Comments for The Church's One Foundation Devoted to ending schism in Christ's body where you live. Wed, 09 Oct 2019 16:24:14 +0000 hourly 1 Comment on The Schism of Scripture and Roman Catholicism by Ted Bigelow Mon, 27 Apr 2015 16:35:46 +0000 Hi Deb,

The two links are one and the same and ask readers to accept something that doesn’t exist – a gospel of Matthew in Aramaic, and on top of that, a creative, self-serving recreation of what the original Aramaic text might have said.

On the other hand, Christ promised to give “all the truth” to the apostles for the churches, and it really exists in the New Testament. I can’t encourage you strongly enough to trust in the words of Christ and His apostles – openly available in Scripture – for the saving of your soul.

I’m also sorry, Deb. Your comparison of Roman Catholic teachings to Jesus Christ’s teachings is self-serving, and, as my article shows, illegitimate. You must choose between Christ and His accomplishments on behalf of sinners, or your own merits for salvation. If you continue to choose the latter, you will be disappointed in the end (Rom. 10:11).

Will continue to remember you in prayer.

Comment on The Schism of Scripture and Roman Catholicism by Deb Rojas Mon, 27 Apr 2015 13:30:45 +0000 Tim,
To say that the Catholic Church creates schism by prounouncing decrees is as logical as saying the Christ creates adulterers by clearly defining adultery. In both cases, the original institutions stand — the injunctions give more clarity to how to best uphold the state of being.
An excellent “Rock” article…
Here is a little Petra/Petros reading for you. Blessings, Deb.


Comment on Precept and Example by Ted Tue, 25 Nov 2014 12:25:36 +0000 Hi Bart,

Wise question. The clearest witness to P&E in a single verse that I know of is Isaiah’s “to the law and the testimony” (Isa. 8:20). God provides confirmatory examples of His precepts to his people so they can obey and believe.

Throughout the article there are numerous instances of P&E – from the teachings of our Lord in the Sermon on the Mount, from Genesis through to Revelation. I didn’t write a section on Moses’ law due to space considerations, but the law is taught in P&E fashion – specific precepts, and then examples in certain cases so the precepts can be obediently applied.

Thus, P&E is inherently deduced from Scripture. It is simply its self-testimony. It also correlates to the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture, the sufficiency of Scripture, and the omniscience of God, who already knew every question man would ever throw at Scripture before He had it written. Point being, within Scripture is a firm and complete answer to every question on every matter concerning faith and duty, whether asked in unbelief, or faith.

Comment on Precept and Example by Bart Tue, 25 Nov 2014 05:14:31 +0000 Ted,

thank you for your insightful articles. They sharpen my thinking and understanding and make my love for Christ and His C(c)hurch grow. I’ve especially looked up this article because I’m doing a study on ‘Birth Control’. If doing this, you can’t avoid reading on the ‘Onan incident’ in Gen.38. This is the key verse for the ‘Let Go Let God’-defenders. However they also admit ‘it is the only Bible passage to explicitly mention a specific form of contraception’. So as far as I can see, if this passage indeed adresses the contraception issue, it is only by example, but the precept is missing. So applying the P&E principle on this passage would clarify a lot and stop a large part of this discussion.

Now, after reading your article on precept and example, I’m still left with a question: ‘Where is the precept of the P&E principle?’ You’ve explained the principle and gave plenty of examples, and the principle makes perfect sense, but I was wondering if a more specific Biblical precept could be appointed. It is certainly a helpful principle, but if it isn’t specifically adressed in the Bible, I’m wondering if you can employ it as a standard by which all doctrinal statements must be measured. Maybe I’ve overlooked this precept or missed some point in your article. In that case thank you for your patience… 🙂

Till later, Bart

Comment on Apostolic Succession, Tongues, and Prophecy by Brian Thu, 30 Oct 2014 05:57:56 +0000 It seems that at least part of the problem here stems from the reading of oneself into every page of scripture. Unfortunately, this all to common, man-centered method of reading the Bible is taught from pulpits every Sunday and generally encouraged in Christian teaching, but it’s done in error.

In order to begin to understand scripture, I must first let go of the foolish notion that the Bible is all about me. Certainly all of it has value for me. I do learn of God and myself through seeing the interaction He had with individuals and groups through stories contained in the pages of scripture, but I don’t write myself in where I don’t belong. I’m not a Jew. I’m not an apostle, and I’m not King David – at least not the last time I checked.

Comment on Precept and Example by Ted Wed, 17 Sep 2014 17:03:48 +0000 Thanks for catching that mistake on the “Ruled by Qualified Elders” grid. Made the high priest sentences clearer too. Negative examples… they abound in Scripture… as do negative precepts. Thanks!

Comment on Precept and Example by Marty Crocker Tue, 16 Sep 2014 22:38:43 +0000 Ted, thanks for the article – as I mentioned, it made me think of a case in a prior church where this would have been particularly helpful. A couple of comments. First, with the “E” part of false witness that you reference, from Mark 14:61-63 . . . it might be helpful in the article to have a reminder of what was happening, that Jesus was on trial before the Sanhedrin. He had been asked if he was the Christ; so before saying that He would be seen sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven, he first said, “I am.” He gave true witness in spite of the consequences. And while the high priest bore false witness, he didn’t necessarily realize that’s what he was doing. Another example of false witness with negative consequences is Ananias and Sapphira. Also, on your chart where you show Church Polity issues that don’t have both P & E support, the bottom one listed is “Ruled by Qualified Elders” – with support listed from both P & E. So I assume “Ruled by Qualified Elders” DOES have verification in Scripture, though it appears under the heading here that it does not? I may be misunderstanding – and unlike Josh, I can’t blame it on chainsaw fumes . . . just maybe too much time behind the wheel. Thanks again for the article!

Comment on What Tempts Protestants to Swim the Tiber? by Ted Mon, 04 Aug 2014 15:55:06 +0000 Post Script:

On the same day of my post Cross confirmed both points above in a comment to me on his own blog:

“Regarding John 16:13, just to be clear, I was not quoting the verse, as your use of quotation marks might suggest. The promise is not limited to the Apostles, but extends to the Church of which they are the foundation stones. (Rev. 21).”

While he acknowledges Jesus did not say “the Holy Spirit will guide “her”‘ into all the truth” (“I was not quoting the verse”), He still claims it is what Jesus meant, and further, meant for “the Church.” He cites Revelation chapter 21 as his reason for his claim. 

Dr. Cross, however, fails to distinguish between two different foundations. One supports the Universal Church and other supports the eternal city of Jerusalem. In the Universal Church the apostles are stones in the foundation, but are not the cornerstone. Christ Himself is the cornerstone of that foundation (Eph. 2:20-21). In distinction, the apostles are the entire foundation of the heavenly city of Jerusalem:

“the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones,
and on them were the twelve names
of the twelve apostles of the Lamb”
(Rev. 21:14)

Christ is instead the eternal city’s temple and lamp:

“And the street of the city was pure gold, like transparent glass. I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb.”
(Rev. 21:21-23)

While Dr. Cross does not distinguish between the two, Christ Himself does. In Revelation He explains that the eternal city will be entered only in the future:

“Blessed are those who wash their robes. They will be permitted to enter through the gates of the city and eat the fruit from the tree of life.
(Rev. 22:14, NLT)

However, present day churches are entered into today.

Furthermore, unlike present day churches which may have pedophilic pastors and priests and accomplices who cover their filth with lies, the eternal city contains no immoral persons within it:

“Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.
(Rev. 22:15)

Cross concludes the two are the same and so would have sinners in the assembly of the righteous, but he is incorrect. The churches (not Dr. Cross’s “the Church”) contain both the cleansed and the immoral in them at the same time, but only for the present time:

“I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches… if anyone adds to the prophecies of this book, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book”
(Rev. 22:16, 18)

Comment on What Tempts Protestants to Swim the Tiber? by Tony Luna Mon, 04 Aug 2014 01:17:03 +0000 Having grown up Catholic and attending Catholic school for 12 years, I understand the tremendous comfort there is in having a strong sense of tradition that exist in the Roman Catholic Church. No matter what city you are in, you know that all Catholic services will be on the same passages of Scripture and that the Mass will be held in the same way. Now you may not understand the passages of Scripture or the symbolism of the Mass, but you know you can always rely on it… and you can rely on it being over in an hour.

So why do Protestants “swim the Tiber”? Could it be that many of them in trying to be relevant forget about church (small C) history and do not fully understand the great price that may godly men paid to bring them the Word of God in their own language and the solid doctrine derived from it? I get the impression from Dr. Bryan Cross’s ecclesiastical background that he was subject to a non-historical Christianity and found solace in the stability of the Catholic Church and its tradition.

The key questions though are “Is that tradition truthful?” and “Is it on the same level as the Scriptures?” To keep this simple, I think we need look no further than the Word of God.

God has a very high view of His Word.

Psalm 138:2 says
“I will worship toward Your holy temple,
And praise Your name
For Your lovingkindness and Your truth;
For You have magnified Your word above all Your name.”

So God is saying that His Word is as important, or even more important, than His name. You cannot elevate the authority and perfection of Scripture (Psalm 19) higher than that.

God’s view of tradition though is quite the contrary.

Mark 7:8
“For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men —the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”

Colossians 2:8
“Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.”

God’s view of man’s tradition is certainly not on the same level as His Word. To equate the two, Scripture and tradition, is to contradict the Lord Himself.

The bottom line is that when I die, I will appear before the judgment seat of Christ and I do not want to tell Him that His Word alone was not good enough. I pray that Dr. Cross would share the same attitude.

Comment on Don’t Be the Church, Go To Church by Ted Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:46:35 +0000 Excellent post! Well done, Bart.