Retribultion Theology

[agedman]

Retribution Theology is basically the view that good deeds result in good things happening. That one who sows evil will reap evil. "One who sows to the flesh will of the flesh reap a whirl wind." Galatians 6:8

The thinking that bad happens as a result of sin is seen in the question given to Jesus, "Rabi, who sinned, this man or his parents?" (John 9:2)

This same thinking is carried over to expressions concerning God's wrath.

That God MUST have satisfaction for all injustice done to Him.

I will take the side that such theology is not Scriptural.

God does not present himself as vindictive (returning tit for tat), rather as both the Justice and the one who justifies. (Romans 3:26) He is that which listens for the confession and then does the cleansing (1 John 1:7-9)

At no point was Job reaping what he had sown.

At no point did Paul become healthy, wealthy, and wise from doing right.

So why is "retribution theology" so much a part of those who portray scenes of the Cross or of Heaven?

In my opinion, it is because even society demands such a view. A person is said to "get their just desserts" when punished for evil.

Yet, I don't consider the expanse of Scripture supporting such view. Even in the Old Testament, the retribution thinking was not carried through.

When an Israeli committed a grave offense, such that a group may desire justice, that offender could flee to a safe city. The offended could then go to the city and present their case.

If that person was found innocent, that person had to remain in the city, never to go out accept at their own risk until the death of the high priest. (I wonder if this is why the Israelis took up the practice of rotating high priests?)

If that person was found guilty, that person was taken by the offenders and punished.

Is this an example of retribution?

No, because the innocent still had to be restricted. There was not an grant or waver to allow freedom to travel at will.

Ultimately, retribution theology fails both from support of Scripture but also from natural inclinations.

For we all have had the occasion of expressing what in practice we would not perform. Yet, retribution theology would demand the performance.

For example, parents of a rebellious child could take the child to the city council (sitting at the gate) and ask if the child needed to be put to death.

Retribution would not allow for the asking, but the slightest rebelliousness would automatically result in stoning.

Your thoughts?

 

[Yeshua1]

Retribution Theology is basically the view that good deeds result in good things happening. That one who sows evil will reap evil. "One who sows to the flesh will of the flesh reap a whirl wind." Galatians 6:8

The thinking that bad happens as a result of sin is seen in the question given to Jesus, "Rabi, who sinned, this man or his parents?" (John 9:2)

This same thinking is carried over to expressions concerning God's wrath.

That God MUST have satisfaction for all injustice done to Him.

I will take the side that such theology is not Scriptural.

God does not present himself as vindictive (returning tit for tat), rather as both the Justice and the one who justifies. (Romans 3:26) He is that which listens for the confession and then does the cleansing (1 John 1:7-9)

At no point was Job reaping what he had sown.

At no point did Paul become healthy, wealthy, and wise from doing right.

So why is "retribution theology" so much a part of those who portray scenes of the Cross or of Heaven?

In my opinion, it is because even society demands such a view. A person is said to "get their just desserts" when punished for evil.

Yet, I don't consider the expanse of Scripture supporting such view. Even in the Old Testament, the retribution thinking was not carried through.

When an Israeli committed a grave offense, such that a group may desire justice, that offender could flee to a safe city. The offended could then go to the city and present their case.

If that person was found innocent, that person had to remain in the city, never to go out accept at their own risk until the death of the high priest. (I wonder if this is why the Israelis took up the practice of rotating high priests?)

If that person was found guilty, that person was taken by the offenders and punished.

Is this an example of retribution?

No, because the innocent still had to be restricted. There was not an grant or waver to allow freedom to travel at will.

Ultimately, retribution theology fails both from support of Scripture but also from natural inclinations.

For we all have had the occasion of expressing what in practice we would not perform. Yet, retribution theology would demand the performance.

For example, parents of a rebellious child could take the child to the city council (sitting at the gate) and ask if the child needed to be put to death.

Retribution would not allow for the asking, but the slightest rebelliousness would automatically result in stoning.

Your thoughts?

Holiness of God demands that He must judge and punish sins and sinners for rebellion against Him, correct?

 

[HankD]

Retribution Theology is basically the view that good deeds result in good things happening. That one who sows evil will reap evil. "One who sows to the flesh will of the flesh reap a whirl wind." Galatians 6:8

The thinking that bad happens as a result of sin is seen in the question given to Jesus, "Rabi, who sinned, this man or his parents?" (John 9:2)

This same thinking is carried over to expressions concerning God's wrath.

That God MUST have satisfaction for all injustice done to Him.

I will take the side that such theology is not Scriptural.

God does not present himself as vindictive (returning tit for tat), rather as both the Justice and the one who justifies. (Romans 3:26) He is that which listens for the confession and then does the cleansing (1 John 1:7-9)

At no point was Job reaping what he had sown.

At no point did Paul become healthy, wealthy, and wise from doing right.

So why is "retribution theology" so much a part of those who portray scenes of the Cross or of Heaven?

In my opinion, it is because even society demands such a view. A person is said to "get their just desserts" when punished for evil.

Yet, I don't consider the expanse of Scripture supporting such view. Even in the Old Testament, the retribution thinking was not carried through.

When an Israeli committed a grave offense, such that a group may desire justice, that offender could flee to a safe city. The offended could then go to the city and present their case.

If that person was found innocent, that person had to remain in the city, never to go out accept at their own risk until the death of the high priest. (I wonder if this is why the Israelis took up the practice of rotating high priests?)

If that person was found guilty, that person was taken by the offenders and punished.

Is this an example of retribution?

No, because the innocent still had to be restricted. There was not an grant or waver to allow freedom to travel at will.

Ultimately, retribution theology fails both from support of Scripture but also from natural inclinations.

For we all have had the occasion of expressing what in practice we would not perform. Yet, retribution theology would demand the performance.

For example, parents of a rebellious child could take the child to the city council (sitting at the gate) and ask if the child needed to be put to death.

Retribution would not allow for the asking, but the slightest rebelliousness would automatically result in stoning.

Your thoughts?

NKJV Genesis 6
6 And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.
7 So the LORD said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them."

While it is true that Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD, the rest of the world found retribution.

Also;

Genesis 19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

HankD

 

[agedman]

NKJV Genesis 6
6 And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.
7 So the LORD said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them."

While it is true that Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD, the rest of the world found retribution.

Also;

Genesis 19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

HankD

Neither place is actually retributive theology. It presents no redeeming value in the punishment, nor does it result in an equilibrium upon such punishment being endured.

This is the ultimate hazard of the retributive system because it obliges determined length in which each infraction is measured. At the end of serving the retribution, there is no more condemnation, and folks like the RCC and Mormons consider that humankind ultimately all reach heaven.


In particular to the examples you gave:

"The wages of sin is death."

How that death comes is appointed by God.

But it is still death. There is no "retribution" in death.

"Do not fear those that destroy the body and afterward have no power, rather fear Him who can destroy both the body and the soul in hell." (Matthew 10:28)

 

[HankD]

Neither place is actually retributive theology. It presents no redeeming value in the punishment, nor does it result in an equilibrium upon such punishment being endured.

This is the ultimate hazard of the retributive system because it obliges determined length in which each infraction is measured. At the end of serving the retribution, there is no more condemnation, and folks like the RCC and Mormons consider that humankind ultimately all reach heaven.


In particular to the examples you gave:

"The wages of sin is death."

How that death comes is appointed by God.

But it is still death. There is no "retribution" in death.

"Do not fear those that destroy the body and afterward have no power, rather fear Him who can destroy both the body and the soul in hell." (Matthew 10:28)

OK that's easy, when you don't like the the examples we give just redefine retribution and say the examples are not actually "retributive theology".

HankD

 

[JonC]

Holiness of God demands that He must judge and punish sins and sinners for rebellion against Him, correct?

How does God punish sins?

 

[Steven Yeadon]

I still don't really understand what you mean by "retributive theology." Can you post a link to a website or article?

I for one don't have to think hard to know that God is a God of justice in the bible. David is cursed to have Absalom rise up against him and loses a new child after his affair with Bathsheba and murder of Uriah, even though he repents readily (2 Samuel 12:11-14). He gets to keep his life after his repentance (verse 13).

In addition, Jesus dies for us a perfect sacrifice to take away our sin under the Old Testament prophecies and Law (2 Corinthians 5:21, 1 Peter 2:24, Colossians 2:13-14, 1 Peter 3:18). God's justice was met through His Law by the human sacrifice of Jesus, His Son (Hebrews 9:22).

God will also avenge unpaid for acts of evil, after this life especially (Romans 12:19). My point is that God demands the punishment of those that have committed a crime in the Old Testament. This is reinforced in the New Testament by examples like Ananias and Saphira. God still demands penalty for sin.

Only the Cross takes away sin and makes us white as wool, clean as snow when we first come to it on faith and believe. Of course, if you know me, I must say that you will not go off into a life of Lawlessness if you really had deep enough faith to stand the tests of this life.

A question to ask would be: If a believer commits murder and violates the laws of basic human decency by doing so, what must be done with him if he repents? My reading of the bible so far indicates that this man would still need to be punished but just not with his life or the full extent of the law. However, there is of course still a punishment for such injustice.

 

[TCassidy]

I still don't really understand what you mean by "retributive theology."

Simply put it means that God deals with you according to your works. He rewards good works by sending good things into your life and he rewards bad works by sending bad things into your life.

There is some small grain of truth in the concept. The heavy smoker will probably develop lung cancer or emphysema/COPD.

But there are many, many other reasons not related to our sin for why God allows bad things into our lives. To teach us to endure hard times as a good soldier of Christ is one of them. For Him to show Himself strong in our lives is another.

I have had several cancers removed starting in 1977. Just about the time I was declared cancer free, I was diagnosed with PPN (Peripheral Poly Neuropathy). A couple years later they admitted the diagnoses was wrong and I had CIDP (Chronic, Inflammatory, Demyelinating, Polyneuropathy). After another couple years they decided that diagnoses was also incorrect and I had a very rare form of Multiple Sclerosis.

That's a lot of bad things in my life. Are they God's retribution for my sin? No, Christ already paid the penalty for my sins. There are other reasons for these things in my life. I am here because I have an appointment with God. When I learn whatever it is He wants me to gain from these problems He will either deliver me from them or He will give me more grace to endure them.

But the idea of retribution is usually one person saying another person's problems are the result of sin in their lives. But their own problems are not, of course. As it is usually practiced it seems to me to have its roots deep in self-righteousness.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

Simply put it means that God deals with you according to your works. He rewards good works by sending good things into your life and he rewards bad works by sending bad things into your life.

There is some small grain of truth in the concept. The heavy smoker will probably develop lung cancer or emphysema/COPD.

But there are many, many other reasons not related to our sin for why God allows bad things into our lives. To teach us to endure hard times as a good soldier of Christ is one of them. For Him to show Himself strong in our lives is another.

I have had several cancers removed starting in 1977. Just about the time I was declared cancer free, I was diagnosed with PPN (Peripheral Poly Neuropathy). A couple years later they admitted the diagnoses was wrong and I had CIDP (Chronic, Inflammatory, Demyelinating, Polyneuropathy). After another couple years they decided that diagnoses was also incorrect and I had a very rare form of Multiple Sclerosis.

That's a lot of bad things in my life. Are they God's retribution for my sin? No, Christ already paid the penalty for my sins. There are other reasons for these things in my life. I am here because I have an appointment with God. When I learn whatever it is He wants me to gain from these problems He will either deliver me from them or He will give me more grace to endure them.

But the idea of retribution is usually one person saying another person's problems are the result of sin in their lives. But their own problems are not, of course. As it is usually practiced it seems to me to have its roots deep in self-righteousness.

If agedman agree with your summary of his beliefs, then this is classic health and wealth Gospel with a twist God rails against in the bible. While some of our pain no doubt comes from our sin so as to correct and discipline us, we are never told that life is so easy to understand from God's almighty perspective. What of Job? To say pain is always the result of sin is to call both Job and God wrong and the three miserable friends of Job right! This cannot stand according to His Word! There are of course plenty of examples of the innocent suffering for no fault of their own, Jesus is another, ultimate example.

 

[agedman]

OK that's easy, when you don't like the the examples we give just redefine retribution and say the examples are not actually "retributive theology".

HankD

I didn’t redefine retribution.

Retribution theology rests on the thinking that just payment is made releasing the offender from further requirements the offended.

Death does not do that, just as I showed by the Scriptures, and why some groups insist some retribution after death, for they present that not all sins are forgiven and therefore must undergo some time in the flames.

 

[HankD]

I didn’t redefine retribution.

Retribution theology rests on the thinking that just payment is made releasing the offender from further requirements the offended.

Death does not do that...

I meant retribution in the classical sense but your sentence is very confusing.

here is retribution for dishonoring communion

Corinthians 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

HankD

 

[agedman]

I meant retribution in the classical sense but your sentence is very confusing.

here is retribution for dishonoring communion

Corinthians 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

HankD

This is a bit long, but I hope it will be helpful for the readers.

1 Corinthians 11 is a great verse. It is clearly an instructive verse in the expectations of God.

Perhaps the NASB may present as a bit easier to follow for the readers.

27Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. 30For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. 31But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. 32But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world.​

A question comes from the judgment thinking. Is the "discipline (chastening)" retribution, or is it corrective instruction in righteousness?

Remember, death is merely a transition carrying in itself no judgment or condemnation. It is as one born, an event. The manner of birth, the environment of the birth, ..., may impact what results are after the birth, but the birth is but a transition.

Therefore, are the sickly and soon dead retribution, or was it that of the natural effects of sowing (to the wind) and reaping (the whirlwind), and more, were these used as examples of the standard God expects. (A pattern seen often in the OT and NT)

There are times from our perspective that it may seem retribution theology is in effect, when, from the perspective of God, it is not.

For example, at the cross, the prophet Isaiah predicted what the reaction of those that passed by would be. "Those three got what they deserved." ("We esteemed Him smitten of God and afflicted." But, that was not at all what was actually taking place.

When humankind (especially in the OT) might look upon a matter as God's wrath and His retribution, there is actually that of instruction in righteousness taking place. From the time of Eden, God does not talk face to face with humankind. He instructs by demonstration.

For example: The fire slaying the two sons of Aaron. It wasn't retribution, for there was immediate death, but it was a demonstration of what God would and would not tolerate in such a manner that everyone could not mistake the lesson.

The same may be considered about those who "took unworthily" in the verse above, or Ananias and Sapphira in Acts, was it retribution or was it instruction in righteousness? From human perspective, one might attempt to explain it as just retribution, when in actuality there was no payment made, no removal of judgement from the offenders, but instruction in righteousness to the assembly.


To clarify the difference in the attempt to help in understanding for the readers:

Retribution carries the thinking of payment for a crime committed. That when payment is made, there is no more demand of payment. Typically the American justice system thinking. It results in a revolving door of crime and punishment, going along with the saying, "if you can't do the time don't do the crime." Retribution never works, not in the home, not in the society.

Godly discipline is not retribution based. Discipline is instruction based. A parent will discipline a child for wrongs, not to punish for the crime but instill the understanding that certain matters are acceptable and unacceptable. This is seen in the Corinthians passage, above.

Throughout the Scriptures (both OT and NT) "instruction in righteousness" is taking place.

A final rhetorical question.

Is there ever a time of retribution theology is found in the Scriptures? The answer is Yes.

There are (imo) two places it is seen.

1) the removal of Adam and Eve from the garden. (Not instructive, everlasting punishment)
2) the casting of all evil into the eternal Lake of Fire. (Not instructive, everlasting punishment)​

Neither has the goal of "instruction in righteousness" and presenting the standard of God's expectations as the determination of the events.

These are truly retribution with no credit given for time served, no early release dates, no parole, no escape, no limit or ending date.

 

[HankD]

This is a bit long, but I hope it will be helpful for the readers.

1 Corinthians 11 is a great verse. It is clearly an instructive verse in the expectations of God.

Perhaps the NASB may present as a bit easier to follow for the readers.

27Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. 30For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. 31But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. 32But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world.​

A question comes from the judgment thinking. Is the "discipline (chastening)" retribution, or is it corrective instruction in righteousness?

Remember, death is merely a transition carrying in itself no judgment or condemnation. It is as one born, an event. The manner of birth, the environment of the birth, ..., may impact what results are after the birth, but the birth is but a transition.

Therefore, are the sickly and soon dead retribution, or was it that of the natural effects of sowing (to the wind) and reaping (the whirlwind), and more, were these used as examples of the standard God expects. (A pattern seen often in the OT and NT)

There are times from our perspective that it may seem retribution theology is in effect, when, from the perspective of God, it is not.

For example, at the cross, the prophet Isaiah predicted what the reaction of those that passed by would be. "Those three got what they deserved." ("We esteemed Him smitten of God and afflicted." But, that was not at all what was actually taking place.

When humankind (especially in the OT) might look upon a matter as God's wrath and His retribution, there is actually that of instruction in righteousness taking place. From the time of Eden, God does not talk face to face with humankind. He instructs by demonstration.

For example: The fire slaying the two sons of Aaron. It wasn't retribution, for there was immediate death, but it was a demonstration of what God would and would not tolerate in such a manner that everyone could not mistake the lesson.

The same may be considered about those who "took unworthily" in the verse above, or Ananias and Sapphira in Acts, was it retribution or was it instruction in righteousness? From human perspective, one might attempt to explain it as just retribution, when in actuality there was no payment made, no removal of judgement from the offenders, but instruction in righteousness to the assembly.


To clarify the difference in the attempt to help in understanding for the readers:

Retribution carries the thinking of payment for a crime committed. That when payment is made, there is no more demand of payment. Typically the American justice system thinking. It results in a revolving door of crime and punishment, going along with the saying, "if you can't do the time don't do the crime." Retribution never works, not in the home, not in the society.

Godly discipline is not retribution based. Discipline is instruction based. A parent will discipline a child for wrongs, not to punish for the crime but instill the understanding that certain matters are acceptable and unacceptable. This is seen in the Corinthians passage, above.

Throughout the Scriptures (both OT and NT) "instruction in righteousness" is taking place.

A final rhetorical question.

Is there ever a time of retribution theology is found in the Scriptures? The answer is Yes.

There are (imo) two places it is seen.

1) the removal of Adam and Eve from the garden. (Not instructive, everlasting punishment)
2) the casting of all evil into the eternal Lake of Fire. (Not instructive, everlasting punishment)​

Neither has the goal of "instruction in righteousness" and presenting the standard of God's expectations as the determination of the events.

These are truly retribution with no credit given for time served, no early release dates, no parole, no escape, no limit or ending date.

OK, I see your point and will cede to the extent that "retribution" not leading to physical death for the children of God is remedial, to change a sinful behavior, to break the behavior pattern.

Physical death being the solution for the child of God with an unyielding spirit.

Yet our Father's dealing in chastisement with His children does still contain an element of retribution...

Hebrews 12
5 And you have forgotten the exhortation which speaks to you as to sons: "My son, do not despise the chastening of the LORD, Nor be discouraged when you are rebuked by Him;
6 For whom the LORD loves He chastens and scourges every son whom He receives."

scourge - mastigoo UBS 03886 Beat with a whip, punish; Louw-Nida 04117 ibid.


HankD

 

[agedman]

OK, I see your point and will cede to the extent that "retribution" not leading to physical death for the children of God is remedial, to change a sinful behavior, to break the behavior pattern.

Physical death being the solution for the child of God with an unyielding spirit.

Yet our Father's dealing in chastisement with His children does still contain an element of retribution...

Hebrews 12
5 And you have forgotten the exhortation which speaks to you as to sons: "My son, do not despise the chastening of the LORD, Nor be discouraged when you are rebuked by Him;
6 For whom the LORD loves He chastens and scourges every son whom He receives."

scourge - mastigoo UBS 03886 Beat with a whip, punish; Louw-Nida 04117 ibid.


HankD

But, is such punishment "retribution" or instruction in and encouragement toward righteousness?

It is like that statement in 1 John concerning "cleansing." We may not like the scour pad being applied, but removing the grime and polishing for shine, allows a greater unobstructed use of His light.

I did not chasten my son out of the need to have him suffer for a wrong done, but out of the desire he present himself more worthy of who he represented of who he was identified as belonging.

That I used a whip in the form of a board, leather, words, or look, my son knew such meant he belonged.

So, our Father chastens and beats every son, because such are identification marks that we belong.

 

[Yeshua1]

How does God punish sins?

By executing His divine wrath towards it.

 

[agedman]

By executing His divine wrath towards it.

When?

If in the present, then there is no reason for the lake of fire.

If in the future, then the lake of fire is determined upon sin and not belief.

All would then be cast in the lake of fire, for "All have sinned."

 

[JonC]

By executing His divine wrath towards it.

God executes His divine wrath towards sins (i.e., sinful actions) as well as towards sinners?

How does one execute wrath against an action? If I lie God executes wrath against me for the lie and also He punishes the lie itself?????

 

[HankD]

But, is such punishment "retribution" or instruction in and encouragement toward righteousness?

Both.

HankD

 

[agedman]

Both.

HankD

Some would desire it to be,

However, with the exception of the removal from Eden and the Second Coming, the presentation of Scriptures is consistently that of instruction of righteousness.

In your thoughts, flip through the pages of the history of Scriptures. Each event in which some human tragedy is expressed is used as instruction in the righteousness of God.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

But, is such punishment "retribution" or instruction in and encouragement toward righteousness?

God's judgements are usually corrective in the first place. But a corrective judgement ignored becomes a retributive judgement.
read Amos 4:6-13; 5:1-2.