David's Mockery and God's Sovereignty

This is James White, I'm on the road right now, speaking right now with the

Sovereignty of God Conference in Hildon, New Jersey. The opportunity this past weekend to preach both at Tom's River and at Trinity Baptist in Montville.

And having a great time with the Brethren here, as you may know, this Thursday will be the dialogue with Imam Shamsi Ali on Long Island, and then five more churches before I fly home on Monday.

So hence the different background and the different camera, but I was directed to a

YouTube video by a young man, maybe at most 20 years of age, responding to some of my comments on Romans chapter 9.

There seems to be a series, I haven't been able to look at the entire series yet, as I'm working on material for the

Shamsi Ali debate, but be that as it may, I was just taken aback at not only the attitude this young man has,

I think there's a real difference in how, for example, I have responded to Norman Geisler over the years, accurately representing his material, appreciating the true things he has said in many areas, but then dealing with the errors in his exegesis in a respectful manner, and the kind of attitude that many who promote synergism have as they seek to respond to Reformed presentations.

Here's a man, probably younger than my youngest child, who does not evidently have any biblical training whatsoever, cannot read the

Greek language, and yet he is with laughter and mockery accusing me of error, of things that he simply does not even begin to understand.

It is not how this subject should be addressed in any way, shape, or form. But I did want to respond to some comments he made about the concept of foreknowing.

I had mentioned in my discussion of the Golden Chain of Redemption, specifically in Romans 8, that the term to foreknow is an active verb, it is an action, it's something

God is doing. In fact, all of the verbs in the Golden Chain of Redemption are active verbs.

God is the one who is doing the actions of these verbs, and I contrasted that with the common

Arminian understanding, though never argued for, just assumed, that when it says

God foreknew, that this means God passively took in knowledge, that it is in essence an equation with the noun foreknowledge.

I pointed out that in reality, when it says that God foreknew in the New Testament, the direct object is always persons, never actions.

Now, this young man does not understand the Greek language, he does not understand the difference between an active verbal form and the background of New Testament Greek, and especially in the

Apostle Paul, his use of the Greek septuagint, and therefore the meaning of Yadah in the

Hebrew coming into Gnosko in the Greek septuagint translation. He does not seem to understand that to know something is not simply a state of being, as he asserts, but instead, if he really had taken the time to think about it, the

Old Testament says, Adam knew Eve. Now, given his argumentation, that would mean that Adam sat there and he contemplated

Eve, and as a result, she bore a child. No, that's not what no means.

But this is the kind of very surface -level rhetoric, it's not argumentation, it's not biblical argumentation of any meaning, but the kind of rhetoric that one finds in many who try to oppose sound biblical teaching.

So let's take a look at what this young man said and how he said it, and respond to it here on the

YouTube channel. Hey there, everybody. Well, I finally got around to watching

James White's Have You Ever Read Romans 9? I couldn't put it off forever. And I have to say, there were some parts of it that I didn't mind so much.

The part where he read from the Bible was great. I like the Bible, I believe what the Bible says. But I maybe believed half of the garbage he threw in in between there, because he added so many human thoughts that were outside of Scripture to it that I really have to label him as at least ignorant.

Anyways, I hope to show some of the problems I have with his interpretation here, from Scripture and from basic grammar, where he's totally wrong.

All right, let's start by rolling a clip from the video. This isn't even three minutes in, and listen to the error that he makes.

For new, he also predestined to become conformed, the image of his son, so he would be the first born among many brethren.

I just stopped long enough to challenge in the minds of anyone who thinks this term for new as a verb is the same thing as the noun, to simply have foreknowledge that you are wrong, and that you need to look at the text of Scripture and realize this is an active verb.

This is something God is doing, and every time God is the subject, and this is the verb in the

New Testament, the object is personal, it's never actions. To simply say God knew who was going to believe, there is no example of that statement in the

New Testament. It's not there. Okay, you've said enough, sir. He's only partially correct in what he's saying here.

It's almost hilarious, but it's also kind of infuriating, the way he's passing this off. He's correct, this is an active verb, but he's not correct in saying that it's an action that God is doing.

Let me tell you something, there's a huge difference between an active verb and an action verb.

Would you like me to explain it to you? This is a simple grammar lesson for James White. I can't help it.

I'm a humorous guy at heart, I gotta joke a little bit, but honestly, this is so terrible.

An active verb is one that conveys the notion that the subject is the one, for lack of a better word, doing the verb to the predicate.

A passive verb is exactly the opposite the predicate does to the subject.

Let me give you an example. I know that fact. That fact is known by me. I just gave you the same sentence, reworded, twice.

In the first sentence, I used an active verb tense. I know that fact.

I am the subject. I'm the one who knows the fact. In the second sentence, the fact is known by me.

The fact is now the subject, but it's not the one that knows me. I'm the one that knows it. The predicate now knows the subject, and that makes it a passive tense.

It does not change the meaning of the sentence, though. It just changes the structure. So, unless Greek is radically different from English here, and I very much doubt it because I tried to look up on the internet, you know, tricky things with Greek active tense, didn't see a thing.

I assume it's the same thing as English, in which case, James White, you are dead wrong on this issue.

And the simple fact is, knowing is a state of being verb. Thinking, learning, studying, those are action verbs.

Those are things you do. But knowing is just a state of being. It's awareness. That's a basic way to paraphrase knowing.

It's just awareness of a fact or a phenomenon or whatever you want, okay? It's awareness.

It's a state of being. And I don't give a rip if it's in the active verb tense or if it's in the passive verb tense.

It's still a state of being verb, and it doesn't change the meaning of the text. So, by making this error,

James White, I have come to the conclusion, or one of three conclusions here. He's either ignorant, he's never heard this information before, didn't pay attention in an

English class, he's stupid, he's been presented with it and doesn't understand it, or he's a liar.

He understands it just fine and he wants to, you know, enforce an interpretation on the Bible that can't be gleaned from the scriptures.

And in order to propagate a false theology that might damn yourself to hell. Who knows? I'm not the judge.

Now, I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt. I hope he's just ignorant, but he should know better. Now, I've already noted the fundamental errors in this young man's presentation.

By the way, between recording these two clips, I looked up his YouTube channel, and his name is

David, and he's an 18 -year -old King James -onlyist, which would explain some of the problems

I would imagine when you've already bought into King James -onlyism as well. It's amazing how often

King James -onlyism goes hand -in -hand with the rejection of the clear teaching of the King James Bible on the subject of the sovereignty of God and salvation.

But we've already pointed out that the young man is confused in his understanding, or complete non -understanding, of the

Greek language, the use of active verbs, the context of Romans 9.

For example, later on in this video, he mentions the hardening of Pharaoh's heart, and then goes on, but remember,

Pharaoh hardened his heart first. Actually, no, he didn't, as the King James version of the

Bible itself teaches. Before Moses ever stood before Pharaoh, God said that he was going to harden

Pharaoh's heart. He completely misses the whole purpose of the Exodus story, the plagues, and everything.

Why? To defend the autonomy of man, the key element of human religion, and it is a sad thing to see.

But you'll notice that the entire presentation completely misses the point that I was making in regards to what it means for God to be actively involved in foreknowing us.

That is, that just as God knew Jeremiah before Jeremiah existed, that is, he chose

Jeremiah. He knew the people of Israel because he chose the people of Israel. The point that I made that he never responded to was that when

God is the subject of that active verb, what the direct object is, is never what people are going to do.

It is persons themselves. God foreknows persons. God does not foreknow actions when it's the active verb.

He doesn't respond to any of that. The entirety of his diatribe, his mocking diatribe, to discuss active and passive in English, which he doesn't even get right there either, misses the actual point.

You see, in Romans 8 specifically, and the golden chain of redemption, the assumption on the part of so many when they read those whom he foreknew, they, through their traditions, translate that into those whose actions of faith

God foresaw on the basis of those actions of faith he then predestined.

Now, he accuses me of eisegesis. He has no basis for doing so. But I would like to assert that reading that boatload of theology into that verb is a classic example of eisegesis.

It is importing a huge concept that you're not deriving from this context in any way, shape, or form.

My challenge is to demonstrate where God ever foreknows actively, as an active verb, the actions of people in the future in this way.

Now, there are only a few places where this verb appears with God as the subject, so it should be pretty easy to answer that challenge.

You see, it would be much better if this young man would argue somewhere along these lines.

I'll help you out here, David. The first thing you would need to do is to argue that the

Greek Septuagint usage of these terms and the Hebrew language usage of these terms is not in Paul's thinking.

Now, that would be impossible if you do, because you, later in this video, assume that Jeremiah is the background of the entire

Potter and Clay episode, even though you do not make application to Paul's own interpretation in Romans 9.

You just go to the Jeremiah text and assume that your interpretation is correct.

But see, you've already demonstrated a recognition of Old Testament backgrounds, but you'd have to start there.

You'd have to argue that Yadah, as it is used in Genesis, Yadah, as it is used in Jeremiah, in the

Minor Prophets, is not in Paul's background. And then you would have to argue, having disconnected

Paul from the Old Testament, that the verbal form is identical with the noun form in the sense of merely the possession of the knowledge of future events.

That's where you'd have to go. Now, it's not really possible to do that, but that's the only logical, rational, fair direction that you would have to go to try to get around the conundrum that you find yourself in.

And so we see, once again, the desperate lengths to which, sadly, even young people will go to defend the traditions that have been passed on to them.

And I would like to encourage David to continue his biblical studies, but to do so with more of a sense of humility and more of a sense of recognizing the gravity of the subjects that he is addressing.

The behavior that he shows, laughter, mockery, of people who are old enough to be his parents, who have demonstrated a consistent ministry and love for the

Word of God, and who know far more about the subjects under discussion than he does, that attitude does not befit a discussion of the

Word of God. So I would encourage him to continue his studies, but to do so with a very different attitude than he has up to this point.

Be open. I'll be honest with you what my great concern is. I have met many people like David who, as a young person, were very zealous, but it was a zeal without a foundation of wisdom.

It was not a deeply seated zeal. And where I've met them is as atheists, because as they continued their education, they were hit with so many things that attacked the foundation, especially it's so easy to demonstrate the circular nature of King James -only -ism, that they ended up leaving the faith.

And I don't want to see that happen. I believe that David could do great things, the

Kingdom of God, if his zeal be channeled with a heart of wisdom. And I would hope that the

Lord would bring that about in David's life. So thanks for watching, and I hope as you consider once again the message of the

Golden Chain of Redemption as you work through Romans 9, you'll allow the text to speak for itself, to recognize the sovereign kingship of God, and his freedom as the creator to do with his creation as he sees fit.