Here is N.T. Wright on the impact of the gospel.
“On this basis, Paul argues in Romans 5-8 that all who believe this gospel are the true, sin-forgiven, people of God, who are thus assured of their future salvation, which will consist in their resurrection as one aspect of the renewal of all of God’s world. In 5:12-21 Paul stands back from the picture he has sketched and says, in effect: there you are — God’s purpose in the covenant was to deal with the sin of Adam. Now, in Christ Jesus, that is exactly what he has done” (What St. Paul Really Said, p. 130).
Now all this, as it stands, is dead on. The problem between Wright and some of his critics (as I see it from here in the cheap seats) is that Wright tends to look at that phrase “deal with the sin of Adam” from about fifty paces off. His critics want to know just how he pushes it into the corners — “say that Smith here is saved on the last day. In what sense can we say that he is individually justified?” Wright undeniably tends to speak about redemption and justification at the historical and cosmic level, leaving those who are accustomed to think about all soteriological questions on a one-at-a-time basis more than a little nervous.
But turning the criticism around, Wright would say of those who emphasize individual justification that they have confused the parts for the whole. They have gotten into every nook, cranny and corner, but have somehow managed to avoid sweeping the main part of the floor. Getting individuals saved (considered only as such) has become the sum and substance of almost all of our evangelistic efforts. But Wright points out the undeniable truth that Jesus died for the world. Further, to his credit Wright expects that salvation to be realized in a way that is fundamentally denied by almost all pietistic evangelicals. “Paul, of course, believed that he was living in the very early days of spring. Almost all the ice and snow still remained to be melted. Looking at the world nearly two thousand years later, one may suggest that we have got no further (in Northern hemisphere terms!) than March at the latest” (WSPRS, p. 183). But in all this, there is an inconsistency, or some sort of operative double standard. Why is the orthodoxy of Wright questioned whenever he sounds muffley on how and why Smith ever gets individually justified (and he does sound muffley, I confess it), but the orthodoxy of those who adamantly deny that China will ever be justified is routinely accepted? The Bible says that Christ is the savior of the world. When we differ about such things, we want to put it under the heading of eschatology. But Wright has been used by God to drag this question back into soteriology, where it belongs.
It is true that Wright is weak on some things where I wish he was strong. But it is equally true that some of his critics are anemic where Wright is strong. So here is my Rodney King, “why-can’t-we-all-get-along?” plea. For the life of me, I do not understand why the cosmic and historical elements of Christ’s obedience on the cross are inconsistent with the staunchest position possible on the need for individual conversion.
The pietistic individualist needs to recognize that the Great Commission commands us to disciple the nations. And when we are painting something this big, we need to use a roller.
Wright, for his part, needs to deal more effectively with the passages in Scripture that deal directly with the question of the Jews who did not accept Christ as the Messiah. These Jews who rejected Christ did so for the same basic reason that Pelagius did. Those who do not know the Father reject Christ. Those who reject Christ do not know the Father. “They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me” (John 16:2-3). Jesus could not have been plainer about the status of Saul the Pharisee. He put people out of the synagogue, persecuting them. He thought he was offering worship to the Father. And why did he think this? Because he did not know the Father. He was an unconverted man.
When we are painting something this big, with this many edges, we need to use the two-inch brush.