Penal Substitution.....?

[depthdeception]

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.

You make a great point about the recapitulation motif. Moreover, I would argue that this "lens" provides us a good insight into the nature of God's wrath. Rather than being vidictive and retributive, the proper understanding of God's wrath--as revealed in the recapitulation theme--is that of restoration and recreation.

 

[Philip]

You make a great point about the recapitulation motif. Moreover, I would argue that this "lens" provides us a good insight into the nature of God's wrath. Rather than being vidictive and retributive, the proper understanding of God's wrath--as revealed in the recapitulation theme--is that of restoration and recreation.

I admit (from experience) that it is easy to read Scriptures in a way that suggests the Angry God model. Perhaps it is even the 'natural' way for humans to read them since it reflects our tendencies. But Christ teaches us

John 14:9
Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?​

The cleansing of the temple notwithstanding, we can not find an Angry Jesus. Throughout His ministry, Christ's miracles focus on healing and sustaining. If in Christ we see the Father (and I would argue that it is only in Christ that we see the Father) how can we accept the Angry God model?

 

[FLA2760]

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.

Hi
I simply pointed out what the SCRIPTURES say. All true theology is based on the word of God. But one has to accept that the Bible is God's word. God breathed and contains no errors. I pose the question; if Christ did not die in our place what was the point? For if only to furnish us an example of how to live in this life; (putting others before ourselves) then the cross would have been unnecessary. For if we only have hope in Christ in this life we are to be pitied above all men. As far as Christ having to remain in hell for eternity that notion is rubbish. The price was paid in Christ's death. He went to preach to the spirits in prison. see 1 Peter 3: 18, 19.
See Hebrews 10: 1-10 on the need for an effective sacrifice for sin.
GOD BLESS

 

[FLA2760]

Philip
What is your precise view on original sin. I ask for a more specific answer than you do not accept the Western teaching.

 

[FLA2760]

First, note that my objection to Penal Substitutionary Atonement rests in the Penal portion of the theory. I have no problem with substitutionary atonement when properly understood. The exact details of PSA vary from group to group and person to person, but my general objections include

1. I do not accept the idea that God is bound by some external rule of justice. I God's actions are the definition of justice. Whatever He chooses to do is just, and we have no basis for questioning it. If He chooses to grant salvation to those who eat turnips, it is just to do so. If He chooses to forgive those who repent, it is just to do so.
2. I do not accept the idea that God must punish someone to be able to forgive sin. I believe in a sovereign God who is able to do as He pleases. If it pleases Him to forgive, He forgives. He need not require punishment from the sinner or anyone else if He so pleases.
3. I do not accept the problem of sin as a problem of guilt. PSA holds that once a person is 'justified', they are (or will inevitably be) saved. This reduces salvation to a forensic declaration. It does not require an ontological change in the sinner.
4. I do not accept righteousness as matter of perception. PSA involves a person being declared righteous. For one reason or another (depending on the version of PSA), God declares the sinner to be righteous. However, the sinner is never actually made righteous.

There are other ideas that are often connected to PSA, but are not necessary for PSA, that I also dispute. These include

1. I do not accept the Western teaching of Original Sin. More precisely, I do not accept the teaching of Original Guilt. We bear the consequences of Adam's sin in that creation has been separated form its original state. However, we do not bear the guilt of Adam's sin.
2. I do not accept the idea that Christ's human nature is any way different from my human nature. Christ's person is different from my person in that it also includes a Divine nature, but His human nature is identical to mine.
3. I do not accept the Western dichotomy between faith and works.

Enough of my objections for now. As for what I do believe instead of PSA

1. I accept the Christus Victor/Recapitulation model of Atonement. I believe that in the Incarnation, Christ reunited creation with God. He placed man back on the path toward perfect union with God.
2. Secondarily, I accept the Ransom and Moral Example models of Atonement. That is, by Christ's submission to death at the hands of the unrighteous, He showed us how to be righteous. In His Resurrection, we see that He is vindicated as righteous before God. In this, He has shown us how to be at one with God.
3. I believe that by the grace of God through faith in Christ we are made righteous. We are not declared righteous. We are not 'imputed' with another's righteousness. We are made righteous.
4. I do accept the dichotomy between works of Faith and works of Law.
5. I believe that God freely forgives sin without a need for punishment or satisifaction of justice. The only requirements are that we repent of our sins and forgive (freely forgive) those who sin against us.

I think that covers the basics of what I dislike about PSA and what I believe in its stead.

Phillip
What is your precise view concerning original sin? Please be more specific than...

1. I do not accept the Western teaching of Original Sin. More precisely, I do not accept the teaching of Original Guilt. We bear the consequences of Adam's sin in that creation has been separated form its original state. However, we do not bear the guilt of Adam's sin.

 

[Philip]

Hi
I simply pointed out what the SCRIPTURES say. All true theology is based on the word of God. But one has to accept that the Bible is God's word. God breathed and contains no errors.

Okay. What does this have to do with PSA?

I pose the question; if Christ did not die in our place what was the point?

Everyone here acknowledges that Christ's death was subsitutionary. What is being questioned is the penal aspect of the theory

For if only to furnish us an example of how to live in this life; (putting others before ourselves) then the cross would have been unnecessary.[Emphasis mine]

No one has claimed that Christ died only as an example. Refer back to Post #6. I mentioned the Moral Example Model as a secondary understanding.

See Hebrews 10: 1-10 on the need for an effective sacrifice for sin.

Again, everyone here agrees that Christ's death was sacrificial. However, the notion of sacrifice in no way suggests punishment.

 

[Philip]

Philip
What is your precise view on original sin. I ask for a more specific answer than you do not accept the Western teaching.

There is no such thing as Original Sin. Certainly we can speak of The Original Sin, Adam's sin. Likewise, we can speak of the consequences of The Original Sin -- that all of creation is damaged by our sins. Most important is the marring of God's image within us. Separated from God, we will all eventually sin on our own. Of these sins we are truly guilty and need God's forgiveness. But of Adam's sins we are innocent.

 

[cygnusx1]

You make two errors. The first is attempting to use Romans 12:19 to show that God is seeks vengeance like some maniacal despot.

I don't recall using these words ..........did I say these things ????No!!! so you must be having a conversation with yourself !

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.

​

I didn't say that revenge or vengence was in cold isolation , again you are attributing stuff to me without any quotes , so your points are void!

Here, at least, we have God promising vengeance.

that is all I have yet said ............ the rest is your wandering mind!

Unfortunately, this exposes your second error: the nature of God's vengeance. God's vengeance is the vindication of His servents.

In order to expose errors you have to show the other person made them , can you do that!
Can you show that I believe that God's Judgments on the World are not beneficial to the Church ? I don't think so!

And how does He vindicate us? The same why He vindicated Christ -- by resurrection.



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.

Yes God does all things for the sake of His Elect ....... I don't see a problem with that at all!!!

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.

you have miserably failed to show whether God's actions are punitive or merely a chastisement ........ you can argue that The Lord uses these episodes to discipline His people and I would accept that point readily ......... what seems to be avoided is the issue of whether those who died were being punished for sin , or being chastised to make them better people ........ a case you are going to find difficult to make seeing as they died!


btw , for future reference please quote what I have actually said , not what you assume I might be thinking , it will cut down on your need to correct straw men.

 

[Philip]

you have miserably failed to show whether God's actions are punitive or merely a chastisement ........ you can argue that The Lord uses these episodes to discipline His people and I would accept that point readily ......... what seems to be avoided is the issue of whether those who died were being punished for sin , or being chastised to make them better people ........ a case you are going to find difficult to make seeing as they died!

If you look back at what I wrote, I stated that the wicked died to bring a merciful end to their sinning:

The wicked are washed away, bringing a merciful end to their sinful lives.

I did not suggest that the wicked were killed to discipline them. You should keep such things in mind before making statements such as:

btw , for future reference please quote what I have actually said , not what you assume I might be thinking , it will cut down on your need to correct straw men.

Now do you have any evidence in support of PSA, or are you willing to admit PSA is without Biblical support?

 

[cygnusx1]

The Atonement Is Propitiatory And Conciliatory
The Atonement of Christ propitiates or satisfies God. It renders Him favorable or gracious so reconciliation is effected between God and man. Individuals can come to God by Christ because He has fully satisfied the justice of the Father (Heb. 9:14; 10:14; Rom. 3:25,26; John 17:2; Heb. 9:15).
The question arises whether God is reconciled to man or whether man is the one who is being reconciled to God. "Does the Atonement effects a change in God toward man?" Or, "Does the Atonement effect a change in man toward God?" The Scriptural teaching bearing on this dramatic distinction is expressed.

Romans 5:1 "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our LORD Jesus Christ:"

Romans 5:9 "Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him."

2 Corinthians 5:18 "And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;"

2 Corinthians 5:19 "To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation."

2 Corinthians 5:20 "Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God."

Colossians 1:21 "And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled."


Scripturally, the Atonement primarily affects God’s relation to the sinner by satisfying His justice, removing His just displeasure against a sinner, and affording the basis of grace and pardon. Christ’s sacrifice was “to save from wrath” (Rom. 5:9) and open the way for reconciliation. Ultimately the change affects man; and by the grace of God leads to a subjective change in him by which he by which he is reconciled to God reconciles him to God. This is directly ascribed to the Atonement. In brief, the Atonement expiates sin, propitiates God, and reconciles first God to man, and second man to God.


Summary


The Atonement was sacrificial

The Atonement was expiatory

The Atonement was vicarious

The Atonement was sufficient

The Atonement was propitiatory

The Atonement brought reconciliation


If it is possible for one person to pay the debt of another, or become a substitute for another, it was possible for Christ to pay our debt and to be our Substitute which is why the Christian sings about The Old Rugged Cross.

​

​

In the old rugged cross, ​

stained with blood so divine,​

A wondrous beauty I see;​

For 'twas on that old cross​

Jesus suffered and died,​

To pardon and sanctify me.​

​

​

"Although the price of redemption was not actually paid by Christ till after His incarnation yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefit thereof were communicated to the elect in all ages successively from the beginning of the world, and by those promises, types, and sacrifices wherein He was revealed, and signified to be the seed which would bruise the serpent's head, and the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, being the same yesterday, and today, and forever. (The Baptist Confession Of Faith Of 1689, Chapter 8, Section 6; study 1 Cor. 4:10; Heb. 4:2; 1 Pet. 1:10,11; Rev. 13:8; Heb. 13:8)




Objections To The Atonement


Argument. “The Atonement represents God as unmerciful, cruel, vindictive, and blood-thirsty if He requires a sacrifice of a life to appease His wrath.”


Answer. It was an act of mercy to mankind to permit a substitute. It was a greater act of mercy that God not only permitted a substitute but that He Himself provided one, and He became that substitute. Since the Law of God could not be annulled nor lowered and sin could not go unpunished, God Himself in the person of His Son submitted to the penalty in order to set man free. That was mercy in superlative. God so loved the world that He gave His Only-begotten Son. No man can deny God’s mercy after reading John 3:16.

Argument. “There is no need of an Atonement.”


Answer. This is a very prevalent objection at the present day. It is said that all that is necessary is for the sinner to repent and for God to forgive Him on the ground of His repentance. This is not God’s view of this matter. God has taught us something very different in His Word. From end to end the Bible teaches that salvation is only by a vicarious sacrifice. Christ must go to Calvary.

Matthew 26:39 "And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt."

Mark 8:31 "And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again."

Luke 9:22 "Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day."

Luke 24:7 "Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again."

Luke 17:25 "But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation."

John 3:14 "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:"

John 12:34 "The people answered him, We have heard out of the Law that Christ abideth forever: and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? who is this Son of man?"

John 20:9 "For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead."

Acts 4:12 "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."

Acts 17:3 "Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ."

Hebrews 3:16 "For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses."

Hebrews 9:22 "And almost all things are by the Law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission."

Hebrews 9:23 "It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these."


Atonement And The Sovereignty Of God
It is God’s prerogative to state the conditions on which individuals may be saved. It is the responsibility of those who hear the gospel to accept the conditions as God has laid them down. No one yet wiser than God. Since God has provided a vicarious sacrifice, it is not for anyone to say there is no need of it. That is inexcusable presumption. It is teaching for doctrines the commandments of men and it is wrong. If a person should repent and obey perfectly the Law of the Lord after hearing what it commandments are, that would be but duty. However, even such obedience could not atone for previous acts of transgression before repentance occurred and obedience began. The Law that has been broken and the wrong that has been done still require Atonement for ethical improvement is not sufficient to save the soul.


Moral Reformation Is Not Enough
God cannot remit sin without Atonement because He has threatened to punish it, and His veracity is at stake. He has declared that the wages of sin is death (Romans. 6:23). “The day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Gen. 2:17). In light of this, “How shall God be just and justify the ungodly?”


Athanasius (AD 293?-373) answered the concept that the Atonement was not needed in his day. “Suppose,” he said, “that God should merely require repentance in order to salvation. This would not be improper in itself did not conflict with the veracity of God. God cannot be untruthful even for our benefit. Repentance does not satisfy the demands of truth and justice. If the question pertained solely to the corruption of sin, and not to the guilt and ill desert of it, repentance might be sufficient.”
Athanasius realized that reformation does not satisfy the whole requirement of God’s holiness. The guilt and punishment of sin must be dealt with as well as sin’s perversion. God’s perfect Law and God as a perfect governor cannot ignore either the corruption of sin or its guilt and penalty. In His provision for man’s salvation God has had due regard for every aspect of sin and guilt. To ignore the guilt and deal only with the pollution of sin would compromise the essential attributes of God. Moreover if repentance alone is necessary, the whole incarnation was useless and Christ has come and died without sufficient reason.
Sin cannot be pardoned without Atonement because God is the moral ruler of the universe and cannot sacrifice the interests of moral government. Sin is not merely a private matter. It concerns the government of the world. Private rights may be relinquished but not public welfare nor universal laws. The objection, if true, would lower God’s attribute of righteousness and destroy regard for all Law.


The Majesty And Mercy Of God
The Atonement best displays God’s glory and conserves man’s highest good. If God adamantly demanded the punishment of sin and refused any substitute He could not display His mercy. If He excused sin without Atonement He could not display His holiness and justice. If either of these attributes of mercy and justice were obscured in man’s sight, then man would not feel constrained to be better than His God. The Atonement vindicates every attribute of God and reveals His nature to man for His admiration and emulation.

Argument. “It is unjust to punish the innocent for the guilty.”


Answer. This objection makes an absolute distinction between the offering and the one making the offering. If God had laid the penalty on some innocent being without his consent, that would have been injustice; but if God Himself assumed the penalty it was no injustice to man, and no injustice to him who voluntarily assumed it; but rather the expression of Divine and infinite love.

Argument. “If sin is punished it cannot be forgiven, and if forgiven it cannot be punished.” This objection is illustrated in this manner: “If a murderer is pardoned he cannot be hanged, and if hanged he cannot be pardoned. "


Answer. If a murderer is pardoned the Law is simply set aside and true justice is not exacted. But God’s Law is not set aside. Rather, His justice and mercy are exhibited in the Substitute who bore the penalty at Calvary to secured the remission of sins. Justice and mercy met in a Divine Atonement for sins.

Argument. “Christ could not suffer the penalty of sin without enduring remorse and eternal death.”


Answer. Christ’s infinite dignity and worth gave to His sufferings an infinite value which was full legal equivalent for the sins of a race; and more than sufficient for all the penalty due to the whole race, for all the sufferings of the race would be only finite at most.


Theories Of The Atonement



The Moral Influence Theory. This theory, a most unworthy one, denies the expiatory and vicarious nature of Christ’s work and assigns its value to the moral effect produced by Christ’s teaching, example, and manifestation of self-sacrificing love. According to this theory Christ is not an expiatory sacrifice, not a substitute for man, paid no penalty, and made no satisfaction to justice. But Jesus is a teacher. He is an example, and a manifestation of Divine love. Christ saves not by His death, but by His life. He produces a moral effect thereby on the hearts and minds of men which may be designated the “Moral Influence Theory.”


The Ransom Theory. According to this theory Jesus paid a ransom to free us from the bondage of sin. Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45 tells us that Christ came "to give his life a ransom for many." 1 Timothy 2:6 speaks of Jesus "who gave himself a ransom for all."

The Legal Theory. The atonement is described as an act of obedience to the law which had been violated by sinners. A penalty had to be borne in order to rescue the guilty. Jesus paid that penalty. The righteousness of God was vindicated. In specific passages the death of Christ is represented as demanded by God's law and government. (A.H. Strong) Galatians 4:4,5 speaks of Christ being "born of a woman, born under the law, that he might redeem them that were under the law." Jesus said in Matthew 3:15 that certain things had to happen for "thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness." Jesus fulfilled the righteousness of the law because He did not come "to destroy the law or the prophets." (Matt. 5:17) So Jesus "became obedient even unto death" (Rom. 5:19) He "gave himself for our sins". (Gal. 1:4) "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a true." (Gal. 3:13 cp. Deut. 21:23) By Christ's legal death, He exhibited God's righteousness in the pardon and restoration of sinners. Romans 3:25,26 speaks of Him "whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God." The death of deaths in the death of Christ was "a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant." (cf. Heb. 9:15)


From Theory To Truth: Scriptural Satisfaction
"The complete answer to all theories is the exhibition of the true nature of the Atonement as taught in the Scriptures. All theories of the Atonement are efforts in the right direction, to understand and express its meaning; but quite likely any or all of them fall short of a perfect expression. It takes the whole Bible to explain the Atonement. Our widest conceptions may touch only the fringe of its meaning. The Atonement in its height and depth and length and breadth is beyond our mental and spiritual limitations. Before the cross of Calvary the world has paused, and gazed, and wept, and worshipped, in adoring wonder; and well it may." (David Clark) Expiation and substitution are the biblical facts of the Atonement, not a theory. The Bible explains:


for whom the Atonement was made to expiated sin;
how it made satisfaction to God;
to what was the satisfaction made;
and how it affects those who are to be the heirs of salvation.


In summary, the Atonement satisfies the just demands of God the Father. In recognizing this we discern once more the attributes of God: love and justice. And there is a wonderful harmony. "There is love in His justice and justice in His love. The whole Divine being expresses Himself in the exercise of any attribute as the whole man does in thinking, feeling and volition. The Atonement is a satisfaction to God’s love as well as to His justice. " (David Clark)

"Jesus loves me, this I know.​

For the Bible tells me so."​

​

http://www.sounddoctrine.net/Bible/Soteriology_Murrell.htm​

 

[cygnusx1]

If you look back at what I wrote, I stated that the wicked died to bring a merciful end to their sinning:



I did not suggest that the wicked were killed to discipline them. You should keep such things in mind before making statements such as:



Now do you have any evidence in support of PSA, or are you willing to admit PSA is without Biblical support?

Unless you are willing to grant that not all punishment is for disciplining those punished , it is impossible to go any further!


so far you have been unable or unwilling to back up your claim that all Punishment from God is merely chastisement ......... not punitive!

Your insistance that some are punished by death for sin , (the flood and Sodom and Gommorrah etc ) in order to vindicate His servants is almost a perfect match for Penal Atonement ..... as in God handing over other nations for destruction in order to spare His own people , that is substitution .... wicked nations slain instead of sinul Israel!

 

[Philip]

.

 

[Philip]

Unless you are willing to grant that not all punishment is for disciplining those punished ,

Why should I concede this? It is the very thing you are trying to prove.

it is impossible to go any further!

Let me be sure I am understanding you. The only way we can procede is if agree that punishes (not disciplines) sinners? It seems that you are conceding that PSA has no logical or Biblical basis. It seems that you are admitting that to prove PSA, we must first assume the penal aspect of the theory. Are you familiar with the phrase 'assuming the consequent'?

so far you have been unable or unwilling to back up your claim that all Punishment from God is merely chastisement ......... not punitive!

Incorrect. I have demonstrated via

Deuteronomy 32:35-36
Vengeance is Mine, and retribution, In due time their foot will slip; For the day of their calamity is near, And the impending things are hastening upon them.' For the LORD will vindicate His people, And will have compassion on His servants, When He sees that their strength is gone, And there is none remaining, bond or free.​

that the vengeance of God is the vindication of the righteous. I have also demonstrated via

Genesis 6:6-8
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." But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.​

that God's 'destructive' acts are driven by His sorrow at man's condition. His intent is to restore man. It is up to you to demonstrate, if it is possible, that God's vengeance takes a form other than vindication.

Your insistance that some are punished by death for sin , (the flood and Sodom and Gommorrah etc ) in order to vindicate His servants is almost a perfect match for Penal Atonement

Have you been reading my posts? I have repeated several times that the deaths of the wicked are a merciful end to their sinful lives. I have not said that they are punished.

..... as in God handing over other nations for destruction in order to spare His own people , that is substitution
.... wicked nations slain instead of sinul Israel!

While I am not sure what 'sinul' means, I fail to see how this is in any way reflective of PSA.

 

[cygnusx1]

Why should I concede this? It is the very thing you are trying to prove.

You are equating God's Wrath poured out with God's Mercy !!

If we cannot even get passed this small step , then the discussion is going nowhere.

Let me be sure I am understanding you. The only way we can procede is if agree that punishes (not disciplines) sinners?

well if you wish to argue that those who have fallen under the wrath of God and were killed for sin only were experiencing God's mercy and discipline ....... then go right on ahead ...... I am sure it will make not a few readers smile!

It seems that you are conceding that PSA has no logical or Biblical basis.

It has , but what point is there in reading page 1002 if we cannot even get past page 2 ?

It seems that you are admitting that to prove PSA, we must first assume the penal aspect of the theory. Are you familiar with the phrase 'assuming the consequent'?

of course , I am also familiar with the basis for God's wrath , Justice not mercy!

Incorrect. I have demonstrated via

Deuteronomy 32:35-36
Vengeance is Mine, and retribution, In due time their foot will slip; For the day of their calamity is near, And the impending things are hastening upon them.' For the LORD will vindicate His people, And will have compassion on His servants, When He sees that their strength is gone, And there is none remaining, bond or free.



​

that the vengeance of God is the vindication of the righteous. I have also demonstrated via

Genesis 6:6-8
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." But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.



​

that God's 'destructive' acts are driven by His sorrow at man's condition. His intent is to restore man. It is up to you to demonstrate, if it is possible, that God's vengeance takes a form other than vindication.

If the attempt in destroying sinners is to restore those same sinners then you really are saying all will be saved in the end , or God has failed , so which is it ?

I am sure anyone reading this will perceive that those who have fallen under God's wath are in fact failing to realise Divine mercy but instead are truly under God's Righteous judgment derived not from mercy but from Justice.
The ones who don't fall under Divine wrath are the ones who realise God's mercy!
BTW , I am more concerned with a vindication of God's Justice than a vindication of sinful humans ........
Romans 3


1What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
2Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
3For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
4God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
5But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man) 6God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?

It comes to something where the wrath of God is confused with the mercy of God ...... this makes the Mercy of God , where God is witholding sentence , no different from God releasing His wrath!

Have you been reading my posts? I have repeated several times that the deaths of the wicked are a merciful end to their sinful lives. I have not said that they are punished.

Yes I am sure that you can argue that God's destroying humans is merciful .......... for of course it serves as a warning to others , but only to others!

While I am not sure what 'sinul' means, I fail to see how this is in any way reflective of PSA.

I am talking of God destroying sinful people in order to redeem His own Israel who had sinned.......

Isa 43:1But now thus saith the LORD that created thee, O Jacob, and he that formed thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called [thee] by thy name; thou [art] mine.

Isa 43:2When thou passest through the waters, I [will be] with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee: when thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee.

Isa 43:3For I [am] the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour: I gave Egypt [for] thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee.

Isa 43:4Since thou wast precious in my sight, thou hast been honourable, and I have loved thee: therefore will I give men for thee, and people for thy life.

 

[Philip]

You are equating God's Wrath poured out with God's Mercy !!

Now you are starting to understand.

If we cannot even get passed this small step , then the discussion is going nowhere.

If you want to 'get passed this small step', then demonstrate that I am wrong.

It has , but what point is there in reading page 1002 if we cannot even get past page 2 ?

You keep claiming that PSA has Biblical support, but you don't seem to want to present it. I have presented quotations of Scripture to demonstrate my position. You have neither refuted my position nor offered support for yours. All you have done is claim that I have to accept your position before you can explain it to me. Give me some reason to accept your position.

of course , I am also familiar with the basis for God's wrath , Justice not mercy!

Okay, present your argument.

If the attempt in destroying sinners is to restore those same sinners then you really are saying all will be saved in the end , or God has failed , so which is it ?

Seriously, are you reading my posts? For (at least) the third time in this thread, the death of the wicked is a merciful end to their sinful lives.

I am sure anyone reading this will perceive that those who have fallen under God's wath are in fact failing to realise Divine mercy but instead are truly under God's Righteous judgment derived not from mercy but from Justice.

Your confidence in your position does not constitute evidence for your position. If it is so easy to perceive your position, it should also be easy to demonstrate it. How 'bout it?

The ones who don't fall under Divine wrath are the ones who realise God's mercy!

Another claim. Any support for it?

BTW , I am more concerned with a vindication of God's Justice than a vindication of sinful humans ........

Perhaps that is the problem. Do you honestly believe that the primary purpose of God's revelation of Himself to us is to prove His Justice? Do you not think the primary purpose is to effect our salvation?

What the heck -- I'll play along. What is God's Justice, and how is it vindicated?

Romans 3

I see your problem. You are focusing on this small passage and ignoring the rest of Romans, where God speaks of vindicating the righteous.

It comes to something where the wrath of God is confused with the mercy of God ...... this makes the Mercy of God , where God is witholding sentence , no different from God releasing His wrath!

You are assuming your position is correct without offering support again. You presume (but have not demonstrated) that God's mercy is 'witholding sentence'. But what did Christ show us of mercy?

Matthew 20:30-34
And behold, two blind men sitting by the roadside, when they heard that Jesus was passing by, cried out, "Have mercy on us, Son of David!" The crowd rebuked them, telling them to be silent; but they cried out the more, "Lord, have mercy on us, Son of David!" And Jesus stopped and called them, saying, "What do you want me to do for you?" They said to him, "Lord, let our eyes be opened." And Jesus in pity touched their eyes, and immediately they received their sight and followed him.
​

Christ's mercy is to heal us. It is not 'witholding sentence'.

Yes I am sure that you can argue that God's destroying humans is merciful .......... for of course it serves as a warning to others , but only to others!

I fail to see your point. What does God bringing a merciful end to sin have to do with warnings?

I am talking of God destroying sinful people in order to redeem His own Israel who had sinned.......

Okay, but you failed to show where the punishment occured.

 

[cygnusx1]

Seriously, are you reading my posts? For (at least) the third time in this thread, the death of the wicked is a merciful end to their sinful lives.

merciful !!! Merciful to who ?

and are you still persuing the idea that all punishment is corrective ..... show how men who are destroyed for their sin are undergoing corrective discipline !!!

 

[cygnusx1]

Now you are starting to understand.

at least one of us is

If you want to 'get passed this small step', then demonstrate that I am wrong.

when someone dies under God's wrath that is not corrective discipline ........ unless you think hell is like boot camp!

You keep claiming that PSA has Biblical support, but you don't seem to want to present it. I have presented quotations of Scripture to demonstrate my position. You have neither refuted my position nor offered support for yours. All you have done is claim that I have to accept your position before you can explain it to me. Give me some reason to accept your position.

The afflictions which the Lord Jesus experienced were not only sufferings at the hands of men, but also enduring punishment at the hand of God: "it pleased the LORD to bruise Him" (Isa. 53:10); "Awake, O sword, against My Shepherd, and against the man that is My Fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd" (Zech. 13:7) was His edict. But lawful "punishment" presupposes criminality; a righteous God had never inflicted the curse of the law upon Christ unless He had deserved it. That is strong language we are well aware, yet not stronger than what Holy Writ fully warrants, and things need to be stated forcibly and plainly today if an apathetic people is to be aroused. It was because God had transferred to their Substitute all the sins of His people that, officially, Christ deserved to be paid sin’s wages.
The translation of our sins to Christ was clearly typed out under the Law: "And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, (expressing identification with the substitute), and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat (denoting transference), and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness: And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited" (Lev. 16:21, 22). So too it was expressly announced by the Prophets: "The LORD hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all... He shall bear their iniquities" (Isa. 53:6, 11). In that great Messianic Psalm, the 69th, we hear the Surety saying, "O God, Thou knowest My foolishness; and My sins are not hid from Thee" (v. 5) —how could the spotless Redeemer speak thus, unless the sins of His people had been laid upon Him?
When God imputed sin to Christ as the sinner’s Surety, He charged Him with the same, and dealt with Him accordingly. Christ could not have suffered in the stead of the guilty unless their guilt had been first transferred to Him. The sufferings of Christ were penal. God by act of transcendent grace (to us) laid the iniquities of all that are saved upon Christ, and in consequence, Divine justice finding sin upon Him, punished Him. He who will by no means clear the guilty must strike through sin and smite its bearer, no matter whether it be the sinner himself or One who vicariously takes his place. But as G. S. Bishop well said, "When justice once strikes the Son of God, justice exhausts itself. Sin is amerced in an Infinite Object." The atonement of Christ was contrary to our processes of law because it rose above their finite limitations!
Now as the sins of him who believes were, by God, transferred and imputed to Christ so that God regarded and treated Him accordingly—visiting upon Him the curse of the law, which is death; even so the obedience or righteousness of Christ is, by God, transferred and imputed to the believer so that God now regards and deals with him accordingly—bestowing upon him the blessing of the law, which is life. And any denial of that fact, no matter by whomsoever made, is a repudiation of the cardinal principle of the Gospel. "The moment the believing sinner accepts Christ as his Substitute, he finds himself not only freed from his sins, but rewarded: he gets all Heaven because of the glory and merits of Christ (Rom. 5:17). The atonement, then, which we preach is one of absolute exchange (1 Pet. 3:18). It is that Christ took our place literally, in order that we might take His place literally—that God regarded and treated Christ as the Sinner, and that He regards and treats the believing sinner as Christ.
"It is not enough for a man to be pardoned. He, of course, is then innocent—washed from his sin—put back again, like Adam in Eden, just where he was. But that is not enough. It was required of Adam in Eden that he should actually keep the command. It was not enough that he did not break it, or that he is regarded, through the Blood, as though he did not break it. He must keep it: he must continue in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them. How is this necessity supplied? Man must have a righteousness, or God cannot accept him. Man must have a perfect obedience, or else God cannot reward him" (G. S. Bishop). That necessary and perfect obedience is to be found alone in that perfect life, lived by Christ in obedience to the law, before He went to the cross, which is reckoned to the believer’s account. It is not that God treats as righteous one who is not actually so (that would be a fiction), but that He actually constitutes the believer so, not by infusing a holy nature in his heart, but by reckoning the obedience of Christ to his account. Christ’s obedience is legally transferred to him so that he is now rightly and justly regarded as righteous by the Divine Law. It is very far more than a naked pronouncement of righteousness upon one who is without any sufficient foundation for the judgment of God to declare him righteous. No, it is a positive and judicial act of God "whereby, on the consideration of the mediation of Christ, He makes an effectual grant and donation of a true, real, perfect righteousness, even that of Christ Himself unto all that do believe, and accounting it as theirs, on His own gracious act, both absolves them from sin, and granteth them right and title unto eternal life" (John Owen).
http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Justification/just_05.htm

Okay, present your argument.



Seriously, are you reading my posts? For (at least) the third time in this thread, the death of the wicked is a merciful end to their sinful lives.

Right , mercy is not withholding destruction but granting it , yes , I can see that!!

Your confidence in your position does not constitute evidence for your position. If it is so easy to perceive your position, it should also be easy to demonstrate it. How 'bout it?

what and carry on without any agreement on the fundementals of Law Justice Wrath and Mercy , you cannot have mercy without Justice.

Another claim. Any support for it?

Romans 9
22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath made for destruction,23in order to make known the riches of his glory for the vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory,24even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

Perhaps that is the problem. Do you honestly believe that the primary purpose of God's revelation of Himself to us is to prove His Justice? Do you not think the primary purpose is to effect our salvation?

I am beginning to wonder if you even believe in Justice ........ what do you think Justice is exactly ?

What the heck -- I'll play along. What is God's Justice, and how is it vindicated?

Through Law!

I see your problem. You are focusing on this small passage and ignoring the rest of Romans, where God speaks of vindicating the righteous.

It's no use looking around the "field" for other hills , this one is here try dealing with it!

You are assuming your position is correct without offering support again. You presume (but have not demonstrated) that God's mercy is 'witholding sentence'. But what did Christ show us of mercy?

Matthew 20:30-34
And behold, two blind men sitting by the roadside, when they heard that Jesus was passing by, cried out, "Have mercy on us, Son of David!" The crowd rebuked them, telling them to be silent; but they cried out the more, "Lord, have mercy on us, Son of David!" And Jesus stopped and called them, saying, "What do you want me to do for you?" They said to him, "Lord, let our eyes be opened." And Jesus in pity touched their eyes, and immediately they received their sight and followed him.



​

Christ's mercy is to heal us. It is not 'witholding sentence'.

well I don't consider pouring out fire and brimstone on people to be medicine ......... perhaps you should be advising the medical industry

I fail to see your point. What does God bringing a merciful end to sin have to do with warnings?

For the sake of the Elect God will show what He thinks of sin !

Okay, but you failed to show where the punishment occured.

oh dear you want a grid reference now...........


Isa 43:1But now thus saith the LORD that created thee, O Jacob, and he that formed thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called [thee] by thy name; thou [art] mine.

Isa 43:2When thou passest through the waters, I [will be] with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee: when thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee.

Isa 43:3For I [am] the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour: I gave Egypt [for] thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee.

Isa 43:4Since thou wast precious in my sight, thou hast been honourable, and I have loved thee: therefore will I give men for thee, and people for thy life.

 

[cygnusx1]

The Utilitarian Theory of Punishments


by R. L. Dabney

Our opponents virtually adopt the utilitarian ethics, for on it they found a famous objection to the gospel doctrine of substitution. They proceed thus: God is love. But a ruler whose single consummate moral attribute is benevolence can punish one of his creatures only from a benevolent motive. They find this motive in God's desire to administer a healing medicine to the spirit of the creature whom he loves, which he perceives is suffering from the disease of sin; and also the benevolent desire to deter the other thoughtless creatures from sinning. They suppose that God in his punitive providence regards sin only as a natural mischief, injurious to the welfare of creatures, and not a moral evil incurring his righteous displeasure, and carrying an inherent ill-desert. They suppose that the sentiment of the loving God in view of sin is only compassion, and not moral resentment, just like the feeling of the good, kind mother towards the sickness of her amiable child. This mother, prompted by love alone and prudential expediency, imposes restraints upon the sick child quite irksome to it, and administers remedies which afflict the sufferer with additional nausea, gripings, and burning pains. But in all the treatment, there is nothing vindicatory; her sole object is to deliver the child from the greater miseries resulting from unremedied disease. Exactly such, say they, is God's punitive policy toward sinners; it is only to be explained as remedial. And on this theory of punishment they found a famous objection against penal substitution. The sick child must swallow his own physic himself. It will be no remedy for him to have it swallowed by a healthy comrade. So, the punishment of a substitute is utterly futile for any medicinal result, and, therefore, foolish and cruel. The shallowness of this boasted argument is revealed by a simple question: Do not our opponents claim for Christ's sufferings great medicinal or remedial effects?
And according to them, were not the sufferings borne by one person, Jesus, and the benefits received by others, converted sinners? Here, then, we have the same case which they pronounce absurd: the healthy person drinking the medicine, and the sick persons healed by it without tasting it. But this explanation of God's punishments is notoriously that of the utilitarian ethics. The famous book of Dr. Wm. Paley, his Moral and Political Philosophy, with those of Hobbes, Locke, Helvetius, Hume and other advocates of the "Selfish System," once gave currency to the ethics of expediency in New England. To all sound philosophers, that sorry system is dead, slain by the unanswerable logic of Bishop Butler, Dr. Richard Price, Cousin, Jouffroy, Kant, and indeed, a great host in America, Britain, France and Germany. This theory of punishments is an integral part of that utilitarian system of ethics; since the parent stock is dead, this branch must be but rubbish, fit only to be burned. The recital of the general refutation would lead too far away from our special object in this discussion. Such refutation ought to be needless for well-informed men. For the demolition of this remedial theory of punishments, these remarks are sufficient.
We were about to say that it finds no support in the Holy Scriptures; but we remember that this old book may carry little authority with our opponents. While the Scripture often describes God as administering medicinal chastisement to his reconciled children for their good, it nowhere ascribes to him such a motive for his retributions upon the condemned and reprobate. His objects here are always different, the satisfaction of his own moral indignation, the meetings of the claims of justice, the vindication of his law.
In order to hold this remedial theory we must adopt very degrading views of God's omniscience, not to say of his sagacity; and we must conclude that as a moral governor he is very much a failure (absit blasphemia)! For even our creature experience has shown us that the temporal miseries visited upon sin by divine providence mostly fail to reform sinners. The prodigal usually goes on, in spite of the evils of poverty, to repeat his sins of waste and idleness. The drunkard experiences the miseries of disease, but returns again to his strong drink. The miseries of pagan life are more severe than those experienced in Christian lands, and they are mostly traceable to their idolatries; but we do not see that they convert any pagans. In truth, whenever we see instances of sanctified affliction, that is to say, of the temporal penalties of sin reforming the sinners, the good result is accounted for, not by the operation of the mere pain, but of the word and Spirit of God, employing it as a timely occasion for the sanctifying impressions. If God is infinitely knowing and wise, does not he also see this? If he is infinitely benevolent, why does he continue to employ this pretended remedial policy when he sees it futile, and therefore cruel? It may be added that if this theory of remedial penalties is relied on to justify the criminal laws of states, then it shows their punitive policies to be wretched and contemptible failures. What felon repents in a Penitentiarium? We demand, then, of our rationalistic and humanitarian opponents, why they permit their boasted commonwealths to continue civil punishments if they believe that penalty can only be justified as a benevolent remedy for transgressions?
But a more fatal objection is found in every case of those moral creatures of God who are punished, but not for their restoration. If there is any authority in the Bible, it makes known to us two very numerous classes of such culprits, reprobate men and the fallen and condemned angels. Their punishment cannot be designed to be remedial; because for them there is to be no remedy, but perdition. Of course, therefore, God does not design the penal sufferings of these creatures as benevolent; they simply are retributive, or they are inexplicable.
This theory is utterly inapplicable to an infinite heavenly Father. Human parents seek to cure the diseases of their children by using distressing remedies. They know that their remedies are as real natural evils as the disease itself, although smaller and briefer evils. They know that their curative policy is, after all, "a choice of evils." Why do they not employ some relief for their beloved children which is no evil at all? Because they cannot help themselves; their knowledge and power are quite limited. Were they omnipotent their love would surely cause them to prefer another remedy. They would complete the curative work upon those they love by their simple word of power: "Be healed!" But the heavenly Father is sovereign, and infinite in wisdom and power. If benevolence were his sole motive in punishing, why did he not choose some other painless remedy? When we add that, being omniscient, he must have foreseen the complete failure of the distressing remedy in multitudes of sufferers, and that, being almighty, he must have felt himself able to use any other remedy he chose, equally painless and potent, our question becomes crushing. The theory of the remedial policy, as applied to God's government, stands exposed as equally shallow, thoughtless, and worthless.
It breaks down equally when tested in another way. If the ruler's motive in punishing were only remedial and deterrent, without any eye to retributive justice, then every consideration should decide him to punish where the punishment would be most effective for these ends. Upon this plan many cases would arise in which it would be more politic, and therefore more just, to punish some innocent person, without his consent, closely connected with the real culprit whose reform is designed. For instance, here is a fallen reprobate woman, guilty of frequent disorders, and several times chastised for them by law. But she has became so callous and desperate that the legal penalties fail to influence her. In this arid heart there is yet one green spot; she still has one daughter, the child of her better days, who is innocent and charming. The mother still loves this child with all the passion which centers upon a sole remaining object. The magistrate punishes this child with stripes. As the hardened mother witnesses her torments and her screams, she relents; she resolves to reform, and her mother love keeps her to her resolution. Do we therefore say that it was more wise and just to scourge the innocent child than the guilty mother? This is abhorrent to every right mind. But according to the theory we combat, it should be entirely acceptable to our consciences.

http://www.mbrem.com/jesus_Christ/dab-ch4.htm

 

[*Starlight*]

I don't agree with penal substitution... It just seems evil to me! It makes God a sadistic tormentor who HAS to cause suffering for someone, eather people or Jesus... It goes totally against God's love, justice, mercy...

 

[Philip]

merciful !!! Merciful to who ?

Merciful to those who would have continued sinning endlessly.

and are you still persuing the idea that all punishment is corrective ..... show how men who are destroyed for their sin are undergoing corrective discipline !!!

Those who are willing to repent are corrected. Those who persist in their sin are brought to a merciful end of their sin.

when someone dies under God's wrath that is not corrective discipline ........ unless you think hell is like boot camp!

Once again, those who refuse to repent have their lives brought to a merciful end lest they continue sinning indefinitely.

The afflictions which the Lord Jesus experienced were not only sufferings at the hands of men, but also enduring punishment at the hand of God: "it pleased the LORD to bruise Him" (Isa. 53:10); "Awake, O sword, against My Shepherd, and against the man that is My Fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd" (Zech. 13:7) was His edict.

Once again, your theory assumes its consequent. You claim these passages indicate punishment. Yet, there is no mention of punishment in them. You must assume that 'bruise Him' means 'punish Him'. The rest of the website continues in similar errors. It presumes an penal model of atonement and then attempts to support it. It does not offer a basis for that model.

Right , mercy is not withholding destruction but granting it , yes , I can see that!!

Would you find it more merciful that they be allowed to continue in their sinful ways, becoming more and more depraved?

what and carry on without any agreement on the fundementals of Law Justice Wrath and Mercy , you cannot have mercy without Justice.

Sure you can. Christ had mercy on many people during His ministry on earth. I demonstrated it above with the healing of the two blind men. Where are your concepts of Law, Justice and Wrath in these miracles?

Romans 9
22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath made for destruction,23in order to make known the riches of his glory for the vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory,24even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

This does nothing to support your point. Notice that it is by not showing his wrath to the 'vessels of wrath', but by enduring with much patience, that His glory is revealed.

I am beginning to wonder if you even believe in Justice ........ what do you think Justice is exactly ?

Justice is what God does. God's actions are the definition of justice.

Through Law!

How so?

It's no use looking around the "field" for other hills , this one is here try dealing with it!

I did not realize it was time for bad metaphors, but I can play along. You do not see the forrest because you are blinded by the trees.

well I don't consider pouring out fire and brimstone on people to be medicine ......... perhaps you should be advising the medical industry

For those who refuse help, a merciful end is all that is possible. But in truth, it does not matter what you consider to be 'medicine'. It is God's opinion that matters. If you recall, I demonstrated above that the flood was not an act of anger or retribution. It was an act brought on by God's sorrow for the state of man. In case you forgot, here is the passage again:

Genesis 6:6-8
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." But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.​

The flood was not a punishment, but an (albeit temperary) end to sin. God acted out of sorrow -- concern for man. You have yet to offer any evidence of God exacting revenge on man.

oh dear you want a grid reference now...........

Repeating the same passage does not change the fact that it makes no mention of punishment. Care to try again?