But what you are doing is maintaining your definition of "justification" and applying it to Wright's words as if he means the same thing. Thus he would be saying something heretical, perhaps. But even he would say that justification as a judicial announcement comes from a judge, in this case God. Is that too heretical?
And let's be honest... if you major contention is "a new teaching" when Wright is arguing the rediscovery of an old teaching, then your point is not only anti-reformational (sola tradition not sola scriptura) but self defeating b/c Luther's thoughts on justification were new at that time as well. Though you would probably argue that he was rediscovering them, so would Wright.
The difference is, Luther was culturally coming out of a world where God's righteousness could be merited by adherence to the Law. So Luther was more inclined to come away with the interpretation he did. Paul, as history is bearing out, did not deal with that as much as we have been taught (much of it based on Luther's understanding). So if you argue historically, your contention still fails.
He is saying something heretical, there is no perhaps to it. Secondly I am not applying my interpretation of justification and applying it to Wrights words. You're applying a strawman against me here as an convenient excuse.
Biblically, in Christ, alone, we are eternally, supernaturally and instantaneously justified. He says no, we are justified by what we do finally, while attempting to maintain that Christ did it...too. Sound familair? That's false teaching. As Paul says it is either or, not both, as ni Galatians, Php. 3 &c.
So a rediscovery of an old teaching makes it orthodox? Wonder why it didn't remain in the forefront?
Context of Luther doesn't diminish what he was teaching about justification as being Biblically true. What you are doing is saying that Luthers Gospel was only true contemporaneously, but that now it is antiquated. Truth is always truth, no matter what culture or setting it is in. Yet along comes NPP, and you are embracing this error, which says we've all had it wrong. Yet Luther simply preached the truth of the Gospel and believed in its efficacy and ability to save.
I'd be leary of any new wind of doctrines coming along.
Let’s be clear here:
The Gospel is sufficient alone to save one for all eternity, it is the power of God unto salvation, Romans 1:16, 1 Corinthians 1:18.
Taking away from the Gospel or adding to the Gospel is to render it another Gospel, and there is no other, Galatians 1:8-10.
To say that we are justified by Christ is a good and truthful thing to say. But what is added to this? In NPP it is that we make our justification final. This is both
adding to and
taking away from the Gospel, in that it makes the Gospel insufficient while at the same time attempting to cling to it being sufficient on its own. Either it is or it is not, it cannot be both. This is no different than what the Judaizers did with the Gospel. All false teachings couple truth with error, and in NPP the Gospel is rendered insufficient and incomplete in the ways I've just described. If you want to believe that, that's up to you. I, as many others who are scholars reject this false teaching as another Gospel. Certainly there is an 'intellectual' note that comes with this, and makes it attractive to some, but to be blunt the NPP Gospel is false.
Again, it is what a person does with, and how far and to what extent the person applies the Gospel that makes the person a foe or an ally in this ministry. NPP is no ally in the truth of the Gospel. The NPP Gospel is incomplete, as it takes away from and adds to it, and makes the Gospel insufficient for salvation on its own.
