Response to Bob Ross by David K. Bernard Bob Ross, owner of a religious bookstore in Pasadena, Texas, and director of Pilgrim Publications, has written a book entitled The Trinity and the Eternal Sonship of Christ: A Defense against ‘Oneness’ Pentecostal Attacks on Historic Christianity (Pasadena, TX: Pilgrim Publications, 1993). It focuses primarily on my book The Oneness of God (Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 1983), and I have been asked to give a response. I do not feel a need to refute all his ideas, since in most instances I have already dealt with these concepts thoroughly in The Oneness of God (OG) and elaborated on them further in subsequent books. Nevertheless, I hereby present some observations concerning Ross's book. 1. Ross specializes in personal attacks, using derogatory labels and impugning motives. (See pp. 1, 4, 12, 32, 33, 45, 60-61, 113, 117, 121, 123, 132, 133, 165, 181, 196.) This style of writing reveals much about the character of the author. Rather than promoting sincere discussion, it seeks to prejudice the general reader. Rather than encouraging Oneness believers to change their views, it wounds and offends them. One wonders if his attacks do not descend to the sin of reviling and railing, which the archangel Michael refused to do even against Satan himself. (See I Corinthians 5:11; 6:10; Jude 9.) For example, Ross labels Apostolic believers as a “cult,” a “curse,” “Oneites,” idol worshipers of “Dagon Oneness,” and people characterized by “mental or emotional disorders.” He calls me “deceptive” and “blasphemous,” saying that another writer and I are “like busy buzzards, looking for any rotting carcass upon which they may feed their scavenger appetite.” Ross ridicules my mother, education, major, scholastic honors, and chosen career before entering the ministry. He claims that I know my beliefs are “pure hokey” but persist in them out of impure motives, with the “intent” of deceiving people. He says fellow Oneness believers and I are “perverters of the Word” who try to “set aside the plain truth by their cavilings, craft, and machinations.” 2. Ross attacks all Pentecostals, Oneness and trinitarian. (See pp. 24, 27, 28, 125-28, 168-69, 181.) He rejects all accounts of miracles in the twentieth-century Pentecostal revival and describes Pentecostalism as “the ‘Voo-dooism’ of American fundamentalism.” He even repeats gossip about the private sexual relations of Charles and Sarah Parham and offers his own speculations, in the process commending the Freudian method of psychoanalyzing the “sexual instinct.” It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that here we have the sin of tale bearing. (See Proverbs 20:19; 26:20-22; I Timothy 5:15.) 3. He broadens his attack to include all Wesleyans, Arminians, and Holiness people. (See pages 123, 137-38, 159, 161, 271, 275.) He calls them worshipers of “Dagon Free-will” and says John Wesley was “an expert in the unholy art of misrepresentation.” He further describes the Wesleyan Holiness movement as “a cult.” 4. He also exhibits a bias against women. (See pages 60, 123, 128-29.) He ridicules my teaching as “woman’s” doctrine. He states that according to his past knowledge of Pentecostal churches, the “ring-leaders” were women, the men were “hen-pecked,” and the women were “bossy” and “‘wore the pants’ in the family.” Not only is this description laughably erroneous, but it presumes that if women have responsible roles then somehow the church is in false doctrine. 5. Ross commonly uses eisogesis (putting meaning into Scripture) instead of exegesis (drawing meaning out of Scripture). In other words, he interprets Scripture by his theology instead of building his theology from Scripture. For example, he claims that in Psalm 2:7 the word “begotten” is used “in reference to that relationship the Father has with the Son ‘dating’ to eternity past” (p. 84, emphasis in original). However, nothing in that psalm discusses eternity past, and the only reason Ross gives for this interpretation is the authority of Dr. John Gill. Moreover, he ignores the future tense in Hebrews 1:5, which quotes Psalm 2:7 and then says, “He shall be to me a Son.” He cites references to the “day of salvation” and “day of wrath” to show that “day” does not always mean a 24-hour day (pages 91-92), but in these phrases “day” certainly does not refer to eternity, which is what Ross tries to prove. As another example, he says “Son of man” cannot refer to the begetting of Jesus, “as Jesus had no human father” (p. 194), but he ignores that “man” here refers to humanity and that Jesus was born of a human mother and thus the human race. 6. Ross exhibits a misunderstanding of the classical doctrine of the trinity. He advocates “eternal generation” but “not eternal generating” of the Son, argues that the verb form “generated” would be inappropriate, and speaks of the generation of both Father and Son by mentioning “their” generation (page 90). Actually, classical trinitarian teaches the following: “The Father … is said to be ingenerate. The Son is begotten eternally and proceeds by filiation [generation].” “The Son is ‘begotten’ or ‘actively generated.’” “Generation … is said to be that act in which the Logos has eternally communicated to it the essence of the Father.” (Quotations are from Van Harvey, A Handbook of Theological Terms [New York: Macmillan, 1964], pp. 99, 104, 246.) 7. Ross grossly distorts Oneness teaching, perhaps through lack of understanding or perhaps deliberately. Here are some examples: a. He accuses me of appealing to logic above Scripture (p. 6), when I expressly renounce such a method (OG, p. 289). b. He accuses me of inconsistency in denying that the trinity is a mystery while acknowledging that the Incarnation is a mystery (pp. 11, 51-52). The difference is that the Bible describes the Incarnation as a mystery (which has been revealed to us) (I Timothy 3:16), but it nowhere says the concept of three-in-one is a mystery that we are to believe. He further accuses me of arrogance in claiming that I can fully understand all there is to know about God and fully explain all Scripture (pp. 196). The context of my remarks, however, reveals that I referred to the issue of whether God is essentially one or three, and I said that “we” (including the reader) could explain all Scripture in a manner that is consistent with God’s being absolutely one without resorting to the doctrine of the trinity (OG, p. 303). I 2 further explained, “Certainly our finite minds cannot understand all there is to know about God but we can understand the simple truth that there is one God…. The Bible never … says that the question of plurality in the Godhead is a mystery” (OG, p. 289). c. He accuses me of rejecting the trinity simply because the word trinity is not in the Bible (p. 15), when I expressly disavow such an argument and focus instead on the absence of the key concepts of the trinity (OG, p. 287). d. He accuses me of misrepresenting the views of Justin and Irenaeus and providing no substantiation for my conclusions regarding early church history (pp. 45-47, 121). However, I explained and substantiated my points in great detail in Oneness and Trinity, A.D. 100-300 (Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 1991), published two years before his book. e. He accuses me of a heresy called “fusionism,” based on my use of the word “fused” (p. 54), when actually my explanation of the union of deity and humanity in Christ is essentially the same as his own (apart from our difference on the trinity). f. He says, “Bernard conditions the resurrection of Lazarus on human works” (p. 57). Instead, I simply noted that when God asks for faith, He wants an observable response rather than merely a mental attitude or a verbal profession that fails to affect conduct. g. He calls me a “Fatalist” simply because I believe in the foreknowledge of God but not the unconditional election or reprobation of each individual (p. 92). h. He argues that I do not believe the Word is a “person,” when I said the Word is not a “separate person” (pp. 101-3). I affirm that the Word is God Himself, a personal being. i. I do not say that trinitarians teach “three essences” as he alleges (p. 105). I say they teach “three distinctions of essence,” that is, “three persons in one substance [essence]” (OG, p. 256 ). j. He claims that I seriously misrepresent trinitarianism in various ways, such as by saying trinitarians often use a triangle or a picture of three men to represent the trinity and by quoting from prominent trinitarian Pentecostal, Roman Catholic, and mainline Protestant authors (pp. 119-21). While he may not personally agree with some of these examples, the point is that many trinitarians do express their doctrine in these terms. When I interact with trinitarianism, I cannot merely discuss the personal views of one man such as Ross, but I must respond to the broad spectrum of trinitarianism. Moreover, the New King James Version uses a triangle to represent the trinity, and the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches both use a picture of three men or beings to represent the trinity. Ross also accuses me of misrepresenting W. A. Criswell as Oneness (pp. 163-65), which I did not. I identified him as a Southern Baptist (and therefore a trinitarian) but quoted a point with which I agreed. k. He does not believe I can preach or write anything without attacking the trinity (p. 67). Obviously he has not read many of my books or articles or heard me preach. 8. Ross makes many statements that are demonstrably false. At best, he is irresponsible and incompetent in his scholarship; at worst, he is deceitful. Here are some examples: 3 a. In one of his most egregious errors, he repeatedly claims that I believe the “Son of God” is only “the human body of Jesus,” that the “Son is the Father,” that the title of Son “does not refer to deity,” and that I “deny the deity of the Son.” (See pp. 41, 70-77, 144, 149-50, 198.) To the contrary, I explained, “The Son of God is … the physical expression of the one God…. The term ‘Son of God’ refers to God as manifested in the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ…. Since Father refers to deity alone, while “Son of God’ refers to deity as incarnated in humanity, we do not believe that the Father is the Son” (OG, pp. 99, 127). b. He says, “Bernard does not refer to or quote from any of the most notable of the trinitarian theologians…. He does not even bother to quote from the trinitarian Confessions of Faith to represent trinitarians” (pp. 12-13). I quoted from a broad spectrum of contemporary trinitarian references to define trinitarian belief, including the New Catholic Encyclopedia (Roman Catholic), William Stevens (Baptist), Otto Heick (Lutheran), Donald Bloesch (evangelical Protestant), and Emil Brunner (mainline Protestant). Moreover, I quoted the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed. On the discussion of whom we will see in heaven (p. 43), he claims that I do not quote one reputable trinitarian scholar, but I quoted Bernard Ramm (evangelical Protestant). He says I do not quote anyone who claims they will see three bodies in heaven, but I quote two such writers. (See OG, 258-59, 296.) c. He claims that I say the Son is merely a theophany (p. 187), which I deny (OG, p. 40). d. He claims that I “staunchly” deny the legitimacy of I John 5:7. Actually I cite the conclusions of trinitarian scholars and point out that whether we accept or reject the disputed words, they are still compatible with Oneness. (See OG, p. 141.) e. He claims that the Jews are my favorite authorities (pp. 138-39), but I clearly pointed out their errors on the subject, particularly in rejecting Christ’s deity. (See OG, pp. 64-65.) However, I acknowledge what Jesus said to the Samaritan woman in reference to the Jewish concept of the one God: “Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews” (John 4:22). f. He says Oneness people believe that in eternity “there will no longer be any person in the Godhead and no manifestation by which we can see God” (p. 191, emphasis in original). Actually I state, “Jesus will continue to use His glorified body throughout eternity…. Revelation 22:3-4 … describes a visible God even after the last judgment and after the creation of the new heaven and earth” (OG, p. 108). g. He claims that Oneness denies the Atonement and the suffering of God in Christ (p. 209-210). Ironically, it was Tertullian and other early trinitarians who denied that God could suffer and who ridiculed modalists on this point! I stated, “The divine Spirit left the human body only at death…. The Father, the Spirit of God within Jesus, could not have suffered or died in any physical sense but yet He must have been affected by or have participated in the suffering of the flesh” (OG, 180, 250). 4 h. He claims Hermas as a trinitarian (p. 216), but as scholars acknowledge, the evidence refutes this notion. At most, he was a binitarian. (See Oneness and Trinity, pp. 39-42.) i. He says the Didache was discovered in 1065 A.D. (p. 218). In fact, the only copy is dated 1056 and was discovered in 1873. See Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 7:372. j. He claims Oneness people believe that when a person “is baptized before he repents, then the baptism becomes ‘retroactive’ if he later repents” (227). I stated in The New Birth (Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 1984), “Repentance should precede baptism…. If an adult is baptized for social rather than spiritual reasons, he should be rebaptized after he possesses personal faith and after he experiences repentance” (pp. 147-48). 9. As the foregoing examples indicate, Ross commonly employs logical fallacies in an attempt to make his points. For a discussion of these logical fallacies, see Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks, Come, Let Us Reason (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990) or Irving Copi, Introduction to Logic (New York: Macmillan, 1986). Here are some examples: a. Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive): attack on opponent’s character. b. Argumentum ad Hominem (circumstantial): attack on the special circumstances surrounding an opponent, such as guilt by association. For instance, he tries to discredit me by citing the failures of Jimmy Swaggart and A. A. Allen (pp. 62-64, 169-70). c. Argumentum ad Populum: argument based on emotions or popular appeal. d. Argumentum ad Verecundiam: appeal to authority, in this case “historic Christianity” and various Protestant authors instead of simply the Word of God. e. Consensus Gentium: argument based on majority opinion. f. Straw Man: arguing against a weak misrepresentation of opposing position. g. Ignorantio Elenchi: irrelevant conclusion. Example: If trinitarian thought originated in paganism, then trinitarian Pentecostals are pagans (pp. 22-23). h. Fallacy of Composition: assuming that what is true of the parts must be true of the whole. Namely, he devises faulty syllogisms that apply descriptions of Christ’s deity to His humanity and vice versa (pp. 74-75). For instance, Jesus is the Son, and Mary was the mother of the Son. If Jesus is also the Father, he says that would make Mary the mother of the Father. We can defeat his own doctrine by such logic, however: If Jesus is the Word, the eternal Son, the second person in the trinity, then Mary is the mother of the Word, the eternal Son, the second person in the trinity! 5