39(AH)One of the criminals who were hanged there was hurling abuse at Him, saying, "Are You not the Christ? (AI)Save Yourself and us!"
40But the other answered, and rebuking him said, "Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?
41"And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong."
42And he was saying, "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!"
43And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in (AJ)Paradise." (NASB)
We note here that this man did not get a chance to do any good work, did not get the chance to undo what he had done. In fact this man was even a clear violator of the Law, he admitted his guilt. Lastly, this man did not even get a chance to cooperate with infused grace that manifests in action. This is simply a case of Acts 2:21.
It seems to me, the most offensive part of Justification By Faith Alone is the "ALONE" part. If one does not believe that it is by faith alone, then there must be something added along side faith.
I heard people claiming that this particle "alone" is not even used by ancient Christians in their language, that it was an invention of Luther. So I browsed through my book, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture VI Romans, edifted by Gerald Bray (I have not enough money to buy the entire set, so if there was a volume I had to get, it had to be Romans). On p.100, on Rom 3:28, Origen says this...
It remains for us who are trying to affirm everything the apostle says, and to do so in the proper order, to inquire who is justified by faith alone, apart from works. If an example is required, I think it must suffice to mention the thief on the cross, who asked Christ to save him and was told: "Truly, this day you will be with me in paradise"...A man is justified by faith. The works of the law can make no contribution to this. Where there is no faith which might justify the believer, even if there are works of the law these are not based on the foundation of faith. Even if they are good in themselves they cannot justify the one who does them, because faith is lacking, and faith is the mark of those who are justified by God. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans.
Now, this clearly shows it was not Luther who invented that kind of language. Further, I admit I have not studied all of Origen's doctrine, but let us say that in some portion he amplifies infused grace and righteousness. What can we conclude? Then at least we should conclude that Origen was not consistent with his own self! But surely we can not conclude that the "alone" language was invented by Luther... "alone". History is showing that the claim against Luther's contention is propaganda.