Theocratic Aid To Kingdom Publishers

Lesson 53

REFUTATION IN GOSPEL-PREACHING

Religious doctrines cause the people to stumble in accepting Kingdom truths. These stumbling stones must be cleared out of the way. One must 'prepare the way' for argument advocating The Theocracy by 'gathering out the stones of stumbling' placed in the people's minds by religion. By refutation "gather out the stones". It must be done tactfully; otherwise the gospel-preacher closes the mind of his listener and creates prejudice and thereafter the most persuasive of arguments will fall on deaf ears. All refutation should be presented in kindness. Comfort the mourning people, and not antagonize them.

Refutation is divided into two classes: general and special. General refutation attacks the opponent's proposition as a whole or in its entirety; special refutation attacks his details of proof or argument. The requisite for refutation is thorough knowledge not only of one's own side of the case but also of his opponent's. Know what to expect, and be prepared to refute. In the course of one's argument he might even anticipate some of his opponent's objections to his case and refute them; in other words, beat him to the punch. In answering arguments raised against one's own contention concentrate upon the main issues. Do not become involved in minor points and insignificant detail, but isolate the key points raised. Show that those key points are the vitals of your opponent's case, that his contention stands or falls with them, and then shatter them, thus toppling the entire case of the opponent.

How can one find openings for refutation? By knowing the principles of good argumentation and seeing that his opponent sticks to them. If the opponent violates them he is open to attack. Watch for such departures from sound argument and aim refutation at these vulnerable spots. Test his case as to general arguments and details of proofs by the following questions:

Has he used undefined or misleading or ambiguous terms? Or, if defined, are his definitions correct? A religionist might improperly define "hell" as a place of eternal torment. Has he made assertions without giving proof therefor? Has he made broad, general, sweeping charges without citing any specific evidence in support thereof? (Acts 24:5, 6, 10, 12, 13) This is what the majority of statements against Jehovah's witnesses are. Has he in any way ignored the question at issue? Jehovah's witnesses present the truth of God's Word, which exposes religionists. Stung, the clergy indulge in personalities and inject irrelevant and prejudicial issues, such as flag saluting and other discussion, but studiously avoid the issues at stake. Does the conclusion one's opponent makes from his prem-

ises necessarily follow? To illustrate: He may have stated three premises: God is the Source of life; the Bible is his Word of truth pointing the way to life; man must study it to gain life. From these three premises a religionist might draw the conclusion: "Therefore to live man must attend church." He falsely assumes that the "church" teaches Bible truth. Or the religionist might include in his premises the false one that the church teaches the Bible and then make the conclusion as stated. In that event attack the untrue premise, and the conclusion falls with it.

Test testimonial evidence. Was the testimony of witnesses unprejudiced? was it consistent with human experience? with the known facts? with itself? Is there anything in the conditions under which a witness testified that renders his testimony suspicious? Enemies of The Theocracy often use prejudiced witnesses against Jehovah's people. Were the authorities used reliable? Religionists use as authority the traditions of men. Show such to be Scripturally unreliable. The Bible is direct, or testimonial, evidence. The witnesses whose testimony is recorded therein were not prejudiced, neither were they inconsistent. Their tongues spoke as moved by God's spirit. Hence, in refutation as in constructive argument the Bible is the most conclusive source of testimonial evidence.

As to the circumstantial evidence an opponent may use. Watch for the following openings for refutation: Has he argued from a resemblance that does not hold in some points? Religionists often draw a resemblance between the wars of Israel when they were God's chosen people and modern conflicts between the warring nations. The resemblance does not hold, in that Israel's wars were fought at God's commands and God was with them and fought their battles for them. "And he said, Hearken ye, all Judah, and ye inhabitants of Jerusalem, and thou king Jehoshaphat, Thus saith the LORD unto you, Be not afraid nor dismayed by reason of this great multitude; for the battle is not yours, but God's." —2 Chron. 20:15.

An opponent may argue from cause to effect. Are the causes he cites sufficient to produce the effect he claims, or has he overlooked other causes? The clergy argue that God brings woes upon the earth because the people do not support the churches. That is not the true cause of earth's woes; they overlook the source of the cause of such woes as shown in the Bible and substitute a false cause for selfish reasons. (Rev. 12:12) Also an opponent may single out one cause and place on it full blame for an undesirable condition, whereas several causes may be equally responsible. If so, point out these other facts and show that the alleged cause by itself did not bring about the condition but that other causes were also at work.

In gospel-preaching from door to door and at back-calls refutation is given when called for by the householder's expressions. But in the course of a speech, when should the refutation be given? At the beginning? the end? the middle? or throughout? It depends upon the audience's familiarity with the proposition, and their attitude toward it. If it is different from what they have always believed and the speaker knows it will be met with strong objections or with prejudice, he should anticipate their reaction and at the outset strike down these barriers that obstruct unbiased reasoning. If they have no preconceived ideas on the subject present the constructive proofs. At the end, if it seems advisable, one might mention objections that might arise and refute these. However, predominating in the conclusion should be the forceful summary of the arguments advanced in favor of the cause. If the audience's attitude toward the subject does not dictate the placement of refutation it is best to place it through the middle of the talk. Why? Because refutation merely weakens the opponent's case. It does not prove one's own. It is not the powerful portions of a talk. It is one's defense, not his offense. Since the crucial parts of a talk are at the introduction and conclusion, strong arguments should mark these strategic places, not merely defensive statements. Sometimes if the

talk is on an extremely controversial subject strong refutation must be used throughout the discourse. Analyze the subject and the audience, to assure the proper placement of refutation.