Bob Ross: Painter of Falsehoods, Not Pretty Little Trees

A number of months ago, I just stopped reading the materials from a man by the name of Bob Ross.

Bob Ross, I first knew him from his debates against Church of Christ people and his publication of the works of Charles Haddon Spurgeon for many years.

But I have no idea where Bob Ross is coming from anymore. He's certainly not reformed.

He defends people who are deceiving hundreds of thousands like Joel Osteen with a false gospel.

And he seems to have nothing better to do with his life than to attack those who try to promote the sovereignty of God and salvation.

So I don't even know where he's coming from. His behavior is extremely childish for an elderly man.

But once again, I was directed today, he has very frequently produced falsehoods concerning me.

I've documented this many times. He doesn't care a lot because he's very much like Peter Ruckman. And Ruckman doesn't care when you refute him either.

They're very much alike, almost twins. And so I've refuted his false cavils many times in the past, but he just ignores that.

He doesn't really mind when someone demonstrates his many errors and documents and things like that.

He just goes on to something else, just like Ruckman. They follow the exact same pattern of behavior.

But today, he was, you know, making comments about my caps and my shirts.

He doesn't seem to recognize what the real relationship there is, but that's neither here nor there.

But then he, once again, started off with making some comments. And evidently, he spends a lot of time following the blog here and the videos

I've been posting, which once again, I don't know why he would bother to do that. I certainly don't find anything he writes to me of any moment or importance or anything positive coming from him.

But he said in a blog article that was just posted, James even claims that a church where he recently spoke was formed because of his book.

Well, what I said was that the elders of that church informed me that that book was a part of what began the process, the formation of that Reformed Baptist church.

And I continue to be extremely thankful for the impact that that has had.

And as the pastor himself said, that book helped to introduce him to what exegesis looks like and how it is to be applied, something that Bob Ross assiduously avoids doing.

He is not an exegete, and he tends to use other resources to try to make his points than the

Bible. But he says, since the book is not an evangelistic or soul -winning type book, and I stop again just to go, it's interesting, the

Apostle Paul said he wanted to evangelize the church at Rome. Since the subject of the

Potter's Freedom is the gospel, it couldn't be more evangelistic. It is a sub -biblical human tradition to limit the term evangelism the way that Bob Ross does here.

Again, demonstrating he's never really fully understood or embraced anything like Reformed theology. That's for certain.

He goes on, I suppose the church must have been formed by members who are already into the type of Reformed theology which

James presents in the Potter's Freedom. In fact, in the video, James claims he is a defender of, quote, the whole realm of Reformed theology, end quote.

Again, Bob, when you listen to Bob Ross's stuff, don't worry about context, because he certainly doesn't.

He's not going to extend himself in any way, shape, or form to be accurate in the context of what is actually being discussed.

But then we come to the important part. He says, James does indeed advocate and promote the

Pado -Baptist Reformed view on regeneration, teaching that one is born again before and without faith in Christ.

Now, please note, it says, quote, born again before and without faith in Christ, end quote.

Now, if you're going to put quotes in something like this, then evidently I supposedly said something like this.

And so he says, examples, the Potter's Freedom, pages 84 and 288. We have taken note of his heresy on this blog in the past.

Now, I have grabbed my copy of the Potter's Freedom. Let's see if I actually said what

Bob Ross said I said, end quote. If I didn't, then once again we will have documented that Bob Ross is dishonest, and people should mark him off as a troubler of the

Brethren, one who is constantly attacking the Brethren, and as such, seek not to have anything to do with him until he repents of his ways.

That really would be the best. The first example allegedly given is page 84. On page 84, guess what

I'm doing? I'm exegeting a passage of scripture, specifically Romans chapter 8, verses 6 through 8.

And after quoting the text, this is what I wrote, the fleshly, unregenerate mind is hostile toward God, never neutral, for it does not subject itself to law of God, but it is the assertion that follows this that causes so many to stumble.

The fleshly mind, quote, is not able, end quote, subjection to God's law is outside the capacity of the fallen man.

Since we know that God's law commands us to repent and believe as well as to perform that which is righteous in God's sight, we can see the tremendous extent of the corruption of human nature and the resultant spiritual inabilities.

We must understand the scriptural argument at this point. Those who promote the theory of free will normally mean this in the sense of creaturely autonomy.

The idea is that man, even in sin, is in reality at a neutral point where he is still free to will good or evil, all depending on his own desires and choice.

The idea that man's will is controlled by his nature and that man's fallen nature is enslaved to sin because it is corrupted is denied.

Yet this is exactly what Paul teaches in this passage. It is specifically biblically set forth that the unregenerate fleshly mind is not capable of doing what is right in God's sight.

The lost man cannot please God. Is repentance and faith pleasing to God?

Yes. Is submission to the commands of God pleasing to him? Of course. Therefore, regeneration must take place first.

And then at that point, I begin a discussion of John 6, 43 through 44. You will note that no place on page 84 are the quoted words found.

And you will note that, of course, Bob Ross does not provide any response to the exegetical basis, the comments that I made at this particular point in time.

First example is proven to be dishonest and false. The next is page 288.

And once again, guess what we're doing? We're exegeting the text of scripture.

This actually is following after a discussion of 1 John 5, 1.

And this is a discussion concerning the relationship of being born from above and having saving faith.

So I'll go back to page 287 to give you the context. I quoted 1 John 5, 1. I said, generally such a passage would be understood to present the following order of events.

Believe that Jesus is the Christ, number one, and two, you are born of God. Yet, the original readers of this text would not jump to such a conclusion.

In reality, the most literal rendering would be, quote, everyone believing present tense participle ha -pistuon, emphasizing both the ongoing action as well as the individuality of saving faith.

Then each believing, that is, each believing person, that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God.

Not a perfect passive verb, degeneitai, has been born by the agency of God.

In John, the one believing is very common, and it is no accident that the emphasis falls upon the ongoing action of faith.

The one believing that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God. The person is now believing that Jesus is the

Christ in a true and saving fashion. They are doing so because, as a completed action in the past, they were born again through the work and agency of God.

The verb to be born is passive. They were caused to be born by another, that being

God. They did not cause their own spiritual birth, and what is the inevitable result of being born of God?

Belief that Jesus is the Christ. Just as all those who are given by the Father to the Son come to the

Son, John 6 .37, so too all who are spiritually reborn through the work of God have as the object of their faith the

Lord Jesus Christ. Some Arminian exegetes might object to this interpretation as a means of testing the consistency of the exegesis offered.

This passage would be to ask how such a person interprets these words from John, that I quote 1

John 2 .29, which says, If you know that he is righteous, you know that everyone also who practices righteousness is born of him.

Every consistent Protestant would say the reason one practices righteousness is because they have already been born of him.

We do not practice righteousness so as to be born, but instead the birth gives rise to the practice of righteousness.

And such is quite true, but this means that in 1 John 5 .1, the belief in Jesus the Christ is the result of being born of him.

The verbal parallel is exact. In 1 John 2 .29, the one practicing righteousness is a present participle.

In 1 John 5 .1, the one believing is a present participle. In both passages, the exact same verb in the exact same form is used, gegeneitai.

Therefore sheer consistency leads one to the conclusion that divine birth precedes and is the grounds of both faith in Christ as well as good works.

The testimony of the fact that God's work of grace precedes any human action can be found all through the text of scripture, and that I quoted the story from Acts 16 .14

in regards to Lydia and God opening her heart so that she might respond to the things spoken by Paul.

And so both instances, first of all, do not contain the words that Bob Ross attributes to me, and so he is once again demonstrated to be significantly less than an honest source of information.

But both of them were exegetical, and you would think that if there were exegetical errors in those sections, why doesn't

Bob Ross point them out? Because Bob Ross can't point them out. That's why. And so he, like those who argue like him, attempt to use other means of getting around the fact that when it simply comes to what the scripture states on these points, they are in error.

Now notice he says, we have taken note of his heresy in this blog in the past. The next paragraph says,

James accepts the Paedo -Baptist, baby baptizers, reformed view of the new birth in contrast to the

Baptist view of our Baptist confessions and our notable Baptist forefathers. He has adopted the view of Paedo -Baptists such as Shedd, Burkoff, Sproul, Frame, and others who advocate the idea that regeneration precedes faith, according to the so -called

Ordo Salutis, developed by Paedo -Baptist theologians of years ago. Now I have pointed out many, many times that Bob Ross just refuses to listen.

I'm an elder in Reformed Baptist Church. We utilize the Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689, the

London Baptist Confession of Faith. And in the modern language version of this,

I would like to read you a few sections to demonstrate that what I believe is perfectly in line with that of the 1689

London Baptist Confession of Faith. And that's the assertion that, and of course what he does, just like Ruckman does, is he overblows his case.

He attempts to exaggerate it to such a point that it no longer accurately reflects the real situation.

When we say that regeneration precedes faith, we speak of that logically, not necessarily temporally.

In fact, in the normative situation, it is through the preaching of the Word of God that the Spirit of God utilizes that preaching as the means by which

God's elect are drawn unto Jesus Christ. That does not change the reality of slavery to sin.

And so one's being freed from slavery to sin, one's being regenerated, given the gift of faith, believing in Jesus Christ, these are almost always concurrent events.

You'll notice a couple of statements to be found in the 1689 London Confession of Faith.

Let me read from chapter 9 and section 4.

When God converts a sinner and brings him out of sin into the state of grace, he frees him from his natural bondage to sin, and by his grace alone he enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good.

I stop there and just note that's exactly what I was saying in my exegesis of 1 Corinthians 2 that I read just a few moments ago.

Nevertheless, certain corruptions remain in the sinner so that his will is never completely and perfectly held in captivity to that which is good, but it also entertains evil.

There's a discussion of the will of man under effectual calling. Chapter 10.

At a time appointed by and acceptable to God, those whom God has predestined to life are effectually called by his

Word and Spirit out of the state of death in which they are by nature to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ.

Their minds are given spiritual enlightenment and, as those who are being saved, they begin to understand the things of God.

God takes away their heart of stone and gives them a heart of flesh. He renews their will, and by his almighty power he sets them to seek and follow that which is good, at the same time effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ.

And to all these changes they come most freely, for they are made willing by divine grace.

That is exactly the position that I present and defend in the potter's freedom.

But it is very clear in the words of the confession that it is God's grace that precedes the action of the will.

It is not that simply which makes it possible, but that which brings it about.

God's effectual call, section 2, is the outcome of his free and special grace alone. Until a man is given life and renewed by the

Holy Spirit, he is dead in sins and trespasses, so is entirely passive in this work of salvation, a work that does not proceed from anything good foreseen in him, nor from any power or agency resident in him.

The power that enables him to answer God's call and to embrace the grace offered and is no less than that which effected the resurrection of Christ from the dead.

It is resurrection power. So finally we get to the section, chapter 14, on saving faith.

Chapter 14, section 1. The grace of faith by which the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls is the work of the

Spirit in their hearts, which is, of course, the position that I have presented in The Potter's Freedom and in God's Sovereign Grace, a book that I wrote long before The Potter's Freedom, and have presented consistently for many years, even during years when

Bob Ross thought he liked me. Normally, normally it is brought into being, notice the means here, normally it is brought into being through the preaching of the

Word. By the Word and its ministry, by the administration of baptism, the

Lord's Supper, by prayer and also by other means appointed by God, faith is increased and strengthened.

By faith a Christian believes everything to be true that is made known, the Word in which God speaks authoritatively. He also perceives in the

Word a degree of excellence superior to all other writings, indeed to all things the world contains. The Word shows the glory of God as seen in His various attributes, the excellence of Christ and His nature in the offices

He bears, and the power and perfection of the Holy Spirit in all the works in which He is engaged. In this way the

Christian is enabled to trust himself implicitly to the truth thus believed and to render service according to the different requirements of the various parts of Scripture.

To the commands he yields obedience, when he hears threatenings he trembles, as for the divine promises concerning this life and that which is to come, he embraces them.

But the principal acts of saving faith relate in the first instance to Christ as the believer accepts, receives, and rests upon Him alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, all by virtue of the covenant of grace."

So once again I want to make sure that it is very clear that I stand firmly in line with what is found in Lundebapst's Confession of Faith and I defend it exegetically.

And I would challenge Bob Ross, Bob Ross wants to debate this issue.

It's hard to debate people who show no interest whatsoever in being even semi -honest in their representations or the people who basically act like pre -teens, like Gail Ripplinger and making fun of people's names and using alliteration and things like that.

It's really hard to take people like that overly seriously. But maybe

Bob would like to engage in some exegesis instead of just citing this person and his understanding of what they said and this person and his understanding of what they said.

Why not responding exegetically to what I said? That would seem to be the most useful for everyone else.

Respond exegetically to what I have to say. And I'll let everybody else who is viewing these things, who can be somewhat dispassionate about it, to examine the potter's freedom and to examine the position that I have consistently held from the time of the publication of Drawn by the

Father or God's Sovereign Grace. Look at the exegesis and judge from there. But it would be really good if Bob Ross would repent of his constant misrepresentations of others and his constant childish playing with people's names and Peter Ruckman -esque behavior.

It's very difficult to deal seriously with someone who behaves in the way of Bob Ross of Pilgrim Publications.