“he points out that Wright does not see imputation here as being a reckoning to sinners of Christ’s fulfillment of the moral law, but a reckoning of the status of vindication”

This seems like a distinction without a difference. If a judge reckons to a defendant someone else’s fulfillment of the law (he did it so you didn’t have to), then you have been declared innocent. What is the difference between that and a judge reckoning to a defendant the status of innocence. True, the previous example gives explanation for why he found you not guilty. Does the Reformed understanding of the gospel rest on having some kind of metaphysical explanation for why we’re justified?

Since I am reading through Wright’s little book on Romans I wondered if you could help me again. As we read Wright and his version of the NPP, what kinds of positive things do we get out of it? Surely it can’t be all negative. Particularly, in what ways have you benefited from his ‘version’ of justification and in what ways is he right?

TK

1) Back to the Future of Justification… the transcript of John Piper’s and Tom Wright’s 10,000 year conversation on the Early 21st Century’s Justification Wars held at the Mt. Everest Retreat Center on New Earth from A.F.P.* Years 325,678 to 325,677.

2) The TR’s and Semi-TR’s Cross-Category Explicatory Guide to N.T . Wright’s Views of All Things Biblical, Theological, Ecclesiastical, and Eschatological, with the latest Special Supplement on British vs. American Theologians (Mis-) Communication Methodological Distinctives.

Tom Kushman
Black Hills of South Dakota

*After Final Parousia