Doubting the Salvation of Others
Jul 21st, 2008 by Nathan White
Do you ever look over at the guy in your church who shows up about one Sunday a month and inwardly wonder if he is *truly* a believer? What about that friend who professes Christ, who seems to just love all the world has to offer, but who stays away from gross sins; do you ever come across a passage of scripture speaking of false-professors and find your thoughts (inadvertently) running to him? What about others you know who are caught up in questionable Christian fads where the doctrine is so poor you cannot help but wondering if they are in the true faith; do you doubt their salvation at times?
I would guess that these types of questions have crossed your mind now and then, especially in a society where conversion is so cheap and everybody claims to be a Christian. Add to this the sound preaching/teaching coming from those who know false-conversion is real, and you’ll probably find yourself wondering about others as you too “examine yourself; test yourself to see if you’re in the faith“.
But I have a question: do we have the right, or duty, or obligation, as Christians, to inwardly or outwardly question the salvation of others unless there is obvious evidence of false-belief? This is a question I have struggled with lately, and as I read through The Almost Christian Discovered, by the Puritan Matthew Mead, this question has been more frequently upon my mind.
Particularly for me, I’ve been around Christian men in the past who’ve candidly discussed who it is under their ministry that they had salvific questions about: “I’m just not sure so-and-so is a true believer because of…”, is what I’d hear quite frequently. And I must say that, looking back, I am somewhat bothered by that approach.
But in The Almost Christian Discovered, Mead does an excellent job of demonstrating the lengths which false-converts will go in religion and yet still be outside of Christ. The book certainly isn’t meant for a believer who sometimes doubts their assurance, but I’ve found it to be very helpful in demonstrating true faith up against the counterfeit. In the introduction, the author even makes a point to say that if his work doesn’t bring some kind of doubt to your mind, at least to make you stop and examine yourself, then you should probably be worried that you’re at least somewhat deceived. And with that I agree. He sets forth true religion as the high thing that it is, and anyone familiar with their own heart will shrink back here and there, with the true believers afterwards repenting of the sins he exposes.
But let me be completely frank regarding the topic at hand: when true Christianity is demonstrated and false Christianity is exposed right before our eyes, whether in book or sermon, after we see and examine ourselves, how do we not have people come to mind here and there as different characteristics of hypocrites are described?
For example, 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, or making resolutions against sin to put off immediate repentance, etc.
The point I’m trying to make is that there is no doubt that I’ve seen many hints of these things in my own life (I’ve been taking some painful notes), but there is also no doubt that I see some of these things in the lives of others as well. And when these evidences (in others) are great in number and only seem to multiply, what is our duty? To put off these thoughts? To expose what we see? To go to them privately? To bear one another’s burdens?
Let me also be clear that I do *not* ask this question in regards to open and blatant sin; for scripture is clear in that matter. But rather, I ask this question when there is evidence of hypocrisy, insincerity, irreverence towards the things of God, great boasting of one’s condition when it reality it is nothing but lip-service, false emotion, false repentance, false affections, etc. That is, something that is more than a continual way of life that may evidence a false conversion, but not a blatant enough sin to do a full-fledge Matthew 18 approach.
Are we to assume the best unless we have clear evidence of wrong? Or are these kind of thoughts just natural workings of the mind when we dig deep into what defines real Christianity? Also, what application does ‘Judge not lest you be judged’ have in all of this? What about ‘bear one another’s burdens’?
I’m going to think about this one a little while longer before I post some thoughts on my conviction. But in the meantime, I’d love to get advice/thoughts from some of you seasoned veterans out there (off-line is welcomed too, as always). Once I get a good scriptural grasp on what I believe to be the answer, I’ll post some additional thoughts.
Nathan,
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.
Jeff–
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
I personally attempt to never judge. We barely know our own hearts, let alone that of others. Consider, too, the behavior and lives of the Old Testament patriarchs (who God considered “righteous”) who would probably never be permitted into the ranks of even a moderate church these days. Most of them had more than one wife. Lot impregnated his daughters while drunk. David killed multitudes. Job struggled and questioned and doubted.
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.
I agree it is impossible to form an accurate opinion about someone else’s spiritual status with 100% certainty. But I think we should use our minds to form tentative, provisional opinions and then proceed to act on that basis. Otherwise, how can we avoid casting our pearls before swine unless we discern who the swine are? How can we beware false prophets unless we analyse their fruit? How can we “see to it that no one fails to obtain the grace of God” (Heb.12:15) [where the context implies it is referring to no one who is a professing Christian]? If we suspect that a professing Christian is not truly regenerated, I think it is a kind, loving action to try to help that person get right with God, and it would be a callous dereliction of duty to ignore that person’s eternal welfare. But of course, any attemps to help should only be undertaken in a spirit of humility and gentleness, like one beggar showing another beggar where he can go to receive a free meal, and with the readiness to admit that your initial opinion about that person’s spiritual state may be wrong. 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. But I don’t think Jesus meant we should not analyse, assess, discern, and discriminate. “Be wise as serpents.”
Sorry for the double posting.
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.
The motive of self-preservation is not at all impure in and of itself. This is the very idea to which Jesus appeals in his entire sermon on the mount (specifically Matt. 7). The old testament is ripe with similar pleas (Isa. 55). God’s own rationale for Israel obeying his law was for their good (Deut. 8:1).
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’.
Gentlemen, good comments. A few thoughts of my own:
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.
Phil said:
If we suspect that a professing Christian is not truly regenerated, I think it is a kind, loving action to try to help that person get right with God, and it would be a callous dereliction of duty to ignore that person’s eternal welfare.
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.
Mark said:
The motive of self-preservation is not at all impure in and of itself.
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
Thank you, Mark and Nathan, for your edifying comments.
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!
Phil–
You said some good words my friend. One thing I would add: though confrontation is not always necessary, and we can indeed have a huge impact on people by our conduct, nothing can replace the preaching of the gospel. So maybe that plays out in a number of ways: instead of directly confronting them, exhort them with the gospel on every occasion possible, even if they say they already know it. Or, make sure that they are sitting under the pure preaching of the gospel (this is most important, I believe). For faith comes by hearing, and hearing comes by the preaching of the gospel…
Good comments my brothers! I’ll post on this again soon.
Nathan ….. yes, I do agree with your latest comment.
I am concerned about the spiritual state of both my elderly parents, who are convinced they are heaven-bound but to me their Christianity seems merely a mental assent to the gospel without any evidence of a heart change (though I don’t know for sure). I pray for them daily and I try to ‘live out’ the gospel practically as an example to them but I admit I rarely use explicit words to exhort them with the gospel. But your latest comment has given me a kick to start speaking the gospel explicitly to them at opportune moments.
Speaking the gospel in their hearing would be relevant and worthwhile even if they are already born again because all true Christians need encouragement to grow. Spiritual growth does not mean leaving the gospel behind to advance to deeper doctrines but rather moving deeper into the gospel we heard at conversion - to unpack it and understand it more thoroughly and to work it out more consistently in practice. That may involve delving into abstruse doctrines such as supralapsarianism and perichoresis but the ultimate goal never changes from the moment of our conversion onwards: to know God, to love Him, and to live to glorify Him.