One is the question, How can moral guilt be transferred from one person to another?
What is called the "forensic" argument (i.e., the court of law argument) that Christ undertook to suffer in our stead as our _surety_ is undoubtedly open to this objection.

Suretyship must by its very nature be confined to civil obligations and cannot be extended to criminal liability, and so the "forensic" argument may be set aside as very much a legal fiction.

But if we realize the Bible teaching that Christ is the Son of God, that is, the Divine Principle of Humanity out of which we originated and subsisting in us all, however unconsciously to ourselves, then we see that sinners as well as saints are included in this Principle; and consequently that the Self-offering of Christ must actually include the self-offering of every human being in the acknowledgment (however unknown to his _objective_ mentality) of his sin.

If we can grasp this somewhat abstract point of view it follows that in the Person of Christ every human being, past, present, and to come, was self-offered for the condemnation of his sin--a _self_- condemnation and a _self_-offering, and hence a cleansing, for the simple reason that if you can get a man to realize his past error, really see his mistake, he won't do it again; and it is the perpetuation of sin and error that has to be got rid of--to do this universally would be to regain Paradise.

Seen therefore in this light there is no question of transference of moral guilt, and I take it this is St.Paul's meaning when he speaks of our being partakers in Christ's death.
Then there is the objection, How can past sins be done away with?
If we accept the philosophical conclusion that Time has no substantive existence then all that remains is states of consciousness.