Hi, I don't post much, but I do read here a bit. I am in the process of reading NT Wright's book on the resurrection and I do find it interesting. In reading about what others say about Wright, I find there is quite a bit of controversy in his take on Paul and justification and imputation of righteousness. I'm lost. I think my notion of what Christ did for me and everyone else on the cross is stuck perhaps at a high school level (or lower) and these topics are quite over my head. My understanding is that I am a human, and I have sinned, and that a wholly just God who is moral would indeed be logically inconsistent with himself if he did not punish me. I've earned this punishment by my own and there's no way to make it right, no way for me to atone these sins by myself. For this reason, and for the transgressions of all sinners who seek it, Christ gave himself on the cross so that we might be set right with God again. And that's about where my understanding ends and these competing ideas begin, and where it sharply becomes a topic I need some help with. Can anyone identify and simplify the two positions so that I can even understand what it is that is at odds?