Are You Saved? Good for you, because apparently Tim Challies isn't!

Word on the street is that Tim Challies isn't saved - bummer eh, Tim?

But don't worry, you won't get any flack from your ol' pal Dave here over that.  Since you and I co-moderate the League of Reformed Bloggers I just want to set your mind at ease and let you know that we  require people to be Calvinists to join the LORB, not Christians, so you are safe with me pal.

Actually, it kind of warms my heart to know that Tim isn't saved.  He has made disparaging remarks about me in the past - he once insinuated that it is tragic the way I will sometimes go days without posting to my blog.  Well Tim ol' buddy, I may be living a sad and tragic life, but at least I'm saved!

Then again, maybe I'm not saved . . .   

A few years ago I was on the board of my kid's school and all of us on the board were from Presbyterian churches and we had a common reformed outlook on life and we wanted to teach from a reformed worldview. 

The trouble is, get two reformed people together and you'll have three different definitions of what constitutes a reformed worldview.  So, the board tasked me with preparing a document defining what we meant by a "reformed worldview" which we would discuss and approve, modify or disapprove.  We didn't just have kids from Presbyterian and reformed traditions in the school but we thought it would be appropriate to have a document expaining where we came from.

Well, as the story goes I prepared the document, and the board approved, but I made a grievous error in the document and that sorry excuse for a school board affirmed me in my error.  It seems that somewhere in the document I had made a reference to our "Arminian and Dispensational brothers and sisters."

This was too much for one of the teachers at the school.  Said teacher wrote a scathing letter back to the board attacking our decision to call Arminians and Dispensationalists "brothers and sisters," expressing alarm that a wolf like me could be in ministry and insinuating that I might not in fact be saved.  This was all because I recognized people as brothers and sisters who were outside of our tradition - oh the horror, I'm ashamed to write this even now!

So sad to say, and this ruins my day to admit it, I may be as bad as Tim. 

But seriously folks - Tim's post that started this is a classic example of the absurdity that exists in the ranks of the professing church.  But the kind of thinking that Tim is dealing with, and that I dealt with back then, is more rampant than we might think.

I often hear Christians gossiping expressing concern about other professing Christians whose behavior concerns them and they will reach a point of exasperation where they finally say something like "I'm not even sure they are a Christian," or "if they were a Christian they would/wouldn't . . . " or something similar.  Of course, as a pastor, people often come to me to gossip get counsel about other people and they will go into great detail about someone else's behavior and will then ask me if I think that person is a Christian, with the implication that they deifinitely aren't or might not be.

Tim addresses this well in his post.  It is not within the jurisdiction of any individual to speculate or pronounce upon the state of another's soul if that other has professed faith in Christ.  Tim quotes David Swavely:

In Who Are You To Judge?, Dave Swavely adds the following: "[R]egarding who are the wheat and who are the tares, they [the apostles] left that judgment to God - except in the case of those who were under church discipline. The biblical writers did not attempt to determine or distinguish true believers from false believers within the church. They accepted people's profession of faith, as long as it was a credible or biblical profession; and they treated all members of the church as believers, unless the process of discipline proved otherwise. We should therefore do the same." It is also worth nothing that even the process of discipline dictates that we are to assume that the other person is a believer until the process has actually been completed and the individual has been excommunicated. It is not until that point that we can assume the person is unregenerate.

And he goes on quoting Swavely:

So what are we to do with those who claim to be Christian yet say or do things that seem to contradict their faith? Swavely says the following and I agree with him.

I would suggest that when someone has professed personal faith in Christ, been baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and identified with the church, we are then under obligation from Scripture to make no negative judgment about the validity of his faith. That obligation remains even when a professing believer seems to exhibit a lack of fruit, or even if he commits repeated and heinous sin, because in those cases the other members of the body of Christ are called to encourage, admonish, and if necessary discipline him according to the process Jesus outlined in Matthew 18:15-17. Each of those means of sanctification are based on the presupposition that in most cases the Holy Spirit is present and operative in the sinner's life. Otherwise they could not be effective in helping that person to grow in grace and to put away the sin against which we all continue to struggle.

Tim and Dave couldn't be more right about this.   If a Christian has a concern with the behavior of another Christian the Bible gives them a clear track to run on in Matthew 18.  First you go to the other person to confront them with their behavior.  If reconciliation/resolution doesn't happen, take one or two more.  If a resolution still doesn't happen, take it to the church.  The whole time the person is still to be treated as a brother or sister and is not to be deemed unregenerate till the church as a collective body (or through her officers) determines the person is unrepentant.

Nowhere in the process are we called to gossip about the other in the guise of sharing prayer requests or expressing concern, nor are we given the right to form and announce our own private verdict on the state of someone else's soul.  Indeed, a person may be unregenerate, but that can only be determined after a lengthy process of examination by a broad body of church members or leaders.

This does not mean we cannot confront.  It is entirely appropriate to tell someone that their behavior does not comport with their Christian profession and to call them to repentance.  It is entirely appropriate to appeal to their consciences by whatever means we may.  But in every situation we are treating them as erring brothers and sisters, not as unregenerate.  That is not our call to make.

Carla Rolfe has a good comment on Tim's post that shows the tension we sometimes live with.

I'd like to agree with that Tim, but I just can't. I know at least 2 people who "say all the right things" but with their very actions, day after day after day, might as well be confessing they are not a genuine believer. Many others who know these 2 people, agree with what I just wrote.

I feel your pain Carla.  I am sure she knows this but I would point out that the Bible has not left us without counsel in this.  The Matthew 18 process can be entered into without resorting to speculation on whether or not these folks are genuine believers.

Although she didn't say this, I have a feeling Carla may be in the very familiar situation where there is no church to which these folks are accountable, which could bring discipline to them.   That is indeed an all too familiar situation. 

And I realize that there is much more to the story than Carla could share here, but if this is a case where there is no church around to exert discipline here are a few thoughts on what might be done.

If I am the only one who knows of the sin I can practice the first step of Matthew 18, and probably the second step.  If I and some others know of the sin then together we can practice the first two steps of Matthew 18 easily.  If the sinning brothers are not members of my church or of a church to whom I can appeal then I may be unable to go any further, at least ecclesiastically.

But this doesn't mean that I, as an individual, owe them the same level of intimacy and fellowship as I owe the members of my local church, so I'm not saying that Carla, or anyone in a similar situation should just make nice and pretend that all is ok with these people.  She has the right to choose not to fellowship with them. If there is no church available that will fill its responsibilities toward sinning brothers and sisters I can still obey my own conscience (Scripturally directed of course) in the matter, without pronouncing a judgment on the state of another's soul.

I realize it's a fine line and may seem like semantics but I think it is healthy.  We can know if someone is an adulterer, a theif, a gossip or a murderer based on their behavior.  We cannot know if they are saved because many have been saved who were adulterer's, gossips and murderers.  So, Carla, or someone else in her position may choose not to fellowship with someone on the basis of that person's persistent gossip or whatever, but there is no need to pronounce judgment on the state of that person's soul. 

Because there is no church present to deal with that person's sin today does not mean there won't be one tomorrow.  Because that person has not received a comeuppance yet does not mean they never will.  God often works very slowly and sometimes we have to sit back and wait to see what He will do.

In recent years I have become comfortable with my own ignorance, comfortable knowing I don't have to have an opinion on everything, and comfortable knowing that just because I have an opinion doesn't mean anyone else has to know what it is (I realize I belie the truth of those statements on my blog). 

When I say that I am comfortable with my ignorance I mean to say that I really don't know what is going on in the silent recesses of anyone else's soul and don't need to know.  If someone wants to tell me what is going on and ask for counsel, that's another story and I'll do my best to help.  That leads to my comfortability in not having opinions on everything. 

Because I don't know what is going on in the silent recesses of your soul, I don't have an opinion on the status of your soul and don't care to form one.  I have learned that someone may be showing outward signs of extreme rebellion when in fact this outward rebellion is the last dying flickers before repentance.  Others are showing all the outward signs of piety while living in deep secret rebellion.  So I usually find it best not to tax the limited resource of my brain with the effort it may take to form an opinion.  I can deal with your behavior but I refuse to speculate on the status of your soul.

But, even with all the best intentions to remain ignorant and un-opinionated I often find myself falling into the trap of forming an opinion.  I'm sorry, I wish I didn't, but sometimes I do.  In those cases I make it my ambition to insure that no one ever finds out my opinion unless and until someone who really needs to know asks it.  This means that I won't necessarily share my opinion with a busybody third party.  If someone is a part of the problem or the solution then yes, I will share my opinion.

And then sometimes I simply forget all of those things and gossip anyway, but then I've got my own sin to worry about and repent of.

Now, I have a role though, in which those things do not apply.  When, as a pastor I am asked to enter in to the process of church discipline, then I'll engage in every way, but still won't form an opinion until I have weighed all the evidence.

So my point in all of this is that we often casually opine and declare that others aren't Christians, and I am saying this is wrong.  We can and always should confront specific ungodly behaviors.  But nothing is lost if we refuse to speculate on the status of someone else's eternal destiny.

Technorati Tags: Church, Church Discipline, Christian, Christianity, Judgment, Judgmentalism, Gossip, Salvation, Regenerate, Unregenerate

Comments

[Carla]

David - wow. You've given me a lot to think about here. I was reading this and listening/watching the debate (Canadian leading candidates) at the same time, so I will need to come back and re-read with undivided attention.

I must say however, the one thing you touched on that really stood out to me was this:
"So, Carla, or someone else in her position may choose not to fellowship with someone on the basis of that person's persistent gossip or whatever, but there is no need to pronounce judgment on the state of that person's soul."

It's the seeming "need" we tend to have to say "this person CANNOT BE/IS NOT saved!". I confess, I've done it myself. Why? I'm not sure, to be completely honest. My first thought is that this sort of statement seperates me from the other person, and explains their conduct? i.e., their spiritual state dictates their conduct. Dangerous ground however - since I know myself all too well, and would have to pass the same judgement upon myself for those times of cranial vapor lock.

I'll be mulling this one over. Thanks for this post.

SDG...

[David Wayne]

Carla - I've done it myself also, and still do - and by the way I hope you can tell I wasn't trying to pick on you - I think this is the kind of thing we do naturally and your comment gave me the opportunity to share a few thoughts.

[Alex]

David,

I appreciate the humility of your post. I totally agree that we shouldn't speculate on the lack of salvation of various Church members. But do you think that we should act completely agnostic regarding the eternal state of another's soul? I mean, is there a place to tell people who struggle with their salvation, "Yes, your sins are forgiven,"?

[David Wayne]

Alex - that's a good point and one that could have occasioned some elaboration in the post. Forgive me if this sounds like splitting hairs or playing semantic games but I don't think it is my place (or anyone's) to tell another person there sins are forgiven, although I do realize I'll have to do some work on that view in light of Jesus' words to Peter in giving him the keys to the kingdom.

Still, I would rather tell people how they can have assurance of sins forgiven and on the other hand, I would also be happy to tell people how they can have doubts about being forgiven. I know this sounds like semantics but I would rather say to them, "the bible promises to all who confess their sins that Jesus forgives and cleanses us of those sins, so if you have truly confessed your sins you can have the assurance of His forgiveness." See, that way I put the burden on them and I'm not the one standing in the place of Jesus.

Similarly, if someone is living in unrepentant sin I can tell them something like "the grace of God is so magnificent that it can forgive even the worst sin you could ever commit, but the Bible also warns the unrepentant that there is grave danger to their souls if they remain unrepentant.

Again, in both cases I haven't rendered a judgment on the person but have hopefully given them the tools whereby they can judge their own hearts.

Hope that helps a little.

[Carla]

Nope, I didn't feel picked on at all. Too bad about poor ole Tim though... and he seemed like such a nice guy, eh?
;-)

[Kaffinator]

I don't think it is wrong to "speculate on the status of someone else's eternal destiny". For example, I must practice this level of discernment in order to identify my neighbor as unsaved and witness to him appropriately. Within the church if I serve as a pastor or lay leader then would I not in fact have a responsibility to assess the spiritual well-being of individual members of my flock in order to minister to them and challenge them according to their maturity? There is more to someone's spiritual status then whether they are saved or not!

David, I think you are on the right track, but I think what we need to do is identify the purpose behind our exercise of spiritual discernment of others in the body. Is it to truly to edify and encourage? Am I totally focused on the well-being of the other person? If that other person could see into my heart would they smile at the concern and love they found there? If so, then IMHO, discern away.

[Tim]

I'd love to comment on this post but as an unregenerate person I guess I probably wouldn't have a lot to contribute, would I? :)

[Steve S]

Maybe I'm the one getting into semantics here, and I'm definitely "thinking out loud" on this. But as far as I can tell, Matthew 18 tells us how to treat someone who does not repent after 3 escalating opportunities (individual, 2 or 3, the whole church). Jesus says, in essence, "Treat them in the same way you would a pagan or a tax collector." He does not say, "Pass judgment on their eternal destiny and let others know about it."

In other words, what would be the treatment of one who is not a believer? It is (hopefully) one of evangelism and compassion for their apparent spiritual condition, right? Not to say, "This person is unsaved and eternally lost." We don't do that about people who are lost and who haven't gone through the motions of "getting saved", do we? ("Look out! Howard Stern is an unbeliever. Everybody turn away!")

I'm not sure if I'm really introducing the point well, but I think that perhaps we subtly change (albeit unintentionally) the words of Jesus to say that we should judge someone. In fact, He may simply be telling us to change the way in which we interact with them from one of intimate fellowship, trying to edify them as a fellow believer, to interacting with them on a more evangelistic level, hoping to see them come to repentence.

I dunno...what do you all think? Am I making any sense?

steve :)

[Kaffinator]

Hi Steve,

Sure, it's good to have the other person's spiritual needs in mind. But there's a clear, scriptural difference between someone who is struggling with sin and someone who is harming the Church by conceding to it with their unrepentance. When that happens it's time for "tough love", according to scripture.

Matthew 18:15-18 is ultimately about passing judgment under God's authority. This is not done as an individual (we are warned against this in Matthew 7:1) but rather corporately as a church. When this action is done in accordance with God's word has God's full authority behind it, as Jesus said: "whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven".

Did Peter not judge Ananias and Sapphira? (Acts 5) Did Paul with the church at Corinth not execute judgment? (1 Cor 5:4-5) Or did Paul not judge Hymenaeus and Alexander? (1 Tim 1:20)

[Steve S]

Kaffinator: You wrote Did Peter not judge Ananias and Sapphira? (Acts 5) Did Paul with the church at Corinth not execute judgment? (1 Cor 5:4-5) Or did Paul not judge Hymenaeus and Alexander? (1 Tim 1:20)

Ironically, none of those situations seem to have gone through the process of Matthew 18, so now it seems like we've opened up more questions than we've answered! ;)

You make a couple claims that I would like to see you flesh out a bit more. For instance, you say, "there's a clear, scriptural difference between someone who is struggling with sin and someone who is harming the Church by conceding to it with their unrepentance. When that happens it's time for 'tough love', according to scripture." Can you give some references for those? Thanks!

steve :)

[Kaffinator]

Happily, Steve! I'll fill out my reasoning, tell me if you agree or if I'm missing something.

I think we can start by saying that an individual's response for a sinning brother is not to judge, but to pray and encourage. James 4:11-12 explicitly teaches that we should not "speak against one another" or "judge his brother". If one knows of someone who is struggling with sin, 1 John 5:16 tells us to intercede for him and "God will for him [the intercessor] give life to those who commit sin". And back to James 5:20 we have "he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins". And of course Paul does not condemn the believers at Ephesus in the midst of their struggles, but encourages them to "lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit" (Eph 4:22).

But for those who are unrepentant in holding to immoral practices before the church body, the Apostles seem to have a whole different category of response. I brought up 1 Cor 5 in which Paul points out a blatant case of sexual immorality that was tolerated by the Corinthians. Note his response in verse 2: "You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst." Do you see a clear parallel here to the church-wide expulsion advised by Matt 18:17? And Paul is upset that the Corinthians failed to apply it, and so he calls them to task in verse 4, "In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit" they areto carry out the sentence of expulsion. "Clean out the old leaven," he continues in verse 7, "so that you may be a new lump."

In the case of Acts 5 we have Ananias publicly lying to God right in front of the whole church. I think Peter's response conforms just fine to Matthew 18. There would have been little point in trying to handle his sin privately, since it was already public. Peter gave his rebuke and God backed him up by striking Ananias dead on the spot. "And a great fear came over the whole church, and over all who heard of these things" (v11).

My question to my fellow believers here is: where is that fear now? I think we lack such fear whenever we, as the church, forsake our calling to effectively rebuke, reprove, or remove when the circumstances demand it.

[Steve]

"If there is no church available that will fill its responsibilities toward sinning brothers and sisters I can still obey my own conscience (Scripturally directed of course) in the matter, without pronouncing a judgment on the state of another's soul."

In the situation where a persons "church" refuses to work to reconcile sinning brethern they may need an official statement form the church stating their organizational sin and if theyu continue to refuse working with His Church they may need to be stated as a group that is sinning and therefore they are to be noted as such. This would need to be done at the church court level. Since as stated these are not personal judgments. AS we know the Church does practice discipline to help the people glorify God.

Steve

[cavman]

We are not apostles experiencing extraordinary spiritual gifts to discern the heart of another.

Those (Ananias & Saphira et. al) are extraordinary circumstances. We are to base our actions on the clear teaching of Scripture (Mt. 18), not on a particular event in Scripture (Acts 5).

We are to judge the unrepentant that have been confronted with the reality of their sin. Otherwise, all of us would be judged for we sin in thought, word & deed daily.

Next week our church starts "Peacefakers, Peacebreaker & Peacemakers". It should equip our folks to pursue reconciliation and repentance.

[Richard Kindig]

Thanks, David, for affirming (if in a joking way) that Arminians and Dispensationalists may perhaps be your brothers and sisters... (you might call me all of the above, since I believe Calvinists are right about God's call in this dispensation, and Arminians are right about "whosoever will, take the water of life freely" in the next dispensation!). You might as well keep going and add Universalists to your list of brothers. Christians ones, that is. I'm not a Universalist either but here's an excellent discussion by one on what it takes to be a Christian -- http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/faith.html

Even better is this description of a Christian unity based on the person of the Savior:
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/fellowship.html

I'm glad you affirm Matthew 18 as an honoring way of dealing with conflict. My observation has been that it lacks teeth, however -- it only works if the errant one is willing to listen, and often if fails when the anarchy of today's church scene comes into play. Where is a church that has the discernment and strength to be a "pillar and ground of the truth". If someone catches flack for their sins in one church, they can go to another one that thinks it's doing God service when it throws the mantle of "unconditional love" over any unregenerate sinner who comes to them with God-words and, oh yes, their donations.

I think the actual ranks of true, godly believers are mighty thin, and scattered among all sorts of denominations, house churches, etc.

By grace,
Richard

[j.stevens]

Yes... We should not gossip.

We likely don't know the 'eternal destiny' of certain people, and it doesn't help to speculate. (not that 'eternal destiny' is = to salvation, but that's a whole 'nother deal).

Is this news to people? Oh my goodness, do we really need to talk about this? Because if we do, people have a lot bigger problems than I realized...

Unbelieveable. Spending this much time reflecting on something so simple seems like a waste of time. If people don't understand the absurdity about which you write, it's highly unlikely reading this post will help. Wow,

Not that I don't think clarity is important about this and other issues, I just don't think this issue is that difficult to solve. Isn't what you wrote patently obvious? If not, church people need more help than ever.

[Stephen Lynn]

Dave,
While I agree, overall, with your biblical grounding in how to resolve a matter wherein we believe someone to be guilty of sins that require a confrontation, I was a bit bothered by your insinuation: "We can know if someone is an adulterer, a theif, a gossip or a murderer based on their behavior. We cannot know if they are saved because many have been saved who were adulterer's, gossips and murderers."
On this topic I will simply say what God says in Rev. 21:8: "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."
And of course, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6:9: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,".
To me, there is no clearer judgment in God's Word. As your statement confirms, many people who are saved WERE all or some of the above. This is where I and Calvinists part ways, unless you agree that a truly regenerate person WILL NOT and CANNOT commit these kinds of sin. It is clear in the Bible, that God judges, not I, that these types of people are not saved and cannot be saved until they repent and are saved from (not despite) their sins.

As a pastor, it is also very evident that you are to rebuke those who are in error (2 Timothy 4:2: Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.)with, of course, an attitude of love and concern. However, I would like to know how you read 1 Timothy 5:1, which seems to contradict the preceding example, at least in respect to elders:"Rebuke not an elder, but entreat him as a father."

Thanks!