It seems that the followers of N.T. Wright continue to suggest that he does not deny the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. Beside the fact that he has made a career out of criticizing the Reformers on their doctrine of justification (specifically in regard to the sufficiency of the imputed righteousness of Christ), it is fair to say that Wright explicitly denies the imputed righteousness of Christ throughout many of his books and lectures. One very clear instance of this is found in his August 2003 Rutherford House lecture “New Perspectives on Paul.” In the course of that lectures Wright asserted:
What Godâ€™s righteousness never becomes, in the Jewish background which Paul is so richly summing up, is an attribute which is passed on to,
reckoned to, or imputed to, his people. Nor does Paul treat it in this way. What we find, rather, is that Paul is constantly (especially in Romans, where all but one of the occurrences of the phrase are found) dealing with the themes which from Isaiah to 4 Ezra cluster together with the question of Godâ€™s righteousness: how is God to be faithful to Israel, to Abraham, to the world? How will the covenant be fulfilled, and who will be discovered to be Godâ€™s covenant people when this happens? …1
Far from misunderstanding Wright, we see from this example that Wright affirms that the Bible does not teach, whether in the Old Testament or the New (at least in Paul) the idea of God imputing or reckoning righteousness to His people.
1. N.T. Wright “New Perspectives on Paul” from the 10th Edinburgh Dogmatics Conference: 25â€“28 August 2003. You can find this lecture here .