Some Argue the Works of Non-Believers are Not Sins
Some Argue the Works of Non-Believers are Not Sins 23. However, there is another objection: some argue that the works of non-believers are not sins, even though they are performed without faith in Christ. They suggest that there exists a kind of general, vague belief in God, which, even without belief in Christ, enables people to perform commendable deeds that may please God and, to some extent, merit justification. They argue that nonbelievers donate generously, honor their parents, deeply love their country, regret their wrongdoings, live moderately, and perform many other virtuous acts deliberately because they believe in a God who values such behavior, and thus they strive to make themselves acceptable to Him. Furthermore, they illustrate their point with an analogy: a stake or post planted in the earth might not take root or truly live, yet it draws some sustenance from the soil and produces leaves and buds as if it were alive. Similarly, they say, those who are estranged from Christ, although not living by the heavenly spirit, perform praiseworthy deeds inspired by some spiritual influence.
However, those of us educated by the Holy Scriptures recognize no faith that can please God other than that which is in Christ Jesus.
"There is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved," except the name of our Saviour, Christ. Paul, whenever he mentions the faith that justifies, consistently refers to it as the faith that connects us deeply with Christ and His Gospel.
But lest it seem that only Paul teaches this, let us delve deeper into the matter. Abraham "believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." What did he believe? Specifically, that he would have a descendant through whom all nations would be blessed, as Paul
explains, referring to Christ. This promise was confirmed by God in Christ; indeed, the Lord Himself said, "He saw my day and rejoiced."
Likewise, Job declared, "I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand on the earth. And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God; I myself will see him with my own eyes—I, and not another."
This faith is not vague or general; it distinctly encompasses the key tenets of Christ's role: as a Redeemer indicating the forgiveness of sins, His Second Coming, and the resurrection of the dead, affirming that we will be restored in our own bodies, and acknowledging
Christ's humanity visible to our eyes.
What, then, is the nature of the faith that these opponents claim nonbelievers possess? True and firm belief in God's promises naturally brings about all good mental dispositions. How can they claim such individuals possess faith while they remain mired in idolatry and blatant sins?
They might have some form of belief shaped by upbringing, persuasion, or ingrained opinion, but possessing true faith while leading such lives is impossible unless they also claim that even those who follow radically different creeds, like the Turks who assent to many of our beliefs, have faith. However, Paul's words in 1
Corinthians complicate their position: "If I have all faith, so that I can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing." They interpret this to mean that true faith can exist without love, yet concede that such faith is ultimately worthless. How then does this reconcile with Paul's teaching, especially when they argue that a vague, general faith can produce good works that merit justification and please God, while Paul asserts that even true faith is futile without love?
Their analogy of the stake in the ground further undermines their argument. Although the stake may appear alive, it is, in reality, dead; a discerning gardener recognizes that its sprouting is futile and discards such deceptive growth as worthless. Similarly, God views the works they so embellish and present as merely superficial.
24. However, there is another argument proposed, which is not much unlike the former: some argue that the deeds performed by non-believers are not without grace. They assert that there exists a sort of general grace available to all people, including those not regenerated, which somewhat assists them in meriting justification and performing deeds pleasing to God. By asserting this, they inadvertently align with the heresy of Pelagius, who also believed that people, through the virtue and strength of their nature and by adhering to the law, could perform good works leading to justification without the grace of Christ. This claim does not help their case, even if they distinguish these deeds from nature by attributing them to grace, which Pelagians explicitly denied. In doing so, they seem to verbally disagree with Pelagianism while substantively agreeing with it, for by assigning a type of grace that attains righteousness without Christ, they contradict Christ, the Milevitan Council, and the Holy Scriptures. Furthermore, by making grace common to all, they transform it into a natural attribute, arguing some will utilize it and others will not. They distinguish between a 'preventing' grace and a subsequent 'more absolute' grace.
We do not dispute this categorization, provided it is correctly understood: we acknowledge a grace that precedes and another that follows. However, the divine favor through Christ, which both initiates our willingness to do good and subsequently aids us in living righteously, is singular.
No one should doubt that we are first moved by God to change and be renewed in Christ. To argue that in our conversion we preempt
God's assistance is folly. God loves us first, enabling us to love Him in return; He moves us by His grace and Spirit before we can will or consider anything good.
The error arises if we assume that individuals receive Christ's grace before they are regenerated or renewed in Him. Sometimes enlightenment is granted, but unless this is forceful enough to transform their minds, it serves only for their judgment and condemnation, which their sins merit. To clarify the intentions of those making these claims, it is crucial to understand that they argue
Paul only excludes from justification those works performed solely through free will and the assistance of the law.
What, then, are these works performed by individuals? They are certainly not the grave sins like murder or theft, which are driven not by the law but by fleshly impulse and demonic influence. Nor are they mere natural activities like playing or farming, as these are not prescribed by law. What remains are the decent, civil, or moral actions like honoring parents or expressing remorse for wrongdoing
—actions commanded by the law and presumably performable by free will, which they claim do not justify.
What other good works could there be, unless they mean those performed by individuals already justified? If all works, including sins, natural acts, and moral deeds commanded by law, are excluded, no works remain by which they claim people can be justified. They should heed the scripture, "If of grace, then not of works; if of works, then not of grace," and avoid contradictory claims that Paul only excludes works devoid of faith or grace. How can they argue this when they dispute the assertion that people are justified by faith
alone, accusing others of adding "only" without scriptural basis, yet they do the same?
For adding "only" to faith, we rely on strong scriptural support, employing a phraseology embraced by the fathers. Let's consider their rebuttal: they suggest Paul focused primarily on Jews who believed they could be justified by works without Christ, hence his emphasis. But I maintain that whatever Paul wrote was meant for the church, comprising both Jews and Gentiles, all of whom confessed Christ. Is it plausible that any among them hoped for salvation without Christ? Certainly, some overvalued ceremonies alongside Christ, but none excluded Him. Moreover, Paul instructed not only Jews but Gentiles too, evident in his letter to the Ephesians where he explicitly addresses Gentiles, asserting, "A man is justified by faith, not of yourselves, lest any man should boast," specifically referring to the Gentiles in the second chapter. Thus, their argument distinguishing between works for justification based on one's religious background is baseless and misleading.
25. Now, let us address their primary and most staunch argument.
They propose two types of merits: one of congruity and the other of worthiness. They admit that works performed before justification do not merit justification out of worthiness, but only out of congruity. If you ask what they mean by merit of congruity, they explain that it pertains to those actions which inherently do not deserve salvation but are considered as such due to God's particular kindness.
According to them, such are the moral actions performed by many before justification. Conversely, they define the merit of worthiness as that which fully deserves the reward. This, they attribute to deeds performed by the righteous after regeneration. They believe this distinction secures their argument, but since it is not derived from the Holy Scriptures, there is no reason to take pleasure in it.
What if we argue, based on scripture, that this distinction clearly contradicts God's word? Would they then admit that this celebrated invention was crafted merely to deflect our objections? Paul discusses justified individuals, including Christ's martyrs who endured severe persecutions for their faith, offering them consolation with these words: "The sufferings of this time are not worthy of the glory to come, which shall be revealed in us." In contrast, they claim such sufferings are indeed worthy, directly opposing Paul's statement. How can these views be reconciled, or rather, how clearly do they contradict each other?
Moreover, since they claim that merit of congruity depends only on God's promises and not the nature of the action, let them demonstrate where God ever promised rewards for actions performed without faith and Christian devotion. Additionally, it's evident how illogical this terminology is. Surely, those worthy of something rightfully deserve it, and those to whom something is justly due by a fair and sound judgment should be considered worthy of it. Thus, it's clear that this distinction was poorly conceived and cunningly crafted to sidestep our arguments.
26. However, some accuse us of neglecting or even outright denying what they call "works of preparation." This is certainly not the case; although we do not accept their version of preparations, we do recognize and endorse certain preparatory actions. God, the author of our salvation through Christ, employs various means, stages, and methods to lead us to salvation. Due to His providence, immense power, and incredible love towards us, these can be considered preparations. Yet, if we consider the nature of these actions and our mindset in performing them, they do not contribute to our salvation; in fact, they are often contrary to it. The commendable actions they label as moral often provide the wicked with opportunities to inflate
their self-worth and become complacent, neglecting the need for salvation through Christ or genuine piety. Conversely, it's often observed that those who fall into severe sins may more readily experience genuine repentance and turn to Christ more quickly. This is why Christ said to the Scribes and Pharisees, "Harlots and tax collectors shall enter the kingdom of God before you." It is also clear that no one can claim that vile acts inhibit justification or that civil virtues directly assist it. It all depends on whether these means lack or are accompanied by God's grace. Though, from our perspective, they are sins and naturally unhelpful, under God's governance, they invariably serve a beneficial purpose.
Sometimes, individuals who appear upright and moral in human eyes are actually consumed by pride and disdain internally and are thus forsaken by God, leading them to fall into egregious sins. Yet, these falls often prompt them to better recognize their flaws, reform, and return to Christ's flock.
This principle is vividly illustrated in the Gospel story of the prodigal son. After squandering his inheritance, he found himself in such a deplorable state that he longed to eat with the pigs he tended, a situation no doubt shameful for someone of his background. Yet, this low point prompted him to reflect on his situation and return to his father, leading to his ultimate redemption. Who can comprehend the depths of God's mysterious plans? He often uses seemingly harmful circumstances to prepare individuals for salvation, turning what would naturally be detrimental into something beneficial.
Consider a physician treating a patient with a gangrenous leg that must be cut to prevent the spread of infection. The cutting itself, while seemingly a harsh measure, is a necessary step towards healing. This act alone doesn't guarantee recovery; it requires the