Is this injustice?

[royal priest]

I'm taking the OP scenario in terms of final judgment. I realize that is not explicitly stated, but if it's not, then the situation is still open and God may be merciful towards those whom he is now punishing and punish the ones towards whom he is now being merciful. And if that's the case in the OP scenario then it loses its force as an interesting scenario. So, it needs to be taken in terms of final judgment. Your example doesn't fit the scenario.

I see what you are saying now. You are right in terms of final justice. Asaph struggled with that percieved 'injustice' in Psalm 73. But the OP is speaking of God's mercy as it pertains to giving eternal life; if God chose to save five out of the ten sinners.

 

[Hammster]

God doesn't just not punish sin. If you don't repent and trust Jesus to get his amnesty, you will be punished by God in this life or the next, period.

The punishment would still be on His Son. So it would be taken care of.

 

[hedrick]

That makes it sound like He’s obligated to try.

He has obligated himself.

 

[public hermit]

Since when does God have to bow to 'logic'?

That's a good question. The usual response is that God can't do what is illogical, like make a square circle. It's not that God is not powerful enough, but because it is a logical impossibility. But, as Wittgenstein pointed out, if God did make a square circle there wouldn't be anything we could say about it, haha. Presumably we couldn't say anything about a square circle that God made because it would not be comprehensible to us.

The issue here is not logic, but right/wrong, good/evil. If God is morally arbitrary, then the standards held up to us are arbitrary, and that's not how we usually think about God's justice. Evil is evil, not by fiat but because it is against the very nature of God. Now, it is true that the obligations God is under, morally speaking, may be very different than ours. For instance, God is the Creator and we are creatures, so the obligations will be different. But, loosely speaking, God is "obligated" to be who God is. In other words, God cannot be untrue to God's Self. So what is God's nature, morally speaking? Justice or arbitrariness? That difference matters.

Edit: When I talk about God being obligated I am speaking very loosely. To be more exact, God cannot not be God. Or, God is God.

 

[Carl Emerson]

To postulate identical individuals is a falacy.

God never makes two the same.

 

[public hermit]

Why does arbitrary matter?

What is arbitrary justice, but injustice? Or, it's justice not based in what is right/wrong, good/evil. If we hold that God's justice is arbitrary, then his authority as a good God is undone. Would God still be all-powerful, sure. But, such a God would also be capricious, and disinterested in goodness.

 

[AllDayFaith]

Is this injustice?

You can't create fictional situations and then try to fit God into it. We all walk our own path and God judges the heart.

 

[concretecamper]

(Borrowed)

Suppose 10 people sin and sin equally. Suppose God punishes five of them, and is merciful to the other five.

Is this injustice?

The proposition displayed shows a lack of understanding of salvation. Good grief

 

[Carl Emerson]

That's a good question. The usual response is that God can't do what is illogical, like make a square circle. It's not that God is not powerful enough, but because it is a logical impossibility. But, as Wittgenstein pointed out, if God did make a square circle there wouldn't be anything we could say about it, haha. Presumably we couldn't say anything about a square circle that God made because it would not be comprehensible to us.

The issue here is not logic, but right/wrong, good/evil. If God is morally arbitrary, then the standards held up to us are arbitrary, and that's not how we usually think about God's justice. Evil is evil, not by fiat but because it is against the very nature of God. Now, it is true that the obligations God is under, morally speaking, may be very different than ours. For instance, God is the Creator and we are creatures, so the obligations will be different. But, loosely speaking, God is "obligated" to be who God is. In other words, God cannot be untrue to God's Self. So what is God's nature, morally speaking? Justice or arbitrariness? That difference matters.

Yes morality and consistency are inseparably linked.

The way the question is framed suggests the OP wants to question God's morality.

The question itself is foolish and not designed to learn about Him, but to tease brains to no fruitful outcome.

There is no such thing as God being unjust.

There is no such thing as identical people.

We would be better spending time and energy on real issues that will impact our eternal destiny.

 

[public hermit]

You can't create fictional situations and then try to fit God into it. We all walk our own path and God judges the heart.

The OP scenario is certainly limited, but it does draw out a salient feature of some forms of Christian theology, e.g. variations of the Reformed tradition which assert that all are justly condemned, and yet, God is merciful to some and that this mercy is not based on anything related to those who receive it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Given the statement, 5 repented and 5 didn't.

There is no injustice with God.

So did they repent, resulting in mercy? Or did they repent as a result of his mercy?

 

[AllDayFaith]

all are justly condemned, and yet, God is merciful

God is merciful but the day of judgement will separate the chaffe

 

[public hermit]

The way the question is framed suggests the OP wants to question God's morality.

The OP scenario highlights the absolute unmerited nature of God's grace. I think it's an excellent thought experiment for the purpose of thinking about God's grace. But, I doubt it is a one-for-one representation of reality. It's too sparse. Then again, is grace merited? I don't want to say that.

 

[Hammster]

He has obligated himself.

Actually, He hasn’t. He has mercy on whom He has mercy.

 

[Hammster]

What is arbitrary justice, but injustice? Or, it's justice not based in what is right/wrong, good/evil. If we hold that God's justice is arbitrary, then his authority as a good God is undone. Would God still be all-powerful, sure. But, such a God would also be capricious, and disinterested in goodness.

What if it only seems arbitrary to us? We can’t judge God by our standards. If none of the 10 deserve mercy (which they don’t), and God choses to save five, it may seem arbitrary to us, but not to Him. Either way, since He’s not obligated to save anyone, it’s not injustice to save some.

 

[Hammster]

You can't create fictional situations and then try to fit God into it. We all walk our own path and God judges the heart.

Then we are all doomed.

 

[Hammster]

The proposition displayed shows a lack of understanding of salvation. Good grief

The question is valid. Can God choose right save whom He wants?

 

[Hammster]

Yes morality and consistency are inseparably linked.

The way the question is framed suggests the OP wants to question God's morality.

The question itself is foolish and not designed to learn about Him, but to tease brains to no fruitful outcome.

There is no such thing as God being unjust.

There is no such thing as identical people.

We would be better spending time and energy on real issues that will impact our eternal destiny.

Last I checked, nobody made you respond.

 

[concretecamper]

The question is valid. Can God choose right save whom He wants?

the question is not valid. It shows an utter lack of understanding of the Gospel. But anyone is free to go down any path they choose..

 

[concretecamper]

Last I checked, nobody made you respond.

such an ignorant response from a staff member Remember we are to emulate Christ.