Where in Christ teachings do we find...?

[EarlyActs]

Groan (this just ain't my day.)

Meaning what?

 

[prism]

Meaning what?

In the OP you'll read,,,
"Where, in the teachings of (The four Gospel accounts) of Christ do we find Him teaching on the imputed righteousness for a believer?
Or is this strictly Pauline? (Examples would help.)
I was hoping your insights would be in line with the OP.

 

[Ladodgers6]

Where, in the teachings of Christ do we find Him teaching on the imputed righteousness for a believer?
Or is this strictly Pauline? (Examples would help.)

Indirectly I find...

Matthew 5:20 BSB
For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

But I suppose there is no direct teaching from Jesus?

While the term "imputed righteousness" is primarily a theological concept developed within Protestant traditions, particularly Reformed theology, the idea of Jesus' righteousness being credited to believers is rooted in biblical teachings, including those of Jesus. Jesus' life, death, and resurrection are understood to provide the basis for a sinner's right standing before God. This is not a direct teaching of Jesus using the specific phrase "imputed righteousness," but rather an interpretation of his work and its implications for salvation.​

If you are looking for the exact words, "Imputed Righteousness", Christ does not use these exact words. Just like Christ doesn't use the exact word "Trinity".

But here you bring up this passage Matt 5:20. Why do you think Jesus said this? Another passage I can think of is where the Rich Young Ruler.

16 And behold, a man came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” 17 And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” 18 He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, 19 Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 20 The young man said to him, “All these I have kept. What do I still lack?” 21 Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” 22 When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
​

So, again Christ's brings up perfect righteousness. Now tell me who of us sinners possess perfect righteousness to have eternal life?

Why does Christ say, he came not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it? The whole concept of imputed righteousness is found in Christ's teachings. No one will enter heaven without perfect righteousness, and if so, how can we enter? Think about it and search the Scriptures.​

 

[Eleanor]

I'm sorry for not making myself clear when I said the teachings of Jesus, I meant the gospel accounts, not Acts. Besides, I still do not see imputation in Acts chapter 9.

You have Jesus declaring that the teaching of the apostles (Ro 5:18-19, Ro 1:17, 3:21, 4:5, Php 3:9)) is the teaching of Jesus (Lk 10:16).

It's up to you to believe Jesus or not.

 

[Eleanor]

Since Jesus commanded Paul to continue speaking (see post #3) and Paul's message encompassed imputed righteousness then isn't
what Paul taught have the approval of Jesus?

Yep. . .not only approval, but is what Jesus taught Lk 10:16.

 

[Eleanor]

I meant 'selected by' Peter.

And Ac 9?

 

[Eleanor]

The same Holy Spirit that inspired the Old Testament also inspired the gospels. It may be imputation in Isaiah 53, but it is not the gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John that I was looking for.
I probably made a mistake in the OP by not clearly stating Jesus' teachings in the Gospels rather than just Jesus' teachings.
Sorry.

The distinction meaning what in terms of veracity and authority?

 

[EarlyActs]

In the OP you'll read,,,
"Where, in the teachings of (The four Gospel accounts) of Christ do we find Him teaching on the imputed righteousness for a believer?
Or is this strictly Pauline? (Examples would help.)
I was hoping your insights would be in line with the OP.

I don't know what you are missing. Just because the word 'imputed' is not there does not mean it is not there. If you don't understand that, you won't see it.

All the related concepts are there and are used in the very sense that Paul goes on to use.

Maybe it helps to realize that there was a 'warning' dimension about the Gospels to that generation of Israel about the coming destruction of the country. This can overshadow things, and the matter of an imputed righteousness would not matter as much about that particular issue.

But the concepts of debt, credit etc are all there; in fact, the parable of the shrewd steward (Luke 16) cannot be about anything else or be understood any other way, AND is also about that generation. He meant that Israel was to be out working as a missionary of the gospel of a credited righteousness (one that 'reduces' a person's 'bill') so that it would 'have eternal friends' after this life. The guy has the power to extend credit to various debtors against reality; humanly speaking, he does not have any credit.

Notice in v16 that they loved money and 'justified themselves'.

Another strong reference is the line about 'by your words you will be condemned; by your words you will be justified.' Insofar as he means by this that you cannot do it by your works, it is spot on. It doesn't mean that your speech is a 'work' that will save you. It means that you must claim Christ as your righteousness.

Some people think that Jn 3 is about being born again, when actually being born again is about the ability to see what the kingdom/reign of God actually is, which was Nic's initial question. The born again/above stuff has been excessively popularized for experientialism and clouds the meaning of v17: God did not send the Son to condemn the world (it already was/is). The opposite of condemn is to justify.

So again, if you are looking only for the term 'imputed', you will not see it in the same way, but it is there. Conversely, Paul did not use it in Ephesians, but it is the premier form of saving grace, and is expressed that way in ch 2. In Col. he did a keen play on the term, in which the annoying Judaizers 'dis-justify' a believer who stands on Christ alone instead of Christ-plus-the practice of the Law. The term uses 'logizo' as a stem, but means that the believer is 'dis-credited' by the Judaizers. 'Logizo' is otherwise translated as 'imputed, reckoned, considered.'

How can you read Mt 3:16 about fulfilling all righteousness and not consider it to be spot on target--that justification by a credited righteousness is intended? You see, the fascinating thing about the NT is that it used the one cryptic line about Abraham; 'he believed and God credited him righteousness.' That was now the throb of the NT, that all who believed were sons like that. Jesus said so in John; and there is 'don't call yourselves sons of Abraham; God can make children of Abraham out of these stones' by John the Baptist.

I have searched through my research years, and I have no found where Judaism had a clue about what the Gen 15 line meant, the 'credited righteousness.' That might be because it only showed in such touchy passages as Dan 9 and Is 53 ('by his ordeal, my servant will justify many.'

I hope this helps. I also know that the NT looks disunified at first. We have to remember that Jesus spent 40 days explaining about 20 key OT passages, which we find expounded in Peters' teachings and in Paul. The term 'wipe away your sins' that Peter used in Acts 2 is from bookkeeping. They used wet clay tablets to do math. When you started over, you used a wood straightedge to wipe away the previous calculation in the wet clay. If Israel repented at that point, it would wipe away the sin of rejecting Christ. That included becoming the missionaries of the new message, and it started well (Acts 5's 5000 men) but ended very badly as Dan 9 said.

So the NT has a 'formidable unity' in the end, --Lewis.

 

[CrowCross]

Ok, I'm both slow and forgetful. Please explain —and best if you include quotes of things I said— that make you think I seem to be having a problem with the fact that, "Our sin has been imputed to Christ and His righteousness imputed to us.", and show how what you quote brings you to that conclusion.

Maybe DM others who know me well, and ask if that is what I have a problem with.

You said....."If I didn't know scripture, I'd get the impression that 2 Cor 5:21 said, ".....Our sin was imputed to Christ and His righteousness has been imputed to us."

In other words because you know scripture you know that 2 Cor 5:21 doesn't express that our sin was imputed to Christ and His righteousness has been imputed to us.

That is how I saw your post. If that isn't what you meant....then what do you mean?

 

[CrowCross]

@CrowCross

Re: @makesends post #37 which was re: your post #4.

That is presented as if the entire thing were a quote from 2 Cor 5:21. It isn't.
2 Cor 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

When you don't differentiate the words of Scripture from your own words of exposition, it confuses your words with those of Scripture. As though the whole thing were a quote from Scripture.

To differentiate, put the scripture portion in quotes, or a different color or italics---some way that makes a distinction between scripture and your words.

Got it? Don't be so quick on the draw.

Considering you had the ability to reply to just the scripture I presented....I think it was pretty obvious concerning what was from the bible and what were my own words.

To be honest I believe you are making a mountain out of a mole hill....something I noticed you typically do and should stop doing.

 

[Hazelelponi]

That is how I saw your post. If that isn't what you meant....then what do you mean?

I think he just meant it as "if he didn't know better he would have read that as an exact word for word quote from the Scripture", rather than your own paraphrasing from memory.

He's asking you to make it more clear when you're quoting from Scripture and making sure to quote correctly and be careful to deliniate between your own words and Scripture so those less familiar with the Scripture are less confused when reading.

 

[prism]

You have Jesus declaring that the teaching of the apostles (Ro 5:18-19, Ro 1:17, 3:21, 4:5, Php 3:9)) is the teaching of Jesus (Lk 10:16).

It's up to you to believe Jesus or not.

I do believe Jesus taught truthfully, but at the time, perhaps ministering to just the Jews...

Matthew 10:6 (KJV) But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
John 1:11 (KJV) He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

 

[prism]

The distinction meaning what in terms of veracity and authority?

Since all of Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit, (same veracity and authority) it struck me as curious as to why Jesus waited until Paul (the 13th apostle?) to have these crucial matters (imputed righteousness & justification) to be spelled out plainly.

 

[CrowCross]

I think he just meant it as "if he didn't know better he would have read that as an exact word for word quote from the Scripture", rather than your own paraphrasing from memory.

He's asking you to make it more clear when you're quoting from Scripture and making sure to quote correctly and be careful to deliniate between your own words and Scripture so those less familiar with the Scripture are less confused when reading.

You people are incredible and argue for the sake od arguing...sheeze...

When I posted the verse this is how I posted it....
2 Cor 5: 21God made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.
.....Our sin was imputed to Christ and His righteousness has been imputed to us.

Notice how it starts with the verse.....2 Cor 5:21....AND...there is a blue link connected to the 21 which shows I got it from bible hub?

You see this all over this forum as well as others....But, if you can't figure it out...then what can I say.

Later on I made a comment about 2 Cor 5:21 and presented my simplified commentary.

Might I suggest you guys stand down and move on or shall we continue to beat this dead horse?

 

[CrowCross]

Since all of Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit, (same veracity and authority) it struck me as curious as to why Jesus waited until Paul (the 13th apostle?) to have these crucial matters (imputed righteousness & justification) to be spelled out plainly.

We could ask that about a lot of scripture....such as...why didn't Jesus present the rapture as clearly as Paul did?

 

[Hazelelponi]

You see this all over this forum as well as others....But, if you can't figure it out...then what can I say.

They asked me to do the same. I have been trying to do better with formatting myself because of it.

I do admit it can be more time consuming but when reading later it can make things easier to read too, and since many people have eye issues it's not a bad consideration to ask

 

[prism]

How can you read Mt 3:16 about fulfilling all righteousness and not consider it to be spot on target--that justification by a credited righteousness is intended?

Me and 1400 years of Church history. I guess I am in good/bad company.

 

[prism]

We could ask that about a lot of scripture....such as...why didn't Jesus present the rapture as clearly as Paul did?

Is that why there is so much debate and uncertainty on the rapture topic?

 

[Arial]

Considering you had the ability to reply to just the scripture I presented....I think it was pretty obvious concerning what was from the bible and what were my own words.

To be honest I believe you are making a mountain out of a mole hill....something I noticed you typically do and should stop doing.

TAKE IT UP WITH @makesends!!! I was just explaining his post.

What so rils you up about someone asking you to make things more clear that you have to go on a rampage like this against me?!!

 

[Eleanor]

You said....."If I didn't know scripture, I'd get the impression that 2 Cor 5:21 said, ".....Our sin was imputed to Christ and His righteousness has been imputed to us."

In other words because you know scripture you know that 2 Cor 5:21 doesn't express that our sin was imputed to Christ and His righteousness has been imputed to us.

That is how I saw your post. If that isn't what you meant....then what do you mean?

It is analagous to, "If I didn't know science, I'd get the impression that physics presents steam as a form of water.