An Open Letter on Translating | Page 8

"solum" (alone) in Rom. 3 as the text itself, and St. Paul's meaning, urgently necessitated and demanded it. He is dealing with the main point of Christian doctrine in this passage - namely that we are justified by faith in Christ without any works of the Law. In fact, he rejects all works so completely as to say that the works of the Law, though it is God's law and word, do not aid us in justification. Using Abraham as an example, he argues that Abraham was so justified without works that even the highest work, which had been commanded by God, over and above all others, namely circumcision, did not aid him in justification. Instead, Abraham was justified without circumcision and without any works, but by faith, as he says in

Chapter 4
: "If Abraham is justified by works, he may boast, but not before God." However, when all works are so completely rejected - which must mean faith alone justifies - whoever would speak plainly and clearly about this rejection of works would have to say "Faith alone justifies and not works." The matter itself and the nature of language necessitates it.
"Yet", they say, "it has such an offensive tone that people infer from it that they need not do any good works." Dear, what are we to say? IS it not more offensive for St. Paul himself to not use the term "faith alone" but spell it even more clearly, putting the finishing touches on it by saying "Without the works of the Law?" Gal. 1 [2.16] says that "not by works of the law' (as well as in many other places) for the phrase "without the works of the law" is so ever offensive, and scandalous that no amount of revision can help it. How much more might people learn from "that they need not do any good works", when all they hear is preaching about the works themselves, stated in such a clear strong way: "No works", "without works", "not by works"! If it is not offensive to preach "without works", "not by works"!, "no works", why is it offensive to preach "by faith alone"?
Still more offensive is that St. Paul does not reject just ordinary works, but works of the law! It follows that one could take offense at that all the more and say that the law is condemned and cursed before God and one ought only do what is contrary to the law as it is said in Rom. 3: "Why not do evil so that there might be more good?" which is what that one divisive spirit of our time was doing. Should one reject St. Paul's word because of such `offense' or refrain from speaking freely about faith? Gracious, St. Paul and I want to offend like this for we preach so strongly against works, insisting on faith alone for no other reason than to offend people that they might stumble and fall and learn that they are not saved by good works but only by Christ's death and resurrection. Knowing that they cannot be saved by their good works of the law, how much more will they realize that they shall not be saved by bad works, or without the law! Therefore, it does not follow that because good works do not help, bad works will; just as it does not follow that because the sun cannot help a blind person see, the night and darkness must help him see.
It astounds me that one can be offended by something as obvious as this! Just tell me, is Christ's death and resurrection our work, what we do, or not? It is obviously not our work, nor is it the work of the law. Now it is Christ's death and resurrection alone which saves and frees us from sin, as Paul writes in Rom. 4: "He died for our sin and arose for our righteousness." Tell me more! What is the work by which we take hold of Christ's death and resurrection? It must not be an external work but only the eternal faith in the heart that alone, indeed all alone, which takes hold of this death and resurrection when it is preached through the gospel. Then why all this ranting and raving, this making of heretics and burning of them, when it is clear at its very core, proving that faith alone takes hold of Christ's death and resurrection, without any works, and that his death and resurrection are our life and righteousness? As this fact is so obvious, that faith alone gives, brings, and takes a hold of this life and righteousness - why should we not say so? It is not heretical that faith alone holds on to Christ and gives life; and yet it seems to be