"Passive" hardening as the withdrawal of grace

[abacabb3]

I know there is a thread on double predestination, but I want to ask a question more specific to this particular topic.

At Bible Study Wednesday night the teacher said something I have ehar several times in reformed circles: "Believers have a new heart, they cannot continue living in sin, to do so violates their new nature. That's why when we sin, we feel really horrible about it, because it is against our nature now. However, for the old man, to sin is to live according to his nature. WHenever an unbeleiver does good, it is either for the wrong reason or the result of God's grace, that in which if God were to totally withdraw we would see in all of us the true depths of depravity in the human heart."

The idea is, apart from God's grace, every one of us when we were unbelievers would be even worse than Hitler.

I am not sure if I agree or disagree with this. I sort of remember my unbelieving days (I have horrible memory!) and I actually remember times in which I had compassion for no self-serving reason, I think anyway. Nonetheless, if the Scripture was explicit about this topic, I would go with the Scripture over my vague memory.

So, I ask, is the Scripture explicit about it? Or, is this line of reasoning a result of us trying to rationalize some of our own doctrines and may be in effect, a stereotype with only partial validity?

I appreciate your thoughtful responses!

 

[twin1954]

I know there is a thread on double predestination, but I want to ask a question more specific to this particular topic.

At Bible Study Wednesday night the teacher said something I have ehar several times in reformed circles: "Believers have a new heart, they cannot continue living in sin, to do so violates their new nature. That's why when we sin, we feel really horrible about it, because it is against our nature now. However, for the old man, to sin is to live according to his nature. WHenever an unbeleiver does good, it is either for the wrong reason or the result of God's grace, that in which if God were to totally withdraw we would see in all of us the true depths of depravity in the human heart."

The idea is, apart from God's grace, every one of us when we were unbelievers would be even worse than Hitler.

I am not sure if I agree or disagree with this. I sort of remember my unbelieving days (I have horrible memory!) and I actually remember times in which I had compassion for no self-serving reason, I think anyway. Nonetheless, if the Scripture was explicit about this topic, I would go with the Scripture over my vague memory.

So, I ask, is the Scripture explicit about it? Or, is this line of reasoning a result of us trying to rationalize some of our own doctrines and may be in effect, a stereotype with only partial validity?

I appreciate your thoughtful responses!

Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
Your heart will deceive you into thinking that you have done good when you have not. An unbeliever cannot do any good. Rom. 3:12

 

[abacabb3]

I appreciate that response. Is there any more detail on God's general grace and His withdrawal of it as passive hardening?

 

[twin1954]

I appreciate that response. Is there any more detail on God's general grace and His withdrawal of it as passive hardening?

If by "general grace" you mean common grace I don't believe the Scriptures support common grace. God's grace is always special and determined.

But I am convinced that the restraining hand of God is often withdrawn and because of it the depravity of the nature is more openly practiced.

 

[abacabb3]

If by "general grace" you mean common grace I don't believe the Scriptures support common grace. God's grace is always special and determined.

But I am convinced that the restraining hand of God is often withdrawn and because of it the depravity of the nature is more openly practiced.

Yes, "common grace" though I believe Propser of Aquataine called it the "general call." I would appreciate Scriptural support for your latter assertion. Concerning your former one, God speaks of being "the savior of all men." THis to me means that at some level, God does provide graciously for all men, even if it is just material and temporal.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I know there is a thread on double predestination, but I want to ask a question more specific to this particular topic.

At Bible Study Wednesday night the teacher said something I have ehar several times in reformed circles: "Believers have a new heart, they cannot continue living in sin, to do so violates their new nature. That's why when we sin, we feel really horrible about it, because it is against our nature now. However, for the old man, to sin is to live according to his nature. WHenever an unbeleiver does good, it is either for the wrong reason or the result of God's grace, that in which if God were to totally withdraw we would see in all of us the true depths of depravity in the human heart."

The idea is, apart from God's grace, every one of us when we were unbelievers would be even worse than Hitler.

I am not sure if I agree or disagree with this. I sort of remember my unbelieving days (I have horrible memory!) and I actually remember times in which I had compassion for no self-serving reason, I think anyway. Nonetheless, if the Scripture was explicit about this topic, I would go with the Scripture over my vague memory.

So, I ask, is the Scripture explicit about it? Or, is this line of reasoning a result of us trying to rationalize some of our own doctrines and may be in effect, a stereotype with only partial validity?

I appreciate your thoughtful responses!

Awhile back, for the benefit of the universal Church, I uploaded an extensive treatment of "common grace" by Cornelius Van Til up on my blog here: http://presupp101.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/van-til-common-grace-and-the-gospel.pdf

What I have mostly found in discussing common grace with other Calvinists whom deny and disagree with the notion of it is, the differences of view, seem to mainly be with terminology....semantics more than anything. All Calvinists agree that if man got what he deserved, we would all die in our sins. We agree that the Creator owes no creature nothing. We agree that whatever good happens to a creature is undeserved, unmerited. So I do not understand what the problem is with admitting that all of life is grace, since none of it is deserved or merited. Our every breath is a drop of unmerited grace, and it is favor because our almighty Creator can and does withdraw life from His creatures. Because we are easily confused there is need for terms like "effectual", "ineffectual" and "special" or "saving", and "common" associated with the term "grace" which in simplest terms means favor especially unmerited favor. We agree that Adam represents mankind, that he is a "federal head", which is liked to the imputation of sin to mankind in the fall. We should also agree that God loved Adam and Eve, He called His creation "good" and He was "pleased" with His creation. Now if Adam represents mankind, we should agree that God therefore has a general love for mankind, even to the extent that we are image bearers of God. I would argue that just because God has a general love for mankind, does not mean He loves and must love every individual, and in fact Scripture is clear He does not. Anymore than a man who loves automobiles must love every automobile. I have a special love for Corvettes that I do not have for others makes and models. If we go to a junkyard, I could show you tons of automobiles I do not like!

 

[abacabb3]

Very well put, though do we have evidence in the Scripture that every man is sustained by grace from devolving into a little Hitler from a constant act of grace?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Very well put, though do we have evidence in the Scripture that every man is sustained by grace from devolving into a little Hitler from a constant act of grace?

Well, there is evidence in Scripture to support the doctrine of "common grace". The following is from "Summary of Christian Doctrine" by Louis Berkhof:

" To memorize. Passages proving:

a. A general striving of the Spirit with men:

Gen. 6:3. "And Jehovah said, My Spirit shall not strive with man for ever, for that he also is flesh."

Isa. 68:10. "But they rebelled, and grieved His Holy Spirit: therefore He was turned to be their enemy, and Himself fought against them."

Rom. 1:28, "And even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting."

b. Restraint of sin:

Gen. 20:6. "And God said unto him (Abimelech) in the dream, Yea, I know that in the integrity of thy heart thou hast done this, and I also withheld thee from sinning against me."

Gen. 31:7. "And your father hath deceived me, and changed my wages ten times; but God suffered him not to hurt me."

Ps. 105:14. "He suffered no man to do them wrong; yea, Ho reproved kings for their sakes."

c. Good works on the part of unregenerate:

II Kings 10:30. "And Jehovah said unto Jehu, because thou hast done well in executing that which is right in mine eyes, and hast done unto the house of Ahab according to all that was in my heart, thy sons of the fourth generation shall sit upon the throne of Israel." Cf. vs. 31.

Luke 6:33. "And if ye do good to them that do good to you, what thank have ye? for even sinners do the same."

Rom. 2:14, 15. "For when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these not having the law, are the law unto themselves; in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts."

d. Unmerited blessings on all men:

Ps. 145:9. "Jehovah is good to all; and His tender mercies are over all His works."

Matt. 5:44, 45. "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you; that ye may be sons of your Father who is in heaven: for He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust."

I Tim. 4:10. "For to this end we labor and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, especially of them that believe."

SOURCE: Summary of Christian Doctrine

Another source with Scripture evidence also explains misconceptions: "What is Common Grace? by Tim Keller"

 

[abacabb3]

So, there is certainly Scripture that shows that God restrains certain men from sinning in certain situations. But, are the unsaved completely incapable of doing good out of their own independent nature at all times? I am aware of the Scripture "there is none who do good, not one." Does "do good" though mean every individual act or the summation of acts?

For example, even animals, I would argue not necessarily out of instinct, do things that are positive goods. I remember once digging rocks out of a garden and when I went inside, one of my cats out of affection licked my arm because it was dirty. Grooming is a way the animal shows affection, and I am not going to claim that God spurred the animal to do this.

Now, looking at nature and extrapolating theology is not good practice. I just wonder f we are coming to conclusions which are at times true, but applying it in all circumstances without explicit Scripture telling us. I guess what I am saying is I would like to see disproven that an unsaved man could have any good desires at all. And if we cannot disprove that, then we have to look at total depravity not as depravity exists in its greatest possible extent, but rather that it is total in that it is at some level essential to the nature of man and as we know from the Scripture, all it requires is to sin once to put one totally at the mercy of God.

 

[twin1954]

So, there is certainly Scripture that shows that God restrains certain men from sinning in certain situations. But, are the unsaved completely incapable of doing good out of their own independent nature at all times? I am aware of the Scripture "there is none who do good, not one." Does "do good" though mean every individual act or the summation of acts?

For example, even animals, I would argue not necessarily out of instinct, do things that are positive goods. I remember once digging rocks out of a garden and when I went inside, one of my cats out of affection licked my arm because it was dirty. Grooming is a way the animal shows affection, and I am not going to claim that God spurred the animal to do this.

Now, looking at nature and extrapolating theology is not good practice. I just wonder f we are coming to conclusions which are at times true, but applying it in all circumstances without explicit Scripture telling us. I guess what I am saying is I would like to see disproven that an unsaved man could have any good desires at all. And if we cannot disprove that, then we have to look at total depravity not as depravity exists in its greatest possible extent, but rather that it is total in that it is at some level essential to the nature of man and as we know from the Scripture, all it requires is to sin once to put one totally at the mercy of God.

I am not going to get into a debate about common grace. I don't have the time nor the inclination right now. But as to doing good we first have to ask what is it that makes anything good? Is it the effect or is it the intent or is it the emotion or something else? What makes anything good is that it glorifies and pleases God. Natural man may do those things that seem good to man but they are done for the wrong reasons. Everything the natural man does he does in service to himself in some way. He may do it to get a good feeling or a pat on the back from others or it satisfies his desire to be good but it in no way brings glory to God or pleases Him. It may result in the help and comfort of others with the intent to do so but it still is not good because it isn't done to the glory of God. The Lord told that rich young ruler that none are good but God.


Man's goodness is an illusion that feeds pride and self satisfaction.

As for the cat that licked you. That same cat may eat its litter of young and never feel the slightest remorse or pang of conscience. That is what separates us from the brute beasts.

 

[abacabb3]

I think the clearest indication of man's complete depravity is Gen 6:5, because every inclination of a man's heart is continually evil. So, whatever good a man does, whether by "common grace" or not, ultimately there are evil inclinations behind it. But, GOd can work good through man's evil inclinations, or prevent man from acting upon them in certain situations. The argument some Calvinists make is that God is constantly preventing man from doing the true depths of evil in his heart. It is a position that makes sense, but is not explicit in Scripture.

Pertaining to the animals, I think my point stands. The beast that can do good for no reason just as easily commits evil for no reason. THis appears to be the case in unsaved man. The point is, if man is completely depraved as Gen 6:5 would seem to indicate (in contrast to "total depravity") then the existence of any good whatosever is to me mysterious to say the least.

 

[twin1954]

I think the clearest indication of man's complete depravity is Gen 6:5, because every inclination of a man's heart is continually evil. So, whatever good a man does, whether by "common grace" or not, ultimately there are evil inclinations behind it. But, GOd can work good through man's evil inclinations, or prevent man from acting upon them in certain situations. The argument some Calvinists make is that God is constantly preventing man from doing the true depths of evil in his heart. It is a position that makes sense, but is not explicit in Scripture.

Pertaining to the animals, I think my point stands. The beast that can do good for no reason just as easily commits evil for no reason. THis appears to be the case in unsaved man. The point is, if man is completely depraved as Gen 6:5 would seem to indicate (in contrast to "total depravity") then the existence of any good whatosever is to me mysterious to say the least.

Please explain what you mean by good. We seem to being using different definitions.

Gen 6:5 does not teach complete depravity it teaches total depravity. Total depravity means that all of man's nature is affected by sin in its totality. The passage speaks to the fact that all of man's thoughts are corrupt but it doesn't speak to man actually acting on that corruption which is complete depravity. Man was created a moral creature, my point in the part about the animals, and does have a conscience and knows what guilt is. He is guilty for not doing what he knows he ought to do. A beast knows nothing of morality and good or evil. Man knows good but rebels against it. That is the point of Rom. 1:18-32

 

[abacabb3]

Please explain what you mean by good. We seem to being using different definitions.

The definition I am working under is anything that is positive, with the correct motivations. I understand that if a motivation is not God pleasing, it is arguably not positive at all. Perhaps, I would even accept a morally neutral motivation with a positive outcome as "good enough."

Gen 6:5 does not teach complete depravity it teaches total depravity. Total depravity means that all of man's nature is affected by sin in its totality.

Exactly, though Gen 6:5 comes the closest to expressing that man's nature is thoroughly soaked with sin. So, even if we do good, if our thoughts behind the good are evil, it isn't good at all. For example, if a serial killer kills another serial killer, it doesn't make it good.

Man was created a moral creature, my point in the part about the animals, and does have a conscience and knows what guilt is. He is guilty for not doing what he knows he ought to do. A beast knows nothing of morality and good or evil. Man knows good but rebels against it. That is the point of Rom. 1:18-32

I don't think we understand this any differently. More so, my confusion is over the screed that a man who does not know God will never do good at all. As we see, this can only be true if we define good in a Godcentric way. An atheist surely would not define good the way I just did. And, if we went with the atheist's definition, it would appear that all sorts of men do good out of their own will and not because God sustains them by some measure of grace.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Since we agree on indwelling sin, how is it that our motivation is any purer? We have to seriously redefine "good" if the non-believer doing charity work, let's say feeding the hungry, is not doing "good" when they give selflessly. We also are put into a position of judging everyone's motivation. Is God not glorified even despite less than pure motivations? Btw, so we're on the same page, I wouldn't give creedence to the non-believers attempts to define what is good, God and His Holy Word define what is "good". And if we consider the rhetorical question posed by Christ "why do you call me good?" I think we might have to separate motivations from "good" if we're to use the term at all. It's late here, and I'm tired, please correct me if I am off base. God bless!

 

[abacabb3]

I think you're on point. I don't need to judge the motivation's of another's actions. We already know that the non-beleivers nature is of sin and continually evil, all his thoughts. So, even when he does good, the default is not a Godly motivation. I suppose the question better asked is the one in the beginning: does God need to actively restrain the depths of sin in all circumstances when by default, even what is commonly viewed as good cannot be good at all because the motivations are not Godly?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I think you're on point. I don't need to judge the motivation's of another's actions. We already know that the non-beleivers nature is of sin and continually evil, all his thoughts. So, even when he does good, the default is not a Godly motivation. I suppose the question better asked is the one in the beginning: does God need to actively restrain the depths of sin in all circumstances when by default, even what is commonly viewed as good cannot be good at all because the motivations are not Godly?

A couple additional thoughts came to mind, somewhat related to your other topic. It seems from Scripture there is virtue in the duty of doing what is right, while at the same time despite what Scripture tells us about man, it is anthropologically consistent.

Another thought, let's take sex for example. There is nothing inherently sinful about sex, it is "good" in the right context. The pleasure of it is "common" and equally undeserved, whatever the context.

If only I had more time I would try to link these thoughts together, sorry. To attempt an answer to the question, I do not know, what I mean is whether God needs to actively restrain, and the reason is because God did create man in His image, and because of that, has a sense of morality and ability to reason, and man is not autonomous as he supposes, even the non-believer depends on God, though they do not give Him glory or credit where it is due. I think there is some mystery here, as to the ways which God interacts with and governs over the spiritually dead.

Perhaps it is not so much that God needs, rather God chooses to restrain people, and in so doing, His power is on display, it is revealed, and the way opened for His glory.

Off to bed for me!!