Sunday School - The Roman Catholic Controversy - Part 4

Opening the Controversy and the Question of Assurance

It's a great honor to come before you this morning to congratulate you for the sacred service of worship that is only due to you, Lord, as we worship and as we turn our attention to teaching. We ask, Lord, that you would enable and grant to us the gift of the Holy Spirit to receive the teaching from your Word, that we examine the Gospel of Jesus, and Lord, that we cross-examine the Holy Doctrine of the Gospel.

We pray, Lord, that you would grant us grace with discipline and light to be able to discern these matters from you, in Jesus' name, amen. Amen. All right. As you know, we're going to turn our book, Opening Up the Controversy, by Dr. G. White.

This is the third chapter, and this is where things begin to get more interesting as we discuss the substantive differences between Roman Catholicism and the Protestant understanding of the Gospel. Now, Dr. G. White is very intentional with bringing out in this chapter the Gospel of Jesus and emphasizing the teaching of the Gospel.

Where are some things in your readings this week that may be set up to you, or maybe some observations or questions you may have concerning this chapter?

Here, please hold what's good as it is.

That's right, that's right. We're relying really on half the pieces of possession of Christian when we receive the Gospel. Pieces of possession of Christian. And it's something that involves us. And it does seem to contrast that with the Roman Catholic Gospel.

How about that quote from your scholar? Was it in the Apollo or something like that? It's talking about how you can't know. That's the opposite of the piece of security. David has that quote. It's a really good one.

If you can sum up in order, what is it about Roman Catholicism that they lack? What do they lack? Assurance. They lack assurance. Now, yesterday we had a Mormon here. By the grace of God, we were able to have a forum.

It was a wonderful event. And we had a whole section of Mormons that showed up. Which is one of the reasons why I was so happy to have these dialogues with others. It's important that we be here in one.

Because we have a whole temple of Mormons. And that's an opportunity for Christians. It's an opportunity for us to minister to these people who would, by all means, be here. Unless, you know, if not for the event.

One of the things that was interesting to me as I was speaking to some Mormons. In particular, the former Mormon Bishop. Was when we were talking about salvation. He didn't even have to talk about it from the stage here.

The Mormons like the Roman Catholics. All of that. And when I talked to my Jehovah's Witness mother. And I talked about salvation. She too lacks assurances. What is true of all false religions. Is that they try to sell something that they themselves don't have.

Every false religion says, here's the pathway to family happiness. Here's the pathway to peace. Here's the pathway to all these things. And yet they themselves are not possessive. They're not possessors of that which they peddle.

For that which they claim to have and sell. The same is true in the grand scale of Roman Catholicism. Why is it that the false religions of the world. Roman Catholicism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons. Every other essential area of the group.

Why is it that they lack assurance?

They're given more. They're not given peace right away. I almost think it's absurd. How dare you think that you're right with God. And give people more to do. And also isn't it. I keep noticing. One of the things I've noticed throughout here that I didn't realize.

Is that like the Roman Catholics will say about Protestantism. Has to be wrong. Because look at all the denominations.

So they have. It's chaos. Okay. That's what I think was made clear by the Pope in the Bishop. He said that all those groups. Protestantism. And you know.

We're going to restore the church. Yeah. That's it. They all deny the sufficiency of Christ. Which really is the heart of the gospel. Yes. If Christ isn't sufficient. Then who's going to make up that.

Which is lacking. And it's you. And you are imperfect. So therefore. How can you have assurance while you are infallible. Yeah. Yeah. That's a good point.

It's just my idea. It's just kind of anecdotal stuff from the book. Also if you preach a gospel that lacks assurance. Then I as the congregant need you. And you've got control of it. And I really look at all the cults.

I don't have to name them all. But one of the unifying factors of them all is control. And people. They don't believe in the spirit working in people. And people's own responsibility. It's a matter of control.

It's kind of worldly. But I think it's true.

Grace, Works, and the Catholic Definition of Justification

The lack of assurance. Because yesterday is the most recent. It's a more clear example. Of someone who would say I believe the bible. I believe in Jesus. I don't think. I don't think Catholics would be far from that.

But when you start digging into. You know the question of why they lack assurance. It's really a bigger issue of how they view God. And their understanding of God's plan. You know. When they say well I have to do this.

And they continue to mention like. Then God. I hope God would save me. You know. Based on what I've done. You know maybe I'll be good enough. It just shows that they really do have a poor view of God.

And an understanding of Jesus Christ and his sufficiency. That's right. So they try to fill the gap. Because they don't understand what God has done.

Well I think I mentioned several weeks ago. One of our saints mentioned that book of Mormon. Well you're saved by grace in all you do. And Bishop mentioned it yesterday. He quotes it. He quoted it from 2 Nephi.

Book of Mormon. And I think that that is probably. I think that's a huge favor. And I think that at least they're honest about that. Whereas other groups. The Jehovah's Witnesses. The Catholics. I haven't quite as eloquently.

Just come up with that. That you're saved by grace after all you do. Why is that? Not just from a Mormon perspective. But from a Catholic perspective. Why is that contradictory? That idea. That phrase.

You're saved by grace after all that you can do. Because grace is so narrative. That's right. So let's just change the language a little bit. You are saved by other to favor. After you merit all that you can do.

Think about that for a moment. It's contradictory. It doesn't make any sense. And yet that really is the dogma of every other religion. Is there's a grace component to it. Grace is kind of there to make up the.

If you do 50%. 65%. Grace is there to kind of fill in the gap. And it will hopefully get you over the finish line. Whatever that arbitrary number might be. Which I think was brought up yesterday in the discussion.

The former bishop was actually really good. The pastor asked. What is that all that you can do, Mark? And what is that, Mark? And I thought that was one of the highlights of this discussion. Yesterday.

And so one of the ways that the Roman Catholic church defines grace. According to their catechism. It's very interesting. Notice what it is. It says. Participation comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor.

The free, undeserved help. That God gives us to respond to his call. To become children of God. Adopt a son. To partake of the divine nature of eternal life. Now that is a really weak definition of grace.

Why is that a weak definition? What does this mean?

It has rather than it just being a gift holy from God. It has a man playing a part in their response.

As being part of the grace. Yes. Again, what the Roman Catholic dogma falls into. Is the bringing grace to grace. By saying grace is just a help. That we use in order to respond. To God's call. It's not what takes us from A to Z.

It's just one step for us. As free will agents. To do all that we can. In order to care for us. In eternal life. It's not undeserved. To favor. It's unreserved help. That helps us respond.

To God. I think one of the problems with them. Is that they believed in infused righteousness. Instead of Christ imputing his righteousness to you. You having his righteousness before God. They believe through some mystical means.

That he actually infuses it in you. It's a righteousness that is still some sort your own.

If you can't turn to your Romans chapter 11. Verse six. This is in context. Of the remnant of Israel. But notice verse six. It's like a rematch.

But if it is by grace. It is no longer on the basis of works. Otherwise grace would no longer be grace. This is such an important text.

Talking to Nicole. Or to Mormon. Or Catholics. It defines grace so beautifully. If it is by grace. It is unmerited favor of God. It is no longer on the basis of works. One of the things the Roman Catholics and Mormons would say.

When it talks about works. It's not talking about the law of Moses. It's not talking about the works of Joseph. Because it's talking about Israel. It's not talking about the law. The question I would ask.

What other law has there been given? We are not talking about God's law. That is the first thing. The second thing is. If it is on the basis of works. Grace would no longer be grace. So you avoid grace.

But what it actually is. As soon as you add something on to it. Which is wonderful. By grace alone. In the scriptures. You can check that too. So if it is anything added to. Grace. It needs to be grace.

You can merit it. You can favor it. You can muster up the power and energy. To be deserving of something that is undeserving. Then it is no longer by grace. Now it is merited. Now you have. You work for it.

And now it is due to you. It is owed to you. Because it is a wage. It is not by grace. If you work for it to wage. That is not a gift of grace. Because you earned it. You merit it. But if it is given to you.

If you are given a gift. That is grace. Because you merit it.

James 2, Romans 4, and Faith That Works

I was going to ask. The Roman Catholic scholars. Are not stupid people. They were very intelligent. They must know the languages. As well or better than any of us. How do they justify? Do you know where they go to justify this idea?

Growing in grace that way. They all go to James chapter 2. All the good Mormons. Anyone I have experienced. In my conversations. I saw Mormons go straight to James 2. That is just their go to. We say that man is justified.

Not solely by their faith. But by the words of James 2. I have a different view. Interpretation. I have a justification. It being more so. A faith that is important. Being the fruit. Not the root of salvation.

We would not deny that. That is an essential aspect. To Christian life and sanctification. But that rather. Where the Roman Catholic. You have a clear statement from James. You are justified. Let's look at that.

It comes off in James 2. Talking about Abraham. His statement. Offered to Isaac. It says. See that faith was not to belong. It was completed by his voice. The scriptures were filled. It says. Abraham believed God.

It was counted to him as righteousness. That is the idea. He believed in righteousness. It was counted to him. It was spread to him. He was called a friend of God. You see. A person is justified by words.

Not by faith alone. That is a tough pill to swallow. If you just accept God's service. Don't dig a little deeper. Don't believe by faith alone. By grace alone. Don't do that. It is our own tradition. This is what I was going to say.

In the same way. Was not also Abraham a person justified by words. But he received a messenger. And sent them out. By the way. For as the body of the heart was a servant. It is also the heart of the Lord.

Just to. Give you some. Essentially what we are looking at. It is all of this. This is what. Under section of justification. They say the grace of the Lord. Has on our justified. That is to cleanse us from our sins.

To communicate to us the righteousness of God. Through faith in Jesus Christ. And through baptism. Again. The word baptism. It is not something that is imputed. But rather communicated to us. It is not just righteousness.

That has come towards us. That is imputed righteousness. Rather than just communicated to us. Through faith. And through the word baptism. Which are references to baptism. So word baptism is a major part of.

The Roman Catholic view of justification. So how would we answer this? The Roman Catholic view. How would we answer this? Whether it is a witness. Or a Roman Catholic.

Go ahead. The way I. Understand it. Is that it is using justification. In a different sense. It is not in the legal sense. Because Rahab did that. Now she is accounted righteous. But more in the sense of.

Justification of this. Demonstrates that her faith is legitimate. That fruit. Shows that she actually.

Has the grace. There is a lot to say. In response to this. Just two things. One is. I think a good first rebuff to that verse. Just to show that Romans 4. Once again on the surface.

Says the exact opposite. So the two have to be reconciled. Romans 4 .2. For if Abraham was justified by works. He has something to boast about. But not before God. What does the scripture say?

Abraham believed God. And was counted in his righteousness. So Paul takes the exact same verse. From the Old Testament. Once again on the surface. The exact opposite thing. Not by works. The other thing.

I point out. Among many other things. In James 2. When it talks about Abraham. Sacrificing Isaac on the altar. And relating it to the verse. Therefore it says. Abraham believed and was counted in his righteousness.

There is a time difference between those two events. A lot of people imagine. He does this work. Because he believes. He is counted in his righteousness. A decade before. He sacrificed Isaac on the altar.

He is justified a decade before.

Once you see that timeline spelled out. How can you say. What James is talking about. He needs the work. In order to be justified. Rather he is talking about. In order for it to be complete. In order for this whole.

Demonstration of the righteousness. Of God to manifest. In order for us to be. Justified. Before men. In the sense of demonstrating. That we do really have faith. That this has to happen.

I noticed. If you compare the ESV and the KJV. That. A good cross reference. Is second. First Timothy 3 .16. Where it says that. God was in the flesh. God was manifest in the flesh. Justified in the spirit.

Preached unto the Gentiles. When you read the ESV. It says vindicated in the spirit. You could say that. In James's context. Vindication and justification.

Are synonymous. If you study justification. Just do a word study on it. It can also mean. Like he just pointed out. From the King James. Vindication or proof of something. The context is the ruler there.

If he's justified. As Pastor Owens was saying. Genesis 15. That's one kind of justification. That's justification before God. Then later in 22.

As is used by James. It's a proof. A vindication of the faith. Let's take James 2. Into a different context. In James 2. James is contending with. The sin of partiality. In the congregation. In the church.

He begins to point out. Essentially. If you transgress. In one area of the law. You are guilty of breaking the law. You are transgressing. When he talks about. Sin of partiality. In the first couple of verses.

You are judging people. In the church. You are assigning them. You are showing partiality. This is a wrong thing to do. When James is dealing with. At the end of this. He is saying. You see your brother.

He needs to be clothed. Do you just say to him. Be well. I will be clothed along your way. Or do you do something about it. What James is concerned with. Is the doing aspect. He wants to see. If you claim to be a disciple.

If you claim to have faith. That faith in company. With works that match your faith. He is not saying justification. Is something that comes by. By the effort of works. Apart from faith. Show me your faith.

Accompanied by your works. In a sense. Let me see the fruit. Of your works. Let me see the fruit of your life. This is something. We have to remind. Sometimes. You can fall into. Hyper race. Basically.

I can live however I want. Do as I please. No concern for works. No concern for the future. No concern for. I act in accordance with biblical values. Because I am covered by grace. It is a hyper race mentality.

It is interesting. It is fun. To hold on to what you do. As long as you pray. This prayer one time. You are set. As long as you pray. This prayer. Even if you don't. I don't know how. To study. It is interesting.

We don't hold on to that. We believe. There is an evidence. That is. Accompanying. And that is. The words are. The evidence. Of our church religion. Jesus Christ. The fruit of our salvation. The fruit of our salvation.

When Jesus. The body of our heart. Will also be. For our works. It is no faith at all. If you say you have faith. But there is no proof. There is no works. That is the point. That Jesus is making here.

He is not contradicting Paul. Or. Nor is he contradicting Paul. In Ephesians chapter two. As a matter of fact. They are completely borrowed. Especially in Ephesians two. Verses eight through 10. We are talking about grace.

And you have this statement. At the Lord God's work. Which is to create. For good works. Which you pray. I'm going to get you all, is that you were created for his works. So the fact that you received grace and received onto good works, which is what Jesus is saying as well.

Yeah.

And that's the flip side. And that's, you know, Roman Catholicism and Mormonism view is it's, you flip that, you know? You gotta do your works to then attain the...

Yeah, to use like a fruit analogy again, right? It's like, they kind of walk away with a long, they're not giving James, I think that means like an introscriptive, as if like you staple fruit onto a tree, it now becomes a fruit tree, right?

I think it's, oh, we need to do this stuff, right? Because if James is saying, go do more of this, and that somehow doesn't work, it's better.

Yeah. And to say we're really just patient is not what Jesus is saying. You see, that person's talking about their works not by faking the law, but by saying your faith, your distinct faith is not sufficient to demonstrate God's act of investigation in your life.

It has to be accompanied by evidence. You know, this is why people like Paul Walsher, you know, they teach this, of course, that you have to, there ought to be evidence of salvation. You know, if it cracks like a duck, walks like a duck, or it's a duck, if it does it, then it's something else, right?

And so the dog can actually walk, the duck can actually walk, the petitioner can actually walk, you see Alpha and Omega, the whole spiritual work of them, that sort of regeneration. So, any other thoughts or questions on this?

The Catholic and Orthodox View of Grace, Hope, Resurrection, and Theosis

Yeah, so now we know more or less what we can read about the false understanding of Jesus. You know, just to give you some more from the Roman Catholic Catholicism piece, it says that it's a reference to justification, and I think that this is an interesting thing.

Justification, which is corroboration between God's grace and man's freedom. On the man's part, it's expressed by the assent of faith to the Lord God, which bites into perversion, and in corroboration of maturity, and in the Catholic world, is where he perceives and observes his assent.

The language here is very man-centric. You know, it's man's assent, it's man's decision, it's man's free will, and that justification, it's just a corroboration between God's grace and man's ability to be justified, which is where, I mean, and this is why the Roman Catholics are smart, as Pastor Josh mentioned earlier, these Roman Catholics are smart, and one of the ways that we can make the mistake that Jesus Christ is smart, I think, is how they look up the language so neatly, because on the surface, if you're a prophet and you read this, you're like, I didn't agree with that.

But if you dig a little deeper, you actually see they mean something totally different to them. Similarly to the conversation we had yesterday with the Mormon church. The Mormons would say, we believe that everyone's a child of God.

On the surface, that sounds good, but obviously, we wouldn't hold that. You believe that there are children of God, which would mean that we're all a child of God by adoption through the name of Jesus Christ.

Meaning Christ, you have God as your father. But on the surface, that sounds good, but what the Mormon actually means by that is that we are all for God, our creator, but actually, more neatly, that he is, which was brought up by Pastor yesterday, but that the Mormon believe that we are children of God because God the Father, in our pre-Mormon existence, created us as earth creatures through sexual intercourse in heaven with our mother.

That is what we're gonna yell and call out in its origin, that we were created in heaven through sexual intercourse by God the Father and in his period of sterilizing. So that's different, right? So if you listen to, for instance, when the prophet speaks, and I've heard the prophet numerous times, he'll say, we believe that we are literal children of our literal heavenly Father.

We believe that we're literal because they literally believe that God the Father has sexual intercourse. They believe that Mary, the father who had sexual intercourse with Mary, therefore produced the flesh of Christ.

All these things is what they actually mean in the United States of America. Similarly, the two Roman Catholics, when they, in their official practices and teachings, they load up these words so powerfully that on the surface they sound good, but when you dig deeper, you realize the meanings are totally different than we do when we talk about these same term terminologies of justification, sonship, adoption, and all these things.

We need to look into this.

And the problem, you're talking about man-centric-ism. The problem with all these, I guess, past heresies is that they try to lift man up by either putting the sonship of Christ down or something with his divine nature, right?

Or it could be like Pelagianism or just straight-up Arianism with Mormonism and the Jehovah's Witness as well.

Yeah, and the Roman Catholics, of course, say that justification is conferred in the baptism of the sacrament of faith. So it is conferred to you not by faith, but by a path, by a work. And so, again, that would be kind of a big, certainly Paul's teaching of justification is not about the works of the unrighteousness.

You know, Texas Revival is a perfect example of that. Justify, not the works, but by washing, the renewal of the works. We're not washing the filth of baptism, but rather the regeneration of any work of washing that comes as a result of faith in Jesus Christ.

Do Roman Catholics teach about election, like unconditional election, that there's people of God and the Father has for Jesus?

Yeah, so generally, what most non-Communists believe in terms of election, it's basically all about the same. And it's essentially that election is a group thing, not an individual thing, right? And the question is, if there's election, is it a group thing?

If there's the elect people, it is a group thing. If there's the elect church, you know, John uses the term elect lady, and I think it's a reference to the church. And so, they look at election as a corporate thing.

So, as a key thing, we are electing. But as for the individual, they don't believe in individual election, which is hard to have a corporate election, apart from the individual election. How do you have corporate candidates?

Yeah, exactly, because you've got to call individuals in order to make up the whole. And so, most of the goals in most non-Communists would be similar to the world church. If you listen to the conversation yesterday from the bishop, he took some shots at Communism a couple of times.

And, yeah, we wouldn't want to bring the bishop back into our calendar for the love of that. But, yeah, he said some statements about Communism that were not accurate. And he actually addressed this on election as being a group thing, and that he will over-elect.

But that individual may come and go all. And there were a couple of things he said, apart from maybe some weird statements about certain saints and poles as being particularly lackluster. Anything you want to add to that?

That's fine, yeah, okay. Let's focus in on the goals of the chapter, chapter three, and that's the idea of peace. Why, again, is it that the Roman Catholics are missing this peace? What's missing in their understanding of the gospel?

The last paragraph on page 40. Christians preach peace through Jesus Christ, not the mere possibility of peace. So that's an important part, because Roman Catholics in every religion teach that, A, you can have the possibility of having peace, that that's a possibility.

I think of the Jehovah's Witnesses, when I see them at the mall, in the little corners in the little stands, they usually always have a magazine that talks about family happiness. And the way to have family peace, it's a way to have peace at home, and all these things, right?

And they cite this vision of peace, but again, it's something that they themselves do not have. I was speaking to the Lord Mormon bishop yesterday. One of the things they brought up was the idea of assurance, right?

And again, they said, we can't say whether we're saved. Jehovah's Witnesses say the same thing. My mother tells me the same thing. There's my mom, and I was in a conversation where she says, I hope to have eternal life, and this hope is different from the hope that we have.

And it's very similar to this hope that the Catholics may have. It's, well, I hope I can, I hope that I can attain heaven and not have to be burned. I hope I can be resurrected. What is the difference between the Christian hope and the hope that everyone else has?

Our hope does not disappoint. Amen, we're on the spot. We have a hope that does not disappoint. You probably mentioned this before,.

My comparative religious class, we had an imam come in, kind of similar to what you had yesterday here, or we had yesterday here. And I'll never forget what he said about salvation. He said, it is wickedness to believe that Allah will not save you.

It is presumption to believe that he will. And I heard that. I never forgot that. It's like, that's so similar to these other things, we're talking about, but so what do you do? When you're striving, you're striving, you're striving, you're worried, you're worried, you're worried, and you never go anywhere because it's almost neurotic.

I mean, how can you go in grace if you don't believe you have grace? How can you have a hope if it's not a hope that's been established or a peace that we have? That's right, that's right.

You know, the job of a pastor, as you said, of course, works in righteousness. I remember one day, knocking on the doors, and I remember it was a beautiful Saturday morning, blue skies, and I remember just looking up to heaven one day, and I said, I said, Joel, how many more doors have time for me to go up in?

Like, how many more doors will there be before I feel your calling and affection? And I remember just, at that moment, I was like, I need to learn more about grace. And the gentleman looked at my little plaque with the word grace.

If there isn't the word grace, that's some unreserved kindness. Learn about God's unreserved kindness, God's grace, and that's what began to lead me down the road of, you know, eventually getting saved.

I was just studying that topic, grace, in the Bible. But I was, I've always, when I was saved, early on, everyone, my aunt and my uncle, argued about me because they had, they knew I was apostatized according to their theology.

And my uncle would say, this is the stigma that everybody has, he says, no one can ever say that they're saved. No one can say it. And, gosh, if you can't have assurance, then what are we doing? Like, why are we doing this?

What hope is that if, there's no hope at all. Now, the hope that the Catholics have, and I'm enjoying this as it warms up,.

Is they have a hope in the sense that I can get through.

In the sense of saying, I hope there's a possibility, not as a definite thing. Whereas the hope that God has given us is hope for the Christian, the hope for the Bible, is an expectation of the promises, okay?

That's biblical, it is the expectation of the promises, not just a mere possibility or probability that we will see the promises, but rather an assurance that will happen to us. It's that we have hope, and in the truest sense of a word, an assurance of the things that are seen, an assurance of the things that are coming, promises that God may give to him and to us for our Lord Jesus.

That's the big difference. Hope to the Catholic is a mere possibility but hope for the Christian is assurance. Big difference, big difference. John? I don't like what, not respecting what Jesus did and what it accomplished.

When you say, I hope I will be saved by that. It's like saying, really? You are saved by that because he didn't do it.

For nothing, he did it to save you.

It reminds me again of what the Word of God says in the beginning of verse one, it says, therefore, we can be justified by faith and the peace of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. And so, what is the truth we can make the justification for?

It's the peace of God. Not the probability or possibility. If you've got an actual peace with God, you are an entity. God has made peace with his son, Jesus Christ. It says, through him also will be access by faith and his grace in which we stand and we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God.

Hope. Again, not the probability or possibility but assurance because it says, when I got saved, I held on to this verse so strongly because as a Jehovah's Witness, you feel like you're never standing.

You're always on quicksand. You're always on, you know, on shaky ground. And it always reminds me of when you're a kid. You take a, maybe a rose petal. Maybe you've done this and you say, he loves me, he loves me not.

He loves me, he loves me not, right? And that's how I felt my relationship with Jehovah was. If I did a good thing, he loves me. If I did a bad thing, he loves me not. But the difference between Christ, or the true grace of Christ, everything else that falls off, is that in Christ.

It's always, he loves me, he loves me, he loves me, he loves me, regardless of how I did it. And that's grace. And that's the hope in which we stand. That even should we fall, he's able to make a stand for his grace.

I appreciate what John said, that it denigrates what Christ did on the cross. But our hope is also based upon the historical fact of Jesus' resurrection. I mean, our hope is the resurrection because we will follow in a resurrection like his.

What is the Catholic view of the resurrection? Doesn't that relate to what we're talking about here? The assurance we have, because we say we're assured for a number of reasons, like, you know, just taking God's language plainly, but also the historical basis of our hope is the resurrection.

How do they look back at the historicity of that? It seems like they've got to denigrate that somehow in order to come up with this unassured salvation that they preach.

Yeah, but I also think, in most Christian theology, even when you're dealing with false or with Roman Catholicism, almost everyone agrees, especially because Roman Catholicism is a creed that they have, you know, at least for the first 400 years, we've heard essentially the same creeds.

They hold the resurrection as the apex of the redemption of God. It is the eventual outcome of all creation. In terms of how they get it, then I think that's obviously where we would depart. So Roman Catholicism would agree, the Protestants would agree, that the end result of the faith is resurrection.

The Roman Catholic view would see the resurrection a little more deified than we would, where they would see that as, they hold on to that text in, I think, 2 Peter, that we become our takers of the divine nature, right?

And so they say that we become, essentially, deified gods of some sort through the resurrection. And I think that, and I've seen enough Catholic quotes on this, whether through the scholars, the theologians of the Catholic Church, where it seems like the phrase I've seen used before is that we will become our takers of the triune nature.

How that happens, I don't know. To me, that's a very different angle. But that we are taken by a divine nature,.

So this is what it's like to be in the resurrection. So I think that's where we would break apart.

It is, obviously, the traditional belief is that when we're raised in the resurrection of our bodies, we will have a like nature as the resurrected Christ. In that Christ is raised within incorruptible body, we too will have incorruptible bodies.