Fruit Of The Spirit And The Problem Of The Heap
This article discusses the Flawed Principle of identifying Christians by their outward characteristics.
The problem of the heap, sometimes called the problem of the Beard is stated something like this. When you drop one grain of sand on another, when do you have a heap? Or if a man lets his facial hair grow out when do you call it a beard?
The fruits of the spirit are love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness and temperance. They are the characteristics that sum up the nine visible attributes of a true Christian life. That's a nice pile of Rhetoric and very appealing to the ego and very convincing if we don't put much thought into it. But each of these in themselves suffer from the problem of the heap as much as they all do together.
Does everyone agree on exactly what love is? When is a person experiencing Joy? What if they drift out of Joy into happiness or just apathy? How much suffering is long-suffering? How much is gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness and temperance? If we say that these only apply to Christians, do we really believe that? Aren't there people out there that are not Christians that exhibit these? I think I exhibit them, and some Christian thinkers have admitted their crises in faith. How much faith do they have? Enough to keep their positions that's for sure.
What is the difference between them and me? In some cases they are dishonest to themselves, and sometimes to others, at least I don't profess to be a Christian. I would say that if I went back to church and avoided talking about God, nodded my head and smiled politely in a tolerant politically correct kind of way, no one would know the difference. My fruits would look fine to them.
In any case, if Christians make up a third of the population of the world, and these characteristics can be applied to all categories of people, then the defining characteristic must be Faith because in this context, it would be faith in God. So what we really mean to say is that "you will know them because they profess a belief in Jesus".
So now, back to the heap, how much faith in Jesus is enough? And additionally how much faith in Jesus and how much of any of the rest of the fruits are enough? It seems to me that I could disqualify most of the Christians in any given church I walk into using this criteria. So if those that have enough fruit to be called Christians are few, and you don't know how much is enough, then you don't really know if you are leading a true christian life or not.
All this uncertainty about being a 'true Christian' and not appearing like a Christian to other Christians seems to defy reason. I think we could say that using these criteria is meaningless and I wonder, with all things being equal, why be a Christian? Why participate in the protocol? Most Christians in that 30% probably aren't leading a truly Christian life and as a result are as lost as I am. Its a narrow road, many are called but few are taken, is that how it goes? So of the billions of people on the planet since god allegedly made himself known, less than 30% are chosen. What is the point in that? That's a lot of needless suffering for someone to permit, when he set the conditions ahead of time and knew the outcome before he started. That sounds like predestination to me, and in that case, no matter what you do, you are either saved or not, your name is in the book of life or not. So how much is enough, and are you really saved or do you just think you are? Would another Christian say you are a real Christian? How do they know? By your fruits? But don't your fruits seem fine to you? How do they look to your friends?
56 comments:
Lee, I see your wheels turning on this but some are turning a little off track.
First, it is true that non-Christians can exhibit the Fruits of the Spirit. In the same way that non-theists/non-Christians can be highly moral, they can also be in line with the Fruit. I would of course attribute this to God's image, effaced but not erased, in man, etc.
Secondly, fruit grows. That's why Paul urges in the same passage to "keep in step" with the Spirit, to be led by the Spirit, and so on.
Peter says the same thing, "For if you possess these things in increasing measure they'll keep you from being ineffective...".
So, theologically, salvation is instantaneous (positionally), but sanctification is a progressive journey.
K
Lee- my spirit is pretty fruity, and I have heaps of problems. Do I count as an ersatz Christian too?
Hi Kevin H,
I would of course attribute this to God's image, effaced but not erased, in man, etc.
What do you mean by "gods image?"
Secondly, fruit grows. That's why Paul urges in the same passage to "keep in step" with the Spirit, to be led by the Spirit, and so on.
How does one know when one is keeping in step with the spirit and does the spirit lead? How does the spirit lead?
And can you distinguish for me the difference between salvation and sanctification please? If one is saved, isn't one sanctified already? This sounds like one of those theological issues that the spirit hasn't helped sort out yet.
Hi zilch,
berry astute, yes you do! As they say, orange you made in gods image? Then, when you fell away, you god demoted to the image of a christian, banana wanna make you feel bad. Kiwi say that you are almost as special as a Christian? But apricot something important. Avacodo say that this doesn't diminish you in my eyes. To me you are a grape person. Its just that mandarin a peculiar position in trying to FIGure out our place in the universe and our importance in relation to it. Thats a tough pear of concepts to get a grip on. Its enough to drive one to MELONcholy. But my papaya always told me I was the most important thing to him, I'll bet you were to yours too. But I'm sure I'm just peaching to the choir.
Happy Holidays Lee!
Quite the fruity reply you've made to zilch. Can we just add to the question for Kevin, where is the line crossed between once saved and now lost again? I'll be berry interested in the answer.
Stalin was also made in the image of God, according to you, effaced but not erased. Was he Fruitful?
I would argue that I am more Fruitful by your criteria than Stalin, yet I do not accept the Holy Spirit as Stalin did not accept the Holy Spirit. Stalin and I are equally in the image of God. So, wherein the difference?
Sorry, but your argument doesn't hold water. If image of God = baseline of Fruitfulness, then you would have to argue that unFruitful people are somehow not made in the image of God (e.g. demonspawn or some such nonsense) or that people in some manner can erase their "image of God"-ness. If people can erase it, how? Either you argue that they erase it by not being fruitful (by which you are merely question-begging) or they erase it some other way common to all unFruitful people but not ever found in Fruitful people.
So, pick your poison kevin h. What is your argument.
I believe, for me, that by the spirit, I am beginning to take hold and come to understand that I am fully known and fully loved by God. I also want to add that per my own experience and Y'shua's words, upon initial impact/confrontation, meeting up with His spirit is not necessarily peaceful (I was pretty territorial and ingrained in an offensive/defensive sort of mindset).
That sort of security doesn't always happen with other people - even Christians or other religious. Usually there is a set of conditions one must meet for "membership" or a felt need to "cover up" or, conversely, expose ourselves inappropriately to others.
There is something about inner security - not feeling the need to clone others or be cloned to others - that does tend to radiate outwardly.
At any rate, I enjoy the thoughtfulness that goes into the writings here.
Why was Bill's 'Where Is Sin' post removed?
What do you mean by "gods image?"
KH> It encompasses God's giving many of his attributes to mankind - mind, will, emotion, intellect, reason, morality, spiritual dimension, etc. And, that creation reflects the Creator via our recognition of goodness and morality (despite our falleness).
How does one know when one is keeping in step with the spirit and does the spirit lead? How does the spirit lead?
KH> One indication is the very Fruits of the Spirit you are writing about, i.e. what kind of fruit is hanging on one's tree?
As to the Spirit's leading, I'm referring to normative ways such as insight into God's moral will and purpose. I think this insight is communicated 1). via the Scriptures and 2). a sort of direct intuition - a "quickening" - a "connection of the dots" that is hard for me to describe.
Note that I'm saying "normative" - not special revelation and the powerful experience that would entail.
And can you distinguish for me the difference between salvation and sanctification please? If one is saved, isn't one sanctified already? This sounds like one of those theological issues that the spirit hasn't helped sort out yet.
KH> There are two kinds of sanctification. We are sanctified positionally at salvation and sanctified processionally as to our growth toward being Christ-like.
Shygetz,
I clearly wrote that the image of God is effaced, not erased, in fallen man. So we can see glimpses of it even in evil men. Some exhibit God's image more than others (for whatever reason).
K
Jason,
bills article? I don't know, we are a loose organization. you could ask him in his other article.
Can we just add to the question for Kevin, where is the line crossed between once saved and now lost again?
KH> I think that this is a profound question with which John, Lee, Dan Barker, and others have wrestled. Christians are divided on it as well.
I hold to the Security of the Believer view. That is, a Christian cannot lose his salvation.
You point out a problem that theologians who think one can lose one's salvation have to deal with. That is, at what point? Where's the line? A "white lie"? A lustful thought? Murder?
Huge topic! But I guess the "Ex-Christian" would fall into one of three categories:
1). She was never saved.
2). She was saved but is in a state of personal disfellowship with God for whatever reason.
3). Christianity is false and it ultimately don't matter.
I've met people who are in the first two categories. I reject #3.
K
Hi kevin,
It encompasses God's giving many of his attributes to mankind - mind, will, emotion, intellect, reason, morality, spiritual dimension, etc. And, that creation reflects the Creator via our recognition of goodness and morality (despite our falleness).
is none of that subjective? Are humans the only ones that get mind, will, emotion, intellect, reason, morality (I'll leave out spiritual dimension because I'll bet even you don't know what that means)?
One indication is the very Fruits of the Spirit you are writing about, i.e. what kind of fruit is hanging on one's tree?
there you go being subjective again. maybe not being able to afford the Wii for my kid at christmas is long-suffering to me. I'm sure it wouldn't be to you, but how do we know what long-suffering means to god? Compared to a woman in the sudan weeping over her dead baby, I haven't known many long-suffering people. I have know lots of devout christians that were just real hot heads etc. and bigots. What is the demarcation point between christians and non-christians who are both showing off their berries? Or between christians and 'true christians'. Are Mormons Christians? They think they are and who am I to say they aren't? They sure do bear their fruit well.
What is the point of being sanctified? Getting to heaven? Doesn't someone that accepts Jesus as their lord and savior get to heaven?
Hi Kevin,
That is, a Christian cannot lose his salvation.
Thats what I thought. I'm getting to heaven any way cause I was saved, then I lost my belief. There's no way I'm losing my salvation. I'll see you in heaven kevin.
Jason, Bill doctored his post up until the script was completely unreadable because it was tiny, and he's working on it. Rather than do it myself I want him to learn how it's done.
It'll be back, perhaps today.
Cheers.
Kevin said...1). She was never saved. 2). She was saved but is in a state of personal disfellowship with God for whatever reason. 3). Christianity is false and it ultimately don't matter.
FYI: There is another possibility, Kevin. Non-Calvinists are correct about the Bible.
Lee- I won't even attempt to respond to your fruitiness. I am fructified. So, with your persimmon, I will move on.
Kevin- you say:
I hold to the Security of the Believer view. That is, a Christian cannot lose his salvation.
So, if Hitler was saved (not impossible- he was raised Christian), then he is now in Heaven. And Gandhi is in Hell. That's nice.
You point out a problem that theologians who think one can lose one's salvation have to deal with. That is, at what point? Where's the line? A "white lie"? A lustful thought? Murder?
This seems a bit problematic to me too, although I'm no theologian. Namely, that following a common Christian worldview, there are only two kinds of people: saved and damned. Seems a mite oversimplified to me, but I guess I will have an eternity in Hell to mull it over.
This whole conversation is really just NUTS.
This is why I have a hard time believing you come to a point where you are saved, and then show fruits of being saved. It makes more sense to me that it you spend your life following Christs' example so that he will in the end save you. Isn't that what all that final judgment talk is about?
If you were to take Christ out of Christmas, would you end up with zilch?
Hmmm... I guess I would have Cephalopodmas!. Or if octopodes are not to your taste, try the real reason for the season. Happy Solstice, everyone! And Super Cephalopodmas! And Merry Christmas! Just Merry Whatever!
Hi Lee,
Good discussion.
Your first line intrigued me where you say, "...Flawed Principle of identifying Christians by their outward characteristics.", and I have to say that it is flawed and will always be flawed, because all of us, Christians and non-Christians alike, are at times in our lives hypocrites. We say one thing and do another. You seem to say that it's ok for you because "at least I don't profess to be a Christian."
But the bible warns us about such hypocricy. At Matthew 23:27 we read, "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. 28In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness."
The fruitages of the spirit are an outward manifestation of what it means to have perfection. Scripture indicates that only one man has achieved these qualities in full. The fruitages have been given to us as a perfect standard, a benchmark for us to strive for. They replace the Law, they exhort us to continually strive to be more loving, gentle, faithful and peacable people. Better people.
No one would claim that these are not worthwhile attributes. But the bible is clear that everyone falls short of the glory of God. But God does bless our struggle, our desire to please him, and our desire to manifest these fine qualities...
...or so I believe.
Peace to you.
Chris
This is a pretty damning point you've raised. If getting saved makes such little impact on a person that it's unclear that God lives inside them, and if years of abandonment of the will to God -- even when accompanied by practicing the spiritual disciplines that (e.g.) Dallas Willard, J.P. Moreland, and Richard Foster write about -- makes so little difference on the believer that they don't surpass the atheist in character, then what is there to the christian faith?
If you were to take Christ out of Christmas, would you end up with zilch?
Mas.
This has been your weekly edition of Simple Answers to Simple Questions. Join us next week when we'll discuss where you end up when you take the sand out of sandwich.
I clearly wrote that the image of God is effaced, not erased, in fallen man. So we can see glimpses of it even in evil men. Some exhibit God's image more than others (for whatever reason).
And I clearly stated that. Read my comment more slowly.
What glimpses of God did you see in Stalin?
How is it that some fallen men exhibit God's image more than other fallen men? How is it that some fallen men exhibit the Fruit more than some saved men? All are working from the same base of "created in God's image".
Either we are all created in God's image or we aren't. If we are, then you will have to invent a theology that says what else is causing different amounts of Fruitiness, as we are all equally made in God's image. If we are not, then you are again inventing theology contrary to common Christian belief.
Which is it?
chris:
Jesus singled out the teachers of the law and the Pharisees as hypocrites. He did not condemn the Romans for not following the laws of God.
Similarly, Lee does not confess Christ; he cannot be called a hypocrite for not following His teachings.
Lee's point still remain. If the Spirit is neither necessary for Fruitiness (atheists can exhibit the same Fruits in the same measure) nor sufficient for Fruitiness (not all Christians steeped in the Spirit are Fruity) then there is no rational reason to think that Fruitiness and the Spirit are linked at all. The only defenses are:
1.) Atheists are not as Fruity as Christians (see how far that argument gets you here)
2.) Christians who are not Fruity aren't Christians (this is just begging the question)
3.) Appeal to irrational "ways of knowing" that the Fruit and Spirit are connected
Is there an alternative I missed? If so, please point it out. If not, pick one to defend your connection of Fruit and Spirit.
Chris, you say:
The fruitages of the spirit are an outward manifestation of what it means to have perfection.
And here I thought it fruitless to hope for more fructiferous words! "Fruitage" is a new one on me. But perhaps we could use a few more.
Dr. Craig says, in his article "Politically Incorrect Salvation", discussed in this thread here at DC:
God could not condemn persons who, though freely rejecting God's sufficient grace for salvation revealed through nature and conscience, would have received His salvific grace mediated through the gospel.
Since we're talking about the interface (if any) between fruits and salvation, I think we need to level the playing field. The counterpart to "salvific" could be "fructific", as in "Fructific effects of Scripture are there for all to see, whereas salvific grace can only be seen by God". Sounds pretty good.
For "salvation" we already have "fruition": "To achieve salvation, one needs only an open heart and an open Book; to achieve fruition, one must have an open mind and many open books." Or something like that.
And the equivalent of "fruitage"? "Salvage", of course: "Science has high fruitage value; religion high salvage value."
And now back to your regularly scheduled program...
Chris said: "The fruitages of the spirit are an outward anifestation (sic) of what it means to have perfection. Scripture indicates that only one man has achieved these qualities in full. "
I've got bible passages that say there are others that are good.
Matthew 5:45
"For he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust."
Matthew 13:47-48
"Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind: Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away. "
Matthew 22:10
"So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests."
Luke 3:50
"And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counsellor; and he was a good man, and a just."
And how about some completely contradictory evidence, where Jesus himself did not want to be called "good". In Mark 10:18 he says "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God."
So we have biblical evidence saying that others ARE good, and biblical evidence saying Jesus doesn't want to be called "good".
Both cases contradict your assertion that "Scripture indicates that only one man has achieved these qualities in full".
"Lee's point still remain. If the Spirit is neither necessary for Fruitiness (atheists can exhibit the same Fruits in the same measure) nor sufficient for Fruitiness (not all Christians steeped in the Spirit are Fruity) then there is no rational reason to think that Fruitiness and the Spirit are linked at all."
Hi Shygetz,
The point I make about hypocricy is simple. We all do it. Lee expresses some sentiment of superiority, presumably because his actions are not tethered to a "Christian" standard of behaviour. That's fine. Jesus was warning the Pharisees specifically in the verse I quoted in Matthew, but his warning conveys to all believers by proxy.
To your point, I would say this. Fruitiness (the entire body of fruitful qualities) can be resident in both Christians and non-Christians alike, to one degree or another. Likewise, it can also be absent in both, to which I would say that if no qualities are resident in the Christian, well then he/she is not a Christian. If the Christian is spirit led, or spirit in-dwelt, these qualities will necessarily be manifested as a result. It doesn't mean that once you experience the in-dwelling of the spirit, you won't struggle to manifest the fruitiness.
Without the spirit though, these qualities are exceedingly difficult to maintain. They require an almost super-human effort, an effort that I would argue is not attainable without divine assistance, or something beyond simple human will.
Humans are not inclined to love those who anger us, or to have joy when the world seems everywhere evil, or to experience peace amidst such chaos and suffering, or to be longsuffering at all when the easy road is so much more appealing in the moment. It is seemingly impossible for us to be gentle when the world demands courseness, and faithful when it rewards faithlessness. How can we be meek and temperate when only the strongest survive?
All of us are capable of experiencing these things from time to time. But from this time to all time, it's not possible for us without the spirit.
So, all this to say, I'm inclined to assent to all three of your points. Not too sure about the last one though. I hold that my belief is not irrational, but I'm willing to concede that my belief is irrational to you.
Peace and fruit to you,
Chris
I think C.S. Lewis made some good points about the 'believer vs. non-believer' question. If non-believers seem more moral than certain believers, this may simply be due to their temperament and circumstances, not to any intrinsic love of goodness or righteousness. The important question is - is the believer sanctified compared to how he was before he was saved, and is he growing in holiness?
Which brings up the second (heap/beard) point. I think this is fallacious - you can't invalidate a general principle by appealing to a borderline case. This is like saying because there are judicial cases that are difficult to decide, or that because there may be corrupt judges or policemen and we really can't be sure what happens in any specific case, therefore we should just trash the whole judicial system. Likewise, just because there might be subtle areas in life where you honestly might not be sure you are growing in holiness, these are rare. People are either rationalizing their sins so they can continue to commit them, and this needs to be pointed out to them pastorally so they can repent; or they are becoming sanctified (and often the areas where they fall short are egregious). You cannot say it is impossible to evaluate/correct one's life in light of the passage, just because it indicates a direction of sanctification but not a rate.
"So we have biblical evidence saying that others ARE good, and biblical evidence saying Jesus doesn't want to be called "good".
Both cases contradict your assertion that "Scripture indicates that only one man has achieved these qualities in full"."
Hi Don,
You say that I am contradicted and perhaps I am, but I don't see that what you've presented does that.
I maintain that only one man exhibited the "fullness" of the fruitages of the spirit. I am not saying that only one man is good.
Perhaps you can link your term "good" with what I am saying about exhibiting the fullness of the fruitages of the spirit, and then I might be able to understand your claim that I am contradicted.
Peace,
Chris
none of that subjective? Are humans the only ones that get mind, will, emotion, intellect, reason, morality (I'll leave out spiritual dimension because I'll bet even you don't know what that means)?
KH> I'm not as concerned with "subjective" as I am that it is an internal question: what do the Scriptures teach on it?
And I think man is the only creation that has a reflective and spiritual dimension. I take spiritual to mean those aspects that make up personhood which are immaterial.
there you go being subjective again. maybe not being able to afford the Wii for my kid at christmas is long-suffering to me. I'm sure it wouldn't be to you, but how do we know what long-suffering means to god? Compared to a woman in the sudan weeping over her dead baby, I haven't known many long-suffering people. I have know lots of devout christians that were just real hot heads etc. and bigots. What is the demarcation point between christians and non-christians who are both showing off their berries? Or between christians and 'true christians'. Are Mormons Christians? They think they are and who am I to say they aren't? They sure do bear their fruit well.
KH> Paul contrasts two basic lists in his letter to the Galatians. One tends to characterize those who are in opposition to God. The other those who are seeking him or yielded to him.
When Stalin says "rain is wet" he is more in line with God's truth and God's world than the Christian who says "rain is not wet". Same thing with "fruit".
What is the point of being sanctified? Getting to heaven? Doesn't someone that accepts Jesus as their lord and savior get to heaven?
KH> Getting to heaven is a byproduct. Glorifying God is the point. Paul says Christians forfeit God-glorifying rewards (1 Cor. 3).
K
Shygetz said:
1.) Atheists are not as Fruity as Christians (see how far that argument gets you here)
2.) Christians who are not Fruity aren't Christians (this is just begging the question)
3.) Appeal to irrational "ways of knowing" that the Fruit and Spirit are connected
Is there an alternative I missed? If so, please point it out. If not, pick one to defend your connection of Fruit and Spirit.
Maybe the behaviours we identify as fruit of the Spirit ( things of the nature of god) are what they are. And anyone who exhibits them has the spirit of god reguardless of religion.
Having the fruit is a manifestation of the spirit of god, in what ever measure and not a manifestation of the correct theology.
As if the Biblical author said to himself, how would i know who has god, well they would have these fruit, so let me weave that into my theology. Never mind that ALL the religions teach these are the manifest proof of holyness.
so there would be 4) the fruit itself is the connection manifested. (if that is irrational then call it 3a)
Hi Chris,
I'm posting this before reading the other comments because your comment that I just read is so egregious.
I'm glad you agree with me however you said Lee expresses some sentiment of superiority, presumably because his actions are not tethered to a "Christian" standard of behaviour.
This is true only if we can say that chris is expressing some confirmation bias, and instead of taking the hit for christianity he's looking for a way to poison the well, to discredit me in a subtle ad hominemy back-handed complimenty kind of way.
Chris has no idea what is going on in my head unless the holy spirit has decided to pick him to guide instead of those preachers in africa that are promoting witch hunting. Which, judging by the precdents set by the holy spirit, wouldn't surprise me.
Why is it the spirit would come to you or anyone else as 'positive feedback' to belief in jesus when he wouldn't go reveal the fraud going on in the african witch hunts in jesus name?
Which is more important, supporting the fruit in believers that are comfy or supporting the fruit in believers that are misguided and not comfy?
As with most of these theological arguments and unconfirmable claims, we get down to what is important and what our values are.
My assertion is that christians have no claim on those nine properties as a definition of thier character because they are subjective and so common to all categories of people. It is a flawed principle evident in scripture that was either written, co-authored or approved of by god.
How does that happen?
By the way, exapologist and shygetsz have done an excellent and eloquent job of summarizing my viewpoint.
Thanks.
Another thing that is nit-picky but i want to point it out anyway is that criticism of a thing does not necessarily entail a superior attitude. It could also entail an attitude of wanting to 'bust a bubble' because it is ungrounded and annoying.
However in this case I do it because I want to point out one of the flawed principles in this supposedly god-approved book.
Hi SpongJohn,
are you the famous John Spong whose ideas have been the subject of debate around here?
If non-believers seem more moral than certain believers, this may simply be due to their temperament and circumstances, not to any intrinsic love of goodness or righteousness.
why not? Can't we say that all people have the same mechanism for producing this love of goodness and righteousness?
Which brings up the second (heap/beard) point. I think this is fallacious - you can't invalidate a general principle by appealing to a borderline case.
I think you have a misconception about the argument. If I show that a principle is not valid by showing that the premises that it rests on are valid in other cases, then rationally we can say the principle is not uniquely valid as a warrant for the premises that depend on it.
For example, Chris just did it to me. He said that I expressed some sentiment of superiority and to counter that I showed that there is anther possibility or hypothesis that fits which is that I do it to 'bust a bubble' or an intolerant attitude for the violation of my beloved informal logic.
Since chris can't read my mind and I can, I have the advantage over him because I have access to information that he doesn't which when figured in makes it more likely that I am right if we assume that I'm not a fruitcake (in deference to the season).
You cannot say it is impossible to evaluate/correct one's life in light of the passage, just because it indicates a direction of sanctification but not a rate.
I wasn't saying that. That appears to be a muddy strawman that has slid down a slippery slope.
basically I was saying that there is no warrant to support the premises leading to the conclusion that christians can be known by thier fruit because this does not exclusively apply to christians.
If i had to label the fallacy, I'd say this passage is the confusion of cause and correlation fallacy.
All you can say is that there is a correlation and that since the evidence for natural causes outweighs the evidence for supernatural causes there very likely is some other non-supernatural cause to allow it to be equally applied to non-christians.
Hi Kevin,
AHA! you must have suspected that I had evidence to support the existence of all those other traits except spiritual dimension in non-human when you said
And I think man is the only creation that has a reflective and spiritual dimension. I take spiritual to mean those aspects that make up personhood which are immaterial. and ommitted the rest of them! But not so fast!
This is one of those retreats to a non-falsifiable position that christians are so fond of.
But you still haven't committed to a viewpoint on whether or not believing in Jesus is sanctification enough to get to heaven. There's a lot of "C&E Christians" (christians that only go to church on Christmas and Easter) out there depending on this. I know quite a few that talk the talk but depending on your perspective, don't walk the walk.
Lee,
You are justifiably outraged at the atrocities committed by Christians, as am I. We are in complete agreement. These people do not display the fruitage of the spirit. They are hypocrites. Hypocrites have no refuge with God.
Matthew 23:28 which I've quoted earlier in this thread counts what these men do as wicked, "28In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness."
These people who claim the label of Christian and commit all manner of unspeakable acts are indeed wicked and are not of God. They are not my brother and I do not defend what they do in the name of God. They stand condemned. God's word is very clear on what their punishment will be.
So I'm sure you are unwilling to indict 2 billion people worldwide who wear the mantle of Christian on the actions of these wicked few. Does that seem reasonable to you?
I apologize if you were offended by what I said.
Peace to you,
Chris
Hi insanezenmistress,
Maybe the behaviours we identify as fruit of the Spirit ( things of the nature of god) are what they are. And anyone who exhibits them has the spirit of god reguardless of religion.
Having the fruit is a manifestation of the spirit of god, in what ever measure and not a manifestation of the correct theology.
Thats almost a reasonable position (until you leapt to a hasty conclusion at the end) and leaves the equally likely position open that altruism and the exhibition of this fruit is the result of natural mechanisms which can be equally explained by evolutionary psychology (for example) or affects of culture on the individual. Is Miss Manners still writing her column?
Hi Chris,
Don't worry about it. I don't seem to get offended by anonymous entities typing stuff into a blog. I just enjoy the intellectual exercise. Its like solving puzzles, only the risk is greater. when I'm wrong, it'll be all over the internet.
anyway.....
So I'm sure you are unwilling to indict 2 billion people worldwide who wear the mantle of Christian on the actions of these wicked few. Does that seem reasonable to you?
no. where did you get that? I am condemning the mechanism which enables that type of behavior, not those whose behavior has not resulted in atrocities. However, as long as people use a mechanism for reasoing that includes a high importance for un-falsifiable methods of gaining knowledge, the risk of making bad decisions is higher.
Spongjohn says:
Which brings up the second (heap/beard) point. I think this is fallacious - you can't invalidate a general principle by appealing to a borderline case. This is like saying because there are judicial cases that are difficult to decide, or that because there may be corrupt judges or policemen and we really can't be sure what happens in any specific case, therefore we should just trash the whole judicial system.
While it is indeed a problem making decisions in a judicial system, at least there are more than two outcomes possible: depending on the particulars of the case, one can be acquitted, or put on probation, or do community service, or go to jail for varying amounts of time.
This seems to me to be appropriate. We all recognize that there are varying degrees of transgressions, which should be handled differently.
In practice, of course, there are many problems. One current one in the United States is the fact that building prisons is a very profitable growth industry. Would it be overly cynical of me to suggest that there might be a connection between conservative support for both prison construction and high penalties for victimless crimes?
In any case, this leads us to the problem I pointed out above. As far as I know, most Protestants believe that there are two kinds of people: saved and damned. Catholics throw in a third group, the purgatoried. So, for the Protestant God, all of the myriad differences between people, how they have lived their lives and what is in their hearts, boils down to one difference: either they are saved and spend Eternity in bliss, or they are damned and spend Eternity in agony.
If we were to run our justice system that way, it would mean that the outcome of every trial would be that the defendant would either be found innocent, and sent home with a large cash bonus, or found guilty, and tortured to death. The difference in judgments might well hang on a single white lie, or a single loving word. Of course, we are not God, and so we could only give the innocent finite amounts of money, and we could only torture the guilty until they croaked.
But who am I to question the goodness of God? If that's the way He works, it is, by definition, Good. That at least is the usual answer I get from Christians to questions like this. But I must say that it doesn't satisfy my sense of fair play. I guess that's just the Devil in me.
Good morning zilch!
Nice comment.
In fact, the judicial system is finding that the punishment doesn't fit the crime in light of some of the latest findings in neuroscience. There is a movement to add 'remediation' or therapy as an outcome to more cases. I'll be publishing some info on that pretty soon.
Hello Lee;
"""Thats almost a reasonable position (until you leapt to a hasty conclusion at the end) and leaves the equally likely position open that altruism and the exhibition of this fruit is the result of natural mechanisms """
Is it that my position is nearly reasonable BECAUSE i leave it open for god(ie the intangible) and because it is applicible by purely human means?
i am saying that the discriptive qualities have been applied to the intangible being, and humans have sought to emulate them to be like the intangible. And humans have also sought those qualities in the name of being good humans.
But you are right i could have just as well taken away the intangible, but then i would not be altruistic.
Justine
Some much churning in my mind, or maybe that is in my belly because who knows exactly where the mind resides right?
I like a lot of what I have read in this fruity thread. While anyone can exhibit fruit of the spirit, I would think that those who are trying to emulate Christ, as he should be our example to follow, should more continuously exhibit those fruits. I know of several people who would fit the bill of continually exhibiting fruits of the spirit because they have made it part of their daily routine through studying scripture and striving to be as Christlike as they can. So they are still human and make mistakes, they correct and continue their journey. So if someone can follow the premise, and make it work like it should does that really make it flawed? Or does it make it really hard to do but attainable?
I pick the second
On another note, the idea of saved or damned is very flawed. With all we have against us to achieve perfection, a God who has qualities that we believe he does couldn't possible adhere to this principle.
I have already gone over the judgment/punishment beliefs I adhere to with Lee, the fruitcake, before. If we can figure out that our judicial system needs overhaul to accommodate various problems with punishment, how much more should God already have in place to account for mental or physical barriers beyond our control?
Hi SpongJohn,
are you the famous John Spong whose ideas have been the subject of debate around here?
Heh, the man is an irrational cretin, as Bill Gnade pointed out in the 12/9 post. I'd also add he lacks integrity (unlike honest atheists and honest Christians), and regularly spews hateful speech against those who disagree with him (such as the Archbishop of Canterbury). Btw, if you want to use the term cognitive dissonance, it should be reserved for creatures like Spong and Michael Jackson, IMHO, else it becomes too broad.
... principle is not uniquely valid as a warrant for the premises that depend on it.
All you can say is that there is a correlation and that since the evidence for natural causes outweighs the evidence for supernatural causes
ok, I get it, thanks for clarifying, sorry 'bout that - I thought it was an attack on the meaning of the passage.
In that case I'd just observe that this passage was intended for Christians, and it's inapplicable to comparisons to the atheist situation (which is not to be smug/snotty- I mean that in the sense that if I had a horse an wrote 'you must feed your vehicle plenty of grain, then you will get far' you couldn't say, 'well, that advice is wrong, since I own a car and putting grain in the gas tank would damage it'. The advice isn't wrong, merely inapplicable).
If the fruit passage alleged a logical contradiction or logically contradicted another scripture, it would be 'fair game' for atheists, but I don't see it does either, so it is merely inapplicable.
But who am I to question the goodness of God? If that's the way He works, it is, by definition, Good. That at least is the usual answer I get from Christians to questions like this. But I must say that it doesn't satisfy my sense of fair play. I guess that's just the Devil in me.
Zilch, I hope that you may lose the chip on your shoulder, acknowledge your sin, and that like Pilgrim, the burden will fall off your back. God is omniscient and perfectly just, so you can't compare him to human courts.
So now, back to the heap, how much faith in Jesus is enough?
So if those that have enough fruit to be called Christians are few, and you don't know how much is enough, then you don't really know if you are leading a true christian life or not
So the idea is for any believer -- call her S -- S knows she is a believer only if (i) there exists a precise point at which S has sufficient faith, (ii) S knows where that point is, and (iii) S knows whether S has reached that point. (We may substitute any other fruit for 'faith'.)
Problems. Why should we think that faith is so fine-grained? You need to argue (not just assume) that there is always a single point that makes the difference between faith and non-faith. Would you likewise say that there is always a single strand of hair that makes the difference between baldness and non-baldness? I doubt it. In any case, you haven't argued for such a controversial assumption. Most philosophers of language and epistemologists are comfortable with the fact that certain degreed properties may be subject to epistemic vagueness.
And even if there were such a point or threshold, why would S need to know exactly where it is in order to "really" know that she has faith? Would you also claim that you must know which grain of sand 'does the trick' in order to know that you're staring at a heap? If so, why should any of us accept your criteria? Where's your argument? Such strict requirements on knowledge seem to imply that the vast majority of humans don't really know what kind of object they're staring at, or whether or not they bear a certain property, or whether or not they've successfully used a bit of language to refer to something.
Hi William,
You need to argue (not just assume) that there is always a single point that makes the difference between faith and non-faith. Would you likewise say that there is always a single strand of hair that makes the difference between baldness and non-baldness? I doubt it. In any case, you haven't argued for such a controversial assumption. Most philosophers of language and epistemologists are comfortable with the fact that certain degreed properties may be subject to epistemic vagueness.
you have brought a valid point that helps to illustrate the problem. I don't make these claims. I go along with the experts. If an expert tells me there is not enough evidence to satisfy a verdict of guilty, I'll go with it. If customer tells me there is not enough lettuce on his taco to make it acceptable then he gets more lettuce. These are all subjective based on the judgment of the expert. This scripture if it wasn't authored by god was at least approved of by god. He approves of its claim that you know a christian by thier fruit. There must be a point where the a christian can be known by that fruit or its not a valid claim. I didn't make it. I argue that since it is subjective to the expert who makes the claim, then only the expert can know. We can see that its apparently possible to have fruit and not be a christian and it is possible to be a christian and not outwardly show fruit. I say that unless you want to nullify the criteria of accepting jesus christ as your savior and add some requirements to it then you can have a christian that is a perfectly miserable human being. I know you can I have seen them. Who was I to judge whether they were christian or not? Now, since there must be a point, because it is revealed in scripture, the point is not obvious to us and could very well be subjective to god. Since the scripture is supposed to be used for teaching, and this concept or claim has no discernible meaning to non-experts, it is meaningless and is apparently a reasoning scheme that commits the confusion of correlation and cause. So now do you think there is a point subject to God for all people and that it can be called equitable? Probably, but then thats not what the scripture says is it? If that is the case, then god has violated the very sound principle of clarity in a discussion or in this case a document meant to teach.
Or, it is just a bunch of folklore from a near eastern culture that is completely alien to me.
Hi spongjohn,
God is omniscient and perfectly just, so you can't compare him to human courts.
are you sure you to go there with 'the perfectly just' argument? You shouldn't.
How can you say he is Just? Do you know what that means? Do you know what it means to God? If you know what it means does it include and 'principles' for example? Any principles for fairness? Any principles for fairness that mean anything to us? Was it fair to harden pharoah heart for example? that seems to violate a very sound principle of justice and his principle of not interfering with our freewill.
Gods justice has no meaning to us does it? Therefore it is meaningless to talk of god being perfectly Just. Yet the bible uses all kinds of language like that, which is a contradiction isn't it? especially when it is supposed to be useful for teaching and instruction.
spongjohn, you said:
Zilch, I hope that you may lose the chip on your shoulder, acknowledge your sin, and that like Pilgrim, the burden will fall off your back. God is omniscient and perfectly just, so you can't compare him to human courts.
I'm sure you mean well by this, spongjohn, but alas, it is unlikely to pass. In the first place, I don't have a chip on my shoulder, at least for people who live and let live, no matter what they believe. I do get exercised about Creationists pushing their religion in public school science classes. Likewise, I deplore the influence of the Christian right in America's getting immerded in Iraq, denying global warming, and similar misadventures. But if people wants to believe in talking snakes, it doesn't bother me, as long as they keep it to themselves.
As far as "sin" goes, that's a word that has no referents for me; or rather, only imaginary referents, so I'm unlikely to acknowledge my "sins" anytime soon. My "problems" are something else again- I'm the first to admit that I'm not perfect.
And about God being "perfectly just"- lee said it. You might as well say that God is "perfectly phodly", since if Gandhi is burning in Hell, then God's "justice" has nothing to do with human "justice".
So far, no Christian here has deigned to answer me: is my characterization "true"? Are there only two classes of people, the saved and the damned? If so, how can eternal torment be "just", in anything like human ideas of "justice"? Even Hitler and Torquemada did not do that to their enemies. I know there is disagreement on this, but I'd like to hear someone weigh in on it.
Oh, and Merry Christmas everyone!
FYI: There is another possibility, Kevin. Non-Calvinists are correct about the Bible.
KH> Yes, I left that one out (by accident). Even though I hold to eternal security I am not a 5-Pointer. My Methodist friends have always been baffled at the idea of eternal security, btw.
K
And I clearly stated that. Read my comment more slowly.
KH> I supposed I was misunderstood when you wrote:
If people can erase it, how? Either you argue that they erase it by not being fruitful (by which you are merely question-begging) or they erase it some other way common to all unFruitful people but not ever found in Fruitful people.
KH> I don't think it is something that can be erased, but effaced, marred, corrupted, etc.
What glimpses of God did you see in Stalin?
KH> If I were to do an exhaustive study of him and found that he embraced a child, gave sacrificially to someone, offered forgiveness, etc., that would be a glimpse, despite the evil he did. That's my point.
How is it that some fallen men exhibit God's image more than other fallen men? How is it that some fallen men exhibit the Fruit more than some saved men? All are working from the same base of "created in God's image".
Either we are all created in God's image or we aren't. If we are, then you will have to invent a theology that says what else is causing different amounts of Fruitiness, as we are all equally made in God's image. If we are not, then you are again inventing theology contrary to common Christian belief.
Which is it?
KH> I don't know why some exhibit things more than others. As I said, the Fruit is indicative of those "walking in the Spirit".
I once led a Bible study for some prisoners on the Fruits of the Spirit. Virtually all of them agreed that if they had more of that kind of Fruit, they would not be where the were.
K
"...Jesus himself did not want to be called "good". In Mark 10:18 he says "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God."
KH> Jesus is not denying his goodness here. He is pointing out the ramifications of calling him "good", i.e. If only God is good, and you're calling me good, what are you saying?
So, if Hitler was saved (not impossible- he was raised Christian), then he is now in Heaven. And Gandhi is in Hell. That's nice.
KH> Take it up with Christ. He indicated something like that in his parable of the employer who paid everyone the same wages, even those who came in late and worked fewer hours, because he was generous.
But since we don't know what went on between God and Hitler and God and Ghandi, we can only offer hypotheticals.
K
AHA! you must have suspected that I had evidence to support the existence of all those other traits except spiritual dimension in non-human when you said
And I think man is the only creation that has a reflective and spiritual dimension. I take spiritual to mean those aspects that make up personhood which are immaterial. and ommitted the rest of them! But not so fast!
This is one of those retreats to a non-falsifiable position that christians are so fond of.
KH> My point is, I think it is obvious animals do not have the moral, intellectual, and spiritual dimension man has. There is a distinctiveness and climax in man's creation according to biblical theology.
But you still haven't committed to a viewpoint on whether or not believing in Jesus is sanctification enough to get to heaven. There's a lot of "C&E Christians" (christians that only go to church on Christmas and Easter) out there depending on this. I know quite a few that talk the talk but depending on your perspective, don't walk the walk.
KH> I do believe that receiving Christ as Savior and Lord is sufficient, and necessary, for salvation. I ultimately don't know who has and who hasn't done that. I can only look at various indicators.
KH> I don't know why some exhibit things more than others. As I said, the Fruit is indicative of those "walking in the Spirit".
I once led a Bible study for some prisoners on the Fruits of the Spirit. Virtually all of them agreed that if they had more of that kind of Fruit, they would not be where the were.
And if you had taught them Hume, they would have said the same. You listed qualities of a nice, socialized person. Yet Paul claims they are indicative of indwelling of the Spirit. Yet by Christian theology, the Spirit must be accepted. You still have not approached answering how atheists can exhibit the qualities that Paul said were indicative of indwelling of the Spirit (sometimes moreso than professed Christians) while clearly rejecting the Spirit. You murmur something about "the image of God" but say that it is not immutable and can be effaced by some mysterious means.
So, your theology on this point boils down to:
"Some people are nice. Professing Christians are no more likely to be nice than others. But professing Christians have the Spirit, which adds to their niceness."
The logical conclusion to this is that Christianity attracts those who are less nice than average. The Spirit which Christianity adds to their baseline "image of God" niceness is sufficient to bring them up to the overall average niceness, but no higher.
Seriously, you aren't leaving any other options. Either the average professing Christian is more fruity than the average non-Christian, or he isn't. If he is, then you better have some numbers to back that up. If not, then either the Spirit adds to frutiness or it doesn't. If it does, then the starting frutiness of Christian converts must be below the mean, which means that your religion attracts not-nice people.
When you have to punt to mystery on basic arithmetic, isn't it time to rethink your theology?
You still have not approached answering how atheists can exhibit the qualities that Paul said were indicative of indwelling of the Spirit (sometimes moreso than professed Christians) while clearly rejecting the Spirit. You murmur something about "the image of God" but say that it is not immutable and can be effaced by some mysterious means.?
KH> I just don't think it can be quantified the way you seem to want. One list in Galatians 5 is indicative of "the flesh" and the other "The (Holy) Spirit".
The atheist who is in line with the Fruits of the Spirit just happens to recognize what is good - even if he fails or refuses to recognize that the Good is ultimately from God.
BTW, the Fruits don't always entail being "nice".
Post a Comment