Wright is Wrong on Justification

[Martin Marprelate]

To provide a better context, brother Martin, think of it this way - Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

But perhaps we need to at least read his view before interacting with them. Here is a good summary if the topic and his view (and it's even written so that a blockhead like me can deal with it)

When I posted my post, I made a little bet with myself that someone (and I thought it would be you) would tell me that I need to read this book or that book or another book of Wright before I dare to criticize him.
Wright's output is vast, and life is brief. I have read enough of the man to believe that he is an extremely dangerous false teacher, especially so because he is so plausible. There are plenty of critiques of his teachings available, whether on line or in print, and I don't intend to write another one. Therefore I shall not be reading this book you are recommending, and if that disqualifies me from having an opinion, so be it.

But thanks anyway.

 

[kyredneck]

That means that the Pauline definition of justification by "faith" does not equal "faithfulness."

....And the righteous by his stedfastness liveth. Hab 2:4 YLT (see Paul's quote Gal 3:11)

6 who will render to every man according to his works:
7 to them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life: Ro 2

Blessed in thee shall be all the nations;` so that those of faith are blessed with the faithful Abraham, Gal 3:9

7 Thou art Jehovah the God, who didst choose Abram, and broughtest him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the name of Abraham,
8 and foundest his heart faithful before thee, and madest a covenant with him to give the land of the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Amorite, and the Perizzite, and the Jebusite, and the Girgashite, to give it unto his seed, and hast performed thy words; for thou art righteous. Neh 9

 

[kyredneck]

Paul's view of justification....

....is NOT 'faith alone':

13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified: Ro 2
24 being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Ro 3
1 Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ;
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath of God through him. Ro 5
33 Who shall lay anything to the charge of God`s elect? It is God that justifieth; Ro 8

...neither was it James's view:

24 Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith. Ja 2
(the only place in the scriptures where 'faith alone' is addressed)

 

[Greektim]

When I posted my post, I made a little bet with myself that someone (and I thought it would be you) would tell me that I need to read this book or that book or another book of Wright before I dare to criticize him.
Wright's output is vast, and life is brief. I have read enough of the man to believe that he is an extremely dangerous false teacher, especially so because he is so plausible. There are plenty of critiques of his teachings available, whether on line or in print, and I don't intend to write another one. Therefore I shall not be reading this book you are recommending, and if that disqualifies me from having an opinion, so be it.

But thanks anyway.

This only disqualifies you from having a valid opinion. To be so close minded prevents honest dialogue. So be it. Your welcome.

 

[JonC]

When I posted my post, I made a little bet with myself that someone (and I thought it would be you) would tell me that I need to read this book or that book or another book of Wright before I dare to criticize him.
Wright's output is vast, and life is brief. I have read enough of the man to believe that he is an extremely dangerous false teacher, especially so because he is so plausible. There are plenty of critiques of his teachings available, whether on line or in print, and I don't intend to write another one. Therefore I shall not be reading this book you are recommending, and if that disqualifies me from having an opinion, so be it.

But thanks anyway.

I am not saying this because of N.T. Wright, but for any view espoused by a brother.

We simply cannot evaluate the work or view of another without truly considering the work and view of the other in question. When we try, we are in danger of becoming false witnesses and gossips, bring contention into the Church.

And yes, a lack of genuine familiarity with N.T. Wright's positions does disqualify you from having a legitimate opinion on his positions. It's like anything else, brother Martin, that you may set your mind to. If you want to argue against a doctrine then it is vital to know that doctrine before you put pen to paper.

I am disqualified to talk about several positions and scholars. If I become interested in doing so, then I know that I have to prepare (and prepare honestly, not with the opinions of others) before even forming a dogmatic opinion of my own. But until then, I simply do not offer an opinion.

To add to this, when I was in seminary it was emphasized that we not use secondary sources but head for the original if possible. It is not appropriate to argue a position twice distilled. When we disagree with someone without even taking the time to understand what he is really saying then we are saying more about ourselves than we are about the one whom we reject. It's about integrity.

 

[agedman]

I don't see a problem with Wright's comments even as presented in the OP. Justification is more then mere forgiveness, and there is no salvation without it.

You are correct that "justification is more than mere forgiveness."

That is part of the point that Biblicist is attempting to make (imo). To show that not only does justification include accounting the crime(s) (sins) committed as acquitted, but, in a sense, rewriting history so that they sins appear to not even having occurred - believers are made righteous in the process of justification. The law has no hold nor condemnation it can impose.

Again, it is in contrast to the U.S. court system in which a person may be found not guilty of a crime in the criminal court, yet through civil litigation be liable for damages. Doesn't make sense to me how that works, but it is more often done when a family or person doesn't think they have gotten justice from a criminal proceeding.

What justification does in Romans is show that the crimes were not only forgiven but the iniquity, also. It is as if nothing sinful ever took place. Yet, do not believers have the accuser constantly nipping at the heart, mind, soul, strength?

Remember Paul's statement, "There is, therefore, NO condemnation..."

There certainly is no salvation outside of justification. And the Law cannot justify but only can condemn.

 

[agedman]

I am not saying this because of N.T. Wright, but for any view espoused by a brother.

We simply cannot evaluate the work or view of another without truly considering the work and view of the other in question. When we try, we are in danger of becoming false witnesses and gossips, bring contention into the Church.

This only disqualifies you from having a valid opinion. To be so close minded prevents honest dialogue. So be it. Your welcome.

I am not certain that I can fully agree. One does not have to read every sentence of another to discern the validity of an error, be it from preaching or from a teacher.

To entertain the view that some disqualification occurs because someone hasn't read a specific book, or relies upon the documentation of others, is just incompatible with good discernment.

For example: There is no way to read all that I have written or spoken before someone can comment on whether or not I am loco. Is not this truly a part of the BB culture and even that of the typical higher education?

Besides, authors will change their opinion and emphasis of what they write about over time. So, it is good to have outside resources available to document the general position an author takes and if that position has changed. Did not the OP provide such documentation?

What is important is to make certain the documentation used is from first hand sources. The OP did.

For example: When a student would turn into me a work in which they quoted someone who quoted someone else, then I want to see that the student has done due diligence to look into the account from the original source or as close to the original source as possible.

Not long ago, Darby was being charged as a heretic, and his teaching as heretical on the BB. So, I spent a great deal of time searching and reading what the man wrote. I also made more than one plea to the BB for aid in pointing out the errors from his actual writing.

I showed how that Spurgeon actually misspoke about an issue because he relied upon what a good friend had said and not the actual words of Darby. That, in effect, on the matter in which Spurgeon published disagreement, he and Darby were actually of the same view.

So, first hand information is good, it is vital, and when it is quoted (as was done in the OP) then one must show either the quote was out of context, or the quote is being misread to oppose one who is using the quote. Other than that, the view published by the quote is the focus and not the poster of the quote.

To suggest that the quote is a misquote because one hasn't read enough of the voluminous works a person publishes is weak opinionated thinking at best.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

And yes, a lack of genuine familiarity with N.T. Wright's positions does disqualify you from having a legitimate opinion on his positions. It's like anything else, brother Martin, that you may set your mind to. If you want to argue against a doctrine then it is vital to know that doctrine before you put pen to paper.

'And furthermore, my son, be admonished by these. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is wearisome to the flesh' (Eccl. 12:12).
I have read two books by Wright. That is sufficient for me to decide that I don't want to read any more. I would sooner read something helpful and wholesome.

 

[JonC]

I am not certain that I can fully agree. One does not have to read every sentence of another to discern the validity of an error, be it from preaching or from a teacher.

To entertain the view that some disqualification occurs because someone hasn't read a specific book, or relies upon the documentation of others, is just incompatible with good discernment.

For example: There is no way to read all that I have written or spoken before someone can comment on whether or not I am loco. Is not this truly a part of the BB culture and even that of the typical higher education?

Besides, authors will change their opinion and emphasis of what they write about over time. So, it is good to have outside resources available to document the general position an author takes and if that position has changed. Did not the OP provide such documentation?

What is important is to make certain the documentation used is from first hand sources. The OP did.

For example: When a student would turn into me a work in which they quoted someone who quoted someone else, then I want to see that the student has done due diligence to look into the account from the original source or as close to the original source as possible.

Not long ago, Darby was being charged as a heretic, and his teaching as heretical on the BB. So, I spent a great deal of time searching and reading what the man wrote. I also made more than one plea to the BB for aid in pointing out the errors from his actual writing.

I showed how that Spurgeon actually misspoke about an issue because he relied upon what a good friend had said and not the actual words of Darby. That, in effect, on the matter in which Spurgeon published disagreement, he and Darby were actually of the same view.

So, first hand information is good, it is vital, and when it is quoted (as was done in the OP) then one must show either the quote was out of context, or the quote is being misread to oppose one who is using the quote. Other than that, the view published by the quote is the focus and not the poster of the quote.

To suggest that the quote is a misquote because one hasn't read enough of the voluminous works a person publishes is weak opinionated thinking at best.

I'm not saying that we need to stick with Wright's own words, but we do need to rely on his words to understand his view. Imagine if we were to seriously look at Wright's view and no one in the debate even knew what Wright believed. Instead each chose the opinion of someone they liked and argued that position. We would be debating second hand opinions and never getting to the matter at hand.

I think that you have a good point that we can integrate the opinions of others and provide references for those opinions. I rely on commentators also. But not without first forming my own conclusions (this applies to scripture as well). Wright's first hand explanation is readily available. There is no reason to guess or use second hand information in deciding what he is saying. What I have found is that most who engage his words without actually considering his words misrepresent his words. And there is no reason for it except that people want something about which to gossip.

 

[JonC]

'And furthermore, my son, be admonished by these. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is wearisome to the flesh' (Eccl. 12:12).
I have read two books by Wright. That is sufficient for me to decide that I don't want to read any more. I would sooner read something helpful and wholesome.

That's fine, brother. I do not want to come off suggesting that you should read NT Wright's book. (Or Joel Beeke, John Piper, Billy Graham, John Wesley, .... you name it). I recommend Wright. But, to use an often used comparison, I also recommend C.S. Lewis. I'm not suggesting either as presenting a doctrine just to accept, but I have learned from both.

Just as an example of my previous argument:

I could argue that Joel Beeke has left the foundations of traditional Reformed theology and is forwarding a much broader orthodoxy with a watered-down approach to doctrine. There are enough opinions and interpretations of what he has said and done to defend that position. But having read Beeke (to include his apology for those NCFIC comments) I believe those opinions to misrepresent Joel Beeke. If I only knew a little of Beeke's beliefs, and never really considered what he taught of those issues but instead took the opinions of those who seek to discredit him as objective truth...would I be guilty of misrepresentation and gossip - even if I believed those opinions to be true?

 

[The Biblicist]

I checked, and as I suspected, you misrepresented and misunderstand Wright's statement. You even misquoted him!!! This kind of false representation is in the same vein as Gail Riplinger's attempts to smear in her terrible books. I would encourage you to be more judicious in your quoting and understanding of Wright.

Now here is the entire quote in context from "Justification: The Biblical Basis and its Relevance for Contemporary Evangelicalism" (accessed:http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Justification_Biblical_Basis.pdf)

I am not aware that I had misquoted him. At first, I didn't think I could cut and paste from his article, and so I went back and forth taking short bites at a time. If I misquoted him it was a sincere mistake. Later, I saw that I could cut and paste.

As I thought, this isn't about Romans 4, but it began with Romans 2 and mainly 3.

It is precisely to do with Romans 3:21 and 3:29:

If this is not so, the question of 3:29 ('Is God the God of the Jews only?') is a total non sequitur. 'Works' are done not to earn privilege but to demonstrate it: they are the attempt to confine grace to one race. But the Gospel presents Israel with the knowledge that all alike have sinned, 47 and with the fact of a crucified Messiah, who spells death to nationalistic pride. The Gospel is revealed 'apart from the [Jewish] law' (3:21), since only so could it benefit both Gentiles (who do not possess the law) and Jews (who stand convicted by it).http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Justification_Biblical_Basis.pdf "Romans"

Wright is dealing with "works" precisely where Paul introduces the contrast between "works" and "faith" with regard to justification which is carried over to Romans 4. I think you are nit picking instead of rightly understanding Wright as his statement here has full intention for "works" in Romans 4 as it does in Romans 3:29 as Wright nowhere in his writings that I am aware argues that his own understanding of "works" differs in Romans 3:24-31 than in Romans 4. So I don't believe I am taking him out of context at all as his definition in Romans 3:29 is his definition in Romans 4 unless you can supply a quotation from Wright where he argues "works" in Romans 3 is different than "works" in Romans 4. I have read enough of his writings on this subject to know it is not different. Below I will quote from Wright's stated veiws about "works" in Romans 4 and prove my point.

Second, he clearly admits "justification by faith". However, his understanding of justification as it pertains to those in the Judaizer camp is that Jews access the promises of Abraham through their physical decent. Thus they boast in their ethnic heritage. Therefore, the works they perform are not a means of attaining their status as the people of God but of demonstrating their status. This is not what Wright believes but explaining what many Jews of Paul's day believed!

You are wrong here! This is precisely what Wright believes as he says:

This reading of Romans 4 suggests that the discussion of “works,” “reward,” “debt,” and so forth in w. 3-4 functions as a metaphor within the wider categories of “works of Torah” (i.e., badges of Jewish ethnic covenant membership). Rom 4:3-8 is sometimes cited as evidence that Paul did after all occasionally write as though he agreed with Martin Luther, as though (that is) the real issue he faced was the possibility of people trying to “earn” justification by “good works,” by successful moral effort. The (“for”) at the start of v. 2 suggests otherwise. The “justification by works” of which v. 2 speaks is clearly an explanation of something in v. 1; and v. 1, as we saw, raised the question not whether or not Abraham was a good moralist but whether those who are in Christ have become Abraham’s family according to the flesh. I suggest, therefore, that the metaphor of “earning” by “working,” which Paul exploits in w. 3-8, is secondary, occurring to Paul’s mind not because he is thinking about the propriety or otherwise of moral effort, but because he has been speaking of “works” in connection with “works of Torah” in the sense already outlined, and now sees a way of ramming the point home. http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Romans_Theology_Paul.pdf

He insists that "'earning' by 'working'....is secondary" in Paul's mind in Romans 4:1-8 where as the "works of Torah" are primary in Paul's mind. However, he fails to understand that Paul has introduced both together in Romans 2:9-15 as being one in purpose and that is to define moral righteousness and the basis for judgment. Thus becoming a Jew by "works of torah" simply means becoming morally acceptable before God on judgment day just as obeying conscience would have for its aim becoming morally acceptable before God on judgment day. Hence, Paul's definition of "works" is inclusive of whatever standard man may adopt to obtain moral acceptability before God on judgement day. That is why "the law" or PRINCIPLE of faith is contrasted to "works" rather than defined as "faithfulness" to the Law according to Wright! Here is where his synergistic definition between works and faith shows its ugly head.

Please don't respond by saying faith is not alone as that has no bearing on this issue. The issue is justification is WITHOUT FAITH but justification does not occur alone in the believer but is accompanied by regeneration which produces faithfunless by the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit in connection with the inward new man. Justification is not regeneration. Justification is not sanctification, even though justification by faith does not occur in a vacuum without regeneration.

 

[The Biblicist]

PARTICIPANTS IN THE NEW CREATION
The Eucharist is not just about “me and my salvation.” It is a necessity, a part of what enables us to be God’s new creation people. We taste the new creation on our tongues, in our lips, in our mouths, in our bodies, so that we can go out and do the kind of work in the world that helps bring in the kingdom, God’s new creation.

Now, if you are isolated or for some reason can’t partake of the sacraments, I believe God does have ways of making it up to you. But the normal means to equip ourselves for participating in the new creation is the route given in the gospel, which is the physical feeding: the bread and the wine. This Eucharistic theology of new creation rejects the false antithesis between spirituality and action, the view that says the Lord’s Supper is either a piece of sympathetic magic or a bare signpost. - - http://www.reformedworship.org/article/march-2009/nt-wright-word-and-sacraments-eucharist

Therefore, says Paul, the spectacular Good Friday and Easter at the heart of the Christian story—Jesus’ dying and rising—happened to us in baptism. Paul doesn’t hold back here: he doesn’t hedge and say “as if.” He simply says, You died with Christ in baptism and you were raised with him through the waters into the new life of belonging to Jesus. - http://www.reformedworship.org/article/december-2008/n-t-wright-word-and-sacraments-baptism

Like the typical Catholic Priest, Wright argues that the sacraments are not isolated from the gospel or repentance and faith, but the bottom line is still the same - you partake of the NEW CREATION LIFE by partaking of the ordinances.

Paul repudiates this view in Romans 4:9-11 showing that sacraments or outward divine ordinances have NO ACTUAL RELATIONSHIP to obtaining justification or regenerative life - new creation life.

Wright is a very brilliant man who works hard to present a very consistent systematic theology. His view of justification is consistent with his view of sacramental salvation because he defines faith to be faithfulness and thus merges justification with sanctification.

Justifying faith is not faithfulness. The difference is between cause and affect. Justifying faith is precisely defined by Paul in Romans 4:16-21 to EXCLUDE all personal efforts. With regard to personal efforts Abraham and Sarah were "DEAD"! Justifying faith is believing in God's promise to obtain what YOU CANNOT obtain by personal efforts.Justifying faith is faith in Christ to obtain what you cannot obtain - righteousness before God by imputed righteousness found in the Person and work of Christ alone AND non-imputation of sin.

Again, this is not an issue about faith being alone, but justification by faith without works being a SEPARATE work from regeneration, even though both are inseparable in initial salvation.

 

[The Biblicist]

....is NOT 'faith alone':

13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified: Ro 2
24 being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Ro 3
1 Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ;
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath of God through him. Ro 5
33 Who shall lay anything to the charge of God`s elect? It is God that justifieth; Ro 8



...neither was it James's view:

24 Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith. Ja 2
(the only place in the scriptures where 'faith alone' is addressed)

I am not arguing that justification by faith occurs alone without regeneration which is the source of (not the power of) good works (see Eph. 2:10). Faithfulness is part of sanctification which has its roots in regeneration NOT justification. Justification is by faith WITHOUT WORKS because it is faith IN Christ's faithfulness which secures the full satisfaction of the Law of God in your behalf.

The "faithfulness" of Abraham did not justify him before God. His faithfulness was the product of God's grace in regeneration not his grounds for justification (Rom. 4:9-11; 16-21).

 

[The Biblicist]

CLARITY and SIMPLICITY

A sign of a good teacher is that they can present difficult issues with clarity and simplicity. A sign of a real good deceiver is that their teaching is vague and unclear.

Dr. W.T. Wright is a very well educated man and has been teaching for years and there is no reason for his teachings to be unclear and ambiguous unless it is by design to deceive evangelicals into embracing a doctrine he knows that if he was to say it in clear terms they would reject.

He is trying to present a view of justification that is consistent with his view of sacramentalism. Once you bite into his view of justification it will lead you to his view of sacramentalism. His view of justification by faith is very simple, his view is justification is the union between Christ's faitfhulness and the elect's faithfulness and therefore justification by faithfulness.

That is not the Biblical view, and that is not Paul's view. Paul's view of justification by faith, is NOT justification by faithfulness. Faith does not equal faithfulness. Faithfulness is a consequence of faith not a synonym of faith.

Please do not come back with the lame argument that justification by faith without works does not mean faith is alone. Indeed, that argument is really the problem as it fails to distinguish between regeneration and justification. Justification does not occur in a vacuum and it does not occur without regeneration and that is precisely Paul's argument in Romans 6-8. However, regeneration is not justification. Regeneration is the source of righteous inclinations when empowered by the indwelling Spirit result in FAITHFULNESS or good works (Eph. 2:10), but justification is not regeneration and justification by faith is WITHOUT works.

 

[kyredneck]

Justification is by faith WITHOUT WORKS because it is faith IN Christ's faithfulness which secures the full satisfaction of the Law of God in your behalf.

I hold that faith in Christ IS a work, and this is where the line becomes blurred, the 'synergism' of faith and works you speak of occurs. It's not as complicated as you present it. All that's needed is to rightly divide:

....the doers of the law shall be justified Ro 2:13 - Works that come naturally from the regenerate heart.

....by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified... Ro 3:20 - Works performed intentionally to earn favor.

 

[The Biblicist]

I hold that faith in Christ IS a work,

Certainly it is a work, but NOT your work, it is the work of the Holy Spirit and therefore of "grace" (Rom. 4:16) which by its very nature is exclusive of YOUR works (Rom. 11:6). Faith is a "gift" of God inclusive of the whole periphrastic construct (perfect tense verb with present tense verb) - Eph. 2:8. That means it is part of the CREATIVE work of God (Eph. 2:10) completed at the point of quickening (Eph. 2:1,5,8,10) as that is precisely what Paul is speaking about when he says "saved by grace" as previously just defined by Paul in verse 5.

and this is where the line becomes blurred, the 'synergism' of faith and works you speak of occurs. It's not as complicated as you present it. All that's needed is to rightly divide:

....the doers of the law shall be justified Ro 2:13 - Works that come naturally from the regenerate heart.

....by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified... Ro 3:20 - Works performed intentionally to earn favor.

This is like mixing ice and fire - they do not mix. Rom. 2:13 is in a context of HYPOCRTICAL SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS that believes through works they will escape the judgment of God (v. 3-5). In Romans 2:6-15 Paul simply sets forth the OBJECTIVE criteria that characterizes God's judgement according to the Law and conscience with Christ's life being the ultimate standard of both (v. 16) as declared in the gospel. There are no "doers of the law" because to violate one point is to violate EVERY POINT and transgression of the law makes you a law breaker not a law keeper and "all" have sinned. You are mixing sanctification with justification and calling it justification by faith.

 

[kyredneck]

There are no "doers of the law"...

8 Owe no man anything, save to love one another: for he that loveth his neighbor hath fulfilled the law.
9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not covet, and if there be any other commandment, it is summed up in this word, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: love therefore is the fulfilment of the law. Ro 13

12 All things therefore whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do ye also unto them: for this is the law and the prophets. Mt 7

Agape Bib, agape from the circumcised heart with the law written upon it, charity, love, the essence of our religion, is 'doing the law'.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Like the typical Catholic Priest, Wright argues that the sacraments are not isolated from the gospel or repentance and faith, but the bottom line is still the same - you partake of the NEW CREATION LIFE by partaking of the ordinances.

Yep! Wright's aim is to devise a via media between Protestant and Roman Catholic theology. I think he has admitted this somewhere, but whether he has or not, the fact is rather obvious. But it can't be done, except at the expense of the truth. 'Dead flies putrefy the perfumers ointment and cause it to give off a foul odour' (Ecclesiastes 10:1).

Thank you, Biblicist, for your hard work on this important subject. However, you may expect to be told that if you read another book or two (or three or four) by Wright, you would understand him better.

 

[kyredneck]

I think he has admitted this somewhere

....would be good if you could produce that.

 

[Greektim]

I
He insists that "'earning' by 'working'....is secondary" in Paul's mind in Romans 4:1-8 where as the "works of Torah" are primary in Paul's mind. However, he fails to understand that Paul has introduced both together in Romans 2:9-15 as being one in purpose and that is to define moral righteousness and the basis for judgment. Thus becoming a Jew by "works of torah" simply means becoming morally acceptable before God on judgment day just as obeying conscience would have for its aim becoming morally acceptable before God on judgment day. Hence, Paul's definition of "works" is inclusive of whatever standard man may adopt to obtain moral acceptability before God on judgement day. That is why "the law" or PRINCIPLE of faith is contrasted to "works" rather than defined as "faithfulness" to the Law according to Wright! Here is where his synergistic definition between works and faith shows its ugly head.

I think I see where the confusion is happening. I'm not sure you understand what Wright believes Paul to mean by "works of Torah". You think it means "becoming morally acceptable before God on judgment day just as obeying conscience would have for its aim becoming morally acceptable before God on judgment day" or legalism. This is not what Wright believes it to mean. So anytime you accuse Wright, it is an undue criticism.

So much of Wright's thinking is governed by his study of 2nd temple Judaism. His assessment is that they were not so much legalists but nomists. Though it is oversimplistic, you might differentiate the 2 as keeping Torah is not a means to "get in" (legalism) but rather to "stay in" or be Jewish (nomism). Wright believes that Paul sees the fatal flaw of Judaism is that they found confidence in their ethnic flesh and even worse turned their noses to the Gentiles, something totally against the Arbahamic covenant. Law keeping for Jews was a badge of honor saying, "This is how Jewish I am!" This is the problem Wright believes Paul is addressing. That Jews and now Jewish Christians with the same Old Covenant mindset (like the Pharisees in Acts 15) want to force Gentiles Christians into the same nomistic mindset of law-keeping in order to keep covenant status as the people of God.

And there is the idea that "faith of Christ" refers not to our faith in Christ but rather Christ's faithfulness in his cross-work. But that is a debate I don't care to get into right now.