I have gone through the full gambit of legal reasoning and argumentation and have written it all down in a single volume. It is available on Amazon. And the first ten chapters can be read for free using the sneak peek.
I understand the problems people are seeing with the penal substitute, and they are specifically LEGAL problems, having to do with the very basics of law and due process. “born in sin” is a sly way of saying “wrath for DNA”, it is eugenics based wrath. The most basic violations of law and even common sense reasoning become obvious when the question is asked: “what have infants done that they are responsible for?” “who put the infants in those sinful bodies?” So, unless you walked down to the “body store” before you were born and were asked which body you preferred and said: “well lord I would prefer to be born in that sinful body”…unless you have done that, you cannot be held to account for the state and the condition of the body you were born and created in. This is why there is no verse on wrath based on genetics. It is legally impossible for God to created a man in such a state that the man has had nothing to do with, and then hold the man accountable, as if the being who is created is somehow responsible. God has never done that because it is a violation of law, common sense reasoning and would be bearing false witness. Heretics want to claim that all sin is the same and the penalty is infinite wrath…this is part of the unjust portrayal of God that is according to Satan’s will.
“For that which I want to do, I do not, but the very thing that I do not want to do, I do..but it is not I…” <—this is not cause for wrath folks, is a call for aid. The bible is mistranslated on purpose to obscure or erase the legal distinctions between non punishable offenses and state, and punishable offense and states. By doing this liberal theologians have caused the English version of the bible to be open to interpretation. They depict God as having wrath on every possible unlawful state, from slavery to the corrupt nature…to even just being born. Having corrupted genetics and suggesting that God has wrath on you for an overbearing biological nature that you did not choose and many do not desire to have…is like God having wrath on you and expecting you to give account for being born with blonde hair. The purpose of removing the distinction between what i refer to as the kakos and poneros states and offenses, is to then lump all unlawful states and offenses into the poneros classification of wrongdoing…to then portray God as overly severe and unjust. Even the words kakos and poneros are covered up in the translations…as they are two completely different words, yet are both translated as “evil”. This is the tactic of the removal of legal distinctions within the translations. “ou me pistis” and “apistis” are completely different from each other, yet both are translated as “unbelief”. This again is to try and obscure the difference between the two. “Ephes”, “ephesin and “apheimi”*sic, is another example of different words with different definitions and connotations…yet again obscured, as all are generically translated as “forgive, forgave” etc. Hamartia, Hemartano, hemmeti, etc, etc., are different words with different meaning and definitions. They obscure the differences between those words by translating them all as “sin”, generically, whenever they can. Hilsaterion, hilasmos, ileei is yet another example. “Propitiation us a latin word from the middle ages and hilasterion does not mean that at all. Because of the mistranslations that have gone on for centuries, they have caused the English bibles and I mean all of them, to be open to interpretation and to give room for heresies like the penal substitute. Ephesin means liberation, not forgiveness. It is “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for the liberation or relief from your sins”. (not for the forgiveness). God does not and never did hold being enslaved to sin, against those who are enslaved to it. I’m sure some of you understand these things.
This is why they invented a two tiered justice system, a higher and a lower. In the so called “higher system of justice” is where all of the psychosis and unreality is found, and it is all ascribed to God. It is idiotic to even suggest that God demands that man who is enslaved to the corrupt flesh, to be righteous…then have wrath on the slave for not being righteous. It is like God starts out expecting man who is enslaved to the corrupt fleshy nature…to be righteous without Christ…then has wrath on the slave because he cannot achieve the impossible. If a man sins, the question is why does that man sin? And by these legal questions which are according to the reality of the man and his state, is where legal distinctions are made. Slavery to sin is not slavery to all sin or wrongdoing. The corrupt nature forces no man to commit rape or murder. The corrupt nature has a limit, and there are sins and crimes that the man himself is responsible for and can avoid. This is what the criminal codex of the Mosaic law is for. This is why man does not need the deliverance of God to not rape his neighbor, or to avoid robbing a bank, or committing murder. The things thta are beyond mans control is what the conciliator, supplicant, also known as Christ was and is needed for. This is why there are no instructions whatsoever on making sacrifices for crimes like rape, murder, adultery etc. This is also why the day of atonement only covered or passed over made up for sins of ignorance and inability(and by sins I mean hamartia). Christ made up for our shortcomings, or what makes us fall short of the mark aimed for, which is meeting the standard of righteousness. Through Christ all obasticles are removed and all unlawful states that hinder us from receiving righteousness, or the lawful state. There is a reason it sounds insane to suggest that the crime of bank robbery can be removed…how does one pick up a bank robbery and remove it? It’s insane! “Positional truth” is rightly seen as revisionist history and bearing false witness about one personal case history, because it would be, and they also do not mind portraying God as bearing false witness about one’s state, calling he who is not righteous that the moment as being righteous..when they are not. The legal violation are obvious. Also the idea of precrime, or presumptive judgments, violations on charges and indictments occurs when God supposedly punishes Christ for our sins before we even exist…I would think Satan would make many objections due to lack of evidence. This is what happens when heretics have God not dealing with men in the actual time in which they exist…but before they are their sins exist. There is no higher law that can violate the basics of the so called lower law. The supreme court or higher courts are according to the same principles of law as the lowest courts in the land. There is an obvious reason why the penal substitute is totally absent in Peter’s 2 updates given to the jews in acts chapters 2 and 3. about what just happened with Christ and the cross or stauros. The bible is saturated with God having wrath on impious criminals and wrongdoers, but because of the penal substitute preconceived notion, they must “interpret into non existence” the word “wrath”.
It says to fear the wrath of God for He uses Caesar to execute His wrath on willful wrongdoers, but then again heretics will interpret that into the exact opposite, or cry “discipline is not wrath!” Romans 5:12 has 4 definite articles that are found in the koine but translators refuse to carry them over into the English, because that would make the verse much more clear. “The death” that is mentioned in Genesis 3 is mortality and is also the same “the death” that is mentioned in Romans 5. “The trespass” in Romans 5 is referring to gaining the knowledge of good and evil, and because all are the sons of Adam…all have knowledge and all are judgeable, or subject to legal inquiry. That is all Romans is talking about. Adam was not supposed to get involved in the legal battle between God and Satan…until it was resolved. But because of Adam’s premature involvement, Adam had testimony to offer and a choice to make, for the preference for good or evil…and therefore was subject to death for verifying his testimony and legal status. No one can deny that Adam became subject to mortality the very same day he ate and that is the only death mentioned by God. Heretics specialize in mistranslation, using unreal definitions of words, IGNORING WHAT IS FOUND IN THE TEXTS, AND SEEING WHAT IS NOT THERE! “Spiritual death” is not in the texts, positional truth is not in the texts, wrath on the Son is not in the texts, God having wrath on infants and slaves to sin is not in the texts. The death that is called for and is mentioned in several epistles is the separation from the flesh, and this is to liberate us from sin. Heretics however, pretend that death is demanded because God has wrath on the slave, rather than what holds the slave captive, which is ignorance and sin in the flesh.
If you ask nearly anyone (but the completely psychotic), if they think man can be righteous and deliver himself? They will say “That’s crazy, mans need the Savior! No man can be righteous!”… Then I say why is it that they are more REALISTIC than their “god” who supposedly has wrath on slaves to sin for not doing the impossible and freeing themselves without Christ? To cut it short, some peoples “god” is angry at man because he isn’t righteous without the Savior or the righteousness that comes from God…then has to divert that anger unto an innocent…in order to then pretend that the slaves got what they deserved. It is sick and satanic.
The Principled Legal Standard for the First Genuine Doctrinal Reformation of the Church, has all the legal principles and points of law pounded out and irrefutably so. It is undeniable that infants cannot be held to account for the state or the body they are created and are born in. Christ didn’t die for “hamartano”, “kakourgon”, or for the “poneros” of the world. He died for the hamartia of the world, which is all that makes a man fall short of the mark or standard of righteousness. No wonder He did not hold the hamartias of the world against them. The cross was not Christ being punished for the crimes of others, for that is liberal law. The cross was for the demonstration of His righteousness, for the condemnation of sin within the flesh(corrupt nature), for the condemnation of Satan(who falsely accused God of what Satan himself was actually guilty of), for the removal of all that hinders…to be appointed as legal guardian and deliverer, for He was proven trustworthy…so that all who believe in Him would undergo “the death” which occurs in Christ, in faith, which is the separation from the corrupt nature…but nevertheless we still live. Amen