It's a tough one.
The issue of "final justification" -- a NPP way of referring to the "Last Judgment" -- is varied when we get to it.
I'm even attracted to the "evidentiary" argument when it comes to the "Last Judgment". I think that's pretty-much what Matthew 25 has to mean.
But to line this up with statements by Paul, say in Romans 3:21-30, saying we will be (future) justified by faith, that's normally the issue involved. Yes, it is a different conception of justification; yes, works are evidentiary; it seems works actually bring us praise from God's Throne. Whether it has to be evidentiary and not simply as an occasion for the Kingly Throne's showering of reward, I'm not prepared to say.
I talked about this aspect of the New Perspective with some theologians about a decade ago, and their problem with the NPP is indeed not particularly the issue they would need to have with Wilson.
On the other hand, I think there're some other issues with Wilson's theology that are problematic. I've mentioned before that his book, "Standing on the Promises", generally treats wisdom as a covenant promise -- and thus doesn't treat it properly, as wisdom is not a promise. I actually wish this book had not made such a serious issue of the covenant promise, because I appreciate the thrust of the book otherwise. I'm kind of left asking, Is there a book like Wilson's but without all the promises?
Wilson's awfully specific here, and getting more specific would be something of a challenge to support the justification-by-faith-alone view using Scripture. That is, taking Matthew 25 as an evidentiary situation; taking James 2 as an evidentiary situation; is there something in Scripture that prevents it from being so? Wilson's response that works do not contribute to justification but merely support it, that to me is quite a distinction versus, say, Wright in his later book, "Paul".
There's also some question whether we can really make the "associative" leap that the NPP wants to make, using the term "final justification" to merge it back in with "present justification". The basis seems to be to attempt to re-unify all the uses of "justification", but it seems pretty apparent to me that there are two kinds of judgment: one works, the other faith. Melding those two judgments in certain ways doesn't sit well with Paul. Judgment by works is deadly to corrupt creatures. It's kind of a given, then, that there are sharply different judgments -- which in Greek is equivalent with "justifications".
