Share on
The Apostle Peter vs. Modern Catholicism (Part 2) - Apologetics for the Masses #548
Unsubscribe/Subscribe
https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe - to unsubscribe from this newsletter
https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter - to subscribe to this newsletter
Topic
A Protestant Asks - "The Apostle Peter vs. Modern Catholicism: Whose View On Assurance Is Right?"
General Comments
Hey folks,
Two things:
1) I am beginning the process, this week, of mailing out almost 20,000 Catholic tracts to homes and businesses throughout the Birmingham area. A little over 10,000 of The Roman (Catholic) Road to Salvation tracts, and almost 8000 of the Which Church is THE Church of the Bible tracts. If you would like a copy of either, just let me know and I can email them to you. Please pray that these tracts will be read, thought about, and prayed about by the folks who receive them and that a good number of seeds will be planted regarding the truths of the Catholic Faith. And that maybe a good number of discussions will be entered into.
2) I'll be heading up to my hometown of Huntsville, Alabama, this weekend for my 50-Year high school class reunion. Doesn't seem possible that it's been 50 years. The Physics teacher in high school never told us that, as you age, time actually moves faster. Anyway, please say a prayer for all of my classmates and me, and our spouses, that we have safe travels and a safe and eventful weekend. A fun time, but a safe time.
Introduction
Okay, in my last newsletter - Apologetics for the Masses #547 - I shared an article from The Christian Post that was written by a Lutheran pastor by the name of Dan Delzell. His church is in Papillion, Nebraska. The article was on comparing St. Peter's view on "assurance" (as in absolute assurance of salvation; i.e., Once Saved Always Saved) vs. the view of "assurance" that is believed by "modern Catholicism". Or, rather, I should say, the article was on comparing Pastor Delzell's personal, non-authoritative, fallible opinion of St. Peter's view on "assurance" vs. Pastor Delzell's fairly inaccurate, error-riddled, and surprisingly unsophisticated description of what "modern Catholicism" believes and teaches on that particular topic.
Last week I simply published his article - no comments from me, whatsoever. How many Protestant publications do you think would do the same with an article that I've written? I'll tell you how many...Zero! Zip! Nada! None! It's like I always say: Error fears truth, truth does not fear error.
Anyway, this week I am going to rip apart...uhmm...I mean...I'm going to analyze Pastor Delzell's article in light of Scripture, the Catholic Church's actual teaching, common sense, and simple logic. Needless to say, his article is not going to fare too well upon careful examination. Now, on a personal level, Pastor Dan seems to be a very pleasant and congenial human being - at least, that's the impression I've gotten through email. So, I want to make sure of a distinction here - I am going after his errors...his bad theology...his misrepresentations of Catholicism...not him, personally. It is my very strong opinion that error has no rights. You don't need to be kind to error. You don't need to coddle error. You don't need to make excuses for error. You simply need to destroy error. Particularly theological error. Scripture tells us that Satan is the father of lies. If you believe in error, particularly error in the area of faith and morals, you are believing in a lie. Which means, you are believing in something that has it's origin with Satan. You are believing in something that could cost you your soul - "The Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to...doctrines of demons," (1 Tim 4:1). Which is why, again, I give no quarter to error, particularly doctrinal error.
So, let's get started. I'll do this in two parts so as not to make any newsletter too long. So, the 2nd part of the "analysis" will be in the next newsletter. I am going to go paragraph-by-paragraph through his article with my comments interspersed amongst his. His, as usual, will be in italics. Onward...
Challenge/Response/Strategy
By Dan Delzell, Christian Post Contributor, Thursday, May 07, 2026|
Soteriology is the study of the doctrine of salvation. And the Apostle Peter's inspired soteriology is vastly different than what eventually became known as "Catholicism," in spite of the Catholic Church's dubious claim that Peter was "the first pope." After all, Peter did not instill within believers the unhealthy religious fear which Catholicism tends to instill, whether intentionally or not, within many of its adherents.
My Comments
"What eventually became known as 'Catholicism'?" We find the Church called the "Catholic Church" as early as 110 A.D. by St. Ignatius of Antioch in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans as he was being taken to Rome to be martyred. And this is simply the earliest record of it that remains with us today. It seems, by the manner the name was used by St. Ignatius, that the Church was probably known by this name even earlier than 110. Which would mean, that what St. Ignatius of Antioch believed and practiced in the "Catholic Church" could rightfully be called "Catholicism" no later than 110 A.D. And what St. Ignatius believed in 110 A.D. is what we, in "modern Catholicism" believe today. I doubt Pastor Delzell has ever seriously looked at the writings of the Early Church Fathers. The beliefs they describe...over and over and over again...are not Lutheran beliefs, they are Catholic beliefs. The Catholic Church, ever ancient...ever new.
"The Catholic Church's dubious claim that Peter was 'the first pope'?" Dubious? Really? And what evidence can Pastor Delzell offer to counter this "dubious" claim that Peter was the "first pope"? Probably none. The Catholic Church can, however, often plenty of historical evidence to attest to the fact that Peter was indeed the first bishop of Rome...the "first pope". Here are just a few quotes from Early Church Fathers as evidence for the claim:
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches...by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition." St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, circa 190 A.D.
"Second year of the two hundred and fifth olympiad: the Apostle Peter, after he has established the Church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years." Eusebius Pamphilus, The Chronicle, circa 303 A.D.
"In this chair in which he himself had sat, Peter,
in mighy Rome, commanded Linus, the first elected, to sit down.
After him, Cletus too accepted the flock of the fold..." Pseudo-Tertullian, Poem Against the Marcionites, circa 325 A.D.
"We have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: 'You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it;'...The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it." Pope St. Damasus I, The Decree of Damasus, 382 A.D.
Pastor Delzell then said: "...the unhealthy religious fear which Catholicism tends to instill..." I'll deal with this specious claim in more detail below.
Suffice it to say, that Pastor Delzell seems inclined towards habitually making unsubstantiated, emotionally-driven, and historically inaccurate, claims about the Catholic Church, and about Peter, in particular. I would love to see his evidence that Peter was NOT the 1st Pope.
Pastor Delzell's Article
"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" (Proverbs 9:10). This godly fear is righteous and holy. It involves deep reverence for our Creator, and a profound awareness that I will stand before the Lord on Judgment Day.
My Comments
The Pastor rightly states that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. And he rightly connects that fear to two things - a "deep reverence for our Creator" and a "profound awareness that [we] will stand before the Lord on Judgment Day." Yet, this is where his logic, such as it is, begins to break down. Why, if Pastor Delzell has absolute assurance of his salvation, does he need to have a "profound awareness" that he will "stand before the Lord on Judgment Day"? After all, Pastor Delzell has already been judged...by Pastor Delzell. And, he has judged himself as saved. He is going to Heaven. There is nothing in all the world that can prevent that. He has "absolute assurance" of his salvation. In other words, he knows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that when he "stands before the Lord on Judgment Day," the Lord is, essentially, going to say, "Dan, what are you doing here? You've already been judged as being innocent. You believed in Me. "Absolute assurance," big guy. Go on...get outta here ya big galoot!"
If Pastor Delzell already knows the outcome of his time before the Lord on Judgment Day, because Pastor Delzell has already judged himself as being innocent, then why have anything that could remotely be related to fear of what happens on Judgment Day? Why?! Makes no sense. You fear being found innocent? You fear being sentenced to eternity in Heaven? What is it you fear if you have absolute assurance of your salvation? If you're on trial for murder, and you have absolute assurance that the jury will find you innocent, what is it you fear about your judgment day in court? Nothing!
Basically, what's going on here, is that Pastor Delzell is looking for a verbal dance around of the concept of "fear of the Lord". He knows he has to pay some sort of theological lip service to it, but he also knows that it really isn't anything that comes into play in his faith journey...nothing that he really needs to be concerned about. "Fear? I have no fear! I have absolute assurance!"
Jesus, when sending out His disciples to preach in the towns and throughout the countryside, tells them, "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in Hell," (Matt 10:28). Fear of the Lord. Pastor Delzell, had he been among the Apostles that Jesus sent out, would have responded, "Jesus, I don't need to fear the fact that God can destroy both body and soul in Hell, because I'm saved. I believe in you as my personal Lord and Savior. And, as you know, Jesus, once saved always saved...absolute assurance of my salvation! I have nothing to fear!"
"Fear of the Lord" and "absolute assurance of salvation" go together like stripes and plaids.
Pastor Delzell's Article
But a different kind of fear is produced by what I will call Catholicism's "contingency apparatus," and it is not conducive to spiritual health or spiritual maturity. For example, David Wissel was a Catholic, and then an atheist, before eventually becoming assured of salvation through faith in Christ's atoning death on the cross.
My Comments
Here we go. A former Catholic who is, of course, now an expert on all things Catholic. And what, pray tell, will be the bee in his bonnet with respect to Catholicism? The way it made him "feel". Which as we all know, one's feelings are a perfectly legitimate standard for discerning truth from error. I mean, if an 8-yr. old boy "feels" like he's really a girl, then we all know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he must really be a girl, right? If a woman "feels" that abortion is the right thing to do, then we all know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that abortion is indeed the right thing to do. If a Catholic "feels" that the teachings of the Catholic Church are wrong because they make him personally "feel" bad, then we all know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the teachings of the Catholic Faith must be wrong, right? That's the "logic" used here.
Also, I had to laugh at this line: "...[Catholicism] is not conducive to spiritual health or spiritual maturity." Oh really? So, in one type of spirituality, what has been dubbed "cheap grace" spirituality, everything is easy. You simply accept Jesus into your heart as your Lord and Savior and BOOM!...that's all there is to it! You're saved! You've got a one way ticket on the train to Heaven and there is nothing that can derail that train. Pop the champagne corks! This is the Once Saved Always Saved spirituality. The "absolute assurance" spirituality. This is Pastor Delzell's spirituality.
On the other hand, you've got the Catholic "contingency apparatus," as Pastor Delzell calls it. A spirituality within which you must pick up your cross daily in order to follow Jesus (Luke 9:23). A spirituality wherein you must strive for holiness without which you will not see the Lord (Heb 12:14). A spirituality wherein you must produce fruit in order to remain attached to the vine (John 15:1-6). A spirituality where Christ must be formed within you (Gal 4:19). A spirituality in which the Master expects you to do something with what He has freely given you (Matt 25:14-30).
So, which I ask you, do you think is more conducive to "spiritual health or spiritual maturity"? A spirituality where you have everything handed to you on a silver platter, or a spirituality where you realize something is required of you if you wish to keep that free gift you have been given? Also, when I read the Pastor's words, I thought about all those spiritually unhealthy and immature Catholics I've read about...you know...like St. Francis of Assisi, Mother Theresa, Carlos Acutis, Pier Giorgio, Fr. Damien of Molokai, the martyrs of Uganda, the nuns martyred in the French Revolution, St. John Bosco, St. Dominic Savio, St. Therese of Lisieux, John Paul II, and the thousands upon thousands of other saints and martyrs - and those are just the ones that we know about. And I think about how spiritually unhealthy and spiritually immature my mother and father were, and how pretty much every Catholic I know is spiritually unhealthy and spiritually immature. Uhmm...I don't think so. In other words, Pastor Delzell really doesn't have a clue as to what he is talking about when it comes to Catholic spirituality. Apparently, all he knows of Catholic spirituality he has learned from those who have left the Catholic Church.
Pastor Delzell's Article
David described his despair within Catholicism: "Learning about mortal sin in Catholic middle school religion class was the first step on my journey to atheism. I remember thinking: 'I could live my entire life as a devout Catholic, only to commit a mortal sin, get hit by a bus, and go to Hell.' I concluded that I wouldn't be able to keep up with the sacerdotal treadmill of mortal sin and confession; I would end up condemned anyway. The only hope, it seemed, was that God did not exist."
My Comments
Brilliant theological reasoning on the behalf of a middle schooler: "I can only avoid Hell if God doesn't exist." No thought of striving for holiness by the graces received from the Sacraments. No thought of, "All things are possible with God," for the hope of avoiding mortal sin. Nope. He found out about mortal sin and what was his first thought? Despair. The sin against the Holy Spirit. "No way am I ever going to be able to avoid committing mortal sins." He apparently suffered from the same condition as Martin Luther - scrupulosity...moral OCD...constant anxiety about committing sin, about being "good enough" for God. Plus, fear of the confessional: "I don't want to have to keep confessing my sins again and again and again ("the sacerdotal treadmill of mortal sin and confession"), so I'll just dismiss God altogether and go ahead and live my life as I please." And, obviously, not much of an understanding of mortal sin and of God's mercy.
Pastor Delzell's Article
Imagine a father telling his 8-year-old daughter: "Heather, as you know, your mother and I have reserved a condo in Florida where we are planning a weeklong vacation at the beach this summer with you and your brother and sister. We want you to go with us, but I must warn you. Every time you do something really bad, I will remove your name from the reservation, at least until you apologize for your disobedience."
My Comments
What an absolutely bizarre characterization of Catholic teaching as it pertains to mortal sin. I really have to admonish the Pastor for this rather unsophisticated analogy. Whether it's done out of ignorance or malice...well, I'll give the benefit of the doubt for now and say ignorance. I hope the Pastor, after reading this, will apologize for such an egregious mischaracterization of Catholic teaching.
How about we look to Scripture for a better analogy of Catholic teaching as it relates to mortal sin? The Prodigal Son. "Father, I've come of age, and I've decided that you are, essentially, dead to me. I reject you. So, give me my inheritance as I no longer wish to live in your house." Did the father in the story kick the son out of the house...or threaten the son with not being able to go on vacation with the family? Nope. The father let the son do what he wanted to do. The Prodigal Son made a choice and the father honored that choice. And through sin, the son squandered his inheritance (salvation). And how does the Word of God describe the Prodigal Son? As being "dead" to his father.
God, the Father, does the same. If we choose, freely and knowingly - full consent of the will and intellect - to reject God and to sin against Him in an egregious manner (i.e., commit mortal sin), God honors our choice. He does not force Himself upon us. He does not prevent us from rejecting Him. And, if we do indeed freely and knowingly reject God, do we not also lose our inheritance as the Prodigal Son lost his? Do we not also become "dead" to the Father as the Prodigal Son was "dead" to his father? So, mortal sin is not akin to an 8-yr. old doing something "really bad". Mortal sin, rather, is the free and deliberate decision to reject God through the commission of sin. Does the Pastor not believe the Word of God when it says that there is "sin unto death" (i.e., mortal sin) - sin that kills the soul (1 John 5:16-17)?
Pastor Delzell's Article
In this scenario, a lingering fear would undoubtedly haunt Heather's heart: "Will I be good enough to go on our family vacation?" It would cause Heather to grow up believing that her father's "love" for her is conditional and is based on her performance.
My Comments
Ahhh, there's that word again..."fear". Fear...of the Lord. Pastor Delzell apparently believes "Heather" should not have fear of the Lord. And, he is exactly right about that...she shouldn't have fear of the Lord. That is, if "absolute assurance" of salvation is true. But, are we not supposed to "fear the Lord," Pastor? Should we not be concerned with being "good enough" to go on our family vacation? I mean, doesn't the Bible say, "Strive for peace with all men and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord," (Heb 12:14)? Shouldn't we be "striving" for that holiness without which we will not "see the Lord"? The holiness that will let us take that family vacation with the Father? And, no, that striving for holiness that we should be doing - according to the Word of God - does not cause Catholics to "grow up believing" that our Father's love for us is conditional and "is based on [our] performance". Catholics know that God's love for us is unconditional. That He has loved us from all of eternity and will love us for all of eternity, even if we end up in Hell. But, in order to get to Heaven, we have to do the will of the Father, do we not, Pastor? Which means we should constantly be striving to discern and to live by God's will for our lives. I can't believe the Pastor denies this very biblical concept.
The underlying assumption in Pastor Delzell's logic here, which is why he gets what we believe and teach as Catholics so wrong, is that he thinks Catholics believe in a "works salvation". No, we don't. That belief on his part distorts his thinking vis-a-vis Catholic teaching. He ends up interpreting Catholic teaching through a "works salvation" lens of his own making, when Catholics do not believe in a works salvation. He ends up with a distorted Protestant version of Catholicism instead of the Catholic version of Catholicism. As I have told him in an email, Catholics believe in salvation by God's grace...alone. The perfect example of this is infant Baptism. The infant who is baptized cannot have faith nor can that infant do any works; yet, the baby is saved through Baptism (1 Peter 3:20-21; John 3:3-5). Works do not save us. Our faith does not save us. God's grace saves us. Any Catholic who believes we are saved by our works simply does not have an accurate understanding of Catholic teaching, just as Pastor Delzell doesn't. However, if we do not do the works God has set aside for us to do (Eph 2:10; Matt 25:14-30, 31-46; 1 Tim 5:8, Rom 2:6-7, etc.), or we do the works God has prohibited us from doing (Matt 5:27-30; 15:19-20; Gal 5:20-21, etc.) then we will lose what God has freely given us and we will find ourselves on the outside looking in (Matt 7:21).
This is a good place to stop for now. I'll finish up with the comments and analysis of this article by Pastor Dan in the next issue of the newsletter.
Closing Comments
I hope all of you have a great week!
Donations
The Bible Christian Society is a non-profit organization that relies solely on your support to bring the truths of the Catholic Faith to tens of thousands of people throughout the U.S. and all around the world each year. If you would like to help us do what we do, you can donate online at:
https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/donations
or send a check to:
Bible Christian Society
PO Box 424
Pleasant Grove, AL 35127.
Anything you can do is greatly appreciated!
Unsubscribe/Subscribe
https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe - to unsubscribe from this newsletter
https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter - to subscribe to this newsletter
Share this newsletter on:
