Justice and Election Explore More Content

Is it fair for God to elect some and not others?

Is it fair for God to elect some and not others?

I think people are under the idea that in order for God to be fair He must treat all people the same in every circumstance. I don't think that's true.

There are two types of justice. There is distributive justice and retributive justice. Retributive justice says that when you hurt someone you are punished for it. If you aren't punished then there isn't just retribution. Distributive justice is really more the issue of fairness. Every person who has a proper claim to something receives what they have coming to them in equal proportion. The key to that is that people have to have a proper claim to it.

The law in our state says that everybody who passes the driver's test and pays their $20 should get a driver's license. If you pass the test and pay the money but don't get a license that's not fair because I have a just claim that says that I have fulfilled what was required so I am entitled to it. That is distributive justice.

But distributive justice does not apply when there is no just claim to a thing. For example, here's an example that Mike Horton had in his book. A man has a million dollars and he decides to give $100,000 to ten different organizations. The eleventh organization does not have a just case against him saying he hasn't been fair and he owes them money also. The reason they don't have a case is that they don't have a just claim to that money. In other words, he can do what he wants with his money and give it to whoever he will.

When a person gives that which he has no obligation to give he is considered gracious in giving to other people, but he is not considered unjust because he doesn't give to an additional party.

I think that this is a good description of what God's election is. It is called grace and, in fact, Jesus himself used an illustration that is very helpful. He talks about the workers coming at different times of the day and when they get their wages they get the same amount. The owner says, "I can do what I want. It's my money." So the issue of fairness is a reasonable question to raise but I think that we have to acknowledge ultimately an intrinsic criticism of this because justice only applies if certain conditions prevail and if those conditions do not obtain (or pertain?) then fairness is not an issue. I don't think those conditions obtain here because God is not obliged to save anyone.

Now if God is obliged to save, if He is obliged because of certain conditions, there is some kind of rule that requires A, B and C, then every person that fulfills those three requirements He is obliged to forgive or He is unfair.

I think this is what Paul means when he says that God is no respector of persons. In other words, He did not respond to anything in the individual person's merit. Because he's rich, I'll respect him. Because he's intelligent, I'll respect him. Or because he's good looking, I'll respect him. That's different than God making autonomous choices of who He wants to save based on His own reasons.

So in a sense you can say that He is a respector of persons in that He had no reason to choose these people. But He's not a respector of persons in the sense of the passage when He chooses people not based on any merit at all that that person has. In fact, one could argue that if God chooses on the basis of personal merit then He is a respector of persons. He chooses people who have a particular quality or merit or something.

God is not obliged to give equally that which He is not obliged to give at all.