@LeeWoofenden That should have been: . . . but sees Christ's righteousness instead.

@LeeWoofenden I didn't respond right away because I want to understand your definitions better first. I'm glad that Stack Exchange preserved your chat with @curiousdannii, @Mr.Bultitude, @LeakyNun, and @Andrew. I am as astonished with @curiousdannii that

and I agree with @Mr.Bultitude that

> Thank you @LeeWoofenden for going above and beyond the original challenge. I appreciate you reading as much as you did and giving your thoughts here.

The only fair thing for me is to study Emanuel Swedenborg before attempting to refute your position, which you have made very clear a few days ago as well as in that chat 4 years ago. I think I will also read Thomas Schreiner's book and your response in the chat to identify points of misunderstanding.

It's still somewhat incredulous to me that so many Protestant scholars have been blinded in their reading of the Bible as you suggested. But I have not been able to put my finger on where exactly things go wrong between you and them.

I'm not personally interested in defending "sola fide" to you however it's defined in Protestant, Catholic, or Swedenborg scholarships. Nor am I personally interested in defending "satisfaction" / PSA theory however they are defined or supported by the Bible or by their proponents. I simply notice that in the chat there are definitely cross talk or talking-past-each-other happening.

Nor it is surprising because even a scholar such as Eleonore Stump whose recent book on Atonement was very well received, who is also vehemently against satisfaction theory & PSA like you do and documented her objections in the first 3 chapters of her book.

She was accused by William Lane Craig in a journal article of misunderstanding satisfaction theory & PSA by neglecting important element in both theories: necessitarianism. I like to read scholars debating each other, helps me uncover more pertinent elements so I can understand my own position better.

What I do want is to discuss more of what we have in common while slowly discovering how we define terms differently. I may not be faithful in using the terms as the Bible does, but what I care more is the resulting understanding can reliably direct me to stay in the right path to progressively become more loving / sanctified / righteous / holy / pleasing to God, etc. I think you agree with me that distinction without difference is useless, and thinking needs to lead to action.

Please indulge me with my using my own personal definitions in response to how I understood you from what you said so far recently, in the chat, and in your blog articles and treat me as someone new to Christianity. All my terms are real distinction and therefore has an impact to my spiritual direction.

I agree with you that 1) God loved us while we were still sinners. My extension to this is that God can offer love unilaterally, but cannot give it unilaterally; we have to agree to receive it. 2) God's wrath is real but should be conceived as the effect of God's love on those who are opposed to it (the snowman analogy). My extension to this is that it's a "tough love": love that demands change and responsibility, like that from a parent to a child (Prov 3:12, Heb 12:7).

The question is: what happened at the time of conversion, let's say I become Christian today? In my own terminology, today I will say: "God, I give up fighting your offer of love. I want to be saved. I want to rest in your goodness and let you transform me. I want to want what is truly good, although I find that even repenting is very hard because my sinful desires keep pulling me away as St. Augustine said: "Lord, make me chaste—but not yet." So I need help even in WANTING the good.

I don't even know what exactly that GOOD is, let alone trust myself whether I can obey my reason after I know. So I need help even in WANTING the good that I still need to learn! All I can do today is to want to WANT the good. I trust your offer to ADOPT me as your child even when I'm still imperfect, because just as I keep being patient, forgiving, and not disowning my own rebellious teenage daughter as long as she keeps coming back, I trust that you are a BETTER father than me.