I think Piper may have misunderstood Wright on this point. It is true that Wright emphasizes the declarative aspect of justification, but that isn’t in denial that justification actually accomplishes something crucial in the ordo salutis. In this article Wright says, “They are declared to be righteous; the verb dikaioo has that declarative force, the sense of something being said which creates a new situation, as when a minister says ‘I pronounce that they are husband and wife’ or when a judge says ‘I declare that the defendant is not guilty’.”

Also, I believe that Piper believes regeneration precedes faith, and that faith is not a human work. As he says in this article, “Man is dead in trespasses and sins. He cannot make himself new, or create new life in himself. He must be born of God. Then, with the new nature of God, he immediately receives Christ [through the gift of faith]. The two acts (regeneration and faith) are so closely connected that in experience we cannot distinguish them. God begets us anew and the first glimmer of life in the new-born child is faith.”

You seem to disagree with Piper that Paul uses justification univocally, but does not Wright do the same thing albeit with a different definition of justification? I think I pretty much agree with Wright, but I wanted to get your thoughts on this.

And the confusion comes from a mix of translation (does the Greek word mean faith or faithfulness) and at least 500 years of arguments about that and related matters.