Not that Bishop Tom Wright of Durham, UK is a protestant pope (cf. my last post) but, arguably, he is as bright a theologian as Benedict XVI. Some evangelicals view +Tom with incredible suspicion because of his 'perspective' on Paul which is at variance with Luther's perspective. +Tom's point is that he thinks his perspective is Paul's and that must count for something!
If you have a moment you might be interested in this letter by +Tom commenting on this review of a book on +Tom's approach by noted US preacher and scholar John Piper.
Personally I find it difficult to understand what the fuss is about since Wright and Luther and co seem to be agreed in believing in (a) the necessity of Jesus' death on the cross for our salvation (b) the necessity of faith in Jesus Christ. If it be proposed that +Tom's theology means its more important to be baptised than to have faith I would simply say that those with faith should be baptised, so if we are all faith+baptism then we are all on the same page.
If it be proposed that Paul's actual theology was 'imputation' and false variants are 'impartation' I would say that Paul should have been clearer, and in particular should have used one word rather than the other. The fact that he used neither might mean that (a) there is legitimate room for variance in our understanding of Paul (i.e. between Wright/Luther, Protestantism/Catholicism), and (b) we should not be attacking true brothers and sisters in Christ over the matter with 'imputations' of false teaching being 'imparted'!?!