Horton vs Wright

In reading the debate between John Piper and N.T. Wright on Justification, though thankful for Piper's work, I have been disappointed with aspects of Piper's approach. Piper leans more "New Covenantal" rather than classical covenantal in his approach to the concept of covenant and imputation, which oddly means that there are times that I agree with Wright over Piper, even though I agree with Piper's conclusion and not Wright's.

Michael Horton, however, has taken up the task of critiquing N.T. Wright's view of justification (which denies a covenant of works and imputation) from a classical covenantal perspective. The series is very helpful:
[UPDATE: Get the entire review in one place here]

Part 1: Introduction

Part 2: Unity of the Covenant in justification

Part 3: Justification and God's People

Part 4: Justification and Eschatology & Imputation

Part 5: Justification and Imputation (cont.)

Part 6: Justification and the Works of the Law
 
Part 7: Is Wright Biblical or reading in his Systematics in Paul?

Part 8: Justification and Romans

Part 9: Works of the Law: Soteriology and Ecclesiology

Part 10: Conclusion