Fruit meet for repentance

[mercyngrace]

As John was baptizing, he spoke to the Pharisees and Sadducees, saying the following:

O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:

And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

As religious leaders, John's audience here should have been preparing the way of the Lord and making His paths straight. They were not. The fruit of these Jewish leaders, their disciples and the society they influenced, was not meet for repentance or the mighty change of heart and mind (metaneoeo). Their fruit did not recognize the Savior and shouted "Crucify Him!"

John then reiterates the barrenness of the Pharisees and Sadducees by saying that lineage alone is meaningless and that the genealogy required to become Abraham's seed come through God alone.

So, the question is, does the presence of good fruit validate the veracity of the teacher, priest, or prophet? Is the absence of good fruit also an indicator? Why or why isn't this a useful litmus test?

[Libs]

I don't think it's very useful test for us human beings, because we are such a mixed bag, when it comes to "fruits".

Good fruit can and does, come from people who don't even believe in God...and, bad fruits can often come from those who are, supposedly, followers of Christ.

Some religious people define "good fruit" as those who believe a specific doctrine (not just LDS...I'm talking about Protestants and Catholics, as well). So, if you "believe" a certain way, if you believe in Christ and whatever their definition of the Christ doctrine entails, that shows "good fruit".

Don't see how that could be accurate, either, except from a very limited perspective.

[TAO]

I would tend to think good fruits refer to actions, and not doctrine, much of the time, because oftentimes when there is a mishap over doctrine, it relates to a lack of knowledge, in which case, actions would not be counted against you.

Oh yes... and some food for thought I guess =)...

Good fruit, I think might be that which comes of the tree of life mentioned in the BoM.

[Libs]

I would tend to think good fruits refer to actions, and not doctrine, much of the time, because oftentimes when there is a mishap over doctrine, it relates to a lack of knowledge, in which case, actions would not be counted against you.

Oh yes... and some food for thought I guess =)...

Good fruit, I think might be that which comes of the tree of life mentioned in the BoM.

Doesn't that fruit represent the Gospel? More specifically the Restored Gospel? If it does, again, we're talking belief in a specific doctrine, as the "good fruit", right?

[TAO]

Doesn't that fruit represent the Gospel? More specifically the Restored Gospel? If it does, again, we're talking belief in a specific doctrine, as the "good fruit", right?

It represents eternal life, I think. If you have any knowledge at all, and your actions show it, you have some 'good fruit'. =). Everyone has a bit, and the idea is to try and make it so you only produce good fruit, and none bad =D.

I think doctrine be the iron rod (word of God), which leads you to the tree, but I think action be the good fruit, full of light and truth, shining to the world leading others to goodness =).

[Libs]

It represents eternal life, I think. If you have any knowledge at all, and your actions show it, you have some 'good fruit'. =). Everyone has a bit, and the idea is to try and make it so you only produce good fruit, and none bad =D.

I think doctrine be the iron rod (word of God), which leads you to the tree, but I think action be the good fruit, full of light and truth, shining to the world leading others to goodness =).

Yes, I think you're right, TAO. The Iron Rod is the Gospel. I've been away too long.

[TAO]

Yes, I think you're right, TAO. The Iron Rod is the Gospel. I've been away too long.

*embarrassed* sorry =P.

[Libs]

*embarrassed* sorry =P.

LOL...you shouldn't be embarrassed for being right.

I was going to say, though, the "fruit" seems to still be connected to a particular doctrine.

[CV75]

So, the question is, does the presence of good fruit validate the veracity of the teacher, priest, or prophet? Is the absence of good fruit also an indicator? Why or why isn't this a useful litmus test?

The fruits meet for repentance (recognition, remorse, confession, forsaking, reconstituting, refining) are indicators of the application by the hearer of the truths taught by the teacher, priest, or prophet. Their absence is an indicator of non-application. It is not meet to count the righteousness of ancestors as indicators that one does not need to repent.

[nicolasconnault]

So, the question is, does the presence of good fruit validate the veracity of the teacher, priest, or prophet? Is the absence of good fruit also an indicator? Why or why isn't this a useful litmus test?

My opinion is that the "good fruit" refers to the actions that can be expected to be observed in a person, considering their degree of knowledge. Just as there are many kinds of fruit trees, all of which may bear good fruit, even though the fruit will be different, there are also all kinds of people at various levels of spiritual understanding, who may also perform actions that one would expect considering their understanding.

Now, to answer your question, one must first define "fruit meet for repentance". One interpretation, if we use the meaning of "fruit" used in "ye shall know them by their fruit", is "actions that satisfy the conditions of repentance". What are the conditions of repentance? A broken heart (godly sorrow), a contrite spirit, a humble attitude, a desire to change, and an actual change in behaviour, which might include restitution.

With that definition, the absence of good fruit can only be an indicator of the exercise of free agency of the recipient of teaching, not of the veracity of the teacher's message. The message may or may not be true, and if it is not then one would not expect good fruit to directly result in the recipient of the message.

The presence of good fruit as a result of a message is an indication of truth in what the recipient understands from the message, not necessarily of the truth of the message itself.

The scripture says "ye shall know them by their fruit", and "an evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit, neither can a good tree bring forth evil fruit". The quality of the fruit (or the goodness of the behaviour) is then an indication of the person's righteousness, but not necessarily of the truth of that person's words. You would expect that a teacher, priest or prophet who displays "good fruit" would also teach the truth, but righteousness and truth are not linearly related. Righteousness doesn't preclude error, it only precludes wickedness.

In fact it is possible to learn true doctrine from wicked people, but their "fruit" may poison you against that doctrine, because it is not in harmony with it. The example of Corianton comes to mind: charged with teaching the Lamanites about the Gospel (including the law of chastity), but betraying his own message by his immoral actions.

Thus we see that occasional teaching must be validated by constant living of the thing taught, otherwise the fruit becomes spoiled.

What a lot of rambling! Time for bed!