Penal Substitution.....?

[depthdeception]

More precisely, it is a Father beating His innocent, faithful Son to calm His anger with another, guilty child.

Yes, such an image of God is completely unintelligible in light of the father of the prodigal son...

 

[Philip]

yes , and I think you miss the point ........ why was it necessary for Christ to die to defeat sin and death ?

Sin and death keep us separated from God.

No that is not like the illustration at all ........... you forget The Willingness of The Son Of God to be put to death , to be "bruised for our iniquities"

The Son's willingness to be beaten does not change the fact that PSA holds that the Father beats His Son to calm His anger.

 

[Philip]

I can confidently assert that Philip asserts no such thing. Rather than the Scriptures being "inerrant," he is simply suggestinng--and quite accurately, at that--that throughout human history, there have been severe misinterpretations of Scriptures in regards to atonement theology that have occurred through the lens of societal structures and contextual/legal conceptions of "justice," rather than seriously and honestly reflecting the historic assertions and teaching of the Church from the earliest of days. PSA theory is really a late comer to the atonement scene, with very little theological support before the time of Anselm.

I wonder how many supporters of PSA have actually read Anselm's writings. Cur Deus Homo describes atonement in terms of a feudal lord and his vassels. But what is truly interesting (to me at least) is that Anselm used the PSA model as much for secular reasons as for theological reasons. He argued, in effect, that feudalism was divinely ordained, and that King Henry I of England owed fealty to the Pope and his representative, Anselm.

It is also interesting to note that the Roman doctrine of the church's Treasury of Merit seems to be a inescapable logical conclusion of PSA.

 

[Philip]

Yes, such an image of God is completely unintelligible in light of the father of the prodigal son...

Oh that pesky Jesus and His parables. Next you'll probably mention the king of Matthew 18.

 

[cygnusx1]

Sin and death keep us separated from God.

so why does that take a blood atonement ?

why was the cross necessary ???

The Son's willingness to be beaten does not change the fact that PSA holds that the Father beats His Son to calm His anger.

Greater love hath no man than this that a man should lay down His life for His friends .......

Love was the reason for the cross , Love and Justice.

Was The Father satisfied with the sacrifice His own Son made ?

Did God Almighty not suffer too!

The Father surely suffered unimaginable pain , the Cross speaks as much of the suffering saviour as the suffering Father........ who planned His Son to become a curse for our sakes.

I see no need for a blood atonement unless it is part of the propitiation the scriptures speak of.

 

[Philip]

so why does that take a blood atonement ?

why was the cross necessary ???

As I often do, I borrow from St Athanasius:

Now in truth this great work was peculiarly suited to God’s goodness. 1. For if a king, having founded a house or city, if it be beset by bandits from the carelessness of its inmates, does not by any means neglect it, but avenges and reclaims it as his own work, having regard not to the carelessness of the inhabitants, but to what beseems himself; much more did God the Word of the all-good Father not neglect the race of men, His work, going to corruption: but, while He blotted out the death which had ensued by the offering of His own body, He corrected their neglect by His own teaching, restoring all that was man’s by His own power. 2. And of this one may be assured at the hands of the Saviour’s own inspired writers, if one happen upon their writings, where they say: “For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then all died, and He died for all that we should no longer live unto ourselves, but unto Him Who for our sakes died and rose again,” our Lord Jesus Christ. And, again: “But we behold Him, Who hath been made a little lower than the angels, even Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honour, that by the grace of God He should taste of death for every man.” 3. Then He also points out the reason why it was necessary for none other than God the Word Himself to become incarnate; as follows: “For it became Him, for Whom are all things, and through Whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the Captain of their salvation perfect through suffering;” by which words He means, that it belonged to none other to bring man back from the corruption which had begun, than the Word of God, Who had also made them from the beginning. 4. And that it was in order to the sacrifice for bodies such as His own that the Word Himself also assumed a body, to this, also, they refer in these words: “Forasmuch then as the children are the sharers in blood and flesh, He also Himself in like manner partook of the same, that through death He might bring to naught Him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and might deliver them who, through fear of death, were all their lifetime subject to bondage.” 5. For by the sacrifice of His own body, He both put an end to the law which was against us, and made a new beginning of life for us, by the hope of resurrection which He has given us. For since from man it was that death prevailed over men, for this cause conversely, by the Word of God being made man has come about the destruction of death and the resurrection of life; as the man which bore Christ saith: “For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive:” and so forth. For no longer now do we die as subject to condemnation; but as men who rise from the dead we await the general resurrection of all, “which in its own times He shall show,” even God, Who has also wrought it, and bestowed it upon us. 6. This then is the first cause of the Saviour’s being made man. But one might see from the following reasons also, that His gracious coming amongst us was fitting to have taken place.
​

Greater love hath no man than this that a man should lay down His life for His friends .......

I agree. What does this have to do with PSA?

Love was the reason for the cross , Love and Justice.

You almost had it there.

Was The Father satisfied with the sacrifice His own Son made ?

Yes. What does this have to do with PSA?

Did God Almighty not suffer too!

Yes. What does this have to do with PSA?

The Father surely suffered unimaginable pain , the Cross speaks as much of the suffering saviour as the suffering Father........ who planned His Son to become a curse for our sakes.

This seems dangerously close to Patripassionism.

I see no need for a blood atonement unless it is part of the propitiation the scriptures speak of.

Perhaps you should start reading the Fathers, especially Sts Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, and Athanasius. Their writings may help you understand the Scriptures without imposing a PSA slant.

 

[depthdeception]

I wonder how many supporters of PSA have actually read Anselm's writings. Cur Deus Homo describes atonement in terms of a feudal lord and his vassels. But what is truly interesting (to me at least) is that Anselm used the PSA model as much for secular reasons as for theological reasons. He argued, in effect, that feudalism was divinely ordained, and that King Henry I of England owed fealty to the Pope and his representative, Anselm.

Yes, you are right. It is also interesting to note the issue which motivated Anselm to formulate his ideas. He was reacting against the overemphasis of Christ as "bait" in Ransom theory, and was attempting to express the atonement in terms that avoided making God deceptive (fooling the devil into killing Christ in order to "ransom" back sinful humanity). Unfortunately, modern penal substitutionary theory has taken Anselm's good intentions and radicalized them into an equally absurd conclusion of the relationship of God and Christ in the atonement. I am positive that Anselm, were he alive today, would utterly reject PSA theory, and may even renounce his own offering to the discussion because of the horrible ends to which it has been applied.

It is also interesting to note that the Roman doctrine of the church's Treasury of Merit seems to be a inescapable logical conclusion of PSA.

It's always been my opinion that Reformed are Romanists in Protestant clothing.

 

[depthdeception]

Oh that pesky Jesus and His parables. Next you'll probably mention the king of Matthew 18.

Careful now, we've already cited on erudite biblical example today. Let's not overload the board.

 

[depthdeception]

As I often do, I borrow from St Athanasius:

Now in truth this great work was peculiarly suited to God’s goodness. 1. For if a king, having founded a house or city, if it be beset by bandits from the carelessness of its inmates, does not by any means neglect it, but avenges and reclaims it as his own work, having regard not to the carelessness of the inhabitants, but to what beseems himself; much more did God the Word of the all-good Father not neglect the race of men, His work, going to corruption: but, while He blotted out the death which had ensued by the offering of His own body, He corrected their neglect by His own teaching, restoring all that was man’s by His own power. 2. And of this one may be assured at the hands of the Saviour’s own inspired writers, if one happen upon their writings, where they say: “For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then all died, and He died for all that we should no longer live unto ourselves, but unto Him Who for our sakes died and rose again,” our Lord Jesus Christ. And, again: “But we behold Him, Who hath been made a little lower than the angels, even Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honour, that by the grace of God He should taste of death for every man.” 3. Then He also points out the reason why it was necessary for none other than God the Word Himself to become incarnate; as follows: “For it became Him, for Whom are all things, and through Whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the Captain of their salvation perfect through suffering;” by which words He means, that it belonged to none other to bring man back from the corruption which had begun, than the Word of God, Who had also made them from the beginning. 4. And that it was in order to the sacrifice for bodies such as His own that the Word Himself also assumed a body, to this, also, they refer in these words: “Forasmuch then as the children are the sharers in blood and flesh, He also Himself in like manner partook of the same, that through death He might bring to naught Him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and might deliver them who, through fear of death, were all their lifetime subject to bondage.” 5. For by the sacrifice of His own body, He both put an end to the law which was against us, and made a new beginning of life for us, by the hope of resurrection which He has given us. For since from man it was that death prevailed over men, for this cause conversely, by the Word of God being made man has come about the destruction of death and the resurrection of life; as the man which bore Christ saith: “For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive:” and so forth. For no longer now do we die as subject to condemnation; but as men who rise from the dead we await the general resurrection of all, “which in its own times He shall show,” even God, Who has also wrought it, and bestowed it upon us. 6. This then is the first cause of the Saviour’s being made man. But one might see from the following reasons also, that His gracious coming amongst us was fitting to have taken place.
​

I am moved everytime I read that. Given 50 years, I could never express it better.

 

[cygnusx1]

Sin and death keep us separated from God.

why should that need a blood atonement ?

The Son's willingness to be beaten does not change the fact that PSA holds that the Father beats His Son to calm His anger.

that is a distorted view ....... this extract shows why:




The problem is simple. Penal substitution, rightly understood, does not teach that 'God [.] brought about the violent death of his Son' (RTCS, p. 2). It teaches that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit together purposed that the Son should become a man and as a man bear on the cross God's just punishment for sin in the place of sinners. Chalke's phrasing makes it look as if party A (God) 'brought about' the death of party B (his Son), with the overtone being that this was something inflicted by A on B. I do not infer unfairly: this implication emerges clearly when Chalke speaks of such a God as a 'cosmic child abuser' (RTCS, p. 2).

This is not penal substitution, since the Son lays down his life of his own accord. Indeed, the great reformed theologians of the seventeenth century taught that the Father and the Son in eternity covenanted with one another that the Son would lay down his life. This is obvious from reading John Stott: 'We must never make Christ the object of God's punishment or God the object of Christ's persuasion, for both God and Christ were subjects not objects, taking the initiative together to save sinners' (The Cross of Christ, 2nd edition, p. 151). The difference between Chalke's caricature and Stott's careful statement is Trinitarian: Father and Son act together, not as two separate agents with their own plans. This problem of a mistaken explanation of penal substitution is grave, since if Chalke cannot rightly explain a doctrine there is little chance that he will critique it accurately.

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/14474.htm

There are scriptures that indicate God put to death His own Son , and Christ laid down His own life yes!
But you have missed out the central fact , it was to satisfy Law , God's Law!


I wonder Philip.... Do you believe in a place called hell ?

Do you accept God hates sin enough to burn in Righteous hot indignation ..... do you accept God does get angry ?

Do you accept the many scriptures that speak of the wrath of God ???


These are fundemental questions relating to the need for a perfect substitute , and for the need for God to be propitiated.


I think bottom of all your arguement is a denial that punishment from God for sin ever exists ........ is that a fair assessment?

 

[depthdeception]

that is a distorted view ....... this extract shows why:
The problem is simple. Penal substitution, rightly understood, does not teach that 'God [.] brought about the violent death of his Son' (RTCS, p. 2). It teaches that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit together purposed that the Son should become a man and as a man bear on the cross God's just punishment for sin in the place of sinners. Chalke's phrasing makes it look as if party A (God) 'brought about' the death of party B (his Son), with the overtone being that this was something inflicted by A on B. I do not infer unfairly: this implication emerges clearly when Chalke speaks of such a God as a 'cosmic child abuser' (RTCS, p. 2).

This is not penal substitution, since the Son lays down his life of his own accord. Indeed, the great reformed theologians of the seventeenth century taught that the Father and the Son in eternity covenanted with one another that the Son would lay down his life. This is obvious from reading John Stott: 'We must never make Christ the object of God's punishment or God the object of Christ's persuasion, for both God and Christ were subjects not objects, taking the initiative together to save sinners' (The Cross of Christ, 2nd edition, p. 151). The difference between Chalke's caricature and Stott's careful statement is Trinitarian: Father and Son act together, not as two separate agents with their own plans. This problem of a mistaken explanation of penal substitution is grave, since if Chalke cannot rightly explain a doctrine there is little chance that he will critique it accurately.

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/14474.htm

But what you have provided above is even worse than the concept of God punishing/abusing Christ. In the abuse/punishment motif, the point is at least made intelligible why Christ was punished--to satisfy God's wrath.

However, the idea of covenenting for God to "punish" God's self for God's own wrath is a very schizophrenic and masochistic/sadistic conception of atonement. After all, if God can overcome God's wrath by self-flaggation, why is God unable to overcome God's wrath by simply "letting it go?" The proposal which you offer makes God as slave to God's own wrath, and creates within the cross and blackmail of the forgivenes of sins. Therefore, in attempting to circumvent the natural and logical conclusions of PSA theory, you have substituted an even more deformed and dysfunctional view of the inter-Trinitarian life and its absurdly curious way of effecting the salvation of humanity.

There are scriptures that indicate God put to death His own Son , and Christ laid down His own life yes!

Yes, Christ did lay down his life. However, he laid it down in submission to the judgment of the power and violence of human sinfulness and evil. He was, as Barth noted, the "Judge Judged." However, because Christ submitted to their unjust judgment, and did not attempt to overcome them by their own means (violence, power, self-assertion), Christ paradoxically overcame their power and violence by submitting to them. In the resurrection, God vindicated Christ's faithfulness to Kingdom of God and showed the powers and judgement of human sinfulness to be utterly depraved and devoid of power. So yes, Christ did lay down his life, but this was not to "satisfy God." Rather, it was to overcome the powers of sinfulness and death which reign over sinful humanity and separate them from the love of God.

I wonder Philip.... Do you believe in a place called hell ?

Define "place."

Do you accept God hates sin enough to burn in Righteous hot indignation ..... do you accept God does get angry ?

I believe God gets angry. However, unlike mentally unbalanced people who act violently in response to anger, I believe God's anger at sin is always directed towards restoration, even as a loving parent's righteous anger will always seek the good of their child.

Do you accept the many scriptures that speak of the wrath of God ???

I do. However, as above, I believe that God's wrath is directed towards a restorative, not destructive end. God in Christ seeks to overcome the "tendency toward non-existence" of the sinful world (in Athanasius' language), not to perpetuate it.

These are fundemental questions relating to the need for a perfect substitute , and for the need for God to be propitiated.

I wonder at the philosophical need for God to be "propitiated."

I think bottom of all your arguement is a denial that punishment from God for sin ever exists ........ is that a fair assessment?

This is a fair bit of difference between "punishment" and "consequences." Why the need to have a God who "punishes" when sinful humanity, left to itself, inherits naturally the most horrible fate possible? Why does this fate need to be rooted in the punishing act of God?

 

[Philip]

why should that need a blood atonement ?

Read Post #26. I addressed this the first time you asked the question.

I wonder Philip.... Do you believe in a place called hell ?

That depends on what you mean by 'place' and 'hell'. If by 'hell' you refer to what Scriptures call 'the grave', 'the pit', or Sheol, and by 'place' you mean 'a physical location', then yes, I do accept the existence of such a location (but I would argue that it is not accessible to us through 'normal, physical means'). If by 'hell' you refer to the final abode of wicked and by 'place' you still mean ''a physical location', then the answer is no. To understand the Orthodox view on the afterlife, both heaven and hell, you should read Life After Death by Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos

Do you accept God hates sin enough to burn in Righteous hot indignation ..... do you accept God does get angry ?

Sure. I do not accept, however, that God reacts with malicious violance. Look back at the quotation from St Athanasius I posted earlier. See how the king reacts when his city has fallen prey to bandits?

Do you accept the many scriptures that speak of the wrath of God ???

Sure. Perhaps you should read all of St Athanasius's On the Incarnation of the Word. It is widely available on the web, but I normally refer to the translation hosted at Christian Classics Ethereal Library, a great general reference resource

These are fundemental questions relating to the need for a perfect substitute , and for the need for God to be propitiated.

If you say so.

I think bottom of all your arguement is a denial that punishment from God for sin ever exists ........ is that a fair assessment?

That depends on what you mean by 'punishment'. If you mean 'something done to placate anger' or 'get even', then no, I don't accept such. If you mean 'discipline', then yes, I do accept such. Finally, we must make a distinction between God's reaction to sin and the natural consequences of sin.

 

[JM]

http://www.the-highway.com/cross_Packer.html

It's Biblical and logical...​

Below are quotations taken from the link above...

Stage one is to declare Christ’s death substitutionary.What does this mean? The Oxford English Dictionary defines substitution as ‘the putting of one person or thing in the place of another’.

As Pannenberg says, ‘in social life, substitution is a universal phenomenon. . . . Even the structure of vocation, the division of labour, has substitutionary character. One who has a vocation performs this function for those whom he serves.’ For every service has vicarious character by recognizing a need in the person served that apart from the service that person would have to satisfy for himself.’15 In this broad sense, nobody who wishes to say with Paul that there is a true sense in which ‘Christ died for us’ (huper, on our behalf, for our benefit), and ‘Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us’ (huper again) (Rom. 5:8; Gal. 3:13), and who accepts Christ’s assurance that he came ‘to give his life a ransom for many’ (anti, which means precisely ‘in place of’, ‘in exchange for’16), should hesitate to say that Christ’s death was substitutionary. Indeed, if he describes Christ’s death as vicarious he is actually saying it.

Penal substitution, as an idea, presupposes a penalty (poena) due to us from God the Judge for wrong done and failure to meet his claims. The locus classicus on this is Romans 1:18—3:20, but the thought is everywhere in the New Testament. The judicial context is a moral context too; whereas human judicial systems are not always rooted in moral reality, the Bible treats the worlds of moral reality and of divine judgment as coinciding. Divine judgment means that retribution is entailed by our past upon our present and future existence, and God himself is in charge of this process, ensuring that the objective wrongness and guiltiness of what we have been is always ‘there’ to touch and wither what we are and shall be. In the words of Emil Brunner, ‘Guilt means that our past — that which can never be made good — always constitutes one element in our present situation.’30 When Lady Macbeth, walking and talking in her sleep, sees blood on her hand, and cannot clean or sweeten it, she witnesses to the order of retribution as all writers of tragedy and surely all reflective men — certainly, those who believe in penal substitution — have come to know it: wrongdoing may be forgotten for a time, as David forgot his sin over Bathsheba and Uriah, but sooner or later it comes back to mind, as David’s sin did under Nathan’s ministry, and at once our attention is absorbed, our peace and pleasure are gone, and something tells us that we ought to suffer for what we have done. When joined with inklings of God’s displeasure, this sense of things is the start of hell. Now it is into this context of awareness that the model of penal substitution isintroduced, to focus for us four insights about our situation.

 

[Philip]

JM,

I forgot that I promised you some Scripture. The parables of the prodigal son and the king and his servents have already been mentioned. We can also see that God freely forgives without demand for satisfaction in various passages of the Old Testament. For example,

Isaiah 43:25
"I, I am He who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins. ​

and again

Isaiah 48:9-10
"For my name's sake I defer my anger, for the sake of my praise I restrain it for you, that I may not cut you off.
Behold, I have refined you, but not like silver; I have tried you in the furnace of affliction.​

God removes our sins because He chooses to. Note also that while He does forgive our sins and turn away His anger, at the same time He disciplines us that we may learn the ways of righteousnes.

 

[Philip]

Penal substitution, as an idea, presupposes a penalty (poena) due to us from God the Judge for wrong done and failure to meet his claims. The locus classicus on this is Romans 1:18—3:20,

One problem: The cited portion of Romans has nothing to do with individual salvation. Rather, St Paul establishes that the Gentiles are acceptable to God. As I mentioned before, freeing oneself from PSA is a matter of interpretation.

 

[JM]

Thanks for remembering me! I didn't want this thread to die so I posted a few quotes...

Doesn't it read in Hebrews something to the effect, without the shedding of blood, there is no remission for sins? Sorry, I'm posting off the top of my head, what do you make of this?

 

[Philip]

Thanks for remembering me! I didn't want this thread to die so I posted a few quotes...

Doesn't it read in Hebrews something to the effect, without the shedding of blood, there is no remission for sins? Sorry, I'm posting off the top of my head, what do you make of this?

Hebrews 9:22
Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.​

This verse almost certainly refers back to the Last Supper:

Matthew 26:27-28
And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
​

especially when considered with the preceding verses:

Hebrews 9:20-21
saying, "This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you." And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. ​

Verses 20-21 refer to the sealing of the Old Covenant. Verse 22, the New Covenant. In submitting to the wrath of the unrighteous and forgiving their actions, Christ fulfilled the Law. Jump ahead a little.

Hebrews 10:5-9
Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, "Sacrifices and offerings thou hast not desired, but a body hast thou prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings thou hast taken no pleasure. Then I said, 'Lo, I have come to do thy will, O God,' as it is written of me in the roll of the book." When he said above, "Thou hast neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings" (these are offered according to the law), then he added, "Lo, I have come to do thy will." He abolishes the first in order to establish the second.
​

God was never interested in the sacrifice itself. He prefered that His people would be obedient to His will. Of course, we fail. Under the Law, we could offer sacrifices to God for our sins. But it was not the sacrifice itself that God desired. Rather, it was the willingness of the people to give up the best of their flocks and the first of their harvest.

Christ completed the Law. He did God's will perfectly. Even though this faithfulness lead to His death at the hands of the unrighteous, He did not resist. In His death, we see how we are approach God -- in perfect submission to His will. In His death we see how to submit to the will of God -- by forgiving those who wrong us. In His resurrection, we see that God approved of Christ's actions -- even though the unrighteous condemned Christ to death, the Most Righteous God restored Him to life. In His resurrection we see also God's promise to us -- do His will, forgive those who wrong us, and He will forgive our sins and restore us to life.

 

[Van]

Hebrews 9:26, "Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself."

Seems crystal.

 

[cygnusx1]

That depends on what you mean by 'punishment'. If you mean 'something done to placate anger' or 'get even', then no, I don't accept such.

Hi Philip let us leave "placating anger" for the time being .


Interesting you bring up the notion of "get even" ......

Does the Bible give any indication that God is a God of Vengeance ? It would appear that this is the case ....

Romans 12 :19

Don't seek revenge yourselves, beloved, but give place to God's wrath. For it is written, "Vengeance belongs to me; I will repay, says the Lord." (WEB)

Avenge not yourselves, beloved, but give place unto the wrath of God : for it is written, Vengeance belongeth unto me; I will recompense, saith the Lord. (ASV)

Do not give punishment for wrongs done to you, dear brothers, but give way to the wrath of God; for it is said in the holy Writings, Punishment is mine, I will give reward, says the Lord. (BBE)

not avenging yourselves, beloved, but give place to wrath; for it is written, Vengeance belongs to me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. (DBY)

Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. (KJV)

Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place to wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. (WBS)

Do not be revengeful, my dear friends, but give way before anger; for it is written, "'Revenge belongs to Me: I will pay back,' says the Lord." (WEY)

not avenging yourselves, beloved, but give place to the wrath, for it hath been written, 'Vengeance 'is' Mine, (YLT)


Do you accept that punishment for sin was meeted out at the flood in Noah's day , in Sodom and Gomorrah , and for the Egyptians at the Red Sea .... and as is also predicted for the world at the end times?

If you mean 'discipline', then yes, I do accept such. Finally, we must make a distinction between God's reaction to sin and the natural consequences of sin.

we can leave correction , and Chastisement for the time being ...... seeing as we agree on that.

 

[Philip]

Interesting you bring up the notion of "get even" ......

Does the Bible give any indication that God is a God of Vengeance ? It would appear that this is the case ....

Romans 12 :19[/COLOR][/FONT]

You make two errors. The first is attempting to use Romans 12:19 to show that God is seeks vengeance like some maniacal despot. God claiming the right to vengeance, and denying it to us, is yet more proof that we are to forgive those who wrong us. This type of error, ignoring the purpose of the passage to find support for one's doctrine, seems to be common in the Reformed approach to Romans.

You would have been better of looking back to the passage in Deuteronomy that St Paul cited. At least then you would have been using the passage for its proper intent:

Deuteronomy 32:35-36
Vengeance is mine, and recompense, for the time when their foot shall slip; for the day of their calamity is at hand, and their doom comes swiftly. For the LORD will vindicate his people and have compassion on his servants, when he sees that their power is gone, and there is none remaining, bond or free.​

Here, at least, we have God promising vengeance. Unfortunately, this exposes your second error: the nature of God's vengeance. God's vengeance is the vindication of His servents. And how does He vindicate us? The same why He vindicated Christ -- by resurrection.

Do you accept that punishment for sin was meeted out at the flood in Noah's day , in Sodom and Gomorrah , and for the Egyptians at the Red Sea .... and as is also predicted for the world at the end times?

Let's see.

Genesis 6:5-7
Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. The LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them."
​

It seems that God sent the flood not out of anger, but out of sorrow. He showed mercy to the world by ending (temporarily) the sinfulness of the world. The wicked died, but the righteous survived. As I mentioned before, the primary model of atonement I accept is recapitulation. And we see it foreshadowed here -- God restoring the world to a condition resembling the Eden.

Likewise with Sodom and Gomorrah we have recapitulation. God sweeps away the wicked and vindicates righteous Lot.

And again with the Egyptians. God is not seeking to get even with the Egyptians. Rather, He vindicates His faithful, leading them safely out of captivity. The wicked are washed away, bringing a merciful end to their sinful lives.