Tim Keller Meets Thomas Aquinas: Common Grace, Human Nature and the Question of Non-Christian Virtue

Though difficult to read in places, I found this quite interesting. Some of why: I’ve long felt that we’re distorting things in how we describe the life and character of unbelievers. I often read/hear it oversimplified as though depravity was binary and you’re either perfect (and a Christian) or as evil as it’s possible to be (and an unbeliever).

But I’m not sure the author is on the right track. He doesn’t seem to talk about depravity at all, and it seems like Augustine and Calvin would be relevant on that point. So does he understand Calvin and Augustine correctly? I’m not sure.

…and so, not sure he has Keller and Aquinas right either.

But I want to throw a third option into the ring for what it’s worth. Maybe this idea has already been considered and abandoned long ago for some very good reason I’m not aware of.

What if the good/virtuous things unbelievers do are still sin, not because the quality of the acts themselves or the motivation is wicked, but because of how the people doing them are related to God? What if the relationship makes an act still sin, even if it’s—taking Cyrus for example—the right thing to do and is done for good reasons.

So, going to the author’s opening question, can unbelievers ever do the right thing for a right reason? Certainly! But they can’t do it in a right relationship with God—until there is faith and conversion.

I’m not ruling out all the sins that are inherently wicked, due to the quality of the act and/or the motive behind it. But Christians do all these things also. The difference is Romans 5:1 and Romans 8:1 (and Romans 6, etc., etc.).

The point is put out there that sinners are doing it as an act of self-love and not an act of love of God. But this confuses many things. There are many Christians who do things out of self-love. In fact, most of what we do is an act of self-love and we are constantly fighting against this. This is the very nature of the struggle of Christians.

This article is challenging to read, but what it treats is worth pondering deeply. I am grateful for its being called to my attention through this post!

The account of Abimelech, a pagan king, in Genesis 20 that this article considers is a passage that is captivating for several reasons. Although I have not done much with it in regard to the debates about non-Christian virtue, I have written about the passage and remarked briefly about God's remarkable attestation to Abimelech's innocence.

I also thought it was a worthwhile read. Some thoughts.

Adam and Eve were created "very good" (Genes 1) and "upright" (Ecclesiastes 7). Contra Thomas, they did not need additional grace to keep them right with God.

When they transgressed, they disobeyed, and became fundamentally trespassers (Romans 5). This didn't mean that they "broke" physically or metaphysically (although the curse came into play). It does that they were now wrongly related toward God. They broke morally, in terms of their fundamental principles for action.

But I think that we do discuss in our theology classes that "total depravity" has never meant "as sinful as one can possibly be." God's creation is still good. And His common grace restrains people from acting consistently with their core principle.

I have no trouble saying that unbelievers do good things where the "goodness" goes pretty deep down. Common grace becomes paradoxical, because unbelievers show just how well they know goodness (Romans 2: Gentiles do the things of the law), and thus how well they know their guilt and need for repentance and forgiveness from God. In one respect, the goodness in commendable; in another respect, it serves to condemn them.