Sola Fide - Trent Horn's Question Answered
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 лис 2023
- In this video, I respond to Trent Horn's challenge to Protestants found here: • My Big Question for De...
I argue that Sola Fide is actually defensible, and the answer to his question ("how many works are enough to show you have saving faith"?) is actually wrong-headed. When we instead ask "what kind of works show you have saving faith", the answer is simple: the kind that express the simple telos and goal in which one confesses themselves to be a sinner in need of God's grace in Christ, renounces their sin and--with firm purpose of amendment--commits to follow Jesus as the treasured, dear, and risen Lord of their life. God has provided the grace of the Eucharist as the summative and ordinary place in which he delights to confirm that intention, but also accepts that intention whenever and wherever a repentant faith exists. I hope this is helpful to you!
I hope you get a lot of views so Trent responds! Love to see the dialogues with charitable protestants
Beautifully done. I am constantly impressed by the clear exposition on this channel, very edifying. Especially given these are done in one shot! Your example of the tax collector is great and show just how wrongheaded Trent’s question is.
“Purgatory was understood as a finite hell … this view of purgatory still stands.”
“The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from the punishment of the damned” CCC 1031, emphasis mine.
It seemed like you were saying that purgatory being like hell was part of the Council of Trent, which it wasn’t.
Ironically this criticism would fit more with the Eastern Orthodox view of purgatory. Which they pretend isn’t purgatory but it involves people who are imperfectly penitent moving from hell to heaven due to the prayers of the faithful.
“And the souls of those involved in mortal sins, who have not departed in despair but while still living in the body, though without bringing forth any fruits of repentance, have repented-by pouring forth tears, by kneeling while watching in prayers, by afflicting themselves, by relieving the poor, and finally by showing forth by their works their love towards God and their neighbor, and which the Catholic Church has from the beginning rightly called satisfaction. [Their souls] depart into Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. But they are aware of their future release from there, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers of the priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their departed.”
-Eastern Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem of 1672.
I'm saying purgatory being a retributive doctrine was--and it would apply to both EO and Roman Catholicism insofar as the Synod of Jerusalem is held to, yes
@@anglicanaesthetics I think God punishing those he loves with a lesser punishment is rather biblical. Think of King Saul who repents of his murder and adultery, and is reconciled with God but still loses his son’s life.
Or the following from Hebrews:
“In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. 5 And you have forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as children-
‘My child, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord,
or lose heart when you are punished by him;
6 for the Lord disciplines those whom he loves,
and chastises every child whom he accepts.’
7 Endure trials for the sake of discipline. God is treating you as children; for what child is there whom a parent does not discipline? 8 If you do not have that discipline in which all children share, then you are illegitimate and not his children. 9 Moreover, we had human parents to discipline us, and we respected them. Should we not be even more willing to be subject to the Father of spirits and live? 10 For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, in order that we may share his holiness. 11 Now, discipline always seems painful rather than pleasant at the time, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.
12 Therefore lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees, 13 and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be put out of joint, but rather be healed.” Hebrews 12:4-13
@@bman5257 We'd affirm that God punishes his children with *disciplinary* punishments (e.g. they are *purely* remedial and intended to remedy sin). So we don't deny that God disciplines his children. But we'd deny that God inflicted retributive punishment on King David (not King Saul) when David loses his son. It's rather a remedial punishment, intended to show David the severity of what he's done and thereby starting the process of remedying David's self-wounded soul.
@@anglicanaesthetics I don't believe Catholics or Orthodox see purgatory as retributive. It's seen as a disciplinary punishment that completes sanctification that isn't finished when a believer dies.
This is a really great and interesting video! Just subscribed.
This is so helpful. Articulates and took a step further the problem I was having with the temporal punishment for sin and the analogies Catholics use to explain purgatory as I discern whether to become Catholic. Thank you for taking the time to make this.
Excellent response defending the goodness of sola fide. Trent seems to be trying to win debate points by showing we have the same problem, but he’s actually illustrating the weakness of his own system by viewing the alternative position through his lenses. In my opinion, he does that a lot.
Yes. You must have the historical context in mind 👍 Lord Jesus, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.
Thanks for making this video!What would be a good book on Anglican theology?
Francis Hall's Dogmatics are okay, though honestly the older books are better. I strongly recommend Richard Hookers "Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity" to get a feel for Anglicanism! I'd also read John Jewel's Apology of the Church of England.
@@anglicanaesthetics thanks for responding. I will look them up. Anglicanism is something I would like to understand better. Thank you for your hard work making these videos.
Most (if not all) of Trent Horn's critiques of "Protestantism" unfortunately end up just being critiques of low-church evangelicalism and pop Calvinism. There's barely any engagement with the Magisterial Reformation traditions and their view of Sacramental efficacy and assurance of salvation in Catholic Answers' apologists' content -- a super unfortunate reality.
Makes it easier for me to stay Lutheran
Jesus started Catholic church. Lutheran church started by man.
One says, "I belong to Paul," and another, "I belong to Apollos," and yet another, "I belong to Luther," and another still, "I belong to Calvin."
So you feel you have the superior and correct Protestantism (and Christianity at that) because it’s older and richer than these Americanized prot churches? Just take it back a little further my friend there’s an even better more ancient church which has stood and preserved the faith for 2000 years one started by Jesus and not that Martin heretic.
@@MarDuBronx My dad's truck is bigger than your dad's truck.
What resources would you recommend for this subject? I haven't read your answer in books before...you were saying its not ablut how many works but what type of works...where did you find this teaching? It sounds really interesting
With all due respect I don’t think your answer sufficed. The question wasn’t precisely what is the exact quantity of mortal sins that could demonstrate a lack of saving faith. I think you were right to point out that salvation is not a bean counting sort of thing.
But I think Trent’s actual question still stands and remains unaddressed. If fruits demonstrate a persons saving faith, is there an objective standard (doesn’t have to deliver 100% certainty, neither does the Catholic view) where a Protestant could know whether they have a saving faith or not. Your standard could be bean counting mortal sins, but if it’s not that what is it? Are there some sins that if you commit once it proves you never believed: murder, apostasy? Are there some where it would be proof if you didn’t pray for forgiveness? I’m still seeing a lack of a verifiable standard. Even when many Low Church Protestants act as if it’s necessary for someone to believe for certain they’re saved, even when they realize there are people they think have a false faith and are deceived.
Think of it like this--if I have a goal to get myself a muffin, the actions which follow will be those consonant with that goal. So long as I'm self consciously taking steps toward that goal, I know I'm trying to get myself a muffin.
That same sort of thing obtains with faith. Faith's goal is to renounce and fight sin, and pursue holiness. So long as I'm self consciously taking steps towards that goal, that's how I know I have true faith. The Eucharist is a key objective gift God gives, so that I can direct my steps towards receiving the Eucharist with this self conscious intention, and there he objectively and visibly confirms my status as a forgiven son
Now that said, I'm not of the view that one can show fruit for years and not be genuinely saved. That would be more of a critique for the mainline Reformed. I think people can lose their salvation
One would lose their salvation when they make peace with sin--when they no longer intend to fight it, but simply acquiesce to it--e.g. they give up the intent to fight it. That doesn't happen with any individual sin, just as if I have the intent to go get breakfast but get momentarily distracted, the intent still exists; it happens with a shift in orientation, where I yield the goal to fight sin
@@anglicanaestheticswhile this is a fine answer, I still have problems with it.
For one, can this ‘measureble faith’ be summarized as: “one’s saving faith can be know by having a consistent will to fight against sin” if so, this still is not measurable. A practical example, for one week I make a very deliberate effort to fight against masterbation. After the week, I masterbate and fall into despair for 2 days, until I return to God and prayer. What if the despair was for 4 days, 10, ect.
The problem I see is that one could make an argument that they tried to fight sin the entire time, just had a moment of weakness for X amount of days.
What I’m trying to say that this isn’t fully measurable
@@mitchellmello7520 During the time one doesn't turn to God, they can't know--which is why the Reformed talk about the darkening of assurance. It doesn't mean that person doesn't have saving faith, but you know it upon turning to God--and *as soon as* one repents (which involves a firm purpose of amendment), they can have assurance again.
@@mitchellmello7520 How about we just don't measure it. I guess Catholics have to measure everything, maybe that's why you're so into measuring. Or maybe this hectoring about fruits is just trying to make other Christians insecure in their salvation. If you'd like to be insecure in your salvation that is up to you. I trust Christ as Lord and savior, I don't have to measure it.
Catholic here... I agree with your initial assessment. Trent in his apologetics videos does try to throw the widest net so to speak. Protestantism being what it is will always have those which will not fall in the net. No matter how many videos he or any Catholic makes, there will always be the Protestant who say wait! That's not my tradition's position! You have mischaracterized me! Let's be honest about this though. This position he has taken is the majority position in the US. Yes, I understand the size of the Anglican communion, but its foot print is small in comparison to evangelicalism in the US.
I think you rightly said the true issue is with how the Christian views justification. This being said, your answer simply presupposes this belief in imputed righteous occurring as a single event. Those with a sacramental view like Anglicans and Lutherans will point to the single event. Sacramental Baptism as being a renewing and continually effective sign of God's grace on the sinner. So yes you're right you didn't answer the question, and I can see why you would see why this is the wrong question to ask. Trent's video in my estimation was a call to protestant to give answer... I didn't see him "closing the book" so to speak in the video. Which of course is exactly what you have attempted to do... I have seen you on Reason & Theology, You should try to have a discussion with Trent, I believe it would be very fruitful Peace be with you my friend!
Thanks for your kind reply. Here are some thoughts. Anglicans and Lutherans (and, as I'm finding, even some Reformed) *don't* believe justification or imputation is a once-and-done thing. Jordan Cooper has a really good video on this: ua-cam.com/video/pF9uTdZ4Li4/v-deo.html
The Anglican position is basically identical with the Lutheran one here: we think justification and imputation are *ongoing* realities (though not gradual realities, as though one can be more or less justified). The denial against Rome is a denial that justification can be increased or decreased, but not a denial that it's ongoing (we *are* being justified). Thus, God ongoingly reckons the sinner as righteous in Christ and ongoingly gives the forgiveness of sins. Within the economy of ongoing justification, the Eucharist functions to truly renew Baptism.
Now yes, I'm not arguing (I don't think I did) that Trent misrepresents all Protestants here.
(Trent and I have tried to set something up before, but his schedule is pretty stacked from my understanding. I'm always open to it)
@@anglicanaesthetics I like this explanation! Forgive me! I didn't mean to say you were being mischaracterized. Although , I see this quibble quite often in comment sections like this one 😊👍
@@anglicanaesthetics one quibble here is that I want to point out. I think many Protestants misrepresent what an increase in justification is. No Catholic who is in a state of justification is anything but 100% justified, when we speak of an increase in justification we are speaking in our ability to partake of God's divine essense. We are more fully over time to live out better our lives for God and for fellow man. The best analogy would be view our selves as a cup. God is always offering all of himself to us, and our cup is always full (100% justified), we can either through the sacraments, prayers, fasting, almsgiving partake of this more fully and grow in holiness, so that our cup is enlargened and we recieve more of the infinite that God pours our OR we can mortally sin through unrepentance and/or apostasy and pour out our cup and turn our back on God.
I know YT message boards can be tough setting to have discussions. I just wanted to point out the difference so that those following along can have a better understanding. Maybe you still disagree with this, if so I'm curioius why? Either way God Bless!!
Whether you are an Anglican, Lutheran or whatever . You guys view faith as an instrumental cause of justification..
Still a cop out. What if you have right humility one day but then pride the next day or next month or next year? then what?
The answer is the same if you have pride as a catholic: you repent. If you say "well you go to confession and absolution", but we say instead that you take your repentant heart to the eucharist and there receive a full renewal of your Baptism.
In other words, if you feel pride in your heart, you gain assurance simply by praying with purpose of amendment, "God have mercy on me a sinner". If you say "well what if you don't know you're feeling pride at the moment", then we--like Roman Catholics--would say that repentance in a general sense for "sins I cannot now remember" suffices, since you can't repent for what you're not aware of in any specific sense.
Very helpful! I always try to understand the scope of salvation beyond just a one time event. Also, the relationship between faith and works. Do you see faith as something God is empowering in us, either by Himself or with our cooperation?
There are so many encouraging scriptures on our expectation of glory. I take it we’re to genuinely expect it, rather than purgatory.
”When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with Him in glory.“
Colossians 3:4 .NKJV
Starting at 17:11 Amen to that! I’m a Confessional Lutheran and my non denominational friends don’t understand that.
You seem so genuine and well-spoken. It is refreshing to hear that.
If I may ask, why is it that you are Anglican and not Catholic?
I appreciate your kind comment :) I cover the reasons in more depth in other videos on this channel, but here's why:
-Im convinced magisterial infallibility is demonstratively wrong
-I think the system of merit is highly problematic, and leaves burdens on conscience Jesus removed utterly and completely for us. The Reformers were right on the effects of union with Christ
-I think Rome's magisterial teaching is internally inconsistent (which is part of the reason I think it's wrong)
-I think transubstantiation demonstrably can be proved to *not* be an essential to the faith delivered by the apostles both from Scripture and tradition
-I think the Roman church's teaching on the power of the sword is highly problematic, as well as her teaching that she can restrict at will things Jesus gave for his people to use (e.g. communion in both kinds, marriage of the clergy)--even if under the category of discipline, that she can "as a discipline" make a law restricting something Christ gave to us, and call people heretics for simply giving to the people what Christ gave (the condemnation of Hus)
-The Roman teaching on marriage and divorce i also think is demonstrably incorrect, although i agree God's ideal is monogamy for life and even that it's sin to remarry after divorce *even* in cases of adultery; I just think it's still a real marriage
And other issues. It all boils down to the fact that I believe the Roman church to be in error and in need of Reform. And thus, I am a Protestant--which is nothing other, as my Anglican predecesors would say, than being a Reformed catholic.
@@anglicanaesthetics It seems the issues you have lie in the hierarchical and authoritative structure within the Catholic Church (i.e. the Papacy and magisterium).
Within the Anglican denomination, is there any overarching authoritative body? Or is denominational authority dispersed to a more local level? Or is it dispersed even further to an individual level? I just noticed in your response that many reasons for not following Catholic teachings began with the qualifier, "I think" or "I'm convinced."
These statements seem very in line with the other Protestant denominations that base all of their theology solely on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. And correct me if I'm wrong, but the Anglican Church utilizes the KJV translation of the 66 book canon of scripture, like all other Protestant denominations.
So let me ask you this, if two non-Catholic Christians disagree on the interpretation of scripture, how do they reconcile who has the correct interpretation? What authority do they appeal to?
@CantStopTheMattWalsh I actually don't have a problem with the hierarchy as such, in that I think episcopal polity should be how the church is structured. But yes, I do have a problem with magisterial infallibility
Not many of us use the KJV actually. Some do, but that's pretty rare.
Now, I do use "I'm convinced", but that's more to invite dialogue as a stylistic choice. So when there are disagreements, we seek to resolve them in the same way Roman Catholics seek to resolve disagreements over the interpretation of magisterial documents. For instance, how do Roman Catholics resolve disagreements over which parts of Vatican II are infallible, or over the status of Amoris Laetitia and such? Through dialogue and discussion. We go to Scripture, and talk through our reasons for holding a particular view, and then put those reasons to the test.
@@anglicanaesthetics But in the Anglican denomination, what is the final authority to decide doctrines and which "reasons" to put to the test in times of disagreement? Similarly, in regards to your Protestant critiques of the Catholic Church, who/what is the final authority that lends those critiques any credence?
@CantStopTheMattWalsh But the problem with that line of objection is that it can be said of just about anything. If two Roman Catholics disagree about x teaching, and the magistrium issues a clarification, you still have to interpret language. So let's say two Roman Catholics disagree about some subsequent clarification; well what's the final authority to decide whose interpretation of that clarification is right? And on it goes
We'd say that Scripture is the final authority. If one says "well who has final authority to decide whose interpretation of Scripture is correct", and I appeal to canons of hermeneutics, and then you say "well who decides which canons to use"--those same questions apply to magisterial clarifications, because all of us have to interpret language.
My question would be: is your understanding that if a person has true faith it wipes away any and all sins?
It wipes away the debt of punishment for all sins completely, yes. True repentant faith, wherever and whenever it exists, is enough to renew one's Baptism entirely.
Maybe a debate with Trent is a better way to answer his question.
My understanding is that his schedule is stacked--we tried setting something up on a different question a bit ago but it fell through
As an Eastern Orthodox, I don't understand the need to know whether or not I'm at any particular moment going to Heaven or Hell. Like, shouldn't I just try my best and pray that God has mercy on me?
But either way it's interesting to see the west thinking these things out.
Would you say faith includes the assurance of the hope Jesus promises for his people?
@@anglicanaesthetics I'd be wary of any "assurance", I would say faith is taking the knowledge and wisdom we have access to in order to trust something is true. I'm really at a point that I take Lewis's "Mere Christianity" a step into Orthodoxy, although I really looked into become Anglican/Episcopalian if not for theological liberalism.
@JordanToJericho I think God's Word isn't actually as hesitant as you are to speak about assurance--which means you can have assurance, brother!
Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of what is hoped for, the assurance of what is not seen.
Or:
1 John 3:19-24 CSB
This is how we will know that we belong to the truth and will reassure our hearts before him [20] whenever our hearts condemn us; for God is greater than our hearts, and he knows all things. [21] Dear friends, if our hearts don't condemn us, we have confidence before God [22] and receive whatever we ask from him because we keep his commands and do what is pleasing in his sight. [23] Now this is his command: that we believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and love one another as he commanded us. [24] The one who keeps his commands remains in him, and he in him. And the way we know that he remains in us is from the Spirit he has given us.
Or
1 John 4:13-16 CSB
This is how we know that we remain in him and he in us: He has given us of his Spirit. [14] And we have seen and we testify that the Father has sent his Son as the world's Savior. [15] Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God-God remains in him and he in God. [16] And we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us.
So here's really good news, and I really want this for you man--you can *know* that you're in Christ! All you have to do is live with repentant faith--purpose to fight your sin and strive ever closer to Jesus, and take the Eucharist with that intention. Through these means, you can really *know* that you belong to Jesus Christ :)
@JordanToJericho Now fair enough with liberal Anglicanism; I'd be pretty mift if that were my only option. But the Provinces comprising GAFCON are orthodox, and available. In North America, find an ACNA parish; we believe the faith once for all delivered!
@@anglicanaesthetics I've looked into the ACNA, I'm a big fan of Rev. Calvin Robinson. I live in Utah, and grew up Mormon but I still live here and I don't have many options unfortunately ACNA not among them. But I use the BCP and practice a lot of Western Rite Orthodox traditions.
The phrase "justified by faith" appears four times in New Testament (Rom. 3:28, 5:1, Gal. 2:16, 3:24). New Testament was written in Greek and the one in Rom. 3:28 is in Greek passive present tense while the rest are in Greek passive aorist tense. Both tenses do NOT indicate once for all justification. If Scripture teaches faith-alone justification, then the Holy Spirit would inspire Paul to write the phrase "justified by faith" in Greek passive perfect tense. Perfect tense in Greek implies the action of the verb, is completed in the past with continuing effect to the present - or justification was completed by faith and the person remains justified ever since.
(the late) Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkins, Charlie Bing are followers of the so called Free Grace (FG) who believe both justification and salvation is by faith alone. While MacArthur, Piper, (the late) Sproul, Washer etc. follow Lordship Salvation (LS) and believe while justification is by faith alone, salvation is NOT by faith that is alone. LS believes true faith will inevitably produce works of obedience and faith and repentance are inseparable. FG, on the other hand, believes works of obedience and repentance are not requirement of salvation; but believers are still accountable for their sins in the form of degrees of rewards in heaven (sort of more sins less reward).
Church Fathers might use the phrase "sola fide" but did they have the same understanding with that of the Reformers? The Reformers taught that through faith alone (sola fide) you get Christ' righteousness imputed on you while ALL your sins (past, present and future) are imputed on Christ. Your sins imputed on Christ means as it were Christ, not you, who committed those sins - therefore God directs His anger and wrath to Christ, not to you.
If you read Eze. 33:14-16 you will note that in order for a wicked person to be back to life, he must (1) turn from sin (repent) AND (2) do what is right and just, known as penance in the Catholic Church. In catholic teaching the latter is meaningless without the former. But in sola fide, if ALL your sins are already imputed on Christ (who was already punished on the cross for those sins), then what Ezekiel. 33:14-16 says become meaningless and are against sola fide.
Those who intentionally sin before being baptized (because they believe those sins will be washed away though Baptism) are abusers of Sacrament of Baptism. If you broke unintentionally the windshield of your neighbour' car before being baptized, it does NOT relieve you from the obligation to repay him.
haha you beat me to this point! I had my comment in the box and got up to do something else for a bit. His response simply falls under the presupposition of his understanding of imputed righteousness, which he admits in the first few mins of the video. This on the other hand is not an excuse to say Trent isn't asking the "right" questions, therefore I don't have to directly answer the question.
"If you broke unintentionally the windshield of your neighbour' car before being baptized, it does NOT relieve you from the obligation to repay him." Did you watch the video? This is exactly Sean's point.
@@TheRoark Yes, I noted that and affirmed that Catholics believe that. This is minor point - the main point is the part I wrote in the beginning.
Another similar example is the action that one must take in the Catholic faith to confess sins. We are not confessing in spirit to another man, yet to God here on earth. We are dealing with an act which aids us in our worldly existence. If your going to train for a race your doing the work but may be assisted by a trainer to assist and help that workout
It's not seeing the positive in the sacrament.
The Roman view of justification is in so much tension with the heart of the gospel that they can only use analogy to argue rather than exegete scripture itself.
That's an assertion that you've done nothing to show or prove.
read Jimmy Akin's "Drama of Salvation". He heavily engages with Scripture and with the Reformers.
Thanks for your man-made interpretation of God's word, but you beg the question as to what makes your opinion more authoritative than any other person's opinion about the Bible. What Protestants fail to recognize is that once they have rejected the authority instituted by Christ in his Church, then they have no authority to demand that other men follow their personal interpretations of the Bible. Yet each Protestant demands exactly that. The Bible is not a matter of correct interpretation since every man can provide some kind of rational justification for his opinion. The question is who has the authority to require that his interpretation be morally obligatory. The rebellion of Luther did not eliminate the papacy; it made millions Popes from every person on Earth.
See my video "refuting Roman Catholic epistemology". I address this argument there.
We don't demand anything. Catholics are the authoritative demanders. You're projecting.
Receiving baptism and immediately dying would still not entail immediate salvation simpliciter.
Would you disagree that Baptism wipes away all temporal debt?
Because if so, The Council of Florence (which the Catholic Catecheim cites) says otherwise:
"The effect of this sacrament is the remission of all original and actual guilt, also of all penalty that is owed for that guilt. Hence no satisfaction for past sins is to be imposed on the baptized, but those who die before they incur any guilt go straight to the kingdom of heaven and the vision of God."
@@anglicanaesthetics Catholics believe strongly that baptism saves. High church Anglicans are very close to Catholics in theology and sacraments, so do Anglicans also believe that baptism saves?
@saintejeannedarc9460 Yup! So do Lutherans though, so it's not just a high Anglican stance.
@@anglicanaesthetics The thief on the cross wasn't baptized.
Once again, you are confusing the perspective of two people who are both witnessing a certain truth. Yet see it differently , but the main points are not lost. Both Peter and Paul argued and debated in such a way similar to how we preach to Jews or how we preach to Gentiles. The main argument gets stuck between the glass half empty and the glass half full.
When you walk through a doorway at what point are you halfway in the middle?
It's a subjective claim.
No Catholic believes that you get to heaven by your good works. It's a process, and being in a state of grace is the objective.
Yes, we are freed of our sins by the blood of Christ, but we are expected to take actions by participating in our salvation. It's like a gift that is given to someone who chooses to accept the gift or not, and then whether or not you actually use the gift or ignore it's function all together. Works without “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.”
I don't think I ever said Catholics believe one gets into heaven by good works.