Where in Christ teachings do we find...?

[Fred]

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.

Is the Jesus presented in Acts different from the Jesus presented in the Gospels?

 

[makesends]

"Tapped"by Peter?

Are you familiar with Ac 9?

I'm wondering if he meant to write, "taught", or something.

 

[prism]

I'm wondering if he meant to write, "taught", or something.

I meant 'selected by'

 

[prism]

Is the Jesus presented in Acts different from the Jesus presented in the Gospels?

Of course, it's the same Jesus, but maybe His intentions had changed, selecting Paul to minister the Gospel to the Gentiles.

 

[CrowCross]

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."

Our sin has been imputed to Christ and His righteousness imputed to us.

You seem to be having a problem with that. I don't.

 

[Fred]

Of course, it's the Saint Jesus, but maybe his intentions had changed, selecting Paul to minister the Gospel to the Gentiles

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?

 

[makesends]

Our sin has been imputed to Christ and His righteousness imputed to us.

You seem to be having a problem with that. I don't.

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.

 

[Arial]

Ok, I'm both slow and forgetful. Please explain —and best if you 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.

He simply didn't understand your point. You might have to paint the picture.

 

[prism]

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?

Of course it was, and I take Paul's writings as inspired of God, but I am looking for Jesus Words from the gospel accounts of Him teaching on imputed righteousness. I just find it curious that He did not.

 

[Fred]

Of course it was, and I take Paul's writings as inspired of God, but I am looking for Jesus Words from the gospel accounts of Him teaching on imputed righteousness

Ok. I see.
What is the reason why you want to restrict it to only the gospel accounts?

 

[prism]

Ok. I see.
What is the reason why you want to restrict it to only the gospel accounts?

You are typing while I am explaining my last sentence above. (You must be a fast typer. I use to touch type but because of essential tremor, I can only type one finger at a time.)

 

[Arial]

@CrowCross

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

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.

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.

 

[Fred]

You are typing while I am explaining my last sentence above. (You must be a fast typer. I use to touch type but because of essential tremor, I can only type one finger at a time.)

I am somewhat good at it.

 

[prism]

@Fred , I take it you read the answer to your question?

I just find it curious that He did not.

 

[makesends]

Hazelelponi said:
I believe this is the stronger argument, because it clearly points to double imputation, and Jesus specifically taught these verses applied to Him—and He did so in the Garden, just before His arrest.

I disagree because it points not to double imputation, but only took Christ's identification with the sinner and besides the OP is looking for the teachings of Jesus.

I'm seeing @Hazelelponi here saying that it was the teachings of Jesus, in that Jesus used what the OT said that imply the double imputation. You may disagree with her that it does that, but she is trying to answer your question.

 

[prism]

Hazelelponi said:
I believe this is the stronger argument, because it clearly points to double imputation, and Jesus specifically taught these verses applied to Him—and He did so in the Garden, just before His arrest.

I'm seeing @Hazelelponi here saying that it was the teachings of Jesus, in that Jesus used what the OT said that imply the double imputation. You may disagree with her that it does that, but she is trying to answer your question.

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.

 

[EarlyActs]

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?

It's organic to the Gospel. How do you get an infinite righteousness inside a sinful human? You don't. But the credit of it--that can be done.

Also there are parables about relative levels of sin (shrewd manager, unforgiving manager) and some direct exchanges (the sinful woman at the Pharisees house; 'he who is forgiven little, loves little.')

 

[EarlyActs]

It is interesting to notice that 'your righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees' has two legitimate meanings:
1, practically, it should be and this is illustrated 7 times in Mt 6.
2, as far as justification goes, there is no question, because they really were failures.

So back in Mt 3, we see the baptism of (not by) Jesus, and he said it was necessary to fulfill all righteousness. So we know that he had to complete what God wanted for righteousness, and that does not just drift into believers, although it should. The entirety of it is the perfect completing of the law of God and can only be credited against the debt of sin.

 

[EarlyActs]

Another reason why we know imputing or crediting is in all the NT teaching is the conception that sin is both debt and stink. Notice the Lord's prayer: forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors. There are several places where sin is treated this way, even though it also is a stain or other things that are no legal concepts. In historic Christian salvation theology this was called the legal and moral meaning of salvation.

 

[prism]

It's organic to the Gospel. How do you get an infinite righteousness inside a sinful human? You don't. But the credit of it--that can be done.

Also there are parables about relative levels of sin (shrewd manager, unforgiving manager) and some direct exchanges (the sinful woman at the Pharisees house; 'he who is forgiven little, loves little.')

It is interesting to notice that 'your righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees' has two legitimate meanings:
1, practically, it should be and this is illustrated 7 times in Mt 6.
2, as far as justification goes, there is no question, because they really were failures.

So back in Mt 3, we see the baptism of (not by) Jesus, and he said it was necessary to fulfill all righteousness. So we know that he had to complete what God wanted for righteousness, and that does not just drift into believers, although it should. The entirety of it is the perfect completing of the law of God and can only be credited against the debt of sin.

Another reason why we know imputing or crediting is in all the NT teaching is the conception that sin is both debt and stink. Notice the Lord's prayer: forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors. There are several places where sin is treated this way, even though it also is a stain or other things that are no legal concepts. In historic Christian salvation theology this was called the legal and moral meaning of salvation.

Groan (this just ain't my day.)