The thing I'm confused about is that he seems to affirm what I mean by imputed righteousness. On page 134, Wright writes of Jesus:
2: He has become for us 'righteousness': that is, God vindicated him, like a judge in a lawcourt finding in favour of one who has previously appeared condemned, when he raised him from the dead. God vindicated him as his own son, the Israel-in-person, the Messiah, anticipating at Easter the final vindication of all God's people in their resurrection from the dead. Those who are 'in Christ' share this status, being vindicated already in advance of that final vindication. (In other words, it is not the case that Paul is suggesting here that Jesus Christ has perfectly obeyed the moral law and thus possesses in himself 'moral righteousness' - that would be to change the meaning of the word entirely at this point - which can then be 'credited' to those who are 'in him'. Jesus was not a legalist! That was not why God gave the law in the first place.)
Which sounds almost exactly the same as what I've always meant by imputed righteousness (there are a few differences from my theology there, but not about the meaning of "imputed", but about how Jesus acquired the righteousness we get, and justification's relationship with final judgement.)
However, he later clarifies that this (and three other points he makes in this list:
In othger words: a wonderful summary of a great deal of Paul's theology - but not a ringing endorsement of the Reformed doctrine of 'imputed righteousness.'
My question is this: Who is it that misunderstands the reformed doctrine of imputed righteousness - Wright, or me?
