Divine Justice Issues (XX)

With this chapter we will continue to answer these questions from our original list.

6.  The justice of God is a debate issue in discussing God's choice of sinners to salvation before the world began by grace alone. Is it just for God to choose one to salvation and not another? 

7. Is it just and fair for God to give more to one than to another? This is a question involving what is called "distributive justice." Or, is God fair? 

Involved in these two questions are other questions, such as the one in the image above - "Why doesn't God save everyone?" And, "does God not give everyone an equal chance (opportunity) to be saved?" And, "does God not equally love everyone?" And, "if God chooses to give one greater chances to be saved, is he not unfair?" And, "if some are chosen to salvation before they are born, why?" And, "is it just for God to choose one over another for salvation unconditionally?" 

In some of these questions we are addressing the argumentation of those who believe in universal salvation, the idea that everyone will eventually be saved and enter into eternal life. These will often argue that God's moral character demands that he save everyone, that is, because he is a God who is love and who is kind and benevolent (even towards his enemies) requires that he save all. Some will even say that God would be unjust, or doing what is not right, to fail to save everyone. 

Most Christians believe that not all fallen angels and men will be saved and that the unsaved will spend eternity in the prison of hell. This the bible teaches as we will see later when we discuss the justice of God in sentencing sinners to such a punishment. Most believe, as the bible teaches, that only a portion of fallen men will be saved, yea, even only a few will be saved and most will be lost forever. So, why is this the case? Why has he chosen to save only a few? On what basis did he choose who to save? Is his choice based upon merit? Is God's choice of people to salvation a selection of the best people? Or, a choice of the unworthy? Is his choice arbitrary or random? 

What are the means of salvation? Does every person have access to the means? If God chooses one to be saved, will it not necessitate that he give the chosen ones the means for that salvation? If one dies without ever having the necessary means of salvation, will he still be saved? Is he chosen to salvation but not given the means of salvation? If the means are necessary, is God not obligated in justice to make sure that all have access to the means? And, that he give to all equal chance to be saved? Is it not true that those who live and die without ever having the means of salvation cannot be saved and cannot have been chosen to salvation?

The Blessings of the Firstborn

There are examples in scripture where God gave a good gift or blessing to one person and not to another. Consider the extra blessings given by God's direction to the "firstborn" male child in a family. In the Old Testament a "double portion" was given to the firstborn son, and was given entitlement to a larger inheritance than was given to his siblings, as outlined in Deuteronomy 21:15-17. How is that fair? What is God's justifiable reason for dictating this legal provision? Is this favoritism? How many heirs of a parent's inheritance today would think it unjust for the oldest child to get double the inheritance? I think most people would think it is not fair. Most would think that God was unjust and unfair in setting up this tradition in law.

Further, consider the fact that this giving of the double portion of the inheritance (also called a "birthright") was undeserved and not earned, in fact it was unconditional for the siblings had nothing to do with it. The only condition for obtaining the greater gifted inheritance was to be the firstborn male, and this condition was not under the control of any child, for they were passive in being born first and as a male. Consider also that the saved, or those "chosen to salvation" (II Thess. 2: 13) are judged by God as being members of "the church of the firstborn ones." (Heb. 12: 23) They too will receive a double portion of good things, or gifts, or of the inheritance as compared to others who receive but common blessings. They too did nothing of themselves in being created and born as the firstborn male. Being the firstborn was not an earned or meritorious gift from God.

Choosing of the Patriarchs

Another example is seen in God's choice of Abraham and his offspring through Isaac to be his special people and to receive gifts that he did not give to others. Paul lists some of these when he writes:

"For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen." (Rom. 9: 3-5 nkjv)

Was it an act of favoritism for God to choose Israel for these blessings to the exclusion of others? Was he being partial and unfair? The psalmist also spoke of the peculiar gift of the law and word of God to Israel when he wrote these words:

"He declares His word to Jacob, His statutes and His judgments to Israel. He has not dealt thus with any nation; And as for His judgments, they have not known them. Praise the LORD!" (Psa. 147: 19-20 nkjv)

Was that fair for God to give his word only to Israel? Consider also the fact that the word of God is one of the means of salvation. So, by his not giving his word to the Gentiles, was he not keeping them from the means of salvation, and thus from salvation? We see how later in the history of Israel that God would give his word to the Gentiles after the coming of the Messiah, and this is seen in the new testament and in the giving of the great commission where the Jewish apostles were to go into all the world and preach and teach the gospel and word of God. When we look at the doctrine of election this will be an important factor to keep in mind. Ever since the days of Christ very few of the world's population have had access to the gospel and word of God. Are they therefore all lost without a chance to be saved? Why did the Lord not make the means of salvation available to everyone?

Why did God choose the patriarchs and their seed? Was it because they were superior to others? Was it because they met some conditions that others did not perform? Notice what Moses says to the chosen people:

"The LORD did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any other people, for you were the least of all peoples; but because the LORD loves you, and because He would keep the oath which He swore to your fathers, the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you from the house of bondage, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt." (Deut. 7: 7-8 nkjv)

Stephen in his sermon to the Jews in Acts chapter thirteen says to them:

"The God of this people of Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt, and with an high arm brought he them out of it." (Acts 13: 17 kjv)

It seems clear from these verses that God chose the patriarchs and their descendants unconditionally, meaning that they were not chosen because of any superiority they had over others not chosen. Many find such instances of God choosing people for blessings, gifts, and privileges to be unfair. Rather than choosing the unworthy, they think he should have rather chosen the best people. Just like people today choose a president who they think has superior talents for that exalted position, so many think that God should likewise have chosen those who were in some way superior to others. But, the words of Moses above denies that God chose people because they were judged by God as possessing some superior quality or did some act that set them apart. We have seen this same issue discussed during the last two thousand years in the history of the Christian church. Did God choose to salvation those who he foresaw would believe, repent, be baptized, and endure faithful in holiness and fealty to God until they die? If he did, was he not the one who was responsible for anyone doing those things? But, more on that later.

The Case of Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and Esau

What about God's rejection of Ishmael, Abraham's firstborn, and his choice of Isaac to be the recipient of the promises made to Abraham and to his chosen seed? Was it because Isaac was superior to Ishmael? Was it because one was more worthy than the other? Was it because one was of Abraham's seed and the other not? No, because both were the sons of Abraham and Ishmael was the firstborn. Should God not have chosen Ishmael for that reason? So, why did he reject Ishmael as the chosen heir to the promises of good things made to Abraham? Was God's choice arbitrary?

What about God's rejection of Esau, the older twin, and also the firstborn, and his choice of Jacob to be the heir to the promises God made to Abraham and to Isaac? Was Jacob chosen because he was a good boy, better than Esau? No, for Jacob himself was a deceiver and conspirator, and obtained the birthright of the firstborn from Esau by devious means. So, if God chose Isaac and Jacob, was it because he saw something in them that was different from their older brothers? And, if he did, was it God that made them different? On that matter we have already seen where Paul says that it is God and his giving of good things to a man that makes him different so that no one can claim he was chosen because he made himself better than others. In choosing Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, was God showing a respect of persons and being partial and discriminatory? 

In discussing the case of Isaac and Ishmael, Paul says that their story is an "allegory," a representation of Christian salvation. Wrote the apostle:

"Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman." So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free." (Gal. 4: 28-31 nkjv)

By "he who was born according to the flesh" is meant Ishmael. By He who was "born according to the Spirit" is meant Isaac. Why was Isaac the "child of the promise" and Ishmael not? Why was Ishmael "the son of the slave" while Isaac was the "son of the free woman"? Was it because of anything that each son did? Or was it rather all in the hands of God? Was it not because of God's choice? Does it not seem that God is being arbitrary and acting at random? Recall these words of the same apostle (which we have previously cited):

"But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence." (I Cor. 1: 27-29 nkjv) 

What an amazing act of God! Rather than choosing the superior ones among men, he chooses inferior ones. Rather than choosing the worthy he chooses the unworthy. This is why we are told that God has chosen the poor of this world to become the heirs of salvation. (James 2: 5) So, does this not mean that one must be poor, weak, unpopular, low class, etc., in order to be saved? If yes, then God make us all poor and despised! Further, if God is the one who makes us to differ from another, then his choosing us because we are different still makes God the sole decider of destiny and the one alone who deserves the credit for choosing and saving a person. 

What did Isaac do of his own volition in order to become "the child of promise"? What did he do to be "born of the Spirit"? What did he do to become the heir to the Abrahamic promised blessings? Or conversely, what did Ishmael do or not do to cause him to be rejected by God for those blessings? Does it not appear to be a case where God chose people by his mere good pleasure alone and for reasons known only to him? If he chose Isaac because he was born of the Spirit rather than born of the flesh, i.e. born by the power of God and contrary to nature, why was he born miraculously (to a woman and man who were beyond the age of being able to procreate)? Was his spiritual birth the result of his own choice or his own doing? Or, was his spiritual birth the result of God's unmerited choice of Isaac? God chooses those who he first makes different and not because one makes himself different. This leads us to the oft debated question as to whether God chooses those who have faith or whether people have faith because they have been chosen. Did God choose me because I first chose him? Or, do we rather choose God because he first chose us? The apostle John says "we love him because he first loved us." (I John 4: 19) 

What these scriptures are telling us is this; If God chooses us, and gives good things to us, such as eternal life and salvation, because we are different (we believe and repent, for instance), it still does not make God's choice and favors to be merited because the very things the choice depends upon are themselves God's creation or causation. This is why in debating this ordo salutis with those who say "God chose in eternity those who he foresaw would have faith in him in time" I find it better to discuss why one has faith and another does not, and to discuss whether faith is given to one and not to another. If faith be shown to be God's gift or his production, then he would simply be choosing those he predetermined and therefore foreknew would have the faith that he predetermined to give. Other Calvinists choose rather to simply deny that God chose those who he foreknew would believe. 

It is a well known fact that the church fathers in the first few centuries of the Christian era believed that God chose those who he foreknew would believe. I don't find that to be objectionable, as long as we see faith as an undeserved gift of God and that it is effectually given to all those he chose to give it. If we look at the case of Isaac, all the things that were involved in his becoming God's chosen, spiritually born son, or the child of promise was not of his own active doing, but of God's doing, a work wherein Isaac was simply the passive receiver. This, as we will see in the next chapter, led Paul to conclude: "So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy." (Rom. 9: 16 nkjv) God's choice of Isaac and Jacob to be the heirs of the promises was not because Isaac and Jacob willed for it so to be or pursued that end and destiny, but merely because God chose them and favored them with mercy.