We continue our discussion of the seeming contradiction between total depravity (that doctrine which expresses that fallen man is unwilling and unable to do any good work apart from the grace of God) and the common experience of seeing good done amongst those who have no faith in the living God.

In the first section, we identified that there is always a sinful motivation behind every work which appears to be good apart from faith, for the purpose of the work is never the glorification of God – which is to say, it is not with the intention that good be done but that good be done for personal reason or benefit. We established that in these cases, the author of the good is God, but the author of the evil is man.

In this section, the question shifts to whether it is a fact of Biblical pedigree that God works through the wicked and evil acts of man to achieve the ends of good, or if it is only by chance that good occurs out of evil. We will do this by discussing a number of passages from the Bible to show how it is that God has so designed things that an evil and wicked man in his wrongdoing might bring about good not through repentance and faith but through continuance in sin.

God so arranges matters so that he authors good even through acts of human wickedness

In the book of Isaiah we encounter God revealing his plan to use the sinfulness of a wicked man to achieve a military victory. The man in question is the Rabshakeh, or field-commander, of the King of Assyria who was ready to invade Judah. This is the design God revealed through Isaiah to King Hezekiah of Judah “Behold, I will put a spirit in him, so that he shall hear a rumor and return to his own land, and I will make him fall by the sword in his own land” (Isaiah 37:7). Indeed, “the Rabshakeh returned, and found the king of Assyria fighting against Libnah, for he had heard that the king had left Lachish”, thus in his wicked zeal for military conquest was he led away – it was his wish to support his evil king in the work of invasion and subjugation which kept him from Judah. That there was good done is undeniable, for Judah was protected and her prayers answered, yet that good was not on the part of the man who decided to do it – for he thought only of evil conquest and never of bringing relief to Judah.

Perhaps one of the most memorable accounts of God’s design to bring about good through the pure evil of man is that of Joseph, sold into slavery to Egypt by his very own brothers out of deep jealousy and greed. Yet, with what words does Joseph comfort them when at last he reveals himself as so powerful a person in Egypt? Truly, Joseph said to them, “as for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today” (Genesis 50:20). It was truly good to save so many from famine, and to glorify God so greatly, and yet we can in no means imagine that Joseph’s brothers had any intention other than the most terrible of evils when they sold him into slavery. We see here again that God does act to use the evil of man to produce good effect, as testified by scripture.

More than four centuries later, Moses was to bring Israel out of Egypt again, which by time the country had become a place of the most horrific slavery. Now, we know that it was with faith that Moses acted and he did so through the grace of God; yet let us look to the effect of the great evil within Egypt. What has the effect of this brutal treatment and enslavement been throughout history and even until today? Surely, it is not less than that which Moses expresses in “Remember this day in which you came out from Egypt, out of the house of slavery, for by a strong hand the LORD brought you out from this place” (Exodus 13:3). The power of Egypt and the wicked enslavement of Israel stands to demonstrate in the most vivid way the great power of God which exceeds the full power of the greatest nation of that time, and the love of God which brought Israel from the depths of human bondage to the heights of freedom under God. No more notable action is recorded between the time of Noah and the time of Christ than this great deliverance, and it stands above all else to glorify God and as a witness to his name amongst all generations. So, the great blessing of the power of the Lord is revealed not by the evil acts, but in response to the evil acts; the great good of the deliverance being in no way attributable to Egypt for causing the need for exodus but only to God himself.

Indeed, the destruction of evildoers as a means to glorify God is not an isolated theme. For example, Paul writes in Romans 9:22, “what if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction”. Here we gain a glimpse into God’s eternal decrees, and their purpose. First, the wickedness of men fitted to destruction, and secondly that the purpose of his longsuffering is to show his wrath and to make his power known. Here we discuss the reprobate, to whom we can certainly attribute no good works; but yet there is good produced – for through them God will reveal some of his own power and glory. To this we find agreement from Proverbs 16:4 which states that “The LORD has made everything for its purpose,
even the wicked for the day of trouble”; so even the reprobate have a purpose to fulfill for God, and yet their fate verifies immediately that the good work of achieving this purpose (that God be glorified) is not a good work of their own authorship.

Still further, those who work great evil bring glory to God in a most notable way, should God through his grace deliver them and bring them to faith. Take the example of St. Paul himself – he writes to the Galatians of the effect of his testimony of deliverance that ‘they only were hearing it said, “He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” And they glorified God because of me.’ (Galatians 1:23). If God is glorified, then good is done, and yet the cause for this glorification is Paul’s conversion from wicked persecutor of the church to dedicated preacher of the Gospel and apostle to the Gentiles. Nobody imagines that the then Saul did a good work in becoming a wicked persecutor! Although these evil deeds were used by God that He might be glorified, yet those evil deeds remain evil. The author of the evil works remains Saul, the author of the good which came from them is unambiguously God alone.

At length then, we arrive at the most powerful of all events. Nowhere in history is there a more powerful example of God using pure evil and wickedness to bring about good than in the cross of Christ. The crucifixion of Christ came to pass in such a way that evil was committed by all classes of man; Roman and Jew, Priest and Peasant, Governor and Governed, King and Solider, Disciple and Doubter. Never was such an injustice before committed as the putting to death of the Son of God, that is, God himself. Such an evil had the world never committed beforehand, even before the time of Noah or at any time since. Yet, such good had the world never seen either; for it was through the cross that we are reconciled to God through the forgiveness of sin.

No man defended Christ, for by the end all of them had turned out of the way, even Peter denied him. No man can claim to have been the author in any way of the good of the cross, although so many men contributed to the work of the cross. What man contributed to the cross was pure wickedness, and so the good of the cross is entirely and undeniably the work of God. As Peter said to the men of that day, “this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men” (Acts 2:23). Yet, even as it came to the time of the greatest of evil and men were plotting the very event, Christ looked to the good, as he declared “the hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified” (John 12:23).

I hope that we have, through discussing this selection of events, demonstrated that God does work through the evil that man designs to bring about the good which God designs. If it were alleged that this is a small selection of events and not representative of the whole of the Biblical record, the point would be well conceded. Whilst we have established that such a means of action exists by showing that it is used, we have not discussed the frequency or nature of its use or the application of this doctrine to us today.

Therefore, in the third and final part of this series, we will discuss the doctrine often termed ‘common restraining grace’ in more detail as we investigate ways in which God oftentimes acts to restrain fallen and faithless man from causing evil despite man’s continued and consistent design to cause evil. In it, by referring to Biblical texts, we will tie together our inability to do good apart from faith and the work of God in bringing forth good (even from evil) to discuss whether (and if so how) God presently intervenes in the world even today.

4 com

Something that has at times confused me is how we can reconcile our total depravity apart from God with the real fact of there existing works which seem good amongst those who do not believe. On the one hand there are clear Biblical statements such as that nobody is righteous, that nobody seeks after God (Romans 3:10-11), that the heart of man is desperately wicked (Jeremiah 17:9), that the intention of man’s heart is evil from from his youth (Gen 8:21), and that the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God and cannot submit to God’s law (Romans 8:7). On the other hand, there is the evidence we see around us of people apart from God achieving things that do benefit others, and showing civilised restraint in the avoidance of sin.

How do we square what the Bible says about depravity with what our personal experience says about the merit of our fellow men?

I’m going to discuss this in three parts, the first being within this post:

Some of the important questions I hope to answer include:

  • How can we account for good being done by atheists and those of other religions without concluding that fallen man has intrinsic righteousness, ability and will to do good?

  • Do all good works originate in God?
  • How does God achieve good ends in and despite the sinful rebellion of unbelieving men?

By the conclusion, I hope to have demonstrated that the doctrine of depravity does not contradict our experience and observations but rather that our experience and observations support and help validate the doctrine of depravity. It will be shown that the knowledge of mankind that we term our experience testifies to the depravity of mankind, and that the nature, means and motivation of works performed apart from God are illustrative of that.

Good works, evil, and sin in the absence of faith, and the inability of man apart from God to do good works

The first and most important point which I will discuss in this part is the proper distinction between authoring a good work, and authoring a work which produces a good effect. These I will term intrinsically good works and extrinsically good works respectively. In the former case, a man determines to undertake a work with the sole object of good; in the latter case, a man determines to undertake a work with the object of addressing pride, selfish desire or guilt and the effects of that work contain some aspect of good.

This distinction may be seen most clearly in Matthew 6, although it may be found elsewhere. Christ here shows the hypocrisy of those who do good but not in order that good be done but for their own selfish motives. We are instructed to “Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven; Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward” (Matthew 6:1-2).

Although we understand this well from the perspective of faith, yet as we are presently discussing works in the absence of faith, a new question arises – whether the giving to the needy by the hypocrites was a good work, or whether it was not. That the needy received that which they wanted for seems clear, for both the instructed and the condemned are presumed to perform the same act of giving. This is, in the sight of man, a good thing. It would take a very cold heart to say that for the hungry to be fed and the naked to be clothed is a bad and an evil work.

So, why does Christ condemn the hypocrites? They have brought about the same level of benefit to those in need, and perhaps even more. After all, is this not the same Christ who exalts the works of those who have done these very things (Matthew 25:34-40) and condemns those who have failed in doing so (Matthew 25:41-46)? The ends, so we are told by the wisdom of our age, justify the means. What we must realise is that Christ does not condemn the work, but the hypocrites. Christ does not condemn the poor being given to in their need, but he does condemn the motivation of the hypocrites as they set out to do so. Here then is an extrinsically good work, one which by outward measure brings good, but by inward measure is driven by pride, vainglory and a selfish desire for praise in the eyes of man. The hypocrites did not give in order to do good, but in order that others would judge their act as good and so be increased in public estimation.

Where is the sin, where is the evil, where is the wicked work, and where is the good work? The sin is on the part of the hypocrite, for despite the opportunity to do good to the glory of God he performed an act extrinsically good to his own glory; the evil is in the heart of the hypocrite, for he sought to make himself the author of good works in the eyes of man, taking the place of God himself; the wicked work is in his performance of the act in order to be seen, a wicked work by a wicked man; and so the good work then springs in no way from the desire or merit of the hypocrite to perform good, but is attributable solely to the unseen design of God. The honour, praise and glory here belong only to God himself – in no way can we attribute merit, righteousness or authorship of good to the hypocrite.

It is perhaps worthwhile to re-read the words of the righteous in Matthew 25:37 “Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?…”, and note the ignorance that they display of their own good works. Some suggest that the righteous are unaware that in serving their neighbour they serve Christ, yet to me this seems contrived, for such a teaching is set out frequently in both testaments. Whilst at this point it is postulation, it appears likely that indeed they “[did] not let [their] left hand know what [their] right hand [was] doing” (Matthew 6:3), and as they were conformed to the Christ through the Spirit they brought about “good works, which God prepared beforehand, that [they] should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:10) – this not being their self-righteous design to gain merit through works but the quickening sanctification of the Spirit himself.

The distinction here is perhaps well expressed in an imperfect summary; that there are some who for some cause set out to do good works and so perform them when the opportunity arises, but there are others who when the opportunity arises perform good works ‘automatically’ (which is, in fact, due to sanctification). I do not imagine that Christ decided he wanted to do good works, but rather than when presented with human need and suffering, it was his nature to help; and so, as we are conformed to Christ through the spirit, it becomes our nature that our faith is manifested in good works by the spirit, rather than that we decide to attempt works for our own self-righteousness.

Yet, there are those without faith who quietly perform works, who avoid the snare that caught the hypocrites. What do we say of these? Are these works good works? In the same way as we have seen the evil in the hypocrites by looking not to the effect but to the motivation, we should try to assess the reasons that a man might do extrinsically good works quietly or in secret.

First, there is selfish empathy. Now, empathy is a very powerful emotion and characteristic of much that we see as good in humanity; but at its root is selfishness. This, I realise, seems rather cold and mean-spirited, but it is important that we get to the heart of the matter.

When a man sees another man suffering and experiences empathy, he imagines himself in the position of the other, and thinks to himself how he might feel and how he might suffer. He reasons within himself that such feelings and sufferings would be terrible, painful and intolerable and this brings about fear within him – an entirely natural fear – that what has happened to this man (or something similar) might one day happen to him or his family, and that nobody would help.

It offends our concept of right and wrong primarily because we see a level of wrong committed that we fear being subjected to ourselves. When empathy prompts us to seek to help the other, we rationalise that we wish to ‘make the world a fairer place’ or to ‘improve social safety nets’ etc. and indeed that is what we may do, but from the beginning it is motivated by our selfish wish to have a fairer world and social safety nets for ourselves, for this is the root of the emotion of empathy – putting yourself in the place of the other, thinking about how bad it would be for you to be there, and so setting out to put in an escape ladder should you one day arrive there. We see just this in countries with more developed forms of social security, for those who agitated for such systems become quiet and content once they reach a level at which they feel reasonable safeguards are in place – they do not continue with the same zeal to do good – for doing good in itself was never their aim.

Second, there is self-righteous vainglory. This seems to come quite naturally to all men, and is characterised by our selfish wish to think well of ourselves. From infancy, we love to be praised and have our ‘self confidence’ built up, and this is proper that we be so encouraged; yet, over time external affirmation gives way to our internal self-praise and self-congratulation. It is a difficult thing indeed for a man to look on himself as essentially evil and wicked, which should be clear by considering any number of military dictators who despite committing the most heinous of crimes and abuses constantly seek ways to justify their acts to themselves. This pride in our own self-righteousness and vainglory manifests itself in many ways; one of which is the urge to compensate for our deficiencies. Being aware of our failings in some aspect, it is quite usual for our wounded pride to ache for a cause of self-celebration, something we can obtain quite readily by setting out to do some good work. Consider the adulterous husband who tries to be particularly nice to his wife – not for her benefit – but because he wishes to patch up his wounded self-righteousness. This of course is the root of false or emotional guilt; for in so much as it is due to an injured pride it is not due to recognising our failings before Almighty God (which is not to say that God’s natural law doesn’t influence in some part the measurement of self image). The end is (usually) good which would not have come about otherwise, but yet the motivation is self-righteous vainglory and so it is yet again only extrinsically good and not intrinsically good. If the person were to judge himself as fully self-righteous again and with an intact pride such that he felt the superior of his peers, he would cease in his wish to do more good – for doing good was never his aim.

Third, there is fear. There is a form of fear of condemnation which drives a man to come to terms with his own failings, and this is in some ways shaped by his religious beliefs. In some religions, he will be presented with a high example to follow in order to ascend to heaven and achieve enlightenment, in others with a karma-like concept in which good must be done to cancel out or balance bad – with consequences in this life of that to come. As he becomes aware of his failings, he starts to worry about the consequences of his defects. Being apart from the Gospel, if he does not abandon all hope, he will seek to meet the required standard through works of merit and charity. His acts then are selfish, for they are motivated by a desire to improve his own standing and so avoid the consequences of his past sins. On one level, such logic seems reasonable, but only where the depravity of man is not fully appreciated; on another level, this is little more than self-righteous vain-glory, for the aim is to build up his assessment of his own righteousness and not to see to it that good is done. That much good is done because of such fears is undeniable, but because the root motivation for the action is self-centered and for one’s own benefit, it is extrinsically good but not intrinsically good. If the person were told that he had fulfilled all the required merit to cancel his past sins, he would cease to be motivated to do further good – for doing good was never his aim.

So, it becomes clear that when a man apart from faith appears to be motivated to do good, at the root is not a wish to do good, but some form of self-serving or selfish aim. Whether his wish is to build himself up before his peers, before his god(s), or before his own self image the judgement is the same – that he did not wish to do good but merely did works that brought about the effect of good in serving his own selfish lusts. On what basis then can God be expected to declare these works good works if they are motivated by evil and not by good? Truly, good proceeded from them, but the author of the good was not the author of the work.

In the next part of this series, I will discuss how it is possible that a sinful act can produce good, how the author of an act and the author of its effect can be different, and share some passages from the Bible which talk about a similar concept. In the final part, I will develop examples of the way in which God restrains us in our sin apart from faith, that is – how God so arranges it that despite us being wicked and entirely affected by sin we do not cause to pass as great an evil as we possibly could.

Do you agree with what I’ve set out about the motivation of works which, on the surface, appear to be good works? What’s your experience been of those who do not have faith? I’d love to hear your comments on this, and the coming parts in due course.

Part Two

6 com

Subscribe to Emails

Most commented