The writer intends that his readers should find this enormously comforting. What Jesus has done, in dying as a sacrifice for us, to procure the complete forgiveness of sins spoken of in Jeremiah, and to establish God's new covenant with us, is complete. It does not need adding to, let alone repeating. To suggest either of these would be to suggest that there was something incomplete, something left undone which Jesus didn't quite manage to do the first time round. When as Christians we look for assurance that we have truly been forgiven, we don't look - or we shouldn't look - at anything we do, at anything the church does, at anything Christians ministers, clergy, priests of whoever do. We look back to the event outside Jerusalem on that dark Friday afternoon, and thank God for what we accomplished fully and finally on our behalf. - N.T Wright, Hebrews for Everyone page 112 (talking about Heb 10:11-18)
The above quote from N.T Wright seems to me the standard reformed protestant definition of justification. That is, we are saved because of what Jesus did, not because of what we have done. Solus Christus (Christ alone). Out good works do not earn us salvation, they do not make us pleasing in God's sight, we do not rely on them for salvation but rather salvation is a gracious gift from God. Sola gratia (Grace alone). Out faith in the power of Jesus's death for us is what saves us. Not our works or anything else. Sola fide (Faith alone).
John Piper has written a book called The Future of Justification which you can download here (2.2mb pdf). Piper doesn't think N.T Wright has understood justification correctly. I should be fair and say that the only direct thing I have read of N.T. Wrights is his Hebrews for Everyone book and I have to say that I found him quite orthodox and reformed throughout. In Pipers introduction of The Future of Justification on page 15 he says:
My conviction concerning N. T. Wright is not that he is under the curse of Galatians 1:8–9, but that his portrayal of the gospel—and of the doctrine of justification in particular—is so disfigured that it becomes difficult to recognize as biblically faithful. It may be that in his own mind and heart Wright has a clear and firm grasp on the gospel of Christ and the biblical meaning of justification. But in my judgment, what he has written will lead to a kind of preaching that will not announce clearly what makes the lordship of Christ good news for guilty sinners or show those who are overwhelmed with sin how they may stand righteous in the presence of God.
Now I haven't read The Future of Justification so I am not sure how strong Piper's argument about Wright is, but has anyone out there read something by N.T Wright that has him moving away from the quote at the top of this page?