My theory on atonement theory

So in my musings for the past couple weeks, my idea on atonement theory is something that I would like to lay out there, not intended to be dogmatic nor do I intend to focus a great amount of time on it.

First off, a critique of penal substitution (a form of satisfaction theory). For those who don't know, the basic premise is that because of our sin, God is angry with us and therefore in order for God to forgive us, He takes His wrath out in the death of Christ in order to allow us to be forgiven. I have two problems with this idea:
1) It first off paints God as not all-powerful. It in a sense says that God can not do something, and that is forgive someone without seeking vengeance. Basically, this paints God as a god who is bound by some law that states that God must seek vengeance for sin. And often times this idea is portrayed in the idea that it is some spiritual law. Although, with that said, this does not destroy the idea of penal substitution, though it does mean that we need to be careful to defining wrath as spiritual law that God must follow Himself.
2) The point that I think shows penal substitution to be flawed is that forgiveness that comes from wrath is not truly forgiveness. For us, forgiveness is defined as not seeking vengeance. And yet, we conceive of God having to be unforgiving by seeking vengeance in order to forgive. This is like me beating up someone so that I can forgive someone else. While it may relieve my anger towards the second person, we would not really define that as forgiveness. To paint that picture as how God forgives I believe is counter to what forgiveness is.

So what then can explain the atonement? First lets see what Scripture does state about it, either in the Old Testament foreshadowing, or in the New Testament texts about the death of Jesus.

1) That as a result of the atonement a person is forgiven (Leviticus 4:20, among others)
2) That there is a cleansing that comes from blood (Exodus 29:36-37; Leviticus 12:7-8; Hebrews 9:13, 22)
3) By Jesus' blood, there is forgiveness of sins (Matthew 26:28)
4) Jesus' blood is seen as cleansing our conscience of sin (Hebrews 9:14)
5) Jesus is said to have taken upon our sins in His body so that we could live to righteousness (1 Peter 2:24)

This is by no means exhaustive of all verses, and this does not include some verses that I find questionable.

So what can include all these aspects? There is forgiveness, there is cleansing of sin, there is a substitution, and there is an righteous living that comes from it. At first impression then, there seems to be a dual work of atonement, that Christ's blood averts wrath and that Christ's blood takes away sinfulness and brings about righteousness. If this is the true idea of the atonement, then this still leaves us to explain how the atonement in both manners.

Allow me though to propose that Christ's death directly only brings about the cleansing of sin, and that forgiveness is a result of the atonement (though they are inseparably linked in sacrificial thinking). How so?

First off, consider that it is said that Christ came in order to take away sins in 1 John 3:5. This establishes, I believe, that Christ's atonement definitely about taking away sinfulness as this fulfills the mission of His coming.

What about forgiveness? Lets take the example of how we are to forgive presented by Jesus. In Luke 17:3-4, Jesus commands to forgive people that repent of what they have done. Why would Jesus say we should forgive then (though by no means absolving us of forgiveness in other situations)? I speculate that is because we can have some certainty that they would cease from their offending activity by saying they could repent.

Apply this to God then. Imagine a man repenting of their sins (desiring to stop sinning, but yet the atonement had not happened? How could the possibly change their life so as to fulfill their claim to repentance? They could not, if by Christ alone we are freed from sin. But if there is a hope for a fulfillment of repentance by the death of Christ, then God would forgive a repentant man because they could stop the offending activity through Christ's blood. Thus, in that way, there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood (Hebrews 9:22).

This would explain then why only once in the New Testament is forgiveness ever spoken of in direct conjunction with blood (at least in my recollection), and that is in Matthew 26:28, which is obviously based upon the Old Testament sacrificial understanding (by the phrase "blood of the covenant" which comes from Exodus 24:8) where atonement procures forgiveness (but not speaking of how). In other instances though, it is never said forgiveness itself is received by the blood of Christ.

There are obviously other passages to explain that some might see forgiveness directly coming from Christ's death, and those should definitely be discussed. I am not 100% confident in my idea, and hence I am definitely not dogmatic about it.

Thoughts? Opinions? Agree or disagree? Keep in mind that I am not fully developing atonement theory here, but I am speaking more about the benefits and how they are obtained. Why Christ's death is an atonement is something a bit deeper and something I am not prepared yet to answer (and may never be).