[misspeace]

In my brief membership with the wmscog…I've heard them teaching about some kind of "fruit-bearing" activity. Anyone care to explain and provide the bible passage that they use to support it?

Thanks!

[Simon]

[Simon]

Mostly John 15

[Emily]

Bearing fruit just means recruiting new members.  Here's the catch…they aren't considered a "fruit" until they start paying tithes among other requirements.  Baptism is not enough for you to get credit for the new member.

[Smurf]

Actually the bearing of fruit means that our faith in God finds ACTIONS (on our part).

Not converts!

[Simon]

They are fruit before tithing you’re thinking of talents

compare john 15 with genesis 1:28

[genny]

fly lice wrote:

Actually the bearing of fruit means that our faith in God finds ACTIONS (on our part).

Not converts!

Yes, but not they way the wmscog looks at it.

[emil]

Simon wrote:

They are fruit before tithing you're thinking of talents

compare john 15 with genesis 1:28

Not sure if you can compare. Gen 1:28 is about reproductive fruit. John 15:5 is quite a different kind of fruit.

The wmscog is not likely to be preaching the kind of fruit in Gen 1:28. Quite the contrary as I understand.

[misspeace]

Now this is what I don't understand. From what I  could gather in John 15… What Jesus was trying to say is that He is the vine and the followers are the branches. If you are already the branch, then you can't be a fruit since a branch and a fruit is two different things isn't it? Now if you bear fruit, that wouldn't mean another follower since they would be a branch also, not a fruit. I hope this makes sense to the readers. It is in my opinion that they have misunderstood (intentionally or not) what Jesus was trying to say.

Ofcourse some would say that I am taking it all too literally but the purpose of metaphors / figure of speech is so that you can see the resemblance of two things and apply it in a different view, so it is okay to follow the real vine and fruit meaning. So anyway, from my point of view…the fruit in John 15 just means that you (as the branches) produce good actions / works and ofcourse those that do not produce good works are cut off and thrown into the fire (hell). It is not the fruits that are cut off, it's the branches since they are the "followers". And we all know the fruit doesn't become a branch. That is not the actual cycle.

To make it short…. Garderner = God. Vine = Jesus. Branches = Followers. Fruit = Good works. So fruit-bearing would not mean that you should gather more followers for Jesus but instead you bear good works as a Christian. This would make the WMSCOG's teaching of fruit-bearing (gathering as many followers as you can) invalid.

And yes, I agree with Emil that Gen 1:28 is talking about a different thing so we could not relate it to John 15.

[emil]

@misspeace – That is a nice reflection about branches and fruit. Never thought of it that way but it makes sense the way you said it. One more thing to reflect on. The branches must all be connected directly to the vine in the metaphor. If I bring people to Christ, it should be my desire that they sprout directly from the vine rather than from me, an older branch.

[Sarah2013]

They tend to distort the Bible so it’s hard to really delve into this.

[Simon]

although I agree with you it is different the fact is you CAN compare them together thats exactly WMSCOGs rationale behind it (despite emils thought it wouldnt be) I see worse comparisons in maionstream churches every day.

 

and ultimately saying you cant compare them because its different is the fallacy of begging the question

[misspeace]

emil wrote:

@misspeace – That is a nice reflection about branches and fruit. Never thought of it that way but it makes sense the way you said it. One more thing to reflect on. The branches must all be connected directly to the vine in the metaphor. If I bring people to Christ, it should be my desire that they sprout directly from the vine rather than from me, an older branch.

Thank you emil. I am glad that I could provide a bit of insight to reflect on to. If this view could be accepted, then it would really make the "fruit-bearing" teaching of wmscog invalid. Anyway, no matter how right or logical a teaching could be, if the person you teach it to rejects it immediately, it would be useless. But no harm in trying.

Simon wrote:

although I agree with you it is different the fact is you CAN compare them together thats exactly WMSCOGs rationale behind it (despite emils thought it wouldnt be) I see worse comparisons in maionstream churches every day.

 

and ultimately saying you cant compare them because its different is the fallacy of begging the question

Thinking about it, I agree with you Simon that you can indeed compare both of the those biblical verses. And by comparing them, you will see the difference which would lead you to a conclusion that they are indeed not the same as they talk of a different matter.

[emil]

Simon wrote:

although I agree with you it is different the fact is you CAN compare them together thats exactly WMSCOGs rationale behind it (despite emils thought it wouldnt be) I see worse comparisons in maionstream churches every day.

 

and ultimately saying you cant compare them because its different is the fallacy of begging the question

Could you please explain what you mean? I don't recall saying anything "wouldn't be".