The Apostle Peter vs. Modern Catholicism (Part 3) - Apologetics for the Masses #549

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe - to unsubscribe from this newsletter

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter - to subscribe to this newsletter

Topic

Does "Modern Catholicism" Disagree with St. Peter on the Question of "Assurance of Salvation"? A Protestant Thinks So...

General Comments

About a year and a half ago, I told you about a nationwide effort to place our country - down to the county levels - under the mantle of protection of our Blessed Mother Mary, the Immaculate Conception. I want to update you on that effort.

So far, 41 State Capitol buildings have been blessed, 4 States have been completely blessed (capitol building and all county courthouses - GA, FL, WI, DE), and 798 County Courthouses have been blessed (25%) nationwide. The organizers of this effort are hoping and praying that this Project for the Immaculata will be completed during 2026, which, as you know, is the year of the 250th birthday of our Nation.

However, they need some more volunteers to make it happen. All that it involves is going down to your county courthouse and saying a few prayers - which will be provided to you. It's not a complicated or lengthy process - each blessing takes less than an hour.

So, are you willing to be a part of getting your county - along with every other county in the country - dedicated to the Mother of our Lord and put under her maternal care and protection?

If you would like to join this simple effort, all you need to do is send an email to Sue Turner - turn4life@gmail.com - saying you want to participate. She'll send you a copy of the prayers involved in the ceremony and tell you how to go about getting this done.

I would love to have Sue tell me that a whole bunch of you contacted her about making this happen in your county!

Introduction

Okay, in my last newsletter - Apologetics for the Masses #548 - I started dissecting 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 commented on the 1st half (approximately) of the article. This week I will give you my take on the rest of what he said as viewed by the light of Scripture, what the Catholic Church actual teaches, common sense, and simple logic.

I will be going paragraph-by-paragraph through his article with my comments interspersed amongst his. His comments, as per my usual custom, will be in italics. It's a little longer than usual, but I didn't want to spread this out over another newsletter, so I beg your indulgence {insert smiley face here}.

Challenge/Response/Strategy

The Apostle Peter vs. Modern Catholicism: Whose View On Assurance Is Right?

By Dan Delzell, Christian Post Contributor, Thursday, May 07, 2026

Pastor Dan Delzell (cont'd)
[St.] Peter, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, knew how to help believers develop a deep love and appreciation for the Lord, and to walk in godliness and genuine compassion for others. Rather than dangling eternal life in Heaven over their heads like a carrot on a stick, Peter underscored the eternal inheritance which had already been assigned to them.

My Comments
Again, the description of the Catholic position on salvation is emblematic of someone who knows little to nothing about what the Catholic Church actually teaches on salvation. "...dangling eternal life in Heaven over their heads like a carrot on a stick?" Really?! The Catholic Church "dangles" nothing over one's head. Salvation is not the Church's to give or take. It is God's free gift to give to any individual, in and through the Body of Christ (i.e., the Church), that any and every individual can reject through sin - just like the Prodigal Son rejected his inheritance through sin and became "dead" to his father. Does Pastor Delzell not believe one can squander his inheritance through sinful living? If not, then was Jesus wrong when He told the story of the Prodigal Son losing his inheritance through sinful living?

Would he characterize the master in the Parable of the Talents (Matt 25:14-30 ) in the same manner - as dangling eternal life over the heads of his servants if they didn't do something with what he had given them? Would he characterize the Son of Man in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats in that same manner?  And, exactly how did Peter "underscore" "the eternal inheritance which had already been assigned to them?"  Well, let's find out.

Pastor Dan Delzell
Peter refers to believers as "God's elect" (1 Peter 1:1), assuring them of their place in Christ's eternal Kingdom. The apostle wrote to those "who have been chosen," (v. 2) here again stressing the permanency of their relationship with the Lord.

My Comments
Saying that Peter's usage of the phrases "God's elect" and those "who have been chosen" gives every single believer "absolute assurance" of "their place in Christ's eternal Kingdom" and the "permanency of their relationship with the Lord" is...guess what? Pastor Delzell's personal, non-authoritative, fallible interpretation of the Bible. In the Old Testament, Israel is called God's "chosen" people a number of times. We see this, for example, in Isaiah - chapters 41-45, 49, and 65. Here is just one of those verses, Isaiah 43:20, "...to give drink to My chosen people [Israel]." So, Pastor Delzell, does that mean that every single Israelite had absolute assurance of "their place in [God's] eternal Kingdom," and of the "permanency of their relationship with the Lord"? Was every single Israelite who ever lived saved? I don't think so.

Here's the thing: God's elect will indeed be in Heaven. God has foreknowledge of who will and will not be saved. The problem is, God has foreknowledge, we do not. So while God absolutely knows, and has known for all of eternity, who will end up with Him in Heaven - we do not. As Paul says, "I do not even judge myself. I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord Who judges me. Therefore, do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart," (1 Cor 4:3-5). This passage absolutely destroys the dogma of absolute assurance. Paul commands us not to judge even ourselves - that it is Jesus Who will do the judging. Yet, every single person who believes in absolute assurance of salvation (a.k.a., Once Saved Always Saved), completely ignores that verse and they all go about judging themselves as saved - in complete defiance of the Word of God.

And, what has happened every time I've brought that passage up with a believer who has judged themselves as being "absolutely assured" of salvation? One of 2 things: 1) "Well, uh, that's not really...uhm...well...you see...well, you worship Mary!" 2) "Paul isn't talking about salvation in this passage." Really?! Never have I ever had anyone explain to me, in a manner that is logically and scripturally consistent, how this passage is compatible with OSAS. Pastor Delzell, care to take a shot at it?

Here's another thing: I guarantee you that the Pastor believes that there are people who think they are saved, but they really aren't saved. The problem is, though, if you admit to even the possibility of that, then there can be no "assurance" of salvation...for anyone, including you! Because if it is possible to think you are saved, but not really be saved, then that could be true of every single person who believes they are saved - regardless of how much they protest that, "No, I really, truly, without a shadow of a doubt, no question about it, am absolutely, positively saved! I know it in my heart!" Well, wouldn't every person who "thinks" they're saved, but really "aren't" saved, say the exact same thing? Of course they would! So, Pastor Delzell, how can you be "assured" of your salvation, if you believe it's possible for someone to think they are saved, but not really be saved? How do you know that you don't just "think" you're saved?

And, yet another thing is, Pastor Delzell fallibly interprets the first few verses of 1st Peter as undeniably teaching "assurance" of salvation. But, wait - what about the rest of the letter Peter wrote? And, what about the other letter Peter wrote? Do we find "assurance" taught all through 1st and 2nd Peter? Let's see...

Pastor Dan Delzell
Peter then celebrated this glorious fact: "In His great mercy, God has given us new birth into a living hope." (v. 3) The new birth occurs through faith in Jesus (see John 3:1-8) and a "living hope" refers to the certainty that Heaven is my eternal home because of my Savior's sacrifice on the cross for my sins.

My Comments
Pastor Delzell's statement here is a contradiction. He says that the phrase "living hope" is referring to the "certainty" of salvation. But, aren't "hope" and "certainty" two different things? I mean, if you have certainty, what need have you of hope? If I "hope" the Cubs will win the World Series, does that mean I have "certainty" that the Cubs will win the World Series? Does not Paul say, "Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees?" Pastor Delzell equates "hope" with "absolute assurance", when, in reality, there is no room for hope in an absolute assurance theology. If you "see" your salvation...if you know your salvation is in hand...then you are not "hoping" for your salvation. So, no..."living hope" is not referring to "the certainty that Heaven is my eternal home." Once again, the Pastor is, essentially, claiming that his personal, non-authoritative, fallible interpretation of Scripture is actually the authoritative, infallible teaching of the Word of God. It is not the Word of God. It is the Word of Dan.

But, don't take the Word of John for it, let's look, as I said I would, at more of 1st Peter and see if it abounds in the language of assurance. Again, I claim that "hope" and "assurance" are fundamentally different concepts...they do not mean the same thing. So, Peter uses the language of hope not just in the verse cited by Pastor Dan, but also in verses 1:13, 1:21, and 3:15 in his 1st letter. Plus, throughout 1st and 2nd Peter, we find Peter warning those that Pastor Delzell says have absolute "assurance" of salvation, to conduct themselves with fear throughout their time of exile (here on Earth) and that "fear" is in relation to God's judgment (1:17). And he warns them against again being conformed to their former passions (1 Peter 1:14) and about the necessity of being holy (1:15-16). In chapter 2, Peter warns his readers not to engage in sin, to avoid evil, to do what is right, and so on. In chapter 4, he tells all those who, again, according to the Pastor, have absolute "assurance" of salvation, "But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evil-doer, or as a busy-body..." (verse 15; KJV). I am quite curious as to why, if all believers are absolutely assured of salvation, Peter is warning them against doing things that they, according to OSAS theology, cannot do...will never do? Because, if they do any of those things, it is a sign, according to OSAS theology, that they were never saved in the first place. In other words, there is no language of assurance here.

Also, for me, one verse that just causes a whole lot of trouble for a OSAS theology, is 1 Peter 5:8, which says: "Be sober, be watchful. Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour." Curious, don't you think? If all believers have absolute assurance of salvation, then they can't be lost, right? Which means, they can't be "devoured" by the devil. You would think, the devil would know this. On the other hand, those who are not believers, already belong to the devil, so no need to seek them out to devour. So, it makes no sense at all for the devil to be prowling around seeking someone to devour, when there is no one to devour - at least, in OSAS theology! And why warn believers to be "sober" and "watchful" in regard to the devil if they devil can't touch them? Why?! Makes no sense if OSAS theology is true.

Then, in 2nd Peter, we get more of the same. 2 Peter 1:10 has Peter telling the brethren to make sure to "confirm" their call so that they will "never" fall. Why do they have to "confirm" what they have already confirmed...what they already have "absolute assurance" of? I mean, I wouldn't warn my wife about avoiding icy patches on the road if she were driving somewhere in the middle of summer, would I? That makes no sense. So why warn someone against falling if they can't fall? Is that the language of assurance? And in chapter 2, it talks about believers following false prophets who bring destructive heresies into their midst. But, wait...that's not possible, is it? Well, not if OSAS is true. Then, Peter lowers the boom in chapter 2, verses 20-22. He speaks of those who have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of "our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ - i.e., they've been saved - yet, they end up getting once again entangled in the defilements of the world - i.e., unsaved. Again, according to OSAS theology, that is not possible. Which leads me to conclude, that either we don't have "assurance" of our salvation, or Peter had no clue what the heck he was talking about.

So, while Pastor Delzell may have been able to ostensibly pull a OSAS rabbit out of the 1 Peter 1:1-4 hat, I would love to see him give an explanation of all these things I've mentioned above that are found in the rest of 1st Peter and also in 2nd Peter. Context, folks...context. You have to read the whole thing!

Pastor Dan Delzell
Peter encouraged them in their salvation by pointing to their "inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade, kept in Heaven for you" (v. 4). No contingency talk here, but only the wonderful promise that a believer's heavenly inheritance is essentially under lock and key and will definitely be enjoyed one day.

My Comments
Yes, the "inheritance" of the elect "can never perish, spoil or fade," because the elect are those that God knows will persevere in the end. However, nowhere does it say that a person who is currently a believer...currently "saved"...cannot eventually reject their inheritance and, in the long run, be proven to not be one of the elect. Why? Because they did not perservere. And it's not because "they weren't really saved in the first place". Nowhere does that Bible use that kind of language. Look at John 15:1-6. The branches of the vine (which is Jesus Christ) are believers. They have to be believers or they could never be branches of Christ. Unbelievers cannot be branches of the vine which is Christ. Yet, if those believers do not produce fruit, what happens to them? They are cut off. What?! They wither (i.e., die). What?! And are thrown into the fire (i.e., Hell). What?! Nowhere does it say, "Well, those branches weren't really believers in the first place."

As Jesus Himself told us, with the Parable of the Prodigal Son, we can indeed lose our inheritance, specifically through sinful living. As I've shown above, 1st and 2nd Peter are filled with what Pastor Dan refers to as "contingency talk". I mean, 2 Peter 2:1-3 and 2:20-22, are pretty direct contradictions of the principle of absolute assurance. And one other thing, a member of the "elect" will indeed make it to Heaven. But, nowhere does it say they will have an easy time of it. A person could be one of the elect yet, at some point in their lives, they could reject God. They could wallow in sin. They could be "dead" to the Father. Yet, they could then repent, seek forgiveness, and become alive "again". Just ask...the Prodigal Son. He was alive (saved). Then dead (unsaved). Then alive "again" (saved again). Whether you are one of the elect isn't about where you are right now, it's about where you are when your time comes.

Pastor Dan Delzell
I am reminded of Christ's words: "My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand" (John 10:27-28). Compare our Lord's comforting promise to the terribly misguided claim made by Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621): "The greatest of all Protestant heresies is assurance."

My Comments
Two things in regard to this point:

1) Where, may I ask, is the passage of Scripture that says a sheep cannot voluntarily walk away from Christ? Pastor Delzell can you provide me with book, chapter, and verse on that? Absolutely right that no one can snatch a sheep out of Jesus' hand. Absolutely wrong to say that a sheep cannot walk out of Jesus' hand of its own free will.

2) Notice something here in regard to the supposed quote from St. Robert Bellarmine? No citation. Never fear, though, I tracked down where this quote originally came from. It was, apparently, first published in an article written in 2004 by Dr. Sinclair B. Ferguson, who was (maybe still is) a Professor of Systematic Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary. The title of the article was: The Greatest of All Protestant Heresies? In the article, Dr. Ferguson gives that exact quote - "The greatest of all Protestant heresies is assurance." - and says that it came directly from Bellarmine. In a footnote, Dr. Ferguson states that the quote came from a work of Bellarmine's called, "Tertiae Controversiae Generalis: Controversia Secunda Generalis Quae Est De Justificatione Impii, Book III. Chapter 3." Dr. Ferguson goes on to say in that footnote that Bellarmine's "exact words are: 'Primus est, omnium huius temporis haereticorum.'”

A number of folks over the last 22 years, like Pastor Delzell, have used this quote from Dr. Ferguson's article in their own articles where they rail against the horrors of the Catholic Church. Just one problem: It seems Bellarmine never actually said what Dr. Ferguson claims he said. Let me 'splain. As I stated above, Dr. Ferguson said that Bellarmine's quote comes from Book III, Chapter 3 of a work titled: Tertiae Controversiae Generalis: Controversia Secunda Generalis Quae Est De Justificatione Impii.  Well, as it turns out, Bellarmine never wrote a work by that name - Tertiae Controversiae Generalis. So, Dr. Ferguson got his source wrong. That's pretty sloppy work, especially for a Professor of Systematic Theology. What Dr. Ferguson was actually referring to was a work of Bellarmine's called, Disputationes de Controversiis.

So, that's the first problem. 2nd problem, is that, even after we look at the correct source, there is no quote in there where Bellarmine says, "The greatest of all Protestant heresies is assurance."  The Latin quotation that Dr. Ferguson gives as Bellarmine's "exact words" - “Primus est, omnium huius temporis haereticorum.” - when translated, means: "He is the first of all heretics of this time." It doesn't even mention the word "assurance"!  Nor does it mention the word "Protestant"! For a Professor of Systematic Theology, at Reformed Theological Seminary, to have not only gotten the source of this supposed quote wrong, but to put words in the mouth of Cardinal Bellarmine that are not found in his work, and cite them, in quotation marks, as his "exact words," is, in my opinion, beyond sloppy...it's malicious. He twisted Bellarmine's words in order to advance an agenda. That's disgusting. It's a lie. This man should not be teaching at any kind of institution that calls itself Christian. Nor should people be quoting him as an authoritative source.

So, the supposed "exact words" from Bellarmine, that Pastor Delzell took on faith from Dr. Ferguson's 2004 article, or from someone else who had quoted Dr. Ferguson's article, are not Bellarmine's words. In other words, Pastor Delzell's argument is an argument that is based on a manufactured quote. It's a straw man. Now, I expect Pastor Delzell didn't know this and that he was operating in good faith, but now that he does know this, I hope he will submit a correction/retraction to the Christian Post, as a good Christian should, and that the Christian Post will print that correction/retraction, as any magazine that considers itself "Christian" should. It seems that Cardinal Bellarmine was not the one who was "terribly misguided," rather, that Dr. Ferguson was...as is anyone who trusts him as a reliable guide, or source, in this matter. I always tell people: "If you want to disagree with what I believe...fine. Just make sure your're disagreeing with what I actually believe." Also, this shows the importance of checking your sources, and your sources' sources.

Pastor Dan Delzell
Do you see why Peter, if he was on Earth today, would not make a good Catholic theologian? The apostle never resorted to "carrot and stick" motivation when teaching believers the truth about God's grace and eternal salvation. A religious contingency apparatus does not accurately convey the love of God or unleash the power of the Gospel, but instead, makes believers feel like their "potential salvation" is on a razor's edge and contingent on them being good enough.

My Comments
"A religious contingency apparatus does not accurately convey the love of God or unleash the power of the Gospel, but instead, makes believers feel like their 'potential salvation' is on a razor's edge and contingent on them being good enough." Again, it is apparent that Pastor Delzell's entire knowledge of Catholic spirituality is based on scraps he's picked up from discontented former Catholics and that he filters that "knowledge" through his false assumption that the Catholic Church teaches a works-based salvation. But here's the thing - does the Word of God tell us that in order to see the Lord, we must be holy? Yes or no, Pastor? I hope you answer, "Yes," because in Heb 12:14 it says this: "Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord."

So, yes, my salvation is dependent upon my being holy, at least, according to the Word of God. Pastor Delzell may disagree with that. That's his prerogative to do so. I believe that I have to pick up my cross daily in order to follow Jesus. I believe I have to do something with the talents that the Master has given me as opposed to burying them in the ground. Jesus, out of His love for me, hasn't just technically declared me to be holy, He has actually made me holy. And the fact that I could, through my actions or inactions - my sins - lose what I have been freely given...guess what that does? Does that make me a lazy Christian, or does that make me strive all the harder to maintain what I have been given and to become even holier? It motivates me to be better...not of my own doing...all by the grace of God. God has given us the means - through His Church - to be holy. To stay holy. To become even holier than we currently are. To be transformed into His likeness one degree of glory at a time. It is awesome!

Now, as regards Peter, were he alive on Earth today, he would make a most excellent Catholic theologian. What he wouldn't make is a good Protestant theologian. Peter, whose chair upholds the principle of unity in the Christian Faith, would be absolutely dismayed at the tens of thousands upon tens of thousands of divisions within Christianity, which are so casually accepted by Protestants, that are caused by so many individuals essentially acting as Pope, Pastor, and Theologian of their own private church. The denominations (a.k.a. divisions) that are the essence of Protestantism would have Peter absolutely aghast at how they all utterly ignore Jesus' prayer at the Last Supper that His followers be one, as He and the Father are one.

Pastor Dan Delzell
Catholicism's contingency apparatus is directly connected to the Catholic concept which Bishop Robert Barron describes as "growth in justification" and "the Catholic difference." Catholics would be far better served if their church body replaced their contingency apparatus with the inspired biblical approach of helping sincere believers experience the assurance of their salvation through the promise of the Gospel.

My Comments
I'm sorry, but please do not take it upon yourself, as a non-Catholic who has, apparently, actually never really studied Catholic teaching to any great depth, to deign to tell me and my fellow Catholics how we would be "far better served" by adopting a cheap grace spirituality. That seems to be a bit arrogant, don't you think? I don't mean to disrespect you as you have disrespected me - and all Catholics - with your words here, but you seem to think you're the Pope and that you infallibly know what is best for all of us poor, spiritually destitute Catholics. I have to ask: Isn't my interpretation of Scripture just as valid, and just as authoritative, as your interpretation of Scripture? By what authority do you claim to have the better interpretation so as to know - infallibly - what we would be "far better served" by?

And regarding the "Catholic concept" of "growth in justification," are you or are you not familiar with the words of Paul in 2 Cor 3:18? "And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into His likeness from one degree of glory to another..." Wouldn't you say that being changed into the likeness of the Lord, "from one degree of glory to another," is "growth in justification"...growth in holiness? Do you not believe we can grow in holiness? What about becoming "partakers of the divine nature" through efforts at supplementing our faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love (2 Peter 1:4-7)? By doing so, would we not be experiencing "growth in justification"...growth in holiness?

Pastor Dan Delzell
Perhaps you worry about this question: "Will I be good enough to get into Heaven?" If your soul has been burdened by a religious contingency apparatus, then turn your anthropocentric focus and wavering confidence away from your best efforts, and rely instead upon what Jesus, the "Rock," (1 Cor 10:3-4) accomplished on the cross for your salvation. And then commit your body and soul to living every moment for your Lord and Savior.

My Comments
Perhaps I don't worry. Worry never added a day to anyone's life. Perhaps I instead put my faith and trust in Jesus Christ and in the Church He founded and that He sent the Holy Spirit to guide. But, aren't you worried that your interpretations of Scripture, which you admit are fallible - which means, they could be wrong - might just be wrong, at least some of the time? Aren't you worried that, as a Pastor, teaching your own fallible, non-authoritative, personal opinions on what the Word of God does or does not mean, to your congregation, that you could, just possibly, be leading them astray? That...that!...would worry me sick. After all, I assume you know what Jesus says about those who lead His flock astray, right? Not good. I mean, when you think about it, you aren't actually teaching the Word of God, you are teaching the Word of Dan - your fallible, non-authoritative, personal interpretations of the Word of God. Are you infallibly sure you're getting it right? 100% of the time? That would worry me!

Pastor Dan Delzell
"Faith without works is dead," (James 2:26) but faith never comes alive by doing more works. Faith only comes alive when the Holy Spirit enables you to believe the Gospel (see John 1:12, John 3:16, John 3:36, 1 Cor 12:3). Thankfully, believers in Jesus are on the narrow road to Heaven, rather than the broad road to Hell (see Matthew 7:13-14).

My Comments
"Faith never comes alive by doing more works?" Where does the Bible say that? Doesn't James say, "I by my works will show you my faith?" (James 2:18). Pastor, "Thou believe in one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, o vain man, that faith without works is dead?" (James 2:19-20; KJV). Pastor, please note that it doesn't say faith without works isn't faith - it is still faith, it is just dead faith. Look at verse 26. "For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead." James makes an analogy: faith = the body; works = the spirit. The body without the spirit is dead, but it's still a body. Go down to the morgue to see for yourself. Just so, for the analogy to hold, then faith without works is dead, but it's still faith. So, a person can have faith, and still be dead. Faith alone does not save, it can't...it's dead.

One more thing. He talks about the "narrow" road to Heaven. Jesus talks about this in Matt 7:13-14. He says that "the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life..." I have to ask: What is so "hard" or "difficult" about a Once Saved Always Saved theology? Where is the difficulty in that belief? Where is the daily denying of oneself and carrying of the cross in order to follow Jesus? (Luke 9:23). Where is the seeking for "glory and honor and immortality" through "patience in well-doing" that will see God rendering eternal life unto you? (Rom 2:6-7). What is so "hard" about "absolute assurance" of salvation? Inquiring minds want to know...

Pastor Dan Delzell
And unless your soteriology was inspired by the Holy Spirit, you will be unable to accurately teach the doctrine of salvation. St. Peter's inspired soteriology came "not in words taught us by human wisdom, but in words taught by the (Holy) Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words" (1 Corinthians 2:13).

My Comments
And, my question for the Pastor is: Do you have absolute assurance that your "soteriology" was indeed "inspired by the Holy Spirit"? After all, the way of a man is right in his own eyes (Prov 21:2). Are you claiming to be infallible in your interpretations of Scripture?

(Dan Delzell is the pastor of Redeemer Lutheran Church in Papillion, Nebraska.)

Summary
One last thing to say on this topic of "assurance". As the Pastor will tell you, if you don't do the works, it is a sign that you aren't "really" saved. So, the question then becomes: How many works do you have to do in order to be "assured" that you are indeed "assured" of your salvation? If you do works for 10 years, but then no longer, is that enough? How about 15 years? Then can you stop doing the works? Or, is it the case that if you do works for 20 years, and everyone was absolutely assured that you were absolutely assured, but then you stop doing the works, are you still absolutely assured? Or did you, and everyone else, only "think" you were absolutely assured but really weren't? How many works do you have to do to "prove" your faith is real?

Closing Comments

There is so much in the Word of God that absolutely blows holes - directly and indirectly - in the "assurance" of salvation, that I really am puzzled as to why so many people believe in it. Anyway, I hope you all have a great week! Praying for all of you and your families! Please pray for us.

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