An excerpt from Vincent Cheung’s Grace for his own. For further reading, see: http://www.vincentcheung.com/2010/10/16/grace-for-his-own/
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…
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…
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…
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 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?…
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…
It is better just to renounce the false doctrine…
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…
A man after God's own heart 