How do dispensationalists understand the "antichrists" and "last hour" in 1 John 2:18? It seems that a large contingent of Christians believe the antichrist will come soon or at some future time and set in motion the eschatological "end times."
How, then, can dispensationalists reconcile what John says about the "end times" and the coming of anti-Christ in his first Apostolic letter chapter 2 verse 18?

  1 John 2:18, NAB
  Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that the antichrist was coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. Thus we know this is the last hour.

Regarding the "last hour" language, dispensationalist Thomas Constable writes that it is the entire time between the ascension and the return of Christ:

  In the drama of human history, all of John's readers, including ourselves, play our part in the last act. Throughout the New Testament, the writers regarded the present inter-advent age, after the Incarnation and before the Lord's return, as the "last hour" or the "last days." This is the final period before the Lord Himself breaks into history again.

Following this period will be the two-stage "New Era" or end-times proper: the Tribulation and Millennium.

Regarding "antichrists," Constable sees John drawing a distinction between the Antichrist and antichrists:

  Even as John wrote, "many" little "antichrists," people who exalt themselves against God, had arisen. John saw this as evidence that the appearance of the Antichrist was not far away. "Antichrists" are those who oppose Jesus Christ and His teachings, and or people who profess to be the Messiah.

The Moody Bible Commentary describes these "antichrists" as "professing Christians who rejected orthodox Christianity's teaching on the identity of Jesus Christ" and people who "abandoned the church." Ultimately, they "were forerunners of the antichrist," the man who Moody identifies with the "man of lawlessness" in Mark 13:14 and 2 Thessalonians 2.

Expository Notes of Dr. Thomas Constable
Moody Bible Commentary


What does the quote from the Old Testament in Luke 2: 23 refer to? We read at Luke 2: 22-23:

  When the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord   (as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male shall be designated as holy to the Lord”) .

Though the cross-references cited in RSVCE are Leviticus 12: 2-8 and Exodus 13: 2& 12, the said references mention purification after the birth of both sons and daughters. It is not clear how and when the exclusiveness of the male child took shape. Insertion of the quote from the OT in parentheses also calls for some elucidation.

My question is: was the narrative of Luke, specifically the reference to the OT, on the dedication of Jesus at the Temple, based on tradition rather than on the exact texts of the OT? What do the teachings of the Catholic Church tell about such a prospect?

The RSV (and KJV and Septuagint) goes on from the general statement of all first-born at Ex. 13:2 to the specific male first-born at 13:12, 13 and elsewhere.  So, the dedication of Jesus at the Temple in Luke 2:23 is based on Scripture.

"Consecrate to me all the first-born; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and of beast, is mine." Ex. 13:2
you shall set apart to the LORD all that first opens the womb. All the firstlings of your cattle that are males shall be the LORD's. Ex. 13:12
Every firstling of an ass you shall redeem with a lamb, or if you will not redeem it you shall break its neck. Every first-born of man among your sons you shall redeem. Ex. 13:13

Moreover, the Septuagint confirms this quote.

(as it is written in the law of the Lord, "Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord") Luke 2:23
The first-born of thy sons thou shalt give to me. Ex. 22:29 Septuagint
that thou shalt set apart every [offspring] opening the womb, the males to the Lord, every one that opens the womb out of the herds or among thy cattle, as many as thou shalt have: thou shalt sanctify the males to the Lord. Ex. 13:12


The symbolic use of "horn" It has proved difficult to find an answer to this question

A quick concordance search of "horn" and you will find many different uses for the word. My center-column notes say "strength." But why? What is the Hebrew sense of this word?

Psalm 92:10 might give a clue:

  But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be
  anointed with fresh oil.

Horns are strong, they are used for annointing, for calls to battle. I seem to be answering my own question, however, there seems to be a development of the horn in the Bible, especially in the beasts in Daniel 7 & 8.

The phrase "the son of my right hand" has several understandings, but they are more obvious since handedness is universal. I know what horn means, what does horn really mean?

Hermann Gunkel's psalm commentary lets us know this: "The metaphor of the horn, originally used by God (cf. the Babylonian crown of horns) was then transferred to the king, and finally to the normal prayer."1

In the accompanying intruction to the psalms, he calls the horns a "symbol of God's power".2

Spurgeon basically says the same. I quote: "It pleased holy David more that God was his strength than that He gave him strength [...] that God was his fortress, his buckler, his horn, his hight tower" etc.3

You might be suprised, but: that's all that's known.

1: Hermann Gunkel, Die Psalmen (61986), p410
2: Hermann Gunkel, Einleitung in die Psalmen (41985), p148
3: Charles Haddon Spurgeon, The treasury of David (2004), p78


What is the biblical basis for hearing God's audible voice today? I've watched hundreds of Christian testimonies, and from time to time I come across a few ones where people claim to have heard God's audible voice in certain occasions, for example, because God allegedly gave them instructions, revealed something specific to them, etc. Sometimes they say that it was the Holy Spirit's voice, but for the purposes of this question I count that as God's voice too.
Is this phenomenon supported by Scripture? What is the biblical basis for hearing God's audible voice today?

What is the biblical basis for hearing God's audible voice today?
It seems that God spoke audibly at Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan by St. John the Baptist.

16As soon as Jesus was baptized, He went up out of the water. Suddenly the heavens were opened, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and resting on Him. 17And a voice from heaven said, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased! - Matthew 3:17

God spoke to Moses on the Mountain of God according to the Book of Exodus.

3 One day, Moses was taking care of the sheep and goats of his father-in-law Jethro, the priest of Midian, and Moses decided to lead them across the desert to Sinai,[a] the holy mountain. 2 There an angel of the Lord appeared to him from a burning bush. Moses saw that the bush was on fire, but it was not burning up. 3 “This is strange!” he said to himself. “I’ll go over and see why the bush isn’t burning up.”
4 When the Lord saw Moses coming near the bush, he called him by name, and Moses answered, “Here I am.”
5 God replied, “Don’t come any closer. Take off your sandals—the ground where you are standing is holy. 6 I am the God who was worshiped by your ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”
Moses was afraid to look at God, and so he hid his face.
7 The Lord said:
I have seen how my people are suffering as slaves in Egypt, and I have heard them beg for my help because of the way they are being mistreated. I feel sorry for them, 8 and I have come down to rescue them from the Egyptians.
I will bring my people out of Egypt into a country where there is good land, rich with milk and honey. I will give them the land where the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites now live. 9 My people have begged for my help, and I have seen how cruel the Egyptians are to them. 10 Now go to the king! I am sending you to lead my people out of his country.
11 But Moses said, “Who am I to go to the king and lead your people out of Egypt?”
12 God replied, “I will be with you. And you will know that I am the one who sent you, when you worship me on this mountain after you have led my people out of Egypt.”
13 Moses answered, “I will tell the people of Israel that the God their ancestors worshiped has sent me to them. But what should I say, if they ask me your name?”
14-15 God said to Moses:
I am the eternal God. So tell them that the Lord, whose name is “I Am,” has sent you. This is my name forever, and it is the name that people must use from now on. - Exodus 3:1-15

Let us also remember that Jesus spoke to St. Paul (Saul) in the Book of Acts.

Saul’s Conversion
9 Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. 3 As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”
5 “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.
“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. 6 “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”
7 The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. 8 Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. 9 For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.
10 In Damascus there was a disciple named Ananias. The Lord called to him in a vision, “Ananias!”
“Yes, Lord,” he answered.
11 The Lord told him, “Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. 12 In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight.”
13 “Lord,” Ananias answered, “I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your holy people in Jerusalem. 14 And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name.”
15 But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel. 16 I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”
17 Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19 and after taking some food, he regained his strength. - Acts 9:1-19

If Christ can speak to Saul before his conversion, what would impede God from talking to someone audibly today. God is free to do as He sees right! The Holy Spirit can move as He wills and in very mysterious ways.
Just got a little side tracked with the following article about the phenomenon of some hearing the voice of Saint Clelia Barbieri.

The Saint whose voice is still heard from heaven today


Did Jesus die on the cross or on the tree? Master Jesus was crucified on a tree, according to Apostle Peter.

  Acts 5:30
  30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.

  Acts 10:39
  39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:

  Acts 13:29
  29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.

  1 Peter 2:24
  24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

On some accounts, He was crucified on the cross.

  Matthew 27:40
  40 And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.

  Matthew 27:42
  42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.

  Mark 15:30
  30 Save thyself, and come down from the cross.

  Mark 15:32
  32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.

  Luke 23:26
  26 And as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, and on him they laid the cross, that he might bear it after Jesus.

  John 19:19
  19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.

First, understanding that this is not a site to learn about Truth, but rather to learn about Christianity - what the various teachings are from an academic perspective, the question "Which is true" is off-topic.  However, we could take a couple of approaches that would be within the bounds of the site:

Answering what various denominations believe about the subject
From an apologetics approach, how do we resolve the apparent conflict?

I'm going to take the latter, and provide the answer the is probably the most commonly accepted.

Before we can address the potential discrepancy, it's important to clarify a couple of key concepts: Mainly what "Biblical inerrancy" means, and what guidelines are used for resolving alleged discrepancies.

First, the basic rules for resolving Biblical discrepancies are documented here: Rules behind resolving alleged Biblical discrepancies

Next, the doctrine of Plenary Inspiration of Scripture allows for authors to use their own literary style, including using allegory, and figures of speech while still allowing for Biblical inerrancy.  This means that there can be verses within the Bible that are true on a general common-sense, easy to understand level, yet not technically true.  Example:  "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse" is a phrase that anyone can easily see is a figure of speech.  Anyone can see that it simply means "I am very hungry", but realizes that the "I could eat a horse" is an exaggeration for effect.

The point of the above is that it's sometimes a mistake to be hyper-literal when interpreting individual passages of Scripture.  Further, from the perspecrtive of inerrancy, the doctrine is not meant to defend the idea that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally, it teaches that the Bible is a reliable source of truth and doctrine.  That said, doctrinally, whether Christ was hung on a tree or a cross isn't doctrinally significant.

One method for resolving this apparent conflict is based on the basic principle outlined above.

It's quite possible that the word "Cross" and "Tree" were used interchangeably, like "Cool", "Neat", and "Awesome" are used in modern slang.  In our modern slang, those words have completely different meanings, techically, but in the way we use them, they can mean the exact same thing.  Since a cross is made of wood, taken from a tree, it is not unreasonable to assume that either people called crosses "trees".  It also be that they called anything that someone was crucified upon a cross, just because the Romans generally did use a cross of one sort or another.

However, all of that said, the historical evidence suggests that Jesus was probably hung on a cross as we'd normally think of it, since it was the normal method of execution at the time, and also based on internal Scriptural evidence.  More here: http://www.gods-word-first.org/jesus-christ/jesus-crucifixion-stauros.html

A small snippet of the article, which shows a small bit of possible internal evidence:

  The beam that Jesus was made to carry (John 19:17), and that Simon
  from Cyrene carried for him after Jesus collapsed in exhaustion (Luke
  23:26), was most likely the crosspiece that was later affixed to an
  upright pole that was already in place.


Is using medication derived from tissue of aborted fetuses compatible with Catholic teaching? Obviously no one should take any medical advice from StackExchange, but from a purely theological/canon-law perspective:
What does Catholic teaching or canon law say about using medicine developed from cells taken from an aborted fetus?  Is using such medication compatible with the teachings on human dignity and the origin of life?
Question inspired by a recent Guardian article on the drug Regeneron, headlined 'Covid drug given to Trump developed using cells derived from aborted fetus':

The stem cells used to develop the drug are known as HEK-293T cells, a line of cells used in laboratories. The cells were originally derived from an embryonic kidney after an elective abortion performed in the Netherlands in the 1970s.

Is using medication or vaccines derived from tissue of aborted fetuses compatible with Catholic teaching?
The short answer is no, but it is a little more complicated than a simple one word answer.
Apparently there is at least one Catholic Bishop who is speaking against this calling it a possible beginning of the apocalypse in this YouTube video: Abortion-tainted mandatory COVID vaccine would be the beginning of the Apocalypse': Bishop Schneider
It seems that the Johnson & Johnson vaccine is a morally objectionable vaccine due to its’ development with aborted tissues.

Why is the Johnson & Johnson vaccine controversial?
The controversy over the Johnson & Johnson vaccine has to do with the way it is manufactured.
The vaccine is made using a modified cold virus called an adenovirus, which trains the body’s immune system to recognize the coronavirus. These adenoviruses are grown in a cell line called PER.C6, which was originally derived from an 18-week-old fetus aborted in 1985. To create the cell line, scientists isolated a cell from the fetus and cloned it to produce cells of the same genetic makeup. After the adenovirus grows in the cells, the cells themselves are purified away, essentially removed, to create the vaccine.
The moral implications of COVID-19 vaccines manufactured using cell lines derived from an aborted fetus have sparked a lively online debate. People who are opposed to abortion are wondering if they can be vaccinated in good conscience.
Some Catholic bodies, including the commission on COVID-19 appointed by the Vatican, have urged people to take any vaccine available to them, stressing the need for protection from the virus, which has killed over half a million people in the U.S. alone.
Other Catholic bishops have deemed the Johnson & Johnson vaccine “morally compromised,” saying that other vaccines, such as Pfizer and Moderna’s, are preferable to one linked to the act of abortion.
Some Catholics have interpreted these statements as episcopal guidance to avoid the Johnson & Johnson vaccine altogether.
On social media, some users have inaccurately claimed that aborted fetal tissue was used as an ingredient in the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, which the company has strongly denied.
Why has this vaccine sparked such a debate? What are the specifics of issues in play? We reviewed the science on the vaccines and spoke with biological ethicists and theologians to understand and explain both the facts and the varied ethical perspectives.

Apparently, there is ”no formal guidelines by the magisterium concerning this topic”! See the below letter of Mgr E. Sgreccia.
I will be using the letter from Pontificia Academia Pro Vita to Mrs Debra L. Vinnedge as a reference point.

Dear Mrs Debra L.Vinnedge,
On June 4, 2003, you wrote to His Eminence Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, with a copy of this letter forwarded to me, asking to the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith a clarification about the liceity of vaccinating children with vaccines prepared using cell lines derived from aborted human fetuses. Your question regarded in particular the right of the parents of these children to oppose such a vaccination when made at school, mandated by law. As there were no formal guidelines by the magisterium concerning that topic, you said that catholic parents were often challenged by State Courts, Health Officials and School Administrators when they filled religious exemptions for their children to this type of vaccination.
This Pontifical Academy for Life, carrying out the commission entrusted to us by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, in answer to your request, has proceeded to a careful examination of the question of these "tainted" vaccines, and has produced as a result a study (in Italian) that has been realized with the help of a group of experts. This study has been approved as such by the Congregation and we send you, there enclosed, an English translation of a synthesis of this study. This synthesis can be brought to the knowledge of the interested officials and organisms.
A documented paper on the topic will be published in the journal "Medicina e Morale", edited by the Centra di Bioetica della Universita Cattolica in Rome.
The study, its synthesis, and the translation of this material took some time. We apologize for the delay.
With my best regards,
Sincerely yours,
+E. Sgreccia

Although the study deals with vaccines, the same should apply to drugs in general. Sorry for the length of this article, but seeing the importance of this issue, I deem it necessary to let the Vatican professionals speak their minds!

The position of the ethical problem related to these vaccines
From the point of view of prevention of viral diseases such as German measles, mumps, measles, chicken pox and hepatitis A, it is clear that the making of effective vaccines against diseases such as these, as well as their use in the fight against these infections, up to the point of eradication, by means of an obligatory vaccination of all the population at risk, undoubtedly represents a "milestone" in the secular fight of man against infective and contagious diseases.
However, as the same vaccines are prepared from viruses taken from the tissues of foetuses that had been infected and voluntarily aborted, and the viruses were subsequently attenuated and cultivated from human cell lines which come likewise from procured abortions, they do not cease to pose ethical problems. The need to articulate a moral reflection on the matter in question arises mainly from the connection which exists between the vaccines mentioned above and the procured abortions from which biological material necessary for their preparation was obtained.
If someone rejects every form of voluntary abortion of human foetuses, would such a person not contradict himself/herself by allowing the use of these vaccines of live attenuated viruses on their children? Would it not be a matter of true (and illicit) cooperation in evil, even though this evil was carried out forty years ago?
Before proceeding to consider this specific case, we need to recall briefly the principles assumed in classical moral doctrine with regard to the problem of cooperation in evil 9, a problem which arises every time that a moral agent perceives the existence of a link between his own acts and a morally evil action carried out by others.
The principle of licit cooperation in evil
The first fundamental distinction to be made is that between formal and material cooperation. Formal cooperation is carried out when the moral agent cooperates with the immoral action of another person, sharing in the latter's evil intention. On the other hand, when a moral agent cooperates with the immoral action of another person, without sharing his/her evil intention, it is a case of material cooperation.
Material cooperation can be further divided into categories of immediate (direct) and mediate (indirect), depending on whether the cooperation is in the execution of the sinful action per se, or whether the agent acts by fulfilling the conditions - either by providing instruments or products - which make it possible to commit the immoral act. Furthermore, forms of proximate cooperation and remote cooperation can be distinguished, in relation to the "distance" (be it in terms of temporal space or material connection) between the act of cooperation and the sinful act committed by someone else. Immediate material cooperation is always proximate, while mediate material cooperation can be either proximate or remote.
Formal cooperation is always morally illicit because it represents a form of direct and intentional participation in the sinful action of another person.10 Material cooperation can sometimes be illicit (depending on the conditions of the "double effect" or "indirect voluntary" action), but when immediate material cooperation concerns grave attacks on human life, it is always to be considered illicit, given the precious nature of the value in question11.
A further distinction made in classical morality is that between active (or positive) cooperation in evil and passive (or negative) cooperation in evil, the former referring to the performance of an act of cooperation in a sinful action that is carried out by another person, while the latter refers to the omission of an act of denunciation or impediment of a sinful action carried out by another person, insomuch as there was a moral duty to do that which was omitted12.
Passive cooperation can also be formal or material, immediate or mediate, proximate or remote. Obviously, every type of formal passive cooperation is to be considered illicit, but even passive material cooperation should generally be avoided, although it is admitted (by many authors) that there is not a rigorous obligation to avoid it in a case in which it would be greatly difficult to do so.
Application to the use of vaccines prepared from cells coming from embryos or foetuses aborted voluntarily**
In the specific case under examination, there are three categories of people who are involved in the cooperation in evil, evil which is obviously represented by the action of a voluntary abortion performed by others: a) those who prepare the vaccines using human cell lines coming from voluntary abortions; b) those who participate in the mass marketing of such vaccines; c) those who need to use them for health reasons.
Firstly, one must consider morally illicit every form of formal cooperation (sharing the evil intention) in the action of those who have performed a voluntary abortion, which in turn has allowed the retrieval of foetal tissues, required for the preparation of vaccines. Therefore, whoever - regardless of the category to which he belongs — cooperates in some way, sharing its intention, to the performance of a voluntary abortion with the aim of producing the above-mentioned vaccines, participates, in actuality, in the same moral evil as the person who has performed that abortion. Such participation would also take place in the case where someone, sharing the intention of the abortion, refrains from denouncing or criticizing this illicit action, although having the moral duty to do so (passive formal cooperation).
In a case where there is no such formal sharing of the immoral intention of the person who has performed the abortion, any form of cooperation would be material, with the following specifications.
As regards the preparation, distribution and marketing of vaccines produced as a result of the use of biological material whose origin is connected with cells coming from foetuses voluntarily aborted, such a process is stated, as a matter of principle, morally illicit, because it could contribute in encouraging the performance of other voluntary abortions, with the purpose of the production of such vaccines. Nevertheless, it should be recognized that, within the chain of production-distribution-marketing, the various cooperating agents can have different moral responsibilities.
However, there is another aspect to be considered, and that is the form of passive material cooperation which would be carried out by the producers of these vaccines, if they do not denounce and reject publicly the original immoral act (the voluntary abortion), and if they do not dedicate themselves together to research and promote alternative ways, exempt from moral evil, for the production of vaccines for the same infections. Such passive material cooperation, if it should occur, is equally illicit.
As regards those who need to use such vaccines for reasons of health, it must be emphasized that, apart from every form of formal cooperation, in general, doctors or parents who resort to the use of these vaccines for their children, in spite of knowing their origin (voluntary abortion), carry out a form of very remote mediate material cooperation, and thus very mild, in the performance of the original act of abortion, and a mediate material cooperation, with regard to the marketing of cells coming from abortions, and immediate, with regard to the marketing of vaccines produced with such cells. The cooperation is therefore more intense on the part of the authorities and national health systems that accept the use of the vaccines.
However, in this situation, the aspect of passive cooperation is that which stands out most. It is up to the faithful and citizens of upright conscience (fathers of families, doctors, etc.) to oppose, even by making an objection of conscience, the ever more widespread attacks against life and the "culture of death" which underlies them. From this point of view, the use of vaccines whose production is connected with procured abortion constitutes at least a mediate remote passive material cooperation to the abortion, and an immediate passive material cooperation with regard to their marketing. Furthermore, on a cultural level, the use of such vaccines contributes in the creation of a generalized social consensus to the operation of the pharmaceutical industries which produce them in an immoral way.
Therefore, doctors and fathers of families have a duty to take recourse to alternative vaccines13 (if they exist), putting pressure on the political authorities and health systems so that other vaccines without moral problems become available. They should take recourse, if necessary, to the use of conscientious objection14 with regard to the use of vaccines produced by means of cell lines of aborted human foetal origin. Equally, they should oppose by all means (in writing, through the various associations, mass media, etc.) the vaccines which do not yet have morally acceptable alternatives, creating pressure so that alternative vaccines are prepared, which are not connected with the abortion of a human foetus, and requesting rigorous legal control of the pharmaceutical industry producers.
As regards the diseases against which there are no alternative vaccines which are available and ethically acceptable, it is right to abstain from using these vaccines if it can be done without causing children, and indirectly the population as a whole, to undergo significant risks to their health. However, if the latter are exposed to considerable dangers to their health, vaccines with moral problems pertaining to them may also be used on a temporary basis. The moral reason is that the duty to avoid passive material cooperation is not obligatory if there is grave inconvenience. Moreover, we find, in such a case, a proportional reason, in order to accept the use of these vaccines in the presence of the danger of favouring the spread of the pathological agent, due to the lack of vaccination of children. This is particularly true in the case of vaccination against German measles15.
In any case, there remains a moral duty to continue to fight and to employ every lawful means in order to make life difficult for the pharmaceutical industries which act unscrupulously and unethically. However, the burden of this important battle cannot and must not fall on innocent children and on the health situation of the population - especially with regard to pregnant women.
To summarize, it must be confirmed that:

there is a grave responsibility to use alternative vaccines and to make a conscientious objection with regard to those which have moral problems;

as regards the vaccines without an alternative, the need to contest so that others may be prepared must be reaffirmed, as should be the lawfulness of using the former in the meantime insomuch as is necessary in order to avoid a serious risk not only for one's own children but also, and perhaps more specifically, for the health conditions of the population as a whole - especially for pregnant women;

the lawfulness of the use of these vaccines should not be misinterpreted as a declaration of the lawfulness of their production, marketing and use, but is to be understood as being a passive material cooperation and, in its mildest and remotest sense, also active, morally justified as an extrema ratio due to the necessity to provide for the good of one's children and of the people who come in contact with the children (pregnant women);

such cooperation occurs in a context of moral coercion of the conscience of parents, who are forced to choose to act against their conscience or otherwise, to put the health of their children and of the population as a whole at risk. This is an unjust alternative choice, which must be eliminated as soon as possible.

Update:

Pope Francis will receive the coronavirus vaccine this week, he revealed during an interview on Italian TV.
Speaking with TG5 news, the pope said he will receive the first shot and declared it an "ethical duty" for everyone to get vaccinated.
The pope’s personal doctor died of complications of COVID-19 while in the hospital for treatment for cancer.
"Everyone should get the vaccine," the pope said, according to the Today Show. "Without a vaccine, you are playing with health, life, but also with the health of others."
The pope’s comments are only the latest he has made in support of the vaccination efforts going on around the globe.
Previously, the pope said it was "morally acceptable" for Catholics to receive the vaccine despite the fact it was developed using fetal tissue from abortions during research. - Pope Francis to receive COVID-19 vaccine this week The pope has continually supported the vaccine effort


LDS belief in pre-existence of the human person vs. human physical deformities This other question discusses the Mormon doctrine of pre-existence prior to conception.

The highest rated answer quotes from The Encyclopedia of Mormonism that says, on the page "Pre-Existence (Pre-Earthly Existence)" that (emphasis added):

  It is Latter-day Saint doctrine that living things existed as
  individual spirit beings and possessed varying degrees of intelligence
  in an active, conscious spirit state before mortal birth and that the
  spirit continues to live and function in the mortal body. The
  revelations teach that premortal spirit bodies have general
  resemblance to their physical counterparts.

I wanted to ask some questions about the part that the "premortal spirit bodies have general resemblance to their physical counterparts" (to get an understanding of the reasoning behind this):

When it comes to people born with physical deformities (weirdly
shaped limbs, missing body parts, both male and female genitalia,
etc.), are these deformities then also present on that persons
spirit body?
If they are present in their spirit body, why would that be the
case? (i.e. shouldn't the spirit body be created perfect or is there
some reason why it would not be?)
If they are not present on the spirit body, why would they be on the
physical body if there is an expectation of general resemblance
between these two?

As it says in the quotation, "The revelations teach that premortal spirit bodies have general resemblance to their physical counterparts."  The key word there is "general."

The LDS explanation is that such imperfections are tied up with Adam and Eve, and the Fall of Man.

  The man and the woman had now become mortal; through indulgence in food unsuited to their nature and condition and against which they had been specifically warned, and as the inevitable result of their disobeying the divine law and commandment, they became liable to the physical ailments and bodily frailties to which mankind has since been the natural heir. Those bodies, which before the fall had been perfect in form and function, were now subjects for eventual dissolution or death.

  James E. Talmage, Jesus The Christ, chapter 3, The Need of a Redeemer.  (Emphasis added)

As a result of the Fall, the conditions of immortality and physical perfection that Adam and Eve enjoyed while in the garden were stripped from mankind, and we became subject to the problems and tribulations of mortal life.  Humanity was cast out of the paradise of Eden into a harsh, hostile environment that would grow "thorns and thistles" and require a great deal of effort to overcome.  And indeed, birth defects are generally caused by some external factor causing something to go wrong with the gestation process.

However, Latter-Day Saints believe that such physical deformities are just that: physical problems, unrelated to our eternal spiritual identity.  In this video clip, the Apostle Dallin H. Oaks speaks of birth defects and other lasting physical deformities, assuring us that they will be corrected in the Resurrection, when our bodies are made immortal and perfected, restored to "their proper and perfect frame."


How do Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians evangelize? If you have been to a public university or college campus in the USA, then you may have seen a live, theatrical performance of street evangelism. Sometimes, the preacher may give his (yes, the preacher is often male, but there have been female preachers) testimony or how he became Christian. Sometimes, the preacher may start lengthy philosophical and theological discussions with the students, presumably following Jesus' example as in Mark 4:9 (New International Version). Sometimes, the evangelism can be a bit... well, too confrontational. These preachers all happen to be Protestants. Meanwhile, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses seem to prefer door-to-door evangelism, another type of conspicuous evangelism.

But what about Catholic and Orthodox Christians? How do they evangelize?

A simple Google search answers my question: read this article. It mentions that Catholics have long emphasized social justice over so-called Protestant-style door-to-door evangelism. Is there a reason to that emphasis? What is typical/normal Catholic evangelism? How should Catholics evangelize, and what has been done in the past?

In addition, a simple Google search answers my other question: read this article. It mentions that Orthodox Christians evangelize by serving other people at soup kitchens and prisons instead of preaching at street corners or handing out gospel tracts.

Above all, it seems that the Protestant way of evangelism is much more explicit and conspicuous than the Catholic or Orthodox way. Why?

The Catholic Church does evangelise directly ...

15(e) Having been sent and evangelized, the Church herself sends out evangelizers. She puts on their lips the saving Word, she explains to them the message of which she herself is the depositary, she gives them the mandate which she herself has received and she sends them out to preach. To preach not their own selves or their personal ideas43, but a Gospel of which neither she nor they are the absolute masters and owners, to dispose of it as they wish, but a Gospel of which they are the ministers, in order to pass it on with complete fidelity.
[Evangelii Nuntiandi]
43. Cf. 2 Cor 4:5; Saint Augustine Sermo XLVI, De Pastoribus: ccl XLI, pp. 529-530.

... but ...

21  Above all the Gospel must be proclaimed by witness. Take a Christian or a handful of Christians who, in the midst of their own community, show their capacity for understanding and acceptance, their sharing of life and destiny with other people, their solidarity with the efforts of all for whatever is noble and good. Let us suppose that, in addition, they radiate in an altogether simple and unaffected way their faith in values that go beyond current values, and their hope in something that is not seen and that one would not dare to imagine. Through this wordless witness these Christians stir up irresistible questions in the hearts of those who see how they live: Why are they like this? Why do they live in this way? What or who is it that inspires them? Why are they in our midst? Such a witness is already a silent proclamation of the Good News and a very powerful and effective one. Here we have an initial act of evangelization.
[Ibid.]

The Catholic Church seeks to change people from within. She starts with their situation — either individually (eg via a soup kitchen) or through wider external influences on social justice which can only be dealt with governmentally or supra-governmentally. The Holy See has permanent observer (non-voting) status in the United Nations for this purpose.
But the Church and its members must always be ready to answer the question "What causes you to do this, to be like this?" with the Good News of the Faith, the saving work of Christ and the love of God; and the love for God which all this engenders. The Church does not proselytise: it recognises a longing, which it helps the "evangelisee" to recognise, and then satisfies it.

22 Nevertheless this [charitable witness] always remains insufficient, because even the finest witness will prove ineffective in the long run if it is not explained, justified — what Peter called always having "your answer ready for people who ask you the reason for the hope that you all have"52 — and made explicit by a clear and unequivocal proclamation of the Lord Jesus. The Good News proclaimed by the witness of life sooner or later has to be proclaimed by the word of life.
[Ibid.]
52. 1 Pt 3:15

In the nineteenth century, when the Catholic Church was still emerging from suppression, many high-church ["Anglo-Catholic"] churches were established in poor areas of urban England with precisely this objective. They satisfied the bodily needs of the population with food, healthcare and education — generally without censure or criticism; and satisfied their spiritual needs with the numinous services they offered, at which the gospel was proclaimed in the second stage of evangelisation.
Even now, when the State has taken over a lot of what the Church used to do, it's still the Church (of all denominations) who is a major supporter of enterprises like the food banks of the Trussell Trust and Street Pastors run by the Ascension Trust: witness through practical action. Churches also have a ministry to help those who are spiritually seeking.
As to why a softly-softly method is preferred, we find it works!


What is the case against seeing the Medieval Catholic Church as oppressive? I have a professor who keeps mentioning a false claim regarding the Catholic Church during the Medieval Times that I know is historically untrue but I do not know how to give a concise counter-argument regarding these views.

My professor basically is stating the following thing that I need help answering and correcting:

  The Catholic Church in the Medieval Times was oppressive and monopolized knowledge because she wanted to suppress the common man from knowing what was going on.

Basically he states that the Church in the Medieval Ages prior to the printing press and the development of concepts such as Democracy wanted to keep people ignorant.

How can I show him that this is not true as evidenced by the various creations of universities during the Middle Ages and the monasteries which helped preserve education and manuscripts?

I think, as is often the case, that in some times and places, the Church was co-opted by the Aristocracy. While the Church certainly had a vested interest in promoting learning, the Aristocracy did not. After all, Scripture is a revolutionary thing, and if the working classes (peasantry) became to well versed in exactly what the Bible teaches, they might be harder to control, and indeed even revolt. And given that the hierarchy of the medieval Church was often drawn from the Aristocracy, the notion that at least some elements in the Catholic church were oppressive, and attempted to keep some of the people from being educated, is at least a question worth pursuing. This is not to suggest, by the way, that all members of the Hierarchy of the church felt this way, but unquestionably some did.

On the other hand, the church did not always side with the aristocracy. In the New World, for example, the aristocracy as a whole sought from Rome a decree that the native peoples that they found here were not rational beings, as this would allow the locals to be put into slavery. However, the church refused, to the consternation of some of the Aristocracy in the new world.

I think this is yet another instance where the answer does not lie at either extreme, but somewhere in the middle. I would say, that in the long term, yes the Church did promote learning, and preserve the body of knowledge. However, in some times and in some places, it was less noble in this regard than in others.


What was the significance of thirty pieces of silver Judas was offered for betraying Jesus? At Matthew 26:14-15 we read:

  Then one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests  and said, “What will you give me if I betray him to you?” They paid him thirty pieces of silver.

I would like to know if the amount of money Judas was paid  had any specific significance, or was it a  random amount offered for the life of Jesus by the High Priests?  What do the Catholic teachings say on the subject ?

In Hebrew culture, thirty pieces of silver was the price paid to the master of a slave if his slave was gored by an ox:

“If the ox gores a slave, male or female, the owner shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned” (Exodus 21:32).

A prophetic reference to the thirty pieces of silver given to Judas Iscariot is found in Zechariah 11:13.  This is the amount of money that Zechariah was paid after his work as a shepherd.  He asked his employers to pay him what they thought he was worth.  They gave him thirty pieces of silver, which he sarcastically calls a “lordly price” because it was such a small amount.  The employers meant to insult Zechariah with this amount of money.  Returning the insult, God tells Zechariah to “throw it to the potter,” and Zechariah tossed the money into the house of the Lord to be given to the potter:

“Then the Lord said to me, “Throw it to the potter”—the lordly price at which I was priced by them. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord, to the potter” (Zechariah 11:13).

These actions are an accurate and detailed prophecy, for when Judas Iscariot bargained with the chief priests to betray the Lord Jesus, he asked, “What are you willing to give me if I deliver him over to you?” The chief priests then counted out for Judas “thirty pieces of silver” (Matthew 26:15). That’s all they considered Jesus to be worth.
Later, Judas was overcome with guilt for betraying Jesus, and, fulfilling Zechariah’s vivid prophecy, he threw the thirty silver coins into the temple (Matthew 27:3–5). The Jewish leaders used the thirty pieces of silver to buy a field from a potter, again as Zechariah had predicted (Matthew 27:6–10). It was in that field that Judas hanged himself.
The significance of the thirty pieces of silver is that this paltry amount - the price paid to the master of a slave to compensate for the death of a slave - is all the chief priests considered the life of Christ Jesus to be worth.
Edit: I found the references to the 30 pieces of silver and the connection to the prophecy in Zechariah 11:12 from the Catholic Encyclopedia, part of which says this:

St. Matthew is the only Evangelist to mention the sum paid by the chief priests as the price of the betrayal, and in accordance with his custom he notices that an Old Testament prophecy has been fulfilled therein ( Matthew 26:15 ; 27:5-10)... Matthew sees the fulfillment of the prophecy ascribed to Jeremias (but found in Zechariah 11:12): "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was prized, whom they prized of the children of Israel. And they gave them unto the potter's field, as the Lord appointed to me" (Matthew 27:9, 10).

The article goes on to say how a field was purchased with “the reward of iniquity,” that it was “bought with the rejected price of his treachery” and goes on to discuss the motives/reasons for the betrayal by Judas.  It asks the question, why was Judas “tempted to such gross ingratitude for such a paltry price?”  This is the connection between the value placed on the life of a slave (in Exodus 21:32), and the prophecy about the thirty pieces of silver in Zechariah 11:12.

“The same Evangelist [John], as we have seen, tells of an earlier intimation of Christ's foreknowledge of the betrayal (John 6:71-2), and in the same chapter says expressly: "For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him" (6:65).”

It is worth pointing out that the thirty pieces of silver was no random amount.  It was prophesied long before the event took place.
Source: Judas Iscariot (Catholic.org)
P.S. The thirty pieces of silver had a value of 120 denarii.  Back then, a labourer would be paid one denarius for a day’s work.


Giving to the church or giving to the poor? Which does God prefer most, giving to the church or giving to the poor?

(From an Evangelical, Sola Fide perspective)

The question is based on a false dichotomy.  Neither is more pleasing to God.

Both types of giving are a sign of obedience to God, and an act of love and mercy if our motive in doing either is pure.  If we are doing either simply to do so, or to "earn points" then neither is pleasing to God.  If we're trying to earn points with God, then it isn't an act of love or charity, but rather one of selfishness.

Of course, love is the greatest commandment.

  Matthew 22:36-40 (KJV) 36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?  37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God
  with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.  38
  This is the first and great commandment.  39 And the second is like
  unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.  40 On these two
  commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

The verses supporting Sola Fide (Salvation by Faith Alone) are covered extensively elsewhere on the site, so I'm omitting them in the interest of brevity.  Suffice it to say that the doctrine teaches that our "good works" don't get us to heaven, and are not, in and of themselves, pleasing to God.  Isaiah 64:6 state that our righteousness is no more good than "filthy rags".

The giving a tithe or an offering can be compared the sacrifices brought to the Temple in Old Testament times.

  Hosea 6:6 (KJV) For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

In other words, it's the heart condition - the love that counts - what David calls the "Inner parts" in Psalm 51:6 (KJV)

  Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden
  part thou shalt make me to know wisdom.

Giving offerings is also an act of mercy (depending on what the Church actually does with the money.)  In our Church, for example, there is a distinction between tithes and offerings.

Tithes are the 10% of our income that we give to the Church, which is used to support the business of the Church - pay for the building, electricity, Hymnals, Bibles, and other mundane needs.  These allow the Church to do its business - training up Christians, teaching us the principles of God, teaching us to love our neighbors, and equipping us to witness to others and see them get saved.  The motivation for giving tithes should be two-fold.  One reason is simply because God demands it, and we obey.  The other is that we know that ultimately, the money all works directly or indirectly toward saving people from an eternity in Hell, and that's loving people.
Offerings are over and above tithes.  In our Church, they are all designated for different purposes: Supporting missionaries, helping those in need, etc.  The pure motivation for giving is to give to those who need it more than us, again, out of love and mercy.

Of course, not everyone gives for the same reasons.

There are, of course, those that think they can buy their way into heaven.
There are those that give large sums of money to "look good"  ("Oh, look at me, I'm a righteous person because I give so much money."  Jesus rebuked this in His teachings, by the way.)

There are those that give to the poor for similar purposes.  I don't believe that God honors this either.  What is pleasing to God is...

love
mercy
obedience
humility

and a whole host of other qualities that have to do with the condition of our hearts, and not our external actions.  Where people get confused is that if we do have those traits, we will naturally give because we love, have mercy, are humble, etc.  Those are the "fruits" that grow out of the seed of our love.


Why isn't consecrated virginity a sacrament? In Catholicism, marriage is a sacrament, so why isn't consecrated virginity a sacrament?

Pope Pius XII writes in his 1954 encyclical Sacra Virginitas:

We have recently with sorrow censured the opinion of those who contend that marriage is the only means of assuring the natural development and perfection of the human personality.⁶⁰ For there are those who maintain that the grace of the sacrament, conferred ex opere operato, renders the use of marriage so holy as to be a fitter instrument than virginity for uniting souls with God; for marriage is a sacrament, but not virginity. We denounce this doctrine as a dangerous error. Certainly, the sacrament grants the married couple the grace to accomplish holily the duties of their married state, and it strengthens the bonds of mutual affection that unite them; but the purpose of its institution was not to make the employment of marriage the means, most suitable in itself, for uniting the souls of the husband and wife with God by the bonds of charity.⁶¹

Fr. Hardon, S.J., defines "ex opere operato" as:

A term defined by the Council of Trent to describe how the sacraments confer the grace they signify. Trent condemned the following proposition: "That grace is not conferred 'ex opere operato' by the sacraments of the New Law" (Denzinger 1608). Literally the expression means "from the work performed," stating that grace is always conferred by a sacrament, in virtue of the rite performed and not as a mere sign that grace has already been given, or that the sacrament stimulates the faith of the recipient and thus occasions the obtaining of grace, or that what determines the grace is the virtue of either the minister or recipient of a sacrament. Provided no obstacle (obex) is placed in the way, every sacrament properly administered confers the grace intended by the sacrament. In a true sense the sacraments are instrumental causes of grace.

And living in consecrated virginity requires grace ex opere operantis (subjective dispositions to receive grace), not grace ex opere operato. This also seems related to why virginity must be freely chosen (Mt. 19:12: "He that can take, let him take it.") and is not for everyone.


How does Pope Francis's popularity compare to Pope Benedict XVI's? I'm doing a research paper on Pope Francis, and I need to know from a Catholic's view how Pope Francis's popularity ranks over Pope Benedict XVI's. Can you help?

I will not give you my opinion, but rather my understanding of Pope's reception from the reading of the catholic resources on the topic, which I suggest you study yourself as well.

In general, Pope Francis is very much liked by all but "the traditionalist". He is a pastor more than a theologian so he resonates better with a "common catholic". So an average catholic, appears to like Pope Francis's approach more than his predecessor's.

The "traditionalist" or "conservative" Catholics (I hate these terms, hence the quotes), those who liked JPII's or Benedict's philosophical (apparently rigid & dogmatic), theology, especially Benedict's seeming support for pre Vatican II practices like Latin mass, have strong reservations or hostility to Pope Francis; there are some groups ready to call him the antichrist. for those views, go to www.Gloria.tv.

He is also very much liked by liberal Catholics who wrongly interpret some of the things he says as supporting changes that they want to make; while those same Catholic's despised benedict's "conservatism"

Many "moderate" "thinking" Catholics are concerned how the Pope's remarks are being twisted, but hold Pope Francis in great esteem.


What specific foods and drinks are forbidden by the LDS (Mormon) Church? I understand that members of the LDS (Mormon) Church are prohibited from drinking coffee and perhaps some other drinks and possibly food, much like the Jewish people in the Old Testament were forbidden from eating pork and other foods.

What are the specific drinks that are forbidden by the LDS Church today?  Also, are there any specific foods that are forbidden as well?  What is the basis for these teachings in the Bible and other sources?

From Mormon.org:

Our body is a precious gift from God. To help keep our bodies and our
minds healthy and strong, God gave a law of health to Joseph Smith in
1833. This law is known as the Word of Wisdom (see Doctrine and Covenants 89:1-21).
In addition to emphasizing the benefits of proper eating and physical
and spiritual health, God has spoken against the use of:

Tobacco.
Alcohol.
Coffee and tea.
Illegal drugs.

God promises great physical and spiritual blessings to those who
follow the Word of Wisdom. Today, the scientific community promotes
some of the same principles that a loving God gave to Joseph Smith
nearly two centuries ago.

Reading the comments on the site linked above, the reasoning for the prohibition of these substances is that they impair the clear use of the mind; this is essentially the same principle why drunkenness is forbidden in Catholic moral teaching: free will and intelligence are gifts from God which allow us to know and love Him, so the voluntary impairment of these is wrong. St. Thomas Aquinas, on the question of how much are we allowed to drink, answers that we can drink "to the point of merriment (also translated as 'hilarity')."


Why was Christ's sacrifice such a big cost? Many hymns refer to the immense cost that Jesus paid on the cross. In one sense this is consistent with evangelical theology in that Jesus was taking the sins of the world upon himself.

But some songs use phrases like "You gave up everything for me", or "So infinite the cost". What can that mean? Presumably it must be either the Incarnation or, more likely, his sacrifice on the Cross, right? But, well, Jesus rose from the dead 3 days later, and ascended back into heaven 40 days after that, going back to the Father.

It always seems to me that Jesus, the Word, the Second Person of the Trinity, had spent a long time in heaven even after Earth was created before his first coming (at least four thousand years and possibly millions); he's spent at least two thousand years between his first and second comings; and will have eternity with the redeemed praising him after the second coming. So why is spending 3 days (or rather 1-and-a-half days) separated from the Father, or even 33 years on earth, such a big sacrifice in the grand scheme of things? Even more so given "a thousand years are like one day to the Lord".

I'm most interested in answers compatible with a (British) evangelical position, but up for helpful answers from anyone :)

I think Philippians chapter 2 shares some good light on this:

5 ...Christ Jesus,

6 Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider being equal with God a treasure to be grasped,

7 But emptied Himself, taking the form of a slave, becoming in the likeness of men;

8 And being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient even unto death, and that the death of a cross.

To go from Creator to creature, that's a big cost. But He not only became a creature, but He became like a slave among men. Even if He were to come down and be a king, that's still a big cost, but He was mistreated, hated, and abused by the very people He was doing so much to save. That's quite a cost. After all His living and work on the earth, His closest disciple, Peter, swore and cursed, saying he never even knew Jesus, right as Jesus was being tortured, and about to be crucified. That's quite a cost.

There's the physical pain, too. I've heard that when they whipped people, as they did Jesus, they had to count out the whippings to make sure the people didn't die. They also had a doctor stand by to make sure they can survive to continue in the whippings. He didn't drink for about 24 hours I think in that last day, and He lost a lot of water when He was bleeding out. His hands and feet were nailed with big, rough (not factory made) nails into a cross and He was hung from these wounds. The way they put people on the cross means you can't breathe properly, so you have to pull on your hands to lift up your torso for every breath.

But in all these things He never cried out. He only cried out in the last moment, to say "My God, why have You forsaken Me?". This indicates that with all the sin laid up on Him, God the Father turned away from His Son, and that was worse to Jesus than any of the humiliation, rejection, betrayal, physical and emotional pain that He suffered up to that moment.

I used to think that it wasn't a big deal, if Christ could just resurrect again, it doesn't matter if He dies; but I think it's much bigger a deal than I'll ever know ;)


Who would Cain be worried about slaying him in Gen 4:14? Up till this point, all that are mentioned are Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel Were there other people outside of Eden before Adam and Eve had to leave?

It is inappropriate to read the Bible and assume that just because something wasn't mentioned, it must not have been.  The Bible asserts that Adam lived about 900 years.  A LOT happened during those 900 or so years, and yet we have a whopping two chapters in Genesis that deal specifically with Adam.  But, let's look at what facts we have.

  Gen 4:14 (KJV) Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.

The emphasized phrase doesn't make a lot of sense if "every one" referred only to Adam and Eve, who would appear (since no one else was listed) to be the only other people on the planet.  This is proven true a few verses later:

  Gen 4:17 (KJV) And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived....

So, there was at least one other person in the land: Cain's wife, presumably a daughter of Adam and Eve.  However, even that's an assumption because no information is given about birth rates, gestation time, or anything else about humanity at a time when they lived much, much longer than we do today.  We don't even know how much time passed between the expulsion from the Garden and the conception of Cain.  It could have been minutes, but it also could have been decades with a great number of people being born during that time.

Indeed, the only fact we do know is that 130 years passed until the birth of Seth (Gen 5:3).  Presumably Cain and Able were adults when the murder happened (not necessarily, there are so many assumptions here!), and if so, then Cain was born sometime between year 1 and year 100 (starting from the Expulsion).  In either case, that's a lot of time to bear other children (and we have at least one: Cain's wife).

So, be wary about assuming that just because a useful piece of information wasn't presented (like a complete family tree for Adam), that it doesn't exist.  Cain had a legitimate fear, which suggests there were enough people that he couldn't easily disappear in his travels.


What does Revelation 6:12 mean? I've always thought that in Revelation 6:12 where it says:

  I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a great earthquake. The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair...

... that the sun would actually turn black. But about a week ago I found in Genesis:

  "As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease." - Genesis 8:22

So I guess that won't happen. What does it mean, then?

The darkening of the sun (and the other signs) are repeatedly emphasised as heralding the day of judgement, by the prophets and in the New Testament, including by Jesus himself.
Regarding your Genesis 8:22 reference, I think an important part of that verse is the first bit: "As long as the earth endures". All of these prophecies are about the end of the world, so the condition no longer holds. (Admittedly, the Revelation chronology does not have the actual end of the world occurring at this precise moment - but I would tend to see the end of the world as a single "event" regardless of how long it takes to accomplish.)
This section of Revelation draws heavily from Isaiah, who prophesied that on "the Day of the Lord", (13:4, NJB)

The sun will be dark when it rises, and the moon will no longer give its light.

Similarly, Ezekiel 32:7 prophesied against Pharaoh, saying:

When I extinguish you I shall cover the skies and darken the stars. I shall cover the sun with clouds and the moon will not give its light.

Joel (2:10, 4:15) uses language similar to Isaiah above, and specifically (3:4 or 2:31 depending on your Bible) says:

The sun will be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the Day comes, that great and terrible Day.

Peter quotes this passage in Acts 2:20. Most importantly, Jesus himself said (Matthew 24:29, also Mark 13:24):

Immediately after the distress of those days the sun will be darkened, the moon will not give its light, the stars will fall from the sky and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.

These signs demonstrate the sovereignty of God over the heavens, and show that his Day is literally a universe-changing event. It is not confined to any one group of people, but affects the entire world. Here, the reference to sackcloth brings to mind mourning garments, a poignant reference for what is about to happen: the sun itself is in mourning.
After the judgement, there will be no need for the sun and moon in any case. Their transformation or disappearance at this time shows us that the New Jerusalem is on its way.

No more will the sun give you daylight, nor moonlight shine on you, but Yahweh will be your everlasting light, your God will be your splendour. Your sun will set no more, nor will your moon wane, for Yahweh will be your everlasting light and your days of mourning will be over. (Isaiah 60:19-20)
I could not see any temple in the city since the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb were themselves the temple, and the city did not need the sun or the moon for light, since it was lit by the radiant glory of God, and the Lamb was a lighted torch for it. (Revelation 21:22-23)


Jehovah's Witnesses claim Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE. What is the evidence? The usual date given for the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in academic and Christian publications is either 587 BCE or 586 BCE. The Watchtower claims it was destroyed in 607 BCE.
This date is critically important to them, because on it Charles Taze Russell calculated the year 1914 (2520 years later).
What do Jehovah's Witnesses think is the evidence for 607 BCE as the year of the destruction of Jerusalem?  Please note, there are two kinds of evidence I consider acceptable: Biblical evidence and extra-Biblical evidence.  It is really fine if only Biblical evidence is offered, but in such a case please indicate why you think the JW interpretation is correct.

This exact question was posed by a reader of the Watchtower magazine published by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
It led to the printing of a two-part article: When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?
Part one main points are
“Seventy Years” for Whom?
When Did “the Seventy Years” Start?
When Did “the Seventy Years” End?
Classical Historians —How Accurate?
The Canon of Ptolemy
The Conclusion Based on This Evidence
Part 2 main points are
What the Clay Documents Really Show
Why Trust the Bible?
As time permits I will return to add a salient point of interest from each of the above headings.

Part 1: Watchtower, October 1, 2011, page 26
Part 2: Watchtower, November 1, 2011, page 22


Was Paul's Relationship with Jewish Leadership Close Enough to Act as Their Agent? After reading this question on judaism.SE I wanted to pose a version of it here.  (You know, it's facinating to see how Judaism views us....)

Paul's letter to the Hebrews could be described (and frankly is described by modern Jews) as marketing Christianity to the Jewish converts, helping them overcome a lifetime of indoctrination in Judaism.  Whether or not he was stretching the truth (which marketers are wont to do) is not part of this question.  Please remember that I am a Christian and believe Paul was truly converted to Christ.  My question is, is there non-Jewish documentary evidence that Paul's relationship with Jewish leadership was deep enough that they might send him to commit religious espionage?  He was certainly aggressive enough.  Frankly, I don't even know where to start to answer the question myself.

P.S., I'm not challenging Paul's devotion to Christ.  I am curious to know if his relationship with Jewish leadership was such that they might have indeed sent him on a (* cough *) mission that played a part in his conversion (reading the question on J.SE will help).  Or are Jewish legends surrounding Paul simply reverse-marketing with no historical corroboration? and therefore an attempt to discredit Paul ("oh, Paul, yeah.  We sent him on a mission to revolutionize Christianity so people would more easily see it for the heresy that it is.  We're a bit disappointed that he ended up joining them....")

(If this question is so broad that it needs to be closed, I'll understand.  I simply don't have enough background myself to express the question in a more precise manner.)

At the end of Acts 7 you had Saul approve of the stoning of Stephen

  At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul.  While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Then he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he fell asleep.
  Acts 7:57-60 NIV
  http://bible.com/111/act.7.57-60.NIV

and then the open of chapter 8 says that a great persecution began

  And Saul approved of their killing him. On that day a great persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him. But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off both men and women and put them in prison.
  Acts 8:1-3 NIV
  http://bible.com/111/act.8.1-3.NIV

At the open of chapter 9 Saul was "still breathing murderous threats" against the Christians

  Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lordʼs disciples. He went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem.
  Acts 9:1-2 NIV
  http://bible.com/111/act.9.1-2.NIV

While it usually just states that those he persecuted were arrested, remember that being arrested in those days didn't mean 3 hots and a cot, it was hard labor and regular beatings and often death in prison as Paul mentions in Acts 22

  I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison, as the high priest and all the Council can themselves testify. I even obtained letters from them to their associates in Damascus, and went there to bring these people as prisoners to Jerusalem to be punished.
  Acts 22:4-5 NIV
  http://bible.com/111/act.22.4-5.NIV

In 1 Tim 1:15 he calls himself the very worst of sinners

  Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life.
  1 Timothy 1:15-16 NIV
  http://bible.com/111/1ti.1.15-16.NIV

Even if you say at the very least, that he was merely a policeman, arresting Christians and sending them to jail, he would need the authority to do that and that would come from the Jewish leaders.

I would also say that Paul was very well known by the Jewish leaders to have been granted authority.  1st, the fact that prior to him making the request from the leaders to be given authority to persecute the church, we already had the authority to approve of Stephen's stoning. 2nd, Luke mentions Saul's pedigree in Acts

  But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while.
  Acts 5:34 NIV
  http://bible.com/111/act.5.34.NIV

  When they heard him speak to them in Aramaic, they became very quiet. Then Paul said: “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. I studied under Gamaliel and was thoroughly trained in the law of our ancestors. I was just as zealous for God as any of you are today.
  Acts 22:2-3 NIV
  http://bible.com/111/act.22.2-3.NIV

and Paul mentions his pedigree again in Galatians 1 to give plenty of how he could have been trusted with such a task

  For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.
  Galatians 1:13-14 NIV
  http://bible.com/111/gal.1.13-14.NIV

Now the the point that Paul could have been sent to modify the early church, if you were trying to infiltrate and modify the early church, the last thing you would do is send the guy who persecuted the early church the most.  You could have taken no-name Pharisees and send them.  Paul was the most zealot of them all and it took him years to gain the trust of the disciples. Also, the majority of the Christians were previously Jews.  Given that even the Pharisees would not let the Roman soldiers mess with the disciples because they were still considered Jews, they would have pursued bring the "followers of the Way" into alignment as a sect of Judaism but Paul took it the opposite way.

When false teachers began to take churches back to Jewish practices like in Galatians 1, he turned them back to the Gospel and away from Judaism

  I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.
  Galatians 1:6-7 NIV
  http://bible.com/111/gal.1.6-7.NIV

He mentions similar things at other churches but if he was sent to modify the church, he was terrible at it.


Are there any references to "four canonical Gospels" prior to 100 AD? According to the "Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung" eleven manuscripts of NT are from within the second century alone, which include: P52 (100-150), P90, 104 (2nd century), P66 (c. AD 175-225), P46, 64+67 (c. AD 200), P77, P103, 0189 (2nd or 3rd century), P98 (2nd century).

It means that P52 was not only written, but had spread to a provincial town in Egypt  by the middle of the second century, confirming the its date of composition, in the last years of the first century. It is presumed that books of the New Testament were written between the years 50 and 100 after Christ. If we assume a later date, than it only shortens the period that elapsed between the composition of the books and the date at which the earliest manuscripts now extant were written.

P52 gives us a physical testimony for existence of the fourth Gospel of NT, at the start of second century.

Prior to say around 80 AD, are there any other references to these “four Gospels as books” in any of these sources?

Non Christians and Christians literatures
From any early Christian Fathers
Any historians or
Non Christian authors.

I am not sure  I'm understanding the question. I see two possible things you might be asking...

I don't know about evidences of others calling them the four Gospels (not sure that's exactly what your last sentence is asking), but there is first century manuscript evidence for at least some of the Gospels.

There is potentially evidence for the book of Matthew in a few fragments, but the dating of it is a matter of debate.  The original, cursory examination gave them a date of the forth century, but a later examination gave them a date of A.D. 66.

From  http://www.equip.org/articles/eyewitness-to-jesus-amazing-new-manuscript-evidence-about-the-origin-of-the-gospels/

  The Matthew fragments redated by Thiede are at Magdalen College
  (Oxford). They are called The Magdalen Papyrus (listed as Greek 17 and
  p64). There are three fragments written on both sides, together
  representing 24 lines from Matthew 26:7-33. Two of the three fragments
  are a little larger than 4 x 1 cm.; the other is smaller, 1.6 x 1.6
  cm. Another two fragments, located in Spain, are called the Barcelona
  Papyrus (P. Barc. inv. 1/p67) and contain portions of Matthew 3:9, 15;
  5:20-22, 25-28.

Also, while less specific, faithfacts says...

Early fragments: John Ryland manuscript 130 A.D. in Egypt; Bodmer manuscript containing most of John's gospel 150-200 A.D.; Magdalen fragment from Mat. 26 believed by some to be within a few years of Jesus' death; Gospel fragments found among the Dead Sea Scrolls dated as early as 50 A.D.

Several other sites list the Dead Sea scrolls dating to the first century A.D.

DTS lists another fragment dating to the first century.

  Dr. Wallace: Earliest Manuscript of the New Testament Discovered? by
  Daniel B. Wallace on February 9, 2012 in Articles

  Note: Several websites (NT Blog, Gospel Coalition, Andreas Köstenberger, Evangelical Textual Criticism, Hypotyposeis, etc.) have
  been writing about Dan Wallace's comments to Bart Erhman about the
  discovery of several New Testament papyri. Dr. Wallace has already
  written a summary of the debate, and below he clarifies what these
  papyri might mean.

  On 1 February 2012, I debated Bart Ehrman at UNC Chapel Hill on
  whether we have the wording of the original New Testament today. This
  was our third such debate, and it was before a crowd of more than 1000
  people. I mentioned that seven New Testament papyri had recently been
  discovered—six of them probably from the second century and one of
  them probably from the first. These fragments will be published in
  about a year.

  These fragments now increase our holdings as follows: we have as many
  as eighteen New Testament manuscripts from the second century and one
  from the first. Altogether, more than 43% of all New Testament verses
  are found in these manuscripts. But the most interesting thing is the
  first-century fragment.

  It was dated by one of the world’s leading paleographers. He said he
  was ‘certain’ that it was from the first century. If this is true, it
  would be the oldest fragment of the New Testament known to exist. Up
  until now, no one has discovered any first-century manuscripts of the
  New Testament. The oldest manuscript of the New Testament has been
  P52, a small fragment from John’s Gospel, dated to the first half of
  the second century. It was discovered in 1934.

  Not only this, but the first-century fragment is from Mark’s Gospel.
  Before the discovery of this fragment, the oldest manuscript that had
  Mark in it was P45, from the early third century (c. AD 200–250). This
  new fragment would predate that by 100 to 150 years.

Getting back to the distinction I mentioned in the first few sentences of this answer...

If you're not asking whether we have manuscript evidence from the first century, but rather writings establishing Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as the only canonical gospels....

I don't know that we should necessarily expect the early Church to refer to the four "canonical gospels" in that way. The way canon was established was at least partially on establishing what the established, trusted writings were. The best we could hope for is to establish whether the first century Church accepted these writings, and whether they interpreted this to mean that these four, and only these four are acceptable as canonical (thereby excluding others. For that, we have no evidence, but that is more likely because it wasn't until later that they became concerned with formally establishing canon.

From http://www.churchhistory101.com/new-testament-canon.php

  A Natural Delivery

  The NT was NOT dropped from heaven.
  The NT was NOT delivered by an angel.
  The NT was NOT dug up in a farmer's field as golden plates like the Book of Mormon.
  The NT was NOT suddenly "discovered" in a clay jar with 27 "books" intact like the Dead  - Sea Scrolls or the Nag Hammadi texts.

  The NT canon developed, or evolved, over the course of the first
  250-300 years of Christian history. If the NT had been delivered by an
  angel, or unearthed as a complete unit it would not be as believable.
  Part of the historical validity of the NT comes from the fact that we
  can trace its development, albeit not as precisely as we might like.


Do Jehovah's Witnesses believe that their "Governing body" will rule the world after "Armageddon"? I understand that Witnesses follow an unelected body of men called a "Governing body".  However I'm unclear on whether or not they believe this governing body is in charge of the earth after their claims of Armageddon.  Is this true?

Read this article:

  http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/w20130715/who-is-faithful-discreet-slave/

  This addresses your question specifically.

Often you won't get the same answer when asking random people from their congregations as some are more in touch with modern developments more than others, as you've just discovered.

Another thing is that the interpretations on core modern fulfilments often change: 2013 changed the governing body's role slightly. The "wheat and weeds" understanding also recently changed.

The answer is "No" they do not believe they will exclusively "rule the world", but are part of the 144,000 which serve as Kings and Priests under Christ, obeying him as co-rulers. They presently find themselves to to have a unique role among the anointed, that having changed to "Faithful and Discreet Slave", which dispenses food (teachings) in due season/proper time.


Why aren't Moses, Elijah, and other Old Testament heroes of faith given the title of "Saint"? Many Old Testament figures led lives that are comparable to modern day saints. Yet none of them seem to be given the title of "Saint". Why is this?

My first thought was that perhaps a Saint needs a connection to Jesus, which all Christian Saints do. But part of Jesus' claim to legitimacy was that he was a descendent of people like David and Ruth.  Furthermore, Moses and Elijah were present during Jesus' transfiguration, so they have a direct connection to Jesus. Yet none of these have the title of "Saint". Why not?

There are saints like St. Moses, but they are different people than these Old Testament figures.

Although they are not usually described formally as saints, the Catholic Church does actually consider Old Testament figures to be saints, as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

  61 The patriarchs, prophets and certain other Old Testament figures have been and always will be honored as saints in all the Church's liturgical traditions.


How can God be Sovereign (in the Reformed sense) if a man can ignore His call to repentance? The Scriptures tell us:

  The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead. – Acts 17:30–31 ESV (emphasis mine)

And yet:

  ...the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few. – Matthew 7:14 ESV

The unavoidable conclusion is that most people that hear the call to repentance, either ignore, resist or reject it (this sadly, also accords with our experience).

A common Reformed argument* (e.g.) against the doctrine of General Atonement, is that a non-efficacious (in terms of its intended scope) Atonement is not consistent with the Sovereignty of God – on the surface, a reasonable argument, particularly from a Reformed perspective of the Sovereignty of God that rests on Unconditional Election and Irresistable Grace. From a Reformed perspective, how is a non-efficacious (again, in terms of its intended scope) call to repentance any different in this respect? Why isn't that equally inconsistent with the Sovereignty of God?

If a King bids a man to come, and the man comes not, is this not an affront to the King's sovereignty?

*Edit: Ok, so maybe it's not as common as I thought, and possibly not strictly logical, but here is some evidence that it is advanced by people who should be able to articulate a consistent position:

"Unlimited atonement is inconsistent with the sovereignty of God." - Rev. Steven Houck, Immanuel Protestant Reformed Church Lacombe, Alberta.  source
"Proponents of limited atonement often make a fifth argument, which is that unlimited atonement cannot be reconciled with God's sovereignty." - p200 Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach By Kenneth Keathley. source

To understand the Reformed approach to this challenging question, we should begin with the concept of the "wills" of God.  Reformed theologians typically refer to the relevant ones as the decretive (or "secret") and preceptive (or "revealed") wills of God, which R. C. Sproul defines as follows:

Decretive will: The sovereign, efficacious will of God
Preceptive will: The precepts, commands of God1

Reformed theologians point to a number of passages to establish this distinction.  For the decretive will, here are a few examples:

Psalm 115:3: Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases. [ESV]
Daniel 4:32: the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will.
Romans 9:18: So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

These passages describe a will of God that never fails and is independent of all other beings.  But God's will is not always described in such terms:

Matthew 7:21: "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." [cf. Matthew 12:50]
Ephesians 5:17: Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.

In these passages, it's clear that God's will refers to his commands and precepts, not his ordaining of events.  The distinction is especially obvious when we consider biblical stories like that of Joseph being sold into slavery:

"As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today." [Genesis 50:20]

In this story, God's preceptive will is that Joseph's brothers love him and not sell him into slavery, as such an act is "evil."  But God's decretive will was that Joseph be sold into slavery by his brothers so that many would survive the famine.  Another example of this can be found in Acts 2:23, in which the "definite plan of God" (his decretive will) involved a clear violation of his preceptive will: his Son was killed by "lawless men."
Is the call of the Gospel part of God's preceptive will or his decretive will?
Turning now to God's will as it relates to the call of the Gospel, we must identify which "will" of God applies to passages like Matthew 11:28, in which Jesus commands people to come to him:

"Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest."

Similarly, 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 can be interpreted to refer to God's desire that all be saved.2
If this "desire" is a product of God's decretive will, then it would necessarily follow that all people will be saved.  However, such an interpretation implies universalism, which seems to contradict other passages, like Romans 9:18 and Matthew 7:21 (quoted above), among many others.  This desire that all be saved, therefore, cannot be God's decretive will, and so it must be his preceptive will.  The commands to repent and believe are thus in the same category as the command to care for the poor: men can and do regularly disobey them.
How can a sovereign God allow his preceptive will to be violated?
Now we get to the heart of the issue, and hopefully it's now obvious that to the Reformed, this isn't merely a matter of explaining how man can reject the external call of the gospel—it's the broader issue of explaining the existence of evil.  That is, we can reframe the titular question as, "How can [a good] God be sovereign if man can sin?"
This is, of course, a huge topic, which I've addressed more fully elsewhere.  But ultimately Reformed theologians, while arguing that God is not the author of sin, and that man fell voluntarily, nonetheless hold that God ordained that sin would come into the world. That is, God's decretive will includes the sins of men, including their sins of unrepentance and unbelief.
Why would a good God do this?  Charles Hodge suggests the following explanation, based on Romans 9:22–23:

Sin, therefore, according the Scriptures, is permitted, that the justice of God may be known in its punishment, and his grace in its forgiveness.  And the universe, without the knowledge of these attributes, would be like the earth without the light of the sun.3

Sproul, What is Reformed Theology?, p169
Some Calvinists argue that the context in each of these verses does not require that "all" refer to every human being, but others consider that a possibility.
Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1.5.13, page 435


Where did the formula, "Good works are the fruits of faith," originate? A previous question of mine, "What is the biblical basis for the belief that good works are the fruits of faith?" provides examples of Protestant faith statements using the formula, "good works are the fruits of faith," and asks for the biblical basis of that belief.

The answers to that question so far have confirmed my initial thought that the Bible does not say in plain words that good works are the fruits of faith, but that this formula derives from interpretation of various biblical statements.

Here, then, is a follow-up question:

Where in Christian history did the saying, "Good works are the fruits of faith," originate? What theologian or Christian doctrinal statement first used it? Did it originate among Protestant theologians, or was it already in existence in Christian writings prior to the Protestant Reformation?

(Note: For the purposes of this question, statements that use close synonyms for or variants of "good works" and "faith" are acceptable, as are statements that use a different word order, and so on, as long as it is basically the same statement. However, I am specifically not asking for statements that good works are the fruits or result of salvation, or of love for God, or of God working within a person, and so on—even if these things are seen as happening through or from or as a result of faith—or of anything else that isn't precisely faith as that is understood within historical or Protestant Christianity. I am looking for the first use within Christian history of the formula, "Good works are the fruits of faith.")

Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, and Didymus the Blind said things that could be mistaken for the formula, but don't fit all the criteria. The first one to use it unmistakably is Origen, in passing, followed by Augustine, also in passing, though he frequently says other things that are near-hits. It's not until the Protestant Reformation that the formula becomes ubiquitous.

Early approximations and misses

Clement of Rome (d. c. 100), in his letter to the Corinthian church, commends them by stating a connection between their faith and virtue. At least two English translations (Lightfoot and Hoole) have Clement say that their faith is "virtuous," while one (Keith; ed. Donaldson, Roberts) has him phrase it as "fruitful of virtue." I don't believe the Greek justifies the latter translation, or at least not for our purposes in this question, but I thought it worth a mention since Keith's translation seems at first glance to apply so strikingly (if one grants a correspondence between "virtue" and "good works").

Clement of Alexandria (150 - 215) implies that neither love nor good works could exist without faith as their "foundation":

  Love, on account of its friendly alliance with faith, makes men believers; and faith, which is the foundation of love, in its turn introduces the doing of good.
  Stromata, Book 2, Chapter 6

According to Didymus the Blind (313 - 398), faith accomplishes two things, salvation and good works:

  A person is saved by grace, not by works but by faith. There should be no doubt but that faith saves and then lives by doing its own works, so that the works which are added to salvation by faith are not those of the law but a different kind of thing altogether.
  Commentary on James 2:26b via the Ancient Christian Commentary series, page 34; no full English translation is available

Origen

Origen (185 - 254), contemporary of Clement of Alexandria, explicitly identified faith as the root out of which the fruit, good works, grows:

  This faith, when it has been justified, is firmly embedded in the soil of the soul like a root that has received rain, so that when it begins to be cultivated by God's law, branches arise from it that bring forth the fruit of works. The root of righteousness, therefore, does not grow out of the works, but rather the fruit of works grows out of the root of righteousness, that root, of course, of righteousness that God also credits even apart from works.
  Commentary on Romans 4.1.18

Augustine

Augustine of Hippo (354 - 430) uses the formulation at least once, seemingly borrowing from Origen, and close variants a number of other times.

In one place he speaks of faith as having "fruits," but does not explicitly identify them:

  Each one sees his own faith in himself. He does not see but believes faith to be in another. And he believes all the more firmly, the more he sees faith's fruits that it is accustomed to work through charity.
  On the Trinity, Book 13, Chapter 2 (link is to a different translation)

In another place, he states that good works "proceed from" faith (and that both faith and good works come from God), but does not use the word "fruit":

  Works proceed from faith, and not faith from works. Therefore it is from Him that we have works of righteousness, from whom comes also faith itself
  On Grace and Free Will, Chapter 7

But elsewhere he borrows two images from Origen: that of good works as a structure rising from the foundation of faith (Origen, Romans, 4.1.5) and the one that chiefly concerns us, good works as the fruit which spring from the root of faith:

  I have nothing but praise for the superstructure of action, but I see the foundation of faith; I admire the good work as a fruit, but I recognize that it springs from the root of faith. ... If faith is devoid of the will to love, it will equally be devoid of good actions. But do not spend too much time thinking about the works that proceed from faith: add hope and the will to love to your faith, and you will have no need to ask yourself what kind of works you should perform.
  Exposition 2 of Psalm 31:3-5

Reformation

Just as Augustine borrowed the image from Origen, the reformation leaders undoubtedly borrowed it from Augustine. A sampling of the earliest uses in Protestant confessions will follow.

The Augsburg Confession (1535), Article 20, and Scots Confession (1560), Chapter 13, both say that the cause of good works is our reception of the Holy Spirit by faith. These two, according to the parameters of the question, do not use the formulation.

But later confessions would use the formula explicitly, while demonstrating their substantial agreement with the previous two. The Belgic Confession (1561), Article 24, compares good works to fruit and says that they proceed "from the good root of faith," which "regenerates us and makes us new creatures, causing us to live a new life and freeing us from the slavery of sin." The much later Westminster Confession (1646), Chapter 16, calls good works "the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith," and states that the ability to do them is "wholly from the Spirit of Christ."

Similarly, the Second Helvetic Confession (1564), Chapter 16, says that faith "brings forth good fruit of all kinds, and good works," (the distinction, if any is intended, is unclear) and that "good works grow out of a living faith by the Holy Spirit" and "are done from God's grace through the Holy Spirit."

The characteristically terse 39 Articles (1563), Article 12, says without elaboration that good works "are the fruits of Faith, and follow after Justification."

Conclusion

Origen was the first to use the formula, building on Biblical teaching and imagery. It was then picked up by Augustine, whom the Reformation leaders consciously emulated, using it frequently. Since then, it has been widely used by Protestants.

However, it is also clear that whenever such authors were given the chance to expound on their meaning, they say "that good works are the fruits or result of salvation, or of love for God, or of God working within a person, and so on," often within sentences of using the formula.

I'm heavily indebted to We Believe in the Holy Spirit, ed. Joel C. Elowsky, particularly the section "The Giver of Life: In Justification," from which I got most of the church fathers quotes.