I had removed Ross’ feed from my RSS reader last week. This evening while doing something else I opened up my Google homepage, and it has a blog search window in it that pulled up Ross’ most recent slander. Bob Ross has been corrected, many times, on his spreading falsehoods about others, and in this case, in his questioning my clear and repeated defense of the Trinity, including the fact that the terms Father, Son, and Spirit are not merely incarnational terms, but that this relationship has existed in eternity. I have defended this in debates, and in writing. In fact, ironically, I was finishing up a video (which I will post later this evening on YouTube) refuting a KJV Only modalist, and I was just about to insert a graphic I had created quoting Colossians 1 in reference to the distinction between the Father and the Son, one of the texts that teaches this very truth. So Ross’ willingness to question my repeated teaching on this topic when the documentation exists to demonstrate the truth going back long before he became agitated because I rebuked him for his childish attacks upon John MacArthur only shows that the man is a troubler of the brethren, one to be rebuked, marked, and avoided. He writes:
But if White had held to Eternal Sonship in 1993, why didn’t he expose Riplinger’s heterodoxy? Why has he never — to our knowledge, at least — exposed her heterodoxy?
Even after we published our exposure of Riplinger, James White still remained mum about her non-creedal view of the Son. Was it because he regarded this doctrine as a “non-essential” in Christianity?
I have informed Ross that I have always held my current position. To say otherwise is simply to show oneself deeply dishonest. And why did I not harp on Riplinger’s error on the matter? Because Gail Riplinger doesn’t even understand what the issues are. Anyone who listened to my radio debate with her knows she could not even follow a discussion of Edwin Palmer’s words relating to the inner relations of the Trinity in contrast with the incarnation. She is not a theologian, and her grasp of the most fundamental doctrines of the faith is highly questionable. So why on earth would I when her problems are significantly more basic? The fact is, Ross is simply seeking to dishonestly sling mud, just as his alter-ego Peter Ruckman has done for decades. Mark the man, avoid the man.
