![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2020\/09\/RaySteve.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
*<\/p>\n
Pastor Chris Bayack\u2019s posted response is called\u00a0\u201cBook Review: Crossing the Tiber (+ Pt. II)\u201d\u00a0and is still available online at the\u00a0Proclaiming the Gospel<\/em>\u00a0website<\/a>.[original introduction] Steve has asked me if I could assist him with his reply to this critique, in which Pastor Bayack responded to his counter-reply. Pastor Bayack seems to me a worthy and able opponent, so I am happy to do so. Steve Ray is a good friend of mine (we go back to 1983, long before we both converted). I have worked with Steve in such projects before, most notably with regard to my paper: William Webster\u2019s Misunderstanding of Development of Doctrine<\/a>\u00a0[2000]. Pastor Bayack\u2019s\u00a0words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n I. Opening Shots From Pastor Bayack<\/b><\/span> PART II<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0[Link<\/a>] <\/p> I. Opening Shots from Pastor Bayack<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\nTABLE OF CONTENTS<\/b><\/span><\/div>\nPART I<\/span><\/strong><\/b><\/div>\n\n\n
\n
\nII. Church (and) Tradition and\u00a0Sola Scriptura<\/i><\/b><\/span>
\n
\nIII. Weak and Insubstantial Alleged Biblical \u201cProofs\u201d for\u00a0Sola Scriptura<\/i><\/b><\/span>
\n
\nIV. Tradition II<\/b><\/span>
\n
\nV. Recurring\u00a0Ad Hominem<\/i>\u00a0Attacks and Charges of Special Pleading<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/b>
\nVI. Back to New Testament\u00a0Tradition\u00a0<\/i>(and a Rabbit Trail of \u201cAbsolute Assurance\u201d)<\/b><\/span>
\n
\nVII. Zapping Church History and Bashing the Church Fathers<\/b><\/span>
\n
\nVIII. Paul, Pagans, Prophets, Plato, Patristics, and Protestant Pastors<\/b><\/span>
\n
\nIX. Pastor Bayack\u2019s Word vs. the Word of God, Calvin, & Luther (Gospel and Baptism)<\/b><\/span>
\n
\nX. Parting Shots From Pastor Bayack<\/b><\/span>
\n
\nXI. Postscript: Why Pastor Bayack Decided to End This Debate<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\nCrossing the Tiber<\/i>\u00a0is Stephen Ray\u2019s experience into Roman\u00a0Catholicism and it is largely an experience in search of a text.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nI think this is a silly, groundless comment, which implies that Steve Ray puts experience above biblical text and reason. He most certainly does\u00a0not<\/i>\u00a0(though I have personally known\u00a0many<\/i>\u00a0Protestants who do just that), as anyone who reads his thoroughly-footnoted books or articles can readily observe. This is the familiar charge of special pleading, as if Catholics (and particularly\u00a0converts<\/i>\u00a0\u2014 thus I am well-acquainted with it as well) couldn\u2019t possibly have adequate reasons for their change of heart and mind; therefore they go out and find biblical texts which they\u00a0think<\/i>\u00a0prove what they already espouse on irrational, experiential grounds.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nBut this is itself a circular argument. Pastor Bayack simply assumes that the Bible couldn\u2019t possibly support Catholicism, so he conveniently concludes that anyone who believes it does must be special pleading and rationalizing; engaging in\u00a0eisegesis<\/i>\u00a0(i.e., reading into the Bible one\u2019s own prior assumptions or theological systems).<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nFurthermore, this charge could just as easily be levied against any number of Protestant sects, since they can\u2019t manage to agree with\u00a0each other<\/i>\u00a0(strange, if Scripture is so self-evidently\u00a0clear<\/i>, as they all claim). That might be due to poor scholarship or special pleading on their part as well (or any number of possible additional reasons). So in the end, charges like these become meaningless; both sides must present their biblical and historical arguments in favor of their own positions, which is precisely what both Steve and Pastor Chris have done. It isn\u2019t necessary to second-guess motives and to charge that a person is in effect dishonest (as professional anti-Catholic James White has in fact asserted about Steve Ray<\/a> \u2014 without grounds, of course; I have received the same unethical treatment from the man).<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nThus, Pastor Bayack, fresh from two sections detailing what he feels to be Steve\u2019s\u00a0ad hominem<\/i>\u00a0attacks, lobs one of his own in his very first sentence. Sure it may have been subtle, but Steve and I know full well what he is referring to, as\u00a0experience\u00a0<\/i>vs.\u00a0biblical grounding<\/i>\u00a0is a longstanding discussion within the evangelical community itself (particularly concerning charismatics). Steve (like myself) has always chosen the Bible as the standard of experience (not vice versa), both as an evangelical\u00a0and<\/i>\u00a0as a Catholic. This is a non-issue.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nHe must justify Catholic doctrine if he is to justify his conversion as\u00a0evidenced by his own words, \u201cRoman Catholic tradition does not\u00a0contradict Scripture or frankly, I wouldn\u2019t be a Roman Catholic\u201d (7,\u00a0italics in original),<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nAll adherents of a Christian view who attempt to defend it utilize Scripture in that regard. I don\u2019t find that this is some sort of novel or objectionable practice. Such assertions don\u2019t move the discussion along at all. They are merely showy rhetoric, and thus, unworthy of true dialogue. For someone might object in turn: \u201cokay, then, for what\u00a0reason<\/i>\u00a0do you think Steve Ray is eisegeting Scripture?\u201d And then we get right back to the biblical arguments, which should have been the starting-point of discussion in the first place, as both parties reverence Holy Scripture and accept its inspiration and unquestioned authority.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nThe Catholic can\u2019t win, no matter what he says or does, in the eyes of an anti-Catholic. I have long experience of this myself. If he doesn\u2019t cite Scripture to support his opinions (or change of heart, in the case of a convert), then it is said that Catholics hate the Scripture to such an extent (or are so ignorant of it) that they don\u2019t even\u00a0cite<\/i>\u00a0it as evidence for their side, etc., and that the person is obviously a pawn and slave of this hideous, anti-biblical and tyrannical system; the Beast, the Whore of Babylon, blah blah blah. Then it is maintained that the Catholic Church has always\u00a0suppressed<\/i>\u00a0the Bible and vernacular translations, etc. (false charges also, as I document on my Bible and Tradition page<\/a>).<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nBut if a Catholic holds to the infallibility of Scripture (as they should, since their Church teaches this), and believes that the Bible is entirely consistent with Catholic doctrine (as all Christians who value Scripture believe about their own views), then we hear this gratuitous and vapid charge of eisegesis and special pleading, because (when it comes right down to it), the anti-Catholic\u00a0knows<\/i>\u00a0(and assumes that everyone\u00a0else<\/i>\u00a0\u201cknows\u201d) that Scripture doesn\u2019t support Catholicism!<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nBut what does\u00a0that<\/i>\u00a0prove, anyway? Exactly nothing. It is a form of the \u201cyour dad\u2019s uglier than mine\u201d tactic of schoolchildren. It is obvious that the discussion boils down to competing interpretations of Scripture. Protestants ought to respect such a biblical and hermeneutic discussion, given that they are perpetually arguing amongst themselves over that very thing (and sinfully splitting into further factions when they can\u2019t agree). So why pick on Catholics who hold to a different interpretation of various biblical passages, as if they are especially prone to eisegesis and an alleged \u201ctortured hermeneutic\u201d?<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nI suppose Pastor Bayack could reply that he does in fact try to show the faults of Steve\u2019s exegesis subsequently in his paper. Fair enough. But it is still unnecessary to take the pot shot right at the beginning of his arguments. It cheapens the debate and takes away much of the enjoyment and chance to learn and understand (for both parties).<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nand to do so he is often forced to employ a\u00a0tortured hermeneutic. He must also depend on the other leg of\u00a0authority\u2014Church Tradition\u2014for the same reason, regardless of\u00a0how much it may contradict Scripture. I will deal briefly with each.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nWhether it is \u201ctortured\u201d will be determined as the discussion proceeds below. I would submit that the standard Protestant views involve much more biblical difficulty and contradiction, and I will support that in no uncertain terms as we go along. As for Catholics depending on Church Tradition; well, of course we do; it is part of our system (and the Bible\u2019s outlook \u2014 so we would argue \u2014 far from contradicting it). But we are consistent in our own views, whereas Protestants supposedly eschew all \u201ctradition\u201d and stick to the Bible Alone, all the while accepting (consciously or not) all sorts of strictly man-made traditions handed down to them by their fathers Luther or Calvin or the Anabaptist Founders.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nScripture Alone and Faith Alone themselves fall into this category. There is nothing more \u201cmerely traditional\u201d or arbitrary or less apostolic than beliefs which spring into existence 1500 years after Christ, whose exponents have the chutzpah to describe as \u201capostolic\u201d and \u201cbiblical\u201d viewpoints and doctrines, even though it can\u2019t be documented that anyone of note believed them for those intervening 1500 years. This forces many Protestants to assert the quasi-Mormon notion of a very early and widespread \u2013 almost completely victorious \u2013\u00a0apostasy<\/i>\u00a0or \u201cfalling away\u201d or \u201cradical corruption\u201d of Christendom, until such time as Herr Luther broke through the darkness and brought the glorious gospel back again.<\/div>\n