TETELESTAI REPLY
When I wrote the review of the Tetelestai book that is disseminated by
Campus Crusade for Christ to college students, Michelle asked if she could
e-mail a copy of my article to them. I
told her, “Please do.” I personally
never received a reply, but she did—from someone identifying himself only as
David; presumably he speaks for this organization. Below is a review of his remarks. David’s comments will be in quotation marks.
“Campus Crusade
for Christ is an interdenominational movement of Christians, and so we are
accepting of differences in beliefs on some things that are not crucial to
salvation, for the sake of Christian unity.”
This opening
statement highlights one of the differences between us: in the New Testament
there are no religious denominations at all.
Anyone who accepts them as valid has the wrong philosophy. The churches of Christ are congregations that
simply belong to the Lord, as Paul mentioned them in Romans 16:16. There are other Scriptural designations for
the body of Christ, but none of them is used in a denominational sense. The spirit of division is condemned (1 Cor.
3:1-4).
True Christian
unity is produced by being “perfectly joined together in the same mind and the
same judgment” (1 Cor.
“However, when we
encounter teachings that do not reflect the truth of God’s Word, that is where
we draw the line and we’ll step out and recommend that someone makes a change.”
We agree. Since the book, Tetelestai, does not agree with the Scriptures concerning
salvation, we recommended that college students exchange it for the Bible, and
we vigorously oppose its false doctrine.
“The pastor of
your church is teaching falsely about the nature and requirements for
salvation.”
David makes
unwarranted assumptions here (and elsewhere).
Neither Michelle nor I referred to me as a “pastor”: she correctly
called me a preacher. Even worse,
however, is that he has bought into the denominational “pastor” concept that is
not found in the Bible (pastors over
a congregation are legitimate; a pastor has no Biblical
authority whatsoever. David could read
the truth of the matter in “Who Is a Pastor?” which is on our Web site
[www.spiritualperspectives.org].
Second, I have
never taught falsely about the nature and requirements of salvation. Since he has made that charge (but failed to
prove it), I hereby challenge him to debate the issue publicly, and we will see
if he is willing to back up the preposterous accusation he has made. Below are
two propositions, which were actually used in the Warren-Ballard Debate in
1953.
“The Scriptures teach that faith in
Christ procures salvation without further acts of obedience.”
David would affirm this proposition; I
would deny it.
“The Scriptures teach that water
baptism is for (in order to obtain) the remission of past sins.”
I will be happy
to affirm this proposition, since it is the truth; David can deny it. If he is not interested in an oral
discussion, perhaps he will join in a written one.
“The
David does not
have the facts. One should not presume
to tell somebody about themselves when they only have a cursory knowledge. The movement was begun by Chuck Lucas in
“The other group
is The Church of Christ, the one that your pastor in involved with. This particular de-nomination has a fairly
good grip on the truth, much more than the ICOC, but they have some serious
issues that you might want to take a look at which are inaccurate (though
mostly well-meaning) interpretations of the Scripture.”
As already
explained, I am not a pastor, and the church is not a denomination. David is so used to popular terminology that
the vocabulary of the Bible seems strange to him. If David is going to call us a denomination,
he should explain how he arrived at that conclusion, since we possess none of
the characteristics of one, nor have we ever claimed to be one.
But consider how
contradictory his statements are. He
asserts that we have “a fairly good grip on the truth,” but we are wrong about
salvation. The apostle Paul was not so
generous. Paul proclaimed without
hesitation that there is but one Gospel and that anyone who perverts it is
accursed (Gal. 1:6-9). I do not want to
be unkind; perhaps David is well-intentioned, also. If so, he will want to study the matter
further to be certain that what he has been taught is correct. If not, then perhaps he is not well-intentioned
after all. Regardless of him personally,
how-ever, the “gospel” of Tetelestai
is false; it will not save anyone, which is the reason it must be opposed.
“When listening
to what others have to say about Scripture, keep in mind that in Jesus’ time,
the Pharisees were some of the most learned men in Scripture, but they missed
the whole point of God’s incredible love as a REASON for the law. Men and women today are just as capable of
misinterpreting Scripture.”
David is a
patient man. It took him until the
fourth paragraph to charge me with being a Pharisee. Not many would have waited that long. Of course, this charge is nothing but
flummery. It assumes that I do not
understand the Biblical teaching about love, a concept I mention frequently—or
that we believe that Law is greater than Love, which is foolish. Does David think we have never read 1
Corinthians 13? We do wonder, however,
in light of his later remarks about minimizing obedience if he has read 2 John
6: “This is love, that we walk according to commandments….”
Although the
Pharisees are generally regarded today as legalists, it is not their obedience
that Jesus condemns; it is their elevation of the traditions of men as equal to
the law of God (Matt. 15:1-9). They also
had difficulty distinguishing which things were of the greatest importance
(Matt. 23). But even when Jesus
reprimanded them for failing to have the right priorities, He never encouraged
disobedience even in the smallest of matters (Matt.
We have not
missed the love of God with respect to salvation; we have not omitted the
cross. We have never argued that these
are not the most important matters. We
did not criticize Tetelestai for
presenting God’s love or the cross of Christ—but for omitting baptism as part
of God’s plan of salvation. David has
set up a straw man here to fight, which in logic is attacking what your
opponent never argued in the first place.
“There are many
heart issues your pastor has that I’m concerned about….”
Does David claim
the spiritual gift of discernment, that he knows my heart so well? Or is he being judgmental? We will not speculate on his possible meaning. Notice, however, how easy it is to cast
suspicion upon someone by use of innuendo.
“This will not be
an exhaustive look at why it is false to believe that the act of water baptism
is a part of the salvation process. But
I ask you to imagine this conversation, of what it would be like to face Jesus
one day when you’re before the Judgment Seat of Christ and say to Him, ‘The
reason I’m here is because of my good works of obedience. Yes, Jesus I obeyed
you and I was baptized in water like you said to. My faith in the fact that you
were crucified, dead, and then rose from the dead FOR me was not enough, and I
had to DO something to be saved. So thanks Jesus for conquering death for me,
but I’m glad that I realized that I had to have my good work of water baptism
[to] give me my right to come to heaven. You’re [sic] death on the cross was
great though….’ Does that sound right?”
Perhaps the
reader has noticed that David cannot seem to provide Scriptures to establish
any of his points; there is a reason for that.
Notice that he did affirm, however, that including baptism as a part of
the salvation process is false.
Therefore, he should really want to debate the propositions on the
preceding page. If he really believes
that the Bible does not teach it, al-though it clearly does (Mark.
The conversation David supplies is
both hypothetical and absurd. It rests
upon a faulty premise and is easily set aside.
Fill in the blank: “I had to have my good work of __________ to give me
the right to come to heaven.” Put
repentance, worshiping, praying, or good works in the blank, and it all comes
out the same. The question is, “Does
David believe that we have an obligation to obey God in ANY thing He requires,
including love?” What does David do with
Hebrews 5:9? “And having been perfected,
He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him.” Does he rip verses such as these out of his
Bible?
Since we are
vainly imagining conversations, let’s try this one. We are before the Judgment Seat of Christ,
and He asks if you believed in Him. You
answer, “Yes, Lord.” He asks again, “Did
you really have faith in Me?” Once
again, you answer yes. “Really? Well, did you repent of your sins?” “What?
And try to earn my way to heaven?
Oh, no, Lord. I would not insult
you that way.” “Were you baptized for
the remission of your sins?” “No. What could water have to do with
salvation?” “Did you attend worship each
week?” “No, Lord. There were too many Pharisees there.” “Did you live a pure and holy life?” “No, Lord, I tried to blend in and not flaunt
my Christianity.” “Did you engage in any
charitable works?” “No, Lord, I already
told you that I would never attempt to earn my way to heaven.” Did you ever try to bring anyone else to Me?” “No, you know how people hate busybodies.”
Of course,
imaginary conversations like these are futile, but Jesus’ response to such an
individual is not. He would say, as He
already has said, “But why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not the things
which I say?” (Luke 6:46). Faith is
expressed in obedience (James
Instead of
imagining conversations, how about looking at a real one—the one that Peter had
with the multitude on the day of Pentecost?
After Peter convinced them that Jesus had died on the cross for
their sins, been buried, and rose again, the crowd asked, “Men and brethren,
what shall we do?” If David had been
there, he would have answered, “People, haven’t you been listening? Isn’t the cross sufficient for you?” But Peter was just an inspired apostle who
had never been taught the theology of the Campus Crusade for Christ. He told them to DO two things if they wanted
salvation—repent and be baptized (Acts
Peter did not answer, “Just believe;
Just have faith. C’mon ya’ll. Say this
little prayer with me.” He commanded
them to repent of their sins and to be baptized for the forgiveness of those
sins. Those who gladly received his word
were baptized (Acts
“Water baptism,
along with any other good work such as going to church or preaching the Gospel
to someone else, is an outward sign of obedience that you do out of love
BECAUSE of what has occurred in your spirit by the Holy Spirit’s supernatural
baptism of your spirit at the moment you trust in Christ by faith. Water baptism is something we should ALL do
out of love and obedience to Christ, but it’s not part of salvation.”
Friends, there is
a reason why David does not cite any Scriptures to support this error. Water baptism is not a “good work.” If so, who does it benefit? Is God better off because we do it? Are the poor less hungry? Helping people is a good work (Matt.
25:31-46). What good is baptism if it is
NOT a part of salvation? David and his
friends think that, if they say that baptism is an “outward sign” often enough,
people will believe it. What Scripture
says that baptism is an outward sign?
“Going to church”
is not a good work, either. To begin
with, we do not GO to church; we are the church. The church meets together to offer up its
collective worship to God. Furthermore,
we are commanded not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together (Heb.
There are many
things we do because we love God, but there is not one verse of Scripture that
talks about the Holy Spirit’s supernatural baptism at the moment of faith. If so, where is it? The apostles had been baptized in the Holy
Spirit on the day of Pentecost, but that was the fulfillment of a promise Jesus
had made to them (Acts 1:4-5). Peter did
not tell the people who questioned him on Pentecost that they would receive
what the apostles had received. He did
not tell them in Acts 2:38: “Just believe, and the Holy Spirit will baptize
your spirit.” The burden of response was
upon them—not the Holy Spirit. Notice
again: “Then those who received his word were baptized…” (Acts
“But what about
the last part of verse 38—“and you shall receive the gift of the Holy
Spirit”? Such is the result
of repenting and being baptized, just as being add-ed to the church is (Acts
“The
David does not
quite get our perspective. We did not
decide that baptize meant ”to
immerse,” and then do homework to prove it.
We study the Bible to see what it actually says, and then we follow
that. There is a vast difference in
these two approaches.
“Most of the time
in scripture, the word baptism in the Greek is referring to having your life
submerged in CHRIST.”
Really? Paul does say that our life is to be hidden
in Christ (Col. 3:3). But where are all
those verses to which David refers? Read
through the book of Acts. Such a verse
is not found in Acts
“The hallmark
verse of the
David has
apparently never looked at the evidence regarding Mark 16:9-20. There are two manuscripts that do not include
these verses, but many sources predating them do have it, and it is quoted more
than 200 years earlier than those two (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) to which he
refers.
“There is no
mention of water in this verse, be-cause it’s talking about be [sic] baptized
SPIRITUAL-LY by the power of the Holy Spirit.”
How can David
make this claim since the Holy Spirit is not mentioned in the verse,
either? A word must be defined by its
general usage unless some-thing in the text indicates otherwise. The only baptism practiced in the New
Testament up to this point was water baptism.
John and Jesus had baptized in water (John 1:31; 4:1-2). Why would the eleven en-vision anything other
than water baptism?
David is confused
on this point. Holy Spirit baptism was
promised—not commanded. How can any-one
be commanded to receive a promise? He
can “arise and be baptized and wash away” his sins in water (Acts
“And notice what
condemns a person…it is lack of belief.”
This is
obvious. The one who does not believe
will not repent of his sins or be baptized, but the promise of salvation is to
those who believe AND are baptized.
“Re-read such
verses as Acts
We are apparently
expected to do so on the basis of David’s assertions alone—since he offered no
proof. 1 Peter 3 compares baptism to the
Flood (i.e., water).
“Your spirit is
made ALIVE by trusting in Christ, and this immerses (baptizes) you into Him
(not water).”
We are baptized
into Christ—WHEN we are buried with Him by being immersed in water (
David does not
realize that he is vacillating between two answers. When he attempts to explain away water
baptism, sometimes he says it is Holy Spirit baptism; at other times he
advocates that it means being immersed into Christ. Which is it?
He probably does not care—so long as it is not water. Oh, no, baptism cannot possibly mean what
everybody thinks it means. What is this
desperation to have it mean something else?
“Notice 1 Peter
He spoke too
much; he undercut his own case. Consider
baptism in water, baptism in the Holy Spirit, and baptism in Jesus Himself:
which one of these might someone mistake for “the removal of dirt”? That’s right, friends. One would never associate the removal of dirt
with the last two, but when someone is buried with Christ in baptism (in
water), they might associate that act
with the removal of dirt from the flesh—especially since we take baths all the
time for just that purpose.
“After we are
saved by believing in Jesus, the rest of our life becomes a process of
sanctification, not a process of justification.
If you are not sure on the definition of these words, I suggest you buy
the book ‘Systematic Theology’ by Wayne Grudem.”
Actually, these
words are familiar because we study the Bible.
For example, Paul wrote: “And such were some of you. But you were
washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of our Lord
Jesus and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor.
“Christ justified
us by His work on [the] cross. You can
not do ANYTHING except to trust in Him for your justification. Water baptism is a part of our sanctification
(growing in obedience), and it is not to be linked in any way to whether or not
you are justified (made righteous before God’s throne.” (He cites Philippians 2:12.)
We agree that
Christ obtained justification for us; the discussion centers on its appropriation—not
its procurement. What verse says water baptism is part of
sanctification? As we have just shown,
Paul said that baptism, justification (as it is applied, not obtained), and
sanctification all occur at the same time.
“…life is a
continual process of becoming more surrendered to Christ as God does the work
in you.”
God does work in
us through the Word. He does not take
away our free will or make us better regardless of our efforts to the
contrary. We always have the freedom to
accept or reject the will of God. When
we succeed in spiritual growth, it is by His grace, but it is also because we
are responding correctly to Him.
“Baptism is just
one of those things that Christ commanded us to do, and we learn more and more
about how to surrender to Christ throughout our lifetime.”
This is the
second time David has admitted that baptism is a commandment (see his imaginary
conversation); why does he think they are optional? Does he think Moses gave the Ten
Non-Essentials? And which definition of
baptism is David using here? If baptism
(in water) is “just one of those things” we ought to do, why was the eunuch
baptized out in the wilderness (Acts
“…it’s dangerous
to assume that any good work of obedience has really anything to do with our justification. The law never saved anyone, it is merely here
to show right from wrong, or what we should be doing.”
He is confusing procurement
with appropriation
still. Once again, he is assigning us a
position we never made. We have never
argued (and never would) that we are saved by law. We are saved by the blood of Christ. Our sins are washed away by that blood WHEN
we are baptized in water (Acts
“Should we be
baptized in water? Of Course! Have I
been baptized in water? Yes, praise
God.”
Why was he
baptized? He already said that most of
the Scriptures aren’t referring to baptism in water. He tried to argue that Acts
“Did that water
save me? Absolutely not….”
Finally, we
agree—but for different reasons. Baptism
cannot save someone who already thinks he has salvation. One must know that he is lost before he is
baptized and saved afterward. Otherwise,
he is not obeying the Gospel, the truth.
Only truth can set us free from our sins. But there is another error of great
importance stated here. No one has ever
claimed that the power is in the water to save—the power is in the blood! The power is also in the answer of a good
con-science toward God—by obeying what God said to do FOR the reason God said
to do it.
“And neither does
God count my sins of disobedience against me, because when He sees me he sees
the blood of His Son, that washes away my sin.”
This statement
would be true if two prerequisites were true.
First, our disobedience must be repented of; God does not forgive the
perpetually rebellious. Second, if he
had obeyed the Gospel in the way the New Testament teaches instead of believing
that he was saved at the point of faith only, he would be correct. But, sadly, the blood of Christ cannot
cleanse the one who believes a false plan of salvation.
“I suggest you go to a different church and
find a pastor who does not have a passion for legalism, or trusting in Good
works to save you.”
Now there’s a
fine “non-judgmental statement.” He did
not even have the decency to talk with me person-ally or ask for any points of
clarification. He just makes assumptions
and blithely offers recommendations. I
am about as far from a legalist as one can get, but I do possess a passion for
Truth—as well as a passion for exposing error, because belief in it condemns
the souls of men, for whom Jesus died.
We believe that
God has revealed Himself through His Word and that it is the only standard of
authority we possess. Jesus not only
taught the truth; He condemned publicly those who taught false doctrine. The apostles likewise devoted themselves to
teaching the doctrine of Christ, which at times involved publicly demonstrating
the error of others.
Not once did
Jesus or the apostles resort to name-calling in lieu of a Scriptural
argument. They used the Scriptures to
make their case, not human wisdom: they thoroughly refuted their opponents’
misconceptions.
David dealt
little with my previous article. We
asked why the author of Tetelestai
avoided the books of Acts, which contains the accounts of conversion; David did
not say a word about it. We asked why
Acts 2:38, the most obvious case of conversion of all, was left out? He completely ignored it. He answered no arguments made in the entire
article. All he can do is hurl epithets,
such as legalist and Pharisee and provide fuzzy definitions
of baptism. Perhaps Dr. White would like
to offer a better defense of his own work and David could pass the criticisms
on to him. We have no personal ill will
toward David, but we are not fond of his personal at-tacks, and we know that
the “gospel” he preaches will cause people to be lost.
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please
refer to this article as: "Whatever the article name from above is (
Return
To Article Index