Really, I ought to keep track of my link trails. Although I don’t remember how I ended up reading this particular article, I do remember reaching the Duane’s Mind site from the blogroll at Matthew Hamilton’s web site, Thoughts Out Loud. So Matthew is generating traffic for you, Duane.

At any rate, the article I was reading was called “The ‘Innocent’ Heathen” which Duane had republished on 16 July 2008. [1] It was a fairly decent article exposing the nonsense of thinking that unbelief was somehow the grounds upon which people find themselves condemned before God. As I have likewise argued repeatedly, it is not for unbelief that a man is condemned; rather, it is his sin that condemns him, and in his unbelief (itself a sin) he remains condemned. No man is ever in a neutral state; all mankind exists in a state of condemnation on account of sin. We all come from the same pool of death and darkness, of sin and moral ruin—and through unbelief, itself a sin, man remains there. We exist in death; only in Christ do we move to life. We exist in darkness; only in Christ do we move to light. We exist under God’s wrath; only in Christ is that wrath removed. We exist in condemnation; only in Christ are we justified.

So I agree with the basic argument Duane was putting forward. And it was well written. What caught my attention, however, were the objections being raised in the comments section by an atheist named Fluke. Although he can accept that here God is exhibiting justice, what troubles him is the apparent limits of God’s mercy. “Why does God choose to be merciful to some,” he asks, “yet others receive virtually no mercy?” From the fact that God is discriminating with his mercy, Fluke believes that God is less virtuous than he otherwise could be:

My question is, Why is God not completely merciful? Why is he merciful to some and not to others? … With God we have a judge that shows mercy to some and does not show mercy to others (seemingly randomly). God’s mercy is often trumpeted as one of his great virtues by Christians, so I was wondering what your opinion was on why God’s mercy is limited, and if God would be more virtuous if he was more merciful?

There are two things which must be placed in their proper context before the answers to this question can make sense and be understood. First, when it comes to both the justice and mercy of God, the context is the redemption of mankind—practically by definition, since these concepts presuppose the existence of sin. Second, the significant difference between justice and mercy is important; justice is God delivering what we deserve, while mercy is God withholding what we deserve. With this in mind, let us have a look at the three essential questions that Fluke is asking.

1. Why is God merciful to some and not to others?

This question, on my view, ignores the entire point of mercy. The real question is why God shows mercy to anyone at all. No one deserves mercy—by definition. Nor can we earn it—again by definition, for to earn something is to deserve it, and to receive what you deserve is justice, not mercy (e.g., Rom. 4:4).

But to answer the question anyhow, God is merciful to some and not to others because, very simply, he chooses to be. Time and again throughout Scriptures we find that God has mercy on whomever he wills. So why does he not will to show mercy on everyone? Because the mercy of God cannot violate the justice of God. His mercy is not extended whimsically but only where the demands of justice have been satisfied; i.e., God shows mercy only to those for whom the penalties for sin are paid for.

This returns our attention to the fact that mercy is in the context of redemption. When it comes to mercy, it is about God withholding what we deserve. This raises the question, “What is it that we deserve?” Condemnation for our sin, the penalties of which fall under the demands of justice. If that is what we deserve, then mercy is understood as God withholding that condemnation, which he extends to whomever he wills. And since the demands of justice cannot be ignored, God can withhold that condemnation only where the demands of justice have been satisfied (e.g., Rom. 8:1).

So mercy is not, as Fluke put it, a matter of allowing people “an equal shot at accepting Jesus as their Savior.” Mercy is not a matter of simply hearing someone preach the message of the gospel. Mercy is defined as not exacting from sinners the penalties that their sin demands under divine justice, which God can do only if the demands of justice have been met elsewhere, viz. the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. I am reminded of the way John Piper describes the mercy of God: “The wisdom of God has ordained a way for the love of God to deliver us from the wrath of God without compromising the justice of God.”

(There are other aspects of God’s mercy, of course; for example, given that unrepentant sinners deserve to be obliterated immediately, their ongoing existence is a product of God’s mercy, i.e., they do not deserve it.)

2. Is God’s discriminating mercy a random thing?

The mercy of God is not a product of arbitrary whim; on the contrary, as indicated above it is rooted in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. In other words, God shows mercy only to those for whom the demands of justice are met elsewhere, for the mercy of God cannot ignore the justice of God.

3. Does his discriminating mercy detract from his virtue?

Would God be more virtuous if he was more merciful? That depends entirely upon the theory of ethics the question assumes (where virtuous means “conforming to moral and ethical principles” or “morally excellent”). Under a Christian theory of ethics, something is virtuous or morally excellent by the degree to which it conforms to the nature and will of God, and it is not clear how the nature and will of God can conform to any greater degree to the nature and will of God.

4. Miscellaneous Remarks

Fluke contends that “God’s mercy is viewed as one of his virtues,” by which he means that “God is good for being merciful.” It is not clear where Fluke has derived this idea from; i.e., God’s mercy is viewed that way by whom? Since Fluke neither explains nor elaborates on this anywhere, it is nearly impossible to comment. I am aware of theology describing God with a certain nature and attributes that follow necessarily, but I am not familiar with any theological work that grades God by the degree to which he conforms to some preconceived theory of ethics.

Fluke contends that “justness and virtuousness are two different concepts,” which raises two interesting questions: (i) Is not justice a virtue? (ii) Is the difference between those two concepts not the same as the difference between mercifulness and virtuousness?

Most Commented Posts