The Immaculate Conception of John the Baptist

Discussion in 'Non-Anglican Discussion' started by BibleHoarder, Mar 13, 2019.

  1. BibleHoarder

    BibleHoarder Active Member

    Posts:
    498
    Likes Received:
    184
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian (Protestant)
    Would you say there is scriptural support for the idea that John the Baptist was immaculately conceived?
     
  2. mediaque

    mediaque Member

    Posts:
    50
    Likes Received:
    24
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Anglo-Catholic (TEC)
    I don't know so much about being 'Immaculately Conceived'. I haven't heard that before. However, the Scriptures do speak of him being filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb.

    13 But the angel said to him, "Do not be afraid, Zechari’ah, for your prayer is heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. 14And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth; 15for he will be great before the Lord, and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb. (Luke 1:13-15)

    I have heard it said that because of the above quoted scripture, the notion could be considered that he was born without original sin. But, there is even a back and forth about that notion as well.
     
  3. anglican74

    anglican74 Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,045
    Likes Received:
    765
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican (ACNA)
    Is there any argument in favor of it?
    :run:
     
  4. mediaque

    mediaque Member

    Posts:
    50
    Likes Received:
    24
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Anglo-Catholic (TEC)
    Of which? The immaculate conception of John or born without original sin?

    Immaculate Conception .... No, not that I have heard of or read.
    Born without original sin .... Yes and no. They were divided on that issue and having a long debate over it.
     
  5. JoeLaughon

    JoeLaughon Active Member Anglican

    Posts:
    234
    Likes Received:
    159
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Reformed High Anglican
    I've never heard of this either in Scripture or Tradition.
     
  6. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    883
    Likes Received:
    1,040
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I see this as 'tread with extreme care'. Nothing in this theology should be allowed to reduce the significance of the uniqueness of Christ and his Incarnation. It seems that the idea presented adds nothing of real value to our understanding of the Gospel. The tradition has been to refer to him as John the forerunner or John the Baptiser. The mysterious movement in the narrative of the Visitation points us, not to John but to Jesus.
     
    JoeLaughon, mediaque and dariakus like this.
  7. Rexlion

    Rexlion Active Member

    Posts:
    143
    Likes Received:
    55
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian
    The immaculate conception occurred when the Holy Spirit caused the virgin Mary to be with child. There is no Bible evidence of this ever happening to anyone else.

    Luk 1:13 But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.
    Luk 1:14 And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth.
    Luk 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb

    Notice that the angel said, your wife will bear you a son. This shows that Zechariah was the natural father of John. (In other words, it was done the 'old fashoned way'.)
     
    JoeLaughon likes this.
  8. BibleHoarder

    BibleHoarder Active Member

    Posts:
    498
    Likes Received:
    184
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian (Protestant)
    Is it true that Jeremiah was born sinless too, when it says "when you were in the womb I sanctified you"? Some say Jeremiah's book doesn't record him ever sinning but then that means scripture lied when it said Jesus was the only man without sin. What to make of all this? I know some say Job was not perfect and we should not take the claims of his uprightness too literally but then we must not take Jesus being the only sinless one too literally. Truly puzzled on this subject.

    Also confused as to whether Thomas Aquinas believed in the immaculate conception or not.
    http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4027.htm
    I'm not sure if I am following this correctly but doesn't he say somewhere about the John and Jeremiah passage proving some people are actually born sinless?
     
  9. Rexlion

    Rexlion Active Member

    Posts:
    143
    Likes Received:
    55
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian
    The Hebrew language did not have as many words as the English language, as I understand it (I'm not a Hebrew scholar by any means). So a single Hebrew word might have several meanings depending upon its usage (context). But even English words can have more than one meaning!

    The Hebrew word qadash in Jer. 1:5 which the KJV translates as "sanctified" was used there to indicate, not a spiritual cleanliness or moral perfection, but a recognition of being set apart by God for a purpose. The verse actually tells us the purpose in this instance: Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. The Lord "sanctified" (set apart) and "ordained" Jeremiah to serve Him as a prophet, not merely to Israel, but to the surrounding gentile nations.

    Since time is a construct created by God, one could say that He did this before the creation of the world, before the creation of time itself... long before Jeremiah came forth from the womb. God purposed to have a prophet speak to the nations, and He knew how it would come about before He set the universe in place.

    There was another usage or context for that Hebrew word in which a response of inward holiness and accompanying, practical outward acts was called for among the people. But the word was not really used in the sense of moral and spiritual change the way the Greek word hagiasmos was often used in the N.T. So even though both words sometimes got translated to the same English word "sanctified" (or some variant thereof, like "sanctification"), the Hebrew word and the Greek word were not truly identical in meaning.

    By the way, Young's Literal Translation says it this way: `Before I form thee in the belly, I have known thee; and before thou comest forth from the womb I have separated thee, a prophet to nations I have made thee.' This conveys the thought more clearly, I think.

    I suspect there are a couple of people here who could explain it much better than I have, but maybe I've at least pointed you in the right direction.
     
  10. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,033
    Likes Received:
    843
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Yeah the ESV (the other widely accepted English translation among the orthodox Anglicans) translates Jeremiah 1:5 as:

    “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
    and before you were born I consecrated you;
    I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”


    There is no problem with original sin here.

    As for Thomas Aquinas, he is famous for having rejected the Immaculate Conception of Mary, which is a famous point of embarrassment for the Romanists. Immaculate Conception is actually a heresy that was introduced very late in, around the 14th century by Duns Scotus who was the big champion of it. Thereupon it became a key doctrine for the Franciscans of whom he was a member, and thereby, got injected into the wider Romanist theology. It seems in Rome the Marian doctrines only advance, never retreat. But Aquinas both predated the invention of this heterodoxy, and his Dominicans would have (and did) strongly resist it for a time.
     
    BibleHoarder likes this.
  11. BibleHoarder

    BibleHoarder Active Member

    Posts:
    498
    Likes Received:
    184
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian (Protestant)
    I mostly read the KJV, NKJV, and ESV. :)

    And yes, if there were saints and people considered saved by the RCC who didn't have to accept this dogma before it was defined as important so many years later, it means people were saved without Mary and that the RCC changed doctrine as to what kind of saving faith makes or breaks your salvation. Just the idea of having to have a proper view of whether she was assumed or immaculately conceived makes her a form of salvation necessary besides Jesus.

    Some argue Aquinas did accept the immaculate conception later in life and there are claims of a quote or insertion in Summa Theologica or something like that with this admission but I heard it was a forgery. Let me know more about this if you can.
     

Share This Page