BCCC主日學靈程七講之一:稱義之經過 Sunday School Outline: The Process of Justification

期主日的目

1、在真理上有更明確的認識;

2、按照正意分解聖經的話語;

3、將生命之道運用於生活中;

靈程七講之一

稱義之經過

世人皆為罪人,陷於罪性與罪行之中;罪人如何能夠見聖潔公義之神?神差遣耶穌基督來到世間,為要拯救世人,更是要信靠者得以稱義,算為義人,將來得與神同在。因信稱義為基督信仰之核心要道,這一講將具體分析稱義之經過。

一、以神的恩而稱義

世人都犯了罪、缺了神的耀。如今蒙神的恩典、因基督耶的救、就白白的稱義。(23-24

1稱義之道,源於神之恩典

律法和先知:叫人知罪,非叫人稱義

們曉得律法上的、都是律法以下之人的、好塞住各人的口、叫普世的人都伏在神判之下.所以凡有血有一、因行律法、能在神面前稱義.因律法本是叫人知罪。(19-20

自救論的失敗:律法、良心、道德無法拯救人類;世人陷於罪中,毫無自救之力。

神的救法:

但如今神的在律法以外已經顯明出、有律法和先知為證。(22

此為世人稱義唯一之方法,非人憑己力所能賺得,亦非罪人所配得,乃神白白的恩典。

2、神之恩典本乎神性

神的本性:慈愛、公義、聖潔

耶和怒、盛的慈、赦免罪孽和犯、不以有罪的為無罪、必追他的罪、自父及子、直到三、四代。(民十四18

惟有基督在我們還作罪人的死、神的就在此向我們顯明了。(8

以慈愛論,神的本性就是愛,神的創造本於愛。人之墮落,神若不預備救贖之法,就不能是全愛之神。故神之救恩為其本於其慈愛之屬性所預備。

以公義論,神斷不以有罪為無罪。神必須預備救恩,又必須滿足公義,故唯有以神子耶穌在十字架上親身擔當世人的罪,滿足神之公義,又向世人彰顯神的大愛。

以聖潔論,神為至聖至潔,斷不能容忍一切罪惡,不能與罪人同在。耶穌在十字架上所流寶血為贖價亦為潔淨,不僅除去罪惡,並且將罪人洗淨,稱為聖潔。

3稱義之功,恩典做成。

作工的得工、不算恩典、乃是得的、惟有不作工的、只信罪人為義的神、他的信就算為義。(4-5

既是出於恩典、就不在乎行.不然、恩典就不是恩典了。(十一6

二、在基督稱義

以神的恩而稱義,為稱義之根本。神既預備這樣的救恩,如何可以得到?耶穌基督即得到神所賜稱義恩典的門路。聖經反復明言,罪人稱義,唯獨依賴基督的寶血。

穌說、我就是道路、真理、生命.若不藉著我、有人能到父那去。(十四6

們說、我實實在在的告、我就是羊的。(7

除他以外、別無拯救.因在天下人的名、我可以靠著得救。(徒四12

世人都犯了罪、缺了神的耀。如今蒙神的恩典、因基督耶的救、就白白的稱義。(23-24

1、基督的血,除罪而流;

立耶作挽回祭、是著耶的血、藉著人的信、要明神的.因他用忍耐的心、容人先所犯的罪.(25

若山羊和公牛的血、母牛的灰、在不的人身上、尚且叫人成、身體潔淨.何基督藉著永自己獻給神、他的血不更能洗的心〔原文作良心〕除去你的死行、使你事奉那永生神。(希九13-14

2、在基督

在告、就是到天地都去了、律法的一也不能去、都要成全。(太五18

穌來為成全律法,不是去律法。如全所述,律法只能叫人知罪,人不能全守律法;故稱義之人,是依行得以遵守律法。

如此說來、因一次的犯、罪人都被定罪、照、因一次的行、人也就被稱義得生命了。(18

基督之救贖兩方面的功效:消極方面,將已有干犯律法之罪洗除;積極方面,將我們所應當遵守的律法所代替,因著耶穌的義行,靈我們完全所當守的律法。

三、因信心得稱為義

第一點講述稱義之根本,為神的恩典;第二點為稱義之門路,唯有通過耶穌,可以得到這恩典;第三點講述人的方面,如何獲得救恩。

得救是本乎恩、也因著信、這並不是出於自己、乃是神所的.也不是出於行、免得有人自。(弗二8-9

羅馬書有關因信稱義之論述:

就是神的、因信耶基督、加一切相信的人、並沒有分.(22

立耶作挽回祭、是著耶的血、藉著人的信、要明神的.因他用忍耐的心、容人先所犯的罪.好在今時顯明他的、使人知道他自己為義、也信耶的人為義。既是這樣、那口呢.有可的了。用何法有的呢、是用立功之法.不是、乃用信主之法。所以〔有古卷作因〕我看定了、人稱義是因著信、不在乎遵行律法。道神只作太人的神.不也是作外邦人的神.是的、也作外邦人的神。神既是一位、他就要因信那受割為義、也要因信那未受割為義這樣、我因信了律法乎不是、更是固律法。(25-31

呢.、『伯拉罕信神、就算他的。』作工的得工、不算恩典、乃是得的、惟有不作工的、只信罪人為義的神、他的信就算為義。(3-5

且他受了割記號、作他未受割候因信稱義的印、叫他作一切未受割而信之人的父、使他也算為義.又作受割之人的父、就是那些不但受割且按我的祖宗伯拉罕、未受割而信之蹤跡去行的人。因應許亞伯拉罕和他後裔、必得承受世界、不是因律法、乃是因信而得的。若是乎律法的人、後嗣、信就空、應許也就廢棄了。(11-14

既因信稱義、就藉著我的主耶基督、得神相和。我又藉著他、因信得在所站的恩典中、歡歡喜喜盼望神的耀。(1-2

1、信服

信服:篤實相信,以神之救法為確實可靠,絕無懷疑。

近百候、然想到自己的身如同已死、撒拉的生育已經斷絕、他的信心是不弱.且仰望神的應許總沒有因不信、心起疑惑.反倒因信、心固、將榮耀歸給神。(19-20

2、信

信從:不僅相信,並且以個人之實踐見證所信之道。

滿心相信、神所應許的必能作成.所以就算他的。(21-22

3、信靠

信靠:不僅信,不僅從;更是一心交托、完全倚靠,將自己所有的罪並一切所想都交托耶穌。

在我既靠著他的血稱義、就更要藉著他免去神的忿怒。(9

果:信

從信服到信從並且信靠,必然之結果為完全接納耶穌進入生命之中,基督不僅為救主,更為生命之主,從此全人為主而活。

我已經與基督同十架.在活著的、不再是我、乃是基督在我面活著.且我如今在肉身活著、是因信神的子而活、他是我、己。(加二20

受洗入基督的、都是披戴基督了。(加三27

們當以基督耶的心心。(腓二5

因我活著就是基督、我死了就有益。(腓一21

四、以行為見證為義

信心若有行就是死的。雅二17

賴以得救的信心,並非空洞之信心,乃是有行為相伴的“活信心”。

信心是他的行為並行、而且信心因著行為纔得成全.(雅二22

1、信心是為並行的

這樣、凡好好果子、惟獨壞樹結壞果子。好不能結壞果子、壞樹不能好果子。(太七17-18

真實之信心,比通過所結的果子表現出來。亞伯拉罕因信稱義,其信心存在心裡,也通過其行為而得實證。

的祖宗伯拉罕、把他子以撒上、不是因行為稱義麼。可信心是他的行為並行、而且信心因著行為纔得成全.應驗經上所、『伯拉罕信神、就算他的。』他又得稱為神的朋友。這樣、人稱義是因著行、不是因著信。(雅二21-24

聖經所說,亞伯拉罕信神而稱義,這個事情正是通過彰顯其信心的行為告知於世人的。故這段經文中用“應驗”一詞,表明信心與行為並行,方證實為真正的活信心。

2、信心因著行得成全

這義是本於信、以致於信.如上所、『人必因信得生。』(17

照他耀的能、得以在各的力上加力、好叫你凡事歡歡喜喜的忍耐容。(西一11

人因信得稱義,但是並非在行為上即得以完全,也並非能夠完全擺脫一切的罪,須在天路之歷程中不斷前進。義人是因信而得以稱義;並且又因信得生,即在生活中每一天信而能行、信上加信,神也比祝福,在各樣的力上加力、恩上加恩、榮上加榮,讓信心得以成全,直到在父那裡得以完全。

總結

第一點講稱義之根本,為神之恩典;第二點講稱義之門路,為神子耶穌;第三點將接納之方法,為因信稱義;第四點將稱義之確據,乃行為並行。如此說來,罪人稱義乃由神恩、考耶穌、憑有行為之活信心而成。此中要義,非言語所能盡述,唯有在神前感恩不止,並於一生中所努力遵行實踐。

布魯頓華人基督教主日學   2009年11月1日 陳陽

(本文原發落楓居·陳陽文存,地址:http://blog.photocy.org/?p=656

DANGER! The Content May Be Offensive! — What Happened to My Installation

Last months, we did the installation project in the class of Performative, Installation and Photography. Photographs are usually matted, framed and presented in the gallery. However, the purpose of installation is to activate the space and make the presentation itself an art piece. Then we looked for several different locations in the Fine Arts Building, Indiana University Bloomington.
My Installation
My piece is called “Reveal the Mysterious”. Initially, I got this idea when I walked in the fine arts building, especially in the fourth floor, in which the doors of the faculty offices are always closed. There are even a small label on each door which reject the janitors to enter and clean. Then the whole fourth floor seems to be only a hallway to me, and all the remaining is the unknown mysterious space.
Through my installation, I would like to photograph the inner parts of the rooms, and mirror them out by life size prints.When I reach the practical part, I changed my mind a little because there’re few people walking in the fourth floor, and I need a more popular location. Then I get the permission for the hallway in the ground floor, outside the restrooms and a janitor’s closet. I took photos of the men’s restroom and the closet, stitched all the photos together to make one large pieces in Photoshop, and make lied size large-scale prints and mount them on the wall. OK, now it looked like the restrooms and closet were brought out to the hallway.
When I was installing the works in a late night, a janitor came to see the photo of urinals and said, “What will happen if someone really pee on it?” Of course, this is a joke, but it really reminds me that the project is not only about the space itself, but also an interactive project with the viewers! Think about what people do in the restrooms! If I let them do anything just as they’re actually in these rooms, we may expect something interesting happen. Then I wrote this in the statements.
Then, what happened was, the graffiti filled up the installation in one weeks, just as in the real restrooms. Some of them are really interesting. For example, someone wrote “R.Mutt” in one of the urinals, which directly reflect to Marchel Duchamp’s Fountain (1917), the very beginning of the conceptual art. Someones replies each other and makes the installation as a information board, which reminds the way we share the information before the Internet. Also many funny and humor pieces came out. Of course, there’re some dirty stuff, just as what we always see in the restrooms.
I also realized people drew much more on the wall of the restroom than the closet. The phenomenon might reflect how the people think about these rooms.
The feedback came from both the students, faculty and the janitors, who are unusually talking to the students. From what I know, they all love the installation. One of them said to me, “Oh, there’re my materials. I’m supposed to get from the closet. ” And they talked to me a lot about the techniques. They also thought the installation had reduced the graffiti drawing in the real bathrooms. Some of them said I should keep the installation on to protect the bathrooms. I did examine the men’s bathroom, and there’re no new drawings during the installation period. Then I think the department would like my pieces to be renewed twice a month to keep the real ones clean!
The “Offensive” Issue
Now comes the problem! The installation was on from Oct 19 to 21, by the permission from the office. Because all the installations in the class are so successful, we decided to make an extension and invite the ones all over the university to come. Our professor, Mariana Tres, wrote an email to the office. However, it was rejected immediately after the application. The reply particularly mentioned two pieces they didn’t like. One is my piece, and they said, “the graffiti on the hallway installation is already offensive to some.”
Of course, all of the classmates got hurt and angry because it’s the fine arts building, and we didn’t get any support from the department when we did the installations and they did decorate and bring much more artistic feeling to the whole building. We didn’t get any tolerant for our works. This week, Mariana had a meeting to the department head Tim Mather and we all signed a letter to the department. (Actually, what happened was, Tim, who is a ceramic artist and the department head for years, was out of town during that week, and his assistant, who was not from an art major, made the decision.)
Actually another piece was forced to remove even before. It was a beautiful piece called “Falling away”, which recreate the feeling of the short fall in the stairway. However, there happened to be a fire drill and the firemen insisted the piece blocked the way and should be removed immediately. Otherwise, they will fine the fine arts building. Then we dealer with the fire marshals, the officials in the town and even the Indiana Department of Homeland Security!
Anyway, we were really said to remove our installations on Oct 26. However, all the happenings brought a lot of social meanings and inspired us a lot about the installation, the society, the authorities and the public arts. I’m very glad that my piece became one of controversies.
From the office, “Offensive” becomes a label for my installation. Personally, I don’t think the installation itself is offensive at all, and that’s totally not my purpose, while I do agree the some of the graffiti on it is really offensive. However, it’s not related to the artwork itself if we define the prints and installation as the artwork. People really have these behaves in the real bathrooms and somewhere else. My installation was just a platform to bring the “secret” out and to get the public concerns.
Now I think my installation as a social practice. The viewers themselves and their activities become part of the artwork, and the artwork itself grows with the touching of the viewers. What was shown is happening in the public area, though we don’t see them frequently, but we do see them everyday. I personally don’t like the offensive graffiti at all, but they do exist in every bathrooms and their appearance on the installation really reminds us this fact and makes us concern more about the phenomenon. Then if we think the installation and the growing process altogether as an artwork, we could label it an offensive piece. If someone saw its offensiveness, I think it just shows the artwork works. Then what we need to do is not to stop this installation but to deal with the real thing happens, either try to understand the graffiti makers, or to educate them stop doing this.
Finale: the lifecycle of the installation
Though I don’t think it’s reasonable to have the mandatory removal, and I don’t understand its necessarily, I feel acceptable to deinstall it because it reaches its lifecycle. The drawing and graffiti was filled up everywhere and we’ve already got enough feedback, especially the one from the office. They’re part of the life of the installation. If it continues to be there, I need to renew the prints to give the viewers more space. Otherwise, the piece will lose its function and become a dead piece.

Last months, we did the installation project in the class of Performative, Installation and Photography. Photographs are usually matted, framed and presented in the gallery. However, the purpose of installation is to activate the space and make the presentation itself an art piece. Then we looked for several different locations in the Fine Arts Building, Indiana University Bloomington.

My Installation

My Installation
Reveal the Mysterious, My Installation Project
Installed in the first floor hallway, Fine Arts Building, Indiana University Bloomington, Oct.19 – Oct.25

My piece is called “Reveal the Mysterious”. Initially, I got this idea when I walked in the fine arts building, especially in the fourth floor, in which the doors of the faculty offices are always closed. There are even a small label on each door which reject the janitors to enter and clean. Then the whole fourth floor seems to be only a hallway to me, and all the remaining is the unknown mysterious space.

Through my installation, I would like to photograph the inner parts of the rooms, and mirror them out by life size prints.When I reach the practical part, I changed my mind a little because there’re few people walking in the fourth floor, and I need a more popular location. Then I get the permission for the hallway in the ground floor, outside the restrooms and a janitor’s closet. I took photos of the men’s restroom and the closet, stitched all the photos together to make one large pieces in Photoshop, and make lied size large-scale prints and mount them on the wall. OK, now it looked like the restrooms and closet were brought out to the hallway.

When I was installing the works in a late night, a janitor came to see the photo of urinals and said, “What will happen if someone really pee on it?” Of course, this is a joke, but it really reminds me that the project is not only about the space itself, but also an interactive project with the viewers! Think about what people do in the restrooms! If I let them do anything just as they’re actually in these rooms, we may expect something interesting happen. Then I wrote this in the statements.

Then, what happened was, the graffiti filled up the installation in one weeks, just as in the real restrooms. Some of them are really interesting. For example, someone wrote “R.Mutt” in one of the urinals, which directly reflect to Marchel Duchamp’s Fountain (1917), the very beginning of the conceptual art. Someones replies each other and makes the installation as a information board, which reminds the way we share the information before the Internet. Also many funny and humor pieces came out. Of course, there’re some dirty stuff, just as what we always see in the restrooms.

I also realized people drew much more on the wall of the restroom than the closet. The phenomenon might reflect how the people think about these rooms.

The feedback came from both the students, faculty and the janitors, who are unusually talking to the students. From what I know, they all love the installation. One of them said to me, “Oh, there’re my materials. I’m supposed to get from the closet. ” And they talked to me a lot about the techniques. They also thought the installation had reduced the graffiti drawing in the real bathrooms. Some of them said I should keep the installation on to protect the bathrooms. I did examine the men’s bathroom, and there’re no new drawings during the installation period. Then I think the department would like my pieces to be renewed twice a month to keep the real ones clean!

The “Offensive” Issue

Interaction
The viewer interacted with the installation

Now comes the problem! The installation was on from Oct 19 to 21, by the permission from the office. Because all the installations in the class are so successful, we decided to make an extension and invite the ones all over the university to come. Our professor, Mariana Tres, wrote an email to the office. However, it was rejected immediately after the application. The reply particularly mentioned two pieces they didn’t like. One is my piece, and they said, “the graffiti on the hallway installation is already offensive to some.”

Of course, all of the classmates got hurt and angry because it’s the fine arts building, and we didn’t get any support from the department when we did the installations and they did decorate and bring much more artistic feeling to the whole building. We didn’t get any tolerant for our works. This week, Mariana had a meeting to the department head Tim Mather and we all signed a letter to the department. (Actually, what happened was, Tim, who is a ceramic artist and the department head for years, was out of town during that week, and his assistant, who was not from an art major, made the decision.)

Actually another piece was forced to remove even before. It was a beautiful piece called “Falling away”, which recreate the feeling of the short fall in the stairway. However, there happened to be a fire drill and the firemen insisted the piece blocked the way and should be removed immediately. Otherwise, they will fine the fine arts building. Then we dealer with the fire marshals, the officials in the town and even the Indiana Department of Homeland Security!

Final
The final looking of the installation
Pay attention to the “R.MUTT” on the center urinal

Anyway, we were really said to remove our installations on Oct 26. However, all the happenings brought a lot of social meanings and inspired us a lot about the installation, the society, the authorities and the public arts. I’m very glad that my piece became one of controversies.

From the office, “Offensive” becomes a label for my installation. Personally, I don’t think the installation itself is offensive at all, and that’s totally not my purpose, while I do agree the some of the graffiti on it is really offensive. However, it’s not related to the artwork itself if we define the prints and installation as the artwork. People really have these behaves in the real bathrooms and somewhere else. My installation was just a platform to bring the “secret” out and to get the public concerns.

Now I think my installation as a social practice. The viewers themselves and their activities become part of the artwork, and the artwork itself grows with the touching of the viewers. What was shown is happening in the public area, though we don’t see them frequently, but we do see them everyday. I personally don’t like the offensive graffiti at all, but they do exist in every bathrooms and their appearance on the installation really reminds us this fact and makes us concern more about the phenomenon. Then if we think the installation and the growing process altogether as an artwork, we could label it an offensive piece. If someone saw its offensiveness, I think it just shows the artwork works. Then what we need to do is not to stop this installation but to deal with the real thing happens, either try to understand the graffiti makers, or to educate them stop doing this.

Finale: The Lifecycle of The Installation

Though I don’t think it’s reasonable to have the mandatory removal, and I don’t understand its necessarily, I feel acceptable to deinstall it because it reaches its lifecycle. The drawing and graffiti was filled up everywhere and we’ve already got enough feedback, especially the one from the office. They’re part of the life of the installation. If it continues to be there, I need to renew the prints to give the viewers more space. Otherwise, the piece will lose its function and become a dead piece.

Danger Sign
The DANGER sign I made to seal the rolls

Finally, I removed all the prints and wrap them back as the paper rolls. I printed the labels which say “DANGER! WARNING: CONTENT MAY BE OFFENSIVE! DO NOT OPEN IF YOU ARE UNDER 18.”, and used them to seal all the rolls, and put these rolls to make a small installation in my MFA critique, which was my repines to the department.

P.S.: An Official Response to the Installations

A few weeks after our installation projects, the department come out a new on-campus installation form, which is kind of an official response to the projects because the items seem to be match exactly what happened in the class. So I list the form note here.

On-Campus Installation Form

Note:

1. Installations can never be set up on stairs or in stairwells.

2. Proof of permission from IU personnel if installing in other building or on campus grounds MUST be attached (letter or email).

3. Use of flammable or toxic materials or materials situated in such a way that they could catch fire (i.e. fabric draped on lights, overloaded power plugs, etc.) or pose a safety hazard is prohibited.

4. Artwork with sound cannot be set up in arid close to staff offices or classrooms.

5. This form must be submitted 5 WORKING DAYS prior to installation in the event artist’s construction cannot be accommodated or must be re-worked due to safety violations.

6. Student is responsible for thorough cleanup of their work. Any damage to campus grounds or building walls/floors/ceilings due to the attachment materials, excessive weight, liquid spills, etc. is the student’s financial responsibility if area is not left in state prior to installation. Please note with your instructor if area of install has pre-existing damage (what type and where) and document in detail on the back of form.