Tom Wacaster

I never cease to be amazed at the number of people who believe it is wrong to point out error in a public way. This is especially true when it comes to matters of religion. I am well aware that one's religion is very personal but the personal nature of religion does not change something from being true or false. The homosexual claims that his "life style" (I still refer to call it sin) is personal. Does that make it right? The general philosophy in religion seems to be, "You believe what you want to believe, and I will believe what I want to believe, and both of us will be right." In spite of the fact that Jesus said "the truth shall make you free" (John 8:31-32), the entire religious world holds the view that it makes but little difference what you believe. God has given us a mind to reason, think, and draw conclusions. We must exercise that thinking ability in order that we might "discern good and evil" (Heb. 5:14). This principle is true in any walk of life.

Take for example the wrongful acts of rape, murder, theft, etc. Am I to conclude that I have no right to point out that such acts are wrong, and that the practice of such will cause a man to lose his soul? As a civilized nation, we cry out against these acts by sentencing those to prison who practice such things. To say that murder is wrong is not to judge, but rather it is simply to pass along the judgment of God and this nation on such matters. The judgement from which we are to refrain is that of judging motives, inner character, and the heart of man. The actions of immorality can and must be judged as being either right or wrong, based of course on God's word.

Again, there are some political systems that are absolutely wrong. (2 Pet 3:18) Hitler's main philosophy brought swift action from other nations. They, by their actions, declared that Adolf Hitler was wrong. Likewise, Communism is wrong. Even our present effort to grant civil rights is based upon our judgment of certain practices in our political system as being either right or wrong. Are we now to conclude, that after all these years that we really did not have the right to condemn the acts of Hitler and his Nazi philosophy? Should we give in to the system of Communism with its ungodly, humanistic foundation? Should we cease to cry out against the unjust practices even within our own nation with regard to minorities?

Consider the medical realm. Malpractice is abhorred. We take doctors to court who, through error on their part, destroy or permanently injure a patient. We publicly refute, for example, the medical practices of Joseph Mengle. You see, reader, we do refute error publicly. We are concerned about truth, justice, and rightful deeds.

The amazing thing is, people so often fail to desire correction in the only realm that is of eternal consequence! When it comes to religion, we want to be left alone. It would seem to this scribe that an honest, sincere soul should want the truth taught regardless of the consequences. Jesus said, "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself" (John 7:17). Later, the apostle John wrote, "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world" (I John 4:1). Paul told the elders from Ephesus, "I shrank not from declaring unto you anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly and from house to house" (Acts 20:20). Consider this line of thought: We can declare anything that is profitable, both publicly and privately. To reprove sin is profitable (II Tim. 3:16). Therefore, we may reprove sin both privately and publicly. Consider also: It is right to reprove sin publicly. Religious error is sin. Therefore, I can reprove religious error publicly. Friends, these things cannot be denied. To try is to fail! Therefore, Paid wrote, "Mark them that are causing the division and occasions of stumbling" (Rom. 16:17). If one teaches error, he causes division. If he causes division, he is to be marked. Therefore, it is right and necessary to point out the error and those that cause division. This is not a matter of choice, it is a matter of pleasing God. We are to "contend earnestly for the faith" (Jude 3). W. E. Vine points out that the word "contend" is from the original word which signifies contending for a "thing, as a combatant." Such includes the defense, and the offense! To remain silent when error is being taught is to play the part of a coward. Paul pointed out that he was "set for the defense of the gospel" (Phil. 1:17). Do these verses mean anything at all? Am I to read these and conclude that I can remain silent with regard to the error being taught and the perversion of God's word being practiced? The issue over innovations, religious names, creeds of men, possibility of apostasy, mechanical, instrumental music in worship, and baptism for the dead, is not an issue over who teaches it, but is an issue over whether it is right or wrong. If it is right, then it must be defended when challenged. If it is wrong, then it must be rebuked.

I conclude with this earnest plea. Let us "prove all things" and "speak as the oracles of God." I present this plea in love. I have no axe to grind, no score to even. I simply want to present the truth, and do my part (as God has commanded) to point out error wherever and whenever necessary. I desire only to lead men to the truth. I encourage all men to study their Bibles for themselves. I welcome all questions, and will answer any challenge. I cannot, and will not, allow the truth of God's word to suffer.

♥-------♥-------♥-------♥-------♥-------♥