林慈信牧师：自由意志与人的四重本性

自由意志與人的四種本性

FREE WILL AND MAN’S FOURFOLD NATURE

 

林慈信 牧师

 

 

重要名詞 KEY TERMS  

阿米念，阿米念主義 Arminius, Arminianism

隨意自由 Libertarianism 

人是負道德責任者 Free agency / moral agency

理性 Mind

心，感情 Heart (feelings)

意志 Will

人的本性（內心） Human nature (man’s heart)

改革宗（加爾文主義）  Reformed theology (Calvinism)

TULIP  TULIP

完全墮落 Total Depravity

人文（人本）主義 Humanism

抽象思維 Abstract thinking

具體思維 Concrete thinking

原本的公義 Original righteousness

奧古斯丁 Augustine

伯拉糾，伯拉糾主義 Pelagius, Pelagianism

道德能力 Moral ability

羅馬天主教 Roman Catholicism

半伯拉糾主義 Semi-Pelagianism

恢復的公義 Restored righteousness

重生 Regeneration

衛斯理主義 Wesleyanism

上帝的自存 Aseity (self-existence) of God

上帝的自我見證  Self-attestation of God

上帝的自我合法化 Self-validation of God

上帝的主權 Sovereignty of God

上帝的自我限制  God’s “self-limitation”

傅蘭姆 John M. Frame

范泰爾 Cornelius Van Til

 

 

自由意志的三種定義；人必須負道德責任

THREE DEFINITIONS OF FREE WILL; MORAL AGENCY, MORAL RESPONSIBILITY

1. 『自由意志』的三重定義

THREE DEFINITIONS OF FREE WILL  

『自由意志』有三種不同定義，必須分辨：（一）阿米念主義的定義，即『隨意自由』；（二）伯拉糾主義的定義，即：沒有得救的人仍然能夠行善，討上帝的喜悅；（三）正統信仰，包括改革

宗，的自由意志觀，即：人有意志，人能選擇。可稱為『順性自由』。

We must distinguish between 3 definitions of “free will”: (a) Arminianism’s definition of “free will,” which is “liberatarianism,” (b) Pelagius’s definition of “free will,” which refers to the unsaved man’s ability to do good and please God, and (c) “free/moral agency,” which is used by Reformed theologians and Bible-believing Christians, to mean that: man has a will, and does make choices. This definition of free will can be called “compatibilism.”  

2.  人是『道德存有』：人作決定，必須負責

FREE/MORAL AGENCY: MAN MAKES CHOICES/DECISIONS

改革宗神學（例：《威敏斯特信仰告白》）認為人有『道德責任』(moral agency)。意思是：人有一個意志。人有理性，會思想；人有心，會有感情；人有意志，會選擇，作決定。人是一個負道德責任的人(a free/moral agent)。人的意志會作決定，會作選擇。

Reformed theology (e.g. Westminster Confession) believes in man’s “moral agency”, or “free agency.” This means that: man has a will. Man has a mind to think, a heart with emotions, and a will to make choices. Man is a moral agent. His will makes choices, he makes decisions. 

3. 道德責任 MORAL RESPONSIBILITY

上帝要求人為自己的決定負責。不是所有的派別都意識到這點。有人拒絕承認這點，因為他們拒絕放棄他們人本的思想。主：古今中外的世俗哲學（儒家，康德等）都是人本的。God requires man to take responsibility for his choices.  Not everyone is aware of, not everyone agrees with this point. People who refuse to give up their man-centered worldview (their humanism) refuse to take this point seriously. Note: All non-Christian philosophy, East and West, are man-centered (humanist) at their core (e.g. Confucianism, Immanuel Kant).   

 

兩個關鍵性的觀念：自與權柄的關係；人的行為出自內心

TWO KEY CONCEPTS: FREEDOM AND AUTHORITY; AND ACTIONS FLOW FROM THE HEART

4. 關鍵觀念 #1：沒有權柄，沒有自由

KEY POINT #1: NO FREEDOM WITHOUT AUTHORITY

我們必須認識這一點：人若不是服在上帝的權柄之下，則沒有真正的自由。

We must recognize that: man can never be truly free, if he does not submit under God’s authority. 

5. 關鍵觀念 #2：人是從內心（本性）作道德決定 （vs. 阿米念主義的隨意自由觀） 

KEY POINT #2: MAN’S WILL CHOOSES OUT OF HIS HEART/NATURE (vs. Arminian “Libertarianism”)

人的選擇出自他的內心（本性）。這就是『人有一個意志』的意思。（加爾文的獨特貢獻。）

Man makes choices out of his heart (his inner being, his nature). This is just another way of saying that man has a will/heart. (John Calvin’s unique contribution.) 

 

四種內心，四種自由，具體思維

FOURFOLD NATURE OF MAN, FOUR KINDS OF FREEDOM, CONCRETE THINKING  

6. 人的四種本性（內心）FOUR CONDITIONS OF MAN’S HEART/NATURE

而人的內心分四種狀態（見下 ## 11-20），談到人的心時，必須分辨：我們指哪一種狀況下的『內心』？（一）上帝創造人的時候的本性；（二）犯罪墮落之後的本性；（三）被救贖的人，被恢復的本性； （四）在榮耀中的本性。（這是改革宗神學的獨特貢獻。）

Man’s “heart” has four conditions (see below, ## 11-20), and we must be concrete when we think about man’s “heart”: which condition are we speaking about? (a) Man’s nature when created; (b) man’s fallen nature after the fall; (c) man’s restored nature when redeemed, and (d) man’s glorified nature in glory. (Reformed theology’s unique contribution.) 

7. 人的四種自由FOUR KINDS OF FREEDOM

因為人有這四種本性（內心），因此我們必須分辨四種不同的自由：（一）被造時（有聖潔，公義，真知識的智慧），人有自由順服上帝；（二）墮落：人失去順服上帝的自由；（三）被贖：恢復自由順服上帝；（四）在榮耀種：只有順服上帝的自由。這種思維（自由觀）以《聖經？為出發點（權威），因此是具體的思維。（奧古斯丁大體上提倡。）

Because man has four kinds of nature/heart, we must distinguish four kinds of freedom: (a) created (with holiness, righteousness and wisdom/knowledge), man is free to obey God; (b) fallen, man lost his freedom to obey God; (c) redeemed, man’s freedom to obey God is restored; and (d) glorified: man is free only to obey God.  This kind of thinking takes the point of departure (authority) from the Bible; therefore it is concrete thinking.  (Generally upheld by Augustine.) 

8. 抽象思維 vs. 具體思維

ABSTRACT THINKING VS. CONCRETE THINKING

我們若不分辨這四種狀況，我們的思想必定『抽象』，必定混亂。這就是為什麼哲學家和神學家的爭辯往往是那麼抽象。我們若分辨這四種狀況，我們的思維是跟從《聖經》的思維。我們的思想是具體的，不是抽象的。（范泰爾的獨特貢獻。）

If we do not make the distinction between these four conditions, our thinking will be abstract and confused. This is why philosophers and theologians argue in an abstract way. If we do make the distinction between these four conditions, we are following the Bible. Our thinking will be “concrete,” and not “abstract.” (Cornelius Van Til’s unique contribution.) 

 

順性自由，正統信仰對自由意志的定義

COMPATIBILISM, AND ORTHODOX DEFINITION OF FREE WILL

9. 順性自由（參：#5）COMPATIBILISM (see #5 above)

人是負道德責任者(moral agent)。這種自由意志觀可稱為『順性自由』。人按自己的本性使用他的自由。他所選擇的，他作的決定，都順着他的本性。

Man is a moral/free agent. This definition of free will is “compatibilism.” Man exercises his “free agency” according to his nature.  His choices are compatible with his nature. 

10. 正統信仰對自由意志的定義 FREE AGENCY: A DEFINITION

改革宗對『自由意志』的定義：無限的上帝創造了有限的人，賦予有限的人一個有限的，可是真正的自由；同時要求他負道德責任。人對他的決定的，必須面對所有後果。上帝在一個具體的環境中給人這個選擇籲責任：就是祂已經創造一切，而且已經向人說話。這話語稱為『道德律』。（這是《創世記》第二章的總結。）

Reformed definition of “free agency”: An infinite God created finite man, and gave man finite, but real free choice, which is coupled with moral responsibility. God holds man responsible.  Man must take all consequences for his choices. God gave man this choice-and-responsibility in a specific context, in which he has created the world and spoken to man.  The word God spoke to man, is called the “moral law.” (This is a summary of Genesis chapter 2.)

人的四種本性：第一，第二狀況，奧古斯丁

FOURFOLD NATURE OF MAN: CONDITIONS ##1, 2, AUGUSTINE

11. 狀況一CONDITION #1

上帝造人時，人是聖潔、公義、智慧的。人的理性是智慧的，他認識真理；他的心是聖潔的，他愛上帝；他的意志是公義的，完全選擇站在上帝公義那方面。可是上帝所造，在人裏面的『上帝的形象』（聖潔，公義，智慧）是能變的。這『原本的公義』是能變的。人若 不順服上帝，他必失去他原本的聖潔，公義與智慧。因此，若說人被造時是『中性的』乃不正確。（在這一點上，加爾文不同意奧古斯丁。）

Man was created holy, righteous and wise. His mind is wise, and knows the truth; his heart is holy, and loves God; his will is righteous, and only chooses on the side of God’s righteousness. But God created this “free agency” which is originally holy, righteous and wise, to be changeable. This “image of God” (holiness, righteousness, wisdom) is subject to change. If man disobeys God, this holiness, righteousness, and wisdom will be lost. Therefore it is incorrect to think of man as “neutral” when he was created. (Calvin is different from Augustine on this point.) 

12. 狀況二CONDITION #2

人墮落後失去了原本的聖潔，公義，智慧。現在人是罪的奴僕，不再是自由人（失去『原本之公義』的自由）。因此罪人活在第二狀況中。人從他邪惡的內心發出一切的選擇。人一切的選擇都是邪惡的。他不可能作出討上帝喜悅的選擇。（伯拉糾的立場是錯誤的。）

This original holiness, righteousness and wisdom was lost after the Fall. Man is now a slave of sin, he is no longer “free” in the sense of “original righteousness.” Thus, man the sinner, in the 2^nd condition, makes choices from his evil heart. All his choices are evil. He cannot make choices which pleases God (contrary to Pelagius’ position – see below).  

13. 奧古斯丁vs. 伯拉糾AUGUSTINE VS. PELAGIUS

奧古斯丁與伯拉糾的爭辯，不在於人有否自由選擇或責任(free agency)，而在於『道德能力』。在第二狀況中的罪人，內心是邪惡的，他有沒有能力討上帝的喜悅；能否悔改，信基督？伯拉糾說：『能』。天主教和阿米念主義說：『一部分能』，但需要上帝幫忙。

The debate between Augustine and Pelagius is NOT whether man has “free agency,” but rather “moral ability.” Does the sinner, who is in condition #2 (with an evil heart), have the ability to please God – to repent and to believe? Pelagius says “Yes.” Roman Catholic Church and Arminianism say, “partially yes” – yes, but man needs God’s help.

 

第二狀況：完全墮落與罪的範圍

CONDITION #2: TOTAL DEPRAVITY AND THE SCOPE OF SIN

14. 完全墮落是指什麼？WHAT IS TOTAL DEPRAVITY?  

完全墮落的意思不是說：人在每一刻中的思想與行為都是極度邪惡的。完全墮落的意思是說：雖然人還有理性，心與意志（這是形式上的『上帝的形象』），可是他在第二狀況中是完全被罪所汚染的：他的理性，心與意志都汚染了。

Total depravity does not mean that every moment, man’s thought and actions are as evil as they possibly can be. Total depravity means that, although man still has a mind, heart and will in condition #2, he is totally corrupted by sin – in his mind, heart and will (and in his body). 

15. 『罪的問題』的範圍THE SCOPE OF THE SIN PROBLEM

人必須面對的問題是：（一）他有罪：『罪孽』，這是人在上帝面前的地位（現代人稱此為『罪名』）； （二）他必須面對罪的懲罰，就是死；（三）他的內心（本性）完全被罪汚染；（四）他服在罪的權勢和影響之下。（很多非改革宗的福音派並不真正接納。）

Man’s problem is: (a) he has “guilt” – this is his standing before a holy God; (b) he faces sin’s punishment, which is death; (c) his inner nature (heart) is polluted by sin; (d) he is under sin’s power and sway. (Many non-Calvinist evangelicals do not truly believe this.) 

16. 完全墮落vs. 人性本善（或部分本善）TOTAL DEPRAVITY VS. “MAN IS GOOD” (OR PARTIALLY)

問題是：人的墮落有多徹底？人是完全墮落？部分墮落？完全沒有墮落？伯拉糾，自由主義，拒絕相信三位一體的，和提倡積極思想（如：水晶教堂的舒勒等）的立場是：人完全沒有墮落。他們對人非常樂觀。天主教，衛斯理與阿米念主義相信人在第二狀況中，仍然有某一程度上的（一）自由（自由意志），（二）智慧（從哲學家，心理學家等），和（三）良善（非信徒的好行為）。這些人不相信完全墮落。他們相信人只不過部分墮落。倪柝聲相信人的靈死了，可是魂與身體沒有死。

The question is: how depraved is man the sinner? Total depravity, or partial, or none at all?  Pelagius, liberals, Unitarians and positive thinking advocates (Norman Vincent Peale, Robert Schuller, Joel Osteen, etc.) believe that man is not depraved at all. They are very optimistic about man. Roman Catholics, Wesleyans and Arminians think that man in condition #2 still has some (a) freedom (free will), (b) wisdom (truth from philosophers and psychologists, etc.), and (c) goodness (good works performed by non-Christians). These people do not believe in total depravity. They believe that man is partially depraved. Watchman Nee believes that man’s spirit died, but his soul and body did not die. 

 

全人救贖：第三，第四狀況

TOTAL SALVATION: CONDITIONS ##3, 4

17. 完全墮落的含義：完全救贖 

IMPLICATION OF TOTAL DEPRAVITY: TOTAL SALVATION

完全墮落的涵義是：基督拯救我們全人，改變我們全人，不僅僅是我們的部分。不相信完全墮落，就不相信基督拯救我們全人；等與相信：我們有些部分是不需要基督救贖的。

The implication of total depravity is: Christ totally saves and transforms us, not just part of us.  People who don’t believe in total depravity, do not believe that Christ saves us totally from sin. They believe that there are parts of ourselves which do not need to be redeemed by Christ. 

18. 狀況三CONDITION #3

人，被救贖（蒙恩）的人，他原本的公義被恢復了。他從他的內心作出選擇，他的內心已經重生，完全改變為新的。現在，他從罪的懲罰，罪的罪孽，和罪的權柄（最後一點必須每天經歷）釋放。基督徒願意，也能夠選擇討上帝的喜悅。可是他仍然會犯罪。

Man, the redeemed sinner, has his “original righteousness” restored. He makes choices from his heart, which has been renewed by regeneration (he is born again). Now he is delivered from sin’s (a) punishment, (b) guilt, and (c) power (deliverance from sin’s power needs to be experienced daily). Now the Christian wants to, and can make choices to please God. But he still can sin. 

19. 信心與悔改：是上帝所作？是人所作？

FAITH AND REPENTANCE: GOD’S WORK? MAN’S WORK?

人的信心與悔改是聖靈所賜的恩典。聖靈改變了人的意志，現在人從他新的內心（本性）發出自願的選擇，認罪悔改，相信基督。

Man’s faith and repentance are gifts of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit transformed man’s will. Out of his new heart/nature, man makes a voluntary choice, to repent and trust in Jesus Christ. 

20. 狀況四CONDITION #4

當信徒進入到榮耀裡的時候，他就不再犯罪了。他的心只會再上帝面前選擇良善，公義，聖潔。

When the Christian is glorified, he will no longer sin. His will/heart will only choose what is good, holy and righteous in God’s sight. 

 

 

 

 

阿米念主義的問題THE PROBLEM WITH ARMINIANISM

21. 阿米念主義ARMINIANISM

阿米念主義對『自由意志』的定義乃是『隨意自由』，意思是說：人的選擇絕對，完全沒有任何外來的成因或影響因素。人的選擇是完全自主的，隨意的，任意的。

Arminian definition of “free will” is “libertarianism.” This means that man’s choices have absolutely no pre-conditioning influence or factor. His choices are totally autonomous, or arbitrary, or random. (Cf. A recent book by two Armian faculty members of Asbury College and Asbury Seminary: Why I Am Not a Calvinist [IVP].)

22. 批判阿米念主義CRITIQUE OF ARMINIANISM’S LIBERTARIANISM

這種『隨意自由』的自由意志光完全違背《聖經》，也違背人之常識。世界上沒有一個法庭，沒有一個法官是這樣判斷被告者的！（參：傅蘭姆對此定義的十八點批判。）

This “libertarian” view of free will is contrary to the Bibl and contrary to common sense. No law-court judges a defendant this way! God does not judge man this way. (Cf. John M. Frame, The Doctrine of God, chapter on “Free Will.” Frame offers a 18-point critique.)

23. 阿米念主義：問題的癥結THE PROBLEM WITH ARMINIANISM

阿米念主義的『隨意自由意志觀』的真正問題是人堅持自己的『自主』。人欲在自己的選擇上完全獨立自主。他不願意承認，也不願意服從上帝的權柄。這種自主，其實就是向上帝叛逆的癥結，或說，就是罪的癥結。（范泰爾的獨特貢獻。）

Arminian “libertarianism,” at its core, is “autonomy.” Man wants to be totally independent and autonomous in his choices. He does not want to recognize, nor submit under God’s authority. This persistence to be “autonomous” is actually the essence of rebellion against God, i.e., the essence of sin. (Cornelius Van Til’s unique contribution.) 

24. 不接納預定論，不一定就是阿米念主義者

REJECTING PREDESTINATION DOESN’T NECESSARILY MAKE YOU AN ARMINIAN

讀到這裏，有些讀者會說：我不喜歡預定論，但我也不接納阿米念主義的自由意志觀啊！是的，有些基督徒是衛斯理主義者。他們不接受預定，可是接受完全墮落。更有很多基督徒因為沒有看到，原來《聖經》是清楚教導預定這真理的，所以憑自己的理性作出結論說，他們不喜歡上帝的預定。

Some readers, when they come to this point, respond: I do not like the doctrine of predestination. But I also do not accept the Arminian definition of free will! You are correct. Some Christians are Wesleyans. They do not accept predestination. However they do accept total depravity. Then there are many other Christians, who have not studied the Bible to see that the Bible actually clear teaches the doctrine of predestination. So they use their own reasoning to conclude that, they do not like God’s predestination. 

 

真正認識上帝和上帝的自由KNOWING GOD AND HIS FREEDOM

25. 上帝的自由GOD’S FREEDOM

上帝的自由，其實就是指祂的主權。上帝是自存的（自有永有），上帝是自我見證，自我合法化的。上帝的主權是絕對的主權!

God’s “freedom” is his sovereignty. God is self-existent (aseity of God), God is self-attesting, God is self-validating.  God is absolutely sovereign! 

26. 上帝如何哂玫k的自由＃1GOD’S USE OF HIS FREEDOM, #1

上帝如何使用祂的自由？肯定不是隨意，任意的，乃按祂聖潔的本性，祂永恆的預備旨，和祂說啓示的計劃（應許）。上帝道成肉身，作了僕人甚至於死，為了成全祂所啓示了的約和約中的應許。

How does God exercise his sovereignty? Not arbitrarily or capriciously, but according to his holy character, eternal decree and revealed decree (promises). God became a servant/slave even to the point of death, to fulfill the covenant promises which he has revealed. 

27. 上帝如何哂玫k的自由＃2 GOD’S USE OF HIS FREEDOM, #2  

上帝如何哂玫k的主權？一定是按照祂的約：祂『自我限制』，根據祂所啓示的應許。那麼我們呢？我們豈不是更應當限制我們的自由，就是上帝賜給我們，新造的人，的自由，作義的奴僕？

God exercises his sovereignty according to his covenant: he “limits” himself to his revealed decree/promise. How much more should we limit the use of our new-found freedom to be slaves of righteousness! 

 

www.chinahorizon.org www.reformed.org  www.crts.edu  

www.chinachristianbooks.org  www.chinareformation.com

 

 

October 31, 2008  Tokyo, Japan