There are so few cases of “of God” being found in connection to {orge_} there, that it is virtually certain the phase/term {theou} isn’t original to the text. The UBS committee doesn’t even bother to comment on the question.
Unlike Rom 1:18 where it is virtually certain that the phrase {orge_ theou} is original to the text.
And Rom 2:5-10, where the “indignation” (orge_) being hoarded up by the hard and unrepentant hearts of at least some of Paul’s readers (who believe the homosexual pagans back in chp 1 to be hopelessly condemned only to God’s wrath, without regard to their own guilt before God) in the day of “indignation” to come, is the just judgment of God Who will (there’s that phrase again!) be paying each one in accord with his acts: to those of faction and indeed stubborn to the truth yet persuaded to injustice, indignation and fury, affliction and distress on every human soul which is effecting evil, both of the Jew first and the Greek. There is no reasonable way to read the middle phrases (“indignation and fury, affliction and distress”) except as what God is paying as judgment on those who effect evil. (To continue with the relevant negative-judgment statements in vv.11-12: “For there is no partiality with God; for whoever sinned without law [certainly the Jewish scriptures by context], shall also perish without law; and whoever sinned in law, through law will be judged.”)
And again in 3:5-6, “Now, if our injustice is commending God’s righteousness, what shall we declare? Not that God, that One bringing on indignation, is injust!–according to a man am I saying. * May it not be being that!! Else how shall God be judging the world?” There would be no point to the comparison if God, in judging the world, was not bringing on His own indignation to “our injustice”. Our unjust judging of God (from v.4) is symptomatic of our injustice, as is our indignation; God’s indignation, however, is not unjust in His judgment of us in our injustice.
Again in 12:19, Paul exhorts his readers to be at peace with all mankind and not to be avenging ourselves but instead to be standing aside to indignation. (It’s clearly a “but”, {alla}; not a contextual guess at a “but” from {kai} or {de}.) Standing aside as to no indignation at all? No, “for it is written ‘Vengeance is Mine! I will repay!’ the Lord is saying.”
(This is aside from Rom 9:22, where the point seems to be that God is taking personal responsibility for patiently bearing up vessels of wrath, such as the Jews and Gentiles, constituting Paul’s congregation, have been toward one another by virtue of God’s plan. Much of the thrust of chapters 1-11 is that Jews and Gentiles shouldn’t be dissing one another as enemies of God while they are the righteous faithful ones, but that all who seek God are righteous and faithful, Jew and Gentile alike, and yet all have also fallen short and sinned against God.)
Admittedly, much of Paul’s point to all this is that God’s wrath, unlike human wrath, is aimed at restoration and reconciliation with the sinners, thus actually is just unlike the unjust wrath of human hate. (A point typically missed by Arm and Calv theologians, unless they dare to apply it to themselves perhaps. Not to those other sinners over there.) Nevertheless, while I don’t necessarily disagree with FB’s interpretation of the chp 5 reference to indignation, I can understand why “theologians” would “work” on the text here. Every other single place in Romans, talks about God’s wrath (except maybe in chp 9 and even there God has to be taking responsibility for the human wrath). But on the other hand, the whole point of God’s wrath everywhere else in Romans is to save us from what amounts to our hateful human wrath; so there is some ground for FB’s interpretation of chp 5 this way (which doesn’t immediately, or arguably in nearby context, refer to God’s wrath per se.)
I’ll have to gin up a reply to your most recent reply to me, FB, later. ‘Work’ work to do now. 
Incidentally, “imputed” in Greek has nothing to do with “imputed” in English; the latter term may not even appear in Greek. It doesn’t appear in Paul. The Pauline term occasionally translated “impute”, is only “reckon” or “take into account”.
(So for example God reckons or accounts Abraham’s faithfulness as righteousness–because it was righteousness, and God fairly judged it as that, despite the fact that the Law had not yet been given. Rom 4:1-3ff, with topical lead-in from chp 3. Paul is here arguing against a Jewish notion that only those who do the Law of the Torah can claim righteousness from God. Abraham was righteous long before the giving of the Torah, and so could do no ‘work’ in ‘keeping the Torah’ per se, nor considered the wage of God a debt that was owed to himself for being faithful. Still he was righteous in his faithfulness to God, and God judges him and rewards him accordingly.)
I doubt this will hurt your argument in the least. I just thought you’d like to know.)*
.
Anyway, thanks for putting up with my anti-orthodoxy even though I do believe my points here are scriptural. We may just be seeing different facets of the same diamond? Looking forward to your responses.