，我们必须加上作修饰用的13节：

「这等人不是从血气生的，不是从情慾生的，也不是从人意生的，乃是从神生的。」(约一13新译本)

  我发觉很奇怪,  许多人在陈述福音时, 省略这节经文：这些经文都是连在一起的。圣经重複着不变的主题：我们需要悔改，相信福音，但除此之外，没有圣灵重生人的工作, 我们在道德上无能力如此做（悔改与相信）。约翰福音三章16节「叫一切信他的」的邀请对像是所有的人,  真正地邀请所有的人，但是没有一个人在自然本性上渴望上帝。所有人都拒绝上帝的邀请，但上帝为我们作成了我们自己所不能做的事。

这些来到上帝面前的人归荣耀给上帝，因为上帝已经准备他们的心，使他们对基督的渴慕大于停留在罪中的慾望。这就是在使徒行传中，上帝透过保罗的宣讲对吕底亚作成:「主就开导她的心，叫她留心听保罗所讲的话。」(徒十六14)    在吕底亚身上发生的事情也同样发生在每个相信基督的人身上。如果上帝打开我们的心窍，我们愿意相信（申廿九4 ， 卅6 ） ，而且不会抗拒，因为我们的心已被更新，我们不想对抗。我们由圣灵復活的新本性拥有新的渴望和新的性情，这些都是我们自己不能作成的。

如果主打开吕底亚的心窍，让她留心注意，而她抗拒了，那将是一个矛盾的声称。请注意，上帝打开她的心窍使她「留心注意」。如果上帝解除吕底亚的敌意，因此她相信,   那麽就上帝是否在其他有信心的人身上作工这议题，应该不会有进一步的争论。儘管实际上是我们自己要相信，然而，在神人合作的观点中，人仍旧在堕落、未重生、顽固石心的本性下,   能把感情和信心归向上帝。对肯定「先在恩典」教义的阿民念来说，这甚至是真实，因为这些被赐予「先在恩典」的人是未重生者或已经是基督徒了。人（包括男女）必须首先拥有一个新的本性来相信---- 即圣经教导我们的，没有圣灵的工作,   人不会渴望，不能明白，也不能够顺服或者归向上帝（林前二14，罗八7 ，罗三11 ）。如果我们要相信，上帝必须首先把我们的石心转变成肉心：

「我也要赐给你们一个新心，将新灵放在你们裡面。又从你们的肉体中除掉石心，赐给你们肉心。我必将我的灵，放在你们裡面，使你们顺从我的律例，谨守遵行我的典章。」 (结卅六26-27)

阿民念者和其他神人合作者认为:  「信心」的渴望——即我们藉以相信耶稣，上帝会称罪人为义的，天生就属于我们的信心不是上帝的恩赐，也就是说，不是靠圣灵的感动更正我们的意志，使我们从不信到信，从不敬虔到敬虔。但是使徒保罗说，「我深信那在你们心裡动了善工的，必成全这工，直到耶稣基督的日子。」（腓一6）

保罗再次说，「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；」（弗二8） 此外，有些错误教导说，当上帝怜悯我们时，在重生的恩典以外，我们也能相信，愿意和渴望耶稣，但我们不承认甚至我们拥有的信心，意志，或者相信福音的能力是透过圣灵的感动，在我们裡面的作工的结果;  如果他们依靠谦卑或顺服的行为来协助恩典,  而不同意上帝的恩赐本身能使我们谦卑或顺服,  那麽,  他们违背了圣经的教导「使你与人不同的是谁呢？你有什麽不是领受的呢？若是领受的，为何自夸，彷彿不是领受的呢？」（林前四7 ）, 和「然而我今日成了何等人，是蒙神的恩才成的，并且他所赐我的恩不是徒然的。我比众使徒格外劳苦；这原不是我，乃是神的恩与我同在。」（林前十五10 ）

Flesh and Blood Has Not Revealed this to You & John 3:16

by John Hendryx

The commandments of God were never meant to empower us but to strip us of trusting in our own ability so that we would come to an end of ourselves. With striking clarity, Paul teaches that this is the intent of Divine legislation (Rom 3:20, 5:20, Gal 3:19,24).  A command or invitation with an open ended hypothetical statement such as John 3:16 ('whosover believes') does not imply the ability to fulfill it. This is especially true in light of texts such as John 1:13, Rom 9:16, John 6:37, 44, 63-65; Rom 3:11; Matt 16-26' 1 Cor 2:14 and many more which show man's moral inability to come to faith or believe the Gospel in their fallen state. In our unregenerate nature we do not want God but rather love darkness and "will not come into the light" * (John 3:19, 20).

 If men are never found naturally willing to submit in faith to the humbling terms of the gospel of Christ, then how can it be good news? (Rom 3:11; John 6:64,65; 2 Thessalonians 3:2) Because in Christ Jesus, God gives to us freely, what he demands from us. In the gospel God reveals the same righteousness and faith for us that God demands from us. What we had to have, but could not create or achieve or fulfill, God grants us freely, namely, the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21) and living faith that unites to Christ. He reveals, as a gift in Christ Jesus, the faith and righteousness that was once only a demand. Faith is not something that the sinner contributes towards the price of His salvation. Jesus has already paid that price in full for us.  Faith is our first gasp of breath in our new birth, so to speak.  It is a witness of God's work of grace already haven taken place within us (Eph 2:5, 8; 2 Tim 2:25; 1 John 5:1; John 6:63, 65).

 Notice that Romans 3:11, 12 says "there is none who seek God, no not one" and 1 Cor 2:14 says that "the natural man cannot understand the things of the Spirit, they are foolishness to him and he does not accept them because they are spiritually discerned."  Even Peter had to have the Father reveal that Jesus was the Christ (Matthew 16:17). We affirm with Arminians that “whosoever believes” has eternal life ... but the question goes back further than that - what causes one to believe?

 C.H. Spurgeon, in his sermon Human Inability, explained this with great clarity:

 "Oh!" saith the Arminian, "men may be saved if they will." We reply, "My dear sir, we all believe that; but it is just the "if they will" that is the difficulty. We assert that no man will come to Christ unless he be drawn; nay, we do not assert it, but Christ himself declares it--"Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life;' and as long as that "ye will not come' stands on record in Holy Scripture, we shall not be brought to believe in any doctrine of the freedom of the human will." It is strange how people, when talking about free-will, talk of things which they do not at all understand. "Now," says one, "I believe men can be saved if they will." My dear sir, that is not the question at all. The question is, are men ever found naturally willing to submit to the humbling terms of the gospel of Christ? We declare, upon Scriptural authority, that the human will is so desperately set on mischief, so depraved, and so inclined to everything that is evil, and so disinclined to everything that is good, that without the powerful. supernatural, irresistible influence of the Holy Spirit, no human will ever be constrained towards Christ. You reply, that men sometimes are willing, without the help of the Holy Spirit. I answer--Did you ever meet with any person who was?... "

 I would argue that is why Jesus stresses the new birth in the entire passage of John 3.  Nicodemus could not understand Jesus’ language: “Flesh gives birth to flesh and Spirit gives birth to spirit.” Just as in our first physical birth we were passive so also in our spiritual birth we are the same.  We do not actively participate in either birth with our efforts. The Spirit is likened to the wind in the passage where we do not know if it is coming or going - so it is everyone who is born of the spirit. (John 3:8) IN other words, the work of the Spirit is sovereign and supernatural. Just as a blind man will not see if you shine a light in his eyes, command him all you want.  It isn't light he needs but an entirely new set of eyes. That is what the new birth is like.  Prior to regeneration Satan has taken us captive to do his will.  He has blinded us to the truth.  We must be freed from our own base desires and captive will which can only be accomplished by the finger of God through the finished work of Christ.

 In John 3:19, 20 in the same context of 3:16 (three verses later) Jesus qualifies His "whosoever believes" statement: "This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.” (emphasis mine). (That's all of us prior to regeneration).

 But we all know that some do come to the light. Read what John 3:20-21 says about them. "…But he who does what is true comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God." So indeed there are those who come to the light; those whose deeds are the work of God. "Wrought in God" means worked in and by God. Apart from this gracious regenerating work of God all men hate the light of God and will not come into it.

 Instead of hanging our hats on a single verse read in isolation that fits our particular system of theology we must interpret scripture with scripture.. Now that we view the entirety of John 3 the true meaning of the text becomes clear.   John 1:10-12 is also a favorite of synergists when sharing the gospel:

 “He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God--."

 Great passage, I also love to use this verse but we can’t stop there. We should recognize that we must add the qualifier in verse 13:

 "…children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of  God."  John 1:13

 I find it peculiar many leave this verse out in their gospel presentations: These verses all go together. This repeats a constant theme in the Scriptures: that we are required to repent and believe the gospel, but additionally, that we are morally unable to do so without the quickening work of the Holy Spirit.   The offer of “whosoever believes” John 3:16 is to all men and truly offered to all men, but no natural man desires God. ALL reject his offer, but what we cannot do for ourselves God does for us. Those who do come to God give Him the glory because He has prepared their heart, giving them a desire for Christ that is greater than their desire to remain in sin. This is what He did for Lydia through the preaching of Paul in the book of Acts: “the Lord opened her heart [Lydia] to give heed to what was said by Paul" (Acts 16:14). What happened to Lydia is what happens to everyone who comes to faith in Christ. If the Lord opens our heart we willingly believe (Deut 29:4, 30:6), and no resistance is given because, our hearts having been renewed, we wouldn't want to resist. Our new natures which are made alive by the Holy Spirit have new desires and dispositions that we could not produce on our own. If the Lord opened Lydia's heart to give heed and she resisted, it would be a contradictory statement. Note that God opened her heart "to give heed". If God disarmed Lydia's hostility so she would believe then there should be no further debate as to whether He does this in everyone else that has faith. Although we do the actual believing ourselves, however, in the synergistic scheme, man turns his affection and faith toward God while still in his fallen, unregenerate stony-hearted nature. This is even true for Arminians who affirm "prevenient grace" because those who are granted prevenient grace are not regenerate or they would already be Christians. men and women must first have a new nature to believe - i.e. the Scripture teaches that the man without the Spirit does not desire, understand, nor is able to obey or turn to God (1 Cor 2:14, Rom 8:7, Rom 3:11). If we are to believe, God must first make our heart of stone into a heart of flesh:

 "Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. "I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.” - Ezekiel 36:26-27

 Arminians and other synergists believe that the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies sinners, belongs to us by nature and is not a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness. But the Apostle Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). Furthermore some wrongly teach that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his regenerative grace, we believe, will and desire, but fail to confess that it is by the work and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we even have the faith, the will, or the strength to believe the gospel; If they make the assistance of grace depend on our humility or obedience but don't agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, they contradict the Scripture which says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).