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

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!

My reply:
I agree with this statement, but this is not really Mead’s point. That is, self-preservation is certainly very good, but it is not the gospel. Mead’s point is that we should not assume we are truly-saved because we’ve made great vows against sin, for great vows against sin can be made with all kinds of gospel-rejecting motives.

Mark said:
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.

My reply:
If I understand you correctly then I would slightly disagree. Let me clarify:

1) Just for the record, I don’t think the Puritans erred too high; we’re just so accustomed to aiming too low.
2) Erring too high can be legalism, but it is not legalism in and of itself, and can be done without begin legalistic (that is, I see them as two different things).
3) However, taken the point above, remember one thing about the Puritans that I to Phil: their motto was ’strict on self, soft on others’, so to speak. In relation to this, it *would* be legalism to hold others to a standard too high, but I believe the issue here is that we are to hold ourselves to a standard of perfection, but with others we are to be patient, kind, humble, bearing their burdens, loving them, assuming the best of them, etc
4) Also, given the above assumptions, any ‘err’ we are aware of, whether too low or too high, should be shunned when/if the Spirit reveals to us our sin. Both extremes are dangerous to our souls and to the gospel proclamation.

Remember, legalism is not properly interpreting the law of God and holding people accountable to it; it is mis-interpreting it, holding others to it without mercy, making it the standard for our justification, self-righteously judging others but not ourselves, etc., which is essentially mis-interpreting the law and its designed end entirely.

I don’t think you’d disagree with much of what I said, and maybe I misunderstood, but let me know.

Good comments, all. This is such a tough issue and we need to walk as if we’re on holy ground.

–
Nate

My reply:
I agree completely. 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. Also, my question entails how we *think* about these things internally. That is, how we make often make these judgments in our minds well before the evidence is objective.

Phil said:
I think Jesus’s words about not judging mean that we should not condemn other people in a haughty, self-righteous, holier-than-thou way as though we had the right to pass sentence on our fellow human beings.

My reply:
Again I agree completely. However, I see that there is danger in making these haughty, self-righteous judgments internally, oftentimes before the evidence is fully objective, and inadvertently treating someone different because we’ve already decided that they’re lost and only time remains for them to prove it. Yes, voicing these types of judgments is a great sin, we can see that, but I think *not* voicing them (while still thinking them) is a great sin as well.

Phil said:
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?

My reply:
Of course there is sin in our best actions. John Bunyan said that the best prayer he ever uttered had more sin in it to damn the entire world. However, when mixed with the shed blood of Christ, our actions and motives are pure in the sight of God. But where do we draw the line? Self-examination and the light of the Holy Spirit is necessary for us to recognize when these motives are wrong, and if we know for certain that any of our motives are wrong/sinful then we must seek repentance. So I’d agree that we’ll always have some sort of mixed motives, but the sin and danger comes when we know for certain what our mixed motive is and we do nothing to mortify it.

Phil said:
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.

My reply:
The Puritans did set the bar high, but there consistent motto is: be extremely harsh on yourself, but extremely lenient towards others. I think this is an excellent rule to live by. This book that we are discussing is a hard, hard book, no question. But Mead is writing for us to examine ourselves fully; he is not writing for us to specifically use his arguments on others. We must remember this when reading the Puritans.

James said:
I personally attempt to never judge. We barely know our own hearts, let alone that of others.

My reply: I agree that we cannot know our own hearts fully, much less others, but there are areas where scripture judges for us, and where scripture commands us to apply that judgment of others. I hope to write more on this very soon; I hope you’ll read and share you thoughts when I present the full argument.

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’.

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.