The next article in Tabletalk, by Thomas Schreiner, is the best one thus far. Schreiner advances his argument carefully, and does so without yelling “Great is the Diana of Geneva.” Moreover, the argument he advances exposes the glaring problem with Wright’s treatment of imputation. That problem is that Wright treats it as a problem between judge and defendant, and insists that the righteousness of the judge is not imputed to the defendant. Wright correctly points out that justification is a forensic and legal declaration, and he argues that the righteousness of the judge doesn’t float across the courtroom like a gas, in order to settle on the defendant. This is quite true, as far as that goes, but neither do judges arrange to be born of a virgin so that they could become the chief representative of the defendant. But that is exactly what Christ did.
I have argued this point before, but Wright talks as though the Reformed believe that the covenant faithfulness of the Father (the judge’s righteousness) is the same thing as the obedience of Christ (the defendant’s righteousness, when imputed to him). Wright is exactly correct that the righteousness of the Father is not imputed to us. But no one that I know of ever claimed that it was. It is the obedience of Jesus Christ, the new and perfect man, that is credited to all who have faith in Him. When we trust in Him, He is thereby our representative and head, and all that He is and did is credited to my account. Because Christ is the last Adam, imputation is inescapable.
Schreiner did an outstanding job here. Thus far (and I wish I didn’t have to say this), the critics of Wright that I have seen that make the most telling points, and who at the same time give him the fairest shake, tend to be baptists. I will advance a theory about it sometime.