Where in Christ teachings do we find...?

[prism]

Jesus never uses Paul's specific vocabulary (logizomai, reckon or credit), but he does repeatedly teach the logic of imputed righteousness—alien righteousness received by faith, a forensic verdict grounded in his obedience and death.

For example, Luke 18:9-14. The tax collector and Pharisee. Here Jesus contrasts a man who trusts in his own righteousness (pepoithotas eph’ heautois hoti eisin dikaioi) with one who simply pleads for mercy: "God, be propitiated to me!" (hilastheti moi). The tax collector goes home "justified" (dedikaiōmenos), not because he has achieved righteousness but because God has declared him so. This justification is apart from works and before any moral reformation is narrated, matching the Pauline logic of Romans 4:5 ("to the one who does not work but believes … his faith is counted as righteousness").

While Jesus doesn't use logizomai, the forensic verdict apart from works is the key point.

Agreed and I believe Lu 18:9-14 was brought up early on by one of the posters, but not with the inserted Greek explanation.
Is not the differences between Jesus and Paul erased by the fact that all Scripture is God breathed, except Paul still had his fallen nature?
(even though with the writing of Scripture that wouldn't play a part).

 

[John Bauer]

Is not the differences between Jesus and Paul erased by the fact that all Scripture is God breathed, except Paul still had his fallen nature?

Not sure what you're asking.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Is not the differences between Jesus and Paul erased by the fact that all Scripture is God breathed, except Paul still had his fallen nature?
(even though with the writing of Scripture that wouldn't play a part).

The two spoke at very different points in redemptive history and to very different audiences. Jesus addressed the covenant community of Israel — Jews shaped by the Torah and the worship life of the Mosaic covenant — while that covenant was still in force (though He was in the very act of fulfilling it). Paul, on the other hand, ministered after the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the inauguration of the New Covenant, and the inclusion of the Gentiles. His hearers were often a mix of Jews and Gentiles, many of whom had little to no background in the Law of Moses.

Think of it like preparing a speech for a public health conference in 2018 versus one in 2023, post-pandemic. The event in between (COVID-19) has completely altered the context, the vocabulary, and even the assumptions you can make about your audience. You are the same person, but the event has changed the entire context — so the way you speak changes too.

In Scripture’s own terms: "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son" (Hebrews 1:1-2).This difference in style is not because Paul’s “fallen nature” made his teaching less reliable. While Paul, like all believers, still wrestled with sin ("Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost", 1 Tim. 1:15; cf. Rom. 7:14–25), the doctrine of inspiration assures us that when he wrote Scripture, he spoke as one carried along by the Holy Spirit ("Men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit", (2 Pet. 1:21). All Scripture, whether from the lips of Jesus or the pen of Paul, is "breathed out by God" (2 Tim. 3:16) and therefore equally trustworthy and without error.

Jesus often used Old Testament covenantal language and a rabbinic, narrative style to connect with the covenant people of Israel. Paul, on the other hand, trained [as a Pharisee] in both the Jewish Scriptures and Greco-Roman rhetoric, explained the same gospel realities using legal and commercial terms (logizomai / “impute,” “justify,” “redeem”) familiar to the wider Hellenistic world he spoke to.

The difference in wording is not a difference in truth. Both reveal the same covenant grace of God in Christ, but at different stages in the progress o f revelation — Jesus proclaiming and inaugurating the kingdom, Paul expounding and applying the meaning of Christ’s finished work in the light of the New Covenant era.

 

[prism]

Not sure what you're asking.

IOW, the Holy Spirit is the common Author of the writings of'both the Gospels and Paul's.

 

[prism]

The two spoke at very different points in redemptive history and to very different audiences. Jesus addressed the covenant community of Israel — Jews shaped by the Torah and the worship life of the Mosaic covenant — while that covenant was still in force (though He was in the very act of fulfilling it). Paul, on the other hand, ministered after the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the inauguration of the New Covenant, and the inclusion of the Gentiles. His hearers were often a mix of Jews and Gentiles, many of whom had little to no background in the Law of Moses.

Think of it like preparing a speech for a public health conference in 2018 versus one in 2023, post-pandemic. The event in between (COVID-19) has completely altered the context, the vocabulary, and even the assumptions you can make about your audience. You are the same person, but the event has changed the entire context — so the way you speak changes too.

In Scripture’s own terms: "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son" (Hebrews 1:1-2).This difference in style is not because Paul’s “fallen nature” made his teaching less reliable. While Paul, like all believers, still wrestled with sin ("Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost", 1 Tim. 1:15; cf. Rom. 7:14–25), the doctrine of inspiration assures us that when he wrote Scripture, he spoke as one carried along by the Holy Spirit ("Men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit", (2 Pet. 1:21). All Scripture, whether from the lips of Jesus or the pen of Paul, is "breathed out by God" (2 Tim. 3:16) and therefore equally trustworthy and without error.

Jesus often used Old Testament covenantal language and a rabbinic, narrative style to connect with the covenant people of Israel. Paul, on the other hand, trained [as a Pharisee] in both the Jewish Scriptures and Greco-Roman rhetoric, explained the same gospel realities using legal and commercial terms (logizomai / “impute,” “justify,” “redeem”) familiar to the wider Hellenistic world he spoke to.

The difference in wording is not a difference in truth. Both reveal the same covenant grace of God in Christ, but at different stages in the progress o f revelation — Jesus proclaiming and inaugurating the kingdom, Paul expounding and applying the meaning of Christ’s finished work in the light of the New Covenant era.

Thanks for your opinion.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Thanks for your opinion.

Do you disagree with me?

Are you implying Jesus and Paul taught different truths?

I'm positing that they did not

 

[prism]

Do you disagree with me?

Are you implying Jesus and Paul taught different truths?

I'm positing that they did not

An opinion is an opinion, see my opinion on post #124, as it doesn't much matter who wrote which book when, after all, the Holy Spirit inspired all of God's Word.

 

[Hazelelponi]

An opinion is an opinion, see my opinion on post #124.

It's not a statement I disagreed with. So what are you asking?

Ultimately God authored the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation.

It's also not a simple opinion. It's rooted in the authority of Scripture, it's a matter of fact. Not opinion.

So what were you asking?

 

[prism]

It's not a statement I disagreed with. So what are you asking?

Ultimately God authored the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation.

It's also not a simple opinion. It's rooted in the authority of Scripture, it's a matter of fact. Not opinion.

So what were you asking?

See the add on in my last post.

 

[Hazelelponi]

See the add on in my last post.

So why didnt you appear to accept the words of Christ on imputation?

What were you looking for?

 

[prism]

So why didnt you appear to accept the words of Christ on imputation?

Very few of them stayed within the parameters set in the OP.(i.e. Words of Jesus, in the Gospels (not in the OT, Acts, the Epistles, or Revelation)
regarding imputation/justification, etc. When you and @John Bauer gave your answer, I accepted it

 

[Hazelelponi]

Very few of them stayed within the parameters set in the OP.(i.e. Words of Jesus, in the Gospels (not in the OT, Acts, the Epistles, or Revelation)
regarding imputation/justification, etc. When you and @John Bauer gave your answer, I accepted it

I'll leave you to talk to @John Bauer then, he explains excellently and has good knowledge of Greek for anything further in the thread.

God bless you.

 

[Arial]

An opinion is an opinion, see my opinion on post #124, as it doesn't much matter who wrote which book when, after all, the Holy Spirit inspired all of God's Word.

Knowing who wrote what and when is a staple of Bible hermeneutics. That doesn't mean it isn't inspired by the Holy Spirit.

 

[prism]

Knowing who wrote what and when is a staple of Bible hermeneutics. That doesn't mean it isn't inspired by the Holy Spirit.

IOW, my point is the whole Bible is inspired of God; hermeneutics is not.

 

[Hazelelponi]

IOW, my point is the whole Bible is inspired of God; hermeneutics is not.

I disagree with the assumption. Jesus Himself taught us proper biblical hermeneutics.

"O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" (Luke 24:25–27).

Consider the principle of a Christological hermeneutic — defined that is, interpreting the entire Bible in light of Christ as its central theme and fulfillment. We see Jesus Himself modeling this hermeneutic on the road to Emmaus and later with His disciples.

"And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself." (Luke 24:27).

"These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." (Luke 24:44; cf. vv. 45–47).

From this, we draw key hermeneutical lessons straight from Jesus' teaching. First, He affirms the unity of Scripture: the Bible is a cohesive whole, with the Old Testament — encompassing the Law, Prophets, and Writings — forming a unified testimony to Christ, rather than isolated or disconnected parts.

Second, He demonstrates a Christ-centered focus: all Scriptures point ultimately to Him, to His death, resurrection, and redemptive work, as the goal of God's eternal plan.

Third, Jesus models a redemptive-historical reading: we interpret through the lens of covenantal progression, viewing the Old Testament as divine preparation for the New Covenant climax in the Messiah's fulfillment.This approach isn't about forcing allegory onto the text but about faithful exposition.

In the spirit of Reformed covenant theology, such a hermeneutic protects us from falling into moralism or legalism, always directing our gaze to God's sovereign grace in Christ alone. If our hermeneutic does not follow the interpretive pattern of Christ Himself, we are not simply disagreeing with a method — we are disagreeing with the Master.

To quote from an article put out by Reformed Theologal Seminary authored by Rev. Michael J. Glodo, Professor of Pastoral Theology.

The hermeneutical center of Scripture is Christ himself, but we’re also told that Christ is the historical center. Paul in Galatians 4 says, “In the fullness of time God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born of the law, that he might redeem those who are under its curse.” So, Jesus is not just simply the center and the key to understanding Scripture; he is the center and the key to understanding history, or redemptive history, rather.

Hyperlink to Article

 

[EarlyActs]

Last time, Romans is not Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, nor is Paul Jesus.

That is a pretty infantile question; haven't you been following this thread? I have affirmed it time and again, in the OT, in Paul's and Peter's epistles. etc. I was just not finding it clearly laid out in the Gospel teachings of Jesus, that's all

It's there, organically, not in 'so many words.' For ex., the Lamb of God. It is exactly that meaning of imputed, transfered righteousness.

 

[prism]

It's there, organically, not in 'so many words.' For ex., the Lamb of God. It is exactly that meaning of imputed, transfered righteousness.

Maybe I had too high expectations looking for something like...

Romans 3:22-24 KJV
Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: [23] For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; [24] Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
or
Romans 4:5 KJV
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
or
1 Peter 3:18 KJV
For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: