Defending Imputation

N. T. Wright explains why he denies the doctrine of imputed righteousness and Michael Reeves responds:

N. T. Wright:
“If we use the language of the law court, it makes no sense whatever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths or conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom.” – N. T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, pg. 98

Michael Reeves Responds:
“But if Christ takes our sin and we take his righteousness because we are united to him, then all those difficulties melt away. As Calvin would argue: “We do not, therefore, contemplate him (Christ) outside ourselves from afar in order that his righteousness may be imputed to us but because we put on Christ and are engrafted into his body – in short, because he deigns to make us one with him.” – Calvin, Institutes 3.11.10.

If Christ and the believer are made one then the sin-righteousness swap is as unobjectionable as what happens in a marriage when a man and woman become one. It is as if a rich husband were – at his own cost to pay off all his wife’s debts and then share with her his enormous wealth.

Source: What the Reformation Still Matters by Michael Reeves and Tim Chester