Waters on Wright

Guy Waters has offered his critique of N.T. Wright’s new book Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision. I like how Wright describes present justification, although I disagree with how he understands righteousness, as the believer sharing in Christ’s vindication by union with the resurrected Christ through faith. Christ represented everyone who believes in him on the cross dying their death in their place. God vindicates him by raising him from the grave, declaring Christ to be righteous–more specifically the Righteous One (I am more and more convinced that imputation is the systematic reality that explains how the exegetical reality of “in Christ” justifies; imputation is not how Paul speaks of justification, union is, imputation clarifies how union works). I think this paragraph by Guy Waters really shows where Wright’s theology becomes inconsistent with itself,

Wright’s articulation of present and future justification in Justification amplifies but does not modify his earlier statements and formulations. For Wright, justification is both a forensic and a transformational grace. The merits or righteousness of Christ are not imputed to the believer. The believer is united to Jesus Christ in his death and his resurrection and shares in the status of Jesus’ vindication. The believer’s sins are therefore forgiven. Indwelt by the Spirit of Christ, he has a new relationship with sin and righteousness, and is inwardly and progressively transformed. The verdict pronounced at the last day will be grounded upon the transformational work of the Spirit in the life of the believer. For that reason the basis of the verdict of future justification cannot be identified with the basis of the verdict of present justification. This fact raises the question how the two verdicts, in Wright’s understanding, can be the same verdict. If the basis of future justification is one’s works, and these works do not yet exist at the moment of present justification, then how can present justification and future justification be the same verdict? Furthermore, on what basis can one have assurance in the present that he will be justified in the future?

One verdict achieved in two completely opposite manners? That seems a little to out in left field for me. I just wish that those of us in the Reformed tradition would pay a little more attention to Wright. He gives some very true and important critques that show we need to reform our own Reformed doctrines.