Suppose someone demonstrably betrays a trust. The wrongdoing of that action can be established by evidence. But concluding that this person has no inward faith is an additional and different claim. The first concerns an established act; the second concerns hidden conviction.
Preserving the distinction protects fairness. Lying, betrayal and broken commitments can warrant correction and accountability, while unsupported claims about another person's religious status or intention may themselves be harmful.
Accordingly, careful language is essential: “This action is a betrayal of trust” can refer to a verifiable deed, whereas “This person inwardly denies the faith” cannot be inferred merely from the same outward evidence. The ethical force of the warning remains without claiming insight into the unseen.