Synergy and Prevenient Grace

This title might prove the proverbial 'red rag to a bull'. The word 'synergy' is used often in contrast to 'monergy' in discussions relating to the general Calvinist positions. Monergy means 'only one works' and for the Calvinist this is God. Synergy means 'co-working' and points to the 'less than Calvinist' notion that God requires human co-operation in the work of salvation. Let me say at the outset that as regards these things and the doctrine of 'prevenient grace' I am a five-point Wesleyan!

John Wesley taught four areas of grace; prevenient, convicting, justifying and sanctifying. It was his, and my, conviction that the whole process 'starts' with God. Prevenient grace is the grace that prepares us for the greater grace which is on its way. It is the old English use of the word 'prevent' which originally meant to 'precede'. There is, taught Wesely, incremental grace which enables the receiver to respond to God's offer of greater grace. To my way of thinking the teaching gives appropriate balance to the sovereign workings of God and human accountability.

How did we get onto this topic? Well, I am reading the chapters in Exodus which record the instructions for the building of the Tabernacle. The overall responsibility is given to Moses as the mediator of the Covenant. Moses must build the Tabernacle as Christ would later build His church.

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 See, I have called by name Bezaleel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah: 3 And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship, 4 To devise cunning works, to work in gold, and in silver, and in brass, 5 And in cutting of stones, to set them, and in carving of timber, to work in all manner of workmanship. 6 And I, behold, I have given with him Aholiab, the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan: and in the hearts of all that are wise hearted I have put wisdom, that they may make all that I have commanded thee; Ex 31:1-6 KJVS

It was the last phrase that caught my attention, "I have put... that they may make all that I have commanded." Bezaleel and Aholiab were supernaturally endowed, not naturally talented. They were 'enabled' to do the will of God and then commanded to do it. That's as good an illustration of synergy and prevenient grace as I know. God empowered them to do his will, but their "responsibility" was to 'respond to his abilty and enabling'. As Paul wrote so many centuries later...

...work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure. Phil 2:12-13 NKJV

God holds us responsible for for working out what He has placed within... synergy. Both the desire and the dynamic are God's work, the doing is ours.

The Residency

The gift of the priesthood was really the maintenance element of the covenant. A single sin would have brought the whole thing to an end but for God's provision of the priesthood and the tabernacle. The priesthood and its sacrifices made forgiveness and reconciliation possible and made it morally possible for God to remain in the midst of his people. In the section on the daily burnt offerings we have this astonishing promise...

This shall be a continual burnt offering throughout your generations at the door of the tabernacle of meeting before the LORD, where I will meet you to speak with you. 43 And there I will meet with the children of Israel, and the tabernacle shall be sanctified by My glory. 44 So I will consecrate the tabernacle of meeting and the altar. I will also consecrate both Aaron and his sons to minister to Me as priests. 45 I will dwell among the children of Israel and will be their God. 46 And they shall know that I am the LORD their God, who brought them up out of the land of Egypt, that I may dwell among them. I am the LORD their God. Ex 29:42-46 NKJV

In concludes with a wonderful statement of God's purpose in bringing the people of Israel out of Egypt. Apparently it was so that He might be able to 'dwell among them'. This is an important focus. So often we focus on the phrase 'brought them out that he might bring them in'. There is truth in the statement although it needs another step in it; 'he brought them out to bring them to himself and then bring them in..' This concluding sentence of Exodus 29 is the key truth; I am the LORD their God, who brought them up out of the land of Egypt, that I may dwell among them. I am the LORD their God.

We have grown used to the idea now but the concept of a God who dwelled in the midst of his people was a revolutionary notion. When Moses had sprinkled the blood of the burnt offerings on the altar and the book and the people God revealed His intention; And let them make Me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them. Ex 25:8 NKJV The word 'dwell' is the root word from which we get one of the Hebrew words for 'tabernacle'; mishkan - a dwelling place, a residency. This is what the Tabernacle was created for. Its outward form was first a tent and later a temple but the inward concept was always of a dwelling place for God.

John's gospel has this picture in mind when it speaks of the incarnation; And the Word became flesh, and did tabernacle among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of an only begotten of a father, full of grace and truth. John 1:14 Youngs Literal. The Old Testament shadow had made this much plain that God would only indwell a sanctuary; a holy place. In the person of Jesus of Nazareth we find the reality of which Exodus was only a shadow; God was resident on earth in the person of Jesus.

Preparations for the Revival Conference at Greenock

Greg Gordon, Gareth Evans and Eli Brayley stayed in Reading overnight. They are 'touring' the UK and en route to the European Revival Conference to be held at Greenock later this month; Revival Conference. Greenock 25th-28th November Plans are now well advanced and over 1000 people have registered their intention to attend. In many hearts expectations are high that God will use the time spent together significantly. I am scheduled to take a 'break-out' session and may be involved in the question and answer session. You can see some of the sessions streamed on the internet. Unlike the American Conference these times should suit UK and European folks better.

The speakers will be from various backgrounds and will all attend without fee or traveling expenses. I mention this because I think it is a good indication of the stirring of God's Spirit in this willingness of busy men to set aside this time at their own cost to share their heart's burden for revival.

I have been thinking much about the Conference in these days and spending time in 'orientation' before the Lord. The question that I return to again and again is 'just what are we asking for and what are we expecting?' The word 'revival' is used in so many different ways that it is easy to talk 'past one another' and fail to communicate altogether. There is a scattering of 'definitions of revival' around the Sermonindex forums, all with their unique focus.

For myself the Conference is coinciding with a time when I am 'fizzing' with the wonder of the New Covenant. 'Fizzing?' well, in Psalm 45 the Psalmist declares:

My heart is overflowing with a good theme; I recite my composition concerning the King; My tongue is the pen of a ready writer. Psa 45:1 NKJV

The Psalmist is describing conscious revelation. Surely this is the way we must always preach/prophesy. The bubbling heart must speak concerning what it sees of the king but the speaker is aware that his 'tongue' is in the hand of the Author. This will be my prayer above all others at this time; that each speaker will 'overflow' with their theme and be conscious of a heavenly guidance in their utterances. Please do pray for us all.

The Covenant

I have just returned from a weekend in France where I shared in a small day-conference. My topic was the Covenant. I love this topic. Not 'covenant' in the way that the Reformed theologian understands it but just the way in which God has revealed the nature of his covenant with men and women. Isaac Watts said that you could join all the names of Christ together and they would still come short of expressing his glory. This is true of salvation too. It is expressed in terms of eating and drinking, baptisms, priesthood, justification, sonship, freedom from slavery and many another; one of those 'others' is Covenant. It seems to me that it has not received its due attention as a metaphor of salvation.

Covenant points towards relationship and of a relationship that has a specific beginning. There can be no 'covenant' without a beginning, but beginnings have no guarantee of permanency unless there is a 'covenant'. In that the whole story of the Bible is about relationships, the way that they are created, broken and restored, it is a wonderful topic for consideration.

The earliest hints at covenant are in the account of Eve's beginnings. When Adam views his gift from God he declares

And Adam said: “This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.” Gen 2:23 NKJV

The sense of this can be seen may following the idea through other parts of the scripture. Laban describes his relationship with Jacob in similar language:

And Laban said to him, “Surely you are my bone and my flesh.” And he stayed with him for a month. Gen 29:14 NKJV

It is Laban's way of saying we belong to each other; we are family. It brings into existence what the lawyers would call a 'legal entity'. The closest links are those of family and Laban is declaring that he and Jacob 'belong to each other'.

We see it used again at the time that the whole 'united kingdom' of Israel acknowledged David as king;Then all the tribes of Israel came to David at Hebron and spoke, saying,

“Indeed we are your bone and your flesh. 2 Also, in time past, when Saul was king over us, you were the one who led Israel out and brought them in; and the LORD said to you, “You shall shepherd My people Israel, and be ruler over Israel.’ ” 2Sam 5:1-2 NKJV

David and the people were united in solemn covenant, inseparably. Consider then what Christ had in mind when at the Last Supper...

In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 1Cor 11:25 NKJV

He was laying the foundation for a completely different kind of 'relationship', one unlike the covenant that Moses had facilitated... we would do well to consider 'the New Covenant' lest we should miss any of its blessings or obligations.

promises, blessings... then justification and then... covenant??

I am off to France tomorrow to speak at a small one day conference; my topic is the covenant. I have been re-reading some of the classic passages and was arrested by the passing comment in Hebrews in the account of Abraham's meeting with Melchizedek. It reads...

but he whose genealogy is not derived from them received tithes from Abraham
and blessed him who had the promises. Heb 7:6

I have noted this in the past but it caught my attention again today. Abraham had received promises long before he met Melchizedek. He received a later blessing from Melchizedek to add to the promises. This is all in Genesis 13-14 but he is not 'justified by faith' until Gen 15:6. This is prevenient grace at work; justification came later. Gen 16 then tells the story of the birth of Ishmael and consequently God's personal covenant with Abraham, sealed with circumcision, comes at least 14 years later in Gen 17.

I am not trying to create a doctrine or a necessary pattern but just observing the record that justification can, apparently, take place much later than first hearing God's voice AND much earlier than a personal entering into covenant with God. So what condition was Abraham in during those 'gap' years? I hear the familiar question... "but would he have gone to heaven...?" He was 'right with God' how could he be kept out?

Suppose we transpose this scenario to the New Covenant. Can a man or woman be 'right with God' before they enter into the New Covenant? As the New Covenant is first mentioned in Jeremiah 31 all the 'heroes of faith' recorded in Hebrews 11 were 'right with God' long before the New Covenant. Would this go some way to giving an explanation for so many today who have taken genuine first steps but for whom the 'better things' of the New Covenant are still beyond their reach? Makes you think doesn't it? ... or, at least, it ought to.

Codex Sinaiticus Part 3: Texts and Manuscripts

For many the whole area of Texts and original manuscripts is just an unintelligible minefield. The old joke was 'if it was good enough for Paul it is good enough for me' but there are serious issues at stake here too.

The ESV is increasing in popularity and is heavily endorsed by the likes of Piper and Grudem, but the ESV is based on a different family of manuscripts to those that lie behind the KJV and the NKJV. The ESV also has a different philosophy of translation in spite of its claim to be basically a 'word for word' translation. The ESV is an evangelical RSV and the RSV could never be described as 'basically word for word'; neither can the ESV.

The fact is there are literally thousands of ancient manuscripts but scholars can identify definite family characteristics. The whole theory of the 'transmission of the text' is hypothetical. Although different scholars take different positions on the matter, the fact is they are all hypotheses.

The most carefully reasoned hypothesis, to my mind, is from Robinson and Pierpoint. Essentially it claims that the original form of the Greek texts, known as the autographs is best represented in the texts which have the 'Byzantine' family likeness (sometimes called 'the Majority Text). Robinson surmises that some copyists developed a much freer copying pattern in which the original text was 'expanded' with explanations; these are known as the 'Western' family characteristics. Later copyists tried to redress this by going in the opposite direction and trimming out anything they thought might be an addition; this created shorter versions which are known as having the 'Alexandrian' family likeness. Robinson believes they trimmed out much that was part of the original Greek text. The Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus are members of the 'Alexandrian' family.

For those who 'know a little Greek' (yes, I know the joke about him running a kebab van!!) There is a very valuable and very cheap book available on Amazon. It is called The New Testament in the Original Greek; Byzantine Textform and if you buy it from Amazon.com it will still cost you less than £20 even with postage and packing. It contains a Greek text created by Robinson and Pierpoint and is perhaps the closest we have yet got to those original writings of Paul and the others. For those who are into this kind of thing he provides the textual variants from the NA27 and USB4 modern critical texts in footnotes. He also provides the significant Byzantine variations in marginal notes. This is a very valuable tool and the volume also contains some 'essays' from Robinson in which he sets out very clearly his transmission hypothesis.

OK, for some readers this will not be the most exciting blog they will read today, but if you know people who are seriously trying to understand this whole field, this is a great buy!

25th October 1958

This is a simple indulgence... it is 50 years ago today that I took my first conscious steps on my pilgrimage. Up until my 11th birthday I had never seen a Bible and only the fact that I needed one for grammar school brought one into our home. I was raised in a good home with good moral parents and required to 'say my prayers' each night but there was no knowledge of the gospel there.

My attendance at grammar school brought me into contact with a fellow student who was about to be 'confirmed'. He asked me if I was interested and I said 'yes'. I had absolutely no idea what 'confirmation' meant nor why I should want it, but I said 'yes' and began confirmation classes. The local vicar was a good friend but not a preacher of the gospel. I was duly confirmed, joined the Sunday School, joined the youth club, joined the choir and anything else that was going. Why? I have no idea!

Some years later a change of vicar brought a 'gospel man' into my life. I suppose he preached the gospel but I have to admit I never heard it. He and his wife invited the young people up to the vicarage to sing hymns after the evening service and that added another weekly event to my religious menu.

In 1958 when I was 16 he set up a film night and showed the film 'Souls in Conflict'. It was a documentary/biography of the Billy Graham crusade of 1956 in Haringey, London. I actually volunteered as a counsellor and did the classes before deciding I would rather be an usher!

On the first showing my world stood still. I had never perceived that it was 'my sins' that he carried on the cross. His commitment to me made my response to him an inevitability. To the opening strains of 'Just as I am...' I took my first conscious steps towards God. I recall one thing above all others, an exhilarating sense of sins forgiven; I felt I was walking on air and heaven was open to my prayer. They say the longest journey must begin with the first step... as far as I know this was mine.

My pilgrimage continues and there were many other important steps to take but tonight I lift my heart in amazed gratitude for God's goodness to me over half a century. What an adventure this has all been and the best still lies ahead.

"My remnant of days

I spend in His praise

Who died the whole world to redeem;

Be they many, or few,

My days are His due,

And they all are devoted to Him."