This bold and provocative study is primarily an exercise in historical correction. It challenges the widely held view that Paul’s idea of justification by faith was largely lost or passed over by second-century Christian writers. Through a close reading of the relevant texts, Arnold rejects this perspective. While he acknowledges the differences between early Christian writers, he argues that in various ways and in multiple forms the notion of justification by faith was propagated and preserved by authors such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Justin. This book will undoubtedly cause a stir due to its clearly articulated challenge to a near-unanimous scholarly view.
Paul Foster Paul Foster
This bold and provocative study is primarily an exercise in historical correction. It challenges the widely held view that Paul’s idea of justification by faith was largely lost or passed over by second-century Christian writers. Through a close reading of the relevant texts, Arnold rejects this perspective. While he acknowledges the differences between early Christian writers, he argues that in various ways and in multiple forms the notion of justification by faith was propagated and preserved by authors such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Justin. This book will undoubtedly cause a stir due to its clearly articulated challenge to a near-unanimous scholarly view.
Paul Foster
This bold and provocative study is primarily an exercise in historical correction. It challenges the widely held view that Paul’s idea of justification by faith was largely lost or passed over by second-century Christian writers. Through a close reading of the relevant texts, Arnold rejects this perspective. While he acknowledges the differences between early Christian writers, he argues that in various ways and in multiple forms the notion of justification by faith was propagated and preserved by authors such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Justin. This book will undoubtedly cause a stir due to its clearly articulated challenge to a near-unanimous scholarly view.