Good Works performed by the Lost?

[Smeagol]

Westminster Chapter 9:

3. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation;a so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good,b and dead in sin,c is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.d

a. John 15:5; Rom 5:6; 8:7. • b. Rom 3:10, 12. • c. Eph 2:1, 5; Col 2:13. • d. John 6:44, 65; 1 Cor 2:14; Eph 2:2-5; Titus 3:3-5.

How should we think about the seemingly “good” acts of those who are not Christians? Or is this a question built on a false presumption?

I think it is easy to see and explain, as Westminster does, that the lost can do no “spiritual good”. However, when sharing our faith or defending the faith what are some helpful ways you have found to explaining the pagan that exhibits, for example:

- great work ethic
- keeping promises
- saving someone’s physical life (doctor or first responder situations)
- supporting orphanages
- etc.

I am currently reading Calvin’s thoughts on “free will” and would love to here some thoughts on the seemingly good civil works often perceived from those who do not know Christ or openly reject Christianity.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Here's WCF 16:7 (Of Good Works)
VII. Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them they may be things which God commands; and of good use both to themselves and others:23 yet, because they proceed not from an heart purified by faith;24 nor are done in a right manner, according to the Word;25 nor to a right end, the glory of God,26 they are therefore sinful and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God:27 and yet, their neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing unto God.28

 

[Taylor]

Westminster Confession of Faith 16.7 is quite clear on this issue:

Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them they may be things which God commands, and of good use both to themselves and others; yet because they proceed not from a heart purified by faith, nor are done in a right manner, according to the Word, nor to a right end, the glory of God; they are therefore sinful, and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God. And yet their neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing unto God.​

The only way for any work to called "good" in the truest sense is for it to be 1) according to God's Word, 2) done in love for God, 3) in faith, 4) in a right manner, and 5) to the right end—namely, the glory of God.

(I saw Bruce reply with the exact same thing right before I hit "Post Reply.")

 

[Polanus1561]

Matthew 5:46-47 - ⁴⁶ For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? ⁴⁷ If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? ⁴

 

[Smeagol]

@Contra_Mundum @Taylor I often rejoice in how natural and logical the Westminster Confession flows. One chapter’s naturally arising questions are often met with another chapter’s answers. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Schoolman]

Bad works are evil. Good works done in unbelief might actually be spiritually worse. Good works not done in a genuine faith in the one God, in the person of Jesus Christ, are done out of something and for something. For what we know of man, it is done out of personal ambition to be “good,” to receive appreciation from others—for pride in one’s self and his own faith placed into his own “goodness.” Isn’t that what the rich man, the Pharisees, and we all did when we were lost or privately thinking that we were better than others, as hypocrites do?

 

[inkling]

The Confession begins in Section 7 that these works, though not originating from sanctification, are for the “good use both to themselves and others.” Caution may be in order against conflating soteriology (and the good works that spring from genuine faith) with the general good, which God enables to continue across the full spectrum of humanity (which springs from common grace), which was the original question in this post. A couple of points from Berkhof from the chapter in ST on common grace:

In connection with the general operations of the Holy Spirit the subject of common grace also calls for attention. It should be understood, however, that Reformed theology does not, like Arminian theology, regard the doctrine of common grace as a part of Soteriology. At the same time it does recognize a close connection between the operations of the Holy Spirit in the sphere of creation and in that of redemption, and therefore feels that they should not be entirely dissociated.

…What explanation can be given of the special gifts and talents with which the natural man is endowed, and of the development of science and art by those who are entirely devoid of the new life that is in Christ Jesus? How can we explain the religious aspirations of men everywhere, even of those who did not come in touch with the Christian religion? How can the unregenerate still speak the truth, do good to others, and lead outwardly virtuous lives?

…In later Reformed theology…the name gratia communis came into general use to express the idea that this grace extends to all men, in contrast with the gratia particularis which is limited to a part of mankind, namely, to the elect.

…Dr. Hodge expresses it thus: “It is very plain that any plan designed to secure the salvation of an elect portion of a race propagated by generation and living in association, as is the case with mankind, cannot secure its end without greatly affecting, for better or for worse, the character and destiny of all the rest of the race not elected.”

…To common grace man further owes all the natural blessings which he receives in the present life. Though he has forfeited all the blessings of God, he receives abundant tokens of the goodness of God from day to day. There are several passages of Scripture from which it appears abundantly that God showers many of His good gifts on all men indiscriminately, that is, upon the good and the bad, the elect and the reprobate, such as: Gen. 17:20 (comp. vs. 18); 39:5; Ps. 145:9, 15, 16; Matt. 5:44, 45; Luke 6:35, 36; Acts 14:16, 17; 1 Tim. 4:10. And these gifts are intended as blessings, not only for the good but also for the evil. In the light of Scripture the position is untenable that God never blesses the reprobate, though He does give them many gifts which are good in themselves. In Gen. 39:5 we read that “Jehovah blessed the Egyptian’s house for Joseph’s sake; and the blessing of Jehovah was upon all that he had in the house and in the field.” And in Matt. 5:44, 45 Jesus exhorts His disciples in these words, “Bless those that curse you … that ye may be children of your Father who is in heaven.” This can only mean one thing, namely, that God also blesses those who curse Him. Cf. also Luke 6:35, 36; Rom. 2:4.

Berkhof, L. (1938). Common Grace. In Systematic Theology (pp. 432–444). Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans.

 

[dhh712]

@Contra_Mundum @Taylor I often rejoice in how natural and logical the Westminster Confession flows. One chapter’s naturally arising questions are often met with another chapter’s answers. Thanks for sharing.

That's why when I first read the Westminster Confessions it just blew me away and by the mercy of God led to my conversion. It is such a clear and logical explanation of the Bible.

The plainest way I consider those humanitarian good works done by nonbelievers is that they do not know God--therefore it is impossible for their motivation for those good works to be the glory of God. Even should they do exactly the same thing as a believer.

Say for example, to take a different example than the one which Jesus gives when he says (as John brought up) "If you love those who love you, what reward do you have?", a non-believer invites some not-so-well-off people in his neighborhood to his home for dinner knowing that they cannot repay him. Even so, that "good work" would not be pleasing to God. And that would be due to how the non-believer is not doing the good work to the glory of God because he does not know God, does not believe He exists. The believer who does the exact same thing--and we would give him the benefit of the doubt that he is doing this to the glory of God--however this work would be pleasing to God.

The Confession begins in Section 7 that these works, though not originating from sanctification, are for the “good use both to themselves and others.” Caution may be in order against conflating soteriology (and the good works that spring from genuine faith) with the general good, which God enables to continue across the full spectrum of humanity (which springs from common grace), which was the original question in this post. A couple of points from Berkhof from the chapter in ST on common grace:


Berkhof, L. (1938). Common Grace. In Systematic Theology (pp. 432–444). Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans.

Thank you for bringing this up. It is not that these good works done by nonbelievers are not in any way at all good in the general sense as God showers His mercy and goodness upon all the earth to His enemies and children (who once were His enemies) alike. Those humanitarian efforts God stirs in hearts so that His kindness and compassion may be shown in His temporal blessings which I understand that to include the common grace which like you mention is given to everyone, believers and nonbelievers alike.

 

[Poimen]

Canons of Dort 3.4:

"There remain, however, in man since the fall, the glimmerings of natural light, whereby he retains some knowledge of God, of natural things, and of the differences between good and evil, and discovers some regard for virtue, good order in society, and for maintaining an orderly external deportment. But so far is this light of nature from being sufficient to bring him to a saving knowledge of God, and to true conversion, that he is incapable of using it aright even in things natural and civil. Nay further, this light, such as it is, man in various ways renders wholly polluted, and holds it in unrighteousness, by doing which he becomes inexcusable before God."

 

[Polanus1561]

Perhaps think about Paul’s /good works/ pre conversion as well… what did Paul think about it.

 

[pgwolv]

Me: How should we think about the seemingly “good” acts of those who are not Christians?

ChatGPT: The acts of non-Christians can be seen as reflecting universal moral principles or as being influenced by cultural, personal, or other factors. Christians can view such acts as evidence of God's common grace and as opportunities for sharing the gospel and demonstrating the love of Christ. Ultimately, it is important to approach such acts with gratitude and humility, recognizing that all goodness comes from God and seeking to extend his love and truth to those who do good.

 

[MyCrows]

Me: How should we think about the seemingly “good” acts of those who are not Christians?

ChatGPT: The acts of non-Christians can be seen as reflecting universal moral principles or as being influenced by cultural, personal, or other factors. Christians can view such acts as evidence of God's common grace and as opportunities for sharing the gospel and demonstrating the love of Christ. Ultimately, it is important to approach such acts with gratitude and humility, recognizing that all goodness comes from God and seeking to extend his love and truth to those who do good.

Gave you a thumbs up, because I'm not sure it's morally right to "Amen" a chat bot.