Sunday, April 02, 2006

What Does James White Believe About the Eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ?

The below note from Brother Bob Ross speaks for itself. "Dr." James White is invited to respond. What about it, James? Was John MacArthur correct then or is he correct now?


[April 5, 2006 UPDATE: Brother James White wrote a response, of sorts, on his blog in which he says he "always held to Christ's eternal sonship." In the below comments section, Brother Bob wrote a reply to James' response. The comments section also contains quotations from James White's book, The Forgotten Trinity. -- Charles]

[April 5, 2006 2nd UPDATE: James wrote a Quick and Final Addendum to which Brother Bob replied in the comments section.


Dear Charles:

I hope you can find a convenient place to post this on the Flyswatter. It is just one example of James White's inadequacy as an "apologist," "theologian," and "exegeeter."

I will also later send you example on another matter -- how James has no comprehension of the "King James Onlyism" of Dr. Peter Ruckman of Pensacola, Florida, whom James misrepresents in his "King James Only Controversy" book. I have rebutted Ruckman many times, and James should have known Ruckman's view, but he is still "in the dark" on the matter.

The fellow named "Tex" who posted on about me was all "cornfused" about the matter of James White and the John MacArthur in regard to the Eternal Sonship of Christ. The problem that James had with me at that time was due to James' own lack of theological perception on this doctrine of Eternal Sonship.

You see, James evidently was lacking in understanding on the doctrine of the Trinity and the Eternal Sonship of Christ, so James accepted and defended John MacArthur's view as being orthodox. Here is James' statement in defense of MacArthur's view, in an email of 11/11/1997:

He [MacArthur] doesn't have a modalistic Trinity. He believes the Son has eternally existed as a DISTINCT PERSON from the Father. His WHOLE ARGUMENT has to do with the use of the term due to exegetical considerations."

Now, in view of that statement, I had only one of two choices in regard to my thinking about James White, whom I previously thought had a sound view on the Trinity:

(1) I could think that James was also heterodox (non-creedal) similar to John MacArthur's view, or --

(2) I could think that James was simply ignorant of what the foregoing statement implied.

I chose #2 and tried to help James comprehend the doctrine of Eternal Sonship in contrast to MacArthur's view (at that time) that Christ was simply an eternal "DISTINCT PERSON" but was not to be described or considered to be the ETERNAL SON, as He is affirmed to be in Creedal Christianity.

But James would have none of it, and still stood by his guns in defense of MacArthur and he resorted to vilification in his remarks about me.

James said, "There seems to be the strong possibility that your rendition of John's position is NOT UP TO SNUFF, shall we say, with reference to accuracy." (11/12/97).

He also referred to the "SOLID TEACHING of John MacArthur" and referred to my evaluation of MacArthur's view as "baloney" (11/14/97).

James claimed he was "shocked" when I said that MacArthur's view was the same as Peter Ruckman's who also denies the Eternal Sonship of Christ while affirming the eternal Person of Christ.

James quickly tired of corresponding with me, made a few denigrating remarks about me, and told me to take his name off my email list, which I did.

If John MacArthur had not later changed his views to accept the creedal view of the Eternal Sonship of Christ, James White might still be wandering in the wilderness on this matter -- and so far as he has said anything about it, he may still be out there. He has never confessed and recanted, as MacArthur did.

Unfortunately for James, I received the following email from Phil Johnson, MacArthur's "right hand man:" --

Date: 8/31/99 10:33:01 AM Central Daylight Time
From: Phillip R. Johnson

Dear Bob,

I promised that when John MacArthur had more to say on the Eternal Sonship issue I would send you a copy of his comments. Below my .sig you'll find a statement he is releasing for public distribution this week. You get the first copy.

Phillip R. Johnson

That statement has since been put online at

MacArthur's acknowledgment of his erroneous view was also a rather condemnatory statement in regard to James White and his view.

If MacArthur had been wrong on Sonship in the past, SO HAD JAMES WHITE.

MacArthur had the Christian character and integrity to admit his past error, we rejoice in his actions. He now stands for the Eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ.

As for James White, he has NEVER confessed and admitted his error, and who knows -- does he still contend that MacArthur's PAST position on this matter is "SOLID TEACHING" and that Dr. MacArthur's current creedal view is "BALONEY" -- as charged on this doctrine in the past?

Charles, why don't you invite James to tell us, on this blogsite, if he NOW (1) endorses the ETERNAL SONSHIP OF JESUS CHRIST and (2) renounces the past view once held by John MacArthur which he defended in correspondence with me as being "solid teaching"?

He does not have to "apologize" to me, Charles. He should APOLOGIZE TO THE ETERNAL SON OF GOD! -- Bob L. Ross


At Sunday, April 02, 2006 5:14:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Charles, I promised you some comments about James White and his inadequacies regarding "King James Onlyism." --

Charles, James White -- despite all his debating and self-promotion as an "apologist" -- is really quite APPALLING on some things of great signficance.

Not only on the ETERNAL SONSHIP issue, on which he defended the non-creedal heterodoxy of John MacArthur, for which J-Mac later recanted, but James has very lamely attempted to take on PETER RUCKMAN of Pensacola, Florida on "King James Onlyism."

James was, and is, quite unprepared to take on Ruckman, for James does not even understand or comprehend Ruckman's views about (1) the King James Version or (2) the inspiration of the original Scriptures.

In James' much-heralded book, "The King James Only Controversy," since its first appearance in the distant past when we erroneously thought that James was worthy of commendation, I have noticed that James is seriously deficient in regard to Ruckman.

James foolishly categorized Ruckman as believing the KJV was "RE-INSPIRED" by God in 1611 (The King James Only Controversy, pages 4, 6).

No wonder Ruckman literally laughed-off James as a "fool" when Ruckman reviewed the book! This is the furtherest thing to what Ruckman believes. Ruckman, in his most "famous" booklet, "Why I Believe the King James Bible is the Word of God," plainly states:

"I'VE NEVER SAID THAT THE KING JAMES BIBLE WAS INSPIRED" (page 6, edition of 1988; page 7, undated reprinted edition I obtained from Ruckman in 2005).

For years, I have offered a financial reward for any one who can find where Ruckman has ever affirmed that he believed the KJV -- or any version of the Bible -- was INSPIRED.

Ruckman does not believe that any WRITING was inspired, but he believes that it was the ORIGINAL "SPEAKING" that was "given by inspiration."

Ruckman has NEVER affirmed that any "writing" was inspired. How could a great appallingist like James White miss this fact?

Here are a few remarks from Ruckman which demonstrate the fact that Ruckman does not believe in what the "ordinary Bible believer" believes about an "inspired" Bible:

"The holy men of God who 'spake' -- NOT 'WROTE'" (Bible Believers Bulletin, 1/96, p. 12).

His view of "inspiration" is that what the prophets and apostles "spake" was "given by inspiration."

Actually, Ruckman denies the "plenary, inerrant" inspiration of writing. Here is his comment:

"Such terms as 'plenary' and 'inerrancy' and the like are manufactured terms, and they were invented by the Cult" (BBB, 4/89, page 2).

In his book, Pastoral Epistles (page 270), he says:

"We do NOT refer to the AV as the 'verbally inspired, inerrant Word of God."

"Verbal' inspiration is connnected with speaking, NOT WRITING, because 'breath' is involved" (BBB, 6/92, p. 19).

As for the "inspiration" of the KJV or any other version, he says:

"Not one time did God guarantee that ONE of the translations was inspired" (BBB, 11/91, page 10).

"And I never told anybody on the face of this earth that the King James is a word for-word translation of Greek or Hebrew" (BBB, 7/92, page 20).

On "italics," he says: "I never told anybody on the face of this earth the italics in a King James Bible were inspired" (BBB, 7/92, page 20).

Now, if any one in this reading audience can find anywhere that Ruckman himself ever said or wrote that ANY Bible, KJV or otherwise, is the "INSPIRED Word of God," please send me the quote. I have been asking for it for several years and thus far, no one -- including Ruckman and his disciples, "Ruckman Knights" -- has sent it to me.

I will give $100 for any quotation from Ruckman where he ever said the Bible is "inspired."

Putting confidence in James White as an apologist is obviously the type of thing referred to in Proverbs 25:19 -- "like a broken tooth, and a foot out of joint." -- Bob L. Ross

At Sunday, April 02, 2006 5:52:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Just call "The Dividing Line"
Most Tuesday Mornings at 11 am MST and Most Thursday Afternoons at 4:00 MST

1-877-753-3341 (Toll Free)

Is there a support group for people obsessed with James White?

At Sunday, April 02, 2006 6:53:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck Brown said...

Just call "The Dividing Line"
Most Tuesday Mornings at 11 am MST and Most Thursday Afternoons at 4:00 MST

1-877-753-3341 (Toll Free)

Is there a support group for people obsessed with James White?


If James wants Charles and/or me on this show to enhance the number of the listeners, as for my part, I want to know what is the scale of PAY for my services? The laborer is worthy of his hire.

I am not in the habit of helping promote subpar propaganda programs which promote aberrant doctrines, such as the DL, so the pay had better be worth my time and notoriety.

I will have to confer with Charles anyway, as I am under Contract with Charles for my Internet appearances, and I doubt if James can match the compensation which The Calvinist Flyswatter provides.

In the meantime, Charles has issued an invitation for James to respond on this blogsite, if he has anything to say. And he won't be charged for using the space. -- Bob L. Ross

At Sunday, April 02, 2006 10:21:00 PM, Blogger Phil Johnson said...

That's a surprisingly twisted version of what actually happened.

The fact that John MacArthur changed his view on Eternal Generation and the significance of "Sonship" doesn't prove that his prior view was damnable heresy.

For the record, James White wasn't the only one who tried to tell Bob Ross that MacArthur's earlier view wasn't anti-Christian or anti-Trinitarian. I tried to tell Bob the same thing many times prior to MacArthur's change-of-views, and I still believe it. As a matter of fact, in the "retractation" (which Bob Ross evidently accepts as an orthodox statement) John MacArthur himself wrote, "The 'incarnational sonship' view, while admittedly a minority opinion, is by no means rank heresy."

I also happen to know that James White never shared MacArthur's view of incarnational sonship, nor did he "defend" the view in the sense of suggesting that it was a correct view. He simply refused to caricature it as damnable heresy. It's a little hard to see how that would make White a heretic—much less someone worthy of the kind of scorn Bob Ross constantly pours on him.

Furthermore, the statement quoted from James White ("He [MacArthur] doesn't have a modalistic Trinity. He believes the Son has eternally existed as a DISTINCT PERSON from the Father. His WHOLE ARGUMENT has to do with the use of the term due to exegetical considerations") is absolutely true and furnishes no proof whatsoever that James "was lacking in understanding on the doctrine of the Trinity and the Eternal Sonship of Christ."

As for "heterodoxy," I don't recall that White (or MacArthur, for that matter) ever denied that MacArthur's earlier view was "not creedal." What MacArthur, James, and I always protested in Bob Ross's polemic was his liberal and unqualified use of harsh pejorative terms like "heterodoxy"—and his frequent comparisons of MacArthur with the most despicable sorts of heretics out of church history—in a context that left many readers with the impression that MacArthur was on the same level with Arius for his "heterodoxy." (I know that was the impression many of Bob's readers got, because I had to answer their letters for years—and occasionally still get questions from people who read Bob's old material.) Bob sometimes seemed loath to admit that MacArthur could legitimately claim to be a Trinitarian at all—though I'm quite sure he knew better.

It's very sad to see him now using the same kind of uncharitable rhetoric to try to demonize James White.

I like Bob. When I first met him he was a nattering critic of MacArthur at every opportunity, and one of my responsibilities was to answer his letters and attempt to make sense of his criticisms. The criticism didn't always make sense, even then. But I have always liked Bob anyway, and I always found him infinitely more reasonable in personal correspondence and personal conversations than he seems in the stuff he writes for public consumption. He'd have a much better ministry, I think, if his public persona reflected more of what he is really like in person.

I deeply appreciate Bob's efforts—and the sacrifices I know he has made—to publish Spurgeon for my generation. Multitudes of us are indebted to him for his life's work. My own love for Spurgeon is the result of my reading material Bob published and made freely available.

So it gives me no pleasure to disagree with Bob Ross publicly, but in recent days he seems to have escalated his personal campaign against James White, and since I know some of the facts in the dispute he outlines above and don't believe Bob is being fair to John MacArthur or James White, it's my duty to say so.

At Sunday, April 02, 2006 11:06:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


I am not in the habit of helping promote subpar propaganda programs which promote aberrant doctrines, such as the DL, so the pay had better be worth my time and notoriety.

BOB: Perhaps I should elucidate just a bit here, Charles, lest someone misinterpret me.

James is seeking to embellish himself as some great debater, but the chances are he would never on his life engage me in a Public Debate. I am not bragging; I am just stating my personal opinion. I just don't believe James is that stupid.

But I am satisfied he would like to sit there in Phoenix in charge of his talk program and attempt to manipulate it to his advantage. He could not do that in a Public Debate, and he knows it.

Furthermore, his audience would be considerably increased by my appearance, and I do not care to be "used" for that purpose. Ruckman boasts of selling hundreds of videos of my appearance in Pensacola, while at the same time his cronies pulled our camera plug and we did not get all the program, so we never produced a video.

I do not listen to the cherished DL, and so far as I am concerned I am not interested in helping James embellish it. If he has the wherewithal to debate, then I will gladly consider his propositions. Chances for that are "slim to none." After all, James is not always as naive as he might seem.

BTW -- have we lost our "pigeon" from Georgia -- Scott Morgan? You didn't leave the bird cage open, did you Charles? Remember? -- he wants to debate me.
-- Bob L. Ross

At Monday, April 03, 2006 1:12:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


So it gives me no pleasure to disagree with Bob Ross publicly, but in recent days he seems to have escalated his personal campaign against James White, and since I know some of the facts in the dispute he outlines above and don't believe Bob is being fair to John MacArthur or James White, it's my duty to say so.

BOB; When I heard Joel Gregory, former pastor of First Baptist in Dallas, preach at one of the anti-SBC seminary "Texas Baptists Committed" rallies here in Houston at Williams Trace BC, I shook hands with Joel and told him that I had written many things against his TBC fellow-travelers, but I was going to grant him "absolution" because he was one of the very first to buy an entire set of Spurgeon's sermons from us in 1969. Joel was a student in Baylor when he first subscribed in advance for an entire set of the sermons. He said, "I have slept with those books for all these years!" I said, "Joel, I am not going to 'write you up' for helping the TBC, you can thank Spurgeon for that!"

I also hereby grant my friend Phil Johnson "absolution" for anything he writes with which I do not agree, for Phil is a lover of Spurgeon, and is doing a great work on the Spurgeon Archive.

I will not write against Phil, nor reply to Phil, nor seek to denigrate Phil at all. I believe in due time, Phil may come to see things my way -- just as John MacArthur did on (1) imputed righteous versus imparted righteousness for justification, and (2)Eternal Sonship versus incarnational sonship.

Whatever Phil says in James' behalf is from Phil's perspective, and what I say is from mine. In due time, the truth will always rise to the surface, and either Phil or I will then probably have "egg on the face."

God Bless You, Phil! I dearly love you for promoting Spurgeon! I would like to go on the cruise with you and James so I could polish your shoes and serve your breakfast in bed! You are doing a great work for the Lord!

I praise God for John MacArthur, and for his stand for the Trinity and Eternal Sonship of Christ.

I pray that James White may follow in John's footsteps! -- Bob L. Ross

At Monday, April 03, 2006 11:50:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Dear Charles:

In view of the fact that James White apparently has never renounced his 1997 endorsement of John MacArthur's "sonship" view --which MacArthur later renounced in 1999 to adopt the creedal view of Eternal Sonship -- I wonder if the Founders have been finagled into a union with a man who may yet still hold to a heterodox (non-creedal) view on Sonship?

It would be shame if the Caners put the bee on that matter in their debate with White and Ascol, don't you think? And James would not have Phil Johnson there to come to his aid. Then what?

Has James White ever endorsed John MacArthur' recantation of his pre-1999 view of "incarnational sonship"? Has he ever endorsed MacArthur's view of Eternal Sonship which John adopted in 1999?

I wonder if Tom Ascol holds to (1) Eternal Sonship or (2) "incarnational sonship"? If he holds to the former view, what if he be found working with a debate partner who at least once endorsed "incarnational sonship" to be "SOLID TEACHING," and has never announced that he has recanted that endorsement?

What's your thinking on this, Charles?
-- Bob L. Ross

At Tuesday, April 04, 2006 1:16:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...



Charles, I have been consigned to "Hell" so many times over the years by some of those who disagreed with me on certain issues that there surely will have to be an enlargement of hell at my coming!

It will take a very large furnace to accommodate the amount of "fire" which will be required to sufficiently "char" and "fricassee" me for all of my "damnable heresies."

Why, the "King James Onlys" themselves have heaped sufficient decrees of damnation upon me to make my torment in Hell last more than an eternity, if that were possible! Not to mention the Campbellites, and a few others who have discerned that I am just about the worst snake that ever was hatched in the nest of iniquity.

But despite all the Shimei curses of the KJVOs who cast their 1611 stones, I have been "comforted" to some degree by the fact that Possel Peter Ruckman, the foremost advocate of KJVOism, has stated that he "has never doubted Ross' salvation." I appreciate Possel's opinion, and I am frequently delighted to tell a Shimei that his curse upon me may not be fulfilled, as Possel has already given me his "seal of approval" on salvation. And, if that is not enough, I still cling to John 3:18!

JAMES WHITE's recent propaganda effort to "cover his tracks" in regard to his endorsement of John MacArthur's former "incarnational sonship" view, which J-Mac renounced in 1999, has only served to raise the question in some quarters about the significance of what we call "heresy," "heterodoxy," and "damnable heresy."

Some people don't seem to know that there is a distinction to be made and understood.

(1) "Heterodoxy" is not necessarily either heresy or damnable heresy. Specifically, heterodoxy is simply a distinct diversion from Creedal or Confessional Christianity on some issue of importance. It simply means that the view expressed by the Creed is not consistent with the advocacy of a notably different view on the subject.

(2) "Heresy" has more of an application to teachings within Scripture about which a person may be in error. It may be major error, or it may be minor. But the fact that it is not acceptable as scriptural teaching and therefore erroneous, it is called "heresy."

(3) "Damnable heresy" is heresy which is so serious it is most likely "damnable" to believe it. This would always be a major error, an error to the point that if one holds it, he is obviously not saved. Like, for instance, if one taught that Christ did not come in the flesh, that would be "damnable heresy" to believe it. "If you believe not that I am He," Jesus said, "you shall die in your sins."

Since questions have arisen about "incarnational sonship" in recent days, I wish to state that on this issue --

(1) We believe it is heterodoxy, as it is a diversion from the Creeds.

(2) We believe it heresy, as it is not the scriptural teaching on Christ's Sonship.

(3) We do NOT believe it is "damnable," for it does not reject the Deity and Eternity of the Person of Christ.

In the case of John MacArthur's past view, we NEVER at any time regarded that view as "damnable heresy." We did hold that it was heterodox, and we did hold that it was heresy - in accordance with our foregoing definitions.

James White has bristled at our regarding "incarnational sonship" as heresy, and he is welcome to his perspective on what constitutes heresy. But if "incarnational sonship" is not heresy -- that is, an erroneous concept when tested by Scripture -- then we hardly see how any error on the Person of Christ which is short of being an outright denial of the very fundamentals of His Person -- such as Virgin Birth, Deity, and Eternity -- could be regarded as heresy.

At any rate, whether "incarnational sonship" be regarded as heresy or not, James endorsed MacArthur's former view as "SOLID TEACHING," and since John MacArthur recanted that view to endorse the Creedal (orthodox) view, shouldn't James follow suit and renounce his own error of the past, if he agrees that MacArthur did right in recanting his former view to endorse Creedal Christianity on the Eternal Sonship of Christ?

If James believes MacArthur did the right thing, and if James himself endorses Creedal Christianity on the Eternal Sonship of Christ, why can't someone -- perhaps Phil Johnson? -- "gig" him to the point that James will face this matter and publicly set the record straight?

Why does he persist in trying to "explain" and "justify" his past endorsement of John MacArthur's view, as if the whole thing amounts to nothing of any significance. Is this not a case of what some call "denial"? "Oh, yes, I did say that, but I didn't mean that way; Ross is just being mean and ugly about it, and I don't like the way he has handled it," blah, blah, blah.

I might have known -- "It was Ross' fault"! That's how it was sometimes with my kids -- they made the mistakes, but would say, "Well, Dad, blah, blah, blah . . . " -- and as it turned out, it ws my fault after all! -- Bob L. Ross

At Tuesday, April 04, 2006 1:32:00 PM, Blogger charis said...

What does the Eternal Sonship issue have to do with the Doctrines of Grace? Why bring it up if it would not add to the debate, but sidetrack from it?

At Tuesday, April 04, 2006 3:15:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


What is your excuse for not calling the DL?


At Tuesday, April 04, 2006 3:38:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


charis said...
What does the Eternal Sonship issue have to do with the Doctrines of Grace? Why bring it up if it would not add to the debate, but sidetrack from it?


Sonship is the very heart of the FAITH ONCE DELIVERED TO THE SAINTS, for which we are told to contend (1 John; Jude). This is more important than the "ordo saluting" hype and palabber.

The entire book of John was written on this theme (John 20:31). It's far better to be sound about the Son of God than about the "Doctrines of Grace." One is vital to eternal life, the other is simply a matter of what is correct thinking in theology.

You can believe the "Doctrines of Grace" theology system, yet not be saved and have everlasting life.

John says he wrote that "ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have eternal life through his name."

You can be an Arminian or a Calvinist, and be saved based on John's teaching. In fact, many Calvinists will say that they were first saved under the Arminians before they learned the "Doctrines of Grace." Thank God for the Arminians, right?

So, anything that might detract from the Sonship of Christ is most important. Any man professedly preaching "Grace" who detracts from or neglects the central message that Jesus Christ is the Son of God needs to have his compass set aright. He might exegeet on election, depravity, atonement, calling, and perseverance according to the theology books of the great Pedo-regenerationist scholars like Shedd, the Hodges, Berkhof, Boettner, etc., but might MISLEAD about the Son of God if he is not in line with Confessional Christianity. See? -- Bob

At Tuesday, April 04, 2006 4:19:00 PM, Blogger Eye said...

Charis asked: What does the Eternal Sonship issue have to do with the Doctrines of Grace? Why bring it up if it would not add to the debate, but sidetrack from it?

It has everything to do with this. Please go and read 2 Timothy 2, especially 15-19 and 24-26. I agree with Charles and Bob in that it would appear James White has backed himself into a corner and his arrogance and pride are keeping him from 'recovering himself out of the snare of the devil'...

James White holds himself up as a teacher and an apologist of the Word, yet he is remiss in repenting from his defense of MacArthur's erroneous position, even after MacArthur changed his mind.

White has yet to repent on this point, therefore he must believe he is still correct. If this is the case, then his theology is faulty not only on this point, but most likely suspect in other places.

In Him,


At Tuesday, April 04, 2006 4:51:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Charles, has it occurred to you that it seems that the Hybrid Calvinists put more emphasis upon their theological SYSTEM and "ordo salutis" shibboleth than they do the Son of God?

Yet the CENTRAL theme of the Bible is that Jesus Christ is the SON OF GOD, and this is to be believed for salvation

The GOSPEL presents Jesus Christ as the SON OF GOD, and one must accept His Sonship for SALVATION by Him (John 8:23, 24).

The issue that confronts every man is, "Have you ever accepted Jesus Christ as the SON OF GOD?" (Hebrews 7:3). Or, What think ye of Christ? Whose son is He?

The Gospel points us to Christ as the SON OF GOD, and we are to trust HIM, not "trust the Gospel" as such. His resurrection simply verifies and testifies to His Sonship (Acts 13:33).

This is what the Father revealed from Heaven to Simon Peter -- "the SON of the living God" (Matt. 16:16-18).

This is what was revealed to Paul on the road to Damascus ("to reveal His SON in me," Gal. 1:16).

This is what Philip preached to the eunuch: "I believe that Jesus Christ is the SON OF GOD" (Acts 8:37).

"He that believeth on HIM  [the SON, 3:16]  is not condemned" (John 3:18).

This is why John wrote his Gospel: "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the SON OF GOD; and that believing yo might have life through His name" (John 20:31). "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten SON, that whosoever believeth in HIM should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).

"These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the SON OF GOD; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the SON OF GOD." (1 John 5:13).

"Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the SON OF GOD, God dwelleth in him, and he in God" (1 John 4:15).

"Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the Gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) concerning His SON Jesus Christ our LORD, which was made of the seed of David, according to the flesh, and declared to be the SON OF GOD with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead" (Romans 1:1-4).

"For the SON OF GOD, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us" (2 Cor. 1:19).

"And we know that the SON OF GOD is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his SON Jesus Christ. This is the TRUE GOD, and eternal life" (1 John 5:20).

You see, Charles, the Gospel presents Jesus Christ as the SON OF GOD. Anything which emphasizes that truth is "Gospel." If it does not emphasize that truth, it is not "Gospel."

Many periphery truths about Christ contribute to faith in His Sonship, but it is acceptance of His Sonship which is saving, not faith in the peripheries as such.

We may major on peripheries which embellish and substantiate His Sonship, but we are missing the HEART of the Gospel -- the SONSHIP OF JESUS CHRIST. Unless He is received as the Son of God, nothing else matters.

We need to put the emphasis where it belongs -- upon that which is the most important truth of the Gospel -- the SONSHIP of Christ. 

Doctrine and theology are important subsequent to being saved, but the MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL biblical truth is that one must accept Christ as the Son of God. -- Bob L. Ross

At Tuesday, April 04, 2006 6:07:00 PM, Blogger Charles said...

Bob Ross said, "Charles, has it occurred to you that it seems that the Hybrid Calvinists put more emphasis upon their theological SYSTEM and 'ordo salutis' shibboleth than they do the Son of God?"

Not only that Bob, but their obsession with the ordo salutis fails to give glory to God!

"The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus" Acts 3:13. The Father has glorified THE SON, not the ordo salutis.

"For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." 2 Peter 1:17. The SON, not the ordo salutis, received glory from the Father!

To toss out as not being important the doctrine of the SON OF GOD and substitute an obsession with the ordo salutis is an attempt to diminish the GLORY OF THE SON OF GOD!

Is the doctrine of the SON OF GOD important? If God has glorified THE SON, how much more important could it be?

I am so glad the ETERNAL SON OF GOD had mercy on me and saved me when I repented of my sins and believed on his holy name!


At Tuesday, April 04, 2006 6:13:00 PM, Blogger Charles said...

Hello, Chuck Brown!

chuck brown said...

What is your excuse for not calling the DL?


Bob Ross gave you a good answer. James is invited to answer here on The Calvinist Flyswatter. Don't hold your breath.


At Tuesday, April 04, 2006 8:02:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't think it will make James any money if "charles" calls in.

I don't believe it will enhance the number of listeners if "charles" calls in

This is unless "charles" is really charles colson, then I might be wrong.

But if you call in spontaneously with little fan fare, no new people will be drawn to the program just to hear "charles".


At Tuesday, April 04, 2006 10:27:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Charles said,

To toss out as not being important the doctrine of the SON OF GOD and substitute an obsession with the ordo salutis is an attempt to diminish the GLORY OF THE SON OF GOD!

I don't know, Charles, how much you have read in Louis Berkhof's pedo-regenerationist Systematic Theology book published by the Banner of Truth Trust, and so "highly esteemed among" Reformed men, but it is a veritable "ORDO PALUDAL" on Regeneration.

In other words, it's a quagmire, a marsh, an everglades, a slough of despond.

Berkhof opens his "Soteriology" section with an immediate plunge headfirst into the "Ordo Paludal," and he never comes up for any Gospel air thereafter. He took a permanent case of PALUDAL FEVER, and never recovered.

His eyes, ears, nose, mouth, and the rest of him is literally immersed and encased in the marshy miasma of carnal reasoning, based on the "more fully developed" ORDO PALUDAL.

You never saw a worse mess this side of Pelagius, Sandeman, and Alexander Campbell than Berkhof.

On over in this section of his book, where he is polluting "regeneration," he dumps the "17th century" authors (Puritans like Charnock) because, he says, "that was in the days when the ORDO SALUTIS was NOT AS FULLY DEVELOPED as it is today"
(Systematic Theology, pages 466, 468.

My question is, when did POLLUTION become identified as "development"? In those "underdeveloped" times, they believed in the WORD as the instrument used by the Spirit in regeneration, but somewhere in the "development" stages the use of the Word was jettisoned.

For my part, you can give me Stephen Charnock and Thomas Watson back in the 17th century "before" the ORDO PALUDAL was more "fully developed"!
-- Bob L. Ross

At Tuesday, April 04, 2006 11:54:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Dear Charles:


"I was surprised years ago, to discover just how irascible a fellow he could be. In some context,

That quote is from James' website for April 4, 2006.

Despite James' recent posting on his website in which he pleads A LACK OF MEMORY as an apparent excuse or reason for his current confusion, I do not think we can let the brother's comments go unnoticed.

I am very SORRY that James cannot remember the past when he so eloquently came to the defense of the views of John MacArthur who at that time DENIED the "Eternal Sonship of Christ" and held to the "Incarnational Sonship" theory.

Now, despite his apparent VERY SIGNIFICANT memory loss, James is NOW saying that he actually held to the "Eternal Sonship" view and "disagreed with MacArthur" -- AWAY BACK in 1997!

My book was published in 1993, and my presentation of MacArthur's views were read by MacArthur and approved as ACCURATE before I published the book. James had FOUR YEARS -- from 1993 to 1997 -- to see what I said in the book, and yet in 1997 he sent me emails accusing me of misrepresenting MacArthur and he further affirmed that MacArthur's views were "SOLID TEACHING"!

Has James had a mental check-up lately? Has that stuff he has been putting into his body effected his brain?

Before I get directly to further comment on James' most recent demonstration of his deteriorated memory or state of mind, I want to post the following FACTS which are clearly remembered by me, in contrast to James' admitted loss of memory.

As I clearly recall, the matter about John MacArthur's former view on "Sonship" and its relation to my controversy with James White, was first brought into current focus by a poster named "TEX" who vainly attempted to "explain" that situation in a post on a few days ago (April 1, 2006).

"Tex" knew only enough to create confusion about the facts of the case. It has only created confusion in some minds.

If that misinformation by "Tex" had not been posted by Chillies before he got the "facts of the case," I don't think I would have had any reason whatsoever for going to the trouble of setting the record straight with regard to James White's 1997 criticisms of me for critiquing John MacArthur's view which John held in time past.

James' criticisms were directed at me inasmuch as James apparently shared MacArthur's thinking to the extent of referring to John's view as "SOLID TEACHING," etc.

James may have been simply "blowing smoke," but he put himself on record as evidently at least favoring the view held by John MacArthur, and alleging that my criticisms of the view constituted "baloney."

Now Brother Phil Johnson has contributed some defensive comments on the matter, ostensibly in James' defense, and whereas -- as I have stated -- I have no intention whatsoever of replying to Phil, I do believe it is incumbent upon me to explain to you, Charles, exactly WHAT I CRITIQUED about MacArthur's view in time past and exactly for what James White was scolding me.

I owe this to you, since you were not acquainted with that in the past, and as the administrator of your blog, you should know about such things that become a matter of attention on the Calvinist Flyswatter.

I wrote my book on the "Trinity and Sonship" and published it in 1993. That was four years before James White decided to take me to task about J-Mac's view.

Before I published that book in 1993, I sent the following materials (below) to John MacArthur for his examination to see if I was correctly presenting his view in my critique. I received the reply that my representations were indeed accurate -- that John did indeed hold to the "incarnational sonship" view and I had properly represented his position. I therefore proceded to publish the materials in my book.

In nothing which I wrote in any form, subsequent to publishing that book, did I ever critique John MacArthur on ANY point which was not represented in the book.

I have all of the subsequent emails, for instance, and will be happy to send them to you for your reading, if necessary. And, if necessary, you are welcome to carry them on your blogsite to dispel any unjustifiable charges which are made about you, me, and the Flyswatter blog in days ahead by either James White or his presumed defenders.

Why it took James White four years to discern that my representations were "not up to snuff," who can tell? James has always seemed to me to be a little "foggy" on some matters. Too much of that stuff he wrote about taking into his body awhile back, perhaps?

My representation of John MacArthur's view was satisfactory to John MacArthur in 1993, but James, in his unique and great discernment, was able to find fault four years later so as to presumably "correct" even John MacArthur's implied "error" in 1993 when John said that I had stated the case correctly!

Charles, I will not let James White "off the hook" so easily, Phil Johnson's defense notwithstanding.

The fact remains, if John MacArthur held an erroneous view in the past, and if James White defended that view as "SOLID TEACHING," then James White was defending an erroneous view -- whether he in fact held that view himself or not. Has he ever repented of the eroor of his way? If so, when?

Of course, in the course of time, In August of 1999 John MacArthur released a statement saying that he had in fact changed his view, and we always enclose a printed copy of John's statement about tje change in each of my books which we send out.

We are proud of John MacArthur -- he demonstrated real integrity in this matter. It is "tough" for a leader of his stature to make a change and openly acknowledge it, but he did the right thing. Imagine how the great apostle, Peter, must have felt when he, too, found it necessary to make some changes in his thinking (Galatians 2:11, 12).

But we think more highly of Peter than ever before for making the changes, and so likewise with John MacArthur.

It remains, however, for James White to fess up and repent, and follow the good example of John MacArthur, if James now shares John's view on the Eternal Sonship of Christ.

I regret that this matter has surfaced again, and I apologize to John MacArthur for finding it necessary to focus attention upon it so as clarify the recent confusion on the Internet. -- Bob L. Ross


By Bob L. Ross -- Published 1993

[Excerpt from Chapter 11, pages 152-154]

Other Theories Which Deteriorate the Son of God

I am personally disappointed in the positions expressed by influential men such as John MacArthur, Walter Martin, and J. Oliver Buswell, as well as the position expressed in the Dake's Annotated Bible, which is an influential work among trinitarian Pentecostals.
Certainly, I do not mean to imply that these men are in the same category with the "Oneites" who deny the very existence of a trinity. None of these men denies the trinity as per the "Oneness" doctrine. Yet they do hold, in my judgment, theoretical positions which deteriorate the truth of the trinity, especially as to the Son of God.
Having read their materials, it appears to me that at least one of the motivating causes of a great segment of their thought is the desire to effectively refute the heresies of the cults, such as the Russellites (so-called "Jehovah's Witnesses") who are Arian, holding that the Son was created.
In reality, however, the very strongest blow against Arianism is the substantiation that Jesus is the Son of God and, as such, is therefore eternal. Establish this Gibraltar and no heretic may enter the Mediterranean without having his ship blasted out of the water!

John MacArthur

1. The MacArthur view. This popular radio speaker and author of several books, holds that the "Son" is an "incarnational title of Christ," as he states in his commentary on Hebrew 1.
He asserts that He became the Son when he was "begotten in time." His identification of the trinity prior to time is as first, second, and third Persons, so he does not deny the trinity itself. He holds that the second Person was always God, but not the "Son." MacArthur says this is an "extremely important point" and requires "much study to understand."
When I first became aware of MacArthur's heterodoxy, I wrote a letter to him, about his views, to ask how he arrived at his position. Was it from his own personal study of the Bible, or was he influenced by a theologian, or perhaps a commentary [such as Arminian Adam Clarke, who also takes this position]?
Despite the nature of my letter, being written simply in the form of inquiry, without any statement of disagreement, MacArthur did not respond, and has not responded to subsequent letters.

In reading his published comments, however, MacArthur implies that this position was reached, at least in part, from the conviction that it is an effective answer to the cultist who "comes to our door" with the doctrine that Christ is not God, but "only a son."
MacArthur either betrays a confused mind about the doctrine of the eternality of the Son, else he deliberately misrepresents it in the course of his commentary.
For example, he uses terms which express concepts completely foreign to the truth of this position. Terms such as "eternally inferior to God," "always less than God," "always under God," "eternally subservient to God," etc. attribute to the doctrine of eternal Sonship a character that in no wise is the truth. Advocates of Eternal Sonship never teach such ideas. Why MacArthur concludes that the term "Son" implies such characteristics is certainly inexplicable. Even among mankind, a son is not "less" a person or a human being because he is a son; a son is not "inferior" because he is a son, for after all, all men are "sons," but this does not imply inferiority
But MacArthur's error is the same error as Bernard: he presses the analogy of human sonship too far. If he perceives human sonship to be inferiority, subserviency, and "less than," he certainly has no grounds for pressing such characteristics upon the doctrine of eternal Sonship, for it never asserted such concepts. And of course, the biblical usage of the term "Son of God" never indicates such characteristics.

MacArthur apparently is confused as to the Son of God's work as the Mediator, by which He voluntarily took upon Himself a body, prepared for Him (Heb. 10:5), and in which He submitted Himself under the Law of God in the behalf of His Covenant people. In this work, although He was the Son of God, yet He "learned obedience" (Heb. 5:8). According to Strong, the word "learned" means to learn "in any way," and the text says the Son learned "by the things which he suffered" -- not only the sufferings of the cross, which were of a penal nature (1 Peter 3:18), but the sufferings of His entire life (Romans 5:19; Heb. 4:15). He "learned," not as one who lacks knowledge, but He learned in the sense of personal experience in the flesh; He lived-out every human experience required of us by the Law of God, thereby establishing a perfect righteousness ["all righteousness," Mt. 3:15], a righteousness which exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees (Mt. 5:20).

It is probable that MacArthur's confusion on the doctrine of imputed and imparted righteousness, as manifest in his book on Justification by Faith, is related to his confusion in regard to the doctrine of the Son of God and His Mediatorial work. Since he teaches that the believer is justified on the ground of infused righteousness, it is consistent with his view that the Son of God did not incarnate Himself in the flesh to live a vicarious life as well as to die a vicarious death. [See note on page 162].

The views of MacArthur might well deserve a more thorough examination and refutation, but this will have to suffice. The primary purpose here is to deny the allegation that the doctrine of Sonship either expressly teaches or implies that there is any "inferiority" or "less than God" status to the Son. Only as he voluntarily assumed human flesh, and lived under the Law, are such adjectives applicable, and then only to His Mediatorship, never to His Deity as the Son of God.

[Note to page 153: MacArthur "no longer holds the view" he advocated in Justification by Faith (1985), according to his assistant Phillip Johnson (letter, 1/5/93). His current view is expressed in his book, Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles (Word, 1993). Hopefully, his position now conforms to historic Christianity. I have yet to see the whole book, but I have read excerpts.]

At Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:03:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

From the Forgotten Trinity by James White

And as I will assert more than once in this work, God revealed this truth about Himself most clearly, and most irrefutably, in the Incarnation itself, when Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, took on human flesh and walked among us. That one act revealed the Trinity to us in a way that no amount of verbal revelation could ever communicate. God has been pleased to reveal to us that He exists as Father, Son,and Holy Spirit. Since God feels it is important to know, we should likewise. (14-15)

But,on the other hand, what about the second understanding of the passage? Here we have the eternal Son of God, existing in the very form of God. He is equal with the Father, enjoying the privileges of deity itself. But, He does not consider that positionHe has of equality something to be held on to at all costs. Instead, out of the great love He has for His people, He voluntarilylays aside those privileges, and takes on the form of man. He becomes a servant in the fullest sense, for He lives His entirelife in service to the very ones He has come to redeem. And in the ultimate act of service, He is obedient to the very point of death upon a cross. (127)

At Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:50:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Dear Charles,

I have a few more comments about James' 4/4/06 stab at humour -- or whatever it is. I suppose you can blame on a bad memory.

He says "it is fairly obvious Ross has never read my works."

Well, true, I have never read all that James has written. I don't think I could bear it. I doubt very seriously that I have the wherewithal to tolerate that much palabberous exegeet'n that wound up having men "born again before faith."

However, I did read James' EMAILS in 1997 when "out of the clear blue cyberspace" he mounted an assault upon me as if I was attacking and misrepresenting John MacArthur -- a man who had approved of my representations of his position presented in my Trinity book.

Perhaps James had not read my book, or perhaps had a loss of memory on what the book contained. If James found me at fault, he never once cited an instance of my error. Perhaps he also forgot that, too.

YES, I READ JAMES WORKS in the EMAILS he sent to me, and he was defending John MacArthur and John's views.

But NOW James says that he DOES REMEMBER that when he said that John's views were "SOLID TEACHING," he REMEMBERS that he DISAGREED with MacArthur and was "talking about his entire ministry" -- AS IF MACARTHUR'S VIEW ON SONSHIP WAS NOT REMEMBERED BY JAMES AS BEING A PART OF HIS "ENTIRE MINISTRY."

Did James forget that John's view on sonship was a part of his "entire ministry"?

And as for REMEMBERING MacArthur's "entire ministry," I REMEMBER that MacArthur also recanted his views on JUSTIFICATION which were held by him until he wrote "Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles" (Word, 1993). Before that, MacArthur held that justification was based on INFUSED RIGHTEOUSNESS, and not on IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS.

I wonder -- was James also endorsing INFUSED RIGHTEOUSNESS when he now says that by "SOLID TEACHING" he was referring to MacArthur's "ENTIRE MINISTRY"?

I do not mind saying the I REMEMBER that I have NEVER regarded "infused righteousness" and "incarnational sonship" as being "solid teaching" in anyone's ministry.

At one time, I REMEMBER that John MacArthur held to BOTH OF THESE at the SAME TIME, -- in fact, during the time he wrote his commentaries for Moody Press and his "Gospel According to Jesus," which in both of those sources I REMEMBER he held to erroneous views which he later recanted.

Not until his "Faith Works" book did J-Mac affirm "imputed righteousness" as the basis for justification, and not until his statement in 1999 did he affirm the Eternal Sonship of Christ.

This may be embarrassing for John MacArthur for me to have to REMEMBER these things, but if James White had a better memory and had the character to act in accordance with the facts he remembered, I would not be compelled to draw from my memory these past episodes of John's change in views. -- Bob L. Ross

At Wednesday, April 05, 2006 1:07:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Dear Charles:

James White, in two different emails this evening, said:

What church are you a member of, sir?  Your elders should be informed that you are engaging in false testimony against elders in the church of Jesus Christ.  You need to be held accountable for your outrageous behavior. 

I still wish to know who your elders are.  I wish to forward them a letter informing them of your slander of an elder in a Reformed Baptist Church, provide full documentation, and ask them to bring correction as they see fit.

At this time, I have not had a chance to talk to my Pastor yet, but due to my close association to him as Assistant Pastor, I think in all fairness to James, he would want to extend an invitation to James and his Elders to come to our church at their earliest convenience and James could present his case.

Then my Pastor and Church officers would give me the opportunity to defend myself in regard to James' complaint. Afterwards, a decision would be made in regard to James' complaint -- whether it is of merit or of miasma.

As for lodging, we have plenty of extra rooms in our homes and I am sure we will be happy to accommodate the visitors from Arizona.

And while James is here, perhaps he would like to have a public debate with a member of our church, one who would represent Creedal Calvinism against James' Hybrid Calvinism?
There are a few "Reformed" churches in the area who might be interested in backing Brother James. -- Bob Ross

At Wednesday, April 05, 2006 1:33:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Dear Charles:

Since James has revealed he has a poor memory, I thought I would remind him of a couple of other items in his emails of 1997:

(1) ETERNAL SONSHIP -- A "NON-ESSENTIAL" (Friday, Nov. 14, 1997).

James said, "Well, this predominately a-mill Reformed Baptist has had enough of this. I'm going to go spend a few minutes thanking the Lord that I'm not right about everything, and feel no need to skewer those who disagree with me on NON-ESSENTIALS."

The "non-essentials" referred to was the Eternal Sonship of Christ.


James said: "I fully support TGATJ," referring to John's book in which John rejected the view of justification based on IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS. He did not hold to imputed righteousness until later.

Does James remember calling Eternal Sonship "non-essential" and that he "fully supported" the Gospel According to Jesus, a book in which John MacArthur opposed imputed righteousness? -- Bob L. Ross

At Wednesday, April 05, 2006 3:04:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Chuck

I hear that you're hotter than a flagellating flyswatter. Enjoy it while it lasts. Popularity has wings.

BTW, like the kilt. Chuck of Breadalbane Modern?

Hey, that wouldn't be you, would it, in the sidebar advert between the links to Dr Edwin Vieira and John Taft at If so, James White and Co had better watch out!

For the record, what's your kind of Calvinism? The "irresistible" Geneva Griddle Cakes kind or more a five-point fricasee?

Hope you don't get chucked overboard on the cruise.



At Wednesday, April 05, 2006 9:19:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Based on the quote from The Forgotten Trinity, do you now know what James White believes about the eternal sonship of Christ?

How about an acknowledgement that it is clear that he believes in the eternal sonship of Jesus Christ?

Stink Bug

At Wednesday, April 05, 2006 9:22:00 AM, Blogger Scott said...

Charles and Bob,

When true " confessional Calvinist" talk about the order of salvation this is what we mean:

We are giving praise to the Godhead for the work they have done for the Elect. So, we are talking about Christ and giving Him true praise. As we talk about the order of salvation and each work ( Myself and others are actually thinking much of the Godhead) for what they have done for us rather than think or brag on ourself.

At Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:35:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...




Based on the quote from The Forgotten Trinity, do you now know what James White believes about the eternal sonship of Christ?

How about an acknowledgement that it is clear that he believes in the eternal sonship of Jesus Christ?

Stink Bug


Who really knows what James' believes? He says one thing at one time, and another at another time. He seems to be a double-minded man.

In fact, WHY DID JAMES EVER GET INVOLVED IN THIS, ANYWAY? WHY DID HE MOUNT AN ATTACK ON ME IN 1997? John MacArthur was not complainin; why James White?

If anyone was going to question or challengE my writings about MacArthur, it should have been John MacArthur, not James White.

When I first became aware of John MacArthur's view on sonship in 1988 -- about which I was informed by a layman in a Baptist church in Beaumont which was on the verge of having a split over John's view -- I attempted to follow-up on the matter with J-Mac by regular mail at the layman's prompting.

I tried more than once, but received no replies to my letters.

As time went on, I eventually began to call attention to J-Mac's view in some of my writings. Then I decided it would be worthwhile to write a book on the Trinity and Eternal Sonship, and in it I would discuss some of the deteriorating views, including MacArthur's.

I sent the materials about MacArthur's view to John for him to examine before I published the book. I wanted to make SURE I had stated the case correctly.

John's assistant, Phil Johnson, had phoned me, and after I sent them my critical materials which were to be published in my 1993 book on the Trinity and Eternal Sonship, it was confirmed that I had represented MacArthur's views properly.

At that point in time, we were promoters of James White and what books he had in print. We promoted him in our monthly magazine, too.

At that time, I would have told you that James White was sound in the faith, SO FAR AS I KNEW. But I was in for a SHOCK!

My book was published in 1993. We were on good and perfect terms with James White at the time, and we had never had any controversy whatsoever with him about ANYTHING.

But then, in 1997, all of sudden and without any advance warning whatsoever, JAMES WHITE began a "Bombs Away" campaign against me with critical emails alleging that I had mistreated and misrepresented John MacArthur, and contending that John's teachings were "SOLID" and that the Eternal Sonship issue was a 'NON-ESSENTIAL."

The STRANGEST thing about this whole affair with James White is that JOHN MACARTHUR HAS NEVER ONCE ACCUSED ME OF MISREPRESENTING HIM!

I was roundly scolded by a few people who thought my terms were a little "too tough" on John, but John has NEVER complained, and none of my critics has cited a SINGLE INSTANCE where I have misrepresented John's position on Sonship, either his former view or the later view.


John MacArthur has never complained about my writings.

I don't believe John MacArthur encouraged James White to attack me.


If James is hurting now over this, it is not my fault.


Where James stands on Eternal Sonship -- WHO KNOWS for sure?

If he now says he held to it in the past and "disagreed" with MacArthur, WHY DID HE ATTACK ME FOUR YEARS AFTER MY BOOK WAS PUBLISHED IN 1993, THE BOOK IN WHICH I CITED MACARTHUR'S VIEW?

WHOSE SIDE WAS JAMES ON? The "incarnational sonship" side or the "Eternal Sonship" side. Did he "forget" who represented those views at that time?-- Bob Ross

At Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:56:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


$500 REWARD -- Any Quotation from Bob L. Ross which misrepresents John MacArthur on his view on the Trinity -- specifically, any charge that J-Mac denied the Trinity of First, Second, Third Person.

$500 REWARD -- Any Quotation from Bob L. Ross which misrepresents John MacArthur on his view of the Eternality of the Person of Christ -- specifically, any charge that J-Mac denied the Eternity of the Third Person of the Trinity.


-- Bob L. Ross

At Wednesday, April 05, 2006 2:08:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Charles, I have mailed the following to James' pastor in Phoenix:

Dear Pastor Fry:

I wish to complain about the behaviour of one your members, Brother James White.

I believe that he has unjustly attacked me dating back to 1997.

I am herewith sending you an item which will at least partially explain the matter. Thank you for your attention, and I hope you can get James to adjust his behaviour.

This brother, it seems to me, is bringing reproach upon the good name of your church and Reformed Baptist churches in general. - Bob L. Ross, Pilgrim Publications

From The Calvinist Flyswatter:

Bob L. Ross said... 04/05/06


[I quote the post of Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:35:03 PM]

At Wednesday, April 05, 2006 3:17:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr. Ross,

Have you lost your ever lovin' mind? I think you have.

Someone needs to write your pastor and Charles pastor about all of your slander of the living and the dead. If by chance you are pastors then your congregations need to be made aware of your insanity as well.

You two men have some nerve with no biblical merit to back you up on your constant attacks on those that do not agree with your opinions.

You are shameless and shameful and if I worked with you I would be totally for your remove from position.

What these men do that you attack at less are back with scriptural evidence and not personal opinion if you must continue your ranting the least you can do is be biblical if not it is slander and you need to shut your mouths!


At Wednesday, April 05, 2006 3:30:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You must have some sort of intentional or congenatal blind spot to not see that James White believes in the eternal sonship of Christ.

Get on with your life. People need to hear the gospel, spend your time on something else.

At Wednesday, April 05, 2006 3:37:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Anonymous said:

Someone needs to write your pastor and Charles pastor about all of your slander of the living and the dead. If by chance you are pastors then your congregations need to be made aware of your insanity as well.


I regret to inform you, Anon, that this is "Old News."

You see, Sam "Gyp the People" Gipp and Possel Peter Ruckman declared me to be "certifiably insane" several years ago!

Gipp and Ruckman both believe the KJV is the ONLY "God's Word" for English people -- since 1611.

Ruckman also teaches that the Antichrist will return on a UFO, land at St. Peter's, and impart the Mark of the Beast by kissing people with his "two huge black lips." Gipp says the apostles used the KJV.

You are in very good company with Gipp and Ruckman in sharing the view that Ross is "insane."

At Wednesday, April 05, 2006 3:45:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are shameless and shameful and if I worked with you I would be totally for your remove from position.

Aren't you the lucky one? The fact is, the Internet Conglomerate which owns The Calvinist Flyswatter only hires qualified personel, and you may not have the necessary credentials. But if you did, I can assure the pay is fabulous. And the perks . . . they are something else! -- Bob

At Wednesday, April 05, 2006 3:59:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


My Pastor called this morning, and during our conversation, I told him that James White wants to file a complaint against me to our church leaders.

The Pastor gave me the "OK" and "Go Ahead" to facilitate James' request, and to handle this matter with James' elders and church.

He said, "It's up to you -- you have my 100% endorsement."

So -- James and his elders are invited to come to Pasadena and present their charges against me. I will respond to them, and then the elders from both churches can make their decision on the matter.

Whenever they wish to come, we will make arrangements for their meals and lodging. They will treated as brethren in Christ.

Furthermore, if James wishes to debate on "Regeneration," we will be happy to furnish our builing for the debate. He might use this debate as a "tune-up" for the Caners debate at Lynchburg.

-- Bob L. Ross

At Wednesday, April 05, 2006 4:15:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Dear Charles:

Looks like we have finally "smoked James" out of his Moonshine Operations where he exegeets the "White Lightnin'"!

On his website today, he says --

As much as I would love to ignore Ross' wild-eyed rants, I cannot always do so.

He has finally emerged from his groundhog hole, Charles, and is now putting himself in line for some direct hits. He will live to rue this day!

In his article today, he palabberates about his OWN "disagreement" with John MacArthur, and talks about how he never attacked the person of John MacArthur:

When I wrote my paper responding to his view of Titus 1:6, did I attack John as a person? Did I raise issues about his character? Did I assume that if I believe him wrong on his exegesis of Titus 1:6, that must mean he is a false teacher? No, of course not

Is James now implying that BOB ROSS ever attacked the person and character of John MacArthur, or alleged that John was a "false teacher," -- other than on (1) "infused righteousness" and (2) "incarnational sonship"? And is he alleging that Bob Ross ever used the expression "FALSE TEACHER" of John MacArthur?

Is James accusing me of these things?

If he is, the REWARD is herewith increased:

$500 -- For any Quotation from Bob L. Ross that attacked (1) the "person" of John MacArthur, (2) his "character," or (3) alleged that J-Mac is a "False Teacher."

Now is your chance to pick up some easy money, James. Let's have the quotes. -- Bob L. Ross

At Wednesday, April 05, 2006 5:08:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Dear Charles:

James White has finally found something for which to repent! On his website today, he says --

The only thing I have to repent of is the error of ever having recommended Bob L. Ross to anyone in the past.

Not only that, Charles, but I believe in due time James will have even more for which to repent -- namely, for his sticking his nose into trouble in 1997 by attacking me and for his most recent tomfoolery of trying to justify his past attack.

I think he is already, perhaps, experiencing the goodness of God that leadeth to repentance in regard to attacking me in 1997 and 2006.

God could have withheld His rebuking grace and left him alone, and he could have gone on in his carnal ways.

But hopefully he is showing preliminary signs of conviction, and hopefully this will lead to contrition, and to his ultimate repentance. -- Bob L. Ross

At Wednesday, April 05, 2006 5:14:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Dear Charles:

The REWARDS for James White continue to increase! I am beginning to wonder if I will be to make good on all of them!

James charges that "he misrepresented MacArthur and made outrageously false statements concerning the conclusions of the position John once held."

Here is the latest increase:

$500 -- for any QUOTATION from Bob Ross where "he misrepresented MacArthur and made outrageously false statements concerning the conclusions of the position John once held."

James will be able to buy a lot of Kyrstal burgers when he cashes in on these Rewards? -- Bob L. Ross

At Wednesday, April 05, 2006 5:34:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Charles, I just wondered if you will be coming to Pasadena for the meeting with James White and the Elders from Reformed Baptist of Phoenix?

If you do plan to come, I just wanted to tell you that I have a good friend who is on the Staff at Brother Joel's Church, and I will arrange for us to have "down front" seats and you will get to meet Joel and Victoria personally!

Joel will sign your Bible and pray for you, and Victoria might even give you a hug! She is far more beautiful in person than on TV, Charles, and you will never forget meeting these great Christians. -- Bob

PS -- If James wants to attend, I can also get him and his Elders a downfront seat!

At Wednesday, April 05, 2006 5:47:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Charles, I don't know if this is legal and appropriate or not -- but there was a fellow in the Store awhile ago and he said he would give 100-1 Odds that James White (1) will not debate Bob Ross, (2) Will not accept the invitation to come to Pasadena to make his complaint against Bob, and (3) will not give one single quotation from where Bob said those things about John MacArthur which James accuses him of.

What do you think, Charles? This man is dead serious and he is asking me to accept the "bets" by email, credit numbers from the bettors, names, addresses, etc.?

What do you think? Is that legal, or what? I have no particular interest in this myself -- I think those odds are so safe that there is probably not a nutski on this website who would risk his dollar betting on James!

-- Bob

At Wednesday, April 05, 2006 6:08:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Charles, did not you notice in James website article that he admits that he "disagrees" with John MacArthur?

He says he disagreed with John on the "sonship" matter --
I defended John MacArthur's ministry while disagreeing with his specific viewpoint on the eternal sonship of Christ.

He also volunteers that--
"I disagree with his understanding of Titus 1:6 and the issue of "believing children." When his view was presented to one of our elders back in the mid to late 90s, I was asked to respond for the church, which I did.

Charles -- which is more important -- (1) the Eternal Sonship of Christ or (1) the proper interpretation of Titus 1:6?

James and his church were so concerned about Titus 1:6 that James was ecclesiastically commissioned to "respond for the church" and he "wrote a paper," which he submitted to Phil Johnson to pass on to John MacArthur.

But on the Sonship disagreement, his church evidently was not concerned. It was evidently a "non-essential." For some reason they did not commission James to respond about their disagreement with J-Mac on the Sonship issue. James did not write a paper on it. Instead, James wrote some emails -- to Bob Ross with whom he allegedly "agreed" on Eternal Sonship!

The only concern James had about his alleged "disagreement" with John MacArthur on Eternal Sonship was to attack Bob Ross -- and for what? -- why, for exposing what James said he (1) disagreed with MacArthur on and (2)agreed with Bob Ross on! Bob just didn't do it the right way! James agreed with Bob on Eternal Sonship and disagreed with MacArthur, but James felt like he ought to defend John MacArthur!

Isn't that rather "curious and interesting," Charles?

You know, Charles, if James had been asked by his church to respond to J-Mac on Eternal Sonship -- who knows, I might have never even thought about writing on the matter! James might have handled it so discreetly it might have never even been noticed!

Why did James let us all down? -- Bob

At Wednesday, April 05, 2006 6:36:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Posted on The Calvinist Flyswatter, April 5, 2006.

Sent to the Elders of Reformed Baptist Church, Phoenix, Arizona:

The Elders of the Reformed Baptist Church of Phoenix, Arizona are hereby formally invited to come to Pasadena, Texas for the presentation of charges against Bob L. Ross by James White before Park Temple Baptist Church.

Proceeding according to Scripture, Matthew 18:15-18, Brother White is first invited to confer with Brother Ross privately.

If they cannot settle the complaint, then Brother White is invited to take one or two more to discuss the complaing with Brother Ross, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

If that does not settle the matter to Brother White's satisfaction, then he is invited to present the matter before the church here in Pasadena where Brother Ross is a member and subject to discipline.

Our church hopes that the third step does not become necessary, but if it does, we hope a cordinal settlement is reached.

I am acting for the church where I am a member, Park Temple, and hope this matter may be resolved to every one's satisfaction. -- Bob L. Ross

At Wednesday, April 05, 2006 6:59:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Dear Charles:

In James' website article today, he makes this proclamation:

Let it be known that Ross' claims regarding my adherence to the 1689 LBCF are false and have been refuted;

Have I missed something, Charles? When and where did James White show that my claims -- that he does not affirm the teaching of the 1689 LBCF -- are
"false and have been refuted"?

Has James repudiated what he presented in the debate with Dave Hunt -- wherein James presented the "born again before faith" claptrap?

Has he repudiated his "exegeet'n" on John's writings wherein he claims that "regeneration precedes faith," that one is "born again" before he believes in Christ?

Those phantasmagorical ideas will as likely be found in the LBCF as quickly as one will find the baptism of babies!

All of that sort of stuff is PEDO-REGENERATIONIST doctrine, not Baptist. It was hatched by the pedos and you will find it in their hatcheries.

Even pedo-regenerationists Shedd and Berkhof admit that the same vanities which James presented are not in the Westminster Confession (aka LBCF for Baptists).

The "Ordo Paludal" had not even been fermented to its more "developed" level in 1689.

What James teaches on "regeneration" is about as CLOSE to the teaching of the 1689 London Baptist Confession as the HARDSHELL BAPTIST CHURCH where James was invited to preach this type of doctrine awhile back.

See the items on TCF about James' preaching for the Hardshells -- Bob L. Ross

At Wednesday, April 05, 2006 7:09:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Dear Charles:

While some readers may think it was my idea, let me set the record straight -- straight from the White Lightnin' Distillery in Phoeniz, Arizona.


James called out for it here --

I had asked Mr. Ross for the name of his church so I COULD BRING this matter, with documentation, to the attention of his elders. He has informed me he is one of the elders. It is reprehensible for one in such a position to behave as he is behaving, and I call upon his fellow elders to seek to bring about his repentance for this public slander.

On the authority of our Church, James and his Reformed BC have been invited to BRING their case and we will hear it. We are responding for this to be done in accordance with the procedure in Matthew 18:16-18.


At Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:14:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Grow up and get a life.

At Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:16:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Dear Charles:

Inasmuch as James White pleads LOSS OF MEMORY in regard to the "context" in 1997 at which time he became so enraged with my critiques of John MacArthur's then-view of "incarnational sonship" that he launched an email cluster-bombing against me, I went back to my files to bring out an article which I sent out about that time. It very well illustrates the type of crtiquing I was doing of MacArthur prior to his ultimate recantation of the view I was critiquing.

The following review about the MacArthur Study Bible was sent out by me about the time James' loaded his missiles and fired them at me in 1997.

I think you will note the TOTAL ABSENCE in this particular article of any type of "PERSONAL attack" upon John MacArthur's "person," his "character" and the absence of any allegation of J-Mac's being a "false teacher' on anything other than the "incarnational sonship" view and its relation to the eternal "Father, Son, Holy Spirit" trinity concept. I at no time denied that MacArthur held to (1) the eternity of Christ, and (2) an eternal trinity of first, second, and third persons.

This will serve as "Exhibit A" of how far-fetched James White's charges are and how far off of the target his Saddam-like scud missiles were in the latter part of 1997.

Furthermore, this review is still very much APPROPRIATE in our time, for the MacArthur Study Bible is still on the market, and in fact, we have it right here in Pilgrim Book Store on sale. I asked Nelson's sales rep awhile back when a new edition was coming out, and this particular rep said he had not been told.

This short article reveals some of the first edition's heterodox concepts. By the way, Charles, "heterodox" simply means "unorthodox," or contradictory to the Creedal view on Sonship. James White seems to attach some sort of more wretched idea to the word which makes it appear to be a "personal attack" type of word. Just another example of James' own deficiency in polemics.

MACARTHUR STUDY BIBLE Pre-Publication Booklet -- REVIEWED by Bob L. Ross, 1997

[Since writing this article, we have received an article by John MacArthur which affirms the creedal position on the Eternal Sonship of Christ, in contrast to the "incarnational sonship" view which he had previously espoused and which was his view when he prepared the MacArthur Study Bible. Ask for Email #550 for the article.]

At the 1997 Christian Booksellers Convention in Atlanta, we were given an excerpt from The MacArthur Study Bible, a new annotated Bible published by Word (now a part of the Thomas Nelson company).

In an advertisement in CBA's Trade magazine, Marketplace, the Bible is described as follows:

"Unlike past 'classics' burdened by outdated theological systems, The MacArthur Study Bible strives to let the systems go, and let the Word of God speak. And day after day, year after year, you can always count on hearing something new" (page 57 insert).

On the historic, orthodox, creedal view that the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is immanent and eternal, this new Bible does indeed "let the systems go," if the excerpted booklet on the Book of Hebrews represents the whole.

The notations on Hebrews 1:5 and 7:3 virtually demolish these texts as supportive of the historic creedal view that Jesus Christ is the Eternal Son of God in an unalterable personal relation in the immanent Trinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Compared to the view of Bible doctrine set forth in the Creeds, Confessions, and the Theological "standards," a denial of the eternality of Christ as "SON" is heterodoxy.

In other writings, MacArthur has also expressed the view which makes the pre-creation trinity a "nameless" unity, as he believes the "SON" is a "role" assumed by the "second person" when He took on human flesh, which also implies the "Father" is a "role" assumed by the "first person."

The reference to "outdated systems" would therefore include the orthodox Trinitarian view expressed in the historic Creeds, Confessions and theological sources of the major Protestant and Baptist churches.

MacArthur contends that "Sonship" refers to Christ in a role of Son which supposedly began in a point of time when He was incarnated via the virgin birth. This birth constituted Him as the "Son."

This view of sonship is sometimes called the "incarnational sonship" theory; most modern advocates repeat many if not all the arguments given in Adam Clarke's commentary on Luke 1:35. It was also the view of Albert Barnes and Alexander Campbell, and we see it as akin to the "Oneness" Pentecostal interpretations of the passages on "Sonship." As the eternal God, He becomes the Son at the incarnation; but as the Son, he is not the eternal God; "Son" is but a title of His incarnational experience.

MacArthur uses the Syriac Peshitta translation on Hebrews 7:3 to bring the reading of the passage more inline with his theory. We view Hebrews 7:3 as one of the strongest biblical affirmations of the Eternal Sonship of the "Son," and the note by MacArthur demolishes this great truth from that passage.

We have previously written on MacArthur's heterodoxy (non-creedalism) on the Son and the Trinity, and in my book on THE TRINITY AND ETERNAL SONSHIP OF CHRIST I make comments on unorthodox views of MacArthur, Walter Martin, Adam Clarke, the Dake's Bible, and others (pages 151-162). They deny the Eternal Sonship of Christ and the immanent, eternal Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as expressed in the Creeds and Confessions. [Note: this is not a charge that MacArthur denies the trinity as such, but he denies the "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" descriptive title for the trinity, opting for "first, second, and third persons."]

Unfortunately, we expect to see "Oneness" Pentecostals, Muslims, followers of Peter Ruckman and Gail Riplinger, and others who repudiate the Trinitarianism of historic Christianity quoting from the MacArthur Study Bible in days ahead, especially in denial of the Eternal Sonship of Christ.

While some readers may be admirers of John MacArthur, we admire the orthodox view of the Trinity and Sonship of Christ more than we admire any man. We regret that we ever have to report a departure from this truth, especially if someone in the conservative camp is in serious error on such a significant truth.

In Western nations, the Sonship of Christ and the Trinity are assaulted on all hands by the Cults and "invaders" from the Middle East and the Far East. The addition of this Bible will only serve to further the cause of those who oppose creedal Christianity on these truths.

My above mentioned book on this theme is available for $12 (plus $3 shipping). Other materials on MacArthur's views will be sent with your order at no extra charge-- END OF REVIEW ARTICLE.

It was this or a similar type article which I suppose was the "forgotten context" which "set off" James White's email tirade against me.

Do you see any "personal" attacks upon either John MacArthur's "person" or his "character" in that review, Charles? For some unexplained reason, that is what James White claims that he "saw" and that is his current "excuse" for attacking me -- despite his claim that he "disagreed" with the view of John MacArthur on "incarnational sonship." -- Bob Ross

In one of James' emails, he said:

Yes, I have the new Bible (and a dandy one it is, too!), but I did not sit down with it when I got it last week and start counting the number of times I encountered the word 'Son' in the footnotes. Nov. 12, 1997).

It is obvious that James did not think the Eternal Sonship error of John MacArthur was as serious as J-Mac's error on Titus 1:6.

James was even commissioned by his church to write a paper in reply to MacArthur on Titus 1:6, but he had no such commission to reply on a "non-essential" like the Eternal Sonship of Christ! Does this tell you where James' "priorities" are! -- Bob

At Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:35:00 PM, Blogger Scott said...


Bob Ross and the Charismatics, what a pair! Remember Bob has a good friend on staff at Joel's church and he can arrange for you to have front row seats. Please take him up on this offer and get a picture of this for me so I can post it on my new blog that is coming out after April 8. I want to show fellow Baptists just how you have no clear understanding of good doctrine and how you align yourselves up with false teachers!
Bob Ross represents what noncalvinistic SBC preaching has produced in the last 80yrs in our denomination. Please leave the SBC Bob! You continue to bring great shame upon it! Confessional Ecumenicalist better describes you!

At Wednesday, April 05, 2006 11:36:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob Ross said: In view of the fact that James White apparently has never renounced his 1997 endorsement of John MacArthur's "sonship" view --which MacArthur later renounced in 1999 to adopt the creedal view of Eternal Sonship --

Mr. Ross,where is this alleged "endorsement" of John McArthur's sonship view ? It is certainly not evident from the quotes you have chosen.

Is the only evidence that you have of your accusation a couple of quotes you have cropped from an alleged 8 year old private correspondence ?

If someone, who has been published and publicly spoken on the Trinity and on the subject of the eternal sonship of Christ, "Endorses" a particular position, I think it would be a reasonable expectation that we woud see such position expounded in detail in that person's writings or lectures on the subject. Yet you point to nothing from the vast corpus of James White's public statements.

Why is it that this so called "endorsement" is no where to be found outside of an email of which you are apparently the sole custodian ?

It is also interesting that after 8 years, you would even be able to locate this e-mail. Did you save it in a special place for a rainy day, or did you go back through 8 years of emails to locate something vaguely related to the subject matter of your accusations ?

If you want your accusations( which you deem correction notwithstanding your public rebuke of an allegedly private correspondence) to be taken seriously, it is reasonable that you should be able to point to numerous citations from James White's publicly made statements and writings.

Bob Ross said: Here is James' statement in defense of MacArthur's view, in an email of 11/11/1997:
"He [MacArthur] doesn't have a modalistic Trinity. He believes the Son has eternally existed as a DISTINCT PERSON from the Father. His WHOLE ARGUMENT has to do with the use of the term due to exegetical considerations."

Mr. Ross, does the phrase "grasping for straws" mean anything to you ?
This is the best evidence that you have that James White denied or endorsed the denial of the eternal sonship of Christ ? The term "eternal sonship" appears nowhere in your quote. It is clear from the quote that James White is stating that McArthur's position is not modalistic. How on earth does that equate to endorsing an incarnational sonship position ?

Its pretty obvious that you have an axe to grind with Jame White. Why don't you simply show us a statement from James White that says John McArthur's position on incarnational sonship is correct or something at least approximating that ?

Can you do that Mr. Ross ?

Bob Ross said: If James wants Charles and/or me on this show to enhance the number of the listeners, as for my part, I want to know what is the scale of PAY for my services? The laborer is worthy of his hire.

LOL. How do your fees compare to the fees of others offering the service of enhancing webcast listnership, or is that a special niche in which only you have compensable expertise ?

At Thursday, April 06, 2006 12:45:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Dear Charles:

In looking at my email files for 1997 and thereafter, unless I somehow overlooked it, this is the next item I wrote about John MacArthur.

Again, you will note that I have never attacked John's "person," his "character," or called him a "False Teacher" -- which seems to have been implied by James White on his website. I dealt specifically with DOCTRINE -- the theme of the Gospel -- that JESUS CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD FROM "BEFORE ALL WORLDS."



By Bob L. Ross

I have been informed by an associate of John MacArthur that my "diatribes" have evidently produced a "flood" of "emails and letters" from people who think I am accusing MacArthur of "denying the deity, eternality, or incarnation of Christ."

On my end of the line, I do not recall ever hearing from anyone who had received this impression, but I suppose it must be the case, according to the report. For the record, therefore, I wish to state I have NEVER read where MacArthur denied any of these truths.

All I have endeavoured to relate is the NON-CREEDAL view of the Trinity and Sonship of Christ which is held and defended by John MacArthur as

(1) per his message at the meeting of the Independent Fundamental Churches of America on November 8, 1991, as published in the booklet "The Sonship of Christ;"

(2) as well as per various comments he makes in his writings on Galatians and Hebrews; and,

(3) per the notes contained in his new MacArthur Study Bible.

To my knowledge, I have NEVER said nor implied that MacArthur denies the eternity, deity, and/or incarnation of Christ.

He has statements referring to the "the eternal Christ," "the eternal pre-existence of the Word," and "the eternal second member of the Trinity" (MacArthur Study Bible, pages 1573, 1795).

What I understand him to deny is the historic CREEDAL view of the eternal status of God as the "Father" and the "Son."

On these, he holds that in eternity there was no "Father" and no "Son," but "First Member" and "Second Member" of the Trinity. I understand him to teach that the "Father" and the "Son" are "titles" and were of "no significance before the incarnation" (The Sonship of Christ by John MacArthur, page 8).

While he argues against the CREEDAL view of Eternal Sonship on the grounds of terminology, saying "The Bible nowhere speaks of the eternal sonship of Christ" (ibid, p. 2), he uses this EXACT non-scriptural terminology in his references to Jesus Christ, the Word, and the Second Member (Study Bible, pages 1573, 1795).

Where the Bible speaks of these in connection with the term "eternal," he did not relate. So he does not consistently apply his OWN argument to his own views.

When he appeared at the IFCA meeting, he stated that he held to "a minority opinion" (page 4), and indeed it is. It is not the view expressed in the creeds, the confessions, and the statements of faith. They teach the eternality and the immanence of the Trinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

In regard to Christ as the Son of God, MacArthur stated: "His sonship began in a point of time, not in eternity. His life as Son began in this world" (page 3).

He also says "that in eternity past, though there were always three persons in the Trinity, there were not yet the roles of Father and Son. Those designations apparently came into being only at the incarnation" (page 3).

According to the letter from MacArthur's associate, "the sum of all his teaching about eternal sonship (covering 30 years of ministry) could be collected in less than 30 minutes of audiotape" (11/12/97).

If this be the case, it is an unenviable record to have spent so many years in the ministry not only without advocating the historic view of the Trinity, but also teaching an UNORTHODOX view of it when it was discussed.

The greatest confession in Christianity is Peter's affirmation, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16). Jesus claimed God as His "Father" (John 5:17), and the Jews accused him of blasphemy, making Himself "equal" with God (John 10:36). This was the charge for which they crucified Him:

"We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God" (John 19:7).

To deny that the attribute of eternality is INHERENT in Sonship, in effect, is a denial of the equality of the Son with God.

While Dr. MacArthur holds to an "eternal second member," we will affirm our faith in view that Christ is eternally the Son of God. --Bob L. Ross


James White said he was referring to John's "entire ministry" when he said that John's teachings were "SOLID." John's associate said "the sum of all his teaching about eternal sonship (covering 30 years of ministry) could be collected in less than 30 minutes of audiotape."

Is that what James regards as "SOLID TEACHING" on the Sonship of Christ? If so, James better read the BOOK OF JOHN! -- Bob

At Thursday, April 06, 2006 12:48:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

grow up said,

>>Grow up and get a life.<<


I am 71 years old! Where shall I begin? The only way I have been growing in recent years is OUT! Have any suggestions? -- Bob

At Thursday, April 06, 2006 1:01:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another 1997 Article:


Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones went to be with the Lord in March of 1981.

In this little article, we are focusing upon the views of MLJ in regard to the Trinity and the Eternal Sonship of Christ. He held to the historic creedal (or confessional) position, and this was at the foundation of his theology and expository preaching.

We are "interviewing" Dr. Lloyd-Jones posthumously on the subject of Sonship/Trinity to demonstrate what is meant when we refer to the "orthodox" view as compared to the non-creedal views entertained by some in this generation. The followers of the Adam Clarke "incarnational sonship" theory will not enjoy Dr. Lloyd-Jones' comments, especially his calling such a view "heresy."

When we have critiqued the "incarnational sonship" view held by Clarke, Walter Martin, Peter Ruckman, Jimmy Swaggart, Dake's Bible, John MacArthur, Alexander Campbell, and Gail Riplinger, we have sometimes been met with a "brick" for "unjustly" "attacking" a "fellow-Christian" [per James White].

The fact is, it is not the person as such but the erroneous doctrine that is the object of any critique; the name of a person is merely a matter of circumstance. We have no "personal" axe-to-grind with any "incarnational sonship" theorist, but we do reject views which undermine the Trinity and Sonship of Christ as it has been and is held in historic Christianity.

"Interview" With Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones -- [Dr. Jones words are from his comments on Romans.]

1Q -- Dr. Lloyd-Jones, in expositions you gave on the Epistle to the Romans, you placed great emphasis upon the Sonship of Christ, which you affirm is an eternal Sonship, not simply as a "title" or "role" applicable this side of the Creation. You even go so far as to say "if the Son is not there at the very centre it is not salvation -- it is a figment of the imagination, it is a delusion of Satan." I notice you specifically refer to the "Son;" is it of great significance to emphasize Christ as the "SON of God"?

MLJ -- Why does Paul trouble to say "God sending his Son"? I answer: because he wished to define exactly who this Son is. There are others who are described as "sons of God" in the Scriptures. There are statements about angels in which they are referred to as "the sons of God." But this One is not a "son of God" in the sense that the angels are sons of God. They are all created beings; they have not been generated by the Father, they have been created by the Father; they are not "his own Son."

2Q -- What is the meaning of "generated by the Father," as compared to being "created" or having a "beginning"?

MLJ -- The term suggests a generation, a coming out of the Father, a reproduction of the Father. There are others who can be called "sons," but "son" is a title that is given to them; they are but created beings. But Christ is "his own Son." We who are Christians are referred to sometimes as "sons of God," and "children of God." But the One of whom Paul speaks in this verse is not a Son in the same way as you and I are sons of God. You and I are not "his own" sons; we are sons by "adoption;" there was a time when we were not sons. But of this One that cannot be said. He is "God's own Son." He always was, He always will be eternally the Son of God, not adopted. So by expressing it in this way as "His own Son," the Apostle emphasizes the uniqueness.

3Q -- Is your view the "creedal" view of Sonship? What exactly is the "creedal" view?

MLJ -- One of the creeds speaks of the Son as "Begotten, not created." They put the truth in those carefully chosen words
because there were people in the Church who were teaching that Jesus Christ had been created like all others. There was a heresy in the early Church which taught that the Lord Jesus Christ was a created being. It was called Arianism. The answer to that is, "Begotten, not created," "his own Son."

4Q -- Doctor, is this really a serious matter, or is it not merely a matter of semantics -- a quarrel over "words"? Is it "high" on the list of spiritual and doctrinal priorities?

MLJ -- We must contend for this, even unto death if necessary.

5Q -- In Hebrews 1:3, the Apostle refers to the "Son" and uses the words, "the express image of his person." How is that to
be understoood?

MLJ -- Language cannot go beyond that. That is another way of saying "begotten of the Father," coming out of the Father, the eternal generation of the Son of the Father. "His own Son" in this unique sense!

6Q -- So, you do not refer "begotten" to the incarnation, or to the virgin birth of Christ, or to His "becoming" the "Son" when He was born into the world? Then, how are we to understand the "begotten, Son"?

MLJ -- It is an assertion that they are one in essence, one in glory, co-equal, co-eternal. But it is also concerned to emphasize that the Lord Jesus Christ did not "become" the Son of God when He was born into this world. That is another heresy . . .

7Q -- Excuse me, Doctor! but would you please repeat that again for the benefit of some friends who think that just "any ole view" of a "3-Member Trinity" will do? . . . What did you call the idea that He "became" the Son when He was "born into this world"? . . .Did you say "heresy"? . . .

MLJ -- This is another heresy that has been taught. He was always "the Son." How important it is to pay attention to the Scripture! He did not "become" the Son when He was born as a Babe in Bethlehem. No, what happened there was that He "became flesh," became man.

8Q -- Doctor, do I understand you to say that there was never such a thing as His "becoming" the Son, neither in this world
nor "before all worlds"?

MLJ -- The only begotten of the Father, God's own Son, who was ever the Son, the eternal Son, became man. His Sonship
had existed from all eternity.

9Q -- Doctor, you have refuted "incarnational" Sonship; what about the idea that He "became" the Son at the Resurrection?

MLJ -- Neither did Christ become the Son, as some have thought, at the Resurrection (Rom. 1:4). There are those who say that it was there that He became the Son. But this is not what the Apostle is saying. He tells us that it was declared by the resurrection; it was announced, it was made perfectly plain and clear, it was promulgated that this is true of Him. But that was a declaration of something that had already been true, and true from all eternity. The truth is stated in another way in First Corinthians 15:47. The first man Adam was created, and made, in the image and likeness of God; neverheless he was "of the earth, earthy." The second Man was not created in the image and likeness of God; He is God the Son, the everlasting, eternal Son, begotten, not created, He is "the Lord from heaven." That is the difference; and that is what the Apostle reminds us of here -- "God sending his own Son."

10Q -- Doctor, does this truth really have any "practical" value to us? -- I mean, how are we spiritually profited by a proper understanding of the truth about the "Son"?

MLJ -- All of this is of vast importance for us because, for one thing, it is that which, above everything else, gives us an insight into the love of God. You are concerned about salvation? Well, remember this -- we are saved because of the love of God.

11Q -- But "how" does one's view about the "Son" relate to knowing the "love" of God? Couldn't we just as easily hold to
the "3 - Member Nameless Trinity" and know God's love?

MLJ -- How do I know that? Because it is the only explanation. Here is man a rebel, a sinner, a vile person, in a world of sin; but God's love was so great that He sent his own Son into the world -- "God sending his own Son." That is the measure of the love of God, the measure of the love of God to you. He so loved you, that He sent His own Son, His only begotten Son, into the world for you.

12Q -- Other than giving us the "measure" of God's love for us, what other practical benefit does His true "Sonship" bring us?

MLJ -- Assurance, and of certainty of salvation. Now the Sonship of Christ is one of the most wonderful guarantees of that. It is not only that it is God who is doing all this to you; but look at this Person in whom He is doing it. He does not save us through any mere man, He does not save us by creating a second man like Adam. God has now committed Himself to the extent, that He has sent "his own Son." In other words, God Himself is involved in our salvation. And it is for that reason that we can be sure and assured that there will be no failure, that there will never be a repetition of what happened in the case of the first man Adam.

13Q -- Are you saying that because "Sonship" is more than a "title" or "role," there is absolute certainty in salvation? That the first perfect "son of God," Adam, fell; but the second perfect Adam is the "begotten Son of God" and cannot fail -- is that the point?

MLJ -- What guarantee have we that there will not be failure the second time as there was the first time? The answer is -- it is "his own Son" whom God has sent this time. Not a created being, but "his own Son"! In other words, our salvation is as sure as this, it is guaranteed by the character and the glory of God. There is a double guarantee; it is God's plan, and it is being worked out in and by One who is "God's own Son," His eternal Son. It cannot fail, and it most certainly will not fail.

14Q -- Doctor, we sometimes hear this truth of Eternal Sonship relegated to the "non-essential" category [per James White]. What about this as an "essential" or "non-essential" matter?

MLJ -- These truths we have been considering are absolutely essential to the understanding of God's work for us and in us.
Salvation is in and through the Lord of Glory, the everlasting Son. What God has done is to send Him to save us. He gave the Law, but He never gave the Law in order to save man. It was not designed for that. God knew that it could not save man. There was only one way whereby man could be saved, and that was that the eternal Son of God should become man. And he became man, and it was as man that He fought the foe, died the death, rose in resurrection power, and ascended to heaven and took His seat at the right hand of God. It was the only way. It is the way that God planned and devised in His infinite and eternal wisdom and love.

15Q -- How may we profit from the glorious truth of the Eternal Sonship of Christ?

MLJ -- Let us meditate, and continue to meditate, upon this astounding declaration. Our salvation is guaranteed and safe and sure, therefore, until we are finally glorified and presented to Christ to His Father "without spot or wrinkle or any such thing." We are "in Christ" and Christ is "God's own Son," "the only begotten of the Father," eternally generated, with God from all eternity, co-equal and co-eternal.

16Q -- So you relate our salvation to the "Sonship" of Christ? "Sonship" is an "essential" truth for us to believe, proclaim, and defend?

MLJ -- It is because God sent Him from heaven into this world as the Babe of Bethlehem and the Man Jesus that your salvation and mine is safe and sure. It is sure in spite of ourselves, in spite of man, in spite of "the world, the flesh, and the devil," in spite of hell. It is God in the flesh, the God-Man, the One who took unto Himself human nature, and who in that human nature is now making intercession for us in the presence of God, who guarantees it all. It is all accomplished through God the Father's "own Son" and mediated to us through God the Holy Spirit.

Final comment: Thank you, Doctor, for your solid defense of the faith once delivered to the saints in regard to the Trinity and the Eternal Sonship of Christ, as presented in the expositions on Romans 8 (pages 314-317). We pray your presentation of this great truth will profit every reader. -- Bob L. Ross

At Thursday, April 06, 2006 1:21:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Quick and Final Addendum

Charles, did you see that above headline on James White's website?

Do you think he really means it . . . or is it another case of his double-mindedness -- saying one thing today, another tomorrow?

I wonder what the "odds" are that above line by Brother James?

Let's hope he is just blowing smoke. I am having too much fun out of his comments, now that he has emerged from his storm cellar at the White Lightnin' Distillery! -- Bob Ross

At Thursday, April 06, 2006 1:23:00 AM, Blogger Scott Bridges said...

This is the most ridiculous blog I have ever read. Up to this point, I've looked at it for an occasional chuckle, but what little meaningful discussion that once pretended to be here has regressed into a playground rough-and-tumble name-calling contest that resembles this dialogue:

[begin sketch]

Brandon: JOHN WILSON is a COMMUNIST! And he is mean to GRANDMOTHERS!

John: No, actually I'm a Republican, and I love my own grandmother, while certainly holding nothing against anyone else's grandmother.

Brandon: SEE?! THERE IT IS! From his very own words JOHN WILSON said he likes no other grandma's than his own, and on top of that he'd like to hit them all with a pie in the face.

[end sketch]

Although the commentary on this blog holds all the interest of an impending train wreck, in that one doesn't look away even though it's going to be terrible, I am DONE wasting my time here. Please do the world a great favor and delete the whole blog. Then throw away the computer you used to write it. Maybe even burn it up. James White and Bob L. Ross have their own sites and "means" to publish, so let them.

Scott Bridges
Marietta, Georgia

At Thursday, April 06, 2006 10:36:00 AM, Blogger Charles said...

Scott, Hello!

You wrote, "get a picture of this for me so I can post it on my new blog that is coming out after April 8."

Brother Scott, I look forward to this new blog! Please give me the URL as soon as possible so I can visit it! Do you have a name yet?

However, I hope it does not detract from your pastoral duties at Fellowship Community Church. You are still the pastor there, aren't you?

I want to show fellow Baptists just how you have no clear understanding of good doctrine and how you align yourselves up with false teachers!

Please define "false teacher" and "align"?

What "false teachers" are you referring to?

Confessional Ecumenicalist better describes you!

Would that also describe Charles H. Spurgeon who had D. L. Moody preach in his church? Do you believe that Methodist or Assembly of God members who have accepted the eternal son of God as their Lord and Savior are brothers and sisters in the Lord? Or do you fellowship with Southern Baptists only?


At Thursday, April 06, 2006 10:43:00 AM, Blogger Charles said...

Scott Bridges, Hello!

what little meaningful discussion that once pretended to be here has regressed

Scott, did you read the "interview" with Martin Lloyd-Jones? Even you would have to admit that was a outstanding post by Brother Bob.

At Thursday, April 06, 2006 4:56:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...



Charles, I am sending you the following to further demonstrate to you what took place in the past with James White. At this time, I was assuming that James was orthodox on the Sonship of Christ, for I had no reason to think otherwise.

At that time, I had never met James, but nevertheless we had begun promoting James in our magazine (Second Quarter, 1995, Baptist Biblical Heritage, pages 3, 4) and one of our staff had a good review of his book on the King James Only Controversy, we carried his smiling photograph when he had hair and a beard and looked very much like a handsome young movie star. I was very impressed by James' looks, for photos I had seen of him before were not flattering. We had no reason to think James was lax in doctrine, but we were in for a shock.

This email below is a reply to what was "mild" compared to what followed, and the only thing we could conclude was that James was perhaps sympathetic to MacArthur's views.
You will note that informed James that John MacArthur had seen my materials to be used in my book, and had approved them as a correct representation of his view. Yet James evidently "forgot" what he read.

Now he says he actually "disagreed" with MacArthur back then, but if he ever let it slip out we never saw it nor heard it. It simply looked like he either (1) didn't comprehend John's view, or else (2) he favaored it. It is still very much a mystery as why he behaved against me as he did. He seems to speak out of both sides of his mouth.

In a message dated 97-11-11 18:05:49 EST, James White writes:

But Bob, Phil tells me he's explained John's position to you. He doesn't have a modalistic Trinity. He believes the Son has eternally existed as a distinct Person from the Father. His whole argument hs to do with the use of the term due to exegetical considerations."

Dear James:

It is clear, from all the writings of MacArthur, that he holds that the "Son" is a mere "title" of Christ, assumed at the incarnation.

Have you seen his new Bible? If you will examine the most striking uses of "Son" in biblical texts, and take note of the comments, you will find him evading the Son almost like a plague.

For example, the most striking of all statements on the Sonship of Christ (Matt. 16:16) is met with no comment (p. 1423).

The great Sonship context of 1 John 5:8-13, where "Son" is used eight times by the apostle John, is treated with one meager comment by MacArthur, and this is about the "internal subjective witness to the Son within the believer's heart" (p. 1973).

He also evades Hebrews 7:3 by opting for an alleged "more accurate translation," which does away with the typology of eternal Sonship via Melchizedek.

"Son of God" appears once in Revelation (2:18), and MacArthur has no comment.

These are only a few of the instances. He seems to "go out of his way" to avoid or conceal the truth on the Son. I found it as difficult to find the truth on the Son in his notations as I found it difficult to find the Gospel in his book, "The Gospel According to Jesus."

I don't know if you are aware of it, but MacArthur taught justification on the grounds of "infused" righteousness over the years up until he wrote his "Faith Works" book in the early 1990's. They told me that this book marked a change in MacArthur's view on justification, and they sent me a couple of "advance" chapters before the book appeared. It was a definite improvement over comments in his former writings.

I had hoped that MacArthur would see his way clear to make a similar change on Sonship, but at this point there is no indication of that.

Until believers in the historic view -- to whom he will listen -- are willing to confront him, as Paul did Peter (Gal. 1), his view will probably not improve. I wrote him years ago, before I ever publicly said or wrote a word about this, but he did not reply. I have written him since; again, no reply. Evidently he has a "closed ear" to criticism on the subject, coming from me.

Phil and I did discuss (by phone) the subject of MacArthur's position, and I sent them "proofs" of my book ("Trinity") to check before it was published, and I was told that what I wrote did properly represent MacArthur's view. We have not subsequently discussed the issue, so far as I recall. Phil and I are good friends, and I have "no axe to grind" with him about either this doctrine or where he works.

A "funny thing" popped-up in MacArthur's Bible -- a reference to "the eternal Christ" (p. 1573) -- despite the fact he uses the lack of the appearance of the words "eternal Son" as one of his "arguments" against eternal Sonship in his booklet (page 2, "The Sonship of Christ"). Wonder how he could justify his use of "the eternal Christ"?

If we follow the teachings of John MacArthur, we will have to dump the historic creedal view of the Sonship of Christ and the Trinity.

-- Bob L. Ross

At Thursday, April 06, 2006 7:07:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

1-877-753-3341 (Toll Free)
Its on right now.

At Thursday, April 06, 2006 7:18:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Charles, we have had no response from the James Gang out in Phoenix to our invitation for them to bring their case to Pasadena to present their charges.

We have been setting up beds here in my store warehouse where we keep Spurgeon's books, and we figure the James Gang can sleep there amidst those books. Our thinking is that maybe some of Spurgeon's sound doctrine will somehow filter into their minds and help sober them up from the White Lightnin' and Hybrid Calvinism.

Anyway, we'll keep you posted if we see any Smoke Signals from Arizona. -- Bob

At Thursday, April 06, 2006 8:57:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shame on you Bob Ross! The sin of pride is in you. Be thankful for how God has raised up James White to preach His word!

At Thursday, April 06, 2006 11:30:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Charles, for the "sake of argument," let's suppose that James White was as sound on the Eternal Sonship of Christ in 1997 as was Dr. Martin Lloyd Jones, as has been revealed in the "Interview" we have posted on the TCF® -- or as strong as C. H. Spurgeon in his great sermon A Christmas Question [#291, New Park Street Pulpit].

Suppose that James was "as strong as bear's breath" on this doctrine, and he knew that Dr. John MacArthur disagreed with Eternal Sonship and merely believed in a "First, Second, Third Person" Trinity.

Suppose that James was as deep and as strong on this doctrine as Athanasius himself, then consider these questions:

1. What did James do by way of trying to reach John MacArthur with the truth?

2. Did James ever indicate in any way to John MacArthur that John held a view which was not consistent with the view expressed in all the Creeds of Christendom?

3. Did James ever try to reason with Brother John by telling him that C. H. Spurgeon and Martin Lloyd-Jones held to Eternal Sonship in contrast to John's view of "incarnational sonship"?

4. Did John and Phil Johnson ever discuss how they might discuss the situation with John MacArthur in a way whereby they could gently point out John's error and perhaps get him to reconsider?

5. When James saw Bob L. Ross writing about John MacArthur's views, which James felt was not a correct way of doing it, why didn't James say, "Bob, I appreciate your effort, but why not let me try to handle this matter? I will try to do it in a way which is more suited to get John's attention than what you are doing?" Why did instead attack Bob?

6. If James believed in Eternal Sonship, and he disagreed with John MacArthur's non-creedal view of "incarnational sonship," and James did nothing to help recover MacArthur from his error -- an error that eventually lead to splits by churches from the IFCA -- is James proud of his lack of making any effort to help recover an erring brother?

7. Why was James evidently MORE CONCERNED TO REBUKE BOB L. ROSS for what he thought was a wrong approach by Bob, than he was CONCERNED FOR THE ORTHODOXY OF JOHN MACARTHUR?

Charles, I at least can live with myself for making the effort to magnify the truth on Eternal Sonship in contrast to the "incarnational sonship" view advocated by John MacArthur. Did James White make any effort whatsoever? If so, what was it? If James did nothing, is not his case similar to the man in James 2 who says he has faith, but does not demonstrate his faith in good works and deeds to help others? Is this any better than the "dead faith" of James chapter 2?-- Bob L. Ross

At Thursday, April 06, 2006 11:58:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...
Shame on you Bob Ross! The sin of pride is in you. Be thankful for how God has raised up James White to preach His word!


And where may we send the Blue Ribbon Prize?

NOTE TO CHARLES; Have you thought about some type of award for your posters, Charles?

What about a Golden Flyswatter?

At Friday, April 07, 2006 12:07:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


apollos said
Mr. Ross,where is this alleged "endorsement" of John McArthur's sonship view ? It is certainly not evident from the quotes you have chosen.


If James held to the Eternal Sonship view and disagreed with John MacArthur in 1997, and yet remained SILENT and did not contend for the faith once delivered to the Saints, and failed to make an effort to recover John from the error of his way, it appears that the old adage, "Silence gives consent," is sufficient within itself to demonstrate that James's had a DEAD FAITH on Eternal Sonship -- even if he had not sent me emails which defended John MacArthur and his "SOLID TEACHING" in his "ENTIRE MINISTRY". -- Bob

At Friday, April 07, 2006 12:38:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Dear Charles:

I do not always get to look at all of the comments as I am too busy writing my own in my spare minutes. Needless to say, if I don't even get to all of the ones here, I surely don't get to other blogs.

Anyway, my question is, has any one filed a claim on any of the Rewards I have offered? -- Bob

At Friday, April 07, 2006 1:22:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


scott said,

Although the commentary on this blog holds all the interest of an impending train wreck, in that one doesn't look away even though it's going to be terrible, I am DONE wasting my time here. Please do the world a great favor and delete the whole blog. Then throw away the computer you used to write it. Maybe even burn it up. James White and Bob L. Ross have their own sites and "means" to publish, so let them.

Scott Bridges
Marietta, Georgia


I have been to Marietta. It was once famous as the headquarters for the notorious Dr. Fields and the NSRP. I have friends at nearby Canton where I have spent many nights when attending the CBA Convention in Atlanta.

I know something about this area, and it is rumored that some people like the Kudzu, and can make a glutton of themselves at times, and it effects their brains.

If I were a doctor, I would recommend that Scott get a Kudzu examination right away. That stuff can choke the blood supply to brain, and creat havoc -- which may be the occasion for Scott's remarks. -- Bob

At Friday, April 07, 2006 10:55:00 AM, Blogger Charles said...

Bob Ross, Hello!

You said, has any one filed a claim on any of the Rewards I have offered?

Brother Bob I have not had anyone claim the substantial financial rewards you have offered.

I expect they will contact you directly, if they do, please let me know so I can publish their name!

Bob, it might be that everyone is distracted because of the wonderful sea cruise opportunities coming up! The Flouders are having their cruise in September, and then James White, Steve Camp, and Sovereign Grace Singles are having their cruise in November. I wonder if any of the "Sovereign Grace Singles" will be married by James? He could brew up some of his own "White Light'n" and provide the refreshments for the reception!

What an exciting time we live in!


At Friday, April 07, 2006 11:58:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Charles said,
Bob, it might be that everyone is distracted because of the wonderful sea cruise opportunities coming up! The Flouders are having their cruise in September, and then James White, Steve Camp, and Sovereign Grace Singles are having their cruise in November. I wonder if any of the "Sovereign Grace Singles" will be married by James? He could brew up some of his own "White Light'n" and provide the refreshments for the reception!


Charles, I have a well-placed source close to A&OM, and I have it on good authority what kind of "payola" James puts out for his speakers and guest debaters. I must say, Charles, I would have to take a big cut to take time off and go on such a cruise with James.

Your compensation for my services on TCF® so far exceeds what James pays it would be like taking a meager handout from James compared to getting a year's advance pay from you!

Also, since only the Elect will most likely be among James' fellow cruisers, all are well acquainted with meaning of T-U-L-I-P, the Ordo Paludal, Exegeet'ns by James, etc. etc. -- what "fun" with there be in Bible study?

I wonder if any of the crew on the Sovereign cruises are yet unregenerated elect? Do you suppose James and the Flounders will be doing any seeking of the "regenerated" elect who have not yet become believers? I don't suppose they will be passing out any Chick tracts, do you? Reckon any Sinner's Prayers will be prayed?

About that White Lightnin,' James will most likely carry a few jugs of the brew on board. If someone drinks enough of it, do you think the ship nurse or physicican will be able to tell if a person is drunk or simply seasick? -- Bob

At Friday, April 07, 2006 6:11:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Dear Charles:

I took a quck look at James' website, and he has found himself something else about which to exegeet -- a book about Judas's Gospel.

James says,

So should someone come up to you at work going, "Hey, Bob, I know you are a Christian, but how about that Gospel of Judas! Sure throws your Bible into a tailspin, doesn't it?" just smile and respond, "Hey, I heard about that. . . .

I read just enough to learn that this is another one of those palabber books for which only those of James' intelligentsia are able to "equip" and "prepare" the saints so as to prevent deception.

It seems to be one of the books which will deceive the non-elect forever, but the elect won't really be bothered to any great degree, seeing how "a stranger they will not follow."

So the only practical purpose it will serve is to give appallingists like James something about which to write. Who knows, James may be up to getting enough out it to exegeet another book! There's still a lot of suckers born every minute just waiting for some "help" from appallingists like James! -- Bob Ross

At Friday, April 07, 2006 11:20:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Dear Charles:

I can remember when all of this "Apologists" palabber started several years ago. I can remember when there was only one place which majored on materials on "Heresy," and it did not even use the term "apologist."

Then came the "Walter Martin" era and in due course of time we had many clones of "Walter Martin" coming on the scene. They all said they were "Apologists" -- a word to impress the ignorant and naive -- as if they were the "know-alls" about cults and heretics.

And they all said they had a "ministry". exposing the bad boys of the religious world. They told you that you needed their magazine, newsletter, cassettes, videos, and whatever to be "equipped" for those JWs, Mormons, Adventists, and other Jabberwackies.

Some people had no better way to waste their money than to send off for their products.

Most of them copied or adapted what had been written before them. Most of them were very poorly qualified to write on the victims of their misinformation.

Take Walter Martin himself: the man was never Creedal in his views on the Trinity and Eternal Sonship of Christ.

He and Cal Beisner were on John Ankerberg's show in a TV debate with Urshan and Sabin, "Oneness Pentecostals," and Walter denied the "Eternal Sonship" doctrine right there under Ankerberg's and Beisner's nose, and yet Beisner is sound in the faith on Eternal Sonship! He just sat there quietly like a dummy since Martin was the obvious "star" of the show.

In his book on "Kingdom of the Cults," Martin denies Eternal Sonship, just like MacArthur did [See my book on The Trinity and Eternal Sonship, pages 154-156].

When I put the pressure on "Christian Research Institute" about Martin's heterodoxy to tell me if they agreed with Martin against Eternal Sonship, I finally got a letter from Elliott Miller of CRI saying that they did not accept Martin's view, but held to the Creedal view. Hoorah for CRI! It was like pulling a tooth to get their statement, but they finally came through!

When I was writing about MacArthur's view from time-tom-time (1988-1999), NONE of the so-called "Apologists" took a stand. Dave Hunt, for example, went to preach for MacArthur and said he did not believe MacArthur's view was "heresy."

Robert Morey, who touted himself as an "Apologist," finally read Martyn Lloyd-Jones and said that was what converted him to Eternal Sonship. Well, I hope so.

Ankerberg was so distraught he asked me to take his name off my mailing list. I suppose he followed Martin, but I really don't know what he believed back then. I just know that he let Martin deny Eternal Sonship in that program, and never said, "I disagree."

A group of "Apologists" called EMNR were a disgrace. PFO, Alnor, Watchman Fellowship, CRI, and whoever else was with EMNR, never took a stand when I was writing about MacArthur's error. Some of them -- notable PFO -- even told me to stop sending materials to them.

That's about when I came to realize that the so-called "Apologists" would be better described as "Appallingists." There are APPALLING.

Of course, our Exegeet'n friend in Arizona who makes the "White Lightnin'" was no better -- in fact, as you have seen from his recent writings -- he was probably worse.

He now claims he believed Eternal Sonship, but he never spoke up, but rather he attacked one of the few voices that was refuting MacArthur's "incarnational sonship" heterodoxy.

Just thought you might like to know why I refer to such as these as "APPALLINGISTS." They are appalling.

They all perhaps "make a good living" off of naive people who believe the palabber that they are able to "equip the saints" and "prepare the saints" for the cults and sundry heresies, and they have no other way to waste their money with more "satisfaction."

If the "Apologists" are the "equippers" of the saints, then for the most part can the devil afford to take a vacation? -- Bob L. Ross

At Friday, April 07, 2006 11:57:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...



Are you "keeping score," Charles?

So far, we have no response from SCOTT MORGAN about his challenge for a debate. I suppose the Flounders put the clamps on his mouth about that.

Then we have no one claiming any of the REWARDS I have offered.

Next, there is no response from JAMES WHITE and his Elders at Reformed Baptist Church about James and the Elders coming to Pasadena to present their charges against me before my church.

I talked to my Pastor today, and he said we are "ready" for them, and their food and lodging needs will be provided by our church.

Also, there has been no response as to their interest in a DEBATE while they are here, at our church building.

It seems that James' arsenal is depleted, and he has shot his "best" missiles and they were powderpuffs. He has taken up "new positions" and is firing at the Gospel of Judas. Will he start firing at Dave Hunt again . . . just something to keep him occupied until his debate with the Caners or his Sovereign Grace cruise?

His "White Lightnin'" seems to be rather watered down and does not appear to have any more "kick" in it.
-- Bob

At Saturday, April 08, 2006 12:22:00 AM, Blogger Charles said...

Bob Ross said, "Are you "keeping score," Charles?

So far, we have no response from SCOTT MORGAN

You would have thought Brother Scott would at least showed up for the dance. I guess he is busy planning for the upcoming sea cruise with James, Steve, and the "Sovereign Grace Singles."

I also would have thought by now James and his elders would have at least scheduled a time to present their case to your church. That is just rude. Does your offer to put them up include feeding them any of that delicious Texas bar-b-que? Any cowboy would ride in for that!

Then we have no one claiming any of the REWARDS I have offered.

Your grandkids will pay their way to college with the interest you'll draw on that money.


At Saturday, April 08, 2006 12:37:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...



I also would have thought by now James and his elders would have at least scheduled a time to present their case to your church. That is just rude. Does your offer to put them up include feeding them any of that delicious Texas bar-b-que? Any cowboy would ride in for that!

We have some good Barbecue places close to us -- Robert's, Buster's, and Gabby's are just a few -- and we have a good Texas Road House steak house. We also have a Ruth's Chris Steak House in Houston, if they really want the finest.

The "James Gang" will surely not know what they are missing if they don't fulfill James' claim that he wants to present his charges to our Elders here. Looks like that "Regulative Principle" would allow them to come on over to Texas. I thought James would compass land and sea to defend his views in Debate, but I suppose that was a vain delusion.

Who would'uf thunk that James White, of all the Appallingists, would just be a common ole "bluff and blow" palabberer without any substance to his words?-- Bob

At Saturday, April 08, 2006 8:30:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Dear Charles:

In James White's April 5 "Quick and Final Addendum," he charged that I "misrepresented MacArthur and made outrageously false statements concerning the conclusions of the position John once held."

Having read my writings from that past period of time, Charles, did you notice anything of that sort?

James conveniently did not make a single quotation so as to compare it with MacArthur's view.

I doubt very seriously that James has even read MacArthur's "Sonship" booklet wherein he states his view. At the time he wrote me his few emails, he said he had not examined the Notes in the MacArthur Study Bible, on the Son of God, but I suppose he may have gotten around to that by now, it has been so long.

James is angry with me for one reason -- he has "egg on his face" as a result of his failure to defend the truth on Eternal Sonship against "incarnational sonship" of MacArthur, and for being exposed as
an advocate of the non-creedal "born again before faith" hallucination.

James White has demonstrated in his writings and in the debate with Hunt that he is no Creedal Calvinist.

As for his being an apologist, he is appalling, as he has also demonstrated.

His "exegeet'n'" ability -- of which he boasts the most -- it is best demonstrated by James' having Paul being knocked off of a non-existant horse in Acts 9.

-- Bob L. Ross


Post a Comment

<< Home