In my review of Stephen Ray’s book Crossing the Tiber, I stated that his writing style was typically gentle, unassuming, and without the pejoratives so often found on both sides of Catholic/Protestant debates. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same about his critique of my review posted at www.catholic-convert.com, which is Mr. Ray’s personal website. In this critique, he finds it necessary to resort to numerous ad hominem attacks, calling into question not only my analytical ability but also my personal veracity and morality.

I have neither the time nor need to address each point he makes. My intention is to comment representatively on his article, just as I did on his book, and to do so I will focus on the personal attacks leveled against me, the petty issues that he raises, and the pertinent issues of substance. I list the page numbers of his critique in parentheses as they printed out on my computer.

The Personal

Stephen Ray’s opinion of my review is reflected in his sub-title, "A Simple Response to an Anti-Catholic Review of my book", as well as his opening paragraph where he calls it "feeble and naïve". Apparently he is only responding in kind to that which my review merits, simple as it is. Well, this is the first of many things that he raises about me and it is one that I prefer he had left alone for now I am compelled to admit a somewhat embarrassing truth which is all too obvious to him—yes, I am among the simple-minded.

Mr. Ray treats me as if I single-handedly took the "mental" out of "Fundamental" and as I read his writings, I must humbly concede that he is a man whose earthly, natural, worldly wisdom will always eclipse mine. His comments "the brightest minds in Christendom have always been Catholic" (4), "As Protestants are exposed to history and to the Bible, the brightest ones are joining the Catholic Church" (25) and "The flood of new Protestant converts into the Catholic Church represents the best and brightest of Evangelicals and Fundamentalists" (26) only expose how dim I am, especially since I left the Catholic Church.

Stephen Ray may boast of being among the best and brightest, but it is humbling indeed to realize that I am not. God did not save me because of anything praiseworthy within myself. He did not save me because I possess great wisdom, intellect or talent nor for any other reason in which men may boast. He is not fortunate to have me on His side. He did not save me because I am strong; on the contrary, the more I grow in Christ, the more obvious it becomes that God saved me as the weakest of vessels through whom He could manifest His strength. It is sobering to realize that I offer Him nothing and He offers me everything yet I also glory in the fact that God has chosen me as one of the "foolish things of the world to shame the wise" (1 Corinthians 1:27). My boast is all of Him and none of me!

The Lord knew what I needed to deal with my innate dullness and I was privileged to attend excellent secular and religious schools. As an undergraduate I attended the U. S. Naval Academy and graduated with a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering. For the ministry I studied at The Master’s Seminary (www.tms.edu) and graduated with a Master of Divinity. And my education continues to improve as I study in the only infallible classroom there is, the Word of God.

Since Stephen Ray raises several other personal issues about me, I probably ought to begin with my heritage, especially since he implies that I am lying about my Catholic background when he states, "Mr. Bayack, who claims to be an ex-Catholic" (9), "an alleged ex-Catholic like Mr. Bayack" (16), and "if indeed you were a Catholic" (24). (By the way, where did I ever question his background? On the contrary, I took his testimony at face value and even affirmed that he was no stranger to conservative Evangelicalism.)

Those who knew me even remotely when I was growing up would chuckle at Mr. Ray’s insinuation. I was born in 1958 in Salina, Kansas, into a long French-Canadian and deeply Roman Catholic ancestry on my mother’s side. I was baptized as an infant at Sacred Heart Cathedral and attended St. Mary’s Parochial School from 1964-66. I also have two infant siblings buried in Salina, one in unconsecrated ground because he was stillborn. In 1966 my family moved to Kingman, Kansas, where I attended St. Patrick’s Parochial School from 1966-68.

I remember my years in Catholicism well. I remember the zeal with which I studied Catechisms and Missals in an effort to learn my faith. I remember being taught many of the fundamental truths of Christianity such as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, etc. I was well-grounded in these things because of my years in Catholicism and to the Catholic Church’s credit, what truth she does teach she has taught with consistency and integrity over the centuries, much to the shame of mainline Protestantism. My religious training before I was saved was not unlike that of Paul’s. When I did get saved, I had much truth upon which to build.

However, I was also taught these things in the context of "not knowing God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish [my] own" (Romans 10:3), being completely ignorant of divine righteousness "which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith" (Philippians 3:9). Thinking that my efforts were essential to eternal life, I labored tirelessly for my salvation. None of my peers could exceed me.

I remember the constant pursuit of the sacraments, the dutiful attendance of Mass, and the mechanical chanting of repetitious prayers. I even prayed the Angelus at noontime and remember thinking that surely if I prayed a Rosary every day I would go to heaven. And I remember the subtle undercurrent of anxiety in my life as I could never know with certainty where I would go after I died.

I remember crying myself to sleep as a seven-year old because I feared that I had committed a mortal sin by breaking the one-hour communion fasting rule and was too ashamed to confess it to a priest, being convinced that I was going to hell. I remember leaving the confessional on one occasion and somewhat hoping that I might get hit by a car before I could possibly commit a mortal sin. I remember keeping my spiritual fingers crossed in the hope that whenever I died I would be in the state of Sanctifying Grace.

I remember in my youth the bondage to the world and the flesh which I was powerless to break. I remember that as a whole we Catholics eagerly participating in sinful revelry with the same enthusiasm as mainline Protestants and those who made no profession of faith. In short, I remember a life in Roman Catholicism far more typical of most than Stephen Ray’s will ever be.

And I remember equally well my entrance into divine righteousness. I remember the realization that without Christ alone I was lost. I remember the inexpressible joy of having passed from death to life after trusting Christ as my Lord and Savior. I remember entering into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, a relationship which is eternal life (John 17:3). I remember my spirit bearing witness with God’s Spirit that I was a child of God before I ever read Romans 8:16. I remember God marvelously peeling the blinders off my eyes to understand His Word and His diligence to teach me sound doctrine.

I remember the fruit of the Spirit supernaturally welling up inside of me with a newness I had never known. I certainly remember my struggles and failures as I battled an evil world and a sinful flesh which were now hostile to me but I also remember God’s gracious forgiveness which was mine upon the mere confession of sin directly to Him. I remember God’s chastening hand which desires me to share in His holiness. And I constantly remember the glorious truth that God chose me and set His love upon me from eternity past to save me solely on the basis of His good pleasure, without any foresight of my choosing Him.

Such is a candid and truthful testimony of my journey from Catholicism to salvation. However, my heritage is not the only issue where Stephen Ray suggests that I am a liar. Numerous times he questions whether or not I read his book with statements like, "If Mr. Bayack had read the Preface" (3), "Sometimes I wonder if people don’t just skim the book looking for proof texts to argue against" (4), "I question whether Mr. Bayack really read the whole thing or just used the ‘hunt and peck’ method to look for objections" (12), "Mr. Bayack appears not to have read what I wrote" (14), "if he really read the book" (14), and "if he really read the whole book" (23).

I feel a bit chagrined to have to defend myself against these implications. I graduated from an institution well-known for its Honor Code and those who know me know that I am anything but a liar. Once again, Mr. Ray, I am telling the truth. I read your book—holding my nose with every page—and have several pages of notes to prove it. How else would I know things like your involvement in the Plymouth Brethren assemblies? I made that conclusion because I read the footnote on page 75 which states that your fellowship had been influenced by men like William MacDonald and the one on page 62 that you were married in a "New Testament Assembly". If my review is so easy to refute, then why is it necessary to make these insinuations?

These are not the only times where Stephen Ray calls into question my character. In my comments about Pope Alexander VI being the most morally corrupt pope in history, Mr. Ray remarks, "I wonder if Mr. Bayack is morally perfect" (19). Well once again, I’ve been cornered. He has exposed another embarrassing area of my life and I must confess, I am not. Stephen Ray knows very well that Scripture teaches there is only One who is perfect and sinless, only One who is "holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners" (Hebrews 7:26). However, since Mr. Ray found it necessary to question my morality, I have no choice but to testify of the power of God in my life.

I came to know Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior when I was seventeen. In the sovereignty of God, I did not get married until I was less than a month away from turning thirty-three. My single years involved a lot of struggle, especially considering that I spent nearly a decade in the Navy. However, the keeping power of God kept me a virgin until I married and also gave me the self-control to give my wife our first kiss on our wedding day. I still remain completely dependent on that same grace and keeping power every day. I do not say this to condemn anyone nor to boast at all in myself but only to say that my rigid Catholic morality would never have been able to withstand the onslaught of the flesh had I not been saved in my youth. I have truly been able to see that "The things impossible with men are possible with God" (Luke 18:27).

As if this is not enough, Stephen Ray sees fit to denigrate my present calling as the pastor of an independent Bible Church. He refuses to call me "Pastor" or "Reverend" since I am supposedly a layman and have "no claim to apostolic succession or true ordination other than the vote of a group of people within his non-denominational denomination" (2). Throughout his critique, he refers to me either by my given name or simply "Mr. Bayack".

I am actually quite pleased that Stephen Ray refers to me this way since it is exactly how I asked the congregation at Copperfield Bible Church to address me ever since coming here in October 1994. At our church, I am not known as "Pastor Chris" or "Reverend Bayack". The adults call me by my first name and the children address me as they would any other adult.

Jesus clearly condemned the use of religious titles in Matthew 23:8-9, especially the title "father". The earthly priesthood has been fulfilled and all believers have direct access to God through the Great High Priest, Jesus Christ. Since all true believers enjoy an equal position before God, the only appropriate designation is "brother" as the key to understanding Jesus’ words is found in verse 8, "and you are all brothers". I gladly forego all titles that I may emphasize the common standing I share with all brothers in Christ.

The Petty

Stephen Ray has a remarkable ability to make much ado about nothing as he goes above and beyond to dissect capital letters and misspelled words. So important are these that they headline his critique in the very first paragraph: "The fact that his review is feeble and naïve is reflected by the fact that he couldn’t even get the title of the book right, calling it ‘Crossing the Timber’ on the web page, instead of ‘Crossing the Tiber.’"

It is common knowledge that the Tiber River flows through Rome and even someone as simple as me knew immediately what the title meant. Crossing the Timber was a minor typographical error by the Proclaiming the Gospel webmaster and if this is so vital to his argument that he has no choice but to make it his opening salvo, then he must do what he must do. I would hope that he was bigger than this.

What is far bigger is what this reveals about Mr. Ray himself. I personally e-mailed him and posted messages on his bulletin board several times explaining that I knew what the title meant and that I had absolutely no control over the Proclaiming the Gospel website. He eventually acknowledged this to be the webmaster’s mistake, however, he still treats it as my hapless error as his statement "he couldn’t even get the title of the book right" and another similar one in the second paragraph remain on his critique.

What does it say about a man who continues to deliberately misrepresent these things? What does it say about his integrity when he also writes in the same paragraph, "I would hope that, for the sake of integrity, he would post my response on the web site alongside his review" when he knows that I have no control over those decisions? One thing that it says for sure is that Stephen Ray is rash with the allegations and questionable at best with the facts.

But there is nothing questionable about Mr. Ray’s distortion of things elsewhere in his critique. This is no "petty" issue but having raised it at this point I will deal with it here. For example, Mr. Ray is blatantly disingenuousness with his quoting of Evangelical commentator A. Skevington Wood’s comments about Ephesians 5:26 both in his book and his critique.

Even though Mr. Wood believes that this verse refers to baptism, his commentary includes a clear rejection of baptismal regeneration: "There is, however, no hint of any mechanical view of the sacrament, as if the mere application of water could in itself bring about the purification it symbolizes. Nowhere does the NT countenance baptismal regeneration in an ex opere operato sense" (The Expositor’s Biblical Commentary, ed. Frank Gaebelein [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1978], 11:77, italics in original).

However, notice again how Stephen Ray summarizes this statement on page 126 of his book, "Skevington then goes on to the disclaimer that this does not automatically a sacrament make, that no mere application of water can bring about new birth, to which the Catholic heartily agrees." Thus he appears to be in agreement with Mr. Wood, however, he conveniently ignores Mr. Wood’s last sentence. I then went on to comment in my review that "Wood’s statement ‘the mere application of water’ is a reference to baptism, a baptism which does work ‘ex opere operato’ to effect Catholic salvation, which is Stephen Ray’s very point throughout his section on baptism."

I stand by this statement. Mr. Wood’s commentary listed above is intended to refute baptismal regeneration and over ninety pages of Stephen Ray’s book are dedicated to proving it. However, Mr. Ray is not above speaking out of both sides of his mouth depending on which argument he embraces. On one hand he has the gall to feign agreement with Mr. Wood in Crossing the Tiber. Yet on the other he says, "I explicitly mention that Wood disagrees with me on the point of baptismal regeneration" (23).

You do, Mr. Ray? I quoted the entirety of your comments about Mr. Wood verbatim in my review and nowhere do you give any hint of this. Which are we to believe—your ninety-plus pages in support of baptismal regeneration or your "hearty agreement" with Mr. Wood to the contrary? You cannot have it both ways.

Let us now return to Mr. Ray’s critique. So far he has questioned my veracity, morality, and integrity and lest he now question my fairness, I think it only proper that he be examined with the same scrutiny that he afforded me. In the very report in which he ridicules my grammatical and technical "errors", Mr. Ray distinguishes himself with an embarrassing number of his own.

For example, while speaking of the freedom that Eastern-rite clergy have to marry, Mr. Ray states, "and many of the Easter rites have married clergy" (8). As he criticizes my comments about Judas’ betrayal of Jesus supposedly being associated with the Eucharist in John 6, he writes, "[this] cannot be reduced to the simply explanation of Mr. Bayack" (14). When he describes the bliss of Catholicism’s infallible interpretation of Scripture he says, "One of the nice things about being a Catholic is that there are no longer any verses that don’t fit or make sense, such as 1 Peter 3:31" (11, he means 3:21 as there is no verse 31). And as he talks about his visits to Reformation sites he states, "In Marburg Germany I visited the site where the major reformers assembles in an attempt to formulate a consistent teaching among themselves" (18, all emphases added). Hopefully from now on he will take the typographical log out of his own eye first before removing the specks of others.

The Pertinent

Crossing the Tiber is Stephen Ray’s experience into Roman Catholicism and it is largely an experience in search of a text. He must justify Catholic doctrine if he is to justify his conversion as evidenced by his own words, "Roman Catholic tradition does not contradict Scripture or frankly, I wouldn’t be a Roman Catholic" (7, italics in original), and to do so he is often forced to employ a tortured hermeneutic. He must also depend on the other leg of authority—Church Tradition—for the same reason, regardless of how much it may contradict Scripture. I will deal briefly with each.

i. Church Tradition

Stephen Ray appears to be as infallible as his Church as he hardly concedes even the least point to those who challenge him. It is amazing how everyone (e.g. William Webster, James White, myself, etc.) who crosses him is an arrogant mental midget, his spiritual inferior and intellectual doormat. Mr. Ray deals with them only as one is forced to deal with a pesky gnat since he considers them to be about as potent and intelligent. Quite naturally he makes no concessions to me, simpleton that I am.

Nevertheless, I seek to contend for the truth which God has revealed exclusively in His Word for everyone who has ears to hear. How liberating for me to hear the clear voice of God through His Word alone! How blessed I am to understand and embrace the precious doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Mr. Ray, of course, has no choice but to reject this. According to him, "Sola Scriptura is never taught or even alluded to in the Bible itself; in fact, it itself is unbiblical" (5, italics in original).

Sola Scriptura is unbiblical? Sola Scriptura is no more unbiblical than the Trinity. Where does the Bible teach that God is a triune Being? (Even the Catholic Jerusalem Bible is forced to admit that the expanded version of 1 John 5:7 is "not in any of the early Greek MSS, or any of the early translations, or in the best MSS of the [Latin] Vulg. itself" and is "probably a gloss that has crept into the text" [The Jerusalem Bible, s.v. 1 John 5:7 notes].) It is taught all throughout the Bible even though we don’t find the Trinitarian definition in one isolated verse. We understand the doctrine of the Trinity based on the deductive teaching of Scripture as a whole.

So it is with Sola Scriptura. God has promised, "The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever" (Isaiah 40:8). Jesus said, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall not pass away" (Matthew 24:35). Paul writes to Timothy, "All Scripture is inspired by God" (2 Timothy 3:16). These are but the tip of countless verses that support the unique nature of Scripture as God’s enduring and only authoritative revelation. If Church Tradition supposedly shares the same authoritative attribute as Scripture then we should expect it to share other common attributes. Yet where does God ever say that Tradition stands forever or that it will not pass away or that it is God-breathed? How is it that Tradition can presumably possess one unique attribute with the Word of God and not the rest?

While God undoubtedly used oral tradition to initially disseminate truth, the nature of human frailty demanded that such truth inevitably be captured in a written, inspired form. Errant men cannot be trusted to indefinitely pass on inerrant truth via word-of-mouth. Respected Old Testament scholar Gleason Archer states this very well:

God knew the obvious need to preserve His truth in a clear, objective, and unchanging manner and thus He gave us His written Word. However, this simple truth prompts another question altogether—if Roman Catholic Tradition is an infallible safeguard of God’s revelation, then why the need for the New Testament at all? Oral tradition existed before the New Testament and if the Catholic Church is the repository of God’s truth as she boasts per 1 Timothy 3:15, then her Tradition should be sufficient to protect and communicate all future divine revelation. Why not "Sola Traditio"? The New Testament, therefore, would be redundant.

But it was oral tradition that became redundant for the reasons Archer states above. Just as Jewish tradition could not sustain God’s initial revelation, neither could that of the early church sustain God’s later revelation.

The problems with Tradition do not end here. If Tradition is presumably of equal authority with Scripture, then whose do we accept? The Eastern Orthodox can supposedly make the argument for apostolic succession with the same credibility as Roman Catholicism, however, each does not fully agree with the other’s Tradition. Which is correct? Why must Catholic Tradition supplant that of the Orthodox? How can both make an equally "legitimate" claim to be authoritative and yet be contradictory?

This is a brief support for Sola Scriptura and far more can be said in its defense and has been by those more capable than me. Yet no amount of truth will persuade Stephen Ray. An infallible Church cannot repent and he will dutifully follow even if it means marching behind the Pied Piper. For example, when I stated that he never addressed the problem of Catholic Tradition contradicting Scripture he patently replied, "The Catholic Church does not contradict the Bible so there was nothing I needed to address" (7).

Mr. Ray must state this even if it requires turning the Bible inside out. One of the most egregious examples of Tradition contradicting Scripture is Catholicism’s defense of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary in spite of the obvious passages to the contrary such as Matthew 12:47, 13:55-56, John 7:5, Acts 1:14, 1 Corinthians 9:5, and Galatians 1:19, all of which teach that Jesus had blood half-siblings born after Him.

Catholic apologists desperately try to explain this away by saying that these were Jesus’ relatives or possibly a generic reference to Jewish brethren. However, such attempts are bankrupt in the clear context of these verses. In all of the above passages, the word "brother" is the Greek word adelphos which is the common word to describe blood brothers. In Matthew 13:56, the feminine adelphe is used to describe Jesus’ sisters. If these were merely cousins, the Holy Spirit could have used the Greek word anepsios as He does in Colossians 4:10 (the only place where it is found in the New Testament) to describe Barnabas’ cousin Mark or the word suggenes which is often used to describe relatives in general (cf. Acts 7:14).

The fact that suggenes and adelphos have distinct meanings is clearly seen when they appear in same verse. This occurs twice in the New Testament. In Luke 14:12, Jesus says, "When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers (adelphos) or your relatives (suggenes) . . ." and in 21:16 He states, "But you will be delivered up even by parents and brothers (adelphos) and relatives (suggenes) and friends, and they will put some of you to death." The fact that suggenes never appears in any of the verses discussing Jesus’ brothers brings a deafening silence to the Catholic argument.

Likewise, the use of adelphos in these verses cannot refer to Jewish brethren at large. Although adelphos can be used in this way (cf. Acts 23:1), it does not have that meaning in passages like Acts 1:14 as Jesus’ brothers were a distinct group from the rest in the upper room, even though all were Jewish. The natural, literal reading of adelphos in the above verses gives clear testimony that these can be none other than Jesus’ brothers. As one of my seminary Professors used to tell us, "If the natural sense makes sense, seek no other sense." And as the literal sense reveals the truth about these verses, the infallibility of Roman Catholic Tradition comes crashing down.

However, Stephen Ray remains undaunted. Catholic Tradition must survive and to prop it up he appeals to passages like 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 3:6 where Paul exhorts the Thessalonians to keep the traditions that he gave them. It may seem as if he has found the support he needs. But are these verses part of the structure of Catholic Tradition or are they part of the explosion that brings it down? Let us look at each.

In 2 Thessalonians 2, Paul is writing to this church to let them know that the day of the Lord has not yet come and that Jesus Christ has not yet returned for His bride (verses 1-2). He then goes on to explain in verses 3-12 what must first happen before the Lord returns which includes the frightful revelation of the "man of lawlessness . . . the son of destruction" (verse 3) and all of the chilling activity that comes with his advent. And lest believers think that somehow they will be in peril because of these future events, Paul gives them a marvelous word of comfort in verses 13-14, "But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. And it was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ" (italics added). Finally, in light of these word Paul gives his command in verse 15, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us."

What is the point? Simply this—Paul calls them to follow these traditions in light of their calling, election, and absolute certainty of their salvation, a teaching which is directly contradicted by Roman Catholic doctrine! This assurance is reinforced by what he said to them in his first letter, "For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Thessalonians 5:9). In other words, whatever these traditions were, they were in harmony with the doctrine of the believer’s assurance which Catholicism has long rejected. The traditions of this verse are in direct conflict with the Tradition of Rome.

Catholicism fares no better with a proper understanding of 2 Thessalonians 3:6. In that verse, Paul states, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition that you received from us." He then goes on to explain beginning in verse 7 how he, Silas, and Timothy all led disciplined lives and worked for their own bread. The tradition that Paul speaks of here deals with the work ethic that "if anyone will not work, neither let him eat" (verse 10), and has nothing to do with things like the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven, etc.

The context of these verses deals a crippling blow—not a support—to official Catholic Tradition. However, Stephen Ray conveniently ignores the context of these verses as he must. Just about anything can be proven when Scripture is taken out of context and the old saying, "a text without a context is a pretext" applies very well to him. In fact, he is quite adept at ignoring the context of Scripture if an allegorical interpretation supports his point. When I challenged him about using extensive allegory, especially in reference to the Old Testament, he stated, "I have often used Old Testament passages in the same ‘patristic’ manner as the earliest Church Fathers" (11) and "If you mean by allegory that I interpret them patristically, I plead guilty" (11).

Statements like this reveal another crutch that Stephen Ray must lean upon to support Catholic Tradition—the Church Fathers. In my review I stated that he quotes them as though they were infallible and that nowhere in his book does he consider that they may contract Scripture to which the humble Mr. Ray responds, "With all due respect the above comment is nothing but stupid. Come on Mr. Bayack, of course some of the Fathers contradict Scripture some of the time" (16).

I assumed that you believed as much, Mr. Ray, but that is not what I said, if indeed you truly read my review. I said that you treat them as though they are infallible, not that you believe them to be infallible. He continues, "Do I have to attach a disclaimer for each citation?" (11). No. But where do you give any disclaimer, even one, that the Church Fathers were prone to error? Judging by the way you so authoritatively referenced them, how is a simple mind like mine to conclude otherwise?

Anyone who yokes his interpretation of Scripture together with the Church Fathers is often building on a perforated foundation—its appearance belies its strength. If Stephen Ray truly believes the Church Fathers to be fallible, then he should examine them as the Bereans did Paul in Acts 17:11 (cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 also). If the great apostle’s teaching was subject to examination, then that of lesser men should be as well. What most people fail to realize about the Church Fathers is that many of them often embraced a syncretistic approach seeking to harmonize Greek philosophy and Biblical truth.

The intent was to make Christianity appeal to the Greek mind. However, this approach is fatally flawed. Worldly wisdom is "earthly, natural, [and] demonic" as we read in James 3:15 and is directly at odds with divine wisdom as we read in 1 Corinthians 2. The carnal mind will never believe due to intellectual reasoning alone. He will not accept the things of God until the Lord opens his eyes and draws him to believe (cf. John 6:44). Thus the oil-and-water mix pursued by many of the Fathers often yielded hazardous interpretations of the Word of God. Poison plus water equals poison.

Let us continue. Stephen Ray is not finished in his support of Catholic Tradition. In his section "Questions for ‘Bible Christians’" on page 26, he draws upon Jude 9, 14-15 as support for oral Tradition being authoritative and even treating it as God’s Word. Is it?

Jude 9 discusses the dispute between the archangel Michael and the devil over the body of Moses. While this event is not found in the Old Testament, it is found in the apocryphal book The Assumption of Moses. Verses 14-15 discuss a prophecy of Enoch which is also not found in the Old Testament but is found in the apocryphal Book of Enoch. Do these references support oral Tradition as being authoritative or that the Catholic Apocrypha is also part of the inspired Word of God?

No, they do not. God at times allows His writers to quote truths from non-inspired sources to make a point. For example, Paul quotes ancient poets three times in inspired writings. In Acts 17:28 he quotes Aratus’ poem Phaenomena when he says, "Even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His offspring.’" Does this mean that Phaenomena is inspired or that the oral tradition which transmitted it is the Word of God?

Is the same true of Menander and Epimenides because he quotes them in 1 Corinthians 15:33 and Titus 1:12 respectively? Man in his pursuit of knowledge occasionally intersects God’s truth. After all, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

The same is true of events and quotations that God uses from apocryphal sources even if these sources were not inspired. (By the way, if Catholicism appeals to these verses in Jude as support for apocryphal inspiration, then why is neither The Book of Enoch nor The Assumption of Moses found in the Catholic Apocrypha? How is it that these non-inspired books could support Apocryphal inspiration?)

Furthermore, in verse 14 Jude writes "Enoch . . . prophesied". By contrast, notice how Matthew referred to the prophecy of Micah 5:2 in Matthew 2:5, "For so it has been written by the prophet." Enoch’s quote is inspired while Micah’s writings are inspired. Never is it said, "It is written" concerning The Book of Enoch nor any other apocryphal writing. Jude references Enoch’s prophecy, not the book. Neither the document nor its word-of-mouth transmission have the same authority as Scripture.

And neither does Roman Catholic Tradition.

ii. The Word of God

Stephen Ray’s ability to handle the Word of God has also been weighed in the balance and found wanting. He is as obligated to follow Rome’s handling of Scripture as

he is her Tradition, even if it means throwing himself into a vortex of error.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Ray views this as a badge of honor. "Ignorant people like to claim Catholicism contradicts the Bible, but it was actually the great fidelity of the Catholic Church to Scripture and the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles that eventually caused me to convert to the Catholic Church" (7). "One of the nice things about being a Catholic is that there are no longer any verses that don’t fit or make sense, such as 1 Peter 3:31, John 20:23, Colossians 1:24, John 3:5, etc." (11). He holds to the same line that I was taught in fourth-grade Parochial school, namely, that since Roman Catholicism is supposedly an infallible Church, she possesses an infallible interpretation of Scripture.

If this is so, then where is the official, infallible set of commentaries whereby I might look up the meaning of any and every verse? Surely a simple mind like mine would benefit from that. Yet none exists. Wouldn’t such a set be the invincible fortress which no heresy could assault? Why does Rome not give us the authoritative, once-for-all, verse-by-verse exposition of the Word of God which would forever silence her critics?

We should not hope for such a commentary anytime soon. And if Stephen Ray’s capability with the Bible reflects that of his Church, it is understandable why such a commentary will never exist. For example, he states, "Paul taught the churches many things . . . [including] how to ordain priests" (10). I am want to find such a passage! If Stephen Ray had any proficiency in Greek, he would know that the word for "priest" is the word hiereus (or archiereus for "chief/ruling priest") and nowhere does Paul ever ordain a hiereus or teach a church to do the same. He did appoint elders in some churches (e.g. Acts 14:23) but the Greek word for "elder" is presbuteros from which we get our word "presbytery". Never is the New Testament church office of presbuteros ever equated with hiereus.

Yet Mr. Ray’s exegetical skid does not stop there. When I made some remarks about the issue of baptism, he stated, "Paul’s converts were all baptized immediately upon belief in Christ (e.g. Acts 16:31) as he was himself (Acts 9:17-18)" (12).

Apparently he has never read Acts 13:12, 13:48, 17:4, 17:12, and 17:34 which make no mention of baptism accompanying belief among Paul’s converts. No doubt these believers were eventually baptized but contrary to Stephen Ray there is nothing in the text to suggest that it immediately followed belief. Several other passages also show us that not all converts were immediately baptized such as Acts 4:4, 6:7, 9:35, 9:42, and 11:21.

But these are not the only blunders he makes regarding baptism. As I mentioned earlier he devotes over ninety pages of his book to supposedly prove baptismal regeneration, pages which include attempts to rebut Evangelical arguments opposing it. I pointed out that nowhere does he address 1 Corinthians 1:17 where Paul says, "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel." To this he responded, "I really don’t see what the above verse has to do with anything" (12).

I am amazed at this statement! Surely Mr. Ray would realize that simple minds like mine would latch on to verses like this. And if my argument is so easy to refute, then doing so in his book would only strengthen his.

Yet he ignores this verse, as he must, since it is one of the most potent against his position. If baptism was necessary for salvation, then Paul erred grievously by not baptizing everyone immediately upon belief. Why would he leave his listeners in eternal peril if they merely believed but had to wait for someone else to come along and finish the evangelistic job? What surgeon would shut down the operating room half way through a heart transplant?

In 1 Corinthians 1:17 where Paul says, "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel" the Greek word for "but" is not the simple conjunction de but the adversative particle alla which is the plural of allos, meaning "another". Anyone with even basic competence with Greek knows that alla denotes a sharp contrast. Paul’s distinction between baptism and the gospel could not be clearer.

Speaking now of the gospel, Stephen Ray continues his Biblical and theological ambiguity as he writes, "I am thankful to be part of the Church that has consistently taught the true Gospel from the very beginning. She has gone neither to the right nor to the left but stayed the course so that two thousand years later the Gospel is still proclaimed with truth and accuracy" (18).

What is the gospel according to Rome, Mr. Ray? Interestingly enough, for your boast about the Catholic Church preserving the true gospel, you give no definition of it. Is it, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved" as Paul told the Philippians jailer in Acts 16:31? Is it the same definition that Paul gives in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, which I remind you again contains no mention of baptism or communion, the two sacraments your book so frantically tries to prove are essential to saving faith?

It cannot be this simple as Rome’s gospel is much more complex. It goes something like this, "Believe in the Lord Jesus and be baptized and receive communion, together with receiving as many of the other five sacraments as possible (in addition to praying to Mary and the saints for extra intercession), in the hope that you might go to heaven after you spend an indefinite period of time in that half-way hell of Purgatory."

Now I am not passing judgment on individuals nor am I making a blanket statement that all Catholics are going to hell. "The Father . . . has given all judgment to the Son" as Jesus said in John 5:22 and we all do well to leave it with Him. However, we are to "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15) and nowhere is this more crucial than the gospel.

These irreconcilable differences in understanding the gospel mean that Stephen Ray and I cannot be on the same team (as he well knows) in spite of his statement, "It is sad when I have to lock horns with someone who claims the name of my Savior Jesus Christ—one with whom we should lock arms in love to take a united stand for Christ in the midst of a pagan culture" (1, italics in original).

Did Paul "lock arms" with the Judiazers who infested the churches of Galatia? Think of all the beliefs they shared. Both were Monotheists. Both believed the same Old Testament Scriptures. Both had a similar morality and were repulsed by the rank paganism around them. Both esteemed the Ten Commandments and the rest of the Law. They had many important, fundamental beliefs in common. But there was one difference in belief which would never be bridged—the nature of justification.

Paul embraced justification on the basis of faith alone but the Judaizers also believed that keeping the Law was necessary. Imagine how they could have appealed to Paul: "Paul, our differences aren’t so great. Look at all that we have in common. We really just disagree in this one area. You believe in justification by faith alone, and we believe in faith plus keeping the Law and the traditions practiced by our fathers and their successors and are still proclaimed nearly fifteen hundred years later with truth and accuracy. Let’s pull together that we might fight as one."

But how did Paul react to the Judaizers? "We did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you" (Galatians 2:5). Regardless of whatever beliefs they may have had in common, their differences on this one vital issue would keep them forever apart.

So it is forevermore with those who embrace the gospel of faith alone and those who embrace faith plus works of any kind.

Conclusion

My opinion about Crossing the Tiber remains the same—it is a masterpiece of tangled, selective scholarship which will only widen the path of many on the already broad road to destruction. It’s that simple.

I need not say anything more. Mr. Ray, though, is sure to say plenty more and I concede the last word to him, as I must. When it comes to who can shout the loudest, I’m no match for him. He is sure to have the last word that he might triumph over every critic. Yet Scripture will have the ultimate last word and will triumph over every error that threatens the gospel of grace by which we are saved through faith alone in Jesus Christ.

Praise God for sending His Son to fully pay the price for my sin. Praise God because salvation is a totally free gift which we merely receive. And praise God for a gospel so simple that a mind like mine can understand it.

May Stephen Ray "become foolish that he may become wise" (1 Corinthians 3:18).

This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it