John the Baptist born without original sin?

[rr1213]

I appreciate your opinion, I’d just like to know exactly how it’s “tortured”? This is from an epistle to the church at Rome is it not? It is addressed to them and discusses specifically that church and problems at that church? So what’s so “tortured” in keeping it within that context? You mentioned Scripture which says Jesus never sinned, good, if we read “all” from Romans to mean every individual in the world, then there is a conflict in Scripture. Either Jesus sinned, which we know is ridiculous, or the “all” from Romans doesn’t mean “all” in the world. If it doesn’t mean “all” in the world what does it mean? Put it back in its original and intended context, all of the church at Rome. Any conflict now? Nope. Each is quite correct.

No, for at least two reasons.

Yes, the Scriptures were written with a particular audience in mind but, also, for generations of Christians not yet born. If Romans has meaning only for the 1st Century Church at Rome, Corinthians for the 1st Century Church at Corinth, Ephesians for the Church at Ephesus, etc.— then these letters have no meaning for us. To the contrary, they are the Word of God and are just as applicable to us today as they were when written to individual churches 2,000 years ago. “Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.” (John 20:29).

Further, the Scriptures are intended to be read in context with each other. For example, Catholics always point to James–as they should–when Protestants rely only on Romans for an understanding of faith and works. You CANNOT read Romans and IGNORE James or, for that matter, vice versa. In like vein, you do not read a single Gospel to the exclusion of the other. Here, we have numerous Scriptural proofs that Jesus is without sin (I won’t list them–I assume that this is an uncontroversial statement among Christians). You then have a statement by Paul in Romans that “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”. Do not read Romans apart from the rest of the Bible. When Paul was writing to the Church at Rome he was paraphrasing previous Old Testament teachings and he knew–and he knew that the Roman Church knew–that the Messiah was an unnamed exception to “all have sinned.” In contrast, there is no such explicit exception in Scripture for anyone else.

 

[Hellisreal]

God is not limited to the book, or anything for that matter- we all agree on that.

There are many things that are not written…

Let me play this game? Why would Anything special happen in the womb of Elizabeth when Mary came if it were such a non-event?

Lets say you find that yes, something did happen.

Why would this event be in scripture? Why would it matter? Does God do things for no reason?

Why was such a non issue an issue to the writer of scripture?

What was he telling us?

 

[Tom]

No, for at least two reasons.
Yes, the Scriptures were written with a particular audience in mind but, also, for generations of Christians not yet born. If Romans has meaning only for the 1st Century Church at Rome, Corinthians for the 1st Century Church at Corinth, Ephesians for the Church at Ephesus, etc.— then these letters have no meaning for us. To the contrary, they are the Word of God and are just as applicable to us today as they were when written to individual churches 2,000 years ago. “Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.” (John 20:29).

I’m not arguing that these Scriptures don’t apply to us today, they certainly do. They must however be kept and understood in context. I’m simply saying they are being interpertated incorrectly in teaching “all” have sinned must mean every individual person who ever walked the earth. To make my point I’ would ask you what sin could a new born baby commit, or a person who lacks reason, do you feel a mentally incompetent person can commit a personal sin?

Further, the Scriptures are intended to be read in context with each other. For example, Catholics always point to James–as they should–when Protestants rely only on Romans for an understanding of faith and works. You CANNOT read Romans and IGNORE James or, for that matter, vice versa. In like vein, you do not read a single Gospel to the exclusion of the other. Here, we have numerous Scriptural proofs that Jesus is without sin (I won’t list them–I assume that this is an uncontroversial statement among Christians). You then have a statement by Paul in Romans that “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”. Do not read Romans apart from the rest of the Bible. When Paul was writing to the Church at Rome he was paraphrasing previous Old Testament teachings and he knew–and he knew that the Roman Church knew–that the Messiah was an unnamed exception to “all have sinned.” In contrast, there is no such explicit exception in Scripture for anyone else.

See answer above “all” certainly does not include infants, mentally incompetent, how many exceptions (and these aren’t written specifically in Scripture, but I doubt you’ll find many argue they can’t sin) do we need to understand “all” does not mean there are no exceptions.

 

[Hellisreal]

Tom, dont you know that is a stumper?

They knock Limbo (even though its not dogma) saying Babies dont sin!!!

The outrage! The horror of it all!

But now, when we speak of the forerunner----

Its ridicoulous.

And nothing special happened that day Mary saw Elizabeth.

But, scripture says otherwise.

But, scripture is what they rely on.

 

[HailMary]

the only two people conceived without Original Sin was Christ and His Mother. St. John the Baptist was born without original sin (but conceived in it)

Luke 1:41

When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit

You really got to love St. John the Baptist. You know he is the only saint that has feast days for his birth and his death?

 

[Hellisreal]

the only two people conceived without Original Sin was Christ and His Mother. St. John the Baptist was born without original sin (but conceived in it)

Luke 1:41

You really got to love St. John the Baptist. You know he is the only saint that has feast days for his birth and his death?

Amen.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Any of you guys ever here the scripture…
All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God???

I can get it if you want…

I understand that our English translations say, “all” but what is the Greek word for “all” in that verse, MFM?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Ok, so the list of sinless human beings now extends to Mary, John, John’s parents, Jeremiah…? Are we missing anybody else? Maybe we need to translate “all have sinned” to mean “all*…except Mary, John, John’s parent, Jeremiah, little babies, etc*…have sinned.” All these sinless people running around…that certainly hasn’t been my experience in this world of woe.

Can somebody tell me–with authority–whether the Catholic Church has dogmatically taught whether any human being other than Mary (and Jesus) were without sin? If I convert to the Catholic Church, am I going to be required as a matter of faith to believe that all of these other folks didn’t sin either? I’m serious here…

Fear not.

When you come aboard, you’ll only have to sign a document specifying that Jesus and Mary with without sin. You’re free to believe whatever you want about everyone else based upon your own personal interpretation of the Bible Alone - subject to approval from the ordinary of your diocese, of course.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Ridiculous. The difference is that there is explicit Scriptural support outside of this verse that, in fact, Jesus was absolutely without sin. So Jesus is the understood exception. In contrast, there is not explicit Scriptural support for the assertion that anyone else other than Jesus was without sin, merely inferences at best that the Catholic Church has dogmatized.

rr1213-

Since we believe that the Catholic Church teaches infallibly on matters of faith and morals, we have absolutely no problem whatsoever in accepting the Church’s position on the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s sinlessness.

I understand that you disagree. However, this is an example of how non-Catholics often grab hold of the wrong end of the stick first.

Many doctrines are difficult to “prove” from scripture alone. For example, do you agree:

1. Public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle?
2. There will be no more apostles?
3. The New Testatment canon is correct and closed?

I suspect you agree with these doctrines and consider them binding upon the consciences of all Christians (otherwise the Mormons might have a more convincing argument). However, I think you’ll be hard-pressed to find a single verse that explicity or implicitly supports any of them.

Given that you also accept extra-biblical doctrines, I do not think you should look askance at those of us who rely on the Church’s long memory, wisdom and discernment guided by the Holy Spirit with regard to doctrines that you cannot discern unaided.

Therefore, your concentration should be upon understanding why the Catholic Church teaches infallibly with Apostolic Authority received from Christ Himself. Once understood, this foundation will serve to support other doctrines quite well.

Until then, we will do our best to help you understand these things from a biblical perspective. However, you must know that from time to time we will reach the limits of what you will be able to grasp or accept due to the constraints of the sola scriptura box that you are in.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[LilyM]

Ridiculous. The difference is that there is explicit Scriptural support outside of this verse that, in fact, Jesus was absolutely without sin. So Jesus is the understood exception. In contrast, there is not explicit Scriptural support for the assertion that anyone else other than Jesus was without sin, merely inferences at best that the Catholic Church has dogmatized.

No-one other than Jesus? No three-day old babies? No adults with a mental age of three days?

 

[Hellisreal]

the only two people conceived without Original Sin was Christ and His Mother. St. John the Baptist was born without original sin (but conceived in it)

Luke 1:41

You really got to love St. John the Baptist. You know he is the only saint that has feast days for his birth and his death?

Lets not forget Jeremiah either…

 

[JoeyWarren]

rr1213-

Since we believe that the Catholic Church teaches infallibly on matters of faith and morals, we have absolutely no problem whatsoever in accepting the Church’s position on the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s sinlessness.

I understand that you disagree. However, this is an example of how non-Catholics often grab hold of the wrong end of the stick first.

Many doctrines are difficult to “prove” from scripture alone. For example, do you agree:

1. Public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle?
2. There will be no more apostles?
3. The New Testatment canon is correct and closed?

I suspect you agree with these doctrines and consider them binding upon the consciences of all Christians (otherwise the Mormons might have a more convincing argument). However, I think you’ll be hard-pressed to find a single verse that explicity or implicitly supports any of them.

Given that you also accept extra-biblical doctrines, I do not think you should look askance at those of us who rely on the Church’s long memory, wisdom and discernment guided by the Holy Spirit with regard to doctrines that you cannot discern unaided.

Therefore, your concentration should be upon understanding why the Catholic Church teaches infallibly with Apostolic Authority received from Christ Himself. Once understood, this foundation will serve to support other doctrines quite well.

Until then, we will do our best to help you understand these things from a biblical perspective. However, you must know that from time to time we will reach the limits of what you will be able to grasp or accept due to the constraints of the sola scriptura box that you are in.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

Darn Randy, that is the best treatment I have ever seen. I doubt, our current super apologists could have done better. My hat is definitely off to you! :tiphat: I can’t wait for rr1213’s answer to this.

 

[rr1213]

Randy,
I was responding to the argument that “all have sinned” cannot mean “ALL have sinned” because of the example of Jesus. If anything comes out of the Gospels, it is knowledge that Jesus is God and a perfect man who has never sinned. This would also have been understood by any Christian to whom Paul was writing. Do you really believe that some of these early Roman Christians thought “Paul says all have sinned…wow…I didn’t know that Jesus was a sinner.” Of course not. The existence of a universally understood–and I submit unique–exception to the rule does not negate the rule.

In contrast, there is no explicit Scriptural proof that any other human being was without sin…indeed, the explicit Scriptural reference is that no human being other than Jesus is without sin. Nonetheless, the Church teaches that Mary was without sin. It bases this teaching on a number of things, including the “full of grace” reference in Luke, various analogies and types, and the belief that it is “appropriate” for the Mother of God to be without sin. Most of these analyses are not persuasive to non-Catholics. No Christian believes that Mary was a “big sinner” (for lack of a better phrase)…not even rabid anti-Catholic fundamentalists. Still, it is a large jump of faith from knowing that Mary, a Saint of the Church, Mother of God…yet still a human being living after the fall…to the *de fide *conclusion that she was totally without sin. Such a big jump that even some of the ECFs believed otherwise.

Finally, I understand that Catholics believe many things that are non-Scriptural. In some cases, in my opinion at least, some of these dogmas are clearly contrary to Scripture and, thus, must be erroneous. In other cases, the dogma may be non-Scriptural and, yet, not contrary to Scripture so possibly true. In any event, most Protestants do not wholeheartedly reject tradition, and those from my tradition even explicitly consider tradition to be one of the foundations of the faith, but generally we DO believe that you cannot require belief of something which is proclaimed beyond Scriptural boundaries.

And you are right in one thing. If you wish to reach Protestants, argue from Scripture and logic, not from the traditions of the Church (whether such traditions be true or not).

Now, want to join the discussion in the NCF as to whether we should burn heretics alive at the stake? Maybe we can agree on that one…

RR1213

 

[myfavoritmartin]

I have not read through this thread! but reading the heading brings about the point that Christ HIMSELF stated this…
Jesus said in Matthew 11:11, “I tell you the truth, among those born of women, there has not yet risen **one greater **than John the Baptist.”
Appears Christ obviously meant all but Himself!!! for He is the Son of God! Therefore Johm is the greater saint over Mary! Right?
So here is the second non-diety whom was apparently w/o sin even though the bible gives no indication as such on either… Yet for Christ it does. Why the inconsistencies???

 

[JoeyWarren]

What is the inconsistency?

 

[chrysostom15]

Mary was Concieved without sin. John was sanctified in the womb when he was visited with Elizabeth by Jesus and Mary. Thus, he was BORN without sin, though concieved with sin.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

What is the inconsistency?

You guys hold Mary higher, but she was born 14-16 years before John and Jesus says this…
among those born of women, there has not yet risen one greater than John the Baptist."
Seems the church here is at odds with our Saviour, a lil uncomfortable to say the least…

If one has not risen greater than John but Mary is older what is Christ saying??? It seems pretty obvious doesn’t it???
Yet the church holds her higher…

 

[clmowry]

So then we must conclude that Christ has sined too since absolutely everyone without exception has sinned.

Chuck

.

The Greek stem Ha on the root pas gives the all and “Absolute” or “Without Exception” nature.

This all word is troubling to say the least, when you look at the 4(3) uses. Looking at several Greek concordances hapas means “absolutely all” or “all without exception” whereas pas is something less then hapas.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

So then we must conclude that Christ has sined too since absolutely everyone without exception has sinned.

Chuck

Believe that at your own peril if you wish. This is our Saviour and Lord speaking. I find it a mockery to even bring our Lord into this conversation, in this manner.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

You guys hold Mary higher, but she was born 14-16 years before John and Jesus says this…
among those born of women, there has not yet risen one greater than John the Baptist."
Seems the church here is at odds with our Saviour, a lil uncomfortable to say the least…

If one has not risen greater than John but Mary is older what is Christ saying??? It seems pretty obvious doesn’t it???
Yet the church holds her higher…

Can anyone explain this???