That is a very important question for the assembled debaters at FR. When is it appropriate for a Christian to 'rebuke' a fellow believer? (A believer here being defined as one who believes in Christ for his salvation)
First, a 'rebuke' is a personal criticism of another. A rebuke is not merely a criticism of some idea, concept or construct. It is the personal nature of the criticism that raises an ideological criticism to the level of a "rebuke". So when is this elevation appropriate?
Epitimao is used approximately 30 times in the NT. In the vast majority of those instances, Christ is doing the rebuking. Interestingly, in all but three instances where other than Jesus is doing the 'rebuking, those doing the 'rebuking' are corrected by Christ for doing so inappropriately and in one of those three instances (Jude 1:9) the angel Michael is quoted as requesting the Lord to do the 'rebuking'. We are left with only two instances in the NT where believers are enjoined to 'rebuke' others: 2 Tim 4:2 and Luke 17:3.
In 2 Tim 4:2, Paul tells Timothy that he should "... be ready whether it is convenient or not, [to] reprove, rebuke, exhort with complete patience and instruction." While Paul does not indicate directly what should occasion the 'rebuke', but he does expressly qualify that it should be done only "...with complete patience and instruction."
But Jesus is not ambiguous, in Luke 17 He tells us that we should 'rebuke' a brother when he sins: "...Watch yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him. If he repents, forgive him. Even if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times returns to you saying, 'I repent,' you must forgive him." Moreover, the contextual implication is that the 'rebuke' is authorized only when the sin is "against you".
Thus, I think the Bible teaches that while Jesus has, of course, all power and authority to 'rebuke', we have only delegated authority to 'rebuke' other believers and we should do so only "with complete patience" and, more importantly, only when the brother has sinned and arguably only when he has sinned "against [us]".
Now, the significance of this to FR is that this does NOT extend to 'rebuking' someone because he does not accede to our understanding of Biblical doctrine. Failure to agree with our ideas, concepts, constructs,etc does not have Biblical warrant for a 'rebuke'. "Rebukes" of a fellow believer are retricted to a specific sin.
I realize that many of your colleagues have so internalized the Calvinist construct that they cannot see that it is a attempt at a systematic understanding of the Bible, but it is not the Bible itself. Thus, it is never appropriate to 'rebuke' a fellow believer for failing to accede to our view of Scriptural teaching unless that disagreement has led the brother to a specific Scripturally-designated sin (i.e. we cannot define any disagreement with us as a "sin" for this purpose). As indicated, I would go further (based on Luke 17) and say that we only have delegated authority to rebuke a fellow believer when the sin is "against [us]".
But, in any event, there is no Scriptural authority to 'rebuke' fellow believers for failing to agree with us on our take on Biblical doctrine. Nothing is less atrractive in a Christian that the high-handed presumption that we have the authority to speak for the Lord and 'rebuke' others on doctrine. Perhaps in such an instance, Michael's formulation is best: "May the Lord rebuke you."
Your thoughts and comments?
Hey, that sounds like the Gospel to me! But wait, you haven't believed (gasp!) the lie of Eden have you? If you have you can't really be a Christian!
First, a 'rebuke' is a personal criticism of another. A rebuke is not merely a criticism of some idea, concept or construct. It is the personal nature of the criticism that raises an ideological criticism to the level of a "rebuke". So when is this elevation appropriate?
Amen
Epitimao is used approximately 30 times in the NT. In the vast majority of those instances, Christ is doing the rebuking. Interestingly, in all but three instances where other than Jesus is doing the 'rebuking, those doing the 'rebuking' are corrected by Christ for doing so inappropriately and in one of those three instances (Jude 1:9) the angel Michael is quoted as requesting the Lord to do the 'rebuking'. We are left with only two instances in the NT where believers are enjoined to 'rebuke' others: 2 Tim 4:2 and Luke 17:3.
Amen
In 2 Tim 4:2, Paul tells Timothy that he should "... be ready whether it is convenient or not, [to] reprove, rebuke, exhort with complete patience and instruction." While Paul does not indicate directly what should occasion the 'rebuke', but he does expressly qualify that it should be done only "...with complete patience and instruction."
Amen
But Jesus is not ambiguous, in Luke 17 He tells us that we should 'rebuke' a brother when he sins: "...Watch yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him. If he repents, forgive him. Even if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times returns to you saying, 'I repent,' you must forgive him." Moreover, the contextual implication is that the 'rebuke' is authorized only when the sin is "against you". Thus, I think the Bible teaches that while Jesus has, of course, all power and authority to 'rebuke', we have only delegated authority to 'rebuke' other believers and we should do so only "with complete patience" and, more importantly, only when the brother has sinned and arguably only when he has sinned "against [us]". Now, the significance of this to FR is that this does NOT extend to 'rebuking' someone because he does not accede to our understanding of Biblical doctrine. Failure to agree with our ideas, concepts, constructs,etc does not have Biblical warrant for a 'rebuke'. "Rebukes" of a fellow believer are retricted to a specific sin.
Amen
I realize that many of your colleagues have so internalized the Calvinist construct that they cannot see that it is a attempt at a systematic understanding of the Bible, but it is not the Bible itself. Thus, it is never appropriate to 'rebuke' a fellow believer for failing to accede to our view of Scriptural teaching unless that disagreement has led the brother to a specific Scripturally-designated sin (i.e. we cannot define any disagreement with us as a "sin" for this purpose). As indicated, I would go further (based on Luke 17) and say that we only have delegated authority to rebuke a fellow believer when the sin is "against [us]".
Amen
But, in any event, there is no Scriptural authority to 'rebuke' fellow believers for failing to agree with us on our take on Biblical doctrine. Nothing is less atrractive in a Christian that the high-handed presumption that we have the authority to speak for the Lord and 'rebuke' others on doctrine. Perhaps in such an instance, Michael's formulation is best: "May the Lord rebuke you."
Amen! The problem with discussing anything with most of the Calvinists on these threads (there are exceptions) is that they do not to honestly discuss anything but play a game of gotcha, showing how clever they can be.
Your points regarding rebuke are well taken and provide key passages and principles for us to consider in our interchanges. Blasphemy, idolatry and false teaching I would consider to be sin. Blasphemy and idolatry is sin against God and false teaching is a sin against those misled spiritually thereby. To what extent should these be rebuked when posted in a public forum?
A second area of discussion is the use of humor and ridicule in bringing correction and or rebuke. You and I employ both, as do many of our fellow freepers. Where are the lines here? [I do not think you or I have crossed the line with each other since neither of us are very thin skinned and neither of us are trying to hurt each other with humor.] Sometimes humor is just teasing (see the first sentence) other times it is to make a point. Yet other times humor is intended to hurt someone and other times a person gets offended when no harm was intended. When is it over the top?
A third area is what is a personal attack? Is critique or ridicule of ideas that are revered by a person a personal attack? Is unwanted discussion of a person's family a personal attack? Is declaring someone a non-Christian a personal attack? A for me, I do try not to engage in personal attack. At times however, I have been accused of personal attack both in the public forum and via Freep mail. In these cases I have usually apologized when I believed the complaint was valid and tried to explain when I felt it was not valid.
I do struggle to keep a balance. Your thoughts? What do others think?