No as that’s how scripture refers to us. Notice many of the letters Paul writes to existing churches. He addresses them as saints.Evangelical Protestants sometimes refer to each other as saints since they understand the word saint as identifying a particular person as one of God’s people. Is there anything wrong with this understanding as far as you are concerned?
Curiously,
Mick
And of course, it refers to those who have transferred to the Church Triumphant.Indeed he does.
Cordially,
Mick
No, not at all. St. Paul used the same term with the same general meaning in many of his letters. For example:Evangelical Protestants sometimes refer to each other as saints since they understand the word saint as identifying a particular person as one of God’s people. Is there anything wrong with this understanding as far as you are concerned?
Curiously,
Mick
That’s an interesting thought. But if God’s encounter with His people through the Covenant enables His people to walk as saints while they’re on earth then why should there be any good reason to suppose that they will not be amongst the Blessed in heaven?No, not at all. St. Paul used the same term with the same general meaning in many of his letters. For example:
Cal. Ch. 1, Eph. Ch. 1, 2 Cor. Ch. 9, Rom. Ch. 15, Rev. (not Paul) ch. 13 and Heb. ch. 6.
It’s a kindly expression of “the faithfill.” However it will not guareentee that they indeed and in fact become “a saint” which is the name given to all who are Blessed to be in heaven
Love and prayers,
A good question, if one presupposes that by “saints” Paul assumed these people were already saved.That’s an interesting thought. But if God’s encounter with His people through the Covenant enables His people to walk as saints while they’re on earth then why should there be any good reason to suppose that they will not be amongst the Blessed in heaven?
Assuredly,
Mick
You’re quite right. I confess that I’m presupposing as such.
Agreed.
I’m amongst those who’ve been led to that conclusion.
Yes, Saint Paul does indeed use the sports metaphor in several places in his writings. He mentions the “prize” and even considers the possibility of being disqualified from it. I guess the reason I continue to wrestle with this idea is because I’ve learned to understand certain verses in a certain way and pass over verses that don’t quite fit with the notion that I’m bringing with me to the text. It’s extraordinarily difficult to “unlearn.” Part of the problem is that I’m not 100% sure which verses and passages of the Bible I might be not understanding correctly. I’m pretty sure I have to “unlearn” – in itself a very curious and unsettling endeavor – but which parts, exactly? Well, I suppose I’m having no greater struggle than anybody else who goes looking for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
The “prize” must be salvation. I don’t see how it could be anything else. So I guess I ought to check my presuppositions before I post.
Dear Brother Mick,Assuredly,
Mick
He is not being dishonest. The word saint comes from the Latin word for holy. You know, Sanctus and all that. We, the faithful, are sancti or holy. Holy simply means reserved for God, thus he is not being dishonest. We, by our baptism and continued commitment, reserve ourselves for God. However, most people think of the people upstairs when they hear the word “saints.” Yet, by definition we are all sancti, saints. Please note that this does not guarantee that we will achieve the goal either, just that we’re holy.
And how do you know this? The church would never use the word saint if it was not contained in scripture. The word saint is a Greek adjective hagios which simply means most holy. So in Matthew 27 we read that the bodies of the saints who were sleeping arose. In Acts Ananias in responding to the Lord when asked to go look for Saul/Paul states: “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he has done to your saints at Jerusalem. Paul wasn’t the only one to use this term so your theory of it being subjective is flawed. The word saint had and has a well understood meaning.
My great Irish Grandaddy used to say"son, if you’ll look for the truth, your much more likely to actually find it." So my friend, ARE YOU LOOKING FOR THE TRUTH?You probably made them adequately. The problem is perhaps with me trying to get the points.
This is the issue that is in dispute. In the understanding of those who claim that they are saved there isn’t any difference between the two states. People who claim that they are saved do not think their claim is in any way presumptuous. Rather, they see what they are declaring as a manifestation of their faith – as a matter of trusting in God to save them. Catholics ask, “How can you know that you are saved?” The response is “How can you possibly not know that you are saved?” That’s why Catholicism is so often seen as advocating a works–salvation.
I think I understand your point but the example you’ve chosen breaks down almost immediately because you’ve aligned the word you’ve chosen i.e. big with an assertion with which most would disagree in the first place. It’s the meaning of the word “saints” that is in dispute and you’re using the word big in an attempt to prove that there is no dispute.
This two–fold assertion is valid only if one presupposes two different understandings of the word saint.
.But are Catholics really holy? Is anyone really holy? The Protestant view is that when we get saved, we become saints because God declares us holy. We still sin, but God’s declaration of holiness still applies to us. If Cathoilics believe that their own works or sins affect their holiness, then wouldn’t the holiness, or sainthood, disappear as soon as a sin was committed or a work left undone? I realize you say that sainthood does not cause one to acheive the final goal of heaven, but I’m wondering if a Catholic really acheives the goal of “saint” any other time than right after confession or communion. As PJM seems to indicate, one really only becomes a saint after death. Yet Paul DID refer to believers as saints. I’m just trying to see if you guys use “saint” and “holy” in the same way you use “salvation,” as something that people are only on their way toward without actually having it yet.
Mick, now I see the point of your post.:newidea::doh2:
:tiphat:Hmm, point. I, personally, only use the word “saint” in everyday conversation to mean those with the angels. By holy, I mean reserved for God, just as the Temple was holy. I suppose one might say that holy can be applied to things as well as living beings, however salvation only applies to those with souls to save. However, the Catholic Church defines us all as saints because we are holy, not just those who have fallen asleep. Then again, it’s a kind of definition that isn’t really taught to kids, so although it’s in the books, it’s not in wide spread use unless one studies the theology of the Church more. There is the Church militant, suffering Church, and Glorious church, I think. They are parts of the same church, but at different stages. The glorious saints are in heaven, suffering saints are in purgatory, and we who are alive are militant saints. We all pray for each other, and thus we have a communion of saints.
I think it’s a bit unfair of you to characterize the once saved/always saved position as being believed simply because it is easy. I believe it because I honestly believe it to be Biblical. We both use that “narrrow gate” verse, after all. Those who try to work their way to heaven are following the broad path of trying to reach heaven through their own efforts rather than taking the narrow gate of belief in Christ alone. It’s interesting that you mention The Commandments, since the Old Testament law was given to the Israelites to show them that they COULD NOT reach heaven through the law. The law was impossible to keep, except by Christ Himself. It seems that Catholics are simply trying to get to heaven by a new “law,” and in my perspective, that new “law” would also be impossible to keep. So while you think my position is “too DARN easy,” I think your position is too darn impossible. You might say that God is faithful and knows we sin, and makes allowance for that by considering some sins to be venial so they don’t kill the soul. But as soon as you make that statement, you are inching over to the same kind of attitude about sin that a OSAS person would have. That God is faithful and keeps sin from killing the soul. Wouldn’t the consideration of some sins to be venial be the same kind of too darn easy attitude about salvation as you accuse OSAS of having? We believe that EVERY sin would cause death and separation from God, even the littlest white lie, if it were not for the faithfulness of God who has declared us to be holy in His sight. So we have a harsher estimation of sin than what you guys have and a more profound estimation of God’s grace in giving us spiritual life. It has nothing to do with wanting an “easy way.”
Thanks for this bit of Catholic terminology. I hadn’t hear of “militant saint” before. Is that an actual Catholic descriptor or is it just a term you use to show the differences? Would canonized saint be a different stage than glorified saint?
You brought up some interesting points, so that’s certainly an answer. Thanks.
Friend part of the confusion you seem to have lies in mixing Catholic and non-catholic beliefs on the issue of Salvation
:extrahappy:
The term living “saint” is applied to those who by courageous example, are living their faith, know their faith, are loyal to the Pope and are sharing The Faith, but even then the name is only honary, and has to lasting Value until God passes Just and fair Judgement!