Objection: Atonement Means Cancelation of Guilt, So by Definition Healing Cannot Be “in” the Atonement

By this logic, because atonement means cancelation of guilt, going to heaven cannot be “in” the atonement.  Because atonement means cancelation of guilt, the new birth cannot be “in” the atonement.

I suppose by some narrow definition of the atonement, someone could nit-pick and say that healing, going to heaven and the new birth are technically not “in” the atonement, but they certainly are the RESULTS of the atonement, which is what just about everyone other than extreme theological nitpickers would consider being “in” the atonement.  They were PROVIDED BY the atonement.

The atonement forced Jesus to bear the punishment for sin in His BODY.  He had to be sick and hurt so that we would not have to be sick and hurt as punishment for our sins.  The atonement had as its most conspicuous feature the physical abuse that Jesus bore on our behalf.  He was wounded, bruised, cursed, smitten of God, afflicted, sick and in pain.  He HAD to do this to pay the penalty for our sins so that we would not need to be wounded, bruised, cursed, smitten of God, afflicted, sick and in pain.  The punishment that brought us shalom (total well-being) was upon Him.  Whether you want to say that all this was “in” the atonement or the results of the atonement, we have all this because of Jesus’ atonement.