How does it work?

I've almost finished N.T. Wright's latest book Justification: God's plan and Paul's Vision. For those interested it is his latest on the NPP (New Perspective on Paul) and is a response to John Piper's response to him on the NPP. For everyone else it is all about justification in Paul's teaching and how we become righteous in Christ.

As expected it a great book. Wright is a fantastic writer and handles Scripture very well.

However, it is not so much that I disagree with Wright, more that I often don't get what difference it makes.

For example, when he is critiquing the traditional reformed understanding of imputation - that is that Christ's righteousness is seen as moral 'merit' which is credited to us by faith - he has this to say,

"It is not the 'righteousness' of Jesus Christ which is 'reckoned' to the believer. It is his death and resurrection. That is what Romans 6 is all about." (p 205)

That confuses me. Wright is right (well he would be!) about what the text says. But where does that actually get us? The question Reformed theologians have been wrestling with for the past 500 years is how the believer is counted righteous by the death and resurrection of Jesus.

What does it mean to say that Christ's death and resurrection is reckoned to the believer? Yes, the cross is ultimately a mystery. Certainly, all atonement models should bring with them a healthy helping of humility - we tread on holy ground and shouldn't presume to fully grasp the 'mechanics' of the gospel. And yet (ISTM) the traditional Reformed view is perfectly consistent with Wright's view himself. For most of the book I've sat there nodding, but thinking, "So what?" Surely Wright can only over turn the Old Perspective if he can show that it is inconsistent with the Biblical text.