What About the “Good” Choices and Acts of Unbelievers?

Hey Everyone!

I am back to you with a new post. Some comments on a previous post and conversations with some friends of mine have got me thinking about the issue of the title. Most all evangelical Christians agree to some form of original sin and total depravity, since the Bible is very clear on this doctrine. Yet when looking at our world, we quickly see a point of conflict. If there are so many unsaved people on this earth, bound by their sinful nature, why do they seem to do “good” things sometimes? Often, we see nominal non-believers to outright vocal opponents of Christianity doing good acts like giving to charity or donating to the AIDS crisis. A person in bondage to his sinful nature wouldn’t do good things like this, would he? These are very good questions, ones that require a look into Scripture for the answer. By the end of this post, I hope to show a few things:

1. Unsaved people are truly bound to their sinful nature.

2. The “good” acts of unsaved people aren’t really good in the eyes of God.

3. If unsaved people did have the ability to oppose their nature and do good acts, the very core of Christianity would ultimately be made void.

So there’s the agenda for today on the Berean Method, let us begin. The first point will not be hard to support, it is there to provide the premise for the post. There are numerous verses that state the condition of man in his unregenerate state. Romans 3:9-18 will be the first stop. Some key statements in this series of verses are that “there is no one righteous, not even one”, and that “there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God”, “All have turned away…there is no one who does good, not even one”. On his own, in his natural state, this is the condition of man. Romans 6:17 gives a comparison on the state of a redeemed man and a man that is not. It states that before God saves us, we are all “slaves to sin”. In Romans 7, Paul states that unsaved people are “controlled by the sinful nature” with “the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies”. Later in that chapter, it is said that nothing good lives in the sinful nature. After all of this, it can be said that before salvation, people are completely in captivity to a nature where nothing good resides. With that settled, it is on to the question of the unbelievers’ “good” actions.

One thing that should be established before anything else is addressed is that there is a difference between what is good in the sight of man and what is good in the sight of God. That is a glaringly obvious truth but it needs to be stated. The Bible says that man looks at the external appearences, but the Lord looks at the heart (1 Samuel 16:7). So just because something appears to be good to our finite minds, that does not mean that the infinite Lord of all sees something entirely different. There is even a specific example of God despising very good works from the Israelites found in Isaiah. The scene is set when the Israelites continue to do their traditions by giving offerings and sacrifices to the Lord, attending the Holy Festivals and praying. These are all very good works in our eyes but God has a different view. He calls the offerings “meaningless”, their assemblies “evil”, and their festivals a “burden” (Isaiah 1:11-18). Why did God say this? It was He who established the sacrifices, offerings, and festivals in the first place. The answer is found later in the chapter; it is because of the sin in their hearts. These verses all combine to say that good works are only good if they come from a heart that is saved by grace and cleansed of the bondage of the sinful nature. Otherwise all the good works in the world don’t amount to anything more than the “filthy rags” found in Isaiah 64:6.

Now, one thing that is important in showing the flaws of any error in thinking is to expose that bad ramifications or conclusions of the belief. The belief that unsaved people can by their will separate themselves from their nature and do a truly good act has horrible ramifications to say the least. In fact, the very core of Christianity is shattered by it. Here is the train of thought. If unregenerate man can distance himself from his sinful nature and do good works, then what is Jesus for? This might seem to be a stretch but think about it. Jesus came to save a world of wretched sinners, incapable of saving themselves, and justly deserving of the total wrath of God. Jesus took this wrath on himself to make God’s election complete. God can save his elect because Jesus’ righteousness has been imputed on to us. But if man could acquire righteousness without Christ, he would have room to lay a claim on God’s love and therefore have room to boast in his salvation. It would also be true that God would be unjust to send anyone to eternal punishment since there would probably be some good in everyone. This is not theme of the Gospel, nor the theme of Scripture. For Christians, there was not a single good cell nor a single good act in any of us before salvation. For non-believers, they are still in a state that is in complete rebellion and is completely abhorrent to a Holy God completely incapable of doing anything good.

 

The Incompatibility of the Free Will and Original Sin

Hello everyone, I’m back after a Christmas break hiatus. This is somewhat a part 2 to a previous post I did a couple months ago. This topic has to do with another commonly held contradiction in the minds of many modern evangelicals.

I will first clarify that if one denies the existence of original sin, he is totally and logically free to believe in a free will that is present in humans. However, there are many verses in Scripture contrary to this belief that will be discussed later. But the majority of evangelicals still hold to some doctrine of original sin AND free will. The contradiction of these two doctrines will now be shown.

Let us define what is commonly called the “free will”. It is the uninfluenced and unaffected will to any outside force that is supposedly present in all people. Every person is totally able to choose whatever he/she desires. At first glance, this seems so obviously true, one can wonder why its even an issue. Yet, through this analogy, I hope to show that there is something superior to everyone, and every thing’s will; its nature.

Here is the analogy, thought up by my pastor:

There is a vulture flying around looking for food. It is flying over a road looking for a new (or old) carcass. On the horizon, it spots a rotting possum down on the road, but right next to the road, it sees a strawberry patch in the prime of ripeness. Now, that vulture has all the ability and the will to fly over to the strawberry field and feast on the delicious berries. In fact, there is no outside obstruction to prevent the vulture from doing that. So why would a vulture always choose the dead possum over the strawberries? Because a vulture is bound by its nature which tells it that is a scavenger that feeds on dead animals.

Now, pardon me for attempting to compare us to vultures, but as with every other living thing, we too have a nature that binds all of our actions. The Bible is very clear on this nature as the following verses will tell. As Paul says in Romans 7:18, he cannot carry out what he desires because of his sinful nature. Of course, after salvation, we are no longer slaves to sin, but to Christ (Rom. 6:6). Instead, we enter into a lifelong conflict between the flesh and the Spirit. However, I am talking about the unregenerate free will decision of salvation that is believed by many. An unsaved person doesn’t have the ability on his own to accept Christ. Referring back to the vulture analogy, our will is bound by our nature. In mans’ unregenerate state, he is completely bound to his sinful nature which is at constant odds with God (Romans 3:10-18). So, what would an unsaved person’s answer be when confronted with a decision to “accept” or “deny” Christ? It would always and forever be a resounding denial of the truth and power of the Gospel. God first has to change the heart of the person before he is willing to believe in Christ. He does this through the Holy Spirit and according to His timing of the salvation of His elect that He chose before the foundations of the world (Eph. 1:4-10).

The belief of an unregenerate free will is just one more way that we try to give ourselves more power and ability than we have. This is of course one of the many tendencies of the sinful nature. We are only as free as our nature will allow.

 

The Age of Accountability

There are presuppositions that are held by many Christians that are a product of human logic, not necessarily having substantial Biblical support. One of these assumptions is the doctrine of the “age of accountability” as it is called. In many circles, it is one of those unspoken rules of thumb; it is touted as “what has to be true”. However, this doctrine possesses some clear fallacies that are not hard to uncover if proper examination is applied.

Let us first observe the definition and nature of this doctrine. This belief simply states that people who die before reaching an opportunity of understanding of salvation, repentance, etc (i.e. infants, mentally handicapped, etc.) will not be held accountable by God for their sins since they never had the chance to ask for forgiveness. The logic makes sense to finite human conceptions of justice, innocence, and mercy. Is there a more appropriate picture of innocence on earth than a newborn human baby? To think that the precious child would have to bear the wrath of God if he/she died is an unthinkable, if not barbaric thought. I understand there is immense emotion tied to this issue, since it concerns many parents whose children died at a young age. In the midst of such grief, it is comforting to invoke this doctrine as means of assurance of the child’s well-being. Yet, we need to look at God’s revealed Word to us to formulate our beliefs.

Now, I have called and will continue to call the “age of accountability” a doctrine because it is held by many with the same intensity as other true doctrines of Scripture, and for lack of a better word. Yet, it is really nothing more than a logical conclusion. Statements that are normally associated with the belief are ones that begin like, “God wouldn’t do…”, “God isn’t a God that would…”. Note the use of the word “would”. This word is used to imply truth without specific evidence. We say it when we don’t have actual proof to verify a claim, but may have previous events or behavior to give the claim some validity. This is totally fine when dealing with other people, but it is dangerous to assume things about God’s character that aren’t revealed in the Bible. For God’s definition of justice and mercy are far superior to the measly conceptions of our finite minds. Echoed throughout the Bible in chapters and verses such as Job 38 and Isaiah 40:13, our limited depravity and God immeasurable glory is clear.

Aside from the flawed nature of this doctrine, there are some distinct theological and Scriptural problems to be noted. Let’s examine another one of the basic premises of this doctrine and compare them to what we know to be true from the Bible. One of the first pillars of this belief is that we all aren’t really sinful until we knowingly and intentionally commit a sin. Even though this is rarely stated, it is essential to the doctrine. For age of accountability to function, there cannot be any sin already present in humans from conception. If there was, there would be grounds for the person to be held accountable. However, from a brief look at God’s Word, we find that there is sin from the moment of conception; we all bear the curse of Adam without doing anything (Psalm 51:5). We are in complete rebellion towards God from birth and are abhorrent and offensive to His glory.

By now, some of you might be turning red at my post. Almost everyone either knows someone who has gone through the tragedy of losing a child, or lost one themselves. They would be right to say to me, “What’s the hope?!”, “We can’t help the fact that some babies die!”, “Is all the comfort we are to give to grieving parents is a short “too bad”, and be done with it?” There is a hope and it is one that is often forgotten in the doctrine of age of accountability. Is God surprised when one of the people He created in His image dies? When an infant dies, does God freak out, not knowing what to do with the soul? Absolutely not! Could God, in His omniscience, chose all babies that will die young to be His children? We can’t concretely back up that claim, but it sure wouldn’t be outside God’s power. We do know this from Scripture; that God is infinitely just AND infinitely merciful (Neh. 9:31, Micah 7:18, Rom. 11:32). So to answer the question, “What happens to babies that die before a realization of salvation?”, we can’t make a concrete claim Biblically. But we can take comfort in the fact that God is merciful and perfect and what ever happens to the infants will be a part of His perfect plan for His glory.