The sinfulness of man and the sovereignty of God
There are two foundational ideas that determine how we must think about the matter of divine grace.
The first is the sinfulness of man, or the doctrine of total depravity. When Adam sinned, he acted as the federal head or representative of humanity, so that all of mankind fell with him. Now a verdict of guilt is imposed on all his descendants, and a nature of wickedness is passed on, not by natural generation but by divine power, to every human person born after him, Christ excepted. The result is that man is unable to save himself, to redeem himself before God, or to attain righteousness with God. Indeed, because he is evil, he is also unwilling to do so. He would rather burn in hell than to bow before the Most High.
The second is the sovereignty of God, especially as it is applied to the salvation of sinful man. The Bible teaches that God creates and chooses some men for salvation, that is, to show them grace and kindness, to change their nature from evil to good, and to produce faith and love in them toward the Lord Jesus Christ. These are called the elect, or the chosen ones. They are Christians, and will persist in their faith by divine power. And the Bible teaches that God creates and chooses all other men for damnation, to be vessels of wrath, and to be tortured in hell forever. These are called the non-elect, or the reprobates. They are non-Christians, or non-Christians who pretend to be Christians, and will remain in unbelief all their lives.
It is said that this doctrine of predestination is a “high mystery,” and “to be handled with special prudence and care.” This strange advice is unwarranted. The Bible itself does not call this doctrine a mystery, let alone a “high” mystery. Rather, it is one of the least complex, least difficult, and most fully explained teachings in Scripture. Jesus did not hesitate to throw it around either as a teaching in itself or as an explanation to something else. And Paul offered explicit expositions that addressed all general issues about the topic. There is not one broad question on predestination that we lack the answer to. The doctrine is completely and obviously consistent, so there is nothing to harmonize. There is no paradox, no antinomy, no contradiction, no mystery. There is just plain and glorious truth shining in our face like the noonday sun.
Thus to urge “special prudence and care” is prejudicial. Why not say the same about the Trinity, the nature of Christ, the atonement, and justification by faith without works? Many doctrines can become dangerous if distorted, but then it is not the doctrines themselves that are dangerous, but man’s wickedness and incompetence that are injurious to souls. Unless there is biblical reason to do so, to single out this doctrine for “special care” is to insult the clarity of divine revelation. Predestination is not a toxic doctrine. It is not dangerous. The doctrine is nothing other than a “Yes, really” to the idea that God is God. Even a child in the kingdom should handle it with freedom and abandon. It is a doctrine of power, healing, and assurance. It is to be learned well like other doctrines, and then to be preached and lived out boldly, and compared to what is urged by the tradition, outright recklessly.
So, all men are born thoroughly evil, and only divine power can change them, but God selects only some of them to receive this privilege. Two questions arise from this. First, if non-Christians are thoroughly evil, why do they sometimes appear to perform good works? Second, if God directs his grace only to his chosen ones, why do the reprobates seem to receive some of his blessings, such as food and water, friendship, education, order in society, and various talents and skills? As usual, the answers are clearly inherent in the original doctrine, and these questions should not have come up in the first place. And as usual, theologians have provided answers that are derived from or that are aimed to satisfy unbiblical assumptions, that complicate what is in fact a straightforward matter, and that end up making the situation worse and worse. Christians are quick to come up with fantastic theological inventions to solve problems so simple that they should not exist to begin with. It is fun for them. In this case, a blunt application of the two foundational ideas would be sufficient, and we will apply them to several items.
The good works attributed to the wicked
The total depravity of man is a foundational doctrine. This means that subsidiary questions are explained by it, and not the other way around. That is, we do not regard certain non-Christian works as good, hold this idea as constant and nonnegotiable, and then challenge total depravity by it. Rather, we hold the total depravity of man as constant and nonnegotiable, and then interpret non-Christian actions by this. Therefore, since non-Christians are thoroughly evil, all their works are evil, whether they appear so to the judgment of man.
This is it. This is a sufficient answer, and no Christian who believes the Bible on the total depravity of man should demand more. In fact, to demand more would itself be a manifestation of evil and rebellion. Nevertheless, we can indeed offer a fuller explanation.
We recall that it is God’s word that defines good and evil, and his definition never refers only to the outward action. Although the outward action is significant, greater emphasis is given to the inward intention. A human analogy is possible. Suppose a man unknowingly sits on a poisonous spider that was about to bite a child. The act is good in the sense that it saves the child, but we would not call the man the very picture of courage, the protector of children, the slayer of monsters!
Likewise, to determine whether an action is morally good or evil, the intention that is associated with an action must be considered, and even given the greater emphasis. Jesus said that the anger that is the first step to murder already constitutes sin, and the lust that desires adultery is already adultery. So a person who wishes to murder, but for some reason does not physically perform the act, is still not a good person. A person who desires to rape a woman, but who does not, is not virtuous because of it.
That said, Jesus declared that the first and greatest commandment is to love God with our whole being. The non-Christian, by definition, hates God with all his being. If he knows and loves God at all, he would believe in Jesus, and he would be a Christian: “If God were your Father, you would love me…You belong to your father, the devil” (John 8:42, 44). One who has a saving and filial relation with God manifests this conscious and explicit love toward Christ. If there is no love toward Christ, if he is a non-Christian, then God is not his Father, and this relation of love does not exist between them. This means that the person is in constant violation of the supreme commandment, because this is who he is all the time, and this underlies all that he does, whether or not a particular action superficially conforms to goodness and righteousness.
A non-Christian raises a child, not because he wishes to produce an heir to the faith for the honor of God, but because he wishes to perpetuate the human race or his own legacy, or to satisfy some other desire or ideal. Again, if his desire is to honor God, he would already be a Christian, and our question would no longer apply. A Christian’s action is never perfectly good, but it is sanctified and made acceptable by Jesus Christ. On the other hand, if one is a non-Christian, so that by definition his desire is not to honor God, then whatever we say about his action, it is not good, but it is in violation of the supreme commandment. It is an evil action.
When a non-Christian rescues a drowning man, it appears that he performs a good work. And when a non-Christian could rob a bank but does not, he appears to abide by the law and contributes to order in society. Thus it is said that God extends a kind of “grace” that is common to all, that restrains sin in the non-Christians and enables them to perform natural righteousness, although not spiritual good. This is a naïve conclusion. Oh, theologians, are you all but stupid children?
Paul wrote that when those who do not acknowledge God’s law nevertheless attempt to live by a moral standard, they betray an awareness of good and evil, although their standard is not accurate. And when they fail to live up to even their own standard of good and evil, they show themselves to be sinners, and worthy of death. What we are talking about is a manifestation of Paul’s teaching. It is an exercise that exponentially increases God’s wrath against the non-Christians. They show that they are aware of such a thing as good and such a thing as evil, but at the same time they refuse to accept God’s definition of what is good and what is evil, and they fail to live up to even their own false moral standard.
God is certainly the one who decrees and causes non-Christian works, order in society, and the restraint of sin, but he also certainly knows that this results in an increase of condemnation, and has designed it this way. So how is this “grace” to non-Christians in any sense? If I give a man a million dollars, knowing and intending that he would gamble with it, lose all of it, become addicted and borrow from a loan shark, and end up owing ten million dollars, is this “grace”? And I am the loan shark who would kill him for not paying the ten million dollars! Is it “grace” now?
What happened? Theologians practice lazy humility by calling attention to their finite minds. In this case, and this is a charitable interpretation (we will say more about this in a moment), their minds are so finite that they focus only on the man’s perspective in receiving a million dollars. So they say it looks very good. But the whole thing, including the initial donation, is designed to bring the man to utter ruin. What if I give a hungry man a poisonous roast chicken? It takes care of his hunger, but then it kills him, and I know this would happen and intend for it to happen. Is this grace? It could be called charity only from the hungry man’s ignorant perspective, and only for a few minutes before the chicken melts his stomach and kills him. Is it not more proper to include my knowledge and intention in deciding what to call the scenario?
When it comes to theology, theologians take the wicked man’s perspective and ignore everything else. He saves a drowning man! He works in a soup kitchen! He has musical talents! But God requires him to see himself as this drowning man, even a dead man, who needs Christ to rescue him. In saving the drowning man, he shows that he has an idea of rescue, but he does not ask Christ for salvation. By working in a soup kitchen, he shows that he grasps, at least in a natural sense, the ideas of poverty, hunger, and compassion. Why does he not acknowledge his spiritual poverty, so that Christ can make him rich? Why does he not hunger for the righteousness of God and for his kingdom? Why does he not ask for Christ’s compassion? If he has musical talents, why does he not praise God with songs and melodies? Thus all these things become testimonies against the man. But God decrees and causes all things, and he is the one who makes him save the drowning man, who makes him work in the soup kitchen, who makes him a musical talent, all the while knowing and intending the final effects in a person who does these things but who does not believe in Christ.
If we are asking whether something is God’s grace, then we must answer it from God’s perspective – what does he intend? Of course, as we will soon consider, God may intend more than one thing when he does something. The same thing can be good for one and bad for another. Right now we are asking what he intends relative to the non-Christians. And we must answer that it is not grace, but a most deliberate, prolonged, and frightening display of wrath, only in preparation for an even more intense and permanent punishment.
The good things provided to the wicked
Now the rest should become even more straightforward. God gives food and water, prosperity, and long life to the wicked. Food and water should remind all men of the God of creation and providence, and stimulate praise and thanksgiving. But non-Christians seek alternate explanations, and take these things for granted. They either refuse to give thanks, or offer praise to false gods. Food and water are beneficial in a superficial sense. They indeed allow physical bodies to survive, and so that society may continue. But it is not grace if God deliberately sends them to non-Christians, knowing and intending that every drop of water they drink would become another nail in their spiritual coffins.
As for prosperity and long life, Psalm 73 states that God sends these things to the wicked in order to slip them up, and so that they would be destroyed. It can be called “grace” only from the wicked man’s false and ignorant perspective, who for now enjoys all these things and is unaware of why they come to him. For a reprobate person, long life does not mean more time to repent, since God has determined that he will never repent; rather, it means more time to sin, and to increase the measure of divine judgment against him. God knows that this is what happens with each additional moment of life that he gives a reprobate person, and there is no disparity between what God knows and what God intends. Therefore, because he knows that each natural benefit increases the reprobate’s condemnation, he also intends it, and if he intends it, it is not grace in any sense of the term. If God does something with the intention to condemn, then by definition, it is not done out of grace.
Should a major doctrine be invented, defined, and formulated chiefly, if not solely, from the perspective of wicked men, rather than from the perspective of God and eternity? This complaint, that the theologians have constructed their doctrine from the wicked man’s perspective, is a charitable interpretation, and one that seems overly so given their expositions. It is based on the hope that they have misunderstood their own doctrine, or what they wished to accomplish by inventing it. Their doctrine, in fact, alleges that God shows a truly favorable disposition toward the reprobates, although not in a sense that produces salvation or any spiritual good in them. However, the Bible teaches that God knows all things and wills all things. This means that he always knows and intends the final effects of this natural benevolence, that it would stimulate thanksgiving in the elect, but increase condemnation in the reprobates.
So the theologians must either deny that God knows and wills all things, or they must assume that God is schizophrenic. Either option would make them non-Christians. Thus the false doctrine pressures us to regard these theologians as unbelievers, and the only way to save them from condemnation is to, with only slight plausibility, since these theologians do not seem to intend it, twist it from its theological perspective to an anthropological perspective. Even then, they are still stuck in a dilemma: from the theological perspective, their doctrine is blasphemy, and to take the anthropological perspective to interpret that which is theological – namely, God’s intention or disposition – is clearly wrong. But it is better to be wrong than to burn. That is, they do not mean to blaspheme, but they are just too stupid to know the right perspective from which to formulate a doctrine, and to know the implications of what they say. But is this a credible defense? It is better just to renounce the false doctrine.
The good news declared to the wicked
Another awkward thing that theologians try to do is to explain how the message of Jesus Christ can be “good news” to the reprobates. If the reprobates will not believe, and indeed cannot believe, then to be confronted with the message brings only greater condemnation. How is it good news? Various answers are offered, from the absurd to the sublime. Now it is said that the message is a sincere offer, although God has already determined that they cannot believe it. It is sincerity in the strangest sense of the word. And then it is said that, even though they cannot believe, the reprobates nevertheless receive some natural benefits from it. But we have already answered this.
The true answer is that the good news is considered so only from the perspective of God and his people. It is certainly not good news to Satan. And it is very bad news for the reprobates. Paul wrote that the gospel is a stench of death to some people (2 Corinthians 2:16). A stench of death, in case anyone wonders, is not good news. But to those who would believe, it is a fragrance of life. The attempt to make the message good news to both the elect and non-elect is perhaps driven by the need to harmonize the term with the perspective of wicked men, so that the gospel may be good news even to those who can never believe, or more terrible but also more likely, by the desire to assert a blasphemous view of God.
God’s grace only for his people
Consider the parable that Jesus told about the wheat and the weeds. A man’s field has both wheat and weeds. When his servants ask if he wants them to pull up the weeds, he answers, “No, because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them.” The man allows the weeds to grow, to receive rain, sunlight, and nutrients, not out of kindness toward the weeds, but out of concern for the wheat. The weeds are there only to be burned. He says, “Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.”
Likewise, the Bible teaches that God created some for honor and some for dishonor. He created the former to be recipients of his mercy and riches. And he created the latter to be recipients of his wrath, in order to display his power and justice. It also teaches that God works all things for the good of those who love him, that is, even the creation, prosperity, and then the damnation of the wicked. As Christians, we are the recipients of God’s grace, and we would never experience his wrath, but he has created the wicked so that as he torments them, he may show forth even his aspect of his glory to us. This is how much he loves us.
What about the natural provisions, the order in society, and the restraint of sin? You think he does all these things, even partly, for the reprobates? What an ungrateful and irreverent theology. He does all these things for his own people, and if you are a Christian, for you. He does these things so that you will have a world to live in, to interact with, where you can be converted, and where you can study, pray, worship, and to grow in Christ. He provides this environment so that you may face problems, make decisions, achieve victories, declare and defend the faith of Christ, and be persecuted for the gospel.
A diaper manufacturer makes his product strong and sanitary, and puts it in an attractive package. When it arrives in a mother’s hands, she stores it in a dry and clean place, and brings it with her as if it is a most important item. Is it the diaper that she cares about? No, she straps it on her baby so it can use it as a portable toilet. The diaper, so well-made and eagerly purchased, is for the mother’s convenience and the child’s benefit. Then, it is soiled and discarded.