John the Baptist's sinfulness

[confused15]

Is it really church teaching that John the Baptist was born(not conceived) without sin? No offense, but this makes no sense. I can actually understand why Mary might have been born without original sin, what with the whole Ark of the Covenant typology thing, which I think makes sense. However, there is no reason I can see for John the Baptist to have been born without sin, other than to justify the Immaculate Conception in light of Luke 7:28, “I tell you, among those born of women, no one is greater than John”. In light of this, in order for Mary to have been born without original sin, John must have been as well, which seems to me to be the only reason why anyone would claim he was born without it. Can anyone tell me why they think he was born without original sin?

 

[Tony_Souza]

I think you are mistaken, friend. The Church does not teach, nor has she ever taught, that John the Baptist was born without sin. Not having my Bible in front of me, I believe in the passage in question, Jesus is talking about John’s prophetic mission. In which case, it is true that he was the greatest prophet of all, since he was the one to, quite literally, prepare the way of the Lord, like no other prophet had done. This is not meant to imply that he was without sin. History is replete with great men who made mistakes once in a while.

The official teaching of the Church is that Jesus and His mother, Mary, were the only two ever born without sin (after Adam and Eve, of course).

I hope that helps.

 

[confused15]

I think you are mistaken, friend. The Church does not teach, nor has she ever taught, that John the Baptist was born without sin. Not having my Bible in front of me, I believe in the passage in question, Jesus is talking about John’s prophetic mission. In which case, it is true that he was the greatest prophet of all, since he was the one to, quite literally, prepare the way of the Lord, like no other prophet had done. This is not meant to imply that he was without sin. History is replete with great men who made mistakes once in a while.

The official teaching of the Church is that Jesus and His mother, Mary, were the only two ever born without sin (after Adam and Eve, of course).

I hope that helps.

All right, I guess the people I heard were incorrect, but if they were, and John the Baptist was not born without sin, then how can Mary have been born without sin, if she was not greater than John the Baptist?

 

[Tony_Souza]

Read the context of the quote, not just the one line. Jesus is not talking of John’s propensity to sin, He is talking about his rophetic mission. John was the greatest prophet born of woman. Mary was not a prophet, she had a different role to play. So in this context, there is no comparison at all to Mary.

 

[confused15]

You may have a point, however, I looked up prophetess in the Bible and it said:
proph·et·ess

1. A woman who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed.

she certainly spoke by divine inspiration and expressed the will of God at Fatima and the other apparitions. I believe at one of them she spoke about consecrating Russia, otherwise bad things would happen, something like that? So she certainly would be considered a prophetess, but apparently not greater than John. Assuming, of course, that this is specifically talking about only Prophets, which it doesn’t say specifically, though it is possible.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Is it really church teaching that John the Baptist was born(not conceived) without sin? No offense, but this makes no sense. I can actually understand why Mary might have been born without original sin, what with the whole Ark of the Covenant typology thing, which I think makes sense. However, there is no reason I can see for John the Baptist to have been born without sin, other than to justify the Immaculate Conception in light of Luke 7:28, “I tell you, among those born of women, no one is greater than John”. In light of this, in order for Mary to have been born without original sin, John must have been as well, which seems to me to be the only reason why anyone would claim he was born without it. Can anyone tell me why they think he was born without original sin?

Yes, St John the Baptist was sanctified in his mothers womb, at the voice of Mary announcing Jesus’s presence. He was therefore born without Sin. Mary was conceived without Original sin. There is a big difference.

 

[confused15]

Yes, St John the Baptist was sanctified in his mothers womb, at the voice of Mary announcing Jesus’s presence. He was therefore born without Sin. Mary was conceived without Original sin. There is a big difference.

Yes, I know, which is why I said born(not conceived). However, if John was sanctified before birth, and never sinned, like Mary, than why would He have said in Matthew 3:14, "John tried to prevent Him, saying, ‘I need to be baptized by you, and yet you are coming to me?’ "? If John was sanctified as a fetus and onward, why would He have needed to be baptized? He would have already been in a state of sanctifying grace, right?

 

[OchsFam]

New Advent has this to say about what is said in Luke 1:15.

Now as the presence of any sin whatever is incompatible with the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in the soul, it follows that at this moment John was cleansed from the stain of original sin.

I do not think this is quite the same as Mary because Mary would have never been born with original sin, she was created without it. Basically, this sounds like he was “baptized” in the womb.

To answer your question, I think he was created with original sin, but did have his original sin washed away in the womb.

 

[confused15]

New Advent has this to say about what is said in Luke 1:15.

Now as the presence of any sin whatever is incompatible with the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in the soul, it follows that at this moment John was cleansed from the stain of original sin.

I do not think this is quite the same as Mary because Mary would have never been born with original sin, she was created without it. Basically, this sounds like he was “baptized” in the womb.

To answer your question, I think he was created with original sin, but did have his original sin washed away in the womb.

If he was baptized in the womb he would not have said he needed to be baptized by Jesus.

 

[OchsFam]

If he was baptized in the womb he would not have said he needed to be baptized by Jesus.

This is an interesting question. I would point out that he wasn’t baptized at that time and none of the gospels say that Jesus baptized him.

This is some speculation but John may not have known he was baptized and Jesus would have and as such, even if he wanted to be baptized, it was not so because it was not needed.

 

[confused15]

This is an interesting question. I would point out that he wasn’t baptized at that time and none of the gospels say that Jesus baptized him.

This is some speculation but John may not have known he was baptized and Jesus would have and as such, even if he wanted to be baptized, it was not so because it was not needed.

This seems weak. John specifically said he needed to be baptized, and he was the greatest prophet in history besides Jesus. The idea that he did not know this seems weak, and is purely speculative, while he himself said he needed to be baptized. It’s possible, but it seems like the theologians are grasping at straws. If John did not need Baptism, why would Jesus not have mentioned it to him when he said he needed to be baptized? And why in Luke 7 when Jesus is praising John and saying no one born of women is greater, did Jesus not mention this? Again, the idea is purely speculative.

 

[confused15]

This is an interesting question. I would point out that he wasn’t baptized at that time and none of the gospels say that Jesus baptized him.

This is some speculation but John may not have known he was baptized and Jesus would have and as such, even if he wanted to be baptized, it was not so because it was not needed.

Also, the Gospels do not talk about any of the Apostles being baptized, yet they presumably were.

 

[OchsFam]

This seems weak. John specifically said he needed to be baptized, and he was the greatest prophet in history besides Jesus. The idea that he did not know this seems weak, and is purely speculative, while he himself said he needed to be baptized. It’s possible, but it seems like the theologians are grasping at straws. If John did not need Baptism, why would Jesus not have mentioned it to him when he said he needed to be baptized? And why in Luke 7 when Jesus is praising John and saying no one born of women is greater, did Jesus not mention this? Again, the idea is purely speculative.

You are correct, which is why I said it. It was thinking “out loud.” Thank you for showing me you can read.

I think something important that you are overlooking is that he was not baptized by Jesus. He may have said he needed it to reiterate his unworthiness compared with Jesus. Again, it is speculative as to why he said it. It is not speculative as to whether or not he was baptized though.

 

[confused15]

You are correct, which is why I said it. It was thinking “out loud.” Thank you for showing me you can read.

I think something important that you are overlooking is that he was not baptized by Jesus. He may have said he needed it to reiterate his unworthiness compared with Jesus. Again, it is speculative as to why he said it. It is not speculative as to whether or not he was baptized though.

How do you know he was not baptized by Jesus? As I mentioned above, there are dozens of people that the Bible does not specifically say were baptized, yet they presumably said he needed it. Just because it does not mention it does not mean it did not happen. Especially since he said he needed it? And yes, he was unworthy, which is why he said the whole thing about not being fit to lose His sandals or something like that, but that doesn’t seem to be what he’s talking about here.

 

[VociMike]

How do you know he was not baptized by Jesus?

You’re being just a bit stubborn here. Here is the passage from Matthew:

John would have prevented him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”
But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness.” Then he consented.
And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him;
and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”
Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.

So obviously Jesus did not baptize him at that time, the time that he asked for baptism and which would have been the obvious time to do it.

As you say, the bible does not report on the baptism of the apostles either, but only in the case of John the Baptist do we have the situation where a person asked to be baptized and was not baptized when he requested it.

 

[confused15]

You’re being just a bit stubborn here. Here is the passage from Matthew:

John would have prevented him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”
But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness.” Then he consented.
And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him;
and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”
Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.

So obviously Jesus did not baptize him at that time, the time that he asked for baptism and which would have been the obvious time to do it.

As you say, the bible does not report on the baptism of the apostles either, but only in the case of John the Baptist do we have the situation where a person asked to be baptized and was not baptized when he requested it.

That still does not change the fact that John, the greatest prophet in history, said that he needed to be baptized. Why Jesus did not baptize him then, I don’t know. Maybe it was because Jesus hadn’t started his ministry yet, had not even called the first disciples, that could very well be the reason He did not baptize him. However, he wasn’t specifically asking for baptism, right then, right there, he was simply saying he needed it, and was shocked that the Savior of the world would ask for baptism from him.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Yes, I know, which is why I said born(not conceived). However, if John was sanctified before birth, and never sinned, like Mary, than why would He have said in Matthew 3:14, "John tried to prevent Him, saying, ‘I need to be baptized by you, and yet you are coming to me?’ "? If John was sanctified as a fetus and onward, why would He have needed to be baptized? He would have already been in a state of sanctifying grace, right?

That is correct, however St. John was a Jew, and his baptism was a Jewish ritual, not a Sacrament.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

New Advent has this to say about what is said in Luke 1:15.
Now as the presence of any sin whatever is incompatible with the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in the soul, it follows that at this moment John was cleansed from the stain of original sin.
I do not think this is quite the same as Mary because Mary would have never been born with original sin, she was created without it. Basically, this sounds like he was “baptized” in the womb.

To answer your question, I think he was created with original sin, but did have his original sin washed away in the womb.

He was Sanctified in his mothers womb, not Baptized. He was of the old Covenant.

 

[confused15]

That is correct, however St. John was a Jew, and his baptism was a Jewish ritual, not a Sacrament.

I apologize, I’m not sure I understand. What Jewish ritual are you talking about? Circumcision?

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I apologize, I’m not sure I understand. What Jewish ritual are you talking about? Circumcision?

The Jews had many “Baptisms” ritual washings. They had nothing to do with Sacramental Baptism instituted by Christ for use, after Christ Ascended. Other than the pre-figured it.