Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

WCF Chapter 16 section 7. So yes, virtuous in the eyes of the world, but not before God. You need the Spirit for that, you must be born again.
 
Moral virtue consists of habits of good choice. Virtue aims at happiness as the end of the life, and is the habit of choosing the right means to it, choosing real goods and avoiding apparent goods.
~Mortimer Adler
 
I would say yes, but how would they justify it? What would the unbeliever hang his hat on to account for the meaning of being virtuous? What does he count as virtue? Take his worldview to it's ultimate end. If being virtuous is what makes others happy then he'd have to be able to measure happiness (which is immaterial) and he couldn't disregard what makes others happy, even if it's "evil" in his eyes. To use the easiest and most relatable example would be the Nazis, as they thought it virtuous to try to exterminate the Jews for the advancement of the German people. How could an unbeliever say that's wrong? What standard would be appeal to? Himself? Society?

Being virtuous, to sum it up as simply as I can imagine, would be the application of the "golden rule". How do we know how to treat others? Special revelation as revealed in the scriptures.

Of course an unbeliever can treat others like himself and that's because the unbeliever is in constant contact with God through natural revelation and the law being written on our hearts, but he surpresses the truth in unrighteousness.

I believe Calvin mentioned that even the depraved and unregenerate man can act virtuous but only in self-interest.

Argument can be made that a Muslim or Hindu can be virtuous because they have their god, but just like the unbeliever they too have to account for it. You have to go through their worldview and it will contradict itself soon enough. Christianity alone can account for truth.
 
I wonder if that's a matter of definition? Webster's says virtue is defined as "behavior showing high moral standards." In that case it could be possible that one could practice moralism, which would be anti-gospel, and not of faith.

Just a thought.
 
I wonder if that's a matter of definition? Webster's says virtue is defined as "behavior showing high moral standards." In that case it could be possible that one could practice moralism, which would be anti-gospel, and not of faith.

Just a thought.
Webster's Dictionary is defining a word, not a doctrine. Its work has to do with English usage, not the Bible. It is crucial to compare modern Webster's Dictionary with Webster himself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top