Are spiritual fruit exclusive to Christianity?

[Ana Dragule]

Yes. Next question?

How much wood would a wood chuck chuck of a wood chuck could chuck wood?

[pancreasman]

Yes. Next question?

When are you expecting your first shipment of spiritual fruit?

[Bill the Cat]

Just as an aside CS Lewis seems to suggest he holds this idea in 'The Last Battle' when he has Aslan say 'I take to me the services which thou hast done to Tash [the false God]... if any man swear by him and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me [Christ] that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him."

This is one of the areas that I think Lewis was wrong in.

[Darth Executor]

When are you expecting your first shipment of spiritual fruit?

I'm saving up to have enough to fill a trans-atlantic cargo plane and drop them on you.

[Bill the Cat]

Spiritual fruit is exclusive to Christians since only Christians are indwelled by the Holy Spirit. But the nonbelievers can and often do approximate them. The problem is that it is not the fruit that saves, so someone can love another person until the cows come home, but without answering the ultimate question that Jesus asked, "who do you say that I am", those approximations are nothing but filthy rags.

[seer]

Spiritual fruit is exclusive to Christians since only Christians are indwelled by the Holy Spirit. But the nonbelievers can and often do approximate them. The problem is that it is not the fruit that saves, so someone can love another person until the cows come home, but without answering the ultimate question that Jesus asked, "who do you say that I am", those approximations are nothing but filthy rags.

Yet Paul does say that all men have the law of God written on their hearts, I mean we are all His image bearers. I believe the non-believer can sincerely love his fellow man, to degrees, be gracious and kind, etc... The difference is, I think, that they do not do these things to glorify God. They are ends in themselves, not done in love and from gratitude to God.

[Paprika]

The wind blows where it wishes, but obviously without it there is none of its fruit.

[firstfloor]

Spiritual fruit is exclusive to Christians since only Christians are indwelled by the Holy Spirit. But the nonbelievers can and often do approximate them. The problem is that it is not the fruit that saves, so someone can love another person until the cows come home, but without answering the ultimate question that Jesus asked, "who do you say that I am", those approximations are nothing but filthy rags.

Christians have a special name for something quite ordinary. They feel themselves different from the herd and superior but they are deluded.

[Bill the Cat]

Christians have a special name for something quite ordinary. They feel themselves different from the herd and superior but they are deluded.

No we aren't.

[Ana Dragule]

So basically this boils down to a debate on what are the fruit of the spirit it seems like-traits motivated in a person by knowing Christ or traits developed by the Spirit in them by the Spirit.

[mikewhitney]

I think minimally two points of confusion arise in the original post

1. That the mention of 'spirit' here refers to the Spirit of God abiding within Christians ... not as some generic 'element' that anyone and everyone has.
2. The fruit then consists of certain desirable and available behaviors (and mindset) promoted by God's Spirit within the Christian.

As we can infer from the Galatians letter, the Galatian audience was not particularly showing the desirable fruit but were acting rude toward each other. Paul was rebuking the audience for presenting the behavior of man's naturally available negative actions. Christians therefore can show bad behavior when not being led by the Spirit -- this 'leading of the Spirit', at least in a minimal sense, is sort of like heeding the saying "what would Jesus do?" This verse was a corrective action. Paul was trying to inspire them to live according to the changed nature, which is relatively dormant or limited in Christians during this lifetime.

This verse isn't describing a bunch of separate gifts but rather is describing a single fruit. That fruit manifests the set of features which Paul described. Paul wasn't describing some generic aspect of someone who has achieved some level of spirituality and thus manifests many qualities. He only was describing one change, i.e. a receipt of the Spirit, which logically (but not always observably) manifests a set of qualities. As such, we find a distinction from the ideas presented in other religious circles where the focus may be on developing one attribute or another.

I think it also helps to point out the the idea of 'faithfulness' refers to a continuing trust toward God, as found in scripture. As such, we do not find any basis to expect that religious systems in general could yield this result. Maybe this wasn't one of the qualities intended to receive focus on within the original posts.

In summary ... from a Christian viewpoint, there would be no concept of "spiritual" fruits ... but there is, for Christians, the instruction to seek God, to be led by the Spirit, and thus potentially reflect that behavior reflective of the fruit of the Spirit.

[pancreasman]

I like the posts by Seer and Paprika (what am I saying??) which seem to imply that the Spirit works on all people however it wants and that we should not limit its operation needlessly. I can accept that Christians believe that they have a special relationship with the Spirit. I don't think they do but that is neither here nor there.

I think we can argue that from a Christian point of view any virtuous act is in some sense 'inspired' or led by the Spirit.

[siam]

I don't understand the Christian concept of Holy Spirit...perhaps because of that I find it a little problematic....

If virtuous acts are inspired by this "Spirit/Holy Spirit" then goodness is an act of an outside force---not necessarily human will/agency. Bad on the other hand is a "natural" act of human nature.
It also seems to promote an arbitrariness to this Spirit/Holy Spirit in that this outside force acts upon human beings according to no particular criteria...even if we posit that only Christians who believe X can have access to/possession of Spirit (exclusively)---not all Christians behave well/good...obviously some do not get this "Spirit" even after belief?..... Or...if we posit that it acts on human beings of all beliefs/degrees of beliefs then too, it seems somewhat arbitrary? It also seems purposeless...if goodness/virtue has no place in salvation...then what is this Holy Spirit doing...going about arbitrarily making some people "good"?

Non-Christian religions have a different presumption of human nature which then leads to different conclusions.....

[Paprika]

I think we can argue that from a Christian point of view any virtuous act is in some sense 'inspired' or led by the Spirit.

It also has to be said that the fruit can be faked.

I don't understand the Christian concept of Holy Spirit...perhaps because of that I find it a little problematic....

If virtuous acts are inspired by this "Spirit/Holy Spirit" then goodness is an act of an outside force---not necessarily human will/agency. Bad on the other hand is a "natural" act of human nature.

The Spirit alone won't make a person do what is 'good'; there is a certain synergism involved.

[siam]

It also has to be said that the fruit can be faked.

The Spirit alone won't make a person do what is 'good'; there is a certain synergism involved.

This concept of "Spirit" makes it appear very powerless...?....Is not Spirit/Holy Spirit supposed to be God?...and is not God supposed to be most powerful?

good is faked?---not sure what that means...but if this is about non-Christians being "good" without the assistance of this Holy Spirit then it can lead to the conclusion that only Christians are inherently "Bad"/tainted with "original sin" and the rest of humanity has another/different nature (inherently good, both good/bad, or inherently neutral)



Considering that mysticism/spirituality is a tradition in many religious systems...the arbitrariness of the Christian concept does not seem an adequate explanation..?...