Book Review: Crossing the Tiber

Crossing the Tiber, Stephen K. Ray (Ignatius Press: San Francisco, CA, 1997). Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. Reviewed by This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

As one who was saved out of Roman Catholicism, I read with curiosity Stephen Ray’s book Crossing the Tiber which is a modern-day attempt to show that the Roman Catholic Church is the true body of Christ. Ray, a layman who converted to Catholicism from Evangelical Protestantism, shares how he became a Catholic. To support this decision he seeks to prove the validity of Roman Catholic doctrine, focusing on baptismal regeneration and the eucharist.

Crossing the Tiber is a masterpiece of selective scholarship. Ray uses extensive research to support his position as evidenced by nearly 450 footnotes of Scripture, technical commentary (Protestant and Catholic), personal commentary, and the church fathers. However, his presentation is largely one-sided and seldom takes into account serious, objective discussion that would challenge or destroy his conclusions. This is seen in four ways which are listed below.

I. Stephen Ray Leaves Ultimate Spiritual Authority to the Roman Catholic Church.

First of all, Stephen Ray states that the authority of the early church gave us the New Testament.

“Protestants must trust the declaration of the infallible Church to know which books make up their infallible New Testament. . . . It was the tradition and the authority of the Catholic Church that established their canon. . . . If the Church had no authority to recognize and decide which writings were inspired and to close the canon, then we would have no guarantee that these writings are, in fact, inspired.” (p. 54-55, italics in original)

He argues why tradition is equally authoritative with Scripture and states, “The New Testament was never intended as a complete church manual” (p. 76). Passages like 2 Thessalonians 2:15 are used in support.

Stating or implying that any organization has authority to declare books inspired is to challenge God’s authority. The Bible is divine in origin and God in His sovereignty superintended its dissemination to man. In other words, the early church no more gave us the New Testament any more than Isaac Newton gave us gravity. Because of its divine origins, all men and institutions are under its complete authority.

Second, Stephen Ray holds to the standard Catholic position that tradition is equally authoritative with Scripture. He even blames supposed Protestant traditions and biases for keeping him from seeing certain Biblical truths. “As a Protestant, I had allowed the ‘traditions of men’ to invalidate the word of God” (p. 57). But he never addresses the problem of Roman Catholic tradition contradicting Scripture. An objective presentation cannot ignore this.

For example, Catholicism has traditionally forbidden clerical marriage for centuries. But this clearly goes against Scripture. First Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6 list one qualification of an overseer as “the husband of one wife” which literally reads in the Greek “a one-woman man”. This does not mean that single men are disqualified from the ministry but that all in ministry, married or single, must practice moral purity. Remember also what Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 9:5, “Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?” A married clergy was the norm in the early church just as it should be today. In fact, the forbidding of marriage is a “doctrine of demons” as Paul writes in 1 Timothy 4:1-3.

How then should we understand Paul’s admonishment to “hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you” in 1 Corinthians 11:3 and related passages? Paul, as an apostle, is instructing the church to follow apostolic tradition which was necessary in the very early church because Scripture had not yet been completed. However, apostolic tradition would never contradict Scripture. And neither are the traditions of the apostles to be confused with the traditions of man.

Apostolic tradition ended with the completion of Scripture. The fact that the New Testament was not assembled into one book for three more centuries is irrelevant, because “all Scripture is inspired by God” (2 Timothy 3:16). Thus when the New Testament was completed, apostolic tradition yielded to Scripture. Human depravity cannot be trusted to keep tradition consistent and in the post-apostolic era the traditions of man evolved which supplanted the word of God. Jesus condemned the Pharisees for this in Matthew 15:1-9 and the same condemnation remains true today.

II. Stephen Ray Selectively Interprets Scripture As It Fits His Conclusions

Stephen Ray forces interpretations on a text as it supports his positions. He often criticizes Evangelicals for supposedly ignoring literal interpretation, however, he uses extensive allegory, especially from the Old Testament, to support his views about baptism and the eucharist. And he often appeals to some of the most difficult passages in the New Testament for backup which violates a basic rule of Bible interpretation—that difficult passages are to be interpreted in light of clear ones.

For example, he uses 1 Peter 3:18-21, one of the hardest passages in the New Testament, as proof for baptismal regeneration. Yet in over ninety pages about baptism, not once does he ever mention clear passages like 1 Corinthians 1:17, “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel” (italics added). He ignores Paul’s definition of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, which makes no mention of baptism or communion, that “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.” Likewise, because he seeks to prove the necessity of the sacraments, he never addresses verses which declare salvation to be a free gift such as Romans 6:23 and Ephesians 2:8-9.

He goes even further. For example, he states that Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem (meaning “house of bread”) was symbolic of the eucharist. “Is it a coincidence that the Lord Jesus, the Bread of Life, the Manna come down from heaven, was born in the ‘City of Bread’?” (p. 195). And on page 189 he states, “The context of John 6:60-71 links Judas’ betrayal with his disbelief in the Eucharist.” The context of this passage says nothing of the sort. The connection between Judas and those who departed was that false believers existed not only amongst the multitudes but in Jesus’ own midst.

The eisegesis does not end there. At times Ray grasps for the absurd if it will help. On pages 243-44 he gives this quote from the fourth century church father Hilary of Poitiers:

“‘Give us this day our daily bread’; for what does God desire so much as that Christ, who is the ‘bread of life’, and the ‘bread from heaven’, may dwell daily in us?” Ray then adds his own comments: “It is quite correct to connect this phrase in the Our Father with the Holy Eucharist, since Jesus declares himself to be the ‘Bread come down from heaven’ (Jn 6:41), and Paul tells us that the Eucharist is prefigured in the ‘spiritual food’ that came down from heaven in the form of manna, which was the daily bread of the Israelites (1 Cor 10:1-4). This is a clear recommendation that Christians attend daily Mass.” (parentheses in original)

Immediately following this, Ray indirectly states that those who deny transubstantiation are of the spirit of antichrist (cf. 1 John 4:1-3). He again quotes Hilary:

“As to the reality of His Flesh and Blood, there is no room left for doubt, because now, both by the declaration of the Lord Himself and by our own faith, it is truly Flesh and it is truly Blood. . . . Let those who deny that Jesus Christ is true God be free to find these things untrue.”

Ray then makes this comment:

“St. Hilary chides heretics: If you don’t believe Jesus is God in the flesh, you can deny the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Conversely, if you deny the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, you deny that Jesus came in the flesh.”

Anybody interpreting the Bible in its context can see that such views are utterly ridiculous. The phrase “Give us this day our daily bread” appears in Matthew 6:11 in the Sermon on the Mount. The average person listening to Jesus would quite naturally have understood this as literal, not allegorical, bread. And the context of Matthew 6 supports this as basic human needs. In verse 8, Jesus said, “For your Father knows what you need” (italics added). And in verses 25-33, He comforts believers because their heavenly Father will take care of their needs for food and clothing.

As previously mentioned, Stephen Ray indirectly states that those who deny transubstantiation consequently deny the humanity of Christ. He does not quote 1 John 4:1-3 in reference to this, but it must certainly be what he has in mind. The context of 1 John says nothing about “the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist”, but instead discusses the literal human flesh-and-blood body of Jesus as evidenced by the very first verse in the book: “What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the Word of Life.” For all of Stephen Ray’s condemnation of Protestants supposedly ignoring literal interpretation, he himself is often guilty of egregious misinterpretation.

What is also interesting is that Ray does not include a Scripture index in the back of his book. Such an omission obscures the reader’s ability to easily examine his treatment of all Scripture, especially verses like John 14:6, Acts 4:12, Romans 6:23, Ephesians 2:8-9, etc., and is highly unusual for a work of this magnitude.

III. Stephen Ray Treats the Church Fathers As Though They Were Infallible

Stephen Ray quotes the church fathers as though they were infallible which is not surprising since Catholicism holds tradition to be equal with Scripture. Nowhere does he consider that they may contradict Scripture. However, when referencing the fathers one must be very careful. You can support almost any position by selectively quoting them. Also, the fathers were not at all of one mind in everything they taught. Chrysostom’s literal interpretation of Scripture clashed sharply with Origen’s allegorical method. Which do you choose? Even if tradition was authoritative, it would also have to be unanimous, which it is not. The fathers, while at times helpful, are not infallible.

Ray teaches the traditional Catholic position that because the fathers were in the direct succession of the apostles, and thus closer to their teachings, they understand most accurately the apostles’ doctrine. However, this does not consider the apostasy that occurred during the time of the apostles! Remember what Paul told the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:29-30, “I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.” The churches of Corinth and Galatia both received direct teaching from Paul yet were vulnerable to those who preached “a different gospel” (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:4, Galatians 1:6-9).

If those who had the direct teaching of the apostles were vulnerable to heresy, then those who followed must be fallible also, including the fathers. False prophets would later creep into the church, as passages like 1 Timothy 4:1-3 and 2 Peter 2:1 warn us, and naturally they would try to make some connection to the apostles for credibility’s sake.

This brings up another interesting point—does it matter whether or not a group can trace its succession back to the apostles? The Jewish priests of Jesus’ day could boast of their succession from Aaron. The priests, scribes, and Pharisees could claim descent from Abraham. Yet Jesus called them sons of the devil in John 8:44 and said in Matthew 23:13, “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from men; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.” Thus “apostolic succession” means nothing if it does not lead men to heaven.

Let us take this further—what about the great flaws of those supposedly in the line of Peter? If Paul commanded that an elder of a local church be “above reproach” (cf. Titus 1:6, 1 Timothy 3:2), then how much more should be the supposed “vicar of Christ”? What, then, about the abject corruption of many popes? Even the New Catholic Encyclopedia is forced to acknowledge that Alexander VI (1492-1503), admittedly the most corrupt pope, lived a “dissipated life”, had children, and assumed the papacy through simony. He actually had six children by other men’s wives, two of which were born during his papacy, and his son Cesare was a model for Niccolo Machiavelli’s infamous book The Prince, which instructs political leaders how to maintain power through corruption and deviousness.

Let us also remember the insurmountable problems regarding papal infallibility. Several times the popes have contradicted one another, such as Hadrian II (867-872), who declared civil marriages to be valid, and Pius VII (1800-1823), who declared them invalid. And Honorius I (625-638) was posthumously condemned as a heretic by Leo II (681-683) for promoting the related heresies monophysitism, which taught that Christ had only one nature, and monothelitism, which taught that Christ had only one will. The result of each heresy would in effect deny either His humanity or deity.

Stephen Ray, as expected, cites none of these damaging embarrassments.

IV. Stephen Ray Selectively Quotes Evangelicals

Stephen Ray selectively quotes many Evangelical scholars when they might seem to support his positions, especially regarding baptism. However, even though they may agree with him in limited ways, he ignores their other clear statements which reject salvation through the sacraments.

For example, on page 109 he quotes The Bible Knowledge Commentary (ed. John F. Walvoord [Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1985]), under Zechariah 13:1 in support of baptism being pictured in the Old Testament. However, he ignores the same commentary’s rejection of baptismal regeneration in 1 Corinthians 1:17.

Another example is how he quotes Reformed theologian Louis Berkhof’s comments about the church fathers and baptismal regeneration on page 133:

“Baptism was foremost among the sacraments as the rite of initiation into the Church. Even in the Apostolic Fathers [those who lived during the lifetime of the apostles] we find the idea that it was instrumental in effecting the forgiveness of sins and in communicating the new life of regeneration. In a certain sense it may be said, therefore, that some of the early Fathers taught baptismal regeneration.”

Read Berkhof’s own teaching which rejects the necessity of the sacraments for salvation:

“That they are not absolutely necessary unto salvation, follows: (1) from the free spiritual character of the gospel dispensation, in which God does not bind His grace to the use of certain external forms, John 4:21,23; Luke 18:14; (2) from the fact that Scripture mentions only faith as the instrumental condition of salvation, John 5:24; 6:29; 3:36; Acts 16:31; (3) from the fact that the sacraments do not originate faith but presuppose it, and are administered where faith is assumed, Acts 2:41; 16:14,15,30,33; 1 Cor. 11:23-32; and (4) from the fact that many were actually saved without the use of the sacraments.” (Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology [Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1939], p. 618-19)

Stephen Ray obviously does not wish to include this complete perspective of Berkhof’s theology, just as he does not with every other Evangelical he quotes. (For a more detailed discussion about the ambiguity in the early church concerning the terms “regeneration” and “justification”, which can affect how one understands the church fathers, see Berkhof’s Systematic Theology, p. 465-66.)

Certainly one of the most blatant examples of selective quoting is how he refers to A. Skevington Wood’s comments about baptism in Ephesians 5:26. On page 126 he writes:

“Does this passage refer to baptism? Evangelical commentator A. Skevington Wood writes, ‘There seems to be little or no doubt that the reference is to baptism. The “washing with water” is equivalent to the “washing of rebirth” in Titus 3:5’ (The Expositor’s Biblical Commentary, ed. Frank Gaebelein [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1978], 11:77). 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.”

Notice what Wood actually says:

“There seems to be little or no doubt that the reference is to baptism. The ‘washing with water’ here is equivalent to ‘the washing of rebirth’ in Titus 3:5. 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.” (Expositor’s Biblical Commentary, 11:77, italics in original)

“Ex opere operato” is a Latin phrase which translates “from the work done”. It means that grace is effected to the individual through the sacrament itself and not one’s faith. This is clearly seen in infant baptism where faith cannot be exercised on the part of the infant.

“As truly, therefore, as the spiritual rebirth of a man is caused principally by the Holy Ghost, so is it caused instrumentally by water and consequently, the water of Baptism exercises a causal effect on justification.” (Joseph Pohle, The Sacraments: A Dogmatic Treatise, ed. Arthur Preuss [St. Louis: B. Herder, 1942], vol. 1, p. 126).

The declaration of the sacraments working “ex opere operato” was officially made at the Council of Trent.

Even though A. Skevington Wood believes that Ephesians 5:26 refers to water baptism, he clearly rejects any concept of baptismal regeneration. 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. His intentional deletion of Wood’s last sentence only reinforces his lack of objectivity.

One cannot read this book without concluding that Stephen Ray genuinely believes what he is saying. He is typically gentle and unassuming. And he writes without the pejorative style so often found on both sides of this debate.

This should not detract from his content. Stephen Ray has put a tremendous effort into this book. And he is no stranger to conservative Evangelicalism, having participated extensively in Baptist, Evangelical Presbyterian, and Plymouth Brethren circles. His omissions and/or misrepresentations of these important issues cannot be anything less than deliberate. Therefore we conclude that his scholarship is not only selective; it is also deceptive.

It is beyond the scope of this review to address every issue or rebut each of Stephen Ray’s points. However, this does show Stephen Ray’s basic premises and approach throughout the book. Crossing the Tiber will be another welcome link of chain for those desiring to remain bound to the shackles of Roman Catholicism. But it need not be a stumbling block to those seeking freedom through the gospel of grace, as long as they understand the infallibility and authority of Scripture alone.

Stephen Ray himself provides the basis for a fitting conclusion to this review. On page 191 he quotes John Henry Cardinal Newman who said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.” If to be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant, then to be deep in the word of God is to cease being a Catholic. Stephen Ray and those of his persuasion would do well to heed the words of the one whom they regard as the first pope when he spoke infallibly in 2 Peter 3:16 about the writings of Paul, “in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.”

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. is a graduate of The Master’s Seminary.