SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : What fruit?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 Next Page )
PosterThread
inwardman
Member



Joined: 2004/5/20
Posts: 7


 Re:

II Peter 1:5-8, is the kind of fruit that God commands His children to add to their faith. The reason I said 'command' is because the word 'add' is imperative mood. God is not inviting anyone to do anything. "He's saying, he that hath an ear to hear, now HEAR." This is what it means in the original text.
We don't know for sure what the fruit in the garden looked like. Eve wasn't walking in the Spirit, so she was drawn away and enticed. For all we know that fruit could have been just different from all the other fruit, and that is what enticed her, when she wasn't staying in tune with God.
It's no different with anyone of us, if we are starving we will probably eat anything just like Israel did when they continually turned from God, and He brought famine. They ate their children, heads of goats, carcasses of dead birds, etc.
Because of disobedience.
The "fruit" of the Spirit is not talking in tongues for 2 hours, and chewing wood off of the ceiling in a praise service. And then proclaiming to the world false doctrine. That is the fruit of apostasy, bringing forth good fruit requires more than, just appearing to the eyes to have it.

 2004/5/22 8:25Profile
sermonindex
Moderator



Joined: 2002/12/11
Posts: 37392
"Pilgrim and Sojourner." - 1 Peter 2:11

Online!
 Re:

Quote:
We don't know for sure what the fruit in the garden looked like. Eve wasn't walking in the Spirit, so she was drawn away and enticed. For all we know that fruit could have been just different from all the other fruit, and that is what enticed her, when she wasn't staying in tune with God.


Yes the fruit could have been any fruit, apples are for some reason the main choice in literature and imagery over the ages, how about figs? but do they look good to our eyes? :-( But the scripture is clear that it was a tree with fruit on it so the temptation was definetly eating an actual fruit that God commanded not to touch. There is always a spiritual paradigm to this but through physical things there are spiritual realities represented this is very true all through the old testament, and dare I say the new.

Quote:
It's no different with anyone of us, if we are starving we will probably eat anything just like Israel did when they continually turned from God, and He brought famine. They ate their children, heads of goats, carcasses of dead birds, etc.


Great point, it seems that food was used in many ways as disobedience from God, Esau and the bowl of soup, Israel in the wilderness desiring the food of egypt, etc.

Quote:
The "fruit" of the Spirit is not talking in tongues for 2 hours, and chewing wood off of the ceiling in a praise service. And then proclaiming to the world false doctrine. That is the fruit of apostasy, bringing forth good fruit requires more than, just appearing to the eyes to have it.


I have no idea what you mean by this and I am not going to jump to conclusions but it seems its a jab at pentecostal like circles? One clarification "Tongues" is [b]not[/b] the fruit of the spirit but a gift of the spirit. "And then proclaiming to the world false doctrine." I am worried about who or what you are applying this too, this whole statement is very vague and needs clarification. I'm not too comfortable with it. :-?


_________________
SI Moderator - Greg Gordon

 2004/5/22 12:39Profile
taco
Member



Joined: 2004/4/27
Posts: 211


 Re:

Apples are the fruit of an Apple tree
Oranges are the fruit of an orange tree...
Would it not be the case that [b]the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of good and evil[/b] is [b][u]the knowledge of good and evil[/u][/b]?

 2004/5/22 13:34Profile
eagleswings
Member



Joined: 2003/12/30
Posts: 297
Connecticut, USA

 Re:



"Would it not be the case....?"

Yes.

Stephen Kaung makes precisely this point in
"Christ in Genesis: Adam's Tree" -- available for download here at SI.

(I'm computer "challenged". Sorry I can't link you.)



:-)


_________________
Roger P.

 2004/5/22 22:32Profile
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re:

Stephen Kaung
[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/visit.php?lid=2275]Christ in Genesis: Adam's Tree[/url]

(Still a 'challenge' for me also Roger, just ask Greg :-( )


_________________
Mike Balog

 2004/5/23 16:35Profile
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:

I know I know... it was a pear!!! Not an apple. Not an orange. Put a pear! Then again, maybe it was a Plumb.


_________________
Jimmy H

 2004/5/23 17:53Profile
Gideons
Member



Joined: 2003/9/16
Posts: 474
Virginia

 Re: The fruit???

I believe as to what type of fruit it was is not particularly important.

Eve was tempted (as well as Adam) and sinned because of unbelief. The seed was planted when the serpent said "Can it really be that God has said" (Genesis 3:1 AMP) and Eve believed the lie that is implicit in the serpent's beguiling of Eve. Is God holding out on me? Once the seed sprang forth it resulted in sin but the root of it at least in my mind is when she believed what the serpent said.

Sin begins to look appealing when we believe God is not interested in our lives, in our problems, etc. The root sin in Adam and Eve's life was unbelief.


_________________
Ed Pugh

 2004/5/23 21:35Profile
inwardman
Member



Joined: 2004/5/20
Posts: 7


 Re: to sermonindex

You asked for clarification about this statement.

"The "fruit" of the Spirit is not talking in tongues for 2 hours, and chewing wood off of the ceiling in a praise service. And then proclaiming to the world false doctrine. That is the fruit of apostasy, bringing forth good fruit requires more than, just appearing to the eyes to have it."

Ok, without veering too far from the topic,what I meant here is that too many people within the pentecostal/charasmatic circles, follow after experiences and not doctrine. And much of the teaching is based on experiences of speaking in tongues. In fact if a person has never spoken in tongues, they are told that they have not received the Holy Spirit, and therefore they are not saved, isn't that right? I know it is because I sat in a UPC church for six years, hearing this constantly, and watching people beg God for this experience.
If it was your birthday, and your Dad offered you a gift, would you fall on you knees and beg him for it? I've seen people leave God because someone kept telling them that they have to have this salvation requirement. And when they try sometimes for years and years, and don't receive it they feel rejected by God, and condescended by those who have.
While many of those people show no real fruit in their lives. I'm speaking in general terms, I'm not saying that this is the case with every pentecostal.
Love is what activates all of the fruits of the Spirit. And love is agape, not phileo, it is bowing to the will of God, dying to self, and receiving the hagias pneuma, Holy Spirit, to speak the same words or (confess) all the truth as Jesus Christ, and the apostles did.
Jesus said that He is the vine, we are the branches, and if we are in Him, we all will speak the same words.
This is not happening in these movements, as well as many others, therefore something must be wrong with the fruit. This is what the bible says.

 2004/5/24 10:00Profile
KeithLaMothe
Member



Joined: 2004/3/28
Posts: 354


 Re:

While that kind of error is sadly common in Pentecostal circles, the UPC is not typical of all of them. For one, it's Jesus-only Oneness if I recall correctly, which is blatant heresy. The belief that tongues is the initial evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost is quite common, and I'm not sure I disagree, still trying to figure that out myself. The idea that someone who hasn't received the fullness of the Holy Spirit isn't saved, however, I very much disagree with, and I know whole movements of Pentecostals who feel the same way.

The movements are very much in need of revival or replacement, but not all of them have gone the way of the heretics. As for speaking in tongues and making doctrine up off of it, in the circles I know tongues are fairly rare (in service) and if it's not Scripturally justifiable they're not going to take it as doctrine.

Don't judge the Pentecostal movement by the UPC, just as you wouldn't judge the Reformed Baptists by the Primitive Baptists.

 2004/5/24 12:20Profile
inwardman
Member



Joined: 2004/5/20
Posts: 7


 Re: to keith

Keith-

In my post, I said that I was speaking in general terms. I'm not saying that the entire movement adheres to these things. It's not only in the UPC that I've heard this though. I've also heard it in my uncle's Church of God assembly, in a few AOG churches, and a few like pentecostal groups as well.
The thing that I have found most annoying though, is trying to perform for God's favor. Hearing things like "If you do X,Y, and Z, God is obligated to bless you" and on the other end of the pulpit " I wonder why I don't feel God, I tithed, I fasted this week, I prayed a lot," etc,etc.
Or the self-appointed fruit inspection committee, who feel it's "of God" to tell people things like " I was in the bathtub last night when God told me to tell you, blah, blah, blah,"
It's unbiblical, and it can get way out of hand. I don't think that I've ever encountered these things in other denominations. If this is fruit, I'll stick to meat.

 2004/5/25 10:25Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy