The fact that we as Christians frequently have occasion to dispute certain doctrines that are taught within the religious community have oftentimes caused some to feel that this is wrong. Their philosophy is “live and let live.” But does the Christian not have a responsibility to truth foremost?
Is it mean-spirited to dispute points of doctrine with different religious groups who identify themselves as “Christians”? Many in society believe that we should be loving and accepting towards all religious groups because God is a just and loving God.
Pay attention saints:
Acceptance of Error
First, it should go without saying that the Christian is to demonstrate love towards all – even those who resist the truth in the most militant fashion. The love of God for rebellious mankind is portrayed repeatedly in the Scriptures. The Father commended his love toward us by giving his Son for our sins, even while we were hostile and sinful toward him (Romans 5:8). That does not mean, however, that he ignores how we live, or what we teach.
In this same context, the lost are described as being “weak” and “ungodly,” as “sinners and enemies” – worthy of divine “wrath.” (Romans 5:8, 8:9-10). Love offers a remedy for humanity’s sinful condition, but it does not close its eyes to reality.
An understanding of Old Testament history would demolish forever the erroneous notion that God is unconcerned with whether men and women entertain “different understandings of Him.” For example, many of the nations of the antique world “understood” God to be identified in various idol forms, which they devoutly worshipped. But the prophets rebuked these base activities, and Jehovah destroyed nation after nation that persisted in this evil ideology and practice.
No informed Bible student will deny that Jesus Christ loved men and women supremely. When they ignorantly languished under the effects of sin, he tenderly sought to reclaim them (cf. Luke 7:36ff; John 8:1-11). He was the compassionate Christ!
On the other hand, the Lord could be (and was) very severe in dealing with corrupt religious leaders who should have known better (and frequently did) than to act and teach contrary to truth. He cast out of the temple those who trafficked in religion for commercial purposes (Matthew 21:12-13; John 2:13-17).
He informed the corrupt Pharisees that they were not legitimate heirs of Abraham; rather, they were devilish in their actions (John 8:33ff). One can scarcely read the 23rd chapter of Matthew without feeling the “heat” of Christ’s rebuke of certain corrupt Hebrew leaders. It is not, therefore, wrong to oppose error.
Further, it is a gross inconsistency to “rebuke” someone for being a “rebuker.” Why is it that folks cannot see the flaw in their argument when they are intolerant of those with whom they charge intolerance?