Discerning if someone is regenerate

[Toasty]

How do you discern if someone has been regenerated or not? I have known professing Christians who occasionally commit certain sins and other Christians say to them, "You are not a Christian. No regenerate person would be doing what you are doing." Those professing Christians insist that they have been changed by Christ, but they are not as sanctified as some other Christians.

Would your answer vary depending on which sin or sins they were committing?

 

[Edward]

I have known professing Christians who occasionally commit certain sins and other Christians say to them, "You are not a Christian. No regenerate person would be doing what you are doing."

The best response to that might be "You are not a Christian. No regenerate person would be saying what you are saying."

That would get the conversation going in the right direction.

 

[earl40]

We can tell with confidence most people who are not regenerate if they openly deny Jesus or if they are practicing egregious sin with no desire to stop such when confronted. Though even with the former and later example the person may be a regenerate Christian if they finally come to their senses in time and repent. Peter would be a good example here.

 

[Miss Marple]

I guess the difference is stumbling vs. wallowing.

 

[Paul1976]

Would a regenerate person sleep with (probably rape) a man's wife, then kill her husband to cover it up?

Real Christians sin. Sometimes badly. And, some unbelievers live (outwardly) relatively moral lives.

In one of Martin Lloyd Jones' sermons, he put an idea out that I'm 90% sure is correct, although I don't know I could use scripture to establish it. I'm trying to restate this from memory, so it's far from a quote. He stated that both authentic believers and unbelievers sin. The difference is an authentic believer cannot be comfortable remaining in sin. They will hate the sin itself. Unbelievers may (and often do) well hate THE CONSEQUENCES of their sin, (like an alcoholic hating the consequences of their addiction and genuinely wanting to quit), but they don't hate the sin itself. True Christians should always hate the sin itself even without (apparent) consequences.

I am always a bit nervous with us deciding who is and is not regenerate. But, it does seem profitable if the motive is to know how best to help a brother/sister, or one we want to see become a believer. I am personally cautious about making any such judgments with too high a degree of certainty.

 

[KeithW]

How do you discern if someone has been regenerated or not? I have known professing Christians who occasionally commit certain sins and other Christians say to them, "You are not a Christian. No regenerate person would be doing what you are doing." Those professing Christians insist that they have been changed by Christ, but they are not as sanctified as some other Christians.

Judging the hearts of other men can be a very dangerous path to go down. Instead of looking at people who sin, consider the best non-sinning "Christians" which Jesus spoke about.

Matt. 7:21-23 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

The Bible contains proper ways for brothers and churches to deal with and help people who sin. Declaring them not to be a Christian because they are not as holy as me is not one of them.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

If a man tells you he's not a Christian, he's probably right, probably not converted and regenerated. If a man doesn't even know the first thing about Jesus Christ, he can hardly be a new man.

After that, right away this matter of the heart becomes murky at best. Man looks on the outward appearance; God (alone) looks on the heart. "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him?" 1Cor.2:11. We know ourselves alone, and that not as well as God knows each of us.

When a church exercises discipline, to the point of excommunicating a man, it declares that this incorrigible behavior cannot be squared with a Christian profession. It is the observable behavior of someone who lacks the Holy Spirit; and the man gives no sign of repentance, but continues committed to his sin.

Whether this "last resort" brings a proud hard to heel at last--we hope it does. Then we have some confidence his former discipleship evidenced the Spirit's past saving work applied to him. If he persists in sin then he would seem lost, never having been converted.

In any case, as Austin pointed out, our work is not to "discern" if a man is/isn't passed from death unto life as a matter of attainment to a level or state; but whether he submits to the tireless labors by the church of "making disciples."

 

[johnny]

Thank you for all these excellent answers,

I also think Reverend Winzer's Quote from Hugh Binning Yesterday "But I know my own Heart"
Is particularly relevent to this discussion.

 

[lynnie]

I do think to some degree we need to be aware that the bible speaks of false brethren and wolves in sheeps clothing, and tares among the wheat.

I used to be of the mindset years ago of not judging and look at King David sort of thing. But I've seen a lot of people damaged and used/abused over the years by people I really think were/are false shepherds and wolves. They may not go so far as to be obvious (sexual infidelity, embezzling money, heresy, etc) but they still have characteristics of what the secular world calls sociopathy and what the bible would call seared conscience. No remorse, no accountability, using people, hypocritical, etc.

It is true that they can just be really messed up and from a terrible childhood and God is at work and over the years they will change. But why are all those NT warnings in there if not to protect and warn us?

So I am more cautious now. If there is any dishonesty, that's a warning. Repeated outbursts of anger w/o apology is another. Sometimes you just feel an intuitive inner caution not to get too close or open up too much or let them into your life. I am not saying we should ever think we have the right to know who is elect or not, but we should encourage our kids to be careful that wolves in sheeps clothing exist. People can be really slick and devious.

 

[Toasty]

We can tell with confidence most people who are not regenerate if they openly deny Jesus or if they are practicing egregious sin with no desire to stop such when confronted. Though even with the former and later example the person may be a regenerate Christian if they finally come to their senses in time and repent. Peter would be a good example here.

It is true that the regenerate will come to their senses in time and repent.

 

[Toasty]

Would a regenerate person sleep with (probably rape) a man's wife, then kill her husband to cover it up?

Real Christians sin. Sometimes badly. And, some unbelievers live (outwardly) relatively moral lives.

In one of Martin Lloyd Jones' sermons, he put an idea out that I'm 90% sure is correct, although I don't know I could use scripture to establish it. I'm trying to restate this from memory, so it's far from a quote. He stated that both authentic believers and unbelievers sin. The difference is an authentic believer cannot be comfortable remaining in sin. They will hate the sin itself. Unbelievers may (and often do) well hate THE CONSEQUENCES of their sin, (like an alcoholic hating the consequences of their addiction and genuinely wanting to quit), but they don't hate the sin itself. True Christians should always hate the sin itself even without (apparent) consequences.

I am always a bit nervous with us deciding who is and is not regenerate. But, it does seem profitable if the motive is to know how best to help a brother/sister, or one we want to see become a believer. I am personally cautious about making any such judgments with too high a degree of certainty.

It is true that an authentic believer cannot be comfortable remaining in sin. He will have the same attitude that Paul had. He does the things that he hates and there is a struggle to please God.

 

[Toasty]

If a man tells you he's not a Christian, he's probably right, probably not converted and regenerated. If a man doesn't even know the first thing about Jesus Christ, he can hardly be a new man.

After that, right away this matter of the heart becomes murky at best. Man looks on the outward appearance; God (alone) looks on the heart. "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him?" 1Cor.2:11. We know ourselves alone, and that not as well as God knows each of us.

When a church exercises discipline, to the point of excommunicating a man, it declares that this incorrigible behavior cannot be squared with a Christian profession. It is the observable behavior of someone who lacks the Holy Spirit; and the man gives no sign of repentance, but continues committed to his sin.

Whether this "last resort" brings a proud hard to heel at last--we hope it does. Then we have some confidence his former discipleship evidenced the Spirit's past saving work applied to him. If he persists in sin then he would seem lost, never having been converted.

In any case, as Austin pointed out, our work is not to "discern" if a man is/isn't passed from death unto life as a matter of attainment to a level or state; but whether he submits to the tireless labors by the church of "making disciples."

What happens if a church disciplines someone and he says that he is trying really hard to avoid committing that sin, but he still commits it?

 

[Toasty]

How do you discern if someone has been regenerated or not? I have known professing Christians who occasionally commit certain sins and other Christians say to them, "You are not a Christian. No regenerate person would be doing what you are doing." Those professing Christians insist that they have been changed by Christ, but they are not as sanctified as some other Christians.

Would your answer vary depending on which sin or sins they were committing?

This is one situation in which our Reformed confessional heritage in contradistinction to broad-evangelical biblicism will serve us well. Being unable to discern regeneration, we must observe carefully the distinction between the church visible and invisible. Is the person a member in good standing of a true visible church? Then it is possible to discuss with him the inconsistency of certain behavior with his profession, the need for fruits in keeping with repentance, the danger of apostasy and darkened assurance, and the power of ecclesiastical censure to shut out the impenitent from the Lord's table. It is essential, of course, to press to such an one the need for true conversion and making his calling and election sure, but this will not take the form of declaring him to be certainly unregenerate. The Puritan treatments of conversion and assurance exemplify the right approach.

That's true. We can't 100% sure what someone's heart is like. It is possible that a person could repent in the future.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

What happens if a church disciplines someone and he says that he is trying really hard to avoid committing that sin, but he still commits it?

What does repentance look like? What does shepherding look like?

If shepherding were just running a courtroom, then you'd probably set a practical limit on promises--and three strikes and your out? That approach is not effective shepherding, any more than such a scene makes for good parenting. If someone is serious about trying to reform, the church should be serious about supplying the supports necessary to put the brakes on rushing back to the mire, like the dog to his vomit, and all that.

If the church is doing discipline in the right way, and the man subverts the discipline in order to engage in the sin he's being helped with, he's showing (not just making talk) that he's not repentant. We typically take "steps" with discipline, moving up the severity and the warnings as needed. In the end, if we must excommunicate, are we supposed to "interpret" his heart?

He may still claim to be a Christian; all we can say in response is, "We can only hope so; because you are being turned over to the master of your recent evil behavior 'to be taught not to blaspheme.' And if you cry to your true Lord for deliverance, he will not leave you to perish." It seems to me that we have to take a long view, and not rush to judgments; or churches will be guilty of preventing and discouraging repentance.

I'd rather pray for restoration (especially when there is no more direct contact) of a son of the church, that takes past gospel effort and profession into present hope; than pray for the mystery of future conversion by some inscrutable means. I wouldn't say not to pray for conversion if that's what he needs. I can pray that the Lord will germinate seeds previously planted, or that he will breathe fruitful life into a wilted sprout. God knows the actual requirement.

 

[Toasty]

What happens if a church disciplines someone and he says that he is trying really hard to avoid committing that sin, but he still commits it?

What does repentance look like? What does shepherding look like?

If shepherding were just running a courtroom, then you'd probably set a practical limit on promises--and three strikes and your out? That approach is not effective shepherding, any more than such a scene makes for good parenting. If someone is serious about trying to reform, the church should be serious about supplying the supports necessary to put the brakes on rushing back to the mire, like the dog to his vomit, and all that.

If the church is doing discipline in the right way, and the man subverts the discipline in order to engage in the sin he's being helped with, he's showing (not just making talk) that he's not repentant. We typically take "steps" with discipline, moving up the severity and the warnings as needed. In the end, if we must excommunicate, are we supposed to "interpret" his heart?

He may still claim to be a Christian; all we can say in response is, "We can only hope so; because you are being turned over to the master of your recent evil behavior 'to be taught not to blaspheme.' And if you cry to your true Lord for deliverance, he will not leave you to perish." It seems to me that we have to take a long view, and not rush to judgments; or churches will be guilty of preventing and discouraging repentance.

I'd rather pray for restoration (especially when there is no more direct contact) of a son of the church, that takes past gospel effort and profession into present hope; than pray for the mystery of future conversion by some inscrutable means. I wouldn't say not to pray for conversion if that's what he needs. I can pray that the Lord will germinate seeds previously planted, or that he will breathe fruitful life into a wilted sprout. God knows the actual requirement.

Thank you, Bruce. That was helpful.

 

[KeithW]

I like how Rev. Buchanan did not at all bring in the issue of judging regeneration based on sin, but instead that those who call themselves Christians have a standard of repentance they are supposed to be following and submitting to. We could read First and Second Corinthians to see how this plays out.

 

[alexandermsmith]

It is true we cannot know who the elect are and aren't. However, we are also told by Christ Himself that "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." Regeneration brings forth certain fruit; spiritual deadness a different kind of fruit. There is a difference, I think, between declaring that someone does not live in a way which a regenerate person should, and even going so far as to call into doubt any claims to be regenerate; and saying someone is of the reprobate and will never be saved. And elders must judge of a person's own experience before admitting them to the table. They cannot read the applicant's heart, but they can examine him on his experience of the Lord's dealings with him and whether- by his own testimony- he bears the outward and inward marks of a regenerate person.

In the Scottish communion season, on the Friday, we have the Fellowship Meeting, where male members are asked to speak to a portion of Scripture which contains marks of grace. He is asked, from his own experience, to speak of these marks of grace in a way which explains how they manifest in the believer. This exercise helps the speaker to better examine himself, and it helps those present to better understand their own situation. It's a shame this practice has all but died out in the church as it reminds us, amongst other things, that there are objective marks given in Scripture to identify those who are true believers. This should certainly be part of a session's examination of an applicant for admittance to the Lord's table.

I think lynnie is absolutely right that when it comes to leaders in the church we must be even more willing to speak out against behaviours and attitudes which are clearly contrary to Scripture. Mark Driscoll is the example par excellance of modern times. Time and time again he showed himself to be not only unfit for leadership, but unfit for admittance to the Lord's table. Yet time and again he was defended; criticisms brushed aside; critics demonised. And it just got worse and worse.

I would broadly agree with most that has been said in this discussion but we must retain an objectivity: Scripture gives us a pretty clear, comprehensive picture of how a believer should be and we don't do the church- or the individual- any favours by shirking our responsibility to confront error and wrong practice. It is not necessarily enough to say that someone is a member in good standing: what does that mean in an age when there are so many denominations and so many differences even within denominations? What does that mean in an age when discipline is rarely exercised and certainly not in anything like the way it was in the past?

 

[alexandermsmith]

Hi Alexander,
"It is not necessarily enough to say that someone is a member in good standing: what does that mean in an age when there are so many denominations and so many differences even within denominations? What does that mean in an age when discipline is rarely exercised and certainly not in anything like the way it was in the past?"

I brought up visible church membership in order to establish that they have a Christian profession and solemn engagements to the Lord, which can serve as reference points in a discussion about their behavior and its consistency with their Christian profession. It was not meant to be a substitute for admonitions toward self-examination but rather an encouragement of it.

I completely agree. I was making a more general point, I didn't mean that to be directed specifically towards you.