I too struggle with this issue, especially when it involves close personal friends. I was a false convert for a number of years so I have deep concerns when I see people acting the way that I did when I thought I was saved, when I was really not. They are often basing their salvation on walking an aisle and saying a prayer in order to avoid hell, just like I did. In those circumstances, there are only two things that I can do: pray and proclaim the Gospel. But I often struggle with what form that Gospel presentation should take. Many times, for me, it means relating my own personal testimony of how I had never repented of my sins and how my life did not reflect the obedience that God expects or the Fruit of the Spirit that comes with being a new creation in Christ.

Sometimes, I have the urge to call someone out and say, “Man, do you really think that you’re saved?” But I don’t. Because I know that the only way that they can be saved is through the sovereign grace of God. So I see my role as one that can speak truth into their lives aimed at challenging them to examine themselves to see whether they are in the faith. It is also critical that I live my life as a clear demonstration of what it looks like to be a child of God. Maybe God can use that to show them that this “new creation” stuff is real - that God expects us to be set apart from the world.

Bottom line: whether it’s my best friend from high school, a brother who has fallen in sin, or a street evangelistic encounter with a homeless man “professing belief” in Christ, I always strive to share the full Gospel (in case they’ve never heard it - and that’s a real possibility in this day and age) and to share what is supposed to happen in the new birth according to the Word of God. The rest is in God’s hands.

Great topic. I look forward to other responses.

Good thoughts. I too am one who was saved later in life, after years of being a hypocrite in the church. Looking back on things, I really wish someone would’ve challenged my profession, but I think it had more to do with the poor teaching/theology I was immersed in.

I think it’s harder not to have these thoughts towards others when we ourselves have been under the delusion. It’s like, I can look at some and see myself before my conversion, and it’s hard to not say something to them. There was a time in my life, in my early zeal, where I wasn’t afraid to challenge anyone on their profession, and often did so, sometimes in mean-spiritedness however. Now it’s like I’m so focussed on hoping for the best in all things, that I shy away from even letting my self think that at times. I don’t know; I hope to study and think about it a little more before I come to any hard lines. Ultimately, however, I do think that discernment, humility, and saying the right thing at the right moment, play a large role in this area.

Thanks for the comment,
Nathan

Bottom line: we are in no position to make any assessment in terms of the souls of others. We can uphold whatever is good and true and reject what is evil in behavior, but I think that’s about the extent of it. We’ll have our opinion, no doubt, but it’s best kept to ourselves.

Mead mentions in section VI that “A man may make great vows and promises; he may have strong purposes and resolutions against sin and yet be but almost a Christian“. Then he goes on to list evidences that confirm this particular state, such as making resolutions against sin because of the trouble and affliction it brings rather than for God’s glory.

I am not sure about what Mead says here. Yes, ideally everything we do should be done entirely and ultimately for God’s glory. But in practice I don’t think even the best Christian has 100% pure motives in any of his actions. I think all our deeds our tainted with at least some degree of self-seeking or self-preservation. So where do you draw the line? Am I only a true Christian if my motives are more than 50% for God than for myself? That sounds unlikely to me. I don’t think God measures it like that, and I think it is precarious to form definite conclusions by looking at someone’s motives. I’m not trying to condone mixed motives or to encourage complacency but would Jesus reject a lighted candle because its wick was only flickering?
The Puritans set the bar very high and I find that a refreshing change to modern day low standards and complacency in the church. And if you are going to err, it is probably better to err on the side of too high than too low. But I wonder if sometimes the Puritans described the state they were striving for and moving towards rather than their de facto state.

As far as ‘erring too high’ is concerned, in my estimation this is a far greater danger than the alternative, though neither is of any greater desire. To err too high is to adopt legalism. Legalism (and it’s practitioners) receives some of Jesus’ most stern rebukes (those who strain at a gnat and swallow a camel). But I’m sure your intent, Phil, wasn’t to promote either err, only to exalt a zeal and diligence in pursuit of holiness, to which I offer my ‘Amen’.

Nathan said: Where I struggle, however, is when exactly to go to this person, and what evidence is necessary for the confrontation. Regardless, I believe that much patience and longsuffering must precede any loving confrontation.

Phil replies: I’m not sure a direct explicit confrontation is always called for, at least not until a more subtle approach has been tried.
John 3:19-20 says: “Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.” (NIV) Unbelievers sometimes find it uncomfortable to be in the presence of a Spirit-filled believer on account of the believer’s excellent character and behavior which shames the unbeliever and pricks his conscience about his own failings, even without the believer ‘preaching’ at him or spouting Bible verses at him. In a similar way, if a strong believer strives to make his conversation “always full of grace, seasoned with salt” (Col. 4:6) and to make his behavior not just blameless but positively attractive so that he “adorns the doctrine of God our Savior” (Titus 2:10), I would not be surprised if he has a powerful effect on everyone around him. He will probably be feared and/or hated by those who are perishing; but to those whom God wishes to bring to repentance (including the ‘almost Christian’ referred to by Matthew Mead), the strong believer’s distinguished, winsome righteousness may, under God’s providence, automatically open the eyes of the ‘almost Christian’ to his own spiritual deficiency and spur him to reform.
Another example of a more subtle approach than a direct explicit confrontation is to air one’s suspicions about one’s own salvation in the presence of someone whose salvation we doubt. I admit that I sometimes see certain inclinations and impulses in my own nature that occasionally make me question whether I may be an ‘almost Christian’, and so I can sincerely raise the subject about false assurance and self-deception and the “many who will seek to enter and will not be able” (Luke 13:24). Embedding this subject in the context of one’s own salvation when we talk to someone whose salvation we doubt, may provoke that person to secretly start applying the question to himself.
I apologise for not expressing my meaning clearly when I spoke about the Puritans setting the bar too high. I believe a Christian cannot aim too high. The Creator and Lord of the universe deserves absolute obedience from all His creatures. He is worthy of our total submission and fear. And our unlimited love and sacrifice is the only appropriate response to his infinite grace to such as ill-deserving rebels as we are. If we don’t make 100% effort to live for God exclusively then I think we should rightly question our own salvation. But what I meant about setting the bar too high is that Matthew Mead (in the extract Nathan quoted) seemed to suggest that avoiding sin primarily for selfish reasons rather than God’s glory is a confirmation (i.e. a certainty) of being an ‘almost Christian’. But I think saving grace can sometimes exist in a person without yet having manifested itself in that way, like a candle with a smouldering wick which may be about to burgeon into a vigorous flame. I think checking our motives is useful but not to be interpreted in isolation from other evidences.
I like the motto: “Strict on self, soft on others”. Thumbs up!

Good comments my brothers! I’ll post on this again soon.