Lesson 8: The Atonement (Part 1)

(This is based, in part, on John Gerstner’s Primer on the Atonement from a compilation of his primers in the book Primitive Theology. I am using Primitive Theology for my Sunday School class. There is a growing list of links on the left for the posts for this class.

The Atonement

The atonement is, perhaps, the most important of Christian doctrines. Without the atonement, there would be no hope, nor forgiveness, and in fact no Christians. The atonement means that our sins have been paid for and we are, as a consequence, saved. It does not merely represent potential salvation (It is ready) but accomplished salvation for all Christians (It is finished). Regardless of how the atonement was realized, it is clear that a representative was needed, since every person sins and is need of redemption yet every person also lacks the ability to make amends on his own.

The idea of atonement appears first in the Old Testament, as a foreshadowing of the atoning sacrifice of Christ. We encounter it at the mercy seat of the tabernacle, where the blood of a sacrificed animal was, once a year, sprinkled on the Day of Atonement. The high priest made this sacrifice on behalf of the people by entering the Holy of Holies. Through this sacrifice, Israel was in some sense made acceptable to God. However, this sacrifice did not directly accomplish forgiveness of their sins.

The bible tells us two important facts about blood. The first is that there is no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood:

Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. (Heb 9:22)

Why is the shedding of blood necessary? I don’t know. Scripture presents it as a fact without really saying why. This appears to be a case where we can’t handle the truth. We have vague (and most likely correct) notions that it is connected to God’s holiness and his justice, but that’s about all we can even speculate about. Somehow, for reasons not made explicit, God requires blood to be shed in order for sins to be forgiven.

The second important fact about blood is that it is impossible for the blood of animals to take away sins:

For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. (Heb. 10-4)

This is why we say the Old Testament sacrifices, though pleasing to God and beneficial to the Jews, nevertheless did not (directly) result in the forgiveness of sins—although sometimes it is said that the sins were “covered”, as if they were put on layaway awaiting a future payment. In fact, we should be precise and say that sins were forgiven when the Jews faithfully offered sacrifices, but it was not the blood of the animal that brought forgiveness, but the future shedding of Christ’s blood. Further signifying that the Old Testament sacrifices were, in terms of the animal blood they shed, were ultimately ineffectual was the fact that they were repeated over and over, whereas Christ’s sacrifice was once-for-all.

John the Baptist was possibly the first Jew to understand that this, when he said of Jesus: “the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the word.” (John 1:29) John, I believe, recognized something about Jesus, prior to Jesus’ public ministry, something that the apostles never saw nor accepted even after spending three years under Christ’s constant teaching: Jesus was a lamb, and as a lamb he would be sacrificed, but in this case the sacrifice would be effectual. Our sins, past present and future, would be forgiven as a result.

The fact that none (save perhaps John the Baptist) recognized the inevitability of Christ’s sacrifice is the most poignant aspect of his death. He went to the cross, alone, suffering for a people who did not even know he was suffering for them, who viewed his crucifixion as a total defeat rather than a somber yet unequivocal victory over death. Even after his resurrection, on the road to Emmaus, when he meets two disciples who fail to recognize him, we see in the account in Luke 24 that they were clueless as to the redemptive significance of the resurrection and had no concept of the atonement. Christ has to teach them, from Old Testament prophecy, the significance of his suffering and the empty tomb.

Did God Die?

Did God actually die at Calvary? This is somewhat of a trick question but the technical answer is no. To understand, we must consider the mystery of the incarnation. The God-man Jesus is a person who is fully man and fully God. A single person with two natures, one human one divine, that are distinct not separate—indeed they are inseparable. The two natures, human and divine, are united. The divine nature, being God, is both eternal and immutable. It therefore could not die. It that sense, God did not die. The human nature, being finite and mutable, dies and was later resurrected. Both natures, being united, suffered. The suffering of the human nature is easy for us to grasp—we can at least imagine the pain of the crucifixion. The suffering of the divine nature is beyond our comprehension. Still, the divine nature did not cease while the body was entombed.

So Jesus the God-man died in the only nature for which that was possible. The divine nature, though not dying, by virtual of being inseparable, experienced that death. The atonement has infinite redemptive value (exactly why is again, somewhat unfathomable) because the human nature that died was both sinless and indissolubly united with a divine nature. This is perfectly represented by a remarkable statement of Christ’s divinity by the apostle Paul—so clear is it in proclaiming Christ’s divinity that I am sorry I left it out of the lesson on the divinity of Christ:

Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)

There is no doubt that Paul is referring to Christ, at the same time the blood is described as the blood of God.

Lesson 7: Roman Catholicism (Part 13)

(This is based, in part, on John Gerstner’s Primer on Roman Catholicism from a compilation of his primers in the book Primitive Theology. I am using Primitive Theology for my Sunday School class. For this lesson, I will also draw from James R. White’s The Roman Catholic Controversy, (Bethany House, 1996).There is a growing list of links on the left for the posts for this class.

Overview of Marian Doctrine

In this lesson, we’ll take a brief look at all the important doctrines the Catholic Church teaches about Mary. Catholics have four official Marion dogmas: (1) that she is the Mother of God, (2) that she was a perpetual virgin, (3) that she was conceived immaculately and (4) that she was bodily assumed into heaven. Finally, we will look at a potential fifth and perhaps most controversial of all—the movement within the Catholic Church to have her declared (infallibly) as “co-redemptrix”.

1. Mother of God

According to the Catholic Church, Mary's most fundamental privilege is that of being the Mother of God. They do not teach that Mary in anyway produced or was responsible for Christ’s divine nature. They mean, quite simply, that since her Son is God, so then she is the Mother of God. Thomas Aquinas wrote that "From the fact that she is the Mother of God, she has a sort of infinite dignity from the infinite good that God is.” There is, of course, seemingly irrefutable biblical support for this:

²⁶ In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, ²⁷ to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin's name was Mary. ²⁸ And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!” ²⁹ But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. ³⁰ And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. ³¹ And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. ³² He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, ³³ and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” ³⁴ And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” ³⁵ And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God. ³⁶ And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. ³⁷ For nothing will be impossible with God.” ³⁸ And Mary said, “Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her. (Luke 1:26-38)

Mary conceived Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit (v 1:35). The Archangel Gabriel first told her that her Son was to be the Son of the Most High. However, any devout Jew could be called a son of God, so Gabriel made an important distinction, telling Mary that her son would reign over the house of Jacob forever, thereby designating him as the Messiah, for Jews then commonly believed the Messiah would reign forever. Finally, the angel said He would be conceived when the Holy Spirit would "come upon" her.

We take a moment to remind ourselves of the heresy known as Nestorianism, which denies that Mary is the mother of God. Like many heresies, Nestorianism resulted from good intentions “run amok.” Others before Nestorius erred by denying Christ’s human nature. Nestorius went to the opposite extreme, stressing Christ’s humanity to the extent that there were two distinct personalities—one divine and one human—within the same living consciousness. In arguing his position that the divine and human natures of Christ were separate, Nestor stated that “God was never a two month old baby.” The litmus test of Nestorianism was whether or not you were willing to grant Mary the title theotokos, or “she who gave birth to the child who is God,” or more informally, “Mary, Mother of God.” Nestorius and his followers were unwilling to grant Mary that title, arguing that she bore only the human half of the duality. They would only refer to her as “Mary, mother of Jesus.” Now of course (and for no real good reason) many Protestants are loath to use the phrase “Mary mother of God,” because of its association with Roman Catholicism. We Protestants should fear not, the honorific “Mary mother of God” is self evident.

2. Perpetual Virginity

The Catholic Church teaches that Mary was not only a virgin at the time of Jesus’ conception, but remained a virgin throughout her life—essentially a faithful wife wed to the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, according to Rome, when the Gospels speak of the "brothers and sisters" of Jesus, they do not mean other children of Mary. The Hebrew words were very broad, according to Catholics, and they could cover any sort of relationship. In addition, those who defend the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity point out that Aramaic, the language spoken by Christ and his disciples, lacked a specific word for "cousin", so brother and sister were often used in lieu of cousin. Even modern English, they point out, uses “brother” and “sister” more broadly for members of fraternities and sororities. Proponents also claim there is implicit evidence of Jesus being without living brothers or sisters at the time of his crucifixion in that Jesus entrusts his mother to John instead of a sibling.

In addition, it is sometimes argued that if “brothers and sisters” really means brothers and sisters, it refers to Joesph’s children from a previous marriage. In this view, Joseph was much older and died much earlier than Mary.

This doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity is very old. This doctrine underwent a period of discussion until the late 4th century when general consensus emerged. The earliest witness to the perpetual virginity of Mary seems to appear in the apocryphal Protogospel of James (ca 150). Tertullian (ca 220) denied the perpetual virginity of Mary. Origen (d 254) appears to have affirmed it. In the East, St Athanasius strongly defended Mary's virginity after the birth of Jesus. Shortly after, St Basil the Great (d ca 380) accepted Mary's perpetual virginity and claimed that it reflected the general sense of believers; though he did not consider it to be a dogma. Around the same time, in the West, Jovinian and Helvidius denied the perpetual virginity while Ambrose (d. 397), Jerome (d. 420) and Augustine (d. 430) defended it.

The official acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Council held at Constantinople in 553 refer to Mary as aeiparthenos (ever-virgin). For example, an anathema against the 'three chapters' condemns those who deny:

that nativity of these latter days when the Word of God came down from the heavens and was made flesh of holy and glorious Mary, mother of God and ever-virgin, and was born from her ...

These statements were not made in reference to a direct discussion of Mary's virginity. Hence, some argue that this statement was not a dogmatic definition. For Catholics, such definitions may be made by the Episcopal college, in communion with its President, the Bishop of Rome, or by the Pope in virtue of his Presidency over the entire Episcopal college. Such definitions must be derived, at least implicitly, from the revelation closed at the death of the Apostles.

Though not an Ecumenical Council, the Lateran Council of 649 convened by Pope Martin I also issued an important statement affirming Mary's lifelong virginity:

If anyone does not, according to the Holy Fathers, confess truly and properly that holy Mary, ever virgin and immaculate, is Mother of God, since in this latter age she conceived in true reality without human seed from the Holy Spirit, God the Word Himself, who before the ages was born of God the Father, and gave birth to Him without corruption, her virginity remaining equally inviolate after the birth, let him be condemned.

After Constantinople II the title was universally accepted by the Church. Finally, it should be pointed out that Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, the three main reformers, all demonstrated support for the doctrine.

Objections to the Doctrine

A first objection arises from the reference to Jesus as Mary’s firstborn:

⁶ And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth. ⁷ And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn. (Luke 2:6-7)

It should be remembered that Luke wrote long after both Mary and Joseph were dead. If Jesus was Mary's only child, with hindsight, he would likely not, it is argued, have used the word firstborn.

A second objection comes from the fact that all the gospels refer to Jesus’ brothers and sisters, for example:

Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? Matt. 13:55)

³¹ And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him. ³² And a crowd was sitting around him, and they said to him, “Your mother and your brothers are outside, seeking you.” (Mark 3:31-32)

Again, the Catholic explanation of these (and other) passages is that either (a) brothers and sisters was used for other relatives such as cousins, or (b) they refer to Joseph’s children from a previous marriage. It should be pointed out that Elizabeth, Mary’s cousin, is not referred to as her sister but rather her relative. (Luke 1:36)

Those opposed to the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity argue that Jesus entrusted John with his mother because, at the time of his death, it appeared that none of his siblings were believers (John 7:5). Of course, most Protestants believe that references such as:

But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother. (Gal. 1:19)

Clearly indicate that James, author of the Gospel of James, was Jesus’ brother. How did he come to believe? Apparent by an unrecorded visitation of the risen Christ, perhaps similar to Paul’s, for Paul writes:

⁶After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. ⁷ Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, ⁸ and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. (1 Cor. 15:6-8)

It is interesting to read what Calvin has to say about Gal. 1:19:

Who this James was, deserves inquiry. Almost all the ancients are agreed that he was one of the disciples, whose surname was "Oblias" and "The Just," and that he presided over the church at Jerusalem. Yet others think that he was the son of Joseph by another wife, and others (which is more probable) that he was the cousin of Christ by the mother's side: but as he is here mentioned among the apostles, I do not hold that opinion. Nor is there any force in the defense offered by Jerome, that the word Apostle is sometimes applied to others besides the twelve; for the subject under consideration is the highest rank of apostleship, and we shall presently see that he was considered one of the chief pillars. It appears to me, therefore, far more probable, that the person of whom he is speaking is the son of Alpheus [The husband of Mary’s sister]. (Calvin’s Commentaries)

A final objection to the doctrine comes from the passage:

²⁴ When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, ²⁵ but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus. (Matt. 1:24-25)

To most Protestants, this passage clearly implies that Joseph and Mary had normal sexual relations after the birth of Jesus. To Catholics, who argue, in part, based on the subtleties of the Greek word hoes, (translated as until) this passage states nothing more than what happened during the time period under discussion—from the conception of Jesus until His birth, with no implication for what occurred afterwards even though in modern English we infer that the “until” means that the situation later changed. And not just Catholics teach this—Calvin writes:

This passage (Matt. 1:25) afforded the pretext for great disturbances, which were introduced into the Church, at a former period, by Helvidius. The inference he drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband. Jerome, on the other hand, earnestly and copiously defended Mary's perpetual virginity. Let us rest satisfied with this, that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called first-born; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin. It is said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that very time. What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us. Such is well known to have been the practice of the inspired writers. Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.

Calvin’s position, as I read it, is that he affirms the Catholic viewpoint that this passage says nothing about what happened after the birth of Christ, and furthermore he laments that it is the fodder of excessive argument.

---

Next: Immaculate Conception, Assumption of Mary, Co-Redemptrix

Lesson 7: Roman Catholicism (Part 12)

(This is based, in part, on John Gerstner’s Primer on Roman Catholicism from a compilation of his primers in the book Primitive Theology. I am using Primitive Theology for my Sunday School class. For this lesson, I will also draw from James R. White’s The Roman Catholic Controversy, (Bethany House, 1996).There is a growing list of links on the left for the posts for this class.

The Immaculate Conception

Having discussed the Mass, purgatory, indulgences, and the treasury of merit, we know move on to one of the Catholic Churches Marian doctrines: The Immaculate Conception.

If you have heard of this doctrine but have never studied it, you may have a common misconception among non-Catholics that the Immaculate Conception refers to Mary’s conceiving Jesus. It does not—we all agree that Jesus’ conception was immaculate—that is he was conceived without being tainted by Original Sin. The Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, however, refers to Mary’s conception in her mother’s womb—in a nutshell the doctrine states that Mary was born not just washed of sins but, like Jesus, sin-free.

Here is how the Catholic Encyclopedia defines the doctrine:

In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."

"The Blessed Virgin Mary . . ." The subject of this immunity from original sin is the person of Mary at the moment of the creation of her soul and its infusion into her body.

". . .in the first instance of her conception . . ." The term conception does not mean the active or generative conception by her parents. Her body was formed in the womb of the mother, and the father had the usual share in its formation. The question does not concern the immaculateness of the generative activity of her parents. Neither does it concern the passive conception absolutely and simply which, according to the order of nature, precedes the infusion of the rational soul. The person is truly conceived when the soul is created and infused into the body. Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin at the first moment of her animation, and sanctifying grace was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul.

". . .was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin. . ." The formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was in her soul. Simultaneously with the exclusion of sin. The state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed to original sin, was conferred upon her, by which gift every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining to original sin, were excluded. But she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam -- from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death.

". . .by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race." The immunity from original sin was given to Mary by a singular exemption from a universal law through the same merits of Christ, by which other men are cleansed from sin by baptism. Mary needed the redeeming Savior to obtain this exemption, and to be delivered from the universal necessity and debt of being subject to original sin. The person of Mary, in consequence of her origin from Adam, should have been subject to sin, but, being the new Eve who was to be the mother of the new Adam, she was, by the eternal counsel of God and by the merits of Christ, withdrawn from the general law of original sin. Her redemption was the very masterpiece of Christ's redeeming wisdom. He is a greater redeemer who pays the debt that it may not be incurred than he who pays after it has fallen on the debtor.

Such is the meaning of the term "Immaculate Conception."

It is interesting to ask whether or not this doctrine is said, by Rome, to be taught in the bible or only in tradition. The answer: both. That is almost always the modern answer, a partial response to the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura: that all Catholic doctrines are taught, explicitly or implicitly, in both scripture and sacred tradition. To see an example of how Catholics find scriptural support, we present excerpts from an article entitled Ark of the new covenant by Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid from the December, 1991 issue of This Rock magazine.

His face stiffened, and his eyes narrowed to slits. Until now the Calvary Chapel pastor had been calm as he "shared the gospel" with me, but when I mentioned my belief in Mary’s Immaculate Conception, his attitude changed.

"The problem with you Roman Catholics," he said, thin forefinger stabbing the air a few inches from my face, "is that you’ve added extra baggage to the gospel. How can you call yourselves Christians when you cling to unbiblical traditions like the Immaculate Conception? It’s not in the Bible--it was invented by the Roman Catholic system in 1854. Besides, Mary couldn’t have been sinless, only God is sinless. If she were without sin she would be God!"

At least the minister got the date right, 1854 being the year Pope Pius IX infallibly defined the doctrine of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, but that’s as far as his accuracy went. His reaction was typical of Evangelicals. He was adamant that the Catholic emphasis on Mary’s sinlessness was an unbearable affront to the unique holiness of God, especially as manifested in Jesus Christ.

Madrid employs an obvious stereotype fall guy—the fundamentalist bumpkin.

After we’d examined the biblical evidence for the doctrine, the anti-Marianism he’d shown became muted, but it was clear that, at least emotionally if not biblically, Mary was a stumbling block for him. Like most Christians (Catholic and Protestant) the minister was unaware of the biblical support for the Church’s teaching on the Immaculate Conception. But sometimes even knowledge of these passages isn’t enough. Many former Evangelicals who have converted to the Catholic Church relate how hard it was for them to put aside prejudices and embrace Marian doctrines even after they’d thoroughly satisfied themselves through prayer and Scripture study that such teachings were indeed biblical.

For Evangelicals who have investigated the issue and discovered, to their astonishment, the biblical support for Marian doctrines, there often lingers the suspicion that somehow, in a way they can’t quite identify, the Catholic emphasis on Mary’s sinlessness undermines the unique sinlessness of Christ.

Madrid has set the stakes high, hinting at substantive biblical support. Let us see if we are indeed astonished at the biblical support he musters. He continues:

Several objections are raised by Protestants.

First, if only God is sinless, Mary couldn’t have been sinless or she would have been God.

Second, if Mary was sinless, why did she say, "My spirit rejoices in God my savior" (Luke 1:47)? If only sinners need a savior, why would Mary, if free from sin, include herself in the category of sinners? If she were sinless, she would have had no need of a savior, and her statement in Luke 1 would be incoherent.

Third, Paul says in Romans 3:10-12, 23, "There is no one just [righteous], not one, there is no one who understands, there is no one who seeks God, all have gone astray; all alike are worthless; there is not one who does good, not even one. . . . all have sinned and are deprived [fallen short] of the glory of God." In Romans 5:12 he says, "Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned . . . ." These verses seem to rule out any possibility that Mary was sinless.

This is a strawman. First of all, the primary Protestant objection to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is that it is absent from scripture. If it were in scripture, then we would deal with the apparent inconsistencies with the indicated passages. But the doctrine is nowhere to be found. Secondly, for reasons that Madrid is about to point out, the Protestant position is not that a creature cannot exist in a state of sinlessness unless he is a God, the Protestant position is that since the fall no man in his humanity, save one, can live in sinlessness. The second and third points are fair.

The Immaculate Conception emphasizes four truths: (1) Mary did need a savior; (2) her savior was Jesus Christ; (3) Mary’s salvation was accomplished by Jesus through his work on the Cross; and (4) Mary was saved from sin, but in a different and more glorious way than the rest of us are. Let’s consider the first and easiest of the three objections.

The notion that God is the only being without sin is quite false--and even Protestants think so. Adam and Eve, before the fall, were free from sin, and they weren’t gods, the serpent’s assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. (One must remember that Mary was not the first immaculate human being, even if she was the first to be conceived immaculately.)

The angels in heaven are not gods, but they were created sinless and have remained so ever since. The saints in heaven are not gods, although each of them is now completely sinless (Rev. 14:5; 21:27).

As mentioned, Madrid sets up a strawman and proceeds to knock it down. He is addressing an argument that Protestants don’t really make.

The second and third arguments are related. Mary needed Jesus as her savior. His death on the Cross saved her, as it saves us, but its saving effects were applied to her (unlike to us) at the moment of her conception. (Keep in mind that the Crucifixion is an eternal event and that the appropriation of salvation through Christ’s death isn’t impeded by time or space.)

Paul’s statements in Romans chapters 3 and 5 (no one is righteous; no one seeks God; no one does good; all have sinned) should not be taken in a crassly literal and universal sense--if they are, irreconcilable contradictions will arise. Consider Luke 1:6 (Zechariah and Elizabeth). Common sense tells us whole groups of people are exempt from Paul’s statement that "all have sinned." Aborted infants cannot sin, nor can young children or severely retarded people. But Paul didn’t mention such obvious exceptions. He was writing to adults in our state of life.

If certain groups are exempt from the "all have sinned" rubric, then these verses can’t be used to argue against Mary’s Immaculate Conception, since hers would be an exceptional case too, one not needing mention given the purpose of Paul’s discussion and his intended audience.

Madrid appeals to our emotions, arguing that since neither murdered infants nor the mentally handicapped can sin, then obviously Paul didn’t really mean “all have sinned” when he wrote “all have sinned” and to interpret “all have sinned” as “all have sinned” is to be guilty of hyper-literalism. How does Madrid know that neither infants nor the mentally handicapped have sinned? He doesn’t say. Why then does the Catholic Church baptize infants if even young children cannot sin? He doesn’t say. What of the clear teaching in scripture that we all are born in rebellion to God (Ps. 51:5)? He ignores it.

Now let’s consider what the Bible has to say in favor of the Catholic position. It’s important to recognize that neither the words "Immaculate Conception" nor the precise formula adopted by the Church to enunciate this truth are found in the Bible. This doesn’t mean the doctrine isn’t biblical, only that the truth of the Immaculate Conception, like the truths of the Trinity and Jesus’ hypostatic union is mentioned either in other words or only indirectly.

Look first at two passages in Luke 1. In verse 28, the angel Gabriel greets Mary as "kecharitomene" ("full of grace" or "highly favored"). This is a recognition of her sinless state. In verse 42 Elizabeth greets Mary as "blessed among women." The original import of this phrase is lost in English translation. Since neither the Hebrew nor Aramaic languages have superlatives (best, highest, tallest, holiest), a speaker of those languages would have say, "You are tall among men" or "You are wealthy among men" to mean "You are the tallest" or "You are the wealthiest." Elizabeth’s words mean Mary was the holiest of all women.

There is some truth here: we must allow for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, like the Trinity, to be deduced from other scripture. But this is another strawman; the Protestant objection is not that the phrase “immaculate conception” does not appear, but that the doctrine it refers to is not deducible from scripture.

Here we see the single greatest passage claimed for biblical support: the use of the Greek word "kecharitomene" to describe Mary. In essence, the entire doctrine is based on this superlative being applied to Mary. According to Rome, this word implies sinlessness. But in no Greek lexicon bears that out. Instead, it refers to divine favor, something that nobody disputes was shown to Mary. At the end of the paragraph, when referring to Luke 1:42, Madrid substitutes the superlative “holiest” for no lexical reason—the actual superlative being “most blessed.”

Madrid also argues on the basis of Genesis:

We see a crucial statement in Genesis 3:15: "I will put enmity between you [Satan] and the woman, between your seed and her seed; he will crush your head, and you will strike at his heel."

If Mary were not completely sinless this prophesy becomes untenable. Why is that? The passage points to Mary’s Immaculate Conception because it mentions a complete enmity between the woman and Satan. Such an enmity would have been impossible if Mary were tainted by sin, original or actual (see 2 Corinthians 6:14). This line of thinking rules out Eve as the woman, since she clearly was under the influence of Satan in Genesis 3.

Madrid’s conclusion is rather bizarre:

Granted, none of these verses "proves" Mary’s Immaculate Conception, but they all point to it. After all, the Bible nowhere says Mary committed any sin or languished under original sin. As far as explicit statements are concerned, the Bible is silent on most of the issue, yet all the biblical evidence supports the Catholic teaching.

A last thought. If you could have created your own mother, wouldn’t you have made her the most beautiful, virtuous, perfect woman possible? Jesus, being God, did create his own mother (Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2), and he did just that--he created her immaculate and, in his mercy and generosity, kept her that way.

There are many things the bible does not state explicitly. It does not explicitly negate the Mormon teaching that Jesus is Lucifer’s brother. One can prove just about anything by arguing what the bible does not explicitly negate.

Lesson 7: Roman Catholicism (Part 11)

(This is based, in part, on John Gerstner’s Primer on Roman Catholicism from a compilation of his primers in the book Primitive Theology. I am using Primitive Theology for my Sunday School class. For this lesson, I will also draw from James R. White’s The Roman Catholic Controversy, (Bethany House, 1996).There is a growing list of links on the left for the posts for this class.

Biblical Support for Purgatory

We have already discussed one passage used to defend the doctrine of purgatory:

And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. (Matt. 12:32)

Here Rome argues that “the age to come” refers to purgatory. As we saw, Calvin believed this passage could be paraphrased as “will not be forgiven now, nor at the final judgment.” Other Protestant commentators teach that the two ages refer to the old and new covenant. Finally, we saw that this passage, taking the Roman view that “the age to come” refers to purgatory, leads to a contradiction of their own doctrine. For if blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is a mortal sin that cannot be forgiven in purgatory, it then implies that there most be some mortal sins that can be forgiving in the age to come, which violates Catholic dogma that only venial sins can be forgiven (in terms of guilt) in purgatory.

Calvin elaborates:

Those passages of Scripture on which it is their wont falsely and iniquitously to fasten, it may be worth while to wrench out of their hands. When the Lord declares that the sin against the Holy Ghost will not be forgiven either in this world or the world to come, he thereby intimates (they say) that there is a remission of certain sins hereafter. But who sees not that the Lord there speaks of the guilt of sin? But if this is so, what has it to do with their purgatory, seeing they deny not that the guilt of those sins, the punishment of which is there expiated, is forgiven in the present life? Lest, however, they should still object, we shall give a plainer solution. Since it was the Lord's intention to cut off all hope of pardon from this flagitious wickedness, he did not consider it enough to say, that it would never be forgiven, but in the way of amplification employed a division by which he included both the judgment which every man's conscience pronounces in the present life, and the final judgment which will be publicly pronounced at the resurrection; as if he had said, Beware of this malignant rebellion, as you would of instant destruction; for he who of set purpose endeavors to extinguish the offered light of the Spirit, shall not obtain pardon either in this life, which has been given to sinners for conversion, or on the last day when the angels of God shall separate the sheep from the goats, and the heavenly kingdom shall be purged of all that offends. (Institutes III.5.7)

Another passage used to support purgatory is:

²³ So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, ²⁴ leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. ²⁵ Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison. ²⁶ Truly, I say to you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny. (Matt. 5:23-26)

Here the idea is that, allegorically, the devil is the accuser and God is the judge. Clearly then, according to Rome, you can be placed in a prison from which you can get out—as long as you have paid your debt. They are certain this clearly teaches of purgatory. Calvin comments:

The next passage they produce is the parable in Matthew: "Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily, I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost earthing," (Matt. 5: 25, 26.) If in this passage the judge means God, the adversary the devil, the officer an angel, and the prison purgatory, I give in at once. But if every man sees that Christ there intended to show to how many perils and evils those expose themselves who obstinately insist on their utmost right, instead of being satisfied with what is fair and equitable, that he might thereby the more strongly exhort his followers to concord, where, I ask, are we to find their purgatory? (Calvin, ibid.)

Calvin is telling us that Jesus wants us to come to fair and equitable agreements with our brothers, lest we cut off our nose to spite our face. Christ is speaking, according to Calvin, of the unseemliness and also risk for a person, especially a Christian, to hold out for ultimate satisfaction, especially against a brother. Matthew Henry comments in a similar vein:

Upon a temporal account. If the offence we have done to our brother, in his body, goods, or reputation, be such as will bear action, in which he may recover considerable damages, it is our wisdom, and it is our duty to our family, to prevent that by a humble submission and a just and peaceable satisfaction; lest otherwise he recover it by law, and put us to the extremity of a prison. In such a case it is better to compound and make the best terms we can, than to stand it out; for it is in vain to contend with the law, and there is danger of our being crushed by it. Many ruin their estates by an obstinate persisting in the offences they have given, which would soon have been pacified by a little yielding at first. Solomon's advice in case of suretyship is, Go, humble thyself, and so secure and deliver thyself, (Prov. 6:1-5). It is good to agree, for the law is costly. Though we must be merciful to those we have advantage against, yet we must be just to those that have advantage against us, as far as we are able. "Agree, and compound with thine adversary quickly, lest he be exasperated by thy stubbornness, and provoked to insist upon the utmost demand, and will not make thee the abatement which at first he would have made." A prison is an uncomfortable place to those who are brought to it by their own pride and prodigality, their own wilfulness and folly.

Finally, we have this passage that allegedly supports purgatory:

¹⁰ According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. ¹¹ For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. ¹² Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— ¹³ each one's work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. ¹⁴ If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. ¹⁵ If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire. (1 Cor. 3:10-15)

Rome argues that the juxtaposition of works, fire, and rewards speak of the doctrine of purgatory. But in truth the passage speaks for itself, and the only link to purgatory is that fire is mentioned.

The main problem for the Catholic position is that purgatory is supposed to be about sins, punishment, and purification. This passage is not about sins, but rather about works. It is not sins that are being judged, but works. Here we see a rather plain teaching: that if a Christian does good works that withstand inspection, he will be rewarded. If his works do not withstand inspection there will be the opposite result: he will suffer loss, though not his salvation. The fire refers to the burning up of works made of wood or straw instead of bricks. Matthew Henry comments:

There are others whose works shall be burnt (v. 15), whose corrupt opinions and doctrines, or vain inventions and usages in the worship of God, shall be discovered, disowned, and rejected, in that day--shall be first manifested to be corrupt, and then disapproved of God and rejected. Note, the great day will pluck off all disguises, and make things appear as they are: He whose work shall be burnt will suffer loss. If he has built upon the right foundation wood and hay and stubble, he will suffer loss. His weakness and corruption will be the lessening of his glory, though he may in the general have been an honest and an upright Christian. This part of his work will be lost, turning no way to his advantage, though he himself may be saved. Observe, those who hold the foundation of Christianity, though they build hay, wood, and stubble, upon it, may be saved. This may help to enlarge our charity. We should not reprobate men for their weakness: for nothing will damn men but wickedness. He shall be saved, yet so as by fire, saved out of the fire. He himself shall be snatched out of that flame which will consume his work. This intimates that it will be difficult for those that corrupt and deprave Christianity to be saved. God will have no mercy on their works, though he may pluck them as brands out of the burning. On this passage of scripture the papists found their doctrine of purgatory, which is certainly hay and stubble: a doctrine never fetched from scripture, but invented in barbarous ages, to feed the avarice and ambition of the clergy, at the cost of those who would rather part with their money than their lusts, for the salvation of their souls. It can have no countenance from this text, (1) Because this is plainly meant of a figurative fire, not of a real one: for what real fire can consume religious rites or doctrines? (2) Because this fire is to try men's works, of what sort they are; but purgatory-fire is not for trial, not to bring men's actions to the test, but to punish for them. They are supposed to be venial sins, not satisfied for in this life, for which satisfaction must be made by suffering the fire of purgatory. (3) Because this fire is to try every man's works, those of Paul and Apollos, as well as those of others. Now, no papists will have the front to say apostles must have passed through purgatory fires.

Blogging Break

The blogging has been reduced to a trickle these days--so I have decided to take an official break. I'll return June 1, Lord willing.

Poor Little Rich Young Ruler

I would like to expand upon some comments from a previous post.

The question arose as to whether the so-called “Rich Young Ruler” was saved. We read in Mark’s gospel:

¹⁷And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" ¹⁸And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. ¹⁹You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.'" ²⁰And he said to him, "Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth." ²¹And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, "You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." ²²Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions. (Mark 10:17-22)

Conventional wisdom, it is fair to say, is that the man walked away unsaved.

I’ll give you my opinion. I think he was saved. (Or would inevitably be saved.)

Of course, we can not say for certain whether someone we know intimately is saved, let alone a person who lived two millennia ago. But we can speculate. (And we are supposed to speculate to a certain degree—there is all manner of instruction in scripture as to how we deal with fellow believers, presupposing that we, at the very least, take people at their word.)

To begin, I’d ask you to think about all the people you believe to be saved. Now, one by one, insert them into the rich young ruler’s position. Would each and everyone sell all his possessions? Do you think it’s possible that at least a few would falter? And if so, does that necessarily mean that they were not saved? Could it not simply mean that at that particular moment they chose poorly?

If you agree that it is possible that at a given moment a saved man could make a wrong choice, choosing the world over following Christ—then you must at least allow for the possibility that the rich young ruler was saved.

Or do you hold him to a higher standard? An unbiblical higher standard? Are you legalistic in regards to the rich young ruler? Was it for him, and for him alone (apart from Christ) that perfect obedience is demanded? Was it for him alone that the litmus test was whether or not he sold all his possessions?

Peter didn’t sell all his possessions and give the money to the poor. He returned to his fishing boat after the resurrection.

So that’s my first point—which to summarize is this: whether or not the man was saved is not to be answered by whether or not he made the right choice at that moment. An unsaved person, overcome by a false zeal, might have sold everything—it happens all the time with cults.

The second point I want to make stems from Jesus’ feelings toward the man: And Jesus, looking at him, loved him…

I suppose, broadly speaking, that there are four possible comments one could make concerning the fact that Jesus loved the rich young ruler:

1. Jesus loves everyone, so of course He loved the rich young ruler.
   
   
2. Jesus loved him at that moment, but not necessarily a few seconds later, when the man turned away.
   
   
3. Jesus’ love for people is not correlated with whether or not they are elect. He loves some who are not elect, and not necessarily all who are.
   
   
4. Jesus, at least in a certain sense, loves only the elect.

The first possibility, that Jesus loves everyone including the rich young ruler, is susceptible to the follow-on question: why then did scripture go out of its way to tell us that Jesus loved this particular man? It’s quite redundant. And if it was just to emphasize that Jesus loves everyone, why not use better examples, such as the Pharisees? You brood of vipers! How I love all of you!

The second possibility points to a fickle Jesus, and brings into question his immutability. It is a Jesus that only open theists could embrace.

The third possibility fits the data—but I know of no theology teaching both: that God’s love for people is not universal and it is not correlated with salvation.

The fourth possibility is what I believe. That Jesus has a special love, a salvific love, that goes well beyond a general benevolence toward all humanity. A love for the elect (or, for my Arminian friends, those he foresaw as believers.) To me, the only reason for scripture to go out of its way to tell us that Jesus loved the rich young ruler was to place him in that category.

The final point I’ll make is that when the man turned away, he was sad, not angry. As a believer, when you sin, even as you are sinning, what is you overall emotion? Does it not include a heavy dose of sadness? Don’t we all feel exactly like this man when we choose to follow the world instead of Christ?

I think the rich young ruler gets mistreated. If he was saved, it was by grace not by works. If he was saved, he was still quite capable of, at times, choosing the world. If he was saved, Jesus would certainly love him. And if he was saved, he would feel remorse at his sin.

Lesson 7: Roman Catholicism (Part 10)

(This is based, in part, on John Gerstner’s Primer on Roman Catholicism from a compilation of his primers in the book Primitive Theology. I am using Primitive Theology for my Sunday School class. For this lesson, I will also draw from James R. White’s The Roman Catholic Controversy, (Bethany House, 1996).There is a growing list of links on the left for the posts for this class.

Indulgences

Intimately related to purgatory is the Catholic doctrine on indulgences. Indulgences grew out of the system of penance developed by the Catholic Church. In an indulgence, the Catholic Church allowed the penitent to substitute a cash payment for other forms of satisfaction. The Church would even issue an official statement saying that one had been released from other penalties. It was this official document that was called an indulgence. In a sense, the indulgence amounted to a receipt for payment of a fine.

An indulgence, according to the Roman Catholic Church, is a means of remission of the temporal punishment for sins which have already been forgiven. This punishment is most often in purgatory but can also be suffered in this life. An indulgence removes time needed to be spent in purgatory. There are two kinds of indulgences: partial and plenary. A partial indulgence removes part of the punishment of sins. A plenary indulgence removes all of the punishment of sins. Granting an indulgence of a certain number of days or years means that is how many days or years is removed from the time of punishment a person must undergo in purgatory.

On the inside of the cover of the New St. Joseph Baltimore Catechism published in 1969 there is a prayer. After the prayer, it reads as follows: "An indulgence of five years. A plenary indulgence on the usual conditions, provided this prayer has been recited daily for a month." By saying the prayer properly, the catechist is promised that five years is removed from time in purgatory.

On the same page of the Baltimore Catechism it reads, "The faithful who devote 20 minutes to a half hour to teaching or studying Christian doctrine, may gain: an indulgence of three years. A plenary indulgence on the usual conditions twice a month, if the above practice is carried out at least twice a month."

So, according to the Baltimore catechism, if you say the prayer properly you can have five years removed from your time in purgatory. And, if you devote twenty minutes to a half hour to teaching or studying Christian doctrine, you can have three years removed from purgatory.

Additionally, one could purchase indulgences for the dead, to reduce their time in purgatory. This was based on the Catholic doctrine of supererogatory merit.

Catholicism and Merit

Catholics speak of three types of merit, each of which plays a role in salvation:

1. Condign Merit. This is merit attributed to our works for which God is obligated to give reward. This is like paying a laborer his due wages.
   
   
2. Congruous Merit. This is merit that is “reasonable”, but not obligated. In secular terms, it is something like a waiter’s tip. It is attained through works and penance.
   
   
3. Supererogatory Merit. This is the stuff of saints. It is their “excess” merit and it is deposited in a treasury of supererogatory merits. It can then be drawn upon to free people from purgatory. Attaining supererogatory merit is also possible for a priest living a life of celibacy in devotion to Christ. A layman can accrue supererogatory merit through regular church attendance and constant attention to the sacraments.

The merit in the treasury comes from Christ, who contributed an infinite amount, then from Mary, and then from the Saints.

The Catholic doctrine of supererogatory merit is based on an interpretation of the story of the rich young ruler.

¹⁷And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" ¹⁸And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. ¹⁹You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.'" ²⁰And he said to him, "Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth." ²¹And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, "You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." ²²Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions. (Mark 10:17-22)

According to Catholic teaching, the ruler was obviously saved, so the fact that he could do more means that there would have been further reward. That reward would have come in the form of supererogatory merit.

(As an aside, I also believe that the rich young ruler was saved.)

Returning once again to Indulgentarium Doctrina:

Thus is explained the "treasury of the Church" which should certainly not be imagined as the sum total of material goods accumulated in the course of the centuries, but the infinite and inexhaustible value the expiation and the merits of Christ Our Lord have before God, offered as they were so that all of mankind could be set free from sin and attain communion with the Father. It is Christ the Redeemer Himself in whom the satisfactions and merits of His redemption exist and find their force. This treasury also includes the truly immense, unfathomable and ever pristine value before God of the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints, who following in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by His grace have sanctified their lives and fulfilled the mission entrusted to them by the Father. Thus while attaining their own salvation, they have also cooperated in the salvation of their brothers in the unity of the Mystical Body.

So this treasury of merit is quite strange: it co-mingles the merit of Jesus, Mary, and the Saints. In indulgence is, then, similar to a withdrawal from this treasury. The loan officer is, naturally, the pope. Indulgentarium Doctrina tells us:

For "the only-begotten son of God… has won a treasure for the militant Church… and has entrusted it to blessed Peter, the keybearer of heaven, and to his successors, Christ's vicars on earth, that they may distribute it to the faithful for their salvation, applying it mercifully for reasonable causes to all who are repentant and have confessed their sins, at times remitting completely and at times partially the temporal punishment due sin in a general as well as in special ways insofar as they judge it to be fitting in the eyes of the Lord. It is known that the merits of the Blessed Mother of God and of all the elect… add further to this treasure."

This document adds, a few paragraphs later:

In addition, it should not be forgotten that by acquiring indulgences the faithful submit docilely to the legitimate pastors of the Church and above all to the successor of Blessed Peter, the keybearer of heaven, to whom the Savior Himself entrusted the task of feeding His flock and governing His Church.

In then goes on to explain the benefit of indulgences:

The salutary institution of indulgences therefore contributes in its own way to bringing it about that the Church appear before Christ without blemish or defect, but holy and immaculate, admirably united with Christ in the supernatural bond of charity. Since in fact by means of indulgences members of the Church who are undergoing purification are united more speedily to those of the Church in heaven, the kingdom of Christ is through these same indulgences established more extensively and more speedily…

So indulges, we are told, contribute to creating a church without blemish. Scripture has something to say in this regard:

²⁵ Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, ²⁶ that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, ²⁷ so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. (Eph 5:25-27)

Here Paul is describing how the church will attain a blemish-free status with which to be presented to Christ. It says nothing about indulgences. It says less than nothing about contributions of merit from anyone other than Christ, including Mary or the Saints. It’s all Christ. It teaches that Christ will present the church to himself, sanctified by His own sacrifice.

Indulgences, according the official teaching presented in Indulgentarium Doctrina, have a purpose beyond releasing someone from temporal punishment. They are also helpful, according to Rome, for building our confidence in reconciliation with God:

In an indulgence in fact, the Church, making use of its power as minister of the Redemption of Christ, not only prays but by an authoritative intervention dispenses to the faithful suitably disposed the treasury of satisfaction which Christ and the saints won for the remission of temporal punishment… Likewise, the religious practice of indulgences reawakens trust and hope in a full reconciliation with God the Father…

Once again we see indulgences taking partial credit for something that scripture teaches in an entirely different manner:

¹⁰ For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. ¹¹ More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. (Rom. 5:10-11)

Our confidence in reconciliation, according to the Apostle Paul, is through the death and resurrection of Jesus. Once again, nothing resembling indulgences is mentioned.

Finally, from a list of twenty “norms” or rules about the proper use of indulgences, we read in Indulgentarium Doctrina:

Norm 5. The faithful who at least with a contrite heart perform an action to which a partial indulgence is attached obtain, in addition to the remission of temporal punishment acquired by the action itself, an equal remission of punishment through the intervention of the Church.

That is, the Church matches your contribution—like a retirement fund.

Norm 6. A plenary indulgence can be acquired only once a day, except for the provisions contained in n. 18 for those who are on the point of death. A partial indulgence can be acquired more than once a day, unless there is an explicit indication to the contrary.

Norm 7. To acquire a plenary indulgence it is necessary to perform the work to which the indulgence is attached and to fulfill three conditions: sacramental confession, Eucharistic Communion and prayer for the intentions of the Supreme Pontiff. It is further required that all attachment to sin, even to venial sin, be absent.

If this disposition is in any way less than complete, or if the prescribed three conditions are not fulfilled, the indulgence will be only partial, except for the provisions contained in n. 11 for those who are "impeded."

Norm 8. The three conditions may be fulfilled several days before or after the performance of the prescribed work; nevertheless it is fitting that Communion be received and the prayers for the intentions of the Supreme Pontiff be said the same day the work is performed.

Norm 10. The condition of praying for the Supreme Pontiff's intentions is fully satisfied by reciting one "Our Father" and one "Hail Mary"; nevertheless the individual faithful are free to recite any other prayer according to their own piety and devotion toward the Supreme Pontiff.

Norm 15. A plenary indulgence applicable only to the dead can be acquired in all churches and public oratories--and in semipublic oratories by those who have the right to use them--on November 2.

Norm 15 is my personal favorite. By the works of man and the approval of the Church, God’s grace will be allotted on a specific day.

Lesson 7: Roman Catholicism (Part 9)

(This is based, in part, on John Gerstner’s Primer on Roman Catholicism from a compilation of his primers in the book Primitive Theology. I am using Primitive Theology for my Sunday School class. For this lesson, I will also draw from James R. White’s The Roman Catholic Controversy, (Bethany House, 1996).There is a growing list of links on the left for the posts for this class.

Purgatory

As usual, we begin a study of a Catholic doctrine by referring to official pronouncements. From the Council of Florence (1439):

It has likewise defined, that, if those truly penitent have departed in the love of God, before they have made satisfaction by worthy fruits of penance for sins of commission and omission, the souls of these are cleansed after death by purgatorial punishments; and so that they may be released from punishments of this kind, the suffrages of the living faithful are of advantage to them, namely, the sacrifices of Masses, prayers, and almsgiving, and other works of piety, which are customarily performed by the faithful for other faithful according to the institutions of the Church.

From the Council of Trent (1563):

Since the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Spirit, in conformity with the sacred writings and the ancient tradition of the Fathers in sacred councils, and very recently in this ecumenical Synod, has taught that there is a purgatory, and that the souls detained there are assisted by the suffrages of the faithful, and especially by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar, the holy Synod commands the bishops that they insist that the sound doctrine of purgatory, which has been transmitted by the holy Fathers and holy Councils, be believed by the faithful of Christ, be maintained, taught, and everywhere preached.

If anyone shall say that after the reception of the grace of justification, to every penitent sinner the guilt is so remitted and the penalty of eternal punishment so blotted out that no penalty of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either in this world or in the world to come in purgatory before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened: let him be anathema.

Fr. John Hardon, author of the respected work The Catholic Catechism (1981), explains:

The reason of faith is that nothing defiled can enter heaven, and therefore anyone less than perfect must first be purified before he can be admitted to the vision of God. In more concrete terms, which have been carved out of centuries of the Church's reflection on revelation, there exists purgatory, in which the souls of the just who die with the stains of sins are cleansed by expiation before they are admitted to heaven. They can be helped, however, by the intercession of the faithful on earth.

“Who are the souls of the just? They are those that leave the body in the state of sanctifying grace and are therefore destined by right to enter heavenly glory. Their particular judgment was favorable, although conditional. They must first be cleansed before they can see the face of God. The condition is always fulfilled.

“When we speak of "stains of sins," the expression is consciously ambivalent. It first means the temporal punishment due to venial or mortal sins already forgiven as to guilt but not fully remitted as to penalty when a person dies. It may also mean the venial sins themselves, not forgiven either as to guilt or punishment before death.

Fr. Hardon is attempting to explain one of the complexities of the doctrine. It has to do with the distinction between mortal and venial sin, and the distinction between forgiven and “paid for” (expiated) through temporal punishment.

Venial sin is a sin which meets at least one of the following criteria:

1. it does not concern a "grave matter",
   
2. it is not committed with full knowledge, or
   
3. it is not committed with both deliberate and complete consent.

Mortal sin, then, is a sin that meets none of the three criteria. Some sins that Rome considers to be mortal include adultery, murder, lust, missing mass on Sunday, perjury, unbelief, and the use of contraceptives. All of these are subject to the to mitigating circumstances above. The Church does not provide a precise list of sins, subdivided into the mortal and venial categories. Rather, it is generally considered a matter for a well-formed conscience to decide. It should not be said that missing Mass on Sunday is considered equal in gravity to murder: the Catholic belief holds that mortal sins can vary in their seriousness, although the "mortal" effect remains present for all sins in this category.

In short, mortal sins are very serious-- a mortal sin is a sin that results in a loss of one’s salvation if it goes unrepented. It is called "mortal" because it kills the eternal life in a soul that is first given in baptism. A less serious venial sin adds to one's time in purgatory. So what Fr. Hardon is telling us is:

1. Sins must be forgiven in order to be saved.
   
2. Sins that are forgiven must also be paid for by temporal punishment.
   
3. Mortal sins must be forgiven in this life, but some or all of their punishment can be exacted in purgatory.
   
4. Similarly for venial sins, except it may be possible that some venial sins are actually forgiven in purgatory (as opposed to just “paid for.”)

In the Roman Catholic Catechism, we read:

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire: As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.

We note that a scripture passage used to support purgatory is the unpardonable sin:

And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. (Matt. 12:32)

The idea being that this passage obliquely proves that there is the possibility of some sin being forgiven in an age to come—which is identified with purgatory.

John Calvin wrote, regarding Matt. 12:32:

With regard to the inference drawn by the Papists, that the sins of men are forgiven after death, there is no difficulty in refuting their slander. First, they act foolishly in torturing the expression, future life, to mean an intermediate period, while any one may perceive that it denotes "the last judgment." But it is likewise a proof of their dishonesty; for the objection which they sophistically urge is inconsistent with their own doctrine. Who knows not their distinction, that sins are freely pardoned in respect of guilt, but that punishment and satisfaction are demanded? This is an acknowledgment, that there is no hope of salvation to any one whose guilt is not pardoned before death. To the dead, therefore, there remains no forgiveness, except as regards punishment; and surely they will not venture to deny that the subject of this discourse is guilt. Let them now go and light their fire of purgatory with these cold materials, if ice can kindle a flame.

Calvin’s criticism is a subtle but deadly one: Catholic doctrine teaches that all mortal sin must be forgiven (via penance) in this life. Clearly the unpardonable sin is a mortal sin. In order for Matt. 12:32 to speak of purgatory, it must be allowed that this mortal sin is an exception—and so the implication is that some mortal sin can be forgiven in purgatory. Calvin takes the simpler view: blasphemy of the Holy Spirit will neither be forgiven in this age nor at the final judgment—stated to emphasize the serious of the transgression. Other Protestant commentators suggest that this sin is neither forgivable in under the Old Covenant (still in effect as Jesus spoke these words) or the New Covenant (the age to come) initiated at Calvary.

The Catholic Catechism goes on to speak of prayer for the dead:

1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture:

"Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin." (2 Maccabees 12:46)

From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God. The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead: Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.

We see that some of their scriptural support comes from the Apocryphal book of 2 Maccabees. We see also that indulgences are explicitly mentioned in the Catechism.

This may come as a surprise to those who thought indulgences were an “ancient” doctrine. Not so—here are some excerpts from the post-Vatican II document: Indulgentarium Doctrina (Paul VI, 1967):

It is a divinely revealed truth that sins bring punishments inflicted by God's sanctity and justice. These must be expiated either on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and calamities of this life and above all through death, or else in the life beyond through fire and torments or "purifying" punishments…The reasons for their imposition are that our souls need to be purified.

That punishment or the vestiges of sin may remain to be expiated or cleansed and that they in fact frequently do even after the remission of guilt is clearly demonstrated by the doctrine on purgatory. In purgatory, in fact, the souls of those "who died in the charity of God and truly repentant, but before satisfying with worthy fruits of penance for sins committed and for omissions" are cleansed after death with purgatorial punishments.

What we see is that there are three Catholic doctrines that are closely related: Purgatory, indulgences, and the “treasury of merit.”

Next time we will look at indulgences and the complex Catholic view of merit.

End Times Date Prediction

Tribulation to start in -1940 Years!

---

NOTE: This is a slight variation of a post from a couple years ago. I gave it as a Sunday School lesson yesterday, so I thought I might as well repost.

---

The Olivet Discourse: Preterist View of Matthew 24.

Preterism refers to the view that many of Jesus’ prophecies found the gospels as well as in the apocalyptic books such as Daniel and Revelation, including what is commonly referred to as the Great Tribulation, have already been fulfilled. In a nutshell:

• Unlike Dispensationalism (the futurist view with the rapture, the seven year tribulation, the rise of the antichrist, and the 1000 year earthly kingdom), preterism does not view the "Kingdom of God" as something occurring in the future, but as something that has already been initiated. The Gospel references to the Kingdom of Heaven, (or Kingdom of God), when given with an accompanying time frame, teach of the imminence of the Kingdom (c.f., Matt 3:2, 4:17, 10:7, 12:28; Mark 1:15, 9:1, 12:34; Luke 9:27, 10:9-11, 17:20-22).
  
  
• Preterism attaches great prophetic and redemptive significance to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
  
  
• Preterism presents a harmonious explanation of the Olivet discourse, taking the time references at their plain meaning and references to cosmic cataclysm as prophetic poetry. This is both its greatest success (for all other explanations of the Olivet discourse suffer from some sort of difficulty in the time-related aspects) and its greatest provocation, for the preterist must acknowledge that the Parousia (second coming, or more accurately the Coming of the Son of Man) has already happened. The "sense" in which it has happened, and whether or not there is still a future glorious return of Christ in the clouds and a resurrection of the saints, separates hyper-preterism from partial or moderate preterism.
  
  
• The Olivet discourse contains timelines, apocalyptic prophesy, and descriptions of the fulfilling of prophesy. In some sense, preterists and dispensationalists (futurists, left-behinders) choose opposite hermeneutics: The preterists take the time references literally and the apocalyptic descriptions as imagery, while the dispensationalists do the reverse.
  
  
• The preterist views the Olivet discourse as a continuous exposition on a single time period: from the time Christ spoke the words to about one generation (40 years) later (when some of those present would still be alive). The terminus of the discourse’s prophesy is AD 70 when the Temple was destroyed.
  
  
• The most important thing to keep in mind is that to the preterist, everything discussed in the Olivet discourse happened within about forty years after Christ delivers the prophecy.
  
  
• Because the preterist sees the great tribulation as something in the past, he tends to be more optimistic about the future. Thus you see a strong correlation between preterism and post-millennialism—the eschatology that teaches the world will be dominated by Christianity before Christ’s return.

The Olivet Discourse

Now, on to the scripture (Taken here from Matthew 24):

¹ Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple. ² And Jesus said to them, "Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

There is universal agreement that this refers to the destruction of the temple in AD 70. This is such an amazing prophesy that biblical critics argue that it "proves" that either the gospels were written after the event or that its description was a later redaction designed to give Christ more credibility.

³ Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?"

According to preterism, The disciples are asking about closely related events, or different aspects of the same event: these things refers to what was just discussed, the destruction of the temple, your coming refers to the Parousia, and the end of the age refers to the end of the Jewish dispensation. (note: the word at the end of v. 3 [aion] is more properly translated as age, rather than world [kosmos].) Calvin (who was neither a preterist or a dispensationalist, but a historicist) taught that the disciples, finding the destruction of the temple to be utterly inconceivable, erroneously assumed that it would not happen until the end of the world. Preterists disagree, pointing out that Jesus took no steps to correct the false assumption, and indeed He answers as if these events occur in a single time frame.
What age is being discussed? Scholars know that Jewish apocalyptic literature of this era divided history into two great ages—the age of the law and the age of the Messiah. What is ending is the age of the law—or the Jewish age. N. T. Wright comments:

The present age was a time when the creator god seemed to be hiding his face; the age to come would see the renewal of the created world. The present age was the time of Israel's misery; in the age to come she would be restored. In the present age wicked men seemed to be flourishing; in the age to come they would receive their just reward. In the present age even Israel was not really keeping the Torah perfectly, was not really being YHWH's true humanity; in the age to come all Israel would keep Torah from the heart. (N. T Wright, New Testament and the People of God, 299-300.)

Let’s move on to Jesus’ answer.

⁴ And Jesus answered and said to them: "Take heed that no one deceives you. ⁵ For many will come in My name, saying, "I am the Christ,' and will deceive many. ⁶ And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. ⁷ For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places. ⁸ All these are the beginning of sorrows.

Preterists point to historic accounts from the 1st century historian Josephus and other contemporary writers affirming that all these things occurred in the vicinity of Palestine during the period in question. For example, Josephus writes,

Now, as for the affairs of the Jews, they grew worse and worse continually; for the country was again filled with robbers and impostors, who deluded the multitude. (Josephus, Antiquities 20.8.5)

Calvin agrees that all these events happened in the approximately 40 years from the time Christ spoke these words until the destruction of Jerusalem, but points out that they all would happen to some degree in virtually any 40 year period. I think what Calvin was really saying is that for the Lord to give a specific warning about such matters, they must not be, for example, your garden variety false Christ but deceivers extraordinaire. The preterist response (in regards to the false prophets) is that while in its infancy, the church was extremely vulnerable to false prophets and so a specific warning is in order, whereas today the maturity of the church makes it less susceptible to such an attack.

Preterists also point out that Christ says Take heed that no one deceives you. The plain reading is that "you" refers to the disciples, not some far future group of believers. This is further evidence that Jesus is talking about something imminent, and has not segued into a discussion of far distant prophesy.

⁹ "Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name's sake. ¹⁰ And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. ¹¹ Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. ¹² And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. ¹³ But he who endures to the end shall be saved. ¹⁴ And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come. ¹⁵ "Therefore when you see the "abomination of desolation,' spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place" (whoever reads, let him understand), ¹⁶ "then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. ¹⁷ Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house. ¹⁸ And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes. ¹⁹ But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! ²⁰ And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath. ²¹ For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. ²² And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect's sake those days will be shortened. ²³ "Then if anyone says to you, "Look, here is the Christ!' or "There!' do not believe it. ²⁴ For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. ²⁵ See, I have told you beforehand. ²⁶ "Therefore if they say to you, "Look, He is in the desert!' do not go out; or "Look, He is in the inner rooms!' do not believe it. ²⁷ For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. ²⁸ For wherever the carcass is, there the eagles will be gathered together.

There is more in this part of the discourse about false prophets, to which the previous comments once again apply. More importantly, this passage talks about what is usually believed to be the great (and future) Tribulation with a capital 'T'. However, to the preterist, this tribulation refers to the persecution endured prior to the "coming of the Son of Man" (again: about 40 years hence, to the preterist). Verses 9-11 offer no problem; surely a case can be made that such things happened during this period.

It is useful to remind ourselves just how horrific was the Roman response to the Jewish Rebellion. Jack Van Deventer lists some of the atrocities committed by the Romans in a “dateline” manner, most of the information gleaned from the writings of Josephus:

• Jerusalem (June 3, 66 A.D.)--"So the [Roman] soldiers did not only plunder the place they were sent to, but forcing themselves into every house, they slew its [Jewish] inhabitants; so the citizens fled along the narrow lanes, and the soldiers slew those that they caught, and no method of plunder was omitted; they also caught many of the quiet people, and brought them before Florus, whom he first chastised with stripes, and then crucified. Accordingly, the whole number of those that were destroyed that day, with their wives and children (for they did not spare even the infants themselves), was about 3,600."
  
  
• Cesarea (66 A.D.)--"Now the people of Cesarea had slain the Jews that were among them. . . [I]n one hour's time above 20,000 Jews were killed, and all Cesarea was emptied of its Jewish inhabitants; for Florus caught such as ran away, and sent them to the galleys."
  
  
• Scythopolis and other cities (66 A.D.)--"The people of Scythopolis watched their opportunity, and cut all [the Jews'] throats, some of them as they lay unguarded, and some as they lay asleep. The number that was slain was above 13,000, and then they plundered them of all they had." "Besides this murder at Scythopolis, the other cities rose up against the Jews that were among them: those of Askelon slew 2,500, and those of Ptolemais 2,000, and put not a few in bonds; those of Tyre also put a great number to death, but kept a greater number in prison."
  
  
• Alexandria (66 A.D.)--These [Roman] soldiers rushed violently into that part of the city which was called Delta, where the Jewish people lived together [The Jews were] destroyed unmercifully; and this their destruction was complete, some being caught in the open field (Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. (Matt. 24:40).), and others forced into their houses, which houses were first plundered of what was in them, and then set on fire by the Romans; wherein no mercy was shown to the infants, and no regard had to the aged; but they went on in the slaughter of persons of every age, till all the place was overflowed with blood, and 50,000 of them lay dead upon heaps…"
  
  
• Jotapata (July, 67 A.D.)--"[T]he Romans slew all the multitude that appeared openly; but on the following days they searched the hiding places, and fell upon those that were underground, and in the caverns, and went thus through every age, excepting the infants and the women, and of these there were gathered together as captives twelve hundred; and as for those that were slain at the taking of the city, and in the former fights, they were numbered to be 40,000.

The widespread slaughter of the Jews continued for several years. Many of the Jews fled to Jerusalem for safety.

²⁴When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!" ²⁵All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!" (Matt. 27:24-25)

The Jews asked that the blood be upon their hands. And so it was. In Jerusalem alone, Josephus records that 100,000 were captured, and 1.1 million killed. This does not include the Jews killed in other cities (as described above) as the Roman juggernaut pushed forward.

After the Roman armies reached Jerusalem a lengthy siege ensued. The Romans bombarded the city with 90 pound stones hurled as far as 1200 feet by catapult.

When the food ran out, civil war broke out among three Jewish factions. Murder and starvation were rampant. Josephus wrote that civil war inside the walls of Jerusalem wrought more carnage than the conquering Romans. People who were thought to have consumed food were sometimes killed and disemboweled in search of food within their stomachs. There were many reports of cannibalism. Many tried to escape starvation by sneaking out of the city. Most were captured by the Romans, killed on the spot and disemboweled: the Romans believed that the Jews hid their valuables by swallowing them. If a father was killed searching for food, his wife and children became targets within the city.

Josephus also described a scene of horror concerning a starving mother (remindful, once again, of the warnings in Matthew 24). In the midst of the famine she suddenly withdrew her nursing infant from her breast. She killed, roasted and ate half the child, and offered the rest to the horrified bystanders.

It is interesting to read Josephus’ accounts of the events leading up to the war. In addition to "rumors of wars", Josephus records that there was a rise of false Christs and prophets.

There was also another body of wicked men gotten together, not so impure in their actions, but more wicked in their intentions, which laid waste the happy state of the city no less than did these murderers. These were such men as deceived and deluded the people under pretense of Divine inspiration…. But there was an Egyptian false prophet that did the Jews more mischief than the former; for he was a cheat, and pretended to be a prophet also, and got together thirty thousand men that were deluded by him; these he led round about from the wilderness to the mount which was called the Mount of Olives…( Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, 2.13.)

Note that the Egyptian false prophet appears to be corroborated by the bible, Recall that Paul was arrested in his last trip to Jerusalem. The commander mistakes Paul for the false prophet Josephus described: "Do you speak Greek?" he replied. "Aren't you the Egyptian who started a revolt and led four thousand terrorists out into the desert some time ago?" (Acts 21:38).

Vespasian arrived to lead the Roman response in the spring of A.D. 67. Nero was emperor (he dispatched Vespasian to squelch the revolt). In A.D. 68, Nero died at his own hand. The following year was a bad one for Rome, the "year of the four emperors" viz. Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and finally stability with Vespasian. When Vespasian returned to Rome, his son Titus took over the military campaign. It was Titus who led the siege and destruction of Jerusalem. The siege began in April A.D. 70 and by the end of August the Temple was first occupied then destroyed. Josephus describes the actual attack on the temple:

WHILE the holy house was on fire, every thing was plundered that came to hand, and ten thousand of those that were caught were slain; nor was there a commiseration of any age, or any reverence of gravity, but children, and old men, and profane persons, and priests were all slain in the same manner;

AND now the Romans, upon the flight of the seditious into the city, and upon the burning of the holy house itself, and of all the buildings round about it, brought their ensigns to the temple and set them over against its eastern gate; and there did they offer sacrifices to them, and there did they make Titus imperator with the greatest acclamations of joy. And now all the soldiers had such vast quantities of the spoils which they had gotten by plunder, that in Syria a pound weight of gold was sold for half its former value.

The preterists argue that the advice provided in Matthew 24—flee to the mountains, leave your belongings, etc., is more appropriate as instructions for refugees fleeing the conquering Romans—that what the dispensationalist believes—that it is for those caught by surprise by the trumpet announcing the second coming.

How does the preterist claim a fulfillment of verse 14, that the gospel will be preached in all the world? He claims it is substantiated by none other than the Apostle Paul:

⁵ because of the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, of which you heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel, ⁶ which has come to you, as it has also in all the world, and is bringing forth fruit, as it is also among you since the day you heard and knew the grace of God in truth; (Col 1:5-6)
if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister. (Col 1:23)

Whatever Paul meant by “all the world” and “every creature under heaven” used in the past tense, indicates that Paul taught that Matthew 24:14 was already fulfilled.

As for the tribulation, preterism draws this conclusion from verses 14-27: it is localized in the region of Judea (culminating with Roman invasion). References to those who are in Judea and the holy place (the temple) and the overall description bespeaks of a localized, imminent event, not a far-off world-wide cataclysm.
The parallel passage in Luke strengthens this view:

They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. (Luke 21:24)

Luke anticipated a fulfillment in terms of Jerusalem only -- the final Diaspora, and the trampling down of Jerusalem by the Gentiles.
In v. 22, the argument given by dispensationalists is that no flesh would be saved means “no flesh in the world”, and hence this points to a world-wide tribulation. But biblical analysis shows that this needn’t be the case, we read in Jeremiah:

Upon all the bare heights in the desert destroyers have come, for the sword of the LORD devours from one end of the land to the other; no flesh has peace. (Jer. 12:12)

This similar passage, it is agreed by all, refers to the Jews only.

As for the coming of the Son of Man, the preterist view varies, but I think the most common view is that the destruction of Jerusalem is in some sense the result of "the coming of the Son of Man". Whether there is a future, literal return in-the-clouds is part of what separates hyper from moderate preterism. In any case, preterists of all stripes agree that for preterism to be the self-consistent exposition it claims, then everything in the Olivet discourse including "the coming of the Son of Man" had to have occurred within a generation. For support, they turn to some other scripture:

When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes. (Matt 10:23).

This verse states that the Son of Man will come when the disciples had visited the cities of Israel. That would seem to be a task that would fit nicely into the timeframe of a generation and not require thousands of years.

Another relevant passage is:

²⁷ For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. ²⁸ Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." (Matt. 16:27-28)

Here the preterist can again assume a plain reading: some of the disciples would still be alive when they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom, which is in fact the end of the Jewish age and the onset of "The age of the gentiles" (Matt. 21:43).

Non-preterist views of this passage sometimes border on (in my opinion) the absurd. For example, many argue that in this context the "Son of Man coming in His kingdom" refers to the transfiguration, which occurs about six days later. (Some bibles inject, between verses 16:27 and 16:28, a heading: The Transfiguration.) But this interpretation implies that verse 16:28 can be paraphrased: "Some of you will still be alive six days from now" which hardly seems worthy of divine mentioning.

The preterists claim that the carcass of verse 28 is the Jewish dispensation which is about to end, and the eagles refer to the agent of destruction, specifically the standard of the invading Roman legions.

The end that will come is not the end of history resulting in the eternal state, but the end of the Jewish age.

²⁹ "Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. ³⁰ Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. ³¹ And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

This is assumed to be the biggest problem for the preterist. While historians of antiquity have given accounts of false prophets, earthquakes, famines, and wars, no one has described what would seem to be an unraveling of the space-time fabric of the universe. Josephus has no description of the cosmological upheaval alluded to in verses 29-31.

Here is where the preterist appeals to poetic language. The destruction of Jerusalem, according to preterists, is so "big" that it requires, in the tradition of the East, apocalyptic symbolism. As proof, they site strikingly similar passages from the old testament, for example regarding the destruction of Babylon:

⁹ Behold, the day of the LORD comes, Cruel, with both wrath and fierce anger, To lay the land desolate; And He will destroy its sinners from it. ¹⁰ For the stars of heaven and their constellations Will not give their light; The sun will be darkened in its going forth, And the moon will not cause its light to shine. (Isa. 13:9-10)
Therefore I will shake the heavens, And the earth will move out of her place, (Isa. 9:13).

Add to this, the destruction of Bozrah:

³ Also their slain shall be thrown out; Their stench shall rise from their corpses, And the mountains shall be melted with their blood. ⁴ All the host of heaven shall be dissolved, And the heavens shall be rolled up like a scroll; All their host shall fall down As the leaf falls from the vine, And as fruit falling from a fig tree. (Isa. 34:3-4)

If the destruction of Bozrah warrants such language, then even more so, says the preterist, the destruction of Jerusalem.

We will conclude with the next passage from the Matthew 24:

³² "Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. ³³ So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near--at the doors! ³⁴ Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. ³⁵Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.

The preterist is on the highest of his high ground here, for he accepts the phrase this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place as having its simple meaning: generation means generation, not race or type of people as some viewpoints require. Preterists point out that wherever else Christ used the word generation, he meant it in the plain sense of those living at that time. (c.f., Matt. 11:16, 12:39, 12:41, 12:42, 12:45, 16:4, 17:17). The fig tree analogy also implies near term fulfillment.