Ray says one of the ways we receive salvation is by the work of the Spirit. This is not "one" way; it is the only way. To suggest that the work of the Holy Spirit is not involved in a person's believing in Christ or repenting is to exhibit a lack of knowledge of the New Testament that betrays Ray's loud profession that he was a truly fundamental believer (Crossing the Tiber, page 23, "Ours was a fertile strain of Protestantism called Evangelicalism, which was much influenced by Fundamentalism.)

This is common in converts to Catholicism. After they become Catholics, in subjective retrospect or to make their testimonies sound more valid, they become almost militant fundamentalists.

Steve Ray continues, on page 100, his list of ways one receives salvation, thinking that listing all of these in the Bible gives us an option as to which way we choose to be saved. These items are not contradictory but identical. Being saved "by grace, by His blood, by His righteousness and by His cross" are not different ways to be saved, but different ways to express a common salvation.

On page 101, Ray says that when he was a Protestant, "there was such a fear of attributing powers to baptism (that baptism actually did something)." If baptism "does" something toward ones salvation, this should be acknowledged. If it does not do anything salvific, one should shy away from this heresy. Romans 12:9 says "Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good,"

Baptismal regeneration is an evil that all Christians should abhor.

Ray asks, "Where did this "symbolic view" of baptism come from? He suggests that it did not come from the Bible, and yet he cannot prove that the theory of Baptismal regeneration comes from the Bible. Christians, if they are truly Christians, have all been baptized by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13) and most have obediently follow the Lord in believers baptism. Early Christian groups as early as the Waldenses denied baptismal regeneration even though they were severely persecuted for it.

Steven contends that because the "two most ancient branches of the Christian world" (Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy) concur on the idea of Baptism, they must be correct.

The two systems of religion agree on much more, most of which is downright heretical. While he calls Protestantism the "newest wing of Christianity," he has failed to rightly assess scriptural truth to understand that the Christian stand today is not an innovation, but rather has more solid apostolicity than Rome could dream of.

Then Steve Ray will attempt, in his next chapter, a "journey into the past to uncover the teaching of the apostles and the Fathers of the Church."

He will try to use typology to prove his point. No Old Testament type proves a New Testament truth. The antitype must be established before the type is relevant.

There are at least 36 types of Christ in the Old Testament, yet no one goes to Genesis 22,23 to prove the sacrificial death, resurrection, ascension and second coming of Christ. All may be taught from this passage but only because it has been established the antitype has already been revealed in Scripture.

We see Abraham being willing to offer his son to God, and, in a figure, as Hebrews 11:19, received him as being raised from the dead.

Although it is probable that Isaac did come down the mountain with his father, there is no further mention of him until the servant goes to a far country to find a bride for Isaac. He is seen again welcoming Rebekah as his bride. This is a type of the ascension and second coming of Christ.

Ray says, "A new world was brought forth from the water by the agency of the Holy Spirit hovering over the waters" He cites Genesis 1:2 which in the KJV says, And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

This Hebrews word for "moved" is rachaph, and used only three times in the Old Testament. It means to brood, or to be relaxed. In Genesis 1:2 it is translated moved. In Deuteronomy 32:11 it is translated flutter, As eagle fluttereth over her young; and in Jeremiah 23:9 it is translated shake, all my bones shake.

Ray says, "The story of Noah is a picture of baptism." (The CCC says the same.) The ark that carried eight people and all the animals. The Ark got wet; Noah did not. The only water present was the water of God's judgment, not the water of salvation.

Circumcision - Did circumcision make anyone an Israelite? Leviticus 23:42 says that they were born Israelites, not that they became Israelites at their circumcision. Joshua 3:17 tells us that all the Israelites passed over Jordan, but they were not circumcised until Joshua 5:3. Further, circumcision for males only. Does the baptism of a female baby fulfill the rite of circumcision?

Ray speaks of Naaman's cleansing in 2 Kings 5 as a type of baptism. The point of Naaman's cleansing was that because God had told him he had to dip seven times, if he had stopped after 6 he would still be leprous. It was only the 7^th time that made him clean. God's Gospel must be preached in its entirety, and it is only submission to that which God required that brings salvation. God requires Belief.

Steve says the clean water of Ezekiel 36:25 is a type of Baptism; on the contrary it is a type of the washing of regeneration of Titus 3:5

The fountain of Zechariah 13:1 is not Baptism; is the blood of Christ which cleanseth from all sin.

However, the important point to be mentioned is that the supposed anti-type (Baptismal Regeneration) has to be proved from the New Testament before we can give any credence to types.