Robert has responded to my response to his comments on why God doesn’t heal amputees. There are a few issues with his response that need to be sorted out, so I shall do so now.
I originally said:
If someone claims to be a Christian but produces non-Christian fruit, then we have reason to doubt that person’s claims.
Robert responds:
Great! Now we only need to determine what are “non-Christian fruit”. But wait, don’t all Christians sin? Yes, they do. So obviously, the question is not strictly the production of “non-Christian fruit”–every Christian does that–but just how much production of “non-Christian fruit” disqualifies one from being a Christian. Can you answer that, CalvinDude?
Robert’s response, however, completely misses the point. At issue is not whether or not we can know with infallible certainty another person’s salvation. We can’t. (Only God knows.) But we can judge by behavior, and the Bible itself commands us to do so. We look at fruit and make our judgements based on that.
This has nothing to do with a quantitative subject, as if you were measuring the mass of a rock with a scale. This is a philosophical and moral judgement. There are levels of uncertainty involved in the human process. But I never made a strict claim. Again, as I said, production of non-Christian fruit (and I can also add the lack of production of Christian fruit) gives us reason to doubt that person’s claims to being a Christian.
I note that this type of answer is no less acceptable than any other scientific behavioral claim. That is, biologists studying the mating habits of geese can make reasonable inferences from the observation of that behavior. That something is reasonable does not mean it is infallible nor even necessarily right; however, it makes it reasonable to form that conclusion.
Robert continues:
Well, now. It appears we have another qualification. The true Christian also repents of their sin.
Given that repentance is a Christian fruit, this is not “another qualification” but rather an example of the main point. See also Robert’s comment on forgiveness, which is equivalent here.
Robert says:
Suppose I sin every day (not a very hard thing to do), but repent and seek forgiveness. Is there a limit on how many cycles I can do this before I’m no longer a “true Christian”?
Now you’re changing the subject. We started with how I can make a determination of whether or not you are a Christian. That has nothing to do with your actual state.
Whether you are a Christian depends on your spiritual relationship with God. And if you are one of His, you will invariably return to Him regardless of how many times you fall.
However, I do not have access to your spiritual relationship with God. But God has not required me to have this knowledge; He has said that we are to judge by the fruit that is produced. Therefore, all I am required to do is make a valid judgment based on the evidence I see. God is not going to condemn me for not knowing your heart, but He would condemn me for making incorrect inferences and for not being reasonable.
Robert seems to think that this is an all or nothing thing. Either we have some metric whereby we can know for certainty that someone is or is not a Christian, or else we have no basis to say whether someone is or is not a Christian. It doesn’t work that way, though. Again, God Himself gave the commandment to judge each other’s works. If our judgment is based on works and ends up flawed because we do not know the heart of the person involved, we have not committed a theological error.
Robert continues:
Fair enough. Just how much more consistently? 50%? 75%?
Again, you’re trying to quantify what is unquantifiable. But I reject your premises.
Robert said:
In your original post, you suggested that church attendance and Bible study were markers of a true Christian. Again, how much? 10 hours of weekly attendance + study? 20?
No, in my original post I pointed out that those who attend church regularly are statistically more likely to stay married. Thus, the divorce rate in “Christianity” increases due to people who claim to be Christian but then don’t do what Christians actually do. Now you have extrapolated it out a bit here, but you’d have to ask Barna for the exact details of their question.
As far as determining a person’s salvation via church attendance, I refer you to my above points. Church attendence is evidence of a credible profession of faith, but it is not proof that faith exists. It merely is evidence that gives us a reason to consider someone a Christian.
Robert said:
You see, CalvinDude, what the problem here is that while your metrics of who a “true Christian” is sound good in the abstract, they break down in the details. There’s simply no good way of differentiating a true Christian from a fake one outside a declaration of identity.
Judging them by their actions is most certainly a “good way” even if it is not a perfect way. It is the only way we have available (after all, a “declaration of identity” from a species known to lie is pointless). I could stand on a football field with my arms raised in the air and say, “I’m a goal post.” But if I don’t fit the definition, I’m not a goal post nor could I function as one.
So too, someone can claim to be a Christian. But if he’s not doing what the Bible says a Christian will do, I have no reason to believe him.
Robert said:
From the perspective of some Christians, there will always be others who are false. I’d wager even you are considered a false Christian by your fellows.
Which is irrelevant to the issue. Furthermore, you’re begging the question (after all, at issue is who is or is not a Christian in the first place, yet you’re using those terms as if that’s not what’s in debate).
I said:
Again, God never heals anyone because they are deserving.
Robert said:
Very well, we’ve covered why God does not heal someone.
This says nothing about why God does not heal someone. It says that “deserving” is not a reason that God would heal someone.
Robert said:
Now please answer why God does, and why the person is never an amputee.
1) Because God wants to.
2) How do you know an amputee has never been healed, ever? Even if there were widespread reports of one, you wouldn’t believe them. Which brings up:
3) You don’t believe God actually heals anyone in the first place, so the question is disingenuous from the get go.
Robert said:
Tortured to believe. Got it.
No, you don’t “Got it” because that’s not what I said. Nice try. Call back later.
