Reading Romans like an Arian?

[arapahoepark]

I stumbled across this which is apparently said by Doug Campbell, who I created an earlier thread on what to know who he is and argues for. Doug Campbell: Do You Read Romans Like An Arian? | Blog | Think Theology

Arianism, as Campbell understands it, is essentially about foundationalism, in contrast to Athanasianism, which is about apocalypticism. By this he means that Arius begins with the foundations we have in human experience and then works upwards to make judgments about the divine nature (hence “foundationalist”), whereas Athanasius urges the impossibility of doing things this way round, and the necessity of starting with revelation from God (hence “apocalyptic”). For Campbell, all mainstream contemporary readings of Romans, and particularly Romans 1-4, are foundationalist, and hence Arian. He thinks they should be apocalyptic, and hence Athanasian.

The contractual-legal reading of Paul in Romans 1-4, which Campbell says characterises almost all modern readings of the text, is basically foundationalist. It begins with the assumption that humans can know God simply by reasoning upwards from creation. Then it thinks in terms of an analogy for God, in this case as wrathful judge, and sees humans as morally free agents who can choose either good or bad, and who receive rewards or punishments accordingly. Judaism, in this reading, is one particularly clear example of the moral contract which man has failed to keep; God is the one who dispenses just punishments in a manner that suspiciously resembles the Constantinian state; and Christianity then comes in as the definitive, second contract between man and God, in which God gives justification in exchange for faith. This contractualism - we give faith, God gives justification - is at the heart of the Arian reading, and emerges (ironically) most clearly with Augustine and his ordo salutis, or what T. F. Torrance calls “the Latin heresy”. The result is that humans are contract-keepers, God is primarily a judge, and the gospel is not good news for anyone unless they (a) hear it and (b) believe it.

In contrast, Campbell proposes an Athanasian reading of Romans. Rather than beginning with natural reason and working upwards to God, he argues that Paul does not envisage anybody being able to relate to God without his prior apocalyptic activity in coming downwards; that is, his revelation of himself through Jesus Christ in the gospel. Athanasianism relies totally on revelation in Christ, and sees God as acting unconditionally and benevolently towards humans while still enslaved and unable to believe: “while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” The atonement, in Romans, is not a penal act which freely choosing moral agents can decide to accept or reject, but an Exodus act which liberates those who could do nothing to help themselves (and hence there is no endorsement in Paul of the imperial iustitia, and the spectre of Constantinianism, that Campbell suspects to be at the root of the judicial-punitive view). God steps down and delivers us in Jesus, and there are no strings of contractual obligation (like faith) attached. Faith is not a condition of salvation, in fact; for Campbell, sola fide is a vulgar Protestant idea, since it is so based on the two contracts, and we should instead think of sola Jesus. We bring nothing to the party, he argues, not even faith. We are delivered solely and entirely by grace.

It seems he is unaware of Reformed theology. The article goes about Campbell who apparently sets up a false dichotomy of penal substitution vs. participation and liberation from sin.
What are your other thoughts of the supposed Athanasian reading put forth here?