![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2020\/09\/RaySteve.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
[SEE PART I<\/a>]<\/p>\n PART II<\/strong> <\/p> 1 Thessalonians 1:5<\/strong>\u00a0for our\u00a0gospel\u00a0<\/b>came to you not only in\u00a0word<\/b>, but also in power . . .<\/p>\n 1 Thessalonians 1:6<\/strong>\u00a0. . .\u00a0you\u00a0received\u00a0<\/b>the\u00a0word<\/b>\u00a0in much affliction . . .<\/i><\/p>\n 1 Thessalonians 2:2<\/strong>\u00a0. . . we had courage in our God to\u00a0declare\u00a0<\/b>to you the\u00a0gospel<\/b>\u00a0of God . . .<\/p>\n 1 Thessalonians 2:8<\/strong>\u00a0. . . ready to\u00a0share w<\/b>ith you not only the\u00a0gospel\u00a0<\/b>of God but also our own selves . . .<\/p>\n 1 Thessalonians 2:9<\/strong>\u00a0. . . we\u00a0preached<\/b>\u00a0to you the\u00a0gospel<\/b>\u00a0of God.<\/i><\/p>\n 1 Thessalonians 2:13\u00a0<\/strong>. . . you\u00a0received<\/b>\u00a0the\u00a0word of God<\/b>, which you\u00a0heard<\/b>\u00a0from us, . . .<\/i><\/p>\n 1 Thessalonians 4:1<\/strong>\u00a0. . .\u00a0as you\u00a0learned from us<\/b>\u00a0how you ought to\u00a0live<\/b>\u00a0and to please God . . .<\/i><\/p>\n 2 Thessalonians 1:8<\/strong>\u00a0. . . vengeance upon . . . those who do not obey the\u00a0gospel\u00a0<\/b>of our Lord Jesus.<\/p>\n 2 Thessalonians 2:14<\/strong>\u00a0To this he called you through our\u00a0gospel<\/b>\u00a0. . .<\/p>\n 2 Thessalonians 2:15<\/strong>\u00a0. . . hold to the\u00a0traditions<\/b>\u00a0. . . taught . . . by\u00a0word of mouth<\/b>\u00a0or by letter.<\/i><\/p>\n 2 Thessalonians 3:1<\/strong>\u00a0. . . pray for us, that the\u00a0word of the Lord<\/b>\u00a0may speed on and triumph . . .<\/p>\n 2 Thessalonians 3:6\u00a0<\/strong>. . . the\u00a0tradition<\/b>\u00a0that you\u00a0received<\/b>\u00a0from us.<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Paul uses the words and phrases\u00a0gospel<\/i>,\u00a0tradition<\/i>, and\u00a0word of the Lord<\/i>\u00a0interchangeably even in the space of just\u00a0five verses<\/b>\u00a0(2 Thessalonians 2:14-3:1)!!! So it is quite biblical and Pauline to say, \u201cwe must proclaim the saving tradition,\u201d since \u201ctradition\u201d and \u201cgospel\u201d and \u201cword of God\u201d are synonymous in Paul\u2019s mind and that of the Apostles. Therefore, this broad application can\u2019t be reduced to a single usage and limited in its meaning, as the good pastor foolishly tries to do here.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n <\/p>TABLE OF CONTENTS<\/b><\/span><\/div>\n\n\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>\nVI. Back to New Testament\u00a0Tradition\u00a0<\/i>(and a Rabbit Trail of \u201cAbsolute Assurance\u201d)<\/b><\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nHowever, Stephen Ray remains undaunted. Catholic Tradition must\u00a0survive and to prop it up he appeals to passages like 2\u00a0Thessalonians 2:15 and 3:6 where Paul exhorts the Thessalonians\u00a0to keep the traditions that he gave them. It may seem as if he\u00a0has found the support he needs. But are these verses part of the\u00a0structure of Catholic Tradition or are they part of the explosion\u00a0that brings it down? Let us look at each.\u00a0In 2 Thessalonians 2, Paul is writing to this church to let them\u00a0know that the day of the Lord has not yet come and that Jesus\u00a0Christ has not yet returned for His bride (verses 1-2). <\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nHe then\u00a0goes on to explain in verses 3-12 what must first happen before\u00a0the Lord returns which includes the frightful revelation of the \u201cman\u00a0of lawlessness . . . the son of destruction\u201d (verse 3) and all of the\u00a0chilling activity that comes with his advent. And lest believers\u00a0think that somehow they will be in peril because of these future\u00a0events, Paul gives them a marvelous word of comfort in verses 13-14, \u201cBut we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren\u00a0beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the\u00a0beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and\u00a0faith in the truth. And it was for this He called you through our\u00a0gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ\u201d\u00a0(italics added). Finally, in light of these word Paul gives his\u00a0command in verse 15, \u201cSo then, brethren, stand firm and hold to\u00a0the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth\u00a0or by letter from us.\u201d<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nWhat is the point? Simply this\u2014Paul calls them to follow these\u00a0traditions in light of their calling, election, and absolute certainty\u00a0of their salvation, a teaching which is directly contradicted by\u00a0Roman Catholic doctrine! This assurance is reinforced by what he\u00a0said to them in his first letter, \u201cFor God has not destined us for\u00a0wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ\u201d\u00a0(1 Thessalonians 5:9). In other words, whatever these traditions\u00a0were, they were in harmony with the doctrine of the believer\u2019s\u00a0assurance which Catholicism has long rejected. The traditions of\u00a0this verse are in direct conflict with the Tradition of Rome.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nFirst of all, this proves nothing at all with regard to the meaning of\u00a0tradition<\/i>\u00a0because Pastor Bayack introduces a completely different subject matter. If he wishes to engage Catholics on the issues of soteriology, justification, assurance, etc., many of us Catholic apologists would be more than happy to oblige him, but to introduce that here is illogical and improper. Pastor Bayack\u2019s burden is to show precisely what Paul means by his\u00a0constant\u00a0<\/i>(not merely one-time) usage of\u00a0tradition<\/i>, and its being\u00a0received<\/i>\u00a0and\u00a0delivered.<\/i><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nI have shown, by much exegetical and linguistic biblical evidence, presented above (and directly below), that he and other New Testament writers mean by this\u00a0the gospel<\/i>,\u00a0the word of God, the faith,\u00a0<\/i>etc.\u00a0<\/i>They are all the same entity<\/em><\/b>.\u00a0<\/b>This can be clearly shown by a dozen of St. Paul\u2019s statements to the Thessalonians\u00a0alone<\/i>:<\/div>\n\n*<\/div>\nI\u2019m sure Pastor Bayack would agree with me that a fundamental (characteristically Protestant) rule of hermeneutics, is to compare Scripture with Scripture. I have done that, where\u00a0tradition\u00a0<\/i>(paradosis<\/i>) is concerned, and quite comprehensively. Pastor Bayack has not. But if he wishes to do so now, I\u2019d be absolutely delighted to interact with his response to my exegesis.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nSecondly, the argument he gives concerning \u201cabsolute certainty of salvation\u201d is clearly logically fallacious (I shall treat it in passing, even though we stray from our subject). In 2 Thessalonians 2:13, Paul writes that\u00a0God chose you from the beginning to be saved<\/i>\u00a0. . . Well, sure: God chooses and elects who is saved. And it is \u201cpresent\u201d to God, not future, as He is outside of time. Welcome to Christian Theology 0101. This is Catholic doctrine, and we believe in predestination (of the saved, but not the damned) as well.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nIt is a binding dogma of the Church (for proof of this assertion, see related papers on my Salvation & Justification page<\/a>). But Paul here does not teach that the\u00a0believer himself<\/i>\u00a0is \u201cabsolutely\u201d assured of his own salvation. The passage teaches nothing of the sort (only eisegesis forces it to); it merely states that\u00a0God\u00a0<\/i>chooses his elect. God\u2019s foreknowledge and omniscience are quite distinct from our fallible and sin-infected knowledge, as I\u2019m sure Pastor Bayack would readily grant.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nThirdly, does Pastor Bayack wish to argue that\u00a0every person in the Thessalonian church<\/i>\u00a0was amongst the\u00a0elect<\/i>, so that we should take this verse\u00a0absolutely literally<\/i>? That would hardly be a tenable position. This is a corporate address, and cannot be applied literally to each and every person in that church. Communities are always a mixed bag; we know this from Paul\u2019s letters to the Galatians and Corinthians, and Jesus\u2019 reprimands of the \u201cseven churches\u201d (note that He still regards them as \u201cchurches\u201d despite most being pitiable examples of Christianity at best) in the book of Revelation (and any Christian\u2019s own experience). If there are a few Christians to be found even in the lowly Catholic Church, according to our friend, then certainly there were a few reprobates who hung around the Thessalonian church . . .<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nFourthly, the Apostle Paul himself possesses no such \u201cabsolute assurance\u201d at all. Paul was not Luther, the one who was neurotically obsessed with figuring out whether God loved him or not. Paul is rather confident of God\u2019s love, yet he never speaks of having already attained the\u00a0prize<\/i>\u00a0of salvation:<\/div>\n\n
1 Corinthians 9:27<\/strong> but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n1 Corinthians 10:12<\/strong>\u00a0Therefore let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nGalatians 5:1, 4\u00a0<\/strong>. . . stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery . . . You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nPhilippians 3:11-14<\/strong>\u00a0that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own . . . I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n1 Timothy 4:1\u00a0<\/strong>Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n1 Timothy 5:15<\/strong>\u00a0For some have already strayed after Satan.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n[See also 1 Samuel 11:6, 18:11-12, Ezekiel 18:24, 33:12-13, 18, Galatians 4:9, Colossians 1:23, Hebrews 3:12-14, 6:4-6, 11-12, 10:23, 26, 29, 36, 39, 12:15, 2 Peter 2:15, 20-21, Revelation 2:4-5]<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\nCatholics believe that every person can have a\u00a0moral assurance of salvation<\/i>, provided we examine ourselves honestly and thoroughly to determine if we are in right relationship to God and not engaged in gravely sinful activities. We assert that this is the biblical view, seeing that it is often stated that \u201cfornicators, adulterers, idolaters, liars, thieves,\u201d etc. will not inherit the kingdom (salvation).<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nFifth, even John Calvin does not hold that someone other than God (I say, even the Apostle Paul, especially since he wasn\u2019t even\u00a0absolutely<\/i>\u00a0sure of his\u00a0own\u00a0<\/i>election) could know whether\u00a0another\u00a0<\/i>person was amongst the elect (though indeed he taught that one could be personally sure of their\u00a0own\u00a0<\/i>election):<\/div>\n\n
[W]e are not bidden to distinguish between reprobate and elect \u2013 that is for God alone, not for us, to do . . . (Institutes\u00a0<\/i>of the Christian Religion<\/i>\u00a0[McNeill \/ Battles edition, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960],\u00a0IV. 1. 3.)<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nWe must thus consider both God\u2019s secret election and his inner call. For he alone \u201cknows who are his\u201d [II Tim. 2:19] . . . except that they bear his insignia by which they may be distinguished from the reprobate. But because a small and contemptible number are hidden in a huge multitude and a few grains of wheat are covered by a pile of chaff, we must leave to God alone the knowledge of his church, whose foundation is his secret election. It is not sufficient, indeed, for us to comprehend in mind and thought the multitude of the elect, unless we consider the unity of the church as that into which we are convinced we have been truly engrafted. (Ibid<\/i>., IV.1. 2.)<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nOf those who openly wear his badge, his eyes alone see the ones who are unfeignedly holy and will persevere to the very end [Matt. 24:13] \u2013 the ultimate point of salvation. (Ibid<\/i>., IV.1. 8.)<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\nSixth, right in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, in the immediate context of Pastor Bayack\u2019s citation, Paul speaks of the\u00a0traditions<\/i>\u00a0being passed by\u00a0word of mouth<\/i>; oral tradition, which is anathema to the Protestant position. So our friend will say that this was to cease when the Bible was completed. That\u2019s a nice opinion, but that is\u00a0all<\/i>\u00a0it is: Pastor Bayack\u2019s own arbitrary opinion. It is nowhere stated in the Bible; therefore it must be dismissed as an extrabiblical notion; therefore contrary to\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>\u00a0and certainly not an indisputable tenet of belief (even granting Protestant premises). So, indeed, the\u00a0tradition\u00a0<\/i>referred to here is no Protestant tradition, as it includes authoritative oral proclamation, which is never regarded as temporary by the Apostles.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nSeventh, if we wish to play this game of defining\u00a0tradition<\/i>\u00a0by immediate context, rather than repeated usage, then Pastor Bayack\u2019s argument will eventually backfire, simply by finding a context which goes against (much) Protestant teaching. For instance:<\/div>\n\n
1 Corinthians 11:2<\/strong>\u00a0I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the\u00a0traditions\u00a0<\/b><\/em>even as I have delivered them to you.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\nFollowing our friend\u2019s method, let us see what the\u00a0very next verse<\/i>\u00a0states (and how it will \u201cdefine\u201d this\u00a0tradition<\/i>):<\/div>\n\n
1 Corinthians 11:3<\/strong>\u00a0But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband . . .<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\nNow, any evangelical Protestant who takes any sociological note at all of what is going on in his own theological circles knows full well that feminism and unisexism is launching an all-out assault and infiltrating evangelical circles left and right. And no biblical doctrine is more despised by a certain \u201cenlightened\u201d feminist outlook as outdated, \u201cpatriarchal,\u201d and oppressive, than the headship of the husband. The point is that, once again (as always), Protestantism (even at official denominational levels) is caving into the\u00a0zeitgeist<\/i>\u00a0and fads of our time.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nApart from the ongoing ecclesiological and doctrinal chaos that has always typified Protestantism, there is certainly no present-day agreement about the meaning of\u00a0this<\/i>\u00a0teaching of Paul, even in supposedly \u201corthodox\u201d conservative evangelical circles. Yet (again, using Pastor Bayack\u2019s own methodology against us), this is part and parcel of New Testament\u00a0tradition<\/i>! Paraphrasing our friend, and turning the tables:<\/div>\n*<\/ul>\n
Are these verses part of the structure of Protestant tradition [substitute the more accepted word \u201cdoctrine\u201d for the faint of heart] or are they part of the explosion that brings it down?<\/ul>\n
If the example of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and its context \u201cbrings down\u201d Catholic Tradition, then by the same token, 1 Corinthians 11:2-3 must bring down all the liberalized, compromised, secularized, \u201cfeminized\u201d churches which are present by the thousands even in the evangelical Protestant milieu. There is no denying the problem. Francis Schaeffer (whom I greatly admire; and whom Steve Ray once studied with, at L\u2019Abri in Switzerland) was \u201cprophetically\u201d writing about it for several years before his death, which was in 1984.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nThe same argument can be made concerning acceptance of divorce, abortion, premarital sex, female clergy, even homosexuality and euthanasia, in many evangelical circles today (not to mention contraception, which Luther and Calvin regarded as murder, and which\u00a0all<\/b>\u00a0Christians opposed as gravely immoral before 1930). It is obvious that official, unchanging Catholic teaching on these and many other ethical, gender, sexual, and life issues, is far more in line with New Testament teaching than any particular brand of Protestantism is.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nThus, I submit that it is Pastor Bayack\u2019s argument (and by extension, his theological\/ecclesiological system) which is \u201cbrought down\u201d by an \u201cexplosion\u201d of New Testament (and even internal Protestant) logic. Not that incoherence or moral and doctrinal relativism in Protestant thought and theology is a rare thing . . . But let\u2019s go on and see what else he attempts to come up with in his ongoing mission to \u201cexplode\u201d the Catholic acceptance of the\u00a0tradition<\/i>\u00a0of the New Testament and the Apostles.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nCatholicism fares no better with a proper understanding of 2\u00a0Thessalonians 3:6. In that verse, Paul states, \u201cNow we command\u00a0you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep\u00a0aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not\u00a0according to the tradition that you received from us.\u201d He then\u00a0goes on to explain beginning in verse 7 how he, Silas, and\u00a0Timothy all led disciplined lives and worked for their own bread.\u00a0The tradition that Paul speaks of here deals with the work ethic\u00a0that \u201cif anyone will not work, neither let him eat\u201d (verse 10), and\u00a0has nothing to do with things like the Perpetual Virginity of Mary,\u00a0the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven, etc.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nThe Christian, apostolic, biblical tradition obviously includes ethical and behavioral elements. Does that mean, therefore, that it excludes various doctrinal elements (setting aside for the moment what exactly they might be)? This is an astonishingly weak and absurd and utterly irrelevant argument, especially coming from a trained minister of the gospel and student of the Bible. We obviously determine the complete extent of New Testament tradition by studying it as a whole. What Paul and Jesus teach in the New Testament books constitutes the tradition and gospel and word of the Lord. It is comprehensive; hence Jesus commands His followers, shortly before His Ascension, to baptize and make disciples, \u201cteaching them to observe\u00a0all<\/em><\/b>\u00a0<\/em>that I have commanded you . . . \u201d (Matthew 28:20).<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nBut beyond that, we also look to the early Church to determine what the gospel and tradition and \u201cdeposit of faith\u201d was. The Apostles and other early Christians went out to preach to the world, and they didn\u2019t\u00a0simply<\/i>\u00a0stand and read Scripture to the crowds (though they certainly used it). What the early Church and early Fathers believed gives us a clue as to the whole extent of this New Testament tradition. They didn\u2019t forget everything (at that early stage, they even had firsthand memory of what Jesus or His disciples had told them) as soon as the Bible was complete, c. 100. And memory was much better in that culture. It was an oral culture, where memory was cultivated from an early age. This has been documented time and again.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nAnd of course we find virtually all the Catholic distinctives present from the beginning (episcopal church government \u2013 bishops \u2013 , a literal Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, a priesthood, infused \u2014 not imputed<\/em> \u2014 justification, apostolic succession, adherence to Tradition as well as Scripture, penance, prayers for the dead, the papacy, the communion of saints, Mary as the ever-virgin, Mother of God, and New Eve, a visible Church with councils {Jerusalem Council of Acts 15}, etc.). Doctrines develop, but they are present in kernel or fuller form from the beginning, whereas dozens of Protestant distinctives are nowhere to be found until more than 1400 years later (which scarcely suggests that they were\u00a0apostolic<\/i>).<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nThree Protestant Bible Dictionaries agree with my basic contentions with regard to the\u00a0nature<\/i>\u00a0of biblical\u00a0tradition<\/i>:<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\n
Apostolic teaching \u2013 which included facts about Christ, their theological importance, and their ethical implications for Christian living \u2013 was described as tradition (1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15). It had divine sanction (1 Cor 11:23; Gal 1:11-16) . . . Jesus rejected tradition, but only in the sense of human accretion lacking divine sanction (Mk 7:3-9). (J. D. Douglas, editor,\u00a0The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church<\/i>, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, revised edition, 1978, pp. 981-982)<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nAppeals to authoritative Church tradition are found already in the earliest New Testament writings, the letters of Paul. Occasionally explicit reference is made to some material as traditional, including a particular set of ethical instructions (2 Thess 3:6), a set eucharistic formula (1 Cor 11:23-6), and a standardized recital of the death, burial, resurrection, and postresurrection appearances of Christ (1 Cor 15:3-7). Also recorded are more generalized references to Church traditions (1 Cor 11:2; Phil 4:9; 2 Thess 2:15; cf. Rom 6:17; Gal 1:9). . .. . The New Testament writings were first valued not as inspired Scripture but as deposits of apostolic tradition in fixed written form, to be interpreted authoritatively by the bishops and according to the rule of faith . . .<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nJesus did not totally reject the oral tradition . . . His own interpretation of the Torah in the Sermon on the Mount employs the scribal principle of \u2018building a fence about the Torah\u2019 \u2013 not simply by restricting external behavior more than the written law, but by pointing out that sinful interior urgings in themselves violate what the Torah seeks to control (Matt 5:21-2,27-8, 38-9). (Allen C. Myers, editor,\u00a0Eerdmans Bible Dictionary<\/i>, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1987; [English revision of\u00a0Bijbelse Encyclopedie<\/i>, edited by W.H. Gispen, Kampen, Netherlands: J.H. Kok, revised edition, 1975], translated by Raymond C. Togtman & Ralph W. Vunderink, pp. 1014-1015)<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nChristian tradition in the New Testament therefore consists of the following three elements: a) the facts of Christ (1 Cor 11:23; 15:3; Lk 1:2 . . . ); b) the theological interpretation of those facts; see, e.g., the whole argument of 1 Cor 15; c) the manner of life which flows from them (1 Cor 16:2; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6-7). In Jude 3 the \u2018faith . . . once for all delivered\u2019 (RSV) covers all three elements (cf. Rom 6:17). Christ was made known by the apostolic testimony to Him; the apostles therefore claimed that their tradition was to be received as authoritative (1 Cor 15:2; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6). . . This combination of eyewitness testimony and Spirit-guided witness produced a \u2018tradition\u2019 that was a true and valid complement to the Old Testament Scriptures. So 1 Tim 5:18 and 2 Pet 3:16 place apostolic tradition alongside Scripture and describe it as such. (J. D. Douglas, editor,\u00a0The New Bible Dictionary<\/i>, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1962, p. 1291)<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\nThe context of these verses deals a crippling blow\u2014not a\u00a0support\u2014to official Catholic Tradition. However, Stephen Ray\u00a0conveniently ignores the context of these verses as he must.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nThe above arguments show how ludicrous these contentions are, I think (especially the gratuitous \u201cmust\u201d<\/span>). If anyone is \u201cignoring context\u201d (and proper exegesis), Pastor Bayack is. I\u2019ve given at least ten times more biblical support for our view than he has given for his (if he wishes to counter-reply, then great). Even Protestant biblical scholars and commentators would not accept such a simplistic understanding of New Testament\u00a0tradition<\/i>, as just seen.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nThey are far more in accord with my viewpoint than Pastor Bayack\u2019s (i.e., concerning what\u00a0tradition\u00a0<\/i>is<\/b><\/em>, not, of course, with regard to its particulars, or our claims that it contains what are now \u201cCatholic disctinctives\u201d). But here we are discussing\u00a0tradition<\/i>\u00a0generally<\/i>, or\u00a0generically<\/i>. What it\u00a0includes<\/i>\u00a0in all its particulars is another entire discussion. That requires biblical examination of each and every doctrine, and I do just that on my website, which is called\u00a0Biblical Evidence for Catholicism<\/em>.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nJust about anything can be proven when Scripture is taken out of\u00a0context and the old saying, \u201ca text without a context is a pretext\u201d\u00a0applies very well to him. In fact, he is quite adept at ignoring the\u00a0context of Scripture if an allegorical interpretation supports his\u00a0point. When I challenged him about using extensive allegory,\u00a0especially in reference to the Old Testament, he stated, \u201cI have\u00a0often used Old Testament passages in the same \u2018patristic\u2019 manner\u00a0as the earliest Church Fathers\u201d (11) and \u201cIf you mean by allegory\u00a0that I interpret them patristically, I plead guilty\u201d (11).<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nI agree totally about the supreme importance of context. But I would contend that Pastor Bayack, too, is guilty of neglecting this (whether or not Steve Ray is). I\u2019ve now spent many hours refuting his false claims, utilizing tons of Scripture in the process (and I have enjoyed it immensely, because I always love studying Holy Scripture). Let the reader judge who is being more \u201cbiblical\u201d in their analyses and exegesis. General hermeneutical principles and the place of allegory are beyond my purview here. I refer Pastor Bayack and readers to my paper: Dialogue: Clearness (Perspicuity) of Scripture and the Formal Sufficiency of Scripture<\/a> (with Carmen Bryant). That dialogue deals with hermeneutical issues (including the history of same).<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nIn this paper, one learns, for example, that the early heretics tended to believe in a hyper-literal interpretation of Scripture, to the exclusion of allegory, whereas the orthodox Catholic Chalcedonian trinitarians accepted allegory (though not denying a primacy of the literal interpretation). So this is yet another instance of Protestantism being analogous to the heresies in their theological method (just as in the case of\u00a0sola Scriptura\u00a0<\/i>and in the tendency to reject apostolic succession and the crucial, indispensable function of history in Christianity).<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nThe Gnostics, for example, rejected the Incarnation (the Apostle John was already refuting them in John 1), so it was entirely predictable and logically consistent that they would reject Church history as well, since the Church is the embodiment of Christ and the continuation of His mission in time and space. Christianity is not a disembodied, ethereal religion. It takes in the physical world as well. In the Christian view, the body is good, sensory pleasure is good, and hence the Church and history are good, and sacraments bring together spiritual graces and physical means, just as God took on flesh and became man, thus raising human flesh and mankind to previously unknown sublime levels. This is the incarnational principle.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nStatements like this reveal another crutch that Stephen Ray must\u00a0lean upon to support Catholic Tradition\u2014the Church Fathers.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nIndeed, as any legitimate Christian system should, because Christianity is intrinsically historical. Many Protestants seem to take this dim view of Church history and the Fathers. But Christianity is historical at its very core, as Judaism before it was. It was confirmed by eyewitness testimony of miracles, and Jesus\u2019 Resurrection; very much historical criteria of proof, credibility, and plausibility.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nWhat Pastor Bayack calls a \u201ccrutch\u201d is absolutely essential to self-consistent Christianity, even in terms of getting the Bible itself into the good pastor\u2019s hands. Without the Catholic Church and Tradition and Fathers we would not have the Bible we have today. Canonization (just like the authorship of the Bible) was a very human process. But the history of the Church is a continuation of Jesus\u2019 Incarnation. God took on flesh and became man. After our Lord\u2019s Ascension, the Body of Christ, the Church, continued the physical presence of Jesus on the earth, in a sense. God works with men; men are physical; the Church they belong to is physical in many ways (this gets into sacramentalism as well: another huge discussion, but see the many biblical proofs in my paper: Heartfelt Sacramentalism (Not Mere Charms)<\/a>.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nIn my review I stated that he quotes them as though they were infallible\u00a0and that nowhere in his book does he consider that they may\u00a0contract Scripture to which the humble Mr. Ray responds, \u201cWith all\u00a0due respect the above comment is nothing but stupid. Come on\u00a0Mr. Bayack, of course some of the Fathers contradict Scripture\u00a0some of the time\u201d (16).<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n