N.T. Wright’s Soteriology in Romans – An Evangelical Analysis and Assessment

Abstract

N.T. Wright’s Soteriology in Romans – An Evangelical Analysis and Assessment The aim of this paper is to delineate N. T Wright’s soteriological construction in his commentary to Romans and assess it from a Reformation-evangelical perspective. Wright claims that the dominant concern of Paul in Romans was God’s faithfulness to His original covenant with Israel. Wright consistently applies this “new perspective” to his reading of Romans. Out of this reading Wright articulates a ”new“ soteriology. However, both Wright’s perspective and the resultant soteriology show several problems. His single-perspectival, theological reading of Romans does injustice to the textual meaning of the Bible. In doing so, he commits the same kind of error he points out in the Reformers’ reading of the biblical texts. Wright’s soteriology also re-interprets most soteriological concepts arbitrarily. For example, he interprets “God’s righteousness” as “God’s faithfulness to His covenant.” He interprets “covenant” as “God’s irrevocable promise to Israel.” In this context “Jesus” is dominantly interpreted as a “Jewish Messiah” and“the true Israel.” It is Jesus’ faithful obedience to God’s law that brings salvation. Here, “faith in Jesus” is interpreted as the “faithfulness of Jesus.” Further, human faith is interpreted not as a condition of salvation, but “a badge of salvation” God gives to his people. It is true that faith as human response is also acknowledged by Wright. However, Wright deliberately explains it as a human response to “the Gospel message”and “the faithful God,” instead of faith in the person of Jesus or the blood of Jesus. Wright explains “justification” as God’s declaration of “becoming a member of God’s people.” This declaration of justification or “being in the right” with God is “an anticipation of the final justification.” Thus Wright presents a theory of two justifications. Finally, Wright rejects the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to sinners. Even though the Christians may benefit from Christ’s righteousness at the final judgment, Christ’s righteousness can never be possessed by the believers. As such, Wright’s reading of Romans and his “new-perspective” soteriology from the reading of Romans are clearly different from “old-perspective,” Reformed- evangelical readings and doctrines. It is true that Wright’s detailed explanations and defenses show his efforts to accommodate the essential contents of the “old” doctrines. However, his own, exclusive doctrinal elaboration and his overt rejection of the “old” doctrines make it impossible to harmonize his “new” soteriology with the traditional evangelical soteriology. Our assessment is in basic agreement with John Piper’s critique: Wright’s soteriology is so disfigured that it can no longer be Evangelical or faithful to the message of the Bible.