The “Goodness” of Unbelievers

The interpreter of the New Testament faces an apparent contradiction when he reads that Cornelius was a “devout man, and one that feared God,” although he was clearly not yet regenerated, and then hears Paul affirming that “there is none righteous, no, not one. . . . There is none that doeth good, no, not one” (Rom. 3:10, 12, quoting Psalm 14:1, 3). Lest one think this is a contradiction between Luke’s optimistic view of unregenerate man and Paul’s pessimistic view, Paul himself seems to come down on both sides of the issue, affirming in Romans 2:14 that “Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law.” Indeed, throughout Scripture, two sets of data can be compiled and set opposite one another. On the one hand (apparently) unregenerate people, such as Cyrus, do (apparently) good things. On the other hand axiomatic statements such as Isaiah 64:6 (“all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags”) seem to preclude goodness in the unregenerate. How are these seemingly disparate data reconciled? Can unregenerate people do good? Can they be good?

Paul’s Argument in Romans

It is helpful to trace Paul’s argument for the universal sinfulness of mankind in Romans 1:18–3:20 in order to see how Paul would answer this question. Paul’s overall purpose is to establish the universal sinfulness of both Jews and Gentiles (see his conclusion in 3:19, 20). In the process, however, he appears to affirm the apparent goodness of unbelievers.

First, Paul affirms that “that which may be known of God is manifest in” people who suppress the truth. Unbelievers have this knowledge of God because “God hath shewed it unto them.” How has God shown them this knowledge of Himself? They are able to see it in the created order. So unbelievers have an innate capacity for moral reflection that enables them to infer from visible data—the created world— the existence of a powerful and moral Creator. Although Paul does not directly allude to the image of God in this text, the fact that God made man in His own image, enduing him with rationality, morality, and volition, would seem to be implied by this capacity for seeing God in his environment. By any account, having such a capacity is good.

Second, at the conclusion of his sweeping indictment of idolatry and its heinous moral effects (1:21–32), Paul says that these very unbelievers “[know] the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death.” This appears to be an advance on his claim in 1:18–20. Now, unbelievers not only see evidence of a powerful and moral God, but they recognize that some behaviors are morally repugnant and place one in a precarious position relative to that God. Again, this is a correct judgment and, therefore, intrinsically a good thing to possess.

Third, Paul elaborates a little on how man can have this moral awareness. The argument in 2:1–16 has the purpose of stripping away the self-righteous claims of the man who views himself as superior to others—in particular, the Jewish man who does so. Possessing the law would seem to give the Jew an advantage over Gentiles, but Paul counters this idea in two ways. In 2:13 and 17–29 he points out that having the law (“hearing” it) is no advantage if one does not obey it. In 2:14, 15 he makes the parallel claim that Gentiles who do not have the law nevertheless have an equivalent standard of behavior. If Gentiles can “do by nature the things contained in the law,” then having the Mosaic Law would not seem to be the advantage the Jews thought. This is the strongest statement Paul makes about the “goodness” of unbelievers.¹

What about Pervasive Depravity?

The case Paul is making in 1:18–3:20, however, is for pervasive depravity, that is, depravity that affects every aspect of man. How do these statements about positive characteristics of unbelievers fit into this argument? It is quite clear in 1:21ff that the awareness of God’s eternal power and Godhead does not result in righteous or meritorious behavior. Instead, man suppresses that knowledge, refuses to glorify God, embraces idols, and sinks into wicked behaviors. God made man in His own image, and this image included a Godward orientation that man cannot entirely escape. It does not, however, result in godliness. Indeed, Paul brings it up in chapter 1 to aggravate man’s guilt.

Similarly, in 1:32 the people who “[know] the judgment of God . . . not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.” The “goodness” man has not only does not commend him before God, but it makes him more culpable for his sinfulness.

What about Paul’s argument in 2:13–15? He makes a series of points about Gentiles:

1. Gentiles do not have the law, i.e., the Mosaic Law.

2. Nevertheless, Gentiles do by nature the things contained in the law.

3. So, although they do not have the Mosaic Law, they are a law unto themselves.

4. They show the work of the law written on their hearts in three ways:

a. “Their actions show to all that they are aware of an inward moral law;

b. “Their consciences show to themselves that they are aware of and sensitive to such a law;

c. “And their thoughts or reasonings which condemn or approve one another’s conduct show that they possess and follow an inward law or moral standard of some sort.”²

While exploring the intricacies of this argument would be beyond the scope of this article, it is important to see Paul’s point. Paul does not say that Gentiles abide by or keep the law; he says they do things contained in the law. So an unbelieving Gentile may tell the truth or refrain from committing murder or rest content with his own possessions rather than coveting his neighbor’s. Each of these behaviors is good or, at least, better than various alternatives.

How do unbelieving Gentiles do these good things? God has endowed them with the capacity to make moral judgments and even to choose superior alternatives. He has given them a conscience that serves as a moral regulator, telling them that they ought to do what they think is right and ought not to do what they think is wrong. He has given them reason, which can evaluate the behavior of others and pass moral judgment, either accusing or excusing them. This is not to say that man’s reason when functioning in this way does so infallibly. It is clearly excusing or approving based on the person’s own fallible judgments. But the process of evaluating others’ actions expresses man’s Godgiven capacity for moral intuitions. “As God’s creation, the human being remains a moral being, and cannot become amoral, only immoral.”³ So we should not be surprised when unbelievers sacrifice themselves for a higher cause; express loyalty, creativity, or punctuality; show disdain for cruelty; or claim aspirations for a noble legacy. These are human behaviors that they do by nature, i.e., through the capacities God placed within them at creation. Sin does not cause men to cease to be human.⁴

But is Paul trying to show in this text that Gentiles, after all, are not so bad? That is clearly not his purpose. Verse 16 puts the whole section in context. Judgment Day is coming, and God will evaluate the secrets of men, i.e., their motives, inner desires, priorities, and values. The basis of judgment will be the gospel of Jesus Christ. The conclusion of such a judgment is evident: “every mouth [will] be stopped, and all the world [will] become guilty before God” (3:19). Why then does Paul speak of these “good things” Gentiles do? His purpose, once again, is to show the aggravation of man’s guilt. No one⁵ will be able to stand before God and say he did not know right from wrong. Whether or not he had special revelation of God’s law, as did the Jews, he had an innate moral intuition⁶ that enabled him to make moral choices, some of which violated his conscience. “As far as the final judgement is concerned, the work of God the creator within the fallen human being is equal to the manifestation of his will in the law of Moses.”⁷

“Goodness” as a Contributor to Condemnation

If the “goodness” man has—his capacity for making moral judgments and sometimes doing externally good things—is actually contributory to his condemnation, is it really good? As Paul continues to develop his case, he will put man’s actions in their true light, in relation to God’s glory. Man sinned—in Adam—and is falling short of God’s glory (3:23) so that those who are “in the flesh,” i.e., without the power of the Spirit, cannot please God (8:8). Paul leaves no doubt that when man uses his moral nature without seeking to glorify God, he is in rebellion and his apparent goodness has no merit before God. Indeed, Paul highlights the sin of the Jews in “going about to establish their own righteousness” rather than submitting to the righteousness of God (10:3). Thus, Paul can say without any contradiction of his earlier claims, “there is none that doeth good, no, not one.”

Perhaps, an illustration will show how the apparent goodness of unregenerate men relates to the true good in relation to God.⁸ Imagine pirates that are terrorizing the coast of a country with a longsuffering sovereign. After a few years, these pirates seize an island off the coast of the country. Eventually, they build a town, bring women to live with them as their wives, and settle down somewhat. Once they have children, they might build a school, pave the roads, and stock a library with stolen books. One day, a visitor might be surprised to find a well-ordered community with an elected mayor, a police force, and reasonably decent citizens. This would be a group of people who, for various self-interested motives, are doing “good.” Would the sovereign be pleased with them? He most certainly would not be. They are still pirates, and everything they do on the island—whether good or bad in the view of other pirates—is still rebellion. The only thing that will please the sovereign is repentance of their rebellious ways and submission to his authority. Everything else is falling short of his righteous requirement.

Are the unrighteous good? Because they are in the image of God and remain moral beings, they are capable of appearing good to other unrighteous people and even being evaluated as good along the horizontal line. But relative to the vertical dimension, their goodness is rebellion. They are using their God-given gifts for their own glory, and God will call them to account for their “righteousness” just as much as for their other sins.

---

Dr. David Saxon has served as a professor at Maranatha Baptist University since 1999. He and his wife, Jamie, have four children.

---

(Originally published in FrontLine • July/August 2014. Click here to subscribe to the magazine.)

1. Although Cranfield, Dunn, and a few others argue that Paul is speaking here of Gentile believers, the majority of the commentators rightly reject this view. See, for instance, Doug Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1996), 148–51. [↩]
2. Roy B. Zuck, “The Doctrine of the Conscience,” Bibliotheca Sacra 126, no. 504 (Oct. 1969): 333. [↩]
3. Mark A. Seifrid, “Natural Revelation and the Purpose of the Law in Romans,” Tyndale Bulletin 49, no. 1 (1998): 122. [↩]
4. See the helpful discussion in Anthony Hoekema, Created in God’s Image (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1986), 68–73. [↩]
5. Paul does not pause to speak of mentally handicapped people or small children dying before developing cognitive and moral competence. They would appear to be an exception to this argument until one reaches Romans 5:12–14 and learns that all men are under sentence of death because of Adam’s imputed guilt. This aspect of the case will not be developed in this article. [↩]
6. See the interesting argument in Mark D. Mathewson, “Moral Intuitionism and the Law Inscribed on Our Hearts,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42, no. 4 (December 1991): 629–43. [↩]
7. Seifrid, 123. [↩]
8. I do not know the source of this illustration. I heard it attributed to Spurgeon, but I have not found it in his writings. [↩]