In the world of traditional Christianity (or at least Anselm's Christianity) there are ultimately three types of people in relation to how God deals with them (save or punish). According to Anselm, people can be good and be saved; they can be wicked and be punished; or they can be wicked and be saved. (Pros. Ch.9) One may pose a question as to why God, perhaps, chooses not to punish some of the good. Anselm would argue that because God is supremely good it would go against his nature to punish good people. If God punished a good person, this would be unjust and God cannot be unjust because he is the supreme of anything that is better to be than not to be. (Mono. Ch.15) Because it is better to be just than unjust, God is just and, therefore, good (supremely). This, however, is not the topic to be discussed here.
             Traditional Christianity holds that God forgives some wicked people and punishes other equally wicked people. Here is where we want to spend our time. This is to say, if there were two people standing before God who were equally wicked, He may choose to save one and punish the other. It is possible that He may save both or punish both, but the point is that He spares some wicked people who are every bit as wicked as other wicked people. Taken at face value this looks unjust. One might generally conclude that if a person is good they should receive good rewards and if a person is bad they should receive bad punishments. Good for good; bad for bad. This seems logical. Because traditional Christianity holds that God forgives some wicked and punishes others equally wicked, some critics question whether Christians should accept this theory or reject it.
             Should Christians reject this theory? No. Christians should not reject this because although we, as humans, cannot fully comprehend the actions and judgement of God there is some basis for his punishment of some wicked and forgiveness of others equa...