From another post...
***This statement must be capable of admitting exceptions, because we see his disciple/secretary St. Luke asserting the following: Both were RIGHTEOUS IN THE EYES OF GOD, OBSERVING ALL THE COMMANDMENTS AND ORDINANCES OF THE LORD BLAMELESSLY." ***
But it is clear from the context that Luke doesn't mean they were "sinless" and therefore exempt from the passage in Romans because immediately he recounts the story of Zechariah's unbelief...
"And Zechariah said to the angel, "How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years." And the angel answered him, "I am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God, and I was sent to speak to you and to bring you this good news. And behold, you will be silent and unable to speak until the day that these things take place, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their time."
Luke 1:18-20
Zechariah was clearly punished because he "did not believe". He did something wrong and got rebuked for it by the angel. Lack of faith is a sin as Paul says here...
Romans 14:22
... For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.
***If you want a precedent of a Saint who was sanctified from the womb...HE WILL BE FILLED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT EVEN FROM HIS MOTHER'S WOMB,***
Truly he was filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb, and Jesus calls him the greatest of all those born of woman, but this didn't render him "sinless". If John were "sinless" then why would he appeal to Jesus...
"Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?""
Matt - 3:13-15
He recognized that he need to be baptized by Jesus.
"But it is clear from the context that Luke doesn't mean they were "sinless""
Luke says they were righteous in the eyes of God and blameless - how then could they have been sinful? This is not at all logical.
"because immediately he recounts the story of Zechariah's unbelief..."
Yes, sure! Zechariah messes up at this point, but you have conveniently forgotten Elizabeth - where does it say that she suddenly lost her righteousness in the eyes of God and became a sinner???
If you spin away the words of scripture here, about Zechariah's righteousness (up to this point), you miss the point that Luke is making. He deliberately sets out to contrast Zechariah and Mary in their response to the annunciations of the baptist's and Christ's births respectively:
a) Both are identified as righteous or full of grace
b) Both are visited by the angel Gabriel
c) Both are troubled by the vision
d) Both are told not to fear
e) Both object
f) Both are promised a sign to confirm the annunciation
And yet one did not believe, and one did believe. Both were righteous: one was righteous by observing all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blamelessly, yet he did not believe. The other was righteous because she was FULL OF GRACE and she did believe.
Moral : Blessed is she who BELIEVED THROUGH GRACE for faith and salvation do not come through the observance of the works of the law, but through GRACE.
This is St. Paul's and St. Luke's main point presented for us in a nutshell right at the beginning of the Gospel.
If you deny St. Luke's statement that Zechariah was righteous, by claiming he was sinful, then you negate a major point that St. Luke wants to make.
"If John were "sinless" then why would he appeal to Jesus...
......
He recognized that he need to be baptized by Jesus."
The fact that he recognised he needed to be baptised by Jesus does not imply that he was a sinner. If this logic were to be applied, then Jesus' insistence on being baptised by John would imply that Jesus was a sinner. I'm sure you don't believe this!