It isn't my theology, it is that taught in the Bible. If, as you suggest, "eis aphesin ton harmartion humon" is translated as "because of the remission of your sins" in Acts 2:38, then "eis aphesin hamartion" is translated as "because of the remission of sins" in Matthew 26:28.
This would mean Christ said he shed His blood because we were already forgiven, which I know you will deny wholeheartedly.
There are also 2 other verses that use "eis aphesin hamartion". They are Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3. Both are talking about John's baptism as being "of repentance for the remission of sins". I also don't see you saying that those should be translated as "because of the remission of sins".
If it is "becuase of the remission of sins" in one passage, it must be translated that way in all four. Please, be consistent.
Then tell me, which action actually remits (paid for) your sins? The shedding of Christ's Blood, or your Baptism? And while you're at it, was Christ's death and resurrection an actual purchase of your redemption, or only a potential purchase, conditioned on your response? Please answer in light of Jesus' own statements:
All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will in no way cast out. (Joh 6:37)And this is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all which He has given Me I should lose nothing but should raise it up again at the last day. (Joh 6:39)
No one can come to Me unless the Father who has sent Me draw him, and I will raise him up at the last day. (Joh 6:44)
And He said, Because of this I said to you that no one can come to Me unless it was given to him from My Father. (Joh 6:65)
You are confusing the action os obedience by men with the action of Christ in the Atonement.
***then "eis aphesin hamartion" is translated as "because of the remission of sins" in Matthew 26:28.
This would mean Christ said he shed His blood because we were already forgiven, which I know you will deny wholeheartedly.***
Ok, so I presume that you deny that David, for instance, required the shed blood of his Lord to have true remission of sins. Your statements in the past about different covenants and there being only one gospel for TODAY and your statements about baptism all seem to suggest that you believe that over the course of Redemptive history there have been different ways to heaven, even if there is only one today.
I say this because those of us who RIGHTLY believe that throughout Redemptive history, beginning with Adam and moving to the last elect soul, there has only been one way of salvation and only one means of Atoning and remitting one's sin would not have any problem with the idea that Christ "shed His blood BECAUSE we were already forgiven." In fact, Scriptures emphatically declare that we were actually saved BEFORE time began. I believe the exact wording of the Scripture is this: "who has SAVED us... according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began, but has now been revealed by the appearing of our Savior...." (there are more verses like this one, BTW)
The shedding of the blood of my Lord was merely the revelation of the salvation which had been given to me before God had spoken the very first word of creation. So, to be honest, I have no problem believing that Christ's blood was shed because I was already forgiven. Christ was the appearing of the promise of salvation and the actual sacrificial representative of the punishment of my sin. Christ died on account of an election given by the Father to Atone for the sin of His chosen people.
BTW, I notice that you didn't properly render the words of Matthew 26:28. It properly reads in my translation and all of the translations which I checked: "For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for MANY for the remission of sins." Now, the part I noticed that you have conveniently left out is the word many. I notice this a great deal listening to Arminian sermons. They often leave out a word or phrase or gloss over those nasty little passages which teach contrary to their universal and man centered doctrines. I do wonder if this was merely an oversight on your part or if you really do have a hard time understanding that Christ didn't shed his blood for every man on earth indiscriminately, but particularly for certain people.
Also, the idea of an event happening because of something, in this case because of or on account of the remission of our sins, is not new. In fact, here is an interesting verse from Romans which gives the same idea about Christ's death, burial, & resurrection:
Romans 4:25 "[The Lord Jesus] was delivered up BECAUSE of our offenses, and raised BECAUSE of our justification."
I'm not really sure just how this idea you gave for Acts 2:38 and Matthew 26:28 is suppose to in any way harm our Reformed position. The Lord Jesus was delivered up BECAUSE of the offenses of God's people, His elect, for the specific purpose of providing a means of remitting THEIR, and only their, sins. The Father had already purposed to forgive them. We are the vessels of mercy and we needed a means of remitting our sin because of the righteous requirement of God. According to the Law our sins are purged with blood and without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sin. The Lord's blood was required BECAUSE of our offenses to secure that remission.
Now, I'm not an expert in Greek anymore than the rest posting on this forum are experts in Greek so I can't comment on the proper translation of any word or phrase. If someone is an actual expert, I would be interested to see their comments about the verses. I do know this: Even were we to have a perfect translation from the Autographs, a translation which we don't have, we still must answer the question "what does it all mean?" And, I have absolutely no problem with these ideas as answers to that question:
Christ was delivered BECAUSE of the offenses of God's people.
Christ's blood was shed BECAUSE of the forgiveness of God's people.
Christ was raised BECAUSE of the justification of God's people.
Here is another little problem for you with regards to the Matthew verse you cited. The Lord had already declared the disciples clean without any ceremonial washing or any kind of old covenant animal sacrificial system or any of what you refer to a baptism under the New Covenant. It was nothing more than the word which the Lord preached to his disciples. See John 15:3. The disciples were also already in possession of everlasting life and already removed from the judgment of the world to come. See John 3:36, 5:24, 6:47, etc. Now, those of us who truly believe in Biblical election have no problem understanding all of these things in context. The Lord's blood was required for the remission of their sins, but they were already enjoying and in full possession of everlasting life with the certainty that they would not come into judgment.
In the service of the Lord,
Christian.