The Unsaved and Morality

In a post to the CARM discussion group on Facebook, a young lady had asserted:

Anyone can live a morally good life but not be saved; i.e. people can 'do the right thing' and follow the comandments, etc. But without a personal relationship with our Savior, you will not have eternal life.

I have to disagree with this. I think we should always be careful of how much philosophical ground we are willing to concede to godless worldviews. (And for me, that amounts to 'zero'.) I will admit that unbelievers can live a 'good' life, but I would argue that it is colloquial and accidental only. They certainly do not live a morally good life, nor can they—if we accept that moral order is grounded in the immutable nature of God and expressed prescriptively in his commands (which we, as Christians, do accept). "The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so" (Rom. 8:7; verses 1 and 9 attest that "the sinful mind" belongs to whosoever is not in Christ). As Gordon Clark put the matter, "A man might will to be honest, to support his family, to discharge most of his obligations as a citizen. In colloquial language these things are called good. But they are not spiritual goods" (What Do Presbyterians Believe, pg. 109), because ethics—values and morals—is grounded in, and revealed by, the true and living God. Although an unbeliever might help a homeless person by giving him food or shelter, neither his behavior nor even his motivation is constituted by obedience to or love for God and his will (his conscience may be dictated by God-defying humanism, for example). Ergo, the 'good' he performed was colloquial and accidental—i.e. neither moral nor willfully so.

UPDATE: About an hour later she replied, agreeing with me that the 'good' unbelievers perform is colloquial at best and certainly "not good in God's eyes, for they are done without the will to please God." She conceded that the 'good' which unbelievers perform is "defined by the world's view." Furthering this thought she writes:

They may vote, recycle, love their children, never divorce, donate money, etc, all of which would constitute them as 'model citizens' to the world; however, all of these things, although pleasing to society, will not please God if you are not one of His children . . . Society has its standards of good, but nothing outside of faith in Christ will please God.

And she has it spot on. My basic point is that if it's not according to the revealed will of God then it is not 'moral' (including its synonyms 'good' and 'right'). That term is specific and rich with content qualified by Scripture, and any equivocation of that term leads to unacceptable concessions to godless views. I feel, rather strongly, that we cannot and must not compromise the Word of God. Is that hardcore? Yes, but our commitment to God must be. I contest that we must, as ambassadors of Christ, insist that unbelievers are not good, that they are sinners in every context of their life and in need of the Savior. I contest that permitting unbelievers any foothold in the area of goodness immediately weakens the message of gospel and the necessity of Christ's atoning work.

Put briefly, the unsaved are not good—in any context. They are sinners, alienated from God and in mortal need of the Savior. Perhaps I advocate a minority position, but I simply cannot abide any weakening of the gospel. I was not trying to criticize this young lady's point specifically; I was merely advocating an uncompromising view on this issue.