 |
| Yes, God's own children can be gainsayers! |
Titus
1:9 KJV — Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be
able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
Q. Who
are the gainsayers that can be convinced by the faithful word?
Q. What
is it to be convinced by the faithful word?
Thank
you most kindly.
==========
Michael
A
gainsayer is an argumentative person who may be an unbeliever or a sceptical believer (one who believes Jesus is Christ but objects to biblical explanations
as to who and how he saved). The word "exhort" conveys the idea of
encouragement, and "convince" in the text conveys the idea of
refuting and/or rebuking. Paul's instruction directs ministers to use content
from God's word to form sound teaching that corrects error in ways that
encourage gainsayers to believe the truth.
Contextually, the phrase "able by
sound doctrine" infers using correct explanations and examples from God's
word to express relevant, logically constructed and ethically delivered
responses that refute objections to the gospel stated by unbelievers and also
the objections of skeptical believers. In this regard, preachers must not
resort to coercive sophistry nor sentimental methods of persuasion and neither
must we ever be quarrelsome. Our goal is not to win arguments; but rather, it
is to win people to the truth and therein become faithful followers of Christ.
Sing
Michael: Thank
you, Sir.
Would
Apostle Paul have God's children in mind when he instructed Titus to convince
the gainsayers with the faithful word, since the faithful word requires
spiritual discernment?
Can
God's children be gainsayers?
(I think only gainsayers who are already God's children can be convinced by spiritual truth; spiritual things are spiritually discerned.
Michael
Sing: IMO, yes. His teaching in I Cor 2:14, "But the natural man receiveth
not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither
can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned" supplies a
logical basis to infer the gainsayers Paul intends are born again. Were the
intended gainsayers unquickened how can they be encouraged by exhortation and
convinced of truth by things that proceed from and/or relate to the Spirit of
God? Paul explicitly states man in his natural state of sin cannot do so.
Joe
Precisely,
Mike. A wise and Biblical preacher/pastor will lead by example and by gentle,
but sound Biblical teaching, always building his case on “Book, chapter, and verse.”
Never by despotic attitudes or methods.
Sing
Joe: Thank you, Uncle Joe.
Dan
This
passage is Paul’s instruction to Titus regarding the qualification for elder in
the Lord’s church. When it speaks of convincing the gainsayers, we should not
lose sight of the audience for whom such conviction is possible. The natural
(unregenerate) man cannot be convinced of spiritual truth.
“But
the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are
foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually
discerned.” (I Corinthians 2:14).
The
most sound, doctrinal argument from the scriptures has no convicting effect on
a carnally minded man whose unregenerate disposition is enmity against God.
“Because
the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God,
neither indeed can be.” (Romans 8:7)
While
it is true that some “gainsayers” (i.e., those who reject and oppose biblical
truth) are unregenerate, Paul’s suggestion is not directed toward convincing
the unregenerate. God does not send his ministers on a fool’s errand. In this
context, the “gainsayers” are those who are born again people, within the
domain of an elder’s ministry, who actively oppose certain aspects of the
truth. It is possible to convert these men to the truth through the consistent
application of sound doctrine, rightly divided, and properly argued from the
scriptures. I believe this is what the epistle of James is addressing in many
places and it is for this reason that he concludes with:
“Brethren,
if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he
which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from
death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.” (James 5:19-20)
Notice
that James is speaking to and about “brethren” and of the profitability of
converting those who are in error. This is a primary function of gospel
ministry within the Lord’s NT church and is instrumental to our growth in the
nurture and admonition of the Lord.
Sing
Dan: Thank you. That's exactly my thought. But you said it so well.
Dan
Sing: Thanks for the kind encouragement, brother Sing.
Sing
I
asked about the above passage in another group...
Below
is one reply... picking on the KJT used.
------
KJT hater
Sing,
first of all, get rid of that kjb with its 16th-century English. It has over
300 archaic words in it.
Sing
Thank
you, Sir.
Archaic
words can be learned; bad translations with serious doctrinal implications are
far more serious.
A
little article explains it:
https://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2015/12/why-i-turned-to-kjb.html
KJT hater
Sing,
Kjb is based on a text not codified till the 5th century AD and is a copy of a
copy of a copy. It's a Freemason's bible.
---------
Ray
Sing, Thanks, sir.
Why
I turned to the KJ translation...
THINGS-NEW-AND-OLD.BLOGSPOT.COM
Dan
Sing: KVJ hate is real and this objection is difficult to address. It takes a
simple discussion of a particular passage (Titus 1:9, which is relatively
straightforward) and turns it into an enormous debate on bible translations
(which is a complicated and lengthy matter, to say the least). There are a lot of
potential ways to handle this sort of objection, and I do not suggest that I
have the best way. Nevertheless, in a situation like this, where a single
passage is under consideration, I would probably ask, "Well, what does
your preferred translation say?" I suspect that in most instances, no
matter what translation is selected, there's no material difference in the
implication of that passage or what is intended by "gainsayers" -
regardless of what term or terms they have used in its place.
In
my experience, many make a lot of the differences that exist between various
bible translations while overlooking the overlap in meaning between them.
Consider how the NIV renders this verse:
"He
must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he
can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it."
(Titus 1:9, NIV)
There's
not a plug nickel's difference in meaning between how the NIV states this and
how the KJV states it, so far as I can tell. One might say, "Yes, but in
the KJV you had to look up GAINSAYER because it's an archaic word." Well,
that may be true, but the need to look up certain English words when reading
the bible is unavoidable, irrespective of the translation chosen. Upon closer
examination, the NIV uses more archaic and difficult words in many places when
held alongside the KJV, opting for "blustering" in stead of
"strong" (Job 8:2), "colonnade" instead of
"porch" (I Kings 7:6), "dejected" instead of
"sad" (Genesis 40:6), and there are many such examples.
So,
when facing such an objection to the KJV, one must apply wisdom in figuring out
how best to address it. I'm not sure I have that wisdom, but I will pass along
that I've found it helpful at times to retrain our attention on the verse under
consideration, look at their preferred translation with them, hopefully find
agreement in the meaning, and then plant a few seeds regarding the bible
"version" issue as a follow-up to all of that. Getting someone to
agree on what a a particular verse means is one thing. I suspect in many
instances we will find significant common ground irrespective of translation.
Getting someone to change bibles, particularly those who have been marinated by
the wise and prudent regarding the superiority of Wescott/Hort, Nestle/Aland,
"new manuscripts," who are surrounded by what they believe to be so
great a cloud of witnesses (i.e., headcount fallacy)... like rebuilding the
walls of Jerusalem, that work usually requires that we place stone upon stone
over time with care.
Sing
Dan: Thanks. To me, English is my third language; to say that KJT is harder
than other English translations is just a cauldron of cow dung!
Dan
Sing: This objection, which I have faced many times, is baseless. In my
experience, those who say it are usually repeating the talking points of the
wise and prudent.
