Ship of Fools: The sinlessness of John the Baptist

Thread: The sinlessness of John the Baptist Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025496

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

Today is the Feast of the Nativity of John the Baptist. Recently, I learned that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches believe that John was sinless, having been purified of original sin at the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Is this a pious belief or is this official doctrine?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I do not believe it is official doctrine. We have precious few of those, and John's sinlessness is not one. Taking into account Orare est whatsit*, the two main hymns of the feast give no hint of it,

quote:
Troparion
Prophet and Forerunner of the coming of Christ, although we cannot praise you worthily, we honor you in love at your nativity, for by it you ended your father’s silence and your mother’s barrenness, proclaiming to the world the incarnation of the Son of God!

quote:
Kontakion
Today the formerly barren woman gives birth to Christ's Forerunner, who is the fulfillment of every prophecy; for in the Jordan, when he laid his hand on the One foretold by the prophets, he was revealed as Prophet, Herald, and Forerunner of God the Word.

---------

Looking at the Vespers, which together with Matins are the primary teaching services of the church, the only thing that comes close is this:

quote:
He embraced purity and chastity forever. Now they are his by nature.

This appears to place a chronological order on it: the achieving of purity and chastity comes after his embracing them, which had to come after his birth. The most obvious interpretation to me is that they are the result of his accomplished theosis, not a starting point.

Moving to Matins,

quote:
From the second Kathisma
You were born in a truly uncommon way, as the firstfruits of the appearance of Christ, O John, praised in all the world, and the paramount of prophets.

But given the other hymns, I would conclude this to have to do with the advanced age of his parents and their heretofore barrenness. Nothing is mentioned of sinlessness here.

AHA! This strikes closer to the question.

quote:
from the Idiomelon
He who was sanctified from his mother's womb, and who has received the fullness of prophecy, was born today from a barren woman....

This might be taken to imply he was made sinless in the womb, although "sanctified" also means "set apart" and this may refer merely to the fact he was set apart to preach the coming of Christ. This would be far more in keeping with the rest of the hymnody about him, given that nowhere else in any of the services for the day mentions his sinlessness.

Moving to the end of the service, the Exapostalarion doesn't mention it, nor any of the odes or verses of the Canon, nor the Praises. So, it's not a dogma, and it's not in the services. Some council somewhere may have proclaimed it; I don't claim to know all of the councils. But I would think if it were really important, it'd have made it into the services in a pronounced way. I have to conclude (barring better evidence) it falls under pious belief.

In my searches, I did find a nice bit of Byzantine contrast though, complete with preface, in case you miss the point:

What a paradoxical miracle! He who announced unto all the kenosis of Christ the Lord is shown by the Master's voice to be greater than everyone.

____
*um, "What we pray is what we believe." I have forgotten the Latin and can't find it by googling.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

A well-argued summary MT if I may say so.

It appears that the Wikipedia entry on John the Baptist (here) addresses the Catholic position on the matter, though I am in no position to say how authoritative it is.

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

*um, "What we pray is what we believe." I have forgotten the Latin and can't find it by googling. [/QB]

Lex credendi, lex orandi is the phrase you're looking for. Orare est labore (to pray is to work or vice versa) seems to have interfered

Thanks for the summary. I saw the same comment as the OP and hadn't come across it.

Carys
[Code and autocorrect]

[ 24. June 2013, 17:08: Message edited by: Carys ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Lex credendi, lex orandi is the phrase you're looking for.

That's it! Thank you.

quote:
Orare est labore (to pray is to work or vice versa) seems to have interfered

Or esse est percipi*. One can never shake Bishop Berkeley once he eats his way into one's brain.

______
*to exist is to be perceived

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

The Catholic Encyclopedia entry is, as always, instructive if a bit wordy. John the Baptist was "filled with the Holy Spirit" while still in Elizabeth's womb (Luke 1:15). Someone who is "filled with the Holy Spirit" cannot at the same time be filled with sin, and so it follows that John the Baptist had no sin. However, the Church has never defined this belief to be dogma.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Today is the Feast of the Nativity of John the Baptist. Recently, I learned that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches believe that John was sinless, having been purified of original sin at the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Is this a pious belief or is this official doctrine?

Besides what mousethief already said, one should keep in mind that the Orthodox don't believe in original sin. John didn't have to be purified of the guilt of ancestral sin, because no one is guilty of any sin besides their own.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Besides what mousethief already said, one should keep in mind that the Orthodox don't believe in original sin.

That is a new one on me. Is that really true?

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

laborare est orare (to work is to pray)
would be even better
As well as coming from St Benedict this is said to be a motto of the Freemasons

ora et labora (imperative) pray and work ! is a motto of the Benedictine order

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Sometimes I feel that there is some kind of inflation of sinlessness taking place [Biased]

(PS Saint John is a big feast in Brazil, which coincides with the maize harvest. This evening I will be dancing the quadrilha dressed in peasant clothes.)

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Besides what mousethief already said, one should keep in mind that the Orthodox don't believe in original sin.
That is a new one on me. Is that really true?

Depends on how you define it. We believe Adam's sin brought about death, which is passed on. We don't believe we share in the guilt of Adam and Eve, or that we are condemned thereby even before we ourselves sin. The Augustinian concept of "original sin" is often called by Orthodox theologians "inherited guilt."

Thus we do not believe in the "Immaculate Conception" because we don't believe there is such a thing as a maculate conception. The doctrine is unnecessary if there is no inherited sinfulness that is passed on by the normal generative process.

We are all born free of the stain of sin; but we are born into a world given over to death, in which our nous is imperfect and we are easily led into sin. Or as some of our theologians put it, we were created in the image and likeness of God, and although remain image-bearers, we are no longer like Him. It is this likeness we regain through the process of theosis.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

As I understand it, the suggestion is that John, still in Elizabeth's womb, was cleansed permanently of sin simply by Mary's visit to Elizabeth. Are we to suppose that this happened in every case? Were other pregnant women in contact with Mary while Mary was pregnant? Was there a local epidemic of sinlessness? Of course, Mary was there for months, so maybe there was a required period of exposure. Would three months be enough? Or three weeks?

The suggestion that John was without sin does not seem compatible with his remarks about Jesus, that he himself was not worthy even to tend to Jesus' sandals.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
The suggestion that John was without sin does not seem compatible with his remarks about Jesus, that he himself was not worthy even to tend to Jesus' sandals.

I would think that worthiness to tie sandals has more to do with social position than sinfulness. This is the sort of thing a peasant says about the king, not something a sinful man says about a sinless man. There being precious few of those around to establish precedent.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:
Depends on how you define it. We believe Adam's sin brought about death, which is passed on. We don't believe we share in the guilt of Adam and Eve, or that we are condemned thereby even before we ourselves sin. The Augustinian concept of "original sin" is often called by Orthodox theologians "inherited guilt."

Far be it from me to presume to instruct either you of Josephine in the teaching of your own church. My understanding of Augustine's teaching is that he held that in some juridical sense the rest of the human race had somehow sinned in Adam, as it were, which is not, AIUI, the Orthodox view. I have, somewhere, come across the suggestion that the Orthodox believe in original sin inasmuch as they believe that we are all born into a fallen world but not in original guilt inasmuch as we commit our own sins rather than participate in Adam's sin. This has always struck me as a plausible account of the matter, even if it is not the account laid down in the Articles of Religion. [Biased]

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
John, still in Elizabeth's womb, was cleansed permanently of sin simply by Mary's visit to Elizabeth. Are we to suppose that this happened in every case? Were other pregnant women in contact with Mary while Mary was pregnant?

It was not "simply" Mary's visit, but the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, that cleansed John of sin. Even if Mary had contact with other pregnant women while she was carrying Jesus (and surely she must have), it is not reasonable to suppose that she carried the Holy Spirit with her in a sort of spiritual first-aid kit, to be infused into every pregnant woman she encountered much as a visiting nurse would vaccinate her patients.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
We believe Adam's sin brought about death, which is passed on. We don't believe we share in the guilt of Adam and Eve, or that we are condemned thereby even before we ourselves sin. The Augustinian concept of "original sin" is often called by Orthodox theologians "inherited guilt."

Thus we do not believe in the "Immaculate Conception" because we don't believe there is such a thing as a maculate conception. The doctrine is unnecessary if there is no inherited sinfulness that is passed on by the normal generative process.

We are all born free of the stain of sin; but we are born into a world given over to death, in which our nous is imperfect and we are easily led into sin. Or as some of our theologians put it, we were created in the image and likeness of God, and although remain image-bearers, we are no longer like Him. It is this likeness we regain through the process of theosis.

One day, this is the doctrine that will bring me to Orthodoxy.

(But probably not before I've finished my Anglican tea and cake.)

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:
Depends on how you define it. We believe Adam's sin brought about death, which is passed on. We don't believe we share in the guilt of Adam and Eve, or that we are condemned thereby even before we ourselves sin. The Augustinian concept of "original sin" is often called by Orthodox theologians "inherited guilt."
Far be it from me to presume to instruct either you of Josephine in the teaching of your own church. My understanding of Augustine's teaching is that he held that in some juridical sense the rest of the human race had somehow sinned in Adam, as it were, which is not, AIUI, the Orthodox view. I have, somewhere, come across the suggestion that the Orthodox believe in original sin inasmuch as they believe that we are all born into a fallen world but not in original guilt inasmuch as we commit our own sins rather than participate in Adam's sin. This has always struck me as a plausible account of the matter, even if it is not the account laid down in the Articles of Religion.

How is this different from what I said?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
The Catholic Encyclopedia entry is, as always, instructive if a bit wordy. John the Baptist was "filled with the Holy Spirit" while still in Elizabeth's womb (Luke 1:15). Someone who is "filled with the Holy Spirit" cannot at the same time be filled with sin, and so it follows that John the Baptist had no sin. However, the Church has never defined this belief to be dogma.

Does that mean that the disciples from Pentecost onward were similarly w/o sin?

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:
Depends on how you define it. We believe Adam's sin brought about death, which is passed on. We don't believe we share in the guilt of Adam and Eve, or that we are condemned thereby even before we ourselves sin. The Augustinian concept of "original sin" is often called by Orthodox theologians "inherited guilt."
Far be it from me to presume to instruct either you of Josephine in the teaching of your own church. My understanding of Augustine's teaching is that he held that in some juridical sense the rest of the human race had somehow sinned in Adam, as it were, which is not, AIUI, the Orthodox view. I have, somewhere, come across the suggestion that the Orthodox believe in original sin inasmuch as they believe that we are all born into a fallen world but not in original guilt inasmuch as we commit our own sins rather than participate in Adam's sin. This has always struck me as a plausible account of the matter, even if it is not the account laid down in the Articles of Religion.
How is this different from what I said?

Sorry. Remind me not to agree with you in future!

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Sorry. Remind me not to agree with you in future!

If you were agreeing with me, in what sense were you instructing me?

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Sorry. Remind me not to agree with you in future!
If you were agreeing with me, in what sense were you instructing me?

Perhaps by suggesting that "original sin" is equivalent to the world being "given over to death," and that "original guilt" is a better term than "original sin" for the Catholic view. Given those terms, the Orthodox would be said to accept original sin but not original guilt.

But that's not, of course, how anyone else is using the term "original sin."

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Sorry. Remind me not to agree with you in future!
If you were agreeing with me, in what sense were you instructing me?
Perhaps by suggesting that "original sin" is equivalent to the world being "given over to death," and that "original guilt" is a better term than "original sin" for the Catholic view. Given those terms, the Orthodox would be said to accept original sin but not original guilt.

I'm still confused, because that's exactly what I said. So telling me that isn't instructing me.

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Depends on how you define it. We believe Adam's sin brought about death, which is passed on. We don't believe we share in the guilt of Adam and Eve, or that we are condemned thereby even before we ourselves sin. The Augustinian concept of "original sin" is often called by Orthodox theologians "inherited guilt."

Thus we do not believe in the "Immaculate Conception" because we don't believe there is such a thing as a maculate conception. The doctrine is unnecessary if there is no inherited sinfulness that is passed on by the normal generative process.

We are all born free of the stain of sin; but we are born into a world given over to death, in which our nous is imperfect and we are easily led into sin. Or as some of our theologians put it, we were created in the image and likeness of God, and although remain image-bearers, we are no longer like Him. It is this likeness we regain through the process of theosis.

Thank you for the above, it was very illuminating. For the Eastern Orthodox is there a connection between baptism and sin? I ask because if there is I am trying to reconcile the above with the baptism of infants.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
Thank you for the above, it was very illuminating. For the Eastern Orthodox is there a connection between baptism and sin? I ask because if there is I am trying to reconcile the above with the baptism of infants.

Baptism, in Orthodoxy, is viewed primarily as a participation in the death and resurrection of Christ. When we are baptized, we die, and the power of sin in our lives is broken. In baptism, we are raised to new life, the life of Christ, where sin and death have no power.

As we sang for forty days, "Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life!"

And yet, over and over again after our baptism, we sin. That was a huge issue in the early church. Some believed that sins committed after baptism couldn't be forgiven, so they waited until they were dying to be baptized. But eventually the Church came to an understanding that baptism was for the forgiveness of all of our sins, those we've already committed and those we haven't yet committed. Christ's death and resurrection aren't limited by time, nor is baptism. Like all of the sacraments, it exists outside of time, in the Eternal Now.

If you're interested in a book-length treatment of the subject, I highly recommend "Of Water and the Spirit" by Alexander Schmemann.

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

Thank you for the recommendation. Does it primarily focus on what you've described as the eternalness of the sacraments? I ask because I am on a tight book budget. I have always been taught and believe most of what is outlined in your and Mousethief's posts. I would prefer to expend my time and efforts on something that does not fall into that category.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
Thank you for the recommendation. Does it primarily focus on what you've described as the eternalness of the sacraments? I ask because I am on a tight book budget.

I understand tight book budgets! "Of Water and the Spirit" is a liturgical study of baptism in the Orthodox Church. There's another book by Schmemann, "For the Life of the World," that looks at the sacraments more generally. If you poke around online, you can probably find "Of Water and the Spirit" for $10 or $15. A local library might be able to get it for you on interlibrary loan.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

The RCC does not teach "original guilt" or "inherited guilt", and never has. And neither did St Augustine, at least certainly not in the caricature commentary that I keep hearing from Orthodox about his supposed teachings (online - admittedly, I have not read many official Orthodox documents or professional Orthodox theologians commenting on St Augustine). Let them who wish to throw stones at St Augustine provide the primary source materials, I say.

There are two related points RC teaching has traditionally made about "original sin" (and by traditional I mean from the Church Fathers to the scholastics):

First, from a practical point of view we inherit the sin of Adam as a lack of what should have been ours. If your father insults his boss, and as consequence does not get the undeserved bonus that the boss had planned to give him, then you won't inherit that money from your father either. It is not that you are guilty of that insult of your father, not at all, but you suffer a loss (as compared to what would have been without it) all the same. Concerning original sin, the heirloom that Adam lost for us over his crime was sanctifying grace, the receiving of holiness and justice as gift from God.

Second, there is an essential reference to communal responsibility inherent in both original sin from Adam and salvation from Christ. In a strictly individual sense, of course I am not at fault for what Adam did. In the same strictly individual sense, I also do not profit from Christ dying on the cross. We cannot get around the fact that scripture, God, also considers a different perspective in which both Adam and Christ stand for all humanity. In that communal sense we are born into a voluntary defection from God, but we can be reborn into voluntary obedience to God. We are part of a body that belongs to either Adam or Christ as head.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
AHA! This strikes closer to the question.

quote:
from the Idiomelon
He who was sanctified from his mother's womb, and who has received the fullness of prophecy, was born today from a barren woman....
This might be taken to imply he was made sinless in the womb, although "sanctified" also means "set apart" and this may refer merely to the fact he was set apart to preach the coming of Christ. This would be far more in keeping with the rest of the hymnody about him, given that nowhere else in any of the services for the day mentions his sinlessness.

Indeed, aha. Your "Idiomelon" is teaching you scripture there, as ABR has pointed out. First there is angelic prophecy: "and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb" (Lk 1:15), which is what "Idiomelon" mirrors, but then there is also the fulfilment of that prophecy: "when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb" (Lk 1:41). The prophecy is carried out by John's encounter with Christ. This is what fills John with the Holy Spirit and thereby makes him sinless from the womb. Of course, the particular circumstances are highly interesting for various reasons: the instrumental agency of both mothers, the consideration of both unborns as active persons, etc. But for the case at hand: While I don't see how "to sanctify" can ever mean "to set apart" in a plainly secular sense, it clearly does not so here. Because "Idiomelon" is simply restating scripture, and "to sanctify" here clearly means just scripture's "to fill with the Holy Spirit".

The RCC may not have made an official doctrinal point of this sinlessness of John. However, it would be misunderstanding her doctrinal machinery to assume that therefore it is doubtful. The RCC does not issue doctrines to reiterate every point scripture makes. Neither does she act against all misinterpretations of scripture that arise. "Pious opinion" that is very common, basically correct and not under acute threat does not require strengthening and protecting by official doctrinal demarcation.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Why the fuck did you continually put "Idiomelon" in scare quotes? That's so fucking petty.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

Wait wait wait wait wait.

When, mousethief, you say "there's no such thing as a maculate conception", do you mean that any unborn child is sinless in the same way as JtB? Or do you just mean to say that sin doesn't get "passed along" in that manner?

I am thinking the latter. And if so, are you saying that JtB was sinless because he was, as it were, redeemed in the womb, rather than because he didn't need to be redeemed?

And would the same thing apply to the BVM?

And - somewhat different question - is it necessarily the case that someone must be sinless if filled with the Holy Spirit? What about e.g. Samson? Or what about the disciples after Pentecost - they were certainly filled with the Holy Spirit - were they "sinless" after that? If not, why not - if JtB was?

Sorry, lots of questions, hopefully not completely unrelated to each other...

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Why the fuck did you continually put "Idiomelon" in scare quotes? That's so fucking petty.

Those were not scare quotes, they were simple quotes for a term that is foreign to me in language, meaning and usage. They were placed without malice or indeed much thought at all. I certainly had no intention to suggest that there is a a true Idiomelon out there to which your Orthodox "Idiomelon" compares negatively, or anything along those lines. And I did agree with your Idiomelon as far as the case at hand is concerned - where all I know about the Idiomelon is basically what you quoted from it. In order to help you get a grip, here then an orthographic exercise: Troparion, Kontakion, Kathisma, Idiomelon. No quotes. Happy?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

TT: sin isn't passed along in that way. He was born sinless, as are we all. Our nature is fallen and our nous is clouded, and we all fall into sin at some time, with very few possible exceptions (Theotokos and JtB being two possible exceptions), but it's not logically impossible to be born with the nature we're born with, and yet not sin.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

OK - thanks mousethief. So then, am I right to say that Orthodox and Roman Catholics both believe that JtB was without sin, but for different reasons? In Orthodoxy it's because there is no such thing as original sin, whereas in Catholicism it's because JtB was redeemed from original sin even in the womb.

Fair summary? And does that also mean that both Orthodox and Roman Catholics believe that JtB never fell into personal sin?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Today is the Feast of the Nativity of John the Baptist. Recently, I learned that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches believe that John was sinless, having been purified of original sin at the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

One wonders why God just doesn't purify us all of original sin by a visitation and be done with it.

Hardly fair.

Why John the Baptist? Why not us?

[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
One wonders why God just doesn't purify us all of original sin by a visitation and be done with it.

For the same reason he doesn't do away with tsunamis, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, forest fires, floods, drought -- and shall we add broken bones, tooth decay and Alzheimer's just for good measure?

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Today is the Feast of the Nativity of John the Baptist. Recently, I learned that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches believe that John was sinless, having been purified of original sin at the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

One wonders why God just doesn't purify us all of original sin by a visitation and be done with it.

Hardly fair.

Why John the Baptist? Why not us?

The BVM and JB had distinctive roles in God's plan of salvation.

Though my priest in Toronto once put it this way, the Immaculate Conception simply means that God poured the grace we receive at baptism, at Mary's conception. So in a way, we all receive the same grace at our baptism. It is just that Mary never sinned afterwards, and we did.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
The Catholic Encyclopedia entry is, as always, instructive if a bit wordy. John the Baptist was "filled with the Holy Spirit" while still in Elizabeth's womb (Luke 1:15). Someone who is "filled with the Holy Spirit" cannot at the same time be filled with sin, and so it follows that John the Baptist had no sin. However, the Church has never defined this belief to be dogma.

Wait - aren't all Christians filled with the Holy Spirit? Yet we all sin. Or does the Catholic Church use different terminology, like saying we've received the Holy Spirit or something?

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
One can never shake Bishop Berkeley once he eats his way into one's brain.

Whew! Glad I only ever let him nibble!

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
One day, this is the doctrine that will bring me to Orthodoxy.

(But probably not before I've finished my Anglican tea and cake.)

You know that as an Anglican, you're entirely welcome to hold that doctrine. I do. It also has the virtue that it fits better with evolution, as well, IMO.

We Anglicans are also under no compulsion to accept the RC dogma of the Immaculate Conception. I think that's another instance where the Orthodox have it right.

Since no one seems to have asked this yet: Why would JtB need to be sinless in the first place? I get why some people think Mary needed to be, but why John?

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
Wait - aren't all Christians filled with the Holy Spirit?

Well, Miss Amanda hates to judge, but looking at some (Ian Paisley comes to mind), she wonders.

God allows us to choose to shoo the Holy Spirit away, like a pigeon from the windowsill, if we want to.

[ 26. June 2013, 22:41: Message edited by: Amanda B. Reckondwythe ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
Wait - aren't all Christians filled with the Holy Spirit?
Well, Miss Amanda hates to judge, but looking at some (Ian Paisley comes to mind), she wonders.

God allows us to choose to shoo the Holy Spirit away, like a pigeon from the windowsill, if we want to.

And God didn't allow JtB to do that also?

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

Surely he had the option, but there's no evidence to suggest that he ever succumbed to the temptation.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Surely he had the option, but there's no evidence to suggest that he ever succumbed to the temptation.

If he had the option, then the fact that he was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb doesn't enter into the argument at all. It's irrelevant. If anybody who is filled with the Spirit can choose to kick the Spirit out (so to speak), and that holds for John as well, then the mere fact of when he came to be filled with the Spirit doesn't signify squat.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Fact is, we are all saints and sinners. While we have the Spirit dwelling within us, we still struggle with our flesh. Likewise, John the Baptist is also a man who struggled with his own flesh--remember he had doubts as to whether Jesus was indeed the Messiah.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Fact is, we are all saints and sinners. While we have the Spirit dwelling within us, we still struggle with our flesh. Likewise, John the Baptist is also a man who struggled with his own flesh--remember he had doubts as to whether Jesus was indeed the Messiah.

Is doubting a "sin"?

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
One day, this is the doctrine that will bring me to Orthodoxy.

(But probably not before I've finished my Anglican tea and cake.)
You know that as an Anglican, you're entirely welcome to hold that doctrine.

As Alan Bennett once observed, "The Church of England is so constituted that its members can really believe anything at all, but of course almost none of them do."

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The mere fact of when he came to be filled with the Spirit doesn't signify squat.

Only if he was Orthodox.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The mere fact of when he came to be filled with the Spirit doesn't signify squat.
Only if he was Orthodox.

No, that doesn't matter. I was arguing from the statements set before me by someone who wasn't Orthodox. Go back and address my argument.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0