Faith Alone

[Pax]

I will keep posting them as long as you deny that accepting our punishment was part of the redemption. There are other parts as well but this is one part. God promised death for sin and God does not lie. Death there had to be.

…
…

Jesus redemptive work on the cross did not take away “all” punishment. The redemptive work of Jesus saved us from eternal punishment. Temporal punishments for sin can remain. Scripture makes this quite clear in the following passages:

Hebrews 12:4-6
In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. And have you forgotten the exhortation which addresses you as sons?-- “My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor lose courage when you are **punished **by him. For the Lord disciplines him whom he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives.”

Romans 12:16-19
Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly; never be conceited. Repay no one evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends upon you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

Hebrews 10:29-30
How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.”

 

[Pax]

I do not feel that we should expect a reward for good works. Instead, as Jesus says in Luke 17:9-10

I totally disagree that anything we can do merits anything.

This totally against scripture…try the following:

Mat 5:12
Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven,
for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Mat 6:1
"Beware of practicing your piety before others in order to be seen by them; for then you have no reward from your Father in heaven. (same theme through verse 16)

Mat 10: 41-42
Whoever welcomes a prophet in the name of a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward; and whoever welcomes a righteous person in the name of a righteous person will receive the reward of the righteous; and whoever gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones in the name of a disciple-truly I tell you, none of these will lose their reward."

Matt 19: 27-29
Then Peter said in reply, “Look, we have left everything and followed you. What then will we have?”
Jesus said to them, "Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man is seated on the throne of his glory, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold, and will inherit eternal life.

Luke 6: 23
Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, for surely your reward is great in heaven;

Luke 6:35
But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High;

1 Cor 3: 13-15
the work of each builder will become visible, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each has done. If what has been built on the foundation survives, the builder will receive a reward.
If the work is burned up, the builder will suffer loss; the builder will be saved, but only as through fire.

2 Jn 1:8
Be on your guard, so that you do not lose what we have worked for, but may receive a full reward.

Rev 22: 12
"See, I am coming soon; my reward is with me, to repay according to everyone’s work.

 

[davidv]

I’ve read this, and rather than guess which part of this says that “only you can change your heart” (or words to that effect), would you point it out, please?1426 Conversion to Christ, the new birth of Baptism, the gift of the Holy Spirit and the Body and Blood of Christ received as food have made us “holy and without blemish,” just as the Church herself, the Bride of Christ, is “holy and without blemish.” Nevertheless the new life received in Christian initiation has not abolished the frailty and weakness of human nature, nor the inclination to sin that tradition calls concupiscence, which remains in the baptized such that with the help of the grace of Christ they may prove themselves in the struggle of Christian life. This is the struggle of conversion directed toward holiness and eternal life to which the Lord never ceases to call us.

“the weakness…’ sentence indicates to me that despite receiving saving grace we must continue to struggle against the temptation to sin. Since we have free will we can give in to those temptations at any time. So, even though we are sealed as children of God, we can, of our own free will, choose to leave his house (this is what sin does). We must grow in holiness through perseverance to the end. This effort to continually draw on His grace to reject temptations is what I mean as " change our own hearts”.

 

[Good_Fella]

In this instance Paul uses saved in a past and completed sense. He then tells us what we are saved for, which is good works.

This sounds very much like the stumbling block Paul talks about in Romans 9 & 10. Sure you have faith but then you seek to establish your own righteousness based on works. The stumbling block is that we cannot establish our righteousness by anything we do. We must rely entirely on Christ and what He did for us.

When Paul speaks of works in a negative way, he is referring to the works connected with Mosaic Law, such as circumcision. In Romans he warns the Jews that they cannot be saved merely by observing the external reqirements of the law. So Paul is telling the Ephesians that God has invited us into a system of grace as opposed to a system of law where salvation cannot be found. By the merits of Christ’s Passion, we are saved by grace through faith in Christ and not by works of law. Once we enter the system of grace, the good works James speaks of (2, 24) must be added to our newly acquired faith. We are not justified or saved by faith alone. Hence, the works that are done in the system of the Mosaic law cannot save, while the good works performed in the system of grace do save and justify us before God. We are rewarded by our heavenly Father if we initially approach him with faith in Christ and please him by freely acting out of a genuine love and obedience to his will. Our primary concern must be pleasing God and serving the needs of our neighbour. Meanwhile God does not reward us because he is obligated to, but because he is benevolent, just, and merciful.

To fully understand what Paul means by justification we must note the distinction he draws between “law” and “grace”. Yet this grace is not imputed and irresistible for the benefit of one who has been instantaneously declared righteous upon acquiring faith without regard to good works which are inseparable. David was forgiven of his sin because he sincerely repented, not because of the faith he had in God’s mercy that encouraged him to repent. His genuine act of repentance was a sign of his faith and the instrumental cause of his salvation, not its effect. His faith in grace served as the principle cause. Both principle and instrumental causes of salvation operated interactively. Both faith and works save. Our good works done in grace through faith do in themselves save us together with our faith, but we must not rely on these works to save us. Their salvific value are derived from the merits of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[TriuneUnity]

When Paul speaks of works in a negative way, he is referring to the works connected with Mosaic Law, such as circumcision. In Romans he warns the Jews that they cannot be saved merely by observing the external reqirements of the law. So Paul is telling the Ephesians that God has invited us into a system of grace as opposed to a system of law where salvation cannot be found. By the merits of Christ’s Passion, we are saved by grace through faith in Christ and not by works of law. Once we enter the system of grace, the good works James speaks of (2, 24) must be added to our newly acquired faith. We are not justified or saved by faith alone. Hence, the works that are done in the system of the Mosaic law cannot save, while the good works performed in the system of grace do save and justify us before God. We are rewarded by our heavenly Father if we initially approach him with faith in Christ and please him by freely acting out of a genuine love and obedience to his will. Our primary concern must be pleasing God and serving the needs of our neighbour. Meanwhile God does not reward us because he is obligated to, but because he is benevolent, just, and merciful.

Paul is patently NOT talking about ceremonial and civil works of the Mosaic law in Romans. He is talking about the moral law of God. Otherwise, you would have Paul contradicting himself through half of the book. Early in Romans, Paul states “it is not the hearers of the law who will be justified, but the doers of the law.” How does one merely hear about the law of circumcision, or restrictions against eating pork? He is stating that if a man kept the law 100% he would be innocent before God. He is not referencing those things which were given specifically to the nation of Israel. He begins by including Gentiles as being under the condemnation of the law. This wouldn’t be applicable if he is only speaking of those things given to the nation of Israel at Sinai.

He clarifies exactly what law he is referencing in several places in Romans…Rom. 5:13-14: “for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.” Here he specifically states that he is not referring to the Mosaic law because he is saying violations of the law existed before Moses was ever born! Rom. 10:5: “For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them.” The commandments…yes, that would include the 10, also called the moral law of God.

Our righteousness comes not from our moral deeds done for salvation, but rather, the righteousness required to enter the rest of Abraham is freely given to us by God, the righteousness of the God-man himself, not by what is in us, but by what is in Him, through faith… So that we may serve our neighbor in love. All praises be to Him who justifies the ungodly.

 

[Philthy]

I asked, in the context of “salvation through faith alone but not a faith which is alone” and the quotes of the ECFs denying a knowledge of our faith apart from charitable works (agape),
"philthy:

What then, is the significance of the doctrine of faith alone, does it bring assurance of salvation?

And you answered

Yes it does! Because the faith through which God saved the true believer rests completely in the “once for all,” finished work of Someone other than himself. Can’t get more assurance than that!!!

Well you apparently have not understood this issues surrounding this “assurance”. In this thread the Protestants have repeatedly affirmed that “salvation faith” is a faith that is known by its works - by the fruit it bears. This is how the entirety of James 2 has been explained away by them. In addition, several ECFs were quoted to support this view. Those ECFs, in the process of validating that works reveal our faith, go on to say that if works are not produced by the alleged faithful, then that alleged faith should be regarded as non-existent - both by the individual and those who know him. This brings us to the excellent point that Catholic Dude articulated: How many works must be produced to know that one has a saving faith and therefore has the assurance of salvation? The doctrine of Sola Fide simply falls flat. It doesnt address this issue in the slightest. What it does, OTOH, is produce a false sense of security that one knows they have faith apart from works of love and that it is Christ who accomplishes all things (apart from our cooperation with His finished work). That is not assurance, friend, it is self deception.

The rest of your response is more of the same old confusion regarding what the bible says, what the bible means by what it says and what the Catholic Church believes.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Philthy:

Well you apparently have not understood this issues surrounding this “assurance”. In this thread the Protestants have repeatedly affirmed that “salvation faith” is a faith that is known by its works - by the fruit it bears. This is how the entirety of James 2 has been explained away by them. In addition, several ECFs were quoted to support this view. Those ECFs, in the process of validating that works reveal our faith, go on to say that if works are not produced by the alleged faithful, then that alleged faith should be regarded as non-existent - both by the individual and those who know him. This brings us to the excellent point that Catholic Dude articulated: How many works must be produced to know that one has a saving faith and therefore has the assurance of salvation? The doctrine of Sola Fide simply falls flat. It doesnt address this issue in the slightest. What it does, OTOH, is produce a false sense of security that one knows they have faith apart from works of love and that it is Christ who accomplishes all things (apart from our cooperation with His finished work). That is not assurance, friend, it is self deception.

Ha! I must say, this is an excellent critique of the Reformed position on the doctrine of sola fide. You are quite right in saying that the Reformed position simply turns faith into a work. It replaces helping the old lady across the street with believing in God. Ultimately, this kind of view of sola fide is faith in faith, not faith in the promises of God. It breeds no more assurance of salvation than a merit based viewpoint would do. How many works must I perform to know I am justified? How much must I believe in order to know I am justified?

Within Protestantism, this epitomizes the difference between Luther and Calvin’s understanding of the subject. Unfortunately, Calvin’s view is the predominant one within American Protestantism.

Our justification rests on the promises of God given to us in Holy Baptism. Our assurance is the assurance that what God promises, He will give. It doesn’t rely on the state of our belief. We have faith in an object that has been given to us from the outside. For the Reformed Protestant, the major premise is “Whoever believes will be saved” the minor premise is “I believe” the conclusion is “Therefore, I am saved.” The other (and I believe the biblical side) states the major premise “Christ has said ‘I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’” the minor premise is “Christ never lies, but only tells the truth.” The conclusion is “I am baptized (i.e. I have new life in Christ.”

 

[Philthy]

Perhaps I can give an anology, knowing of course that nothing can perfectly reflect the divine reality.

I am a motorist. I am a bad motorist. I compulsively break every rule of the road and traffic law there is. I speed, I don’t yield, I cut people off, I run red lights and stops signs, the whole bit. Then some benefactor tells me of a child who was killed by someone like me. This changes me. I see the wrongness of what I am doing. I want to obey the rules of the road and all the traffic regulations. The benefecator also agrees to pay for every traffic ticket I might have received if I had been caught. Now as long as I think of that little child who was killed I don’t speed, I yield the right of way, I stop for all lights and signs etc. Sometimes I make mistakes. Perhaps I am tired and become impatient and so speed. I realize what I am doing and go back to obeying the rules as I think of the child killed. The benefactor pays any fines I might have been liable for because of these slips as long as I remember the child. The longer I try to obey the rules the less I slip up. If I forget the child, I go back to my old ways, he stops paying.

Now the change from someone who couldn’t keep the traffic rules to someone who wants to obey them is what a Protestant would liken to regeneration. The benefactor paying all possible past fines is justification. Even though I broke all those laws I am no longer liable for any penalties. I am still guilty of them but am treated as if I am not because my benefactor paid. Trying to obey the laws would be like sanctification, even though I occasionally slip up, my penalties are still paid for me. If I forget the child I have lost my faith.

Now, even though I am obeying all the traffic laws and even being a courteous driver, do I expect the government to reward me for this? Of course not I am just doing what I should have been doing all along. However my new habits do shows others that I have changed.

This gives an idea of how I relate faith alone and works.

I think its a pretty good analogy SyCarl. I dont see anything in it contrary to the Catholic faith, and therefore nothing which justifies the Reformation.
Your analogy allows for the “loss of faith” which leads to loss of a benefactor - that would be analogous to disobedience resulting in a loss of salvation. So again it seems pretty Catholic to me. Simply my opinion…

 

[catholic1seeks]

For the Protestant: Wouldn’t our Lord intend the Church to be the universal sacrament of salvation? I’m sure he would want His Church to contain the fullness of truth - especially on this fragile topic of salvation.

*Trust in the Church *- the One, Holy,
Catholic, and Apostolic Church
Jesus instituted it for all men.

:grouphug: UNITY!

 

[catholic1seeks]

I
Well you apparently have not understood this issues surrounding this “assurance”. In this thread the Protestants have repeatedly affirmed that “salvation faith” is a faith that is known by its works - by the fruit it bears. This is how the entirety of James 2 has been explained away by them

That is exactly what I don’t understand!! Why do they say “accept the Lord Jesus Christ as your savior and you are saved” but then they go on to explain James 2 as “you have to have these ‘works’ as ‘fruits’ of faith or else you’ll never know of the ‘saved’(assurance)”

[SIGN]Some Last Words…[/SIGN]
Protestantism is based on human interpretation - alone.
Catholicism is based on human interpretation(Magisterium) with the guide that makes the Church and Pope infallible - the Holy Spirit. Who ya gonna trust?

Click for exhaustive info
on the truth of
Justification.

 

[TriuneUnity]

[SIGN]
Some Last Words…[/SIGN]
Protestantism is based on human interpretation - alone.
Catholicism is based on human interpretation(Magisterium) with the guide that makes the Church and Pope infallible - the Holy Spirit. Who ya gonna trust?

The promises of Jesus in Holy Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I will keep posting them as long as you deny that accepting our punishment was part of the redemption. There are other parts as well but this is one part. God promised death for sin and God does not lie. Death there had to be.

You have often used the example of a mother appeasing the father’s anger against the kids by cooking his favourite dinner. This would suggest that Jesus’ death was something the Father wanted.

It should be remembered that Jesus is God. God did not render our punishment to someone else. He took it onto Himself.

The situation I propose is not one in which punishment was transfered but rather the wrath was appeased by an alternative act. Moses and Phinehas are two strong examples of appeasing God’s wrath without either of them having to take that wrath.

Death was not required in the sense God wanted to see blood, it was required in that God is pleased to see the supreme act of love: going so far as laying down your very life (all you have). Jesus speaking the truth among the Jews made them mad because they didnt want to hear and that is what led to His death. God knew this would happen just as He knew sending every OT Prophet was sending them to the lion’s den of persecution. God’s plan was founded upon mercy, sending Jesus to display the perfect act of love.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Catholic Dude:

Death was not required in the sense God wanted to see blood, it was required in that God is pleased to see the supreme act of love: going so far as laying down your very life (all you have). Jesus speaking the truth among the Jews made them mad because they didnt want to hear and that is what led to His death. God knew this would happen just as He knew sending every OT Prophet was sending them to the lion’s den of persecution. God’s plan was founded upon mercy, sending Jesus to display the perfect act of love.

Rom. 8:2-4: For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

 

[guanophore]

Eternal life in Christ alone.Yes it does!

The problem with this, MD, is that Jesus did not give us eternal life in HImself “alone”. On the contrary, he created HIs Body, and made us members one of another. Furthermore, scripture records that we cannot say we do not need one another. Such a view is not scriptural. There are also the angels and heavenly beings with whom we share that eternal life. “Alone” has no place in it.

Because the faith through which God saved the true believer rests completely in the “once for all,” finished work of Someone other than himself. A perfect, infinite work with eternal results:Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.Can’t get more assurance than that!!! We who have believed have God’s Word on it. And in His Word we rejoice. Works, other than Christ’s finished work, can guarantee nothing (Matt. 7:22:23).

Actually, it is also not tru that works can guarantee nothing. On the contrary, the Apostles teach us that works give witness to our spiritual state, and show that we are growing and useful in the Kingdom. They are a reliable witness to the health of our faith.

And who on this earth is appointed as God’s “fruit tester?” You? Your priest? The present Pope? If your logic was accurate then Paul could not have written:Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, {it is} the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.(1) Alignment with Apostolic teaching: (2) Assurance of salvation - guaranteed totally on the finished work of Another, bestowed as a divine, irrevocable gift (Rom. 11:29): (3) Exceeding joy. :extrahappy:

Are you implying that fruit is not evident or visible for others to see? ARe you suggesting that one cannot evaluate the presence of fruit in one’s life?

God gives gifts. THey are irrevocable because He does not take them back. People can refuse His gift, or throw his gifts away, so that they will not accomplish that for which they were intended.

 

[TriuneUnity]

guanophor:

The problem with this, MD, is that Jesus did not give us eternal life in HImself “alone”. On the contrary, he created HIs Body, and made us members one of another. Furthermore, scripture records that we cannot say we do not need one another. Such a view is not scriptural. There are also the angels and heavenly beings with whom we share that eternal life. “Alone” has no place in it.

I think the person you were quoting meant that the work of Christ alone is the grounds of our salvation. I could be wrong, but just a guess.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I think the person you were quoting meant that the work of Christ alone is the grounds of our salvation. I could be wrong, but just a guess.

TriuneUnity…

I hope your not Catholic only because you have a quote of Luther in your signature - :doh2:

 

[TriuneUnity]

TriuneUnity…

I hope your not Catholic only because you have a quote of Luther in your signature - :doh2:

Not Roman Catholic, no. I still make that sign of the cross you have often, though

 

[guanophore]

And theologically you confound sanctification and justification. This is one of the areas where Catholic theology falls short of Biblical revelation. It always will as long it embraces a works salvation and refuses to accept the power of God to save completely and perfectly through the cross of Christ.

Actually, the confounding occurred at the Reformation.

No Catholic theology is built on “Biblical Revelation”. All of it is built on the Teaching of Jesus through the Apostles. The Bible is a reflection of that revelation, that is why there is nothing in Catholic theology that is contradictory from the Bible. The Theology and the New Testament came from the same single Source of divine revelation.

Catholicism does not teach as “works” salvation. If it seems this way to you, then you do not understand Catholicism, or the Bible (or possibly both).

Catholicism is where the Teaching came from that "the power of God to save completely and perfectly through the cross of Christ. "

It is that Power of Salvation that enables us to become in actuality justified (not just “declared”) and to obey the commandments.

 

[Good_Fella]

Paul is patently NOT talking about ceremonial and civil works of the Mosaic law in Romans. He is talking about the moral law of God. Otherwise, you would have Paul contradicting himself through half of the book. Early in Romans, Paul states “it is not the hearers of the law who will be justified, but the doers of the law.” How does one merely hear about the law of circumcision, or restrictions against eating pork? He is stating that if a man kept the law 100% he would be innocent before God. He is not referencing those things which were given specifically to the nation of Israel. He begins by including Gentiles as being under the condemnation of the law. This wouldn’t be applicable if he is only speaking of those things given to the nation of Israel at Sinai.

He clarifies exactly what law he is referencing in several places in Romans…Rom. 5:13-14: “for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.” Here he specifically states that he is not referring to the Mosaic law because he is saying violations of the law existed before Moses was ever born! Rom. 10:5: “For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them.” The commandments…yes, that would include the 10, also called the moral law of God.

Our righteousness comes not from our moral deeds done for salvation, but rather, the righteousness required to enter the rest of Abraham is freely given to us by God, the righteousness of the God-man himself, not by what is in us, but by what is in Him, through faith… So that we may serve our neighbor in love. All praises be to Him who justifies the ungodly.

In Romans 3:20, 28 and Galatians 2:16, Paul’s expression “works of the law” is ‘ergon nomou’, meaning the Mosaic Law or Torah. These works consist of the moral and legal teachings and the ceremonial practices of the Jews. I never said that Paul’s phrase referred exclusively to ceremonial law. I apologize if I created this misunderstanding by how I expressed myself. At any rate, the Jews still believed that they had to perform their rituals to be saved, a conviction Paul opposed, for the Jews presumed that in their system of law they could obligate God to save them by making him indebted to them, like an employer who owes his employees a just wage (Rom 4:3-4). The apostle argued that these kinds of works ( moral, legal, and ceremonial) could not save them for they were done outside of God’s grace. Now when James speaks of “works” he uses the Greek expression ‘ergois agathois’. Thus the “works of the law” Paul condemns are not the same “works” James mentions. He is talking about the good works we do - genuine works of mercy and charity - in the grace of God through faith in Christ. It is no wonder that Luther was sorely tempted by the devil to throw “Jimmy” into the furnace. The man misinterpreted what Paul meant by works.

Paul does not teach that we are externally clothed by Christ’s personal righteousness. We are ourselves “made” righteous by the merits of Christ’s Passion in the mercy of God. There is a real and genuine ontological change in ourselves with the help of God’s grace (Rom 5:17). In v.19 Paul teaches that as in Adam we are made sinners so in Christ we are made righteous. Thus we are not simply declared righteous as if we were “dung covered by snow”. The contrasting parallel Paul draws between Adam and Jesus clearly shows there is not just a relational change in status but an objective transformtion in our human nature on account of the infusion of God’s grace.

We could not be declared righteous before we even manage to freely and genuinely love in accord with our Lord’s command. It’s appalling to think that the greatest Christian virtue, which according to Paul is love, is merely an unmeritorious demonstration of a true faith that works. Again, if there is no human merit in a sincere and genuine act of love of God and neighbour, there would be no point for Jesus to command us to love, unless he were only concerned with the need for us to demonstrate a lively faith, which is absurd to even imagine. Indeed, Jesus warns us to avoid flaunting our righteousness before others (Mt 6:1). And our Lord assures us that those who “hunger for righteousness” will be satisfied (Mt 5:6). Obviously Jesus desires a genuine transformation of our internal disposition, not a masking of it. Please reflect more on Christ’s Sermon on the Mount. Jesus recognized that one must freely and sincerely love and forgive others by a genuine act of will. By commanding us to love and forgive, our Lord is essentially telling us that our good works (together with our faith in Him) justify us before God. Paul gives the same command (Rom 12:10).

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Philthy]

Actually, the confounding occurred at the Reformation.

No Catholic theology is built on “Biblical Revelation”. All of it is built on the Teaching of Jesus through the Apostles. The Bible is a reflection of that revelation, that is why there is nothing in Catholic theology that is contradictory from the Bible. The Theology and the New Testament came from the same single Source of divine revelation.

Catholicism does not teach as “works” salvation. If it seems this way to you, then you do not understand Catholicism, or the Bible (or possibly both).

Catholicism is where the Teaching came from that "the power of God to save completely and perfectly through the cross of Christ. "

It is that Power of Salvation that enables us to become in actuality justified (not just “declared”) and to obey the commandments.