Growing in sin?

I've been reminded of a picture I saw in a book once about the Christian life. It illustrates how walking with Jesus in our lives makes us aware of our sin. That might lead to an increased holiness, but we don't always notice the positive changes, because our progress is marked by an even greater increase in awareness of sin.

The green line shows our level of holiness, gradually increasing as we get to know Jesus better. The red line shows our awareness of our own sin, also growing as we get to know Jesus better, but at a steeper rate. After all, awareness of sin has to come before the changes that increase our holiness. 

The awareness is usually the thing that pushes us to the cross when we first become a Christian, when we realise that only Christ's death and offer of forgiveness can deal with the gap between what we are and what we know we should be. But the problem comes as the gap grows. Often the picture looks like this.

Our sense of sin has grown, but our view of the cross has not. We've started well by trusting in Jesus, but the cross alone doesn't seem enough. So we try to close the gap in our own strength and by our own works. That will never work. What we need to do instead is increase our understanding of the cross.

Just as we start the Christian life at the cross, so we continue, day by day, coming to the cross as we regularly face the bleak reality of our continuing sin and failure.

We all need to come back to the fundamentals again and again to remember that Jesus is our everything, his cross is sufficient. There is nothing bad enough that I have done that the cross cannot handle.

Behold Our God

Here's a great song I think we ought to be singing at WCF:

Some thoughts on the character of Saul in Acts

Why did Paul stand back and and give approval when Stephen was stoned to death in Acts 8:1? He approved of Stephen's death, but didn't join in with the stoning, he just guarded their coats (7:58).

Is it because he lacked the courage to throw stones himself? Was Saul essentially a coward who let others do the dirty work? Or is it that, as a Pharisee, he was determined to always do what is right by the letter of the law, and he recognised that the stoning of Stephen breached legal procedure.

Saul's active opposition is described in Acts 9:1-2. His hatred for the followers of Christ was murderous, but he got the paperwork right, and his intention was to "take them as prisoners to Jerusalem." (9:2)

Saul persecuted the church, but always did it by the book. He was a Pharisee, building his life on a legalistic righteousness. His mistake at the stoning of Stephen was that he failed to see his approval of murder as sin. He did nothing to stop the stoning, and didn't think that his inaction made him as guilty as those who acted to kill Stephen.

The things we don't do but should are no less serious that the sins we actively commit. Its Pharisaical to ignore the right we should be doing and call it obedience.

A picture of the incarnation

In a passage from 'Unfinished Tales' by Tolkien the origin of the wizards is described. They were sent to middle-earth by the Valar (angelic servants of Eru the creator):

"For with the consent of Eru they sent members of their own high order, but clad in bodies as of Men, real and not feigned, but subject to the fears and pains and weariness of earth, able to hunger and thirst and be slain; though because of their noble spirits they did not die, and aged only by the cares and labours of many long years." Unfinished Tales, p. 503

In other words, Gandalf is the incarnation of an (almost) divine being.

When watching Christmas films!

Here's a very helpful blog post from Grace community church, Bedford about watching films and TV programmes with the brain switched on.

Defend the Virgin Birth?

The virgin birth is obviously important. Without it Jesus wouldn't be God's son. That's why the historical authenticity of Luke 1:26-38 is challenged by doubters. The argument is that Mary knew she had got herself into trouble and the angel's message was her way to explain the pregnancy without scandal. The problem for Christians is that there's no evidence one way or the other beyond Mary's word.

But then, maybe we shouldn't worry. The New Testament doesn't spend time defending the virgin birth. Where the New Testament focuses its defence of historical accuracy is on the resurrection, most noticeably in 1 Corinthians 15.

It is in the resurrection that we have evidence that Jesus is the Son of God. The story of the virgin birth is simply the explanation, not the proof. We have to start with the risen Lord Jesus who convinces us of his authority, then work backwards to find an account of how he came into the world. The conclusion we come to is "Of course its true, how else could the Son of God be born?"

Who arranged the meeting?

When Boaz went to gates of Bethlehem (Ruth 4:1), did he expected to meet the kinsman-redeemer, or was the meeting fortuitous?

According to Robert Hubbard in his NICOT commentary on Ruth it was to be expected:

Everyone had to pass through the gate en route to the fields, the threshing floor, or other cities. To meet him there would facilitate the speedy settlement of this matter; Boaz would waste no time searching for him. (p. 232)

However, Daniel Block takes a different view in his NAC commentary on Judges and Ruth:

With a superficial reading of the book the timing of the kinsman-redeemer's arrival may seem coincidental, but a deeper reading will recognize again the hidden hand of God. (p. 705)

Was the meeting arranged by Boaz or God? Maybe there is something of both. Boaz could expect the kinsman-redeemer to use the gate at that time in morning, but could he be certain? Perhaps he was trusting God to bring about the necessary meeting.

All through Ruth the main characters seem to take matters into their own hands, yet be very reliant on the God who is very obviously in control of these events.

I wonder if the people of Ruth's time had debates about freewill and the sovereignty of God?