Quote:
Originally Posted by GrowingPains
He knew no sin. He was the prophesied substitute, the second Adam, taking away the sins of the world. Now we could come to Christ, and not just have our sins pushed forward, but no longer as a burden over our heads --- yes, remitted. Like the Elder said, this is truly a straw man, and logic that says If A=B, and B is related to C, then A MUST equal C. That's a fallacy.
The Gospel at its core has nothing to do with your or I. It's just simply the good news that salvation is available. Then we hear through one who is sent, and he tells us how to get in on this covenant.
|
Our sins were imputed to him who "knew no sin." It was his innocence which made the imputation possible.
We cannot say we are baptized in order to do something already accomplished. If we say sins are remitted in baptism, then we must conclude they were NOT remitted on the Cross prior to the resurrection.
Likewise, if we say the blood of Christ is applied to our sins in baptism, then we must conclude His blood was not applied to them on the Cross prior to the resurrection. The resurrection proves this as nonsense. The resurrection proved, beyond all doubt, that all sin imputed to Christ had been remitted by a pre-resurrection application of the Blood.
The Gospel is Good News of a
finished work of sin remission, it is not Good News of a future work of sin remission made available. The latter is another gospel than that of Scripture.
The Gospel, at its core, has everything to do with Good News. The resurrection is Good News because it declares something magnificent concerning our sins. It declares that the Cross was effective in its work of sin remission. It declared that God's plan of sin remission ...... actually worked.
GrowingPains, would Christ have been raised without the removal of those sins imputed to him? Did the resurrection declare that the sins imputed to Christ had been effectively remitted? Yes or No?
Threaded Mode
